Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
31B - 711 EASTSIDE DRIVE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 2008 TITLE: VARIANCE NOS. 2007-07, 2007-08 AND 2007-11 TO PERMIT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 3,201 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 711 EASTSIDE DRIVE - JAMISON LUTHER, APPLICANT CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15t Reading ^ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Receive and file the staff report approving Variance No. 2007-07 as conditioned, Variance No. 2007-08 as conditioned, and Variance No. 2007- 11 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On January 28, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Variance No. 2007-07 to allow a reduction in the minimum lot size as conditioned, Variance No. 2007-08 to allow a reduction in parking as conditioned and Variance No. 2007-11 to allow a reduction in front yard setback as conditioned by a vote of 6:0 (Betancourt absent) for a new single-family residence at 711 Eastside Drive in the Single-Family Residential (R1) zoning district. The Planning Commission made no changes to the recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report (Exhibit A). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. M. Trevino Executive Director Planning & Building Agency MF:rb mfoulkes\reports\va07-07,08611.711 Eastside Drive.cc 31 B-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2008 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NOS. 2007-07, 2007-08 AND 2007-11 TO PERMIT A NEW SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 3,201 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 711 EASTSIDE DRIVE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ^ Applicant's Request ^ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Prepared by Mat t Foulke s ~L~ Executive Director Planning Manag RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2007-07 to allow a reduction in the minimum lot size as conditioned. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2007-08 to allow a reduction in parking as conditioned. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2007-11 to allow a reduction in front yard setback as conditioned. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Mr. Jamison Luther is requesting the approval of three variances in order to construct a new 1,734 square foot single-family residence with a 320 square foot attached one-car garage on a 3,201 square foot parcel at 711 Eastside Drive. The request includes variances for a reduction in the minimum lot size, a reduction in required off-street parking, and a reduction in front yard setback. Property Description The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7), and is within the Singe-Family Residential (R1) zoning district. The property is a vacant 3,201 square foot, triangular shaped parcel immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana (I-5) EXHIBIT A 31 B-2 Variance Nos. 07-07, 07-08 and 07-11 January 28, 2008 Page 2 Freeway. Additionally, a 10-foot drainage easement exists along the northern property line. The property is surrounded by single-family residences to the west and south with the I-5 Freeway to the north and east (Exhibits 1 and 2). Project Description The project involves the construction of a 1,734 square foot, two-story, four bedrooms, two and a half bathroom, and single-family residence. The first floor will include an attached one-car garage and carport, living room, kitchen and half-bath, while the second floor will consist of four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The proposed residence will feature Spanish style architecture and include decorative wrought iron on the balconies, ceramic the along the base of the home, wood window sills, corbels and shutters to complement the smooth stucco finish (Exhibits 3 through 5). Landscaping will be provided in accordance with the Single-Family Residential (Rl) landscape guidelines and will include a 36-inch Crape Myrtle, a 24-inch Japanese maple and a variety of shrubs and groundcover as shown in the landscape plan (Exhibit 6). Analysis of the Issues The applicant is requesting approval of variances from Sections 41- 237(c), 41-1320 and 41-234 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to allow the construction of a single family residence. Section 41-237(c) of the Municipal Code requires a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet while only 3,201 square feet are provided. Section 41-1320 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a minimum of four off-street parking spaces of which two must be within an enclosed garage, while the remaining spaces may be parked in tandem in the driveway. The current proposal includes a 320 square foot one-car garage adjacent to a 238 square foot covered carport to