The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About31B - 2000 BLKS W. ALDER & W. LA VERNE AVE. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~-~ ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 TITLE: VARIANCE NOS. 2005-13, 2005-17 THROUGH 2005-21, 2005-26 THROUGH 2005-47, 2005-49 THROUGH 2005-52 AND 2005-57 THROUGH 2005- 60 TO ALLOW A SECOND DRIVEWAY AND WIDER DRIVEWAYS AT VARIOUS PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 2000 BLOCK OF ELDER AND LA VERNE AVENUES AND TO ALLOW A WIDER DRIVEWAY AND CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AT 2425 WEST ELDER AVENUE (NOTE CITY AS APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF PRO~(j ~~ , A ~~a<-.. CITY MANAGER ---- RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the staff report: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Ordinance on 151 Reading o Ordinance on 2nd Reading o Implementing Resolution o Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Denying Variance No. 2005-13(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-13(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2305 West Elder Avenue. 2. Denying Variance No. 2005-17(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-17(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2225 West Elder Avenue. 3. Denying Variance No. 2005-18(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-18(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2229 West Elder Avenue. 4. Denying Variance No. 2005-19(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-19(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2301 West Elder Avenue. 5. Denying Variance No. 2005-20(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-20(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2302 West Elder Avenue. 318-1 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 September 6, 2005 Page 2 6. Denying Variance No. 2005-21(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-21(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2306 West Elder Avenue. 7. Denying Variance No. 2005-26(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-26(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2202 West La Verne Avenue. 8. Denying Variance No. 2005-27(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-27(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2205 West La Verne Avenue. 9. Denying Variance No. 2005-28(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-28(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2217 West La Verne Avenue. 10. Denying Variance No. 2005-29(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-29(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2218 West La Verne Avenue. 11. Denying Variance No. 2005-30(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-30(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2221 West La Verne Avenue. 12. Denying Variance No. 2005-31(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-31(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2225 West La Verne Avenue. 13. Denying Variance No. 2005-32(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-32(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2229 West La Verne Avenue. 318-2 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 September 6, 2005 Page 3 14. Denying Variance No. 2005-33(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-33(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2301 West La Verne Avenue. 15. Denying Variance No. 2005-34(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-34(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2302 West La Verne Avenue. 16. Denying Variance No. 2005-35(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-35(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2305 West La Verne Avenue. 17. Denying Variance No. 2005-36(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-36(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2306 West La Verne Avenue. 18. Denying Variance No. 2005-37(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-37(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2322 West La Verne Avenue. 19. Denying Variance No. 2005-38(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-38(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2325 West La Verne Avenue. 20. Denying Variance No. 2005-39(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-39(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2405 West La Verne Avenue. 21. Denying Variance No. 2005-40(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-40(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2406 West La Verne Avenue. 318-3 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 September 6, 2005 Page 4 22. Denying Variance No. 2005-41(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-41(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2413 West La Verne Avenue. 23. Denying Variance No. 2005-42(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-42(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2414 West La Verne Avenue. 24. Denying Variance No. 2005-43(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-43(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2417 West La Verne Avenue. 25. Denying Variance No. 2005-44(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-44(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2421 West La Verne Avenue. 26. Denying Variance No. 2005-45(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-45(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2422 West La Verne Avenue. 27. Denying Variance No. 2005-46(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-46(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2425 West La Verne Avenue. 28. Denying Variance No. 2005-47(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-47(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2429 West La Verne Avenue. 29. Denying Variance No. 2005-49(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-49(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2313 West Elder Avenue. 318-4 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 September 6, 2005 Page 5 30. Denying Variance No. 2005-50 (a) to allow a circular driveway and approving Variance No. 2005-50(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2425 West Elder Avenue. 31. Denying Variance No. 2005-51(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-51(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2426 West Elder Avenue. 32. Denying Variance No. 2005-52(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-52(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2430 West Elder Avenue. 33. Denying Variance No. 2005-57(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-57(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2202 West Elder Avenue. 34. Denying Variance No. 2005-58(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-58(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2221 West Elder Avenue. 35. Denying Variance No. 2005-59(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-59(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2326 West Elder Avenue. 36. Denying Variance No. 2005-60(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-60(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2329 West Elder Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On August 22, 2005, the Planning Commission denied the variance request for driveways not leading to a garage ( second driveway), approved the variance request for driveways exceeding the width of the garage (wider driveways), and denied the variance request for a circular driveway at 318-5 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 September 6, 2005 Page 6 2425 West Elder Avenue by a vote of 5:2 (Leo and Nalle opposed). The variance to allow driveways to exceed the width of the garage was approved with the condition that the width of the primary driveway not exceed 20 feet. A typical four foot walkway would be permitted in addition to the 20 foot maximum driveway width. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission determined that allowing second driveways would actually remove on-street parking where these additional driveway cuts would occur and set a bad precedence if allowed in single family neighborhoods. The Commission also determined that under the circumstances of this particular case, allowing driveways up to 20 feet wide would sufficiently increase on-site parking, thus compensating for the fact that these properties were built with a one car garage under County design standards. The Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) . FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. . Trevino e utive Director PI nning & Building Agency BA:rb ba\reports200S\va La Verne driveway cc 9 6 05 318-6 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action /~~fIfi:\ r!.