Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/06/02~„ :+ +. • • A 'C T ~ I ~ O.; N~ AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1988, 9:30 A.M. 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. 0200T-__ Page 1 . ~•~ .~ June 2, 1988 • la. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION . lb. VARIANCE N0. 3678 (READVERTISED) OWNER: DONALD J. STOLO and CHARLENE STOLO, 10113 E. Whittier Blvd., Whittier, CA 90606 AGENT: B.E. BLANK, Civil Engineers, ATTN: Bruce Blank, P.O. Box 6302, Anaheim, CA 92816 LOCATION: 7581 Martella Lane To establish a 2-lot RS-HS-22,000(SC) zone, single-family residential subdivision with deletion of Condition No. 17b of Zoning Administrator Decision No. 87-15 pertaining to maximum building height on proposed Parcel No. 1. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3779 OWNER: LEDWIN L. FORTINI and ANNALEE FORTINI, 5311 Mountain View Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA 92686 LOCATION: 6820 E. Avenida de Santiago To construct a 2-story, 30 foot high, single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.ZA 88-33 3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3780 OWNER: EUGENE A. DURBIN and LINDA DURBIN, 2545 E. Tennyson Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2545 E. Tennyson Avenue To construct an approximate 998 square-foot addition to an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum "front-on" garage setback. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-34 ~7ithdrawn. applicant to gyring in ie t ai le d louse plan proper grading rl• an:: . 11 be ad~rtised Approved. Approved. Page 2 • • June 2, 1988 4. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0009 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5: A request by Craig A. Mock to construct a covered porch with waiver of minimum front setback (25 feet required; 20 feet proposed) in conjunction with a new single-family residence at the northeast corner of Danielle Circle and Owens Drive. Public Notice period ends on 5/31/88. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-35.. 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: /~ ~~~~ ~ ~ U ~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (Time) (Dae/)~ ~ AND COUNCIL DISPLAY RIOSR SIGNED: ~ `~~ Approved. N one . Page 3 ` .~ . _ ~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a. m., June 2, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT' Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Lori Duca, Assistant Planner Pamela Starnes, Secretary ITEM N0. 1. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3678 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: DONALD J. STOLO and CHARLENE STOLO, 10113 E. Whittier Blvd., Whittier, CA 90606. AGENT: B.E. BLANK, Civil Engineers, ATTN: Bruce Blank, P.O. Box 6302, Anaheim, CA 92816. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.95 acre, having a frontage of approximately 126 feet on the north side of Martella Lane, having a maximum depth of approximately 361 feet and being located approximately 850 feet east of the centerline of Martin Road and further described as 7581 Martella Lane. Deletion of Condition No. 17 pertaining to a maximum building height on proposed Parcel No. 1 in connection with a proposal to establish a 2-lot RS-HS-22,000 (SC) zone, single-f amily residential subdivision. There were three people indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Ms. Santalahti stated that Condition No. 17 (b) read: 'Limit the maximum building height on proposed Parcel No. 1 so that the highest ridgeline is no more than twelve (12) feet higher than the existing graded pad of adjacent Parcel No. 4 of Parcel Map No. 61-37 (this restriction is illustrated on approved Exhibit No. 4). Don Stolo, 732 Ruby Lane, Anaheim, noted their position was stated in a letter sent to the Planning Department May 11, 1988. He said basically the restriction placed a burden on the front parcel so they could not build a standard two-story home as permitted by the City of Anaheim. He said if they build a one or two-story home as the Condition stands, it would still block the view from the adjacent parcel to the east. Maria Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow, said her property was adjacent to subject property and bordered it on the easterly side. She noted her husband, Larry Ritter, had previously attended the hearings on this issue .but was unable to ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 2, 1988 Page 2 be here today, so she was speaking on their behalf. She read from a prepared statement which is attached. Tony Barksdale, 181 Possum Hollow, said he lives northeast of subject property. He noted his opposition was mostly on principle. He felt, if Mr. Stolo had a good architect, he would be able to put a single-story house or even a split-level house on the property and adhere to City regulations. He stated his objection at having to attend so many hearings on this proposal, but said he would continue to attend any hearings, because of his concerns for the area. Sonja Grewal, representing the Anaheim Hills Coalition, noted Mr. Stolo had already gotten a lot of concessions. She said he was located in an annexed area from the County, which was to be preserved as half-acre lots, and his lots are already less than that. She stated there are other areas in the City where a one-story limit has been placed in order to protect the view and open feeling of the area, and she referenced Forest Glen on the south side of Peralta Hills, and Peralta Hills East. She noted there was a very good reason that Ms. Santalahti had placed a Condition on this property to restrict the height. She said they hoped Ms. Santalahti would reaffirm her original decision and deny the current request. Mr. Stolo said they were not asking for a building height variance, but a clarification or change of the elevation of the pad as was indicated in the Variance request. He said in order to build a normal two-story house they would have to dig about a 4 1/2 or 5 foot hole. He said the plans for the home on the back parcel are now in plan check with the City, and adhere to all the requirements set-forth here previously. He stated that•his request was based on Variances other properties ~in the area had received. He said he did not feel his request adversely affected his neighbors. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti said she assumed the parcel map had not been ,recorded on the property since applicant was requesting deletion of a Condition regarding height, and Mr. Stolo said that was correct. Ms. Santalahti noted she was at the site yesterday, and asked if the grading had been completed. Applicant said the grading had not been done. She asked how the grading would differ from what was there at this time. Bruce. Blank, Civil Engineer for the project, said the grading plan that has been prepared to comply with the Conditions of the Variance will create a pad on the northerly portion of the site, and will comply with the building elevation restrictions placed on the northerly parcel to protect the Barkdale's view. He said in order try to comply with the elevation restriction placed on the southerly parcel, the building pad would have to be created through the excavation of approximately four to five feet of material from the existing soil. He said the pad elevation would be 'at 422 feet and the existing grade in the general pad area is roughly 426 1/2 to 427 feet. He ~' • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 2, 1988 Page 3 said the house would then sit below the elevation of Martella Lane creating drainage and appearance problems. Ms. Santalahti said she wanted to know if their current plan was to add dirt to the back of the property in order to raise the rear portion which would be the second lot, and if the front portion would essentially remain the same. Mr. Blank said no, that the front would have to be excavated. approximately five feet in order to meet the elevation restriction that Condition 17 (b) directs. Ms. Santalahti asked if the Condition were changed would the lot be going down a little at the front and go up at the back, and noted it currently sat higher than the street right now, and he said yes. She pointed out that the street was a mess and did not serve as much in the way of drainage. He said that was correct, and said the rear pad would be well below the slope that was visible from the street. He said the northerly parcel would basically be sitting in a hollow. He said the rear parcel pad elevation would be 412 feet, and the front parcel pad elevation would be 423 feet . Ms. Santalahti asked what was the elevation of Martella Lane, and he said Martella Lane varies from 420 feet on the westerly property line to approximately 429 1/2 to 430 feet at the easterly property line. Ms. Santalahti asked if it would remain as it was in the front, if this Variance is granted, and he said the pad elevation would be in the range of 426 to 427 feet, but basically at the same elevation as it was now. Ms. Santalahti asked for an explanation of the proposed drainage. She said she thought the rear parcel was going to drain to the gulley at the back, and she wanted to know if the City Engineering Department had been willing to let the front parcel drain onto Martella Lane. He said that was correct, and noted that the current drainage pattern slopes to Martella Lane. Ms. Santalahti noted when she had made the original decision, she had drawn on an Exhibit, the relationship of this project to the Ritter pad, so you could see why the twelve foot limitation above their pad was put on the property. She noted they were essentially the level neighbors to this property. Ms. Santalahti said she realized a lot of people were building two-story houses, but noted she also sees a number of one-story houses. She said she did approve two lots, when in fact you could legally build with just one lot, and in doing that, she felt the developer had an obligation to lessen the impact of the development on the neighbors since now he had two houses rather than one. She noted there would be double driveways with twice as many cars traveling in and out of the property. She said she felt the height limitation was one way of lessening the visual effect of the development. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 2, 1988 Page 4 Ms. Santalahti said if the applicant had plans for the house he was proposing so the neighbors could see what he planned to develop, it was possible that even if the house were over the twelve feet, that because of its location relative to the adjacent properties, it might have no affect whatsoever on their view and then they might not be opposed. She said it would be most helpful if the applicant would submit a plan showing the proposed house combined with the proposed grading. She said if this were done, perhaps there could be a discussion to modify this particular Condition; however, she felt he just wanted to make his options greater than they were with the restrictions she had required for the parcel map. Ms. Santalahti noted the Ritter's view to the immediate west was affected, and might have been affected by a two-story house under the existing single lot; however, with two lots it was affected to the northwest as well. She said because of the height of the Ritter's house, and the height of the neighbor to the west (which is below grade from the proposed project), twelve feet would be consistent with what was surrounding the proposal. She stated there was a big difference between a 25-foot high building and a 12-foot high building. She noted that in this instance., the applicant had created a potential difficulty for future development by subdividing a lot below Code, and that was the reason for placing the height limitation on the property. She said if the applicant wanted a smaller lot, he would also be get a smaller house in one sense of the word. She said in this case, smaller meant lower. Ms. Santalahti said the people who are closest to the property, have either one-story houses or the lines-of-sight are very similar where the roof lines fall, because of the grade differential. She noted she was not aware of any reason why Parcel No. 1 could not drain to the rear of the property, and noted the parcel actually had a physical connection to the rear property line. Mr. Blank said it could drain to putting the house down in a hole appearance of the neighborhood. the slope of the street, but in would obviously be in a hole. the back; however, the overall effect of would be more of a concern to the overall He noted there were houses built down from this case with the layout of the land, it Ms. Santalahti said when a request was made like this one, applicant needed to submit detailed house plans showing proper grading, and precisely what the configuration would be of. the project, and how it differed from the height restrictions on the property. Mr. Stolo said he would like to withdraw his current proposal. He said he would attempt to develop a plan that the neighbors would not object to, and the Zoning Administrator would feel comfortable approving. Ms. Santalahti noted that Item No. 1 on today's agenda, Variance No. 3678, had been withdrawn by the applicant at this point, but would be readvertised when detailed plans have been submitted for the house to be built on Lot No. 1, including proper plans for grading of the lot. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 2, 1988 Page 5 She suggested the applicant show the plans to the surrounding neighbors prior to presenting them at the public hearing. ITEM N0. 2 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A, VARIANCE NO. 3779 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: LEDWIN L. FORTINI and ANNALEE FORTINI, 5311 Mountain View Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA 92686. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.96 acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the southeast side of Avenida de Santiago, having a maximum depth of approximately 348 feet, and being located approximately 500 feet northeast of the centerline of the existing terminus of Avenida de Santiago and 350 feet southwest of the centerline of Tamarisk Drive and further described as 6820 E. Avenida de Santiago. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 30 foot high, single-family residence. ' No one indicated their presence in opposition, and no correspondence was received. Paul Westberg, Architect, noted he did not realize they would have to request a height variance until after the plans had already been drawn. He said the plans had been submitted to and approved by both the Hidden Canyon Homeowners Association, and the Anaheim Hills Homeowners Associations. He said that even at that time, he was not aware they would need a height variance. ' PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti asked if the grading on the property was basically completed, and Mr. Westberg said that the primary grading had been done, and that the only other grading would be for drainage around the future structure. Ms. Santalahti asked if the neighbor across the street, which is probably the only neighbor that would be affected because they have a similar grade to this property, had been contacted personally regarding this proposal. He said he did not know. Mr. Westberg said he thought the neighborhood's view was oriented toward the City,. where his client had elected the natural background view. Ms. Santalahti approved the Variance based on the fact the proposal is minimal and will not interfere with lines-of -sight from nearby properties. She, noted that adjacent building pads to the northeast and southeast were substantially lower (11 feet to more than 50 feet), and the adjacent building pad to the southwest was 13 feet higher than subject's building pad. She said that the dwelling to the northwest was oriented to a northwesterly view with garages and a driveway facing subject's property. ` Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 ,_ ... • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 2, 1988 Page 6 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless a member of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 3 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5, VARIANCE N0. ,3780 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: EUGENE A. DURBIN and LINDA DURBIN, 2545 E. Tennyson Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.17 acre, having a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the north side of Tennyson Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 105 feet and being located approximately 250 feet east of the centerline of Milton Street and further described as ,2545 East Tennyson Avenue. Waiver of minimum "front-on" garage setback to construct an approximate 998 square-foot addition to an existing single-family residence.:. No one indicated their presence in opposition, and no correspondence was received. Michael Van Denahil, representing Mr. & Mrs. Durbin, said they proposed to add a garage in front, and convert their existing garage into an additional living area. She noted the neighbor next door had already converted their garage, and that others in the neighborhood had similar garage conversions. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti asked if the property owners had seen the Conditions recommended by staff, mainly that the existing driveway would have to be removed and replaced with curb, gutters, sidewalks, etc., and that they had to install a roll-up garage door. Ms. Van Denahil said yes, and noted they currently had a roll-up garage door. Ms. Santalahti asked if they had spoken to the immediate neighbors to the east and west regarding this proposal. She said yes, and stated he neighbors didn't have any problems with it. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on tl and that roll-up garage doors would be installed garage door. would not interfere with cars parked that the proposal complies with a pending Zoning permit a minimum 20-f oot front-on garage setback installed.. ~e fact the '.request is minimal in the new garage so the in the driveway. She stated Code Amendment which would when roll-up garage doors are Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorical Exempt. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless a; member of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 2, 1988 Page 7 ITEM NO. 4. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0009 AND CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5: A request by Craig A. Mock to construct a covered porch with. waiver of minimum front setback (25 feet required; 20 feet proposed) in conjunction with a new single-f amily residence at the northeast corner of Danielle Circle and Owens Drive. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the Administrative Adjustment and she would be acting on it prior to or on June 9, 1988. ITEM NO. 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Pamela H. Starnes, Secretary Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator. 0053g