HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-11-80 PERMITTED SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE R-1 ZONEoAANGE CITY NEWS: Please publish Wednesday, February 27. 1980 only and send PROOF
nd PROOF OF PUBLICATION to City Clerk, P.O. Box 449, Orange, Calii'()rnL~ 92666.
l:!;\_R},!,}'!'_,l._,OJI'.JjSE!!,..CI.!y,.<:LERK ORDINANCE
NO. 11-80
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ORANGE AMENDING SECTION 9113 (j) OF THE
ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERMITTED
SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE R-I
ZONE.Amendment
11-79 CITY
OF ORANGE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heretofore has held
a duly advertised public hearing on the hereinafter
described amendment to the Orange Municipal Code and has recommended to
the City council, by Resolution No. PC-113-
79, approval thereof; and WHEREAS, currently, there are
approximately six houses in single family districts that qualify for
second units in the front. None of these six houses are on
corner lots. There are several other houses in the RD
District qualifying under Section 9113 (j), but second units are allowed
regardless of that provision in the RD District. In any case, there does not
appear to be a severe problem involving Section 9113 (j)
as only six interior lots
are directly involved; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed
staff to study Section 9113 (j) in order to determine the
desirability of allowing a second unit in
the R-l Zone; and WHEREAS, in consideration
of the facts surrounding Section 9113 (j), Staff has determined that
there are three basic policy options, each
which is hereby discussed individually.Allow second units in
the single family district consistent with the limitations of Section
9113 (j), but require a conditional use permit. This
option would result in the
following revision of the provision:a) The intent of this provision is
to allow a second unit on lots meeting the requirements
of section (j) (2) and Section 9113 (j) (3)
while insuring that the increased density and aesthetic
changes do not
adversely affect the surrounding residences.b) If prior to May 7, 1946, a
dwelling in either. the R-l or the RD District was
located so that the maJor portion of such building was in the
rear area of the lot as determined by a line
drawn from the mid-point of one s ide of the lot
to the mid-point of the other, then one but
not more than one additional dwelling may be built or
established on the front part of said lot
subject to
approval of a conditional use permit.OPTION I:Abolish
section 9113 (j) because it is inappropriate to allow second
units in a single family district under any condition because
of
the basic
lllI-
g;
h
ii'
1.. ': .. '.:
0:
y
t:
ll
Whether the additional dwelling the
use of its lot conforms with every
other respect.2)
Th7 size of the additional unit and the existing un~
t together are compatible with proportions and size
of the lot.its
location and this
Chapter in c)
The criteria to be utilized in determining whether to grant
a conditional use permit as per Section (j) (2)shall
be as follows:i:!
D
3)
The density proposed on the subject lot is not incompatible
with the surrounding land use.4)
The proposed project is consistent with the general plan.
This
option would retain the ability to build second units on
single family lots under the original Section 9113 (j)limitations.
The Planning Commission and City Council would have
the power of denying a second unit if the addition presented
insurmountable problems, or of approving with conditions
if its approval is appropriate.M
i
Leave
Section 9113 (j) intact with a few modifications.Reference
to RD Districts would be excluded as there is no need
to specially permit second units in districts that allow
them anyway. The phrase "shall be made to conform with
this Chapter in every other respect" should be clarified.There
are problems regarding the application of the setback requirements
in the single family district to second units in
a single family district. The setbacks should either be specified
or it should be clear that RD setbacks should be applied,
even though the lot is zoned for single family residences.
OPTION
III:One
particular question about setbacks is where the front of a
unit is. An eight foot separation is required between units
built side by side in the RD District. A 15 foot separation
is required between units when the front of one building
faces the rear side of another. Thus, a landowner would
be tempted to place the second unit sideways on the front
of the lot to take advantage of this provision. The result
could be a building not in harmony with the surrounding single
family neighborhood.A
question is also raised as to how the front of a unit is determined;
by the orientation of the "front door," the architectural
front or the interior use. These questions should
be addressed even if this option is not chosen to clarify
the question of setbacks.WHEREAS,
the City Council concurs with the Staff and Planning
Commission that Section 9113 (j) be deleted.2-
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF TilE CITY OF ORANGE DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
g;CTION I:
Section 9113 (j) of the Orange Municipal Code shall be
amended to read as follows:
Section 9113
j) Delete
SECTION II:
ADOPTED this 19th day of Februarv 1980.
This ordinance shall be published once within fifteen (15)
days after its passage in the Orange City News, a newspaper of
general circulation, published and circulated in the City of
Orange, and shall take effect thirty (30) days from and after
the date of its final passage.
o~
Mayor of the City of 0 ange
ATTEST:
1t~uP~
City Cler of tne C~ of Orange
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) s s
CITY OF ORANGE )
I, MARILYN J. JENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California,
00 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a
regular meeting of the City Council duly held on the 12th day of February,
1980, and thereafter at a regular meeting of said City Council duly
held on the 19th day of February, 1980, was duly passed and adopted
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
BARRERA, MAYOR 1I0YT, PEREZ, BEAM
NONE
SMITH
WITNESS my hand and seal this 20th day of February, 1980.
c9~
Marilyn J. Jensen
City Clerk of the City of Orange
3-