HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-1999 PC MinutesCdsr;;'e,
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City 01 Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
IN RE:
November 15, 1999
Monday - 7:00 p,m,Commissioners
Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith Commissioner
Carlton Vern
Jones, Planning ManagerlSecrelary,John
Godlewski, Principal Planner,Mary
Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger
Hohnbaum, Assislant City Engineer, and Sue
Devlin, Recording Secretary to :01 fh :l3J g CONSENT
CALENDAR n;
31::> .l.LJ::> -Chairman Bosch
commented he would be voting on the Minutes because he participated in the majority 01 the Agenda
lor the meeting, However, he did not participate in the hearing on Item 2 regarding Tentative Tract Map
14360, so his vote will be with regard to the remainder ollhe Minutes,1, Approval
01 the Minutes Irom the Meeting of November 1, 1999 Moved by
Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the Minutes of November 1,
1999,AYES:NOES:
ABSENT:
IN
RE:
Commissioners Bosch,
Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner
Carlton
MOTION CARRIED MISCELLANEOUS 2,
ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR APPEAL NO, 465 (RE: VARIANCE 2067-99) - TA NGUYEN & THANG CAO ML Jones
reported Ihat the applicants are appealing the Zoning Administrator's denial of a lence/wall exceeding the
maximum height (42") permitted within a front yard setback, The lence was constructed at the two
properties located at 296 and 302 North Thora Street. This appeal is a result of Code Enforcement action
and the applicants are requesting a variance to retain the fence,The public
hearing was opened,Applicant Ta
Neuven. 296 North Thora Street, handed the Commission two pictures of the lence that was put up
around the two properties. He lives at 296 North Thora Street and his nephew lives at 302 North Thora Street,
which is next door, He explained that protection lor his family is very important because they have been
the victims 01 severai crimes prior to the construction of the fence and gate, He was unaware that the
lence did not meet the City's code requirements, He also said other properties in the City have similar fences.
Th,e
public hearing was closed,Commissioner Romero
drove through the applicant's neighborhood and noticed ML Nguyen's well maintained residence,
The fence looks very nice, but unfortunately the height of the fence does not meet code
requirements,1
Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 1999
Commissioner Smith commented on the 10 foot fence across the street. The owner was given wrong
advice by his contractor when the fence was installed two years ago. She thought it would be okay to
leave the fence, even though it exceeds the height limitation. She realizes this approval would be
dangerous in setting a precedent; however, 22 other properties in the surrounding neighborhood also
have similar fencing, If the fence were less expensive and could be easily replaced, she would be in favor
of requiring the fence meet the City's requirements. But given the amount of money that has been spent,
and the fact that it is a comer lot, she was inclined to uphold the appeal and allow the fence to stand.
Commissioner Pruett realizes there wasn1 any intent on the part of the property owner to construct a
fence that does not comply with the current code. He thought the Commission would set a dangerous
precedent by approving the height of this fence, There are issues with the safety of ingress and egress.
He asked staff to clarify the code requirement for fences.
Mr. Jones stated fences are allowed in the front yard setback area of properties when they do not exceed
a maximum height of 42".
Commissioner Pruett thought the property owner could still maintain a level of security by reducing the
fence height to 42". The current height is rather excessive, especially with the lights that have been
added,
Chairman Bosch stated the property owner received bad advice from the contractor. The owner went to a
great deal of expense to build an attractive fence, but there are a number of problems, And, the fence
does not meet the law, Visual safety is just as important, and the fence creates a danger to people using
the sidewalk, The height of the existing fence is excessive, This creates a walled-off community and
does not promote a neighborly environment. Even if the City Council determines on some basis to uphold
the appeal, they also set the policy of the City, If the City Council desires to do that, then the
Planning Commission should recommend to them that they review and amend the ordinance, He felt the
42"height is more than adequate at the sidewalk, He could not support the appeal because he did not feel
it was appropriate to uphold a
mistake.
MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pruett and seconded by Commissioner Romero to deny Appeal No, 465 (
Re:Variance
2067-
99),
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch,
Pruett, Romero
Commissioner Smith Commissioner Carlton
MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch explained the right of appeal to
Mr. Nguyen,IN
RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Romero to adjourn at 7:30
p.
m,
AYES:
NOES:ABSENT:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett,
Romero,
Smith None Commissioner Carlton
MOTION
CARRIED