HomeMy WebLinkAbout31B - 2106 N. VICTORIA AVE.
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~~~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
JULY 5, 2005
TITLE:
MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2005-03 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2005-11 TO ALLOW SIDE YARD
SETBACK REDUCTION, HEIGHT GREATER THAN
THAT REQUIRED BY THE 2nd DWELLING UNIT
ORDINANCE AND RELIEF FROM THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) PARKING
STANDARDS AND ZONING REQUIREMENT THAT A
DRIVEWAY LEAD DIRECTLY TO A GARAGE ON
2106 NORTH VICTORIA DRIVE - RIVKA AND
ARIE ZUKERMAN, APPL rANTS
t// , //j' /~7
!;/, / //.
-:~t);.t.... ,j J'-< ~
CITY MANAGER
J
./
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file the staff report approving Minor Exception No. 2005-03
and Variance No. 2005-11.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On June 13, 2005, the Planning Commission approved Minor Exception No.
2005-03 and Variance No. 2005-11 by a vote of 6:0 (Leo absent) to allow
deviations to the side yard setback, height requirement and relief from
the parking requirements as required by the Second Dwelling Unit
Ordinance and relief from the single family residential (R1) parking
requirement that a driveway lead directly to a garage at 2106 North
Victoria Drive (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission added that the size
of this property was such that the granting of the variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding
property.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
J~~~~;I>~:~vino
Execu~ive Director
Pl~~rting & Building Agency
HS:rb
historic info\historic counter projects\2106_N_Victoria\meOS-03vaOS-ll,cc
31 B-1
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
~~-- -",
i \
\ 'I
~tai~
,: ~l\Ucatton ISt~
~:.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
JUNE 13, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2005-
03 AND VARIANCE NO. 2005-11 TO ALLOW SIDE
YARD SETBACK REDUCTION, HEIGHT GREATER
THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE 2nd DWELLING
UNIT ORDINANCE AND RELIEF FROM THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) PARKING STANDARDS
AND ZONING REQUIREMENT THAT A DRIVEWAY
LEAD DIRECTLY TO A GARAGE ON 2106 NORTH
VICTORIA DRIVE
Prepared by Hally Soboleske
APPROVED
D As Recommended
D As Amended
D Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
D Applicant's Request
D Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
~/~
Executl e Director
K~ H'cJ.L~~ ~
Planning MWnager r\-
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a resolution approving Minor Exception No. 2005-03.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2005-11.
Zoning Administrator Action
On May 4, 2005, the Zoning Administrator referred this item to the June
13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting due to the proposal's potential
impact on existing city land use policies.
DISCUSSION
Request of Applicant
Ri vka and Arie Zukerman are requesting approval of Minor Exception No.
2005-03 and Variance No. 2005-11 to legalize a second unit at their
property located at 2106 North Victoria Drive. At the Zoning
Administrator meeting held on March 9, 2005, the Zoning Administrator
continued the item to allow the applicants time to alter their proposal to
include a garage to the front (east) elevation of the proposed second
dwelling unit. However, the applicants do not wish to construct a garage
since the limited space between the proposed unit and the primary
residence would create a new nonconformity based upon the required size of
a two-car garage (20' x 20') and turning radius requirements. The project
was continued to May 4, 2005 since the Zoning Administrator public hearing
of April 20, 2005 was cancelled. On May 4, 2005, the Zoning Administrator
referred the item to the June 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting due to
the proposal's potential impact on existing city land use policies.
31BUI!T A
Minor Exception No. 2005-03 and
Variance No. 2005-11
June 13, 2005
Page 2
The applicants' request is still to allow minor exceptions from the Second
Dwelling Unit ordinance (Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-150) and
variance from the Rl [Municipal Code Sections 41-1320 (b) and 41-239 (c)]
requirements to: a) permit a side yard setback smaller than that required;
b) exceed the height requirement of 15 feet; c) provide relief from the Rl
standard enclosed parking requirements; and d) provide relief from the Rl
standard that a driveway must lead to a garage.
