32A - 2106-2230 N. TUSTIN AVE. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-08 Variance No. 2005-61 November 28, 2005 Page 3 In this case, which includes a request for a variance from the City's standards in order to effectuate the sub-division, there is no special circumstance applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The subject site is approximately 3.17 acres in area, located on the southwest corner of Tustin and Santa Clara Avenues. The adjacent commercial buildings are developed on sites with similar lot size and configurations. There is no basis to make the findings for the proposed variance that would allow reductions in parking, setback and landscaping. Section 66474(b) of the Subdivision Map Act also states that the legislative body of a city shall deny a tentative map if it makes the finding that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. In the case of the proposed project, the applicant is proposing to create a new legal parcel of land that could be owned in fee by a potential purchaser. After analyzing the proj ect, staff finds that the applicant's proposal to create new legal parcels through the proposed map is not consistent with the City's General Plan. In addition, the subdivision of a larger parcel into two smaller lots may result in adverse long-term impacts to the orderly development of this property and, therefore, the area of the city in which it is located. The subdivision of land into small parcels, as proposed by the applicant, is not consistent with Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which is intended to promote the rehabilitation of commercial properties. The proposed subdivision of an existing parcel into two smaller parcels makes it difficult to reassemble property for future development as property continues to be subdivided, especially large-scale development proj ects. Under the current ownership conditions, the vacant parcel (proposed Parcell) would be developed as an integrated parcel with proposed Parcel 2, which contains an existing retail center. Upon the sale of one parcel to another owner, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain an integrated development due to dual ownership. Further, the development of proposed Parcel 1 would be further constrained in site and physical design, which could present challenges in attracting and maintaining long-term viable uses and, therefore, result in blighting conditions. 32A-4