~ 1.!~ ~~~~) ,: t\,-,callOn 1...., /,~'~" ~((!', Y ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 22, 2005 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NOS. 2005-13, 2005-17 THROUGH 2005-21, 2005-26 THROUGH 2005-47, 2005-49 THROUGH 2005-52 AND 2005-57 THROUGH 2005-60 TO ALLOW A SECOND DRIVEWAY AND WIDER DRIVEWAYS AT VARIOUS PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 2000 BLOCK OF ELDER AND LA VERNE AVENUES AND TO ALLOW A WIDER DRIVEWAY AND CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AT 2425 WEST ELDER AVENUE (NOTE CITY AS APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS) Prepared by Bill Apple PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Set Public Hearing For DENIED o Applicant's Request o Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO ~ ~ .--/'~ RECWME::::V::~I:~ 4~ ~.~-uL Planni 9 Ma ger Adopt the following resolutions: 1. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway Elder Avenue. 2. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway Elder Avenue. 3. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway Elder Avenue. 4. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway Elder Avenue. 5. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway Elder Avenue. No. 2005-13 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-13(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2305 West No. 2005-17 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-17(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2225 West No. 2005-18 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-18(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2229 West No. 2005-19 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-19(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2301 West No. 2005-20 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-20(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2302 West EXHIBIT A 31 B-7 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 2 6. Denying Variance No. 2005-21 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-21(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2306 West Elder Avenue. 7. Denying Variance No. 2005-26(a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-26(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2202 West La Verne Avenue. 8. Denying Variance No. 2005-27 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-27(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2205 West La Verne Avenue. 9. Denying Variance No. 2005-28 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-28(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2217 West La Verne Avenue. 10. Denying Variance No. 2005-29 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-29(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2218 West La Verne Avenue. 11. Denying Variance No. 2005-30 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-30(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2221 West La Verne Avenue. 12. Denying Variance No. 2005-31 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-31(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2225 West La Verne Avenue. 13. Denying Variance No. 2005-32 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-32(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2229 West La Verne Avenue. 31 B-8 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 3 14. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 15. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 16. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 17. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 18. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 19. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 20. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 21. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. No. 2005-33 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-33(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2301 West No. 2005-34 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-34(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2302 West No. 2005-35 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-35(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2305 West No. 2005-36 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-36(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2306 West No. 2005-37 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-37(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2322 West No. 2005-38 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-38(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2325 West No. 2005-39(a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-39(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2405 West No. 2005-40 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-40(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2406 West 31 B-9 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 4 22. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 23. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 24. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 25. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 26. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 27. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 28. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway La Verne Avenue. 29. Denying Variance does not lead to allow a driveway Elder Avenue. No. 2005-41 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-41(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2413 West No. 2005-42 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-42(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2414 West No. 2005-43 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-43(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2417 West No. 2005-44 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-44(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2421 West No. 2005-45 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-45(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2422 West No. 2005-46 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-46(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2425 West No. 2005-47 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-47(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2429 West No. 2005-49 (a) to allow a second driveway that a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-49(b) to that exceeds the width of the garage at 2313 West 31 B-1 0 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 5 30. Denying Variance No. 2005-50 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-50(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2425 West Elder Avenue. 31. Denying Variance No. 2005-51 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-51(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2426 West Elder Avenue. 32. Denying Variance No. 2005-52 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-52(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2430 West Elder Avenue. 33. Denying Variance No. 2005-57 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-57(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2202 West Elder Avenue. 34. Denying Variance No. 2005-58 (a) to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and approving Variance No. 2005-58(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage at 2221 West Elder Avenue. 35. Denying Variance No. 2005-59 does not lead to a garage and allow a driveway that exceeds Elder Avenue. (a) to allow a second driveway that approving Variance No. 2005-59 (b) to the width of the garage at 2326 West 36. Denying Variance No. 2005-60 does not lead to a garage and allow a driveway that exceeds Elder Avenue. (a) to allow a second driveway that approving Variance No. 2005-60 (b) to the width of the garage at 2329 West DISCUSSION Request of Applicants Fourteen property owners on West Elder Avenue and 22 property owners on West La Verne Avenue are each requesting approval of a variance to allow a second driveway on their property that does not lead to a garage, and 31 B-11 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 6 a second variance to allow the width of the primary driveway to exceed the width of the garage. The property at 2425 West Elder Avenue is requesting a variance to allow a circular driveway and a driveway width wider than the garage. The properties in question are located at 2305, 2225, 2229, 2301, 2302, 2306, 2313, 2425, 2426, 2430, 2202, 2221, 2326 and 2329 West Elder Avenue and 2202, 2205, 2217, 2218, 2221( 2225, 2229, 2301, 2302, 2305, 2306, 2322, 2325, 2405, 2406, 2413, 2414, 2417, 2421, 2422, 2425, and 2429 West La Verne Avenue (Exhibit 1) These requests have been submitted because the City will soon be re-constructing the street, curbs, gutters and sidewalks within this New Horizons neighborhood. This work will replace the existing rolled curb with the standard vertical curb and drive approach. Property Description The properties are located in a residential neighborhood in the 2000 block of West Elder and La Verne Avenues between Sullivan Street on the west and Center Street on the east. The properties are part of the New Horizons Neighborhood and are surrounded by other single-family homes. The neighborhood is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1), with a General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7). Each property has 60 feet of street frontage and a lot size of 7,380 square feet. The two blocks consist of 84 properties. Twenty-one of these properties currently have two driveways and 59 properties currently have driveways that exceed the width of their garage. Staff has researched the permit history of each property and has determined that permits were issued to allow a two car garage and/or carports at 2205, 2314, 2218, 2321 and 2421 West Elder and 2318 and 2430 West La Verne Avenues. The permits issued for the garage and carports had the effect of allowing a second driveway to be constructed to access these structures. Accordingly, the properties at 2205, 2314, 2218, 2321 and 2421 West Elder and 2318 and 2430 West La Verne Avenues are legal nonconforming and do not require a variance for driveway width or for a second driveway on their property. Project Description Beginning several years ago the City was approached by residents of the New Horizons neighborhood to gain assistance in addressing several areas of concern. After extensive public outreach and the participation of an 31 B-12 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 7 inter-departmental team of City staff, the neighborhood representatives concluded that improving the area's streets and storm drain system would begin to address their concerns. As a result of the neighborhood's request, the project was added to the City's Capital Improvement Program. As designed, improvements will include replacing existing rolled curbs with standard curbs and gutters, and constructing new storm drains, pavement, drive approaches and sidewalks. In order to allow for the street and drainage improvements, the existing rolled curb would need to be removed and replaced with standard vertical curbs. Vertical curbs will render the secondary driveways inaccessible. Upon physical inspection of the proj ect area, it was discovered that some homes had two driveways and that many of these driveways did not lead to a garage. In addition, there were driveways that were wider than that allowed by the City's Municipal Code. On May 11, 2005 a letter was sent by the City to all owners whose property would be affected by the proposed street improvement project (Exhibi t 2). The letter indicated that those residents whose property had more than one driveway were not in conformance with the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) and that the only avenue available to them to seek relief from this code section would be the request for a variance. Residents seeking a variance were asked to submit applications. In an effort to ensure that all properties were notified, a second letter was sent to property owners on August 2, 2005. To date, 14 residents on West Elder Avenue and 22 residents on West La Verne Avenue have submitted variance applications to keep the second dri veway approach (Variance "A") and for a wider driveway (Variance "B") . One resident at 2425 West Elder Avenue has submitted a variance application to allow a circular driveway on their property. Analysis of the Issues This proj ect was continued by the Planning Commission at its July 25, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, six residents on Elder Avenue had requested variances for a second driveway and for driveways that exceeded the width of their garage. Since the July 25, 2005 hearing, the City has received an additional 30 variance applications from residents on Elder and La Verne Avenues requesting wider driveways and 31 B-13 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 8 second driveways on their property. The property owner at 2425 West Elder Avenue is requesting a variance to allow a wider driveway and a circular driveway on their property. The 30 new variance applications have been combined with the original six applications so that the Commission may consider all the requests in a timely manner while preventing additional delays to the pending street improvement project. At the July 25, 2005 meeting the Commission asked staff to investigate, how many streets remain in the City with rolled curbs, if a permit parking program could be initiated in the neighborhood, and if the City had experienced similar situations on other street improvement projects. The Public Works Agency indicated that this is an unusual circumstance and that there are few neighborhoods remaining in the City with this condition. With regards to creating a permit parking district within the New Horizons neighborhood ( a representative of the Public Works Agency attended the New Horizon's neighborhood meeting on July 20, 2005. Parking permit programs are most effective when parking intrusion from a project outside the neighborhood begins to impact the parking supply in the area. As the maj ori ty of the cars parked on the street are generated by the residents of the neighborhood, the parking permit program may not be effective in addressing this concern; however, the program could limit the number of parking passes that each house would receive. To date the neighborhood has not approached the City to further explore this option. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-239 (c) requires that driveways in the R-1 zoning district lead to a garage and that driveways not exceed the width of the garage. This code requirement has the effect of limiting the amount of pavement within a front yard setback, resulting in increased landscaping, less pavement and a more aesthetic streetscape for the neighborhood. Houses in this neighborhood were annexed from the County in April 1959 and were constructed with a one car garage and rolled curbs under the design standards of unincorporated Orange County. The rolled curbs and sub-standard flow line caused drainage problems in the area. An unintended consequence of the rolled curbs has also allowed residents to drive onto their property, which has led to second driveways and widened driveway areas (Exhibit 3). The additional pavement areas are used by residents to park their vehicles and in most cases were constructed without appropriate City permits. A major component of the street improvement proj ect will be to replace the rolled curbs with vertical curbs and gutters, which will preclude access to the second driveway. 31 B-14 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 9 Table 1 below provides information for the properties pursuing variances on their property: Table 1 Pavement Width of Current Currently Driveway Address/VA # Garage Second Exceeds Driveway Garage 1 st 2nd Width 2305 West Elder Yes 1 Car Yes Yes 15~ ft. 12~ ft. - VA No. 2005-13 a & b 2225 West Elder Yes 1 Car Yes Yes 17 ft. 9 ft. - VA No. 2005-17 a & b 2229 West Elder Yes 1 Car Yes Yes 18~ ft. 13 ft. - VA No. 2005-18 a & b 2301 West Elder Yes 1 Car Yes Yes 13 ft. 11~ ft. b - VA No. 2005-19 a & 2302 West Elder Yes 1 Car Yes No 12 ft. 8 ft. - VA No. 2005-20 a & b 2306 West Elder Yes - 1 Car Yes Yes 17~ ft. 8~ ft. VA No. 2005-21 a & b 2313 West Elder Yes 1 Car Yes No 10 ft. N/A - VA No. 2005-49 a & b 2425 West Elder Yes 1 Car No No 8 ft. N/A - VA No. 2005-50 a & b 2426 West Elder Yes 1 Car No No 8 ft. N/A b - VA No. 2005-51 a & 2430 West Elder VA No. 2005-52 a & b Yes - 1 Car No No 8 ft. N/A (corner) 2202 West Elder Yes - 2 Car ft. ft. VA No. 2005-57 b converted Yes No 11 11 a & 2221 West Elder Yes 1 Car ft. N/A - No No 8 VA No. 2005-58 a & b 2326 West Elder No ft. N/A VA No. 2005-59 a & b converted No Yes 22 2329 West Elder Yes ft. N/A - 1 Car No Yes 17 VA No. 2005-60 a & b 2202 West La Verne Yes - 2 Car VA No. 2005-26 a & b converted No Yes 27~ ft. N/A (corner) 31 B-15 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 10 Pavement Width of Current Currently Driveway Address/VA # Garage Second Exceeds Driveway Garage 1 st 2nd Width 2205 West La Verne Yes 1 Car No Yes 22 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 27 a & b 2 Car - Rear 2217 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car No No 8 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 28 a & b 2218 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car Yes Yes 16~ ft. 8~ ft. VA No. 2005 29 a & b 2221 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car No Yes 18 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 30 a & b 2225 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car No Yes 19 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 31 a & b 2229 West La Verne rear garage No No 9 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 32 a & b 2301 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car No Yes 18~ ft. N/A VA No. 2005 33 a & b 2302 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car No Yes 19~ ft. N/A VA No. 2005 34 a & b 2305 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car Yes No 8 ft. 6~ ft. VA No. 2005 35 a & b 2306 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car No Yes 17~ ft. N/A VA No. 2005 36 a & b 2322 West La Verne No No Yes 28~ ft. N/A VA No. 2005 37 a & b converted 2325 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car No Yes 20 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 38 a & b 2405 West La Verne No No Yes 18 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 39 a & b converted 2406 West La Verne Yes - 2 Car No Yes 23 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 40 a & b in rear 2413 West La Verne Yes - 1 Car No Yes 18 ft. N/A VA No. 2005 41 a & b 2414 West La Verne No No Yes 16~ ft. N/A VA No. 2005 42 a & b converted 2417 West La Verne No No Yes 16~ ft. N/A VA No. 2005 43 a & b converted 2421 West La Verne No No Yes 14~ ft. N/A VA No. 2005 44 a & b converted 31 B-16 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 11 Pavement Width of Current Currently Driveway Address/VA # Garage Second Exceeds Driveway Garage 1 st 2nd Width 2422 West La Verne Yes 1 Car No Yes 17~ ft. N/A - VA No. 2005-45 a & b 2425 West La Verne Yes 1 Car No Yes 18 ft. N/A - VA No. 2005-46 a & b 2429 West La Verne Rear - 2 b car ft. 13 ft. VA No. 2005-47 a & converted Yes Yes 18 (corner) 25 I-Car Yes 11 Yes 26 - - Totals 6 2-Car - - No - 25 No - 10 9 converted As shown on Table 1, 11 properties have constructed a second driveway in violation of City codes. Twenty-five others do not currently have second driveways on their property; however, the applications submitted to the City are requesting a variance to allow a second driveway on their property (Variance "A"). Table 1 also shows that 26 properties currently have driveway widths that exceed the widths of the garage (Variance "B"). Ten other properties have driveway widths that comply with SAMC standards. These 10 properties are also requesting a variance to allow wider driveways. The table also shows that driveway widths vary from one property to another. The driveway labeled "18t" on the chart is the primary driveway that leads to the original garage. Table 1 only shows the 36 properties that have applied for variances. If all 84 properties in the 2000 block of Elder and La Verne Avenues are evaluated, there are 21 properties with existing second driveways. Seven second driveways have been determined to be legal based upon permits that have been issued by the City. If the remaining 14 driveways were eliminated, this would free up new on-street parking for approximately 8 to 10 vehicles. There is no evidence in the city's permit records that either wider driveways or second driveways were ever legally permitted on the subject properties shown in Table 1. State law requires that specific findings be made in order to approve a variance that waives standards of the City's zoning code. One finding that must be made is that there are special circumstances relating to 31 B-17 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 12 slze, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would prevent these properties from meeting current Municipal Code requirements. The properties in question are large rectangular lots that have room in the rear yard to construct a two car garage. There is 8 to 10 feet between the houses and side property lines that could be used to access a garage, if one was constructed in the rear yard. The construction of a two car garage would provide at least four on-site parking spaces, which would meet City parking requirements for single-family residences. Because the subject properties have the ability to meet Municipal Code parking requirements, there are no special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would warrant a variance from the City's zoning code. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance request for a second driveway on the property. The second issue at odds with the City Code pertains to the width of the primary driveway on the property, which is the driveway leading to the original garage. After substantial further review, staff is recommending that the Commission approve the variance request to allow the width of the primary driveway to exceed the width of the garage. However, staff is also recommending that the Commission limit the width of the primary driveway to 20 feet, which is the standard interior width dimension of a two car garage. A typical four foot walkway would be permitted in addition to this 20 foot driveway width to allow a paved walking surface around parked cars and while also encouraging better landscape maintenance. A wider driveway would be permitted for those properties who have applied for a variance even though some properties do not at present have a wider driveway constructed on their property. The properties on Elder and La Verne Avenues were annexed from the County in April 1959 and were built as two bedroom homes with a one car garage and rolled curbs as part of original construction. Because these properties were built under County jurisdiction with only a one car garage, there is not enough on-site parking to meet current City parking requirements. This reduced on-site parking deprives the subject properties of privileges afforded other single-family homes in the City that were built with two car garages and wider driveways that can park additional vehicles. The variance requested for a wider driveway would allow three to four cars to be parked on site bringing the properties into closer compliance with City parking requirements, which meets the intent of the City's parking code. Allowing 20-foot wide driveways, in keeping with other single-family homes in the City, is necessary for the preservation of the property owners' substantial property rights. 31 B-18 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 13 The final variance request is to allow a wider driveway and a circular driveway for the property located at 2425 West Elder Avenue. The City's design standards state that all single-family residential development shall have only one driveway curb cut except when the property has more than 60 feet of frontage and the front setback is more than 25 feet. In such case, a circular driveway is allowed provided that an adequate turning radius and reasonable front yard setback and landscaping is incorporated. The property in question does not exceed 60 feet of street frontage and does not meet the front yard setback requirement of 25 feet. The purpose of the 25-foot setback requirement is to provide additional front yard landscape area to offset the additional pavement that would occur with a circular driveway. Since findings can not be made to support a circular driveway, staff recommends that the Commission deny the variance request. On August 17, 2005, senior staff from the Planning and Building Agency and the Public Works Agency met with the Board of the New Horizons neighborhood association to discuss this matter. This meeting resulted in a productive discussion that lead to the development of staff's recommendation to allow the widening of the primary driveways. The representatives of the board indicated at the meeting that this solution represented a good middle ground and would address their concerns about providing for adequate off-street parking, as well as facilitating the desired street improvements. Based upon the above analysis and findings (Exhibits 4, 5 and 6) staff is recommending that the Commission approve the variance request for a wider primary driveway, as conditioned (Exhibit 7), deny the variance request for a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and for a circular driveway at 2425 West Elder Avenue. Staff has also prepared two alternative actions for the Commission to consider: ALTERNATIVE 1 Approve the variance request for a second driveway and deny the variance request for driveways exceeding the width of the garage. Should the Commission choose this alternative the variance would allow those owners who have applied to construct a second driveway while denying the variance request for a primary driveway wider than the garage. This would be permitted even though many properties do not at 31 B-19 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 14 present have a second driveway constructed on their property. Residents with driveway widths that exceed the width of the garage would be asked to remove this excess pavement unless it had been previously permitted by the City. Should the Commission choose this alternative, staff would recommend that the entire second driveway be limited to a location within 15 feet of the side property line opposite the primary driveway. Staff recommends that the width of the secondary driveway be limited to 10 feet. ALTERNATIVE 2 Approve the variance request for a primary driveway that exceeds the width of the garage, and approve the variance for a driveway that does not lead to a garage (second driveway) as requested by the applicants. Should the Commission choose this alternative, the variance would allow those owners who have applied to construct a second driveway and to have a driveway that exceeds the width of their garage. This would be permitted even though many properties do not at present have a second driveway or a wider driveway constructed on their property. Applicants who driveway beyond driveways. have constructed a second driveway and widened their the width of their garage would be allowed to keep those Should the Commission choose this al ternati ve, staff would recommend that the entire second driveway be limited to a location within 15 feet of the side property line opposite the primary driveway. Staff would also recommend that the width of the secondary driveway be limited to 10 feet. In addition, since the standard interior dimensions of a two car garage are 20 feet wide by 20 feet, staff would recommend that the width of the primary driveway be 1 imi ted to 20 feet. A typical four foot walkway would be permitted in addition to this 20 foot driveway width to allow a paved walking surface around parked cars and while also encouraging better landscape maintenance. 31 B-20 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 15 CEQA Compliance This proj ect was reviewed in accordance with the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15301. This Class 1 exemption allows the repair and maintenance of existing public or private structures, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of determination. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2005-145 will be filed for this project. ~ '~.J.L Bill Apple Associate Planner BA:JM ba\reports2005\va La Verne driveway,082205,PC 31 B-21 ~~~." t=l;fL Vince Fregoso, AICP Senior Planner I I I' R1U Rl I LE!..J I I lB1...b1 II ~----\ \ I _1'+ "I"'~ 'w:mtST "'IR1 ------\~~l_-_-_)--~ ~ Rl II } ~.J:l 1.1 Rl I~ Rl I Rl ~Du -- g Rl R Rl Rl HIGHLAN T ( Rl ~ WISTEA ~ Rl K T, '$/ I Rl CUBBON ST. @[ 0 R3 R3 ;jE/' Rl m g I o - o Rl HARVARD ST. Rl Al -B C-SM Cl Cl-MD C2 C3 C3-A C4 C5 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM, COMMERCIAlIMUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR GC Ml M2 MO o P PCD PRD COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Rl R2 R3 R4 RE SD SP SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN ~ ~ VA 05-13 NEW HORIZON1S NEIGHBORHOOD ELDER AVENUE/LA VERNE AVENUE DRIVEWAY VARIANCES A rPi' - = 500 FEET l' = 1000 FEET P LAN N N G AND BUILD EXHIBIT 1 31 B-22 N G AGE N C Y MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Lisa Bist COUNCILMEMBERS Claudia C, Alvarez Carlos Bustamante Alberta D, Christy Mike Garcia Jose Solorio 1~l'r1 ~, ~ CITY MANAGER David N, Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E Healy CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY M-36 P.O, Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 May 11, 2005 Ms. Guadalupe R. Soto 2422 W. Elder Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92704 Dear Ms. Soto: Starting in late July 2005, the City will be constructing improvements on Elder Avenue, LaVerne Avenue and Borchard Avenue from Sullivan Street to Center Street and on Center Street from LaVerne Avenue to Edinger Avenue. These improvements include a new storm drain as well as new pavement, drive approaches, sidewalk and curb and gutter. One of the main components of this project is the replacement of the rolled curb on Elder and LaVerne with new curb and gutter. To facilitate the installation of the new curb and gutter, all the drive approaches must be removed. A survey of Elder and LaVerne has found more than one drive approach at multiple addresses. The City's Municipal Code allows for a single drive approach for each residence. The City will only be replacing those drive approaches that meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. Those residents having more than one driveway have the option of pursuing a variance for a second drive approach. If the variance is approved, the resident will be required to pull a permit for the proposed drive approach and will be required to pay all associated fees. Please be aware that variance requests are considered during a public hearing by the Planning Commission who have the sole authority to approve or deny such requests. If you would like to pursue this option, please contact Sergio Klotz at (714) 667-2796 for more information no later than June 1, 2005. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the proposed improvements, please don't hesitate to call me at (714) 647-5664. Sincerely, %~ Jason Gabriel Senior Civil Engineer 3m~Ti3 WILSHIRE I- VA VA VA VA VA VA ~ 05-47 05-46 05-44 05-43 05-41 05-39 a: A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B li; 2429 2425 2421 2417 2413 2405 2401 z UJ 01- Ig~1 AVENUE <( a: IS.., ()C/l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 05-38 05-35 05-33 05-32 05-31 05-30 05-28 05-27 A&B AaB A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B 2329 2325 2321 2317 2313 2305 2301 2229 2225 2221 2217 2213 2205 2201 I- W W a: I- en LA VERNE AVENUE ';j VA VA VA VA ';j VA VA VA VA ... 05-45 05-42 05-40 05-37 ... 05-36 05-34 05.29 05-26 .. .. ... A&B A&B A&B A&B ... A&B A&B AaB A&B .2430 2426 2422 2418 2414 2406 2402 2330 2326 2322 2318 2314 2306 2302 2230 2226 2222 2218 2214 2206 2202 VA ';j VA ';j VA VA VA VA VA VA ';j ... 115-1S 05-11 ... 05-50 ... 05-60 .. 115-49 06-13 05-17 05-58 .. .. .... ... A&B .... A&B AU AaB AaB AaB AIB AIB 2429 2425 2421 2417 2413 2405 2401 2329 2325 2321 2317 2313 2305 2301 2229 2225 2221 2217 2213 2205 2201 ELDER AVENUE z ~ ::::i ..J ::J en VA VA VA ';j VA VA ';j VA 05-52 05-51 05-59 ... 05.21 05-20 ... 05.57 .. .. A&B ... AIB AlB ... AaB A&B A&B 2430 2426 2422 2418 2414 2406 2402 2330 2326 2322 2318 2314 2306 2302 2230 2226 2222 2218 2214 2206 2202 s I ~ G L E F A ~ I L Y R E I D E ~ I A l BORCHARD AVENUE a: w I- ~ r , r I EXISTING SECOND DRIVEWAYS 1m ~ NEW HORIZONS NEIGHBORHOOD ELDER AVENUE I LA VERNE AVENUE DRIVEWAY VARIANCES A GY' P LAN N N G AND B U L D N G AGE N C Y EXHIBIT 3 31 B~f24 WILSHIRE I- VA VA VA VA VA VA ~ 05-47 05-46 05-44 05-43 05-41 05-39 a: AIB AU AIB AlB AIB AIB ~ 2429 2425 2421 2417 2413 2405 z w 01- Ig~1 AVENUE <I: a: l::'il-' UlIl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 05-38 05-35 05-33 05-32 05.31 05-30 05-28 05-27 AIB A&R AU A&R A&B AIB A&R AIB 2401 2329 2325 2321 2317 2313 2305 2301 2229 2225 ,2221 2217 2213 2205 2201 LA VERNE AVENUE ';j VA VA VA VA ';j VA VA VA VA ... 05-45 05-42 05-40 05.37 ... 05-36 05-34 05-29 05-26 .. .. ... AIB AIB AU AIB ... AU AlB AIB AlB 2430 2426 2422 2418 2414 2406 2402 2330 2326 2322 2318 2314 2306 2302 2230 2226 2222 2218 2214 2206 2202 VA ';j VA ii VA VA VA VA VA VA ';j ... 05-!8 ... 05.50 ... 05-60 .. 05-49 05-13 05"19 05-17 05-58 .. '" ... ... AIB ... AU A&R AIB AIB AIB AU A&R 2429 2425 2421 2417 2413 2405 2401 2329 2325 2321 2317 2313 2305 2301 2229 2225 2221 2217 2213 2205 2201 I- W W a: l- (/) ELDER AVENUE z ~ ::::i ..J :J oo VA VA VA ii VA VA ';j VA 05-52 05-51 05-59 ... 