Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-36U RESOLUTION NO. 2007-36 KO-1 /24/08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2007-07 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN MINIMUM LOT SIZE, VARIANCE NO. 2007-08 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN OFF- STREET PARKING AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-11 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 711 EASTSIDE DRIVE 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 three variances in order to construct a new 1,545 square foot single-family residence with a 420 square foot attached two-car garage on a 3,601 square foot parcel at 711 Eastside Drive. Variance No. 2007-07 is for a reduction in the minimum lot size in the Single-Family Residential (R1) zoning district, Variance No. 2007-08 is for a reduction in the required off-street parking and Variance No. 2007-11 is to allow the reduction in the front yard setback. B. Variance No. 2007-07 and Variance No. 2007-08 and Variance No. 2007- 11 came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on September 24, 2007. The Planning Commission continued the matter to October 22, 2007. On October 22, 2007 the matter was continued to December 10, 2007. On December 10, 2007 the matter was continued to January 14, 2008. On January 14, 2008 the matter was continued to January 28, 2008. C. On January 28, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted the continued public hearing on Variance No. 2007-07, Variance No. 2007-08, and Variance No. 2007-11. D. Variance No. 2007-07 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to reduce the lot size from the minimum lot size of 4,000 as required by Section 41-237(c), to 3,601 square feet. • Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 1 of 12 • 1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance upon making certain findings. 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. Special circumstances exist in that this lot is a legally created remnant parcel resulting from the widening of the I-5 Freeway. Prior to the I-5 widening, this lot was a 9,029.5 square foot trapezoidal shaped parcel. As a result of the I-5 widening, this parcel was substantially reduced in area, but has retained its R-1 zoning and LR-7 General Plan land use designation. The property is unable to increase its square footage as it is bounded by the I-5 Freeway to the north and an existing single-family residence to the south. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial • property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the opportunity to develop this site with a high quality single-family residence. Not allowing this variance would likely result in the property remaining vacant which is in contrast to Policy 4.1.6 of the Housing Element of the General Plan which encourages development of vacant or underutilized parcels for residential purposes. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The proposed single-family dwelling will have no detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties or neighborhood. The lot is being developed with an appropriately sized and scaled single-family residence that will harmoniously blend with the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. The residence has maintained all of the required setbacks in order to follow the existing residential development • Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 2 of 12 of the street. It has also provided several • architectural features including wood siding and second story step backs to reduce the scale and massing of the second story. These efforts were made to comply with Policy 2.2 of the Urban Design Element, which encourages development that is consistent with the scale, bulk and pattern of existing residential neighborhood. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the City's General Plan in any way as the land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7) matches the proposed single-family development. This is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element which promotes development which is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses. E. Variance No. 2007-08 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to reduce the minimum required off-street parking (four spaces) as required • by Section 41-1320 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to two in an enclosed two-car garage. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance upon making certain findings. 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. Special circumstances exist in that this lot is a legally created remnant parcel resulting from the widening of the I-5 Freeway. Prior to the I-5 widening, this lot was a 9,029.5 square foot trapezoidal shaped parcel. As a result of the I-5 widening, this parcel was substantially reduced in area, but has retained its R-1 zoning and LR-7 General Plan land use designation. The I-5 Freeway widening was also affected the shape of the subject property, changing it from a trapezoid to roughly triangular in shape. This change • Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 3 of 12 in shape has resulted in a portion of the driveway no • longer being able to meet the required length while keeping the rest of the site in compliance with required building setbacks. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the opportunity to develop this site with a high quality single-family residence. Not allowing this variance would likely result in the property remaining vacant which is in direct contrast to Policy 4.1.6 of the Housing Element of the General Plan which encourages development of vacant or underutilized parcels for residential purposes. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The proposed single-family dwelling will have no • detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties or neighborhood. The lot is being developed with an appropriately sized and scaled single-family residence that will harmoniously blend with the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. Although the triangular shape of the lot results in a portion of the driveway being unable to meet the required 20 feet, the properties location at the end of a cul-de-sac on a non-arterial street reduces any impacts it may have to the surrounding properties. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the City's General Plan in any way as the land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7) matches the proposed single-family development. This is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element which promotes development which is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses. • Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 4 of 12 • F. Variance No. 2007-11 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to reduce the front yard setback as required by Section 41-234 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to 10 feet of front yard setback. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance upon making certain findings. 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. Specia( circumstances exist in that this lot is a legally created remnant parcel resulting from the widening of the I-5 Freeway. Prior to the I-5 widening, this lot was a 9,029.5 square foot trapezoidal shaped parcel. As a result of the I-5 widening, this parcel was substantially reduced in area, but has retained its R-1 zoning and LR-7 General Plan land use designation. The lots irregular shape and location on a portion of a cul-de-sac prevents the project from meeting the front • yard setback while still providing a high quality project, including a prominent front porch. Additionally, the property is unable to increase its square footage as it is bounded by the I-5 Freeway to the north and an existing single-family residence to the south. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the opportunity to develop this site with a high quality single-family residence. Not allowing this variance would likely result in the property remaining vacant which is in contrast to Policy 4.1.6 of the Housing Element of the General Plan which encourages development of vacant or underutilized parcels for residential purposes. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. • Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 5 of 12 • The proposed single-family dwelling will have no detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties or neighborhood. The lot is being developed with an appropriately sized and scaled single-family residence that will harmoniously blend with the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. The residence has maintained three of the four required setbacks in order to follow the existing residential development of the street. It has also provided several architectural features including wood siding and second story step backs to reduce the scale and massing of the second story. These efforts were made to comply with Policy 2.2 of the Urban Design Element, which encourages development that is consistent with the scale, bulk and pattern of existing residential neighborhood. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the City's General Plan in any way as the land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7) • matches the proposed single-family development. This is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element which promotes development which is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses. G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a). This Class 3 exemption allows for the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. As a result, no further environmental review is needed. Environmental Review No. 2007-81 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission after conducting the public hearing hereby approves for the property located at 711 Eastside Drive: 1. Variance No. 2007-07, as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, to allow a reduction in the lot size. 2. Variance No. 2007-08, as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein, to allow a reduction in off-street parking. 3. Variance No. 2007-11, as conditioned in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein, to allow a reduction in the front yard setback. • Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 6 of 12 These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid • hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 24, 2007 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 22, 2007 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated December 10, 2007, and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated January 14, 2008 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated January 28, 2008, 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(6) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Betancourt (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: ;.:.~--.. Kylee Otto ,,~` Assistant Attorney . ~ c~ Christop r Leo Chairman • Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 7 of 12 • CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007-36 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 28, 2008. Date: Planning Commissi ecret City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 8 of 12 • Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2007-07 Variance Nos. 2007-07 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 California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 07- 38. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if administrative relief • is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Provide landscaping in accordance with submitted landscape plan. • Resolution No. 2007-36 Exhibit A Page 9 of 12 • Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2007-08 Variance Nos. 2007-08 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 California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 07- 38. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. • 3. Provide landscaping in accordance with submitted landscape plan. • Exhibit B Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 10 of 12 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2007-11 Variance No. 2007-11 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 California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 07- 38. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Provide landscaping in accordance with submitted landscape plan. • Exhibit C Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 11 of 12 C~ 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 2"d Santa Ana, California 92702. I served the foreggoing document described as: Resolution No. 2007-36 (Variance Nos. 2007-07 2007-08 and 2007-11) in this action y p acing a true copy t ereo enc ose in sea a enve opes a resse as follows: Jamison Luther 3802 Beaver Street Irvine, CA 92614 Alireza Ashraf P.O. Box 2235 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 [ ] 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 RAMIRE • Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 12 of 12