The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-02RESOLUTION NO. 2008-02 KO 1 /24/07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-05 (COUNTY PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-308) TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS AT 2727 NORTH BRISTOL (APPEAL NO. 2007-05) 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. 2007-05 (County Map No 2006-308) to subdivide a single parcel into two parcels at 2727 North Bristol. The subject property is the Floral Park Promenade shopping center and is located near the northeast corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane. The center is 6.17 acres in size, consists of two existing parcels, and contains 26 tenant suites within four buildings and 71,848 square feet of commercial space. The subdivision would result in a total of three separate parcels within the shopping center. B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing on November 14, 2007, and was continued until November 28, 2007. On November 28, 2007 the Zoning Administrator denied Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05. The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. C. On January 14, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal No. 2007-05 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05). The matter was continued to January 28, 2008 at the Applicant's request. D. On January 28, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal No. 2007-05 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05). E. For Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-01, the Planning Commission determines that the following findings have been established: 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the commercial land use • designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 1 of 6 all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan policies which aim to curtail obsolete, dysfunctional and chaotic development. The City's Urban Design Element states "that development and subdivision patterns should be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around districts and neighborhoods, and provide a smooth transition along designated edges" (Policy 2.12). The predominate subdivision pattern in the surrounding area is rectangular shaped lots. The proposed subdivision creates an irregular shaped parcel that will be difficult to develop over time without reassembling property or the need for future variances. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes, as well as other applicable City ordinances. Section 34-67 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) states that no map shall be approved which would result in a violation of Chapter 8, which regulates Buildings and • Structures or Chapter 41 which regulates zoning. Approval of the proposed map would result in several new non- conformities being created in violation of Chapter 41 of the zoning code. These new nonconformities include: front yard setbacks, drive aisle width, landscaping adjacent to residential property, and loading zone and trash enclosure locations. 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed project. Parcel 2 created by this map is such an unorthodox shape that it will not be physically suitable or conducive to future development. The issues pertaining to the proposed subdivision are threefold; the subdivision creates irregular and unorthodox shaped parcels; creates additional non- conformities with City codes, and goals and policies of the City's General Plan; and results in an integrated shopping center being further subdivided, which increases the difficulty of redeveloping the shopping center parcel over time. Further, Parcel 2 has a width of 15 feet at its narrowest point which is clearly not the intent of the City's street frontage requirement which is to maintain a parcel width of roughly • the same proportion from front to back. This results in a Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 2 of 6 rectangular type parcel that can easily be developed over time. The unorthodox shape of the parcel being created will make the property difficult to develop over time without the need of variances. 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. There are no known fish or wildlife populations, wetlands or unusual flora or fauna on or around the project site. Since the buildings on this site are existing and no new development is proposed at this time, the proposed subdivision will not cause any substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injury to fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The subdivision of this property will not have any detrimental effects upon the general public. All improvements on the • property currently exist and comply with City standards pertaining to sewer, water, utilities and infrastructure. This is an existing site with existing improvements which have not caused any previous public health problems. 6. The design or 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 subdivision will not conflict with easements necessary for public access, since public access is provided from Bristol Street and Memory Lane and will not be changed as a result of this project. F. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended action is not considered a CEQA project. Therefore no environmental documentation is required. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (Appeal No. 2007-05). 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 January 14, 2008 and exhibits • attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated January 28, 2008 Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 3 of 6 • and exhibits attached thereto and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Alderete, De La Torre, Gartner, Leo, Mill, Munoz(7) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Betancourt (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Christoph Le Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: ,~:~, lti~ ~L Kylee Otto Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2008-02 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 28, 2008. Date: ~~ ~ `~ Planning Commissio Greta City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 4 of 6 • 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 2nd Santa Ana, California 92702. I served the foregoing document described as: Resolution No. 2008-02 (Appeal No. 2007-05/Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007.05) in this ac ion y p acing a rue copy t ereo enc osecTi sn ea a enve opes a resse as follows: Eric Nelson Red Mountain Retail Group 1234 East Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Michael Mugel Floral Park Promenade 1234 East Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 [ ] 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 facsimile 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 February 12, 2008 at Santa Ana, California. MAR HA RAMIREZ Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 5 of 6