16 - Laserfiche WebLink

affect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare. The Zoning Administrator further stated that Mr. Pretzel initially supported the fence between him and Mr. Baker as Mr. Pretzel shared the cost of the fence. After the fence was constructed, Mr. Pretzel was again in support of the fence as he was the co-applicant of the Administrative Design Review Application for this overheight fence. The Zoning Administrator indicated that Mr. Pretzel's initial support of the fence from construction to submitting the application was also one of the reasons in rendering this decision. A condition requiring the planting was included in the Zoning Administrator's approval. A copy of the Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes and the approval letter with conditions are attached as Exhibit D and Exhibit A, respectively. DISCUSSION Mr. Pretzel stated in the appeal that the "Planning Dept. ignored my property rights. Did not properly apply General Plan in peace, comfort, general welfare, significant impact. Landscaping is inadequate & not credible." The objectives of the zoning ordinance are to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, prosperity and general welfare. These objectives would be achieved through providing a precise guide for the physical development of the city and promoting the stability of existing land uses that conform to the general plan. The subject fence meets the development standards of the R-1-6,500 zoning district in terms of location and height. This fence is approximately 10 feet from the Pretzel residence. It does not impose a safety concern or significantly affect the light and air of the adjoining property. The subject fence provides the needed safety of the pool that is currently located on the Baker's site and the privacy desired by both property owners. Staff does not believe that the subject fence would cause adverse impacts in terms of peace, comfort, and general welfare. The design of the fence is a solid redwood fence typically seen in residential neighborhoods. The properties are located in a R-1-6,500 zoning district and there isn't a fencing plan for the neighborhood. Even though the fence height varies by having a step near the middle of the fence length, this is not an atypical design for fences. The subject fence intersects with the rear yard fence which is shared by Mr. Baker and Ms. Fink. With respect to Ms. Fink's visual concerns of the subject fence, landscaping was suggested during the hearing to screen the fence. Ms. Fink declined to have Mr. Baker plant trees on her property; however, she did not object to have Mr. Baker plant trees on his property near the southeast corner to help screen her view of the subject fence from her property. Condition No. 2 requires Mr. Baker to plant trees to help screen the view of the subject fence from Ms. Fink's site. Mr. Pretzel believes that reducing the subject fence height would be more effective to address Ms. Fink's visual concern than installing landscaping. Case No. P11-0731 (Administrative Design Review-Appeal) Planning Commission Page - 6 -