Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1990/07/12L • r ' , • " A r'T T'n N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1990, 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. 1828H Page 1 ~ • la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 lb. VARIANCE N0. 4055 OWNER: KLUTHE FAMILY TRUST, 2251 Lake Forest Circle, La Habra, CA 90631. AGENT: ACTEC ENGINEERING CORP., 1312 W. Collins Ave., Orange, CA 92667. Attn: C.M. Thomson. LOCATION: 831 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.52 acre on the west side of State College Boulevard approximately 370 feet south of the centerline ~of South Street. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish an additional 279 square feet of storage area attached to an existing freestanding restaurant. Continued from ZA meeting of June 14, 1990. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.'ZA 90-45 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. VARIANCE N0. 4065 OWNER: VIRGIL TOOMAN, 30680 La Sombra Court, Temecula, CA 92390. AGENT: ROLLY PULASKI, 858 Production Place, Newport Beach, CA 92663. LOCATION: 528 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.49 acre located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Virginia Avenue. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 3,614 square-foot addition to an existing furniture store. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. VARIANCE N0. 4066 ZA 90-46 OWNER: WEINGART FOUNDATION, 1200 Wilshire Blvd., #305, Los Angeles, CA 90015. AGENT: CYCLE INDUSTRIES, 1515 E. Winston Rd., Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: 1515 E. Winston Road. Property is approximately 15.4 acres located on the north side of Winston Road. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 9,302 square-foot office addition. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 90-47 Approved Approved Approved 7-12-90 Page 2 • • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. VARIANCE N0. 4069 OWNER: STANFORD COURT PROPERTIES, 25500 Hawthorne Blvd. #120, Torrance, CA 90505. LOCATION: 1125 East Stanford Court (Building 3). Property is approximately .42 acre located on the north side of Stanford Court. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an approximately 3300 square foot expansion to an existing office building. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 90-48 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. VARIANCE N0. 4070 OWNER: SANDERSON - J. RAY DEVELOPMENT, 2699 White Road, #150, Irvine, CA 92714. LOCATION: 3360 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 4.87 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue. Waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 2-lot subdivision of an existing industrial parcel. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 90-49 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 6b. VARIANCE N0. 4062 OWNER: ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS INC., 400 S. Hope St. #600, Los Angeles, CA 90071. AGENT: ALLIED INTERSTATE, 11929 Vose St., North Hollywood, CA 91605, Attn: Norm Bertuch. LOCATION: 5560 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 9.8 acres located at the southwest corner 'of'Santa'Ana Canyon"Road and"Imperial"Highway. Waiver of prohibited roof-mounted equipment to construct a roof-mounted satellite dish in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Approved Approved Continued until 7/26/90 7-12-90 Page 3 a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 7 VARIANCE N0. 4067 OWNER: HERMAN & JUNE DE FERRANTE, 118 Brickford St., P centia, CA 92670. LOC ION: 128 Derby Circle. Property is approximatel 0.48 acre located on the east side of Derby Circle. Waiver maximum structural height to construct a 4,731 square-foot single-f ily residence. ZONING ADMI STRATOR DECISION N0. 8a. CE A CATEGORIC EXEMPTION - CLA 3 Sb. CONDITIQNAL__USE__ERMIT N0. 3294 OWNER: HECTOR IRENE VELASCO, 6 ,gl East Via El Estribo, Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION: 6 1 East 'a E1 Estr bo Property is approximately .77 acre located at the orthwest corner of Avenida De Santiago and 'dd Canyon Road. To permit an existing ground mo ~ d satellite dish. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DE SIGN N . 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEbfS: A. ADMINI TR'`PIVE ADJUSTMENT NO 05 D CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 5• To construct a 2-story, 9, 90 square-foot single family residence with waiver o maximum structural height loca ed at 563 East Peralta Hills Drive (End of public notice per od: July 12, 1990 at 5:00 p.m.). ZONII~ ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 10./ ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: 7-12-90 Page 4 REVISED PAGE 4 ~11-90 7a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 7b. VARIANCE N0. 4067 OWNER: HERMAN & JUNE DE FERRANTE, 118 Brickford St., Placentia, CA 92670. LOCATION: 128 Derby Circle. Property is approximately 0.48 acre located on the east side of Derby Circle. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 4,731 square-foot single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 90-50 8a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3294 OWNER: HECTOR & IRENE VELASCO, 6991 East Via El Estribo, Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION: 6991 East Via E1 Estribo. Property is approximately .77 acre located at the northwest corner of Avenida De Santiago and Hidden Canyon Road. To permit an existing ground mounted satellite dish. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 90-51 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0052 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5: To construct a 2-story, 9,590. square-foot single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height located at 563 East Peralta Hills Drive. (End of public notice period: July 12, 1990 at 5:00 p.m.). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Z~I" !CD - ~ °L- 10. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Approved Approved. vJi 11 be approved if no opposition received. None 7-12-90 Page 4 • • CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: ~1'.3oa-~ '7-0-90 LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DATE) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ©~.1xuaJ 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. 7-12-90 Page 5 .~'. REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - July 12, 1990 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., July 12, 1990, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Della Herrick, Associate 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, VARIANCE NO. 4055 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: KLUTHE FAMILY TRUST, 2251 Lake Forest Circle, La Habra, CA 90631. AGENT: ACTEC ENGINEERING CORP., 1312 W. Collins Ave., Orange, CA 92667. Attn: C.M. Thomson. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.52 acre, having a frontage of approximately 119 feet along the west side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet, and being located approximately 370 feet south of the centerline of South Street, and further described as 831 South State College Boulevard. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish an additional 279 square feet of storage area attached to an existing freestanding restaurant. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Annika Santalahti noted this item had been continued from the meeting of June 14, 1990 so the applicant could provide additional information on landscaping detail along the back, irrigation, wall height, sound attenuation for the refrigeration/blower unit and trash enclosures. Mr. Thomson, representing Actec Engineering Corp, said the storage area does not increase the number of employees or patrons and because of its location it does not affect the existing parking. He said the Traffic Engineer's Office • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 2 agrees the parking provided is adequate for what they are proposing. He noted the neighbors were interested in several items and he agreed with them. He said based on the previous meeting the plans now show a two foot extension to the top of the rear wall. He said because the bottom portion is a retaining wall they did not want to tear up that wall and start over. He said they propose to put a two-by trim board by each pilaster and a two-by across the top that will anchor into the pilaster. He said they intend to extend the two-by trim up the two foot extension, put a wood cap on it and paint it dark brown to match the trim items on the existing residential buildings on the neighbors side and then stucco both the addition and the block wall to match the existing building on their side which should tie everything together. He said what the neighbors see will not be stuccoed but a T-111 trim painted the dark brown to match the wood fence on his side. He noted the neighbor had a wood fence that was five to six foot tall on his grade and applicant had a block wall closer to four foot tall on their grade. He said looking from the restaurant side the fence would look like it belonged to the restaurant and on the neighbors side it would be a wood fence against a wood background. He said currently there is a trash area in the parking lot and another nondesignated but used as a trash area next to the rear door used for recyclable ash. He said they propose to expand the single trash area in the parking lot into a double trash area so they can still segregate their trash and it can be picked up at one point. He said it does not effect parking since the two trash areas are 16 to 17 foot long and the parking area next to it is 19 foot long. He said the trash area would be a little bigger but would not effect the turning radius or parking of vehicles. He said the landscaping was done by Manley and Associates and that they felt 20 foot of landscaping was too much for that area. He noted the neighbors were interested in large bulky landscaping to keep people away from the property line; however, the landscaper felt that 20 foot of heavy bushes not only attracts rodents but possibly the homeless and that the police would not be able to see into the' area. He said they propose to keep the Italian Cypress. trees along the back property line and in between those put a tall bush that will probably mask the wall entirely and then in front of that some shorter plants with thorns. He said they will probably retain the tam juniper and white rock that is existing on the westerly 10 feet. He said they will work with Traffic Engineering who would like to see a turn pocket in that area or at the end parking space that is less than 12 feet wide. He said he talked to two different people regarding sound attentuation and basically they said what was being proposed was reasonable. He went on to say they would really like to have a contract and a retainer before they got into any serious discussions about how that could be accomplished. He said he asked them what level of noise they felt could be attenuated or what level of noise should we come down to across the property line and their feeling was that if the City of Anaheim did not want to establish a decible level they would go with the County Noise Ordinance which would put 50 decibles maximum at night at the property line. He said this is less than the 60 to 65 CE in E1 Community Equivalent noise level you have during the day time. He said the blower did exceed this level and if they have a noise level to work to that would give them the parameters to work within. He noted that since the equipment was not mobile whatever it attenuated at night it would attenuate during the day so there should be no problem with daytime noises at all. No one else indicated their presence regarding this item. • • MINUTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 3 Mr. Thomson stated he would like to register a strong objection to Condition No. 4. which says that you take the slanted side drive approach and turn it into a radius side drive approach. He said the problem he is having with the owner is that he has a drive approach and several thousand dollars later he will still have a drive approach, the only thing he has done is spend money. He said it will also give him the only radius drive approach on that side of the street in the whole block. He said the City's handicap ramp at South Street has a slanted side not a radius side so he didn't know what the advantage would be and he would like to have that Condition removed. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked Della Herrick, Associate Planner, if she would check with Traffic Engineering on the radius issue and see how strongly they felt about it. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Thomson if he had talked to any of the neighbors and he said no, only when they were here at the last meeting. Ms. Santalahti said relative to the neighbors concerns at the last meeting, she was concerned about what he was proposing to do with the block wall and landscaping and if it sounded favorable to the neighbors. Mr. Thomson said the block wall was a little bit of a problem because if they go to six foot which is the legal limit it will be eight feet on the neighbors side. He said they probably would not have a big problem extending it up two feet with wood because that did not weigh as much as block. He said they have not done any calculations to see what they would have to do but said they may have to reinforce it to hold it. He said either way it would be less expensive than tearing out the end of the lot and starting over with a new wall. Ms. Santalahti said she felt it would look decent from the commercial property or east side but she was concerned about how it would look from the residential west side. Mr. Thomson said the neighbors on the west side have a grape stake fence and there is a space between the two fences.. Ms. Santalahti asked how wide the space was. Mr. Thomson said a good foot. He said his extension would start where the neighbors fence ended so that the neighbor would not see the block wall but wood on wood. Ms. Santalahti said Mr. Thomson was basically talking about the individual who was at the center of the property but noted there were small portions that overlap to two other properties. She said if she approves this proposal she is going to require that the specific details of the proposed fence (what is looks like) be concurred with by the neighbors. She said a block wall won't get rid of real problem noise it might be better than a wood fence. ., • r MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 4 Mr. Thomson said the extension would basically be the width of the block which is like a 2x6 stud wall with a 2x10 cap on it so it is going to be thick. Ms. Santalahti said she would like detailed plans of the fence submitted including the colors and the exact materials. She said the neighbors might not favor the overall situation but felt that the problem could be resolved. She noted that the restaurant did have the on-sale liquor Conditional Use Permit that was granted by the Planning Commission and if the neighbors continue to have problems that they have had in the past, they might want to petition the Commission to consider revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. She said she was sure the liquor sales were an important part of the business. Mr. Thomson said he has explained that to the owner and it kind of surprised him. Ms. Santalahti noted the Traffic Engineer had reviewed the parking study and did not have any difficulty with it for this operation. Mr. Thomson asked if they could get two out of three neighbors concurring would that be all right. Ms. Santalahti said she wanted all three neighbors to the west to be notified and she wanted evidence in the file that they had all been given the information. She said the optimum would be if they concurred with the design or if they have a suggestion that you make some modification. She said they could contact staff if they would prefer within, say, two weeks of being notified of the fence modification design. She said he could send a certified letter or walk out to the door and hand them the plans and have something to tell the City which day you notified the neighbors and give the City a copy for the file. Ms. Herrick said she had contacted Traffic Engineering and they felt it was important that Condition No. 4 stay in because of the location on State College Boulevard. Ms. Santalahti said one of the reasons she was interested in that was because the petitioner was going to have to do a lot of work on the fence and landscaping to the rear. She said on the landscaped drawing that the detail is 2x4 redwood header to separate the now 10 foot planter that will be upgraded. She said she would like a six inch curb put in along that area, maining because it would be a more definitive planter separation between the planter and the parking area. ~; Mr. Thomson said she had a good point. He said generally a landscaped area is required to be separated from parking by a six inch curb at the edge of the parking. He said the redwood header was more to keep the ground cover, which is some type