Property Description
The General Plan land use designation for this site is Low Density
Residential (LR-7), with a zoning designation of Single-Family Residence
(Rl) and is within the Floral Park neighborhood. The property is located
on the west side of Victoria Drive between Santa Clara Avenue and
Nineteenth Street. The proj ect site is improved with a single- family
house, a gazebo with adjacent swimming pool and a detached garage that was
converted to a second unit without proper permits. The property is
surrounded by single-family residential homes to the north, south, east
and west. The subject site is 18,000 square feet.
Project Description
The current owners purchased this single-family residence with all
improvements in place. Upon submittal of an application for some interior
construction to the main house, it was noted that the existing second unit
was not permitted. The property owners submitted plans to legalize the
second dwelling unit. Building records indicate that the garage was
converted approximately 20 years ago, i. e., sometime after 1980. The
subject structure matches the main house architecturally in a Second
Empire architectural style with mansard type roof (Exhibit 1). The garage
doors have been removed and a sliding door, man-door and windows have been
installed. Interior modifications include a kitchenette, full bath and
laundry area (Exhibit 2)
Analysis of the Issues
Minor Exception A: The second unit is located approximately one foot from
the north property line. Section 41-194 (g) of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code (SAMC) requires five-foot side yard setbacks. Therefore, a minor
exception is required to allow the lesser setback (Exhibit 3). Side yard
setback restrictions are in place to preserve community aesthetics and
maintain building safety standards. The minor exception process provides
31 B-3
Minor Exception No. 2005-03 and
Variance No. 2005-11
June 13, 2005
Page 3
an opportunity for relief from setback requirements based on demonstration
of hardship. In this case, the structure is pre-existing and is able to
meet all building safety/firewall standards.
Minor Exception B: The second unit is 18 feet 10~ inches in height, which
exceeds the allowable 15-foot height limit of SAMC Section 41-194(k)
(Exhibit 4). A minor exception is required to allow the proposed height.
Height restrictions for second units are in place to maintain the second
unit's ancillary status to the primary unit both in size and visual
prominence. This structure is pre-existing and the height is a character
defining feature of the architectural style and mansard style roof. This
design compliments the primary structure's architectural style.
Variance A: The second unit was created by the conversion of the existing
garage. There is no garage currently located onsite. SAMC Section 41-
194(j) requires that the site have one parking space in addition to that
required by SAMC Section 41-1320 for a single-family residential land use.
A single-family residence requires four parking spaces with two spaces
being in an enclosed garage and two spaces in a required driveway. Five
spaces are required at this location to meet all code requirements.
Therefore, a variance is required to allow all parking to be exterior.
A gate is located adjacent to the front fa9ade bisecting the long
driveway. The portion behind the fence, in the side/rear yard, is
approximately 75 feet long thereby allowing at least three vehicles to
park out of public view. Additionally, the existing circular drive in the
front yard setback and the remaining portion of the regular driveway
collectively are long enough (approximately 135 feet) to allow for up to
six more vehicles to easily park on site which would mitigate for the lack
of an enclosed garage (Exhibit 5)
Variance B: SAMC Section 239(c) requires that a residential driveway lead
directly to a required garage. Therefore, a variance is required to allow
the driveway that does meet this requirement. The driveway is existing in
place and serves as parking area for both the main house and the proposed
second unit.
The proposed second unit is an excellent architectural design enhancing
the character of the neighborhood and will not have a negative effect upon
the community. There have been no noted citizen complaints regarding this
existing second unit since its apparent construction. It is recommended
that the strict application of the code not be applied in this instance.
318-4
Minor Exception No. 2005-03 and
Variance No. 2005-11
June 13, 2005
Page 4
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Minor Exception No.
2005-03 and Variance No. 2005-11 (Exhibit 6).
CEQA Compliance
In accordance with the California
project is categorically exempt.
be filed for this project.
Environmental Quality Act, the proposed
Environmental Review No. 2004-181 will
~~
Assistant Planner II
~~
Maya D osa
Senlor Planner
HS:JM
historic info\historic counter projects\2106_N_Victoria\me05-03va05-11 ,pc
318-5
FRONT ELEVATION GUEST HOUSE/GARAGE
FRONT ELEVATION MAIN HOUSE
3~~61
t
~
;
~
r&.
,
ft
.'-0"
t
. .
I I
_J i.
1=..".. I
~_Lat!
