RES-8081 Granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1968-92RESOLUTION NO. 8081
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGB OVERRULING THE RECOMMENDA-
TIOJl OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ORANGB AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL
USB PBRMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
SBCOND STORY ADDITION ONTO AJI BXISTING
RESIDENCB UPON PROPERTY SITUATED AT 520
NORTH ORANGB STREET.
CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT 1968-
92 APPLICANT: LYNDON
SWENSON
RECITALS:After report thereon by the Planning Commission andafterduepublichearingsasrequiredbylaw, and after receivingarecommendationfromthePlanningCommission, recommending, by Resolution No. PC-40-92, that Conditional UsePermit1968-92 be denied to allow construction of a secondstoryadditionontoanexistingresidenceuponpropertysituatedat520NorthOrangestreet, the City Council consideredConditionalUsePermit1968-92 and determined that the recommendationofthePlanningCommis-sion should be overruled and ConditionalUsePermit1968-92 be granted. Subject propertyis
more particularly described as follows:Lot 22 of Block A of theThermalitaTractaspermaprecordedinBook4, Page 48 of Miscellaneous Maps,records
of said Orange County, California.During the pUblic hearing, the city
Council found the following facts:1. The applicant is proposingtoconstructasecondstoryadditionontoanexistingresidence. The property is currently developed with a 1,064 sq. ft. single story residence with an attached single car garage in the front, and a detached 1,120 sq. ft. apartment unit constructed over a3cargarageattherear. The proposed addition is approximately1,064 sq. ft. in size, and is to be constructeddirectlyovertheexistingfrontresidence. The property iszonedR-2 (Residential - Duplex District), with 2 dwellingunitsalreadyexistingontheproperty. The property owner's request isonlytoaddontotheexistingfronthouse, and not to developthenewaddition
as a separate dwelling unit.2. In January 1992, City staffreceivedacomplaintfromaneighboringproperty ownerregardingbuildingviolationsatthesubjectproperty. Upon inspectionbyaCitybuildinginspector,it was found that extensiveconstructionworkwasbeingdonewithoutproper permits. Additionally, there were indications of more than 2 dwelling unitsontheproperty. The Building Department issued stop work notices to
result of these actions by the City the property owner filed this
application.
3. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their
regularly scheduled meeting of April 22, 1992. The DRB raised
concerns regarding the excessive height of the proposed building
addition which gives the appearance of a 3 story structure. The
DRB took action to recommend denial of the project to the
Planning Commission.
4. The project was reviewed by the Planning commission at their
regularly scheduled public hearing on June 15, 1992. The
Planning Commission took action to deny Conditional Use Permit
1968-92 for the following
reasons:1. The bulk and massing of the proposed
addition contributes to overbuilding the site, and will
therefore cause deterioration of bordering land uses and
create problems for the surrounding
area.2. The excessive height of this project is out of
context with the surrounding neighborhood which
consists predominantly of single story
residences.5. The applicant/property owner, Mr. Lyndon Swenson,
is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny
the proposal for the following
reasons:1. The original plans submitted complied with all
zoning and building code
requirements.2. The existing front house was constructed in 1914,
and is in desperate need of more bedroom
space.6. Subsequent to the Planning commission's denial of
the project, the applicant reduced the size of the proposed
addition from 1,064 sq.ft. to 840 sq.ft., and lowered the overall
building height from 29.5 feet to 27.5
feet.7. The revised plans were submitted back to the Design
Review Board for a second review at their regularly scheduled meeting
of July 8, 1992. The DRB was of the opinion that although
the concerns of bulk and mass have been generally addressed by
the reduction in roof pitch and the elimination of the third
level windows, the building elevations still lacked
architectural
distinction.8. The DRB offered to continue the project in order to work
with the applicant in revising the plans to be more
aesthetically compatible with the existing structure on the property.
The applicant declined and asked for a motion. The DRB took
action to recommend denial of the project to the city
Council.Reso No. 8081
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Orange that Conditional Use Permit 1968-92 be granted
for the following
reasons:1. The proposal conforms to sound principles of land use and
is in response to services required by the
community.2. The proposal will not cause deterioration of bordering
land uses or create special problems for the area in which it
is
located.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Conditional Use Permit
1968-92 be granted subject to the
following conditions:1. Prior to issuance of building permits, a
deed restriction shall be recorded with the County Recorder's
Office. Such document shall restrict the front residence to be used only
as a single dwelling unit. Such document shall be reviewed
by the City Attorney and Community Development Department
prior
to recordation.2. Street trees shall be provided as required by
the Department of
Community Services.3. The roof pitch shall be lowered to match that of
the rear structure, and the third tier window shall be eliminated
from the
front elevation.4. If not utilized, Conditional Use Permit 1968-
92 shall expire two (2) years from
date of approval.ADOPTED this
13th
day of ATTEST:c~~
11~o&~range 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 13th
of October , 1992,by
the
following
vote:
AYES:NOES:
ABSENT:COUNCIL
MEMBERS:COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:NONE STEINER, BARRERA,
MAYOR
BEYER,
COONTZ,SPURGEON
NONE fJJr/-u~&~City Clerk f t
Y of Orange SSH:dg 3-