Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/12/01-~ ~ • A C T I O N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 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 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. 0802H Page 1 • ~ December 1, 1988 la. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A lb. VARIANCE N0. 3861 OWNER: MAYNARD HAL GABBER 401 Paseo Estrella, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: NICR GISOTTI 132-A South Imperial Highway, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5025 East Crescent Drive To waive maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 34-foot high, single family residence. Continued from the meeting of November 3, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-71 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3869 OWNER: HAROLD V. TOLAR, P.0. Box 1106 Helendale, CA 92342 AGENT: RIRR TIMOTHY MUHEARN, 24680 Malibu Road, Malibu, CA 90265 LOCATION: 429 South Euclid Street To waive maximum structural height and minimum open landscaped setback abutting a residential zone boundary to construct a 2-story, 5280 square foot commercial office structure. Continued from the meeting of November 17, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3876 OWNER: THOMAS A. CONTI AND RIM E. CONTI, 1245 N. Big Spring Street, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1245 North Big Spring Street To waive maximum lot coverage to construct a 290-square foot room addition to a single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-72 Approved,'.in part for 27'~ Eeet maximum --eight excluding chimneys - same ~r smaller then shaded areas ;h own on plans (or 20.6$) above 25 feet. Continued to 12/15/88, To be readver- tised. Approved, coverage is only 4 ~ of f code , no ~~ impact to rear property which is a mobile home park and screened by eucalyptus ' trees. i~ Page 2 ~, ~ • December 1, 1988 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. VARIANCE N0. 3878 OWNER: GEORGE CASSIS AND NAZARETH CASSIS, 6007 Meridian Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98103 AGENT: MC HALE/WOODS ASSOCIATES, INC., 3505 Cadillac Avenue, Suite N-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 545-595 S. Rnott Street To waive minimum number of parking spaces to permit expansion of medical office. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.ZA 88-73 5a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 5b. VARIANCE N0. 3879 OWNERS: WAYNE MANSRA AND PHYLLIS MANSRA, 1921 Rellogg Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1.921 North Rellogg Drive To waive minimum side yard setback to add a bedroom, recreation room,; and garage to an existing single-family residence. ', ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-74 6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. VARIANCE N0. 3880 OWNER: BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC., 146 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1552-1556 West Embassy Street To waive minimum number of parking spaces to reconstruct a fire damaged industrial building. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-75 7. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0018 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 To construct a room addition with waiver of minimum side yard setback. Property is located at 668 S. Frontier Court. DECISION N0. ZA 88-76 Page 3 Approved for this specific combination of uses, street lighting fees will be due on both Orange & Knott, deleting Cond. #5 & combining Conditions #1 & 2. Approved, based on dimensions of 1 of . Approved with waiver permit- ting 24 parking spaces. with a trash enclasure or: ~25 spaces without trash enclosure , deleting Cond. #4, modifying Cond. #5 that storage area shall be pro- vided in a manne r acceptable to the Maintenance Dept. No written opposition received-will be approved 12/8/88. r December 1, 1988 • B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0019 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 To construct a 7' 2" solid block wall with waiver, of maximum fence height. Property is located at 6033 E. Prado Street. DECISION N0. ZA 88-77 8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No written opposition received-will be approved 12/8/8 . None . None . CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: i/ _ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) //'~~~~ /( /ATE) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY RIOSR SIGNED : _G.Y.~~/J'1 J Lam' ~/l~l~/~'"~-~ If you challenge any 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. Page 4 s ~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., December 1, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard Mc Ghee, 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 NO. 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 of approximately 1.0 acre located at the northwest corner of Crescent Drive and Ferrari Way, having frontages of approximately 133 feet on the north side of Crescent Drive and 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 at the November 3rd and December 1st hearings, and 5 letters in support of the proposal were received. One person indicated his presence in opposition at the November 3rd hearing and 3 people indicated their presence in opposition at the December 1st hearing, and 2 letters and one petition with 12 signatures in opposition were received. Nick Gisotti, architect on the project, said that since the last meeting he has changed the structure and reduced the height of the roof ridgeline to 29 feet 3 inches, and two sections have been reduced to 25 feet, reducing the overall roof area that exceeded the 25 feet from a little over 38~ down to 20.6 which is a substantial reduction. He reiterated the problems with the site, noting it was long and narrow, and that giving up 20 feet for the driveway easement reduces the maximum width of the house to 80 feet. He said • ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 1, 1988 