Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/07/28i' ~ 'i"" ~. A C T I O N AGENDA • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, JULY 28, 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. 0608H Page 1 ~::. • r~ July 28, 1988 la. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION lb. VARIANCE N0. 3820 (READVERTISED) OWNER: CHI KEUNG KWOK, et al, P.O. Box 6551, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 506 South State College Blvd. To establish a 738 square-foot donut shop with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meeting of July 14, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-45 2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3815 OWNER: RICHARD E. COLLIVER and JUDY J. COLLIVER, 382 Silverbrook Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: PETER E. CARSON, 10600 Magnolia, Suite I, Riverside, CA 92505 LOCATION: 7460 East Humming Bird Circle To construct a 2-story, 34.5 foot high, single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height. Continued from the meeting of July 14, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-46 3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A 3b. VARIANCE N0.'3821 OWNER: ROBERT L. DAVIS and AMINTA D. DAVIS, 6503 Marengo Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: THOMAS MAURER & ASSOCIATES, ATTN: Rick Crane, 150 E1 Camino) Real, No. 200, Tustin, CA 92680 LOCATION: 6980 E. Avenida de Santiago To construct a 2-story, 33 foot, 6-inch high, single-family residence) with waiver of maximum structural height. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.ZA88-47 4a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A 4b. VARIANCE N0. 3828 OWNER: TONY W. BAXTER, 6401 E. Nohl Ranch Road, No. 9, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 7635 E. Silver Dollar Lane To construct a 2-story, 31.5 foot high, single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Denied Approved revised plans for front height of '28 ft back height of 30 ft. App rove d Cont. until 8/11/88 to be re advertised. One letter in opposition received. Copy given to applicant. Page 2 ~ • July 28, 1988 5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Denied 5b. VARIANCE N0. 3827 OWNER: JACK NOSEK, et al, 1206 W. Ash Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92633 AGENT: THOMAS MAURER & ASSOCIATES, ATTN: Rick Crane, 150 E1 Camino Real, No. 200, Tustin, CA 92680 LOCATION: 806 W. Romneva To construct a 3-story, 10-unit, apartment complex with waivers of maximum structural height and maximum site coverage. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-48 6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. VARIANCE N0. 3825 Approved OWNER: ALLYN B. SCHEU and ROSEMARY B. SCHEU, P.O. Box 250, Upland, CA 91785 LOCATION: 1003 N. Euclid Street To establish a take-out pizza restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 7Af~8-49 7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ~ None 8. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby ceyr/tify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: ~~"r• ~~ ~ ~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) ~(DA E) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ~ ~/~a' ~C ~~~ If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Page 3 ~\ ~ , ~ • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - JULY 28, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:40 a.m., July 28, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Lori Duca, Assistant Planner Karen Urman, Traffic Engineering Pamela Starnes, Executive Secretary Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the meeting and that anyone desiring to speak about matters other than the agendized items would have the opportunity to be heard at the end of the meeting. ITEM N0. 1 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3820 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CHI REUNG RWOK, et al, P.0. Box 6551, Anaheim, CA 92806. Subject property is rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.32 acre having a frontage of approximately 149 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and being located approximately 168 feet south of the centerline of Westport Drive and further described as 506 S. State College Boulevard. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a 738 square foot donut shop. There were nine people indicating their presence in opposition and three people wishing to speak in opposition. Kathy Martin, 24039 Nectar Way, Ramona, Agent, said she had read the staff report, as well as the conditions and noted they had no problems complying with same. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 2 John Novak, 504 Reseda Street, said he had lived in the neighborhood for 30 years and had three general reasons for opposing this project. He said it would have a negative impact on the city and neighborhood, and noted they had a Winchell's Donut Shop about two blocks up the street which already had•a parking problem. He said he had read a newspaper article which stated that Winchell's Donut House stock was down to $3.00 from $18.00 showing donut shops are having economic hardships and submitted a copy for the record. He said he did not agree that the trade would be primarily walk-up because he takes walks on St. College Boulevard every morning and never sees anyone walking St. College except for healthnuts who do not eat donuts. He also noted that the donut business is basically a high volume low dollar business and has to generate a reasonable amount of traffic to be successful. He said there is a traffic light at the corner of Santa Ana/State College and Westport/State College (approximately 30-feet apart). He noted the traffic light sits right in front of the entrance to the proposed donut shop and basically would be blocked