13 - Laserfiche WebLink

passage of light and air to the neighboring lots while still providing privacy for the parcels. The Zoning Administrator found that the design of the fencing was acceptable. In addition, the Zoning Administrator found that the fencing did not detrimentally affect the light and air of the neighboring properties, nor create a traffic sight obstruction that could impact safety (e.g. obstructing view of traffic while exiting a driveway). Therefore, the Zoning Administrator approved the fencing subject to conditions. For the Council's consideration, the Zoning Administrator meeting minutes can be found in Attachment 6, Exhibit D. Ultimately, Ms. Fink was not supportive of either of the options to change her portion of the fence. Consequently, Mr. Pretzel was not satisfied with the action taken by the Zoning Administrator and on October 14, 2011 filed an appeal of that decision to the Planning Commission (Attachment 6, Exhibit F: Appeal Statement). Planning Commission Hearing During the December 14, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, took public comment from neighbors, Dotty Fink and Robert Baker, and from both the applicant, Todd Deike, and the appellant, Carl Pretzel. Ms. Fink expressed her unwillingness to have any changes made to her portion of the fence. Mr. Baker provided information related to pool safety inspections that he has preformed for his Company, Amador Pool Service (Attachment 4). In Mr. Baker's opinion, the new rear yard fence provides a better pool safety barrier than the prior fencing. Mr. Deike described the history of the prior fence approval that was not implemented and the City Code Enforcement actions (Attachment 5) that led him to eventually build the current fence. Mr. Pretzel addressed the Planning Commission with additional pictures of the prior rear yard fencing (Attachment 4) and details regarding the history of the original construction of the fence. Mr. Pretzel requested that the rear yard fencing be reduced in height to match the remaining portion that is shared between Ms. Dotty and himself (a reduction of approximately six-inches as measured at the adjoining location). After listening to the public comments, the Planning Commission discussed the existing alignment of the property lines, the remaining fencing on Mr. Pretzel's property, and the resulting mismatching of fencing for Mr. Pretzel's rear yard fencing. The Planning Commission stated that the change in fencing style and off setting of the property lines was a common situation within the City. The Commissioners stated that the proposed fencing was attractive in its design. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval, subject to new conditions of approval as proposed by staff, which required Mr. Deike to obtain the proper building permits for the fencing as built. Page 4 of 7