PAGE 2 there is no way to spread that house width. He.said with the size of the house and the number of rooms, there is no way to step the house up the slope because it would extend the depth of the house which would not function well. He said the 25 foot height restriction is discriminatory in as much as it restricts the architectural styles that can be used. He noted that in this case his client wanted a country-french style which normally dictates a high roof and he has reduced as much as he felt it could stand without harming the aesthetics of the facade. He said it is impossible to do the country-french style with a 25-foot height limitation. He noted neighborhood input was solicited and the drawings shown to people and they have seven people who do not object. He said one of the problems he keeps hearing from those who object is their concern that this would set a precedent. He said in driving through the neighborhood he counted approximately 11 homes that already exceed the 25 foot height limitation. Maynard Garber, applicant, presented some signed letters from his neighbors in the immediate area in support of the project. He said they were shown renderings and floor plans. He said they also had verbal contact many of the neighbors in the immediate area that were also in support of the project. He submitted addresses of 11 homes with height variations which go anywhere from 28 feet at the low to 40 feet at the high. He noted they had a letter from the Belville's but they wanted to take back their support based upon the misinformation that the house was going to be built as a spec house. He said they had no problem with the height as an accommodation to a neighbor but not as a spec house. He noted he intends to live in the home. Bill Halus, 5075 Crescent Drive, said he was a charter member of the Peralta Hills Improvement Association. He said Peralta Hills is one area that is limited to one acre lots. He noted he was here at the last meeting when the architect explained it would be a beautiful house and an asset to the community and he would take the architect's word for that. He said this used to be horse country and they have now been replaced by swimming pools and tennis courts. He felt about 999s of the neighbors would support this project. He noted this proposal would not block anyone's view. Ms. Santalahti read the five letters received in support of the project, not counting the Belvilles (copies attached). She also read a telephone list that was submitted which had three names. Thomas McMullen, President of Peralta Hills Improvement Association, said he had been contacted by several people. in the immediate area, and submitted a list of twelve names in opposition including the Belvilles. He said basically the people in the area had a commitment with the City regarding the 25-foot height restriction, and everyone who has built in the area since that time has built to those rules including him. He noted the. property just down the street, Variance 3802, was denied not long ago, and there have been four or five other applicants in the area that have been denied. He said the 11 homes that exceed the 25 foot height limitation must have been done illegally and that doesn't mean they are precedent-setting. He said the lot being built i • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 1. 1988 PAGE 3 upon is fairly narrow, but is very deep and if they have a problem with architecture on this lot with the type of home they wish to put on it perhaps it is just the wrong lot. Ms. Santalahti said that if you read the Zoning Code you will find that it has many different definitions of similar terms in different zones or different places in the Code. She said originally in Peralta Hills the height limitation was 30 feet but when the Scenic Corridor was adopted in the early 70's they put in a 25-foot limitation because of the Scenic Highways legislation under the Johnson Administration which included monetary, but you had to develop standards for that Corridor differentiating from anything outside the Corridor. She noted Peralta Hills has always been in the Scenic Corridor since the very beginning as it is below the ridgelne. She said since different people do plan checking, depending on who did it and when it was done, she was positive that in some cases height has been interpreted as measured at the highest point of the property down and in other areas of the City the noninhabited attic areas under roofs have been excluded. She said in the last two to three years Code has been interpreted very conservatively and that is part of the reason we are seeing the number of waivers we are let alone the enthusiasm for construction of this type of house. She said to the extent of something being precedent setting, she looks at each piece of property individually. She said property configuration and placement is what she considers the significant part of approving or denying an application. Mr. McMullen said they appreciated the fact Mr. Garber was able to reduce the height to 29 feet 3 inches, but their question is if he were able to reduce it to 29 feet, why not 25 feet. Diana McMullen, 195 Ferrie Way, said she .noticed on page three of the staff report, Finding. No. 13 says before any Variance or Code Waiver is granted it shall be shown that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. She ,said this piece of property is very similar to all the other pieces of property in the area and she doesn't feel it has any special circumstances or things that would allow it to have a Variance. She said it is a narrow piece of property and if they put an extremely high building on it, it will stand out like a sore thumb. She said they wanted a higher house across the street from this and they were denied. She said they lowered their house, but raised the upper window so they still got a high look to it. Sandra Grewal, speaking on behalf of Roland Krueger who could not be here today, said in addition to the comments made by Ms. Santalahti