Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2006/10/26• ANAH E I M ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2006 3:00 P.M. Plan-Check Conference Room, .City Hall East 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California STAFF PRESENT: Kristine Ridge, Acting Zoning Administrator David See, Senior Planner Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney -Della Herrick, Associate Planner Marie Newland, Planner ` Pat~Ch~radler, Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted at 4:45 p.m. on October 20, `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, September 28, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT 102606.doc net • • OCTOBER 26, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: 1a. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0.2006-00295 Approved OWNER: Derrell L. Brown 5243 East Honeywood Lane Anaheim, CA 92807 15 day appeal period AGENT: Jason Pearson Rick Hamm Construction, Inc. 201 West Carleton Avenue Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 5243 East Honeywood Lane: Property is approximately 0.2- acre, having a frontage of 72 feet on the north side of Honeywood Lane and a maximum depth of 153 feet, located 215 feet west of the centerline of Royal Oak Road. Waiver of minimum side yard setback (9 feet required, 7.5 feet proposed) to construct a second story deck to the rear of an existing single-family home. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. ZA2006-27 Appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. Project Planner: (mnewland ~ anaheim.net) Kristine Ridge, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 1 and stated there is a minor change in the description in that it is only partially existing, the second story deck; they pulled the permit and got it prepared for construction but the deck actually isn't there now but they started part of the work and then they stopped it; but the numbers are all the same and nothing has changed but it is partially existing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Testimony: Jason Pearson, Project Manager of Rick Hamm Construction, Inc., 201 West Carleton Avenue, Orange, CA, stated that before they started the job the setback was 8 feet and they moved it to 9 feet, also the foundation was already in so for those reasons they requested the 20% deviation from Code. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Page 2 ACZA102606.DOC • • OCTOBER 26, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA Ms. Ridge concurred with staff's recommendations and approved Administrative Adjustment No. 2006- 00295 for waiver to construct a second story deck addition to an existing single-family residence under authority of Code Section No. 18.62.040.020.0201 (minimum side yard setback 9 feet required; 7 feet, 5 inches proposed), by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein. She stated the decision would be written and signed no later than 7 days from the date of the meeting and would be final after the appeal period expires 15 days following the date of the decision. Page 3 ACZA102606. DOC • . OCTOBER 26, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA 2a. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2006-00296 Approved OWNER: Michael J. McRobert 585 Los Coyotes Drive Anaheim, CA 92807 15 day appeal period AGENT: Rick Anderson Anderson & Associates 251 North Bush Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 LOCATION: 585 South Los Covotes Drive: Property is approximately 0.23-acre, having frontages of 73 feet on the north side of Los Coyotes Drive and a maximum depth of 128 feet. Waiver of minimum side yard setback (9 feet required for the second story; 7 feet, 2 inches proposed) to construct a second story addition to an existing single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. ZA2006-28 Appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. Project Planner: (kwong2 ~ anaheim.net) SrADJ2006-00296kw.doc Kristine Ridge, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 2. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. No one wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Ridge concurred with staff's recommendations and approved Administrative Adjustment No. 2006- 00296 for waiver to construct a second story addition to an existing single-family residence under authority of Code Section No. 18.62.040.020.0201 (minimum side yard setback 9 feet required; 7 feet, 2 inches proposed), by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein. She stated the decision would be written and signed no later than 7 days from the date of the meeting and would be final after the appeal period expires 15 days following the date of the decision. Page 4 ACZA102606.DOC • • OCTOBER 26, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING: 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 3b. VARIANCE NO.2006-04702 OWNER: Charles R. Ware 1803 W. Chanticleer Road Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Ryan Perez 5557 East Santa Ana Canyon Road Suite 103-131 Anaheim, CA 92807 Concurred with staff Denied 15 day appeal period LOCATION: 1803 West Chanticleer Road: Property is approximately 0.26- acre, having a frontage of 90 feet on the north side of Chanticleer Road, a maximum depth of 105 feet, located 437 feet east of the centerline of Hacienda Street. Waiver of permitted encroachment for accessory buildings and structures to retain an existing outdoor fireplace and detached bathroom in the rear yard of asingle-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION N0. ZA2006-29 Project Planner: (dherrick ~ anaheim.net) S rVAR2006-04702dh.doc Kristine Ridge, Acting Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. David See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 3, and stated the fireplace is within a public utility easement area and the applicant's representative indicated that they are seeking approval from the Utility Department for the encroachment. Secondly, the roof of the detached bathroom is on the property line and appears to drain onto the neighbor's property therefore, staff requires that the applicant modify the roof so that it does not drain onto the neighbor's property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Testimony: Ed Perez, 5557 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 103-131, Anaheim, CA, representing the owner, Charles R. Ware, stated they would like to make a correction to the information reported in that the distance between the wall from the wood frame line to the back of the fire pit is 21 inches and not 6 inches and therefore, the applicant would like to mitigate the set corrections. With respect to the outdoor bathroom, he would like to add a fire rated wall on the interior of the bathroom based on an inspection by code requirements. Second, he would like to cutback eaves away from the existing site and add gutters so that there is no run off onto the neighbor's property. Also, they have agreed with the Utility Department to come up with any forthcoming plans that require proper inspection to show where the water lines are being processed and will provide drawings within ample time. With respect to the fire place, they request a variance of the required setback. He presented evidence of an application for a license which is currently being processed within approximately a two week timeframe. Page 5 ACZA102606.DOC • OCTOBER 26, 2006 • ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA Ms. Ridge asked if there was any opposition to the applicant's requests. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated she received a phone call from an anonymous neighbor who stated they were not happy with the fireplace and the outdoor bathroom and that being handicapped prohibited them from coming to the meetings. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, referred to an additional complaint that was also received and asked if staff had any information for the records. Mr. See stated the call was anonymous and the caller only indicated "citizen" and did not wish to reveal a name or address. Charles R. Ware, 1803 W. Chanticleer Road, Anaheim, CA, stated that he could assure it was not any of his neighbors because they have all come to him and asked if they could write letters on his behalf however, he declined their offer. He believes it is someone who he is currently in litigation with. Ms. Ridge stated according to the Zoning Code, if there are special circumstances related to the property a waiver can be granted however Planning staff did not find any special circumstances related to the property. Therefore, she asked the applicant if he had anything to provide that would support his case as to why the specific locations were chosen. Mr. Ware responded no, he did not have any evidence other than the obvious layout of the property which prevented moving everything in because the shapes of the projects were incongruent to the areas and also the way he planned it tied in with the planters which ran the length of his property. Ms. Ridge stated in light of the information staff provided the reason for any deviation from the code was not met. The request for an encroachment would give the right to encroach in on an easement but would not resolve the issue as far as the setback is concerned. Therefore, she would have to deny Variance No. 2006-04702. Mr. Perez stated their goal is not to tear down structures but to try to get it as close to compliance as possible therefore, they would pursue an appeal to build a stronger case for reconsideration. Ms. Herrick stated she wished to inform them that pursuit of the City Council actions would require additional fees plus they would be billed $180 an hour due to it being a more time extensive process. Mr. Ware stated it is extraordinary because in driving around he observes many things and one thing he has observed is a house that is built not too far from his which is approximately 2 feet off his wall and he knows it was permitted because he watched it being built and therefore, it is frustrating. He added he knows he did something that he wasn't supposed to do but it didn't seem like the punishment fit the crime. Ms. Ridge stated the staff report indicated there were no other properties in the immediate vicinity that were granted waivers. Mr. See wished to clarify that variances relates to a hardship or physical constraint for example, if the applicant's lot was the smallest on the block and if every property was 7,000 square feet but his was 6,000 that would constitute a hardship or if the shape was unusual or if the backyard was unusually small that would also constitute a hardship. The second finding would be privileges enjoyed by other properties. A comparable comparison would be other properties that were granted variances similar to the applicant's. If there were other detached bathrooms in the neighborhood and they were given variances. He stated there are other structures in backyards such as tool sheds, detached garages, etc., that connect and encroach in the setback areas however, the reason in this case is (1) The City of Page 6 ACZA102606. DOC • C~ J OCTOBER 26, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA Anaheim has a new code that went into effect two years ago and it has different standards; and (2) it is a bathroom and not a tool shed. Mr. Ware stated it is frustrating because if he could move the fireplace he would be more than happy to but short of dinging it up and then trying to repair the damages there was nothing he could do and that the punishment did not fit the crime. He asked if a petition from his neighbors in his favor would help. Mr. Gordon stated it was something he should consider himself because staff could not prejudge what the City Council's decision on the matter might be and whether or not having a petition, letters from his neighbors or having his neighbors appear at the public hearing in favor of the application might help him. It would be up to the City Council to decide. Planning staff would consider any information he presents and make a new recommendation to the City Council as if today's hearing never occurred. The City Council hearing would be on the same basis as judged at this level. They would look for unique circumstances applicable to the property that make strict application of the zoning and development standards that the applicant would be constrained by and that limits the development of his property and whether or not he is deprived, because of some unique feature of his property, the same privileges that other neighbors might enjoy. He stated additionally, in response to the applicant's comment that the punishment did not fit the crime, the decision made was not meant to punish or to deny the request because building occurred without a permit or without encroachment licenses or without a review by the Planning Department but it is based upon the requirements of the Code applicable to the variance and what the findings are for that particular variance therefore, the Zoning Administrator stated she could not make the findings based upon the information that the applicant offered to her. No one else wished to speak and no opposition was received regarding this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Ridge concurred with staff's recommendations and approved CEQA Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and denied Variance No. 2006-04702 for waiver of permitted encroachment of accessory structures to retain an existing outdoor fireplace and detached bathroom in the rear yard of a single family residence, based on the following: That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property pertaining to the size, shape, location or surroundings which do not apply to other identically-zoned properties in the vicinity to justify retaining an existing outdoor fireplace and detached bathroom in the rear yard of a single family residence. This lot has a large back yard area and the fireplace and detached bathroom could be placed at a setback of five (5) feet that would meet code requirements. That the strict application of the Zoning Code would not deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. (iii) That there are no other properties within the surrounding neighborhood that have a fireplace and detached bathroom that encroach into the required setback area. She stated the decision would be written and signed no later than 7 days from the date of the meeting and would be final after the appeal period expires 15 days following the date of the decision. Page 7 ACZA102606.DOC • OCTOBER 26, 2006 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None Page 8 ACZA102606.DOC