Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-079 - Denying Variance No. 2005-09 KO -8/23/05 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-079 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2005-09 (APPEAL NO. 2005-03) SEEKING TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT TALL FLAGPOLE AT AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 617 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The applicant is requesting approval of Variance No. 2005-09 to allow a 50-foot tall flagpole at an existing service station at 617 East Seventeenth Street. B. On June 13, 2005, Variance No. 2005-09 came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission denied Variance No. 2005-09 by a vote of 6:0 (Leo absent). C. On June 20, 2005, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision, Appeal No. 2005-03. D. Applicant is seeking a variance from Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-602(c)(2), which establishes a height limit of 35-feet for structures that are located in the C5 zone and within 140-feet of any property zoned or used for residential purposes. 1. As defined in the municipal code, a structure is "anything constructed or erected which requires permanent location on the ground, or attached to something having permanent location on the ground, including signs and billboards". 2. The flagpole exceeds the maximum allowable height for this zone by 15-feet, and is immediately adjacent to single-family residences. E. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City Council to grant a variance upon making certain findings. The City Council determines that the findings necessary to grant the variance have not been established: 1. 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. Resolution No. 2005-079 Page 1 of 3 i. 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. ii. The existing service station is situated at a prominent business location, directly north of the freeway off-ramp and immediately adjacent to the freeway on-ramp. Additionally, Seventeenth Street is a major arterial street and provides a large volume of traffic in this area. In addition, there is an existing 35-foot freestanding pole sign on the southeast portion of the site that provides additional identification to the site. Therefore, there is no need for additional signage or identification symbols on the premises. iii. This is a typical lot with no unique site features that warrant a structure to exceed the maximum allowable height limit within the zone. 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 right of the property owner to enjoy the use of their property. Seventeenth Street is a major arterial in the City and has a high traffic volume. The construction of a 50-foot tall flagpole will not guarantee any greater enjoyment or business attraction permitted by code. 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 and aesthetically incompatible to the surrounding residential uses, when considering that no other structure is similar in height to the proposed structure and the residential uses located immediately to the north of this site, which are considered a sensitive land use. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The Santa Ana Freeway is designated as a primary street corridor and Seventeenth Street is designated as a secondary street corridor and major arterial in the City's General Plan. The General Plan discourages the intrusion of unsightly signage and other similar structures, such as the proposed 50-foot tall flagpole, which impact the visual and aesthetic qualities of these corridors. Resolution No. 2005-079 Page 2 of 3 In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, this is not a project; no environmental documentation is necessary for this project. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby denies Variance No. 2005-09 (Appeal No. 2005-03). This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes, but not is not limited to: the Request for City Council Action dated September 6, 2005 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference Section 3. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the Council's decision and these findings. ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 200~ F. ~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Assistant AYES: Council members: Alvarez. Bist. Christy. Pulido. (4) NOES: Councilmembers: Solorio (1) ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Bustamante (1) NOT PRESENT: Council members: Garcia (1) CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2005-079 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on September 6. 2005. Date: r;:~.c;,/r) ." _7 '. Y- ------- /> .~ ____-~-{/ l---L /c-~_ -c-(...,___-' . . Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2005-079 Page 3 of 3