RES-9160 Denying Appeal No. 456RESOLUTION NO. 9160
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ORANGE DENYING APPEAL NO. 456 AND
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO ALLOW A CHANGE
OF NONCONFORMING USE OF A BUILDING
LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH CAMBRIDGE STREET.
Appeal No. 456
Appellant: Gary Meserve
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, on January 14, 1999, Community Development Director Jack McGee
approved a request by the owner of a building housing a legal nonconforming use to change to
another nonconforming use which was the same or more restrictive than the existing use; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 135 South Cambridge Street, and is more
particularly described as follows:
W B FORSYTHS SUB BLK A LOT 6, CITY OF ORANGE, COuNTy OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director approved the change in
nonconforming use based upon his finding that the existing nonconforming use had not been
discontinued and that the proposed new nonconforming use was less intense, with added
conditions to ensure the lesser intensity; and
WHEREAS, Appeal No. 456 was timely filed by the appellant; and
WHEREAS, on March 1 and April 5, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted public
he,arings to consider Appeal No. 456; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 24-99, the Planning Commission unanimously
denied Appeal No. 456 and upheld the Community Development Director's approval of the change
of nonconforming use, with certain findings and added conditions;
and WHEREAS, Appeal No. 456 to the City Council was timely filed by the appellant;
and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the appeal of appellant by conducting a
public hf:aring on July 27,1999, continued from June 22,1999;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council heard the testimony of members of
the public and the applicant, reviewed the evidence presented by all parties, and found the facts
more particularly set forth as follows:
1. The existing nonconforming use of the building as a deli/restaurant has continued
at all times relevant to this appeal, pursuant to the criteria set forth in Orange Municipal Code
Section 17.38.040, such that the use has not been terminated. Specifically, the restaurant was
open during the month of September 1998 and sold food, as evidenced by the testimony of the
proPI:rty owner and cash register receipts.
2. The proposed new nonconforming use as an art gallery/picture frame business
with occasional art showings and small jewelry workshops for four to seven people, is a more
restrictive and less intense use of the building than the existing use, pursuant to the criteria set
forth in Orange Municipal Code Section 17.38.030. Specifically, the proposed new use will
generate less traffic, have fewer employees and have more restrictive hours of operation than the
pnoruse.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange
that Appeal No. 456 is denied and for the following reasons:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The proposed new nonconforming use is a more restrictive use than the prior
nonconforming use, satisfying the conditions of Orange Municipal Code Chapter 17.38 for
allowable nonconforming uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions are imposed upon the
operation ofthe new nonconforming use:
1. The use shall be limited to that described in the letter and the attachments dated
January 14, 1999, addressed to Ms. Ellie North and Mr. Gary Mead, and signed by the
Community Development Director, except that use for the sale of coffee/cappuccino and
packaged baked goods is not approved and shall be discontinued.
2. No meetings or congregating shall be allowed, except for occasional showings
attended by no more than twenty (20) persons and small jewelry workshops attended by no more
than seven (7) persons
3. If, in six months from the date of this approval, new neighborhood problems are
being created, the approval of the use as an art gallery/picture framing business, with accessory
activities, shall be reconsidered. Neighborhood problems of loitering, noise and/or on-
street parking, blocking traffic flow or impinging upon public safety and access to private property,
if found upon this review, are grounds for revocation of this
approval.Reso No. 9160
4.
employee.
The new use may be operated by no more than the proprietor and one (1)
5. The new use shall have regular business hours not to exceed 9:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., seven (7) days a week, or by appointment.
6. No use shall be allowed beyond that stated in this approval and these conditions.
Adopted the lOth day of August, 1999.
ATTEST:
7 ~ IlA1A.uA'. . ~//hl::t'
City Clerk oft ity 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 10th day of
August, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES:COUNCIL MEMBERS: MURPHY, COONTZ. SPURGEON, ALVAREZ
NOES:COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS: SLATER
4/~~(!~fl
City Clerk ofth ity of Orange
3 Reso No. 9160