Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2006/10/12• ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2006 9:30 A.M. Plan-Check Conference Room, City Hall East 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California STAFF PRESENT: William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator David See, Senior Planner Mark Gordon, Deputy City .Attorney Sandip-Budhia, Associate Engineer Della Herrick, Associate Planner Marie Newland, Planner Kim Wong, Assistant Planner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted. at 4:00 p.m. on October 6, 2006 inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, September 14, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT o~ ~ ~ OCTOBER 12, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA 1a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3 1 b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0.2006-00292 OWNER: Adolfo Miranda Gamboa 815 Maywood Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Concurred with staff Approved LOCATION: 803 South Maywood Street: Property is approximately 0.2- acre, located at the southwest corner of South Street and Maywood Street, having frontages of 86 feet on the south side of South Street and 65 feet on the west side of Maywood Street. Waiver of (a) minimum side yard setback (9 feet required; 7 feet, 2 inches proposed) and (b) minimum rear yard setback (10 feet required, 9 feet proposed). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION N0. ZA2006-24 Appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 2006. 15 day appeal period Project Planner: (mnewland ~ anaheim.net) SrADJ2006-00292m n.doc William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 1. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Testimony: Adolfo Miranda Gamboa, 815 Maywood Street, Anaheim, CA, stated he wished to enlarge a bedroom and bathroom and possibly relocate the bathroom. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Sell concurred with staff's recommendations and approved CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Administrative Adjustment No. 2006-00292 for waiver of (a) minimum side yard setback (9 feet required; 7 feet, 2 inches proposed) and (b) minimum rear yard setback (10 feet required, 9 feet proposed) by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein. He stated the decision would be written and signed no later than 7 days from the date of the meeting and would be final after the appeal period expires 15 days following the date of the decision. Page 2 ACZA101206. DOC • • OCTOBER 12, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3 2b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0.2006-00290 OWNER: Jon Ellis 455 South Country Hill Road Anaheim, CA 92808-1353 AGENT: Alfonso Garcia 1557-A East Amar Road West Covina, CA 91792 LOCATION: 455 South Country Hill Road: Property is approximately 1.1 acres, having a frontage of 30 feet from a private access easement, located 516 feet east of the centerline of Whispering Ridge Lane and has a maximum depth of 243 feet. Waiver of maximum structural height (25 feet high permitted; 27 feet, 6 inches high proposed) to construct an addition to an existing two-story single-family residence. Continued from the August 17, 2006 Zoning Administrator meeting. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. ZA2006-25 Concurred with staff Approved 15 day appeal period Project Planner: (kwong2 ~ anaheim.net) SrADJ2006-00290kw.doc William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 2 and stated the item was originally advertised for the Zoning Administrator meeting of August 17, 2006; however staff received opposition to the request and per the applicant's request, had to advertise the item as a public hearing. Since that time, the opposition rescinded their opposition and staff also received a letter of support for the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Testimony: Alfonso Garcia, 2100 Saturn #305, Monterey Park, CA, stated they were fortunate to get the support of the opposing parties and were present to answer any questions pertaining to the subject matter. Jon S. Ellis, 455 Country Hill Road, Anaheim, CA, stated after having the opportunity to speak with the opposing parties and walking the property along with them as well as viewing the proposed plans and different elevations, the opposing parties were satisfied that the subject property is not visible from the street or even the most adjacent neighbor's property, and therefore determined that a couple of feet did not warrant concern. Additionally, a neighbor sent a letter stating that his home is 30 feet high compared to the subject property which is 27 feet high. Based upon those facts, the applicant concluded that his surrounding neighbors did not have a problem with the new project. Also, he stated that most modern Page 3 ACZA101206.DOC • • OCTOBER 12, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA homes are built with 9 to 10 feet ceilings, a floor space and a roof pitch and it would be hard to get that desired look with 25 feet, whereas 27 feet would make it more feasible. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Sell concurred with staff's recommendations and approved CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Administrative Adjustment No. 2006-00290 for waiver of maximum structural height to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence, by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein. He stated the decision would be written and signed no later than 7 days from the date of the meeting and would be final after the appeal period expires 15 days following the date of the decision. Page 4 ACZA101206.DOC • OCTOBER 12, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 15: Continued to 3b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.2006-238: November 9, 2006 OWNER: Neutron Plating, Inc. Manuel Zavala 2993 E. Blue Star Street Anaheim, CA 92806-2511 10 day appeal period AGENT: Apex Land Surveying, Inc. 8512 Oxley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 2983-2993 East Blue Star Street: Property is approximately 1.28 acres, having a frontage of 178 feet on the north side of the terminus of Blue Star Street, located 402 feet east of the centerline of Red Gum Street. Request to establish a 2-lot industrial subdivision. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner: (dherrick ~ anaheim.net) William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 3. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated she faxed the applicant the requirements from the Building Department and Fire Department, and the applicant spoke with his engineer therefore, she ensures the issues at hand can be addressed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Testimony: Rene Zavala, 2993 East Blue Star, Anaheim, CA, stated they would like to reinstate something that they previously had in place. Originally there were two separate buildings and they legally joined them together to make one building however, now they have no need for the buildings and would like to separate the buildings into two parcels just as they were before. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Herrick stated that there is an existing wall and that she submitted information to the engineer regarding the Fire Department and Building Department requirements up to the property line. Page 5 ACZA101206.DOC • OCTOBER 12, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA Manuel Zavala, 2993 East Blue Star, Anaheim, CA, stated he bought the first building in 1978 and four years later he bought the second building. For business purposes he combined the buildings however, he is now retiring and would like to separate the buildings again. Mr. Sell asked if the Building Department would be fine with having one wall. Mrs. Herrick stated all of the requirements were given to the applicants and their engineer and the engineer confirmed that he could meet the requirements. Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer, stated two buildings could not share one wall. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated he would be concerned about this particular issue based upon the policies of the Public Works Department. The Planning staff would want to make sure that the Public Works Department did not have any objections that would stand as an impediment to the project or the separation of the two parcels if the building is contiguous across the property lines. Therefore, he would not recommend approval of the subdivision contingent upon later concurrence of the Public Works Department that would never be fore coming unless the property owner could solve the problem at the current stage before staff actually approves the project. Mr. Sell concurred it would be hard to approve the project without knowing if it would be legally approved. Mr. Zavala stated the building was approved as being safe in 1978 and nothing has changed so he cannot understand the difficulty of approving the building again. Mr. Gordon explained that the standards are different today than they were in 1978. In 1978 when there was a request eliminating the two parcels and combining them into one parcel, the restriction was not applicable however, now that the request is to separate the parcels and create two legal parcels a different policy is in place at the time. That policy states that if there is one building that straddles over the property line, even though it may be separated by one common law that would not be permitted under the City's Public Works standards. There has to be two different buildings separated that stand alone on a legally created parcel, and not a building that straddles over the property line. In effect, there would be one building across a property line separating into a legal lot. He suggested with the issue pending that the decision be deferred until the matter is cleared up with the Public Works Department so that the property owners would know whether or not they would be able to accomplish the task and would be fully apprised of what the conditions are. Mr. Sell clarified that the building cannot be one building. It has to be two separate buildings and if he was to proceed with the item in today's meeting it would be pending until the applicant met the requirements for the adjustment, and once that's done they could finalize the map. Mr. Sell concurred with staff and continued the request to the November 9, 2006 meeting pending plans from the engineer indicating the requirements by the Fire Department, Building Department and Public Works Department could be met. Page 6 ACZA101206. DOC • OCTOBER 12, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA 4a. CE~A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1: 4b. VARIANCE NO.2006-04699: Concurred with staff Approved OWNER: Craig Wildvank 4500 E. Cerro Vista Drive Anaheim, CA 92807 15 day appeal period AGENT: Lane Curtis 777 Peralta Hills Drive Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 4500 East Cerro Vista Drive: Property is approximately 1.01 acres, located at the southeast corner of Cerro Vista Way and Cerro Vista Drive with a frontage of 227 feet on the east side of Cerro Vista Way and frontage of 203 feet on the south side of Cerro Vista Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct atwo-story addition to an existing single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION N0. ZA2006-26 Project Planner: (jnixon ~ anaheim. net) SrVar2006-04699] n.doc William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 4. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Testimony: Lane Curtis, 777 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated he submitted a letter to Planning staff basically indicating that he has property owners who have quite a few things that they would like to hide in a garage. He stated the property has a large slope on the side of Cerro Vista Drive therefore, by necessity they would have to put the garages underground just to keep it level with Cerro Vista Drive. One of the guest houses has a cabana entertainment area in the back so he designed a cabana in a guest room above the garages. He felt it was a good solution to try to hide a large scale structure. They would basically be burying the structure 15 feet in the ground so visually, with the exception of the view from Cerro Vista Drive the structure would be considerably under the 25 foot height. Also, by necessity they would have to have the space in front of the garage door 25 feet back from the property line so that there could be a driveway in the front. However, by doing that it would actually be recessed into the hill therefore the canyon hills would be coming down on the sides in an attempt to try to minimize the structure. With that in mind, and with the consideration that they would be under the 25 foot height from natural grade, and that they also need the 15 feet inside the lowest structure, and the original house has 30 feet roofs, he wanted the structure to match the house as much as possible. The pitch on the current residence is an even 12 and he is doing 6 and 12 for visual purposes. Since he was hoping not to do a flat roof and was trying to meet the technical ways to draw for height variance he thought this was a good example of a variance option. Technically the height is drawn from the finished floor but the code doesn't take in consideration the finished floor to lower grades. So that's the reason he is requesting a variance He stated they were able to talk to several neighbors but were not able to talk to the Hermann's however, Page 7 ACZA101206. DOC OCTOBER 12, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA visually from their home it is about 15-17 feet above grade so he hoped it would not affect them very much. Public Testimony: Harriet Hermann, 150 Cerro Vista Way, Anaheim, CA, stated they sent two letters in opposition; one today and one yesterday. When they received the letter from the City it stated that they would have access to the report and all of the papers however, when she came down Tuesday before the meeting the report wasn't ready. Therefore, she felt as if they did not have all the information needed to give a proper response. Nonetheless, she stated that their opposition is not only to the height, and from the City's point of view it may not warrant concern but it concerns them because it affects their view from their living room and bedroom window, and the