Minutes-ZA 1988/11/17~Y
• •
A C T I O N
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1988, 9:30 A.M.
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.
Procedure to Expedite Meeting:
The proponents for conditional use permit and variance applications which
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.
0775H Page 1
• •
November 17, 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 Hi11s 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.
Continued from the meeting of October 6, 1988.
2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
2b. VARIANCE N0. 3860
OWNER: TIM WUSZ AND BONNIE S. WUSZ, 7395 Humming Bird Circle,
Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 7395 Hummingbird Circle
To construct a 600 square foot garage addition to an existing
single-family residence with waiver of minimum structural setback.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.
3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
3b. VARIANCE N0. 3866
OWNER: JOHN G. MC GRAIL AND SUZETTE M. MC GRAIL, 822 Cottonwood
Circle, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 822 Cottonwood Circle
To retain a patio cover with waiver of minimum structural setback.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-63
4a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
4b. VARIANCE N0. 3868
OWNER: GARY STEVEN FINDLEY AND REBECCA FINDLEY, 111"Eldorado Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 111 Eldorado Lane
To construct a pool house with waiver of minimum structural setback.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-64
Page 2
Withdrawn at
meeting of
11/3/88
Continued until
meeting of
12/15/88 in
order to revise
plans , meet
with Ar~chitec=
t.ural, Review
Board and
neighbors.
Approved
Approved
• •
November 17, 1988
5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5b. VARIANCE N0. 3869
OWNER: HAROLD V. TOLAR, P.O. Box 1106 Helendale, CA 92342
AGENT: KIRK TIMOTHY MUHEARN, 24680 Malibu Road, Malibu, CA 90265
LOCATION: 429 South Euclid Street
To construct a 2-story, 5280 square foot commercial office structure
with waiver of maximum structural height.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.
6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. VARIANCE N0. 3870
OWNER: STERIK COMPANY, ATTN:
Bel Air, CA 90049
JANE P. LIEBERMAN, 828 Moraga Drive,
LOCATION: 88 .East Orangethorpe Avenue
To establish a total of 26,990 square feet of fast food restaurant
area in an existing retail center with waiver of minimum number of
required parking spaces.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.ZA 88-65
7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
7b. VARIANCE N0. 3871
OWNER: BETTE E. KEPPEL, 1142 North Lotus Street, Anaheim, CA 92
LOCATION: 1142 North Lotus Street
To retain a room addition on an existing single-family residence wi
waiver of minimum rear yard setback.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.ZA 88-66
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
8b. VARIANCE N0. 3872
OWNER: JERRY RUTHERFORD AND CAROLYN RUTHERFORD, 5012 Budlong
Street, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: CALIFORNIA REMODELING, 2029 S. State College,
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 5012 E. Budlong Street
To construct a 384 square foot room addition to an existing
single-family structure with waiver of maximum lot coverage.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-67
Page 3
Has to be
re advertised
as public
notice did not
include second
waiver -~
requested
that was
shown in staff
report .
Continued
until meeting
of 12/15/88.
Approved
deleting
Cond.#6 as
it has already
been satisfied
according to
Paul Singer,
Traffic
Engineer.
Approved
adding ~ ~.
1Condition he
contact
Utility Dept.
regarding
power lines
going over
the room
addition &
house ,
deleting
Condition #3
and modifying
Condition #2
to read 6 mos .
instead of 90
days .
Approved
~°'
•
November 17, 1988
9a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
9b. VARIANCE N0. 3873
OWNER: MARIO M. BARNABE AND DESIREE T. BARNABE, 183 S. Mulberry
Street, Orange, CA 92669
LOCATION: 853 N. Zeyn Street
To construct an additional dwelling unit with waivers of (a) minimum
number of parking spaces and (b) minimum rear yard setback.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.
10. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS:
A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0015 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION CLASS 5
To construct a 38,862 square-foot warehouse with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces. Property is located at
1371 Miller Street. /
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Z A SS~- G
B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0016 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION CLASS 5
To construct a second story addition with waiver of maximum
structural setback front yard. Property is located at 131 Wade
Circle. r,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Z /~' ~ ~ ~"Co G
C. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0017 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION CLASS 5.
To construct a 451 Square-foot 2nd story room addition with
waiver of required front yard setback. Property is located at
229 N. Bluerock. ..~
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0._[-~ ~' ~y ~~
11. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
None .
