Loading...
RES-9222 Denying Appeal No. 461RESOLUTION NO. 9222 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 9142 AND DENYING APPEAL NO. 461 AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 81-99 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1593-99 ALLOWING THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO, ONE AND ONE-HALF STORY DUPLEXES AND A SINGLE STORY GARAGE/WORKROOM FOR SIX VEHICLES BEHIND AN EXISTING HISTORIC SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 630 EAST CULVER AVENUE. Appeal No. 461 Minor Site Plan Review 81-99 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1593-99 Applicant and Appellant: Ralph Zehner RECITALS:WHEREAS, on March 15, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Orange conducted a public hearing as required by law to consider Minor Site Plan Review 81-99 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1593-99; and WHEREAS, the proposed Minor Site Plan was to allow the demolition of an existing garage and constmction of two, one and one-half story duplexes and a single story garage/workroom for six vehicles behind an existing historic single family home on property within Old Towne; and WHEREAS, the subject property is commonly known as 630 East Culver Avenue and is more particularly described as follows: THE EAST HALF OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND:COMMENCING 30 FEET SOUTH 132 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RICHLAND FARM LOT 38, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 1123 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND RUNNI1\G THENCE SOUTH 301 FEET; THENCE WEST 132 FEET;THENCE NORTH 301 FEET AND THENCE WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 23-99, the Planning Commission denied the Minor Site Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration with certain findings; and WHEREAS, Appeal No. 461 was timely filed by the appellant, Ralph Zehner; and WHEREAS, the residence on the subject property is a contributing historical structure to the Old Towne Orange Historic District; and WHEREAS, the Old Towne Orange Historic District contains the second largest concentration of historic structures in the State; and WHEREAS, the Old Towne Orange Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Old Towne Design Standards and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1425-93 require that the proposed development include mitigation measures that will reduce potential negative impacts to the Old Towne Orange Historic District as an historical resource to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, prior to approving the proposed development the City Council must find that the development will have no potential significant impacts on an historical resource; and WHEREAS, the Old Towne Design Standards provide that their purpose "is to protect the historic and architectural resources which contribute to the cultural richness of Orange"; and WHEREAS, the Old Towne Design Standards further state as an objective to "ensure that new construction is structurally and aesthetically compatible with existing historic neighborhoods"; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the appeal of appellant by conducting a public hearing on May 25, 1999; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council heard the testimony of appellant,his attorney, his architect, and 32 members of the public, and considered documentary evidence pn::sented.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange that the substantial evidence presented leads to the decision that Appeal No. 461 is denied and Minor Site Plan Review 81-99 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1593-99 are denied.Such denial is based on the following reasons:Re: io. No. The Project does not comply with the Old Towne Design Standards in that: A. Part II. Chapter 2A of the Old Towne Design Standards provides in pertinent part that reviewing bodies: shall consider the. ..following general criteria in making a project determination: Compatibility of the project with surrounding development and neighborhoods: The development shall be consistent in size, scale and context with surrounding development." (Chapter 2.A.l.a. of the Old Towne Design Standards) 1. The proposed garage structure is not consistent in size, scale and context with sUITounding development and in particular the existing residence on the subject property for the following reasons: a) The proposed garage structure is 40% larger (2148 square feet to 1581 square feet) than the existing historical residential structure. b) There are no garage structures of comparable height, size or capacity in the surrounding development on Culver Avenue. The existing garage structure is a two-car garage of 420 square feet and is typical of the neighborhood. The project proposes a 6- car garage structure which is 500% larger than what currently exists on the property or what typically exists in this neighborhood.c) The garage structure has been made much larger and higher (20' 6") than necessary by the inclusion of one more garage space (275 additional square feet) than required by code;making the depth of four of the garage spaces five feet deeper and 225 square feet bigger than required by code; and by the inclusion of a workshop hobby area of approximately 310 additional square feet. The applicant could have easily agreed to prior requests by the City Council and the Planning Commission to scale down the footprint and height of the garage structure in that the garage structure is a total of 810 square feet or 60% larger, than required by code.d) The total square footage of the project (8943 square feet) significantly exceeds the developed square footage on similar sized lots in the neighborhood.The development shall retain the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space." (Part II, Chapter 2.A.l.b. of the Old Towne Design Standards)3 Reso.No. 9222 2. The development does not retain the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space for the following reasons: a) The garage structure is only 20 feet behind the historic residential structure and because of its size and height in relationship to the existing historic residential structure [40% larger and 60% wider (45 feet to 28 feet)] would overshadow the existing historic residence. b) The concentration of the duplexes, laundry room and storage areas toward the back of the property is not consistent with existing development on this block of Culver Avenue. The proposed configuration extends from a two-foot side setback on the east side of the property to a five-foot side setback to the west side.c) The open space between the duplexes is only two feet more than the minimum required (17 feet to 15 feet) for the R-2-6 zone and the open space between the laundry room/storage structure and the duplexes is only 1 (I feet. While meeting minimum