subject house is humongous. They have attended parties there and each family has added on. The house has seven bedrooms, ball room, family room, billiard room and maid quarters and/or guest quarters. The house is solid, approximately acre to acre, and is creating a wall outside their living room window. She stated that she can understand they might want to have a place for their RV but there is already a place for a RV because family No. 2 built a pad along side the house behind the trees to park their RV and limousine. She also understands that they have a right to have a boat. She and her family have a boat, but they rent a place offsite because they value their grass and also wish to prevent having to build more onto their property. Afso, environmentally she feels the subject home is not consistent in the neighborhood because the existing homes are set far back; the retaining wall would be built on the hill where her avocadoes are; and they are requesting an additional driveway. She believes it is depreciating the value of their home and they feel helpless. She stated she pays her taxes and has been supportive of things in Anaheim for 34 years and to see people come in and do whatever they want and leave is frustrating. The same architect worked on the property on the other side of their property where the owners built their dream home and got a divorce and moved out after 3 years and all of the fruit trees were taken out, etc. She feels the reason they built there is not the same reason that other people are building there. Nobody uses the tennis courts, nobody uses the swimming pools but everybody has one. She questions the separate structure that is unlike an addition to a home, but instead more like an additional home and could possibly be rented out. It is only 300 square feet less than her home of 2,200 square feet. She stated everyone should have the privilege to add on but not to the detriment of their neighbors. Rich Hermann, 150 Cerro Vista Way, Anaheim, CA, stated the present owner acquired the home with two structures both having three car garages. One of them consisted of a living quarters or a rumpus room. The current owners have now taken the wing that was built on as another 3 car garage by the second owner of the property and built an apartment above it which they do not use. They closed off the additional 3 car garage and now want to enclose another 3 car garage. He stated it is asingle-family dwelling and they are violating the intent of having one building per acre. He feels the request is to build an independent home not an addition. It is almost a 3,000 square foot home. He asks that the definitions in the City reports which refers to environmental conditions be reviewed and he listed three reasons for his request: (1) He questions the environmental report and the subsequent findings relative to that; (2) He questions the addition being a separate structure and feels it is a violation of the restrictions that are imposed on that area; and (3) He feels environmentally, there is a deviation from the established norm of setback of all garages or all facilities in terms of parking, etc., on that block. Also, he asked why is it that they were allowed to close off a 3 car garage; add another bedroom and then suddenly come up with the idea to build on an addition and why didn't the Planning Department or Inspection Department authorize plans when the 3 car garage was covered with an apartment above it and closed off the other area. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Curtis stated there are always issues when the community is involved and fortunately or unfortunately Peralta Hills is involved. He grew up in the neighborhood and understands much of what the Hermann's are stating. When his family moved to the neighborhood in the early 60's they moved there because they wanted their horses so the barns and corrals were used and he concurs that the tennis courts were never used, except for parties. However, he states as an architect, who is working the neighborhood, he is torn Page 8 ACZA101206. DOC • OCTOBER 12, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA between the two issues and does not want to see the elimination of the rural character of the area but feels the reason people buy at such huge prices is to purchase land with the intention of using it. Therefore, in response to the scale he feels like what they proposed is as reasonable as he could figure out given the task of trying to improve such a large structure on the property. Also, he did not believe they were blocking the views from the Hermann's and certainly would not want to. Two people spoke in opposition and two letters were received in opposition regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. See presented plans to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and attendees. He stated there would be a retaining wall cutting into the hillside. One side would be exposed and one side would be a slope however, the City Code regulates that the exposed section of the retaining wall be screened. Additionally, he stated regarding the 2 level above the garage, the plans showed a large great room or living room. Staff was also concerned about the 2nd unit issue therefore, in one area the second unit is not permitted and cannot be rented out. Staff entered a condition of approval not permitting a kitchen, ever. The unit includes two bedrooms (one bedroom and a sitting room) a great room and two bathrooms. The lower level shows a two car garage and a third car space for a RV garage which is the main reason for the higher structure height (approximately 15 feet to the bottom of the floor and 16 to the actual grade). He stated since the structure is being cut into the hillside it is very likely it will be more than 100 cubic yards. In which case, the neighbors would receive another public notice for another public hearing. Mr. Sell concurred with staff's recommendations and approved CEQA Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Variance No. 2006-04699 for waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story addition to an existing single family residence, by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained herein. Additions were made to the conditions of approval as follows: 1. [Added at the public hearing] That aRight-of-Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for the new driveway approach on Cerro Vista Way. Plans shall also be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval in conformance with the Engineering Standard No. 115 pertaining to sight distance visibility for the walUfence locations. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 2. [Added at the public hearing] That permits shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all street tree removal and/or replacement for any trees located within the public right-of- way. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits 3. [Added at the public hearing] That all proposed retaining walls shall comply with Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.46.110.130 pertaining to the height of solid retaining walls visible to public rights-of-way. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None Page 9 ACZA101206.DOC