Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1987/11/05«Y ~ '~ • 1 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1987, 9:30 A.M. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator PRESENT: Edith Harris, Secretary Eric Harrison, Assistant Planner Brent Schultz, Assistant Planner Linda Rios,, Assistant Planner Procedure t~~T~~~,M~~;a.nt Planner 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. Af ter 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 lessee givelyour allotted a maximum of 3 minutes to speak. Before speaking, p name and address and spell your last name. Page 1 ,- 008 3Ti November 5, 1987 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS la. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION lb. VARIANCE N0. 3713 OWNERS: ESIQUIDO V. LUNA AND LARRY FOX, 2336 N. Batavia, Orange, CA 92665 AGENT: FRED W. KINGDON, 2336 N. Batavia, Orange, CA 92665 LOCATION: 325 South Mohler Drive Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 39-f oot high, two-story single family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 2a. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3718 OWNERS: PERALTA LTD., 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621.. AGENT: SOGAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., 1650 N. Glasell, Suite H, Orange, CA 92667 LOCATION: 5091 Copa De Oro Drive Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 30-foot high, 2-story single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ~_ 3a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3724 OWNERS: PATRICK L. MEREDITH, ET AL, 215 S. Emerald Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 215 South Emerald Street Waiver of minimum rear yard setback to retain a patio enclosure and patio cover. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-29 Page 2 Continued 11-19-87 Revis~~ans t detailed land- scaping plans. No action ferred to PC. g. 0~7 ~~ Approved, In part 11/5/87 • November 5, 1987 4a. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. VARIANCE N0. 3725 OWNERS: KAY M. CADBURY AND BONITA E. CADBURY, 3160 W. Bridgeport, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 3160 W. Bridgeport Avenue Waivers of (a) maximum site coverage, and (b) maximum number of bedrooms to construct a second story addition to a single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.DECISION N0. ZA 87-30 5a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 5b. VARIANCE N0. 3714 OWNERS: JOHN N. CRAVEN AND SUSAN C. CRAVEN, 2543 E. Puritan Circle, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2543 East Puritan Circle . Waiver of minimum.r.ear yard setback to construct a room addition to a single-family residence.. ~~ ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-31 6a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 6b. VARIANCE N0. 3715 OWNERS: LOUIS SHAPIRO, 1345 Pembrooke Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1345 Pembrooke Lane Waiver of maximum fence height in front yard to retain a 6-foot high fence. . ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 7a. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION . 7b. VARIANCE N0. 3717 OWNERS: NEVILLE LIBBY AND VIOLET LIBBY, 1661 W. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: GERALD R. BU SHORE, P.O. Box 18581, Anaheim, CA 92807-8581 LOCATION: .1651 West Cerritos Avenue Waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 3-lot subdivision. Page 3 Approved Approved Approved C n ' nu 11-19-87 -advertise. 11-19-87 pplicant to et additional nfo on cond. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ~ 11/5/87 ., -. • • November 5, 1987 8a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 8b. VARIANCE N0. 3712 OWNERS: GARY RICHARD JOHNSON, 268 Flower Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 2200 South Loara Street Waiver of minimum structural setback to retain a trash enclosure in a front yard. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 9a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 9b. VARIANCE N0. 3716 OWNERS: GEORGE R. JENKINS, 919 N. Summer Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 919 North Summer Street Waiver of maximum fence height to retain a 7-foot, 4-inch high fence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-32 10. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADJUSTMENT N0. 87-06 - to construct a 2-car garage with waiver of minimum garage setback, 1819 W. Harriet Lane. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-33 B. ADJUSTMENT N0. 87-07 - to construct a single-family residence with waiver of minimum garage setback, 4465 Forest Glen Road. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-33 (Any objections~to the abovementioned items must be received by 5:00 p. m., November 9, 1987) 11. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: - None Those persons wishing to address the Zoning Administrator under this item are requested to step to the podium, give your last name and address and spell your last name. ADJOURNED• 12:35 p.m. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: Page 4 Continued 12-17-87 Revise plans Approved Add. cond. req. consent of adj. prop. owner. 11/5/87 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NOVEMBER 5, 1987 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., November 5, 1987, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT: Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Edith Harris, Secretary Eric Harrison, Assistant Planner Brent Schultz, Assistant Planner Annika Santalahti explained the procedures for the meeting and further that anyone interested in speaking on any subject within her jurisdiction would be allowed to speak at the end of the agenda. ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE, DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3713. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: ESIQUIDO V. LUNA AND LARRY FOX, 2336 N. Batavia, Orange, CA 92665. Property is approximately 0.47 acre having a frontage of approximately 156 feet on the south side of Mohler Drive, approximately 1170 feet• east of the centerline of Mohler Drive, and further described as 325 South Mohler Drive. Request: Waiver of maximum structural height in the Scenic Corridor to construct a 39-foot high, 2-story single-family residence. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hal Woods, McHale Woods Architects, 3505 Cadillac Avenue, stated the hardship for the variance is based on the topography and~if this residence was constructed on a flat lot, it would be between 25 nd 27 feet tall. He stated they agree with the staff report and the conditions of approval. Ms. Santalahti reviewed the elevations and stated the street side elevation is 25 feet and the rear elevaL•ion is at 37.6 to 39 feet. She asked if there are portions measured from the ground to the top of the roof which exceed 25 feet; and how much of the building might be affected. Mr. Woods responded the elevation from the entry up to the roof would be approximately 25 to 27 feet. He stated they could comply with the 25-foot high limit in certain areas, but there would be some flat roof portions. He stated because of the height of the street which is above the structure, he felt it was more important to keep the architectural integrity of the front elevation and exceed Code by a couple of feet. He stated the living areas step down and follow the topography as much as possible. Ms. Santalahti commented it looks like the front half of the house is at 25 feet and then it starts to drop off and the height changes and Mr. Woods agreed. Ms. Santalahti stated she received a phone call from an adjacent property owner, John Carusillo, who indicated he had no basic opposition but was interested specifically in what type of landscaping or screening might be done at the rear of the property because of the visibility. Mitzi Osalci, 340 South Timken Road, stated she also has a letter in opposition. She stated she takes exception to the statement that this property has a hardship because there are currently two neighbors with similar hillside conditions who have constructed within the Codes at the 25-foot high limit. She stated her concern and the concern of other homeowners in the area is the granting of a variance in the Hillside, Scenic Corridor Zone, with estate zoning. She added they are trying to preserve the views, which is the biggest selling point in that area and they also want to keep a sense of country hillside and serenity. She stated she believed a 39-foot high structure would give the feeling of a 4-story building and she did not consider this as being in tune with the hillside, estate residential character and that she is opposed to the waiver of structural height. Ms. Santalahti suggested Ms. Osaki look at the elevations and explained the height is basically continued, but the ground drops off. Ms. Osaki stated she noticed another item on the agenda for a waiver of structural height in the estate residential area and their ;fear is that approval of this is setting precedent and the whole idea of the 1/2-acre estate zone is to give enough space to build the square footage desired without having to go through these hearings. She added she is still opposed but would look at the elevations. Mr. McNames, 320 S. Timlcen, stated he is opposed to the variance for height and also to a variance on a sub-standard lot. He stated they cannot have a variance for construction if they don't have a variance for the lot ,size. He stated he is opposed to both variances and to his knowledge, there has not been a variance granted for this substandard lot. Responding to Ms. Santalahti, Mr. McNames stated he believed the lot is .47 acre, which is below 1/2 acre. Ms. Santalahti stated this is an existing lot and if it is under the 1/2 acre size, it is a legal non-conforming lot and the Planning Commission and City Council have not approved any waivers on this lot, so it must have been established prior to annexation to the City. Mr. McNames stated the lot was created after annexation by :the City of Anaheim, and a sub-standard lot was created, but there was never a legal notification to surrounding property owners. He stated he had polled the property owners and nobody can show any evidence or knowledge of a variance being granted for a sub-standard lot. He stated he has lived there for 27 years and that property used to be .97 acre He added he thought that was before 1975 and he believed a variance has an expiration date and has to be exercised within a certain time or it terminates. He stated he has no knowledge of a variance ever being granted on that property and it becomes a moot point to grant a variance for height if there is no permit to build on a sub-standard lot. ,. Ms. Santalahti stated Condition No. 6 indicates that if a parcel map is not recorded combining the two existing lots, the two shall beiheld together by a recorded covenant or agreement, so that a portion cannot be sold. Eric Harrison, Assistant Planner, stated the district map shows there was •a parcel map done and he believed the square footage is .47 which is the net, not the gross, and a portion of that was dedicated to Mohler Drive; and otherwise, the original parcel map was over 1/2 acre. He stated he did not know why Condition No. 6 was included. Ms. Santalahti stated it appears from the location map, that the lot area is quite a bit larger than the exhibit submitted. Mr. Woods stated regarding the mitigating measures or landscaping on the rear portion of the lot, that one of the partners in this proposal is a landscape architect, Randy Mitchell, and that they are proposing a series of decks with landscaping along the back to soften the rear elevation. He stated if the Zoning Administrator felt it was appropriate, he was sure the landscape architect would meet with surrounding neighbors and try to mitigate any impacts