SR - APP-535-14 - WALL APPEAL 926 MEADS AVENUEoP OR ,
Gti� . 3 00°°: "i�z
COUNTY CP
AGENDA ITEM
November 25, 2014
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
THRU: John W. Sibley
City Manager
FROM: Rick Otto
Community Deve t Director
Reviewed/Verified By:
City Manager
Finance Dire4to
To Be Present y:
Cons Calendar _
City Mgr Rpts
Council Reports _
Legal Affairs
Boards /Cmtes X
Public Hrgs
Admin Reports
Plan/Environ
1. SUBJECT 77:71
APPEAL HEARING: Appeal No. 535 -14, an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to
denying appeal no. 534 -14 upholding the Community Development Director determination
regarding the placement of a property wall within five feet of an existing fence at 926 Meads
Avenue.
2. SUMMARY 77�
An appeal by Laurie and James Cesena of a decision by the Planning Commission (PC) to
uphold a determination made by the Community Development Director (CDD) for a new second
perimeter property wall within five (5) feet of an existing fence.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Motion on Appeal No. 535 -14
4. FISCAL IMPACT
None
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL
Not Applicable
6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Not Applicable
17. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND I
Wolfgang and Shannon Frisch, property owners of 926 Meads Avenue requested to construct a
six (6) foot high masonry block wall consisting of entry pilasters, entry walls, trash enclosure,
and wrought iron gates. Portions of the six (6) foot high masonry block wall along the perimeter
(side yard) on their eastern boundary is within five (5) of an existing chain link fence. The
ITEM ; ,a 11/25/14
construction of a wall up to six (6) feet in height does not require a building permit, and does not
typically require planning review. However, OMC Section 17.14.180(D) does not allow a
parallel wall or fence to be constructed less than five feet from an existing wall or fence, unless
approved by the CDD (Attachment 7).
On July 29, 2014, the property owners requested in writing, approval of a parallel wall to be
constructed less than five feet from an existing fence (Attachment 8). The proposed block wall
and existing chain link fence would have a gap between six (6) inches to about two (2) feet
depending on the location of the chain link fence. On August 4, 2014, the CDD approved the
request. The CDD based the decision on that the proposed block wall would be adjacent to the
chain link fence. It was determined that debris between the proposed block wall and existing
chain link fencing could be cleared out easily, due to the openness of the existing chain link
fence.
On August 11, 2014, staff informed Laurie Cesena about the CDD's decision to approve the
request for a parallel wall to be constructed less than five feet from the existing fence. On the
same day, staff received an appeal to the CDD's approval from Laurie and James Cesena.
Planning Commission Action
On September 15, 2014, the PC heard Appeal No. 534 -14 (Attachment 5). The PC considered
the entire record, including all testimony and such additional information offered at the public
hearing. The Commission discussed the narrow focus of their preview, which was limited to the
CDD's decision to approve the request for the parallel block wall to be constructed less than five
feet from the existing chain link fence. The Commission voted 4 -1 to deny the appeal, thereby
upholding the decision of the Director (Attachment 3). The PC made the determination based on
the following findings and as indicated in the PC resolution (Attachment 2):
1. The construction for the block wall does not require a building permit.
2. Only that portion of the block wall located within five feet of the Appellant's chain link
fence requires City approval.
3. Pursuant to City of Orange Resolution No. 10081, neither the approval for construction
nor the composition of the material of the wall is subject to review and recommendation
from the Orange Park Acres Board of Directors.
4. While the construction of block walls is discouraged in Orange Park Acres ( "OPA "),
they are not prohibited. The Commission finds upon testimony and observation that there
are numerous properties in OPA which have block walls on their properties, including
within the immediate neighborhood of the property owners.
5. The property owners are required by code to have a five foot high wall or fence for the
protection of their swimming pool.
6. The construction of the block wall next to the existing chain link fence does not pose a
safety hazard.
Public Comments
There were eight public speakers at the hearing, five in support of the appeal, two in
opposition of the appeal, and one representing the Orange Park Association.
ITEM 11/25/14
8. APPELLANT'S STATEMENT
Laurie and James Cesena appealed the PC decision on the basis stated in Attachment 6. The
statement is in verbatim as received in Appeal No. 535 -14
"- Violation of five foot setback requirement between parallel fences -
Safety and health concerns not given proper consideration.
- The continuous 300ft block wall on a single property line impairs
the appellant's hillside view as protected in the OPA Specific Plan.
The OPA Specific Plan was not given proper consideration.
No consideration given the wall is over 6ft in height without a permit
Addressed to planning commission - unresponsive
-The parallel fencing has created safety hazards throughout the entire
perimeter of the wall - Nuisances were not given the proper
consideration nor the safety of live and property.
Please review the violations of safety, state and city codes
located in Appeal Notebook for further detailed information."
In staff's review of the appeal, the appellant refers to the Orange Park Acres Plan and the use of
masonry block walls. Although a policy in the Orange Park Acres Plan promotes the use of wood
rail fencing, it does not expressly prohibit the use of block walls. The policy states "Promote the
use of wood -rail fencing, either natural or painted white, to give a sense of openness — while
restricting the use of block walls, chain link or other opaque fencing." The CDD determination
was to allow a parallel block wall to be constructed less than five feet from an existing chain
fence. The Commission's consideration of the appeal was specific to the block wall and chain
link separation not the block wall itself. Only that portion of the block wall located within five
feet of the Appellant's chain link fence required CDD determination. Likewise, the City Council
should only consider the appeal of the CDD determination of the wall separation. The material of
the wall or the potential loss of view should not be a part of the appeal consideration.
9. ATTACHMENTS
Attachments to Report
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 28 -14
3. Planning Commission Minutes from Meeting of September 15, 2014
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 15, 2014
5. Appeal No. 534 -14
6. Appeal No. 535 -14
7. Orange Municipal Code Section 17.14.180 Fences and Walls
8. Request for proposed block wall dated July 29, 2014
9. Approved Plan by the Community Development Director dated August 4, 2014
Cc: Laurie and James Cesena
928 Meads Avenue
Orange, CA 92869
ITEM
Wolfgang and Shannon Frisch
926 Meads Avenue
Orange, CA 92869
11/25/14