Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout32A - 2727 N BRISTOLREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 2008 TITLE: APPEAL NO. 2007-05 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-05 [COUNTY MAP NO. 2006-308]) TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY AT 2727 NORTH BRISTOL STREET - RED MOUNTAIN RET L, INC., APPLICANT G~ CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15' Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Receive and file the staff report denying Appeal No. 2007-05 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 [County Map No. 2006-308]). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On January 28, 2008, the Planning Commission denied Appeal No. 2007-05 and adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (County Map No. 2006-308) by a vote of 6:0 (Betancourt absent) to subdivide a property into two parcels in the Community Commercial (100-C1-10000) zoning district at 2727 North Bristol Street (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator and agreed that the creation of an irregular shaped parcel would affect the long term viability of the shopping center and would make it difficult to develop the new parcel to the City's commercial development standards which would not be a benefit to the community in the long term. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION On November 28, 2007, the Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (County Map No. 2006-308). The applicant submitted a letter appealing this decision for consideration by the Commission at their January 28, 2008 meeting. No changes were made to the staff report (Exhibit B). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Jay M. Trevino Executive Director Planning & Building Agency BA:rb ba/reports2007/tpm07-OS Red Mountain appeal.cc 32A-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2008 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY RED MOUNTAIN RETAIL, INC. FOR APPEAL NO. 2007-05 [TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-05 (COUNTY MAP NO. 2006-308)] TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY AT 2727 NORTH BRISTOL STREET Prepared by Bill Apple ,- Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Deny Appeal No. 2007-05. PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ^ Applicant's Request ^ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Planning M ager 2. Adopt a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (County Map No. 2006-308). DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Eric Nelson, representing Red Mountain Retail Group, is requesting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of a request to subdivide an existing improved property into two parcels. At the hearing on November 28, 2007, the Zoning Administrator, after considering staff's analysis, contained in the following pages and testimony by the applicant, denied Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05. The Zoning Administrator agreed that the creation of an irregular shaped parcel would affect the long term viability of the shopping center and would make it difficult to develop the new parcel to the City's commercial development standards which would not be a benefit to the community in the long term. The applicant has submitted a letter appealing this decision for consideration by the Commission (Exhibit 6). Property Description The Floral Park Promenade shopping center is located near the northeast corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane. The center is 6.17 acres in size and consists of three existing parcels and contains 26 tenant suites within four buildings and 71,848 square feet of commercial space. The EX 3 L~-2 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 January 28, 2008 Page 2 property has a zoning designation of 100-C1-10,000 and a General Plan Designation of General Commercial (GC). Surrounding land uses include multi-family residential to the north; commercial and single-family residential to the south; multi-family and commercial development to the west; and a combination of commercial and residential uses to the east (Exhibits 1 and 2). Access to the site is from Bristol Street although access to the shopping center can also be reached via Memory Lane. Project Description The Floral Park Promenade shopping center currently consists of three parcels of land totaling 6.17 acres. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the larger parcel into two additional parcels totaling 4.06 and 0.49 acres respectively. The subdivision will allow an existing tenant to purchase the property they are currently leasing. The subdivision will result in a total of four separate parcels within the shopping center. The smaller parcel (Parcel 2) will contain an existing office building and the larger parcel (Parcel 1) will contain an existing retail/commercial building. The remaining parcels contain small retail buildings and are not a part of this submittal (Exhibit 3). Analysis of the Issues The purpose of the City's subdivision ordinance is to promote the orderly development of land in a configuration that will allow properties to redevelop over time in compliance with City codes and development standards. The issues pertaining to the proposed subdivision are threefold; the subdivision creates irregular and unorthodox shaped parcels; creates additional non-conformancies with City codes that are contrary to the goals and policies of the City's General Plan; and the subdivision will result in an integrated shopping center being further subdivided that increases the difficulty of redeveloping the shopping center parcel over time. Subdivisions that create irregular shaped lots are contrary to the City's goal of promoting orderly and high quality development. The Subdivision Creates Irregular Shaped Parcels Regulating the subdivision of property for purposes of sale and development is a core function of local legislative bodies, such as cities. Whenever a new subdivision of land is proposed, staff evaluates the proposal to ensure that the design will result in a high quality project that will endure the test of time. 32A-3 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 January 28, 2008 Page 3 Section 66474 (b) of the Subdivision Map Act 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 applicable general and specific plans. Together with other elements of the General Plan, the Urban Design Element aims to curtail obsolete, dysfunctional and chaotic development. The Urban Design Element goes on to state "that development and subdivision patterns should be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around districts and neighborhoods, and provide a smooth transition along designated edges" (Policy 2.12). The predominate subdivision pattern in the surrounding area is rectangular shaped lots. The proposed subdivision creates an irregular shaped parcel that will be difficult to develop over time without acquiring additional land or applying for future variances. In addition, the unorthodox shape of the parcel does not comply with the intent of the City's subdivision and zoning ordinance (Exhibit 4). For example, the City's Community Commercial (C-1) development standards requires that each lot used for retail or service purposes have at least 120 feet of street frontage and an area of at least 15, 000 square feet. The purpose of this requirement is to maintain a parcel width of roughly the same proportion from front to back which results in a rectangular parcel that can easily be developed over time. In the case of the proposed subdivision, the new parcel will have 120 feet of street frontage. The width of the parcel however, is maintained for only 15 feet before narrowing considerably due to the constraints of designing a property line around an existing building. The new lot line jogs through common building walls, around building openings, utility panels and exit doors creating an irregular shaped parcel that is not conducive to future development. At the narrowest point, Parcel 2 is 15 feet wide and maintains this width for nearly 160 feet, which is clearly not the intent of the City's street frontage requirement or subdivision ordinance. The Subdivision Creates New Zoning Code Non-Conformancies Section 34-67 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SANG) states that no map shall be approved which would result in a violation of Chapter 8, which regulates Buildings and Structures, or Chapter 41, which regulates Zoning. Approval of the proposed map would result in several new non- conformities being created in violation of Chapter 41 of the zoning code. These new nonconformities are discussed below and include: front yard setbacks, drive aisle width, loading zone and trash enclosure locations, and a landscape buffer adjacent to residential property. 32A-4 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 January 28, 2008 Page 4 In addition, the applicant has not shown that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the building code as these issues were not addressed through site plan review. The applicant would need to show compliance with the appropriate California Building Codes prior to recording the final map. Required Front Yard Setback The front yard setback for Building "A" currently complies with City Code which requires a front yard of 15 feet in commercial zones. A "front yard" is defined as "a yard extending across the full width of the lot, the depth of which is the distance between the front lot line and the main wall of the building." Based upon the location of the new lot lines shown on the map, Parcel 1 has a front yard setback of one-foot adjacent to Building "A". This one-foot is the area between the wall of Building "A" and the new property line created between Parcels 1 and 2 on the proposed map. This new nonconformity will be created if the map is approved since the existing parcel configuration complies with the City's front yard zoning requirement (Exhibit 5). Drive Aisle Width The City's minimum requirement for a two-way drive aisle is 20 feet. Currently, there is a 25-foot drive aisle that is used to access parking and truck loading areas at the rear of Building "A", which complies with City Standards. The map creates a parcel that has a width of 15 feet which is below the minimum standard for a two-way drive aisle and therefore is not in compliance with City Development Standards. Loading Zone and Trash Enclosure The loading zone and trash enclosure for the retail building is currently located on the same parcel as the retail building that it serves. Should the subdivision map be approved, the loading zone and trash enclosure would be located on the newly created parcel and not on the parcel where the retail building is located. Reciprocal access agreements and easements can be put in place between property owners that would allow trash and delivery trucks access to the back of Parcel 2. However, there are often disputes that arise between adjacent property owners which could result in access being restricted 32A-5 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 January 28, 2008 Page 5 to the existing loading zone and trash enclosure. It is not a good practice to allow these critical functions of a building to be located on a different parcel than the building they serve. Landscabe Buffer Adjacent to Residential Propert A landscape area not less than five feet wide is required along any property line to the extent it serves to separate property zoned or used for residential purposes from any off-street parking area. Because the site is a legal non-conforming parcel, this zoning requirement does not currently exist; however, the width of the proposed subdivision precludes this requirement from ever being met without the need of a variance should the property redevelop in the future. Subdividing Integrated Shopping Centers Property is subdivided to create ownership opportunities for prospective buyers and tenants. Each time an integrated center is subdivided, as a general rule, additional ownership occurs and that parcel is no longer subject to the same regulations applied to the integrated center. For example, once subdivided, each parcel can develop independent of one another and improvements made to one parcel are not necessarily carried over to other parcels within the center. Each parcel is likely to have different ownership which increases the probability that they will act independently of one another, which is contrary to the concept of an integrated center. For example, because of previous subdivisions allowed by the City, this center no longer has street frontage on Memory Lane as a separate parcel was previously created and approved by the City. As property continues to be subdivided, it becomes difficult to reassemble land for future development, especially for large-scale development projects. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan policies that are intended to curtail obsolete, dysfunctional and chaotic development, nor the purpose or intent of the City's zoning code or subdivision ordinance. This subdivision creates new conformancies with City Codes. The odd shape of the parcel will make this property difficult to develop over time without reassembling property or applying for future variances. Based upon the above analysis and findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (County Map No. 2006-308). 32A-6 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 January 28, 2008 Page 6 CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California recommended action is not considered environmental documentation is required. ~ ~.~i Bill Apple Associate Planner BA:jm ba/reports2007/tpm07-OS Red Mountain.appeal.pc Environmental Quality Act, the a CEQA project. Therefore no ti~ Vince Fre so, ICP Senior Pla 32A-7 ~„ 0 c~rY o, oe~ee ~~ o /// gF11S7 - - _ _ _ _ LA VETA Av. // Al 0 -.-.-._o-- -- , -- = _ 0 ~v 22 FREEWAY - `~\ \~d / Al 0 R1 $T. ~Afl R1 R 0 1 e R1 Al R1 s / - ---- WE TORANfE flD. v~i R1 0 R1 J - - ~ ~ - - 9~~1Z 0 _ a / / m PROJECT SITE 9~- ~ ~ ~ R1 R1 R1 R1 g / T asx 100-C1-10000 tpt0o6R. OflETTA W. R1 so-27 Ri ' R1 R1 E R1 1 m Al Al R1 0 0 ~ ~o Ri - ci `- - ~ MEMOflv LH. R1 Ri Ri c~ ci ~ 3 R1 / R1 ~ R~ R1 H R1 N 'Rl R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 n Ri _ R1 a NL ~ R1 0 R1 R1 R1 Q R1 ~= R1 Q~ R1 R1 R1 ~ ~ ?Q p ~ R1 ~ R1 QP ~ R1 _ Ri P~ R1 fl R1 A. ~ Ri ti ~ R1 A R1 0 y ~ ~ ,._,,.. 