My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN082190
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN082190
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:33 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 9:54:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
433 <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked Mr. Pederson if he had any problem with the <br /> proposal that the fence dividing the two properties be six feet <br /> above the grade level. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pederson said no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ronald Miner, 7691 Glenbrook Court, stated that since the <br /> real issue is people's views and privacy, it would not be fair to <br /> put restrictions on future property owners based on problems <br /> between existing property owners. He added that since the <br /> developer had fulfilled his obligations based on the revised plans, <br /> the City should take some action regarding planting trees to <br /> alleviate privacy problems. <br /> <br /> Ms. Jo Stillian, 3118 Catawba Court, stated that she was in <br /> the same situation as Ms. Johnston with regard to the neighbors' <br /> standing in their back yard and looking into hers. She added that <br /> she did not have any problem with the conditions, except that the <br /> maximum fence height should be left open to allow a six-foot fence <br /> from whatever Mr. Pederson's grade would be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked staff how the condition of having a six-foot <br /> fence above the Pedersons' yard would be implemented if approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if there were any public safety <br /> restrictions that a fence should not be ten feet tall. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that it would be a matter of the wind load <br /> on the fence and designing the fence properly and added that the <br /> building inspector has indicated that the fence can be raised but <br /> may require an additional 4" x 4" bracing post at appropriate spots <br /> to hold the wind load. He explained that the fence may go as high <br /> as 9.75 feet if the retaining wall is left where it is at this <br /> time. The retaining wall could also be lowered at the edge, which <br /> would require a lower fence. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes inquired who would be responsible for the design <br /> and engineering of the fence. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that according to the condition, the <br /> applicant would be responsible for raising the fence. A building <br /> permit would be required for a fence that high, and the Building <br /> Department would be checking to make sure that the fence is able to <br /> hold the required wind load. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked Ms. Stillian if she would withdraw her <br /> objections regarding the trees in her backyard if Mr. Pederson <br /> agreed to raise her fence six feet above the height of his <br />_ retaining wall. <br /> <br /> 8-21-90 <br /> - 9 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.