Page 4
Continued until
12/15/88 for
staff to
research
Reclassifica-
tion 70-71-38
Resolution of
Intent to
RM1200, as
well as
potentially
re advertising
as 3 units
instead of
2 units.
~,''
The following
Administrative
Adjustments
will be
approved if
no correspon-
dence~ is
received in
opposition
by 5:00 p.m.
.today .
• •
November 17, 1988
13. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
None.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I h'e2reby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
~v U ~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE
(TIME) (D TE) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SI
RIGHTS OF APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding
.Conditional Use Permits and Variances shall be considered final unless,
within 22 days after the Planning Commission, an appeal is filed. This
appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by and
appeal fee equal to one-half the amount of the filing fee. I
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall
set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the
earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said
hearing.
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 5
• •
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 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 17,
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
This item was mistakenly placed on this agenda;, it was acted on two-weeks ago
when applicant requested the.item be withdrawn.
ITEM N0. 2 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3860
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: TIM WUSZ AND BONNIE S. WUSZ, 7395 Humming Bird
Circle, Anaheim, CA 92808. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre, having a frontage of
approximately 110 feet on the south side of Hummingbird Circle, having a
maximum depth of approximately 183 feet and being located 450 feet east of the
centerline of Fairmont Boulevard, and further described as 7395 Hummingbird
Circle.
Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a 600 square foot garage
addition to an existing single-family residence.
There were four people indicating their presence in opposition and three
people spoke in opposition and one letter was received in opposition.
Tim Wusz, applicant, said his proposal .is to reduce the size of the setback
from 10 feet on the side yard to five feet in order to construct an addition
to his garage. He said the existing property line is 20 feet from the present
structure. He said he has submitted the plans to his architectural review
committee and homeowners association. He said he received two letters from
them, one from the chairman of the architectural review committee that said he
was concerned about the air conditioning relocation, windows in the garage and
roof pitch. He said subsequently he received another letter from the
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 PAGE 2
president of the homeowners association stating additional things they were
concerned about which he felt were mostly architectural issues which could be
very easily worked out. He said his proposal was to enhance his property. He
noted one of the arguments was that these homes all have three garages so
there was no need to set a precedent and establish a fourth. He said there is
a house under construction immediately adjacent to his that has a four-car
garage. He said the property line has a wrought iron fence with planting
along that particular side. He said this adjacent home is at a level six feet
lower then his house.
Annika Santalahti read a copy of a letter received from Dave Martin. (Copy
attached).
John Cross, 7405 Hummingbird Circle, said the property he is building on is a
little different in nature then the home in question, as his home is a larger
custom home so a four car garage is more applicable. Mr. Cross submitted some
photographs for the record showing the frontal view of the home in question,
the proximity of his property to the property line. He noted the proposed
garage is an additional 15 to 17 feet closer to the property line, that the
length is 40 feet, and that it will accommodate four cars, so you are really
looking at the capability of having a seven-car garage which is way over built
for the community. He noted that Mr. Wusz's house sits at a strategic point
in the development as you come up Hummingbird Drive, at the front of his house
you can either turn right to continue into the development or go straight into
the custom area, so this lot is at sort of a pivotal point. He said from an
aesthetic point of view Mr. Wusz would not only be hindering his property, but
the Canyon View property as well. He noted he had made the decision to buy
his property based on the setbacks, where Mr. Wusz's house was, .where the next
door house would be built, etc.
Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Cross what his side setback was and he said 10 feet
on either side.
Ken Schaefer, 7415 Hummingbird Circle, noted he was also speaking for his wife
and said he had recently purchased the home two doors to the right of Mr.
Wusz' and that it is still under construction. He said the reason he moved to
this area is because there were reasonable setbacks for all of the homes and
he felt that was extremely important.
Greg Bjorndahl, said he was the owner of the lot at 7450 Hummingbird Circle
for which plans have recently been submitted to the City for construction of a
single-family home. He said he has the same concerns that have been stated
already, but would like to emphasize the fact that plans for his home were
drawn in accordance with the setbacks and zoning requirements of the area. He
also noted that today's plans were rough and that formal architectural plans
should be given to the architectural committee in order to maintain this as a
custom residence area. He said he did not necessarily oppose the fourth
garage if it is done within the guidelines and the spirit of the community.
Mr. Wusz said that Mr. Cross is constructing the home but may not be living in
the home as he has built other homes in the area. rHe said the proposed garage
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 PAGE 3
will have one door opening whether or not it is 10 feet deep or 40 feet deep
and most people would not be able to tell the depth from the front. He said
he has attempted to talk to the architectural committee about some of these
things and the feed back was from one direction and now he has received some
additional feedback in this letter from Dave Martin which he received
yesterday. He said the way the lot is positioned and the landscaping that is
already in place, he did feel his request would be unsightly to the
neighborhood. He felt it would only enhance the value of his and the
surrounding properties. He said he could build a carport out to the same
setback which he is requesting for the enclosed garage and he would not have
to apply for a variance.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked the applicant if he had considered what he might do to
bring this into code at 10 feet. She said she felt the RS-HS-22000 zone
appropriately has a wide sideyard setback.
Mr. Wusz noted he was not asking to build living quarters in the setback.
Ms. Santalahti noted that in driving around in hillside areas versus flat land
areas, what differentiates lots like this and other more ordinary lots are
really three things; one is the sideyard setbacks which is the most
significant, building height, and front setbacks from the street. She said
she felt his neighbors had some valid concerns. She said she would not be in
favor of approving this project as it is right now. She said if he would pull
it back five feet he would be at code and wouldn't need a variance. She asked
if he had considered any modifications after hearing what his neighbors have
said and reading the letter from the association which objected to the
architectural aspects of the flat roof since in this tract the existing roof
lines are very interesting.
Mr. Wusz said the plan he .submitted showed a roof line that is a facade and he
believed it was not understood because when he talked to one of the members of
the architectural review committee and pointed out that you would not even
realize the roof was flat because of the facade then that member understood.
He said another thing he would like to note is that the proposal does not run
the full length of the home, it begins about eight foot from the front of the
existing garage.
Ms. Santalahti said it is a parapet and the rest of the house has ridgelines.
She said this is a different roof line from the existing house.
Mr. Wusz said the facade would cover up a lot of that. He said this was
something he needed to work out with the architectural review committee. He
said his contractor has assured him there is no problem with matching the
front and side so that it will blend in. He said his intent is to make it
look like part of the original structure.
Ms. Santalahti said one of the items in the staff report under findings is put
there to remind everyone (applicant and public) that if someone does seek a
~ •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 PAGE 4
variance, state law says you are supposed to meet one or more of several kinds
of criteria. She said typically there are things like an oddly shaped lot, or
hillside lot grade differentials making it difficult to develop, etc. She
said in this case it is a pretty straight forward building pad. She said the
fact he has a large setback on the east side, ignoring the pool that is, that
he is talking about a large addition and that there is 20 feet available on
the west side of the property, it does seem that he might be able to work
within the constraints of the Code.
Mr. Wusz said he would like to ask for a. continuance in order to bring in
revised plans. ,
Ms. Santalahti suggested he meet with the architectural review committee and
neighbors prior submitting his revised plans and Mr. Wusz said he would.
Ms. Santalahti continued this item until the meeting of December 15, 1988 in
order for applicant to revise plans and confer with the architectural review
committee and neighbors. She noted that since this item was being continued
to a specific date we would not be sending out further notices of this
hearing.
Ms: Santalahti said this item would be appearing on the agenda of December 15,
1988, but if something comes up and applicant needs additional time, this item
could be continued to a further meeting but it would be fora specific date.
ITEM N0. 3 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE NO 3866
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JOHN G. MC GRAIL AND SUZETTE M. MC GRAIL, 822
Cottonwood Circle, Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject property is an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6,678 square
feet located approximately 250 feet west of the intersection of Citron Street
and Cottonwood Circle, having a frontage of approximately 48 feet on the south
side of Cottonwood Circle and further described as 822 Cottonwood Circle.
Waiver of minimum structural setback to retain a patio cover.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
John McGrail, applicant, said he had constructed the patio cover without
realizing he needed a building permit. He said when he went to get his
building permit he learned the 5 foot setback did not apply because he has a
reversed corner lot. Mr. McGrail noted he had submitted photographs of his
neighbors house showing his house also sits way back on the lot and his garage
sits up front and he has a block wall across from his garage which blocks off
the front of his house so applicant did not feel his patio would cause an
unsafe condition for his neighbor.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked if basically the structure would remain as it stands now
or was he going to be adding walls.
• •
MINUTES. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. NOVEMBER 17. 1988 PAGE 5
Mr. McGrail said the patio would remain as it is, that the patio was strictly
for shade.
Ms. Santalahti noted the patio cover was setback 20 feet or further from the
property line that is shared with his neighbor and if there was not a fence
there would be a clear line of sight and there shouldn't be any conflict with
pedestrians walking down the sidewalk. She asked if the supporting post came
to within five feet of the property line.
Mr. McGrail said he had mismeasured and it was actually four feet from the
property line.
Ms. Santalahti approved this variance based on the fact the proposal is
minimal because is consists of a patio cover with no sides .(except where it
joins the house) and it is located more than 21 feet away from the adjacent
neighbor's driveway so there is no unsafe visual obstruction between the
public sidewalk and said driveway
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 1'5 days.
ITEM N0. 4 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5. VARIANCE NO 3868
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GARY STEVEN FINDLEY AND REBECCA FINDLEY, 111 Eldorado
Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 1 acre, having a frontage .of approximately
179 feet on the west side of El Dorado Lane, having a maximum depth of
approximately 184 feet and being located approximately 250 feet north of the
centerline of Cerro Vista Drive, and further described as 111 E1 Dorado Lane.
Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a pool house.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
Gary Findley, applicant, said his proposal was to construct a pool house and
included in the plans was a block wall on the back property line replacing the
existing chainlink fence. He said the property to the back is currently a
vacant lot and all of the lots in the area are approximately one-acre.
Ms. Santalahti noted the location map was wrong and asked that it be corrected
before this item goes to the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked if there was a grade differential between his lot and the
lot behind him and were there any trees.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17. 1988 PAGE 6
Mr. Findley said no, the lots were flat and there were Eucalyptus trees which
would remain.
Ms. Santalahti approved this variance based on the fact the proposal is
minimal because the portion of the pool house which encroaches into the
15-foot setback area amounts to less than 79s of the entire setback area, and
that the adjacent property is vacant and the two properties are separated by a
row of Eucalyptus trees, which must be retained under Scenic Corridor
regulations, and a future 6-foot high block wall.
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 1~
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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3869
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: HAROLD V. TOLAR, P.O. Box 1106 Helendale, CA 92342.
AGENT: KIRK TIMOTHY MUHEARN, 24680 Malibu Road, Malibu, CA 90265. Subject
property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
0.28 acre, having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of
Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 122 feet and being
located 650 feet south of the centerline of Broadway.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 5280 square foot
commercial office structure.
This item was continued until the meeting of December 15, 1988 in order to
readvertise the second waiver requested that was shown in the staff report but
was not included in the Public Notice.
ITEM N0. 6 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE NO 3870
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: STERIK COMPANY, ATTN: JANE P. LIEBERMAN, 828 Moraga
Drive, Bel Air, CA 90049. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 11.34 acres, located south and east of the
southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street, having approximate
frontages of 375 feet on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue and 640 feet on
the east side of Lemon Street, and further described as 88 East Orangethorpe
Avenue.
Waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces to establish a total of
26,990 square feet of fast food restaurant areas in an existing retail
center.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
Jane Lieberman, representing the Sterik Company, said she was available to
answer any questions on their proposal.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 PAGE 7
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti noted a traffic analysis was prepared on the proposal and
reviewed by City staff.
Ms. Santalahti asked applicant if she had reviewed the staff report and read
Item No. 13 of page three which said the Traffic Engineer had approved the
study with the Condition that the fast-food uses would be limited to 10,000
square feet plus 4,000 square feet of drive-thru, and also that those uses be
distributed evenly throughout the center.
Ms. Lieberman said that would not be a problem.
Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and
acted on staff's recommendation to approve it.
Ms. Santalahti approved this variance based on the fact the parking variance
for the specific land use distribution shown on the approved site plan will
not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor
adversely affect any adjoining land uses, and deleting Condition No. 6 as the
Traffic Engineer said it had already been satisfied.
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. 7 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0 .,. 3871
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: BETTE E. REPPEL, 1142 North Lotus Street, 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 east side of Lotus street, having a maximum depth of approximately
101 feet and being located approximately 80 feet south of the centerline of
Falmouth Avenue, and further described as 1142 North Lotus Street.
Waiver of minimum rear yard setback to retain a room addition on an existing
single-family residence.
There was one letter received in favor of the proposal.
