Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1999/12/30i a ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1999 9:30 A.M. Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney David See, Associate Planner Patricia Koral, Senior Word Processing Operator REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE WAIVER NO. 99-02 Approved OWNER: MILLS FORD Attn: Joseph Perri 1600 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION: 1600 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is 5.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Loara Street. Requests a six (8) month extension of time for a Special Circumstance Waiver to permit 19 banners mounted on light poles at an automobile dealership in the 10 day appeal period CH (Commercial„ Heavy) Zone. DS PRESENT: No one present for this item. Annika Santalahti states that staff report recommends approval of Special Circumstance Waiver No. 99-02 and concurs with staff also approving the six (6) month extension of time from December 14, 1999 to June 14, 2000 including the condition recommended by Staff that the applicant maintain all of the banners in good repair and that any wording on the banner be restricted to the name of the dealership and/or the "Ford" logo." Page 1 12/30/99 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 Approved 2b. VARIANCE N0.4386 Approved OWNER: Ishwar and Kalika Chander 180 S. Belleza Lane Anaheim. CA 92807 AGENT: Great American Backyard Co. Attn: Norman M. Sanoff P.O. Box 2958 Culver City, CA 90231 LOCATION: 180 South Belleza Lane: Property is 0.73 acre located at the northeast corner of Peralta Hills Drive and Belleza Lane. Waiver of maximum fence height within a required side yard setback (3 feet permitted; 10 feet proposed) to construct a lighted tennis court with 10 foot high chain link fencing which partially encroaches into a required side yard setback area of a reversed corner lot in the RS-HS-43,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. 15 day appeal period. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99=48 ~ KP PRESENT: One person present: Norman Sanoff, General Contractor for the owners of the property, said we have experience in 2500 courts. There are a number of circumstances that are different than you will find in the general area; most of the neighboring properties have courts, many of them encroach into the setback areas and the denial would be a hardship to this owner. The main street, Peralta Drive is slightly above the grade of the property and I have included pictures of the proposed area. Driving from both sides, the court itself is below the main street, the critical problem is not the fencing which is chainlink and black in color, the critical problem is the lighting, the lighting itself is called metal halide lights. I have a computer print out of the lighting and spread of light from the court towards the neighboring properties. This shows that there will be less than one tenth of one foot candle of light on of the adjoining property. Additionally, in order to conceal the source of light from the main street we have put on shielding that was designed for the purpose of not being able to see the visible source of light (submitted a copy for the record) Selma Mann Deputy, City Attorney stated if there are others hereon this item they may be interested in seeing the information. Mr. Sanoff submitted a brochure from the manufacturer indicating these items and on the back has a detail for the shielding that would be done. The neighbors either adjoining, abutting, behind or across the street from the existing property have signed and the owner of the property will give you the signatures of all of the people who have approved and have no objection to this. The access to the property is going to be from Belliza as opposed to coming from Peralta so that there will be no disturbance on Peralta during construction, which many people become concerned with when you do any type of construction like this. The owners understand that staff has to follow the rules of the code and the laws and regulations as defined by Anaheim; however, the purpose of these hearings is to allow the difference and decisions to be made. I would like to have the owner give you the signatures and the information from the adjoining property owners. Page 2 12130/99 Ms. Santalahti stated that she is aware that Peralta Hills Drive has no sidewalks, curbs or gutters. What is the approximate distance from the fence to the road bed of Peralta Hills Drive? Mr. Sanoff stated that it would be approximately 10 feet. Ms. Santalahti: Stated that we have a copy of an old aerial photo. Does the fence line that shows up like a blockwall the same fence Tine as this tennis court fence? Mr. Sanoff stated yes, there is a utility easement there and we would have to get approval from the easement holder which is not too difficult and which would be necessary prior to any construction or permits. Ms. Santalahti asked about the dimensions of this proposed tennis court. Is this a standard tennis court? Mr. Sanoff stated that it was very short, it will be slightly less than 100 feet as opposed to 120 feet Ishwar Chander went around the neighborhood talking with the neighbors to make sure the neighbors are happy and they signed a petition. Ms. Santalahti asked are you talking about the neighbors that abut your property both to the east as well as the north, and are you also talking about the people on the opposite side of Belleza as well as on the opposite side of Peralta Hills. She further asked whether of the road bed on Peralta Hills is different. Between the