0 w R1 R1 ~ R1 R1 R1 y 3 R1 0 / 0 R1 ~' i ~ ~ R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 ; R1 R1 LL R1 ~ wr i ran _ R1 / :R 5 R1 R1 R1 Ri y c P151 ~ ~ R1 ~ R7 AVALO A . R1 R1 R1 R1 ~ R1 R1 0 ~ R1 R1 R1 w R1 ~~, R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 w A7 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL Rt SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -B PARKING MODIFICATION GC GOVERNMENT CENTER R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE C-SM COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R3 MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FAMILY RESIDENCE Ct-MD COMM. COMMERCIALlMUSEUM DISTRICT MO MILITARY OPERATIONS R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENTS C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 0 OPEN SPACE RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS P PROFESSIONAL SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SP SPECIFIC PLAN C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT C5 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL TPM 07-5 COUNTY MAP NO. 06-308 ~ RED MOUNTAIN RETAIL GROUP - - =500 FEET 1"=1000 FEET 2727 NORTH BRISTOL STREET 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 V I MAP 3 IT 1 SING E F MILY ES. ~ M U L T I F A M I L Y R E S T D E N T I A L W PINEHURST ~ GWC N SI GL FA ILY ESI ENT L J Q J Z W U O ~ ~ ~ J '~ ~ W ,Q ~ W ° PROJECT SITE ~ ~ Z J Wo C O M M E R C I A L Q by ~ W J ~ ~ MULTI ~ FAMILY ~ RES. J O > ,J MOLT! V) ¢ 1¢'- ¢ 2 SlN LE FAMILY VACANT ~ COMMERCIAL W W W W FA ILY RES. m C O M M E R C I A L ~ 0 != ~ RESID NTIAL C7W ~W ~W ~~ MEMORY LANE SFR J J J ` S F R _ J J J COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL J J _ l- ~ _ (/~ ~ ti ~ w ~w W ~w W W ~o N Y SFR ~ ~W ZW O CAW ZW m J Z ,¢ ~ ~ y ~~ TPM 07-5 COUNTY MAP NO. 06-308 °'~ RED MOUNTAIN RETAIL GROUP ~ 2727 NORTH BRISTOL STREET 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 32A-9 TENTATIVE -- PARCEL - MAP 2006 - 308 ..o I - - I ~ ~~ - - - ° * ~ ` ~n s II I P CEL i~- ~ h IC I s ~ • 1 ~....• ~ y I + N 01 YI ~ Yaf 1 1 I I q N < '~' 3 1 ~~~~~ I•• +e1nK fQ.1 i~rjm~r, eu V 1 1 ~{ p~11M~s >0' ww y` 1 I s's h ~ a „ A'~ I 13~ ~ t 1 ~j 30' Ww , R SO' M ~ ~ BUILDING A f ~ j ,f` ~ f ., I ' ~+• t O N t i v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O h A.C. vAVp.ENf ~ p UI I apl • M /'/ W e 1 Pt Y w PA PA P t A PA I . I , 9' nw P I f + W ~ 0' I 'I ~ ~ + O vw ' ~ a ~ I ` ~ I I (~ ~ ~ e i ~ I ~ vWi ~ _ $3 ~ O I I 1 ~ m $ ~ a s ~ ~ i.a' 1 ~ ~ w , z vt e 1 ~ 00'06' I OYI i 5 v N. 9'SS 50 t 107. 9' .~ V < ar 1e' I . . i 24.39' >= : , 1 Iw 1 ~ ..r ~ a ~ - r I' - -'---_. I i.69'SJ'50~/1. 141.49' ~~ ~~ ~. v ~ ~ ~~ J S S O6 'E. ~ ~~ e + ~~ ~ ~ ~:-- ~ = - 1G. ---- q. Nb0'SSSO'W. 00.76' ~. n 1 NOT : ~ a Nb9' 'SO . t .JJ' c MN:Ia1-O3.-ODf , NoT r NOT g +wf~ NU IN) •M1NCR+ SRa lM190. ><. ~,.. ~, u,:u. q ~w I . . ~ ' '~ PART ~ ' PART = ; ~~ ~ f'~ ~ p' r ~ b ~ r PART _ $ vw of :~ o :. --:---- :,-- - EX. 27 cue • wffrw ~~ t 9 1 ~ - - - R~ - EX. 30" SEWER ~_ ~ EX. 8"t WATER ~ ° EX. 15" SEWER ~tniw~ x~"`I '.'4 1 . 16' W T EX. 2" GAS ,,,~ N.a9'sJ•so'w. ~~ [aals or e~nwcs ~, MEMORY LANE 589.x' EASEIIEI'1'[' N01E3 /N LEGEND ~ Parcel2 0 Exist Building ~ Proposed Parcel 1 Proposed Parcel 2 ~ Common Property Line between Parcels 1 and 2 • • • • • New Front Yard Setback Parcel 1 EXHIBIT 3 32A-10 a I I "~ P CEL ~ ~ II I ~ ~ lV N ~ ~ .T. 7 763"i 1AM[ ~W AtJ r ' 1 qQp~ 1 -y10~11'~'~~ 7C' INEN Ij 1 I 3 6 0 - „ 7.3' .~ 1 0' I 1 13 IADS 1 I ~ gg r 1 D 1 R I 1 1 I O O I ' I ~ BUILDING A ~ C r I - - min-- 1 ~ 1/1 w I ~ PA ~ I s •• ~ t, Z+ E ~ ~° p W 1 A.C. PWEL[Ni ~ I I 4 W I °°+ . I R f'1 + X W O 1 PA P _ " PA Ply P _ A P P _ PA I I I ~ K S ~ q ~ • II ' Vl X w ~ °' I I no+n ` ~ O P" I p~ I ~, ~ ~ I " ~ „ dl I ~ N ~ ~ I I a m X '~" g 2 P" P ~ 1 P ~ 7 A ~ 'yx6r~"~pSIa~P(' ~ t p013. Ri tlP ' :x M Prl W I i 1 ~ 5.00'06' 101N. S3 SO 107. 9 ` MM 71 24.39' I• I w - ~ s' I i.a9'S3'a0'W. 141.49' • p Cy ` n' i ~~ t 5 S o $ N. ae ~. ~, e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~'' = - f0. ---- r N,s9'33'S01M. Tt' N '~ ~ NOT ~ __ :~ a N.a9' 'S0 . 1 .J3' . N o ' NOT r NOT APP ,~77-07, -ODI A yNiA IMA .A0 MA1"CRS »xs wma ec I : . f cosh ssly~ a a~xA ~ I A I PA A.c. PAK.MENr ~ s j I: • A tl PART PART ~ I ~ ~ c /o o ~ r , PART . g ., ~ f) ~ ~ i rn r C$aMSS. _ -- - -- ~ 3 -- - , _ __ Is' we -- I X J PA PA w M.Y EX. 27 aw, : wnw ~~ r _ _ 4 _ i ~~ EX. 30" SEWER EX. 9" ~ wnTER o1 „1 ° EX. 1 S" SEWER AP~wP kMO1 ' .16" W TR EX, 2" GAS „~P,,,r N.a9's3'sow. ~~ [awsls or eFanwcs C, MEMORY LINE sa9.eo' aesaranr nv~ss LEGEND ~ Parcel2 0 Exist Building ~ Proposed Parcel 1 Proposed Parcel 2 ~ Common Property Line between Parcels 1 and 2 EXHIBIT 4 32A-11 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - 2006 - 308 __ R ,~ , ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ • . g e ~ ~ ~. _ '~ it ~i 8 I I~, N wr ~~ ~ • 1 . I ~ ~ ; w ~ i ~ t 1••••»• ~ i ~~ u.~) ..r g 1 a IA ~ _ rA F 3 ~ ~ • ~~ ~ fi W f- i A.c. PAVt>tEMr I o ~ W I N ~I _ • • . ' n N~y W W C ~ PA M' M PA Pa P PA , E C/I x I 9. Pa ~ ~' ' a W ~ ~ II u+n i ~ ~ O ~ I vA g~ ~ dl a ~w Q i `~ ~ I 3W N ~ ~ p $a I• i 0 , am ~ ~ { w 1 • ' A ; r. ~ 24.7f ~ - II .~ WY ,.. _ ~3 LarS,7'S01N. 141.48' _ ~_ II ~ ~ ~`~ I N. Oa ~1 e . ~~ 10. ~~ NOT ~ ~~ ° NOT a NOT ~ A ~~1~,~ MTA AY Ma PNlla(1!. Iq. O.AOC Sr , I 1/l . (O6~A ~A G .lQ. PART ~ PART ~ I ~ N ~`~ P""`"` ~" ~ A ~ w ~ ~ .. ~ ., r t PART ~= ° X LB,DS+s_ - __ -- -- _.r_ _ ___ ~!'S.__ I . EX . 27 as a cw~a y t _ _ ~ _ i ~~' EX. 30" SEWER " - _ ~ EX. 8 • W ATER ~ i ° EX. 15" SEWER t~~ ' .I6'W S~ ' ' EX. 2' CAS Pw<P ' w. N.arsa so [aASis or ewlwcs g, MEMORY LANE sa9.~' a.ss>~n r xo1<ss LEGEND A Exist Building /~~ ~ Proposed Parcel 1 Proposed Parcel 2 • • • • • Common Property Line between Parcels 1 and 2 • • • • • New Front Yard Setback Parcel 1 EXHIBIT 5 32A-12 RED MOUNTAIN Retail Group November 27, 2007 Planning Commission City of Santa Ana -Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Eric A. Nelson Direct Dial: (714) 245-7405 E-mail: enelson~nnrginc.com HAND DELIVERED Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-OS (County Map No. 2006-308) Appeal of Zoning Administrator Denial To Whom It May Concern: This letter shall serve as our appeal to the Planning Commission of the Zoning Administrator denial of the above-referenced tentative parcel map on November 27, 2007. As discussed below, we believe that the staff report, while accurate in some respects, fails to provide a detailed comprehensive analysis and that the Zoning Administrator's decision was made in error. Analysis of the Issues The staff report suggests that the subdivision creates irregular and unorthodox shaped parcels and that it creates additional non-conformance with City codes that are contrary to the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The staff goes further to describe the difficulty's that maybe created by the approval of this map as it relates to the re- development of this site. As you will see, this application is not contrary to the City's General Plan nor does it create any real non-conformance with any specific zoning ordinance(s), rather it is consistent with many of the elements of the General Plan and creates, at best, perceived non-conformance that can be addressed through conditions of approval. The Subdivision Creates Irregular Shaped Parcels The development of commercial property relies heavily on market conditions, location of property and the underlying legal documents that govern how a property is to be developed, maintained, and re-developed. These documents include, among other things, 1234 East Seventeenth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 .3~ ,~ November 27, 2007 Page 2 City of Santa Ana reciprocal access agreements (REA), covenants conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) and common area maintenance agreements (CAMA). With the proper documentation, parcel size and shape have very little to do with the re-development of commercial property. In this