Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/08/11r ;~ ' :. • • A C T I O N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 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 J' ~ ~' ~- • • August 11, 1988 la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A lb. 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 NO. ZA88-50 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3830 OWNER: DMST DEVELOPMENT, INC., ATTN: John D. Dye, 1203 W. Lambert Road, No. 200, Brea, CA 92621 LOCATION: 120, 121, 124 and 125 S. Martin Road To construct four, 2-story, 28-foot high, single-family residences with waiver of maximum structural height. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA88-51 3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3832 OWNER: GILBERT L. WIGGAM and KATHLEEN WIGGAM, 768 Fairway Lane, Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6860 E. Avenida de Santiago To construct a 2-story, 29-foot high, single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height and minimum fountain setback. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-52 4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: p p ~' ~~'.M' o ~ ~o LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) ~~/JDAZ~ ) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED. 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. Approved in part, 28 feet maximum height Denied Approved None None Page 2 ., F i ~~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - August 11, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:40 a.m., August 8, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Lori Duca, Assistant Planner 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 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS-3, VARIANCE N0. 3828. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: 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 feet on the west side of Silver Dollar Lane having a maximum depth of approximately 163 feet, 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. Waiver of maximum structural height~to construct a 2-story, 31.5 foot high, single-family residence with . There was one letter received in support of the proposal. There were nine people indicating their presence in opposition and five letters were received in opposition. • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 2 Tony Baxter, owner stated he had been a resident of Anaheim Hills for 12 years. He said the property on Silver Dollar was very special, it has a great topography and seven full grown trees. He stated the municipal code protects some of these trees and he has tried to work his house plan around the trees. He said in order to do that he designed a very tight building pad that actually nestles beneath three of the full grown pines. He stated it is important to maintain the compact plan because there is 170 feet to the right side of this house that will be preserved as open vista for all the people living along the existing Silver Dollar Lane and that is their primary view into the valley. He said if the house had been spread out, like a single-family.l ranch style, a lot of that view would have been destroyed. He noted the Tu®or style was characterized by deep pitched roofs and gables. He said since 1984, he has really admired a model of this type located in Canyon View Estates on Hummingbird Circle. He submitted a front elevation of this home and a photograph of the property. He had a model of his property and proposed house to show so staff and others present at the hearing could get a good feeling of how this proposal would fit into the environment that they were working with. He stated he had marked the model with etched tape to show the portions of the house that were above the 25 foot height limitation. He stated only 11~ of the entire roof structure was over the 25 foot height limitation and only 1'b was over 30 foot. He said he had very few neighbors as most of the land was vacant. He said he did talk to his neighbors on Silver Dollar Circle, and he submitted a letter from the ~Feinsteins his closest neighbors (who are the ones that will be facing the front elevation) stating they not only have no objection but are looking forward to this house being a part of the neigborhood because they feel it will dramatically increase and improve the area. Mitz~ 0$~ki, 340 Timken Road, said the canyon area is a beautiful area enjoyed by t e residents and visitors to the area, and she feels very committed to fighting to retain that visual joy. She stated in 1970 the„City Council recognized the assets of the area and in Resolution No. 70R-283 had in essence promised the people in the Mohler Annexation area (subject property falls ----- --within that area=that:-"Whereas-the residents of-the Peralta Hills and the Santa Ana Canyon area, also known as the Mohler Annexation Area, were assured subsequent to annexation that this area of Anaheim will be maintained as one of the finest low-density residential areas in the City and that it will be the duty of the City to retain the residential integrity of the area". She stated that in 1971 the City declared the area to be a Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone under Title 18: "The purpose of this chapter is to implement local governmental agency action to protect the scenic appearance of the Scenic Corridor. The scenic corridor presently contains a distinctive character that is