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. Deike noted that he would build the same design for Ms. Fink and he would hope she would go along <br /> with this fence. He stated he would like to please Mr. Pretzel and just get on with life. <br /> Mr. Otto reopened the public hearing. <br /> Mr. Baker mentioned that the back fence between Ms. Fink's property and his has recently been rebuilt. <br /> He noted that it is new wood that matches on Ms. Fink's side, so she may have an objection to this other <br /> section of fence if it looks different. <br /> Mr. Deike suggested another option to build a fence behind Ms. Fink's fence if she does not agree to the <br /> previous proposal. Mr. Deike explained that this option would result in a 6 or more inch offset in the fence <br /> line because the existing fence is located on his property and the new section would be behind Ms. Fink's <br /> existing fence section. <br /> Mr. Pretzel confused the offset information to be related to the height, which was clarified by Mr. Deike <br /> that the height and style would be the same as his fence, but that the linear line of the fence would have to <br /> be offset to screen out Ms. Fink's fence. Mr. Pretzel stated that he would be ok with that. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding giving Ms. Fink's both options to consider. <br /> Mr. Pretzel further indicated that he wanted to have it painted all the way across [the rear fencing to be <br /> red]. Mr. Deike said that he didn't want the paint to bleed through onto his side and concluded that they <br /> would need to think of a way to prevent that. <br /> Mr. Otto closed the public hearing again. <br /> The Zoning Administrator granted approval of P11-0664, with the two options for Ms. Fink's approval, one <br /> being removing and replacing one section of fence, or building the fence behind the other fence; however, <br /> if either option is not agreed upon, he approved the fencing as is. He stated that he would not require the <br /> fencing to be painted because that is not something that the City requires for fencing. The application was <br /> then approved subject to the modified conditions of approval as shown on the Exhibit A. <br /> Mr. Pretzel questioned when the appeal period would start. <br /> Mr. Otto said it would start as soon as the hearing is closed. When there was some discussion regarding the <br /> condition for Mr. Deike to approach Ms. Fink, Mr. Otto clarified that Mr. Deike had 7 days to approach <br /> Ms. Fink about replacing or installing the new fence between Mr. Pretzel and Ms. Fink, but that the <br /> approval would stand despite the outcome of Ms. Fink's fence section. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> Rosalind Rondash <br /> Associate Planner <br /> Minutes, Zoning Administrator, P11-0664 October 4, 2011 <br /> Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.