Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/11/03t: ~ • A (` T T (1 N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1988, 9:30 A.M. Procedure to Expedite Meetin 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. 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. Page 1 0768H . ` _.. • • November 3, 1988 la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A lb. 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 meetings of September 22, 1988, and October 6, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3861 OWNER: MAYNARD HAL GABBER 401 Paseo Estrella, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: NICK GISOTTI 132-A South Imperial Highway, Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION: 5025 East Crescent Drive To construct a 2-story, 34-foot high, single family residence, with waiver of maximum structural height. i ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 3. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: """ See last page addendum 4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None Page 2 Request for Withdrawal. Granted. Continued to 12/1/88 in order for applicant to bring in revised plans to reduce the amount of the height of requested waiver. ~. ~. • • November 3, 1988 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: ~~ ~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DA E) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED If y~bha~ilenge any~rfe of these City of Anaheim decisions~in court; you may be limited to 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 3 ~ • ADDENDUM TO AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 3, 1988 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR VARIANCE N0. 3702_ - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Mr. Edward J. Siegler of Pilot, Spar and Siegler, requests approval of a one-year time extension for Variance No. 3702 for property located at 2745 West Lincoln Avenue. P,pproved. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: •/~ ~ ~ , LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DA ) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SI If ~y~ 6hallenge ~ one of these City of Anaheim decisions', in court, you may be limited to .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. :' `~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 3, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., November 3, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard McGhee, Senior 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 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. Continued from the meeting of September 22, 1988. Ms. Santalahti granted petitioner's written request to have the requested waiver withdrawn; she noted no further action would be taken regarding this item. ITEM N0. 2 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 3861 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MAYNARD HAL GABBER, 401 Paseo Estrella, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: NICK GISOTTI, 132-A South Imperial Highway, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting :~ • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NOVEMBER 3 1988 PAGE 2 of approximately 1.0 acre located at the northwest corner of Crescent Drive and Ferrari Way, having a frontage of approximately 133 feet on the north side of Crescent Drive and a frontage of 305 feet on the west side of Ferrari Way, and further described as 5025 East Crescent Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story,'34-foot high, single family residence. One person.indicated his presence in support. One person indicated his presence in opposition, and one letter in opposition was received. Nick Gisotti, architect, design and the nature of of the floor plan forces this he reduced the roof causes the peak to go up this house doesn't block because he was out of the said the house is a two-story modified french country the design calls for a high roof. He said the depth the roof to go up higher. He said to compensate for slope. He said the house is 40 feet deep which a bit. He said because of the surrounding terrain, anyone's view. He said the owner was not present a country. William Halus, 5075 E. Crescent Drive, a few houses east of this project, said he did not have any objections to the proposal. Roland Rrueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, said he had expected 'to see more people present in opposition. He said the Bellvilles who live on the east side had planned to be here, and the McMullen's on the north planned to be here but were called out of town on business so they wrote a letter in opposition which Mr. Rrueger presented. He said the Coates who live across the street are also affected by this proposal. He said even though this lot has a slope, it is not that much different from the other lots in the area that have not been granted variances. He said the hardship must be related to the property and not to the design of the house. He said he felt this hardship was self-created because of the design of the house. He said the Peralta Hills area is almost 909s developed. He said most of the homes are built to the Scenic Corridor Standard of 25-feet maximum height. He noted that the residents of the Peralta Hills area, for the most part, are opposed to height waivers because higher dwellings do not really fit the general character of the existing homes. He said the homes are built at a lower height and tend to blend into the landscape. He noted that view blockage is really not an issue in the Peralta Hills area because they really do not have a lot of view sites. He said the overall feeling is to try to keep the general semi-rural character of the area. He stated the Zoning Administrator and City Council have supported the residents in their desire to keep the area semi-rural. He referred to the Resolution voicing that intent and passed by the City Council when Peralta Hills was annexed into the City of Anaheim. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 3, 1988 PAGE 3 Mr. Gisotti said he could appreciate what Mr. Krueger is saying; however, he felt many of the lower height homes that are existing were the prerogative of the people to enjoy and like their homes and it seems that Mr. Garber should have the same privilege in choosing the type of design he likes. He said the structure would be a credit to the area. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked what is the drop across the entire depth of the property and he said it is a general existing slope of 7 1/2~. Ms. Santalahti asked if he had contacted any of the immediate neighbors to show them the plans and he said no. Ms. Santalahti said that view has never been an issue in Peralta Hills, but what has been an issue is the visibility of some of the lots. She said this lot, like the first item which was withdrawn, is a very visible lot and also a very straight forward type of lot. She said because it slopes down to the street, you look up at the entire site. Mr. Gisotti said one of the problems besides the slope, is the narrowness that has been created because of the previous easements on the property. He said this. forces a greater depth to the house because it does not allow any sideway spreading. Ms. Santalahti said the acceptable height deviances she has looked at favorably in the past have been when the site is an unusual one and perhaps drops off to the rear so while there might be a height waiver, it might be in a direction that is not particularly visible to anyone or at least has very limited visibility. She said other acceptable waivers over,25-feet should really be architectural features such as towers or chimneys rather than the entire roof ridge line of the house. She said in this case the ridge line parallels Crescent Drive and she