exemplified in three primary natural features and their interrelationships. These features are the rolling terrain, the winding river and the eucalyptus windbreak. The foremost purpose of this chapter is to maintain the character that they exemplify by retaining or expanding the impact of these natural features...." She stated the first,Mohler Annexation • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 3 process occurred in 1972 and was completed in 1973. She stated the Eucalyptus Drive area was annexed some time between 1982-83. She stated for nearly two decades the residents of the Mohler Drive area have clearly defined to the City that they wish to retain their very unique and special rural lifestyle, and that height waivers are against the scenic corridor stated goals and to retain these natural features is paramount; and, therefore, she is against Variance 3828 as not in keeping with the area standards. She stated both the Planning Commission and the City Council have traditionally upheld the integrity of their area building and zoning standards. She said recently Variance No. 3773 was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council, Variance No. 3726 was denied by the Zoning Administrator in.December 1987 and then appealed to the City Council, and the Zoning Administrators decision of denial was upheld by a vote of 5 - 0. She said she trusted today that the Zoning Administrators decision would again reflect Anaheim's commitment to preserve the very unique amenities and very special rural lifestyle of the Mohler area community. Ms. Santalahti read from a letter submitted by Philip Joujon-Ro~fch~ Anaheim Liaison person for the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners Association, dated July 26, 1988, 450 Via Vista, Anaheim. It stated, "I am writing-ta this letter to urge the City to uphold the present residential building height limit of 25 feet in the scenic corridor area of Anaheim and' not to grant variances to this very important portion of the building code. I quote of the City of Anaheim General Plan of 1984 Scenic Highway Element "scenic areas as visual amm'entities are important in that they provide welcome relief from the sometimes monotonous built up urban environment". The goal is to preserve and enhance uniquely scenic or special visual resources in areas along highways and designated state scenic routes for the enjoyment of all travelers, from the quotations from the Anaheim General Plan is obvious that Anaheim has made a committment to items citizens to preserve and enhance the natural scenic elements of the scenic corridor, the scenic corridor is worth preserving as scenic, but it already contains tovmany overly tall non-scenic castles complete with multiple turrets, some of these are on hilltops. In the hilly '~ areas of the 'scenic corridor an over height structure can easily be a visual blight, visible'~`~he many travelers along the 91 freeway and' Santa Ana Canyon Road not to mention close-by residents, to continue the granting of variances to build such structures in the scenic corridor is putting the privilages of one person, the requesting builder, ahead of the rights of Anaheim residents and the scenic corridor travelers. The present height limit of 25 feet in the scenic corridor should be retained and enforced, this is sufficient height to build a two-story house with a pitched roof, let'sc~efine the castles to Disneyland." Ms. Santalahti read from a letter submitted by Tony Barksdale, dated July 26, 1988, 181 Possum Hollow. It stated, "This is pertaining to°Variance No. 3828, since I am unable to attend the meeting this Thursday I hope this letter in opposition to the proposal will hold as much weight as if I were there in person. You know most of my opposition to this type of variance, but the main one is every~a variance, is granted it allows the next person who wants the ,~~mG • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 4 same type of variance more leverage to obtain it. As you know my concerns are that if this variance is granted it will snowball and my neighbor to the west of me will request again a height variance for his property.. using precedents set by this variance. I know there are several others in opposition who due to the short notice and vacations may not be aware of this variance request, I received my letter on July 20, and the card on the 25th." Maria Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow, representing her husband Larry and herself, stated their property was located on the west side of the hill, just south of subject property, said they wished to voice their opposition to the granting of this variance asking a waiver of the maximum structural height by 6 feet, thereby exceeding the normal limits of 25 feet imposed in the Santa Ana Canyon area by the existing Anaheim General Plan and reaffirmed in Resolution 70R-283 dated April 20, 1970. She stated the scenic corridor zone was estabished to provide the Anaheim Planning Commission with a reasonable and logical framework for guiding the development of the hill and canyon area. She stated prior to the annexation of Peralta Hills and the Santa Ana Canyon area, the City assured the residents that unless justified by substantiated evidence, deviations would not be permitted. She said this variance request would grant to the owners, special privileges that others in the immediate vicinity do not enjoy, and will result in