Laserfiche WebLink
all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific <br />plans. <br />The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's <br />General Plan policies which aim to curtail obsolete, <br />dysfunctional and chaotic development. The City's Urban <br />Design Element states "that development and subdivision <br />patterns should be compatible with existing patterns of <br />development in and around districts and neighborhoods, and <br />provide a smooth transition along designated edges" (Policy <br />2.12). The predominate subdivision pattern in the <br />surrounding area is rectangular shaped lots. The proposed <br />subdivision creates an irregular shaped parcel that will be <br />difficult to develop over time without reassembling property <br />or the need for future variances. <br />2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable <br />requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes, as well as other <br />applicable City ordinances. <br />Section 34-67 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) <br />states that no map shall be approved which would result in a <br />violation of Chapter 8, which regulates Buildings and <br />• Structures or Chapter 41 which regulates zoning. Approval <br />of the proposed map would result in several new non- <br />conformities being created in violation of Chapter 41 of the <br />zoning code. These new nonconformities include: front yard <br />setbacks, drive aisle width, landscaping adjacent to <br />residential property, and loading zone and trash enclosure <br />locations. <br />3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of <br />the proposed project. <br />Parcel 2 created by this map is such an unorthodox shape <br />that it will not be physically suitable or conducive to future <br />development. The issues pertaining to the proposed <br />subdivision are threefold; the subdivision creates irregular <br />and unorthodox shaped parcels; creates additional non- <br />conformities with City codes, and goals and policies of the <br />City's General Plan; and results in an integrated shopping <br />center being further subdivided, which increases the difficulty <br />of redeveloping the shopping center parcel over time. <br />Further, Parcel 2 has a width of 15 feet at its narrowest point <br />which is clearly not the intent of the City's street frontage <br />requirement which is to maintain a parcel width of roughly <br />• the same proportion from front to back. This results in a <br />Resolution No. 2008-02 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />