Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2006/06/22• ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006 9:30 A.M. Gouncl Chambers, City Half East 200 South Anaheim Boulevard;-Anaheim, California STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Stone, Acting Zoning Administrator Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney David See, Senior Planner Della Herrick, Associate Planner Jessica Nixon,~Assistant Planner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted at ~#:55 a.m. on June 15, 2006 inside the display case located in,the,foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display~kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, May 25, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT H: u • JUNE 22, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 1 b. VARIANCE NO.2006-04683 OWNER: Thilina L. Balasuriya 1569 W. Flippen Circle Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1569 West Flippen Circle: Property is approximately 0.3-acre, having a frontage of 52 feet on the north side of Flippen Circle, a maximum depth of 112 feet and is located 196 feet west of the centerline of Flippen Drive. Waiver of maximum fence height to permit and retain an existing fence with concrete pilasters and wrought iron gate and panels within the required front yard setback of an existing single-family residence. Continued from the April 27, May 11, May 25, and June 8, 2006 Zoning Administrator meetings. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. ZA2006-12 Concurred with staff Denied 15 day appeal period Project Planner: (dherrick ~ anaheim. net) Jeff Stone, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 1. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated that she made several contacts with the applicant notifying him of the meetings and documented notification in the tracking file however the applicant responded that he would attend but has not been present at the meetings. Mr. See stated five (5) signatures in opposition of the fencing proposal were received; one (1) neighbor testified at a previous meeting in opposition of the proposal; and the applicant submitted one (1) letter from a neighbor in support of the proposal. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated the matter had been duly noticed; through testimony by Della Herrick, the planning staff member responsible for the item, it had been indicated that the applicant was made aware of today's public hearing; the meeting has been continued on 4 different occasions partly due to conflict and partly due to the fact that the applicant did not originally appear on the item to give the applicant the opportunity to appear in today's meeting and add to the information provided to the Planning Department. Therefore, due to the aforementioned reasons, he feels it would be appropriate for the Zoning administrator to act on the item. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. Mr. Stone advised that he reviewed the information concerning the item and therefore concurred with staff's recommendation; He approved CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 1; and denied Variance No. Page 2 ACZA062206. DOC • JUNE 22, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA 2006-04683 for waiver of maximum fence height to permit and retain an existing fence with concrete pilasters and wrought iron gate and panels within the required front yard setback of an existing single- family residence based on the findings described in the staff report dated June 22, 2006. He stated the decision would be written and signed no later than 7 days from the date of the meeting and the decision would be final after the appeal period expires 15 days following the date of the written decision. Page 3 ACZA062206. DOC • • JUNE 22, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 2b. VARIANCE NO.2006-04688 OWNER: Paul J. Kaymark P.O. Box 1676 Anaheim, CA 92815-1676 Paul J. Kaymark 1744 North Woodwind Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION; 1744 North Woodwind Lane: Property is approximately 0.11- acre, having a frontage of 50 feet on the southeast side of Woodwind Lane, a maximum depth of 100 feet, located 132 feet north of the centerline of Tanglewood Avenue. Waiver of (a) maximum fence height and (b) minimum front yard landscaping to permit and retain an existing 6-foot high block wall with wrought iron panels and gate within the required front yard setback of an existing single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. ZA2006-13 Concurred with staff Denied 15 day appeal period Project Planner: (jnixon ~anaheim.net) Jeff Stone, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 2. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Testimony: Paul J. Kaymark, 1744 North Woodwind Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated when he purchased the house on June 8, 2004, it was in shambles. There were approximately 70 trees on the property and you could not see the front of the house. The lady renting the house was feeding the raccoons, and possums and stray cats in the neighborhood and there was a rat problem. He had to put in a new roof because the rats had burrowed into the roof. So during the remodel and the reroofing, he decided as a conservation method and to get rid of the rat problem, to sidewalk the area. He presented a photograph of another house in the general area of the typical fencing that was in front of the house to demonstrate how the 1-story house was setback; illustrating the minimal usage in the backyard and the maximum usage in the front yard. Mr. Kaymark stated when he applied for the variance it was explained that he could put up a 3 foot block wall and he put an attractive wrought iron on top as a way to enjoy the use of the house, and that there is no obstruction because you can see through the fence. He stated in side walking the area he has Page 4 ACZA062206.DOC • JUNE 22, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA conserved water down to 1200 cubic feet for every two months bill; about the same amount as a trailer park. He presented three (3) letters from neighbors in agreement with the project. Public Testimony: Laura Morgan, 1740 North Woodwind Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated she and her husband have lived on their property for 30 years, and she concurs that it was a jungle in the small front yard; there were banana plants and many species of palm and very large trees. It was very dense and as a result, they had a bad rat problem on their property. They really appreciated the fact that Mr. Kaymark moved in and cleaned up the area. She feels that the wall that he put in is very attractive and states that there are walls in the neighborhood with similar type housing that are solid walls and cannot be seen through. Mrs. Morgan stated she supports the variance because it makes sense and Mr. Kaymark has improved the neighborhood. John Mandish, 1737 North Woodwind Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated it is one of the better looking properties on both sides of the block. He stated it is open and the front door can be seen whereas some of the other homes in the neighborhood have block walls that cover up their front door, therefore he supports the variance because it improved the look of the neighborhood. Applicant's Statement: Mr. Kaymark stated the neighbors have all commented that they appreciate that the house has been upgraded. He feels it maintains the level of the neighborhood there and stated that as a young man trying to own a decent home in Anaheim, he did the best he could along with the help of his father who he lost during the process, so there are also sentimental values as well. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Stone referred to Mr. Kaymark and asked if he received permits for the improvements which he performed on the property. Mr. Kaymark responded yes, except the painting on the outside and new roof which did not require a permit. Mr. Stone asked if he inquired about the type of permit required for the block wall. Mr. Kaymark responded that what he asked is, how high of a block wall could he have and the response was 3 feet and he did not need a permit for it, however he did not understand that he could not put anything on top of the block wall. He believed that a block wall meant privacy; not being able to see through, like a drape. Mr. Stone asked if he also installed concrete in the front yard. Mr. Kaymark responded yes. Mr. Stone wished to know if his intent was to drive something through the gate with it being so wide. Mr. Kaymark responded no, his intent is to move any type of large furnishings into the double doors of the house and on occasions he has a pair of Wave Runners that he park there on the weekends to keep them off the street, but all of his RV's (recreational vehicles) are stored at Anaheim RV and Storage on Page 5 ACZA062206. DOC ~ ! JUNE 22, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA Lincoln Avenue. He stated that on July 1S` he removed seventy trees at a cost of $1,800 to eliminate the rodents and the vectors, etc., so to demolish the fence would be a tremendous expense on him. Mr. Stone stated he appreciated everything he has done however his concern is that it is not a permitted fence and even though the intentions were good, staff has a problem with a wall that was not built in conformance with the City ordinance. Mr. Stone referred to staff and asked if the concrete front yard landscaping was an issue as well. Mr. See responded yes, staff was concerned regarding both waivers presented as well as the issue regarding parking in front and the aesthetic value of the front yard being taken away by means of concrete. Mr. Stone concurred with staff and approved the CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 1 as recommended by Planning staff and denied Variance No. 2006-04688 -waiver of (a) maximum fence height and (b) minimum front yard landscaping to permit and retain an existing 6-foot high block wall with wrought iron panels and gate within the required front yard setback of an existing single-family residence. He stated the decision would be written and signed no later than 7 days from the date of the meeting and the decision would be final after the appeal period expires 15 days following the date of the written decision. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is a 15 day appeal period as it pertains to the matter and the matter may be appealed to the City Council for final decision if it is the applicant's desire to pursue further. Mr. See stated if the fence were to be moved back 15 feet it would be out of the setback area and there still would be a 24 x 24 foot area for play space, etc. which could be permitted over the counter. 3. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None Page 6 ACZA062206. DOC