Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-16bk 10/8/09 . RESOLUTION NO. 2009-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2009-01 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 1013 SOUTH ELLIOTT PLACE (APPEAL NO. 2009-02) 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 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 to subdivide a single parcel into two parcels in order to construct two new single family residences at 1013 South Elliott Place. The subject property is the Little Texas neighborhood. The subject property is a 14,674 square foot parcel located on the north side of Elliott Place between Regent Drive and Gates Street. The interior lot is rectangular in shape and has • approximately 108 feet of street frontage. Currently vacant, building records indicate that a 1,607 square foot residence and garage previously existed on the property. A permit was issued and finaled in 2005 to demolish the structures. B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing on September 9, 2009. Following a presentation by staff and testimony from the public, the Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 based on findings that the proposed subdivision was not consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood and the project conflicted with several policies of the City's General Plan. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator based on his claim that the subject property is close to other lots which are comparable in size to the ones that are being proposed as part of the subdivision request. The locations of the lots that are referenced are directly to the north of the subject property and between 1,203 and 2,435 feet away from the property to the south and southwest. C. The properties to the north of the subject parcel are located within a separate subdivision tract that was developed entirely independently of the subdivision in question. The subdivision to the north is not accessible from • the "Little Texas" neighborhood by vehicle or by foot and, much like the Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 1 of 9 • subdivision to the east of the neighborhood, has an entirely separate development pattern and architectural style than the subject neighborhood. D. The other properties mentioned as part of the appeal application are located within Tract No. 1298; however, each of the four parcels that were subdivided are located along the edge of the subdivision adjacent to Edinger Avenue and Newhope Street. While technically within the tract, these properties do not contain the same rural characteristics, such as the lack of sidewalk, rolled curbs and large front yard setbacks, of the properties adjacent to the subject parcel. Additionally, although subdivisions took place to create these properties, they were done in 1959, 1963 and 1981 respectively. The subject properties location within the interior of the "Little Texas" neighborhood compared to the properties that were permitted to subdivide along the border of the tract, as well as the more than 28 years between the last approved subdivision do not support the claim set forth in the appeal that such parcels are similarly situated to the subject property. E. On October 12, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal No. 2009-01 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-02). F. The subject property is located in the City's Little Texas Neighborhood, which was annexed into the City. Prior to that, it was a small County island totally surrounded by the City. It is a small residential neighborhood • notable for (i) large lot sizes (more than double the city average), and (ii) stables and the keeping of horses by private landowners. It is essentially the only area in the City where horses are still quartered in private homes. G. Although the proposed project complies with the various zoning requirements for the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone and the density proposed is within the limits of the Low-density (LR-7) General Plan land use designation, there are critical environmental and public health impacts associated with this subdivision and the project does not comply with numerous policies of the City's General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements. H. The project's unique location within a neighborhood that has historically included housing for live stock, specifically stabling of horses, has resulted in the proposed subdivision resulting in an adverse impact on public health standards relating to the proximity of livestock to humans. Section 5-18 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires that no person shall keep livestock within 100 feet of any family residence with the exception of the home on the property. Negative health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request would • further anon-conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 2 of 9 size and street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties. I. Further, the proposed project would also impact public health and safety by increasing the impervious surface of the subject property substantially above the amount that would be created without the proposed subdivision. This increase in impervious surface area, including the doubling of the number of driveways, will result in a greater amount of water run-off from the property. This increase in water run-off will negatively affect public health and safety by increasing the likelihood of flooding onto the street and adjoining properties. J. In addition to the public health and safety concerns, the proposed subdivision is in conflict with several General Plan policies. Primary amongst these policies is Urban Design Element Policy 2.12, which states that development and subdivision patterns are to be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around the neighborhood. With an average lot size of 14,000 square feet and an average street frontage of 100.42 feet, the Little Texas Neighborhood is one of the few remaining large lot subdivisions within the City. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots that would be incompatible with the pattern of land division in the area by being approximately one-half the size and street frontage of the average lot in the neighborhood. The protection of this unique area is further • bolstered by both Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 and Land Use Element Policy 4.1, which state that the character and uniqueness of existing neighborhoods are to be protected from intrusive development. Approval of this subdivision would result in the creation of two parcels which are not in character with the existing neighborhood by being more than 3,000 square feet smaller than the next smallest lot in the Neighborhood and providing less than one-half the street frontage of the next smallest tot in the Neighborhood. K. The applicant has proposed to construct two, two-story, four bedroom, three and a half bathroom residences which will both be 3,233 square feet. The floor plans for the two homes will be mirror images of each other, with each house having an attached, 724 square foot, three car garage for a total building footprint of 3,957 square feet. The second story for each residence has been oriented primarily over the residence with a second story setback provided in the rear. The exterior of the two homes will also be similar in architectural style with large cylindrical pillars on either side of a double-door entryway with a large arched window above. The exterior materials will be primarily stucco with a brick veneer accent provided along the base of the front elevation and stucco trim around each of the sliding windows. • Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 3 of 9 L. The architectural design of the proposed homes is thus also in conflict with the General Plan, specifically both Urban Design Element Policy 2.2 and Land Use Element Policy 2.10. Collectively, these policies state that new development must be consistent and harmonious in scale, bulk, pattern and architectural style with the existing neighborhood. While there is no defining architectural style within the neighborhood, the majority of homes in the Little Texas Neighborhood are one-story, low pitched homes with either wood or stucco siding. This scale and pattern of development is not consistent with the large two-story homes that are being proposed. Although several larger homes have recently been built in the neighborhood that compare more closely with the proposed project in terms of scale and bulk, these larger homes are constructed on substantially larger lots with more than double the street frontage which has allowed them to more seamlessly blend in with the remaining neighborhood. The proposed project's scale and bulk, combined with its minimal lot size and street frontage, further the project's inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood and General Plan policies. M. The staff report dated October 12, 2009, together with all testimony public and official presented in relation to this matter, is hereby incorporated herein as though fully set forth. N. For Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-01, the Planning Commission • determines that the following findings have been established: O. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings have been established: The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Low Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Low-Density Residential (LR-7) designation of the General Plan, but is not consistent with several General Plan Urban Design and Land Use Element Policies. Primary amongst these policies is Urban Design Element Policy 2.12 which states that development and subdivision patterns are to be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around the neighborhood. The projects location within a large lot subdivision with an average lot size of 14,000 square feet makes this subdivision request incompatible with the existing Little Texas Neighborhood. Additionally, the proposal is Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 4 of 9 inconsistent with Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 and Land • Use Element Policy 4.1 which state that the character and uniqueness of existing neighborhoods are to be protected from intrusive development. The neighborhood where the project is located is one of the few remaining intact large lot subdivisions in the City putting the proposal to subdivide one of these lots in direct opposition with these Policies from the General Plan. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes, as well as other applicable City ordinances. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all provisions of the zoning code, including landscaping, setbacks, parking, lot size and street frontage. No variances are required for this project and existing infrastructure in the area is adequate to service the project. • 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The proposed site is physically suitable for single-family residential development; however, the proposed density of development is not consistent with the large lot size and street frontage characteristics of the neighborhood. With an average lot size of 14,000 square feet and average street frontage of 100.42 the proposed lots would be approximately one-half the size of the average lot and have one-half the street frontage than average. Urban Design Element Policy 2.8 of the General Plan states that the character and uniqueness of a neighborhood should be protected from this type of intrusive development. • 4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project site is located in an urbanized area, with no known fish or wildlife populations existing on the project site. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not cause any Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 5 of 9 substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health standards relating to the proximity of livestock to humans. Section 5-18 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires that no person shall keep livestock within 100 feet of any family residence with the exception of the home on the property. Negative health impacts including noxious odors and communicable diseases have been associated with the close proximity of humans to livestock. The approval of this subdivision request would further a non- conformity with this code requirement by reducing the lot size and street frontage to the point of becoming practically impossible for the proposed lots to maintain the 100-foot separation from the neighboring properties. The proposed project would also impact public health and • safety by increasing the impervious surface of the subject property substantially above the amount that would be created without the proposed subdivision. This increase in impervious surface area will result in a greater amount of water run-off from the property. This increase in water run-off will negatively affect public health and safety by increasing the likelihood of flooding onto the street and adjoining properties as well as an increase the amount of pollutants entering storm drains and sewers. 6. The design of improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property. Utility access easements have been identified on the submitted plan and are not in conflict with the proposed development. Access through or use of the property is not required by the public at large. • Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 6 of 9 Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Aci (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from CEQA review per Section 21080(5). This subsection applies to projects in which the public agency disapproves of the request. Should the project ultimately be approved, further environmental review may be required. Environmental Review No. 2007-102 will be filed for this project. Section 3. Application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 must be disapproved pursuant to Government Code section 66474(a) and (b) in that the proposed map, the design or improvements are not consistent with the applicable provisions of the Santa Ana General Plan. The findings that bridge the analytical gap between this conclusion and the facts of this matter are set forth in Section 1 of this resolution. Section 4. Government Code section 65589.5Q) does not prohibit disapproval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 because (i) the application conflicts with objective general plan policies and municipal code sections as set forth in greater detail in Section 1 to this resolution, and (ii) anything other than disapproval would cause specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, i. e., violation of Santa Ana Municipal Code section 5-18, and there is no feasible method to avoid this adverse impact in that the Neighborhood is distinguished by providing quarters for livestock, particularly horses. Section 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public hearing and being fully informed hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-01 (together with Appeal No. 2009-02). This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 12, 2009 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 12, 2009 and exhibits attached thereto and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 12th day of October , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Alderete, Betancourt, Gartner, Leo, Turner (5) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Yrarrazaval (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) • Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 7 of 9 • /~ Christoph r Leo Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney ~~ (; ;=~ ~ .., B ~` Y Benjami aufman Chief As` istant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY • • I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2009-16 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on October 12, 2009 Date: ~ - ,~ "C% ~;~~ ~--~~~~~G.> Planning Commission S~creta, r` City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2009-16 Page 8 of 9 PROOF OF SERVICE • (C.C.P. SECTION 1013(a), 2015.5) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within action; my business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex Second Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701. I served the fore Peter Pham Rami Talleh Huong Dong 7043 Trask Avenue 5 Rice Aisle 9573 East Garvey Avenue #14 Westminster, CA 92683 Irvine, CA 92612 EI Monte, CA 91733 [ ] I caused to be delivered by courier, such envelope by hand to the office of the addressee(s). • [X] BY MAIL I am readily familiar with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ ]The document was transmitted by EMAIL transmission and was reported as complete and without error. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 28, 2009 at Santa Ana, California. ~~~~~ MARTHA RAMIREZ r~