The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPresentation - Item 34 - PBA 2221 N Heliotrope DriveAppeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 1 Appeal Application No. 2024-01, Appealing Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2022-06 2221 N. Heliotrope Drive Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 2 Location and Zoning SITE N •General Plan: Low Density Residential (LR-7) •Zoning: Single-Family Residence (R1) •Surrounding Land Uses: –Single-Family Residences (North, South, East, and West) Lot Size: 0.90 (39,547 square feet) •Site Conditions: Developed with a 5,700-square-foot single-family residence (Maharajah House) listed as “Landmark” in 2003 •Application: Appeal Application No. 2024-01 •Address & Council Ward: 2221 North Heliotrope Drive (APNs: 002-081-45 and 002-081-46) –Ward 3 •Description: Appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06, allowing the construction of an accessory structure within the rear yard of an existing single-family residence •Recommendation: Adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application No. 2024-01, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 3 Background •Planning Commission held two public hearings for CUP No. 2022-06 on March 28, 2022, and on April 25, 2022. On April 25, 2022, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the item indefinitely. •The continuance provided staff time to evaluate options of reducing the visual impacts by considering other locations, scale, size massing and screening, or a combination to address community concerns. •On August 26, 2024, another public hearing was held on for the project and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06. •On September 5, 2024, Appeal Application 2024-01 was submitted, appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP No. 2022-06. Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 4 Proposed Site Plan Original Site Plan –Proposed 2022 Revised Site Plan –Proposed 2024 Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 5 Proposed Project Revisions to Address 2022 Planning Commission Concerns: •Relocated the proposed pavilion away from the south end of the property; •Updated the site plan to accurately depict existing and proposed conditions (e.g., existing landscaping, structures, etc.); and •Provided photo simulations (e.g., conceptual renderings) Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 6 Proposed Project (Cont.) •Submitted building permit plans to address unpermitted work on an ancillary structure on the site; •Freestanding structure approximately 205 square feet in size and 23'-4" in height; •Includes two electrical outlets and limited accent lighting, including two to four light fixtures within the structure and three to six landscape/up-lights at the base; and •No noise sources are proposed on the structure. East Elevation North Elevation West Elevation South Elevation Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 7 Appeal Application No. 2024-01Appellant is requesting the following:1.The City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision approving CUP No. 2022-06; 2.Require all new and/or outstanding City of Santa Ana building permit deficiencies be resolved before further consideration of the proposed pavilion; and 3.That the HRC review all landmark/historical/mills act compliance deficiencies and identify actions required to bring the property back to original standard. Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 8 Analysis 1.The City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision approving CUP No. 2022-06: No evidence provided that substantiates that the project would adversely impact the community, but a comprehensive response on the appeal items was prepared. Installation of the proposed structure would not result in a change to the existing land use, and the property would remain as a single-family residence. Proposed structure is located away from adjacent properties to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts. Consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan’s Land Use and Historic Preservation elements. Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 9 Analysis (Cont.) 2.Require all new and/or outstanding City of Santa Ana building permit deficiencies be resolved before further consideration of the proposed pavilion: The owner has taken necessary actions to address previously constructed work on the site. Approval of the CUP contingent on conditions of approval that address the following, among other conditions: That the property owner obtains the necessary approvals for the construction of the ADU; Prohibiting the use of the structure and the site for any commercial purposes, including but not limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc.; Site to remain and operate as a single-family residential site, or the conditional use permit may be subject to revocation as outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC; and Requiring that the trees be preserved and protected in place. Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 10 Analysis (Cont.) 3.That the HRC review all landmark/historical/mills act compliance deficiencies and identify actions required to bring the property back to original standard: Construction of the proposed structure will not result in a change to the neighborhood character or identity. Installation would not result in any physical alterations to the Maharajah House and would not impact any of the view sheds, along any public perspectives (Santa Clara Avenue would remain unimpaired). The Maharajah House will continue to retain all of its character-defining features. Changes would be confined to the back yard and would not affect the historical integrity of the Floral Park Historic District as a whole. Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 11 Staff Recommendation 1.Adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application No. 2024-01, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2022-06 to allow the construction of an accessory structure within the rear yard of an existing single-family residence located at 2221 North Heliotrope Drive (APNs: 002-081-45 and 002-081-46); and 2.Determine that, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure. Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 12 Questions and Discussion Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 13 Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 14 Site Photos Heliotrope Drive –View East Santa Clara Avenue –View Southeast Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 15 Site Photos Santa Clara Avenue –View East Santa Clara Avenue –View South Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 16 Site Photos Santa Clara Avenue –View Southwest Heliotrope Drive –View Northeast Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 17 Floor Plans Ground Floor Main Floor Roof Plan Appeal Application No. 2024-01Planning and Building AgencyItem 34November 19, 2024 Slide 18 Historic Analysis (Cont.) •Chapter 30 of the SAMC defines modification as, “Any change, alteration, restoration, remodeling, rehabilitation, construction, or relocation of the physical exterior of a historic structure.” •Section 30-6 (a) of the SAMC states that, “No exterior physical modifications, other than those identified by the historic resources commission for administrative approval by city staff, shall be permitted with respect to an historic structure until the historic resources commission approves such request at a duly noticed public hearing and issues a certificate of appropriateness.” •The structure is not physically altering or changing the exterior of the Maharajah House. Therefore, no additional review by the Historic Resources Commission is required for this project.