Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. lserson said damage to the fence could happen. He suggested tying the installation <br /> of the fence to completion of the construction of the addition. <br /> Mr. Brozosky suggested not approving the final building permit until the fence is <br /> constructed and asked staff if this would be sufficient. <br /> Mr. lserson did not believe a final is the appropriate way to go with regard to an addition <br /> because the applicant is not waiting to occupy the home and because sometimes the final <br /> building permit is never approved. He believed it would be appropriate to state that the building <br /> permit would not be finaled, but in no case shall the fence not be installed within a certain period <br /> of time. <br /> Mr. Brozosky clarified Mr. lserson's two conditions which would essentially require the <br /> latest the fence could be installed would be upon the final of the building permit or three months <br /> after the completion of the addition. <br /> Ms. McGovern preferred not to allow the extension of up to three months after the <br /> completion of the addition and would prefer the installation of the fence to be completed when <br /> the additions were completed. <br /> Mr. Roush believed the proposed condition required the new fence to be constructed <br /> within six months from the date of the design approval. The last sentence simply provides that if <br /> for some reason construction is still occurring that would potentially cause the new fence to be <br /> damaged if it were constructed at that time, the Planning Director could consider these <br /> circumstances and grant a reasonable extension that would be time specific, and address Ms. <br /> McGovern's concern related to giving some discretion to the Planning Director if there were <br /> construction reasons. The alternative would be to require the fence to be constructed prior to <br /> finalizing the project, which to address staff's concerns is somewhat indefinite. <br /> Mr. Brozosky believed it was expensive to delay the final of a building permit. <br /> Mr. Roush agreed and said staff could require the fence to be installed or constructed <br /> before the addition is finaled by the Building Department. <br /> Mr. Fialho noted there are examples throughout town where applicants do renovations <br /> and do not finalize the building permits for tax reasons which is difficult for staff to enforce. To <br /> avoid this situation, he recommended that Council pick a time frame from the start of <br /> construction that the fence would have to be completed. <br /> Mr. Brozosky proposed the construction of a new seven-foot fence be required within six <br /> months of the issuance of the building permit for the addition, or by the time the addition is <br /> ready to be finalized by the Building Department, whichever occurs first. <br /> Mr. Sullivan was not opposed to Mr. Brozosky's proposal and concurred with Ms. <br /> McGovern's proposal. He indicated that he visited the Crofton's property and believed the <br /> mitigations should be equitable for both parties, which is why he believed splitting the cost of the <br /> fence was a good idea. While a seven-foot fence would not block the deck, it would add some <br /> element of privacy on both sides. He believed it was inequitable to require the Diazs to provide <br /> 24-inch box trees as opposed to 15-gallon trees because of the cost factor. He asked how <br /> many trees were located to the right of the Crofton's house. <br /> Pleasanton City Council 10 10/18105 <br /> Minutes <br />