allow two cars to park in tandem. Lastly, Section 41-234 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet while only approximately 10 feet will be provided. Lot Size The project site is a Caltrans remnant parcel that was created as a result of the Santa Ana Freeway Widening Project which resulted in a parcel that is 3,201 square feet in size. The subject lot is triangular in shape and located along the eastern portion of the cul-de-sac at the end of Eastside Avenue. Following the freeway widening, the Planning 31 B-3 Variance Nos. 07-07, 07-08 and 07-11 January 28, 2008 Page 3 Division evaluated the remnant parcels and recommended that the parcel be consolidated with the adjacent property at 705 North Eastside Avenue. The adjacent property owner has declined the offer to purchase the property and it has remained vacant since 1995. Although the lot meets the required street frontage and lot coverage standards, the existing single-family residence to the south and the I-5 Freeway to the north prevent the subject property from meeting the minimum lot size requirement for the Single-Family Residential (R1) zoning district. Parking In addition to the variance for minimum lot size, the subject property will require a variance to allow a reduction in the total number of required off-street parking spaces. Section 41-1320 of the SAMC requires a two-car garage with two parking spaces to be parked in tandem in a driveway. In order to reduce the visual impact of the garage on the front elevation, staff recommended the use of a one-car garage and carport in lieu of a two-car garage. The one-car garage was then set back to the rear of the property in order to lengthen the driveway to allow the remaining spaces to be parked in tandem. The proposed building has been designed in a manner to ensure that the project complies with three of the four property setbacks and lot coverage and cannot be moved without taking the property out of compliance with the other requirements of the (Rl) zoning district. The proposed building footprint was also largely dictated by an existing 10-foot drainage easement along the northern property line which prevented the structure from being located in this area. Additionally, Eastside Avenue's designation as a non-arterial street in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan combined with the lot's location within a cul-de-sac significantly reduces the number of cars circulating in this area. This low traffic level would allow for parking that cannot be accommodated in the shortened driveway to be parked on the street without disturbing traffic circulation. Front Yard Setback A third variance is required to allow a reduction in the front yard setback. In response to the existing site constraints, the applicant is proposing to develop a modest single-family residence on this property and has made every attempt to comply with all of the development standards in the Single-Family Residential (R1) zone including street frontage and lot coverage. While the original design met the required 31 B-4 Variance Nos. 07-07, 07-08 and 07-11 January 28, 2008 Page 4 front yard setback, based on staff's review and comments from the Planning Commission, in order to provide a sufficient amount of living space for the home and an architecturally pleasing front facade, the front yard setback was encroached upon. Although the proposed residence does encroach into the front yard setback, because the property is located on a cul-de-sac, the front wall falls in line with the other homes on the street, thus not interrupting the existing pattern of development (Exhibit 7) . The encroachment into this setback has allowed the residence to gain needed living space and provide an architecturally appropriate front porch. By maintaining the existing development pattern along the street the project is supporting Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element, which encourages new development that is compatible in scale and is consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood. By developing a vacant parcel of land, this proposal is also consistent with Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element which encourages development that provides a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. Finally, this project supports Policy 4.1.6 of the Housing Element in the City's General Plan by developing vacant and underutilized land for residential purposes. On September 24, 2007, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing for the project. During the hearing, several issues were raised regarding the architectural design of the project as well as the size of the living space compared to other homes in the neighborhood. A study of the surrounding neighborhood revealed that the square footage of the home and the proposed number of bedrooms and bathrooms was substantially similar to the average for the neighborhood. In response to the architectural design, the elevations were revised to attempt to address the Commissions concerns. On October 22, 2007, the Planning Commission again opened a public hearing for the project. Although the applicant had revised the plans in order to address the Commissions previous comments, the Commission continued to express concerns with the architecture and style of the proposed project. The Planning Commission continued the hearing for an additional month in order to allow the applicant to revise the plans to address the various design issues. 31 B-5 Variance Nos. 07-07, 07-08 and 07-11 January 28, 2008 Page 5 As a result of the second set of comments from the Planning Commission, and at the recommendation of staff, the applicant elected to completely revise his plans and change from a contemporary architectural style to a traditional Spanish architectural style, to better suit the size and shape of the lot while continuing to provide a reasonable square footage for the home. The project's use of Spanish style architecture will create a unique home in an architecturally homogenous neighborhood. The inclusion of a flat roof as a defining characteristic of the Spanish style allows the home to accommodate its non-traditional shape without creating any awkward rooflines. The incorporation of other traditionally Spanish style features like wrought-iron balconies and heavy wood window sills complete the architectural image that this home creates. Additionally, moving the garage to the back of the property helps to reduce its visual impact and increases the overall livability of the home by allowing all of the public spaces to be incorporated in a great room style floor plan. Due to the size and shape of the lot, as well as the existing drainage easement, the applicant's inability to comply with the required minimum lot size, off-street parking, and front yard setback requirements creates a unique hardship on the property. Based on the analysis of the project and the project's compatibility with the City's General Plan and applicable development standards, staff recommends approval of Variance Nos. 2007- 07, 2007-08 and 2007-11 as conditioned. CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a) This Class 3 exemption allows for the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. As a result, no further environmental review is needed. Environmental Review No. 2007-81 will be filed for this project. Matt Foulkes Assistant Planner I MF:jm mfoulkes\reports\va07-07,08&11.711 Eastside Drive.012808.pc .• Verny Carvajal Senior Planner 31 B-6 R2 Rl ~ ,B R1-B R7-B ~~ Bs..r I.,W R1 o°AV C4~ SD-73~ P ~ i ~ R1 1 a CS nt - CS ~C1 C1 m C5 C4 ~ n t R1 ~ 'P °, C1 ~ P P ~ P C5 C5 -- n< I 17TH ST.o -- -- -- _. -- C5 © C1 ~5 R2 C5 - - ~-I --,CBS I z,.~ cs cs a ~ CS ~ ~ ~,> C5 ' R1 Rt ~ R1 ~~ C1 ~ C4 -~ T ~.,s. I i CS ~ y R4 a C1 C5 C2 ,55.E Rt-B R1 ~ i R7 R1 R1 R1 C5 C5 Rl w R1 B I Rt R1-B R1-B ~ \ -- -- ~ I -~ sn, s -- n - 3 h s...B Ri ' Rt i t JI I-'-I Q R1 •~' Rz ~ ~ C5 R1 w I -' I C5 ~ ~ R4 ~ ~4-PFi¢ $R4- Rz R1 R1 m Rt I i f _ _I ~ PRD R1 C5 C5 $ Q ~ `_,I, '~z I _i M2 Rz R1 R1 ~ R1 ,~ wEiuN TdJ Av -- V P p ., R2 R1 -__V~ ~__s~ ~I ~ ~ - -- tr Tr_ ~ - ~-Ir=Cr-ter cz I cz u ~ 0 Rt R4 ~ , I~__IIR4-PAD ~, i~__q r~ M2' s 0 <~ c PL R1 R1 %it ~' -- I-~'-_I--~~_ ~I - _ r- R2 sz R2 M M2 Ml O GRACE ST ~ Ri - ~ R1-PRD I Rz ~ R1 w VA PL. R1 L) ~ ~1 I, J : I K N. D y ___- ~ ~ M2 0 ~ --\ ~ l l_-_- i^I ~ ST FF - Rib D$ I R1 I ` I Rz q z sT~ 7~ sT R3 ~ s R ~ yl~~l III Rt ~Rl R1 t M2 R2 D R3 /, R7 I BQ s I `r_~-I 0~' so S ; I I, ` ,~ PAP O „ep FRUiT I~9 ~j -- 501 ~ 5~-(P FRUR R3 FE' 1 ~ R1_ a.s -_ s-it--Bn ,.~ ~4y Y T PRD R sT ~ B. H-,B P SOS, M2 ~ PROJECT Rt R1 R1 RoiR. ~ R1 0 0 s R4 ¢ N~o D M7 R3 R3 SITE R, °~ R° --- R1/ Rt M2 °°'• TH sT Ma, I R1 R1 ~ P-OZ1-F ~ ~ ,~ -- ~"" 7 R1 R1 R1 AD ~:n B' P-OZ1-F P-DZ1-F M2s MD M2 M2 Mt R3 R3 ~ _ ~ P-OZ1-F C1 ~ sTN s . ~- M2 ? I Dz 0 ~ P P C2 ps,z P ~ I .I _ ---- --z; Bs Cz i 2 p P "" $P P~ ' P -- M2-~°n M2 Mt Me I Mt ~' - R2 r r P-OZI-F P-OZI-F ' R2 _ R2 zBR2 R2 M1 i ioe' SD-54- MZ-HDII M2-MDII Mt M1 C2 I Ci2 R2 ~~ N5.5 ,BBB' P M T OZi I ~ I R2-B a ' Rs R2 C2 o C5-OZ1-F C1- ~ Mt R2 z~ ~ £ ~ ~C5 OZl-F M2-H°u M2-H°u Mt I ~~ T ' ~ C2 ~ ~ C2 C2 Hsi cz -a C2 I-a a 115 _--_ 1ST ST. ~- R2 M1 M1 Mt ~ M2 Mi M1 C2 - 1B3'- C2 C2 1 ~c~=-`"^ _ ° 121.8- WALNIRST - µALNUT ST 1 m C5 ~~ Ri N - R3 M1 z M7 m ~ ~ cs- C2-DZl -F ~ ozt-F M1 ~ i B,z3,-~I-s-I-. s - R3 R3 PMt T ~ Mt M2 M1 R3 0 -- R3 R3 M1 u, M1 M7 D ~ R3 R3 z R2 M1 M2 I Ai CHESTNUT AV - - ~ Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -B PARKING MODIFICATION -F FLOOR AREA RATIO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE C1-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAW INDUSTRIAL R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS MO MILITARY OPERATIONS R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VILLAGE O OPEN SPACE RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER -OZ OVERLAY ZONE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CS ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ VA 07-7NA 07-8NA 07-11 n MR. JAMISON LUTHER ~,, 711 EASTSIDE AVENUE - - =500 FEET 1" = 1000 FEET P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y VICINITY MAP J1~_!