Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1999/11/18ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1999 9:30 A.M. PRESENT: Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer David See, Associate Planner Patricia Koral, Senior Word Processing Operator REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE WAIVER NO. 99-05 Approved for 1 year OWNER: HARDIN OLDSMOBILE (Nov. 18, 2000) Attn: Walter J. Cadman 1300 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1300 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is 4 acres having a frontage of 515 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, a maximum depth of 345 feet, and located 515 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. Requests a Special Circumstance Waiver to permit banners mounted on light poles for a period of two (2) years in conjunction with an existing car dealership in the ML (Industrial Limited) Zone. DS OPPOSITION: No one indicating their presence either for or against the project. Dennis Hardin, Dealer Principal at Hardin Oldsmobile GMC, 489 Westridge Circle Anaheim. We have suffered on Anaheim Blvd. over the past 6-7 years with all kinds of challenges with the street being torn up, the undergrounding of utilities, re-landscaping and now we have the I-5 widening with all of the on-ramps and off-ramps to I-5 being re- routed and closed and it has made access to our dealership very difficult for our customers. That coupled with the trend toward the auto business and the auto malls and with the exodus of the auto dealers on Anaheim Blvd. has made it even more difficult for us to operate and for those reasons we are asking for a special waiver of the code that we might display some banners that might rebuild some of the business that we have lost because of all of the challenges that we have had. I would like to remind the City that every time we sell a $45,000 Suburban on Anaheim Blvd., $450.00 goes into the City coffers, so sales tax revenue that is generated from auto dealers is significant from our dealership. I would like to see the City support us and try to help our business be successful in our mutual benefit. Ms. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, What is the timing of the completion of the interstate 5 improvements. Page 1 11/18/99 Dave See, Associate Planner stated approximately two years (Nov. 18, 2001). In this general area, the only Special Circumstances Waiver is issued for the motor cycle place up on Ball Road which obtained a permit because it is also in industrial zoning. They are being allowed to have the permit in the same fashion as they would if they were Commercial zoning. _ Mr. See stated he could look up similar Special Circumstance Waivers. I do however recall the Dodge Dealer directly to the north also received a Special Circumstance Waiver in June of 1998 and approved without a time limitation. Specifically for 36 days per year, similar to what a commercial zone would permit. Ms. Santalahti: Asked Dave See if he recalled two other Special Circumstance Waivers recently located on Lincoln Ave., and if Dave See recalled if it were this type of a banner setup? Mr. See replied, yes, it was very similar, one was the Ford Dealership at Loara and Lincoln near the 5 Fnvy. They got approval about six months ago and the Chevrolet Dealership at Euclid and Lincoln also received approval for the same thing. I'm Interested in the number of dealerships on this section of the street overall because obviously what one gets - It would be taken into consideration as to how it was granted relative to the others. Mr. Hardin, how many banners specifically would be hanging? Ms. Santalahti; Mr. Hardin stated that there are 15 banners that will be attached to 15 light poles facing Anaheim Blvd., there are no streamers. We have some pictures of what the banners will look like (submitted at meeting). There is only one auto dealer left on Anaheim Blvd. and that is McPeek Chrysler Plymouth, there was a time when there were ten dealerships. Immediately south of us is a used car operation, A-Professional, they specialize in upscale Mercedes and BMW used cars. Ms. Santalahti: Mr. Hardin, wanted to have a banner that attaches to the light pole without all the streamers, however we will have the surrounding colors. The Staff recommendation is that the text on any single banner be restricted to the name of the dealership and or the specific auto. Is that something you would be prepared to do? Mr. Hardin replied yes. Ms. Santalahti: So, potentially saying Used cars, GMC truck or Oldsmobile, one of those three things. She stated that because Hardin Oldsmobile is in Industrial zoning and that there is commercial in the area, that is one of the reasons why she doesn't have a problem with that level, like the people to the north of you have received. It does concern me over longer periods of time and all of the time dealerships watch each other and what ever happens at one, happens in another. So it's not just what your neighbor has that is of interest to me, it is also that the others would come in with a similar argument if their place of business is anywhere near a freeway. Mr. Hardin replied that the businesses in the auto center really rely on the visibility from the 57 Envy. and the banners are not really that helpful to us, so I don't believe you will see the dealers from the auto center coming to you asking for the same permits. Ms. Santalahti: Asked Melanie Adams the status of the fnvy. work overall with regards to the phasing? Melanie did not have specifics with regards to the phasing but that the project overall would be completed in 2001. Mr. See, Associate Planner, stated that staff would like to point out that the two dealerships on Lincoln were granted a one year permit. Ms. Santalahti: stated that the City has been really concerned about signage overall and has made modifications to the code regarding