PC 121411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Robert Baker, Applicant, stated that he was in full agreement with the staff report with a minor correction that the fence between Ms. feet tall and not five feet. He noted that he and Ms. Fink agreed that rather than planting a tree where his new fence intersects with their common rear yard fence, he would plant shrubbery that would grow tall enough to shield the fence from Ms. . He noted that a tree would not be practical that close to his swimming pool. Mr. Baker indicated that he and Mr. Pretzel talked from start to finish of the fence installation project, from the removal of the old fence, consultation and agreement on the new fence configuration including dimensions, and final approval and permit co-application. He stated that Mr. Pretzel wanted to attach the old boards but he did not side of the fence. Mr. Baker stated that Mr. Pretzel observed the construction of the fence from start to finish; he reimbursed Mr. Baker for half the cost of the materials but did not provide labor or labor reimbursement. He added that although they did not discuss the height of the fence, at no time during the project did Mr. Pretzel come to him to object to the fence height. He stated that he thought Mr. Pretzel was pleased with the fence when he signed the application; however, he withdrew his co-application about a month later when Mr. Deike received approval for his fence, which Mr. Baker supported because of the swimming pool. He denied Mr. on the job, indicating that he was never served any such order from the City. Mr. Baker stated that Mr. removing concrete and drilling into the concrete post bases which can cause them to crack has put the strength of the fence in question. He asked that Mr. Pretzel consult with him in advance and receive his approval prior to doing any additional work or modifications to the fence and its supporting structure. He also asked that all such work be performed by a licensed contractor rather than by Mr. Pretzel himself. Mr. Baker stated that Mr. because while Mr. Pretzel paid for half of the cost of the materials, he did not pay for any of the labor costs. He noted that Mr. Pretzel claimed he has every right to cut down the fence, and should he do so, Mr. Baker stated that he would call the police and charge Mr. Pretzel with destruction of private property. Mr. Baker requested the Commission to deny Mr. Ms. Fink, neighbor, stated that the rear fence she shares with Mr. Baker had been in disarray for years and was propped on her side of the fence. She noted that the 40-year-old fence was blown down for months, and this did not affect Mr. She added that Mr. Baker stated he would build the fence, but after four months with nothing happening, she decided to build the existing six-foot tall fence with the help of her son but without the help of Mr. Baker. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2011 Page 18 of 22