Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1990/05/03•~ • A TI N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1990, 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. Aa 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 maaimum of 3 minutes to speak. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your last name. 0473g Page 1 S' a>~ • la. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 Continued to lb. VARIANCE N0. 4044 5-17-90 OWNER: MR. MRS. JIM ANNE MORALES, 5883 East Mountain Loop Trail, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: GARY HOUSTON, 4054 Del Ray Avenue #205, Marina Del Rey, CA 90262. LOCATION: 451 S. Canyon Ridge Drive Waiver of maximum structural height to construct 3-additions to an existing single family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.. 2a. CATEGORICAL .EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Approved 2b. VARIANCE N0. 4045 with 2 added conditions OWNER: JAMES E. HUNDLEY, 2318 S. Vineyard, Ontario, CA 91761. " LOCATION: 12.55 North Grove Street Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish an outdoor storage area for an existing industrial warehouse. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-22. 3a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 Continued to 3b. VARIANCE N0. 4046 5-31-90 OWNER: GEORGE & JUNO LU, 118 S. Montgomery Way, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: NORMAN McCURRY, 3315 E. Miraloma #114, Anaheim, CA 92806. LOCATION: 118 South Montgomery Way Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story 35-foot high single family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None May 3, 1990 Page 2 ~'~,Gl U ~- i. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: S 3Oa.m - ~'-~~'~O LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DATE) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY RIOSR 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. May 3, 1990 Page 3 s -~-~a REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - May 3, 1990 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:40 a.m., May 3, 1990, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard Mc Ghee, Senior Planner Margarita Perez, Acting 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. 4044 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MR. and MRS. JIM ANNE MORALES, 5883 East Mountain Loop Trail, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .50 acre having a frontage of approximately 20 feet on the south side of Canyon Ridge Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 178 feet, being located approximately 400 feet south of the centerline of Canyon Hills Road Drive and further described as 451 S. Canyon Ridge Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct 3-additions to an existing single family residence. There was 1 person indicating her presence in opposition. Gary Houston, 4054 Del Rey Avenue, agent, stated their proposal is to add a small addition to an existing 2-story, single-family dwelling. He stated the existing structure is above the current height restrictions and that there is no way they can make an addition to the project by maintaining the current floor levels and staying within the current height limit. Ms. Santalahti asked him to comment on the terrain. She stated she looked at all the properties on today's agenda, but she did not go down the driveway to this house. She stated she would like to know about the surrounding area and how this project relates to the neighboring properties. ... • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 3, 1990 PAGE 2 Mr. Houston stated all of the adjacent pad elevations around them are higher than their pad elevation. He stated he is in the gully and anything that he adds on would be below everyone else's sight level. He stated the entire gully is heavily forested and it is very hard to see the area where they are going to be doing the addition. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Houston if he could estimate the height differences between the pad of this property and the pad of the adjacent properties and Mr. Houston responded that they vary from five to thirty feet. Ms. Santalahti asked if there is a ridge line or a peaked roof. Mr. Houston responded they originally designed the addition with a peaked roof and now they have redesigned the project according to .the height restriction to try and lower the facade and that there is an existing ridge which will be maintained. Ms. Santalahti asked if they are continuing the ridge and Mr. Houston responded "No", they are trying to stay below the existing ridge. Ms. Santalahti asked when was the house originally constructed and Mr.. Houston responded the permits for this house to be built were pulled in 1979. Katherine Carpello, 481 S. Canyon Ridge, stated she is a neighbor and on the Board of Directors and the Architectural Committee. She stated they have questions because plans were never submitted to the Architectural Committee. She stated she would like to know what they are doing and that they are concerned about putting a third story on. She stated that this project is down in the gully and it does not affect anyone else around, but someone else in the neighborhood who is very visible could say, if this petitioner is allowed to put a third story on, now we want to put a third story on. She stated the CC&R's have a clause that says "No part of the construction of any lot shall exceed two stories in height above the pad", etc. She stated they need to know what they are exactly doing and that they are very concerned about a whole third story being added. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Carpello if she would like to have the opportunity to take a set' of plans to show the Association and she agreed. Selma Mann stated the CC&R's and the enforcement of the CC&R's are private civil matters that are between the association and the applicant and it has no application to what the City's review of this project will be. She stated whatever review takes place by the association would be independent of this action and anything that the applicant did would be voluntary and unrelated to this decision. Ms. Santalahti confirmed her decision will be based on the Zoning Code and the City concerns, but she was interested in the Association having a chance to look at the plans and any input they might have. f • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY 3 1990 PAGE 3 Selma Mann stated a variance is granted based upon the specific location and configuration of the property, like being in a gully, and there would not be any application of that decision by anyone who was not in a similar configuration. She stated a variance is a case by case determination with no precedential value. Ms. Santalahti stated that would be the reason why this project could be granted and even though the height waiver is granted here, anyone else who came in and did not have the identical circumstances would not have anything to base their expectations on. Ms. Santalahti clarified with the Planning staff that this is a two story addition. She asked Ms. Carpello if a period of two weeks would be enough time for the association to take a look at the plans and Ms. Carpello agreed. Mr. Houston stated they got things out of sequence in that they should have submitted plans to the association for comments. He stated they thought they would first find out if the City would allow this project before contacting the association. Ms. Santalahti stated the City likes to know that everybody who might be interested has had a full opportunity to review the plans. He stated they would provide a full set of plans for the association's review. Ms. Santalahti stated she would continue this item for two weeks until the meeting of May 17. She stated the hearing will continue and it will be the first item on the agenda. She stated the Association and anybody else present will again have the opportunity to speak in favor or opposition and then she will make her decision. ITEM N0. 2 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 4045 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JAMES E. HUNDLEY, 2318 S. Vineyard, Ontario, CA 91761. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .96 acre, having a frontage of approximately 280 feet on the west side of Grove Street, having a maximum depth of 150 feet, being located 700 feet south of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue, and further described as 1255 North Grove Street. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. F. H. Allen 8327 Pierce Drive, Buena Park, stated this petition is to use a designated parking area for storage. He stated that is very important for their business. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED r • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 3, 1990 PAGE 4 Ms. Santalahti asked what they will be storing. Mr. Allen responded they are in trucking and warehousing and that they will be storing vehicles and miscellaneous storage items from the warehouse. Ms. Santalahti asked how long this business has been there and Mr. Allen responded for almost four years. Ms. Santalahti stated the aerial photograph the City was taken in 1986 and it showed that it was still being used for parking. Ms. Santalahti stated the Traffic Engineering Department reviewed this and they do not have a problem with the proposal. She stated in going out and looking at the subject property, the wood slats on the chain link fence are in very poor condition and asked if they could be replaced. Mr. Allen responded that there would be no problem in replacing them. Ms. Santalahti asked what is located to the west of this property and Mr. Allen stated there is a chain link fence that separates their business from Rockwell's recreation area. Ms. Santalahti stated she will approve Variance No. 4045 with an added condition that the chain link fence be reslated and that it be accomplished within the next 60 days. She stated if there is any difficulty in getting that kind of work accomplished before July 3, 1990, Mr. Allen needs to notify the City and specifically the planner to explain the difficulty and it is possible that the City may go along with a little additional time in order that that problem is taken care of. She stated the basis for the approval is the fact that the specific use of the building, as reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, has adequate parking. She stated if anything is to change, it is always possible that a variance like this can be revoked because this property is easy enough to convert back to full industrial usage with standard parking when this tenant leaves. Selma Mann asked if this item is going to be limited to the length of the lease. Ms. Santalahti answered yes. She stated the Traffic Engineer's recommendation was that the variance be granted in connection with the lease of the property and she will go along with that additional condition. She stated if the property is re-leased, then they need to contact the City and in that way the City may readvertise this variance for an additional period of time, or otherwise it would terminate on that date, unless the applicant comes back and pays a readvertisement fee. She asked what is the lease date. Mr. Allen responded their lease is up the first of July next year. Ms. Santalahti stated she will approve it generally for the term of the lease until August 1, 1991 with the possibility of time-extensions with the owner • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 3, 1990. PAGE 5 making a specific request, providing a letter stating the additional time period, and at that time the City Traffic Engineer may review the parking again and they will have another noticed public hearing. 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 CEOA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTION - CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 4046 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GEORGE & JUNO LU, 118 S. Montgomery Way, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres, located at the southwest corner of Lakeview Avenue and Montgomery Way, having approximate frontages of 232 feet on the west side of Lakeview Avenue and 187 feet on the south side of Montgomery Way, and further described as 118 South Montgomery Way. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition and 3 letters in opposition were received. Norman McCurry, 520 Londerry St., stated the variance information is a little misleading in that the 35-foot height they are asking for happens only in a couple occasions. He stated he has a section plan that shows what is seen from all different points. He stated it is an overall view of the property. He stated the elongated picture at the bottom shows what you would see looking from across the street. He stated the height from the pad to the top of the house is about 25 feet. He stated where this higher point occurs is at one point in the center of the home and that they have plans in the Building Department which are approved in the grading plan at the exact height that it is right now. He stated they have not raised the ridge line at all and what they are asking to do is to move the third level underneath the existing new story and therefore technically creating a higher ridge line. Ms. Santalahti asked if what he is saying is that the existing grading on the pad would be redone and Mr. McCurry agreed. He stated previously this house was designed with a raised foundation having approximately five or six feet from the floor to the pad. He stated now they have dropped that down to a slab on-grade and lowered the lower elevation and in that way accomplished the same basic floor plan without raising the roof ridge. He stated standing in the lot looking up to Mrs. Montgomery's property, the proposal does not obstruct her view. He stated looking towards 112 Montgomery Way, the section plan shows there is no obstruction towards that property. He stated the only direction where it would appear to be a three story view would be from the pool area sideyard to this home and it would not be visible to other homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. McCurry to describe on the site plan where exactly the height exceeds twenty-five feet. Mr. McCurry stated from the street elevation it would reach 27 feet at the top. He stated in a southeasterly direction you would be able to see a third story. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY 3 1990 PAGE 6 Cal Garo, 525 Hamilton Dr., Corona, stated the height from the finished floor to the top of the main structure is approximately twenty-seven feet, then they have some cupolas on top of the roof that do not exceed thirty feet from the existing pad elevation which has been previously approved. He stated they are not exceeding the already approved height, they are basically maintaining the same concept throughout the whole project with the exception of the slab floor versus a raised floor. He stated they are going to take some of the fill from the lower level and backfill for the slab foundation. Ms. Santalahti stated according to the lower section it is about 27 feet to the top of the roof and the ridge and Mr. Garo added they have 10 feet for the first floor then another foot and then nine feet and then 1 foot. He stated that is 27 feet to that top of the roof and then they are adding another five feet, if you subtract that and go down to the existing grade there is thirty feet. Mr. Garo stated he prepared another plan which shows shaded areas that are over thirty feet, which is including the floor below. He stated the main structure of the whole house, the main flat roof is twenty-seven feet. Ms. Santalahti asked if the cupolas are the ones that go up to thirty feet and Mr. Garo agreed but they are from the main pad elevations. Ms. Santalahti stated she was interested in height as a plumb bob drops directly down. She asked which cupolas would be at thirty feet and which ones would be higher. She stated there are two double ones in the lower left. He stated the double ones go up to thirty feet. He stated the other one will exceed that and will be about thirty-seven feet. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, stated he had two additional letters in opposition from the Blanchard's and the Johnson's who live on El Dorado. He stated there was a lot of time and effort dedicated to revising the height ordinance. He stated as a result of a lot of discussion, there were variations allowed with regards to towers and turrets and the overall roof area that exceeded the twenty five foot limit up to thirty foot maximum. He stated a variance is still supposed to be a problem that is related to the land. He stated the neighboring variance for the lot of the house that is being build now right to the north of this particular lot was granted during the interim period when the variance was being worked on. He stated it essentially meets the new height code. He stated Peralta Hills, as a whole, is about ninety percent developed and with a few exceptions for some special circumstances it has all been within this twenty-five foot height limit and this project varying up to as high as thirty-five feet here would certainly be an out of keeping with the general development in the area and the overall philosophy in the Scenic Corridor. He stated this variance misses the mark by a very wide margin when it goes up to thirty-five feet and the problems are not related to the land because all of this development was graded out into six pads, so it is not a hillside development. He stated even though there is an attempt, from some views, to make this look like a two-story, the fact is that it is still a three-story, thirty-five foot high structure from the one • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 3, 1990 PAGE 7 view to the southeast. He stated they have to be concerned that if something like that is granted, then they are looking at an exception up to thirty-five feet and a three story structure that could open the door to other remaining lots in this ten percent undeveloped area that could essentially be saying we want what our neighbor has got over here and we should be able to develop to thirty-five feet too and it is a precedent that they do not think it is desirable to maintain the overall ambiance in this whole area. He stated they believe that this project should be denied for those reasons. Melanie Adams, Engineering Department, stated she wanted the applicant to clarify a comment related to an approved grading plan. She stated the grading plan for the tract is approved, however, their records show that the grading plan for this particular lot has not been approved. Ms. Santalahti stated a letter was received in the mail from Ronald Pharris at 130 S. El Dorado Lane, dated April 27, 1990, and the other two that Mr. Krueger submitted today were dated May 3, 1990 and are from Grace and Lloyd Blanchard at 120 S. El Dorado and from Mike and Barbara Johnson at 121 E1 Dorado Lane. Mr. McCurry stated they had a hearing on their grading permit and he did receive a letter stating that it had been approved, however, the grading plan that they have submitted with this new existing plan is entirely different and it has not yet been approved, but for the existing plan it was approved. He stated Mr. Pharris is not within the three hundred feet boundary of the property and that the height of this project occurs in the center of the dwelling