signage. She would like to see issuance of a permit for a six month period to see how this will work out, since the concern is two years may be too long and that a 36 day per year permit for this type of a retail use may be even better. Page 2 11/18/99 Mr. Hardin stated he understood because his dealership has suffered with some kind of construction or other act of either City or State that has impacted our business for the last five years and we are going to be suffering another two years, it seems to me that two years would be a reasonable amount of time in order for us to try and recoup some of the recognition that we once had when we had greater traffic flows on Anaheim Blvd. Ms. Santalahti, stated that since Anaheim Blvd. Is open, but the ramping situation is still ..., Mr. Hardin stated it is not marked and if you don't know your way around you would never find your way to Anaheim Blvd. and most of our customers are coming from other areas and don't know their way around and it is really difficult for them to find us and we do rely on drive by traffic to attract new customers, and this would help us be more visible and try to overcome the hurdles we have been faced with. ACTION: Ms. Santalahti approved Special Circumstances Waiver 99-5 for a period of one year until November 18, 2000 with the banners as shown and also per the site plan which shows the location of the banners on the Tight poles on the property and including the exhibit to show the approximate dimensions and shape of the banner give or take six inches. Specifically identifying the style of the banner, as the one that is shown for Mcoy Mills Fullerton or smaller (so the banner part is hanging on one side of the pole and the bunting goes around the pole. Then Miss Santalahti asked if Mr. Hardin would sketch the shape of the banner for basic dimensions and shape on a piece of paper because during this period of time unless the weather is perfect your'e going to have to replace the banner(s) and I don't want some one to come back with an interesting new larger design. What would you say the overall maximum dimensions would be ? Mr. Hardin stated that the banners themselves are about 6-1/2 ft. long and about 3 ft. wide Page 3 11 /18/99 2b. OWNER: Jon F. Cocca 931 S. Texella Court Anaheim., CA 92804 !LOCATION: 931 South Texella Court: Property is 0.21 acre located at the terminus of Texella Court having a frontage of 80 feet on the west of Texella Court, and a maximum depth of 142 feet. To construct additions to an attached garage and residence of a single-family home in the RS-7200 zone with waiver of minimum side yard setback (5 feet required; 4 feet proposed). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99-39 Appeal period ends, November 17, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. Approved vK OPPOSITION: No calls or letters were received and no one at the hearing wishing to speak for or against Ms. Annika Santalahti: The encroachment is the two bay window shaped extensions of the covered deck and covered patio. Dave See, Associate Planner: That is correct, the encroachment would be on the side yard, which is the side facing Balt Road or adjacent to BaII Road. There is one addition expanding the garage which is only four feet and also portion of the house which is only 4 feet. Ms. Santalahti: It is along the east property line ACTION: Due to no opposition received to this Administrative Adjustment No. 175 which is a 20% or less deviation from the code requirement of side yard setbacks and that particular setback is along the Ball Road side of asingle-family residence which is at the end of a cul-de-sac and has a rather large frontage of the side yard along Ball Road, I will approve Administrative Adjustment No. 175 as shown on the submitted plans. Page 4 11 /18/99 3a. CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (61(3)} 3b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO.176 APPROVED OWNER: Goldstone Holdings LLC 32685 Caspian Sea Drive Dana Point, CA 92629 AGENT: Jeff A. Cox 821 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 LOCATION: 511 North Brookhurst Street: Property is 2.13 acres located on the corner of Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue. To permit the establishment of a 7,711 sq.ft. medical office within an existing 44,192 sq.ft. 3-story office building in the CL(Commercial Limited) Zone with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (192 required; 179 proposed). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99-40 Appeal period ends, November 17, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. VK OPPOSITION: No opposition received during the notification period Ms. Annika Santalahti: This is a deviation of less than 10% of the parking requirement. ACTION: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 176 on the basis of no apposition being received and that the deviation from the parking requirement is less than 10% of the code standard. Page 5 11/18/99 4a. CEQA EXEMPT tSECTION 15061 (B)(51} 4b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 178 APPROVED OWNER: Monica Pierson and Malcolm Pierson 1819 N. Cymbal Way Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Landmark Remodelers Attn: Jerry Lutjens 19953 Valley Boulevard Walnut, CA 91789 LOCATION: 1819 North Cymbal Wav: Property is 0.12 acre having a frontage of 53 feet on the west side of Cymbal Way, having a maximum depth of 100 feet, and located 90 feet north of the centerline of Budlong Street. To construct a 321 sq.tt. family room addition and fireplace to an existing single-family home in the RS-5000(SC)(Residential, Single- Family;Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone with waiver of maximum lot coverage (35% permitted; 38.4% proposed). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99-41 Appeal period ends, November 17, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. JD OPPOSITION: No opposition was received during the notification period. Ms. Annika Santalahti: Is this the max. lot coverage? Dave See: Yes, it is a 10% deviation of lot coverage. Ms. Annika Santalahti: Stated that she will note for the record that the Administrative Adjustments public notice periods on all the administrative adjustments ended yesterday (11/17/99) at 5:00 P.M. ACTION: Approved Administrative Adjustment No. 178 based on no opposition being received and that the deviation from code is approximately 10%. Page 6 11 /18199 5b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 179 I APPROVED OWNER: Kilroy Realty Corporation 184 Technology Ddve, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 AGENT: Associated Builders and Contractors 5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Ste. A Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5109 East La Palma Avenue: Property is 9.33 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Kellogg Drive. To establish an industrially-related training facility within an existing office and industrial complex waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces (623 spaces required; 584 spaces proposed). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99-42 Appeal period ends, November 17, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. OPPOSITION: No opposition was received. ACTION: Parking waiver of less than 10% from the code requirement and therefore the Zoning Administrator will be approving Administrative Adjustment No. 179. Page 7 11/18/99 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMSt 6b. OWNER: Ly K. Le-Phan 250 South Peralta Way Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: James Ramo 6737 Dos Rios Road Downey, CA 90240 LOCATION: 250 South Peralta Wav: Properly is 1.0 acre having a frontage of 183 feet on the east side of Peralta Way, maximum depth of 214 feet and located 539 feet south of the centerline of Peralta Hills Drive. Approved - With added Condition. Waiver of permitted encroachment into required yards (3-foot high fence permitted in the front yard; 6-foot high wall proposed) to construct a 6-foot high wrought iron/block wall fence and gate within the required front yard of asingle-family residence ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99-43 OPPOSITION: None PRESENT: Mr. Jim Ramo, Agent and with J.J. Construction, 6737 Dos Rios Rd., Downey for the Le Phan's at 250 South Peralta Way, Anaheim Hills. Ms. Annika Santalahti: Has the property owner or anyone contacted the abutting neighbors regarding this project? Mr. Ramo stated yes that the neighbor that will be affected on the side yard to the (right) south is aware of the proposal. We will be extending the existing wall from the tennis courts and tie in our wall to theirs. Ms. Santalahti: Is this wall going to go entirely across the front and also along the north property line. Mr. Ramo stated on the north property line it will only be a small section of wall to make a return and on the south will be a continuation of approximately 58 feet. Ms. Santalahti: Is this fence is basically going to sit on the property line? Mr. Ramo stated yes. Ms. Santalahti: What is the gate configuration going to be? Mr. Ramo stated that the existing concrete walk there has existing pilasters at the comers, I was going to utilize those and attach the gate right to the..., it's actually in the right-of-way, I was not sure if that was permitted? Ms. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator replied no. Mr. Ramo then replied that he could move it back to the property line, there is a step that is in the way that is going to pose a problem in design for that step, but other than that .... :Page 8 11 /18/99 Ms. Santalahti asked staff that she assumed that City Traffic Engineer Staff has taken a look at it and there is no line of sight issues or anything of that sort? Dave See, Associate Planner, stated that was correct and due to the majority of the fence being open the Traffic Engineer did approve this. Ms. Santalahti: Is this going to be a power remote control gate? Mr. Ramo, replied yes for the driveway gate and this is the third house from the end of the court, and basically the only people traveling this street are residents, its not a public way. Ms. Annika Santalahti: Is it a combination of wrought-iron above slump stone? Mr. Ramo replied yes. ACTION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance and I will approve this with findings noted on page 3 of the staff report under item 11 and will approve Variance No. 4378 on the basis that this particular wall is a combination wrought-Iron and block fence; that there are appropriate lines of sight being maintained because of the bottom height being approximately two feet high maximum; and that the Traffic Engineering Staff has taken a look at it and does not have any problems with this particular fence at this particular location on this particular street. However, a condition will be added. This street doesn't have any improvements or is paved or does the pavement just sort of stop? Mr. Ramo stated yes, bare edges, no curbs, no roll curbs; basically a private road. Ms. Santalahti stated that any existing pilasters that are to be retained will need to be to verified that nothing is in the public right-of- way. Mr. Ramo replied yes, and that the existing pilaster is a mail box. Ms. Santalahti stated that if anything like that is to be :retained, and if it can be retained, the appropriate permits would have to be obtained from the city. She did not know if there is a possibility of obtaining an encroachment for that if they wanted to do that, however, that would be their option if it is a possibility. Mr. Ramo asked if that were up to the inspectors discretion or plan checker? Ms. Santalahti stated no, that encroachments to public rights-of-way are the Public Works Department responsibility and to check