1..1VlNe;
!'ININ6
I
)
...... /
....... ./
-... ,.,.,
~-
FLOOR PLAN
3m~Y
94'-11"
~
::i
11'-9"
29'-8"
~(.) Y"IATER LINE
~~
29'-8"
(e) EXTENT OF SUILDINlS Io"\m..
TI6HT EAVES
8
APJACENT NEI6+feOR
SIN6LE FA-MIL. "( DEi" ACHED
ASPHALT SHIN6L.E ROOF
Ld
\
"
c+_
/
,/
.....----/
(e) PLANT BUFFER
(.}POOL.
ADJACENT NEI6H6OR
SIN6LE FAMILY DETAc.HED
.ASPHALT SHINlSoLE ROOF
n,~ "'.W
A519'-'ENG+--6A5
(.......,!lI!l:
PATIO
a=TR"'VTIl-I~
~
SITE PLAN
~
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
~I
ii,
~I
It,
~I
J
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
11171 SEA IITCH LAIE
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CAliFORNIA 12649
TEL 714 1411177
FAX 714 141 2117
ZUKERMAN
RESIDENCE
EXISTING GUESlHOUSE
2106 VICTORIA DR
SANTA ANA, CA
92706
JOB
ISSUE DATE
SUBMIT DATE
PROJECT ARCH. K. OTIS
DRAVN VILLARMIA I DECKARD
CHECKED
SITE PLAN
A-2
I:XHIBIT 3
i t-.-...,....,- . _ .
Q)
Q.
e
a..
I -~
~I .-
Jill I 1--
1111
II! ~
D
I I
I I
l
5
.
i. I
i I
-
E3
~ ~
0
~
Co I
~
~
.. ~
. ..... ~
3~~gI
-~
I ~
-
~
>
W
..J
W
>- -g
w .~ au
"""""Cww
co"""""C
.E E ......., V)
xa.sg
a ~ ._
~\I- w""""
c.. -. .......,.~
c.. LJ') co x
<( r-.... CJ) w
3~~T150
3:
w
-
>
...J
<(
-
a:
w
<(
Minor Exception No. 2005-03 and
Variance No. 2005-11
June 13, 2005
Page 1 of 2
Findings of Fact
A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found
to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at
variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this
chapter.
There are special circumstances applicable to the subject
property where the strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance
is found to deprive the subj ect property of privileges not
otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the
provisions of the zoning code. This proposed second unit is an
existing structure with an architectural style matching that of
the primary residence onsi te. This integration of style is
strongly supported by city design guidelines. Additionally, the
location and height of the structure are pre-existing. This is
a very large lot (18,000 s.f.) has an abundance of open space
and open, paved driveway area behind gates that would keep
vehicles from public view in the same manner as a garage. The
existing primary residence is 4,705 s. f. with ample room for
interior storage of typical household items that may commonly be
stored in a shed or garage. Additionally, there are unique
constraints in the rear yard. These include the location of the
existing structure(s) and swimming pool which preclude the
owners from constructing a garage that would meet the City's
turning radius standards in the front of the existing second
unit allowing a vehicle to maneuver into said garage.
B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.
The denial of this minor exception and variance impacts the
rights of the property owners to develop their property in a
manner encouraged by the State of California, i. e., providing
affordable housing in single-family areas. The owner of this
residence wishes to maintain the structure's architectural style
and compatibility with the primary residence without modifying
the original style intended by the architect.
EXHIBIT 6
318-11
Minor Exception No. 2005-03 and
Variance No. 2005-11
June 13, 2005
Page 2 of 2
C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.
The proj ect will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare because the structure was built at the same time as the
primary residence, and its size will not be altered.
Additionally, this is a very large parcel (18,000 s.f.) with an
existing long driveway and ample space for on-site parking out
of public view so as not to injuriously affect neighboring
properties. No outdoor storage will be required as there is
ample space in the 4,705 s.f. house to allow for interior
storage. Goal 2.7 of the Urban Design Element states that
projects must exhibit a functional, comfortable scale in
relation to the neighborhood. This proposal is in scale with
existing structures in the neighborhood, and will not create
off-site parking impacts.
D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City.
