11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES REVISED ZONING ADMINISTRATOR EXHIBIT D 11 Pleasanton, California Small Conference Room 200 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton Thursday, October 4, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Steve Otto, Senior Planner. Present: Mr. Todd Deike, Applicant; Mr. Carl Pretzel, neighbor at 3633 Glacier Court N; Robert Baker, neighbor at 3647 Glacier Court N; Steve Otto,Zoning Administrator; and Rosalind Rondash, Associate Planner. P11-0664 Application for administrative design review approval to retain the existing fencing along the rear and side yards measuring up to seven-foot, one-inch tall at the existing residence located at 3642 Carlsbad Way. Mr. Otto explained the Zoning Administrator hearing process. Mr. Otto introduced Rosalind Rondash, Associate Planner, who presented the application. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Deike stated that the two side fences have been there for over eight years and that both side neighbors have not had a problem with the fences in the last eight years. He mentioned that ten years ago he came to a meeting with Mr. Pretzel regarding the back fence, and at that time the fence was approved. He noted that Mr. Pretzel requested work be done on the mow strip. He stated he did talk to Carl about rebuilding the fence, but Mr. Pretzel wanted to tell him how to build the fence. Mr. Dieke stated he would not be singled out for having an over-height fence in the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Otto asked why the over-height fence was needed at the rear. Mr. Deike explained that one neighbor has peered over the fence numerous times watching his family and that he has had to call the police. He stated he needs the fence for privacy. He mentioned that Mr. Pretzel has also peered over the fence. Mr. Deike stated he built a fence on his own property approximately 5 to 6 inches from the property line because he could build it the way he liked and just get the fence done. He stated that Mr. Pretzel then put a video camera on his roof that viewed into his backyard. Mr Deike mentioned that there would be a civil suit in the future. Mr. Pretzel stated that there are two substantial omissions in the staff report. () He explained that this was not merely an application for a fence as built, but it was a collapsing fence. He mentioned that he does not have a pool and is not required to have a fence. He stated that last January sections of the fence fell down and left the pool open. He added that there were numerous complaints to code enforcement and that code enforcement violations were found. He indicated the fence started to be built in April or May after three eight-foot long sections fell and, at that time, the fence posts were higher than the six-foot maximum height allowed. :Minutes, Zoning Administrator, P11-0664 October 4. 2011 Page 1