Loading...
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