fence and Peralta Hills Drive, is it simply a slope with a utility easement, not a ditch? Mr. Sanoff replied that the road bed is, as you can see from the pictures, approximately 7 feet higher. Annika Santalahti stated that it is 7 feet higher at that end but assumes that the property as you approach Belleza Lane is more level. Joe DeBillio, 191 Belleza Lane, Anaheim, said when Ishwar moved in the property was a foreclosure and they have done a lot to fix the property up and this is one of the things that they are doing. I'm directly across the street and I'm in full support. Many of these properties have tennis courts. Again, we are in full support. Ms. Santalahti asked what kind of easement? Electrical Utility easement or Water easement? Mr. Sanoff stated from what he read in the title policy it is a utility easement and he believes that there are two different utility easements there which would have to consent to an encroaching fence. Ms. Santalahti asked if that is something that has been checked into to make sure that you can get it? Mr. Sanoff replied yes. Ms Santalahti asked is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition or with concerns? (IJo one indicated their presence). Ms. Santalahti closed the hearing. Ms. Santalahti asked if either the property owner or Mr. Sanoff could answer, if the chain link fence would be black colored wiring, does that mean that the fence will not have material interwoven or loosely woven fabric on the inside and is, 10 feet high the standard height of a fence enclosure for a tennis court? Mr. Sanoff stated he would prefer not putting the screening on the ends of the court because of the street, but on the back part facing the neighbors they would put the screening. Ms. Santalahti asked David See, Associate Planner, if he recalled that when the code went into effect in the fashion that it reads right now for this type of fencing, did the city allow it to go higher within the street set backs? Page 3 12/30/99 David See replied that the code states the street side of a reversed comer lot can only be 3 foot high and the setback area is 15 feet from the right-of-way so any fence above 3 feet would require this waiver. Ms. Santalahti stated that for this particular fence, the closest comer would be at the property line, between the street and the property in question, the shared property line? David See replied yes, the southeast comer would actually touch the property Tine at an angle within the easement area. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Sanoff if the 7 foot difference between the elevation of the road bed and the property grade or finished grade of the slab was 7 feet at the extreme end ? Mr. Sanoff stated it is pretty much 7 feet across the entire slab, the reason for it is that a tennis court slopes 1 inch every 10 feet for drainage and they want to confine the drainage so that it goes to the neighboring channel located next to this, so the court will effectively be level going towards that channel located on the east side. Mr. Sanoff offered a copy of a light pattern but did not have an extra copy. Ms. Mann stated that if he submits the copy the Zoning Administrator will be required to keep the copy as part of the record, or make a copy of it. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Sanoff about the shielding of the light units; could the units be checked out at night to verify that there is no direct light shining over a property line; and if in fact that it did happen could you change the fixture or readjust it or something; in other words, it's not like you get a light fixture all welded together and you can't make modificaticns. Mr. Sanoff stated that basically the shielding is not for the dispersed of the light, the shielding is so that the adjoining property owners don't see the source of light or the fixtureare designed and have been engineered to have the light cut off going down to the court; and while Anaheim does not do this particular test the City of Los Angeles has done so on every court that has been built in the last forty-five years; they come out at night turn the lights on and they go around the perimeter of the property to make sure that there is less than Y=foot candle light at property line and if there is more they will adjust them; but we have put in a lot of them and expect no problem. Ms. Santalahti stated so you are aware of what is needed? Mr. Sanoff stated this is the way the lights have been designed, what happened was some of the neighbors complained about seeing the source of light so they developed the shielding; shielding would do the same thing for Peralta Hills Drive. Ms. Santalahti asked if the lighting shines up or down 7 Mr. Sanoff stated that it is down, it looks like a shoe box; the lights in this case are about 35 to 40 feet from Peralta Drive they are not at the ends; they are midway into the court. The information t I gave you was for eight lights and these are only going to be six lights because the court is smaller. Mr. Sanoff described the color of the lighting fixtures. They are the same black that the fence will be, as will the posts, and those are powder coated so they don't peel. Mr. Sanoff stated the metal halide lights are fantastic lights because there is no strobe effect; however, when you turn them on it takes 3 minutes for them to warm up and it takes 3 minutes for them to turn off. Ms. Santalahti wanted to verify again regarding the chain link fence material that this would be a black coated fencing, and assumes it hasn't been sprayed painted but that it is a permanent type of material that is not going to disintegrate. Mr. Sanoff stated it is baked on, and that it is the full length and height of the 10 foot fence. Ms. Santalahti asked can you tell me what is on the opposite side of the east property line? Mr. Sanoff stated around a landscape planter, there is a drain catch basin at the street and the neighbors' driveway which appears to be about 80 feet from where this fencing would be. Page 4 12/30/99 Ms. Santalahti asked, can you tell me what the fencing is on the neighbors' property to the east, is that a continuation of essentially a 6 foot blockwall and is the blockwall that appears to enclose this property going to be removed in that portion? Mc Sanoff replied that it will remain. Ms Santalahti asked approximately how high is that fencing right now. Mr. Sanoff replied it is about 5 feet high and that it will remain. Ms. Santalahti stated there appeared to be paving blocks that can have grass growing between them between the road bed and the property line. Is that what is in the photographs, like a bunch of square holes? Looking at photographs no. 14 and 17, it looks like the type of material put in to prevent erosion. Is it something like turf block? Photo no. 14 shows it is on the neighbors' property. Mr. Sanoff stated it is a walkway. Ms. Santalahti asked if that is in front of the neighbors property? Mr. Sanoff stated that is the neighbors' property. Ms. Santalahti asked staff or Mr. Sanoff approximately how many square feet worth of court surface would be within the 15 feet required setback area? Dave See stated that it would be just on the street side and not on the east property line, any encroachment on the east is permitted. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Sanoff regarding the blockwall on the clients property, is the blockwall on the property line or is it set back? Mr. Sanoff stated that the blockwall on the east side will have landscaping between the blockwall and the court. Ms. Santalahti stated what she was thinking specifically was the landscaping on the street side in the public right-of way, looking at an aerial photograph it looks like the palm trees are outside the blockwall on the street side, as well as on photograph 17 7 Mr. Sanoff stated yes. Ms. Santalahti asked if, the palm trees will remain? Mr. Sanoff stated yes. Ms. Santalahti asked if Photograph 20, was taken on the property towards the north property line? Mr. Sanoff stated yes no. 20 was taken looking north. Ms. Santalahti closed the hearing. Ms. Santalahti concurred with staff on the environmental assessment that this proposal is categorically exempt under class 5 and will approve Variance No. 4386 on the basis of the difference between the road bed and the pad of the court and then the visual fence height, as well as the existing fencing that is along the properly, is a minimal encroachment into the required setback area of 15 feet, somewhere around 200 or 250 square feet (Mr. Dave See stated it would be about 550 sq. ft). which is about 10%, and will amend Condition no. 3 to recap that lighting for this facility shall be designed and positioned in a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate or cause glare onto adjacent or nearby streets and properties, including "That when lighting is installed that the Page 5 12130/99 contractor check, or the property owner provide, some photographs to show that those fixtures are not going to shine into the adjacent properties in any way and that will specifically apply to Peralta Hills Drive and the neighbors to the north and east. That plans and any other information identifying tennis court lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval." The other item of interest is the issue of landscaping in front of the blockwall and that plans submitted for the fence permit landscaping of some type along the blockwall whether it is a vine type or narrow bush or something to provide a little bit of relief for the length of blockwall7 Mr. Sanoff stated that they are planning something similar to the Carolina Cherry which could be a huge 10 to 12 foot barrier as buffer. Ms. Santalahti stated we would be interested in the plants, size and the spacing with the objective that there be partial screening. Decision will include the conditions as modified per our discussion today. Page 6 12/30199 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4174 Approved In Part with no beer or wine OWNER: Fairmont Plaza Partners, LLC to be sold outside. 4740 E. Bryson Street Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Mersedeh Masoomali 8602 E. Cliffside Drive, #110 Anaheim., CA 92808 LOCATION: 116-124 South Fairmont Boulevard: Property is 2.4 acre located on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard. To permit a new outdoor dining area and an expansion of an existing restaurant with beer and wine sales for on-premises consumption located within an existing commercial retail center in the CL (SC) Commercial Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99_49 ~ VK PRESENT Ms. Santalahti stated that Exhibit No. 1 shows the outdoor dining area is the 1200 sq. ft., what is the square footage of the existing restaurant? She also would like to verify that if she were to approve the outdoor dining, that it does not generate a parking space problem. Mr. David See stated that plans were not clear, however, parking does not increase if there were 10 tables or 5 seats, it is a small area Staff also did a parking analysis and observed that the parking has decreased with this proposal because the expansion is taking the place of a former coffee shop that was parked at higher ratio of 60 per 1000. Mersedeh Masoomali, agent, stated that the patio is outdoors, and the property owner will come up to speak Vic Peloquin, property, 280 Chrisalta Way, Peralta Hills. When I found out that Staff were going to recommend to denial of the outside patio, I asked why and they mentioned that you would be taking away some landscaping. Let me give a little bit of background on regards to the center and how our landscaping came about. We built the center in 1986 and when we built the center we had an agreement and a conditional use permit to help the church next door to use our parking lot on Sundays so they would not have to build a parking lot for their church and create more asphalt and more areas to parkjust for a Sunday operation. We have been co-existing with the church for 14 years now very successfully and it has been very good neighbor relationship for the church and for us as a shopping center. We went to the school board of the Orange Unified School District and asked if we could take over their back slope maintenance and they allowed us an easement to go across to take care of their landscaping because they did not have the money back in 1986. They agreed with us to give us the easement across that land and since then we have maintained their landscaping, putting in irrigation, trees and ivy along that back slope and it has been a good neighbor relationship. We removed a bad ugly slope, improved it and created less of a disturbance for the children that attend school at EI Rancho Jr. High. When we submitted our plans for the center we were about 10% over our landscape requirement at that time. The fact that we sit on a little higher piece of land, we have a lot of front landscaping, we have landscaped the front of our properties and maintained it for 14 years in a very nice manner, so with all due respect when you say you are going to take away 200 sq.ft. of landscaping in the front, I think that we have far exceeded our landscape requirements both by the slope, that wasn't even considered in the excess of 10%, and the Page 7 12/30/99 parking that would have normally would have been required for a church, we have reduced all of the asphaltjungle in the city by having the center and the church park in the centers parking area. I have pictures that I would like show of other shopping centers in the area. Could I submit this to you, Ms. Santalahti? Ms. Santalahti stated, yes, however we will have to keep it for the record Mr. Peloquin stated that they keep trying to maintain that landscape planter by virtue of replanting it cdntinually but in the last two pictures that you see on that sheet there, you see that it continually falls in disrepair because of the traffic walking through that area. So it would be a better looking center if I could get that paved regardless of the landscaping because itjust falls in disrepair. We have a very successful center now. Back in the 1990's it wasn't that successful. It was a very hard time far every one and our center was about 60% vacant at times. The Italian restaurant that is here asking for the outdoor patio has been there since day one under a different ownership but Alex has been very successful in his ownership of the restaurant, he is now expanding to a space right next door to him. Hibachi Steak House has been there since I started this center. The dentist has been there since I have started the center, we've had an orthodontist move in, a professional, in the front suite we have a bank there now, the center is 100% leased now, very very successful, times are good and Alex wants to expand and we would like to afford him the opportunity to benefit from the times by recommending that you accept the outdoor dining area, it's a very small area, its about 200 sq.ft. that we are filling in, and I think it is warranted that we try and help him move along. Thank you very much. What would the colors be of the tables and would there be umbrellas and what type of materials would be used? Ms. Santalahti stated that she did not see the exact paving you propose, or ground surtace and would there be some kind of fencing around it, or other added landscaping? Mr. Peloquin stated he would leave the tables up to Alex; but he can indicate what his preferences would be. I would like to put in new pavers, the interlocking pavers so it kind of designates that as a separate area and gives it its own identity. With regards to the railings around there I would like to have you recommend something. I know that a lot of pictures I've given you don't have anything around them. You will see a lot of the pictures of the existing facilities that have outdoor dining that don't require that and if you don't require it, it may be easier financially for us not to put a railing around it, but if so required, then we would accept your recommendation if you felt that would be necessary. Mr. Peloquin stated that as you can see by the pictures there we've just repainted the center. We have freshened it up. We have a good sign ordinance in our CC&R's for our center that includes canned letters, framed letters, raised and back lit so we have a very attractive center and it's been well maintained for 14 years. It never fell into disrepair even though there were some hard times in the 1990's. I concur with you that we want to do same thing with the color of our awnings out in front, which we are anticipating replacing relatively soon with some other colorful awnings. Ms. Santalahti stated she would like to see the color of tables, and the color of the awnings and if there are awnings or unbrellas over the tables that it be something that ties in with the whole center and not a detraction. I'm interested in two issues. Two edges of the parking are next to traffic, parking space and the driveway, and I don't recall this kind of thing coming up before, but people sitting out there even though they can't drink beer and wine outside at this type of location, it seems a little tricky to be immediately next to traffic. Staff, was there any discussion on that or did anybody raise that concern? Mr. See stated that regarding traffic safety that was not brought up as an issue. We did not receive comments one way or the other. Ms. Santalahti asked if it was about 200 sq.ft. of space that would be covered. Does that exceed the amount of the landscape planter area that's shown? Mr. Peloquin stated that the landscape planter is approximately 200 sq. ft, Page 8 12/30/99 Ms. Santalahti asked staff, your basic issues on the outdoor dining (elate to the fact that it's not immediately contiguous to the unit in that it will be separated by the pedestrian walk-through and also that the landscape planter is lost Mr. See stated yes, and that there may be concerns about consumption of alcohol out in that area. Ms. Santalahti stated that it is specifically prohibited and those instances we require fencing and limited access to outdoor dining areas when alcohol is available. Mr. Peloquin agreed and stated that he also saw that Rudy's at the Center Crossroads has a walkway that goes all around the center where they actually had to block that off with some railings to allow the patrons to come out directly and they physically impacted the walkway, and it was granted. Ms. Santalahti stated that she did not have a problem with the outdoor dining, because it could be handled...... how many tables would you have? Mr. Peloquin stated that 5 tables 4 chairs each, with umbrellas. Ms. Santalahti stated that she views this as a design issue and that there should be some kind of stucco fencing on the two sides that are against the traffic edges because that could be problematic. She asked if there was anyone else who wishes to speak on this item either for or against or with concerns. No one else indicating their presence to speak, she said a negative declaration was prepared on this and staff recommends approval of that and 1 will do that. I'm going to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 4174, however with all the conditions and I want to add a condition that will require that you come back with the specific details regarding the outdoor dining area that would include, specifically, I really mean specific, the manufacturer's specifications, if that is the appropriate word, and the color of everything. The kind of paving materials you are going to use, the kind of enclosure on the two sides, the south and the west against the street pavement and the parking lot pavement; the style, color, design of the tables and chairs. Don't bother showing me anything in white plastic because it should blend into the feel of the center so it might be dark green or wood or whatever. The specific umbrellas that you are going to use, the color of those umbrellas, no advertising on the umbrellas, and no advertising in the outdoor dining area at all, and that the enclosure, unless you come up with a better idea, I think should be a stucco look material that blends in with the center, maybe railings but it needs to be a color that is compatible with the center. Mr. Peloquin asked if he could have pilasters with wrought Iron in between? Ms. Santalahti stated yes it could be something like that but I want it to look permanent because it is a nice center at a visible location. Mr. Peloquin stated that he has wrought Iron in the center in different locations, as you can see in the pictures on the tower, at the dentist and we could incorporate that type of railing. He also stated that the brick detail on the columns are a wainscot with a little cap around them. Ms. Santalahti stated that it needs to be in proportion and appealing. The watering system is an irrigation valve that will be put to grade and the cover box will be put within the pavers and lowered. Ms. Santalahti asked that if there is any landscaping that you are proposing, unless it's a vine or something I don't feel to strongly about that at all. Mr. David See stated that staff had suggested potted plants and Ms. Santalahti agreed. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney stated that perhaps there needs to be a little more attention given to the availability of beer and wine. Ms. Santalahti agreed that it would be another condition. Ms. Santalahti stated that the written decision will be as specific as possible on these details and that those plans come back for review and approval as a reports and recommendation item prior to issuance of permits. What is the kind of timing you are looking at, are they ready to start? Page 9 12/30/99 Mr. Peloquin stated that they are ready to start now, and we would tike permission to go on with the restaurant approval. Ms. Santalahti stated that prior to commencing any outdoor activities whatsoever, which means paving it or getting rid of landscaping or anything, that there shall be no tables, nothing out of doors until a plan has been reviewed and approved and that would have to be done within 1 year, of the approval date, so that if you choose not to do something for a while and you don't do it for a year then you need to come back and deal with that separate subject of the outside dining area, and, Mr. See, you might wish to check with Traffic Engineering to see if they have any thoughts about, running some type of permanent fencing