Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2006/08/03 ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2006 9:30 A.M. Plan-Check Conference Room, City Hall East 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California STAFF PRESENT:' William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator Mark Gordon, Deputy City-Attorney David See, Senior Planner Sandie- Budhia, Associate Engineer Kyle Tonokawa, Senior Plans Examiner Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted at 10:39 a.m.-on July 27 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, July 9, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT H: • • August 3, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 15 (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 1 b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2002-231 (TRACKING NO. SUB2006- 00032 OWNER: Peter Vanderburg 21068 Bake Parkway Suite 200 Lake Forest, CA 92630 LOCATION: 313-373 NORTH EUCLID WAY AND 1741-1745 WEST PENHALL WAY: Property is approximately 11.6 acres, located at the northerly terminus of Euclid Way and the easterly terminus of Penhall Way approximately 814 feet east of the centerline of Crescent Way with frontages of 339 feet at the terminus of Euclid Way and 260 feet at the terminus of Penhall Way. To permit an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved 3-lot industrial subdivision. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION LETTER Concurred with staff Granted a one (1) year extension of time (to expire on July 24, 2007) 10 day appeal period Project Planner: (kwong2 ~ anaheim.net) SrSUBTPM2002-231 kw.doc William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 1. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mr. See stated, in the absence of the applicant, that the applicant was aware of the meeting and also had reviewed and read the staff report and was in agreement with staff's recommendation.. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Sell concurred with staff's recommendations and (a) determined that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15315, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines; and (b) Granted the request for a one (1) year extension of time (to expire on July 24, 2007), based on the following: (i) That the request was filed prior to the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map. (ii) That this is the second request for aone-year extension of time and Code permits extensions not to exceed a total of three years for tentative maps. (iii) That no modification of the tentative parcel map is included in this request. Page 2 ACZA080306. DOC • • August 3, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 2b. VARIANCE NO. 2006-04690 OWNER: Mark A. Ulves 343 Royal Ridge Drive Anaheim, CA 92807-4053 LOCATION: 343 South Roval Rid4e Drive: Property is approximately 0.53-acre, having a frontage of 62 feet on the West side of Royal Ridge Drive, located 387 feet north of the centerline of Whitestone. Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct atwo-story addition to an existing single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. Continued to August 17, 2006 15 day appeal period Project Planner: (m newland ~ anaheim, net) Srvar2006-04690.doc William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 2. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mr. See stated staff recommended the Zoning Administrator continue Item No. 2 to the August 17, 2006 meeting as requested by the applicant. One person was present in the audience for reasons of observation only. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Sell concurred with staff's recommendation and continued Item No. 2 to the August 17, 2006 meeting as requested by the applicant. Page 3 ACZA080306. DOC • • August 3, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 3b. VARIANCE NO.2006-04693 OWNER: Thomas Drummond, Jr. 846 South State College Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92806-4614 LOCATION: 846 South State College Boulevard: Property is approximately 0.14-acre, having a frontage of 60 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, a maximum depth of 100 feet, located 212 feet south of the centerline of Viking Avenue. Waivers of (a) minimum side yard setback and (b) minimum rear yard setback to construct atwo-story addition to an existing single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. ZA2006-16 Concurred with staff Approved 15 day appeal period Project Planner: (kwona2 ®anaheim.net) SrVAR2006-04693kw.doc William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 3. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Testimony: Thomas Drummond, 846 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, stated his request for waivers of (a) minimum side yard setback and (b) minimum rear yard setback to construct atwo-story addition to an existing single-family residence in a series of five phases with the first phase being substantially complete and the second and third phase in process of being complete. He stated that his house is taking a while to complete because currently he is the architect of approximately 15 other projects. Public Testimony: Warren Robertson, 857 S. Reseda, Anaheim, CA, stated concern that the area is being rezoned to permit additional structures and he, along with his neighbors, are concerned that they are losing the privacy of their backyards. He asked if there was any regulation on the location of the windows that could possibly face their backyards and invade the privacy of their pools, etc. Additionally, he stated concern that the property would be a rental property and therefore the community would no longer be familiar with its neighbors which could possibly lead to trespassing or harsher crimes. Mr. Sell referred to staff and asked that the concerns of rezoning be addressed. Mr. See stated the property is zoned RS-2 (Residential, Single-family) and the Anaheim General Plan is designated for low density residential land use and there is no proposal to change it. Mr. Sell stated the applicant had the right to ask for a variance to expand beyond the required setbacks. Page 4 ACZA080306. DOC • ~J August 3, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA Kennon E. Vawter, 847 S. Reseda Street, stated his concern is not the second story addition but that it is not a conventional style home and building the unique effect to the home is taking an extended amount of time well beyond 5 years. He presented staff with photographs of his property depicting the backside of his fence where he planted Podocarpuses in order to shield the opposing view; and the design of the applicant's project which he believes does not conform to the neighborhood. He stated the unfinished structure is an eyesore in the community and has caused his property to drop approximately 10% in market value. Two people spoke in opposition. No one else wished to speak regarding this item. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Drummond responded the property at 862 S. Reseda Street adjacent to Mr. Robertson is his daughter's home and would not be used as a rental property. The room on the second floor is a bedroom and the only access to it is inside the house. Additionally, the property located at 846 South State College Boulevard, which is his home, would not be used as a rental property. The room on the second floor is his office and the only access to it is inside the house. He responded that there are other two- story homes in the neighborhood; he wishes to live in a home with his own design; and the reason it has taken so long for him to complete the subject project is because other projects outside of his home has demanded that he travel to approximately six states and four countries in order to complete them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Sell stated he understood the opponents' concern of having a single family residence built adjacent to a two-story residence however there was nothing in the Anaheim City code to prevent the applicant from building a second story onto his home. Mr. Sell concurred with staff's recommendation and approved CEQA Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), and approved Variance No. 2006-04693 to construct a second story addition to an existing single-family residence with waivers of minimum side and rear yard setback, by adopting the resolution known as Resolution No. ZA2006-16; dated 8-3-06, including the findings and conditions contained therein. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Following the decision Mr. Sell asked if there was anything in the code that would require the applicant to work expeditiously towards the completion of the project. Mr. See stated staff recommended the following two additional conditions of approval: (a) To obtain a Building Permit to construct a second story addition, and (b) Prohibiting a kitchen to prevent the second story addition from being converted into a second unit. Mr. Sell concurred with staff's recommendations and adopted the two additional conditions into the resolution. Mr. Vawter expressed concern with the length of time it is taking the applicant to complete the project and wished to know if the Anaheim City Code regulated a time limitation for completion of the project. Mr. See suggested a member from the Building Department be summoned to the meeting to explain the Building Code and time limitations. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, responded there were rules and regulations with respect to the state laws but the more immediate response should respectfully come from a representative of the Building Department. Page 5 ACZA080306.DOC • August 3, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA During the intermittent wait for the Building Department representative to arrive Mr. Robertson entered points of interest for the record (see Item No. 4 - {terns of Public Interest). Mr. Kyfe Tonokawa, Senior Plans Examiner, of the Building Department, stated a Building Permit is issued for one year after which there must be a request for an extension of time, which is issued in six (6) month increments. After two requests for extension of time, there would be a cost of half the construction cost and permit fee, etc. However, it would also be a function of whether or not any work had been done, and if work was never started prior to the permit expiring then the Building Department would look at doing another inspected plan check to see if there were any code changes. Mr. Sell restated his decision approving Variance No. 2006-04693 to construct a second story addition to an existing single-family residence with waivers of minimum side and rear yard setback, by adopting the resolution known as Resolution No. ZA2006-16; dated 8-3-06, including the findings and conditions contained therein, and including two additional conditions of approval recommended by staff as follows: 2. That no kitchen facilities shall be permitted in the proposed second story room addition above the attached garage. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 3. That the proper building permits shall be obtained from the Building Division of the Planning Services Department. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: (The following discussion was entered into the records prior to Mr. Kyle Tonokawa's arrival to enter a response for Item No. 3.) Mr. Robertson asked if the idea of South State College Boulevard going commercial was invalid and stated the reason he brought it up is because several years ago the previous property owner tried to commercialize the area and a massive community responded in opposition. However, he noticed office spaces were still being built only to remain vacant so he wondered why they were being built only to demolish them later. Mr. See responded that on the east side of State College Boulevard the Anaheim General Plan is low density residential and the zoning would have to stay residential. Therefore, there were no changes anticipated for the east side. Additionally, on the west side of State College Boulevard, the Anaheim General Plan also identifies that area as residential although it is developed as commercial. Therefore, that area could potentially be rezoned to residential. Mr. Robertson stated Anaheim is losing too much residential property and when the apartment population exceeds family dwelling it becomes very unhealthy for the City, causing an increase in the crime rate. Page 6 ACZA080306. DOC