Minutes-ZA 1999/07/29ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
THURSDAY, JULY 29,1999 9:30 a.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
Amy Greyson, Deputy Attorney
Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer
David See, Associate Planner
Judy Dadant, Associate Planner
Danielle Masciel, Word Processing Operator
1a. CEGAEXEMPT{SECTION15061(b)(3)~ CONCURRED
1 b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 169 APPROVED
OWNER: Kilroy Realty Corp.
Julie Schlothauer
3750 University Avenue, #270
Riverside, CA 92501
AGENT: Clothestime Stores, Inc.
Jerry Mayuga
5325 East Hunter Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 5325 East Hunter Avenue. Property is 6:0 acres having a
frontage of approximately 545 feet on the north side of
Hunter Avenue, and a maximum depth of 579 feet and is
located 695 feet east of the centedine of Kellogg Drive.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (215 required; 209 proposed) to retain an
outdoor cargo container storage area that utilizes the required parking area.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA99-25
Appeal period ended July 28, 1999 at 5:00 p.m.
No opposition was received. One call was received but it was an inquiry only.
ZA072999.DOC
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 1
07/29/99
2a. CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061(b)(3)} CONCURRED
2b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 168 APPROVED
3a.
3b.
OWNER: Viller Hamilton
504 South Fann Street
Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 504 South Fann Street. Property is 0.13 acres having a
frontage of approximately 66 feet on the east side of Fann
Street, and a maximum depth of 91 feet and is located 295
feet north of the centedine of Orange Avenue.
Waiver of minimum side yard setback (5 feet required; 4 feet proposed) to permit and
retain an existing air conditioning condenser unit which encroaches into the required side
yard setback For a single family residence in the RS-7200 Zone.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA99-26
Appeal period ended July 28, 1999 at 5:00 p.m.
No opposition was received.
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061(b)(3)}
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 170
APPROVED
OWNER: Larry Bedrosian, Joan Bedrosian, Gary Bedrosian,
Joyce Bedrosian, and Janice Bedrosian
710 East Ball Road
Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: Michael Heam
8180 East Kaiser Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 1000 North Edward Court (Anaheim Hockey Club). Property is
4.14 acres having a frontage of approximately 48 feet on the
south side of Edward Court and 500 feet on the north side of the
SR91 Freeway, and a maximum depth of 345 feet and is located
315 feet southwest of the centerline of White Star Avenue.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (175 required; 163 proposed) to permit an
additional mezzanine area, within hockey facility (in Building 6) in conjunction with a
future industrial park in the SP 94-1, D.A. 1 (Alpha Northeast Specific Plan, Industrial
Area) Zone.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA99-27
Appeal period ended July 28, 1999 at 5:00 p.m.
No opposition was received.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 2
07/29/99
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
4a. CEOA CA
4b. VARIANC
Y APPROVED) APPROVEp
APPROVED
OWNER: CS Integrated LLC
John B. Aviles, P.E. Vice President-Engineering
One Enterprise Avenue
Secaucus, New Jersey, 07094
LOCATION: 1415 North Raymond Avenue. Properly is 10 acres, having a
frontage of 14 feet on the west side of Raymond Avenue, and a
maximum depth of 1,244 feet and is located 230 feet south of the
centerline of Orangefair Lane.
Petitioner requested a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval.
This petition was originally approved on June~J 1998. '
/ ~~~~~/
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA99-28
REMARKS:
Tom Van Drew, Engineering Superintendent of CS Integrated LLC: Present to address any
questions the Zoning Administrator might have.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Approved Variance No. 4338 with an amendment to
Condition No. 3. The project complies with everything that was current at the time that the project
was submitted. Extension of time was approved and is due to expire on June 2000. It is f~7?~/~W
expected that projects will meet code. Conditions of approval shall be amended to read: "Plans
submitted in connection with the building permits shall show that the boundary line fencing complies
with code, unless a variance or a waiver of the fence requirement has been obtained. And that the
fencing, as required ultimately, be constructed in accordance with those plans".
Mr. Van Drew: Stated that was their intention with this project.