against the vehicle pavement edge, they may have some ideas. David See stated that after we have received plans we will look at the fencing and how much obstruction perhaps and that will be part of the R&R review. Ms. Santalahti agreed that regarding any plant materials in pots that they are to be specific about sizes, species and number of pots and the other condition, I don't see a specific condition that says that there shall be no beer and wine either sold or consumed outside the building. Alex stated that there would be someone in full attendance. Ms. Santalahti said she is familiar with ones that have direct connection into the restaurant so that you have complete control of who is sitting out there and you could actually limit the people that go through the restaurant to go out of doors, that part of this makes me uncomfortable. Alex stated that our alcohol consumption is below 9% and this is fully a family restaurant. Ms. Santalahti stated that she is not aware of any such facility in Anaheim. David See stated that the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control also has stringent regulations on outdoor dining and alcohol consumption but I don't recall what those regulations are, however, they will be looking carefully at that also. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. See if the police department is aware that the applicant wanted the beer and wine to be out of doors? Mr. See stated that the police department did attach a memo and they are recommending approval and did indicate approval for outdoor dining due to the low crime rate in the area and Zack of calls for service. Alex stated that their hours are limited and it is a family restaurant. Ms. Santalahti stated that she is very uncomfortable with the outdoor service of alcohol and asked Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, if she had any concerns. Selma Mann stated yes that she has concems due to the center being located next door to a school and she thinks, a children's gym locaked in the center, I think that the concems would be with regard to ability to control the alcohol consumption, acknowledging that they have been stellar operators of the facility to date but this a land use approval that runs with the land regardless of who is operating the facility and needs to be seen as a land use issue. Ms. Santalahti stated that public notice for the outdoor beer and wine sales in the patio would have to be advertised specifically so that it is very clear to everyone, before considering the beer and wine in the outdoor dining area. Alex stated they can limit selling beer and wine during the day and only sell it at night and that the gym operation hours are mostly day time and in the evening they are not really active. Page 10 12/30/99 Ms. Santalahti said she was approving this without beer and wine sold in the outdoor dining patio area, unless that specific use is advertised again to make it really clear to anyone who gets a public notice that it is in a outdoor dining area that is detached from the restaurant itself and at that point assuming you choose to go ahead with the outdoor. beer and wine, the specific plans regarding the patio have been reviewed and approved or are very specific so that anyone who is interested or concerned will see exactly is proposed notjust that its an outdoor area but also an enclosure. Alex stated that the notice mentioned the expansion of the restaurant. Ms. Santalahti stated yes, but outdoor dining with beer and wine is always an issue and we have always had an interest in some kind of enclosure and everyone of the restaurants that I am familiar with was immediately attached to the restaurant itself so that you had to go into the restaurant and then out to the outdoor dining area. She stated she would like it advertised specifically and that the details of the patio be established at that point or earlier and that staff could also specifically discuss it with the Police Department and Alcoholic Beverage Control to find out if they have any recommendations. I'm assuming their codes are just like ours; they are the minimum standard they are not the optimum or what they think works best. This is going to bean approval, in part, the in part being that the outdoor beer and wine sales is not approved in today's action but can be considered at a future time with a new public notification with that extra information, or that it will specifically have to be approved under another use permik She stated she wants this to be a public notice so that the church and anyone else out there knows specifically that beer and wine is being proposed in the outdoor dining area. That is why I want the plans, and details for the dining area completed and available for anyone to see what it will look like. Approving this, in part, I'am adding two conditions: 1. Requiring specific details on the patio; 2. Prohibiting the outdoor sales of beer and wine in the outdoor patio unless it is specifically approved in connection with a public hearing at which point the outdoor patio design details have been identified. Page 11 12/30/99 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Approved 4b. VARIANCE N0.4379 'Approved In Part 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 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 in the RM-2400 (SC) (Residential, Multiple Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.9999=50 Continued from the November 18, 1999 Zoning Administrator mtg. TW PRESENT: Craig W. Mullin, owner. No one else was present to speak for or against the project. Mr. Mullin said he went back and spent some