Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1989/02/09~ ~ ~" ,~ ~. A C T I O N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1989, 9:30 A.M. Procedure to Expedite Meetin 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. 0897H Page 1 i-_ -- ~ .~ - • • ~ - ~ • la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-3 lb. VARIANCE N0.'3864 Approved to construct a OWNER: MATTHEW W. GREENE & MARIE E. GREENE, 9115 Flower Street, maximum 30 ft•. • - Bellflower, CA 90706 high dwelling. Waiver A, in LOCATION: 120 South Mohler Drive part, Waiver B, in full. Waiver of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum structural setback to construct a 32-foot high single-family residence. Continued from the meeting ,of January ~6, 1989. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.ZA 89-08 2a: CEOA CATEGORICAL EXAMEPTION CLASS-11 Approved. 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3902 OWNERS: JERRY STIEFEL AND. LINDA STIEFEL, 315 S. Illinois, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 315 South Illinois Street ~"V' `/ Waive minimum side .yard to construct a•637 square foot room addition. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.ZA 89-09 2. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS: ' None 3. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:. N one 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: • None February 9, 1989 Page 2 t • CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: ~/~ ~ ~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DA E) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY RIOSR SI IF ~'SU C~iALLENGE ATJY 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 T0, THE PUBLIC HEARING. t~.,., :,~:{. . F.. . ~~'` February 9, 1989 Page 3 • ~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1989 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., February 9, 1989, 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-3. VARIANCE N0. 3864 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MATTHEW W. GREENE & MARIE E. GREENE, 9115 Flower Street, Bellflower, CA 90706. Subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.32 acres located at the northeast corner of Mohler Drive and Del Giorgio Road, having a frontage of approximately 223 feet on the northeast side of Mohler Drive and a depth of approximately 97 feet and further described as 120 South Mohler Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height and minimum structural setback to construct a 32-foot high single-family residence. Continued from the meeting of January 26, 1989. Two people indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Matthew Greene said the original roof ridgeline was at 32 feet with a 7:12 pitch and it has been reduced to 4 1/2:12 pitch roof bringing down the height by 5 feet making it 27 feet. He said the footprint of the house now has a 15 foot setback from the east property line by having changed the corner of the • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 9, 1989 - PAGE 2 family room and repositioned the house slightly. He said the new roof area that exceeds 25 feet is approximately 490 square feet of a total of just under 4,000 square feet thereby bringing the higher roof area down. to almost 14q, of the total roof area. He said he adjusted the driveway so they can enter making a left turn facing traffic when pulling in and exiting so they will not have to back into traffic. He stated he had illustrated on the site plan where the 25 foot front setback area would be and where the side yard setback would be and now the house doesn't encroach into those areas. He said he feels he has made the greatest attempt possible to comply with the requests from the last meeting and now with the 27 foot height maximum and the position of the house he thinks any impact on the neighboring properties have been greatly reduced. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, said he was representing the Anaheim Hills Citizen Coalition and also the citizens committee that assisted in the review and revision of the new height ordinance. He said they would like to point out that this particular plan does not meet the variance requirements of either the current or proposed ordinance. He said the current ordinance requires the hardship to be related to the land and the proposed ordinance, that City Council requested be put together based on the study by staff and the citizens committee, says that, except for the Hidden Hills area and Pelquin Tract on Anaheim Hills Road, the rest of the Scenic Corridor should meet the 25 foot height limitation with the exception of various architectural features such as turrets, towers or things of that nature. He said when viewing the proposed plans, the roof itself exceeds the 25 foot limit. He said this particular lot is undersized for the area and a variance should not be granted to fit a substandard lot. He said that issue should have been thought about in the first place. He said based on the present ordinance and the proposed ordinance they did not think this Variance should be granted. Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, said she felt Mr. Krueger had covered most of her thoughts. She asked if she understood correctly that the roof ridgeline is 27 feet high, two feet over the maximum allowed, none of which includes non-habitable encroachments. Ms. Santalahti said .that was correct, it is non-habitable space. Ms. Duncan said she did not believe the subject of the wall on the east side was brought up and she did think his proposed driveway was very good for that area because of the traffic. Ms. Santalahti said that was addressed in Condition No. 8 of the staff report. She noted this condition was inadvertently left off the buff colored staff report but it had been. copied correctly on white paper and was available at the Zoning counter along with the staff report. In rebuttal, Mr. Greene said that the Variance that was granted back in 1982 to reduce the lot size to less then standard for the area and the road work that was done to create the turning radius in the equestrian trail, take away from the actual square footage of the property. He said, however, with the appearance of the property with the equestrian trail, with the portions of the property that go out to the street which you visually see and with the • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 9, 1989 PAGE 3 position of the house on the lot, the extra square footage of the equestrian/hiking trail makes it a positive improvement of the property. He said he has driven around the area and noted some of the properties have 5 to 10 feet setbacks and neighboring properties have 40 to 50 foot setbacks and the area looks pleasing aesthetically. He said the house he is going to be building and the way the yard is going to be landscaped, is something that will be a very desirable improvement for the area. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said the improvement made on the height to bring it closer to the impending Code change that is going back in ordinance form to the City Council in the next few weeks, does bring it into compliance with the 30 foot height, the only deviation now is the 10~ of the total area of the roof because it is a bit larger and also that it is a portion of the total ridgeline of the house. She noted there were actually three ridgelines, 25 feet over the garage, 32 feet over the, southwesterly wing, and then a 55 foot long ridgeline for the one over 25-feet high. Ms. Santalahti asked if applicant had taken a look if any modifications could be made to that specific ridgeline. Mr. Greene said he had looked at some different alternatives for the particular rooms that the ridge covers, but they have vaulted ceilings so it would take away the chance for those rooms to have that type of ceiling. Ms. Santalahti said she felt the full 25 foot setback along the entire frontage along Mohler Drive was unduly harsh in this situation since this lot is essentially a reverse corner lot or one where there is a setback at the front, which is typically the narrower width of the property, which should be the full 25 feet as required but then at the side area it should be a 15 foot setback on the more north south orientation along Mohler Drive. She felt that would be a more appropriate way to look at the Code in this case because this particular lot has an excessive amount of street frontage so she had no problems with that waiver. She said she was glad to see he was able to get the 15 feet setback along the east property line since that was a promise made by the prior land owner. Ms. Santalahti said she would approve the height waiver in accordance with what the potential Code change was going to be as closely as possible. She said he needed to bring the area over 25 feet to 10~ or less of the total roof area. She said the amount of ridgeline at 27 feet high is about 49~ and noted the goal of the ordinance is to have architectural only embellishments or features over 25 feet. Ms. Santalahti approved the Variance, in part, Waiver (a) for a building height which is similar to a currently pending Zoning Code amendment pertaining to maximum residential building heights in the Scenic Corridor, with the following restrictions: the maximum building height, excluding chimneys, shall not exceed 30 feet, not more than l0~of the total roof area shall exceed 25 feet in height, and not more than 33~ of the length of the combined ridgelines or 37 feet, whichever is less, shall exceed 25 feet in height. She approved Waiver (b) on the basis that the property has an • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 9, 1989 PAGE 4 excessively long frontage along two public streets (Mohler Drive which continues into Del Giorgio Road), which frontage combines both the westerly and southerly property lines as the 'front' property line, that subject approval considers the southerly portion as the 'front' where proposed setback is a minimum of 28 feet (25 feet permitted by Code for a front yard) and the westerly portion as the 'side' where the proposed setback is a minimum of 15 feet ( 10 feet permitted by Code for a side yard). 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-11, VARIANCE N0. 3902 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JERRY STIEFEL AND LINDA STIEFEL, 315 S. Illinois, Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.12 acre having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west side of Illinois Street, having a maximum depth of 110 feet and being located approximately 190 feet south of the centerline of Broadway and further described as 315 South Illinois Street. Waive minimum side yard setback to construct a 637 square foot room addition. No one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition and no correspondence in opposition was received. Jerry Stiefel said he was available to answer any questions. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti stated that the addition was basically lined up with the existing north wall of the house and Mr. Stiefel said yes. Ms. Santalahti asked if applicant had contacted his one neighbor that would be most affected by this proposal and Mr. Stiefel said yes and they did not have any problem with the proposal. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact the proposed setback is from a public alley with a corner cut-off being provided for vehicles to safely enter and exit the garage without visibility being obscured, that said setback will be in line with other existing setbacks along the alley, that said addition will replace an existing 6 foot high fence in the same location, and that the north-facing wall of the addition will not contain any windows. 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 1_5 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. • • MINUTES. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 9, 1989 PAGE 5 ITEM N0. 3 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 5 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: ~G'G ;YY2~y~ Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary 0198g • ~~~~%Z~%1/W Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator