RES-9942 Denying Tentative Parcel Map VarianceRESOLUTION NO. 9942
I
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE DENYING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 2004-226, DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3935-04, AND
VARIANCE NO.2127-04 SEEKING A VARIANCE
FROM THE CODE FOR LOT AREA, LOT
DEPTH, FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND GARAGE
SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON
TWO (2) SUBSTANDARD PARCELS CREATED FROM
SIX (6) REMNANT PARCELS LOCATED AT
2220 EAST DANA AVENUE, AND 226, 230, 236,
242, 246
NORTH SACRAMENTO STREET
APPLICANT: GAMALIEL VASQUEZ WHEREAS, the applicant's properties are located at 2220 East Dana
Avenue, and 226,230, 236, 242, 246 North
Sacramento Street; and WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No, 2004-226 was filed
by the applicant to consolidate the aforementioned six remnant parcels
into two parcels; and WHEREAS, Variance No. 2127-04 is related to the creation
of the two new residential parcels, seeking a variance from the code for lot area, lot depth, front
yard set back
and garage set back; and WHEREAS, Variance No. 2127-04 was filed by
the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the
City of Orange Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Variance No, 2127-04 was
processed in the time and manner
prescribed
by State and local law; and I WHEREAS, the project is categorically
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
per State CEQA Guidelines, Guidelines Section 15332,Class 32 New In-fill development) and Section
15305 (Class
5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City
of Orange held a hearing on January 25,2005, to discuss
the project upon the property described
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange
that Variance No. 2127-04, Design Review Committee No. 3935-04, and Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2004-226 to allow deviation from the minimum Single-family
development standards in the Rl-6 zone, as to lot area, lot depth, front yard setback and
garage setback are hereby denied
based on
the following findings:SECTION I 1. That because of special circumstances
applicable to 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 enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under identical zone classification,Each of the six parcels is not developable
as they standalone; however, the applicant proposes to consolidate them into two parcels
with a parcel map. Staff met with the applicant during the Cal-Trans sale
process and advised him of the development standards for 1. the site. The applicant
was aware of the zoning on the property and property constraints as to
shape and dimensions on the remnant parcels purchased from Cal-
Trans. Staff advised the applicant that single-family properties, as well as infill
projects, within the area under the same zoning
classification have developed according to
adopted Development Standards without the granting of variances.The two proposed parcels
do not meet
the minimum Development Standards for the R-1-6 zone:Lot 1 (northern parcel)
reduced lot area of 5,184 rather than the required 6,000 sq. ft., lot depth of
55' - 6" rather than the required 100 ft. depth;reduced front yard setback of 11' -
5" rather than the required 20 ft., and 11' - 5" garage
setback rather than the required 20 ft.Lot 2 (southern parcel) reduced lot depth
from 72' -6" to 0' rather than the required 100 feet, front yard
setback of 10' rather than the required 20 ft., and 10'- 4" garage setback
rather than the required 20 ft.The granting of the variances would create an exception
that does not exist in the surrounding neighborhood since the
other properties in the neighborhood were developed in compliance
with the existing Development Standards. Combining these various adjustments together the
project would create two substandard lots,which would be out of character with the surrounding
area and a granting of an exception since the other
sites meet the Development Standards. Such adjustments would be inconsistent
with other surrounding
properties
Strict application of the Development Standards would not deprive the applicant
from the same privileges enjoyed by the surrounding property owners uncler the
same zoning classification since the six parcels could be consolidated into one
parcel and meet the applicable Development Standards.
I
2. That the variance granted shall be subject to such conditions which will assure
that the authorized adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is located.
The surrounding properties were developed within the required Development
Standards for the R-I-6 zone without variances to the code. There are
no other substandard lots within the surrounding area. The development of
two one-story, single-family residences on substandard parcels would be
out of character for the existing neighborhood. Nothing deprives the
applicant from developing the property with one single-family residence and an
accessory second unit on the single property. Therefore, granting the
Variances would constitute the granting of special privileges inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
subject property
is located.SECTION II The applicant proposes to create two (2) substandard parcels
from six (6) eXlstmg remnant parcels. The City Council finds and declares that the creation
of substandard parcels is unacceptable when the applicant has the ability to create a parcel that
conforms to the existing development standards and to those parcels in
the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore,Tentative Parcel Map No. 2004-
226 to
is hereby denied,SECTION III The City Council finds that the proposed
infill residential development is not compatible with the scale, massing, orientation and
articulation of the surrounding development due to the substandard size of the parcels and therefore would
not preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character. Accordingly, Design Review
Committee
No. 3935-04 is hereby denied.ADOPTED
this
22nd day
of
ATTEST:
1
hy, City Clerk, Ci range
I, MARY E. MURPHY, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of February, 2005, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith, Ambriz, Murphy, Cavecche, Dumitru
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Zc
ge
4
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
j.