with the Engineering Department. This particular condition regarding either moving the existing encroachment or getting the appropriate permit will have to be satisfied before issuance of a building permit or fence permit. Page 9 11 /18/99 7a. CEQA CATEGORICA 7b. VARIANCE N0.4379 December 30, 1999 OWNER: Craig W. Mullin and Freshteh Mullin 6955 E. Shorecrest Drive Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6955 E, Shorecrest Drive: Property is .07 acre having a frontage of 51 feet on the west side of Shorecrest Drive, maximum depth of 88 feet and located 1,030 feet southwest of the centerline of Lake Summit Drive. Waiver of .maximum lot coverage (35% required; 62% proposed) and minimum side yard setback (10 feet required; 5 feet proposed) to construct a 350 square foot addition to a detached single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. - OPPOSITION: No one indicated their presence in opposition or with concerns. APPLICANT : Mr. Mullin was present. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, asked the applicant if he had received a copy of a letter from the homeowners association? Mr. Mullin did not see it. Mr. Mullin stated that he was shown it but it did not see anything different than the letter the homeowner association have given to him earlier. Ms. Santalahti: What kind of timing would it take for the association to take a look at your plans? Mr. Mullin stated that when he had met with the association we told them we couldn't show them plans until we had some idea whether the city would allow us to do what we wanted to do because it did not make sense to me to spend money with an architect until i knew if the city would approve it or not. Mr. Mullin stated he would like to address some of these things for they are a little misleading and would like to clarify them. He stated he is Craig Mullin, owner and occupant of the house 6955 E. Shorecrest drive and has owned the property approximately 24 years. It was a rental and we now have moved back in and are now the occupants. He received a fax copy of the staff report, and has put together a point by point list to keep him on track and some photographs to give to the Zoning Administrator and then .... Dave See, Associate Planner stated that there should be photographs in the file also, Mr. Mullin stated that these are additional photographs. In response to the staff report and in support of our request for a Variance we would like to state the following: Our neighbors to the east had apparently sent in a letter objecting based on noise. When Mr. Mullin spoke to the neighbor initially on the telephone and mentioned that we were going to do this, he .had indicated to me on the telephone that as long as we did not block any view he would not have any objection and then never bothered tb tell us he did. It just was submitted and then I found out when I saw the staff report two days ago. But because the neighbors have built a second story deck and, by the way, we were never asked if we had any objections by either the neighbor or the association, and our privacy has been eliminated. Ms. Santalahti asked if it was the top photograph that was submitted at the hearing. Page 10 11/18/99 Mr. Mullin stated actually there are several. The first four photographs show the deck they have put in and one is a view outside our kitchen window. The second one is a view outside our door from the kitchen, another one is a view from the patio looking at their deck; the third one is sitting in our living room looking outside. So our request to expand our kitchen area was developed primarily to address the privacy issue and also the need for an eating area that would more appropriately support our larger family. When we bought the house twenty-four years ago, it was my wife and I, now we have two adult sized daughters that live with us, we can no longer enjoy the use of that certain space because when we sit outside now people are looking down on you and what we want to do is enclose that space which would reduce noise because anything that we would say would be inside that space where today it is outside, and secondly, we feel it would also help us with our family need. The staff report states that Lake Summit a is planned community built to the maximum density. This was approximately twenty-four or twenty-five years ago and that no other homes within the tract were granted lot coverage and set back waivers. Mr. Mullin asked how many have been requested .and how many have been denied? If no others have been applied for and been rejected, then I think the staff report's contention may not be relevant as a reason for denying my request if I am the first person asking for it. We are not expanding the number of bedrooms or bathrooms we are not adding any new rooms., merely as the age of the home has dictated, we must now replace the window's and the roof on the property. We want to add on the average two ft. to the kitchen and approximately four ft. in additional width in each bedroom to accommodate our family. If you look at what I'm proposing we have a pie shaped lot and what I want to do is go at an angle, that is why I can't say that it is exactly this or that. It starts out very narrow and get wider, so I'm not really asking to do things, I just want to add a little bit to make the house more convenient for our family and also think not being any different than other people who have houses in this high density area. We want to do this to our property facing the side of our neighbor's house that has no windows and significantly more space between it and any other houses on the street. If you look at picture "B", that shows the side of their house, so as we build this extension out on our property there would be no blocking of their view, actually they wouldn't even see it and as I go on later you will see the space there is significantly larger than the space that they