Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1999/12/02ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1999 9:30 A.M. PRESENT: Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney .Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer Kathy Pfost, Associate Planner Kevin Bass, Associate Planner Patricia Koral, Senior Word Processing Operator ZA120299.DOC REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1a. CEQA EXEMPT{SECTION 15061 (61(31} 1b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 177 APPROVED OWNER: Don L. Garcia and Lisa F. Morales 896 S. Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Rose Morales 896 S. Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 894 & 896 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is 0.27 acres located at the northeast corner of Vermont Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. Waiver of maximum fence height (3 feet permitted; 6 feet proposed) to authorize an existing unpermitted 6 feet high wrought iron fence within the required front yard setback adjacent to two street frontages. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99=45 Appeal period ends, December 1, 1999 at 5:00 p:m. OBS OPPOSITION: No opposition received. Ms. Annika Santalahti: How long has the wrought-Iron fence been there? Staff did not know. There is a copy of a photograph as well as the plans of what the fence looks like. ACTION: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 177, with conditions that they obtain any necessary permits for the fence since there is a block wall/pilaster involved and that the fence be constructed as shown on the submitted exhibits. Page 1 12/02/99 2b. OWNER: Anaheim Place Partners, L.P 2532 Dupont Drive Received letter of Irvine, CA 92612 opposition. Planner sent a letter to AGENT: Stuart Architecture applicant asking the 5031 Birch Street applicant if he would :Newport Beach, CA 92660 like to proceed to a public hearing. LOCATION: 505 North Euclid Street. Property is 1.88 acres located at the northwest comer of Euclid Street and Westmont Drive. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (180 required; 161 proposed, 90 of Code) to permit the remodel of an existing 6-story office building and the reconfiguration of an existing parking lot resulting in the loss of thirty (30) parking spaces. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. Appeal period ends, December 1, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. OPPOSITION: Letter of opposition to this proposal was received. ACTION: Due to opposition the applicant will be contacted to decide whether they wish to go ahead with a public hearing, in which case notices for a public hearing will be mailed out. No one indicating their presence on this item. Page 2 12/02/99 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 3a. CEQA CATEGORICA 3b. VARIANCE N0.4382 OWNER: Joseph G. Little 6991 E. Via EI Estribo Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: .Frank Joe Lopez 5390 Park Place Chino, CA 91710 LOCATION: 6997 East Via EI Estribo: Property is 0.98 acre located at the northeast corner of Avenida De Santiago and Via EI Estribo. Waiver of maximum structural height (25 feet permitted; 31.5 feet proposed) to construct a 2-story addition to an existing single-family residence in the RS-HS-22,000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.99_46 Denied OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition. APPLICANT: Present. AGENT: Frank Lopez, 5390 Park Place, Chino. Architect, for the project. Mr. Little asked me to help him in designing a 1-car garage addition plus an addition over an existing area of the garage and part of the new garage. The existing structure that was there already was substandard and it was not usable as a room. Mr. Little has some photographs of that particular room. We came up with a design that seemed appropriate and would enhance the actual appearance of the structure and would bring it to an appropriate look. The existing structure of the house was met height wise our new plans and that is what we felt was a standard and that was the particular height that we had to deal with so we went no further than that and came up with a very usable bedroom area and bath with no obstruction of neighbor's view and also a view from our particular structure into their yard was not an issue, I believe. In general we felt that this structure was going to be something that would bring the whole neighborhood up to a better standard. Right now, the way the room looks it is not usable upstairs, it is being used for a study and it is not what we need. I believe that addition was made approximately 10 years ago and when the addition was made 10 years ago it also went over the 25 ft. height that is required now. Ms. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, is asked if there was anyone else present who wculd like to comment either in favor or with concerns or opposition regarding this project: Joseph G. Little, 6691 E. Via EI Estribo, property owner, stated that he has same pictures which would graphically describe the proposal (gave photos to Annika), and I obviously don't know which ones you are looking at but if you were to look at the other portion of the house with the french type windows the addition shows a regular box type window which I believe is unsightly. If you will look at the pictures inside the room., the slope of the inside of the room is such that it is not usable for a bedroom whatsoever and it is kind of a worthless room. My goal was to add an additional garage because the people that lived there before me ... Page 3 12/02/99 we have to park on the street and in the driveway which I think is unsightly and the attempt is to improve the neighborhood to get the cars off the street and give me a usable bedroom which I need. Ms. Santalahti: The photograph that shows the truck, is that the view from the street up to your property? Mr. Little replied he believed that it is (referring to a photograph) What I have done is take pictures of across the street, down the street, the wall between myself and my northern neighbor, I have no other neighbors on the other side, across the street the houses are over 30 feet. The house across the street is higher than my house. Ms. Annika Santalahti: The roof plan that shows shaded areas is that more than just the addition shown over 25 ft.? Mr. Little: The additional house is approximately 31 ft. Ms. Santalahti: Okay, but there is a roof plan that shows part of the main structure? Kevin Bass, Associate Planner, stated that the roof plan is intended to show all of the house that is existing over the 25 ft. high Jimit. Ms. Santalahti: Okay, so it is like a backwards L shape. Mr. Little: The shaded area is the area that is over 25 ft. existing and the new which is the front portion. Ms. Santalahti: Do you know what the existing highest part of the existing building goes to ? Mr. Little replied 31 ft. Similar to what you are proposing now. What year was the house constructed 17 years ago, the addition was approximately 10 years ago. Did the other addition have a building permit? Mr. Little said yes, it was permitted at that time. Katy Pfost, Associate Planner asked if the owner could state his address once again, he replied 6691 East Via EI Estribo. Ms. Santalahti: Mr. Little could you tell me approximately what the grade differential is between the base of the slope. Mr. Little replied that the neighbor directly to the left, as you look at the property from the front, would be about 9 to 10 feet higher than ours. Ms. Santalahti asked is the building pad basically a flat parcel? Mr. Little answered yes, and the one across the street is approximately 18 to 20 feet. Ms. Annika Santalahti asked if one of these photographs a picture from Hidden Canyon Rd.7 Mr. Little replied no, we do not. Ms. Santalahti: Is there anyone present who would like to speak for or against Variance 4382 regarding a height waiver at 6991 East Via Estribo? Mr. Zerrenner: Yes, my name is Robert Zerrenner, 6985 Via EI Estribo, I am Gary Littles' neighbor immediately ko the right. My whole deal about the height variance, I feel if you deviate from the height restriction you are opening a can of worms you will never close and obviously he has proved that because a portion of his house is already at 31 ft. and now he is coming back to go with more and more parts of the house and who is to say next year it won't be more parts of the house and the neighbor down the road. I, too, also have pictures of what I'm going to loose by Garry's addition and this addition is not a small addition, it is a 15 ft. garage he is adding to an already 3 car garage, so in essence he is building a 5-car garage but he is claiming so many feet of it is going to be a workshop and on top of this addition is going to be a second Page 4 12/02/99 master bedroom so he is building quite an extensive house there and as you can see the red target there (referring to submitted photos) that is where his house is going to come to and it is quite a view I'm going to loose of the green stapes and green stapes are quite a selling feature and the area we live is also quite a nice area, lots of views, and I feel Gary is crowding me with the whole issue but that isn't really the issue. The issue is the height variance, and once again, if you let him do it one time then how do you stop the next guy from going 7 ft., then the next guy wants to go 10 ft., and you need to stop it somewhere. These rules are generated for a reason and that is what (feel. Ms. Santalahti: Could you tell me where it is you live? Mr. Zerrenner, replied that he lives next to Gary, to the right of him (next door). Kathy Pfost, Associate Planner: The Zoning Administrator may wish to know that the plans and all of the advertisements state that this address is 6991 although the applicant stated that it is 6691. Ms. Santalahti: It should be 6691? Kevin Bass stated that all of the addresses for this residence are 6991, we do not have any address in the 66 range for this street. So it is correct on the agenda. Ms. Santalahti: 'Is there anyone else who wishes to speak with opposition or concerns regarding this item. No one else, okay Mr. Little or Mr. Lopez would you like to respond to any of the comments that were made? Mr. Lopez said yes, in respect to his comments in regards to being in the way of his view, I don't really understand how that is feasible because our addition is going to be right next to his existing garage and then he has about a 5 or 6 ft. high wall next to his garage and along the wall line of the existing house there is a restroom and I believe a bedroom at the very end and the view is toward the back as opposed toward the side because of the fence being there, in general I think the view that we are creating by eliminating or the addition that we are proposing will eliminate any view towards his property sight by eliminating an existing dormer that faces his side of the property line and in essence we are going to give him more privacy because we do have a new bathroom facing that direction but it is not a view window it is strictly for ventilation. One other thing that should be brought up is in respect to the existing rule or law that allows buildings to be up to 35 ft. just across the street from Mr. Little's property. Ms. Santalahti asked staff what is the percentage of height of the existing building that exceeds the 25 ft. ? under item 13 of the staff report you have put the proposal and the existing together, can you calculate that quickly? Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated that Mr. Bass also has some information with regard to building permits on the addition. Kevin Bass, Associate Planner, stated that the building department records for this address show only a patio cover and a remodel of a pool, we do not have the original permits for the house, these permits dates are for 1997. Ms. Mann, asked if that meant that there were no permits for modification 10 years ago? Mr. Bass stated that means we don't have any permits for the house itself, the records could have been lost in terms of transfer from one building to another or records could have been lost for other various reasons, we have had records lost in the building department in the past. Ms. Mann: While Mr. Bass is making those calculations I would like to address some of the legal issues with regard to granting a variance. The findings that are required for the granting of a variance are stated on the staff report, pages 2 and 3, paragraph no. 14. The first one is that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other Page 5 12/02/99 identically zoned properties in the vicinity. I believe that there is a form that has been signed by the applicant on justification for the waiver that it responds to question number 1 indicates "no" in response to that answer. It appears from just a review of the map for the area that all of the properties in the area are somewhat unusually shaped with lot size that should accommodate zoning requirements within the size of the property itself. In addition to that finding there would be a second finding required, that strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classifications in the vicinity; so that would be other properties that would have the same restrictions as this particular zone. Those would be the findings. Both would need to be made in order to grant the waiver. Ms. Bass stated that the existing house, 13.75% of the roof is located above the 25 ft. height limit, combination of both new and proposed would be 17%. Ms. Santalahti: asked Mr. Zerrenner, the red dot I assume is basically the 31 ft., height point? Mr. Zerrenner stated no actually that is where the edge of his house is going to come over toward my house, the height I'm sure will probably be just as high as the roof is as it shows there if, not even higher, the root to the left is his house. Ms. Santalahti stated that what she wanted to understand was whether the red dot on the photo had a height significance or it is a Iocational significance? Mr. Bass stated that paragraph 13 of the staff report shows 17% of the roof area total and that is a miscalculation, it should be 19% so we want to fix any staff reports that go out. No one else indicated their interest in speaking. Ms. Santalahti: The height limitations in the scenic corridor went through a lot of discussion a number of years ago, approximately 15 years ago. There were no height limitations quite like they are today. A limitation of 25 ft. was put in there and that was found to be a little difficult, so a number of years ago, it shows up in the scenic corridor section that talks about height exceptions for residential zoning in fact it allows the property to the south of Avenida De Santiago to go up to 35 ft., and there were two areas exempted and that was one of those areas that were allowed to go to a higher height limitation and part of that at the time was that the properties to the south had not been as developed as the property to the north of Avenida De Santiago which essentially had been fully developed, so the feeling was that maintaining the lower height limitation was appropriate north of Avenida De Santiago because houses had been built, people had moved in, the height lines of sight had been