Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2000/08/24C~ • ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2000 9:30 A.M. Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer Kathie Pfost, Associate Planner David See, Associate Planner Danielle Masciel, Word Processing Operator 1a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(31 1b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2000-00198 OWNER: Kandee D. Baird 8355 East Quiet Canyon Court Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 8355 East Quiet Canyon Court: Property is 0.10 acre, having a frontage of 40 feet on the north side of Quiet Canyon Court with a maximum depth of 110 feet located 160 feet east of the centerline of Quiet Canyon Lane. Waiver of minimum side yard setback (5 feet required; 4 feet proposed) to construct a 6 square-foot dining room addition within the required side yard setback of asingle-family residence in the SP88-2 (The Summit), Development Area 104 Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-32 Appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 21, 2000 Concurred w/ Staff Approved Project Planner: (vknoxCa?anaheim.vet) No opposition was received. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, approved Administrative Adjustment No. 2000-00198 for a requested waiver of side yard setbacks (5 feet required; 4 feet proposed) to construct a 6 square foot dining room addition within the required side yard setback of a single family home. This is located in Development Area 104 of the Summit Specific Plan. ZA082400.DOC ZA08/24/00 Page 1 • • 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 150611b)(3) 2b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2000-00199 OWNER: William Nuebling 1670 East Belmont Avenue Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1670 East Belmont Avenue: Property is 0.15 acre, having frontages of 56 feet on the south side of Belmont Avenue and the north side of La Palma Avenue and a maximum depth of 120 feet located 200 feet west of the centerline of Baxter Street. Waiver of maximum fence height (3 feet high permitted; 6 feet high proposed) to construct a 6-foot high wrought iron fence and sliding gate within the required front yard setback of a single family residence in the RS- 5000 (Residential, Single Family) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-33 Appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 21, 2000 Concurred w/ Staff Approved Project Planner: (vknoxCa2anaheim.vet) One letter of opposition was received on Wednesday 23, 2000, after the appeal period ended. The party was contacted and stated that they were not opposed to the fence but just to the fence height as well as compatibility with other houses in terms of height. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, approved Administrative Adjustment No. 2000-00199 for a requested waiver of maximum fence height (3 feet high permitted; 6 feet high proposed) to construct a 6 foot high wrought iron fence and sliding gate in the required front yard setback of a single family residence in the RS-5000 zone. Madam Administrator felt that the proposed fence was not inconsistent with the fences in the neighborhood. Ms. Santalahti verified the location of the opposing residence in relation to the proposal, the materials the fence was to be built in and the location of the fence. David See, Associate Planner, stated that the opposition was located approximately 10 - 15 houses to the west of the proposal. The fence was to be constructed of only wrought iron materials and it was to go across the front of the property including the driveway, which was also approved by Traffic Engineering. Ms. Santalahti asked if the applicant had mentioned if there was any discussion with the immediate neighbors regarding the fence. Also questioned why the owner wanted to build to 6 feet high Mr. See stated that there was no indication that any conversations took place with the neighbors. It was just the one letter that was received and that residence was not immediately next to the property. The property owner felt that the 6-foot high fence was necessary to retain his privacy and safety. ZA08/24/00 Page 2 • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT SECTION 15061(b)(3) Concurred w/ Staff 3b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2000-00188 Approved OWNER: Leonides E & Natalia C. Crook 1203 North Maplewood Street Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1203 North Maplewood Street: Property is 0.16 acre located on the northwest corner of Maplewood Street and Romneya Drive having a frontage of 55 feet on the west side of Maplewood Street and a frontage of 85 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive Waiver of maximum fence height within a required front yard setback (3 feet permitted; 5.5 feet proposed) to construct a 5.5 foot high block wall and wrought iron fence within the required front yard setback area of a single family residence in the RS-7200 (Residential, Single Family) Zone. Project Planner: (vknoxCa~anaheim. net) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-34 Continued from the Zoning Administrator meeting of April 6, 2000 Opposition withdrew their concerns Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, approved Administrative Adjustment No. 2000-00188 to waive maximum fence height within a required front yard setback (3 feet permitted; 5.5 feet proposed) to construct a combination block wall and wrought iron fence in the front yard setback of asingle-family residence in the RS-7200 zone. This proposal was originally advertised and received opposition therefore it was set for a public hearing. David See stated that 3 letters of opposition were received previously but since all 3 have withdrawn their opposition as indicated in the staff report. They saw the plans and spoke to the petitioner and received better clarity of the proposal. zaosi2aioo Page 3 • • 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-129 OWNER: Benjamin Fisher 1110 Tamarisk Drive Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Anacal Engineering 1900 East La Palma Avenue #202 Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1110 Tamarisk Drive: Property is 1.27 acres located at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Drive and Avenida De Santiago with frontages of 338 feet on the south side of Tamarisk Drive and 76 feet on the east side of Avenida De Santiago. To establish a 2-lot single-family residential subdivision in the RS-HS-22,000 (SC)(Residential, Single-Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-35 Continued from Zoning Administrator meetings of May 4 and May 18, 2000. Concurred w/ Staff Denied Project Planner: (kpfost(a~anaheim.net) Applicant requested a continuance on Wednesday, August 23, 2000 via FAX but did not state a date that it was to be continued to. Mr. Fisher was not present at this hearing