time doing more research. The neighbor's second story deck that deprived us of our privacy and view was approved by the City but without checking it out with us or considering any negative effect it would have on our property. There are major structural support posts right on the very edge of the hill, and there was no variance at all. It was just a building permit and it seemed strange to me if you were building something on your property line there must be setback requirements on the back side. t can't sit in my living room without being seen by the neighbors and that was very wrong. My research did show that I have one of the largest lots in the entire development on my street. We have more square footage than was calculated and posted and even more than what was reported in the latest staff report on the December 30, 1999. We have a lot less density than our neighbors do on either side of us and we have a lot less density than an identical model of ours down in phase 4 at 915 Park Rim Circle an identical house on a smaller lot. The attached chart shows that we already have houses in Lake Summit with up to 53% coverage and built in this development without regard to the 35% rule. My chart, and if we compare that to the staff report chart, page 3, you will notice that the lot size is different, and you will also notice the houses in question. If you Zook at the lot sizes that are listed in the staff report, those lots actually 1, 2, 3 and 4 (to the right of me) if you look up towards my house from the street and 1';2,3,4 and 5 lots to the left are all perfect triangles they are 88 ft. by 34 ft., that comes out to be 88x34 or 2992 not the 2887, and by the way the 2992 is what the developers had noted in their plans in 1974 and listed in the staff report and when you look at the staff report they show that I have a lot size of 3302. I gave to you an individual lotprojection of mine and I tried to break it out into 90 degree triangles and a rectangle and when you do that it comes up to 3696 which is significantly larger. The staff report stated that there is no hardship and I go back to that lot and the second floor and I think at that time it did do me damage by allowing the permit to be issued and I would like to ask your help to mitigate some of that damage by allowing me to fill in that little space. I stated at the last meeting that I would not pursue the side setback, I would figure out a way to keep the B ft. I would like to ask ycu to consider that I have so much less lot density than my neighbors, so much less than an identical property. So I'm asking that I have the same use of my property that my neighbors do. In conclusion, we are asking to have the same use of our property as our neighbors. We have significantly more property than our neighbors, 24% more less with our house being 45.17 versus 53.48 of our neighbors and we are not currently using space that we could to improve the value of our home in our neighborhood by making these improvements. We are going to improve the value of our neighborhood. Therefore we would like to Page 12 12/30/99 ask for approval for the variances we originally asked, but, I would pull back on the side yard setback and ask to have the increased lot coverage. I did some calculations when I was sitting there, 350 was what we were told to go for so that we would be at 54.6% and would be only 1 % more than our neighbors and less than''/,% more than the identical. .house and that, if we went with 300 sq. ft. additional, that 300 sq. ft. would take me to 53-112% and that 250 sq. ft. would take me to 51 %, all of which are different than what was in the public notice I went back and looked at the public notice again and it says that my lot size is a 51 front and an 88 along the side. The 51 along the frdht agrees with what is on this map. I also went to the tax assessors office to see what I have been taxed on and how did they come up with the number and they said they use a very simple way they just take in the middle and go'across and they take in the middle and go down and come up with an estimate and that number would be less than what our lot size was and the number they came up with was 3520 sq. ft. which I have been paying in taxes for 26 years on the property. The official tract plan, all four sheets including a statement that says I, Frank Richardson, certify that I'm a licensed land surveyor, and that this correctly truly represents the complete survey made under my direction April 1974, and it has the dimensions of my lot which are exactly as I have given you on that sheet, and that you will see that I'm conservative that 3696 is correct not 3,200, and if you Icok at the staffs findings, their suggestion is we should not be allowed to go forvvard because the proposed 62% maximum lot coverage is 12% higher lot than the adjoining. That is not true. It is not what we are requesting, we are asking for less than what the people on either side of us have. Ms. Santalahti asked if Mr. See took a Zook at Mr. Mullin's numbers? Mr. See replied no, that we have not seen the chart, we just want to point out that staff spent a lot of time researching the numbers and had difficulty finding accurate numbers and actually relied on the GIS system and clicked on each parcel and came up with these numbers. So these are based on GIS numbers and the calculations were done by Ted White and myself. We went to the graphics section, especially with the irregular shaped lots it was very difficult. Ms. Santalahti stated that on the location map it show a 51ft. dimension on the shore side (reservoir side) and 88 on the other, and 51 x 88 comes out to 4488. Correction, 51 is on the street side. Mc Mullin stated that the lot goes 41 ft. and almost 11 ft. and then it is 88 ft. and then it's 31 ft Ms. Santalahti stated so it is 41 on the narrow front. Mr. Mullin stated that on the street side there are two legs one leg is 41.68 ft. and the other leg is 10.35 ft. and I believe that is where they came up with the 51 it's really 52, it's more frontage, and then the dimensions on my neighbors lot on either side are 86 ft. and on the reservoir side it is 31.99. again. If you need a copy of this, this is an official document I believe I brought. Ms. Santalahti, stated that this is what she also comes up with, a simple calculation on a trapezoid of approximately 3600 sq. ft. Mr. Mullin stated he would like to see the City help mitigate some of the damage that he thinks has been done as a result of that second story that took away his view and privacy, and we would like to expand on the side. Some level less than 350 sq. ft. that will allow him to be equal to my neighbor's use of their property; allow him to be equal to an identical piece of property in the same development and then he will not even ask for the side set back so that his neighbor who was objecting to it won't have a basis for an objection. Ms. Santalahti stated you would maintain the 10 ft. required setback. Mr. Mullin stated it is 8 ft.. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Mullin if he had a drawing that would reflect that information. Mr. Mullin replied yes it is in the staff notes, and the public notice said 10 ft., and really what it is, is 8 ft. because it is the 4 ft. entitlement. These are zero property lines and what I originally asked him for was encroachment of that 1 ft. at the narrowest and then go back about 6 ft., 6-inch and then correspondingly go down until later on it would not be one at all; but I'm prepared to change my design so that I would not encroach on the 8 ft. anywhere. Page 13 12/30199 Mr. See stated that Conditional Use Pemlit No. 1430 did approve 8 ft. between buildings and that was one of the waivers that was originally approved for this tract. Ms. Santalahti asked about the chart Mr. Mullin prepared, does the livable square footage, exclude the garage space? Mr. Mullin stated that he believes that it excludes the garage but is not sure, because of the 1670 foot print and the livable space is less than that. Mr. See stated that it does include the square footage of the garage. Ms. Santalahti asked about Mr. Mullin's chart, the percentage density coverage that is shown, is the foot print divided by the lot size? Mr. Mullin stated yes, it was his understanding that is the way the density was calculated. Ms. Santalahti said she does agree about the 8 ft. It definitely needs to be maintained in the fashion that it was originally approved because that is what the majority have. I will approve Variance No. 4379., In Part, requiring that minimum 8 ft. setback be maintained along the easterly property line between your addition and the neighbor to the east. That the approval is for a maximum of 53.5% coverage, which is the total building pad including garage divided by the lot area;(that means that plans submitted for plan check should be very accurate on those points). Those specific numbers will be incorporated into Condition No. 1 and a condition that prior to issuance of the building permit specific plans shall be submitted completely and accurately showing the lot size, existing square footage and addition square footage to verify that 53.5% is the maximum coverage and also showing the minimum 8 ft. setback between your house and the house to the east, and complying with all applicable building codes. Ms. Santalahti stated along Mr. Mullin's property line, the 8 ft. is not measured from the property line, the 8 ft. is measured between the buildings and therefore, the drawing that you will be submitting will accurately define your property and that is where the 53.5% is the maximum, but additionally, you have use of the other 4 ft. and that is where the 8 ft. is required to be maintained. Actually you will run a line parallel to their house showing 8 ft. Ms. Mann asked if he would need to maintain the minimum of 4 ft. on his property? This one shows 4 ft. on the other side. Mr. Mullin stated 4 ft from the property line but that is not the way this works. My property Tine goes to their house; they have a 4 ft. easement coming back on my property and the distance is 8 ft. from their property. Ms. Santalahti asked if they have the easement, I thought you had the easement? Mr. Mullin stated no. The way this is, the neighbors are built right up to my property line and they have no windows on that side, they have an easement to came over 4 ft. so that they can paint it and take care of it, and then you go over and it is 4 ft. and then it is my building but the over hangs make it less than 8 ft.; and elsewhere in the development in some cases it is significantly less than 8 ft.. Ms. Mann stated it appears we are talking about 8 ft. from the property line? Ms. Santalahti stated yes, in which case she misunderstood earlier I had assumed that, well what is confusing me on the drawing that you have the line that is labeled property line is one that is apparently 4 ft. from the neighbors house? Mr. Mullin stated he will stay 8 ft. from their structure and their structure is on my property line Page 14 12/30/99 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at Location: 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. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Page 15 12/30/99