Laserfiche WebLink
In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Roberts, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the <br />sidewalks would be five feet wide, allowing three feet for landscaping. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Roberts, Mr. Iserson confirmed that there was <br />an old well on the site that would be sealed. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />There were no speakers. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Maas moved to make the required findings for the conditional use <br />permit and to approve PCUP-107/PDR-344 as conditioned in the staff report and <br />subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. <br />Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Arkin, Fox, Maas, Roberts, and Sullivan <br />NOES: None. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Kameny. <br />Resolution No. PC-2004-15 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />c. PAP-60. William Muat, Auaellant (PADR-909, Robert D'Ar~ <br />Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a seven-foot high redwood <br />fence along the common side property line at 3671 Olympic Court North and <br />3657 Olympic Court North. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family <br />Residential) District. <br />Mr. Iserson summarized the staff report and detailed the history of the matter. He <br />advised that overheight fences are allowed to go to eight feet high, subject to concurrence <br />by the neighboring property owners. He noted that fences built on common property <br />lines required the approval of both affected property owners. In this case, the applicant <br />submitted an administrative design review application requesting approval of an <br />eight-foot tall redwood fence on the common property line between the two lots. <br />However, the appellant, Mr. Muat, did not concur with a fence of that height and did not <br />sign the application. The applicant then changed the plan and moved the proposed fence <br />six inches from the property line so that it would be an accessory structure located on his <br />property. The City treated that as a new application, noticed the neighbors, and received <br />a notice from Mr. Muat that he was not in support of that proposed fence. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 25, 2004 Page 5 of 19 <br />