Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1989/04/06 .~ ,* ,t REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - APRIL 6, 1989 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:34 a.m., April 6, 1989, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard Mc Ghee, Senior Planner Karen Urman, Assistant Traffic Engineer 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. Ms. Santalahti said that Item No. 3., Variance No. 3927 for waiver of maximum structural height to construct a second story addition to an existing single-family residence, has a continuance request in for the•April 20, 1989 meeting in order to readvertise the proposal. She asked if anyone were present for this item and no one responded. Ms. Santalahti continued the item until April 20, 1989. • ITEM N0. 1. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT N0. 3135 (READVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803. AGENT: JOHN STEINHAUS, 2312 S. Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.2 acres located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street, having frontages of approximately 744 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 618 feet on the west side of Walnut Street, and further described as 891 S. Walnut Street (Walnut Manor). To permit a child day care center. There was one person indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. • • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 6, 1989 PAGE 2 Claude Senefeld, said he noted the Traffic Engineer's concern that they might need a few additional parking spaces for the day school. He said the area that the day school will be utilizing was in the overall plan as a 20-bed intermediate care unit so they are picking up the supporting parking from the unit, that will not be built. He said it will be very easy to dedicate five parking spaces along the side of the building for the day care center. He said by his calculations they have 13 parking spaces over and above the amount required by Code. He noted all the conditions are identical to the conditions on their other Condition Use Permit, which is for a the building that is currently under construction. He said, he wanted to point out again, that the 107 on-site parking spaces included the 20-bed intermediate care unit they are deleting. Hildegarde Romberg, said she is not really in opposition to the proposal, but would like more information. She asked if 24 children would be the maximum, and if she understood correctly, that they would care for children other then those of the employees of the Walnut Manor Health Care Center. Ms. Santalahti said that was correct. She said originally the request was for children of the employees of Walnut Manor, and she would have the applicant clarify the reason for the change. She said it may be because there will not be enough children from the employees to fill up the day care center, hence they would go outside.. Ms. Romberg said, in other words, it. would be limited to 24 children. Ms. Santalahti said yes, and a further change would take a new public hearing. Ms. Romberg said the children up to six years of age would be there until after 3:00 p.m. because they are in school. She expressed her concern that there might not be enough outdoor playing area for the children. She asked if. the day care center met the State, County and City regulations relating to the outdoor playing area, the internal facilities etc. She also wondered if the applicant had applied for a government subsidy, and if so, what kind of specifications did they have to meet. She asked which building would be used for the day care center. Ms. Santalahti said the drawing showed it will be in an existing building right next to the first driveway on Ball Road. Ms. Romberg said parking at that corner is difficult because of the traffic. She was also concerned about the loading and unloading of the children. Ms. Santalahti said she would ask Mr. Senefeld to respond to Ms. Romberg's concerns. Mr. Senefeld said the facility has to be licensed by the Social Services Department which has very strict rules and regulations. He said they have • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 6, 1989 PAGE 3 double the play area required, and are well over the interior square footage required. He said this included a little supporting office, staff room and a one-bed isolation room. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti verified that they would not be requesting more then 24 children. She asked how they planned to utilize their service. Mr. Senefeld said the service is basically for the staff in order to ,enhance their ability to recruit more nurses, etc..; however, if there were three or four vacancies they felt the nursing home or the church next door might want to utilize the facility. He again stated there would not be more then 24 children at the facility. He said they will have a very attractive wrought iron fence around the required play yard. Ms. Santalahti asked if they would be applying for any governmental subsidies. Mr. Senefeld said they have not applied for any subsidies and did not anticipate that they would. Ms. Santalahti said there is a representative from Traffic Engineering in attendance at this meeting because of parking concerns; however, she did not think Traffic Engineering was aware that the applicant was converting square footage that had been assigned to another type of use. Karen Urman said that explanation alleviates their concerns. Ms. Santalahti noted that Item No. 14 on the staff report, that showed some concern, is no longer a problem. Ms. Santalahti stated that building permits had to be obtained prior to having children on the premises. Mr. Senefeld said he was aware of that. Ms. Santalahti said that Condition No. 8 requires that a fire alarm system be installed. Mr. Senefeld said the building had a fire alarm system and they would be expanding the system to tie into the nurses station that is manned 24-hours a day. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the proposal is specifically granted.for a maximum of twenty four (24) children to be on the premises at any one time; and that the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 6, 1989 PAGE 4 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 N0.2. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 3920 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: TOM & DEBBIE KENNEDY, 621 Lunar Ave., Brea, CA 92621.• AGENT: BILL JOHNSON, P.O. Box 19608-342, Irvine, CA 92713. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acre located at the northwest corner of Lakeview Avenue and Montgomery Way, having a frontage of approximately 438 feet on the north and east sides of Montgomery Way and a frontage of 327 feet on the west side of Lakeview Avenue, and further described as 112 Montgomery Way. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a single family residence. Continued from meeting of March 23, 1989. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Tom Shaw, representing the owners, read from a prepared ,statement (copy attached). PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if the portion of the building over 25-feet was 27 1/2 feet high, and the remaining part of the building excluding chimneys would be at 24 1/2 feet. Mr. Shaw said that was correct. Ms. Santalahti said there is one item that is being considered in connection with the pending Code change that had not been discussed earlier. She said it does come into play here as this request does not satisfy the change 100`b; however, in view of the overall situation she was willing to approve the request. She said staff was modifying the terminology in the draft ordinance that she referred to at the March 23, 1989 meeting, to say that portions of a ridgeline or a ridgeline may be included in the area over 25 feet provided that it does not exceed 10~ of the total footage of ridgelines for all of the ridgelines, or 20 feet, which ever is less. She said this proposal appears to be less than 1496. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that revised plans were submitted modifying the maximum roof height to 27.5 feet, that the portion which exceeds 25 feet accounts for about 1096 of the r • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 6, 1989 PAGE 5 total roof area, that said portion includes a ridgeline which accounts for less than 14~ of all the ridgelines of the entire roof, and that the remainder of the roof is about 24.5 feet high or less; and that the dimensions and percentages of the revised proposal, which consists of the top of a hipped roof, are consistent with the pending Code change regarding. the maximum height of single family residences in the Scenic Corridor. 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. 3. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 3927 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: EUGENE P. NOONAN, 126 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.32 acres, having a frontage of approximately 258 feet on the east side of Peralta Hills Drive, having a depth of approximately 279 feet and being located approximately 220 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and further described as 126 Peralta Hills Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a second story addition to an existing single-family residence. Continued until the meeting of April 20, 1989, at the request of the applicant, so the item can be readvertised. ITEM N0.4. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE NO. 3928 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: PACIFIC HARBOR, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Dr. Phil Trinh, 12302 Garden Grove Blvd., Garden Grove, CA 92643. AGENT: JAY VANDERWAL, 12302 Garden Grove Blvd. #3, Garden Grove, CA 92643. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .74 acre, having a frontage of approximately 114 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 286 feet and being located approximately 676 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 1641 W. Cerritos Avenue. Waivers of (a) required lot frontage and (b) orientation of structures to establish a 4-lot residential subdivision. There were 16 people indicating their presence in opposition and two letters in opposition were submitted at the hearing. Jay Vanderwal, representing Pacific Harbor, said he was available to answer any questions. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Vanderwal to comment on why they were not going with the original Variance granted on the property. She said this property has had • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 6, 1989 PAGE 6 two previous Variances denied and one approved. She .said the Variance that had been granted on the property would have provided for three lots including a covenant limiting the height of the new houses to one-story. Mr. Vanderwal said they were not involved with the original application and he was .really only familiar with the application they had submitted. Ms. Santalahti asked if staff had informed them, other then in the staff report, that there had been a prior history of proposals for this property. Mr. Vanderwal said yes, but they felt they should proceed with their application. ' Ms. Santalahti asked if they had considered the possibility, if this were approved, of there being a height limitation on one or more of the dwellings. Mr. Vanderwal said yes, they were aware of that possibility and did not mind staying at one-story. Topaz Tran, 9612 Yellow Stone Drive, Huntington Beach, said they had been working on this project for the past year. She noted there is a shortage of housing in the area and it would be beneficial to approve this project for four lots. Phyllis Rillingsworth, 1625 W. Cerritos Avenue, said they were one of the original owners of the two lots that were proposed for subdivision into eight lots. She said like other residents in the area, they bought because they wanted the peace, quiet and privacy the area provided. She said all homes in this section of Cerritos are individual owner-built homes. She said the proposed development is totally out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. She stated that there were no special circumstances in regard to this lot to justify granting a variance. She said all eight lots are the same size except for one that was slightly larger. She said if this development were allowed, others might decide to do the same, resulting in a hodgepodge of private roads leading off of Cerritos. She said the domino effect could completely destroy their pleasant country-like neighborhood. She noted similar plans have been defeated before, and the same objections still apply; however, this plan is even worse because space for the road would all be taken from the one lot causing even more crowding.. She urged the Zoning Administrator to deny this Variance. She submitted two letters from neighbors in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Santalahti said she would read the two letters into the record after the last person in opposition speaks. Eugene Dunham, 1642 W. Buena Vista, said the Anaheim General Plan designates subject property for low density residential land uses. He said a request for a variance to put four houses on one lot defeats this intent. He noted this property has been before the City for variances since 1976, starting with a request for six houses on one lot. He said that request was unreasonable • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 6, 1989 PAGE 7 because of the resulting congestion, traffic, noise, and lessened privacy. He said four houses on one lot was just as objectionable. He said Mr. Libby, who is here today, resides on one .of two identical lots west of subject property. He said Mr. Libby had wanted to develop the second of his lots by putting four houses on the property; however, he worked with the neighbors to find a solution they could all live with. He said that solution was to build three single-story houses. He said Mr. Libby further agreed to record a covenant on the property limiting development of all lots to single-story, single-family structures with the Orange County Recorder, and a copy of the recorded covenant was furnished to the Zoning Administrator of the Planning Department. He said if such and arrangement can be worked out with this petitioner the neighbors would be reasonably happy as it would not drastically change the character of the neighborhood. He said strict application of the Zoning Code would