does not like that type of waiver, even though she understands with the design of the house that is the type of roof slope the architect would like to have to maintain the character. Ms. Santalahti asked if he had looked at any modifications that might be made to try and bring the roof height down. She noted 30-feet is the height she feels comfortable with when there is a limited amount of roof involved. Mr. Gisotti noted that actually the roof ridge itself is only 7-inches over 30-feet in height. He said he could see no reason why they wouldn't be able to bring the roof down 7-inches. Ms. Santalahti said the lot really cannot hide a tall building, and they were not building a split-level or anything that might cause just one side (or view of the house) to be higher. She said he had shown helpful information on the plans which indicated the overall roof area was just over 37~ in excess of the 25-foot and just under 4~ for the higher portion over 30-feet. She noted that Peralta Hills has consistently had people in opposition to height waivers. ~ • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 3, 1988 PAGE 4 Ms. Santalahti read the letter submitted by Mr. & Mrs. McMullen's into the record (copy attached). Ms. Santalahti said Peralta Hills is the one area of the City that has shown consistent concerns with varied issues of development and height is one that has arisen in the last few years. She said overall the designs of houses are such that they go distinctly over the 25-foot height limitation and the reasons seem to be because of architectural style and the large square footage of the houses. She asked what the square footage was for one floor of the house and Mr. Gisotti said he thought the first floor level was about 3,800 square feet. She said she understood that in order not to have a box like shape they did need a roof line. Ms. Santalahti said it always surprises her that in hill areas a lot of people don't seem to make a great deal of effort to develop with the property and take advantage of the slope with a bit of architectural, geographical and/or landscape interest. She said there seems to be a tendency to-like big tall buildings. Mr. Gisotti said the thing that makes it difficult, even working with the slope, is to stay with a two-story element on the high end which is measured from the front so that you are still over 25-feet. Ms. Santalahti said she has acted favorably in the past when there is a one-story effect at the high end, especially when it's on the street side, and then the house has dropped down in the back for a stepped effect. Ms. Santalahti said she knows this property has a driveway easement which goes up the east side and which certainly narrows the potential of the property. She .s aid the site is pretty level even though it slopes. She said she felt it was a straight forward site to work with. She said the basic reason she would feel uncomfortable in approving this project is because the height in question is the entire ridge line, she noted the area over 30 feet is a very small percent but even at the 37 odd percent the actual visual affect is a lot larger to the general passersby, let alone the immediate neighbors. She asked if he could take another look at the project to see if the roof ridge line could be lowered. She said she was not concerned about the height of the chimneys. She noted this does not necessarily mean she would approve the project but she was thinking he could take a look at the overall roof design and perhaps modify it to reduce the ridge area that is over 25-feet. Mr. Gisotti asked if she could give him some criteria to work towards. Ms. Santalahti said from sheet number seven, the roof plan, it looks like two ridge lines cross each other perpendicularly and she was thinking of the possibility of leaving one of the four areas up but pulling the others down so as one looks up the slope you would be looking at different heights. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 3, 1988 PAGE 5 Ms. Santalahti asked if staff had told him that the Planning Commission is looking into the issue of height in the Scenic Corridor and they have gone out and looked at a few houses to get a feel for the area. Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner, said they would be, discussing it this afternoon at their work session and would possibly take action this coming Monday. Ms. Santalahti said Mr. Gisotti might want to attend that meeting. She said there were several ideas proposed to the Planning Commission. She said if there were a 25-foot flat height limit and you were allowed to go over that with a percentage limitation that that might be no more then 25~ of the overall roof and only up to 30-feet, or perhaps only 10~ of the elevation or something like that which would give a little bit of freedom in design in order to get an up and down effect. She said specifically they don't want roofs going straight up to a 30-foot height. Ms. Santalahti said it could be helpful in the hillside area to work with different heights, reflecting to some extent .the surrounding terrain. Mr. Gisotti said he would like to ask for a continuance until the meeting of December 1, 1988 in order to bring in revised plans. Ms. Santalahti said she would continue this item until the meeting of December 1, 1988 and recommended that Mr. Gisotti show the revised plans to the immediate neighbors. She said she did not mean the neighbors would have to sign they approved the plans, but she said many times when they see the drawings there are aspects that they really don't mind and that sometimes it is the overall 34 foot in height or whatever the number is that bothers them, but when they have the opportunity to look at the plans and see the cross sections as well as the plans they are sometimes reassured and might not have any objections. Mr. McGhee asked if Ms. Santalahti was saying she would consider the project favorably if only 10~ of the structure were higher than 25-feet. Ms. Santalahti said the current case is entirely ridge line and what concerns her is that the percentage even at 25~ is still very visible when looking at the front building elevation; and if it were not the ridge line, if it were towers or a particular feature of the building that did not exceed 25~ and was no higher than 30 feet, that is generally her comfort level. Ms. Santalahti said this item would be continued to the meeting of December 1, 1988 in order for applicant to bring in revised plans reducing the amount of the requested height waiver. ITEM N0. 3 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - VARIANCE NO. 3702 = REQUEST_FOR RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY. WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Mr. Edward J. Siegler of Pilot, Spar and Siegler, requests approval of a one-year time extension for Variance No. 3702 for property located at 2745 West Lincoln Avenue. ,~ • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 3, 1988 PAGE 6 Ms. Santalahti said she would waive the Brown Act (second part of Section 54954.2) in that the need to take action on this item arose subsequent to the agenda's first being posted and that an added agenda page was subsequently posted showing this item. Mr. Siegler said he would like to request a one-year time extension on Variance No. 3702. He stated he thought they would be able to comply with the conditions of approval prior to the one-year period. Ms. Santalahti approved a one-year time extension retroactive to September 30, 1988 and to expire on September 30, 1989. ITEM N0. 4 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 5 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 6 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary Minutes approved by: Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator 0140g