instance, the staff has even referred to previous approvals to sub-divide this property (Floral Park Promenade) but fails to discuss how these "subdivided" properties were actually re-developed even with the fractured ownership, which has been the basis for the denial of this application. The staff report reply's on Section 66474(b) of the Subdivision Map Act to deny this application but fails to discuss how this reliance may in fact hinder the city's long term ability to control the re-development of this site. The Subdivisions Map Act has specific provisions that will allow for the fracturing of ownership without the controls that could be included in a resolution to approve this request. Specifically, section 66412.1' of the Land Map Act expressly exempts this type of project from review if other forms of ownership such as a long term ground lease are instituted. While this would not be the best approach from an ownership perspective, it is an accepted way of conveyance and is done through the creation of a legal descriptions and a ground lease. Terms for these types of development(s) can run anywhere from thirty (30) to ninety-nine (99) years. A conveyance of this type ground leaseZwould not be subject to any form of government review thus restricting the city's ability to regulate it. In other words, the approval of this application would afford the city the opportunity to require specific conditions as part of its approval such as CC&R's and CAMA agreements to insure the long term success of this project and the ability to re-develop in the future. Byway of example, the rear northern portion of this property, including the parking spaces, are located on the adjacent owner's property (proposed village green development) and are regulated by a long term ground lease. As with this application, the lack of city control's vis-a-vis CC&R's has insured that the long-term redevelopment of this site maybe compromised by a ground lease due to the city's ability to have provided proper controls that would actually provide for long-term sustainability. As it relates to the development standards, the proposed parcel meets the specific requirements including among other things, frontage and lot size. Letter of the code and spirit of the code are an important factor in determining the intent. In this case, staff has suggested that this application clearly does not meat the intent of the code, but sections such as 41-608(a.) would suggest that the intent of the code was not to regulate in a fashion that would always insure "regularly shaped parcels" but rather provides several provisions that allow for the development of irregularly shaped lots. ' 66412.1. This division shall also be inapplicable to: (a) The financing or leasing of any parcel of land, or and op rtion thereof 1234 East Seventeenth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 32A-14 November 27, 2007 Page 3 City of Santa Ana The Subdivision Creates New Zone Code Non-Conformance. It is important to note that the application before you does not propose any new development nor does it request any land use or development changes. This request is to allow for the creation of virtual lines to allow this development, specifically the rear office building, to be sold to an owner who will occupy the building and continue to run an existing successful business. This project and this request will adhere to the new "ICode" and comply with all of Chapter 8 regulations. The reason for the proposed lot line configuration or the "irregularly shaped lot" is to conform to these specific provisions. It is those regulations that drive the layout of the proposed lot configuration. Required Front Yard Setback The proposed project is not requesting any change to the setbacks of this "integrated shopping center" nor is it requesting any new development. As discussed in a previous paragraph, Section 41-608(a) of the city's zoning ordinance authorizes the Zoning Administrator to regulate and make modifications to the Yard Regulations of this chapter. This section states "Since the general yard provisions of this chapter have to be applied to numerous types of conditions and shapes of parcels occasioned by varying street layouts and subdivisions of property, it is not advisable to attempt to define herein those cases which warrant exceptions and modifications "This section goes on to state "therefore, authority is hereby given to the zoning administrator, as part of his functions to determine in writing the application of specific requirements of this chapter" (Ibid). This section clearly outlines the purpose and intent of this chapter and authorizes the approval of this application by the zoning administrator. Drive Aisle Width As indicated in other sections of this letter, the approval of this application in no way inhibits or reduces the location, size, width or other provisions of the city's development standards. By applying this strict adherence to the letter of the code, this center, along with many other centers, would fail to meet almost all of this sections references as it currently has several property lines that subdivide, among other things, driveways, parking spaces, landscape planters and buildings. The proper creation of CC&R's would regulate this issue and insure that the proposed lot is regulated to allow for future redevelopment. Loading Zone and Trash Enclosure The staff report suggests that "disputes" could occur and that these critical functions (loading zones & Trash Enclosures) should not be located on different parcels. In this instance, the majority of the retailers are all ready using a loading zones and trash 1234 East Seventeenth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 32A-15 November 27, 2007 Page 4 City of Santa Ana enclosures on the adjacent parcels. For instance, Starbucks and all of the other retailers located on the corner of Bristol & Memory Lane utilize a loading zone located within Floral Park Promenade. This can be seen on the attached Exhibit A and was approved within the last few years by city staff, suggesting that this issue has not stopped development. Landscape Buffer Adjacent to Residential PropertX As discussed earlier, the northern boundary of the property as shown in the staff report includes a portion ofground-leased property from the adjacent residential property (Village Green) and will never meet this requirement. As part of the negotiations with Village Green, we do have a proposal that will allow for the swap of the existing parking area (currently under a ground lease) to be located within the boundary of the proposed lot. This would allow for a driveway relocation that would provide more of a buffer from the residential property. Subdividing Integrated Shopping Centers This issue has been discussed relative to all of the sections noted above and with proper documentation, long term control can be instituted. Furthermore, staff has, in the past, supported the use of the proposed documentation to assist in long term consistency regardless of fractured ownership. It should further be noted that this city's staff has consistently required Red Mountain Retail Group, as a partial owners of other integrated /fractured shopping centers, to re-develop sites as if they are the owner of the entire site relying on code sections that require these re-developments to be integrated. For example, the development of the last phase of Home Place Plaza (Osh Hardware on E. 17`" Street, North of Tustin) was approved earlier this year. As part of the approval, and with existing fractured ownership, Red Mountain was required as part of its conditions, to include paint and architectural enhancements on buildings that were not owned by Red Mountain in order to provide for consistency throughout the "integrated shopping center" and this was based on specific code requirements cited by city staff member Ann Ni.2 General Plan Consistency In reviewing the staff report, there was a reliance on the General Plan and the inconsistency of this application. After reviewing the General Plan, we offer the following sections that show this application is consistent with the following policies. z The approval required upgrading the paint and materials of the existing (old gateway building and Osh Hardware) buildings to match the proposed mixed use commercial building that is currently being constructed. 