nor was a representative from Anacal. Annika Santalahti asked for a summarization of the conversation between staff and Mr. Fisher as to his reasoning why a continuance was being requested. David See responded that to our knowledge it was just a matter of timing that he felt more time was needed to thoroughly go over the staff report be able to rebut any of the points made in the report. Ms. Santalahti asked for any concerns or opposition from the audience to come up and speak Robert Zerrenner, 6985 Via EI Estribo. I was present at the last hearing and I really don't understand what the reasoning would be for a continuance. It's been a matter of 3 months and I tend to think that he is going to try to wait it out and maybe it will go away, but we won't go away. I am angry towards the fact that he is trying to create problems. Everyone that has moved up there, lives up there because of what it has to offer and is doing this only for self benefit and that just isn't a good neighborly thing to do. Noted for the record: There are a number of letters in opposition for this proposal that are attached to the staff report as well as a letter from the owner that was received 3 days prior to the meeting in addition to his continuance letter. Sonja Grewal representing the Board of Directors Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition. I also attended that last hearing and Mr. Fisher in his letter sites that this is not a democratic process for the Zoning Administrator to respond. Items were raised at the last public hear which he heard and which have not changed in the staff report. The staff report has given him more direction. Both sides have had ample time to discuss issues and concerns with staff over the last several months. He has had more than enough time to respond to neighborhood concerns from the last hearing. This continuance should not be granted. The letters that were received represent a great percentage of the homeowners that live up there. ZA08/24/00 Page 4 • • Richard Gunther, 6960 E. Avenida De Santiago. Stated that Mr. Fisher has had more than enough time to respond to the issues at hand and I concur with Robert Zerrenner and Sonja Grewal's statements. Donna Murphy, 6966 E. Avenida De Santiago and I just wanted to add that we have all spent our time writing letters and attending meetings since May and if this continues then we are not being served the democratic way. No one else showed an interest in speaking. Ms. Santalahti asked in terms of timing what was the efficiency in processing this things that made the tentative map was deemed to be complete and how does that fit into the scheme of the Permit Streamline Act and CEQA guidelines. Selma Mann stated that the application was complete on March 30, 2000, which triggers the various timeline limitations. The City has 3 different timeline limitations to consider. That would be CEQA, the Subdivision Map Act and Permit Streamlining Act. Under the Subdivision Map Act there is a short time limitation although compliance with CEQA is necessary but the time limitation could be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. This continuance is being requested so there would be mutual agreement if it was granted and that would take care of the Permit Streamlining Act. With regard to CEQA there is a six month period in making a determination on the negative declaration from the time the application is complete which would be 6 months so that would be September 30, 2000 in making a decision on the CEQA. The decision on the CEQA would trigger the Permit Streamlining Act then the decision would need to be made within 60 days of the approval or denial of the negative declaration. Therefore there would be 80 days to make a decision on the project from the date that the application was deemed complete and 6 months for the CEQA. Ms Santalahti asked if a CEQA decision were made today we would put 60 days on top of that at which time the Subdivision Map Act would have to be acted on. Then regarding his request for the time extension and the fact that he isn't present today... Ms Santalahti verified when Mr. Fisher received his staff report. David See stated that Mr. Fisher received his staff report by way of FAX Tuesday afternoon. Also pointed out that staff has been in frequent contact with him. We did inform him of our recommendation on Wednesday August 16, 2000. He was aware of staffs recommendation but the staff report was not ready at that time. Ms Santalahti asked what the City Attorney's thoughts were on the request for a continuance specifically since he isn't here today? In the normal way of things I would go along with a continuance for the applicant to be here but in this instance I would be looking to a two-week cycle on this matter. Ms Mann stated that atwo-week continuance would not pose a problem for the various time limitations. On the other hand there have been a number of prior continuances at the applicant's request. The applicant was told that there was no guarantee that a continuance would be granted and elected not to be here. There is an appeal to the Zoning Administrator's decision to the City Council so if the applicant is displeased with the Zoning Administrator's decision he does have recourse so it is not a final decision. So it is really up to the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Santalahti stated that she would like any decisions that go before City Council denying the proposal to be as well thought out as possible so that if it is appealed the Council does have as easy of a time dealing with it as they can. In other words not having any loose ends that some how haven't been addressed. A question was addressed to staff to briefly summarize any of the information in this staff report that wasn't included in the previous staff report? There is a back ground in this area that Ms. Grewal had referenced before in terms of agreements and things of that sort that occurred a number of years ago. Mr. See summarized that staff did prepare this with much more factual information. It was in response to all the concerns that were raised at the May 18, 2000 hearing. The proposal portion of the staff report was much the same as before however in the Evaluation section it was quite a bit more information was added ZA08/24/00 Page 5 • • on. Staff did insert a chart with all 3 tract and the lot sizes of all 36 parcels in those 3 tracts. Staff did go thoroughly go through previous documents and records such as the environmental impact report, original tract approval and an analysis made on the original tract approval as described in paragraphs 23 through 30 of the staff report. Staff did bring out some points of intent and purpose of the Specific Plan and the approvals of the Specific Plan. Staff did go through grading plans and found approved exhibits, which are referred to in the staff report. So basically the Evaluation