RES-10189 Denying Conditional Use Permit 424 S. Grand St.RESOLUTION NO. 10189
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE UPHOLDING APPEAL NO.
0515-07 AND DENYING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 4080-06 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1767-06 WHICH WOULD
HAVE ALLOWED THE DEMOLITION OF A
380 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY DETACHED
STRUCTURE WITH A THREE-CAR
GARAGE AND ACCESSORY SECOND HOUSING UNIT LOCATED
AT
424 SOUTH GRAND
STREET.Appeal No. 0515-
07 Conditional Use
Permit 4080-06 Negative
Declaration 1767-06 Applicant: Mark
D.
Drenner Appellant: Old Towne Preservation Association RECITALS:WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, the City Council of
the City of Orange held a public hearing to consider Appeal No. 0515-07, an
appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2580-
06, Design Review Committee No.
4080-06 and adoption of Negative Declaration No. 1767-06; and WHEREAS, the
Planning Commission's approval would allow the demolition of a 380 square foot single-story
detached garage to be replaced by a 1,327 square foot,
two-story,detached accessory secondary housing unit and three-car garage (the
Project); and WHEREAS,
Appeal No. 0515-07 was timely filed by the Old Town Preservation Association (OTPA);
and WHEREAS, OTPA's appeal was based on a number of contentions including, but not limited to: (
I) the bulk and mass of the Project was not fully addressed; (2)
the Planning Commission was not provided the adequate background information; (3) floor
area ratios were not calculated appropriately; (4) City staff did not have sufficient
historic
background experience; and (5) the assessment of whether the garage structure was contributing was
inconclusive.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange
that based upon the substantial evidence contained in the record that Appeal No. 0515-07 shall
A. Background
The Project site is located at 424 South Grand Street. The development on the property
currently consists of a 1,836 square foot home and a detached 380 square foot garage. The
original one-story front portion of the two-story residence was constructed in 1906
and is characteristic of the Hip Roof Cottage architecture. A two-story addition
was constructed in 1985. The original 1906 portion of the home is considered an historic
contributing structure to the City's Old Towne Historic District (Historic District) and is an
historical resource. The Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997
and is roughly one square mile. According to the State Historical Resource Surveys it is
the second largest concentration of historic structures in the State and the largest in Orange County. As
set forth in the Orange Municipal Code (OMe) the Historic District is one of the few
remaining examples in the region, state or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of
an architectural or historical type and it embodies elements of architectural design, detail
or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural
achievement or innovation.The Historic District exemplifies special elements of the City's
cultural, social, economic and architectural history. At the center of the Historic District is the
Orange Plaza, which features a traffic circle, which in turns circles around Plaza Park and is one of the most,
if not the most, historic defining features in all of Orange County. The Project
is located approximately five blocks from the Orange Plaza and is bordered and surrounded
by historic contributing structures that dominate the existing visual character
of the area.In 2000 the City Council commissioned a study of the 300 and 400
blocks of South Grand Street (hereafter, Grand Street Study) in which the Project is located.
The Grand Street Study was commissioned in response to a petition by residents of the area soon
after the City Council approved a controversial duplex unit located at 475 South Grand Street, just
a few doors away from the Project. Other concerns expressed by the residents of the
300-400 blocks of South Grand Street included congestion, lack of parking, traffic, safety
of children, decrease in overall quality of life, and the deterioration of the historical
significance of the contributing historic homes and the blocks in general to the Historic District caused
by a proliferation of duplex dwellings on the blocks. The residents felt their
neighborhood was already over-developed and that its character as a single-family neighborhood
had been eroded, with a resulting decrease in quality of life. These same concerns were
expressed by OTPA
and others in the community.Over a period of several years the Planning
Commission held five different community workshops and on February 2, 2004, made a recommendation to
the City Council to reclassify both blocks from R-2-6 (residential/duplex, two units
per 6,000 square feet) to R-I-6 residential/single-family, one unit per
6000 square feet). In June of 2004 the City Council instructed planning staff to
go forward with the reclassification proceedings. In October of 2004 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
23-04 that re-zoned the 300 and 400 blocks of South Grand Street from
R-2-6 to R-I-6 (the 2004 Re-Zone). In adopting
Ordinance
development intensity of the area and protect its historic character and thereby is related to the
public health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council also requested that an
amendment be made to the Old Towne Design Standards (Design Standards) to incorporate the
recommendations of the Grand Street Study, but to date that has not been done as the current
plan is to bring forward the recommendations along with the General Plan update later this year.