of bark, in place. He said they were going to take the redwood header out along the north of the parking area and move it in to where the wheel stops are and make it a curb. He said that would give them a little more landscaping which does meet the requirements. He said on the south there is no landscaping as they butt right up against a building and there is a berm • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 5 there because the lots are at two different heights. He said if Ms. Santalahti would like a six inch curb north to south against the westerly landscaping then he would like to talk to Mr. Ayla about it not being a straight curb but having an offset in it because he feels the one parking space should be able to back into it a little bit. Ms. Santalahti said she was thinking if the new 10 foot planter area were done with a curbing and if they decided now or at some future date to pave that area and utilize some of that area for parking, in that sense the six inch curb would take care of that future paving. Mr. Thomson said that would be fine. Ms. Santalahti asked what was the situation at the north property line. Mr. Thomson said he thought they had bumper blocks there and said there should be some pictures of the area in the file. Ms. Santalahti, looking at a file photograph, noted that was correct. Ms. Santalahti said landscaping details are only shown for the 10 feet on the west property line. Mr. Thomson said the landscaper felt that the north property line was not as important as the west but if necessary he would be more then happy to put something along the north property line as he is going to have to run the irrigation system out that way anyway. Ms. Santalahti asked what the irrigation system was going to consist of. Mr. Thompson said it would be the regular bubblers and sprinkers you would have for shrubs. Ms. Santalahti said she thought the north property line should either be in ground cover or paved or treated similarly to the 5 - 10 foot area. Mr. Thomson said fine. Ms. Santalahti said there should be bumper blocks per the City standard for all the parking spaces and indicated it looked like they only had three now. Mr. Thomson said they intended to take the bumper blocks out and put in the curb as a wheel stop and increasing the landscape area from four foot eight inches to about six and a half feet. Ms. Santalahti noted that apparently Traffic Engineering did not want to come down and discuss Condition No. 4. She said while this is a parking waiver and ultimately they could have other difficulties with this site, her general feeling was that some of the onsite improvements they can make, while not beneficial to street traffic, are beneficial overall to other inhabitants of Anaheim. She stated since this is only one tenant, and while it would be nice to have the curb radius, she was welling to sacrifice that for the other improvements. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 6 Ms. Santalahti asked if they had any further information then what was commented on last time relative to the immediate kinds of noise attenuation that might be done for the blower. Mr. Thomson said no. He had talked to them about what they had, what the problems were, and what they intended to do and both answered yes, that was as good a way to go as any but they had to have some definite number to work against. He said they would not come out and do sound studies, etc. until they were paid for it, but they did say it was possible and with a suitable retainer they would proceed. Ms. Santalahti noted the City generally in the past has followed the County's sound attenuation regulations but she thought at least at the start the 50 db CNEL at night sounded like an appropriate goal. She noted the stucco fencing and wall around the blower unit should be helpful. She stated that if .they deviate from that when this is operational and all the work is completed, there could be reason to reconsider this item. Mr. Thomson said if the project is approved under these guidelines then they will have the study done so the consultant can tell them what needs to be done in order to achieve that level of attenuation. Ms. Santalahti said this would be with a 50 db CNEL objective being to the west residential area. Ms. Santalahti asked about how much time would be necessary to accomplish everything. Mr. Thomson said he would like to have a month. Ms. Santalahti asked if they had contacted sanitation people regarding the design of the existing trash enclosure. Mr. Thomson said the trash enclosure as they have it now on the property is fine with the sanitation people, the problem is it is in two locations and only one is in a trash enclosure so they are consolidating the two. Ms. Santalahti asked if it had only been considered as consolidating it with the existing trash enclosure or have they looked at putting it next to the building instead of in the parking area. Mr. Thomson said no as the trash enclosure is only six foot wide and so they would not impact another parking space and if they put it back toward the building they would have a problem with the front end loaders of the dumpsters which 'is why they would prefer to leave it where it is. Ms. Herrick reminded Ms. Santalahti about the breaking of bottles that were disturbing the neighbors that had been brought up at the last hearing. Ms. Santalahti asked if Mr. Thomson had inquired as to what they were doing and noted she had not had this type of complaint before. ~1 L~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 7 Mr. Thomson said yes, apparently they dump the bottles as the containers inside the restaurant become full. He said they only have room to store a few empties inside. He said perhaps they could have an intermediate place for storage from 10:00 p.m. at night on and they could be handcarried later in the morning. Ms. Santalahti said if they are going to break bottles they need to do it at a reasonable time and basically in their building not in the parking lot and certainly not at night. She said the minutes of this meeting would reflect the need to watch what goes on and that if it continues to be a problem and the neighbors come back and complain to the City the applicant needs to realize that their basic on-sale liquor Conditional Use Permit could be revoked. Mr. Thomson said he would tell the business owner that the breaking of the bottles is a valid complaint of the neighbors and he better change his operation so that doesn't happen. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Herrick to pull the names and addresses of the three neighboring families so staff can send them a copy of the Decision so they are aware of what took place here today and to also put a copy of the mailing list in the file showing we mailed copies to those neighbors. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that this parking variance is granted on the basis that the applicant submitted a parking analysis, contained in a letter regarding the Rose and Crown British Pub dated January 25, 1990, which analysis was determined to be adequate by the City Traffic Engineer for the specific existing use; and, further, that certain improvements, as discussed, shall be made to the property to eliminate or substantially lessen the adverse impact the existing business has on the adjacent residences to the west including increasing the height of the , existing block wall to 6 feet as measured from the highest adjacent grade level along the west property line, re-planting the landscape area along the west property line, installing irrigation facilities in the landscape planters, and installing curbing around the landscape planters along the west and a portion of the north property lines. 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. 4065 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: VIRGIL TOOMAN, 30680 La Sombra Court, Temecula, CA 92390. AGENT: ROLLY PULASKI, 858 Production Place, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre located on the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Virginia Avenue, having frontages of approximately 195 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 100 feet on Virginia Avenue, and further described as 528 South State College Boulevard. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12. 1990 PAGE 8 Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 3,614 square-foot addition to an existing furniture store. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Chris. Goodman, P.A. Plus Architects representing the owner, said he had reviewed the staff report and didn't have anything to add. He said they had.a ~.