|
RESOLUTION NO. 12-540
<br /> A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
<br /> GRANTING THE APPEAL THEREBY DENYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION
<br /> APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF ROBERT BAKER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
<br /> DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A FENCE GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT,
<br /> CASE P11-0731
<br /> WHEREAS, on August 31, 2011, Robert Baker and Carl Pretzel applied for
<br /> Administrative Design Review approval for an approximately 74-foot long fence between their
<br /> homes at 3647 and 3633 Glacier Court North, varying in height from 72 inches to 83 inches; and
<br /> WHEREAS, zoning for the properties is R-1-6,500 (One — Family Residential) District;
<br /> and
<br /> WHEREAS, Todd Deike, property owner of 3642 Carlsbad Way, requested a Zoning
<br /> Administrator hearing on the subject fence; and
<br /> WHEREAS, on October 5, 2011, Carl Pretzel notified staff that he withdrew his name as
<br /> the co-applicant of the subject fence, and he now opposes the fence height; and
<br /> WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing. After
<br /> having considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of staff
<br /> concerning the application, the Zoning Administrator approved the application; and
<br /> WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Carl Pretzel
<br /> submitted an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator; and
<br /> WHEREAS, at its meeting of December 14, 2011, the Planning Commission, after
<br /> having considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of City staff
<br /> concerning the application, denied the appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the Zoning
<br /> Administrator; and
<br /> WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Carl Pretzel
<br /> submitted an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission; and
<br /> WHEREAS, at its meeting of January 10, 2012, the City Council continued the hearing
<br /> to allow staff to work with the appellant, the applicant, and interested parties to resolve their
<br /> differences regarding the appeal; and
<br /> WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 15, 2012, the City Council received reports from the
<br /> Director of Community Development, together with a copy of the staff report to the Planning
<br /> Commission, regarding this matter; and
<br /> WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on May 15, 2012, at which
<br /> time the appellant, the applicant, and any other members of the public were offered an
<br /> opportunity to present evidence regarding this appeal; and
<br /> 1
<br />
|