CCMIN010785 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application and the negative declaration. Mr. Chuck Muth, 3644 Vine Street, asked that this item be continued until after review of the Vintage Hills/Vineyard Avenue study. Mayor Mercer stated that Mr. Caro- line's request is for continuance to the meeting of February 12, 1985, and that since he is not present at this meeting, Council will not consider any further continuance at this time. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared this item continued to the meeting of February 12, 1985, 8:00 P.M., in the Pleasanton Council Chambers. AP-84-20, ApOeal of San Jose Financial of a decision of the Board of ~djustment deny- ins the aoptication for a variance from the reGuirements of the Ordinance Code to maintain existin~ fences within the required street side yard setbacks located at 6183/6186 Corte Santiago, 6185/6190 Corte Del ReX, and 6052/6114 Hamsen Drive. Zon- ing for the parcels is R-1-6500 (Si~'gle-familv Residential) District Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 85:09~ dated January 7, 1985, regarding this matter. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. Mr. Michael Guerra, representing San Jose Financial, advised that Planning Com- mission stated that the parcels are typical and meet setback requirements; he stated that lots 25 and 4 should qualify for a variance because of the locations of these lots, and that lots 5, 10, and 11 conform in the spirit of the ordinance. Therefore he felt a variance should be granted. He stated there have not been any complaints from residents in the subdivision, and that removal of the fences will detract from the subdivision. Mr. H. L. Nickels, 6186 Corte Santiago, General Contractor/Construction Manager for San Jose Financial, stated his purpose for applying for the variance is to allow larger side yards. He added that it will detract from the development to remove the fences. Hr. Gene Finch, Contractor, 1112 Twelve Oaks Drive, stated he is familiar with this project and is in favor of retaining the fence as it is now. He presented colored photographs showin~ the retaining walls. He stated the fence is aestheti- cally good, and he urged approval of the appeal. Ms. Madeline Garcla, 6183 Corte Santiago, stated she does not feel the fence detracks from the neighborhood; in fact, it is quite the contrary. She stated the varying heights and distances are aesthetically appealing, and she would like to see it remain as it is now. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal. There being no further testimony, Mayqr Mercer declared the public hearing closed on this item. Councilmember Brandes stated there seems to be more and more problems relating to fences. He stated the requirements are clearly stated in the ordinance, and that it is up to the contractor and developer to meet the requirements of the code at the time Of construction. He stated he could find no error in the Board of Adjustment's decision relative to this matter, nor could he make the appropriate findings to allow the fences to remain. 6. 1/7/s5 9&