some of the addresses submitted by the applicant may have received Variances based on the topography of the land where there is very little opposition and when the land warrants it that is where a Variance should be granted. She said the concern many have is that the Variance procedure be applied properly so there is not discrimination. She read portions of a letter from Roland Krueger (copy attached). • • MI_NUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 1, 1988 PAGE 4 Ms. Santalahti read the petition submitted by Mr. McMullen in opposition to the proposal containing twelve signatures (copy attached). Nick Gisotti, said an optical illusion is created by the length of the house and he felt that anyone driving by the house would not be able to tell if the house were 25 feet or 29 feet high. He noted he has driven through Peralta Hills and had seen houses narrow in both width and height, and they look in excess of 25 feet. He said the Scenic Corridor was setup so the natural surroundings would be preserved and natural growth would happen without a detrimental effect on the area and he felt it sad that everyone locks in on the 25 foot height as the criteria to determine whether an area is beautiful or not. He said this proposed house would not be a detriment to the area and it seems that three or four feet should not be something that says it is unacceptable. He said most of the people in this area have had the prerogative of selecting the type of home they wanted, whether or not they built or bought. He said there seems to be an error in thought that when a person buys a lot he knows about the height restriction and that is not true they don't know until they get an architect or someone to design their home. He said everything is not black and white and that is why the Variance and Conditional Use Permit procedures were established. He said he felt the owner of this lot should enjoy the same privileges that the others have and the prerogative of the particular style he would like as long as it is not detrimental aesthetically to the area. Mr. Garber said when this house was designed they did not think this would be a problem. He said they could have gone in and asked to have the pad built up five or six feet higher than it is today, and even at 25 feet in height the house could look like a monstrosity and yet they would have been in compliance with Code. He said they were not so close to the street to be visually on top of the street. He said they have a long setback with a circular driveway leading into the home. He referred to the petition submitted with 12 signatures, which would be six families and said he did not know what percentage that was of the people living in Peralta Hills or how immediate to the site they may or may not be. He noted they tried to focus their impact on the people that would be impacted by this home. He said he would respectfully request a favorable ruling based on the fact the requested height waiver is not precedent setting, that no views are obstructed, that most of the neighbors in the immediate area he talked to do not oppose the height, that it is a narrow lot and that is a hardship, and further delay in the development of this property would be unnecessarily costly and burdensome. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said the difficulty she had with this Variance was totally the lot. She said in a Variance like Mr. Krueger referred to in his letter for an architectural feature such as a high turret, she does not have the same kind of concern. She agreed the reduction was great, as it was about a 30~ reduction in terms of the visible ridgeline as you look at the property from the street. She noted the greatest length of the ridgeline still parallels Crescent Avenue. She said the lot may be narrow relative to some other lots • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 1, 1988 PAGE 5 in this area but for most of Anaheim it is two times as wide as the 50 to 70-foot residential lots which are typical, so it is a good size lot. She agreed the setback was very deep and in terms of height obviously the further away from the street it is the less the angle of ,view is, so ,the effective height is less than it would be if the house were closer to the street or at the permitted setback which she believed was 25 feet. She said, however, this lot is basically at a level plane and goes up hill gradually from Crescent Drive and is a very visible lot. She said one of the problems in granting a Variance on this lot is that it is extremely visible and residents of Peralta Hills consistently have indicated concern about Variances in general. Mr. Garber asked if her main concern was how the house appeared from the street. Ms. Santalahti said yes, that this lot was extremely visible, that while it may be narrow compared to some in the area, it is not an odd lot; it is a rectangular with a gradual uphill plane from Crescent Avenue, so there are no unusual constraints to work with. Mr. Garber said that regarding the width of the lot, it has been referred to as being bigger than the norm in Anaheim, but certainly a 7,000 square foot structure is bigger than the norm in Anaheim. He said that is the problem, if they were building a 2,200 square home it would be fine. Ms. Santalahti noted that the City Council is looking at the issue of height in the Scenic Corridor and noted the Planning Commission had two opinions on the issue; basically there was a three - three vote and an agreement couldn't be reached. She said one side was for no changes whatsoever and the other was for a certain percentage of the roof area being permitted to go up to 30 feet. Leonard McGhee said the City Council would be hearing the issue on January 10, 1989. Mr. Garber said he felt the concept of Peralta Hills was changing. He said people are really not building ranch style homes anymore. He also noted that part of the lot was cut off because of easements which restricted development from side to side. Ms. Santalahti asked if his neighbors to the east, west and north who actually have common property lines with him had been included in those he had contacted that did not oppose his project. Mr. Garber said to the immediate north he believed was Mr. Moser who gave his verbal support, to the left was the Belvilles and he had initially gotten their approval and then because of a miscommunication to the Belvilles last night they withdrew their support. He said he did not know `who owns the property to the east. Mr. Gisotti spoke to Mr. Nader directly to the west yesterday who said he had no objections but wanted to check with his architect to see if there would be any negative impacts. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 1, 1988 PAGE 6 Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance, in part, to permit a maximum building height of 27-1/2 feet with the double chimney not to exceed an additional 2 feet; and that the request, as approved, is minimal because the proposed dwelling will be set back from Crescent Drive seven times farther than required by the underlying RS-HS-43,000 "Residential, Single-Family Hillside" zoning (about 106 feet instead of 15 feet); that the approved height is only 10'k~ higher than permitted by Code and that the roof area exceeding the 25-foot height limitation amounts to only about 20.6 of the total roof area. 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 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. 2 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3869 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: HAROLD V. TOLAR, P.O. Box 1106 Helendale, CA 92342. AGENT: RIRR 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. Continued from meeting of November 17, 1988. This item was continued until the meeting of December 15, 1988 in order to readvertise an additional waiver. ITEM N0. 3 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE NO ...3876 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: THOMAS A. CONTI AND RIM E. CONTI, 1245 N. Big Spring Street, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre, having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west side of Big Spring Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and being located approximately 340 feet north of the center line of Woodsboro and further described as 1245 North Big Spring Street. Waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a 290-square foot room addition to a single-family residence. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Tom Conti, 1245 N. Big Spring, said they were requesting a waiver in order to add a family-room to their house. Kim Conti, 1245 N. Big Spring, said she would like to request the room addition also. ' • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 1, 1988 PAGE 7 PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked it the applicant had contacted their neighbors about the proposal. Mr. Conti said they had contacted the neighbors on both sides of them and they were not opposed to the request. He said the property to the rear was a mobilehome park. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the request is minimal because other usable open recreation space (to replace the back yard area covered by the proposal) is available elsewhere: in the front yard (about half of which is 20 feet deeper than the minimum required by Code) and in one side yard (which is 5 feet wider than the minimum required by Code). 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. 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3878 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GEORGE CASSIS AND NAZARETH CASSIS, 6007 Meridian Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98103. AGENT: MC HALE/WOODS ASSOCIATES, INC., 3505 Cadillac Avenue, Suite N-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Subject property is a rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .68 acre located at the northwest corner of Knott Street and Orange Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 99 feet on the west side of Knott Street and a frontage of 99 feet on the north side of Orange Avenue, and`;further described as 545-595 S. Knott Street. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit expansion of medical office. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Gary Politte, 918 Powell, Costa Mesa, Architect representing the applicant said he was here to answer any questions, but would also like to ask a few questions about the Conditions. He said No. 1 seemed to be a a repetition of No.2. Ms. Santalahti agreed. He said No. 4 and 5 were a surprise and they were concerned about the cost involved. Ms. Santalahti said she thought it was .less then $7.00 per linear foot. She said the location map and staff report had a dimension error that needed to be corrected before this item appeared on the City Council Agenda. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 1, 1988 PAGE 8 Mr. Politte said the $7.00 or less per linear foot would be acceptable. He noted they were interested in applying for the building permit as soon as possible. Ms. Santalahti~noted that the fees were to be a one time fee only and the Planning Department does not have a receipt in the files showing it to be paid; however, if the owner has a receipt showing it has been paid it would not have to be paid again. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that approval- is granted specifically for expansion. of the medical offices within the existing building and for the maximum floor areas of the medical offices and fast-food restaurant to be as shown on the submitted plan labeled Exhibit No. 2. She combined Condition Nos. 1 and 2 and deleted Condition No. 5. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. 