RES-7749 Denying Appeal No. 381RESOLUTION NO. 7749
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE DENYING APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE
TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
CONVERSION OF A 4-UNIT APARTMENT
BUILDING TO A BOARD AND CARE FACILITY FOR
22 DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS
UPON PROPERTY SITUATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF FAIRWAY DRIVE AT THE INTERSECTION
WITH FASHION PARK
STREET~Appeal No.
381 Conditional Use Permit
1849-90 Applicant:
Diane
Glenn RECITALS:This is an appeal made by applicant from adenialofConditionalUsePermit1849-90 by thePlanningCommissionon
November 19, 1990.After report thereon by the Planning CommissionandafterduepUblichearingsasrequiredbylaw, and after receivinganoticeofdenialfromthePlanningCommission, statingthatConditionalUsePermit1849-90 should be denied to allow theconversionofafourunitapartmentbuildingfortheboardandcareof22development-ally disabled persons upon property situated onthesouthsideofFairwayDriveattheintersectionwithFashionParkStreet, the City Council considered ConditionalUsePermit1849-90 in conjunction with Appeal No. 381, anddeterminedthattheactionofthePlanningCommissionshouldbeupheldandConditional
Use Permit 1849-90 be denied.During the pUblic hearing, the City Council found
the facts to be as follows:1. On November19, 1990, the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit
1849-90 based on the following reasons:A. The useasproposedwouldresultinovercrowdingofthesite, and is
therefore incompatible with surrounding residential land uses.B. The
proposed use is not appropriate for the property due to alackofspaceforanoutdoorrecreationalareaonsite, and duetothedistanceofthe
site from commercial areas and pUblic services.2. At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant explained the need for individualssuchasherclientstoresideina "normal" living environment. The Commission noted, however, that her proposal seemedinconsistentwith
her stated intent for the following reasons:A. The proposed doorways between the apartments on both levelsandbetweenprivate
B. The conversion of kitchens to bedrooms leaves
inadequate communal space and inhibits the "home like"
atmosphere.
C. The proposal does not include internal access from
the first to the second floor, requiring residents on the
second floor to go outside when going downstairs for meals
and social events.
3. The applicant, Diane Glenn, requested the City Council
to reverse the Planning Commissions denial of a Conditional Use
Permit Application, and to allow the conversion of a four unit
apartment building to a board and care facility for 22
Developmentally Disabled" individuals. "Developmentally Disabled"
persons are defined by state Law as having a disability related to
mental retardation or requiring treatment similar to that required
for mentally retarded individuals, but not having other handi-
capping conditions that are solely physical in nature. Such a
disability originates before an individual attains the age of 18,
continues, or can be expected to continue indefinitely, and
constitutes a substantial handicap for such individual. Types of
developmental disabilities include mental retardation, cerebral
palsy, epilepsy, and autism.
The facility is proposed to have 4 full time
who will live on-site, and 2 part time
employees.includes interior modifications to the building
to communal living
arrangement.employees,
one The
proposal create
a The site is zoned R-3 (Residential, Multifamily)
District and is designated Medium Density Residential, 15 to 24
dwelling units per acre on the City'S General Plan Use Map. The
project is located on the south side of Fairway drive at the
intersection with Fashion Park street (340 W. Fairway Drive). The site'
s surrounding area is developed
with apartments.Board and care facilities for the
developmentally disabled are required to have a license from the State's
Department of Social Service's Community Care
Licensing Division.4. Since the Commission's denial of the project
and in response to their concerns, the applicant has revised
the proposal by reducing the maximum number of individuals housed from 22
to 16 and eliminating all interior
building modifications.The revised proposal reduces the intensity of the use
on the site, increases the privacy for each resident, and creates
a more home like" atmosphere than the original proposal.
However, the revised proposal does not resolve the Council's
concerns regarding the distance of the site from commercial areas and
public services,the lack of outdoor recreational area on the site, and the
lack of internal access from the first to the
second floor.Reso No.
7749
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of theCityofOrangethatConditionalUsePermit1849-90 and AppealNo.381 for the reasons stated in No. 1 and No. 2 above and fortheadditionalreasonthatapplicantrevisedtheproposalbetweenthetimeitwasdeniedbythePlanningCommissionandthepresentationtotheCityCouncilassetforthinNo. 4 above. This denialiswithout
prejudice.ADOPTED this 22nd day of
1991.
ATTEST:n;J/u~ J ~(f~City Cler 0 G3-ty
0 Orange I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution wasdulyandregularlyadoptedbytheCityCounciloftheCityofOrangeataregularmeetingthereofheldonthe22nddayofJanuarv1991, by the
following vote:AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: STEINER, BARRERA, MAYOR BEYER,
COONTZ, SPURGEON NOES: COUNCIL
MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCIL
MEMBERS: NONEit
Or>/J/~City Clerk the t~
of Orange dg 3-Reso