Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLISHED IN THE ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER: March 2, 2007 <br />PUBLICLY NOTICED: March 2, 2007 <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Adopt a resolution denying Appeal No. 2007-02 and denying Minor Exception <br />No. 2006-11. <br />Assistant Planner Alejandro Flores presented the staff report and <br />recommendation. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Applicant Dolores Rodarte stated that she had built the fence in excess of the <br />height approved on the plan because she believed it would provide her with a <br />greater sense of safety for her property. <br />Robert Rodarte commented that there are nearby fences in the neighborhood that <br />were built prior to the established city code that currently exceed the allowed <br />height. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Mill stated that he had visited the site and had found that the fence <br />enhanced the residence and was not out of character with other fences in the <br />neighborhood. <br />Commissioner Betancourt expressed concern about setting a precedent to allow <br />height variations, but when fence height is deterrent for safety would agree with <br />the applicant though not in favor of overturning the denial. <br />Commissioner Alderete recommended to proceed with the compromise that the <br />Zoning Administrator offered (retain six pilasters and lower height of solid wall <br />base by six inches (Exhibits 4 and 5). Staff concurred that applicant had been <br />provided information but the request was denied due to lack of hardship <br />demonstration. <br />Vice Chair De La Torre commented that the fence enhanced the neighborhood <br />with a good design, but stated that it was important to follow established code. <br />MOTION: Overturn the denial. <br />MOTION: Mill SECOND: Leo <br />POINT OF ORDER -Chief Assistant City Attorney Ben Kaufman indicated that the staff <br />recommendation was for denial and that no CEQA findings had been prepared. If the will <br />of the Planning Commission vote was to overturn the denial, the vote would require a <br />continuance. <br />SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Continue the item to March 26, 2007 to allow for a <br />resolution to the applicant's request per the Zoning Administrator's <br />recommendation. <br />MOTION: Mill SECOND: Leo <br />VOTE: AYES: Leo, Mill, Munoz (3) <br />NOES: Alderete, Betancourt, De La Torre, Gartner (4) <br />ABSTAIN: None (0) <br />ABSENT: None (0) <br />MOTION FAILED <br />Planning Commission Agenda 3 March 12, 2007 <br />