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 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3879 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: WAYNE MANSRA AND PHYLLIS MANSRA, 1921 Kellogg Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre, having a frontage of approximately 30 feet on the east side of Rellogg Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 520 feet and being located approximately 210 feet north of the centerline of Cresthill Drive and further described as 1921 North Rellogg Drive. Waiver of minimum side yard setback to add a bedroom, recreation room, and garage to an existing single-family residence. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Wayne Manska, 1921 Kellogg Drive, said there is a development under construction nest door to him and the owner of that property, Craig Hauser, has no objections to this proposal and even offered to come and speak in favor of this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti noted she had~gone out and looked at all the properties on the agenda. She stated that this was an oddly-shaped parcel and of all places someone could argue that this is an irregularly shaped lot, this is it. She asked if Brandon Circle was going to be a private street and he said yes. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 1, 1988 PAGE 9 Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that there are special circumstances applicable to the property including its existing shape which is 520 feet long and 30 feet wide at its narrowest point, that the proposed side yard setback abuts the north property line adjacent to a new private street, which will serve the adjacent pending development, and will be separated from said street by a 6-foot high block wall, that the subject side yard is at a lower grade than said adjacent private street, and that these site constraints do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3880 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC.,: 146 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.58 acre, having a frontage of approximately 124 feet on the south side of Embassy Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 205 feet and being located approximately 195 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street and further described as 1552-1556 West Embassy Street. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to rebuild a fire damaged industrial building. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Richard Carter, 1381 Hazelwood P1., Brea, said his plan showed three small car parking spaces at seven feet wide and the new requirement is for an eight-foot width. Ms. Santalahti said that was correct. Mr. Carter said, with 8-foot widths, the plan could have seven compact spaces out of the 26, which number he felt was a little excessive.. He said if the required parking spaces could be reduced by one or two more, he would have no problem with providing 8-foot spaces and still be within the study made by_ the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Carter .also expressed his concern about Condition No. 4 as when the building burned he had submitted plans for rebuilding and showed the electrical overhead service and it was reviewed and approved by the Electrical Department. He said if they have to go underground and put''in a vault and a pad for transformers they would lose more parking. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECEMBER 1 1988 PAGE 10 Ms. Santalahti asked if it were because the existing poles were being used to service the property and he said yes and added the pole is very close to this building. He said he didn't have any problem with Condition No. 5 regarding the trash storage except that to be logically placed it should occupy one of the parking spaces which would be a further problem. Ms. Santalahti noted that he did not have a trash enclosure shown on the plans now and he said that was correct because these are older buildings and none of them have trash enclosures.. He said he did not object to putting one in except for the concern about parking. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if the proposal had gone through plan check. Mr. Carter said the plans had been submitted last August and had gone through all the departments, but were rejected by the Planning Department. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the proposal is for reconstruction of an industrial building in a similar configuration and with similar parking to the previous site development and that other development along Embassy Street is identical to the proposal; that approval is for either (a) a minimum of 25 parking spaces with all small car spaces being at least 8 feet wide or (b) a minimum of 24 parking spaces if the . Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division requires installation of a trash enclosure and with all small car spaces being at least 8 feet wide. Ms. Santalahti deleted Condition No. 4 and modified Condition No. 5 regarding the trash enclosure as noted above. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. 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 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0018 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 To construct a room addition with waiver of minimum side yard setback. Property is located at 668 S. Frontier Court. B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0019 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 To construct a 7'-2" solid block wall with waiver of maximum fence height. Property is located at 6033 E. Prado Street. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECEMBER 1 1988 PAGE 11 Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the Administrative Adjustment Nos. 0018 and 0019 and she planned to. act to approve these adjustments on December 8, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. ITEM N0. 8 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 9 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 11:15 a.m. Minutes prepared by: ~G~ Ih~li~i~, Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary Minutes approved by: An ika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator , 0165g