Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1990/09/06~~ • • _ A'' C._T . I . 0.. N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 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. 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. 1908H Page 1 • la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 lb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3320 OWNER: CONRAD S. & PATRICIA G. MOSS ,241 South Yorkshire Circle, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: VERONICA N. NORRIS, Attorney at Law, 17821 East 17th Street, Suite 240, Tustin, CA 92680. LOCATION: 241 South Yorkshire Circle. Property is approximately 0.22 acre located on the westerly side of Yorkshire Circle approximately 205 feet north of the centerline of Mohler Drive. To permit a satellite dish in a residential zone. Continued from Zoning Administrator meeting of August 9, 1990. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 90-92 2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-11 2b. VARIANCE N0. 4081 OWNER: JAS PARTNERSHIP, 1990 S. Anaheim Blvd., CA 92805. LOCATION: 1990 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Stanford Court. Waiver of required structural setback and permitted signage to construct a 296 square-foot freestanding sign with an electric message board. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-93 PROVED DENIED 09-06-90 Page 2 .. ~ • 3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-3 3b. VARIANCE N0. 4082 OWNER: ANTHONY AND REBECCA MUNDY, 127 S. Stinson Street, Anaheim, CA 92803. AGENT: BLUE RIBBON BUILDERS, INC., 1135 W. Ratella Ave., Orange, CA 91667 Attn: Tim Wallace. LOCATION: 127 South Stinson Street. Property is approximately 0.14 acre located on the west side of Stinson Street approximatey 420 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Waiver of required side yard to construct a garage and two-story ro addition. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: ZA 90-94 APPROVED none none 09-06-90 Page 3 ~, .,, .. • ~ CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: ~'t ~~' O-~~~~OCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DATE) 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. 09-06-90 Page 4 a • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, September 6, 1990 PAGE 2 ~~~~ / ~, Ms. Santalahti said the section drawing shows that the overall height of the satellite dish may be up to 12 feet and asked if that was correct. Ms. Norris said yes. Me. Santalahti asked if the applicants had talked to their neighbors. Ms. Norris said yes, and they have written consent from the neighbors and the architectural review committee. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt, Class 3. Ms. Santalahti approved this proposal based on the fact that the proposed uae, consisting of an approximately 12-foot high satellite dish, is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code; that the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the satellite dish will be located in a manner so as not to be visible to nearby streets; and that the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare because the satellite dish will be located in the side yard next to the house about 21 feet from the side property line, it will be screened from the street by a portion of the house, it will be located more than 170 feet from the rear property line and it will be located more than 30 feet back from the top of the slope (which slope is in the rear yard). 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 NO. 2. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 11, VARIANCE NO. 4081 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JAS PARTNERSHIP, 1990 S. Anaheim Blvd., CA 92805. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Stanford Court, having approximate frontages of 182 feet on the west aide of Anaheim Boulevard and 175 feet on the north side of Stanford Court, and further described as 1990 South Anaheim Boulevard. To construct a 296 square-foot freestanding sign with an electronic message board. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, September 6, 1990 PAGE 3 No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Jim Shab, Global Communications, said the building was basically built to Code, with the Conditional Use Permit allowing him to have his car phone facility at that location. He said the hardship they have is that the existing sign (which is 100 square feet and meets Code) is blocked from view of on-coming traffic during parts of the year by the trees growing near the TRW building across the street to the south. He said the current sign is not efficiently being used. He said they are proposing a size that is allowed but requires being set back 50 feet. He noted there were other signs in the vicinity as large as the one he was proposing. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said she drives by this property frequently, and could not understand why there was a need for a larger sign. She said since the property is located by the freeway and street, it is very visible. She noted the City is looking at the entire area around the stadium, in terms of modifying the land uses that are allowed and getting away from traditional industrial uses. She said there is concern that we do not let opportunities pass by for good looking development in this area as it is intended and expected to be a good business location. She said the other electronic message board signs in the~area were granted variances a number of years ago in commercial zones and indicated one was the automotive dealership. She said the hotel sign at Ball Road is not located in the required street setback. She didn't believe the size of the sign was an issue because she felt this particular building was very well advertised with the current signage. She. did not feel they should be permitted to have a sign twice the size as permitted at this location. She said she did not see any hardship on the property. She noted recently there seemed to be a lot of interest in acquiring electronic signs. Mr. Shab said the real purpose of this request was not to create three times the reader board, the intent was to create a larger sign with at least one-quarter of the top of the sign indicating the name of the company. He said driving south on the I-5 Freeway you are unable to see the name of the company. He said there is no recognition of who the company is, only that we are an authorized agent for Pac-tel Cellular. He said the Pac-Tel logo was installed when the building was built. He said there is also a sign that says car phones, but no indication that the company is Global Cellular. He said they want a facing on the top of the sign indicating the company name so vehicles driving southbound would recognize that location as Global Cellular. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, September 6, 1990 PAGE 4 He noted this sign would cost $75,000 and he wouldn't be proposing it if he didn't feel it was needed. He said it would give the cars driving northbound clear visibility of his sign which visibility is now being blocked by the trees at TRW. He said he felt there is a hardship created by the trees. Ms. Santalahti said she was very concerned about the precedent setting aspect of this proposal. She said she could not recall any signs like this in the Anaheim Stadium Business Center. She said the other electronic signs close to the freeway are in commercial zones, which is different in terms of .signage requirements. She said .the area is flat with great visibility northbound although she did understand his concerns about visibility southbound. Mr. Shab said he agreed the building had excellent visibility and that was why the building was erected at that particular location; however, he felt there was a hardship created by the trees since no one could see his sign while driving northbound until they were very close to it. He said he felt it was unfair to his company to have trees blocking the view of the sign. He said if there was a City Code that would require the trees to be trimmed down to a certain level or height, that might be the answer to saving him $75,000. Ms. Santalahti said the direction of signage, in many parts of the City, is to have signs lower than 25 feet, She said the Planning Commission and City Council, in connection with other zoning petitions, have limited any free standing signage to monument type signs not to exceed eight feet in height. She said, generally speaking, responses from applicants have been that if everyone is being held to a certain size of sign then they would be willing to have the same type of signage. She said this property has a particular advantage because of freeway visibility. She said there were other properties along this section of freeway; in this same zone, that might also want to have larger signs. She noted the City, in terms of Code revisions, may be looking at smaller signs then are currently permitted. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt, Class 11. Ms. Santalahti denied this proposal based on the fact that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity because the Santa Ana Freeway is directly across the street and subject property is very visible to traffic along the freeway; that strict application. of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity because neighboring buildings in the same industrial zone have signage in accordance with Code and, further, that the • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, September 6, 1990 PAGE 5 proposed sign is more than twice as large as permitted by Code; and that approval of this variance would establish an undesirable precedent and may encourage other similar requests. 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 NO.__3_ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3, VARIANCE NO. 4082 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ANTHONY AND REBECCA MUNDAY, 127 S. Stinson Street, Anaheim, CA 92803. AGENT: BLUE RIBBON BUILDERS, INC., 1135 W. Katella Ave., Orange, CA 91667 Attn: Tim Wallace. Subject property is an irregulary-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.14 acre having a frontage of approximately 23 feet on the west side of Stinson Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 127 feet, being located approximately 420 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 127 South Stinson Road. Waiver of required side yard to construct a garage and two-story .room addition. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. John Bandgren, Blue Ribbon Builders, referenced page 2 of the staff report, items 12 (a) and (b) under findings, and said they were applicable to this property. He said the shape of the lot and the size of the lot is different from all the surrounding lots because of the flood control channel on the southeast corner. He said the shape definitely creates a hardship, because if the corner was not cut off by the flood control channel the garage could have been designed forward on the lot which could have met the five foot setback requirement. He said because the flood control channel is adjacent to that aide he did not feel it would harm anyone to build the garage within one foot of the channel as this is commonly done in other areas. He said for these reasons they were requesting approval of the proposal. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Leonard McGhee, Senior Planners commented that Condition No. 2 should read "That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, September 6, 1990 PAGE 6 Ms. Santalahti said she went out and looked at the property yesterday and could understand what Mr. Bandgren meant. She said her concern was that the building did not block visibility between the driveway and the street, which it does not because it is setback far enough to the rear of the property. She asked if he were aware of the fire wall regulations required when a building is set this close to a property line. Mr. Bandgren said yes, and noted they could meet all other Codes. Ms. Santalahti asked if the Building Division had reviewed the drawings. Mr. Bandgren said they had not seen the drawings yet. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt, Class 3. Ms. Santalahti approved this proposal based on the fact that there are special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of shape, location and surroundings,,which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity because subject property is irregularly-shaped having a very narrow street frontage (about 23 feet) with the Carbon Creek Channel cutting at an angle through the property across the front and the south side property lines thereby restricting the development potential; and that the aide yard waiver pertains to the south side along the Carbon Creek Channel and, therefore, no neighbors will be impacted by the proposed 1-foot side yard and, further, no lines-of-sight along the street and/or any driveway are adversely impacted. 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 NO. 4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM NO. 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 10:00 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: ,~ .~~ Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti Administrative Assistant Zoning Administrator /00 S~oS~ct