My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 19 - Density Bonus Agreement No. 2025-02 - Santa Ana 9 Townhomes
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2025
>
06/03/2025
>
Item 19 - Density Bonus Agreement No. 2025-02 - Santa Ana 9 Townhomes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2025 5:08:00 PM
Creation date
5/28/2025 4:14:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
19
Date
6/3/2025
Destruction Year
P
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
247
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
VTTM No. 2025-02 and DBA No. 2025-02 — Santa Ana 9 Townhomes <br />(125 and 205 S. Harbor Blvd.) <br />April 28, 2025 <br />Page 9 <br />Table 4: Analysis of the Requested Concession (1) and Waivers (5) <br />Standard <br />Analysis <br />Parking Location <br />(Concession) SP-2, Ch. 3, Table 3-7.Off-Street Parking Standards (pg. 3-11) <br />SP-2 requires that vehicular access to off-street parking should be taken from the <br />primary street unless an alley or side street is available. The project proposes <br />vehicular access from Harbor Boulevard rather than Figueroa Street, which <br />would be considered a side street. <br />Vehicular access is proposed along Harbor Boulevard to address the site's <br />limited frontage on Figueroa Street and enhance overall resident usability. <br />Relocating the primary access point to Harbor Boulevard ensures more <br />Vehicular Access <br />functional, safe, and efficient entry for residents while improving fire protection <br />access. Additionally, a pedestrian connection to Figueroa Street is planned to <br />maintain foot traffic connectivity and accessibility. A redesign could necessitate <br />reconfiguring building layouts, setbacks, and internal circulation pathways, which <br />would result in a reduction in the overall number of market rate and affordable <br />units. A site redesign may also result in a reduction in the overall common and <br />private open space provided, which is already not meeting the required SP-2 <br />standards as discussed in later analysis. <br />Building Frontage <br />(Waiver) SP-2, Ch. 3, Frontyard/Porch Frontage Type, 1 <br />The minimum dimensions for porch type building frontages is 12 feet in width if a <br />symmetrical entry. None of the porches fully meet this requirement as they only <br />provide 4 feet wide symmetrical entries. <br />Providing wider symmetrical entries would require substantial site revisions, <br />Dimension — Width <br />reducing the number of market rate and affordable units and necessitating layout <br />changes due to the site's width, depth, and vehicular circulation requirements. <br />Moreover, modifying porch widths would be infeasible and would require building <br />reconfiguration, disrupting the efficient floor plan, reducing interior space and <br />bedroom counts, and impacting overall project density. <br />Setback <br />(Waiver) SP-2, Ch. 3, Table 3-5. Building Placement <br />The maximum building to adjacent public street right-of-way setback is eight (8) <br />feet. The project proposes an eight and a half (8.5) foot setback along Harbor <br />Boulevard and 22 foot setback along Figueroa Street. <br />Meeting the maximum setback requirement will affect the project's site layout by <br />reducing proposed common and private open space. It will limit the land available <br />for functional outdoor areas such as the private ground floor patios along Harbor <br />Public Street <br />Boulevard and the interior common open space courtyard along Figueroa Street. <br />Modifying these setbacks to meet the eight (8) foot maximum would require <br />significant reconfiguration of the building layout, potentially compromising the <br />functionality of private patios, reducing the common courtyard space, and altering <br />the overall design intent of the project. These larger setbacks have been <br />designed to balance resident privacy and usable open space within the site <br />constraints. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.