PC 022807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce requested Mr. Judd to confirm that the fence was built in response to the trellis. Mr. Judd stated that there was initially an existing six-foot tall fence and that after the applicants built the trellis, the neighbors built the overheight fence. In response to Commissioner Pearce’s inquiry regarding whether the two-inch setback referenced by Mr. Judd referred to the variance granted by the Board of Adjustment in 1972, Mr. Judd said yes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED . Ms. Decker made a clarification in relation to the setback required without a variance. She referred to the Pleasanton Municipal Code that for properties zoned R-1-6,500, the requirement is a five-foot side yard setback with a combined 12-foot side yard setback. She noted that the three-foot setback from the property line is a Building Code question, and the closest distance the structure with openings can get to the property line is three feet. She noted that the variance requested is to reduce the side yard setback from five feet to zero, and the Zoning Administrator made the determination to vary the setback from five feet to three feet for the location of the posts. In response to Commissioner Blank’s inquiry regarding whether this product was used elsewhere in the City as indicated in the staff report, Ms. Decker replied that she was not sure if it was this particular product or a similar one, but it was a one-hour/two-hour rated material, depending on the thickness of the coating that is painted on. Referring to the aerial photo of the site, Chairperson Fox inquired if there was any way this structure could be moved somewhere else on the property. Ms. Decker replied that staff did not try to redesign or re-evaluate the structure. She noted, however, that from the site plan, it appears that the same size and shape could fit between the home and the pool, but there seems to be a shade structure in that area, probably for the benefit of outdoor and pool use. In response to Chairperson Fox’s request that staff clarify once more what an approval or denial of the appeal would mean and would require of the applicant, Ms. Decker clarified that the Zoning Administrator’s decision is to set back the structure three feet from the property line, with a two-foot setback for the eaves overhang; the applicant’s appeal is to reduce the setback from five feet to zero, and staff’s recommendation is to deny the appeal. She added that the Commission could uphold the appeal and change the Zoning Administrator’s action; it could also uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision with modified conditions. Commissioner O’Connor noted that if the appeal were denied and the eaves overhang were moved two feet from the property line, the gutters would no longer be necessary. Commissioner Blank indicated that he is inclined to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision. He expressed concern that the structure was built without a building permit. He noted that variances should be granted only in extreme circumstances and that he did not see this as one. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2007 Page 9 of 13