Negative Declaration 1733-04 was prepared to study the environmental impacts of
the 2004 Re-Zone. Among the findings contained therein it is stated that: (I) the 2004
Re-Zone will function to protect the defining physical characteristics of the affected
historical structures and deter inappropriate bulk and mass when used in conjunction with the City of
Orange Old
Towne Design Standards.It is worth noting that the duplex development at 475 South Grand Street
that served as the catalyst to the 2000 neighborhood activism, the Grand Street Study and
ultimately the 2004 Re-Zone, had a floor area ratio (FAR) of .466, while the proposed Project
is actually a more intense development with
a FAR of .5.The Project is subject to design review and is required to
comply with the Design Standards, development standards and the California Environmental
Quality Act. The Design Standards apply to all development within the residential quadrants of
the Historic District and where conflicts arise, they supercede base zoning requirements such
as setback distances, height limitations and FAR. The base zoning is merely the first and easiest
hurdle to navigate and applies to all properties under such zoning Citywide. The Design
Standards
overlay the base zonmg.Under the Design Standards the design of new development
must be complementary to other residences on the block and shall be consistent with massing, scale,
shape, bulk and shall not destroy historic features that characterize the property. A stated goal of
the General Plan's Historic Element is to provide incentives to achieve
long-term preservation of historic neighborhoods and to encourage development compatible with
the existing character of the Historic District and which will
discourage introduction of incompatible features.The Project requires a conditional use permit (CUP),
which is a discretionary entitlement.Pursuant to OMC Section 17.10.030 in order to grant a CUP the
City Council must make the following findings: (I) that it is granted upon sound principles of land
use and in response to services required by the community; (2) that it will not cause
deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems to the area which it is located; (3)
it should be considered in relationship to its effect on the community and neighborhood plans for
the area; and (4) should be subject to conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare,
not the
individual welfare of the applicant.B. The Findings Necessarv for
a CUP cannot be made.The Project will cause a deterioration of neighboring land
uses, will not preserve the general welfare and is not based on
sound
There was substantial, if not overwhelming evidence presented in the record that as early
as 2000 that the 300-400 blocks of South Grand Street had been overly impacted and
overly developed, that the situation had not changed and that the Project would worsen what is
an already problematic situation. The OMC requires a CUP for the very reason, as noted in
the Grand Street Study, that within the historic neighborhoods a two-story development
has the potential of negatively impacting adjoining properties and needs to be considered on
a case-by-case basis. Contributing historic homes in the Historic District are typically single-
story or a 1-1/2 Craftsman residence. The Project already has a two-story
primary residence that makes it look bulky and massive from a streetscape perspective in
relationship to the characteristics of most contributing historic residential structures. Adding
a second two-story secondary
structure would only exacerbate the non-conformity.The Applicant produced little evidence to
rebut the finding that the neighborhood is currently overly impacted and overly developed.
Rather than attempt to distinguish the Project from past duplex projects in the neighborhood which gave
rise the to current problems in the neighborhood and which led to the Grand Street
Study and the 2004 Re-Zone, the Applicant admitted that the Project was more of the
same, stating, "We're not requesting anything different than what others already have." What others
already have is precisely what the 2004 Re-Zone,the Grand Street
Study and almost decade-old neighborhood concerns concluded detracted from the single-
family characteristics and historical significance of the neighborhood. In adopting the 2004 Re-Zone,
the then sitting City Council found that the neighborhood
would be negatively impacted by development that was more of
the same.C. The Proiect
is not Consistent with the Design Standards.I. Massing. Proportions and Bulk.Under the
Design Standards, the design of a new residence must be complementary to other residences on
the block and infill construction is required to be consistent with massing,scale, shape
and proportions. And further, additions shall be compatible with
the street pattern between buildings, their open space, height, mass and bulk.As noted
above, the FAR (relationship between building area and lot size) sets the ceiling, not the floor, on
development on the property and is the beginning, not the end, of
reviewing compliance with massing and proportions. Complying with FAR standards does not equate to
compliance with the Design Standards. Evidence was submitted that dormers had been added to the primary
residence, that a two-story addition had been constructed in 1985 and that porches had
been enclosed. The Proj ect proposed porches and outside staircases attached to the secondary
accessory unit and a three-car garage. Because of the modifications made to the
primary residence, the mass and bulk ofthe primary residence already detracted from the historic
streetscape perspective and was out of scale to other primary residences in the neighborhood.The proposed Project would
simply add to this mass and tip the scales further out of balance. In addition, much
of the floor area of these structures (porches, staircases, dormers) are not used in
calculating the FAR, even though the structures certainly contribute to the mass, bulk
and footprint of the Project development from a streetscape perspective and under Design Standards criteria and
if
Questions concerning the dormers added to the primary residence and whether they constituted
livable space and should have been included in the FAR calculation, were not completely
answered.
Evidence was introduced that the typical residential garage in the Historic District was a
two-car garage measuring 20 feet by 20 feet or 400 square feet, although other
evidence submitted suggested that a majority of the historic garages within the Historic District are
one-car garages. The garages add to the integrity of contributing residential development.
The Grand Street Study recommended exempting residential construction in the Historic
District from the OMC's requirement for a two-car garage so that the one-car garages
could continue to contribute to the integrity of the historical residences. In any event, whether the
typical garage is one-car or two-car, the Project site currently has a one-
car garage and apparently has since between 1938 and 1947. The Project's garage is not
consistent with residential garages in the Historic District, in that it proposes the demolition of the one-
car garage and replacing it with a three-car garage consisting of approximately 700
square feet. A three-car garage of this size does not add, but rather detracts from
the historical significance of the property. The Project also proposed to eliminate the long driveway leading
to the garage and take entry from the alley.This modification also appears inconsistent with the
Project site at
least dating back to the time period between 1938-1947.The Design
Standards state that "all new two-story residential construction shall be designed to minimize the impact on
the privacy of adjacent properties.. .and shall limit the use of side access stairways/
doors, patios/balconies... " The Project featured both a side stairway and door access and two
upstairs
balconies in direct contradiction to the
mandate of the Design Standards.2. Open Space. Rhvthm and Pattern The
Design Standards require new construction to be complementary to other residences on the block in terms of open
space, rhythm and pattern and to be compatible with the street pattern in terms of
open space. The comments noted above concerning bulk and mass are incorporated herein. In addition,
the Project proposes only a IO-foot open space between the two
two-story structures, which is slightly greater than the six-foot requirement. The secondary accessory unit would
be visible from the street as it extends beyond the primary residence on the south
by approximately II feet. The small distance between the two two-story structures on the narrow (
50-feet wide x 125.5 feet deep) lot would make the two structures
indistinguishable as two separate structures from a streetscape perspective. Because the second accessory unit is II feet
closer to the south side setback, the appearance of open space on
the property from a streetscape perspective is significantly reduced. The Project plans show that the
secondary accessory unit would clearly be visible from the street and that the second
accessory unit overshadows and looms over, at least in part, the primary residence.
Ultimately from a streetscape perspective, the Project would not look much different
from
D. The Project is not Consistent With the City's General Plan
One goal in the Historic Element of the General Plan is to provide incentives to achieve
long-term preservation of historic neighborhoods and to encourage development compatible
with the existing character of the Historic District and which will discourage incompatible
features.In sum, the goal is to provide financial incentives when it will assist in achieving preservation
of historic
neighborhoods.The City Council continues to encourage construction of secondary accessory units in
the Historic District if it will assist in achieving this General Plan goal. However, projects
that create adverse impacts on contributing historic property and in the Historic District
are discouraged. For the reasons noted above, this Project has negative adverse impacts and
thus,while it may add additional housing stock, it does not do it in a manner that is consistent with
the City's General
Plan.E. The Project has the Potential to Create a Significant Adverse
Impact.Substantial, if not overwhelming evidence was introduced that this neighborhood
has suffered negative impacts from the development that currently exists in the
neighborhood-developme(1t which even the Applicant tacitly admitted, is not unlike the Project being
proposed.Given this, the Project can only exacerbate an existing adverse neighborhood condition.
In addition, the Project proposes development that would only further deteriorate the
significance of the contributing historic primary residence for the reasons noted above, as well as
the neighborhood in general. There was insufficient evidence submitted that could the lead the
City Council to conclude that the Project would enhance, rather than detract, from the
historic significance of the Project site and the Historic District in general. As such, the City
Council cannot make the finding required by Negative Declaration 1767-06 that the Project
could not have a significant effect on
the environment.
F. Conclusion.The findings required of a CUP cannot be made. The Applicant needs to
provide an analysis that the City Council can follow that shows a relationship between the Project'
s features and the findings necessary for a CUP. Questions left largely not addressed include
how the Project promoted the general welfare and why it wouldn't cause further deterioration
to the neighborhood in terms of mass, bulk, traffic and parking. Based on the evidence
submitted, this Project seems to tailored specifically to the welfare of the individual Applicant and
not the general welfare of the community, attested to by the documentary evidence,
the overwhelming negative response to the Project from the public (10 members of the public spoke
against the Project and none in favor) and the Applicant's own statement that it was not
asking anything more than what others already had. While arguments could possibly have been
made and evidence could possibly have been submitted to support CUP findings, the
administrative record appears to be significantly lacking in that regard, especially when put up against
the evidence submitted that the general welfare was
not
The City Council is not convinced, however, as are at least some members of the
testifying public, that a second accessory unit on the subject property would in all cases be
incompatible with the Design Standards and/or not meet the requirements of a CUP. However,
based on the administrative record this particular Project is incompatible and does not meet the
criteria to issue a CUP.
For the foregoing reasons, Appeal No. 0515-07 is upheld and the Project is
denied without prejudice, meaning the Applicant may come back to the City with a modified
secondary accessory unit plan that addresses the concerns of the City Council. If the
Community Development Director believes, within her reasonable discretion, that the Applicant has made
a good faith effort to modify the Project to address the City Council's concerns, the
Applicant need not wait six months to submit an application and shall be exempt from paying
application and plan check
fees.Adopted the 22nd day of May,
2007.
ATTEST: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 nnd day of May, 2007,
by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS: Smith, Murphy, Cavecche, Dumitru,
Bilodeau COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None City Clerk,
Orange