Item 34 - Public Hearing - Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Construction of a 23’-4” Tall Accessory Building (2221 N Heliotrope Drive)

Home Browse Search

pavilion to be so large and on apparent stilts, I would encourage this information to be included in the record. Until then, the Planning Commission should remand this matter to the Planning Department for additional accurate supporting evidence on whether the intended use of the pavilion is accurately described and will in fact "preserve the community('s) character". I am not necessarily requesting that the CUP be denied when complete and accurate evidence is finally presented for consideration. Rather I am asking that before making the decision the Planning Commission insist that there be present in the record sufficient evidence to make a valid finding and assessment on the frequent use of the large pavilion for such events. Then the Commission can accurately predict the impact of this change on "preserv(ing) the community character." Consider the possible recurring substantial influx of visitors to our neighborhood, and the resulting additional noise, traffic and use of on -street parking. Please factor in the impact of these matters on the surrounding neighborhood homes as required by the code. Due to the inadequacy in the Planning Department's current findings to justify the proposed size, height, and use of the pavilion, I object to the Planning Department's granting of the CUP until you have determined the actual facts of this application. Please examine more carefully any impact on the neighborhood this actual use will have on"preserv(ing) the community character." Let the neighborhood know in advance what you learn. In conclusion, I think the present record is critically insufficient, and it is therefore, premature, for the Planning Commission, to grant a conditional use permit (CUP) according to the compliance standards of SAMC Section 41-638. As I have outlined, there is presently just not enough accurate information in the findings or enclosures to determine that the proposed use of the outsize pavilion "will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community; that the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; that the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; that the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use;" and that "the proposed use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use." Finally, I believe that the Planning Department has exceeded its authority and that the matter must be referred to the Historic Resources Commission pursuant to the Mills Act. I am writing to you as an individual neighbor in Floral Park and resident of the City of Santa Ana, and not as a member or representative of any particular group or organization. Respectfully Submitted, Mrs. Ellen Koldewey North Heliotrope Drive Santa Ana CA 92706