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA DEl:
AATMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3337
Michelson DrloJ~ Suite 380 Irvine,
CA 92616,8894 Recorded
in Official Records, County of Orange TomDalll, Clerk-Recorder
1II1J11111/ mll/111 111/1111 11m llilllm 111111111111111111112 .00
200300090923812:06pm 07/30/0311587002408
123.20 123.20 0.00 0.00 6,00 0.00 0.00 0.00IATTN'
AN( E._ ""'
Map No: F'162H lA (09/07/2001)
RWPE: C Smythe
Written: CS Check: MS
DIRECTORIS DEED District
12
Coun ROUI.Post Number
Orange 5S 22.4KP nDIOI332.01.01
The STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through Its Director 01 Transportation, does hereby grant toGAMALIELVASQUEZANDBARTHAVASQUEZ
all that real property In the Cltv 01 Oranae. County 01 Oranae State of Gal/lomia, described as:
Parcel No. DD 101332-01-
01 r That portion of Lots 26 through 32 inclusive of Tract No. 7053 in the City of Orange, County
of
Orange, e ~State of California, as per a map filed in Book 267, Pages 34 through 36 of Miscellaneous Maps in the
office g ~of the County Recorder of said county, lying easterly of the fOlloWing
described line: 1>.1 Beginning at the intersection of the southeasterly line of Lot 20 of said Tract No. 7053 and a lineparallel'i with and 50,000 meters northerly of the southerly line of Lot 14 in Block F of the A. B. Chapman Tract, asrl !S,per a map of survey by Frank Lecouvreur in December, 1870 and filed in Book 102, Page15 o'Jl i'Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county; thence along
saidparallelIin;: ': ~North 88058'49" \Vest, 6.960 meters; thence North 02021'47" East, 81.334 meter~ to the beginningofiE~~tangent curve concave westerly and having a radius of 134.600 meters; thence northerly along the arcofsaidcurvethroughacentralangleof27032'54" a distance of 64.717 meters; thence North 25014'43" West,36.244 meters; thence North 27017'08" West, 40.045 meters; thence North 13002'28" West, 38.
013
meters JgOint on the easterly line of Lot 32 of said Tract No. 7053, said easterly line being a curve witharadius5.240 meters and said point being distant thereon SOUth~rlY 3.278 mete.r s along said curvefrom th.e most L TAX ,Gamaliel V~s9uez & Bartha Vasquez". DEC~~A':
J 7RANSFER TEMENTS TO. 1520 S. PaCifiC
Avenue, #B ' , ,,','~__,Santa Ana,
CA 92704.'L/'__ COMPUTeD ON FULL VA,] '1'= (',::- P~
OPERTY CONVEYeD,
OR,COMPlITEDON fULL ".' '}Ce' "SS LIENS'
ANO ENCUMBRANi. 'L' :i', ~ ';'\Il.ING AT TNI
I,';;
NATURE M OECLARM.'. . A~E:N -FIRM NAME Page
lof4 Exhibit "
A"
northeasterly comer of said Lot 32.
There shaIl be no abutter's rights of access appurtenant to the above described real property in and to the
adjacent State freeway.
The bearings and metric distances in the above description are based on the California Coordinate System of
1983, Zone 6,1991.35 Epoch. Multiply all metric distances used in the above description by 1.00001919 to
obtain ground level distances.
Attached thereto and made a part thereof is a map entitled Exhibit "A". This map is for informational
purposes only and is subordinate in all interests and respects to the above description.
This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in confonnance with the
Professional Land Surveyor's Act.
Signature Q
Colin W. Smythe, P.L.S. 6401
Date Cj-,. '2.00 \
4:":'
Page 2 of 4
Form RW 6-I(S) (Revised
t-
S6';~>
8/,r",--- -"\
C I T Y ~OANA
AVENUE ~l-
I \
0"176.03'30"T
R ~ \ r: \ R'15. 240m L-46.829m U')
r \u,~
Sr::E DETAIL "A'b"28'o4'28"t.\. ..0
7..7..,?1-.-\. I
R"G.096m 1,\"'
i,61<\ \,-;; ~ "j 0
L'13.