Ms. Santalahti: Concurred with the previously approved categorical exemption -class 2 for this request. Also
approved the retroactive time extension based on the findings as follows:
(13) Zoning Code Section No. 18.03:090 specifies that the petitioner shall, within one year after receiving
approval (or within any greater or lesser time limit specified in the Resolution of Approval) comply
with all conditions imposed with time limits. In addition, subsection 18.03.090.0301 specifies that
before granting any request for an extension of time, the Zoning Administrator must make a finding of
fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the extension of time will not extend the approval beyond 2 extensions of
time, with each extension not to exceed one year, or any greater or lesser time
increment specified in the original resolution of the variance.
(b) That the approval remains consistent with the General Pian and the zone district
designation for the property.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 3
07/29/99
(c) That either no Code amendments have occurred that would cause the approval to be
inconsistent with the Zoning Code, or the petitioner has (i) submitted revised plans
demonstrating that the approved project can be modified to bring it into conformance
with such Code amendments and (ii) agreed to modify the project to conform to such
Code amendments.
(d) That the subject property has been maintained in a safe, clean, and aesthetically
.pleasing condition with no unremediated code violations on the property, as confirmed
by an inspection of the subject property by the Code Enforcement Division. Cost of
inspection is established pursuant to Section 1.01.389.030 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, and shall be paid by the applicant prior to consideration of the time extension by
the determining body.
(e) That no additional information or changed circumstances are present which contradict
the facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for approval of the
project or enterprise.
As well as the amendment to the conditions of approval, add additional commentary regarding the
fencing requirement on the property, that since the freeway is elevated, the construction of the fence
on the south property line would not be particularly useful as a screening fence. She asked 'rf the
code address the lines of sight with regard to screening fence?
Davld See, Associate Planner: Stated that the code doesn't address different slope issues. It only
addresses adjacent land issues. It requires that a perimeter fencing be provided adjacent to a
railroad right-of-way, and the freeway which would be the south and west property lines.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 4
07/29/99
5a. CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061(bll3
5b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 166
OWNER: Gregory and Virginia Speth
2566 W. Runyon Place
Anaheim., CA 92804
CONCURRED
APPROVED
LOCATION: 2566 W. RunyomPlace. Property is 0.2 acre having a
frontage of approximately 73 feet on the south side of
Runyon Place, and a maximum depth of 136 feet and
located 250 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue.
Waiver of minimum front yard setback (20 feet-8-inches'proposed [82.6% of code
requirement]; 25 feet required) to construct a 225 square foot garage addition to an
existing single-family home.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA99-29
Appeal period ends, July 28, 1999 at 5:00 p.m.
Continued from the July 1,1999 Zoning Administrator meeting
REMARKS:
Annika Santalahfi, Zoning Administrator: Stated that since we received opposition in connection with
the initial notification this matter was set for public hearing.
Greg Speth, Applicant: Stated the reason for the variance was due to a curve in the street in front of
the house, making it difficult to meet the existing setback requirements. Also stated that 3 other
houses on Runyon Place have a 20-foot or less setback. And those houses have the same type of
driveway setup as Mr. Speth's house.
Ms. Santalahti: Clartfied the setbacks that were being discussed.
There were 5 people present in opposition of this project
Harshad Shah, 2562 W. Runyon Place: Stated that the addition will completely block their view and
the air circulation for this house. He stated the exiting garage has never been used and asked why
they need an addition. He felt the addition will decrease the value of the property of the
.neighborhood.
Lillian Woad, 2554 W. Runyon Place: Corrected a statement made by the applicant. Applicant said
the street curved in front of his house. However, the larger curve is in front of 2554 W. Runyan
Place. Their home is where there is an 18-foot setback in the front yard, but the house was built in
1960 to the code standards at that time. Also they have letters from 3 additional neighbors who
could not attend due to work.
James Wood, 2554 W. Runyon Place: Illustrated by incorporating an additional 12 feet to the front of
this house would create an eyesore to our street. The street is a very attractive Looking street with
all the houses well groomed, but in order to increase the size of this addition, it would also add more
cement to the front of his garage and his yard right now is practically all cement. There is very little
yard space and by adding more and extending is out, it would just be one big eye sore.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 5
07/29/99
Joan and Robert Gallaway, 2551 W. Runyon Place, the original owners: Opposed. We are
concerned about our street. We take pride in our neighborhood and feel this would be a detriment to
our street.