There were three people indicating their presence in opposition and two people
speaking in opposition.
Clark Reppel, representing applicant who is his mother, said the room addition
was basically a converted patio built back in 1958 or 1959 by his father. He
said it follows the five foot setback on the south side in relationship to a
chainlink fence which was either put up by the developer or the City of
Anaheim as there was a vacant lot there when they moved in. He said the
addition encroaches into the 10 foot setback in the rear yard. He said they
were pretty sure his father had taken out permits at the time the building was
enclosed because a contractor was paid for the construction and for the
• •
MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NOVEMBER 17 1988 PAGE 8
necessary paperwork and they assumed everything had been taken care of. He
noted they are encroaching five feet into the 10 foot setback. He said it was
enclosed in the late 60's or early 70's. He said in reference to Condition
No. 3, he measured the driveway and it is 25 feet 2 1/2 inches deep.
Ms. Santalahti read a letter received in favor of the proposal from Eleanor
Bay (copy attached).
Clarence Mixon, 1138 Lotus Street next door to the property, submitted some
photographs and read what he had written on the back of each photograph. The
photographs were placed in the file.
Ms. Santalahti asked if he was the neighbor to the immediate south and Mr.
Mixon said he was.
Mr. Mixon said he felt the City should uphold its Codes and deny this
proposal. He noted he had brought two neighbors and a legal representative to
the hearing today. He said he planned to hire a surveyor to survey his
property and, if possible, wanted this item continued for two weeks in order
to have his property surveyed, however, if the item couldn't be continued he
felt the pictures clearly showed the situation. He said he felt the chainlink
fence was actually one foot on his property.
Dexter Penman, Attorney, said Mr. Mixon had taken him to the property and
showed him .the site. He said as he understood it for the 25-foot rear setback
not to apply there must be other land to take the place of the land being
used. He noted this was a very small lot, something like 60 feet x 100 feet
and there is no other land that could be set aside. He said even in the front
yard there is a six-foot block wall within three feet of the side walk which
is a Code violation. He said it appears that the power wires are over the
power easement and that this addition is built on and over that easement so
that the power lines are over the addition they want approved and that appears
to be a real safety hazard.
In rebuttal, Mr. Keppel said as noted previously, the added structure follows
the original line of the home and so that would be the builder's mistake if
there is any encroaching into the setback. He said the power pole is actually
planted in the rear neighbor's yard. He said he thought the easement was for
access to the power lines and he didn't think they were encroaching into
anyone's property, and no encroaching into the side setback, when the
neighboring lot was just a vacant lot. He said the chainlink fence was in
existence and believed it ran down the backs of the new homes at that time all
the way to Brookhurst. He referenced the fence in the front and said in 1963
they had a garage fire and the whole garage burned down and part of the fence
was affected and they had to rebuild the garage and the fence and plans were
filed at that time because the City came out and inspected the work. He noted
it was not a block wall; it was a wooden fence.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER. 17, 1988 PAGE 9
Ms. Santalahti noted one of the photographs submitted showed the utility line
going over a portion of the roof and Mr. Reppel said the house had an extended
eave and the power line does go over the existing house.
Ms. Santalahti said he should contact the Utility Department and see if
something should be done about the power line going over a portion of the
house.
Ms. Santalahti said she knows from years past, that many people get building
permits but do not get the final inspection, and said that might have happened
in this case. She said building inspectors do not typically do a final
inspection unless they are called and people think they will come
automatically, and with something as old as this you are fortunate if you can
find City records as they were kept in a very different form years ago.
Ms. Santalahti noted that in some cases there are some very shallow setbacks
on houses fronting onto Falmouth and basically the whole house has only a
10-foot setback, so she knows in the area there are circumstances similar to
the variance being requested. She noted with respect to the comments made by
Mr. Mixon regarding the setbacks being sallower then shown on these plans, it
is the responsibility of applicant to be sure the dimensions are five feet
because that is what she is considering, and Mr. Reppel agreed.
Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt.
Ms. Santalahti approved this variance based on the fact that the request is
minimal because subject room addition has existed since the late 1960''s or
early 1970's, that there is an equal or greater amount of outdoor living space
available elsewhere on the lot to replace the area covered by this addition,
that the existing lot (6060 sq.ft.) is about 16~ smaller than typical RS-7200
zoned lots (7200 sq.ft.), and that other residential lots in this area have
similar additions which encroach into shallower rear yards.- She deleted
Condition No. 3 and modified Condition No. 2 to read 6 months instead of 90
days and added a Condition that applicant contact the Utility Department
regarding the acceptability.of the power lines going over the room addition
and house.
