Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2007/12/06• CITY OF ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007 9:30 A.M. Plan-Check Conference Room, City Hall East 200 South Anaheim Boulevard; Anaheim, California ~. ~. ; ,.. STAFF PRESENT: John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator, ~Ma~~C Gordon, Assistant City Attorney~~' _~ ~.J~Amstrup, Planning Seivices~Manag~r Dave See, Senior Planner Dennis Joe, Planning Aide Elly .Morris,.-Senior secretary -:-, AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted~at 3:30~p.rr% on-November 29,_2007 inside the~display.c~ase located in the foyer ofthe Counci('C~lambgrs, and, alsoin"theoutside display,kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim B~Iletin;Newspaper on Thursday, November 1, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT H:\Tools\ZAadmin\ACZA120607. doc zoningadministratorr~anaheim.net • i DECEMBER 6, 2007 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 1. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 2b. VARIANCE N0.2007-04738 Concurred with staff Granted OWNER: The Pines HOA Modified Condition 134 South Magnolia Avenue Nos. 1 and 3 Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Peter Bright 134 South Magnolia Avenue #146 Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 134 South Magnolia Avenue: This rectangularly-shaped 4.6 acre parcel of land has a frontage of 333 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, a maximum depth of 600 feet, and is located approximately 333 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Request waiver of maximum fence height to construct a 6-foot high block wall with wrought iron panels within the front setback of an existing condominium complex. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. ZA2007-13 15-day appeal period Project Planner: Dennis Joe (djoe@anaheim.net) John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. Dennis Joe, Planning Aide, introduced Item No. 2 and stated staff believes special circumstances apply to the subject property because of the required setback along Magnolia Avenue which is currently being utilized as private yards for 6 units. If a 6-foot high privacy wall were to be constructed outside of the required setback the existing private yards would be eliminated, therefore staff recommends approval of the subject request. Peter Bright, 134 South Magnolia Avenue #146, Anaheim, CA, referred to Condition No. 1 of today's staff report and stated there is noway they could install an 18-inch wide planter area as that would necessitate the removal of two patios. They are already moving it back 18 inches just to accommodate a 6-inch wide planter, for the ficus vines which does not require that much space. He believes installing an 18-inch wide planter area would invite people to throw trash in there. Also, he referred to Condition No. 3 and stated they already have existing gates, and are not asking to install any new vehicular gates. They are 12-06-07 Page 2 of 5 • • DECEMBER 6, 2007 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES asking to remove their 3-foot high decorative fence and install a new 6-foot high fence, as they have had many nuisances and the new fence height would be more secure for them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Van Doren asked what kind of curbing will be at the sidewalk between the sidewalk and the block wall. Jason Adams, 326 S. Ramm Drive, Anaheim, CA, contractor for the project, stated it is a 6-inch block, one block high. Mr. Van Doren asked what is the distance between the sidewalk and the edge of the patio. Mr. Bright stated currently the fence is at the boundary for the existing wall. Mr. Van Doren asked where the concrete portion of the patio is located. Mr. Bright stated it goes directly to the edge where the existing block wall is. Mr. Van Doren asked if the two center units have patios built to the back edge of the wall. Dave See, Senior Planner, referred to the staff report and stated staff concurred that 18 inches is preferred and that is in response to what the plans showed. If the two patios are closer than 18 inches then staff would be concerned and feels it would be reasonable to keep an 18-foot setback and reduce the setback for the wall adjacent to the patios. Mr. Van Doren stated there will be a requirement that the wall be screened in order to prevent graffiti. He feels they could explore an option of a "step out" of a decorative wall and asked for clarification on how deep the planters need to be including the block walls separating the planter area from the sidewalk and the planter area from the wall. Mr. See stated with an 18-inch wide planter you could do a lot more with vines and small shrubs; if it is just 6-inches there is no room for anything other than vines. Mr. Van Doren stated he doesn't believe 6 inches could accommodate decorative plants, as shrubs could eventually encroach into the sidewalk area, therefore, the planter would need to be deep enough so it doesn't become a nuisance or hazard to pedestrians. Further discussion amongst Mr. Van Doren, staff and the applicant took place regarding the landscaping and the decorative wall. After the discussion, Mr. Van Doren stated he feels it is an appropriate compromise that a 12-inch planter be proposed, and a 6-inch planter next to the two patios. He also noted that the 18 inch recommendation was shown on the applicant's plans and that the City initially did not require 18 inches. Mr. Van Doren also clarified to the applicant that whatever plans are approved, that they would need to build it to those plans; and stated to the applicant if there is anything regarding the patios that get in the way of the wall. If the patios were not permitted, then staff would not be able to accommodate them. The applicant would then need to take out whatever patio is required to put in said wall. If the applicant wants to reduce the patio in order to provide space for the homeowners, the City would not be opposed. Mr. See stated for clarification, Mr. Van Doren's preference is that there be a 12-inch wide planter along the entire frontage with the exception of the area adjacent to the patios which would be 6 inches. 12-06-07 Page 3 of 5 • • DECEMBER 6, 2007 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Mr. Van Doren clarified he was looking for a way to consider the applicant's concerns about the depth required, and not yet willing to permit 6 inches for the entire frontage. He asked if other variances have 18 inches as a standard. Mr. See stated there is no standard, they only recommended 18 inches because the plans showed that which staff concurred, and staff felt 18 inches is enough to accommodate some small shrubs in addition to the vines. Staff doesn't feel that 6 to 12 inches would accommodate any shrubbery because when they start to grow out they would encroach into the sidewalk area. Mr. Van Doren referred to the space between the planting area and the sidewalk and asked if a planting block would be acceptable, it doesn't have to be 6 inches wide. It is really just a curb effect to keep the dirt and water off the sidewalk. Mr. Adams stated they could just grade the planter 2 inches lower than the sidewalk and not have a block there in the front. Mr. Van Doren asked staff if the City requires a curb for a planter area. Mr. See responded not in this case, the planter would just be the edge of the sidewalk to the block wall. He asked Mr. Adams if a footing would encroach into the planter area, or would he be able to construct it with the footing directly underneath the block. Mr. Adams stated they would do an "L° footing that goes back towards the property and not towards the sidewalk. Mr. Van Doren asked the applicant if they agree with 18 inches and not have to put up the 6 inches so they are not talking about 24 inches, does that meet their needs. Mr. Adams responded yes. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, asked if Condition No. 3 was addressed as the applicant raised a concern. He asked if the existing gate is going to be demolished and a new gate to be installed. Mr. Bright responded no, just a fence. The vehicular gates have already been upgraded. Mr. See clarified there are pedestrian gates being installed but the vehicular gate is remaining as is. Mr. Gordon asked what is the purpose of Condition No. 3. Mr. See responded that is a standard condition, and staff would like to have the condition in place with variance cases, should any changes take place it is an enforceable condition if they do demolish the gate in the future and replace it, therefore staff wants to make sure any new gate complies with that standard. Mr. Gordon asked does the existing gate comply with Engineering Standard Plan No. 609. Mr. See responded it does not because it is not setback 20 feet from the property line as required by Code. Further discussion amongst staff took place regarding Condition No. 3; Mr. Gordon recommended modifying the condition to clarify that if the existing gate is removed and a new gate across the driveway is installed then there has to be compliance with Engineering Standard Plan No. 609. Mr. Van Doren and Mr. See were in agreement with the clarification/modification to Condition No. 3; Mr. Van Doren asked the applicants if they were in agreement. 12-06-07 Page 4 of 5 • DECEMBER 6, 2007 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Mr. Bright and Adams stated they were in agreement. Mr. Van Doren took action to approve the subject request with modifications to Condition Nos. 1 and 3. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 A.M. TO THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008 AT 9:30 A.M. The Zoning Administrator meetings for Thursday, December 20, 2007 and January 3, 2008, have been cancelled as there were no petitions filed for those dates. Respectfully submitted: Elly Morris Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Zoning Administrator on ~rk~.~.,~.r 1~( , 2008. 12-06-07 Page 5 of 5