obstructing additional properties: owners views, thus decreasing their property value while increasing that of the owner. She stated neighboring property owners deserve the right to preserve their property value, and they oppose the granting of this waiver for personal reasons. She said they have a single-story ranch style home and they realize they cannot prevent the building of the structure that obstructs the view from their property on property they do not own; however, they consider the building height limitation in the hillside scenic corridor .reasonable in providing each property owner some measure of assurance that preserves a portion of the scenic view. She said if this waiver is granted, other property owners will no-doubt apply as they have in the recent past, asking for a similar variance to exceed height limitations and bite this variance as the reason to grant their request also. She asked that they draw the line at 25 feet. Ms. Ritter read a letter from David and Carolyn Whitehead, 190 Possum Hollow, stating: "We are opposed to the proposed variances that waive the height restrictions in the canyon area, we feel that these variances would allow the destruction of the scenic corridor here in the canyon and would not be consistent with the rural area in this part of the canyon." Mrs. Ritter stated Dave and Brenda Ralb, 7695 Silver Dollar Lane had also submitted a letter and asked if that had been received. Anthony Galanis, 123 South Derby Circle, directly west of Mr. Baxter's property, stated he was objecting to this variance because if it was allowed, there are 5 acres to the north of him which are going to be developed and it will be a lot easier for them to get a variance when they build. He said that development would definitely block his view. • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 5 Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, stated her family moved to the Mohler area in 1976 seeking a unique way of life. She stated they are now trying to preserve this same way of life for themselves, their chidren, and grandchildren. She said they feel any changes to the 25 foot height limitation would have a definite adverse affect on this beautiful rural area. She submitted two letters from neighbors. Ms. Santalahi read the letter, first from John Schaffer, dated August 10, 1988. It stated: "Regarding both Variances 3828 and the second item 3830, as a property owner in the Mohler Canyon area I am opposed o the approval of the two subject waivers. The waivers are in direct contra ion to the intent of the letter of the estabishment of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, they also degrade the environment and the property values of the area. For nearly twenty years people have found ways to establish nice homes in this area without violating existing codes. There is no reasonable justification for the waivers, I urge you to deny both of the variances." Ms. Santalahti read the second letter, from Terry Chin, regarding Variance Nos. 3828, 3830, and 3832, dated August 11, 1988. It stated: "As a resident of 261 Wildan Road, which is adjacent to the area in which the height variance requests are directed, I wish to register my objection to any approval, my family and I have lived in the area for three years and have enjoyed the country rural atmosphere and the scenery of the Mohler area. Indeed the height limitation ordinance has been a successful attempt to preserve the scenery for those who currently live there as well as allowing continual development of the area. More development is inevitable but should not be at the expense of those who already lived'there and have complied with the height restriction. Any housing development must be orderly and fulfill the existing requirements, if there is no urgent need to waive the height restriction, then I must say we should stick to the law and deny the request. If the request is prompted by archtectural concerns, etc. when the developers have not done their homework and should seek a site where exceeded building height will not interfere with existing home views:- There have been rare approvals of other requests to waive height requirements in the area, but they have never been granted whenever there are neighbors objections. I hope that the Zoning Administrator will continue to listen to the people." Karen Thompson, 230 Wildan Road stated she would like to go on record as opposing all three variances. Rermit Thompson, 230 Wildan Road stated he would like to go on record as opposing all three variances. Ms. Santalahti asked where Wildan Road was relative to Silver Dollar and Possum Hollow. Mr. Thompson responded it was right to the south of it. Evelyn Gaska, 175 South Eucalyptus, located just above the subject property, stated she would like to go on record as being opposed to this variance. • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. AUGUST 11. 