city-wide standards for spacing it is significantly less than the existing historic spacing between structures on this block of Culver Avenue which tend to be 30 to 50 feet apart.d) The roofpitch and size of the garage structure as set forth above causes the garage to be much higher than it needs to be and much higher than other garages in the neighborhood.Because of the height, overall size and closeness of the garage structure in relationship to the historic residence, it overshadows the historic residence.e) The proposed development meets only the minimum side setback requirements of five feet on both the east and west sides and the proposed laundry room comes within 2 feet of the west side property line. Due to the narrowness of the lot (60 feet), the perspective from the street will be of development on the lot which extends from two feet on the lot line to the west to five feet from the lot line on the east leaving little perspective of open space which is inconsistent with other development on the south side of this block of Culver Avenue.B. Part III, Chapter 5. of the Old Towne Design Standards provides in pertinent part:The design of a new residence shall be complementary to other residence on the block. Specifically, infill construction shall be consistent with the following characteristics of contributing buildings on the street.1. Massing, scale, shape and proportions." (Part III, Chapter 5.A.l.a of the Old Towne Design Standards)1. The infill construction is not consistent with the massing, scale and proportions of contributing buildings on the street for the following a) The proposed garage structure is 40% larger (2148 square feet to 1581 square feet) them the existing contributing historic residential structure on the property. b) There are no garage structures of comparable size or capacity in the surrounding development on Culver Avenue to the proposed garage structure. The existing garage structure is a two-car garage of 420 square feet and is typical of the neighborhood. The project proposes a garage structure which is 500% larger than what currently exists on the property or what typically exists in this neighborhood. c) The garage structure has been made much larger and higher than required by including one more garage space (an additional 275 square feet) than required by code: making the depth of four of the garage spaces five feet deeper and 225 square feet bigger than required by code; and by the inclusion of a workshop hobby area of approximately 310 additional square fec:::t. The applicant could have easily agreed to prior requests from the City Council, the Planning Commission and Design Review Board to significantly scale down the size of the garage structure in that the garage structure is 810 square feet or 60% larger than required by code. d) The total square footage of the project (8943 square feet) significantly exceeds the developed square footage on similar sized lots in the neighborhood. C. The mitigation measures that were adopted in the mitigated negative declaration when the subiect area was rezoned to R-2-6 in 1993. provide in part that all development must be:compatible with current historical architectural context and bulk and mass of existing buildings." (Mitigated Negative Declaration 1425-93)For the reasons noted in A. 1. (a) through A.1.(c), A.2.a, A.2.d, B.1.(a) through B. 1.(c) of this Resolution, the development is not compatible with the bulk and mass of existing buildings.D. The mitigated negative declaration which was submitted with the proposed development requires that the City Council consider the Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation using the following criteria in making a proiect determination:The development shall be consistent in size, scale and context with surrounding development.The development shall retain the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space." (Mitigated Negative Declaration 1593-99)1. The development does not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines for the following reasons: a) The development proposes three new large structures, all of which are significantly larger than the existing historical residence. This development is significantly more intense than surrounding development on the south side of Culver Avenue and specifically for lots of this SIze. b) For all the reasons noted in Sections A and B of this Resolution, the development does not conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. E. Regulation 15355(b) of the CEOA Guidelines requires the City Council to review: the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." 1. The development would have a significant impact on the historic single family residential character of the neighborhood for the following reasons: a) It increases the number of dwelling units on the Yz acre lot by 500% from one to five. No other lot of this size on the 500/800 block of Culver A venue has more than three dwelling units. b) If approved, it is reasonably foreseeable that other property owners would seek similar approvals. Currently, 28 single family residential units exist on the 500/800 block of Culver Avenue. Under the current R-2-6 zoning, 126 units could be built. Under R-2-6 zoning,Petitioner could build six units. The proposed development constitutes 5/6 or 83% of the maximum number of units which could be built. If projects of similar density were approved,this could result in 104 residential units (126 x .83) on this Block of Culver Avenue or a 371 %increase. Similar increases in traffic would result. This would significantly alter the single family character of this neighborhood. As such, the proposed development would have a significant impact on an historical resource as defined in Section 15064. 5 of the CEQA Guidelines.F. The City's Historic Preservation Element of its General Plan cites a need to insure the:protection of the desirable and unique features of the historic neighborhoods."1. The desirable and unique features of the 500/800 block of Culver Avenue are the 21 contributing historical residences on large lots and the single family character of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth in Sections A, B, C, D, E and F of this Resolution, the Reso.No. 92226 proposed development does not achieve the balance of providing multi-family housing while protecting the single family residential character of the area sought by the 1993 zone change and accompanying mitigated negative declaration.ADOPTED the 8th day of February, 2000. ATTEST:1 Joanne Coontz, Mayor of the Ci fOrange J G Cassandra J. Cat I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by theCityCounciloftheCityofOrangeataregularmeetingthereofheldonthe8thdayofFebruary, 2000,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS: MURPHY, SLATER, COONTZ, SPURGEON, ALVAREZ COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE DAD: ajj 7 Reso.No.