Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2008/12/11Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California STAFF PRESENT: John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Ted White, Senior Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Eleanor Morris, Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted at 8;30 a.m. on Monday, December 8, 2008 inside the display case located in the foyer of the Councii Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and su6mit it to the secretary. • Call To Order - 9:30 a.m. e Public Comments e Minutes • Reports and Recommendations . Public Hearing Items • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Zoning Administrator using the following e-mail address: twhite@anaheim.net DECEMBER 11, 2008 ZOPIING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: The Consent Calendar, ftem 1A, was approved by the Zoning Administrator. ITEM NO. 1 Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Zoning Approved Administrator Meeting of November 13, 2008. RPOOrts and Recommendations• None M ZA121108 Page 2 of 11 DECENiBER 11, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES ITEM NO. 2 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 AND Resolution No ZA2008-20 VARIANCE PIO. 2008-04759: OWNER: Howard Knohl Denied 181 S. Cobblestone Lane 15-day appeal period Anaheim, CA 92807 APPLICAIdT: Lane Curtis 777 Peralta Hills Drive Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 181 South Cobblestone Lane: Property consists of three separate parcels under the same ownership with a combined area of 3 acres, having frontages of 145 feet at the terminus of Cobblestone Lane and 125 feet on the north side of Peralta Hills Drive, and a maximum depth of 569 feet. Request to permit and retain a 7-foot high fence within the required front yard setback where a 3-foot high fence is permitted, and to permit and retain a circular driveway in the front yard that is not located in tandem with an enclosed garage.* " The portion of this variance pertaining to the request fo permit and retain a circular driveway in the front yard that is not located in tandem with an enclosed garage has been removed at the determination of staff that the variance is not necessary. Project Planner. Dave See Continued from the November 13, 2008, Zoning Administrator meeting. Dsee(~a anaheim.net John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. Dave See, Se~ior Planner, introduced Item No. 2, and stated the request was advertised with an additional request for a variance to permit and retain the semi- circular driveway in the front yard that is not located in tandem with a garage; upon further review staff withdrew this portion of the request because they founci the driveway to be in compiiance with code because parking spaces are located outside the front setback area. Therefore, that portion of the request was withdrawn. Staff reviewed the size, shape and topography of the subject property and did not find any hardships or any special circumstance which would justify the waiver, therefore, staff recommends deniai of the request. ZA121108 Page 3 of 11 DECEAflBER 11, 2008 ZOPIING ADMIFIISTRATOR flAIfdUTES He indicated 35 letters were received,_18 in opposition; and 17 in support. In addition, staff received a letter yesterday from the applicant's attorney which has been provided to the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Van Doren reiterated that the fence exists on the property line dividing the private property from the public property, within the required 20-foot setback. The gates are about 11-12 feet back from the property line but still within the 20-foot setback required by code. He concurred with the withdrawal of the waiver request for the circular driveway. Mr. Van Doren opened the public hearing. Lane Curtis, applicant, stated any issues today should revolve specifically around the appropriateness of the design for the rear entry element at the subject estate. He indicated he was not originally involved in the construction of the project, but offered to help Dr. Knoll with the variance process after he was informed af the notice from Code Enforcement. He stated he believed this would be an opportunity for discussion with Planning Department on the possible change of the current standard of 3 foot high maximum fence height and 4 foot high maximum pilaster height in the front setback, for properties in the RH-1 zone. He indicated that the current standards are inappropriate for the community. The standard height was 6 foot high until it was changed in 1999. They are applying front entry standards to a rear entry because Dr. Knohl upgraded a rear entry to look like a front e~try. The standards for rear entries are different, and depending on how you determine the description of Peralta Hilis Drive this entry could be in compliance. He stated that today they should be discussing how high should the standard be in Peralta Hills instead of being a part of a battle between two neighbors. He pointed out that varia~ces for higher fences, pilasters and gates have been approved in the past and there is no reason to consider that this project wouldn't have been recommended for approval by Planning except for the position of the adjacent neighbor. Also, he stated he believes that the primary reason for the neighbor's difficulty with this project excluding electrical