12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pretzel stated that Mr. Baker had broken promises before. He noted that Mr. Baker had broken an old fence post and that showed a complete lack of respect for his property by Mr. Baker. Mr. Pretzel explained that after the first fence sections were built, he asked Mr. Baker if he wanted the fence that high and Mr. Baker responded that he did. Mr. Pretzel mentioned that he was surprised with that answer, but he bit his tongue; he noted that he is done biting his tongue and putting up with that stuff. Mr. Pretzel stated other work he had to do because Mr. Baker relocated the 4x6 farther back and that made him have to cut back his tlowerbox and cut concrete back so he can mount his fence and keep it straight. He mentioned that he would have said no about the fence if he knew what Mr. Baker was going to do by making a step in the back. He noted that he has been very upset about this fence and he does not want to take it anymore. He stated he discussed with Ms. Fink how awful the fence looks from Ms. Fink's property with the fence sticking up in the middle. He noted that the fence is not consistent; it is unsightly and it does significantly impact the aesthetics. He explained the staff report states the fence does not detrimentally affect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, but this is a huge fence that does not meet the requirements. He noted that the General Plan states there is to be consistency in the buildings and appearance of the City. He mentioned that he should not be a victim because the City does not have a code on fences. He noted that if the City had a uniform code on fences then none of this would be happening. He stated that this fence does not conform to the objectives of the zoning ordinance. He explained that the whole point of having this meeting regarding over-height fences is for the Planning Department to listen to the neighbors and if they have an objection, then they are to reject the project; they are not suppose to wordsmith and convolute what is said here. This fence is against the General Plan. Ms. Stern asked if Mr. Pretzel saw the height of the fence as it was being built, but declined to talk about the height. Mr. Pretzel replied that he did see the height, but understood that the fence behind him would be cut down. He stated that Mr. Baker said the back fence, Mr. Deike's fence, had nothing to do with him, but Mr. Baker became a hostile witness at the other hearing. Mr. Pretzel stated he never liked the fence, but he bit his tongue, but he is not biting his tongue now. Ms. Stern asked if he should have stopped it at that time if he had an objection to the height before it all went up and since he was paying for half the fence. Mr. Pretzel stated that he did ask, but he has been biting his tongue for 30 years over stuff that he has had to do. He noted that at one time he had thought only two sections of the fence were to be replaced. Ms. Stern asked if this application was a joint application between Mr. Baker and Mr. Pretzel for an over- height fence. Mr. Pretzel explained that he felt double-crossed by Mr. Baker, who supported Mr. Deike's fence. Ms. Stern asked for clarification to the above statement and asked for Mr. Pretzel's reason to agreeing to the joint application and then appealing the application. Mr. Pretzel stated that at the time he was trying to protect Mr. Baker's interest, but. then Mr. Baker went against Mr. Pretzel's best interest by testifying in support of the higher over-height fence behind him. He noted he was double-crossed and therefore responded with the appeal. He also noted that he agreed to appeal even more atter seeing how the fence looked from Ms. Fink's yard. llinutes. Zoning Acbninistraior, P11-073/ October 25. 20/1 Page 3