Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1987/11/19''. "~ ~ •' ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1987, 9:30 A.M. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator PRESENT, Edith L. Harris, Secretary Eric Harrison, Assistant Planner Lori Duca, Assistant Planner Procedure to Expedite Meeting: The proponents for conditional use permit and variance applications which are. not contested will have 5 minutes to present their evidence. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each have 10 minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. After the opponent(s) speak, the proponent will have 5 minutes for rebuttal. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your name. Staff Reports are part of the evidence received by the Zoning Administrator at each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to and at the meeting. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in the Administrator's opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. All documents presented to the Zoning Administrator for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the City of Anaheim for the public record and shall be available for public inspection. The action taken by the Zoning Administrator on this date regarding conditional use permits and variances is final unless, within '15 days of the Zoning Administrator's written decision being placed in the U.S.' Mail; an appeal is filed. Such appeal shall be made at any time following the public hearing and prior to the conclusion of the appeal period. An appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee equal to one-half the amount of the original filing fee. The City Clerk, upon filing of such an appeal, will set said conditional use permit or variance for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. After the scheduled public hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest under 'Items of Public Interest'. Such items must be within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of 3 minutes to speak. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your last name. Page 1 0090T 1 . , -. ~ ~ November 19, 1987 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS la. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION lb. VARIANCE N0. 3717 OWNERS: NEVILLE LIBBY AND VIOLET LIBBY, 1661 W. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: GERALD R. BU SHORE, P.O. Box 18581, Anaheim,~CA 92807-8581 LOCATION: 1651 West Cerritos Avenue Waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 3-lot subdivision. Continued from the meeting of November 5, 1987. ' ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-35 2a. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3713 OWNERS: ESIQUIDO V. LUNA AND LARRY FOX, 2336 N. Batavia, Orange, CA 92665 AGENT: FRED W. KINGDON, 2336 N. Batavia, Orange, CA 92665 LOCATION: 325 South Mohler Drive waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 39-foot high, two-story single family residence. Continued from the meeting of November 5, 1987. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-36 3a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3715 OWNERS: LOUIS SHAPIRO, 1345 Pembrooke Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1345 Pembrooke Lane Waiver of maximum fence height in front yard to retain a 6-foot high fence. Continued from the meeting of November 5, 1987. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Page •2 Approved Approved Approved Denied Continued 12-17-$7 11/19/87 u November 19, 1987 4a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 4b. VARIANCE N0. 3726 Page` 3 ~'~ / ?-~/ 7~) OWNERS: IRAJ H. EFTEKHARI AND FATEMEY GOODARZI, 1940 Old Tustin, 1 Santa Ana, CA 92701 I` AGENT: MARILEILA ND ROJER SULLIVAN, 975 S. La Salle Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 301 South Penny Lane Waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) maximum fence height to construct a 2-story, 41 foot high single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 5a. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. VARIANCE N0. 3730 OWNERS: JESSE J. GOMEZ AND THERESA J. GOMEZ, 1306 W. Trenton Drive, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1306 West Trenton Drive Waivers of (a) required type of parking spaces and (b) minimum rear yard setback to retain a garage conversion, a room addztion and a detached storage room. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-37 6. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: None 7. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None Those persons wishing to address the Zoning Administrator under this item are requested to step to the podium, give your last name and address and spell your last name. ADJOURNED: 12:10 p.m. Continued 1t~4-88 . To be readver- tised. Approved Approved 11/19/87 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NOVEMBER 19, 198 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at a.m., November 19, 1987 in the Council Chamber. PRESENT: Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Lori Duca, Eric Harrison, Edith Harris, Secretary Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the meeting and further that anyone desiring to speak would have an opportunity at the end of the meeting. ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3717. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: NEVILLE LIBBY AND VIOLET LIBBY, 1661 W. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: GERALD R. BUSHORE, P. 0. Box 18581, Anaheim, CA 92807-8581. Property is described as approximately 0.77 acre, having a frontage of approximately 114 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 298 feet and being located approximately 600 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street and further described as 1651 West Cerritos Avenue. Request for waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 3 lot subdivision. Continued from meeting of November 5, 1987 in order for the applicant to obtain information regarding street improvement costs. No one indicated their presence in opposition. Gerald R. Bushore, 4085 E. La Palma, Anaheim, stated we did in fact check into the improvements costs, didn't like what he found, but, he understands the City Council has offered that as an ordinance, and it appears it is going to go through. Mr. Bushore stated according to condition ~~2 payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit, so that means we can go ahead with the parcel map and we do not have to pay the street improvements until we actually have made application for the permits. Ms. Santalahti stated that is correct. Mr. Bushore stated they agreed to that. He stated Mr. Libby,is planning to do some improvements on the front house which would require permits, regardless of whether it is going to be before the parcel map is final or not. He asked if the parcel map were to be finalized and he,needed any. improvement afterward, would 'that come in to play. Ms. Santalahti stated not that she is aware of. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Bushore stated if the parcel map were filed, and he came in for~some improvement on that house, would that trigger A,B,C,D, and F? Ms. Santalahti stated the intent is with new construction issuance of a building permit on either lots 2 and/or 3. ' Mr. Bushore stated that would be fine. Mr. Bushore stated he saw a new condition, 917, which we submit a letter for 3647. He asked if they still had the option to go ahead with 3647? Ms. Santalahti stated prior to the final map approval 'is when we are going to want that letter. If you get that far, at the point we want the letter submitted. But until then that one is alive. Mr. Bushore stated fine, as long as we understand that. Mr. Bushore asked if they are o.k. on item no. 11 referring to item no. 6. Ms. Santalahti stated yes she was going to add in the text a little tie-in between item no. 11 and no. 6, so it is clear that one will happen if the other one doesn't happen. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti stated this project has a negative declaration and she will approve that, in that it has no significant impact on the area. Ms. Santalahti stated she will approve Variance No. 3717 on the basis that although there is a lot frontage requirement that is being waived, in fact the lot sizes exceed the Code requirement and there is a private street which will be conditioned onto the parcel map which provides suitable access to the three houses that will be developed on this property. Ms. Santalahti stated there is a fifteen day appeal period after the written decision goes out, any commencement of the activity, mainly the parcel map being approved as a final map cannot take place before that time. She stated the item will appear on the Council agenda during that 15 day period. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 __ Page 3 ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3713. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: ESIQUIDO V. LUNA AND LARRY FOX, 2336 N. Batavia, Orange, CA 92665. AGENT: FRED W. KINDON, 2336 N. Batavia, Orange, CA 92665. Property is described as approximately 0.47 acre, having a frontage of approximately 126 feet on the south side of Mohler Drive, ,having a maximum depth of approximately 288 feet and being located approximately 1170 .feet east of the centerline of Yorkshire Circle and further described as 325 South Mohler Drive. Request for waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 30-foot high, 2-story single-family residence. Continued from meeting of November 5, 1987 in order for the petitioner to submit revised plans. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19., 1988 ~ Page 4 .ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VAKIANCE N0. 3715. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: LOUIS SHAPIRO, 1345 Pembrooke Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property is described as approximately 6000 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the west side of Pembrooke Lane, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and being located approximately 92 feet east of the centerline of Pembrooke Lane and further described as 1345 Pembrooke Lane. Request for waiver of maximum fence height in front yard to retain a 6-foot high fence. Continued from meeting of November 5, 1987 to allow readvertisement of the request. Five people indicated their presence in opposition. Louis Shapiro, co-owner, stated approximately 6 to 7 weeks back he replaced an existing wooden fence that was over 20 years old, with a slump stone block wall of equal height. He stated the wall is approximately 7 feet back from the front property iii:e. He stated the property has enjoyed the use of a private courtyard in the front yard for over twenty years. He stated it is a sub-scale lot and the rear yard is only 15 feet deep. Ms. Shapiro stated he proposes to develop the inside courtyard to include a Jacuzzi, gazebo, and a fish pond. He stated he is a zoologist and has a landscape architect plan of development for the property. Mr. Shapiro stated there will be an 18-inch retaining wall in front of the six-foot block wall, with adequate landscaping and greenery to remove what appears to be the massiveness of this wall. Mr. Shapiro stated there are a number of homes in the immediate area that have walls and fences six-foot in height in the 20-foot setback. He stated he has listed some of those addresses in the. petitions and have photos of those block walls as well as the block wall he put upon his property which he would like to submit. Mr. SYiapiro stated, as stated in the findings there are special circumstances applicable to this property such as the use of a private courtyard. He stated this is one of the reasons he purchased the property. He stated he plans to develop it as indicated by the architectural drawings. He stated also strict application of the existing zoning code would deprive him of property privileges enjoyed by the other properties in identical zoning class ificatiors in the vicinity. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Shapiro to repeat his comment about the previous fence that was there. She asked what it was exactly and its location. Mr. Shapiro stated it is the exact same fence, actually it was basically property maintenance. He stated he demolished an existing fence and replaced it with another. Ms. Santalahti asked if it was a 6-foot wooden fence. Mr. Shapiro responded yes it was. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOk, November 19, 1988 Page 5 In opposition, Helen Ford, 1354 Pembrooke Lane, across the street from the wall, kitty-corner. Ms. Ford stated she has lived there for 20 years. Ms. Ford stated before she states her objections to the wall, she would like to question the exact height. She stated she noticed he calls out six feet and is asking for a variance of 6 feet. She stated she believes the wall is higher than 6 feet, probably more like 6-1/2 feet. She stated last night her husband measured one of the pillars, which she thinks are very important because there are several of them, and they add a great deal to the bulkyness of the thing. She stated her husband measured it at 90 inches which she believes is 7-1/2 feet. Ms. Ford stated on top of the 7-1/2 foot pillar there is an arrangement of wires which are supposed to accommodate. probably a 10-15 inch electrical attachment, which is ,presumably supposed to go all around. She stated they think that is far in excess of the 6 feet that is being talked about here, as the variance. She is not sure if she is 100% correct on that and would ask for clarification. Ms. Ford stated they object very much to the wall because they feel it is an eyesore and that it is detrimental to property values in their block. She stated she noticed in the addresses that are mentioned, there are other walls, she believes those walls are to the north. Ms. Ford stated the surrounding properties are all developed in a sort of a hit-or-miss fashion. She stated developers kept going out of business and a block would be built differently than their block for instance. She stated she is talking about South Pembrooke Lane, and if you stand up (Palais?) Road and look down South Pembrooke Lane and 'consider the wall, you get an entirely different effect. She stated she belived you would not get that affect if you looked to the north where it seemed where the lot line houses and where the houses where built are completely different than ours, they have no parkway. She stated she believes the two situations are quite different when you compare these properties. Ms. Ford stated she also resents the fact it was built without a permit and there were many of them on the streets which have had walls put up in their backyard on the lot line, and they followed the procedure and inspectors came out two or three times during the building. She stated they don't think it's fair that this should be allowed. Christine Hernandez, 1351 Pembrooke, neighbor to the right of Mr. Shapiro, stated he built a tiew wall extending from the wall that was existing on their property, and the wall he built is going all the way down the line to the street. She stated when he talked to them about the wall it was not clarified it would be 6 feet 7 inches plus a pillar all the way down. She stated when they back out of their driveway, now that the wall has been up for such a time, it is quite.a safety factor. She stated that is their objection, plus the structure does not blend in with the existing ones and they feel it would set a precedent for the rest of the neighborhood to go ahead .and build whatever they like. She stated mainly her concern is the safety factor. Nancy Tobor, 1336 Pembrooke Lane, stated she is also concerned about the safety factor, she has a child that rides his bike and skateboard across the MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 6 street, and it concerns her that when they back out of the driveway they are unable to see children playing out on the sidewalk, and possibly by the time they have backed out they could have hit one of them. She stated visibility is poor. Ms. Tobor stated she lives next door to 1340 Pembrooke where there is another fence in question. She stated that fence is a little different, it is not quite six feet tall ar_d it sets back further from the street. She stated it has a small step-down type wall. She stated when she backs out of her driveway she has full visibility because of this. She stated you really can't compare the two fences, they're really not the same at all. She stated the point she wanted to .make was the fear for the children on the street. Glenda Moscoe, 1341 Pembrooke, a neighbor of the Shapiro's, stated before she says anything at all she wanted to get something clear about the addresses of 1321 South Pembrooke Lane, 1332 South Amberwick, 2153 West Chalet and 2144 West Chalet. She stated some of these housing tracts have been extended since these fences were put up, they were in a cul-de-sac. She stated builders came in and bought the land and extended on it. She stated she didn't think those fences could interfere with this fence because if you really come out Palais and look down the street, it is clear in the other direction. She stated it really doesn't even interfere with 'this. Ms. Moscoe stated their main objective was, granted Mr. Shapiro said he was going to put a fence up, granted Mr. Shapiro came over to talk to us and the Hernandez' on the other side, but Mr. Shapiro did not say he was going to have a monstrosity put up here on this property. : Ms. Moscoe stated if the City of Anaheim is going to have ordinances to protect the property owners this ordinance must be enforced,,not just for us or someone else but for everybody because if we don't do this we're are going to have a Sodom and Gomorrah place where everybody is hiding behind these big walls. Ms. Moscoe 'stated the pillars are 7-1/2 feet, the fence is 6 feet 6 inches. She stated if the Shapiro's want to have a spa, a gazebo, whatever they want to have that's fine, because it's their property, they're owners, but why take away from everybody else's property by building this type of a fence. She stated if the Shapiro's want a legitimate fence, legitimate within all the laws, we're for it. She stated but one day she'll have to sell her property, she doesn't want to have prospective buyers say they don't want to buy it because of that fence. .She stated the whole thing in ',a nutshell is they want the Shapiro's to be happy, we want to be happy, we~don't want to have a lot of problems in the neighborhood over a fence. Mr. Shapiro stated as noted on the proposed landscaping, the wall will be fairly hidden by a green covering, the planting area set back from the sidewalk is 6 to 7 feet. fie stated there will be 18 feet of 'retaining blocks 18 inches high that will kind of tier step that area.'' He stated prior to construction of the wall, when the foot fence was there, there were 20-25 foot high Evergreen trees there, extensive growth which he had to remove. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR,_November 19, 1988 Pale 7 Mr. Shapiro stated the wall, as measured from the inside which is the average level of the lot, is approximately 5 feet 2 to 3 inches to the main part of the wall. He stated the additional pillar that was put up, and there are 4 of those, are of the same height as an existing pillar that was pre-existing, which he shared with his neighbors to the north. He stated the motif of the wall is basically the type of motif that would have been used before. Mr. Shapiro stated the house across the street which is one house to the north on the opposite side of the street does have a six foot, at least from the outside, slump stone wall. Mr. Shapiro stated he is not sure he disagrees with the visibility problem, prior to that there were tall trees, an existing fence and also either a telephone or electrical box to the south side and some tree growth there, which blocks the visibility just as much as, quote, that big :pillar to the south does. He stated beauty is to the eye of the beholder,-.what he might think is quite nice and acceptable other people might not. He stated as he did indicate, the purpose of the wall is to secure the inside courtyard of his property which he does plan to develop. He stated he would not be able to put a fish pond in if that wall was not six feet high. He stated some of the views he took of the existing wall show the approximate 6 to 7 foot setback from the street, and he believes there is adequate area there for , THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti stated under the zoning Code the setback that we consider the setback from the property line so that although there is a greater physical setback to the curb, that doesn't count into anything basically. She stated certainly in terms of visibility, if there weren't a sidewalk, and wasn't going to be, that might be a consideration but that is not the situation here. Ms. Santalahti asked why he built the fence without seeking a building permit. Mr. Shapiro responded to replace an existing fence with another one. Ms. Santalahti stated people with wooden fences usually have a tendency to think they don't need a permit to replace it, but block walls do need permits at six feet.. Ms. Santalahti stated he knows from talking with staff he is~legally permitted in the front setback to have a 3-foot high solid wall and then above that you can have some kind of see-through material, excluding chain link, but rod iron or something like that. She stated depending on pilaster placement and things like that relative to driveway lines of sight to the sidewalk. She stated that is what he can do legally to six feet, or probably in an opts similar way, except .not anywhere near as solid as what he has. Ms. Santalahti asked if he has taken a look at redoing his fence for something like that. Mr. Shapiro responded it is possible. He stated the fence took approximately 10 to 12 days to put up, in fact the neighbor to MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 8 the north of me shared the cost of the wall that separates the two property lines. Ms. Santalahti stated when you talk to people you really have to show them what you're doing so that everyone understands. Mr. Shapiro stated 3 existing pilasters where there, and the wooden fence that separated the property. He stated the pilasters were put up quite a few years ago. Mr. Shapiro stated if he had known there were going to be objections, he probably would have picked 18 inches to 2 feet of rod iron, he still considered using pilasters since he no longer had an entrance way of his driveway. He stated they planned to have a street entrance. Ms. Santalahti asked Lori Duca how this issue first came to the City's attention. Ms. Duca responded she could not quite remember, but if it had been Code Enforcement it would have been stated in the staff .report. Mr Shapiro, responding to Ms. Santalahti stated he received notice from a building inspector. Ms. Santalahti stated there were two things that concerned her. She stated one, is she was ou,t there and looked at it, and certainly along this section, if you look up and down Pembrooke, there is certainly nothing else quite else like this. She stated although she knows there are others and she did not go and look at them, the odds are good that most of them may not have permits. She stated the thing that particularly concerns her on this block wall is that 3 driveways are effected by that structure. She stated it has been the City's practice in terms of signs and walls for line-of-sight requirements to minimally, even when it is a permissible wall for instance, to require there be a triangle that allows 2 eight-foot legs in each direction, in other words if you were to do something, each driveway including your own as you drive out, once you reach an eight foot point from the fence you would see the sidewalk eight feet in each direction north and south. She stated that is what really concerns her on this in terms of safety. She stated the City Code, while there are a lot of things intended to be a set of concerns, there is also safety issues and she thinks that is a legitimate one. She stated when.there are children in the neighborhood, it doesn't matter if it is a heavily traveled street, it would be similarly awkward to work with. She stated basically that is the reason she can not go with the fence the way he is showing it. Ms. Santalahti stated it is possible if the fence were moved backed, although you didn't maintain say the 25-foot setback, that would be something she might look at favorably, say at 8 feet or with~the corners cut off or dropped down to no more than 30 inches of solid. She stated the difficulty still in maintaining that 8-foot line of sight at each of those driveway-sidewalk intersections is that pilaster replacement may be really awkward. She stated that is something they would have to look at specifically so if somebody drives out and stops, and the plaster happens to be right were your trying to look down the sidewalk, that might or might not be a difficulty. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 9 Ms. Santalahti stated if she approves this variance it would be definitely in part and it would be definitely cutting back each corner, the south side, the north side of your driveway, as well as your northern property line, cutting back 8-feet and landscaping or something with a low type of material so there is no interference. Mr. Shapiro stated the removal of the one pilaster to the north that has been up there almost 20 years. He stated that is an existing pilaster, it had always been there, the wooden fence was the same height basically as the block fence. Responding to Ms. Santalahti,,Mr. Shapiro stated yes, the wooden fence ran back along the north property line as well and enclosed the front setback. Ms. Santalahti asked the approximate dimensions, depth and width, of the pilaster. Mr. Shapiro responded 22 inches. Ms. Santalahti stated he can probably leave the pilasters in`and then drop the wall to 30 inches, the solid part, and ther. install rod iron, but we would have to see the plans for that. Mr. Shapiro stated he believes there is an existing variance where there are a number of tracts which were indicated in the staff report that it was acceptable. He stated he is in one of those tracts and said variance included waiver of maximum fence height in the front yard setback, 42 inches permitted, 8 foot maximum. Ms. Santalahti stated they changed the Code, it used to 30 inches and went to 36 inches. Ms. Santalahti stated from the photographs in those instances it looks like all the sidewalks are at the street and then there is the public utility easement or whatever which is probably five feet or greater. She stated in their instances, while they have a visual setback of 5 to 7 feet from the sidewalk, they are probably at the property line too. She stated that is a slightly different configuration in the sense they are not legally permitted to build in that area anyway. Mr. Shapiro stated there was a photograph with a side view of the wall showing the wall from the curb. He stated that is a greater distance from the curb than some of those other homes. Ms. Santalahti asked if his sidewalk was at the curb. Mr. Shapiro stated yes right to the curb. Ms. Santalahti asked how he did that. Mr. Shapiro responded that was the way it was put in originally. Ms. Santalahti asked if the neighbors are set back. Mr. Shapiro responded the neighbor to the south of his is, not the neighbor to the north. He stated there is a jog in the sidewalk at his driveway. Mr. Shapiro stated the home that he has is part of the tract of homes to the north of him. He stated he is at the boundary line of that particular tract. Mr. Shapiro stated the pillars are 13 feet from the curb on the north side. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 10 Ms. Santalahti asked if those were electrical things sticking out of the dirt. Mr. Shapiro responded yes, he planned to put lighting on there. Ms. Santalahti stated she did not think that was valid under the City Code to encroach unless you deal specifically with the City. She stated that was public right-of-way that he is doing it in and did not think it was legitimate to encroach within a City right-of-way with electrical lines. Ms. Santalahti stated he would .need to check into that. Mr. Shapiro stated he was not aware of that, he thought if the wall was on his property... . Mr. Santalahti stated according to her map the property 'line is a running straight line, it's just that the configuration of the right-of-way with the sidewalk and the planter space is different on your property than the people to the south. She stated that area is still public right-of-way. Mr. Shapiro stated the inclusion of the electrical lighting is not really mandatory. Ms. Santalahti stated regardless of anything she does today, it is absolutely going to have to be taken care of and if she acts favorably in any way on this one, she will put in a condition that requires him to resolve that problem. Ms. Santalahti stated he needed an electrical permit anyway, so had gotten that he might have been alerted to the problem. Ms. Santalahti asked what he estimated the distance was from. the edge of the sidewalk to the wall as it sits right now, she stated it did. not look like 7 feet. Mr. Shapiro responded the wall is 13 feet from the curb and the property line is 7 feet from the wall. He stated that would be 6 feet from the curb to the property line. Ms. Santalahti stated if she were to approve this she would approve it in part requiring that the 6-1/2 feet with pilasters be relocated to 7 feet. She stated the alternative is for him to submit plans and put in rod iron or something similar, get City approval, so in fact a line of sight is established, that's a safe one. Ms. Santalahti responding to Mr. Shapiro in regard to the pilaster stated they need to have someone go out and take a look at it, if it's the northerly one let's say specifically has been there for a number of years with a fence next to it, even though having had something improper before is not a basis for approval today, at least someone appears to have been able to live with that. She stated the one on the south side of .his property she believes is a difficulty. She stated she can understand an interest in fencing in his front yard and establishing a private area there, the south side she has a little bit of difficulty understanding because in fact he could drop that down to three feet and architecturally establish an amount of privacy with a block wall and no problem whatsoever with a line of sight. Ms. Santalahti asked if his interest was in having the 7 foot solid wall and relocating it. Mr. Shapiro stated when the 18 inch retaining walls are put in, the height of the fence will not appear to be as high as it is now. Ms. Santalahti stated the only difficulty she has with that is the line of sight issue. She stated it is ~an issue from where a person is going to be in a car or on foot or something like that. She stated although she knows MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 page 11 what he is saying and our fence height in a normal way is measured from the highest finished grade, this is a line of sight issue. Mr. Shapiro stated the line of sight to the south side has always been obscured, there is an electrical housing of some type there that goes up probably 4 feet, there is plant and tree growth which kind of fills up that area. He asked if it would be possible to retain the one pilaster on the south side. He stated he could put rod iron in for a distance there, even though the only visibility would probably be the greenery that exists on the side of the lot. Ms. Santalahti asked the neighbor to the south to step forward. stated she still feels that keeping that one pillar at that height would still be to her disadvantage as far as visibility. She stated they do have existing bushes there but they never caused a problem like I'm having now. She stated she also has a teenage daughter that is driving now and is very concerned when she parks in that driveway and backs out. She stated she believes the pillar would still be a problem. She stated sloping the wall down, which is what they thought he would do originally, is fine. She stated she stills disagrees with having that 7-foot type. Ms. Santalahti asked if the electrical box was about 36 inches high. Ms. responded she has never measured it, but believes it is no taller than that. Ms. Santalahti stated from the photographs the northern pilaster looks like the one that was there originally. Mr. Shapiro indicated that was correct. Ms. Santalahti asked the neighbor to the north to step forward. Tom Moscoe, 1341 Pembrooke, stated before they had a 5-foot wooden fence which they replaced it with a 6-foot block wall fence. He stated Mr. Shapiro's fence in front is more than what he says. Responding to Ms. Santalahti he stated yes his problem was basically it being more massive than originally. Mr. Moscoe stated .they could always see before. Ms. Santalahti stated the question of the pilasters to the neighbors does bother her because they are going to share in any difficulties with that. She stated while what you have on your property next to your driveway, at least is only your own concern. She stated if something happens he can blame himself in the end, with the neighbors that is the difficulty. Ms. Santalahti stated she prefers to have plans in front of her when acting to approve something. She stated her inclination is to continue this item if he is favorable to what she is about to say and continue for the purpose of getting plans, so we have exhibits that are specific as to what she is talking about, if he agrees with it, otherwise, she may deny this. Ms. Santalahti stated her approval would be in part, for a distance 7 feet back from the property line on the north and south property lines, dropping ___ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 12 the fencing, pilasters, whatever is necessary in that area to no higher than 36 inches at the center of the property, so that nothing is over 36 inches. She stated at the 7-foot point however, to allow whatever the pilaster height is, about 7-1/2 feet, and then the solid wall to 6-1/2 feet, to go back from there. She stated no solid material should be higher than 36 inches in the front setback. She stated however the pilaster he has next to his driveway, `plus the entrance can be at the higher thing. She stated that 36 inches with rod iron or some type of see-through material that is approved by Planning Department and Traffic Engineer for visibility next to your driveway. So that everything closer than 7 feet to the street excepting those three central pilasters shall be no higher than 36 inches. Ms. Santalahti stated it is a safety issue and it does make her uncomfortable that no one else has a similar wall along this specific block face.' Mr. Shapiro asked if they were disregarding the other walls. Ms. Santalahti responded yes. Mr. Shapiro asked if that would not be discriminatory. Ms. Santalahti responded this particular block face, she feels, as you lookup and down the street, nobody else has something else like this. She stated if his neighbor did, or if there were a bunch of them on this street, that is one thing, the immediate area is really what she is looking at. ;She stated she mentioned last time that when she came around the corner she ..did not need to look for an address, she saw the wall immediately. Although she agrees the appearance of the wall itself, ignoring the location, is a nice wall and certainly cest a bit. Mr. Shapiro stated the aesthetics of the wall would be covered up by the greenery. He asked specifically what pilasters is she proposing. Ms. Santalahti stated the northerly most and southerly most would have to be reduced to no higher than 36 inches and/or relocated back approximately 7 feet from where they stand right now so that it measures 7 feet from the property line. Mr. Shapiro asked if she could relate that in reference to where the sidewalk is. Ms. Santalahti responded that would be 14 feet from the sidewalk for the height of the pilasters as he has them right now. Mr. Shapiro stated he thinks there is approximately 15 feet from the pilaster on the south side to the front of his garage. He asked how much of that wall would have to be reduced in height. Ms. Santalahti responded 7 feet from the inside of his and the neighbors side of the southerly sidewalk. Ms. Santalahti stated that would be approximately 20 feet from the curb on the south property line, according to the numbers on his drawing. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 13 In response to Mr. Shapiro, Ms. Santalahti stated on the north side because the sidewalk is different, it would be 14 feet from the sidewalk. But that would be the same line. In response to Mr. Shapiro, Ms. Santalahti responded the pilasters themselves would have to be lowered. Mr. Shapiro asked if he could replace the block and the pilasters with rod iron. Ms. Santalahti stated yes, if in the front 25 feet it is legal to have 36 inches of solid block and above that rod iron not too snug to itself. Mr. Shapiro stated otherwise he would like to see to it that he has a •protective fence around the fish pond. Ms. Santalahti stated Code does not let you do chain link but that would technically take care of building codes. Ms. Santalahti reiterated she would like him to submit a drawing to staff. She stated she would like to continue this item two weeks in order to get that drawing. She stated the reason is so that they understand each other and the neighbors can also see what~~it is. Mr. Shapiro stated they were leaving on vacation and would not be back until the 14th of December. Ms. Santalahti asked if he would accept a continuance until December 17th. She stated he could submit the plans anytime before that. (Defective tape) MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Pale 14 ITEM N0. 4. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3726. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: IRAJ H. EFTEKHARI AND FATEMEY GOODARZI, 1940 Old Tustin, Santa Ana, CA 92701. AGENT: MARILEILA AND ROJER SULLTVAN, 975 S. La Salle Circle, Anaheim, CA .92807. Property is described as approximately 0.53 acre, having a frontage of approximately 98 feet on the south side of Mohler Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 247 feet and being located approximately 200 feet west of the centerline of Owens Drive and further described as 301 South Penny Lane. Request for waiver of (a) maximum structural height; and, (b) maximum fence height to construct a 36.5-foot high, 2-story single-family residence. (Beginning of tape) .... that drainage area the geological structure is such that there was a person who bought the property with the intention of putting; houses on it and his geological structure will not support it. He stated it will slide off the hill before they build it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti.stated last time she was out there, but not specifically looking at it, and basically only had our City map and the exhibit that was submitted, there were all kinds of interesting easements running around out there. She stated apparently easements have been added and others have never been deleted. She stated in regard to Penny Lane, she~was surprised when she went out there that there was a street, and when she got on it she was surprised, whether it is a street or driveway, of the configuration. She stated she can understand in either case and did the applicant want to take access from that, was that a conscious decision on your part, well, you would take your access at the north anyway, wouldn`t you. She stated there was an access easement at~the bottom of the property, she wondered if they ever considered that at all'. Ms. stated the grading plans were given to them and they developed the house according to the plans. She stated they studied just about every possibility to make the house feasible on that piece of land. She stated according to the other houses in the area they thought this would be the best way to do the house anal not jeopardize any of the other ,homes surrounding this one. She stated the reason they cannot lower the house or not lower the garage is first; they have drainage problems, which would be terrible; second, the drop in driveway would create a steep slope into the garage which would be dangerous in backing out into the street and is going to be sharp onto the house. Ms. Santalahti asked if the driveway area is level with Mohler Drive. Ms. responded no, it is pretty much level, it would be on the other side that's why we have it on that side. She stated if you look at the house from Mohler Drive all you can see is a one story house and the garage is right to the side. Ms. stated the house still requires three levels from the grade in order to have adequate square footage. She stated they have :been trying and playing. with the plans and they believe this is the best they can do according to the slope and how steep this piece of land is. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, .November 19, 1988 Page 15 Ms. Santalahti stated it was subdivided a number of years and from that point of view, whoever did it, did it to themselves, and whoever bought the property bought that difficulty with it. She stated Penny Lane, for whatever reasor. that thing was put in there, appears not to be practical for any usage apparently, or really difficult to work with. She stated it looks like probably the several lots that are involved overall which are part of that original subdivision or say lots that would have access potentially from some kind of street from the bottom of that gully, probably should work together on what the grading might be and if there is some kind of joint grading work that could be done that would make it more developable within City codes. Ms. Santalahti asked if she knew who owns the property to the immediate east and has she dealt with them at all on grading etc.. Ms. responded Ms. Santalahti stated it seems that the sight is very difficult and as such, to try and develop each one separately, meaning in a grading sense can something be done to the grading that would be beneficial to 'the property owners to allow them to develop, as well as to develop something in accordance with Code or something a lot closer to Code than what is on this agenda. She stated it would be a good idea for people to look at it together and determine if there are any .alternatives that they can do to fix the situation. Ms. stated they had a meeting with Mr. Zigg who is the owner of the property and tried to work it out. She stated unlike their property, our property does not have the advantage of being on the very low side of the slope which they can go ahead and get the garage there. She'~stated for that one reason they can go ahead and lower their house. She stated they were not that fortunate with this piece of land and they have been trying as much as they cau. She stated they went ahead and had the garage, which is 25 feet away from the road, and we're even complying with the roll-up door so that there wouldn't any danger in having cars in the lane or anything. Ms. Santalahti stated she noticed from the plans the property is rather steep and difficult to work with. Ms. Santalahti stated before she could look favorably on any variance, she believes the property owner should get together in terms of grading on the property, and decide if something can be done jointly which would make each parcel more developable in accordance with Code. She stated Penny Lane was put in in an idiotic configuration, while its not their fault, it just reflects how difficult the site is. She stated anyone who goes there~is going to have to make an extra effort on coming up with a design that is acceptable and may in fact still need some kind of minimal waiver but will be a lot closer to the expectations of the property owners and the Scenic Corridor Overlay standards. Ms. Santalahti stated she would-like to continue this item for a while and have them get together with the others and take an overall look at it with engineers as well, and decide what is really practical out there that doesn't take thousands of yards of earth to be moved to make it reasonable, which isn't an objective either. She commented on whether anything can be MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 16 done and still maintain the feel of the area but make for a more Code orientated development on these properties. Ms. stated if she is not mistaken her husband is the