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 8 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3872
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JERRY RUTHERFORD AND CAROLYN RUTHERFORD, 5012 Budlong
Street, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: CALIFORNIA REMODELING, 2029 S. State
College, Anaheim, CA 92806. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.12 acre located at the southwest
corner of Budlong Street and Tympani Circle, having approximate frontages of
37 feet on the south side of Budlong Street and 85 feet on the west side of
Tympani Circle, and further described as 5012 East Budlong .Street.
• •
MINUTES. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 PAGE 10
Waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a 384 square foot room addition to
an existing single-family structure.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
Doug Forde, representing the .owners, said the proposal to add an addition was
only 5~ over the allowable lot coverage. He said it was an existing two
bedroom home and they were just adding an additional bedroom and family room.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked if they had shown the plans to the neighbors to the south
and west and Mr. Forde said he did not think so.
Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt.
Ms. Santalahti said approved this variance. based on the fact that the waiver
(resulting in a 2,068 sq.ft. house) is minimal being only 248 sq.ft. (14~)
larger than permitted by Code (1,820 sq.ft.).
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 9 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3873
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MARIO M. BARNABE AND DESIREE T. BARNABE, 183 S.
Mulberry Street, Orange, CA 92669•. Subject property is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.14 acres
located at the southwest corner of Zeyn Street and La Verne Street, having a
frontage of 113 feet on the south side of La Verne Street and further
described as 853 N. Zeyn Street.
Waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum rear yard
setback to allow an additional dwelling unit.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
There was one person indicating their presence as being interested in the item.
Mario Barnabe, applicant, said the building has existed since 1963. He read a
letter from Dean Sherer and a letter from Fred Martinez, signed by Wayne West
(copies attached). He said Code Enforcement wants him to make one of his
units, a living quarters only and not an apartment. He said that he would lose
income because he purchased the complex believing it to be three units.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 PAGE 11
Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Barnabe when he purchased the property and he said in
1987.
Mr. Barnabe said there was an illegal unit on the property when he purchased
it but the fact the unit was illegal was not disclosed to him. He said Mr.
Gary Moore, Code Enforcement Officer, researched the property and discovered
there were no permits or plans, so they wrote him a letter requesting he .take
care of the situation.
Ms. Santalahti said she understood why Code Enforcement was° concerned and that
this should be properly taken care of. She said the old Variance No. 1593,
which uses the term "accessory living quarters", does not imply an apartment
but something different, even though that is not to say they didn't use it for
that. She noted the abutting alley was quite narrow. She said when this
Variance was granted it probably complied with the parking ,standards at that
time. She said the density really concerned her because this is an RM-2400
zone.
Ms. Santalahti said on the location map the property to the south has a
Resolution of Intent to RM-1200 and asked staff to research and see if this
property was included in that Resolution of Intent as applicant then might be
able to finalize the zoning and the number units would not be an issue;
'however, it would change the parking numbers.
Mr. Barnabe said he would like a four week continuance.
Ms. Santalahti said the item would be continued until the meeting of
December 15, 1988 in order for staff to research Reclassification 70-71-38,
Resolution of Intent to RM-1200.
ITEM N0. 10 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS:
A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0015 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
To construct a 38,862 square-foot warehouse with waiver. of minimum number
of parking spaces. Property is located at 1371 Miller ,Street.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0016 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
To construct a second story addition with waiver of minimum front yard
setback. Property is located at 131 Wade Circle.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. .0017 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5.
To construct a 451 Square-foot 2nd story room addition :with waiver of
minimum front yard setback. Property is located at 229. N. Bluerock.
Ms. Santalahti said no written correspondence on the Administrative
Adjustments had been received so~far, and noted the appeal period would end
November 17, 1988 at 5:00'p.m. She said she would act to approve these items
November 23, 1988 if no written opposition is received by 5:00 p.m. today.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 17, 1988 PAGE 12
ITEM N0. 11 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
None.
ITEM N0. 12 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 11:35
a.m.
Minutes prepared by:
Pamela H. Starnes
Executive Secretary
Minutes approved by:
Annika M. Santalahti
Zoning Administrator
0153g