1234 East Seventeenth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 32A-16 November 27, 2007 Page 5 City of Santa Ana Land Use Element3 Goal 2 "Promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability" The proposed map would provide for an ownership opportunity thus providing an increased tax base as part of this transaction and would insure long-term operation of an existing, Santa Ana based business. Pride of ownership and local business helps to achieve this goal. Policy 2.7 "Promote rehabilitation of commercial properties, and encourage increased levels of capital investment" The approval of this map would insure not only the continued success of this property and its business, it would also allow for more capitol investments to take place through property acquisition and substantial interior improvements. Economic Development Element4 Goal 1 "Increase employment opportunities for local residents " The current business located in the rear office building employs a large amount of local Santa Ana residents. Retention of this business through a property transaction would insure the long term employment stays in Santa Ana, providing jobs and opportunities to the residents of Santa Ana. Policy 1.2 "Continue to emphasize retention of existing labor intensive business which supports community economic development goals. The current business located in the rear office building employs a generous amount of local Santa Ana residents. Retention of this business through a property transaction would insure the long term employment stays in Santa Ana Goal S "Promote a business friendly atmosphere by keeping taxes and fees at a fair level competitive with those comparable communities, by assisting desirable business growth. " Approval of this map would clearly promote the continued assistance of desirable business growth. Policy S.1 "Encourage land uses, developments and businesses that pay their way from non-discretionary taxes (sales, property, subventions) ". 3 Land Use Element of the General Plan was adopted on February 2, 1998 as resolution 98-008 a Economic Development Element was adopted in July, 1998 1234 East Seventeenth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 32A-17 November 27, 2007 Page 6 City of Santa Ana The approval of this map would insure not only the continued success of this property and its business, it would also allow for more capitol investments to take place through property acquisition and substantial interior improvements increasing the tax base substantially. Policy 5.3 "Strive to simplify development permit requirements, and assist businesses with permit processing". The process that we are currently in surely fails to meet this policy. Approval at this point would further this policy and goal simplifying the permit process. While it is never our wish to be presenting arguments such as this that are contradictory to city staff, we feel as though this issue is critical to the success of this project and to further the goals and policies of this city. Over the last seven years, Red Mountain has been a leader in the re-development of this site along with multiple other properties within the city and we feel that our track record of success speaks for itself. In this instance, the approval of this request will ensure that this building remains occupied and maintained long into the future. Therefore we are asking for you make findings necessary for approval. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission overturn the Zoning Administrator's denial. Respectfully, RED MOUNTAIN RETAIL GROUP, INC. ~-_ Eric A. Nelson Vice President Entitlements Cc; Bill Apple -City of Santa Ana Vince Fregoso -City of Santa Ana Kathy O'Conner-Phelps - Sr. Entitlements Manager Carl Roude, Esq. -Vice President /General Counsel Pat Murphy -Partner File 1234 East Seventeenth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 32A-18 November 27, 2007 Page 7 City of Santa Ana EXHIBIT A 1234 East Seventeenth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 32A-19 ~i ~ • RED M9o K said msr TY ~~ ~~~ ~ ~„~ a ~ 1 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING MINUTES NOVEMBER 28, 2007 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.2007-05 11:09 a.m. Mr. Sergio Klotz, Zoning Administrator, called to order the public hearing in the City Hall Ross Annex Conference Room 2001. Also in attendance were: Kathy O'Connor-Phelps and Eric Nelson, Applicants; Bill Apple, Associate Planner; Lorena Penaloza, City Attorney; and Jocelyn Magalona, Recording Secretary. Bill Apple presented the staff report and recommendation. There were no written communications. Mr. Nelson provided a handout in response to the staff report and discussed the analysis of the issues including the general plan consistency. Mr. Klotz stated that the analysis should focus on the long term viability of the project and whether the project would be a benefit to the community in the long term. Mr. Klotz explained the city process and appeal options to the applicant. The Zoning Administrator adopted a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007- 05. The-hearing'adjourned at 10:41 a.m. .. -~- ~, ~ ~ Jocelyn Magalo " a Recording Secretary mr\zoning administrationlminutes\2007111-28-07 tpm07-05 32A-20 KO 1 /24/07 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-05 (COUNTY PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-308) TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS AT 2727 NORTH BRISTOL (APPEAL NO. 2007-05) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (County Map No 2006-308) to subdivide a single parcel into two parcels at 2727 North Bristol. The subject property is the Floral Park Promenade shopping center and is located near the northeast corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane. The center is 6.17 acres in size, consists of two existing parcels, and contains 26 tenant suites within four buildings and 71,848 square feet of commercial space. The subdivision would result in a total of three separate parcels within the shopping center. B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing on November 14, 2007, and was continued until November 28, 2007. On November 28, 2007 the Zoning Administrator denied Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05. The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. C. On January 14, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal No. 2007-05 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05). The matter was continued to January 28, 2008 at the Applicant's request. D. On January 28, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Appeal No. 2007-05 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05). E. For Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-01, the Planning Commission determines that the following findings have been established: The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the commercial land use designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 1 of 6 32A-21 all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan policies which aim to curtail obsolete, dysfunctional and chaotic development. The City's Urban Design Element states "that development and subdivision patterns should be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around districts and neighborhoods, and provide a smooth transition along designated edges" (Policy 2.12). The predominate subdivision pattern in the surrounding area is rectangular shaped lots. The proposed subdivision creates an irregular shaped parcel that will be difficult to develop over time without reassembling property or the need for future variances. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes, as well as other applicable City ordinances. Section 34-67 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) states that no map shall be approved which would result in a violation of Chapter 8, which regulates Buildings and Structures or Chapter 41 which regulates zoning. Approval of the proposed map would result in several new non- conformities being created in violation of Chapter 41 of the zoning code. These new nonconformities include: front yard setbacks, drive aisle width, landscaping adjacent to residential property, and loading zone and trash enclosure locations. 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed project. Parcel 2 created by this map is such an unorthodox shape that it will not be physically suitable or conducive to future development. The issues pertaining to the proposed subdivision are threefold; the subdivision creates irregular and unorthodox shaped parcels; creates additional non- conformities with City codes, and goals and policies of the City's General Plan; and results in an integrated shopping center being further subdivided, which increases the difficulty of redeveloping the shopping center parcel over time. Further, Parcel 2 has a width of 15 feet at its narrowest point which is clearly not the intent of the City's street frontage requirement which is to maintain a parcel width of roughly the same proportion from front to back. This results in a Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 2 of 6 32A-22 rectangular type parcel that can easily be developed over time. The unorthodox shape of the parcel being created will make the property difficult to develop over time without the need of variances. 4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project site is located in an urbanized area. There are no known fish or wildlife populations, wetlands or unusual flora or fauna on or around the project site. Since the buildings on this site are existing and no new development is proposed at this time, the proposed subdivision will not cause any substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injury to fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The subdivision of this property will not have any detrimental effects upon the general public. All improvements on the property currently exist and comply with City standards pertaining to sewer, water, utilities and infrastructure. This is an existing site with existing improvements which have not caused any previous public health problems. 6. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The subdivision will not conflict with easements necessary for public access, since public access is provided from Bristol Street and Memory Lane and will not be changed as a result of this project. F. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended action is not considered a CEQA project. Therefore no environmental documentation is required. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (Appeal No. 2007-05). This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated January 14, 2008 and exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Planning Commission Action dated January 28, 2008 Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 3 of 6 32A-23 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(7) 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 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Martha Ramirez, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2008-02 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. 2008-02 Page 4 of 6 32A-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 2"d ,Santa Ana, California 92702. I served the foregoing document described as: Resolution No. 2008-02 (Appeal No. 2007-05/Tentative Parcel Ma No. 2007-05 in thiss-lion y p acing a rue copy ereo enc ose in sea a enve opes a resse as follows: Eric Nelson Red Mountain Retail Group 1234 East Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Michael Mugel Floral Park Promenade 1234 East Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 [ ] 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. 2008-02 Page 5 of 6 32A-25 Resolution No. 2008-02 Page 6 of 6 32A-26 REQUEST FOR Zoning Administrator Action ONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2007 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY RED MOUNTAIN RETAIL, INC. FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-05 (COUNTY MAP NO. 2006-308) TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY AT 2727 NORTH BRISTOL STREET Prepared by B i 11 App 1 e PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ^ Applicant's Request ^ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Planning Man er RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (County Map No. 2006-308) . DISCUSSION ~equest of Applicant Kathy O'Connor-Phelps, representing Red Mountain Retail Group, is requesting approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a property into two parcels. Property Description The Floral Park Promenade shopping center is located near the northeast corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane. The center is 6.17 acres in size and consists of two existing parcels and contains 26 tenant suites within four buildings and 71,848 square feet of commercial space. The property has a zoning designation of 100-C1-10,000 and a General Plan Designation of General Commercial (GC) Surrounding land uses include multi-family residential to the north; commercial and single-family residential to the south; multi-family and commercial development to the west; and a combination of commercial and residential uses to the east (Exhibits 1 and 2) Access to the site is from Bristol Street although access to the shopping center can also be reached via Memory Lane. Project Description ~he Floral Park Promenade shopping center currently consists of two parcels of land totaling 6.17 acres. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the larger parcel into two additional parcels totaling 4.06 EXHIBIT B 32A-27 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 ~ovember 28, 2007 age 2 and 0.49 acres respectively. The subdivision will allow an existing tenant to purchase the property they are currently leasing. The subdivision will result in a total of three separate parcels within the shopping center. The smaller parcel (Parcel 2) will contain an existing office building and the larger parcel (Parcel 1) will contain an existing retail/commercial building. The third parcel contains small retail buildings and is not part of this submittal (Exhibit 3). Analysis of the Issues The purpose of the City's subdivision ordinance is to promote the orderly development of land in a configuration that will allow properties to redevelop over time in compliance with City codes and development standards. The issues pertaining to the proposed subdivision are threefold; the subdivision creates irregular and unorthodox shaped parcels; creates additional non-conformancies with City codes that are contrary to the goals and policies of the City's General Plan; and the subdivision will result in an integrated shopping center being further subdivided that increases the difficulty of redeveloping the shopping center parcel over time. Subdivisions that create irregular shaped lots are contrary to the City's goal of promoting orderly and high quality development. The Subdivision Creates Irregular Shaped Parcels Regulating the subdivision of property for purposes of sale and development is a core function of local legislative bodies, such as cities. Whenever a new subdivision of land is proposed, staff evaluates the proposal to ensure that the design will result in a high quality project that will endure the test of time. Section 66474 (b) of the Subdivision Map Act 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 applicable general and specific plans. Together with other elements of the General Plan, the Urban Design Element aims to curtail obsolete, dysfunctional and chaotic development. The Urban Design Element goes on to state "that development and subdivision patterns should be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around districts and neighborhoods, and provide a smooth transition along designated edges" (Policy 2.12). The predominate subdivision pattern in ~he surrounding area is rectangular shaped lots. The proposed 32A-28 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 ~ovember 28, 2007 age 3 subdivision creates an irregular shaped parcel that will be difficult to develop over time without acquiring additional land or applying for future variances. In addition, the unorthodox shape of the parcel does not comply with the intent of the City's subdivision and zoning ordinance (Exhibit 4). For example, the City's Community Commercial (C-1) development standards requires that each lot used for retail or service purposes have at least 120 feet of street frontage and an area of at least 15,000 square feet. The purpose of this requirement is to maintain a parcel width of roughly the same proportion from front to back which results in a rectangular parcel that can easily be developed over time. In the case of the proposed subdivision, the new parcel will have 120 feet of street frontage. The width of the parcel however, is maintained for only 15 feet before narrowing considerably due to the constraints of designing a property line around an existing building. The new lot line jogs through common building walls, around building openings, utility panels and exit doors creating an irregular shaped parcel that is not conducive to future development. At the narrowest point, Parcel 2 is 15 feet wide ~nd maintains this width for nearly 160 feet, which is clearly not the intent of the City's street frontage requirement or subdivision ordinance. The Subdivision Creates New Zoning Code Non-Conformancies Section 34-67 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SANG) states that no map shall be approved which would result in a violation of Chapter 8, which regulates Buildings and Structures, or Chapter 41, which regulates Zoning. Approval of the proposed map would result in several new non- conformities being created in violation of Chapter 41 of the zoning code. These new nonconformities are discussed below and include: front yard setbacks, drive aisle width, loading zone and trash enclosure locations, and a landscape buffer adjacent to residential property. In addition, the applicant has not shown that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the building code as these issues were not addressed through site plan review. The applicant would need to show compliance with the appropriate California Building Codes prior to recording the final map. 32A-29 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 ~ovember 28, 2007 age 4 Required Front Yard Setback The front yard setback for Building "A" currently complies with City Code which requires a front yard of 15 feet in commercial zones. A "front yard" is defined as "a yard extending across the full width of the lot, the depth of which is the distance between the front lot line and the main wall of the building." Based upon the location of the new lot lines shown on the map, Parcel 1 has a front yard setback of one-foot adjacent to Building "A". This one-foot is the area between the wall of Building "A" and the new property line created between Parcels 1 and 2 on the proposed map. This new nonconformity will be created if the map is approved since the existing parcel configuration complies with the City's front yard zoning requirement (Exhibit 5). Drive Aisle Width he City's minimum requirement for a two-way drive aisle is 20 feet. ~urrently, there is a 25-foot drive aisle that is used to access parking and truck loading areas at the rear of Building "A", which complies with City Standards. The map creates a parcel that has a width of 15 feet which is below the minimum standard for a two-way drive aisle and therefore is not in compliance with City Development Standards. Loading Zone and Trash Enclosure The loading zone and trash enclosure for the retail building is currently located on the same parcel as the retail building that it serves. Should the subdivision map be approved, the loading zone and trash enclosure would be located on the newly created parcel and not on the parcel where the retail building is located. Reciprocal access agreements and easements can be put in place between property owners that would allow trash and delivery trucks access to the back of Parcel 2. However, there are often disputes that arise between adjacent property owners which could result in access being restricted to the existing loading zone and trash enclosure. It is not a good practice to allow these critical functions of a building to be located on a different parcel than the building they serve. r~ U 32A-30 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 ~ovember 28, 2007 age 5 Landscape Buffer Adjacent to Residential Property A landscape area not less than five feet wide is required along any property line to the extent it serves to separate property zoned or used for residential purposes from any off-street parking area. Because the site is a legal non-conforming parcel, this zoning requirement does not currently exist; however, the width of the proposed subdivision precludes this requirement from ever being met without the need of a variance should the property redevelop in the future. Subdividing Integrated Shopping Centers Property is subdivided to create ownership opportunities for prospective buyers and tenants. Each time an integrated center is subdivided, as a general rule, additional ownership occurs and that parcel is no longer subject to the same regulations applied to the integrated center. For example, once subdivided, each parcel can develop independent of one another and improvements made to one parcel are not necessarily carried over to other parcels within the center. Each parcel is likely to have ~ifferent ownership which increases the probability that they will act independently of one another, which is contrary to the concept of an integrated center. For example, because of previous subdivisions allowed by the City, this center no longer has street frontage on Memory Lane as a separate parcel was previously created and approved by the City. As property continues to be subdivided, it becomes difficult to reassemble land for future development, especially for large-scale development projects. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan policies that are intended to curtail obsolete, dysfunctional and chaotic development, nor the purpose or intent of the City's zoning code or subdivision ordinance. This subdivision creates new conformancies with City Codes. The odd shape of the parcel will make this property difficult to develop over time without reassembling property or applying for future variances. Based upon the above analysis and findings, staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (County Map No. 2006-308). 32A-31 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 ~ovember 28, 2007 age 6 CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California recommended action is not considered environmental documentation is required. Bill Apple [ Associate Planner Environmental Quality Act, the a CEQA project. Therefore no BA j m ba/reports2007/tpm07-OS Red Mountain.za • • Vince Fre oso, A CP Senior P1 nner 32A-32 • RESOLUTION NO. 2007-XX LCP, 11/21/07 A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-05 (COUNTY PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-308) TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS AT 2727 NORTH BRISTOL BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 (County Map No 2006-308) to subdivide a single parcel into two parcels at 2727 North Bristol. The subject property is the Floral Park Promenade shopping center and is located near the northeast corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane. The center is 6.17 acres in size, consists of two existing parcels, and contains 26 tenant suites within four buildings and • 71,848 square feet of commercial space. The subdivision would result in a total of three separate parcels within the shopping center. B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing on November 14, 2007, and was continued until November 28, 2007. C. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing on November 28, 2007. D. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 34-126 authorizes the Zoning Administrator to deny a tentative parcel map after making findings. 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Industrial land use designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan policies which aim to curtail obsolete, dysfunctional and chaotic development. The City's Urban Design Element states "that development and subdivision • patterns should be compatible with existing patterns of development in and around districts and neighborhoods, and Resolution No. 2007-XX Page 1 of 4 32A-33 provide a smooth transition along designated edges" (Policy 2.12). The predominate subdivision pattern in the surrounding area is rectangular shaped lots. The proposed subdivision creates an irregular shaped parcel that will be difficult to develop over time without reassembling property or the need for future variances. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes, as well as other applicable City ordinances. Section 34-67 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) states that no map shall be approved which would result in a violation of Chapter 8, which regulates Buildings and Structures or Chapter 41 which regulates zoning. Approval of the proposed map would result in several new non- conformities being created in violation of Chapter 41 of the zoning code. These new nonconformities are discussed below and include: front yard setbacks, drive aisle width, landscaping adjacent to residential property, and loading zone and trash enclosure locations. 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the • proposed project. Parcel 2 created by this map is such an unorthodox shape that it will not be physically suitable or conducive to future development. The issues pertaining to the proposed subdivision are threefold; the subdivision creates irregular and unorthodox shaped parcels; creates additional non- conformities with City codes, and goals and policies of the City's General Plan; and results in an integrated shopping center being further subdivided, which increases the difficulty of redeveloping the shopping center parcel over time. Further, Parcel 2 has a width of 15 feet at its narrowest point which is clearly not the intent of the City's street frontage requirement which is to maintain a parcel width of roughly the same proportion from front to back. This results in a rectangular type parcel that can easily be developed over time. The unorthodox shape of the parcel being created will make the property difficult to develop over time without the need of variances. 4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable . injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Resolution No. 2007-XX Page 2 of 4 32A-34 • The project site is located in an urbanized area. There are no known fish or wildlife populations, wetlands or unusual flora or fauna on or around the project site. Since the buildings on this site are existing and no new development is proposed at this time, the proposed subdivision will not cause any substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injury to fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The subdivision of this property will not have any detrimental effects upon the general public. All improvements on the property currently exist and comply with City standards pertaining to sewer, water, utilities and infrastructure. This is an existing site with existing improvements which have not caused any previous public health problems. 6. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with easements necessary for public access through or use of the property within the proposed project. n U The subdivision will not conflict for public access, since public Bristol Street and Memory Lane a result of this project. with easements necessary access is provided from and will not be changed as D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended action is not considered a CEQA project. Therefore no environmental documentation is required. Section 2. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana hereby, denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-05. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Zoning Administrator Action dated November 14 and 28, 2007 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 28th day of November, 2007. Sergio Klotz Acting Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 2007-XX Page 3 of 4 32A-35 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Lorena C. Penaloza Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, JOCELYN MAGALONA, Clerk of the Zoning Administrator, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007-XX to be the original resolution adopted by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana on November 28, 2007. Date: Clerk of the Zoning Administrator City of Santa Ana ~J Resolution No. 2007-XX Page 4 of 4 32A-36