and drainage issues is the one pilaster that abuts their entry. He stated that he spoke to the adjacent ~eighbors regarding a compromise to change the height of the adjacent pilaster. They did not agree. He reiterated he is asking for approval of the variance with the clear understanding that the Planning Department recommended conditions of approval would be followed. He explained that Dr. Knohl will present a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation which will show the history of complaints to the Contractor State License Board regarding the contractor for the project, as he misrepresented information about permits being pulled and examples of similar heights and adjacency conditions throughout Peralta Hills. '' Mr. Van Doren asked whether he was the architect for the gated fence construction. Mr. Curtis responded that he was not the architect, but had offered to help with this request. ZA121108 Page 4 of 11 DECEfiflBER 11, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AflIMUTES Dr. Howard Knohl, owner, stated his presentation is more than 5 minutes and staff indicated he could present his presentation in its entirety, and indicated a PowerPoint slide presentation will be presented which wiA provide more than ample justification for `' the granting of the variance. Dr. Knohl gave a brief history on the subject property. Over 25 years of ownership of the property they beautified the land progressively from front to back, and the beautification project culminated with the building of the rear entrance in 2007. He gave further details about a chain link fence combined with shrubbery that was on the property until early 2006, until a Eucalyptus tree fell and damaged a portio~ of the fence. Due to the damaged fence, they decided to upgrade the fence rather than repair the chain link fence in order for it to be more in conformity with the improvements made on the property behind the entrance. He provided further details regarding the hiring of a co~tractor for the new entry. As stated in the signed contract, it was the obligation of the contractor to obtain necessary City permits. They were informed that the permits were obtained and construction could begin. The project was finished at the end of August 2007, and the beginning of September some landscaping still needed to be completed. At that time he asked the contractor to supply him with copies of the permits and final approval by the City of Anaheim. The permits were not provided, therefore, he asked again and he never received copies. Therefore, he wrote the State Contracting Board suggesting that the contractor may not have ever obtained the necessary permits. He was notified July 1, 2008, that the contractor never obtained the necessary permits and disciplinary action will be taken against the contractor. He explained that when he hired the contractor he took the plans to his immediate three neighbors; the Schlunds, the Hicks and Patrick Mahoney. All three parties approved of the plans and wished him well and all of them said it would be a great improvement. He explained that his neighbor, Clyde Schlund, had a particular interest in the progression of the construction as he was frequently at the construction site, asking questians, etc., and watching the construction from start to finish. The columns were built one-by-one over a 7-week periad and Mr. Schlund never had any complaints during or after construction. He presented slides depicting numerous special physical characteristics that exist and depicting numerous other properties in the area that have similar improvements that are already in place. Some have variances granted and some did not obtain variances from the City. He provided a summary explaining that there are four special characteristics associated with the property; first, natural run-off, with numerous ravines surrounded by hilis, and the creation of multi-layered levels of sloped land exist; second, a great number of charitable events are held on the property and for s~curity reasons to protect set-up items used in the events a larger fence is ~eeded; third, unusual circumstances that the front and back entrance both face Peralta Hilis Drive separated by'two other homeowners; and fourth, most important justification is that this is the rear entrance to the property and it fronts on Peralta Hills Drive which has heavy vehicle and foot traffic which created a necessity to prevent people from climbing over the fence onto their properry and it was necessary to have a fencing barrier. ZA121108 Page 5 of 11 DECEMBER 11, 2008 ZONIPIG ADMIPIISTRATOR MIMUTES He further presented slides of his property and indicated the names of the charitable organizations that have used his property for fundraisers; and he asked does any other property in the City have the same type of physical characteristics as the subject property, and stated no, this property is truly unique. He referred to the map presented and pointed out other properties which have Pilasters beiween 6-12 feet in height. When the current slide was prepared they identified a total of 40 homes in the Peralta Hills community that have exceeded 6 feet in height, and currently they have identified 20 more homes. If they were to count the lights on top of the columns they will get between 80-100 homes; he further presented slides showing examples of columns and entrances that are in