Minutes-ZA 1989/08/24'i
~•
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MINUTES - August 24, 1989
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to
order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., August 24,
1989, in the Council Chamber.
PRESENT•
Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
Leonard Mc Ghee, 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 ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT N0. 0032 (PUBLIC HEARING)
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MOJTABA BOLOURCHI AND MAHMOUD BOLOURCHI, 1240
N. Mosswood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .13 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 53 feet on the east side of Mosswood Drive,
having a maximum depth of approximately 109 feet being located approximately
200 feet north of the centerline of Woodsboro Avenue and further described as
1240 North Mosswood Drive.
To construct a room addition to an existing single-family residence with
waiver of maximum site coverage.
There was one person indicating their presence in opposition and no
correspondence was received regarding the case.
Ms. Santalahti stated that this particular item received one written objection
during its initial 10 day period of public notice, and therefore was scheduled
for a public hearing.
Mojtaba Bolourchi, 1240 N. Mosswood Drive, Anaheim, stated he does not know of
any reason for his neighbors to object to the room addition as he has talked
to many of them and they indicated acceptance of it.
r • •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 24, 1989 PAGE 2
Ms. Santalahti stated this particular room addition is going to open up into
an existing room.
Mr. Bolourchi agreed that the room would increase the size of the kitchen a
small amount and will add a type of dining room which they do not have right
now.
Ms. Santalahti asked if they would be maintaining their 29-foot deep rear yard
which they have right now.
Mr. Bolourchi stated they would and the addition would be flush with the
existing building. The distances from the neighbors have been measured and
they are to Code. None of the neighbors on either side have any objection to
the addition.
Ms. Santalahti asked if Mr. Bolourchi had actually shown the plan to the
neighbors to the south.
Mr. Bolourchi stated that he showed the plan to the neighbors that would be
directly affected and they were more than happy to see it built because it
would increase the value of the houses in the neighborhood. He stated that
his next door neighbor has the same room addition on his home.
Ms. Santalahti questioned Mr. Bolourchi regarding the rooflines of the house.
She asked if the room addition would be a continuation of the roofline that is
over the kitchen.
Mr. Bolourchi responded affirmatively. He said it would be on the same level
as the kitchen in keeping with the lower roofline of the kitchen rather than
the higher roofline built on the front part of the house.
Ms. Santalalhti questioned Mr. Bolourchi to ascertain that the east elevation
shown on the drawing submitted to her was an accurate reflection of the height
of the addition. Mr. Bolourchi confirmed that it was.
Cynthia Farber, 1221 N. Foxxon Circle, Anaheim, stated that she lives directly
behind the house on Mosswood. She stated the reason she is opposed to the
addition is a year ago when she and her husband decided to put in a pool, Mr.
Bolourchi would not help them pay for the cost of a brick wall which separates
their two properties. The grape stake fence that was there at the time was
eleven years old, so she and her husband paid the full cost to build a brick
wall around the pool. She stated that two weeks after the brick wall was
installed, the Bolourchis took down the existing grape stake fencing that had
previously separated the two properties. She stated that if you want people
to agree to your plans, you have to show some cooperation yourself when you
are asked to participate.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 24, 1989 PAGE 3
She also stated that at no time has she or her husband been shown any plans
relating to the planned addition, and she feels they are directly affected
because of the location of their home being directly behind the Bolourchi
home. Mrs. Farber voiced her concerns regarding the noise factor since the
addition will be facing their property. Also, she had been told that this
room might be turned into a bedroom. She stated that at one time there had
been more than one family living in this house and she wanted her opinion
known that even though these are four bedroom houses, they are very small
bedrooms and if you put two kids in a bedroom, you are overextending that
bedroom.
Mr. Bolourchi rebutted that, in regards to
pay for a wall at the time as he was newly
two families living in the house he has his
stated that the addition is not going to be
to the kitchen and that objections based on
are totally untrue.
the wall, he did not have $1,000 to
i~n the house and as far as having
parents living with him. He
used for a bedroom since it opens
the use of the room for a bedroom
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Bolourchi to remain at the podium so she could
clarify a few points with him. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Bolourchi if Mrs.
Farber was the neighbor that shared the greatest amount of his back property
line.
Mr. Bolourchi answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Santalahti stressed that she was specifically concerned with whether or
not the roofline for the addition would be maintained to match the existing
house and whether the 29 foot backyard clearance would be maintained so as not
to create too shallow a backyard.
Mr. Bolourchi assured her that he was going to follow his plan exactly the way
it was being presented today.
Ms. Santalahti moved the proposal was Categorically Exempt under Class 1, from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report.
Ms. Santalahti approved Administrative Adjustment No. 32 on the basis that the
request is minimal. It technically involves approximately 150 square feet
more lot coverage or building than the Code. allows. It maintains the large
backyard of 29 feet and they are also maintaining the southerly property line
setback of 5 feet. Ms. Santalahti stated that the specific design should not
be a problem in terms of design or in terms of impact on any of the
immediately abutting neighbors.
.. ~ .i
•
MINUTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, AUGUST 24, 1989 PAGE 4
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. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
A. LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE N0. 89-05: To permit a large family day care
facility for a maximum of 12 children. Property is located~at 1505 West Rene
Drive. (End of public notice period: August 21, 1989.)
Ms. Santalahti said written opposition had been received so this item would be
readvertised and scheduled for a public hearing.
B. ADMINLSTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0037 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL.EXEMPTION
CLASS 5: Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to expand a graphic arts
business at 1436 N. Hundley Street (End of public notice period:
August 21, 1989.)
C. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0038 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
CLASS 5: Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 7-unit
apartment complex at 407 S. Philadelphia Street. (End of public notice
period: August 21, 1989).
Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the above
noted Administrative Adjustments and noted the appeal period had ended
August 21, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act to approve these items
within the next seven days.
ITEM N0. 3. 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
9:50 a.m.
Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by:
Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti
Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator
0351g