Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2000/03/09• ~ ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000 9:30 A.M. Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer David See, Associate Planner Danielle Masciel, Word Processing Operator PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1 a. 1 b. OWNER: Vendy Borsca 226 South Grand Avenue Anaheim, CA 92804 Concurred with staff Denied LOCATION: 226 South Grand Avenue: Property is 0.17 acre, having a frontage of approximately 64 feet on the east side of Grand Avenue and a maximum depth of 113 feet located 410 feet south of the centerline of Del Monte Drive. Waiver of maximum fence height (3 feet permitted; 4 feet proposed) to retain an existing 4-foot high block wall and wrought iron fence within the required front yard of asingle-family residence in the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. Set for Public Hearing from the January 27, 2000 Zoning Administrator meeting JKD Opposition: One person was present and spoke on behalf of the Halecrest Heritage Estates Neighborhood Watch Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator concurred with staff on the environmental findings and denied Administrative Adjustment No. 187 for waiver of fence pilaster height. Ms. Santalahti introduced the proposal and explained that this item was agendized for public hearing due to the fact that opposition was received. Vendy Borsca, property owner was present. He stated that he came to the Planning Department counter on February 20, 1999 to inquire as to what the requirements were for building a wall with pilasters and wrought iron. The idea for building the wall came about in order to keep his children confined to the front yard area of his residence. However before the project began the request was brought to the Planning Department and was told that the Code allowed for the maximum wall height with pilasters to be 4 foot. ZA030900.DOC Page 1 • • Construction on the wall began but there were no permits were pulled from the Building Division. In July, 1999 Max Wilson from Code Enforcement Division sighted the fence for being too high and told the resident to stop work on the wall immediately and to contact the Planning Department. At this point the direction was given to apply for an Administrative Adjustment through the Zoning Administrator meeting. Ms. Santalahti inquired as to the styling of the block wall and pilasters and the wrought iron and what it would look like. Instructions were given to Mr. Borsca to show David See what it would look like on the plans that were present at the meeting. Mr. Borsca stated that he submitted a freehand drawing. He stated that he has already paid for the work and didn't think it was fair that he would have to incur more cost after the Code had changed while he was in the process of constructing the wall. He informed us that the wall would be only 3 feet and the pilasters are no more than 4 feet tall. He then described to David See how the wrought iron would be designed between the pilasters. Ms. Santalahti questioned whether or not all of the pilasters that are being proposed at this time had been finished. Mr. Borsca informed the Zoning Administrator that he had been given instructions from Max Wilson, Code Enforcement Officer to stop the work immediately and seek further instructions from the Planning Department. And that only 4 pilasters were left to complete. Ms. Santalahti further questioned the type of materials would be used on this wall. Mr. Borsca answered that the blocks would remain the natural pink color that they are now with beige colored wrought iron. Ms. Santalahti then excused Mr. Borsca and asked if there was anyone here in opposition of this proposal? Mrs. Muriel Lowenberg resides at 211 South Loma Linda Drive in Anaheim. She is a member of the Halecrest Heritage Estates Neighborhood Watch. I am here today to ask that the proposal be denied for a height waiver at 226 South Grand Avenue. The higher fence would not be the most aesthetically pleasing and we find that this is not in keeping with the current neighborhood standards. We feel that the extra height would pose a danger to the other children that play in the street as it would be hard to see over the fence while in a car. We feel that the City of Anaheim is correct in the original limit at 3 feet for safety reasons. Public Hearing Closed Ms. Santalahti asked if the applicant had considered reducing the height of the pilasters to 3 feet and going within code? Because if I were to deny this application that is what would have to be done to be able to have this fence in the front yard. Mr. Borsca stated that it doesn't matter to him if the wall is 3 feet or 4 feet. The problem for him is that he built this wall to the requirements that existed at the time and put out that expense. Now it will be an additional expense he must incur to lower the wall since the Code has changed before the wall was completed and it is close to completion. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Borsca when the construction of the wall began. Mr. Borsca estimated that the construction began around the 25~' of February. Ms. Santalahti asked David See to go over the time period when the Code changed. Mr. See stated that the Code change that the applicant is referring to took place in April of 1999 and he actually started construction several months prior to that and that is described in Paragraph No. 14 of the staff report. Page 2 • • Ms. Santalahti asked that if this fence had been completed prior to April, would it have been all right under the Code. Mr. See stated that it would have been all right under the Code however building permits had not been pulled and it would have been required regardless. Mr. Borsca commented that the contractor that was doing this job was injured while on vacation which in turn caused a delay in the timely completion of this wall on the side area. During the time when the wall wasn't being worked on is when the Code Enforcement Officer stopped the construction of the wall. Ms. Santalahti informed the applicant that had building permits been obtained for the pilaster part of construction there would have been a certain amount of time allowed for completion of the wall beyond when the new code went into effect. Having a building permit would keep things like this from happening. The things that interest me is that the color should have been more similar the house and it would have helped to have seen a picture of the wrought iron. Has anyone from the Building Division been out to look at this construction? Sometimes the inspectors want to see if the re-bar had been done. Mr. Borsca stated that the Code Enforcement Officer told him that the wall appears to be constructed to code but the height exceeds the code. Ms. Santalahti explained that with a proposal like this does have a certain tendency to establish a certain precedence. Therefore, it would be real difficult if other neighbors wanted to do the same thing to argue against it. Mr. Borsca stated that he feels that he did his part to comply with the code so why does he have to change it back now that the code changed after the fact. Ms. Santalahti informed Mr. Borsca that he made two mistakes. First by not pulling a building permit for the pilasters. Building issues should always be discussed with the Building Division, Planning staff may not know all the answers in regards to those issues. And had you had a building permit for the 4-foot section that would have simplified matters a lot. You would have had time to finish the fence and been supported by the permit. However, my inclination is to agree with staff and deny this Administrative Adjustment. The reason is that there has been in other neighborhood concern. And when neighbors are concerned that concerns me. The reason this Administrative Adjustment is going to be denied is because I feel that the fence can be reduced to meet code. I'm sorry that you have to go through the added expense. I believe that you would have only built the fence to the maximum allowance. It is an unfortunate precedence if I was to approve it in a neighborhood then others would expect the same. It's not only a precedent in this neighborhood, I view it as my looking at other Administrative Adjustments for fences. Also the City Council has indicated concerns with this kind of a thing so I became more concerned then I was before. Page 3 • • 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3 Concurred with 2b. VARIANCE N0.4388 Approved OWNER: Larry Goebel 5130 Vista Montana Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: Wallis E. Smith 26501 Mirar Vista Mission Viejo, CA 92652 LOCATION: 346 South Whitestone Drive: Property is 0.69 acre having a frontage of 241 feet on the east side of Whitestone Drive and a maximum depth of 201 feet, located 614 feet north of the centerline of Ramsgate Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height (25 feet permitted; 35 feet proposed) to permit and retain an existing two-story single-family residence under construction in the RS-HS 22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. Continued from the February 10, 2000 Zoning Administrator meeting DS Opposition: No one was present Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator concurred with staff on the environmental findings and approved Variance No. 4388 for a waiver of height on the basis of the findings recommended by staff as well as that the house is located on a lot that slopes down significantly from the street. And on the street frontage side the house is basically equivalent to a 2-story house at approximately 25 feet which is typical. And that the rear view from the east is going to be the view which one would see that the house is higher. The way that we define height for a building does take into consideration basement type spaces. Ms. Santalahti introduced the proposal and asked if the applicant was present Wallis Smith was present to represent the property owner. Ms. Santalahti requested that staff review how it was that construction began with the higher fence height than code allows. David See, Associate Planner explained that a building permit was issued for atwo-story residence and the applicant came forward after the building permit was issued to add a lower floor that was previously filled in with dirt and not usable as a room. Now that the lower basement/storage room is being proposed and that increased the structural height on the bottom end. Ms. Santalahti asked which sides of the building will appear to be 35 feet high. Mr. Smith informed on the east side of the house on the rear. Ms Santalahti acknowledged that the east was where the height was evident. Then asked how high the building will appear to be on the front end? Mr. Smith answered the height to be 25-26 feet. Page 4 • ~ Ms. Santalahti questioned how the retaining walls would be situated on this project? Mr. Smith explained that there are two separate wall of varying heights from 6 feet up to 9 feet. The other walls are part of the house and they go up to 10 feet. Ms. Santalahti asked for an approximation of how much the property drops from Whitestone Drive to the rear of the property. Mr. Smith stated considering that the pad sits down off of the street it would be about 40 feet. And the street slopes at a northerly direction. 3. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE Page 5