The requested variance and minor exception will not adversely
affect the General Plan, as it has a positive impact on the
goals and policies expressed in that document. Goal 3.5 of
the Urban Design Element Policy Plan encourages residential
alterations that are consistent with the architectural
character of the neighborhood. The proposed second unit is an
existing structure, and is consistent with the architectural
style of this residence and with the architectural quality of
this residential neighborhood.
318-12
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
MINUTES
March 9, 2005
MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2005-03
10:30 A.M.
Kenneth Adams, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing at 11 :25 a.m. in the City Hall
Ross Annex Conference Room 2004.
Also in attendance were: Rivka Zukerman, Applicant, Hally Soboleske, Case Planner, Karen
Haluza, Principal Planner, Blair O'Callaghan, and Martha Ramirez, Recording Secretary.
Hally Soboleske presented the staff report and recommendation for the property at 2106 North
Victoria Avenue. The second unit is located approximately one foot from the north property
line. Section 41-194 (g) of the Santa Ana Municipal code (SAMC) requires five-foot yard
setbacks. Ms. Sobo1eske provided a letter of support from neighbor, Sandy DeAngelis.
Ms. Zukerman stated that the previous owners did not disclose any structure constraints.
Neighbor, Blair O'Callaghan inquired as to when property was bought and who was the real
estate agent. Applicant responded property was bought a year ago with Seven Gables as realtor.
Mr. O'Callaghan asked as to how was the one-hour condition on encroachment met. Staff
provided information. He inquired about the conversion of the existing garage allowance. Mr.
O'Callaghan stated that a 19,000 square foot lot should require a garage.
Zoning Administrator asked the applicant as to what the Building Department's recommendation
was regarding that the roof met the one-hour property line separation requirement. Applicant
stated that she did not know. Discussion ensued regarding the fundamental standard not being
met that required a garage with the potential to store a vehicle, Zoning Administrator stated he
could not approve converting a garage as a residential unit.
Zoning Administrator stated that other development alternatives would be reviewed. Mr. Adams
indicated he would consider an alternative arrangement on the garage.
Zoning Administrator motioned to continue the public hearing indefinitely to allow applicant to
resolve storage of vehicle. Applicant was informed to present a revised site plan, conceptual
plan, and identify exceptions,
318-13
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
SUMMARY MINUTES
May 4, 2005
MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2005-03
10:34 A.M.
Mr. Kenneth Adams, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing in the City Hall
Ross Annex Conference Room 2001.
Also in attendance were: Hally Soboleske, Assistant Planner II; and Rosa Barela,
Recording Secretary.
Zoning Administrator re-opened the public hearing and determined that in the interest
of this case merited being forwarded to the Planning Commission for a determination.
Mr. Adams noted while there are substantial issues related to the city's attempt to
meet the state goals of increasing housing opportunities through the Second Unit
Ordinance, there are also potential land use conflicts with current city policies
regarding the conversion of garages. He further noted this is an issue that should
mandate debate at the Planning Commission level to determine which of the cities
land use policies should be dominant. The Zoning Administrator will follow the
precedent established by this case as policy direction of the Planning Commission
when evaluating requests of garage conversions.
The Zoning Administrator then forwarded Minor Exception No. 2005-03 to the next
Planning Commission at no expense to the applicant.
The hearing closed at 10:40 a.m.
0js/J1C /:J1\//U//~/
Rosa Barela
Recording Secretary
31 8-14
KO -6/20/05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING MINOR
EXCEPTION NO. 2005-03 TO ALLOW DEVIATIONS TO
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, HEIGHT REQUIREMENT
AND THE PARKING AS REQUIRED FOR SECOND
DWELLINGS AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2005-11
TO ELIMINATE THE ENCLOSED PARKING
REQUIREMENT AND PERMIT A DRIVEWAY THAT DOES
NOT LEAD TO A GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2106 NORTH VICTORIA AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds,
determines and declares as follows:
A. The applicant is requesting approval of Minor Exception No. 2005-03 from
the Second Dwelling Unit ordinance (Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-
150) to allow a side yard setback smaller than that required and to exceed
the height requirement of 15 feet. Applicant is also seeking Variance No.
2005-11 to provide relief from the R1 [Municipal Code Sections 41-1320(b)
and 41-239(c)] requirements, specifically to provide relief from the R1
standard enclosed parking requirements; and to provide relief from the R1
standard that a driveway must lead to a garage.
B. The Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed public hearing on March 9,
2005. At this hearing, the Zoning Administrator continued the item to allow
the applicants time to alter their proposal to include a garage to the front
(east) elevation of the proposed second dwelling unit. Applicants did not
wish to pursue a modification of their application.
C. On May 4, 2005, the Zoning Administrator held the continued public hearing.
At this hearing, the Zoning Administrator referred this item to the June 13,
2005 Planning Commission meeting due to the proposal's potential impact
on existing city land use policies (pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code
Section 41-641 ).
D. On June 13, 2005, the Planning Commission held the public hearing on
Minor Exception No. 2005-03 and Variance No. 2005-11 for the property
located at 2106 North Victoria Avenue.
E. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning
Commission to grant minor exceptions and variances upon making certain
findings. The Planning Commission determines that the findings
318-15
Resolution No. 2005-16
Page 1 of 4
necessary to grant the minor exception and variance have been
established:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found
to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at
variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this
chapter.
There are special circumstances applicable to the subject
property where the strict interpretation of the zoning
ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of
privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and
purpose of the provisions of the zoning code. This proposed
second unit is an existing structure with an architectural style
matching that of the primary residence onsite. This
integration of style is strongly supported by city design
guidelines. Additionally, the location and height of the
structure are pre-existing. This is a very large lot (18,000
s.f.) has an abundance of open space and open, paved
driveway area behind gates that would keep vehicles from
public view in the same manner as a garage. The existing
primary residence is 4,705 s.f. with ample room for interior
storage of typical household items that may commonly be
stored in a shed or garage. Additionally, there are unique
constraints in the rear yard. These include the location of
the existing structure(s) and swimming pool which preclude
the owners from constructing a garage that would meet the
City's turning radius standards in the front of the existing
second unit allowing a vehicle to maneuver into said garage.
2. That the granting of a minor exception and variance is necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial
property rights.
This minor exception and variance impacts the rights of the
property owners to develop their property in a manner
encouraged by the State of California, Le., providing
affordable housing in single-family areas. The owner of this
residence wishes to maintain the structure's architectural
style and compatibility with the primary residence without
modifying the original style intended by the architect.
3. That the granting of a minor exception and variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
surrounding property.
The project will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare because the structure was built at the same time as
318-16
Resolution No. 2005-16
Page 2 of 4
the primary residence, and its size will not be altered.
Additionally, this is a very large parcel (18,000 s.f.) with an
existing long driveway and ample space for on-site parking
out of public view so as not to injuriously affect neighboring
properties. No outdoor storage will be required as there is
ample space in the 4,705 s.f. house to allow for interior
storage. Goal 2.7 of the Urban Design Element states that
projects must exhibit a functional, comfortable scale in
relation to the neighborhood. This proposal is in scale with
existing structures in the neighborhood, and will not create
off-site parking impacts.
4. That the granting of a minor exception and variance will not
adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
The requested variance and minor exception will not
adversely affect the General Plan, as it has a positive impact
on the goals and policies expressed in that document. Goal
3.5 of the Urban Design Element Policy Plan encourages
residential alterations that are consistent with the
architectural character of the neighborhood. The proposed
second unit is an existing structure, and is consistent with
the architectural style of this residence and with the
architectural quality of this residential neighborhood.
F. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed
project is categorically exempt. Environmental Review No. 2004-181 will be
filed for this project.
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after
conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Minor Exception No. 2005-03 and
Variance No. 2005-11. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the
abovesaid hearing, which includes, but not is not limited to: the Request for Planning
Commission Action dated June 13, 2005 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public
testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference
ADOPTED this 13TH day of June, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Cribb, De La Torre, Gartner, Lutz, Mondo, Nalle (6)
NOES: Commissioners: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioners: Leo (1)
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0)
318-17
Resolution No. 2005-16
Page 3 of 4
Glenn Mondo
Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Kylee O. Otto
Assistant City Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and
certify the attached Resolution No. 2005-16 to be the original resolution adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on June 13, 2005.
Date:
Clerk of the Planning Commission
City of Santa Ana
318-18
Resolution No. 2005-16
Page 4 of 4