RES-9316 Upholding Appeal No. 486RESOLUTION NO. 9316
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE OVERRULING THE DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
UPHOLDING APPEAL NO. 476, ALLOWING A
REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD
SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 16 FEET ON 13
PERCENT OF THE LOTS IN SERRANO HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT AREA 7 LOCATED EAST OF
SERRANO AVENUE AND ORANGE PARK
BOULEVARD, WEST OF SERRANO AVENUE AND
NOHL RANCH ROAD
Appeal No. 476
Administrative Adjustment 00-
05 Applicant and Appellant: Pulte Home
Corporation
RECITALS:WHEREAS, on May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of
Orange conducted a public hearing as required by law to consider Administrative Adjustment 00-
05; and WHEREAS, the proposed Administrative Adjustment was to allow a reduction
in City requirements for front yard setbacks from 20 feet to 16 feet on 13 percent of all lots
in Serrano Heights Development Area
7; and WHEREAS, the subject property consists of 139 parcels on property located
east of Serrano Avenue and Orange Park Boulevard, west of Serrano Avenue and Nohl
Ranch Road,more particularly described
as follows:THAT PORTION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14360 IN
THE EASTERN PHASE OF "SERRANO HEIGHTS", NORTH OF
SERRANO AVENUE BETWEEN APACHE CREEK AND NOHL
RANCH ROADS DEVELOPMENT AREA 7, SERRANO HEIGHTS
SPECIFIC PLAN).WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 39-00, the Planning
Commission denied the Administrative Adjustment for failure to achieve a
majority vote; and WHEREAS, Appeal No. 476 was timely filed by the appellant,
Pulte
WHEREAS, the City Council heard the appeal of appellant by conducting a public
hearing on June 27, 2000; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council heard the testimony of the
applicant/appellant's representative and one member of the public, considered documentary
evidence presented and found the facts more particularly set forth as follows:
1. The proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
2. The administrative adjust meets the intent of code provIsIons requiring a
minimunl front yard setback because the addition of the front porch will actually encourage use
of the front yard.
3. The benefits conferred by this administrative adjustment are similar to those
conferred on other builders and developers in similar situations.
4., The granting of Administrative Adjustment 00-05 will not be detrimental to
the publich€::alth, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working on the subject
property or in the
vicinity.5. Administrative Adjustment 00-05 is subject to the following
conditions which will assure that the authorized adjustment does not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is located;
to wit:1) All plans shall conform in substance with those approved by the
Planning Commission.2) The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its
officers, agents and (:mployees from any and all liability or claims that may be brought against
the city arising out of its approval of this permit, save and except that caused by City'
s
active negligence.3) The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, including
all city regulations. Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be
cause for revocation of
this
permit.4) These conditions will be reprinted on the cover sheet or first page of construction
plans,including grading plans, if
applicable.The following code provisions are applicable to this project and are included for
information only. This is not a complete list of requirements, and other code provisions may apply to
the
project.Reso No. 9316
1
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay all statutory development fees,
inc:1uding but not limited to: Transportation System Improvement Program, Fire Facility,
Police Facility, Park Acquisition, Sanitation District, School District, and Eastern Foothill
Transportation Corridor, as required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange
that Appeal No. 476 is upheld and Administrative Adjustment OO-OS is approved for
the following
reasons:1. The foregoing recitals are true and
correct.2. The findings required by Orange Municipal Code Section 17.1 O.OSO.E are
met.ADOPTED the 2Sth day of July,
2000.
a
ATTEST:oanne Coontz, Mayor
ofth
1
I
k~~~Cassandra J. Cath , CIty Clerk of the CIty of
Orange I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the
City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2Sth day of July, 2000,
by the foll1owing
vote:
r-
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS: MURPHY, SLATER, COONTZ, SPURGEON,
ALVAREZ COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NONE
MEB 3 Reso No.