05-21 05-20 co 05-57 .. '" AIB ... A&B A&R ... AU A&R AU 2430 2426 2422 2418 2414 2406 2402 2330 2326 2322 2318 2314 2306 2302 2230 2226 2222 2218 2214 2206 2202 s I G L E F A M I L Y R E ( 0 E N J ( A l BORCHARD AVENUE a: w I- ~ I "\ r I EXISTING WIDER DRIVEWAYS 1m ~~~ NEW HORIZONS NEIGHBORHOOD ELDER AVENUE I LA VERNE AVENUE DRIVEWAY VARIANCES A rPI' P LAN N N G AND B U L D N G AGE N C Y 31 B~f25 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 DENY SECOND DRIVEWAY 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 chapteri The property ln question has sufficient lot width to provide access to a two car garage if constructed in the rear yard. The property has 60 feet of street frontage and 7,380 square feet of lot area, which exceeds the minimum R-1 lot standards of 50 feet of frontage and 6,000 square feet of lot size. There is approximately 10 feet between the house and side property lines that could be used to access a garage if constructed in the rear yard. There are no special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would prevent this property from meeting current Municipal Code parking requirements, and therefore a second driveway would not deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights; The applicants are requesting approval of a second driveway on their property so that they can park additional vehicles on their property. The property in question has an existing driveway. Addi tionally, this lot is larger than many properties in the City and has enough property to accommodate the construction of a two car garage in their rear yard, which would eliminate an existing legal nonconforming situation by bringing the property into compliance with City parking standards for single-family residential property. Because this property can meet City parking codes, the granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. EXHIBIT 4 31 B-26 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 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; Limiting the number of driveways on single-family property has the affect of limiting the amount of pavement within a front yard setback, resulting in increased landscaping and a more aesthetic streetscape for the neighborhood. The granting of a variance for a second driveway decreases the amount of landscaping in front of a house and increases the number of cars that are likely to be parked within the front yard setback, which is an area that would otherwise be landscaped. Less landscaping and additional paving would affect property values which would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to surrounding property owners. D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City; The granting of a variance for a second driveway would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The property in question is located within a Single-Family Residential neighborhood which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential for the area. Driveways are ancillary to the primary residential use of the property and would have no affect on the General Plan of the City. 31 B-27 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 APPROVE DRIVEWAY WIDTH 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; The property in question was annexed from the County in April 1959 and was built as a two bedroom home with a one car garage and rolled curbs as part of original construction under County jurisdiction. Because this property was constructed with a one car garage, there is not enough parking to meet City parking requirements which deprives the subj ect property of privileges afforded other single-family homes in the City that were built with two car garages. The variance requested for a wider driveway would allow three to four cars to be parked on site bringing the property into closer compliance with City parking requirements which would meet the intent of the City's parking code. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights; The applicant is requesting approval to widen their driveway beyond the width of their garage so that they can have a safe and secure place to park their private vehicles on their property. City parking standards for a single-family home require four parking spaces with two of those spaces provided in an enclosed garage. Since these properties were constructed with only a one car garage, the wider driveways are needed to provide additional on-site parking in keeping with other single-family homes in the City which is necessary for the preservation of their substantial property rights. 3~1f~258 Variance Nos. 05-13, 05-17 thru 05-21, 05-26 thru 05-47, 05-49 thru 05-52 and 05-57 thru 05-60 August 22, 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; Although increasing the width of the driveway beyond the width of the garage would increase the amount of pavement within the front yard setback, this property has 60 feet of street frontage which allows this increase in pavement to be offset by additional front yard landscaping. This additional landscaping would compensate for any increase in pavement and would therefore not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property owners. D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City; The granting of a variance for wider driveways would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The property in question lS located within a Single-Family Residential neighborhood which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential for the area. Driveways are ancillary to the primary residential use of the property and would have no affect on the General Plan of the City. 31 B-29 Variance No. 2005-50 August 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 DENY CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY 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; The property in question has sufficient lot size, width and depth to accommodate a two car garage in the rear yard which would allow additional vehicles to be parked on-site and meet Ci ty Municipal Code requirements for parking. There are no special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would prevent these properties from meeting current Municipal Code parking requirements wi thout the need of a circular driveway that does not comply with City code standards. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights; The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a circular driveway so that there is sufficient area for additional cars to be parked on the property. The property in question is larger than many properties in the City and can accommodate the construction of a two car garage in the rear yard. This would comply with City parking standards for single-family property. Because this property can meet City parking codes, the granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enj oyment of one or more substantial property rights. EXHIBIT 6 31 B-30 Variance No. 2005-50 August 22, 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; Limiting the size of a driveway on single-family property affectively limits the amount of pavement within a front yard setback, resulting in increased landscaping and a more aesthetic streetscape for the neighborhood. The granting of a variance to allow a circular driveway decreases the amount of landscaping in front of a house and increases the number of cars that are likely to be parked within the front yard setback, which is an area that would otherwise be landscaped. Less landscaping and additional paving would affect property values which would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to surrounding property owners. D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City; The granting of a variance for a circular driveway would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The property in question is located within a Single-Family Residential neighborhood which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential for the area. Driveways are ancillary to the primary residential use of the property and would have no affect on the General Plan of the City. 31 B-31 VARIANCE NOS. 05-13, 05-17 THRU 05-21, 05-26 THRU 05-47, 05-49 THRU 05-52 AND 05-57 THRU 05-60 AUGUST 22, 2005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Conditions for Approval The variance to allow the driveway to exceed the width of the primary garage is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan review. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the site plan review. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the site plan review approval. A. Planning Division 1. The width of the primary driveway shall not exceed 20 feet. The primary driveway is defined as that driveway which leads to the original one car garage. 