Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/10/06.~ ~y • A C T T C] N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988, 9:30 A.M. Procedure to Expedite Meeting: 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 Zoninq 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. After 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 speaker will be allotted a maximum of 3 minutes to speak. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your last name. 0746H Page 1 • October 6, 1988 • la. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) lb. VARIANCE N0. 3731 (READVERTISED) OWNERS: RANG-SHEN CHEN AND SHU-GEN CHEN 1230 Maple Tree Court, La Habra, CA 90631 LOCATION: 6984 E. Overlook Terrace To modify a previous condition of approval pertaining to exterior color in connection with Zoning Administrator Decision. No. ZA87-38. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-58, 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3839 OWNERS: CHARLES E. SUGGETT AND PRISCZLLA L. SUGGETT, 6017 E. Queens Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 7571 E. Martella Lane To construct a 2-story, 35 foot, 6 inch high, single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height. Continued from the meeting of September 8, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-57 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3841 OWNERS: DOMENIC C. ETCHANDY AND BETTY J. ETCHANDY, 570 DWYER DRIVE, ANAHEIM, CA 92801 LOCATION: South side of Crescent Drive approximately 663 feet northeast of the centerline of Peralta Hills-Drive. To construct a 2-story, 32-foot high, single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height continued from the meeting of September 22, 1988. ' ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Approved for :olor change modifying ~ondition #11 .o read dark dray roof/light dray stucco. roved, in t, for a imam height 30 feet. ~ontinued to meeting of L1/3 in order nor applicant ~o bring in revised plans. Page 2 October 6, 1988 4a. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0013 (ADVERTISED) 4b. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5 (ADVERTISED) To construct a 2-story, 27 foot, 6 inch high, single family residence with waiver of maximum structural height, at 7425 E. Hummingbird Circle. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.ZA88-59 5a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 5b. VARIANCE N0. 3847 OWNERS: MILTON E. HEROLD AND MARGARET J. HEROLD, 1460 E. Pinewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1460 E. Pinewood Avenue To retain a room addition with waiver of minimum rear yard setback. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-60 6a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 6b. VARIANCE N0. 3853 OWNERS: VICTOR M. ALDANA AND ROSLYN ALDANA 2067 W. Falmouth Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2067 W. Falmouth Avenue To retain an existing patio cover with waiver of minimum rear yard setback. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-61 Approved Approved , addec one Condition that applicant obtain a bldg permit. proved, addei e Condition at applicant tain a bldg rmit. ll' 7. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: ublic notifi- ation ended A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0014 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION arlier this CLASS 5 eek & no etters of To expand an existing hotel with waiver of minimum number of pposition werE parking spaces at 1734 South Harbor Boulevard. eceived. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA88-62 Page 3 proved l3~'~ October 6, 1988 8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: • A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0015 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION Item withdrawn CLASS 5: by applicant. To expand an existing medical office use with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces of 545 through 595 S. Rnott Avenue was submitted on September 28, 1988. This nondiscretionary permit will be approved unless written opposition is received by October 10, 1988 at 5:OOp.m. This decision becomes final unless appealed within 15 days. 9. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: John Siu'irit.spoke. Pei-Yen Chow spoke. " AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ` I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: ~~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) ~~ /~,,,(DA E)~i AND COUNCIL DISPLAY RIOSR S I G1~ EIT:1~p,.l~l/ / ~-~Y/~/Yl/10~~ f yo ~halleng a one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you be limited raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Page 4 ~!~ ! Y K 0 t 1~ • • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., October 6, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Lori Duca, Assistant Planner Pamela Starnes, Executive Secretary Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the meeting and that anyone desiring to speak about matters other than the agendized items would have the opportunity to be heard at the end of the meeting. ITEM N0. 1 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3731 (BOTH READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: KANG=SHEN CHEN AND SHU-GEN CHEN, 1230 Maple Tree Court, La Habra, CA 90631. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.45 acres located approximately 200 feet southwest of the intersection of Hidden Canyon Road and Overlook Terrace, having a frontage of approximately 386 feet on the southeast side of Overlook Terrace, having a maximum depth of approximately 484 feet and further described as 6984 East Overlook Terrace. Requests modification of a previous condition of approval, which pertains to exterior building color, in connection with Zoning Administrator Decision No. ZA 87-38. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. This item was trailed until after Item No. 2 as applicant had not yet arrived. Shu-Gen Chen said their house in Anaheim is currently under construction and they would like to request a change in the exterior color of their house, from the previously approved beige stucco and a red the roof, to light grey stucco and a dark grey roof. She said most of their neighbors have the dark grey colored roof, and she feels the change will bring harmony to the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, OCTOBER 6, 1988 PAGE 2 Ms. Santalahti noted the Negative Declaration originally approved remains as it is not affected by the change. Ms. Santalahti approved the modification as requested pertaining to Condition No. 11, which will now specify the walls are to be grey-white with a dark grey t he roof similar to, and consistent with, colors used on existing dwellings in the surrounding area. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 2 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 3839 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CHARLES E. SUGGETT AND PRISCILLA L. SUGGETT, 6017 E. Queens Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre, having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the northeast side of Martella Lane, having a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet and being located approximately 870 feet north of the centerline of Mohler Drive and further described as 7571 East Martella Lane. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 35 foot, 6 inch high, single-family residence. Continued from the meeting of September 8, 1988. There were three people indicating .their presence in opposition, and four letters in opposition were received. Charles Suggett, owner, said they had submitted all the appropriate drawings. He noted their architect was able to fit the house on the lot, and save two big eucalyptus trees that are 50 - 60 years old. He said the house is really 25-feet high; however, placing the garages underneath the house raises it up 10 extra feet. He said putting the garage underneath the house eliminates putting in unattractive retaining walls. Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, said the majority of the people living in the Mohler Drive area do not want height variances granted. She said at the last City Council meeting they submitted a petition containing 278 signatures, from residents in the Mohler Drive area, opposing two variances (one was on Martin and one was on Silver Dollar). She said she had looked at the property and did not see any hardship with respect to the land, so she felt the hardship was with the design. She submitted three letters in opposition. The letters were from Phillip Joujon-Roche, Mitzi Ozaki, and Lucille Carroll. These letters were placed in the file (copies attached). Maria Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow, said she feels the 25-foot height limit in their area seems to be sufficient. She said one of the reasons Variance No. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, OCTOBER 6, 1988 PAGE 3 3830, west of this project, and the Variance for 120, 121, 124 and 125 South Martin Road were not approved was because 40'b of the roof line was above the 25-foot height limit. She said the staff report on this project states the areas exceeding 25-feet in height consist of roof and chimney areas. She said approximately 23~, of the roof area is between 25 and 30 feet in height, and 21~ of the roof area is above 30 feet, so that gives a total of 44~ of the roof exceeding the 25-foot height limitation. She said as far as a hardship on the property is concerned, she will leave that to the Zoning Administrator to decide if the hardship is on the land or the design of the house. She said she has noticed other homes in the area with a garage on a lower level that are within the 25-foot height restriction. She said she also observed a load of dirt had been dumped on the property and didn't know if that was an error. She noted she was concerned about the empty lot to the south of her that will eventually be built on, as well as the lot to the west of her which has Variance No. 3678. She stated at past hearings it has been said that each variance will be considered on its own merit and that just because one variance is granted does not mean someone can come in with a similar building and get a variance. She said it is important to her that each variance is considered separately because she is quite concerned about the property directly to her west. She said since this lot is the next lot down to the west she can't help but think this will have some bearing on the property at 7581 Martella. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, said the Anaheim Hills Citizen Coalition has asked him to read the following statement: "We would like the Zoning Administrator to be aware that approximately 300 people in the Mohler Annexation area have recently petitioned the Council to deny two other Variances in the immediate area, No. 3828 and No. 3830, and, that this indicates the majority of the existing residents in the Mohler area ask that the City uphold the height standard in the Scenic Corridor as it stands now." Pat Suggett said she would like to address Maria Ritter'§ statement about the dirt being dumped on their lot. She said someone just put it there to get rid of it and apparently picked their lot, they didn't know why it was dumped there either. She noted their lot drops off 22-feet in the back. She said they have two plans; one with the garages underneath, and one with the garages on the side which would necessitate taking out the trees and putting in a large retaining wall. She said the house (not including the garage) from the threshold to the middle of the house is 25-feet and noted they would be digging down to put in the garages underneath. She said the neighbor on the south side has a partial wrought iron fence and they would overtake that if they had to put in a six-foot block retaining wall in order to have enough room to put a garage in the back because their lot slopes so severely and there is a small creek that they have to leave at the back of the lot. She said her husband asked Ms. Duncan at the last meeting, when their item was continued, if she would like to look at their house plans to see what they were against and she said "no" as it is not to Code. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED • • MINUTES. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. OCTOBER 6. 