have on the other side, the space that our neighbors on the other side of us have, and in all those cases they have larger homes on smaller property. Ms. Santalahti: This apparently is a zero side yard on this side so the neighbors wall is the boundary line? Mr. Mullin stated no, that he believed that is was a misnomer. His research indicates a four foot extension beyond the wall., with my ability to use that property, and they have the same thing on the far side as we have on our side, so again, I will bring this up where we talk about 10 ft. setbacks. I believe that Lake Summit is built to an 8 ft. not 10 ft. set back with an easement for the use of that area. Further, it has been mentioned tome by our neighbor that this addition will decrease their property value. The architectural integrity of the home from the street will essentially be the same as it is today. What we want to do, we don't have a picture, but if you look at the roof line on the house and imagine that angle line we want to make the shorter side of the roof reversed so essentially today the house looks like this and what we want to do is make it lodk like that. Ms. Santalahti: Oh, okay on that point then. So in the elevation sketch that you have done would be correct. Mr. Mullin stated that the elevation sketch would be correct. Ms. Santalahti: Okay, so what comes up from the left hand side of the drawing is the existing roof line and now you are proposing kind of a mirror image higher on the right hand side. Mr. Mullin said exactly. Now the existing roof line, the height is 14-1/2 ft. and what we want to do is probably go to 2 to 2-1/2 ft. higher, whatever it would take to put the beam going along on top. Ms. Santalahti: So it's existing 14-1/2 feet is approximately maximum right now? Mr. Mullin said that is the highest point of the house and the houses on either side of us are 2-story. So again, the architectural integrity of the property will be the same as it is today, only reversed and several feet higher, it will have the otivious improvements of a new roof and stucco exterior. The Lake Summit property Owners Association has given their conditional approval in a letter dated September 20, 1999. We went to their meeting and re-introduced ourselves to the neighborhood and sat down and kind of gave them the pitch Page 11 11/18/99 just like I am to you and at that point in time they said they didn't have any objections but obviously they couldn't approve it because they didn't have plans and the IetteP that I was shown this morning came in and what I suspect is, that I just had a quick glance at it but I think if you read it, it doesn't say anything different- - than what they said to me and I believe that it's a neighborhood association that does not want to get in the middle of an argument between 2 people so I can appreciate that, in that they take a neutral stand on that, So they have given me the letter when I went to talk to them because, again, I have been trying to do this open and above board as I have come to the city to do the same thing. I really wish my neighbor would have given me the same opportunity when they built that second story deck. I mean they talk about noise and they talk about all these kinds of .... Decreasing property value and actions speak louder than any words, so I wish they had given me that same opportunity. I am trying to enhance my property value through this request and at the same time improve the overall value of the neighborhood. It is strange to me that my neighbors who have significantly Tess space between them and their neighbors on the other side and cannot see anything on our side feel that this construction with this addition which will still allow more space than they have on the other side is going to diminish their property value. I don't understand that logic. They also speak of noises in their objection, yet apparently they did not consider the same impact towards me when they added the second story to their property, now I have attached "C-1 through 6 photographs and if you look at those and I have kind of written on the back what they are, you can get a general idea what they are, you can get a general idea what it is from house to house to house, and I believe 5 and 6 is the space that I am talking about between my house and the neighbor's house. The fourth point I had was the staff report states that the home is currently built out at a higher 51 % density than is permitted within any single-family residential zone in the city and is proposed at a density of 62%, greater than any residential zone in the city. Our home has less density than many other homes in the development and is slightly less than the properties on either side of us. The actual size of our property is 2992 sq. ft .and the homes on either side have pads that are 1600 sq. ft. I believe my house has a lot size of 3241-1/2 sq. ft. and I believe my pad size is 1670, so when I did the math on that I look at it and say those houses, just on that basis, have a greater density than I do. They are both 2-story houses and I'm a single-story house, so I believe I have less density than either one of those houses. This development was presented to the Planning Commission for land use considerations that the council agreed to many years before. It was approved based on the logic that the proposed use was only going to be 18% when 45% was permitted for the overall tract, therefore, it would seem the fact that the original house was built at 51 % coverage was inconsequential to the zoning approval of the hard cover and that our minimal request will not jeopardize the original thinking of the Council and granting permission to build the development. The staff report indicates that our development was not intended to be added to further lot coverage and lessor setbacks. Nowhere in my research did I see that as being documented so I can only consider that is