Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1989/02/23.. -..,~' A C.T I O N AGENDA M' REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1989, 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. 0923H Page 1 la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 4 Approved. lb. VARIANCE N0. 3906 OWNER: Southern Pacific Transportation Co., One Market Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94105 AGENT: Taylor Lumber Co., 411 S. Manchester Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 411 South Manchester Avenue a. Waiver of minimum front-yard setback to construct a 12-foot high / slatted chain link fence within required front setback abutting Manchester Avenue. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-10 2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3A Continued 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3907 in order to bring in OWNER: NICOLAE & PERSIDA BORTIS, CORNEL & EUGENIA MARORIU, revised plans. VIOREL PRUNEAN, CORNEL PRUNEAN, VICTOR & ELIZABETH to the meeting ILINESCU, 708 E. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 of 3/23/89. AGENT: MARK DESIGNS, 22994 E1 Toro Road, E1 Toro, CA 92630 Attn: Joe Mark LOCATION: 6268 Rio Grande Drive Waiver of maximum structural height to construct seven single-family dwellings. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. AND FURTHER TO CONSIDER: 3. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0028 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION Raq~uested CLASS 5• proposal , needs to be Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct a 296 square foot Processed as room addition. Property is located at 820 North Dickel Street. a variance. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ` 4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None . 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None . Page 2 /~~ ,~. •~ CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: ~'• ~~P^^• a•I~ ~/S ~ ' LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DATE) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ~ ~-~ 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. ' P Page 3 • • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1989 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:45 a.m., February 23, 1989, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Cheryl Westbrook, Assistant Planner Pamela Starnes, Executive Secretary Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the meeting and that anyone desiring to speak about matters other than the agendized items would have the opportunity to be heard at the end of the meeting. ITEM N0. 1. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 4, VARIANCE N0. 3906 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Southern Pacific Transportation Co., One Market Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94105. AGENT: Taylor Lumber Co., 411 S. Manchester Street, Anaheim, CA 92804. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres, located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Manchester Avenue, having frontages of approximately 525 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Street, 670 feet on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue, 130 feet on the west side of Walnut Street, and a frontage of 370 feet on the east side of Hessel Street, and further described as 411 South Manchester Avenue. Waiver of minimum front-yard setback to construct a 12-foot high slatted chain link fence within required the minimum front setback abutting Manchester Avenue. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Denny Hutnik, representing Taylor Lumber Company, said City Code required them to put up a 12 foot high fence to screen their outdoor lumber storage area. He said there is an existing six foot high fence. He said they would like to • e MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 PAGE 2 put the fence right on the property line as they can not afford to lose another 50 feet of property as a setback. He said they understand Manchester Avenue will be widened in the future and they would comply with City Engineer's specification to put the fence on the property line and that way they would not have to move the fence in the future, and .noted they would be happy to comply with any other requirements the City might have. Ms. Santalahti asked Leonard McGhee if the property owner knew where the ultimate right-of-line would be so the fence could be properly placed. Mr. McGhee said at the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting Engineering staff did not establish what distance that would be at this time but indicated the fence should comply with the ultimate right-of-way. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked how long there had been a fence along the property line and Mr. Hutnik said he thought for about 30 years. He said it was established way back in the railroad days. Mr. McGhee noted there was an existing 12 .foot fence on the property as well as an existing 6 foot fence they wished to replace. Ms. Santalahti asked what type of lease Taylor Lumber Company had with the railroad and Mr. Hutnik said he was not sure of the duration of the lease but did know it was renewed for a long period of time.. Ms. Santalahti said she was interested in whether the railroad company could give them a 30-day notice to leave the premises. Terry Westland stepped forward from the audience and said they had a month to month lease. Ms. Santalahti asked if the 12 foot high fence was necessary to screen the existing stacked wood storage on the property and Mr. Hutnik said yes, that was what Code Enforcement staff had requested. Ms. Santalahti said this was not the most attractive type of fence, but noted that the area did have buildings, etc. that were closer then the 50 foot setback required along Manchester Avenue which has an arterial highway designation. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact other neary properties have buildings and fences located on the front property line along Manchester Avenue, and that a previous fence for subject property has existed in the setback area along Manchester Avenue for approximately the last 30 years. 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 a s 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. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 PAGE 3 ITEM N0. 2. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3A, VARIANCE N0. 3907 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: NICOLAE & PERSIDA BORTIS, CORNEL & EUGENIA MARORIU, VIOREL PRUNEAN, CORNEL PRUNEAN, VICTOR & ELIZABETH ILINESCU, 708 E. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MARK DESIGNS, 22994 El Toro Road, El Toro, CA 92630, Attn: Joe Mark. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.47 acres, having a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the south side of Rio Grande Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 850 feet and being located approximately 1200 feet southwest of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct seven single-family dwellings. There were four people indicating there presence in opposition and nine letters in opposition were submitted at the hearing." Joe Mark, designer, said if you took a conforming house on a flat piece of property and put it just as it is on a two-to-one slope the house would be 45 feet high instead of 25 feet. He said technically whenever you are talking about a slope, the greater the slope the greater it exaggerates the negative affect of an increased height. He said if you have a fireplace at the front of the house it has an impact, if you have it at the back of the house it has no affect. He noted each and every house at the rear does not go over the 25 foot limit, so no one's view would be impacted from the rear. He said in most cases it is even below the 25 feet because it has been set into the property and they have a rear retaining wall. He said they have examined the effect of the proposed houses on the existing houses below and that the two proposed houses that might have an effect are not in a position to bother existing structures. He said the houses are staggered down the hill in a sloping type arrangement. Ms. Santalahti stated that the two to one slope was basically in an east west direction. Mr. Mark said generally speaking they have designed the houses so they basically face dower hill but noted there were a couple of lots that were an exception and they kind of bend around the little valley. Ms. Santalahti asked what was the footage drop in terms of the grade change across a typical lot. He said basically they are around 50 feet deep front to back and they drop approximately 25 feet. He said they tried to bring the houses as close to the 20 foot minimum setback as they could. He stated the people below for the most part were separated from the proposed houses by the road and by the horse trail. Ms. Santalahti asked what kind of grading was going to be done on the property and he said they would be doing a minimum amount of earth movement. Ms. Santalahti asked what grades did he anticipate on the more extreme driveways and he said they would have some that are pushing the maximum, say 20~b. He noted that technically there was no graded pad for the houses but there were pads for the garages, and then the houses will be above the garage and then step up the hill mid:-way in the first floor of the house, and the second floor obviously would be one level. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 PAGE 4 Laureen Ernst, 6280 E. Palo Alto, said she is directly affected because her home is at the bottom on one side of the horse trail and the proposal will be on the other side. She said all her windows are at the back of her house and face subject property which is her scenic view. She said now she will be looking out on somebody elses wall. She also expressed concern about .a loss of light and the grading of the property. She said she would like the height limitation of 25 feet upheld. Linda Nelson, 6271 Arboretum Road, said she is concerned about her privacy since she lives on the corner. She said her pool is higher than her house. She noted there was a drainage problem about three years ago and her neighbor next door had sand in their pool. She was also concerned that they might have lights from the proposed houses shining into their yard. She was wondering if these houses would be on stilts and Ms. Santalahti said it appeared from the plans they would be on solid foundations. She was also concerned about the land shifting and the houses sliding down the slope. Gene Boyle, 6276 Rio Grande, said his concerns, along with those in the eight letters he was submitting are a number of things. He said he has a spectacular view of the area. He said he knew someone would come along and build, but not to the extent that they are proposing. He said he strongly objected to any Variance being granted to raise the height. Ms. Santalahti asked Cheryl Westbrook to make copies of the letters for the applicant. Mr. Boyle noted that in 1978 his property suffered from a slide above him and caused extensive damage and he feels it is a real likelihood it will occur again when this property is developed. Ms. Santalahti said she had viewed the property this morning and noted the property was quite steep and could understand their concerns with respect to the grading of the property. Kevin Wilkinson, 6272 E. Rio Grande Drive, said he had written one of the letters and said his main contention is that he feels if the project exceeds 25 feet it conflicts with the general height of the entire area. He said the area is mainly built with four bedroom homes not six bedroom homes. He admired the size of the houses and thinks they will be very beautiful and probably increase some of .the property values; however, it can decrease them as well if they take away the scenic beauty. He said his entire view will be blocked. He said 92.8 of the roof line of the house being built near his house will be approximately 35 to 45 feet high. Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, said in this petition for a height variance, Mr. Mark states that the size of the proposed houses and the topography of the land necessitates a height variance. She said the sizes of the houses are of course the choice of the builder and self-created hardships based on design. She said the topography of the property on the side of the hill may create a challenge to the builders but it also creates problems for the home owners in the area and far beyond because of the high visibility near the property and to the property. She asked that the height variance be denied. She also submitted a letter from Mitzy Ozaki. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 PAGE 5 Ms. Santalahti read the letter from Mitzy Ozaki into the record (copy attached). Stephen Wambock, interpreting for the owner of the property (secretary did not get spelling of name), said when they bought the property they tried to plan a development that would be the greatest benefit to the area, and did less grading which is the reason why they did pads for the garages only and didn't destroy the neighborhood, environment or anyone's view. He noted the houses would be built according to the general plan. He said the size of a house has nothing to do with the height and a big house will increase the value of the property. He said if the gentlemen has to look down the hill there was a possibility of some view being lost when the property was developed. He said they tried to arrange the houses in such a way as to not interfere with anybody's privacy, view or backyard. He said if you are on top of a hill it is normal to look into the back of houses and that is situation in Anaheim Hills. He said they were not destroying the grade of the area and noted the retaining walls which will be built and the landscaping will improve and make the area more solid and will stop any sliding of the terrain. He said they were not trying to take anybody's view. He submitted pictures showing the grade from the houses at the top and the bottom. He said they tried to keep the form of the land to keep the beauty of the environment. In rebuttal, Mr. Mark said he wanted to make one point in regard to the grading. He noted that grading plans have to .be submitted, a soils engineer has to address every issue connected with irrigation, and grading plans have to be approved by the City. He said that is the one area there should be no fear. He said as far as height limitation, he did agree with Mr. Wilkinson that his view will be impacted a little bit. He said he would be willing to work with the design and maybe move the house over so the proposal would be acceptable to Mr. Wilkinson. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if the current owners were the ones who subdivided the property. Mr. Mark said it was subdivided by prior owners. Ms. Santalahti said a tentative map was originally submitted in 1982 and then resubmitted because the tentative tract had terminated. Mr. Mark noted that whether or not the proposed houses were redesigned and went to the 25 foot maximum height limit it would have no affect on the property owners uphill to the rear. Ms. Santalahti asked if he were aware of the "SC" residential building height Code change that is pending before the City Council and he said yes. For the benefit of those in the audience who might not be aware of the proposed changes, Ms. Santalahti noted Council would be making some modification to allow higher buildings with certain constraints, specifically, the basic portion of the house was to be at 25 feet, and if there were any • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 PAGE 6 architectural embellishments or details or portions of roofs such as hip roofs or towers, etc. they could go up to 30 feet and that area was not to exceed 10~ of the total roof area. She said Council did note there were always going to be situations where geography, shape of a lot, etc. might necessitate something over the straight 25 feet. Ms. Santalahti said she agreed this particular property has an extreme slope; however, this is similar to one before her a year ago on Mohler Drive and they chose to subdivide it basically to the minimum Code which is around one-half acre per lot. She said according to when that tract map was processed and looking at the numbers Mr. Mark has put down, the gross lot sizes including the private street were 41,000 square feet for the biggest lot, another at 30,000 and everything else was between 23,000 and 24,800. She said out of the seven lots, five of them are basically at the Code minimum which does not leave a lot of freedom in terms of being a little bit more independent as far as design or size of house and she feels that is a problem. Mr. Mark said he felt he could take every audience member's home that is two-stories and put it on one of the lots and it would be at least 12 feet above the minimum 25-foot height. He said that is just the nature of a sloping lot. Ms. Santalahti said this property was subdivided quite close to typical dimensions of standard flat lots and she felt. the situation was set at that time for a problem in developing. She said this is an extremely visible piece of property. She agreed the people above did not have much that could really be said because they will look down on whatever is developed. She noted that because of the steepness of the property, everyone below would be looking at the high side of the houses even if they were at 25 feet. She stated with the sizes of the proposed houses, they were trying to squeeze a lot into this particular area. Ms. Santalahti said expectations a few years ago were not to see this many houses developed on the property. She said she could see where some type of height waiver could be appropriate and something possibly different from what the Council is looking at right now, but she didn't see this amount of height waiver as being appropriate. Mr. Mark said it seemed to him that there are some people who just don't want any development there, and there are others who are just generally concerned with what is in their backyards. Ms. Santalahti said she felt that those who spoke expected something•to be built there, but did not anticipate seven houses. Ms. Santalahti said they need to drastically pull down the overall height of the houses and if there are areas substantially over 25 feet, meaning around 30 feet, it needs to be the lesser part of the front elevations. She said these houses are very large and the surrounding houses are not, that large so it is that much more building that the neighbors are going to be looking at. She said because the property was subdivided in this way, there is a certain MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, FEBRUARY 23, 1989 PAGE 7 amount of self-created hardship so the property owners cannot argue a hardship in the regular sense. She said it is a difficult site so a certain amount of variance from height sounds reasonable but not this much. Ms. Santalahti said she would like to have a cross-section through what is perhaps the most critical direction across the lots to give a sense of how the properties slope and how the houses individually relate to that slope, including the existing houses. She noted such information would be helpful to her as well as the audience. Mr. Mark asked for a one month continuance in order to bring in revised plans and said he would be happy to discuss the plans with any of the neighbors if they would want to contact him. Ms. Santalahti continued this item until until March 23, 1989 and noted it would not be readvertised. She suggested interested parties in the audience might want to call the Planning Department in three weeks to see if the revised plans have been submitted, because if they have not she might automatically continue the item. The owner of the property, through his interpreter, spoke off the record to those in the audience opposed to his project. ITEM N0. 3 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 28 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5: Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct a 296 square foot room addition. Property is located at 820 North Dickel Street. Ms. Santalahti said noted this of an Administrative Adjustment this time. ITEM N0. 4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. item has to be processed as a variance instead and, therefore, no action is being taken at ITEM N0. 5 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 11:00 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator