Laserfiche WebLink
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 />