3>s(U~Ti2 Attached hereto is a template used to prepare the resolutions for the following Variances: VARIANCE NUMBER ADDRESS Variance No. 2005-13 A & 8 2305 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-17 A & 8 2225 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-18 A & 8 2229 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-19 A & 8 2301 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-20 A & 8 2302 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-21 A & 8 2306 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-49 A & 8 2313 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-50 A & 8 2425 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-51 A & 8 2426 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-52 A & 8 2430 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-57 A & 8 2202 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-58 A & 8 2221 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-59 A & 8 2326 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-60 A & 8 2329 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-26 A & 8 2202 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-27 A & 8 2205 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-28 A & 8 2217 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-29 A & 8 2218 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-30 A & 8 2221 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-31 A & 8 2225 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-32 A & 8 2229 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-33 A & 8 2301 West La Verne Avenue 31 B-33 VARIANCE NUMBER ADDRESS Variance No. 2005-13 A & B 2305 West Elder Avenue Variance No. 2005-34 A & B 2302 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-35 A & B 2305 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-36 A & B 2306 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-37 A & B 2322 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-38 A & B 2325 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-39 A & B 2405 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-40 A & B 2406 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-41 A & B 2413 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-42 A & B 2414 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-43 A & B 2417 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-44 A & B 2421 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-45 A & B 2422 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-46 A & B 2425 West La Verne Avenue Variance No. 2005-47 A & B 2429 West La Verne Avenue 31 B-34 KO -08/23/05 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING VARIANCE NO. rvariance number (a)l TO ALLOW A SECOND DRIVEWAY THAT DOES NOT LEAD TO A GARAGE AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. rvariance number (b)l TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY THAT EXCEEDS THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT raddressl 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. Applicant is requesting approval of Variance No. rvariance number (a)l to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage and Variance No. rvariance number (b)l to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage for the property located at raddressl. B. Variance No. rvariance number (a)l and Variance No. rvariance number 1Qll came before the Planning Commission on August 22, 2005 for a duly noticed public hearing. C. The Planning Commission determines that for Variance No rvariance number (a)l , to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage, the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 in order to grant a variance from the provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, have not 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. The property in question has sufficient lot width to provide access to a two car garage if constructed in the rear yard. The property has 60 feet of street frontage and 7,380 square feet of lot area, which exceeds the minimum R-1 lot standards of 50 feet of frontage and 6,000 square feet of lot size. There is approximately 10 feet between the house and side property lines that could be used to access a garage if Resolution No. 2005-xx Page 1 of 5 31 B-35 constructed in the rear yard. There are no special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would prevent this property from meeting current Municipal Code parking requirements, and therefore a second driveway would not deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The applicants are requesting approval of a second driveway on their property so that they can park additional vehicles on their property. The property in question has an existing driveway. Additionally, this lot is larger than many properties in the City and has enough property to accommodate the construction of a two car garage in their rear yard, which would eliminate an existing legal nonconforming situation by bringing the property into compliance with City parking standards for single-family residential property. Because this property can meet City parking codes, the granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Limiting the number of driveways on single-family property has the affect of limiting the amount of pavement within a front yard setback, resulting in increased landscaping and a more aesthetic streetscape for the neighborhood. The granting of a variance for a second driveway decreases the amount of landscaping in front of a house and increases the number of cars that are likely to be parked within the front yard setback, which is an area that would otherwise be landscaped. Less landscaping and additional paving would affect property values which would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to surrounding property owners. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of a variance for a second driveway would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The property in question is located within a Single-Family Residential neighborhood which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential for the area. Resolution No. 2005-xx Page 2 of 5 31 B-36 Driveways are ancillary to the primary residential use of the property and would have no affect on the General Plan of the City. D. The Planning Commission determines that for Variance No. Ivariance number (b)l the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 in order to grant a variance from the provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, 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. The property in question was annexed from the County in April 1959 and was built as a two bedroom home with a one car garage and rolled curbs as part of original construction under County jurisdiction. Because this property was constructed with a one car garage, there is not enough parking to meet City parking requirements which deprives the subject property of privileges afforded other single-family homes in the City that were built with two car garages. The variance requested for a wider driveway would allow three to four cars to be parked on site bringing the property into closer compliance with City parking requirements which would meet the intent of the City's parking code. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The applicant is requesting approval to widen their driveway beyond the width of their garage so that they can have a safe and secure place to park their private vehicles on their property. City parking standards for a single-family home require four parking spaces with two of those spaces provided in an enclosed garage. Since these properties were constructed with only a one car garage, the wider driveways are needed to provide additional on-site parking in keeping with other single-family homes in the City which is necessary for the preservation of their substantial property rights. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Resolution No. 2oo5-xx Page 3 of 5 31 B-37 Although increasing the width of the driveway beyond the width of the garage would increase the amount of pavement within the front yard setback, this property has 60 feet of street frontage which allows this increase in pavement to be offset by additional front yard landscaping. This additional landscaping would compensate for any increase in pavement and would therefore not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property owners. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of a variance for wider driveways would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The property in question is located within a Single-Family Residential neighborhood which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential for the area. Driveways are ancillary to the primary residential use of the property and would have no affect on the General Plan of the City. E. This project was reviewed in accordance with the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15301. This Class 1 exemption allows the repair and maintenance of existing public or private structures, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of determination. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2005-145 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby: 1. Denies Variance No. rvariance number (a)1 to allow a second driveway that does not lead to a garage for the property located at Iaddressl 2. Approves Variance No. rvariance number (b)) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage for the property located at Jaddressl. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but not is not limited to: the Staff reports and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this day of August, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners: Commissioners: Resolution No. 2005-xx Page 4 of 5 31 B-38 ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: 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. to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2005-xx Page 5 of 5 31 B-39 Conditions for Aooroval for Variance No. rvariance number (b )1 Variance No. rvariance number (b)l. to allow the driveway to exceed the width of the primary garage, is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan review. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the site plan review. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the site plan review approval. A. Plannina Division 1. The width of the primary driveway shall not exceed 20 feet. The primary driveway is defined as that driveway which leads to the original one car garage. Exhibit A 31 B-40 KO -08/24/05 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2005-50(A) TO ALLOW A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2005-50(B) TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY THAT EXCEEDS THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2425 WEST ELDER 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. Applicant is requesting approval of Variance No. 2005-50(a) to allow a circular driveway and Variance No. 2005-50(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage for the property located at 2425 West Elder Avenue. B. Variance No. 2005-50(a) and Variance No. 2005-50(b) came before the Planning Commission on August 22,2005 for a duly noticed public hearing. C. The Planning Commission determines that for Variance No. 2005-50(a), to allow a circular driveway, the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 in order to grant a variance from the provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, have not 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. The property in question has sufficient lot size, width and depth to accommodate a two car garage in the rear yard which would allow additional vehicles to be parked on-site and meet City Municipal Code requirements for parking. There are no special circumstances relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would prevent these properties from meeting current Municipal Code Resolution No. 2005-56 Page 1 of 5 31 B-41 parking requirements without the need of a circular driveway that does not comply with City code standards. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a circular driveway so that there is sufficient area for additional cars to be parked on the property. The property in question is larger than many properties in the City and can accommodate the construction of a two car garage in the rear yard. This would comply with City parking standards for single-family property. Because this property can meet City parking codes, the granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Limiting the size of a driveway on single-family property affectively limits the amount of pavement within a front yard setback, resulting in increased landscaping and a more aesthetic streets cape for the neighborhood. The granting of a variance to allow a circular driveway decreases the amount of landscaping in front of a house and increases the number of cars that are likely to be parked within the front yard setback, which is an area that would otherwise be landscaped. Less landscaping and additional paving would affect property values which would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to surrounding property owners. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of a variance for a circular driveway would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The property in question is located within a Single-Family Residential neighborhood which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential for the area. Driveways are ancillary to the primary residential use of the property and would have no affect on the General Plan of the City. D. The Planning Commission determines that for Variance No. 2005-50(b) the following findings, which must be established pursuant to Santa Ana Resofution No. 2005-56 Page 2 of 5 31 B-42 Municipal Code Section 41-638 in order to grant a variance from the provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, 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. The property in question was annexed from the County in April 1959 and was built as a two bedroom home with a one car garage and rolled curbs as part of original construction under County jurisdiction. Because this property was constructed with a one car garage, there is not enough parking to meet City parking requirements which deprives the subject property of privileges afforded other single-family homes in the City that were built with two car garages. The variance requested for a wider driveway would allow three to four cars to be parked on site bringing the property into closer compliance with City parking requirements which would meet the intent of the City's parking code. 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The applicant is requesting approval to widen their driveway beyond the width of their garage so that they can have a safe and secure place to park their private vehicles on their property. City parking standards for a single-family home require four parking spaces with two of those spaces provided in an enclosed garage. Since these properties were constructed with only a one car garage, the wider driveways are needed to provide additional on-site parking in keeping with other single-family homes in the City which is necessary for the preservation of their substantial property rights. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Although increasing the width of the driveway beyond the width of the garage would increase the amount of pavement within the front yard setback, this property has 60 feet of street frontage which allows this increase in pavement to be offset by additional front yard landscaping. This additional landscaping would compensate for any increase in Resolution No. 2005-56 Page 3 of 5 31 B-43 pavement and would therefore not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property owners. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of a variance for wider driveways would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The property in question is located within a Single-F amity Residential neighborhood which is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential for the area. Driveways are ancillary to the primary residential use of the property and would have no affect on the General Plan of the City. E. This project was reviewed in accordance with the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15301. This Class 1 exemption allows the repair and maintenance of existing public or private structures, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of determination. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2005-145 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing hereby: 1. Denies Variance No. 2005-50(a) to allow a circular driveway for the property located at 2425 West Elder Avenue. 2. Approves Variance No. 2005-50(b) to allow a driveway that exceeds the width of the garage for the property located at 2425 West Elder Avenue. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but not is not limited to: the Staff reports and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 22nd day of August, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Cribb, De La Torre, Gartner, Lutz, Mondo (5) NOES: Commissioners: Leo, Nalle (2) ABSENT: Commissioners: None (0) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Resolution No. 2005-56 Page 4 of 5 31 B-44 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. 2005-56 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on August 22, 2005. Date: Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2005-56 Page 5 of 5 31 B-45 Conditions for Aooroval for Variance No 2005-50(b) Variance No. 2005-50(b), to allow the driveway to exceed the width of the primary garage, is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan review. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the site plan review. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the site plan review approval. A. Plannina Division 1. The width of the primary driveway shall not exceed 20 feet. The primary driveway is defined as that driveway which leads to the original one car garage. Exhibit A 31 B-46