Loading...
RES-8450 Denying Administrative Adjustment No. 94-06RESOLUTION NO. 8450 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE AND DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW REDUCTIONS IN MINIMUM DRIVEWAY LENGTH, MINIMUM GARAGE DEPTH AND MINIMUM DISTANCE TO REAR PROPERTY LINE AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF THE PROJECT. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 94- 06 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 3-94 DANNY F. SHIELDS RECITALS:After report thereon by the Planning Commission and after due public hearings as required by law and after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission, recommending denial of Administrative Adjustment No. 94-06, to allow reductions in minimum driveway length, minimum garage depth, and minimum distance to rear property line. and denial of Design Review Board Appeal No. 3-94 denial of the project.The City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation and denied Administrative Adjustment No. 94-06,Design Review Board Appeal No. 3- 94. Said real property is more particularly described as 433 East La Veta Avenue.Upon the public hearing before the City Council, the following facts were established:1. The applicant owns residential property located at 433 East La Veta Avenue, within an R-2 district, and in Old Towne.The property is developed with a single-story, single- family residence and a detached single-car garage. The applicant proposed a demolition and reconstruction of the garage, with a second-story addition intended as a workshop, with a " view balcony."2. An architect submitted applications seeking approvals by the Zoning Administrator and Design Review Board for building plans. An administrative adjustment permit was sought to reduce requirements for (1) the minimum length of the driveway, (2) the minimum depth of the garage, and (3) the minimum distance between a second-story building and the rear property line. Approval by the D.R. B. was required because the property is demolition of an existing building, prior advertisement of the D.R.B. meeting was also required. 3.Desian Review Board Action: The D.R.B. considered the proposal during regular meetings on September 7 and October 5, 1994. The architect was initially urged to reconsider the design of the accessory structure. The board expressed a concern about "bulk" and mass" of a building that is taller than either horizontal dimension of the existing structure. At the second meeting, the board concluded that the architect had done little to address their concerns, and moved to deny the project. Meeting minutes are attached. 4. Zonina Administrator's Decision: The zoning Administrator felt that issue of bulk and mass was a function of the "cumulative impact" of reductions proposed to each of the three minimum development standards. As a secondary issue, the zoning Administrator felt that a request to approve a substandard length for a driveway was inappropriate along an arterial street. It was further determined that the applicant has the ability to design and develop a single-story garage, with a workshop, somewhat closer to side and rear property lines, without reductions necessary under current development standards.In addition to the design and development standards, the staff expresses some reservations about the ultimate use of the building. Despite the "workshop" label on the plan, the building could be easily adapted to residential use.Although the property is located in an R-2 district, the applicant cannot construct a second unit unless an adequate number of parking spaces was provided. In order to clarify the terms upon which a building permit may be issued, the staff has informed the applicant that a permit will not be issued until a deed restriction is prepared, and recorded upon the grant deed to clarify the approved use for future owners of the property. The condition of approval would state that the building was permitted as an accessory workshop and is not to be "occupied" (for residency) at any time in the future, and that said condition may not be revoked unless written agreement is obtained from the city of Orange.5. Plannina Commission Action:The Planning commission was quite concerned about the ultimate use of the structure, in addition to the design or development standards. Structural modifications and deed restrictions were discussed, but in the end, the Commission agreed with the findings made by the Zoning Administrator and Design Review Board. The Commission moved to recommend that the City Council deny the applicant' s appeal.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the city of orange that Administrative Adjustment No. 94- Design Review Board Appeal No. 3-94 be denied for the following reason:1.The "cumulative impact of all three" adjustments would allow development that is substantially different than what is otherwise permitted. Additionally, the property owner has an ability to develop the property according to current development standards, if alternative plans were prepared and submitted.ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 1995. ATTEST:A~/~' 9-G___~~City Clerkf thel(: 1ty4d' 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 14 th of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: NOES:ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: MURPHY, BI'.P.RERA, MI'.YOR COONTZ, SPURGEON, SLI'.TER COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE AA~/ a- C}:.#~~~City Clerkthe Cwyoft: 0fange .r-SSH:dh Reso No.