not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity. Neville Libby, 1661 W. Cerritos Avenue, said he strongly objects to the proposal as submitted. He said lack of conformity will result in a lackluster eye appeal, not only to the surrounding neighbors, but to the general populous as a whole. He said in 1986 there was a proposal to build four homes on a 0.75 acre lot which was denied. He said this denied him the right to develop his 0.75 acre subdivision at 1651 W. Cerritos Avenue to include four lots. He said in 1987 the his proposal was resubmitted to include three lots on 0.75 acre under Variance No. 3647 which was approved. He said due to extenuating circumstances, Variance No. 3647 had to be aborted and termination of this Variance is on file. He said he then submitted Variance No. 3717 for a three lot parcel map. He noted by following the guidelines of the Zoning Administrator, and his neighbors, this Variance was approved. He said those guidelines included building one-story homes. He said four homes would create an overcrowded situation as opposed to three homes on the lot. He said this also could devalue the surrounding residences. He said he was required to have a 28-foot wide private road for access to his lots. He said one house faces Cerritos Avenue and the other two lots are in the back. He said the 28-foot wide road also provided vehicular parking and curtailed parking on Cerritos Avenue. He said he hoped the applicant would cooperate with the surrounding neighbors as he had done. Robert Smith, 1640 W. Cerritos Avenue, said he agrees with the first speaker and purchased his house for the same reasons. He noted this is a. very quiet neighborhood although traffic has been tremendous. He said traffic going from Cerritos to Euclid backs up past his house in the morning and evening. He said he felt financial gain was the only reason four houses were being proposed on the property. He said all the houses from Euclid Street down to the railroad tracks are single-family houses, and this proposal would be a complete deviation from the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Santalahti read the letters in opposition from Atsuko K. Fennema and Jack and Pat Morgan (copies attached). • • MINUTES. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 6, 1989 PAGE 8 In rebuttal, Mr. Vanderwal said the present zone permits six-units per acre and their proposal is for 5.4-units per acre. He said the residents should have protested the six-units per acre zoning before it was adopted. He said the reason they are requesting a Variance is to comply with the Zoning requirements and the only way they can comply with the requirements for a maximum of less then six units per acre, is to structure the layout the way they did. He said denying the application would mean the zoning designation of six-units per acre is not a realistic number, therefore, the four lots should be approved. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said the area in general does seem to have lots that are larger then 7,200 square feet, not including the big lots on Cerritos but those in the nearby tracts. She said she was also surprised to see that 24-feet was being accepted by staff as a private street rather than 28-feet which would allow for parking. She said the City is trying to take parking off arterial highways and are generally encouraging off-street parking in residential areas. She said sometimes, when lots like this are constructed on private driveways, there is a tendency for the occupants to park on the street. She said this lot has only 114 feet of frontage on Cerritos and does not have as much public street frontage as four regular individual lots would. She said for these reasons it is appropriate that a private street at 28 feet be provided. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance, in part, based on the fact that two previous area variances (Nos. 3464 and 3575) for similar proposals were denied, and that two other variances (Nos. 3647 and 3717) for fewer lots and including certain development restrictions were approved; that the proposal would be appropriate if modified for 3 lots instead of 4 lots with the private street being constructed to City standards and with a restriction that future development of subject property be restricted to 1-story residences and that the proposal, if modified as above-mentioned, would result in (a) lot sizes which are similar to existing nearby lots, (b) additional on-site parking for 3 new homes, and (c) limiting the proposed homes to heights which are the same as existing nearby homes. 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. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 3930 PUBLIC•HEARING: OWNER: F.J. HAWSHAW ENT. INC., GORDON R. & SHELBA J. HAWSHAW, 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92643. AGENT: F.J. HAWSHAW OR KARL RORDIK, 10921 Westminster Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92643. Subject property is a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of • ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 6, 1989 PAGE 9 approximately 0.94 acre located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue, having approximate frontages of 83 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and 127 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and further described as 1112 North Brookhurst Street. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 945 square foot donut shop. No one indicated their presence in opposition and. no correspondence was received. Applicant was not present. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the requested waiver is specifically for a proposed 945 sq.ft. donut shop in an existing commercial center which has a total of 9789 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, and that the parking demand study which was submitted to justify the proposed parking was approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 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. 6 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE N0. 89-02: To establish a large family day care facility for a maximum of 12 children. Property is located at 2426 Transit Avenue. (End of public notice period: April 3, 1989) Leonard McGhee said two letters in opposition were received and the item has been set for a public hearing on April 20, 1989. ITEM N0. 7 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the. meeting at 10:35 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator 0224g ,. _. : '; ' ~ •' ripril b, 59~~ To: ~-naheirn City Council ..; . Thank you for the apportunitu to revise our. plans for .the' t:ennedy Project in ~nahiern Hills to conform with. the new ordinance ~ before the CitU ~. Council. ',fie feel tliat our revisions conform in application and spirit of Ordinance '246.89. The ordinance explains~• in Section, ~9 that the "Maximum Height", shall be determined from the vertical demension of.~ the. highest= point of the Structure to the finished floor level of the• lowest floor` directly below such point. By revising our roof pitch, we have been able-,to keep 96~ of the total roof surface under the twenty five;{25) foot ,maximum set forth ~~ in paragrapt~~ 18.34.042.010. The remaining 4~ of the raof. ,is acceptable under sub-paragraph 020 Height Exceptions, .0202 ~;~which state that . Nonhabitable architechtural embellishments or roof structures (except ~~ chimneys) otherwise permitted iri the, underlying zone'~lincluding hipped roofs} may exceed the, applicable, hieght limitations of ~ this section provided: (see sections~a. 3~ b.}. The 4~ of; our roof that extends beuond the ~ • stated twenty five foot Maximum Height is a hipped roof with a nine foot ridge root an extended ridge line}.;There inane chimney that extends over~~ the Maximum Height limitation and is an exceptable exception under sub-paragraph .0201. in closing, we would like to address the concerns that wrc~:may be setting : . precedence for the adjacent .lots. '~lith the revisions that. we have made, we feel that we have conformed with .the•ordinance.and. the spirit of_the ordinance, that will govern the developement of these lots. ° Thus,, we~ will be in conformance with ar7d not ~ varying from the structural ~ guide lines that others will be expected to follow: ~ . ~~ (..C`ti~~` QCs-, ~ ~(f.~c~1 ~~'1tiC,s~ ~-~.~•~c~.P ~'v~c-YU.. ~!~ ~ ~ ' ,¢~ J l ~ .~ /a !Q ~(.~r ~`~'" ~"' 6 ~8' ~ 1 "l7 1, _ I,JL~ZC~~? 2 ls=~ 4' !/ /f _ ~ . ~' ~ ~ ~ f ~. ~i f ~ ~t- ~c~ ~ .Qc~~ ~Cn .C.~-~t~t,C~Ce//J////may V ~ 1 ~ •/ ~, . ~L; ~~ ~' LLc~=I l~ L cck~ 7~ , ~~ .. v~~~~~ • ~ ~ i ' ~• z~~~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ,., ~_~ _ r Gi 1~C7,Y J o1 ~, ~ G[itG~.f-- ~C{ i!•~..=•~ ~`~...• / v~ ~~ j ' ~LO~'ll ~ ~!'/"l1>, ,C,~ 1c~1 'J /l~l,L, F1%~(~'L/~~ ~i~ ~~ ~'/1'~~~~~'~~ ~J~~S r /~f~%il~~' ~~ `~r 4~i /C~ ! /~/•J !(/ l ~C L~CGCC~/ '' ~~~' ~ 1.~~~-CG~•~l'.CJ7 L•~ E •Lrr_. `~-~~ ~--' ~.~.~ L~ GL j ~ ~ ~ ~/ /C~~G~~-~1•l •C'C ~~~C?. J ~_ ~ _ ~~ -~°jl~ = Ili' ~I • ~ `!;/ (~j~'%c'rcC~'~ 'C L•C~? ~ ~ - ~ I I • ^/ 1 , Gi• ~ , ~ ~ /r `~~ C~c~ t~~ - /y1tGGC~~..fiLV ~:1.c¢~-v~~yc > ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~J ,, G~CZ.LGcLC-l?~v~~.~/l~G'" `~.C~Ci ~~GC-C~' E-c'%~~,/~~~c'~~'~'~G'~ ~(!~~ ~ ~~~, -~G.-j)Z~~ ~~'• , f~'~~t'-(.mil/~(;r~ ~~'~~ ~ ~~Cl~ ~ i~G`"~ . -'f,'LG~t:G.2-Gt-'' G~'jil/.,~~Gl~/ ~ L~~!.~(C%!~ ,i~Z~•cC%'.~G,~-C'.c?~C~~ ..~i~z~~l%l.6-'~~vC~~~ ,,~ _/~~' ((-~.f/T/L,--~~'~!/!•~~'G(./,~.~?-f~•~ff~~y/c%1?% t ~~.G~~E~f/l7/Ti:ZJ r.~7/~~`~r/~ ~~/ .1.~ ~~.~ ,~ycJ~~~ .~`~,/j,•Lt~/~C~.'!~•y~GC~ -'.,~•(~1-.~.G~=-;~L-~+C =~ Gtc.:'CC,~-~Z,G _ ~/ Y -1 , _ ~ /i i it/? t.L•~l- ~-G-z L' ~~CL'~LJ~- ~ ~ 1~C;G~+-~v~ ~~:y, ~' ~~Q/LZ~~ ~/ ~. ~ ~ ~- ~ . ' C? i ~ i ~ C~ j~%~~ .~ V 392