1988 PAGE 6 Cliff Collins, 157 Eucalyptus Drive, stated he would like to go on record as strongly opposing the granting this variance for reasons which have already been stated. He said although Mr. Baxter has a beautiful proposed home, he should have designed a house with the correct height. He stated their house is considerably higher and Mr. Baxter probably would not block their light, but they would lose six feet of their view. He said the important reason for denying this variance is if granted it gives precedent for the other builders to come in and do the same thing. Sonja Grewal, speaking on behalf of the Executive Board of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, 6312 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 157, said almost all of the reasons they were opposed to the granting of this variance have been stated. She said one that needs to be emphasized is that in Mr. Baxter's remarks, he clearly did not fulfill the statement of justification listed on the variance petition, he did not justify his waiver, he clearly asked for the waiver because of a hardship which he has inflicted upon himself, not which is upon the land. She stated if this is granted, as Mrs. Ozaki pointed out, it will give a special privil~ge to Mr. Baxter which has been denied recently to identically zoned properties in very similar circumstances in the area. She said they were trying to emphasize the timelessness of the scenic corridor. She noted the residents that have spoken have lived in the area for varying lengths of time and they continue to appreciate what the-enacting the Scenic Corridor has accomplished. She said Mr. Baxter is more than welcome in the neighborhood, and this places people opposing this project in an unfortunate position, but the real position is that the 25 foot height limit is there, he knows it, and it has created and preserved a special environment which they hope the Zoning Administrator will protect. Ms. Santalahti read the letter from J. L. and Nancy F. Feinstein, dated August 10, 1988 stating: "We are apparently the closest neighbors to the proposed Baxter residence and have been in contact with Mr. Baxter relative to the referenced project. We have had an opportunity to review the plans and details for the proposal at the above address. We were impressed by both the acrd'utilization and the natural plant~treefl preservation, as well as the overall house design. We have absolutely no objection to the minor height excess in the proposed design. Based on the house siting the added height will offer no view restrictions to any neighbor, although we feel that building restrictions should be enforced, we strongly feel that each waiver should be judged on the merits of the special case. In this waiver about 11'b of the roof exceeding •25 feet and .8~ exceeding 30 feet seems quite minor with respect to the overall project and its effect on the local environment. We look forward to having the Baxter''s as neighbors and request you grant the waiver." Mr. Baxter said he wanted to point out that this was not a special variance request since there are several homes of this style on Hummingbird Circle, Bunting Court, and Canyon View Estates. He said his lot is larger and the house would fit nicely on the property. He noted that the Canyon View properties are more condensed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • , MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 7 Ms. .Santalahti asked if this particular property required any grading beyond that already existing other than for foundation work. , Mr. Baxter responded no, the pad was there from an original'!farmhouse which is no longer standing. Mr. Baxter, responding to Ms. Santalahti, stated the Feinsteins are north of the property in an existing house, along Silver Dollar coming down to his property. Ms. Santalahti noted four of the nine people that spoke were in the immediate area (apparently within a 300 foot radius of the property).::' Ms. Santalahti said she was comfortable when an entry way, tower, or some architectural detail exceeded the 25 foot height limitation rather then a ridge line. She stated about two thirds of the height over''25 feet was approximately 30 foot high and asked if Mr. Cexton, the architect, had looked into lowering the height. Mr. Baxter said when they calculated the amount that exceeded the 30 feet it worked out to be about .9~ of the roof structure and at this point it would be considerably difficult to re-engineer. Ms. Santalahti noted the immediate neighbors were concerned''on a more philisophical basis. She said this piece of property is relatively visible, and higher than the surrounding properties so regardless o£, what's done on the site there will be some kind of view obstruction. She. stated she does agree with his point, that a one story house would spread out a bit more on the property and have a greater ~ffect on the overall profile. Mr. Baxter said the Feinsteins had talked to other nearby neighbors and found no objections to his proposal. Ms. Santalahti noted the lot was relatively flat. She said when looking at the property she noticed the trees and wondered if he were planning to utilize them in his design since they are a nice feature. Mr. Baxter said yes and noted the trees range in height from 40 to 50 feet. Ms. Santalahti stated the facade is basically parallel to the southerly side. Mr. Baxter stated the facade in question faces directly on to the Feinstein's residence. Ms. Santalahti .said she agrees with some of the things he has commented on. She said the tree protection aspect was a positive factor, as well as the large setback to the north which would allow a wider open area; however, she does consider neighborhood opposition as being a significant part of her • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AUGUST 11 1988 .PAGE 8 decision. She asked if he would be willing to go back and work with Mr. Cexton and perhaps take another look and see if