Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2003/02/20• • ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2003 AT 9:30 A.M. Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator David See, Senior Planner Mark Facer, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Masciel, Word Processor Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2003-00238 OWNER: Properties Sterling 3110 E. Miraloma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Larry Stanley Index Industries 5362 Production Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 LOCATION: 3110 E. Miraloma Avenue. Property is 3.6-acre located at the southeast corner of Miraloma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. Waiver of maximum floor area ratio (0.5 permitted; 0.52 proposed) to permit the construction of a new mezzanine within an existing warehouse in the SP94-1, D.A. 2(Northeast Area Specific Plan; Expanded Industrial Area) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2003-06 Approved 15 day appeal Project Planner: (eyambaoCo~anaheim.net) sr3002ey.doc QS. 139 There was no opposition received therefore Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, approved Administrative Adjustment No. 2003-00238 for a new mezzanine add on. AC022003.DOC Page 1 2/20/03 PAGE 1 • • 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11 2b. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER N0.2003-00022 OWNER: Anaheim Gateway LLC 120 N. Robertson Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90048 AGENT: Patrick O'Daly STDR Architects 3190-K Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 1430 North Lemon Street - 24-Hour Fitness: Property is 26.34-acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street. Request for a waiver of Special Event Permit requirements to permit a temporary trailer and banners in conjunction with a proposed health club (under construction) within a commercial retail center of regional significance in the CL (Commercial Limited) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2003-07 Concurred with staff Approved 10 day appeal period. Project Planner: (dsee anaheim.net) Sr2121 ds.doc QS. 69 Robert Grenitz, from STDR Architects was present for any questions that staff might need answered. He explained that due to the current weather conditions the business was not able to hold their event and asked to postpone their request. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to the 3b. VARIANCE N0.2003-04549 March 20, 2003 meeting OWNER: Charles Bogner 130 Leola Way Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 779 Peralta Hills Drive. This irregularly-shaped 1.5-acre property is located southeast of the intersection of Crescent Drive and Peralta 15 day appeal Hills Drive on a private road easement; the property is approximately 640 feet south of Crescent Drive and 681 feet east of Peralta Hills Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct athree-story single-family Project Planner: residence in the RS-HS-43,000(SC) (Residential, Single Family Hillside-Scenic (vnorwoodl~Danaheim.net) COrrldOr Overlay) ZOne. SR8557VN.doc ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. QS. 174 Opposition: 6 people were present in opposition of this proposal. 5 people spoke in opposition on this project. 2/20/03 PAGE 2 • ~ Charles Bogner, applicant was present to represent the proposal. Judy Joss, 265 S. Chrisalta Way, was present in opposition and represented 6 other neighbors in the area. She stated that the petition contains false and misleading statements. First being that only one house has a view of this project which she claimed was false. In fact there are 6 homes that will have a view of this home. Further refuted that the house's proposed basement is not visible from any other public road. The petition further stated that this site is not visible from the roads. Ms. Joss stated that this was misleading because many of the roads in Peralta Hills are private roads and South Chrisalta Way is also a private paved road leading to 11 homes. As stated previously 6 of those home will have a view of the eastern side of this property. The visual aesthetics of the homeowner's properties will be negatively impacted by a dwelling exceeding the 25-foot height limitation. The steep downward slope leading to the subject's property is not a special circumstance, which deprives the subject of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classifications in the vicinity. At least two other properties on Peralta Hills Drive have steep downward slope and to our knowledge they have not received variances on their height restrictions. Even if the subject property was built as a two story dwelling within the 25-foot height restriction it will still be substantially larger than almost all the other houses in the area that have much larger flat pads therefore the petitioner's argument that because he can't build out he should be able to build up shouldn't be valid. She stated that she didn't feel that he was being deprived any privileges by being able to build an 11,000 square foot building. The basement that creates the third story is not consistent with the other homes in this area. 3 floors of doors and windows facing east will lend a hotel look which will destroy the unique and natural scenic assets of the Santa Ana Canyon Scenic Corridor. The dwelling design is insensitive to its visibility to it's 6 opposing homeowner's properties. Regardless of the number of stories in this dwelling unit it's height should be limited to 25 feet measured from the original elevation of the subject property. The homeowner has already performed substantial grading on the site. The grading plan calls for thousands of cubic yards of fill to be imported to increase its elevation. The grading plans show an approximate 12.5 increase in elevation at the eastern slope of the property. The views from the opposing homeowner's properties make it appear that the increased elevation is more than 12.5 feet. By lifting the original elevation of the subject property the petitioner is ultimately lifting the height of the dwelling. Precedents in the area exist for measuring the original not graded elevation when measuring the 25-foot height restriction. The opposing homeowners respectfully request that this variance be denied. Sheikh Kashmiri, 4944 E. Crescent Dr., property owner adjacent to the proposed site. He stated her concerns as to whether the lot will remain stable upon grading and as the proposal is now there would be an obstruction to her view. Also there was an inquiry made as to how many cubic yards of landfill were imported. Ms. Santalahti asked the City Engineer at what point would it be required to hold a public hearing be required for grading activities. Melanie Adams, Principle Civil Engineer, clarified that were two grading hearing was held on August 5~', 2002 and continued to the August 12~', 2002 and the grading plan was approved The approval including a fill of 4,500 cubic yards and an excavation of 525 cubic yards. Ms Santalahti asked if it were a similar notification process to the public hearings of Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Adams confirmed that it was similar to the 300-foot radius notification process. And it appeared that only one homeowner was at that public hearing. John McLuckey, 295 Chrisalta Way, strongly oppose the variance and support the comments that had been made. He invited the Zoning staff to come out to his house, which is adjacent to the proposed site, and the review the concerns. Sani Khan, 4944 E. Crescent Drive, stated that his concerns were the stability that the lot provides after the grading portion is done. Ms. Santalahti redirected the grading question to City Engineer. 2/20/03 PAGE 3 • • Ms. Adams responded that in the area of the fills it is the responsibility of the Technical Engineer to report and recommend how the site is prepared, how the fill materials will be placed and foundation recommendations. The report prepared by All-West Geosciences for the project. That was required by code. The drainage is part of the plan separation. Minou Ghasemi, 4946 E. Crescent Drive, stated that the graded area is on the side of the lot adjacent to her lot next to the swimming pool, which leads to concerns regarding the lot stability. In addition there were concerns about infringing on her view, and her privacy. Mr. Bogner rebutted that there was a unique circumstance with the elevation. He stated that John McLuckey opposed this project and yet Mr. Bogner feels that he has the same type of elevation structure being located on the same side of the hill. He also stated that Mr. Kashmiri was opposed to the Variance and that his house was in excess of 10,000 square feet of the permitted lot coverage. In effort to address the neighbors on Chrisalta, their elevation is approximately 50 feet lower and that by the time retaining walls are built it will not impact there line of site. Ms. Santalahti asked what kind of heights and lengths are planned for the retaining walls. Mr. Bogner stated that the retaining wall would be approximately 200 feet long. Ms. Santalahti decided that a decision would not be acted upon in order to have an opportunity to see where the original grade of the sight was located and what the finished grade is going to be. Also directed staff to obtain a location map indicating the location of the residences of the opposition and lastly take a field trip to the site to view the site. Further she requested that the field trip take place at Mr. Mc Luckey's site and request that the applicant and/or architect as well as Mr. Mc Luckey be present at the field trip. 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None 2/20/03 PAGE 4