My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 121411
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 121411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
2/2/2012 11:28:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/14/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Resolutions Nos. PC-2011-47 recommending approval to the City Council of the <br />Supplemental EIR documents; PC-2011-48 recommending approval of the Draft <br />Housing Element; PC-2011-49 recommending approval of the General Plan <br />Amendments; PC-2011-50 recommending approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, <br />and PC-2011-51 recommending approval of the land use changes (General Plan <br />Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, and Rezoning, as appropriate) were entered <br />and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />Chair Narum clarified that she supports the Commission recommendation that the <br />preparation of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan, starting in the first quarter of 2012, be <br />completed by the second quarter of 2013. <br /> <br />c. P11-0664, Carl Pretzel (Appellant); Todd Deike (Applicant) <br /> <br />Design Review application to retain the existing fencing along the rear <br />and side yards, measuring up to seven feet, one inch tall, at the existing <br />residence located at 3642 Carlsbad Court. Zoning for the property is <br />R-1-6,500 (One- Family Residential) District. <br /> <br />Rosalind Rondash presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key <br />elements of the application. <br /> <br />Chair Narum inquired if the Deike and Pretzel lots are flat or if they drop down at some <br />point. <br /> <br />Ms. Rondash replied that there is a one- to three-inch difference in height between the <br />two lots and that at its highest point, the fence is seven feet, one inch tall. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Carl Pretzel, Appellant, distributed pictures of the fences. He stated that he himself built <br />his fence and has maintained it for the past 20 years. He noted that the fence was in <br />good condition and needed only minor repairs, until the past year when it collapsed. He <br />indicated that when Mr. Deike replaced the fence, were just <br /> Deike continued to work on the <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Pretzel stated that back in September, he had unsolicited arguments with his <br />neighbor regarding the fence. He indicated that he was not notified that the fence was <br />to be over six feet tall and would not match the existing fence height. He added that <br />staff informed him that mismatched fence heights happen a lot in Pleasanton as it is <br />heights. He indicated, however, that he should not have to suffer the consequences of <br />someone coming after 20 years and building a fence that mismatches the height of his <br />already existing fence. He added that the fence is not painted and with time will bleach <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2011 Page 11 of 22 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.