16 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE CITY OF 1 6 "' SUPPLEMENTAL f)L-EASANTON® CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT May 15, 2012 Community Development Planning Division TITLE: P11-0731, CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 74-FOOT LONG FENCE, VARYING IN HEIGHT FROM 72 INCHES TO 83 INCHES, BETWEEN 3647 AND 3633 GLACIER COURT NORTH. ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS R 1 6,500 (ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT SUMMARY Since this item was continued on January 10, 2012, staff has worked with Mr. Pretzel (appellant), Mr. Baker, and interested neighbors in an attempt to resolve their differences regarding this appeal. This process included numerous written correspondence and phone calls, visits to the property, meetings with some of the affected neighbors, and a meeting at City Hall during which staff attempted to mediate/address issues. While these discussions resulted in an agreement with a similar fence issue at 3642 Carlsbad Way (P11-0664, Deike, which has been removed from the Council's agenda), it did not result in an agreement regarding this appeal. While staff's intent was to resolve this appeal, it decided to suspend its efforts based on Mr. Baker's indication that he is unwilling to make any adjustments to the existing fence. As a result, the matter is before the Council for decision. Based on the many attempts to resolve this appeal, staff continues to support its recommendation included below and in the attached January 10, 2012 agenda report. However, as part of the most recent process, staff identified an alternative that may address some of the concerns expressed by the neighbor at 3656 Carlsbad Way (Fink), which is adjacent to the rear the Baker residence, and the appellant Mr. Pretzel. Basically, both Mr. Pretzel and Ms. Fink are requesting that the entire fence be reduced to six feet. As a potential compromise, staff proposed reducing the portion of Mr. Baker's fence at the rear of his yard adjacent to the Fink residence to six feet over a length of five feet (ten fence boards) from the rear of 3656 Carlsbad Way. A visual of the alternative is included in Attachment 1 to this supplemental report. As indicated in this attachment, the existing fence blocks the "view" from the rear of 3656 Carlsbad Way, and the height reduction would significantly minimize that impact. Mr. Baker has indicated that the impact to his neighbors "view" will be mitigated by shrubbery that he is conditioned to install at the rear of property, and, therefore, he has not been agreeable this change. Ms. Fink supports the alternative, but Mr. Pretzel continues to support his appeal that the entire fence be reduced to six feet. As a note, the Deike fence appeal