established. Precedence is always of concern and we've had height variances in the past, generally though they have been in locations where the potential impact on someone is essentially zero because the grade situations are extreme and the extra foot or two is not an impact on the neighbors and the neighbors haven't imposed it. We haven't seen a variance out in this area, actually I don't recall a height variance on this side of Avenida De Santiago ever. Mr. Bass stated that there is no height waiver in the immediate vicinity of the north side of Avenida De Santiago. Ms. Santalahti stated that she understands that when a house has been built in a certain style that you make every effort to maintain a consistency with a design that works out the best for the property owner for the building and then, hopefully, for the neighbors. In this instance I'm concerned with it. I don't feel that there are valid waivers, I've driven around the area numerous times, the grade is changing all over. A lot of properties have differentiation between their building pads and the next door neighbor pads so there are lines of sight that are impacted by houses existing everywhere and could be made worse. I don't feel that there are any hardship findings in this instance because there is nothing about this property that is particularly different. Maybe the one thing that is in favor of it is actually an easier situation to work with since there is a bit of difference between the neighboring property., however, that difference still doesn't put that roof line below a 6 ft. fence height on the property, neighbor's. Page 6 12/02/99 Did the applicant see the photographs, they are basically taken from your back yard or back patio area and I understand that the red dot does show the edge of where the building would be, not the height; the height is represented more adequately by the existing building height. Ms. Pfost stated that the last amendment to the scenic corridor overlay zone development standards. was June 27, 1989. Mr. Little stated that the photograph that he is looking at is from his (Mr. Zerrenner) side, the wall and then the roof itself of the existing house, from my view of this picture the roof would be no different than it is height wise, Robert's concern is that it is coming closer to him as much as it is the height. I stood there on both sides and looked down and I'm 6 ft. tall and when I look over this wall I can't see anything anyway. It will not obstruct his view looking forward because the house is going to be 14 ft. over further, so I'm still confused why Robert is so against this, the backyard does not block any view what so ever, all I'm trying to accomplish is a usable bedroom and an additional 41h car garage. Ms. Santalahti: What is the depth of your usable rear yard as measured toward Hidden Canyon Road? It is really wide but very narrow, there is an 18 ft. wide pool, and walk way on each side. The points that the City Attorney made regarding hardship findings involve looking at your piece of property in the context of the surrounding pieces with the same zoning, the same size and while I understand what you are attempting to .achieve at that location and why the height, i have to agree that this particular lot with this proposed addition at this location, is really not a hardship. The property is large enough to work around it. I realize that you are trying to take advantage of what is there and kind of fix a room that is off-size. Mr. Little stated the house across the street is over 30 ft. on both sides of me and directly across street and just south of me, it just fits with the house, 25 ft. would not leave you enough head room plus aesthetically would not improve the house, here you have french windows and peaked roof, a tudor house, and now you go over to this addition and it takes away from the house and the neighborhood. We are just trying to improve it and improve the neighborhood make it look better. Ms. Santalahti concurs with staff who is recommending denial of Variance No. 4382 based on there being no special circumstances applicable to the property such as it size, shape, topography location or surroundings in the context of the surrounding property and that modification to the dwelling could be done in a way to accommodate what you're looking to do without obtaining a height waiver. ACTION: This is a CEQA Categorical Exemption. As recommended by staff, I concur with that and deny Variance No. 4382 based on the finding as documented in the staff report on page 3. As I noted, there is a 15 day appeal period which begins on the written date of the decision which will be next week, usually the decision does go out on the seventh day. However, if you wish to appeal the decision you can do that at the City Clerk's Office upon payment of the appropriate fee and in which case public notification will go out. To be honest, I would take a look at this to see what you could try to do to work within code rather to appeal it, but it is your right to appeal it if you need to do that. 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE Page 7 12/02/99