they can drop the roof ridge line down. She stated even though the orientation of the house was favorable in a general way, as you drive up Eucalyptus Drive across on Silver Dollar, there are a lot of one-story houses and vacant lots on Silver Dollar, and from past experience, it can set a precedene~e' in the next person's, although she did not view that as a basis for granting subsequent height waivers since characteristics vary. Mr. Baxter said it would be an exercise that would not improve any of the views and at the same time would compromise the aesthetics of this style home. He stated again there are existing homes in the area based on this plan so they felt there wouldn't be a problem. Ms. Santalahti said she would like to see the roof lowered. She noted in neighborhoods where there are immediate residents who are concerned, very often the items are set for public hearing by the City Council. She said what is above the 25 foot height limitation should be more of an architectural element over a smaller percentage of the roof area.' Mr. Baxter stated he doubts if he can get it down to the 25; feet and preserve that look, which is why he asked for these elements to be looked at on their own in terms 'of its aesthetics. Ms. Santalahti stated if she were to approve this, generally speaking the height she is willing, to go with was about a 10-12~ deviance from Code which would be a 27 to 28 foot maximum height at the highest ridge line of this dwelling. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this variance, in part, permitting a maximum 28-foot high dwelling on the basis that said approval was minimal amounting to a 12~ "~~"'deviance"(3 feet) from the permitted height (25 feet) with only about 6~ to 8~ of the total roof area actually exceeding the permitted height; and, further, that said excess roof height is oriented in such a way as to have minimal impact on the view of any nearby lots because subject building pad is significantly higher than the lots to the east, south and west, and the lot to the north has a northwesterly view orientation. 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 1'5 days. ITEM N0. 2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3830 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: DMST DEVELOPMENT, INC., ATTN: John D. Dye, 1203 W. Lambert Road, No. 200, Brea, CA 92621. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.4 acres • ~ MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 9 located at the existing southerly terminus of Martin Road, having a partial frontage of 160 feet on the south side of Martella Lane, having a maximum depth of approximately 330 feet, being located approximately 450 feet south of the centerline of Canyon Crest Drive and further described as 120, 121, 124 and 125 South Martin Road. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct four, 2-story, 28-foot high, single-family residences. There were ten people indicating their presence in opposition and seven letters were received in opposition. C. M. Thompson, 625 West Katella, designers, stated they are proposing four houses with not identical but similar floor plans and four different classic styled exterior elevations. He noted this was where they got into the problem because the Code was written at 25 feet. He said you can design 1950's houses well within 25 feet, but as the neighborhood gains in affluence and you create custom homes rather than an extension of a tract, you run into problems with architectural features. He stated the Tutor style home is two-story, with a steep roof, one style has pillars up the front (neo-classic Grecian or Deep South), and the other one has the French Provincial quoined corners, and a steep roof. He stated when Codes are written to cover everybody, everywhere, all the time, you aren't able to make architectural statements. He said you have a 25 foot height limit which is measured from the pad, and because of the grading, private street, slopes of the land, one of the houses is above the existing street elevation and one is quite a bit below street elevation. He said when driving down the street you are going to get a completely different view, yet both houses are restricted to the same height. He stated they were asking for a variance in height because of the architectural styles they have proposed for that site. He stated the impact on the viewer will not be the same on all four houses as they have juggled the roofs from the original concept feeling so that the amount of roof and the part of the roof in excess of the 25 feet is sloping away from you and not a highly visible portion of the roof. He said they could build flat roofs at 25 feet but no one would want to buy them. He said they feel these are attractive houses which will be an,asset to the neighborhood rather. Ms. Santalahti noted Mr. Galanis indicated his opposition earlier in the meeting. Mitzi Osaki stated her concerns are the same as before under Variance No. 3828 so she will not read the Scenic Corridor Overay Zone and resolution of intent. She stated the Mohler Annexation area has custom homes and little farm homes which are very unique and precious to the residents of the area. She said these homes are a part of the environment and have architectural styles lending to custom homes. She noted only recently have developers come into the area building major projects. She said for a good number of years mostly single custom