and not visible from any of the street areas. He stated the one thing he finds in a lot of the problems that they are having is that the newer look is higher plate lines, and so, in order to get a house that is esthetically modern you want a nine and ten foot plate line and in order to do that and get any kind of a roof line it is almost impossible within the twenty-five feet. He stated his house, as already approved, would not block anybody's view, the only person that would even look at the roof line would be Mrs. Montgomery and she is not in opposition to this project. He stated this project would not impair the privacy of other properties around. He stated it is a stepped lot, so it is not a flat graded lot as all the others in the area are and as a result they are not asking for thirty-five feet from a flat lot. He stated they do not feel it is going to create a hardship for anyone and that this project has already been approved at the exact height that it is. Ms. Santalahti stated Mr. Krueger has appeared a number of times in the past regarding Peralta Hills and has been very concerned about the issue of height. She stated when code was amended two years ago they did, in a certain area of the City essentially north of the crest line between the Cities of Orange and Anaheim, go to thirty-five feet but the rest of the area including Peralta Hills has a twenty-five foot limit with the potential at code of going an additional ten percent of the roof area for various roof. type details. She • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 3, 1990 PAGE 8 stated the part of this proposal that she is having difficulty with is that there is a third story involved and the view from the south east that the people have is going to be a third story view at thirty-five feet and that the cupolas would be higher. Cal Garo stated the plans that were approved originally already had the third story. Ms. Santalahti stated she has heard them refer to previous plans but it is today's proposal that she is going to be acting on. Mr. Garo stated the only difference in the previous plans was that the bottom floor was pushed all the way out resulting in more .coverage on the lot. He stated the physical area of concern is not going to be visible because it is tucked underneath the house. He stated the visual impact of what was approved before compared to what they are trying to do now makes no difference. He stated looking at the proposed from all angles makes no difference compared to the way it was before. Ms. Santalahti stated she understood what he was saying, i.e., the bottom level is slid underneath the house but, if it were done differently, it would be filled with earth under the two story portion and this bottom level would be added beyond a retaining wall. Mr. Garo agreed and repeated that visually they would be looking. at the same thing. Ms. Santalahti stated this is the first variance that has come before her in the Peralta Hills area since the code change and that it is extreme. She stated this is a visible request and that the earlier variances that she looked at were off Canyon Rim Road and could not be seen except at a long distance. She stated this one is on a very visible site, on a large pad and, parallel to Lakeview Avenue. She asked if there was anything else developed in this tract other than the lot to the immediate north and Mr. Garo responded that it was just that one.. She stated the likelihood is great that they may get other similar requests and that is what concerns her. She stated if she considers approving something like this she would like it to be as restrained an approval as possible with just little deviation from Code.. She stated even though they are re-grading the property it is still flat in two sections and that it is going to be a higher site as viewed by most people. She stated the difficulties that she is having are that it is very visible, and that there is a lot of roof area over twenty-five feet. She stated she felt this project is too far away from code. She thought it should be brought closer to code or at code because this particular piece of property is very visible and there are no site constraints that impact development of the project. She stated a lot of people are going to see it. She stated this tract has four lots that are still vacant and based on other areas that are developing, owners .always take a good look at what somebody else did and expect that they are going to get approval of a similar height variance. ... MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 3, 1990 PAGE 9 Melanie Adams stated the City Engineer generally holds its public hearing after the first plan check is complete. She stated in this case he granted a negative declaration and laid a number of conditions that need to be met prior to the issuance of the grading permit. She stated the applicant should be clear that they need to complete the plan check process. Ms. Santalahti stated she does not feel that she can approve this project. She stated she has not heard anything that she feels satisfies the finding requirements for granting a variance. She stated the code is quite new out there, one that had a fair amount of input and a lot of time that was put into it. She stated it was an issue that the City Council was very concerned with and that everybody who worked on the ordinance recognized that there might be site specific circumstances which might include a site which is not visible., She stated they acknowledged that there could be that type of circumstance which would make the issue of height of point that did not really mattez because nobody was going to see it and that this lot is wide open visually. She asked if they would like to take a continuance in order to look further at the project to see if they can bring it closer to code and they agreed to that. Ms. Santalahti continued Item No. 3, Variance 4046 for four weeks to the May 31st Zoning Administrator hearing for the applicant to take a look at modifying the plans and perhaps bringing them closer to the code. She stated they would not be renotifying on this item and that the revised drawings had to be in by May 25, 1990, or else she would deny this project at the May 31st Zoning Administrator meeting. ITEM N0. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 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 10:45 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Margarit Perez Annika M. Santalahti Acting Secretary Zoning Administrator 0472g