HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-14RESOLUTION NO. 2006-014
KO -6/7/06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING VARIANCE NO.
2006-01 TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF REQUIRED
PARKING FOR OFFICE USE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1201 EAST FOURTH STREET
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. 2006-01 to allow the
reduction of required parking for office use at an existing industrial building
at 1201 East Fourth Street
B. Variance No. 2006-01 came before the Planning Commission on June 12,
2006 for a duly noticed public hearing.
• C. The Planning Commission determines that for Variance No. 2006-01 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:
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.
This is a typical rectangular lot with no unique site features
that warrant approval of a variance for parking. There are no
special circumstances applicable to the subject property
where the strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance is
found to deprive the subject property of privileges not
otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the
provisions of the zoning code. Additionally, strict application
of the zoning code would not deprive the owner the
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification. The property is fully occupied
• and the denial of the variance for parking to allow the
Resolution No. 2006-014
Page 1 of 4
additional use would not deprive the property owner of the
• privilege to use property.
2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.
The denial of the variance will not significantly impact the
rights of the property owner to enjoy the use of their
property. The property owner is able to continue to operate
the existing legal nonconforming industrial business on this
site. The denial of a parking variance to allow an office use
would not impact the existing nonconforming industrial
business.
3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.
The granting of a variance will be detrimental to the
surrounding residential uses, when considering that the
existing industrial business is located immediately adjacent
to residential uses which are considered to be a sensitive
land use. The approval of a variance and the addition of the
proposed office use would increase the parking impacts to
the surrounding residences. As a result of the
nonconforming on site parking, spillover parking will impact
the residential neighborhood. Additionally, state and local
codes state that a variance shall not be granted for a parcel
of property which authorizes a use that is not expressly
permitted by the zone district governing the parcel of
property, such as the case on this site.
4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City.
The proposed office use is allowed by the current
Community Commercial (C2) zoning district and General
Commercial General Plan Designation. However, section
41-686 of the City's nonconforming code prohibits the
addition of uses where existing legal nonconforming uses
exist, even though the proposed use is allowed in the zone.
Additionally, the State of California Government Code
Section 65906 prohibits the granting of variances for uses
which are not allowed by the local zoning code governing the
property.
• ii. In addition, Policies 5.4 of the City's General Plan Land Use
Element state that measures to insure that the impacts of
Resolution No. 2006-014
Page 2 of 4
development are mitigated by supporting land uses which
are consistent with the Land Use Plan of the Land Use
Element. Also, Policy 5.5 encourages development which is
compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses.
The existing nonconforming industrial use combined with the
proposed office use would be inconsistent uses with such
Land Use Plan and therefore not compatible with
surrounding land uses.
D. 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 after conducting
the public hearing hereby denies Variance No. 2006-01. This decision is based upon
the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but is not limited to:
the Request for Planning Commission Action dated June 12, 2006 and exhibits attached
thereto; and the public testimony all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 12th day of June 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Betancourt, Cribb, De La Torre, Gartner, Leo, Lutz
• (6)
NOES: Commissioners: None (0)
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rodriguez (1)
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0)
~~
ristop er Leo
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
Kylee O. to
Assistant City Attorney
Resolution No. 2006-014
Page 3 of 4
•
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
•
I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and
certify the attached Resolution No. 2006-014 to be the original resolution adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on June 12, 2006
Date:
Clerk bf the Planning Comm
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2006-014
Page 4 of 4
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.
On June 29, 2006 I served the foregoing document described as:
Resolution No. 2006-014 (Variance No. 2006-01) in this action by placing a true
copy t ereo enc o~secTin~e enve opes a ressed as follows:
Marcos Contreras
1201 East Fourth 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 June 29, 2006 at Santa Ana, California.
MARTHA RAMI