homes were being built. She stated if he would go through the entire half acre zoning area, he would find many styles of • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 10 attractive homes commanding prices anywhere from $300,000 to a million dollars. She said they want to maintain their lifestyle, and that height variances are actual encroachments upon their residential integrity. She said she had looked at the property and there were not any special circumstances that would prohibit them from building within Code and they still could build a variety of expensive custom homes. She stated she wants to go on record as being in opposition to this variance. Sonja Grewall, Anaheim Citizens Coalition, 6312 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, stated she wouldn't repeat what was already entered into the record before on Variance No. 3828, but would like to emphasize Mr. Thompson did not justify his hardship but admitted his hardship was self-created because of what he wants to build. She said the purpose of the Scenic Corridor was to preserve the scenic qualities of the area and to allow development which blended in. She said he has admitted his development is not going to blend in, and in fact, exceeds standards which have been set up to maintain the scenic qualities. She stated perhaps the alternative was to build these in another community. Cliff Collins, 157 South Eucalyptus Drive, stated he opposes this variance for the same reasons he opposed the first variance, in that we're setting precedence and noted that Mr. Baxter's argument was that other variances have already been granted. He stated if we have an ordinance for 25 feet, he believes we should stick to 25 feet. Maria Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow, representing her husband Larry and herself, stated their property was located just east of the of subject property, said basically she had the same objections as she did on the Variance No. 3828 so she wouldn't go over those again. She said if these variances, before the Zoning Administrator today as well as those of the July meeting, are approved she feels the variance Mr. Stolo has coming up at a future date will use these as a reason to have his height variance granted. She said that would affect her even more then the variances before Ms. Santalahti today. She stated she felt the 25 foot height limitation should be upheld. Ms. Ritter said the letter read into the record on the hearing of Variance No. 3828 from David and Carolyn Whitehead stated their opposition to this variance also. John Currie, 7570 E. Martella was present represently himself, father and three brothers who also live on the same street, said they had just constructed two houses in this area He said they knew what the Code required and they built all their homes within that Code.. He said they have plans for building two other houses in the same area and plan to stay within the Code on those houses also. He said the proposed project directly affects their view as the proposal is right beneath their property.. He said as he drives out his driveway he would be looking at the roof tops of this proposal. • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 11 Ms: Santalahti asked if they were above the project to the west and he said yes. He noted everyone who wants to build in this area seemed to want to make an architectural statement and he, as well as others in the'. area, did not feel it was necessary. Mr. Currie submitted letters from himself and two brothers, noting his father had sent in a letter earlier. Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, said she would like to voice her objection to the granting of this variance. Don Larson, 7601 E. Corto Road, said he was not close to this residence but was concerned about all of the requests for height variances in the Mohler area. He said he would like to go on record that he is against the granting of these variances. Evelyn Gasca, 175 S. Eucalyptus Drive, said she was opposed to this variance for the same reasons as previously stated. Mitzi Ozaki, said Jeannie Averill, 171 Canyon Crest, was here for the first item,. and had left, but she wanted to register her opposition to this proposal also. In rebuttal, Mr. Thompson said they felt their request was reasonable. He said he did not think the houses they were proposing were offensive to the Scenic Corridor. He said he felt the request for this variance was a one shot deal and was not a precedent for any other building. He said when you enter a neighborhood you look at the buildings and land form and do your best to develop a project that fits. He said he felt the 25 foot height limitation was reasonable for a flat land tract but not in the hilly Mohler Drive area. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ~Ms. Santalahti asked applicant to describe what type of grading would be taking placed compared to what is there at this time. Mr. Thompson said this was one of the very few projects for which his firm had not done the grading, but said the grading shows a cul-de-sac with the houses off to each side. He said he did notice the pads are different elevations, one is above street level, two are at street level and one is below street level and noted they will just be moving earth around, not hauling any in or taking any out. Ms. Santalahti said this location was sort of a sweeping down area and has great visibility which is not really common in the Mohler Drive area. She said it is a bit higher than some of the adjacent properties but seems to be a straight forward piece of property to develop. She said she looks at each variance on an individual basis unless they are two identical lots. She said we are also discussing four houses here, not one, and there has only been one other variance granted in this general area which was earlier today and it may or may not be set for City Council public hearing. She said granting this would be like granting five times as much in a numerical sense. • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 12 Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on'this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. Ms. Santalahti said she was going to deny this variance based on the fact that the proposal consists of four houses located on a gradual slope which is very visible to adjacent and nearby residential properties, particularly parcels to the east; that the placement and axis of the four proposed roof ridge lines (which exceed the height limit) are in a north-south direction which is particularly visible to other area residential parcels; and that the roof areas over 25 feet in height exceed 41'b of the total roof areas. 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 members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. .:3832 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GILBERT L. WIGGAM and KATHLEEN WIGGAM, 768 Fairway Lane, Anaheim Hills, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.11 acres located at the southeast corner of Tamarisk Drive and Avenida De Santiago, having a frontage of approximately 277 feet on the southwest side of Tamarisk Drive and a frontage of 172 feet on the southeast side of Avenida De Santiago, and further described as 6860 East Avenida De Santiago. Waiver of maximum structural height and minimum fountain setback to construct a 2-story, 29-foot high, single-family residence. There were seven people indicating their presence in opposition and one person spoke in opposition. Two letters were received in opposition. Tim Doss, architect, said they were asking for the variance due to the conditions of the existing lot: He-said presently there is a flat pad. He said the north end of the lot is flush with the street, and the south end of the pad is presently four to five feet below street level. He said if they built a house on the lot as it exists now, a major portion of the house would be looking out at street level or below. He said they want to fill up the lower end about three feet, and step the site to the existing pad. He said the house would step a total of about 24 inches overall from the high end to the low end. He said this is where they have the problem of exceeding the height, where the points overlap they have 29 feet. He said 'the height of 29 feet was really a very small portion of the roof area. Mitzi Ozaki, 340 Timken Road, said she was opposed to this project primarily because we're setting precedence and by granting these variances, it gives fuel for developers to coming in and asking for variances. • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 13 In rebuttal, Mr. Doss said they were not impacting any of the immediate neighbors view. He said they have tried to keep the aesthetic quality of the property that is there and do as little grading as possible, PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said when she was out inspecting this site, .the neighbor across the street was in the front yard so she asked the neighbor whether she had received the pubic notice of this and other Avenida de Santiago height variances since no one along Avenida de Santiago had ever appeared at a hearing as far as Ms. Santalahti could remember. She also .asked whether the neighbor had any concerns or objections. The neighbor said, yes, she knew about the height variances but, no, was not concerned because they'd bought their lot for its view in the opposite (northwesterly) direction, and, in fact, felt the taller houses were more expensive and probably increased the area property values. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti said she was going to approve this variance based on the fact that the proposal is minimal because only two portions of the roof: the top of a circular tower (11-foot diameter) and a short roof ridge (18 feet long) amounting to about 5~ of the total proposed roof area, exceed the height limitation; and that the subject property location is such that the proposal has minimal, if any, impact on nearby residences because the adjacent property to the southeast is more than 50 feet lower, the adjacent property to the southwest is about l0 feet higher with a 6-foot high block wall along the shared property line, and the nearby properties to the northwest across Avenida de Santiago are about 5 feet higher; and that all the nearby properties have view orientations which do not face subject property. 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 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 5 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. • • MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 11, 1988 PAGE 14 ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m. Minutes prepared by: ,r- Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary Minutes approved by: ^~ ~~ Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator 01028