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 />Ms. Soo explained that Mr. Deike had requested a hearing for the fence to ensure that <br />both Mr. Baker and Mr. Pretzel apply for and receive a permit for their fence, just as he <br />[Mr. Deike] was required to do after Mr. Pretzel requested a hearing for his [Mr. <br />fence which was also constructed without a permit. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Carl Pretzel, Appellant, submitted several pictures of the fences along the property lines <br />of the three lots belonging to Mr. Pretzel, Mr. Baker, and Ms. Fink. He noted that the <br />grade on Mr. side of the fence is higher than that on Ms. Fink <br />Mr. <br />of wood to protect the fence from rotting and to prevent the soil from seeping through to <br />his property. He questioned Mr. im that he built a tall fence for privacy <br />because his backyard and pool are clearly visible from the second-story window of the <br />neighboring homes. He added that that the fence also has gaps that allows people to <br />look through to Mr. <br /> <br />Mr. Pretzel stated that the condition for mitigation measures is very vague. He noted <br />that the bushes Mr. Baker planted are now dead and have not been replaced. He <br />added that unless City staff is more specific about this condition, Mr. Baker will install <br />small plants that will be allowed to die. He noted that when Ms. Soo came out to <br />inspect the fence, she indicated that 15-gallon size trees would grow to the height of the <br />fence. He indicated that these trees should be planted or the fence cut down so <br /> <br />Ms. Fink does not have to deal with the visual impact of the overheight fence. <br /> <br />Mr. Pretzel stated that he felt he was swindled by Mr. Baker, who made a promise and <br />did not come through, and disregarded his property when he broke and did not replace <br />the fence post to which Mr. He indicated that he <br />spent $330 to put boards on his side of the fence to block dirt from oozing through to his <br />side. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank asked Mr. Pretzel what his preference was with respect to the <br />fence. <br /> <br />Mr. Pretzel replied that he would like the fence cut down to six feet high. He indicated <br />that there was no discussion between Mr. Baker and him regarding the height of the <br />fence before it was built. He stated that he assumed it would be six feet tall and was <br />surprised to see how high it was. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin asked Mr. Pretzel why it did not dawn on him to discuss the fence <br />height with Mr. Baker, particularly since he had a previous issue regarding with <br />Mr. Deike regarding fence height. <br /> <br />Mr. Pretzel replied that he expected the fence to be six feet high. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2011 Page 17 of 22 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.