My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
022112
>
11 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2012 12:18:04 PM
Creation date
2/14/2012 1:43:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/10/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
13 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
97
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).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Pretzel stated that there were also issues regarding paying for half of the cost of the <br /> fence because he did not want to pay $700 for a fence he did not want. He added that <br /> he has constructed and maintained his own fence. <br /> Mr. Pretzel stated that the staff report omitted issues regarding the concrete footings. <br /> He indicated that the portion of the fence constructed by the previous neighbor is good, <br /> unlike that constructed by Mr. Deike, which has mold and is rotten. He added that <br /> another neighbor, Ms. Fink, who is present and can talk for herself, also has issues with <br /> the fence. <br /> Commissioner Blank asked Mr. Pretzel what he wanted to see happen with respect to <br /> the fence. <br /> Mr. Pretzel replied that he wanted the fence "cut down" to six feet tall to match his <br /> existing six-foot tall fence. <br /> Commissioner Blank asked Mr. Pretzel if he wanted two fences. <br /> Mr. Pretzel said yes and added that he wanted to build his own fence. <br /> Commissioner Olson requested clarification about the red fence shown in one of the <br /> slides presented and asked Mr. Pretzel if he owned that fence. <br /> Mr. Pretzel replied that it is the common fence between Mr. Deike and himself. <br /> Commissioner Pentin inquired if this fence was approved and if this was its condition <br /> since 1998. <br /> Mr. Pretzel replied that the fence deteriorated after 1998 because it was not maintained. <br /> Todd Deike, Applicant, apologized to the Commissioners for taking their time He <br /> related the history of his interactions with Mr. Pretzel over the fencing issue and the <br /> timelinefrom when the fence began to fall down to when a new fence was required by <br /> Code Enforcement because of his pool. He noted that he received approval for a <br /> six-foot six-inch tall fence in. 1998, and two months ago, he received approval for his <br /> already existing seven-foot tall fence. He indicated that Mr. Pretzel co-applied for a <br /> 7.3-foot tall fence on his side property line and paid for half of its cost. He stated that he <br /> could not understand why he should cut down his 6.8-foot tall fence that is installed on <br /> his own property. <br /> Commissioner Pentin asked Mr. Deike why the approved six-foot six-inch tall fence was <br /> not built in 1998. <br /> Mr. Deike replied that he did not want to be responsible for the maintenance of the mow <br /> strip as conditioned by staff. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 12-14-2011 Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.