Section of the staff report is where the information was inserted. Ms. Mann included that the recommendation was changed from an approval to a recommendation for denial based upon the information that was provided. When the tracts were originally approved in 1980 there had already been a history just even before these tracts were considered with regard to a general plan amendment that had come before the consideration of the tracts that also had issues with regard to how this was all going to be developed as well as some imput from the county on how this was going to be developed. Of course the imput from the county was not binding but it had to do with recommendations that the county made to the City that were incorporated into the project as it was initially approved. Ms. Santalahti verified that these lots would be smaller than any of the other lots in the area. I can tell that the gross area of the lots are 1 acre or larger. Mr. See stated that the other parcels are over an acre and up to 4.83 acres, which would be lot 10 in Tract 10998, being the largest. Ms. Santalahti stated that this would be quite a different configuration then what we have out there. Addressed a question to the City Attorney regarding Sonja Grewal's comment about how they felt a CEQA Negative Declaration would not be the appropriate environmental action taken on this project. Ms. Mann stated that she did comment at the last meeting regarding some potential issues and possible cumulative impacts if all of these were developed. However all of the different environmental issues that were brought up at the hearing were looked at one by one. With regard to this particular lot and it's impacts when you have just the one lot being split it's not a very large project in and of itself but you would look towards the cumulative impacts. However, this is one of very few lots and maybe the only one that could be feasible to be split despite the large size without having to have waivers and other approvals that would give the City a lot more flexibility in the approval or denial process rather than the Subdivision Map Act. Kathie Pfost has gone through the environmental impact fairly thoroughly. Also the Association and the homeowners can request that the property be reclassified to one-acre lots which would eliminate this potential to occur in the future. Ms Santalahti asked if anything came up during the research process that might have explained why there was half acre zoning is basically put on this area even thought the lots are one acre and larger. Mr. See pointed out that Tract 10998 was zoned one acre and the other two Tracts are half-acre zoning and there are no records that we found that indicated why this occurred. This refers back to the assumptions that were made and the various documentation that was approved assuming that it would stay this way. Ms. Santalahti stated that she was not overwhelming comfortable with acting on this without the applicant being present although there had been a lot of discussion where staff has spoke with the applicant about the issues and he is aware of the concerns that the residence have and the issues that the City has. The staff report would be the first time that they would have gotten a written copy of all the issues that had been discussed. Overall my view is to deny this project. It concerns me a great deal that there was originally when the tract was subdivided the agreements were worked out with the county. The project was approved in one fashion and even though it was 20 years later and this individual would not have been involved in that process that things could be changed. I don't view zoning as allowing automatically that it is good to further subdivide property. Even though this parcel could be subdivided with appropriate street frontage and utilities and potentially would not require any waivers to develop on it, it isn't adequate reason to approve a tentative map. The design of the map and the context of the neighborhood and the area are important. The people that live out here bought out here with open space lots identified and that is typical of the hill and ZA08/24/00 Page 6 • canyon area. The expectation was that nothing else was going to take place there and that all of the areas are not necessarily zoned open space although that has happened in some of the more resent developments further to the east and with much higher density as well. In this one I just feel that the intent of the City 20 years ago was a valid one that the zoning does not guarantee anything different then what is out there and subdivided. That the potential precedence is still not the basis for approving a map like this. The City made a certain type of promise with the subdivision of the properties when the discussions began on that area 20 years ago. Based on the findings under the recommendation on page 10 and concur with the negative declaration and within the context of this particular proposed subdivision that a negative declaration is appropriate. However, I will deny the tentative map stating that precedence setting potential of something like this is very bad in an area where promises were made a number of years ago and also despite what the zoning is the character of the area is more than simply the zoning on the property. To live to the minimum that the zoning allows is not an objective that we would want to achieve here or anywhere else in Anaheim. Ms Mann interjected that there were some other changes made in the findings that need to be made under the Subdivision Map Act that became evident following the initial analysis. Ordinarily staff doesn't take the extraordinary step of changing it's recommendation. Under the ordinary process the original tract had not been flagged. So there was no reason to do this sort of extensive research that really was pointed out by the evidence that was presented at the last hearing. The evidence from the last hearing provided the information that suggested that additional research was necessary here. The Subdivision Map Act does have a number of reasons that are the reasons for denial of a subdivision map and those are addressed in the recommendation and in the staff report. One of the things that is mentioned in there is the discussion of how this is a function equivalent of a specific plan at the time of the approval of the original 3 tracts. The Specific Plan Law had not come into effect yet, but in effect this was a specific plan type analysis for the properties. Ms Santalahti stated that a lot of the Anaheim Hills Development was done under a Planned Community and that subsequent Specific Plan legislation came into place a number of years later. Therefore I will deny the map as stated and the decision will be available within the next 7 days and then there is a 10 day appeal period after those 7 days. 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE ZA08/24/00 Page 7