627m 26. ",,, J\ "1512y:--~3
J ;"
t,~
I. 22:?~"
0
I'>A21<\ 'on
0" ':1.7..- _
3 0 Z I
0\ 5
I
I - I S'. \ 0' ,>2"~,7.."...l\
1~. ';,>1'>1<\
W ~'",,"'
V2' ? C\76'
1 '2) ,W"'" \
rv- ~"~
rIQ}~IOY ~l.....
l...- . ~ \ - ?
A~.I'J>1 , '. \~?~" ;"i"t ~ ~LL . ." 7..'- '{""" CPl.\
1 \\ ~l 8 ~ ~
L[) " ~ ~ 4 L[) '<@:
1509'SY3.,8Im'1- /2"~'22 ,,'
l.\1.., '~61<\d> , ' ' ' . 2~' \ 3.
825m
JVJ
JV}'" ? B\7 /~~
4 1 ~133\) '\-::, ',,--SEE
DETAIL "8"l 7 ", ' ' ' '~~ ~
c::.. "!:
l7..\\"" ''1-.~ ",./"0... 'i:~"t '" B~. \
l.~~~--.;;~1\.0\A1l1\? b--: .....---~~~'-..Ol'>'<, RAN G E IOI332-~, ,,~-
0,<,
2
1\''/
J:"
AA~-O~__I.
L'
O.910m E ono
o
L-
3.278m \
DANA \3 2 ~ R-
15.
2-
1Om \AVENUE\101513-
1 :
E.
L-
S.
286m
I
o :
dJ :
2.
208m :
NO t
2,"
j2"E..1,.2 '&~~
too
o !'
I ~ (g 0'2. ~
3
J ~ ~
SCALE \ ~~@15Ii?
Jj~
OETAIL "
A" - /NOT TO
SCALE 00101332
01-
01
E r--Q)E
on on
7
053m
E N d>on
d>0:::00:::
CLl/)
S
W
Z
Wll
STATE
RETAINS
ACCESS
RIGHTS EN
on
OF
7
@333~
d,,~
I )'
2.\\
fI..
0.
AA1<<' '\.
O"~'
2."
i.. ~~ .
2.'
2. -
4db-I ",1 "@'1332:
Dif
1
I 0
6'.
I
0 ~
B~;
I DETAIL "
8" ~.... /3 4 ~ 3 bNOT ~~,,=:.~.~.~.__,,;--/o I-
Z w 20::U
U')ex:EXHIBIT "
A"This map is In
all
Page 3
of
4 for
Informational purposes only and
Is
respects
to
the
attached
description.
00101332-
01-
01
subordinate
Number
DD-
Hl1332-01-01 Subject to special assessments if any, restrictions, reservations, and easeme.
nts of record.This conveyance is executed pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of Tran.~portation by
law and, in particular, by the Streets
and Highways Code,WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Department of Transportation of the State
ofCalifornia, this 5C'L
1 . WQJ. .STATE
OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OFTRANSPORTATIONt}2. 7
day of
JEFF MORALES Director
of
Transportation By STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 88 Attorney
in Fact
PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT Conntyof 5.'/NJ 8U<)(
I1It.{)INc/On thisthe li -4ay of :T..r L t 2003.beforeme.JI.,<.1I<:tc..., 7?OO/
216\
J€'<?'6 /1:./.'1/ i/r..
E"~ T Name, Title ofOfficer.,E. ., "Jane Doc.
Notary Public"personaUyappeared r.:&:;)tZr~~ L, p, ~
I< ;:)rt.Name
of Signer personally known
to me r91'1II. Ie "0:1? QA t~f l1tlrit tiC IIYSfalil!
Bp) ....hIIfUIl to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument aDd acknowledged to me that ~ b~ executed the same
in _ hlsAter-authoriud capacity, and dlltby __ histls=.s1goaturc on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted.
executed
the instrument,WITNESS my hand and
official seal.
L @
MAURICE RODRIGUEZ_00 COMM. #
12635.27 (NOTARY
PUDUC . CAUFDRNIA ,I- 'AN
ernNARnlNO COONTV ,A.'C...' ~pll"'fMlly122004-
Of notw) RIll Ofllemp)
THIS IS TO CERT]FY, That the California Transportation Commission has authorized the Director of Transportation
to execute the foregoing deed nnder provisions of CTC RESOLUTION #G-98-22, approved on October
28, ]998,amending RESOLUTION #G-02 P TAINING TO SALE
OF EXCESS PROPERTY.J>aled
this :;l- '
t ___-,__,
2003_.
fi~~
v
STATE OF CALIFORNIA' DEPARTMENT 0 TRANSPORTATION
USE FOR SALES DELEGA TED TO DISTRICT
Form RW 6-1(S&T> (Rev, 7/