~ x cs y 3 S FRUIT ST. A F ~ Q ~ '' Y Q V.I O J Q ~ ~ w PROJECT 3 SITE Z } J ~ ~ W ~ Q _ ~ Q Z W W > Z Q ~ ~ = ~ W `~ a ~, ~ ~, 111 J J ~ W~ ~ ~' z Q PATRICIA ~~ ~ ~ W A ~w_ 9 J _ W i~ ¢ ,F. J Q l!J } 1- c~ N J J Z ~ s~ z F- Q ? Q O 'y ~'! ~ ~ ~ w q~ F s `~ v~ W ¢ O~ 2~ i ~9~ VA 07-7NA 07-8NA 07-11 MR. JAMISON LUTHER --- 711 EAST IDE AVENUE P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 2 31 B-8 o~ ~~. ~ . ~ If~l~~~~il~lt'i~ J o «q~ ~ ~ ~ 9 I~I~iI!'I!!'~i''I W ~~~~ w ws '+'~I 3 ~ ~ W r~ {a`~ ~II~iII~~~~i~~I'll~~ ~~ ~~~~ K~Q°z ~ I a E ~ I m ~~~ ~~~° ~~ a~l~ I.fllil~.l~.l~t.~ F os ~ a 2~ I g I ~ N r7 1~ ~ W r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Z Q Q O av~-i ~ i ~~ ~ Z ~ ~ Q ~ Q Z ~ I F~ F- d U ~ ~ A ~ ~ k ecee ~ Q ~~ R gpRA ~ C ~ ~ R~ I "pW~ z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Q B gi o J m ~ t i i F q9 .. g p ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ z J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = Wi ~ w t g ~ Z ~tqp~ ~' a w ( ~Y~ U J lid o ? J _ N g ~ ~ i 5 ~5 5 CO ~ ~ ~' F , E~ ~ ~~~~ a ~ j EF~i Z ! E ts ~~ii ® g~Qb V - (n tt . rr P! i {{~ ~ 8 s ~~ ~ ~~ I9 zoning district, Variance No. 2007-08 is for a reduction in the required off-street parking and Variance No. 2007-11 is to allow the reduction in the front yard setback. B. Variance No. 2007-07 and Variance No. 2007-08 and Variance No. 2007- 11 came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing on September 24, 2007. The Planning Commission continued the matter to October 22, 2007. On October 22, 2007 the matter was continued to December 10, 2007. On December 10, 2007 the matter was continued to January 14, 2008. On January 14, 2008 the matter was continued to January 28, 2008. C. On January 28, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted the continued public hearing on Variance No. 2007-07, Variance No. 2007-08, and Variance No. 2007-11. D. Variance No. 2007-07 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to reduce the lot size from the minimum lot size of 4,000 as required by Section 41-237(c), to 3,601 square feet. Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 1 of 12 31 B-14 1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance upon making certain findings. 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. Special circumstances exist in that this lot is a legally created remnant parcel resulting from the widening of the I-5 Freeway. Prior to the I-5 widening, this lot was a 9,029.5 square foot trapezoidal shaped parcel. As a result of the I-5 widening, this parcel was substantially reduced in area, but has retained its R-1 zoning and LR-7 General Plan land use designation. The property is unable to increase its square footage as it is bounded by the I-5 Freeway to the north and an existing single-family residence to the south. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the opportunity to develop this site with a high quality single-family residence. Not allowing this variance would likely result in the property remaining vacant which is in contrast to Policy 4.1.6 of the Housing Element of the General Plan which encourages development of vacant or underutilized parcels for residential purposes. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The proposed single-family dwelling will have no detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties or neighborhood. The lot is being developed with an appropriately sized and scaled single-family residence that will harmoniously blend with the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. The residence has maintained all of the required setbacks in order to follow the existing residential development Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 2 of 12 31 B-15 of the street. It has also provided several architectural features including wood siding and second story step backs to reduce the scale and massing of the second story. These efforts were made to comply with Policy 2.2 of the Urban Design Element, which encourages development that is consistent with the scale, bulk and pattern of existing residential neighborhood. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the City's General Plan in any way as the land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7) matches the proposed single-family development. This is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element which promotes development which is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses. E. Variance No. 2007-08 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to reduce the minimum required off-street parking (four spaces) as required by Section 41-1320 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to two in an enclosed two-car garage. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance upon making certain findings. 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. Special circumstances exist in that this lot is a legally created remnant parcel resulting from the widening of the I-5 Freeway. Prior to the I-5 widening, this lot was a 9,029.5 square foot trapezoidal shaped parcel. As a result of the I-5 widening, this parcel was substantially reduced in area, but has retained its R-1 zoning and LR-7 General Plan land use designation. The I-5 Freeway widening was also affected the shape of the subject property, changing it from a trapezoid to roughly triangular in shape. This change Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 3 of 12 31 B-16 in shape has resulted in a portion of the driveway no longer being able to meet the required length while keeping the rest of the site in compliance with required building setbacks. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the opportunity to develop this site with a high quality single-family residence. Not allowing this variance would likely result in the property remaining vacant which is in direct contrast to Policy 4.1.6 of the Housing Element of the General Plan which encourages development of vacant or underutilized parcels for residential purposes. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The proposed single-family dwelling will have no detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties or neighborhood. The lot is being developed with an appropriately sized and scaled single-family residence that will harmoniously blend with the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. Although the triangular shape of the lot results in a portion of the driveway being unable to meet the required 20 feet, the properties location at the end of a cul-de-sac on a non-arterial street reduces any impacts it may have to the surrounding properties. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the City's General Plan in any way as the land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7) matches the proposed single-family development. This is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element which promotes development which is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses. Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 4 of 12 31 B-17 F. Variance No. 2007-11 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to reduce the front yard setback as required by Section 41-234 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to 10 feet of front yard setback. 1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a variance upon making certain findings. 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. Special circumstances exist in that this lot is a legally created remnant parcel resulting from the widening of the I-5 Freeway. Prior to the I-5 widening, this lot was a 9,029.5 square foot trapezoidal shaped parcel. As a result of the I-5 widening, this parcel was substantially reduced in area, but has retained its R-1 zoning and LR-7 General Plan land use designation. The lots irregular shape and location on a portion of a cul-de-sac prevents the project from meeting the front yard setback while still providing a high quality project, including a prominent front porch. Additionally, the property is unable to increase its square footage as it is bounded by the I-5 Freeway to the north and an existing single-family residence to the south. ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The granting of this variance would allow the property owner the opportunity to develop this site with a high quality single-family residence. Not allowing this variance would likely result in the property remaining vacant which is in contrast to Policy 4.1.6 of the Housing Element of the General Plan which encourages development of vacant or underutilized parcels for residential purposes. iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 5 of 12 31 B-18 The proposed single-family dwelling will have no detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties or neighborhood. The lot is being developed with an appropriately sized and scaled single-family residence that will harmoniously blend with the primarily residential character of the neighborhood. The residence has maintained three of the four required setbacks in order to follow the existing residential development of the street. It has also provided several architectural features including wood siding and second story step backs to reduce the scale and massing of the second story. These efforts were made to comply with Policy 2.2 of the Urban Design Element, which encourages development that is consistent with the scale, bulk and pattern of existing residential neighborhood. iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the City's General Plan in any way as the land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7) matches the proposed single-family development. This is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element which promotes development which is compatible with and supportive of surrounding land uses. G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a). This Class 3 exemption allows for the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. As a result, no further environmental review is needed. Environmental Review No. 2007-81 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission after conducting the public hearing hereby approves for the property located at 711 Eastside Drive: 1. Variance No. 2007-07, as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, to allow a reduction in the lot size. 2. Variance No. 2007-08, as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein, to allow a reduction in off-street parking. 3. Variance No. 2007-11, as conditioned in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein, to allow a reduction in the front yard setback. Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 6 of 12 31 B-19 These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 24, 2007 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 22, 2007 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated December 10, 2007, and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated January 14, 2008 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated January 28, 2008, and exhibits attached thereto and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Alderete, De La Torre, Gartner, Leo, Mill, Munoz(6) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: Betancourt (1) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Christopher Leo Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee Otto Assistant City Attorney Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 7 of 12 31 B-20 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007-36 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on January 28, 2008. Date: Planning Commission Secretary City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 8 of 12 31B-21 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2007-07 Variance Nos. 2007-07 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 07- 38. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Provide landscaping in accordance with submitted landscape plan. Resolution No. 2007-36 Exhibit A Page 9 of 12 31 B-22 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2007-08 Variance Nos. 2007-08 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 07- 38. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Provide landscaping in accordance with submitted landscape plan. Exhlblt B Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 10 of 12 31 B-23 Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2007-11 Variance No. 2007-11 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this variance. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the variance. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance. A. Planning Division 1. The project shall remain in compliance with Site Plan Review DP No. 07- 38. 2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At this time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the variance must be amended. 3. Provide landscaping in accordance with submitted landscape plan. Exhibit C Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 11 of 12 31 B-24 PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. SECTION 1013(a), 2015.5) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within action; my business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex 2nd Santa Ana, California 92702. I served the foreggoing document described as: Resolution No. 2007-36 Variance Nos. 2007-07 2007-08 and 2007-11) in this ac ion y p acing a rue copy ereo enc ose in sea a enve ope~~res~se ~as follows: Jamison Luther 3802 Beaver Street Irvine, CA 92614 Alireza Ashraf P.O. Box 2235 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 [ ] I caused to be delivered by courier, such envelope by hand to the office of the addressee(s). [X] BY MAIL I am readily familiar with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ ]The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and was reported as complete and without error. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date] at Santa Ana, California. MARTHA RAMIREZ Resolution No. 2007-36 Page 12 of 12 31 B-25 31 B-26