and to soften that particular feature. He stated they still feel very strongly about stepping the house down the hill from Mohler Drive and the top of the house is actually below the street. Ms. Santalahti stated iL• appears the distance to the rear property line from the back of the house is about 125 feet, and that could be the difference in the lot size issue. Mr. Woods replied he thought the overall drop on the lot is 85 feet. Fred Ringdon, 2336 N., Batavia, Orange, agent, stated his partner has owned the lot since 1978. He stated he thought there was an error in the staff report in that it shows the property also will be owned by Barry Sullivan, and this is Parcel No. 4 of the Record of Survey 82-26, and it has been recorded for some time. Ms.Santalahti stated according to the information in the preliminary title report which was submitted for the entire parcel, it does not give a date for the recordation, and just indicates that the map included with the title report is the Tax Assessor's map, so it is not particularly helpful. She asked if she could look at their copy of the recorded map. She then noted, according to the Recorder's stamp on the Record of Survey, Lot No. 4 was recorded on August 4, 1965. Mr. Santalahti commented to Mr. McNames that this specific lot with a frontage of approximately 95 feet was recorded in 1965, and the dimensions match the dimensions on the site plan which they have submitted. Mr. McNames stated he would have to dispute that because he has a 1975 Record of Survey map from the City of Anaheim Engineering Department which specifies that as one parcel, and that the division of land was after L-hat date. He stated the property was on the market first as less than one acre, and they decided to split it, and make twice the profit with two houses, and there was never a public notice of a division of land with a sub-standard lot. He added he was surprised to find it had turned upon the tax bills. Ms. Santalahti stated she did not know what the County or City regulations would have been in 1965, but did know that Records of Survey have taken place which established various lot sizes and she believed the County regulations were for 1/2 acre which is why the City went with the 1/2 acre also. She stated the Record of Survey clearly has a stamp on the top and the lot. is shown clearly as a .47 size lot. Mr. McNames reviewed the Record of Survey being referred to. Mr. Kingdon stated his partner has owned that lot in question since 1978 and he has not made any other applications and that he also did own another lot next to Mr. Carusillo. Ms. Santalahti stated the City of Anaheim regulations permits the existing conditions at the time of annexation to continue and they are legally non-conforming. She stated they still have to meet all the applicable standards such as setbacks, but the Code specifically does address that one way of getting a legal non-conforming situation is as a result of annexation. She stated she was just speculating on what the zoning was in the County, but the way the lot was cut, the lot line is actually shown to the centerline of Mohler Drive. She stated that may make up the difference to a half acre; and that the recorded Record of Survey does show the lot size at 20,570, but she did not l~now whether that includes the street. Eric Harrison responded that figure does not include the street. Ms. Osaki stated this is a multiple problem, and is not just the one-1/2 acre lot, but that there is a lot of undeveloped property there and if this is going to be a sub-standard lot, the other 6 to 10 undeveloped acres will be developed with smaller and smaller lots. She stated it has always been 1/2-acre minimum lot size and she felt this should be stopped now or it is going to be a tremendous problem for the people who line there and it is going to harm all of their homes. Ms. Osaki stated the hardship used by this developer is not true and if this is approved, there will be more requests with the same argument being used. She stated they, as neighbors several years ago, stopped the building on sub-standard lots and the City council agreed and recently another property owner was told to buy property from the adjoining property owner and then develop his property and she thought the City should enforce the requirements for a full one-half acre, and asked what the City considers as half an acre. Eric Harrison responded the current Code requires a gross square footage of 22,000 sq. ft. and a minimum net sq. ft. as 19,000 square feet. Ms. Santalahti stated the Code currently permits 3000 square feet for the gross lot size to be in access easements. She stated Code specifically addresses that where lot sizes pre-exist the City's zoning regulations, and one specific condition is when the property annexes to the City and it is an existing lot record, it can be retained within the City of Anaheim. She stated she does not ]snow what the implications are today if something was done improperly in 1965. Ms. Osaki stated the property owner on one side of Mr. Carusillo was told.to lower their building to the City requirements for the 30 feet, which they did and now on the other side of Mr. Carusillo, this owner wants a 39-foot high house and she thought the City should follow the rule that "what is good for one person is good for another person, and noted the properties are not very far apart. She stated the area is all unbuilt, and allowing 39-feet high means they will have a whole canyon full of 39-foot high buildings. She stated Mohler is not their problem since they live on Timken and Mohler is on one hilltop with Timlcen on another hilltop and the valley between is the problem. She stated their bacltyard faces the valley and the front view would be of a 39-foot wall, which also cuts down the breeze. She stated she is asking the City to please follow through with what they hvae done a few feet up the road and that is keep the height at 30 feet.