Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/12/29M~ A C T I O N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29, 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. 0840H Page 1 la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 lb. VARIANCE N0. 3860 OWNER: TIM WUSZ AND BONNIE S. WUSZ, 7395 Humming Bird Circle, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 7395 Hummingbird Circle Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a 600 square-foot garage addition to an existing single-family residence. Continued from the meetings of November 17, 1988 and December 15, 1988. g9- o l ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA -8~8~8'z*- 2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3886 OWNER: STEVE ALLEN, 2737 W. Baylor Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2737 W. Bavlor Avenue Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a 745 square-foot garage. ~~~~jj -B8~~ ZONING. ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 3. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENTS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE_ADJUSTMENT N0. 0022 AND CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an. enclosed restaurant in an existing retail center. Property is located at 500 S. Euclid. gy-o3 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA ~-~ B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT_N0. 0023 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5: Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct a 2-story, 5-unit apartment complex Property is located at 210 South Walnut Street. ~g-ay ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 85-8- ' Approved Approved Approved Approved 12/29/88 Page 2 .. •I ~ ~ J c 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: i LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) ( TE) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SI Ilf~o~Ci challeng~`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. ~ 12/29/88 Page 3 ,, "~~ ~: REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - December 29, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:30 a,m., December 29, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard McGhee, Senior 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 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS. 5, VARIANCE N0.'3860 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: TIM WUSZ AND BONNLE S. WUSZ, 7395 Humming Bird Circle, Anaheim, CA 92808. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the south side of Hummingbird Circle, having a maximum depth of approximately 183 feet, being located 450 feet east of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard, and further described as 7395 Hummingbird Circle. Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a 600 square foot garage addition to an existing single-family residence. Continued from the meetings of November 17, 1988, and December 15, 1988. Four people indicated their presence in opposition at the November 17, 1988, hearing with three people speaking in opposition; one person spoke in . opposition at the December 29, 1988, hearing; and one letter in opposition to the proposal was received. Tim Wusz, applicant, noted there were several things that were brought up at the last meeting and some objections were set forth in a letter from the • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 29, 1988 PAGE 2 homeowners association. He said he had submitted new plans that address most of the items, showing the roof is not flat and has a facade on the three exposed sides. He said the comment about the two foot parapet overhang cutting into the sideyard area is true but as far as the setback goes it really has nothing to do with the overhang and just the vertical walls are considered. He said as far as the industrial appearance that was commented on, to make this more appealing he has added windows. He said referencing a comment from an adjacent neighbor regarding the air-conditioning units, that they have been moved to the rear of the building and they are no closer to the adjacent property then they are presently. He said he reluctantly has agreed to scale back his design and has reduced the size of the garage by 20~ (from 600 square feet to 480 square feet). He said regarding the comment about the garage being over-built for the area and that size of the home, there are other homes considerably smaller then his that have four car garages so that is not a legitimate item. He submitted five photographs along with a lot area plan showing where the photographs were taken to answer comments from a couple of the adjacent lot and homeowners that had to do with appearance. He said in most cases the garage will not be visible from anyone driving up and down Hummingbird Circle which is the street the people making the adverse comments live on. Mr. Wusz noted that prior to purchasing this home he was under the impression from calling the Planning Department that the sideyard setback was five feet and he would be able to build the garage by right; then after escrow closed and he checked with the City he was informed the setback was 10 feet. He said one of the reasons he bought this property was because he thought he could build the garage. Ms. Santalahti asked if he had contacted the homeowners association or showed the changed plans to the westerly neighbor who was the most; affected. Mr. Wusz said he had not seen the neighbor but had submitted the plans to the homeowners association but because of the holidays and people taking vacations he was not sure they had had an opportunity to get together. Chris King, Superintendent for Cross Homes and representing John Cross the neighbor to the west, said Mr. Cross was not aware of the change in the design so he is speaking from the point of view or the plan preceding what has been presented this morning. He said he was to express the concern that Mr. Wusz does rebuild old cars and Mr. Cross is concerned about the possibility of car parts laying around on the property and arch welding going on at whatever hours he chooses to work on the cars. He said very simply, put Mr. Cross is opposed to the building of this garage structure. Ms. Santalahti asked if any calls had come into the Planning Department regarding this Variance. Leonard McGhee said they had not received any calls. In rebuttal, Mr. Wusz said it is true he owns a couple of older cars and he does work on cars. He said his intent is not to have car parts laying around and take down the neighborhood. He said the design of the garage and the intent is to have it blend in, not to park cars in the front yard. He said people who are not around the automobile industry look unfavorably on .the • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECEMBER 29 1988 PAGE 3 repair industry. He said automobiles are his business as well as his hobby and he has never had any complaints. He said he does not have an arch welder, however, they are generally not noisy equipment but rather silent and if they are used inside a garage most people in a neighboring home would not have any idea they were being used. He said the storage of an older car is certainly feasible right now as he has a 1967 E1 Camino he drives on a regular basis, but it is not an eyesore. He said part of what the garage is going to allow him to do is to keep the vehicles that he has inside the garage so he would not have to rent a facility in another area and to put his tools and workbenches, etc. in it. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked why he was doing a 15 foot wide garage instead of the standard 10 feet wide which would allow him to comply with Code regarding the setback. Mr. Wusz said with a 10 foot wide garage you would not be able to do anything in or around the vehicle because there is not adequate room to work especially if you have any shelves or workbenches on the sides. Ms. Santalahti asked why he didn't put it on the east side where there was more room. Mr. Wusz said because his swimming pool was on that side. Ms. Santalahti said she had hoped he would have reduced the amount of garage that projected into the sideyard to something like seven and a half feet where there would be only 259s deviance from the Code. She said one of the characteristics in this area with larger houses on larger lots is larger sideyard setbacks which maintain a certain amount of openness that can be lost with the sheer volume of a large house. She said she feels that sideyard setbacks are probably one of the most visible development criteria. She said what happens from side to side is very significant. She said this proposal is similar to a standard flat land type of Zoning setback at five feet which is a very typical requirement for smaller 7200 or 5000 square foot lots. She said she was hoping he would cut the setback down to seven and a half feet for the 32-foot wall length or possibly modify the configuration so that a much smaller amount might be at five feet rather than the full 32-foot length of the garage wall. She said she felt a 5086 deviance from Code is too great because that is a very clear visual difference. She said she felt putting in the window was a good idea to soften the impact of the wall. Mr. Wusz said he did not feel the narrow setback was that visible since the lot his neighbor was on was lower then his lot and separated from him by an over five foot high fence and the vegetation growing along the fence is filling in quite well and the visual impact it pretty small. Ms. Santalahti said she felt if Mr. Wusz was down hill from his neighbor it would have been better visually from the neighbor's point of view. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance, in part, to permit a 7.5-foot sideyard instead of the proposed 5.5-foot sideyard on the basis that said approval is minimal because that deviance from Code is only 25`6 (2.5 feet) rather than the • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 29, 1988 PAGE 4 50~ which was proposed; that the visual impact of the approved sideyard waiver is minimal because it pertains to a 1-story garage addition which is set back from a property line shared with a neighboring lot having a grade level about 3 feet lower than subject 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 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. 2 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5, VARIANCE N0. 3886 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: STEVE ALLEN, 2737 W. Baylor Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Subject. property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,125 square feet located at the northwest, corner of Baylor Avenue and Colorado Street, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Baylor Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 85 feet and further described as 2737 W: Baylor Avenue. Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a 745 square-foot garage. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Steve Allen, applicant, said he noticed the map attached to .the staff report shows the lot as 60 feet x 85 feet and it should be 75 feet x 100 feet. Ms. Santalahti said she noticed that also and it would be corrected. She said the corner radius was left out and asked Leonard McGhee to make sure that Graphics and whoever prepares the property description includes the corner radius in the future. Mr. Allen said his front-on existing garage enters from Baylor Street, which is his address, and his proposal would be entering from Colorado instead so he feel it is no longer a front-on garage on Baylor Street and he felt he didn't need a Variance but only an Administrative Adjustment for the 23 foot setback. Ms. Santalahti asked if the setback he was adding would be the identical setback from Baylor Street as currently exists and Mr. Allen said that was correct. Ms. Santalahti asked if the neighbor behind applicant had the same setback as his house and Mr. Allen said yes. Ms. Santalahti said he might have been able to have had an Administrative Adjustment in the recent past when a 10-foot front-on garage setback was allowed but recently the Code changed because Traffic Engineering and Planning staff noticed that a lot of people were parking cars which then projected into the sidewalk, so the 10-feet was eliminated. Ms. Santalahti stated that a front-on garage means a garage fronting onto a street and it is not necessarily the same street as the house fronts on or where the technical front property line is. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 29, 1988 PAGE 5 Ms. Santalahti noted that the staff report reflected he was going to have three spaces in the garage and another space on the property parallel to the house and sidewalk. Ms. Santalahti asked what was being done with the existing fence. Mr. Allen said he was replacing the existing grape stake fence with a block wall. Ms. Santalahti asked if he were removing the pavement and replacing the curb and gutters. Mr. Allen said yes and that he would also be landscaping. that area. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if applicant has spoken to his neighbors about the proposal. Mr. Allen said yes and they were delighted with the proposal. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the request is minimal because the proposal is similar to existing setbacks on other nearby residential properties and that four off-street parking spaces will be constructed to replace the ones being removed: three in the new garage and one in a new parking space. 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 - 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 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0022 AND CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an enclosed restaurant in an existing retail center. Property is located at 500 S. Euclid. B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0023 AND CEQA CATEGORICAL 'EXEMPTION CLASS-5: Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct a 2-story, 5=unit apartment complex. Property is located at 210 South Walnut Street. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the Administrative Adjustments and noted the appeal periods would end .today at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act on these items January 3,'1989. ITEM N0. 4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ' None. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 29, 1988 PAGE 6 ITEM N0. 5 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m. Minutes prepared by: ~lJ ~• q Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary 0178g Minutes approved by: GZCAI I Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator