11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

On October 4, 2011, the Zoning Administrator held a hearing. In addition to the applicant, Mr. Todd Deike, Robert Baker (3647 Glacier Court- the neighbor of Mr. Pretzel), and Mr. Pretzel (who requested the hearing), were also present. At the hearing, it was stated that the existing fencing along the side property lines has been there for eight years with no objection from the neighboring property owners. Mr. Deike feels that the taller fencing around his property is needed to provide privacy as a result of being watched by other neighbors while using the pool and he stated that there is a video camera mounted on Mr. Pretzel's house directed toward his backyard. Mr. Deike reported that the prior common property line fencing for his rear yard property line started to fall down last January. With Mr. Deike's property containing a swimming pool, he stated he has a legal responsibility to maintain a properly fenced back yard to provide a safety barrier for the pool. In response to Mr. Pretzel's objection to the rear yard fencing style mismatch, Mr. Deike offered to replace the remaining section of fencing to match the new fencing or to extend a new section of fencing to screen Ms. Fink's remaining section so that the result would be that all of Mr. Pretzel's rear yard fencing would match. Due to the fact that Ms. Fink was not in attendance at the meeting, the project was conditioned for Mr. Deike to approach Ms. Fink about the two options that would impact her fencing. Mr. Pretzel said that he was in agreement with the concept of the two options, but that he would appeal the approval if Ms. Fink did not agree to one of them. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. Otto, explained that he would structure the condition of approval to reflect a signed agreement from Ms. Fink is acceptable; however, if it was not agreeable with Ms. Fink, applicant's fence would still be approved as he found the design to be acceptable. He stated that it is not uncommon in neighborhoods for fences to vary in height along the property due topography or due to property line situations where it is owned by multiple owners. The Zoning Administrator stated that this fence application is not an unusual request and the design of the fence is attractive on both sides, so it is called a good-neighbor fence. He stated that the fence built for Ms. Fink would need to be the same design. The Zoning Administrator approved the overheight fence, subject to conditions. A copy of the approval letter is attached (Exhibit C). A condition of approval was incorporated into the Zoning Administrator's action that required Mr. Deike to approach Ms. Fink about modifying her section of the fence. However, Ms. Fink has expressed that she does not want to have her fencing adjusted (Exhibit E). The condition of approval specifically stated that the approval would stand regardless of Ms. Fink's agreement to modify her portion of the fencing. V. DISCUSSION Mr. Pretzel stated in his appeal that the fencing distracts from peace, comfort, and general welfare of residents (Exhibit F). Case No. P11-0664 (Administrative Design Review-Appeal) Planning Commission Page - 5 -