•traff.ic~~engineer do an analysis and it indicated that the maximum use was eight spaces and they are providing 18 spaces. He said they intend to comply with all the requirements and Conditions outlined in the staff report. He said he noticed that Condition No. 4 indicated they needed to tie the three lots into one parcel before pulling the building permit and he said that may cause a delay in the project. He said they will take care of that but were hoping they could get an extension on that Condition. Ms. Santalahti said the City normally asks for this prior to pulling a permit but she said perhaps he could submit the necessary information prior to the permit being issued and it would then be finalized before final occupancy was approved. Mr. Goodman said then as long as they were in the process it would be all right and it shouldn't be a problem to take care of it, it was just that he wasn't sure what the time constraints might be. Ms. Santalahti asked how long it took to construct this type of addition. Mr. Goodman said he believed approximately 45 - 60 days. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Herrick if she recalled if the existing building was originally constructed on five spaces per thousand. Ms. Herrick said being a retail furniture building she would assume it was built under the industrial standard of 2.25 spaces. Ms. Santalahti said eight or nine years ago the City amended the Parking Code and before that furniture stores were permitted to go in at a lower Code standard than a regular retail operation based on the large amount of display area and she believed that was•in-fact equivalent to the .industrial standard.. Ms. Santalahti asked if the owners had considered the possibility of recording a covenant on the property acknowledging that this property was developed with a furniture store or large appliance type of retail operation rather than general retail operation and if anyone other than a user that fits that category were to look at the property that they would need to either process an appropriate Variance or acquire additional parking that was acceptable to the City. Mr. Goodman said it was his understanding that the owner does realize that this Variance would only comply with the extent of Lazy Boy's lease and at that time they would have to reevaluate it with a new tenant or modifications • s MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE.9 to the building. He said he understands Lazy Boy intends to stay there a number of years. 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 that the applicant submitted a parking study, titled "Parking Analysis - Lazy Boy Showcase Shoppes" dated March 12, 1990, which study was determined to be adequate by the City Traffic Engineer for the specific retail use of subject property (a furniture store); and that approval of this variance is specifically conditioned upon the continued use of subject building and property as a furniture store or other similar retail use such as appliances, carpets and floor coverings, draperies, beds and mattresses, televisions, etc., which retail uses involve substantial amounts of floor area being used for display purposes. 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 N0.3. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 4066 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: WEINGART FOUNDATION, 1200 Wilshire Blvd., #305, Los Angeles, CA 90015. AGENT: CYCLE INDUSTRIES, 1515 E. Winston Rd., Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject petition is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 15.4 acres having a frontage of approximately 1,170 feet on the north side of Winston Road having a maximum depth of approximately 630 feet and being located approximately 255 west of the centerline of State College Boulevard and further described as 1515 East Winston Road. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 9,302 square-foot office addition. One person indicated his presence in favor of proposal, no one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Terry Odle, representing the architect's office, said basically they were working with an industrial building and site that is probably 30 years old and if they were to use the new City of Anaheim parking standards they couldn't make it. He said the tenant they are representing is in the business of silk screening t-shirts and this would basically be the corporate headquarters. Ms. Santalahti asked if the building had several tenants. Mr. Odle said no, that they were leasing the entire building. He said there is no manufacturing that it is basically storing huge boxes of t-shirts and racks of sportswear. Ms. Santalahti said what had confused her was that the location map shows a graphics business and Builders Emporium Distribution Center. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 10 Mr. Odle said that is what it was originally and noted Builders Emporium isn't there any longer. Mr. Odle said the amount of parking spaces they are providing onsite is more than enough for what they need right now. He said they are in their peak season so they counted cars and maybe there have been 300 cars. Ms. Santalahti asked if any customers came on the premises. Mr. Odle said no because this is not used for retail; however, sales representatives may come. Mr. Odle said the only question they had regarding the conditions was with Condition No. 12. He said because they are not the owner it is going to be very tough to get that signed. He said he really didn't even know what that was. Ms. Herrick said that it pertains to a possible assessment district. She said it would really be up to the owner to make that decision. Ms. Santalahti said this Condition is one that is the outcome of a development agreement in connection with future uses connected to the Anaheim Stadium business area. She said this Condition comes up on any zoning action that involves an intensification of land use and, in a general sense to convert from an industrial warehousing to office space is considered that way. She said her understanding of questions that have arisen previously on other projects is that certain the City staff, including the City Engineer can review the need for this item but she can't promise that they will concur with not requiring such a convenant to be signed. She said there are copies of the covenant in the Planning Department and you can get a copy. She said basically what the property owner is agreeing to is that they would not contest the formation of the district, period. She said they can contest everything else about the district, the actual boundaries, etc. She said her understanding is that one of the reasons this is done is that sometimes when districts are appropriate to upgrade infrasturcture, etc. very simple objections early on can kill an assessment project that has a lot of validity to it because of people who say they hate the idea without knowing anything about it. She said her general impression has been that people have been willing to sign this without getting overly concerned other than people who are afraid to sign anything. Ms. Herrick noted that they would not be subject to the fees of the stadium area. Mr. Odle said the owner is located in Chicago and they would hate to have the project held up. He said all they could do is probably send them a copy of the covenant and a copy of the statement explaining this and ask if they would sign it. Jonathan Edlestein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cycle Industries was also at the podium and conferring with Mr. Odle. • ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 11 Ms. Santalahti said she shouldn't have said just the City Engineer because there are others involved because of the infrastructure. Ms. Santalahti said he could discuss with staff the magnitude or lack of magnitude of the project and see if the condition could be eliminated and also noted there is a possibility that adjustments can be made. She said she would add some wording in her Decision to make it clear that he can come in and speak to someone about this Condition. Ms. Herrick said he should contact Mary McCloskey, Planning Division Manager, in the Planning Department. She said basically it applies if you are goning to intensify the useage. She said he might want to go over the fact that it is staying as an industrial use and not going to an office use. Ms. Herrick said as a clarification of Condition No. 4, Traffic Engineering had written that the two existing driveways on Winston Road as shown on submitted plan shall be removed and replaced with the standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. She said she believed it does show on the plan that they intend on removing those so we may want to rewrite the condition to state that. Ms. Santalahti said she would make that clear. Robert Cashman, owner of the building directly across the street from this location, said this building was an Ozite Carpet Plant way back when State College was a two lane road and there was no stadium. He said it has been a problem for the owners to get a stable tenant for the property. He said the first stable tenant since Ozite was STS Graphics and its predecessor Ocean Pacific. He said this is a good neighbor and he is very strongly in favor of this program. He noted they are not adding people they are really reshuffling people and making it more liveable inside. He said they want to strongly support it as it enhances the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED 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 on the basis that the applicant submitted a parking study, titled "Cycle Industries Anaheim Warehouse Building - Parking Study" dated June 4, 1990, which study was determined to be adequate by the City Traffic Engineer for the following specific combination of uses on subject property: Percent of Use Floor Area Floor Area Warehouse/manufacturing: Accessory offices: 351,346 sq.ft. ( 93~) 27, 673 sq. ft. ( 7'4s) Total floor area: 379,019 sq.ft. (100) n • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 12 And, further, that the proposed accessory offices in the existing industrial building amount to only 7'b of the total floor area (27,673 sq.ft. of a 379,019 sq.ft. building) and that the building was originally developed about 30 years ago as an industrial warehouse with parking provided in compliance with the standards in effect at that time. 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. 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 4069 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: STANFORD COURT PROPERTIES, 25500 Hawthorne Blvd. #120, Torrance, CA 90505. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .42 acres, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Stanford Court, having a maximum depth of approximately 171 feet and being located approximately 160 feet east of the centerline of Santa Cruz Street and further described as 1125 East Stanford Court (Building #3). Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an approximately 3300 square foot expansion to an existing office building. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Art Kotowitz, tenant, said the location map should read existing industrial building instead of existing office building. He said his only comment was on Condition No. 3 and which comment is basically the same that the preceding applicants had about the owner of their building. Ms. Santalahti said if she approves this she will modify this condition in a similar manner to the way she did prior applicants.. Mr. Kotowitz said everything else has been explained and approved in the staff report. Ms. Santalahti asked if the modification was being done inside the existing building. Mr. Kotowitz said that was correct. Ms. Santalahti stated that the square footage that is being added is within the physical walls of the building. She asked if it were a new level of floor or just converting regular industrial space to office space. Mr. Kotowitz said it was converting regular industrial space. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. • ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 13 Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance on the basis that the applicant submitted a parking analysis, titled "Parking Variance for 1125 Stanford Court, Anaheim CA" dated May 10, 1990, which analysis was determined to be adequate by the City Traffic Engineer for the following specific combination of uses in subject premises (a field service computer repair business): Percent of Use Floor Area Floor Area Office: 3,824 sq.ft. ( 47~) Computer room: 1,000 sq.ft. ( 12~) Mezzanine storage loft: 912 sq.ft. ( 11~) Warehouse: 2,496 sq.ft. ( 30~) Total floor area: 8,232 sq.ft. (100) And, further, that the on-site staff consists of 15 employees as follows: 14 full-time and 1 part-time employees, of which 8 are field engineers who come to office to pick up and deliver equipment and parts, and 2 are outside salespersons who are in the office approximately 1 day per week. 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 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 4070 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: SANDERSON - J. RAY DEVELOPMENT, 2699 White Road, #150, Irvine, CA 92714. Subject property is the southerly 4.87 acre land locked portion of an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 12.5 acres, having a frontage of approximately 458 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,150 feet and is located approximately 250 feet west of the center line of Miller Street and further described as 3360 East La Palma Avenue. Waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 2-lot subdivision of an existing industrial parcel. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. John Petry, Partner in Sanderson - J. Ray Development, said he had two questions on the conditions. He said one is Condition No.6. He said this proposal is a two lot subdivision so they are actually processing a parcel map, however, this states that subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications marked Exhibit No. 1. Ms. Santalahti said that was generic wording and noted staff had labeled the tentative parcel map Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Petry said the other is Condition No. 1 which indicates that the legal owner of subject property shall adjust the existing and proposed Public Utility Easements altered as a result of the subdivisions. He said at the ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 14 staff meeting no one was really sure what that meant. He said they have put in easements to make sure that those lines carry through to parcel two and he thought that was what they were referring to. Ms. Santalahti said that might have been put in because they were concerned about possible changes. Mr. Petry said definitely there would be no changes. Ms. Santalahti asked if the bowling alley was already developed on the property. Mr. Petry said yes. Ms. Santalahti asked if parcel two were vacant. Mr. Petry said yes. Ms. Santalahti stated she assumed as part of the parcel map that there will be mutual access easements provided for traffic circulation. Mr. Petry said yes, that was a part of the conditions of approval for the parcel map. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED 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 that subject request is minimal because public ingress and egress for vehicular and pedestrian access and public utilities will be provided by a 32-foot wide easement from La Palma Avenue to Parcel No. 1, and by a 32 to 24-foot wide easement across Parcel No. 1 to Parcel No. 2, in accordance with City standards. 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. ITEM N0. 6 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE NO. 4062 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ENDOWMENT REALTY INVESTORS INC., 400 S. Hope St. #600, Los Angeles, CA 90071. AGENT: ALLIED INTERSTATE, 11929 Vose St., North Hollywood, CA 91605, Attn: Norm Bertuch. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway having approximate frontages of 698 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 708 feet on the west side of Imperial Highway having a maximum depth of approximately 745 feet and further described as 5560 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Waiver of prohibited roof-mounted equipment to construct a roof-mounted satellite dish in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 15 One person indicated her presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Norm Bertuch, with Allied Interstate, said the reason they are proposing to put the dish on the roof is because the only place it could go on the ground is at the rear of the building where there is a loading area in a narrow alley. He said when the enclosure is put around the dish for protection it would be an obstruction in that area. He said it would be susceptible to vandlism and being hit by cars. He said the only problem with the conditions is screening the dish from the townhomes at a higher elevation to the south because the dish points to the southeast. He said all satellites are at 100 to 180 degrees and they need a clear line of sight or they won't work. He said it is at a 35 degree elevation, zero being straight ahead, 90 straight up. He said any kind of screening would have to be way back to raise it high enough to cover the satellite dish and they would still be looking down on it. He said the dish could be painted any color. He submitted a picture to show what it would basically look like and noted they have installed about 700 of them for Thrifty. Ms. Santalahti asked if the dimensions were a little under 5 feet in diameter. Mr. Bertuch said the dish is 6 feet in diameter and 4 foot 10 inches high to the top. He said the arms sticking up are two inches in diameter. Ms. Santalahti asked if the bottom area would look like the picture after it is fastened to the roof. Mr. Bertuch said the dish is not attached to the roof it is "ballasted" because they don't want to penetrate the roof because it breaks the roof warranty. Ms. Santalahti noted she tours all the properties on her agenda. She said you could not drive behind this area and she couldn't even come close to seeing the roof of the building. She said she observed that all the townhouses looked down on the roof. Mr. Bertuch said there is a good sized parapet in the front. Ms. Santalahti noted the parapet was to the north of the project towards Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Bertuch said the proposed location of the satellite on the roof is about as obscure as it could be put structurally speaking. Ms. Santalahti noted that the mansard appears to be around the the entire building so why couldn't the dish be located closer to the rear of the building towards the south. Mr. Bertuch said it has to sit over a vertical control column and he noted there might be another vertical column further back. Ms. Santalahti said she felt the less that something sets in the middle of a large area the less likely it is to show. She said the dish had a lot of stuff underneath it. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JULY 12 1990 PAGE 16 Mr. Bertuch said the unit weighs about 800 pounds. He said it could be painted any color to further blend in and noted it didn't cause any interference with television viewing because it is at a much higher frequency. Ms. Santalahti asked if there were a smaller model available. Mr. Bertuch said not for this purpose. He said they are planning to use it for T.V. Video conferencing and you need this size at this time. Marie Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow Road, Anaheim, said she was not exactly sure where the dish would be located. Ms. Santalahti said it would be on the Thrifty Drug Store roof at the southwest corner of the shopping center. She asked Ms. Herrick to give Ms. Ritter a map of the area. Ms. Ritter asked if this wouldn't be quite visible. Ms. Santalahti stated the townhouses behind the shopping center look down on the roof. She said because of the trees on the street, she could not see the roof area as she drove by. Ms. Ritter said you drive up either Imperial Highway or the street that is to the west paralleling Thrifty going uphill as you go south toward Nohl Ranch Road. She said she had not driven up there but thought that driving down that street you would see the dish. She said when she drives down Imperial going north she can see the roof of Security Pacific Bank, Vons, etc. Ms. Santalahti said she had driven up Imperial Highway and had driven down Avenida Margarita and she could not see anything. Ms. Ritter said that was the street she was referring to and wondered if that was because of the trees. Ms. Santalahti said yes and felt the visibility would be only from the units to the south. Ms. Ritter, Mr. Bertuch and Ms. Herrick discussed to location relative to the various streets, etc. at the podium. Ms. Santalahti said she was looking at the public notification list and stated notices were mailed out to the townhouses. She noted staff was checking to see if there is a private street in that project that has a name. She said the mailing list is fairly good sized and covers a lot of property out there, noting the 300 foot radius goes around the entire shopping center. Ms. Santalahti asked what direction the dish would basically be facing. Mr. Bertuch said it would be at 111 degrees and 90 being straight east and 180 being south. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 17 Ms. Santalahti stated it was facing southeast and asked if it faced a satellite. Mr. Bertuch said yes, a dish 22,800 miles away. Ms. Santalahti said she had looked at another dish on todays agenda that was facing southwest. Mr. Bertuch said there are T.V. dishes which have motors and rotate but these is fixed it doesn't have a motor and serves a different purpose. He said this is basically for communications and takes the place of the existing phone lines for all the computer data. Ms. Santalahti said the part that looks unattractive is all the concrete blocks, etc. on the bottom that are holding the unit down. She said people probably are used to seeing dishes especially on a large roof area but all the stuff on the bottom is distracting. Mr. Bertuch said that could be painted to match the roof color. Ms. Santalahti asked if the photo were of an installed unit. Mr. Bertuch said yes at another location but it has exactly the same hardware. Ms. Santalahti asked what the conduit was that ran up to the dish. Mr. Bertuch said that was for the dish to talk to the computer. Ms. Santalahti asked if the portable dish in the photo were just to show where the dish would be placed. Mr. Bertuch said yes, it was used for photographing purposes. He said that dish was 6 feet high where this one would be 4 feet 10 inches. Ms. Santalahti asked if he could point out which directions the photos were looking. Mr. Bertuch said the dish in the photos faced the front. He said the photos didn't show directly south, they showed where the dish would be facing. Ms. Santalahti asked if the "section" drawing submitted was accurate as to the height of the mansard roof around the entire building. Mr. Bertuch said that was basically the front mansard. He said in the one photo you can see that it maybe drops down to the west but there is a roof ridge there on the other side. Ms. Santalahti asked if he had been on the roof. Mr. Bertuch said yes. Ms. Santalahti said from the photos, excluding the townhouses, you don't see any streets or parking at that approximate position. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 18 Ms. Santalahti asked the applicant if he could submit elevations running through Avendia Margarita at a high point at the corner of the property showing how the grade changes as the street goes down, the alley service area, then the building and what the height is to where this unit would be located so that we could see how it relates and if there is a tree in the way,show that too. She said also a north-south section including the front parking lot to show how the mansard works. Mr. Bertuch said they could move the location of the unit back noting there was a large screened roof top area which might screen it from Avenida Margarita. Ms. Santalahti said the north-south section will show the parking lot in the front and should show the height where the unit sits relative to the mansard. She said two sections one generally north-south and the other basically east-west, through the building are needed. She said, in other words, one section from the parking lot on the north through this building to where this unit is proposed through to the townhouses to the south. She said in the second section from the west she is only interested in from Avenida Margarita. She asked the applicant to also get some photos at the location looking up into the residential areas and specifically looking wherever the sections are towards the parking lot, up the hill where the housing is and then also towards Avenida Margarita. She said she wanted to be reassured that this is as non-visible as possible. Ms. Santalahti asked if they had to have all that stuff on the bottom. Mr. Bertuch said unfortunately it requires a significant amount of weight due to wind forces. He said that is required by the engineer because Thrifty's only owns 10 percent of the stores and they lease the rest and if equipment penetrates the roof they would have problems with the landlords. Ms. Santalahti said it would be helpful if it didn't stand by itself in the middle of the roof. Mr. Bertuch said he thought it might be able to be moved back about 40 feet but he would check with the engineer. Ms. Santalahti said that would be helpful. Mr. Bertuch asked for a continuance until the meeting of July 26, 1990 in order to bring in additional elevations and photographs. Mr. Bertuch asked what he should do if something occurred that he was unable to attend the meeting of July 26. Ms. Santalahti advised him to either call or write a letter and the item could be continued to the following meeting. ITEM N0. 