architect, and he was the one who designed the house. She stated he was working with the people who did the grading plans and this is what they came up with. She stated she did not know if they could get together with the other owners and do something else or if this is the best we can do. Ms. Santalahti stated when she went out there and looked at it, she noticed it is a difficult piece of property to work with and it may just be that the parcels are too small ultimately, that they should have been larger. She stated presumably at the time they were subdivided they complied with some County regulations, so somebody thought something could be done, or else they were being very positive about it. Ms. stated another point she wanted to raise was that the neighbors right in front of that lot were concerned about what they are going to be looking at straight. She stated she took two pictures of the homes straight from the lot. She stated as you can see the house is surrounded by trees in such a way that they don't have a straight shot at the house, but if they do, they have tried to .make the house as beautiful as the could in the back so they would have a pleasant sight. Ms. Santalahti stated as it stands right now, she does not feel she can approve this project because she believes, possibly, something can be done with the site itself essentially to make it a little more amenable to developing in accordance with Code. She stated the site is small but somebody subdivided it, City didn't force anybody to do it, City didn't make anybody purchase the property, so from that point of view, she is not sympathetic. She stated on the other hand she can see it is a pretty area and can see why people want houses there. Ms. Santalahti stated her preference is to do a substantial continuance, and might even want to readvertise this and take it off the agenda for the time being for them to talk to the other parties that are affected and see if there is anything they can come up with or if some estimates are made, maybe its such a massive amount of grading that in practical terms nobody is going to do that much work for a few lots. Ms. Santalahti stated she is going to assume that since two of them came in so close together that there is somebody else out there in the wings waiting to possibly file an application as well because of the general area configuration to start with. Ms. stated they would try it, and their main concern is the narrow shelf that they have to build on. She stated that shelf is only 30 feet, very narrow and very steep. Ms. Santalahti stated if she denied it and they appealed it to Council she did not think anything new would come out that would make a decision easier for them, and there may be a solution that involves the ultimate grading of the area. She stated taking a good look at it and whether Penny Lane should be gotten rid of and some other kind of a driveway could be worked out or v MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 page 17 joint driveway, or whatever, something like that. She stated that is what she would like them to do. Ms, asked what Ms. Santalahti's opposition to 'the project was, Penny Lane or the height of the house. Ms. Santalahti responded she believed a good part of the problem, other than the dimensions of your lot and the spec if is location on the edge of Mohler Drive is the overall grading in the area. She stated Penny Lane.may have nothing to do with it but it reflects how awful it is to work with. She stated for them to grade on their property obviously they are not ever going to be able to grade their property no matter how much money you have without affecting your neighbor, and that is why she thinks they need to check with the immediate area neighbors. She stated this is the difficulty anybody is going to have to deal with coming in, where if you got together with them, maybe there is something that would be helpful, that would make it a lot easier and may bring some of them into Code so we wouldn't have to process variances. She stated that was her suspicion, that here is a place where putting parcels together in terms of grading, an ultimate development could be a real benefit to everybody. involved. Ms. Santalahti stated they will take it off the agenda anticipating it will be readvertised for the January 14th meeting. She stated if they don't hear anything from us in the beginning of January they might want to call the department in case they have some difficulties or whatever. Ms. indicated concurrence with what Ms. Santalahti has said. Ms. Santalahti stated the purpose was they can try and contact the neighbors and work with the immediate other vacant properties and see if jointly, there is some kind of scheme out there in terms of grading, specifically, that might be advantageous to everybody. Mr. Macnames, 32U Timken, stated they are talking about a joint effort between this lady and the adjoining property owner. He stated he believes 335 Mohler is the same owner. Ms. Santalahti stated that is 'possible, but she is not talking about one neighbor, she is talking about the abutting neighbors acid probably the more the better. Mrs. Macnames, 320 Timken, stated this is really for the developers, they keep coming out. She stated they brought pictures of trees and the country side, which you want to come out and enjoy. She stated they come out, tear out the trees, put in houses and expect them to keep the country side up for you. She stated each one of the developers who has come out has destroyed. She stated the five acres they were talking about had Eucalyptus windbreak, they were destroyed by the developers. She stated the neighbors on their ridge have kept theirs and the developers look at their beauty while she looks at their rooftops and walls. She ,stated it was just for them to consider. Ms. Santalahti stated Item No. 4 is anticipated to come up in four weeks but is off the agenda and will be readvertised. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 18 ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3730.' PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: JESSE J. GOMEZ AND THERESA J. GUMEZ, 1306 W. Trenton Drive, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property is described as approximately 7255 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 66 feet on the south side of Trenton Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 109 feet and being located approximately 550 feet east of the centerline of Ninth Street and further described as 1306 West Trenton Drive. Request for waiver of (a) required type of parking spaces; and, (b) minimum rear yard setback to retain a garage conversion, a room addition and a detached storage room. Three persons indicated their presence in opposition. Theresa Gomez, 1306 Trenton Drive, stated she would like.to briefly explain what had happened ai:d why this took place. Ms. Gomez stated they had a home there for 10 years and it burned down 2 years ago. She stated we were trying to reconstruct the house, fit our needs and along with what the insurance company paid, and we did have insurance problems on this and we do have a law suit pending. She stated the contractor who her son works for and is his foreman, decided to do the work for them and they discussed relocating the family room in the garage because several people in the neighborhood also have this. She stated they assumed they could have it. She stated the only other thing was the family room was located in the back of the home where we're asking for the setback variance, it was then a 14 x 28 foot room, built by a contractor 2 years before the fire and financed by Pomona Federal Savings, she assumed they pulled a variance on that room, but not knowing the procedures she is not sure that they did, but she assumed the finance company would request that before financing. She stated the room is now just half that size, it's a bedroom. She stated the storage shed was there before, only it was a large metal shed. She stated as far as the parking spaces in front, she has parking for eight cars, which they pulled permits for along with the block fence they did. Ms. Gomez stated what happened in the misunderstanding here was the contractor was going to pull the variances needed for the shed and the garage conversion, but when the insurance company started to pay, they had shown they were going to hold a very large portion of the money until the last payment. She stated there were some complications because there mortgage company sold the loan to some other people who didn:t know what was going on, and all this red tape started coming about. She stated when they got about half way down the line the contractor told her he couldn't do some of the rest of the work, they were running out of money and he wasn't sure the insurance company would release the last payment to me. She stated he said he was working on a small margin for her, but he would allow his people to work for her after this money comes in and he won't be getting a contractors commission on that portion of the work. She stated the garage was a finished garage and it was permitted, but of course it didn't have the door taken off. She stated the final inspection was on the 23rd and her son was supposed to foreman another job for us because the contractor wasn't going to get involved, but she .assumed because MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 19 they had talked about this in the beginning, that he had pulled the variances along with permits and things for her. Ms. Gomez stated they had a death in the family 2 days after final inspection, and her son was in as bad a shape as they were. She stated the contractor went on vacation for two weeks, then she took her daughters children and went away for about 5 days after the funeral. She stated the boys came over and started doing the work, she assumed somebody called and Code Enforcement men came out and spoke to her older daughter who was still there, she tried to contact us in Mexico but she couldn't. She stated her daughter was told they didn't red tag it or anything, so naturally the work continued, she didn't know what to do. She stated when she came back the work was almost finished. She stated Cecille came out, who was the inspector on the job and he looked at it and knew it was more or less proper but he said they were going to have to go down and, and pull the variances because there are people in the neighborhood who have what you have but you have to have it permitted. She stated immediately after she found out there was a problem she came down here. She stated she complied with anything else that was asked of her. She stated she had some pictures with her of the property. Ms. Gomez stated the house is basically exactly the same as it was except it doesn't have a garage door, the shed is wooden now instead of metal, which she believes looks better, and they have plenty of off-street parking. She stated she spoke to a lot of her neighbors about this and many of them new of the problem of why they had to wait, but she didn't make any secret about what we were doing because she thought it was all fine. She stated she has gone around and collected signatures from 33 people, and stopped at one point because everyone seemed to be in favor of it. She stated that is all through Trenton and all around behind her, across in front of her and up the side some, and that is where she stopped because it didn't appear anybody was opposing it. She stated a lot of people offered to take off from work and come down here but she felt having their signatures was enough. She stated she is raising her two grandchildren and her son and needs that bedroom very badly. Ms. Santalahti asked what the storage shed is made of and is it on a foundation, does it have. electrical, etc. Ms. Gomez stated it is on a foundation and is the same construction basically as the house except the inside is unfinished. She stated it is more like a single car garage. She stated if you look at the pictures, it has quite a bit of room from the side, there is no overhang onto the neighbors property and she has gone around the neighborhood and looked and there are similar situations where they are actually right up against the fence when they constructed the garage in the back yard. Responding to Ms. Santalahti she stated there is electricity in the shed but they have a Honeywell system and it filters into that area, because of our fire we decided to go with the more expensive system. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 20 Ms. Santalahti asked on the garage conversion, what is it, other than removing the door, putting in electrical outlest, converting that to a window making it a solid wall. Ms. Gomez responded where the washer/dryer used to be it is more converted like a laundry room and the kitchen and that room are now almost the same, the thing that separates them is a small wall and a bar/counter effect. Ms. Gomez stated when that was almost finished Cecille was out there during this and looked at all of it. She stated his personal comments to her were he felt the plumbing on the job was fine because her son had done it. No one else indicated their presence in support. In opposition, Robert Catron, 1732 Norfolk at the end of Trenton Way, stated he sympathized with the women in regards to the fire and that is his concern, having it to close to the neighbors property. He stated there was some minor damage done to the existing homes during this fire, without the shed being there. He stated she said it was a metal shed which is more fire resistant than a wooden one and it does look nice, but it does present a problem as afire hazard. Mr. Catron stated also with the garage conversion, he can sympathize too, we all need room, we're doing it the legal way, pulling permits etc, not taking things for granted. In response to Ms. Santalahti, Mr. Catron responded no he does not abut the property on the east side, he is on the end, kitty corner to it. Ms. Catron stated there is a parking problem in this situation. He stated she has a wrap around driveway there, but they still park boats, vans and everything else, and they do go out in the street. He stated they had a carport put on the side with the same problem because they have a trailer and everything and he believes it presents an eyesore to the neighborhood. He stated these other people had their garages converted, he is sure without permits, because the Code does require you have a garage. He stated he does not want a precedent set in the neighborhood that just because they got theirs, everybody else will start doing it. He stated there are certain Codes and laws we all have to live by. Alan Shapiro, 1301 Trenton Drive, directly across the street stated he is really here more for himself because he is a'first time homeowner. He stated he is watching his other neighbors put up walls and additions and getting permits, etc. He stated he has a 1-1/2 car garage which he wants to enlarge for another car. He stated he can't because he is too close to the property line. He stated he would like to add on to the house because it is a World War II cracker box and again he can't because it's to close to the property line. He stated up to this point he's been led to believe that as long as there's enough red tape and confusion, the project can be completed and then you apply for a variance. He stated he would like to find out after this, if that is true because everyone else is going through all kinds of hell getting permits to change from a wooden fence to a block fence. He stated he hears stories and understands a lot of this will be MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 ~ PaQe 21 going to the SPCA and the civil courts, things he believes is not a part of this. He stated until 20 minutes ago he couldn't really say he knew the neighbors, he's never seen them, 3U - 40 feet away. He stated his concern was the legality of it, not to be a patty-pot, but why can .they do it, and why can't I do it. Ms. Santalahti stated she agrees, you do have to get building permits on just about everything you do, one of the things that has happened in the last few years, is that now conventional lenders require building permits where previously they were a lot more lackadaisical and the realtors, etc. when they sell houses. She stated they are seeing a lot of variances before the Planning Commission as well for illegal work that has happened and that is because the house is being sold and it is picked up at that time that there is some interesting woodwork that has gone on. She stated they are seeing more of that than. they used to and the reason is others are being held legally liable for illegal activities and we're seeing these. She stated she agrees, if it is not acceptable as a new structure, that makes it even less acceptable as an illegal structure. Lynn Catron, 1732 Norfolk Lane stated she just wanted to voice the same objections that were already voiced. Ms. Gomez stated the people who live on Norfolk don't live anywhere near her. She stated they can see her house from their house but they're on a different street altogether, they are on a side street. She stated as far as the shed being unsafe, she stated earlier the Honeywell system does go into the shed. She stated as far as her doing this to try and pull anything, she didn't, because when she built the wall and driveway she permitted them. She stated as far as parking cars in the street, they never park their cars in the street, their boat is actually going to go into storage. She commented on how confusing it is after a major fire and trying to relocate and get back in your home, etc.. She stated she believes any cars parked on the street have been from workmen. She stated you have to have permits to park on their street and they just never do it, they have enough room. She stated as can be seen in the picture the boat is up in the driveway, all the cars, even the workmen's truck is up in the driveway and that driveway was permitted. Ms. Gomez stated as far as people wanting to have a garage conversion they might be able too, she doesn't know. She stated she is an apartment owner, when a tenant wants to have a dog she charges a $50U non-refundable dog deposit. She stated when she gets a tenant that complains, the minute I tell them they can have a dog with a $500 non-refundable deposit, they don't want a dog, because they don't want to pay it. Ms. Gomez stated the corner house, she will admit are constructed differently and they do have less parking, they have less room than she has. She stated fortunately each one of these houses are different in that neighborhood and some people have more space the way the house is located, and that was the builders fault. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 _ Page 22 She stated she did have: a family room in back and she can't imagine why it would bother somebody to see a window instead of a garage door because the house isn't doing anything. She stated the lady the previous opponent is talking about that lives on the site where the shed is, which might endanger her property or the man behind her both signed the petition that it didn't bother them. Ms. Gomez stated she didn't have any other comments other than she is out of money as far as trying to do anything else to this, and it is going to take a couple of years to get back on her feet after the fire, but the contractor did tell her there would be a way to raise the fence a little for safety precautions or whatever, but she just can't see this, with this system she is monitored by the fire department, and she believes they would never get in a major problem like that again. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti stated she was going to ask if they had looked at constructing a new garage. Ms. Gomez stated she said she would prefer a carport rather than a garage, if she constructed a garage it would take the whole view of the front of her house. She stated if she sells the house, she would not be opposed to constructing a garage if the owners would want that, with the financial burden being on her. Ms. Santalahti stated this particular variance has three parts to it essentially, one being the parking situation, that they don't have the 2 garage spaces that the underlying Code requires; the other one being two-parts in itself, being the setbacks, one from the attached bedroom on the house where a 10-foot setback is required and they only have 7, and the other one being similar for the shed structure in the rear. Ms. Santalahti stated accessory buildings which are not used for habitation purposes are permitted to encroach and things of that nature, but at some point staff no longer accepts things.as accessory, and she is assuming in this instance because that structure has a foundation and has electricity that's the reason that it is a problem for us right now. She stated were it metal or built very differently, effectively cheaper, it probably would be totally appropriate to have it back there. She stated she doesn't have a problem with the shed being 4 feet instead of 10 feet in that it is detached as long as it is not used for any habitation purposes. She stated moving anybody in there or anything like that would be a problem, hobbies is not anything difficult for us to deal with. Ms. Santalahti stated she did not have a problem with the bedroom projecting into the back either being at 7 feet rather than 10 feet because it is a fairly minimal difference from the Code. She stated in fact that open area they have in their backyard, if they met Code strictly, would have just under 1600 square feet of useable space in the back yard without anything back there under Code. She stated when she added up the square footage they have in the remaining back yard as well as that 7-foot area,~they have just under 1600 square feet, so it's very small, there is no difficulties with MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Pa a 23 lot coverage or anything like that or useable back yard space. She stated in the back yard she does not have a problem. Ms. Santalahti stated in the front, there is a lot of space on this property, so technically they could have done the garage conversion and then constructed a garage with doors legally, with any modifications that you would have to do to your building. She stated she did not. know if the front setback shown is 35 feet to the property line or the curb. She stated when she went out there she didn't think it was that deep from where she thought the property line was. She stated in any case, there is enough space on this lot, in fact, you could build a garage and comply with Code. She stated usually when they have deviances from the parking requirements in regards to garages and things like that the Planning Commission has often approved some when the conversion has been a lesser one, they required a deed restriction be recorded on the property whereby those people convert back to a garage at the time the property is sold. She stated those have been conversions where there have been no interior walls and the door may not be there, they may have closed it off altogether, and in this instance, her inclination is to certainly approve this in part to allow the setback waivers. Ms. Santalahti stated on the lack of the two garage spaces, the reason she is not really concerned with that is that they do have on-site parking space, and they have more than they are required. She stated there is that potential for adding a garage with certain other modifications. Ms. Santalahti stated she is not comfortable with requiring a covenant to be recorded on the property stating at the time the property is sold a garage shall be constructed or something like that is to take place. She stated the only reason for that is there is so much space on the property, anyone who buys it has space in the front to do something in any case in the future. She stated other than a lot of payment this addition looks very reasonable in .itself, there's not a lot of problem with that in an older tract. She stated she doesn't like the fact that the work was done illegally and she knows property owners depend on contractors to do what they need, unfortunately in most cases, it seems you have to make sure they do what they are supposed to do. She stated they have a lot of people who don't realize and maybe even get a cheaper price because the contractor did not get permits from the City. Ms. Santalahti granted the negative declaration as recommended by staff in that their is no adverse effect by this specific proposal and the way it has happened on this property. Ms. Santalahti approved Variance No. 3730 on the basis that the setback waivers are essentially minimal, one in that it is 7 feet instead of 10, and the other that it is an accessory storage structure, and although it has a foundation and electricity, it is to remain for that type of use and not to be converted into residential purposes. Ms. Santalahti granted the parking variance on the basis that this lot does have a lot of excess space in practical terms in the front, and if a future / ~- MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, November 19, 1988 Page 24 buyer wants to, it is easy enough for them to build a garage in the front. She stated one of the major issues on the property is parking, and that meets Code so she will go along. with that. Ms. Santalahti stated she is not happy with the variance and she doesn't mean to say when somebody does something illegally it gives any basis for granting a variance ultimately, but in this particular case, the way the property is developed does differ a lot, not from the neighborhood necessarily, but certainly a lot of the single-family stuff we have in that there's a circular driveway that they've installed which puts in more parking, the setback to the house itself is much further than it was to the converted garage portion, so in the future if something needs to be done those people don't need variances to have that kind of work, they won't be exceeding site coverage or any other zoning standards, as far as she can tell, if it is properly designed. Ms. Santalahti stated the written decision will go out in the next few days, by next Wednesday, the item will appear on the Council agenda during the following 15 days after the written decision is dated. 'She stated if anyone wants to appeal it they may do so at the City Clerks office. She stated the City Council may also set it as well. Ms. Santalahti stated ,what that means is a building permit won't be issued onto the property until after the 15 days is concluded unless the item is appealed. In response to Ms. Gomez, Ms. Santalahti stated the contractor can submit plans and everything for the building permits so that you can go through the plan check, it won't be issued however until that 15 days is over and assuming there is no appeal on it.