Mr. Speth: Stated he was totally unaware that the neighbors were so opposed to this addition: `°
Rebutted that the addition will not be too obtrusive, it is not going to stick out too far, there is still
going to be 20-feet of yard in the front. Stated that if he were to build within the code, he could tear
down two walls of the existing garage and make it wider and longer. Basically end up with asix-car
garage and put asecond-story addition on top of the new garage, which would be a box on top of
the garage. There isn't a requirement for a Variance for something like that. Apologized to the
neighbors for bringing them down here today.
Public Hearing Closed:
Ms. Santalahti: Concurred that the content of the addition, whether it's a front porch or a kitchen or a
garage, doesn't make any difference as far as the code is concerned, as long as he provided the
minimum two parking spaces in a garage on the property. Concurred with Mr. Speth's explanation
of what would be permitted without a variance at this address. Discussion went on further to confirrn
that similar materials and compatible styling would gp into the addition for continuity to the house
and neighborhood.
Ms. Santalahti: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 166 on the basis that the deviation from
code is minimal. tt consists only of 40 square feet or less at a comer of the house that is distant from
the closest property line so that at the closest line, the east side, the setback is valid. lt's about 5 or
6 feet. The set back begins to encroach into the required front yard so it is a triangular area. Amend
conditions to make sure that a window be replaced and put in the front wall as is shown on the
submitted elevation plans. Window should have shutters in the style that is the same as dr similar to
the shutters on the existing window or if the windows are replaced that there is continuity on the
house. Condition this not to have to leave in the tree that existsrf it is, in fact, diseased. A '
replacement tree comparable to what exists should be planted prior to final building and zoning
inspections of the garage addition. Make certain that the general design of the additioh including the
roofline and colors are identical to the existing house. The conditions need to be included in the
plans submitted for building permits so it's clear at that point. The tree issue should be addressed
prior to issuance of building permit so that on the plans submitted you will be able to give size and
type of tree to be planted: Fifteen gallon tree minimum is required by code.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 6
07/29/99
6a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCURRED
6b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.99-123 (READVERTISED) APPROVED
OWNER: Edward Arshi
347 Larkwood Street
Anaheim, CA 92808
AGENT: Growth Management Co.
3820 East La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 470 South Mohler Drive. Property is 1.53 acres, having a
frontage of 206 feet on the east side of Mohler Drive, a
maximum depth of 373 feet and is located 250 feet north of
the centerline of Country Hill Road (470 South Mohler
.Drive)..
To establish a 2-lot single-family residential subdivision in the RS-HS-22,000
(SC) Zone.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA99-30
Continued from the April 22, and June 17, 1999 Zoning Administrator meetings.
REMARKS:
Shank Shaw, Growth Management, and Agent representing the project: Stated that the Gient is
agreeable with staff recommendations with the exception of lwo items. Item No. 18, that applicant
be required to submit additional site plans, elevation and precise grading plan. All that is being done
here is the subdivision of a parcel of land.. Secondly, the mitigation measures that are being
imposed to this project. We have a letter from the County of Orange that stipulates that the area to
be disturbed is not occupied by such species. There is a very minimal area in which they had the
coastal sage shrub and by itself it does not have any value unless they see the gnatcatcher. We
hired an approved biologist to look at our project per the requirement of the Fish and Wildlife Game
and he spent various times during 6 weeks observing the project and he did not observe any
gnatcatchers at the site. One of the requirements on the mitigation is that we have to do another
survey to be allowed to continue this project and I think this is another hardship to my client.
Requesting this is repetitive and cos0y for the applicant.
No one present in opposition of this project.
Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer: Stated that the mitigation measures that are presented are
offered by the Advanced Planning Division of the Planning Department and it is in conformance with
the City's participation in this habitat conservation program. The measures that are listed are those
that will offer protection during grading and to ensure that the areas that need to be protected are
and that there is the proper oversight during the grading operations.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Asked if the City had experience in this kind of thing in
other areas out there being or having been developed
Mrs. Adams: Responded that this is a new program for the City so there aren't a large number of
projects that have done this so we are in the early stages of implementing this program.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 7
07/29/99
Ms. Santalahti: Clarified that once the developer satisfied these conditions, it would basically
address the issue during grading. Once they are finished with the grading, after construction, it isn't
an issue any longer. It is my understanding that is a mandatory program for the City's having areas
like this within theirjurisdiction.
Mr. Shaw: Staff recognized this area as the habitat area for the gnatcetcher. This is why we have
spent almost $ 2,500 to hire a biologist in the event that there is the gnatcatcher in order for that
property to be protected. It's been reviewed by the biologist and Planning Department has a copy of
the complete report of that. I have another letter from the County of Orange to be submitted that
clearly states thaC the area to be disturbed is not occupied by the gnatcatcher. That is why the
request for this condition is to be waived.
Amy Greyson, Deputy Attorney: Pointed out on page two of the staff report, number 9, talked about
the environmental impact analysis. Apparently the initial study identified certain impacts from this
project and the mitigation measures were imposed including the mitigation-monitoring program to
'mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance. In the absence of that, the applicant would have
to either modify the project or provide afull-blown EIR and there would have to be a statement of
overwriting consideration, which would be what the applicant would want to do.
Ms. Santalahti: Asked when there are city conditions and circumstances that have to be assumed
which may not be true, and they are under certain regulations, and then it toms out that something
wasn't necessary but the condition was worded in a fashion that you kind of end up having to amend
it at a public hearing. If any of the mitigation measures turn out not necessary, if decided by the
appropriate county agency, I would like to add that wording in. I certainly agree that the mitigation
measure needs to stay but if there is something that is provided that the county agency is in charge
of the program.
Mr. Shaw: Stated that the County of Orange has an agreement with the City of Anaheim that they
clearly state that the independent judgement of the agency means they give you the authorization to
make the decision. They make a recommendation due to the agreement that they have with you
that you are the agency that can make a decision that will eliminate that. In the letter they write that
there is no specie around that area.
Ms. Santalahti: Basically with the way everything sits today and with my level of understanding I
would like to continue this item for two weeks. Staff could then review the letter submitted today
dated June (July 29, 1999) from the County of Orange, Planning and Development Services
Department and determine whether that letter gives the kind of information that either could modify
or eliminate one or more of the mitigation measures. I can not make that decision.
Mr. Shaw: Objected to the continuance due to the fact that everything was completed on a timely
manner on the applicant's part.
Ms. Santalahti: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration including the mitigation measures identified
on the attachment labeled Master Mitigation Monitoring Compliance Report for Plan No. 110, 470
South Mohler Drive. Also approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-123.
Mrs. Adams: Public Works added a condition of approval related to the improvement of Mohler
Drive. {Read into the Record} Mohler Drive shall be improved to comply with Public Works
standards. The final parcel map shall include an improvement certificate to notify future property
owners and that the improvement shall be constructed prior to occupancy of each home.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 8
07/29/99
Mr. Shaw: Stated that having worked very closely with Melanie Adams on many .projects, we trust
her judgement. There is a subdivision and major construction going on right now on Country Hill, in
Anaheim Hills. If these conditions .are going to be very close to those, then we will be very happy to
comply.
Ms. Santalahti: Clarified that they will be closely worded to the Country Hill project. Questioned what
is a signature omission letter
Mr. Shaw: F~cplained that it is when you can not get in touch with a company o~ person and they
have some easement to your property that has encumbered your property. You put it on a title sheet
to a plan as a title sheet as a signature omission with all the information that you will recognize that
this area belongs to Southern California Edison and under no circumstances do you have the right to
construct a permanent structure on that. lt's very simple and there is no problem with this.
Ms. Santalahti: Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-123 with an additional condition of regarding
the improvements along Mohler Drive.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 9
07/29/99
7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3
7b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-128 Continued to 8-12.99
OWNER: James Warren Schmidt
6200 Tobruk Court
Long Beach, CA 90803
AGENT: Doug Boynton/Bob Dupuy
729 East Willow Sfreet
Signal Hill, CA 90806
LOCATION: 117 South Western Avenue. Property is 0.87-acres,
having a frontage of 129 feet on the west side of Westem
Avenue, and a maximum depth of 290 feet and is located
135 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
To establish a 2-lot commercial subdivision for an existing self-serve car wash facility
and drive-through restaurant in the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.
REMARKS:
Doug Boynton, 729 East Willow Street, Signal Hill, CA 90806, represent the applicant. Prefile
comments have been reviewed and agree to all, except one. It has to deal with the double size
trash enclosures. The properties are both serviced with a single size trash enclosure each and it
seems to be quite adequate for this situation. Why is the double size being recommended?
Melanie Adams: Stated the recommendation came from the Public Works Department, Streets
and Sanitation Division. The requirement for a double bin trash enclosure is 1 bin is for refuse
and the second bin is for recyclable. The requirement for each property to have their own bin is
that each property is billed separately unless there is an agreement that the propertyowners have
entered into. Such that there is one enclosure with the both bins and they have some type of
agreement in terms of the payment for frash service.
Ms. Santalahti: Asked if separate people own the businesses on this property?
Mr. Bdynton: Iterated that the property is owned by a single landowner and the fast food business
is leased out and the property owner has the carwash himself. The reason for the subdivision is
the person who is leasing the fast food .restaurant would like to purchase the property and own it
outright. Therefore there is no change in operation and based upon the recycle bin we can accept
the double size trash bins.
Ms. Santalahti: Stated that staff is concerned with a subdivision of this nature where one of the
parcels will not have frontage on a public street. That is unusual and typically when that happens
we end up with easements to the front because there is not a public alley.
Mr. Boynton: Responded that there would be an easement in place to service the rear lot. There
is currently an easement now which allows the ingress and egress to the shopping center to the
side opposite to the street and that is recorded with the parcel map.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 10
07/29/99
Ms. Santalahti: Agreed with staffs concern that setting up a configuration like this has been
problematic in cases like this in the past. Particularly when one owner does a better job than the
other one or .another one becomes tardy in taking care of their property. This does have
residential uses to the south on the other side of the alley. Therefore it is not a commercial alley;
it serves both commercial and residential uses.
Mr. Boynton: Stated that this configuration is well over 20 years old and has worked for the past
20 years.
Ms. Santalahti: Inquired if McDonalds restaurant owned property to the north?
Mr. Boynton: Confirmed that it was a parking lot and McDonalds restaurant
Ms. Santalahti: Asked if this property had access across those parcels?
Mr. Boynton: Stated that the patrons come from their property onto our property, which will
continue.
Ms. Santalahti: Stated that staff had a concern with lack of signage on a public street. There
needs to be some sort of agreement between businesses for combined signage or you end up not
having signage on the public street. How is that .issue handled right now and might it be taken
care of in the future if this map is approved? (Item 4, 16(d) the need for future signage or
development waivers). I had a lot of experience with people unhappy with their Sign
circumstances.
Mr. Boynton: Requested an explanation of the problem with the signage?
Ms. Santalahti: Responded that the property will not have frontage on a public street, therefore, it
will not have rights to signage on a public street. With a parcelization like this, there needs to be
rights across the property. Even though there are two owners, the one property has the issue of
signage addressed. For a car wash, the need may be a little different but for the next business to
come along with a valid commercial use and can fit the parking on the property there may be a
different need. Does this property have adequate parking? We only have a drawing of a tentative
parcel map. We don't have any other exhibits reflecting how the lot could be restriped. Does the
map reflect what is out there right now?
Mr. Boynton: Stated that this property has adequate space. It doesn't have adequate striping at
the moment but we have been able to place the required number of parking spaces on there.
There are to be no changes to the property and it's just a matter of the sale of a piece of it. There
is the basic understanding that it is better to have the owner running the business then the owner
leasing the business.
Ms. Santalahti: Asked that as far as the drive-through restaurant's current code requirements, is it
deficient in parking?
