12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 7 P11-0731, Carl Pretzel (Appellant); Robert Baker (Applicant) Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Administrative Design Review application to construct an approximately 74-foot long fence between 3647 and 3633 Glacier Court North, varying in height from 72 inches to 83 inches. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (One- Family Residential) District. Jenny Soo presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key elements of the application. Chair Narum disclosed that she visited Mr. Baker's property. She then inquired if there were any conditions of approval. Ms. Soo replied that the conditions are listed in the Zoning Administrator's approval letter, Exhibit A of the staff report. Chair Narum noted that there is a difference in elevation between Mr. Baker's and Mr. Pretzel's yards. She inquired how the fence height is measured. Ms. Soo replied that the fence is seven feet, ten inches tall on Mr. Pretzel's side and that the fence is lower on Mr. Baker's side. Commissioner O'Connor noted that the application for the fence was filed after the fence had already been built. He inquired who filed a complaint on the overheight fence. Ms. Soo explained that Mr. Deike had requested a hearing for the fence to ensure that both Mr. Baker and Mr. Pretzel apply for and receive a permit for their fence, just as he [Mr. Deike] was required to do after Mr. Pretzel requested a hearing for his [Mr. Deike's] fence which was also constructed without a permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Carl Pretzel, Appellant, submitted several pictures of the fences along the property lines of the three lots belonging to Mr. Pretzel, Mr. Baker, and Ms. Fink. He noted that the grade on Mr. Baker's side of the fence is higher than that on Ms. Fink's because Mr. Baker utilized railroad ties and piled dirt on his side but without putting a 2"x4" piece of wood to protect the fence from rotting and to prevent the soil from seeping through to his property. He questioned Mr. Baker's claim that he built a tall fence for privacy because his backyard and pool are clearly visible from the second-story window of the neighboring homes. He added that that the fence also has gaps that allows people to look through to Mr. Baker's property. Mr. Pretzel stated that the condition for mitigation measures is very vague. He noted that the bushes Mr. Baker planted are now dead and have not been replaced. He added that unless City staff is more specific about this condition, Mr. Baker will install small plants that will be allowed to die. He noted that when Ms. Soo came out to DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 12-14-2011 Page 1 of 5