close proximity to his home. He also presented slides showing columns / fences side by side that are inconsistent in size throughout Peralta Hilis. He stated they are asking for the variance now because they have just recently discovered that the necessary permits were not obtained in a timely fashion and that the City required them to apply for the variance. He stated he thinks the City was in error for requiring them to apply for the variance because the construction of the rear entrance was always in compliance with all the applicable codes of the City of Anaheim and did not require a variance. He presented a slide regarding their legal argument and stated to deny the variance would be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable with decisio~s not being enforced in an equal manner among the other homeowners with similar fencing. Mr. Van Doren asked what point in time was he aware that the permits were not obtained. Dr. Knohl responded he had suspicion when he wrote to the State Contracting Board at the end of 2007; but did not find out until July 1, 2008. Mr. Van Doren asked Dr. Knohl what his immediate action was to resolve the lack of permits prior to hearing frorn Code Enforcement. Dr. Knohl responded when he received the July 1, 2008 notice, he had already been notified by the City that he was in violation so there was no action that he could have taken. Sally Gersten Sopkin, 718 Harbor Island Drive, Newport Beach, CA, stated she is the attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Knohl and was asked to look at the property and the law regarding the property. She referred to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18.46.110, Screening, Fences, Walls and Hedges. She stated the subjecY`property is "horseshoe" shaped and it wraps around and faces Peralta Hills Drive, that is the rear entry and abuts non-residential and the 8-foot height should be permitted. If it is not~fhe prevailing law, the Government Code Section 65906 applies where you look at the topography and the hills and different circumstances, when you compare against similariy situated properties in the area. The Anaheim Municipal Code states that the sole purpose of any variance shall be to prevent discrimination. She expressed that if the varia~ce is not granted it would be highly discriminatory to the owners of the property. ZA121108 Page 6 of 11 DECEMBER 11, 2008 ZOPIIPIG ADMINISTRATOR MIPIUTES She stated copies of today's PowerPoint presentation along with CDs are available for staff. Patrick Mahoney, 191 Cobblestone Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated that the fence and'gate are a great beautification to the community and would be a great hardship to have them remove the wall. He expressed his support of the subject request. Cynthia Wolcott, Law firm of Palmieri, Tyler, 2603 Main Street, Irvine, CA, stated their firm represents Joan and Clyde Schlund who reside at 616 Peralta Hills Drive. The Schlunds have lived at their residence for over 45 years. They are present today because Mr. & Mrs. Knohl did not obtain the City's permission to install improvements and the improvements are not in compliance with the City's zoning and building regulations. The unlawful improvements include 10 massive 8-foot high brick pilasters, one of which encroaches into the Schlund's property. It is equally important to note that the Knohls did not show their plans to the Schlunds prior to commencing construction which is completely opposite to what Dr. Knohl stated today. She stated given the close proximity of the 8-foot pilasters and the 10-foot gates to the Schlund's driveway, which by the way, is the Schlunds only means of ingress and egress because when they remodeled their home in 1990, and asked to construct a circular driveway it was denied by the City, and they complied with the City's requirements. Given the close proximity, the Knohls should have discussed their plans with the Schlunds and considered and addressed their concerns, but they did not. As indicated in prior correspondence from her firm to Dave See, the Schlunds opposed the variance for the following reasons: 1) the cap of the western most pilaster encroaches into the Schlunds property; the City has no power to gra~t a variance which allows one landowner to build improvements which encroach into an adj~ining landowner's property. With over 125 feet of frontage on Peralta Hills Drive, the Knohls have no practical reason to position the pilasters so that the caps tower over the Schlunds columns and have no legal right to encroach into the Schlunds yard, 2) she referred to Governme~t Code Section 65906 and stated such circumsfances do not appear in this subject case as the Knohls property covers over 3 acres, 3) in addition to the encroachment issue, there is also a serious traffic and safety concern because the massive columns impair visibility when exiting the Schlund's driveway east onto Peralta Hills Drive, 4) the variance would grant the Knohis privileges which were not granted to other Peralta Hilis homeowners who requested permits including the Schlunds. In response to the letter written by Dr. Knohl's attorney, she takes exception to it being a rear entry, since the entry fronts o~ Peralta Hilis Drive. She also referred to issues raised by Dr. Knohl pertaining to special circumstances allowing taller columns being permitted if it abuts on a