1988 PAGE 4 Ms. Santalahti asked how many Eucalyptus trees they had on the property. Mr. Suggett said they have two big ones fairly close to the proposed house and he thought three or four trees at the bottom by the creek. Ms. Santalahti said if there are four or more Eucalyptus trees on the property, they will have to comply with specimen tree regulations. Ms. Santalahti asked how much change in the grading would take place if the house is built as the plans show it right now. Mr. Suggett said according to their engineer there are approximately 375 yards that have to be graded because there is a four foot drop from the lot above and they will have to dig back into the hill for the garages. Ms. Santalahti asked what he would do with the excess dirt. Mr. Suggett said they would probably use it along the sides or give it to Mr. Curry across the street who is willing to take any dirt. Ms. Santalahti asked if the ultimate drainage would be entirely to the rear or north of the property rather than to Martella Lane. Suggett said there might be a little bit off the front yard but the majority of it will drain back into the creek. Ms. Santalahti made a general comment on the height variances in response to Ms. Ritter's concerns that the variances are considered in terms of the specific site that is involved, and so even if you are in the same neighborhood, the site situation might be quite dissimilar. She said she has really never looked at any height variances and considered them as precedent for any subsequent variance because typically the lots are not the same and in fact usually differ quite a bit. She said in her decisions, she really tries to make the point that the reason she considers something favorably or not favorably is the specific set of circumstances involved, not because there have been other variances in the area. Ms. Santalahti said height is measured from the point of the roof straight down (as with a plumb bob). Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Suggett to verify that the entrance to the garage would not face the street but would be facing the westerly neighbor; and Mr. Suggett said yes. Ms. Santalahti asked him if they had spoken to the westerly neighbor or had that neighbor seen the plans. He said he has offered to show the plans to anyone who is interested, but no orie has taken him up on his offer and noted he had not spoken to that neighbor. Ms. Santalahti said it would be helpful, if she were to consider approving this variance, to have sections showing how this lot relates to properties to the east and west as well as the north and south. She said particularly there should be a section taken through the property in the north/south direction ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, -0CTOBER 6, 1988 PAGE 5 showing the street grade through the house and garage, and then as it goes down to the gully or stream area at the far north. She said this would show the relative height of the building to the surrounding properties, such as the westerly neighbor is lower and the easterly neighbor is distinctly higher, and this would show the relationship in each direction of this proposal. She said the front, of course, is the street and what most people will be seeing is 25-feet high, but at the rear a roof portion that projects to about 35 feet is also visible from the front but not counted as part of the front elevation. Mr. Suggett said he thought that was the purpose of the topo. Ms. Santalahti said it is easier for people to understand how the proposal relates to adjacent properties when sections including th'e house and lot are used as exhibits. Ms. Santalahti asked if he would be willing to have sections made and Mr. Suggett said he felt the topo adequately addressed her concerns. Ms. Santalahti noted she felt this site could accommodate something over 25-feet in height because of the drop-off in the back. Ms. Santalahti approved this variance, in part, for a maximum height of 30 feet, which is minimal because the front elevation height of the proposed dwelling will range from 30 to 21 feet as seen from Martella Lane (the only abutting public access) with, the average being 25.5 feet high; and, further, that the overall impact of the approved height is minimized by the different grade levels of the adjacent building pads and by the existing slopes of both the subject lot and Martella Lane: Martella Lane abutting subject lot slopes down about 8 feet in an east-west direction and subject lot slopes down from Martella Lane approximately 9 feet from the southwest corner of the lot (at Martella Lane) to the lowest grade at the garage (northwest corner of the dwelling) and approximately 3 feet down from the driveway entrance on Martella Lane to the lowest grade at the garage. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 3, CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 3841 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: DOMENIC C. ETCHANDY AND BETTY J. ETCHANDY, 570 DWYER DRIVE, ANAHEIM, CA 92801. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.0 acre, having a frontage of approximately 137 feet on the south 'side of Crescent Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 329 feet and being located approximately 663 feet northeast of the centerline of Peralta Hills Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 32-foot high, single-family residence. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, OCTOBER 6. 1988 PAGE 6 Continued from the meeting of .September 22, 1988. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and three letters were received in opposition. Miles Folsom, designer of the project, said this particular. property is on the south slope facing Crescent Drive which runs down into a ravine. He said this property is very close to the bottom of the ravine. He said his client had asked him to minimize the high portions of the building so they located the majority of the second story near the center of the house, keeping the perimeter below the 25-foot height limitation, and only the center section of the house goes above that. He said they have submitted a drawing showing where the portions of the roof exceed the height limitation. He said since the property is so low they are not infringing on anyone's view. He said there was one person expressing concern and they were happy to met with them out at the job site, with a survey team, to show them the proposed house would not even be seen from his particular house. He noted the property is very low slopping about 5 to 8~ through most of the project and way in the back of the property it has a steeper slope. He said the middle of the house will be at an existing grade elevation. Roland Rrueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, said he had three letters to submit from close neighbors who are opposed to this project. Ms. Santalahti asked if he could tell her how these neighbors would relate to the proposed project. He said Faye Roch has a ranch style home right to the west of this project, the Duncans have the property right behind the project on the south side, and the Hassids live right across the street. Mr. Rrueger gave an overview of the letters (copies are attached). He said he thought the problem here is a broader issue than just this single variance or the blocking of anyone's view. He said it is really a question that they have faced other times in the Peralta Hills area as to how structures affect the character of the area and the compatibility with other homes in the area. He said the Peralta Hills area is a rather rolling terrain gently rising towards the south with really very few actual view lots. He said it really gains its character from the fact the homes are generally low profile and blend into the natural surroundings which really lives up to the objectives of the Scenic Corridor. He made reference to the Resolution passed by the City Council when Peralta Hills was annexed to the City of Anaheim. He noted Council had taken three recent variances off the consent agenda and set them for public hearings because the Council wanted to be sure they were following the desires of the residents. He said these variances were subsequently denied by the Council. Mr. Rrueger said he would also like to mention, for the benefit of the applicant, that the Planning Commission has under consideration the possible modification of the Scenic Corridor standards, and noted the citizens who have contributed to the study believe the Scenic Corridor really is a precious resource to the City of Anaheim and we should try to maintain the Scenic Corridor as specified and stated in the Zoning Code. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OCTOBER 6 1988 PAGE 7 Eugene Prather, 4944 Crescent Drive, said he lived directly in back of the proposed house a little to the west. He said he was concerned that with the proposed height he would have a major obstruction of his view. He said he wanted to reiterate what Roland Krueger had said and that is that the time they were annexed to the City of Anaheim, they expected to maintain a country style rural area. Ms. Santalahti said she would read the three letters, submitted earlier by Roland Krueger, into the record since Mr. Folsom has not received copies. In rebuttal, Mr. Folsom said it is very valid of the community to be concerned about the low profile of the community. He said it is also: very valid to come up with some sort of guide line to make sure that the character of the community maintains this view. He stated the method of assigning a 25-foot height limitation is a poor way of doing it. He said the reason is that architecturally buildings that may be taller than others may have a better profile. He stated if there is not a view concern and the building appears to be low profile in character with the community, 909e of the concerns raised by the various associations has been complied with. He said there are tall high profile buildings within the area. He said the house right next door is extremely high profile and will read higher then this proposed house. He questioned the height as he believes it is taller then 25-feet. He said the proposed house is very compatible with the area. He stated there are mediterranean-style houses down the street and noted this house is set much further back on the lot and therefore will have the appearance of not having a high profile. He said the neighbor directly behind them is considerably up the hill from this proposal. He `s aid Mr. Goodwin, who he believes is Mr. Prather's neat door neighbor and at a lower elevation, came out to the job site and looked at the plans and has no view concerns whatsoever. He stated this building was designed to provide as. much low level space to the adjacent property owners as possible. He said he felt this project is being singled out by the Coalition, as well as many other projects, just to facilitate getting a blanket height for everything without evaluating :the merits of the project. He said this is an attractive project and felt it was of no concern to anyone's design views. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if the grading of the property would remain basically as it is now. Mr. Folsom said very closely, as they are building a flat pad building, and the grade elevation at the center of the house will remain. Ms. Santalahti asked if the higher portion over 25-foot, which according to the staff report is 14'b of the roof area, is an attic space. Mr. Folsom said it was the center entrance to the building and most of the .upper floor is in' that section. She asked if there was any attic space in that area and he said no. Ms. Santalahti noted this was a very visible piece of property, and when you drive down the street you can really see this property. She said she agreed • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, OCTOBER 6, 1988 PAGE 8 that the neighboring house is closer to the street, and does have a high profile appearance, and she agreed this proposed house does sit back further from the street which is a positive characteristic. She said in Peralta Hills, however, she is most responsive to their concerns. She feels the terrain is one in which you see each other a lot and this lot is particularly visible from the street and from the neighbors and doesn't have .any kind of lot constraints that she is aware of. She said if anything, the way it slopes slightly up from the street makes it more visible. She did`, agree that the neighbor to the rear is distinctly higher but the two neighbors to the east and west are at very similar grade and the neighbor to the north is slightly higher. She said in this instance, even though it is only 14~, she feels it is an architectural detail that is visually a fair percentage of the total roof area. Mr. Folsom asked if she would consider letting them build to a height of 30-feet. Ms. Santalahti said back in 1970 when Peralta Hills was annexed, there was terminology included relative to the rural character of the area. She said she felt the way this lot is laid out, the house would always be at 32-feet as viewed from the street. Mr. Folsom asked about the possibility of grading to lower the pad elevation of the building down 2 1/2 feet. Ms. Santalahti said that would be better, but without seeing the exact effect of the overall roof she could not approve the project. She noted that alternate ways of trying to deal with height in these areas,is being looked into, especially in ways that might accommodate certain portions of the roof exceeding the Code, and admittedly that is an architectural rationale. She said she understands that with the larger houses it is difficult to stay within the height limits and still maintain an attractive roof line. Mr. Folsom said he would like to have this item continued until the meeting of November 3, 1988 in order to discuss alternatives with his client, and, possibly, bring in revised plans. Ms. Santalahti said the item would be continued until the meeting of November 3, 1988 and would probably be the first item on the agenda.: She said the revised plans should be submitted two weeks prior, minimum of one week prior, before the meeting so that any one in the neighborhood who wants to can come in and take a look at the plans. ITEM N0. 4 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0013 (ADVERTISED) CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5 (ADVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Fereidon Hakimijoo, 552 Los Coyotes Dr., Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.70 acre, having a frontage of approximately 83 feet on the west side of Hummingbird Circle, having a maximum depth of approximately 314 feet and being located approximately 620 feet north of the centerline of Canyon Rim Road, and further described as 7425 E. Hummingbird Circle. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. OCTOBER 6, 1988 PAGE 9 Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 27 foot, 6 inch high, single family residence. One person indicated their presence in opposition and one letter was received in opposition. Ms. Santalahti said this item, as an Administrative Adjustment, received a written objection during the written public notification period and the applicant, in order to pursue the request, had to file an additional fee and have it handled as a regular public hearing. Mr. Yasharel, representing applicant, said they wanted to design a house to fit Mr. Hakimijoo's needs which is about a 6,000 square foot house. He noted they have a large size lot. He said they have designed a french provincial style house that is very compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He said only 18~, of the roof is above 25-feet and that is only a couple of peaks of the towers. He said they had received approval of the association. He said the neighboring lot ( Lot No. 9) is about seven feet higher then this lot and had a variance granted for 27 1/2 foot. He said he did not think they were obstructing anyone's property. Mr. Rishimoto, 700 S. Bunting Court (corner of Bunting Court and Hummingbird), said he is opposed to the variance because he will be losing his view to the west. He said they treasure the sparkling light view they have now and don't want to lose it. He said they would also be losing privacy, because applicant would be looking into their property from a higher elevation. He said one of the reason they bought their home was because of the 25-foot height limitation and they are opposed to any variation of the height limitation. Roland Rrueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, asked if any letters in opposition had been received and Ms. Santalahti said we had received one letter from Mr. and Mrs. Rishimoto which she read (copy attached). Mr. Rrueger said Dave Martin could not be present but he was also opposed to this project. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if the grading as it exists on the property will remain and Mr. Yasharel said yes. Ms. Santalahti asked if the two-story dwelling had an attic, space. Mr. Yasharel said yes, and noted it was four-feet high at the highest point. Ms. Santalahti stated that Hummingbird Circle starts out a bit higher then the existing building pad as it goes down hill, and by the time you get to the northerly corner,it is pretty much at grade to the property. Mr. Yasharel said the setback from the house to. the street `is 55 feet, and if you include the width of the street and the setback of the neighbor's house, • • MINUTES, ZONING •ADMINISTRATOR, OCTOBER 6. 1988 PAGE 10 it makes the houses about 150 feet apart which gives a lot of privacy. He said in addition, the living room is two-story, so no one will be on the second story portion. Ms. Santalahti clarified that the three-car garage is within the 55-foot distance and that at the 25-foot point from the street, the building is one-story. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was a Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this variance based on the fact the proposal is minimal, consisting only of a 10~ deviance from Code on building pad that is about 10 feet lower than the lot to the northeast across Hummingbird Circle, about 3 feet lower than the neighboring lot to the southeast, about 3 feet higher than the neighboring lot to the northwest, and more than 20 feet above Fairmont Boulevard to the west; and that the roof area above the 25-foot limit is located more than 50 feet from the front property line (Hummingbird Circle), it amounts to less than 18~ of the total roof area and it encloses a 4-foot high attic space which cannot be converted to living area. Discussion with Mr. Rishimoto occurred. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 5 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3847 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MILTON E. HEROLD AND MARGARET J. HEROLD, 1460 E. Pinewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.13 acre, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the south side of Pinewood Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and being located approximately 102 feet west of the centerline of Renwood Avenue and further described as 1460 East Pinewood Avenue. Waiver of minimum rear yard setback to retain a room addition. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. There was one person indicating their presence in support of the proposal. Milton Herold said they are selling the house, and that the company that is loaning the money on the house said he needs a waiver for his room addition. He noted this addition started off as a patio, and within three years they turned it into a room. Ms. Santalahti asked how long this has been in its current physical form, and he said about 25-years. • MINUTES~ZONIN~ ADMINISTRATOR,. OCTOBER 6, 1988 PAGE 11 JoAnna Naughton, 1725 E. Redwood Avenue, said the house is 35-years old and the room was built 25-years ago. She said it is nice looking and does not deter from the appearance of the neighborhood. Margaret Herold said the room has been a real asset to the house, and upon showing the house, the room almost sells the home. She said the neighbor behind them, who would be the most involved, said he would be happy to sign or send anything, if necessary, stating he has no problems with the room. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if petitioner had talked to the Building Division about the room. Mr. Herold said yes, and stated the building inspector will come out to check the addition after the variance is granted. Ms. Santalahti said she had looked at the property, and noted the house looked very nice. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this variance based on the fact the proposal is minimal because additional yard space is available elsewhere on the lot and replaces the. 4-foot encroachment of the subject addition, the entire 43-foot long east side yard being 3 feet wider than the minimum required by the Zoning Code and therefore providing 143 sq.ft. of space to replace the 96 sq.ft. occupied by said addition; that the petitioner said at the public hearing he had contacted his neighbors to the rear (the only neighbors potentially impacted by the subject addition) and that they had indicated no opposition; and the applicant will obtain a building permit or other appropriate approval from the Building Division. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 6 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION .CLASS 5, VARIANCE~NO. 3853 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: VICTOR M. ALDANA AND ROSLYN ALDANA, 2067 W. Falmouth Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.13 acre, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Falmouth Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and being located approximately 213 feet west of the centerline of Holly Street, and further described as 2067 W. Falmouth Avenue. ' Waiver of minimum rear yard setback to 'retain an existing patio cover. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OCTOBER 6 1988 PAGE 12 Roslyn Aldana, said they thought the person who built the patio had gotten the permit. She said the patio cover conforms to the house and the roof matches the house roof. She said it is a very attractive patio. She said their yard is well maintained and they have received many compliments on their yard. She said the patio cover gives them the shade they need in their backyard. Ms. Santalahti asked if the patio cover was be a solid roof with no walls. Applicant said yes, the sides are open. Victor Aldana said he did not see any reason why anyone would object to the patio cover. He said it is for their enjoyment and noted even people from the City have complimented them on the appearance of the patio. Ms. Santalahti asked if the roof line of the patio attaches straight onto the house, in other words even, not extending past the house. He said that was correct. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this variance based on the fact the proposal is minimal because it consists of a patio roof without any side walls (except on the side which is attached to the house) and that the existing lot has a very shallow rear yard, and that applicant will obtain a building permit. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 1'5 days. ITEM N0. 7 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0014 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 To waive minimum number of parking spaces to expand an existing hotel at 1734 South Harbor Boulevard. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the Administrative Adjustment and noted the appeal period ended earlier this week. She said she would approve this item and her written decision would be mailed October 13, 1988. ITEM N0. 8 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0015 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5: To waive minimum number of parking spaces to expand an existing medical office use at 545 through 595 S. Knott Avenue, was advertised on September 28, 1988, and this nondiscretionary permit will be approved unless written opposition is • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, OCTOBER 6, 1988 PAGE 13 received by October 10, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. This decision will then become final unless appealed within 15 days. This was withdrawn by the applicant on October 3, 1988. ITEM N0. 9 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: John Swint spoke. Pei-Yen Chow spoke. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 11:36 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary 1T / ~~ Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator 0133g