16 - Laserfiche WebLink

subject fence is acceptable. In response to rear neighbor Ms. Fink's comments on the aesthetics of the fence when viewed from her property, the Zoning Administrator required that landscaping be planted as a method of screening the fence. Minutes of the Zoning Administrator Hearing are included in this report as Attachment 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission hearing on December 14, 2011, was in response to an appeal filed by Mr. Carl Pretzel. The comments made by the appellant (Carl Pretzel), the applicant (Robert Baker), and neighbors (Todd Deike and Dorothy Fink) at the hearing were similar to the comments provided at the Zoning Administrator hearing. Mr. Pretzel stated that did not agree to the fence height; thus, he wanted the fence height to be reduced to six feet. He did not believe requiring landscaping to screen the view from Ms. Fink's side is effective as it takes time for tree/shrubs to grow. Mr. Baker stated he constructed the fence while Mr. Pretzel was present. The fence height was included in the application which Mr. Pretzel had signed. Mr. Baker stated the existing shrubs along the fence were removed for the new fence. He plans to replant landscaping. Mr. Todd Deike, a resident on Carlsbad Way, stated that he requested the Zoning Administrator hearing on the subject fence. He wanted to make sure that Mr. Pretzel and Mr. Baker obtain a permit for the subject fence. Ms. Fink, also a resident on Carlsbad Way who shares the majority of her rear fence with Mr. Baker, did not want to have landscaping planted in her backyard. She believes that the fence height should be reduced to six feet. The Planning Commission reviewed the original application which was signed by both Mr. Pretzel and Mr. Baker. The application submittal included a fence plan showing the fence height. The Planning Commission concluded that the fence height was agreed to by both parties as they both signed the application. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal filed by Mr. Pretzel, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the subject fence subject to the conditions of approval. The decision was based on the following: (1) the project meets the requirements of the Pleasanton Municipal Code; (2) the subject fence would provide the desired privacy between the properties yet allow adequate light and air; (3) the subject fence would not create a negative visual impact for adjoining neighbors particularly as a condition of approval requires landscaping to further mitigate visual impacts; and (4) the appellant appeared to support the subject overheight fence when he co-signed the application. The staff report and draft minutes for the December 14, 2011, Planning Commission hearing are attached to this report as Attachments 6 and 7, respectively. The correspondence distributed during the Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report as Attachment 8. Page 5 of 7