most of the time. He noted you could not enter from the south bound lane on State College because you would have to cross over .the double yellow lines, you could not enter from Santa Ana Street because of where the first car sits waiting at the traffic light, and to come in from the south you would have to wait for the traffic to clear the intersection. He said for these reasons he is fearful that most of the traffic will come in from Westport or Reseda through the back alley. He noted they already have enough problems in their neighborhood with Angelo's Restaurant down the street. Richard Wilson, 509 Reseda St., said he had lived there 30 years and was directly behind the proposed donut. shop. He said when the 4,000 square foot building is filled with businesses he has noticed that there has never been enough parking spaces. He said people park wherever they can, including the alley, and noted he has seen numerous citations being issued to those parking in the alley. He said he is dramatically opposed to the donut shop. He noted it would be a problem with the donut shop being open 24 hours and said that all sorts of low life hang out at these places. He stated-that Angelo's down the street has been a real headache and hassle to everyone, and between the citizens and the City they have gotten the place half way straightened out, but it is still not the way it should be. He said he felt this use would increase the traffic because most of the customers would be driving in to get donuts. He also expressed his concern about the trash problem and the fact the area set aside for the dumpster was about 20 feet from his property. He said the dumpster would be loaded with flies and smells because of the grease, which can be rancid at times, that would be disposed of in the trash. He said the types of uses that have been in this commercial center in the past have been compatible with the neighborhood. Frank Pease, 525 Reseda, said he was the junior on the block since he had only lived there 18 years. He said he was vehemently opposed to the donut shop and noted there were already four shops within walking distance of this one. He noted he lives in a similar position to Mr. Wilson. He noted the trash from Angelo's blows across the street into his alley, and he has to continually clean it up and doesn't want to start cleaning up after a donut shop. He said he felt the neighborhood would definitely be adversely affected by the proposed donut shop. ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 3 In rebuttal, Ms. Martin said she had no idea there was all this opposition to the proposal. She noted the donut shop would not be open 24 hours but would only be open from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. She said there would only be one employee. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti noted she had gone out and looked at the location last week (when it was advertised incorrectly) and had gone out and looked at the right location this week. She said she could see why the neighbors were concerned, particularly with the way the alley goes into the apartment, and single-family residential area behind the commercial buildings. She said one of the problems with being on the boundary between the two uses was the fact the commercial use needed to be more careful of their business operation because of the impact on the residential neighborhood. She said with the alley being between the two uses and actually running into Reseda (a residential area), the street situation on State College and with the signalization, it does present strange way to get onto and off the property. She ,said she agreed that donut shop business seems to come from drive-in traffic rather than walk-up. She said she felt this was a poor location for a donut shop because of the physical location of the property. She noted the residential property behind the proposed project was well maintained. She said when she was at the location around 4:00 p.m. the parking appeared to be one-half or one-third full. She said there was no alternative parking for this small commercial center. She said the building looked like it had been designed for a low-key commercial retail type operation or possibly offices. She said she would not expect to see any type of food service at this location. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. She said she was going to deny this request based on the fact the proposal will have an adverse affect on adjoining and nearby residential uses because vehicular access to subject property being available via a public alley which also serves adjacent apartment uses and said alley connects directly to Reseda Street, a wholly residential street with both single and multiple family dwellings, and that said alley provides direct access from:. the proposed donut shop to said residential area; that vehicles which enter and exit the property from State College Boulevard are adversely affected by the existing "off-set" traffic signalization at the intersection of State College Boulevard and Santa Ana Street/Westport Drive; and that a parking variance will cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity: 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 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless.. members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 4 ITEM N0. 2 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3. VARIANCE N0. 3815 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: RICHARD E. COLLIVER and JUDY J. COLLIVER, 382 Silverbrook Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: PETER E. CARSON, 10600 Magnolia, Suite I, Riverside, CA 92505. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.78 acre, having a frontage of approximately 210 feet on the southeast side of Hummingbird Circle, having a maximum depth of approximately, 135 feet and being located approximately 1000 feet east of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard and further described as 7460 Hummingbird Circle. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story,, 34.5-foot high, single-family residence: There were two people who spoke in opposition at the July 14, 1988 public hearing and one letter was submitted, and seven people indicated their presence in opposition at the July 28, 1988 public hearing. Peter Larson,' Agent, said they had submitted revised plans lowering the height to a maximum~of 30 feet. He said this was accomplished by 'dropping the slope of the roof. Ms. Santalahti asked if the maximum measurement was being taken from the rear side, in other words was it going to be two feet shorter on the Hummingbird Circle site and he said that was correct, effectively from the front it would be 28 feet high. Patricia Simon, 7380 Rite Drive, said they looked directly at the proposed house from their rear yard and it affected their view. She said they preferred the house be built as close to the designated 25'feet as possible. Sally Smith, 7370 Rite Drive, said she was here to oppose any change in the 25 foot height limitation. She said this variance would create a hardship for her and diminish her property's value as it would block her city view. She said she felt no special interest group should have any privilege not accorded everyone. She noted the Scenic,Corridor was intentionally designed to provide all residents with a marvelous view. She said anyone purchasing property in this area was aware of the height limitation. Mitzi Ozaki, 340 Timken Road, said the City Council directed the Planning Department to consider a structural height study for the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. She noted Lori Duca had said that of all the cities considered in the study, the City of Anaheim had the most requests for structural height waivers. Ms. Ozaki said she found this alarming since the. Title 18 Site Development Standards state the purpose of the chapter is ;to encourage development of the scenic areas in accordance with the natural amenities of the area. She noted that structural height did not give any increase in living area only a different architectural style, and she was definitely' opposed to this project. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 5 Jane Miller, 6694 Paseo del Norte, said she was in agreement with what other people have said. She said the house did not personally affect her but she was a very interested citizen and wanted to see the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone upheld. Sonja Grewal, 6312 Santa Ana Canyon Road, speaking on behalf of the Anaheim Hills Citizen Coalition, noted they had submitted a statement at the last meeting. She said she was also speaking on behalf of Dave Martin the architectural chairman of the Canyon View Estates Association, who was unable to be here today or at the last meeting. She said their association was concerned that this proposed home would lead to justification for other height waivers. She said they would like to see the development standards of the Scenic Corridor maintained. She said they felt height waivers should be granted only for genuine hardships or genuine special circumstances. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Dr., said he was appearing as a friend and interested citizen. He noted there has been a proliferation of requests for height variances over the past year. He said he strongly supports the variance procedures because at times there are situations where the need arises to deviate from the Code. He noted they could be situations such as uncontrollable features of the land itself but not controllable features such as architectural design or economics. He said large square footage homes can be built without exceeding the height limitation. He said we need to retain the character of the area. Maria Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow, said she was opposed to the height variance. She said if this waiver were granted more property owners undoubtedly were going to apply as they have in the recent past asking for similar variances. She said she felt the prior speakers had pretty well covered everything. In rebuttal, Mr. Larson said he felt the Scenic Corridor Development Standard was not necessarily for just an individual use but for the, overall impact to the area. He said there was no way to completely protect each individual view. He noted their particular case was a little unlike most because this project was affected by a small buildable pad. He said when building a house of this magnitude it was necessary to get some variation of ceiling heights. He noted that, for the most part, the speakers were not neat door neighbors nor across the street neighbors, but residents quite a distance away who have an overall view of the area. He said from that standpoint, their views would only be obstructed by a small amount, since it is similar to holding a book up in front of your face which would block a lot of your view, but holding a book up at some distance from your face would only block a small portion of your view. He said there really wasn't any impact to the immediate neighbors because their views are front to back with a valley view for the homes on one side of the street and the city lights on the other side. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JULY 28 1988 PAGE 6 Ms. Santalahti asked for an estimate of the square footage of the buildable pad and he said he wasn't sure but thought it was about 3,000 square feet which was minus the 25-foot setback which reduces the buildable area tremendously. He said what affects them so much on this particular lot was the shape of the pad. He said it was kind of long parallel to the street, with a wider area which narrows down. He noted the narrow: area that fingers out along Hummingbird was unbuildable. Ms. Santalahti said she recalled he had estimated the depth of the pad was about 50 feet overall and he said from the street that was correct. Ms. Santalahti asked what the side setbacks were to the building from the two interior side property lines and he said one side was 10 feet wide the other side maybe 70 to 100 feet which is the side towards the cul'-de-sac. Lori Duca said it was close to 100 feet. Ms. Santalahti asked what the interior ceiling heights were and he said nine feet except for the family room area that utilized-the whole height. Ms. Santalahti said that when the Scenic Corridor was originally established it was in connection with the freeway being declared a scenic highway. She said at that time the Scenic Corridor was just that a corridor, and measured something like 1,000 feet or more in width along either side of the freeway. She said she believed that was the reason we have what now appears to be conflicting standards in the Code, namely the Scenic Corridor height is 25-feet which is more restrictive than the 30-feet which was the applicable height when Peralta Hills and Mohler Drive were annexed originally and when the basic area of Anaheim Hills was established. She said ..several years later the Scenic Corridor was expanded to the City limits so the 'entire area had a more restrictive height limitation. Ms. Santalahti stated that she had gone out the other day to look at this property and had taken her binoculars to try to get a good .feel for how far away everyone was and to get a more accurate sense of the height differential to the properties to the east. She noted the first street :to the east was Nighthawk, .that she could see three levels of houses on three streets apparently and they were all two stories, and that the Nighthawk houses appeared to be at a very similar grade or elevation to the lot on Hummingbird Circle and maybe even a little higher. She said Kite and the subsequent street, Nightingale, were both two stories above one another because you could see the entire west facing facades of the those houses with two levels of windows being visible. She said those houses were a good 25 to 50 feet higher than the property in question. She said as far as she could tell by looking at the map, excluding those houses above on Bunting that look down on the proposal, and the Singingwood project that is located at an angle around the hill, it was a distance of about 2,000 feet or so to the closest street, Nighthawk. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JULY 28 1988 PAGE 7 Ms. Santalahti noted that she had mentioned last time that her greatest height comfort level in this particular area was a 25 foot elevation on the street side and possibly .dropping down with a physically higher elevation on the rear side, which was what she would have liked to see; however, she did feel it was an improvement to lower the house approximately two feet.in~the back and was pleased with that even though she would have liked to have seen the front a bit lower also. Ms. Santalahti said she agreed with Mr. Larson that any impact on the neighbors was at either a very great distance or at a significantly different elevation. She said this was not a typical lot since it was significantly wider with a 210 foot frontage and a 135 foot depth, and the reverse was the typical lot configuration. She said on this lot there would probably always be a house that stretches across the lot hence the greater visual impact then one would potentially have with a lot having reversed dimensions. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti said she was going to approve this Variance based on the fact that the subject hillside residential lot was unusual in that the width (street frontage) was substantially greater than the depth (210 feet wide and 135 feet deep) and that the developable building pad was only about 3,000 square feet in size located adjacent to a steep slope towards Deer Canyon thereby limiting the design potential of a house; and that the request was minimal because any impact the proposed dwelling might have'on other homes in the Hill and Canyon area was mitigated by the underlying lot being located on a street along a ridgeline with all existing visible area houses being located at either a substantially different grade (50 feet or more higher for three houses to the southeast) or at a great distance away (1,000~to 1,700 feet or further for houses to the southeast and east). 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 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 3 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3. VARIANCE N0.~3821 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ROBERT L. DAVIS and AMINTA D. DAVIS, 6503 Marengo Drive,. Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: THOMAS MAURER & ASSOCIATES, ATTN: Rick Crane, 150 E1 Camino Real, No. 200, Tustin, CA 92680. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the southeast side of Avenida de Santiago, having a maximum depth of approximately 345 feet and being located approximately 350 feet west of the centerline of Hidden Canyon Road and further described as 6980 E. Avenida de Santiago. There were three people indicating their presence 'in opposition and no correspondence was. received. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 8 J. R. Mauro, Agent, said this particular lot was unique and has one of the largest buildable pads within Hidden Canyon Estates. He said the approximate flat portion of the lot was 20,000 square feet with a buildable pad of 14,000 square feet. He said they had designed a house that was complimentary to the neighborhood. He noted that only 41~ of the total roof area exceeds the 25 foot height limitation with about 8~ of the roof area consisting of chimneys and a portion of the highest peak of the roof being above the 30 foot level. He said the surrounding pad elevations are a minimum of 7-feet to a maximum of 12-15 feet above or below this particular pad. He said the adjacent neighbors to the east and west are above and below some 7-12 feet and the northwesterly property was approximately 15-10 feet above. He stated the: property immediately southeast was approximately 50-60 feet below and about 300-600 feet away. He stated basically the minimum impact would only be affecting possibly 3 residences total. He stated he would like to mention the property immediately adjacent to them, Lot No. 3, was recently approved to exceed the 25 foot height requirement at 33 feet, therefore they request this variance be approved. Thomas Maurer, 150 E1 Camino Reale, Suite 200, Tustin, speaking on the architecture of the building, stated this was a typical country home style popular in all of Orange County. He said the square footage of the building was approximately 5,500 square feet with a four car garage. He said when they design this style home they get into roof pitches that are probably a little higher then normal in the canyon area. He stated custom homes developed in accordance with old traditional designs have high roof pitches. He said they did some studies using the 25 foot height limit, but it did not look good because of the size and scope of the house. He stated the staff report read 33.6 feet and his calculations were 33 feet. He noted their required setback was a minimum of 10 feet and in their case they have 20 feet on one side and 15 feet on the other side. He said the design had a sloping roof, peaking toward the center which was the highest point. He said the existing home to the east was approximately 25-30 feet away. Ms. Santalahti asked if the agent contacted any of the existing neighbors and he said he personally had not. Sonja Grewal, Anaheim Board of the Citizens Coalition, 6312 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 157, stated she feels a precedent has been set by granting previous height waivers and now, in order to be fair to everyone, how can any height waivers be denied. She said they felt granting waivers was practically an illegal interpretation of the code. She said she had been in the council chamber when a developer said that everyone else had gotten variances so they can't deny me, and noted the same thing was happening right now. She said she read a statement at the City Council meeting from Steve and Pam Hale who live on Tuckaway Circle who stated they were against granting height variances and felt that more attention should be given to the negative impact on the neighbors surrounding the people who get height variances. She stated Ms. Hale also mentioned that homes were being framed that had been granted height variances and you could really see the affect of the added height and the • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY. 28, 1988 PAGE 9 additional mass caused by that height. She said the reason why the development standards were restrictive was to try and have some sort of a standard that developers could work with, not to go above. She said she did not see how they could not grant this variance, but noted they are extremely concerned and are opposed to granting any more. Mitzi Ozaki stated the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was in fact extended in the early 70's to encompass the entire canyon area during the time of the General Plan Amendment, and again the concern was to preserve the total visual impact of building with environmental assets. She said that architectural styles are not a hardship and we have to put a stop somewhere on the granting of the height waivers. She stated she strongly opposes the continuous granting of waivers in the Scenic Corridor. Sally Smith, 7370 East Rite Drive, stated she feels the Zoning Administrator's interests were involved with whether or not views were being interfered with and she wished she had brought photographs so she could show how this project would interfere with the view of the city lights she has had for the past 10 years. She said petitioners were creating a situation which was precedent setting, and continually approving this type of construction based on currently popular architectural styles was inappropriate. ,She said petitioners are trying to build palatial mansions which cannot coexist with the hill and canyon area. She stated styles can be modified so there would not be a need for helter skelter variances. She said these projects can be modified as it has been done in the past throughout the hills in such projects as Anaheim Ranch Estates and Peralta Hills. She stated it was imperative that the Zoning Administrator adhere to the limitations and' not permit any more of these waivers which are not in the best interest of the community. In rebuttal, Mr. 'Mauro stated he would like to point out they are in Hidden Canyon. He said Mr. Davis, the property owner, had spoken to the two adjacent neighbors as well as the neighbor across the street, and they indicated they were not opposed to his project. He said Mr. Davis had shown them the preliminary plans of the house. He said that basically there are only three or four houses that could possibly be impacted by this particular development. He noted they exceed the required setbacks in front (they have 50 feet). He stated the side yard setbacks also exceed City standards. He noted there was only a minimum amount of the roof structure that was actually 30 feet high. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti asked if the grading on the property had basically been completed and Mr. Mauro said they had spoken to the City Engineer who told them the grading was restricted, so they cannot raise or lower the pad. Ms. Santalahti asked if there was a home owners association and he said there was a master home owners association, but no neighborhood association. Ms. Santalahti asked if they were aware, as commented on earlier in this meeting, that the association had a 25 foot height restriction and he said • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JULY 28 1988 PAGE 10 that basically it was in the CC & R's. He said Mr. Davis and he had personally gone to all the houses in the neighborhood, and although they didn't take a ladder and actually measure the houses, he would say that probably 80 percent of the houses exceeded the 25 foot limit. Mr. Mauro responding to Ms. Santalahti's earlier question said no one in Hidden Canyon Estates was opposed to their project, and in addition they had contacted the three neighbors who would be immediately impacted. Ms. Santalahti commented this particular area was notable by it's absence of concerned neighbors, and she has more than once checked to verify that the notices of the public hearings have gone to the people on the north side of Avenida de Santiago. She noted this variance did not have any visual impact on those living northerly of the ridge line. She stated she had inspected the site. She said the architect had done some very helpful drawings clarifying the relationship between this particular lot and adjacent properties to the north, east and west, the south side being a substantial drop down into a ravine. She stated the house does have a larger front-and side set back, and in this instance, one of the reasons she was not as concerned was the fact the immediate neighborhood did not appear to be concerned. She noted this proposal was on a deadend street. She said the street actually dropped below the pad, the property to the west was higher, and the property to the east was substantially lower. She said she did not realize there were CC & R's on the property as that hadn't been discussed before. She stated it was not the City's responsibility to enforce them; however, that can pose a problem when CC & R's are not upheld consistently. Ms. Santalahti stated this was a Categorical Exemption Ms. Santalahti said she would approve this variance based on the fact that the impact of the proposal was minimal because the neighboring lots to the front and rear which might be impacted (amounting to 3 or 4 homes) were at least 7 to 12 feet higher or lower than subject building pad, that the building pads of the lots to the rear are at least 50 feet lower, and that the front and side yard setbacks of the proposed dwelling are significantly deeper than required (50 feet instead of 25 feet for the front and 15 to 20 feet instead of 10 feet for the sides) thereby further reducing any impact of the proposal on the neighbors to the front and sides. 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 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council.shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 4 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, VARIANCE NO. 3828 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: TONY W. BAXTER, 6401 E. Nohl Ranch Road, No. 9, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre having a frontage of approximately 232 • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 11 feet on the west side of Silver Dollar Lane having a maximum depth of approximately 163 feet and being located approximately 750 feet southwest of the intersection of Eucalyptus Drive and Silver Dollar Lane and further described as 7635 East Silver Dollar Lane. No one indicated their presence in opposition. One letter was received in opposition and a copy was given to the applicant. Ms. Santalahti stated this item is being continued for two weeks in order to correct the notification that went out with incorrect information as to the property location. ITEM N0. 5 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3827 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JACK NOSER, et a1, 1206 W. Ash Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92633. .AGENT: THOMAS MAURER & ASSOCIATES, ATTN: Rick Crane, 150 E1 Camino Real, No. 200, Tustin, CA 92680. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.28 acre having a frontage of approximately 74 feet on the south side of Romneya Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 163 feet and being located approximately 1500 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 806 West Romneya. Seven people indicated their presence in opposition and five people spoke in opposition. No correspondence was received. Tom Mauro, 150 El Camino Real, stated he is representing a 10-unit apartment project on Romneya and was asking for a height variance. He stated typically in RM-1200 they could build this type of building without any problems; however, since they are within 150 feet of a single family development, they are required to ask for a variance. He stated the building department looks at this as a 2-1/2 story building, but the zoning ordinance looks at it as 3-story building. He noted that two months ago, they went before the Planning Commission with a similar proposal on two nearby lots, and noted the lot they have the proposal on today has a single family dwelling on it which was one of the reasons the other proposal needed a variance. He stated this was the same type of proposal (partially subterranean parking with two floors of apartments above). Regarding lot coverage, he said if the entire square footage was counted including the basement parking, it would be more than what would typically be allowed; however, if you were to measure coverage at the surface level and considered the amount of deck area that will be landscaped, they have a lot more open space then would be typical. He said in that case, they were below the 55~ allowed. He said he had sent plans to the neighbor to the east who might be in opposition to this proposal because of some infringement of privacy. He said they could mitigate some of the concerns by raising the wall heights so people weren't looking directly into the neighbor's property. He stated the design had some balconies on the second floor that looked into that property and that they might be able to eliminate the balconies or raise the height of the railing and make the balcony walls solid. He stated these were the biggest concerns of the neighbor to the east. He stated they sent plans to the neighbor to the west and noted they • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 12 had not received any written comments or phone calls regarding the proposal. He stated he believes there will be no opposition from this neighbor, since he has several single story rentals. He noted there were other two story apartments to the rear of the property that have been there for several years; however, they had not contacted the owner. Frank Morales, Executive Director of the Neighborhood Program of Anaheim (NIPA), said the program consisted of a cross section of people in the community who know that area well, including the Code Enforcement Manager for the City of Anaheim, John Poole. He said they were not opposed to buildings and housing and read the following: "Our theme is don't let a good neighborhood go bad." He said NIPA was concerned with the total area of the neighborhood not just land use. He said their stated goal was to prevent the deterioration of communities. he said they want to maintain a high quality life for the residents in and around the area, and many of the variances that have been requested and approved have endangered some of these goals. He said the area across from Romneya had been a blighted area for about 10 years, and the City and the neighbors have been attempting to reverse the deterioration. He said the City and the neighbors have expended many many hours and many many dollars in the area. He said they are succeeding in obtaining their goals and variances of this type could reverse the process. He said the board of directors unanimously ask that this variance be denied. Bonnie Kirkwood, 1133 N. Citron Street, said she has been a resident for 26 years and has seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood. She said she was a member of the NIPA board and they were working to clean up the Chevy Chase area. She said most of the area was .single-story. She said high density would adversely impact the area and noted traffic was already a problem. She said she was also concerned about the six foot high wall because they were already having so many problems with graffiti which was an on-going problem daily. Harold Clayton, 804 W. Romneya, said he was the neighbor to the east that applicant had referred to earlier. He said he had looked over the plans and made several verbal complaints to the developer. He said he questioned the height of the three stories since it impacts his property because it would block the sun coming into his recreation pool area. He said the applicant indicated he would try to do something with the balconies so the only level that would be looking directly into his pool area would be the upstairs bedroom which he would have expected if he were building two-story units. He said they were raising the ground level about four feet, and when they put a six foot fence on the property it would make it ten foot high on his side. He said if the fence were not that high; however, everyone could look right into his pool area. He stated his concerns about how the water would be drained off of the property. He said he would also like to have the front fence made of a material that would allow graffiti to be hosed off. He said the trash enclosure location was a problem and needed to be moved because otherwise it would be right next to his house. He noted there was an existing parking problem on the street. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JULY 28 1988 PAGE 13 Dave Prichard, who owns 906 - 908 Romneya located to the west of the proposal, said he was not totally against the project but would like a few modifications made. He said he thought 10 units were too many because this applicant was developing a second piece of property to the west (adjacent of his property) and there were 10 units proposed at that site. He said this would greatly add to the crowded conditions in the neighborhood and add to the parking problems they are experiencing. He said he thought the project would still be economically feasible with less units. Carol Clayton, 804 Romneya, said her concern was the parking issue. She said they were already over crowded on their street and noted people from other apartment areas park on their street, often blocking their driveways. She said she would like to see two-stories only. She said there was approximately 7-feet between the property and the windows on the side of their house, with the raising of the grade 4-feet and the wall 6-feet, it will be like a cave and they literally would not get any sun on that side of their house. She said, though, without the fence they wouldn't have any privacy. She noted the corner was dangerous for children going to and from school, accidents were not out of the ordinary, and felt that should be taken into consideration. In rebuttal, Mr. Maurer said they have already tried to mitigate the problems raised by the opposition. He said they originally proposed a lower wall but raised it to give the neighbors some privacy. He said the walls were all on the interior which would not be a graffiti problem. He said they would be happy to eliminate the 32" high wall in the front setback ., He also noted they would be glad to move the trash enclosure to a different location. He said he felt they had plenty of parking available for their units.. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said she had gone out to look at the location and although there were a lot of apartments, they were basically one-story with a few two-story, giving the visual affect of a rather low profile area. She noted she was not fond of the coverage waiver in general, and in this area particularly she felt the three-story (or whatever you preferred to call it) would definitely stand out. She stated the lot was not that large, and the petitioner had put on all the units he could possibly have under Code's density limit. She said there have been a lot of apartments requesting a variance for 2 1/2 stories. She said there was a study underway looking at this type of development and how it impacts nearby single-family areas. She stated Romneya was an arterial street, and quite narrow, which was why they will be requesting 32 feet along its entire length to widen it at a future date; however, that was not significant for the amount of traffic the street handles. She said the height variance particularly was of a great concern to her. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. • ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 14 Ms. Santalahti said she was going to deny this request because there are no special circumstances applicable to this property and because nearby apartments are developed on similarly sized or smaller lots and all are developed at a lower density; most of the apartments in the area are 1-story in height and none are 3 stories high; and that approval of a 3-story height waiver, as proposed, would establish an undesirable precedence in an area consisting primarily of single-story buildings which have been developed at a lower density. 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 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. Recessed for five minutes, reconvened at 11:55 a.m. ITE_M_N0.___6__CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3825 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ALLYN B. SCHEU and ROSEMARY B. SCHEU, P.O. Bog 250, Upland, CA 91785. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8 acre located at the northwest corner of Francis Drive and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 230 feet on the north side of Francis Drive and 152 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, and further described as 1003 N. Euclid Street. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Diane Jenson, Agent, said they were requesting a parking waiver for this project. She said the proposal was for a total take-out operation and there would be no food consumed on-site. She said they felt the use was compatible or equal to any other retail use like a dry cleaners where you would pick up your dry cleaning and then move on. She said most of the customers that come to Little Ceasars call in their order so they are not standing around waiting. She said there would be no seats on the premises. She said, in addition, the other uses in the center are compatible with Little Ceasars. She said the donut shop's primary business hours are in the morning and Little Ceasars will not open until 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. and their primary business hours are in the evening. She noted the traffic study prepared by Weston Pringle states the parking stalls can be shared for both uses. She said, in conclusion, Little Ceasars operation would not result in any parking impact or deficiency at all. She noted that Conditions Nos. 1 and 2 had previously been completed with the last variance in the center, and Condition No. 3 had been complied with except for the driveway on Francis Drive, which~is the second driveway going into the rear of the center and that the curbs have not been completely repaired but will be when Little Ceasars occupies the site, and that Conditions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were been complied with and completed in Variance No. 3675. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 28, 1988 PAGE 15 Ms. Santalahti said staff would check the Conditions and if there was evidence in the files they have been complied with then they will be deleted. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. Ms. Santalahti said she would approve this variance based on the fact that the request is specifically for a take-out pizza restaurant with no seating capacity for customers to eat on the premises, that most customers call-in their orders for delivery by restaurant employees, and that other existing uses in this commercial center are compatible in terms of parking usage (especially a donut shop which has heavier traffic early in the day in contrast to the proposal which has heavier usage later in the day). This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the Ci y Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 7 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 8 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Mitzi Ozaki stated she realizes there are often a lack of people showing up, at these meetings but that really cannot be interpreted as disinterest or even consent, because often they are tied up. Many times she has wanted to be here but could not be. She stated they should not have localized communities in the scenic corridor overlay zone since it does encompass the entire canyon area, and the visual beauty affects all of us. She stated when they do come and make their comments in preservation of the scenic beauty it was because it does affect all residents of the canyon. ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator 0091g