7 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 4067 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: HERMAN & JUNE DE FERRANTE, 118 Brickford St., Placentia, CA 92.670. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.48 acre, having a frontage of approximately 20 • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JULY 12 1990 PAGE 19 feet on the east side of Derby Circle, having a maximum depth of 270 feet, located approximately 220 feet south of the centerline of Saddleback Lane, and further described as 128 Derby Circle. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 4,731 square-foot single-family residence. One person indicated his presence in favor, one person indicated her presence in opposition and two letters in opposition were submitted at the meeting. Hans De Ferrante, owner, said the house to be constructed will be on a contoured piece of land with a relatively narrow driveway. He said it is a flag lot and as a result it has to be a long narrow garage. He said because of that he is proposing three stories and they fail to meet the height requirements for a small portion of the roof, less then four percent. He said it is an area of about 100 or so square feet. He said it is surrounded by higher roof lines which, even though higher, do not exceed the 25 foot limit. He said this would not make any impact on the view at all. Ms. Santalahti noted that the exhibit he had' submitted, which is a section through the building, shows how the garage goes underneath part of the two story house in a certain area. She asked if the grading being done out there right now was on the lot next door to him. Mr. De Ferrante said yes. Ms. Santalahti said you could not see applicant's lot from the street at this time. Mr. De Ferrante said that was correct. Ms. Santalahti said she is interested in how his proposal relates to the neighboring lot. Mr. De Ferrante said the neighboring lot is quite a bit lower. Ms. Santalahti asked if he knew what the difference was in the grade between the lots. Mr. De Ferrante said he thought his neighbor was about 15 feet lower. Ms. Santalahti noted that was the neighbor to the north. She asked what was the difference to the south. Mr. De Ferrante said the neighbor to the south was quite a bit lower as he really looks down on them. Ms. Santalahti asked if he was going to do grading on his property and if it was to be cut and fill. Mr. De Ferrante said yes, he was trying to keep the grading to a minimum and the slope of the lot would be preserved as much as possible. 1 ~ • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 20 Ms. Santalahti said the exhibits were clear on what was happening relative to the proposed height area that deviates from Code. She asked if, when the project was finished, you would be able to see this house from Derby Circle. Mr. De Ferrante said yes looking upwards. Ms. Santalahti asked if there were going to be any exterior walls, meaning the walls on the most outside boundary of the house, at the 29 foot height. Mr. De Ferrante said no, he believed the garage height including the rafters and so forth, would be about 23 feet to the roof. He said it would actually be cascaded because the garage would also have a deck on top of it Ms. Santalahti asked if the roof line was such that it sloped from every direction towards the approximate center. Mr. De Ferrante said that was correct the hips and ridges would all come down on corners typically in a Mediterranean style. Bill Ehrle, Councilman, said he is here as a private citizen and if this project is ever appealed to the City Council he would abstain from voting. He said just for the record he wanted to let the hearing officer know that he and his wife had no objections to this house. He said it is a very difficult piece of property to develop and the way it is situated it will require some grading and fill. He said his only concerns which cannot be addressed here, will be at the engineering hearings which concern the driveway is where there is an export of almost 4000 cubic yards and they will have an 11 foot retaining wall along the side of the proposed driveway. He said as far as the height and the size of the home he and his wife have have no problems at all and look forward to Hans being their neighbor. Marie Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow Road, Anaheim, said her property was located just southeast of this property. She said she needed some clarification as she was not aware there were two lots there. She said she knows where 120 Derby Circle is and where Mr. Ehrle's property is. She said she could see the dirt that was piled up before there is another residential home that would be at the end of the cul-de-sac and trees in big wooden planters so she was assuming that this person's property is between Mr. Ehrle's and the other home that is now in existence. She also wanted to know if he were going to built in the ravine by the Suggett's and Stolo's homes. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Herrick to show Ms. Ritter the location map. She said she did not remember who owned which house. Ms. Ritter asked if the shaded area on the location map was flat or was it going down. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. De Ferrante to show Ms..Ritter how he was changing the existing grading. She said she thought the ravine would be at the southeast corner of his lot towards where Ms. Ritter lived. She asked Ms. Ritter to mark where her lot was on the location map and asked if she were on the corner of Martella Lane and Possum Hollow. • ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 21 Ms. Ritter said yes. She said she thought you looked up from Derby Circle but from her property after it goes up it goes down into a ravine and then in a northerly direction from this property there is the other Variance No. 3828 which is on the peak. She said she assumed this property was down lower. Ms. Santalahti said she would have Ms. Herrick show her one of the drawings and asked Ms. Ritter if she had looked at the drawing on display. Ms. Ritter said she hadn't. Ms. Santalahti said the applicant had submitted a drawing that illustrated the proposal fairly well. She explained this was one of those cases where the roof ridgeline is physically higher than the portion of the building which will exceed 25 feet, but because of the grading ththe ridgeline meets Code at 25 feet or lower. She said this is kind of an overlapping area with a garage that is dug into the hillside so in a sense it is a fairly minor waiver. lthough it does of course deviate from Code. Ms. Ritter asked if she could repeat that. Ms. Santalahti said with the proposed grading, there is only a portion of the building, at the tandum garage under the two story portion of the house, where the height exceeds 25 feet, and around that portion the earth underneath goes up under the remainder of the house. She said physically, the part that exceeds 25 feet over the dirt level is next to an area whee the dirt is higher and at that point the applicant is at 25 feet or less. She said it sounds worse than it is. Ms. Ritter said when she knew he was going to have a garage beneath and two living stories above she felt it was similar to the house on 120 Derby Circle which appears to be the same thing. She said she could not understand that if they fall within the 25 foot height limit and have the garage on the same side of the street just two lots north of this proposal, why this one could not conform to the 25 foot height. She said you are saying that the hill to the south rises. Ms. Santalahti asked the applicant if he would come back to the podium, which he did, and explain the proposal to Ms. Ritter while pointing to the details on the drawing to help clarify the situation for her. Ms. Santalahti said this is really a minor request, in fact the least she has ever seen. Ms. Herrick explained it is the way staff measures height, is from finished grade. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Ritter if the explanations helped. Ms. Ritter said yes. She said she and her husband did want to voice their opposition to this Variance and submitted a letter they had prepared which included a paragraph from their letter when they were in opposition to Variance #3828 (copy is attached). She also submitted a letter from Mrs. David Whitehead which she read into the `record (copy attached). She also • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 22 noted that when she read through the staff report, page 2, Item No. 10 under evaluation, states "The Zoning Administrator may wish to note that Variance No. 3828 (to waive maximum structural height for a residential structure) was approved by the City Council on December 6, 1988". She said when they attended that Variance hearing originally that was granted for only 28 feet but because it fell within the time frame that the Variances were going to be continued until after the Planning Commission got together with City Council and we had this revamping of the 25 foot limitation and when it came back, a 31.5 foot waiver was granted. She said Item No. 12 of the staff report says "The sole purpose of any variance or code waiver is to prevent discrimination" and she looked at that as compared to the home on 120 Derby and "none shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privileges" and on page 3 (a) "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 felt the one on 120 Derby was very similar to the one we are here for today. She said thank you for letting me voice my opinion Ms. Santalahti said she would like Ms. Ritter to see the roof plan drawing, roof noting it didn't show the different elevations of the roof line but it has the appearance of stepping up the hill and with the grading the applicant is doing, the lot is staying normal except for the foundations. Ms. Ritter said her real concern was that there are other lots in the area yet to be developed and she feels they might want variances and they will reference right back to this variance. Ms. Santalahti said she felt this one did relate to the lot's configuration; however, she has noted that the bigger the houses get, like around 10,000 square feet, they are the ones that want the high roofs that really exceed the height limitation. .She said physically and visually this will not look like a 10,000 square foot house would look. In rebuttal, Mr. De Ferrante said he understands the concerns of Ms. Ritter in keeping the height variances to a minimum; however, he believed in this case the basic configuration of the house will not affect it either way and should be considered on a separate basis. Ms. Santalahti asked if he had spoken to or shown his plans to any of the other neighbors on Derby Circle. Mr. De Ferrante said not on Derby Circle because everyone is way below his property and he didn't feel they would be concerned; however, he did speak to Ron Baxter who owns the house above him and he said he did not see any problems with the proposal and he would be happy to back him up if need be. He said if anyones view would be affected it would be Mr. Baxter's. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the request is minimal because only 153 sq.ft. (4~) of the entire roof area is over 25 feet • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 23 in height, that the portion of the residence over 25 feet consists of 2 stories over a portion of the garage which is partially built into a hillside, that the dwelling is being constructed on "split level" pads, and that no exterior building walls exceed 25 feet in height because said higher portion is located in the center of the residence where the grade level is lower than for surrounding portions of the residence. 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. 8 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3294 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: HECTOR & IRENE VELASCO, 6991 East Via E1 Estribo, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .77 acres located at the northwest corner of Avenida De Santiago and Hidden Canyon Road, having frontages of approximately 96 feet on the north side of Avenida De Santiago and 197 feet on the west side of Hidden Canyon Road and further described as 6991 East Via E1 Estribo. To permit an existing ground mounted satellite dish. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Hector Velasco, owner, said he wished to retain the satellite dish. He said they just moved into the property beginning of September of last year and the satellite dish has been there, he believes, for about three or four years. He said this is his first experience so he really doesn't know what he should do. He said he felt the satellite dish did comply with what he read in the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if he had talked to any of his neighbors about the dish. Mr. Velasco said he had not and didn't know if his wife had. He said he has met some of the neighbors since moving in but no one has publicly told us that they object to the dish being there. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Herrick if we had gotten any complaints about the dish because it is visible from nearby streets. Ms. Herrick said she did not know if they had received a complaint but she did know that Code Enforcement is active in trying to find satellite dishes. Ms. Santalahti asked if they wanted to keep the dish. Mr. Velasco said yes, and noted the dish was not connected at this time because the previous owner took the controls but they would like to keep it. Ms. Santalahti noted you can see the dish driving down Via E1 Estribo. ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 .PAGE 24 Mr. Velasco said they could plant some Italian Cypress trees around the dish. Ms. Santalahti asked if the dish was facing in the general area it would face once it is operational. Mr. Velasco said he thought the dish would move around according to the satellite. Ms. Santalahti asked what color the dish was under the cover. Mr. Velasco said he did not know the color but thought it was an off-white with a tan colored cover and noted there was a small motor that rotated the dish. He said they would keep the cover on the dish when it was operational. He said it was his understanding that since 1987 that federal law permitted homeowners to have these satellite dishes. Ms. Santalahti said the federal law basically says that the City cannot regulate satellite dishs more stringently or differently than regular antennas. She said the City did prohibit both in this area but you can process a Conditional Use Permit and noted that a ground mounted straight up and down antenna would also take zoning action. She said the City is probably more lenient with satellites because they are generally lower. Ms. Santalahti asked if Mr. Velasco had checked to see if he needed an electrical permit or mechanical permit for the dish. Mr. Velasco said there were none that he knew of. He said the control was entirely within a box that is inside the house. Ms. Herrick said usually just a building permit is issued. Ms. Santalahti advised Mr. Velasco to check with the Building Division to see if he needed any permits. Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this Conditional Use Permit based on the fact that the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code; that the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which is is proposed to be located; that within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this decision, the appropriate building, mechanical and/or electrical permits shall be obtained from the Building Division; and that the satellite dish shall either be painted a tan earthen color or the tan-colored cover (currently on the dish) shall be kept on the dish at all times to blend with the surrounding landscaping and lessen its visibility to nearby streets and properties. 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. • r~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 12, 1990 PAGE 25 ITEM N0. 9 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0052 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 5: To construct a 2-story, 9,590 square-foot single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height located at 563 East Peralta Hills Drive. Ms. Herrick noted that applicant had redesigned their plans to accommodate one of the neighbors and those plans are now in the file. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the Administrative Adjustment and noted the appeal period would end July 12, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. She said if no opposition is received she would act to approve this item. ITEM N0. 10 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 12:20 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: amela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator 0537g