non-residential use, and she stated the non-residential use is the street and does not abut to a Burger King or Kohls Departmient store. She further stated she would like to address the drainage issue. Mr. Van Doren stated that issue is not before the Zoning Administrator. Cynthia Woicott responded that the conditions of approval listed in the staff report refer to the drainage issue. ZA121108 Page 7 of 11 DECEMBER 11, 2008 ZONING ADMIMISTRATOR MINUTES Ted White, Senior Planner, pointed out that there are recommended conditions of approval in the event that the project is approved, that relate to improvements made in conjunction with the fence that impacts drainage. Therefore, it would be appropriate for Ms. Wolcott to finish her remarks, and staff is available to answer questions. Mr. Van Doren apologized and asked Cynthia Wolcott if she would like to continue her remarks pertaining to drainage issues. Cynthia Wolcott stated as part of the Knohl's improvements they raised the grade of their property adjacent to Peralta Hills Drive by several feet and it was done without a grading permit. The recommended conditions of approval relating to a grading permit that could be issued in the future, required the Knohls to install a properly sized traffic graded channel inlet across the westerly driveway approach on Peralta Hills Drive, and that the new inlet connect to the existing concrete drain box installed by the Schlunds on their property. She asked that the City look carefully at the Knohl's drainage capacity as part of its review of the grading permit. Mr. Van Doren asked what permissions did the Schlunds have for the wall/fence and pilasters on their property. Cynthia Wolcott responded all the landscaping improvements were approved as part of their 1990 remodeling. Tom Bernatz, 665 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated that Peralta Hills has a 40 foot easement, the pavement is 20 feet wide. People who live in the area feel that the easement ends at the edge of the pavement, and it does not. The property is not in a setback, the total width of the easement is 40 feet wide. The photos shown today during canstruction along the shoulder of the pavement were in the right-of-way, there is ~o setback. The setback is another 20 feet beyond the edge of the 40 foot right-of-way. He expressed he had to restrain himself about criticism of the subject wali, because every wail i~ Peralta Hills is a different shape and size, and he blames the city of Anaheim and the Planning Department for failing to determine some type of acceptability standard. He further expressed his disappointment with the variations of the homes in Peralta Hills. Lucille Krueger, 561 Peralta Hilis Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated procedures were not followed in this particular circumstance, and she read a letter of concern written by the resident at 559 Peralta Hills Drive; concerns stated related to City protocois not being foilowed, and that the variance could set a dangerous precedence for future violations of City codes. Residents within 300 feet of subject property were not notified and did not have a chance to voice their concerns, and it violates the height limits and other restrictions stated by City codes. " Tom Burger, 31565 Catalina Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA, stated he is theKSchlund's architect for the home he designed in 1990. He has represented a number of clients requesting variances and is familiar with the process. He told the Schlunds that the code had changed beiween the time the Schlunds developed their property and the present. A significant component is the drainage issue; there is a ravine that runs directly adjacent to the pavement on the Schlund's property which catches a substantial ZA121108 Page 8 of 11 DECEflABER 11, 2008 ZOMIPIG ADMIMISTRATOR MIiVUTES amount of water from Peralta Hills Drive. There was a similar ravine in front of the Knohl's property which was filled in in order to do the improvements. Also, they are concerned about the encroachment of the column pilaster which does project across the ' property line into their airspace. Aesthetically, the wall is an attractive wall 'but the problem the Schlunds have is with its mass and scale. There are taller gates in the neighborhood but it appears most of those tall gates are setback from the property line. In the subject case, the subject wall is not observing any setback and on a property as large as the Knohis it appears that the entry could have been built within the zoning requirements if it had been pushed further away from the street. He indicated whether it was built intentional or not without following the city's process, it is not a justification for granting a variance. Clyde Schlund, 616 Peralta Hilis Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated their east property line is adjacent to Howard Knohl's west property line, and their driveway is extremely ciose to Howard's property. While work was being done, he asked Howard if he had taken out permits, and Howard stated yes. They went to the Building Division, twice, to see if permits were obtained and each time the answer was the same, that no permits were issued. Therefore, they informed the Code Enforcement Division that extensive work had been completed on the Knohl's property without obtaining permits. When they read the posted sign that stated a variance was requested by the Knohls they were very concerned. Subsequently, they contacted Tom Burger, architect, to look at the scope of the work that was done. Mr. Burger concluded and instructed them that the Knohl's property does not have any physical hardship to justify a variance. He also relayed safety concerns as they exit their driveway to the east as they have poor visibility due to the massive size and height of the columns. He expressed his agreement with today's staff report recommending denial of the subject request, and he stated that at no time did Howard Knohl show him the plans. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated we have heard from speakers in favor and in opposition of the project, and the applicant should be given an opportunity to provide any rebuttal. Dr. Howard Knohl stated a lot of issues have been raised but he doesn't believe these issues have anything to do with the variance hearing. Some are hearsay, and some have to do if permits were issued at the proper time. He further described the drainage issue on his property, the Schlund's property and in the general area. He stated that there has been no finding of fact regarding the pilaster cap encroaching onto the neighbor's property, and referred to the visibility issue/pilasters impairing the view and stated there is ample room to see the street when you drive out of the Schlund's property. In conclusion, he stated he remembers very distinctly being at the Schlund's house going over the pians with Mr. Schlund; Mrs. Schlund was not there and if Mr. Schlund does not remember that it is unfortunate. He sat dowmwith the Hicks to the east of his property, Mr, Schlund to the west of his property, and sat down with Pat Mahoney because he shares a property line with him as well, and he discu`ssed it in detail. He indicated Mr. Schlund was out on the property every single day watching the construction, and to his knowiedge Mr. Schlund never made a negative cornment. Mr. Van Doren closed the public hearing. ZA121108 Page 9 of 11 DECEMBER 11, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Mr. Van Dore~ clarified that the issue before the Zoning Administrator is the application for a variance pertaining to the height of fence, gate and pilasters within the front setback abutting the Peralta Hills roadway. It is not in the purview of the city or Zoning " Administrator to deal with property iine issues that have been addressed today identified by the encroachment issue. He included that the staff report, comments heard today, and on his own review of the property and its orientation on the street, identifies that the parcels that abut Perafta Hilis Drive are not the same parcel that abuts Cobblestone Lane. Therefore, he concurs with the comments in the staff report and others that identify that Peralta Hills Drive is a residential street, the parcels that are crossed by the fence and gate are at the front of those parcels, and it is the front setback that governs the decisions on the variance. He explained that he will not rule on the issue of where property line exists, but will rule on the application for a variance for the fence, gate and pilasters within the front setback. It is his understanding that the fence is in the front setback at the property line, rather than 20 feet back from the property line. The gate is setback another 12 feet, therefore clearly not outside of the required 20 foot setback. He presented the options to the applicant to reduce the fence, pilasters and gate to what is allowed in the front setback or to relocate all of the structures outside of the front setback would be a viable option. He further expressed that funds have been spent on unpermitted construction in the front setback, those are regrettably expenditures that the applicant would need to take up with the contractor who performed the work without permits. The city holds the property owner responsible for what occurs on their property, not their agents. He stated having reviewed the subject property, reviewed all 36 letters in file, and based on testimony presented today he is prepared to take action on the subject request. Mr. Van Doren took action to approve Resolution No, ZA2008-20, denying a CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1, and denying Variance No. 2008-04759 based on the findings described in the staff report and the resolution prepared by staff and having taken into consideration correspondence received on the subject matter and testimony presented today at the public hearing. IN SUPPORT: Two peopie indicated their presence at said public hearing in support and 18 correspondences were received in support to the subject petition. _ OPPOSITION: Five people indicated their presence in opposition and 18 correspondences were received in opposition to the subject petition. DISCUSSIOiV TIBflE: 1 hour and 16 minutes (9:38 to 10:54) ZA121108 Page 10 of 11 DECEMBER 11, 2008 ZOMING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES fVIEETING ~.DJOURNED ~.T 10:55 A.M. TO MOiVDAY, DECEIIABER 22, 2008 AT 9:30 A.M. (The scheduled Zoning Administrator meeti~g for Wednesday, December 24, 2008, has been cancelled as no cases were filed for the meeting date.) Respectfully submitted: ~ ~~ ~/ i ~"~ca ~ Eleanor Morris Secretary Received and approved by the Zoning Administrator on December 22, 2008. , 3, ZA121108 Page 11 of 11