RES-8095 Denying Variance No. 1934-92RESOLUTION NO. 8095
A RESOLUTION OJ' THB CITY COU)JCIL OJ' THE
CITY OJ' ORANGE UPHOLDI)JG THE RECOMKBNDA-
TION OJ' THE PLANNI)JG COMHISSIO)J OJ' THE
CITY OJ' ORANGE AND DENYI)JG VARIANCB TO
ALLOW LOCATING 2 REQUIRED PAlUtING SPACBS
I)J FRONT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCB.
VARIANCB 1934-
92 APPLICANT: MILDRED N. CORK Ii JAMES
CORK
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,
by Resolution No. PC-48-92, that Variance 1934-92
be denied to allow locating 2 required parking spaces in
front of the existing residence, the City Council
considered the Planning Commission recommendation and denied variance
1934-92. Said real property is
more particularly described as follows:Lots 4 and 6 of Tract No.
1051, in the County of Orange, State of California,
as shown on a Map thereof recorded in Book 34
of Page 5 of Miscel-laneous Maps,
Records of said Orange County~EXCEPT THEREFROM the South 28.
79 feet of said Lot 4~ said 28.79
feet being measured
along the Easterly line thereof.During the public hearing
before the city Council,
the following facts were found:1. On August 3, 1992,
the Planning commission considered a request to construct an accessory second
dwelling unit at 120 N.Monterey Rd. The property is
classified R-I-6, a single family residential district,
but is adjacent to property located within
the o-P (Office-professional) corridor along Chapman
Avenue.Additionally, the applicant requested a variance to allow locating
2 required parking spaces in front of the
existing residence. The accessory second unit ordinance prohibits outdoor
parking
anywhere between the residential structure and the public street.2.
The proposal includes a second story dwelling unit limited to 640 square
feet, to be constructed above an existing 2 car
garage. The applicant has an existing semi-circular driveway in the
front yard, and proposed to utilize that area
for the additional parking requirement. There is an existing swimming pool
in the back yard limiting available land for parking space.
3. The Planning Commission recognized that the project site
is substantially larger than any other residential lot in the vicinity,
and bordered by commercial land use on 2
parcel is so large, and the project is tucked away in a corner
that is isolated from adjacent residential use, the commission
felt that the project should be approved. However, the same
factors led them to conclude there is adequate space to provide
the parking in compliance with City development standards, and
the residential neighborhood should be protected from more
intensive development. The Planning Commission therefore
recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit
1972-92, but deny Variance
1934-92.NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Orange that Variance 1934-92 be denied
for
the following reasons:1. The variance request, to relax a
specific parking standard,would constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with limitations placed upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone in which the applicants'
property is situated.2. No special circumstances may be ascribed to
the project site as unique, and the strict application of this
stndard does not,therefore, deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
with
identicalzoningclassifications.1992.
ADOPTED
this 13thATTEST:M~~
Q-9641'Al/4(City Cle~ o~
th 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
13th of October , 1992,
by
the
following
vote:
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS: STEINER,
BARRERA, MAYOR BEYER,
SPURGEON COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NONE COUNCIL
MEMBERS: NONE
COUNCILWOMAN: COONTZ A'A~~~~City Clerk
th i of Orange Reso No.