HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-19r~
U
GAS: 6/9/00
RESOLUTION NO.00-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CONIlVIISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE NO. 98-OS FOR THE
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN THE PARKING
LOT AND DENYING AN AMENDMENT FOR A
VARIANCE FOR THE LANDSCAPING
REQUIlZEMENTS IN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD
FOR A CHURCH LOCATED AT 4821 WEST FIFTH
STREET
WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on June 12, 2000, on an amendment to
Variance Application No. 98-05, for relief from landscape requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMNIISION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
1. Based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing this Commission finds
and determines as follows:
• 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 provision of the chapter;
Because of the physical constraints of the narrow parcel, the variance permitted a
reduction in the setbacks abutting the parking area in order for the project to meet
the required parking count for a church use.
The location of the building does meet the required setbacks on Fifth Street the
front setback is 20 feet and on Rosita Street the side yard setback is 15 feet. The
required setbacks must be landscaped with material identified in the code. The
stamped concrete is not listed as an approved material. The approved project
plans included a landscape plan submitted by the applicant that met the City's
landscape requirements. The property size, shape, and building configuration
remain the same as at the time the plans were approved by the City Council.
•
B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or
more substantial property rights;
1
• The variance granted relief from the code requirements for setbacks in order to
accommodate the development of this parcel. Approving the proposed
amendment for the parking lot setbacks allows the applicant to maintain the
existing setbacks and parking count rather than the financial burden of removing 6
inches to 2 feet of concrete.
Denying the proposed amendment for the front and side yard setback brings the
property into compliance with the approved building plans and does not prevent
the use from continuing on the site or interfere with the members of the Huong
Tick Temple from the enjoyment of the property.
C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to surrounding property;
The landscape setback requirements for a church use in a residential zone were
enacted to promote visual linkages with the residential development pattern and
buffer the use from the neighborhood. There is sufficient area within the existing
parking lot setback to accommodate the landscaping approved for this area.
The front yard setback for a church use in asingle-family residential zone is the
same as required in the zone. The side yard setbacks and landscape requirements
are based on the commercial standards that are greater than the residential
standards. The proposed changes in the front and side yard setbacks reduce the
amount of landscaping originally approved by the City resulting in a reduction in
the visual buffer protecting the surrounding properties.
D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the city;
The proposed setback reduction along the perimeter of the parking lot will not
reduce the landscape buffer or protection of the neighborhood since the depth of
the setbacks remain sufficient to install the required type and number of landscape
materials per code.
However, the reduction in the landscaping in the front and side yard setbacks
significantly reduces the buffer between the neighborhood and the church use.
Therefore, the reduction in landscaped area does not preserve and protect the
neighborhood as stated in the General Plan Land Use Element's policy plan.
2. Amendment to Variance No. 98-OS is approved in part, as conditioned, and denied in
part, based upon the aforementioned findings.
•
2
ADOPTED this ~~ day of ~a~, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Mondo, Nalle, Solorio, Doughty, Verino, and Cribb
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Richardson
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners None
•
ATTEST:
~ '~ ~ - ~
+~.~r.- .~--~
Kenneth Adams
Planning Manager
Planning and Building Agency
Glenn do
n
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gary A. Sheatz
Assistant City Attorney
3