16 - Laserfiche WebLink

IV. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S HEARING On October 25, 2011, the Zoning Administrator held a hearing. In addition to the fence owners, Mr. Todd Deike, who requested the hearing, and Ms. Dorothy Fink, a neighbor at 3656 Carlsbad Way, attended the hearing. A portion of Ms. Fink's rear property abuts the rear property of Mr. Baker. At the hearing, Mr. Deike stated Mr. Pretzel had requested a hearing for his overheight fence, which was also constructed without prior approval and permit. The reason he requested this hearing was to ensure that Mr. Baker and Mr. Pretzel apply for and receive a permit for the overheight fence. Mr. Pretzel stated that he agreed to share of the cost of the fence but did not discuss the height with Mr. Baker. Sometime after the fence was constructed and the joint overheight fence application was filed, Mr. Pretzel requested the fence height be reduced to six feet. Mr. Baker indicated the design of the fence was agreed upon by both parties prior to construction. The cost of the fence was shared. He constructed the fence in August while Mr. Pretzel was present. Additionally, Mr. Pretzel had specific requests on how he wanted fence on his side to be constructed. Ms. Fink stated that her rear yard fence is a five-foot high fence. As her property abuts Mr. Baker's property, she can see the overheight fence from her backyard, which she does not consider visually pleasing (see picture on the previous page). After the public testimony, the Zoning Administrator stated that overheight fences between properties are common in residential neighborhoods. They provide the sought after privacy, but do not significantly affect the light and air of the subject properties. The subject fence meets all of the necessary yard requirements as outlined in the Pleasanton Zoning Ordinance. It provides a secured barrier for the existing pool located at 3647 Glacier Court North. The Zoning Administrator stated that the design of the fencing is acceptable. In response to Ms. Fink's comments on the aesthetics of the fence when viewed from her property, the Zoning Administrator suggested using landscaping as a method of screening the fence. Ms. Fink indicated that she has trees in her backyard; thus, she did not wish to have additional trees be planted on her property. Mr. Baker accepted the Zoning Administrator's suggestion and agreed to plant evergreen trees on his property to screen the overheight fence when viewed from Ms. Fink's site. In rendering a decision, the Zoning Administrator stated that she was able to make the required finding as stated in the Pleasanton Municipal Code, in that the proposed fence meets the development standards of the underlying zoning district; it provides the necessary privacy between residential properties; the solid redwood board design is a typical fence design seen in residential neighborhoods; and, the subject fence, as conditioned, would not detrimentally Case No. P11-0731 (Administrative Design Review-Appeal) Planning Commission Page - 5 -