supposition at this point in time in 1999, and if that is true, as such, I question the validity and factual representation and therefore, again question the appropriateness in looking at my consideration if it is just supposition and yet stated as fact. The staff report states the our request for waiver of minimum sideyard setback, 10 ft. required and 5 ft. requested, I feel this more or Tess erroneously exaggerates our request. First it is my understanding that the Lake Summit Development was built to 8 ft. setbacks, supported by notes to the Planning Commission and those were on November 12, 1973. Not 10 ft. as the staff report identifies and, by the way, which was put on the zoning card and sent out to all the neighbors and everything, and I don't believe it is correct and so, therefore, we are not looking to cut in half the distance when I made my original proposal to cut the distance in half, as you would believe if you were going to from 10 ft. to 5 ft. The staff reports evaluation states that we could increase the living space of our home by adding a second story, that would be nice if somebody can afford to do that but I can't afford to add a second story, and also as I get older I think I would rather have asingle-story. It is hard for me to appreciate that it would be okay to increase the use of the property in one way and not be allowed to in an other way, if we were to drop our sideyard setback request, would it be possible to add the other space to our property where we are not exceeding the current zoning set back requirements, I didn't know that our neighbors were going to object, as of matter of fact I ran around and I told everybody that what my neighbor had told me on the telephone when I approached them which was if I didn't block their view they didn't have any objections; and then they did object and I did not know about it until two days ago. So what I'm saying is even before I get started, what I would be willing to do is drop any request for sideyard setback. The only place in the original plan that this was going to occur was kind of the apex, at the narrowest point and what I would propose is notching that so that I did not extend over on the sideyard. When we applied for the variance request we were advised to go for the maximum we would need to this to protect ourselves when construction would begin and this seemed like logical and reasonable advice and I think it was given in that fashion. However, when I got the staff report back and began to Page 12 11/18/99 talk about hard cover I kind of felt like that advice had been handed right back to me because I was going along again, in good spirit in trying to get this done and in the very beginning of all of our discussion there was an understanding of what hard cover was and what other people had, and I honestly believe, I think it was handed out as passing good intention, and I took it as such and applied for 350 sq.ft. I don't need 350 sq. ft. to do what I want. What I want to do is just like that picture shows just push my kitchen out a little bit so that I can have some rational sense, I would like to add that out so I have some privacy from what has already been taken from me and then as I go through the bedrooms because I now have children I would like to take that out and I have plenty of space compared to anybody else in the neighborhood. I feel that the official city notice that was sent out to neighbors may unfairly depict the actual building requirements because it does not state that all the homes have been built with variances beyond those printed. Example 10 ft. stated as required when the development itself was built to 8 ft., and so I just think that was a little bit misrepresented and I also feel my neighbor's objection he too calls out 10 ft. and I don't believe that is correct. As we drive around surrounding neighborhoods we see additions to existing homes and I don't know if they have received permission or not. We live in our neighborhood and don't want to make any enemies but it seems as though by trying to follow the project in the right way we may in some ways be penalized for it. If the request is denied and somehow that just doesn't feel right, is that the kind of message that our government really wants to send, that if you follow the rules that it doesn't turn out that way. In conclusion we feel our situation is unique, that we do have more property than others on our street we have less density with our house on our lot, we are now not currently using space that we could use to improve the value of our home and neighborhood, reduce our personal hardship of having a larger family. At a minimal hardship to anybody else, we need the privacy from our neighbor's second story addition. I don't think that we are being outlandish or extravagant in our request for this addition. In conclusion I'd like to ask first for the variance as submitted and if that is not possible because of all the reasons, then I would like to stop the sideyard setback and apply, push forvvard and be allowed to go ahead to make the addition beyond the ground cover. The ppint on the ground cover is that a second story home, this is something that the zoning people know better than I do, but people live upstairs they have more houses, more bathrooms all those kinds of things and I'm not trying to..., I'm just trying to push the wall out when I have to put new windows in and everything else, so I would ask that you would approve it. Ms. Santalahti: This was one of the earlier projects of its type. David, do you know if the code has changed in the interim. What I'm curious about actually, is what other lots typically have out therein terms of existing coverage because obvipusly in comparison to today's code 51% is far beyond what one would expect to see and so I know the code has changed. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there may be someone else here who wishes to speak on the subject. Ms. Santalahti: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak regarding this item no. 7, Variance No. 4379; no one else indicates their interest in speaking. Mr. Mullin stated that he has copies of his property and all of the properties on either side of me on my street and then this (one pictures submitted at meeting) is a copy of essentially the same thing with my house and the footprints of the houses. Ms. Santalahti: Is that taken off building plans? Mr. Mullin replied yes. Ms. Santalahti: That is the kind of information I was headed towards because I've driven around in there but that has been a number of years ago. What I would be interested in knowing is giving us a number of lots, specifically on your streetand calculating the lot coverage. The parcel maps on these properties or the tract maps should specifically identify the lot size and the building permits for the models would indicate the square footage although that is easier to calculate since they are rectangular. Page 13 11/18/99 Mr. Mullin stated that there was a particular home on 7051 N. Scenic Circle, that as you go through that I would like to be included in that too. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney: I would like to point out that the findings that are required to be made for the granting of a variance are sefforth in paragraph 16 and it discusses that when practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enfomement of the zoning code a modification may be granted, I just wanted to clarify that the hardship that is being described here are the special type of circumstances that apply to the characteristics of the property itself not to financial hardship or other hardships that may be more personal in nature and that both findings a and b must be made and I do not see where special circumstances applicable to this property have been identified. Ms. Santalahti: What I would be interested in knowing is what number of these other lots, smallest possible lot in the tract you are in, what the coverage is, the circumstance of having zero, not what appears to be zero sideyard but isn't in fact because there is an easement with your use on each side, but that the plan you submit should reflect that. Far instance, if your west property Tine is over another 4 ft. or whatever.... Mr. Mullin ,correct that is my understanding of it..... Ms. Santalahti: Right, and that is granted as easement to that side and then the same situation on the side we are talking about. But I am interested in knowing what is out there because I do recall we did not have a condominium zone out here in 1975, so there was a lot of tweaking done and the code has changed, we have a condominium code which we didn't have and even after the condominium zoning was developed which is RM3000, the RM2400 was modified to allow condominiums so there have been 2 versions of the way the city deals with condominiums and those properties developed subsequently probably will match those codes. This one is so far off the current code, that's what odd. I could have maybe seen 5% and they would have variances anyway at the time, so anyway I would like you to do some research and I would like to continue this item, and for you to do some research to get some examples in the tract, pick the largest, middle size and smallest to compare it to yours to show how they relate. We do have the files, I think this property has a conditional use permit ? Dave See, Associate Planner, stated yes there was a tract map and Conditional Use Permit No. 1430 which is described on page 2 on the top and there were 7 waivers as part of the conditional use permit. Ms. Santalahti: I would like to know and you can take a look at the resolution that approved it under this condition use permit as well ,what was actually approved because all the lots, maybe in the range of 50% or 50 to 70 or 50 to 30, to get a sense of what is going on so that I can look at this in the context of what was approved out there and the code that was in effect at that time, notjust viewing the project today in comparison to the current code. Mr. Mullin: I live there and I don't want to create a fight with my neighbor, that would be a whole other issue and I live there and don't want to create a fight. Ms. Santalahti: People seem to think that a roof top type of a deck is something they are going to use and then they don't, because I've seen it in various places where there is a view, I've never ever seen anybody on the top deck, and I haven't seen this one specifically other than your photographs but ... Mr. Mullin stated you can see how close that is and how even sitting in my living room I have no privacy. Ms. Santalahti: I see why you're interested in what you can do on your side, I view this as, at least, a one month continuation, but this is over a holiday period and that gets a Tittle tricky for everybody. Dave See, Associate Planner, stated a four week continuance would be to the December 16 hearing and a six week continuance would be to December 30. Ms. Santalahti: Continue this item and hope to only continue it one time even though we can do more than that but that would mean any information that comes to staff to incorporate into a staff report should be in two weeks before this date. Page 14 11/18/99 Dave See, Associate Planner, stated that is correct, that would be four weeks from now for a four week continuance and within two weeks of this time we would need to receive the information and we can work with the applicant also. Ms. Santalahti: You can make arrangements to come in and look at some micro fiche and get some numbers out of that. It may be that the staff report explains a lot of that, it was definitely done as a high brid of zoning at the time it was done and I would like to know overall what is there because if it turns out that 90% of everybody has 65% coverage based on the lot easement. Ms. Annika Santalahti: I would be interested in getting information regarding other area lots in both the coverage issue as well as the side yards that have been done. I know that there are a number of narrow ones there because others have talked about that before, so yours is wider. The code now, and this is one of the changes I'm specifically aware of, the code where it allowed higher lot coverage on smaller lots, .also identify the issue of usable outdoor space. When I say side yard sometimes you may need to take a look at the back yard; front yards don't count for that purpose. ACTION: Ms. Santalahti continued this item to the meeting of December 30, 1999, there will be no new public notification since it is continued to a specific date and during that time you will work with staff and do some research regarding existing lot coverages and sideyards in the area and I'm very interested in seeing what they are and how that matches what you are proposing. Mr. Mullin asked if he could get back the two maps... Dave See, Associate Planner, states that he will make copies and we will keep those submitted Page 15 11 /18199 8b. OWNER: E.E.S.A. P.O. Box 931025 Los Angeles, CA 90093-1025 AGENT: James Stavropoulos 3330 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 3330 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is .64 acre having a frontage of 155 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, maximum depth of 180 feet located 362 feet west of the centerline of Westchester Drive. To permit the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99-44 year. OPPOSITION: No one else indicating their presence to speak on this project. Representative for the applicant, Steve Stavropaulos, 2012 W. Ghateau, Anaheim. Ms. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Staff is recommending approval of this proposal with the findings listed on page 3 and page 4 of the staff report. The Police Department has reviewed the proposal at this location regarding the beer and wine aspect of it and .apparently has no difficulties with it and that the density of both crime and liquor licenses. pave See, Associate Planner, stated that the Police Department did provide a memorandum that is attached and did indicate a higher than average crime rate in the area, however due to the low concentration (one existing license 8 permitted) they did recommend approval. Correction of this, the Police Departmentjust gave the statistics and did not comment further. Ms. Santalahti: Which is the restaurant that is out there now? Mr. Stavropaulos: It's called Omega Family restaurant. We have been there 25 years, family oriented restaurant, we have a pretty steady clientele just ranging from older people, lot of people come three times a day with their families, a lot of our customers have been requesting beer and wine basically for dinner. Ms. Santalahti: This proposal is solely limited to beer and wine in connection with a sit down meal? Mr. Stavropaulos: Yes, only beer and wine and on top of that it is only going to be served with an entree such as a steak, salad and a sandwich; alcohol is not going to be served just straight. If a customer comes in and wants just a beer we won't do that. ACTION: Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4164 on the basis of the findings listed in the staff report including that the density of licenses in this area is lower than the city-wide averages or the number permitted in the reporting area in the normal fashion, and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report Some of the conditions that have Page 16 11/18/99 come out of the Police Department concern any place where there is a liquor license or beer and wine license are actually okay right now. I don't know for sure, but you will be finding out if there is any problem with that. For instance, number 14 which discusses the parking lot having adequate lighting, so that it is cleat Mr. Stavropaulos: stated that the lighting is fairly sufficient in the parking lot without being blinding to any residents, it is pretty well lit all around. ` Ms. Santalahti: Is this a single building on this property or are there other buildings there? Mr. Stavropaulos stated it was a single building. Ms. Santalahti: Are there any public telephones outside the building right now? Mr. Stavropaulos stated no, we had one about five years ago, but they made us move it because it was too close to the street so now we have one inside on our counter, it is very discrete. Ms. Santalahti: That issue has been a problem area and they have recommended a condition prohibiting outdoor phones. Mr. Stavropaulos stated yes, we only have one indoors, and we are very particular about who we let in our establishment. If we see someone that looks like a problem we escort them out and that is the way it has been for twenty-five years and we are not about to change that. ACTION: Ms. Santalahti said we are placing a one year approval, which is standard for beer and wine to see how it will work out and assuming everything goes fine then you would be filing another conditional use permit. If it goes really well then you presumably will be asking for longer period of time or for it to be permanent or whatever, but the city has had so many concerns in other instances that we have been cautious so this is a very typical way for approving an application Tike this. Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4164, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and noted this does have a 15 day appeal period. Page 17 11/18/99 9. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at Locatipn: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND (TIME) (DATE) COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or a written correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator or City Council at prior to, the public hearing. Page 18 11/18199