13 - Laserfiche WebLink

should match the remaining portion of the rear yard fencing. The new rear yard fencing spans the full width of Mr. Deike's property, but because Mr. Deike's rear property line is not as long as Mr. Pretzel's rear property line, there is a section of Mr. Pretzel's rear yard fencing (see Photo 1) that is joint fencing between himself and Ms. Fink (located at 3656 Carlsbad Way, the northern neighbor of Mr. Deike). This section of the fence was not replaced and remains six feet tall. In response to Mr. Pretzel's objection to the rear yard fencing style mismatch, Mr. Deike offered to replace the remaining section of fencing to match the new fencing or to extend a new section of fencing to screen Ms. Fink's remaining section so that the result would be that all of Mr. Pretzel's rear yard fencing would match. Because Ms. Fink was not in attendance at the meeting, the project was conditioned to require for Mr. Deike to approach Ms. Fink about the two options that would impact her fencing. Mr. Pretzel said that he was in agreement with the concept of the two options, but that he would appeal the approval if Ms. Fink did not agree to one of them. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. Otto, explained that he would structure the condition of approval to reflect a signed agreement from Ms. Fink is acceptable; however, if it was not agreeable with Ms. Fink, applicant's fence would still be approved as he found the design to be acceptable. The Zoning Administrator stated that this fence application is not an unusual request and the design of the fence is attractive on both sides. The Zoning Administrator was able to make the required findings as outlined by 18.84.090.G(3a-c) of the Pleasanton Municipal Code to approve the application: a. The application conforms to the objectives of the Pleasanton Zoning Ordinance. b. The application assists in providing privacy, in attenuating sound transmission, and/or in reducing other annoyance from neighboring properties. c. The application does not significantly impact upon the aesthetics and safety of the neighborhood nor the light and air to all affected properties. Specifically, the proposed fencing was found to assist in providing privacy, in attenuating sound transmission to and from Mr. Deike's use of his back yard and pool, and in providing privacy. Furthermore, Finding 3c establishes the design criteria for approving overheight fencing. It was found that the subject fencing is constructed of high quality materials and is consistent with other existing fencing found within the neighborhood. The neighborhood does not have an approved fencing plan for the development. The neighboring properties have a variety of fencing types, heights, and colors. The code allows up to an eight foot tall fence to be constructed with City approval. The total height of the subject fence does not exceed seven feet, one inch, which allows the Page 3 of 7