Ms. Santalahti: Continued the project.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 11
07/29/99
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS -3
8b. VARIANCE N0.4365 Continued to 8-26.99
OWNER: John Priem
12012 Knott Street, A-2
Garden Grove, CA 92841
LOCATION: 121 South Montgomery Wav. Property is 1.0-acre, having
a frontage of 107 feet on the west side of Montgomery Way,
a maximum depth of 230 feet and is located 250 feet west
of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue.
Waiver of maximum structural height (25 feet high permitted; 32 feet proposed) to
construct a new single-family residence in the RS-HS-43,000 (SC)(Residential Single-
Family Hillside, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. '
Jphn Priem, Owner-Builder at 121 South Montgomery way. Stated his proposal for a height
variance from the maximum 25 feet to a maximum of 32 feet. Many precautions have been taken in
designing this home. One is to make sure that the placement of all the windows ensures the privacy
to all neighbors. No windows look into any back yards or any homes. The north and the south side
of the residence are mainly one story. I've tried to keep theYesidence as far as pdssible to the front
of the lot to save any possible views for the residents to the south of the lot. The property has view
from the northeast side of the property and I am also trying to achieve the best possible view. The
house directly to the south of the property is approximately 33 feet tall and it does not have a
variance. The main portion of the residence looks much taller than 25 feet. The house direc8y to
the north of this property has a majority ridge line of 27 feet and does not have a variance as well.
Here is a notation of the approximate minimum distances from surrounding homes, assuming they
have minimum setback requirements. The distance from the southerly home is approximately 88
feet. This is assuming there exists a 15-foot rear which is probably much larger. Distance from the
westerly residence is 158 feet assuming there is a 15-foot rear yard along with a tennis court
between the two houses. The distance from the northerly residence is approximately 60 feet and
there is a tennis court as well on the property directly between the two houses. Distance from the
easterly home is 67 feet to 103 feet depending on where it is measured from the front of the house. I
feel that the distances between my house and the four others as well as the two tennis courts
between my lot and two others makes a perfect buffer zone.' Lastly, I understand the concerns of my
fellow neighbors as to the value of their property but I to have a responsibility and a right to get full
value out of my property as well. I am asking to be able to do what 4 out of the 5 neighbors in the
area have been able to do and that is to build my home over the allowable 25 feet.
Ms. Santalahti: Verified the applicant's reference to the height areas, is what the applicant said
correct or is it more correct in the staff report in the area that is above 25 feet?
David See: Stated that based on staff's research it would be item 13. That's based on information in
the variance file. There were two other variances on this same block granted between 10 and 12
percent of the deviation.
One person was present in opposition of this project.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 12
07/29/99
Mrs. Charia, 4705 E. Cerro Vista Drive: Stated the main concern we have is that this 32 foot high
home will be an obstruction for our view since that is our back yard. Opposition submitted a letter
with signatures from the association members stating that they did not receive a plan in Peralta
Knolls Association. The Association would like to request a copy of the plans.
Ron Ferris, 130 EI Dorado Lane: Resides west of the proposed home. I take exception to the
applicant's statement that it would not look into any backyard. They would look into my backyard
being immediately west. I do have a tennis court on a piece of my lot but there is an exposed piece
as well that would look directly into my lot. So for the tennis court part, I have some trees that do
back up there but my home does sit about 4 or 5 feet below the existing lot which is up higher
anyway. They have back windows facing the back with a balcony. He made the statement that 4 or
5 homes that had exceeding height limits of 25 feet. There are only two that I am aware of and
those are two that had applied for a variance. The others did not. If they do exceed the height limit
they were done by mistake or without the public process of a variance. With regard to the two that
did have a variance, they both back up to streets so there is not immediate neighbor's yard involved.
Request a meeting with the applicant for an opportunity to share concerns and come up with a
compromise that would be satisfactory to both sides..
Ms. Santalahti: Continued the request for one month in order to provide the association with a copy
of the plans and to make an effort to speak with the neighbors and hear their concerns. There may
be some solutions that would be workable in the context with the way you would like the house to be
designed.
Applicent: Stated that he was unaware of the need to submit plans to the association before the
approval of a variance. There are many plan-changes, which go on, and it costs money: That is the
only.reason that plans were not submitted at this paint. I did call one of the neighbors and explain to
him that 1 was going to be dropping a set of plans off and after the fact, I thought atiout it and I could
just see my money going down the drain.
Ms. Santalahti[ Stated that the City doesn't require that normally. I recall when this property was
parceled and our expectations were that there were going to be large houses and they were going to
be looked at on an individual basis. This item will be continued for 4 weeks (t3-26-99).
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 13
07/29/99
9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS-3 CONCURRED
9b. VARIANCE NO. 4366 APPROVED
OWNER: Karl G. KreutrigerJr.
Lori A. Kreutriger
6263 East Trail Drive
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 6271 East Trail Drive. Property is 0.51-acre, having a
frontage of 85 feet on the north side of Trail Drive, a
maximum depth of 134 feet and is located 162 feet west of
the centerline of Whitestone Drive.
Waiver of maximum structural height (25 feet high permitted; 36 feet proposed)
to construct a new single-family residence in the RS-HS 22,000 (SC) Zone.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA99-31
Karl Kreutziger, 6263 East Trail Drive: Present for questions that Annika Santalahfi and staff may
have. He basically read through the staff report concurring with staff comments and
recommendations,
Opposition:
Katie Grubb, 335 Royal Ridge Drive: Stated that her home is essentially up hill from this property
and is here today because she received a legal notice in the mail and figured that she should find
out what is going on. From where this property is located, based on the grading pad, it has no effect
on her view. However she is concerned with precedence being set in their neighborhood.
Doug Brown with J.G.D. Company, 6254 Santa Ana Canyon Road: Stated that he submitted a letter
that was received by staff. The primary concern other than the establishment of precedence of
height, is the impact on the privacy of the northedy property that we are about to develop. I believe
regarding the subject property that we share 100% of the proposed project's properly line. Nonnal
process when J.G.D. submits a plan for development is to first contact the neighbors in order to
explain what your project is and then in order to encourage participation in the project normally
results in smoother hearings. I believe there are measures that could be implemented to mitigate
the impact of the height. Most importantly my main concern was in the interview that I had at the
counter with staff regarding the justification for this variance in that I could not see how in Item A in
the Findings that could be found. That is, yes there are other identically zoned properties in the
area, which have irregular lot lines and sloping topography. This parcel was developed with the idea
of housing a structure on it. This property has a substantial building pad where the garage of the
house could be placed other than subterranium style. The placement of it on the northerly side and
below grade necessitates the height waiver. If the garage was not there, then the height waiver,
based on my understanding would not be necessary. I believe there is a way and the property
owners of the northerly property could work out this issue. I would request a continuance in order to
be able to meet with the builder in order to work out our concerns.
Zoning Administrator Agenda Page 14
07/29/99
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Kreutziger: Stated that the tried to contact a lady we are in discussion with and, unfortunately, we
were not able to contact her because she did have concerns and thought it was my father-in-laws
property where the 36-foot height which is indicated in that view court. The adjacent neighbors have
gone over the plans with them and they have no problems with that. As far as Mr. Brown's
involvement with this project, he has been very involved since May of 1998. He has been aware of
everything I have had to do with the grading and what my intentions were on the project. He did
receive civil and .architectural plans for this project. This continuance that he is trying to get in order
for us to discuss any of the issues is not required. In fact we are trying to resolve other issues
legally, and we have no means of communication at this point, so that is not going to resolve any of
the issues that he is suggesting. His project has been developed for the last two years and IYe
been looking down at a storage yard and I have no intentions to keep that view there. We are going
to plant 24-foot inch fast growing box trees. Other than that I have no other issues.
Ms. Santalahti: Approved Variance No. 4366.
Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer. Iterated that Condition No. 2 was not applicable to this project
and Condition No. 6 should be deleted because the Parcel Map has been recorded with the County.
Ms. Santalahti: Approved Variance No. 4366 with the exception of Conditions No, 2 and 6 which will
be deleted as we were advised today.
10. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None
Zoning AdminisVator Agenda Page 15
07/29/99