Minutes-ZA 2003/03/20• •
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003 9:30 A.M.
Council Chambers, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
Staff Present:
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
David See, Senior Planner
Mark Facer, City Attorney
James Ling, Associate Engineer, Public Works
Danielle Masciel, Word Processor
1a. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2003-00237
OWNER: Mariam Amiri
847 Parkglen Place
Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 847 South Parkglen Place:. This irregularly-shaped
0.13-acre property is located 200 feet southeast of the centerline of
Ladyfern Lane.
Waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a family room expansion
and balcony for an existing single-family residence in the Specific Plan
No. 88-1 (Sycamore Canyon, Development Area 10 (RS-5000 based
zone -Residential, Single-Family) zone.
Opposition received
Will be set fora (Zoning
Administrator) public
hearing upon request from
the applicant.
15 day appeal
Project Planner:
(eyambaoCc~anaheim.netl
sr3007ey.doc
as. zzo
No opposition was received therefore Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, approved Administrative
Adjustment No. 2003-00237.
ZA032003. DOC
PAGE 1
03/20/03
•
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
r
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. VARIANCE N0.2003-04549
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 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 residence in the RS-HS-43,000(SC) (Residential, Single Family
Hillside-Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
Continued from the March 20, 2003 Zoning Administrator meeting.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2003-09
Concurs with staff
Denied
15 day appeal
Project Planner:
(vnorwood(o~anaheim.net)
SR8557VN.doc
QS. 174
Charles Bogner was present to represent his project.
Opposition present were the fo{lowing:
Judy Joss, 265 S. Chrisalta Way, submitted a comprehensive letter (attached) that she summarized at the
meeting clearly stating her opposition.
John A. McCluckey, 295 S. Chrisalta Way, thanked staff for visiting the site to review the proposal from the
view of the neighbors. Further he commented about the letter submitted to staff from Mr. Bogner and didn't
appreciate the sarcastic tone in referencing the neighbors. He stated that the final issue is that the
neighborhood is located in a scenic corridor with zoning restrictions. There is a community based respect
for the code and encourage the staff to enforcement the zoning code. We believe that there should not be a
variance over and above 25 feet elevation. It seems very clear to all the neighbors in watching this take
place that significantly more than the 12 % feet that is picked off of (the grading plan) have been added and
the pictures that have been submitted today should give some proof of that matter. Therefore we
respectfully ask that this proposal be denied.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator asked James Ling, engineer from Public Works if surveyor staff
were to review the site and determines that the grade is a different angle than what was stated, how would
that effect the public hearing that was conducted where a grading plan was approved?
James Ling. Engineer stated that the engineer records on file would have to include redesign the plans or
bring the plans up to the level of where it currently stood at the time of the survey. Engineering requires a
revision be made to the approved grading plan, which goes through another approval by the Public Works
Director.
Annika Santalahti asked if it would require another public hearing or could it be viewed with the new 200
cubic yards of grading. Or if the change involved amounted to 2 cubic feet what actions would be taken.
Mr. Ling st6ated that it would depend on the case and the Development Services Manager discretion as to if
a new public hearing would be required or not. Typically it is not greater plus or minus 1 foot.
PAGE 2
03/20/03
• r
Mr. Bogner commented that this is not a final process, it is just dirt that is being piled up while the retaining
wall is being constructed. Adding that the grading isn't finish show what appears is not the right elevation.
He doesn't plan on exceeding the approved elevation.
Ted D. Nelson, 275 Chrisalta Way, commented on the various statements in a letter that was submitted by
Mr. Bogner directed at his neighbors. He further supported the home designs of the surrounding neighbors.
However from his home office he would watch the landfill become more and more obvious and began to
realize this development was beginning to impact his view. Viewing the exhibits displayed in the Council
Chambers and taking into consideration the landfill that took place that arbitrarily changed the height of the
pad then it becomes unfair from the neighbors. He compared this proposal to the ones located in Copa de
Oro where three homes in that area were made to comply with the code. Also refuted the reference of
basement in the development by stating that a basement would imply underground space and from the back
of this home it appears to be a 3-story home and from the front it views as a 2-story home.
Annika Santalahti commented on the grading done on the Copa de Oro sight and stated that she still retains
a file on the decisions made for that area because of the special circumstances. Also asked if it was a
balanced grading on the property and approximately what amount
Mr. Bogner confirmed that there had been dirt brought in and there is an engineering plans that do stipulate
the total sight. He stated that the proposed house is compatible with the surrounding area.
Annika Santalahti clarified the definition of basements as area that projected above the finished grade level
if it was half the depth of the existing habitable space. Further asked Mr. Bogner to clarify if the east
drainage coarse is the bottom of the property line.
Mr Bogner explained that the property fine runs along the fences of his neighbors and he is providing a 140-
foot setback on one side and about 100-foot setback on the other side.
Annika Santalahti asked if additional plans were submitted for additional landscaping along the wall?
Mr. Bogner confirmed that it was part of the revised plans submitted.
Annika Santalahti stated the concerns were when the grading is raised up to start with and that the
remainder of the existing house is already above Code at 27%2 %.
Further discussion went on between the neighbors away from the microphone.
Annika Santalahti denied the request for Variance No. 2003-04549 on the basis that
PAGE 3
03/20/03
•
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04554 Approved
OWNER: Robert Rizzo
Metalclad Insulation Corp.
2198 South Dupont Drive
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 2198 South Dupont Drive. Property is 1.17-acre
located at the southern end of the Dupont Drive Loop, having a frontage
of 188 feet on the south side of Dupont drive.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (54 required; 20 15 day appeal
Project Planner:
proposed) to retain an existing accessory outdoor storage area in (eyambaoCa~anaheim.net)
conjunction with an industrial facility in the ML (Limited, Industrial) zone. sr3008ey.doc
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2003-10 _ I QS. 119
David Scott with Metalclad Insulation Corp., was present to respond to any questions that may arise.
No opposition was present.
Being none Zoning Administrator approved the proposal as is.
4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None
PAGE 4
03/20/03