Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1987/10/08 ~ ~ ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1987, 9:30 A.M.. Arinika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Edith Harris,Secretary PRESENT: Linda Rios, Assistant Planner Lori Duca, Assistant Planner Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer Procedure to Expedite Meeting: The proponents for conditional use permit and variance applications which are not contested will have 5 minutes to present their evidence. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each have 10 minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. After the opponent(s) speak, the proponent will have 5 minutes for rebuttal. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your name. Staff Reports are part of the evidence received by the Zoning Administrator at each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to and at the meeting. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in the Administrator's opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. All documents presented to the Zoning Administrator for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the City of Anaheim for the public record and shall be available for public inspection. The action taken by the Zoning Administrator on this date regarding conditional use permits and variances is final unless, within 15 days of the Zoning Administrator's written decision being placed in the U.S. Mail, an appeal is filed. Such appeal shall be made at any time following the public hearing and prior to the conclusion of the appeal period. An appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee equal to one-half the amount of the original filing fee. The City Clerk, upon filing of such an appeal, will set said conditional use permit or variance for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. After the scheduled public hearings, members of the public. will be allowed to speak on items of interest under "Items of Public Interest". Such items must be within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of 3 minutes to speak. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your last name. Page 1 0064T I ~ • • October 8, 1987 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS (THE APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 P.M. OCTOBER 22, 1987) a. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION b. VARIANCE N0. 3704 OWNERS: SHIRISH HANSJI PATEL AND PUSHPA SHIRISH PATEL, et al, 1600 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 631 W. Katella Avenue (Waikiki Motel) Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 4-story, 100-unit hotel. ZONINING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-26 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 VARIANCE N0. 3705 OWNERS: GARY G. LAUGHMAN, 6466 Via Corral Street, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6466 Via Corral Waivers of (a) minimum front yard setback and (b) minimum side yard setback to construct a semi-enclosed patio. ~~Approved .::Granted Granted ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Zp'~87-27 3 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 VARIANCE N0. 3709 Granted, OWNERS: PERALTA LTD., 3450 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 in part :.. AGENT: PAUL D. AND DIANE WILLIAMSON, 3450 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: Lot 32 of Tract No. 12576 (the northeasterly corner of Copa De Oro Drive and Nohl Ranch Road Waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum rear yard setback to construct a two-story, 35-foot high single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-28 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Those persons wishing to address the Zoning Administrator are requested to step up to the podium and give your None name and address and spell your last name. • October 8, 1987 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT - None submitted for this agenda. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 8, 1987 Staff present: Annika Santalahti - Zoning Administrator Edith Harris - Secretary Linda Rios - Assistant Planner Lori Duca - Assistant Planner Paul Singer - Traffic Engineer The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures, and stated even though the staff reports are not read at the public hearing, they are considered part of the evidence. She stated members of the public will be permitted to speak on any matter of interest under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator at the end of the agenda. ~ ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3704 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: SHIRISH HANSJI PATEL AND PUSHPA SHIRISH PATEL, et al, 1600 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 631 W. Katella Avenue (Waikiki Motel) REQUEST: Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 4-story, 100-unit hotel. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. John Swint, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim, agent, stated they have building permits for an 80-unit motel on this site on which all the fees were paid and his client could begin construction tomorrow.' He stated his client wants to upgrade his plans, but a parking waiver is required and he's now faced with some expensive fees. ' He stated the concern is with Condition No. 2 and he does not object to the dedication, but the actual improvements require moving a fire hydrant, water meter and power pole and that he has not been able to contact the Engineering Department since they received a copy of the condition and he does not want to agree to a condition without knowing what the fees are. Mr. Swint stated the developer objects to paying for the median modification to preclude left turns; and that he can make left turns with his approved plans for 80 units. :cl 0605H Page 1 He stated there is a fire hydrant existing right 'in front of the building and the Fire Department representative indicated it is possible they will not need a hydrant on the site. Responding to Ms. Santalahti, Mr. Swint stated the original plan was for 80 units and no parking waiver was required, but this plan is for 100 units, with 8 leasing suites, or a total of 92 legal rooms and the developer wants to add bathrooms to the suites to get the Rodeway franchise desired. Ms. Santalahti stated Condition No. 3 requires a cash payment for reconstruction of Katella and should have been required in connection with, issuance of building permits because it is for the ultimate width of Katella, without the critical intersection requirement. Mr. Swint stated the developer now has permits to build the motel without paying any fees or meeting the critical intersection and street widening requirements, and he feels he is being penalized for trying to improve the property. Ms. Santalahti stated the developer is trying to increase the density of the property. Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, stated there was a parking study submitted, but no traffic impact study on the surrounding area. She stated the Traffic Engineer was concerned about the overall traffic impact on Katella and Harbor. Ms. Santalahti asked that the Traffic Engineer be requested to come to this meeting. Mr. Swint stated he was not aware a traffic impact study was going to be required and with all the motels in the area, he did not know how 20 additional rooms would make an impact. He stated the Traffic Engineer did request the median be closed at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting, and pointed out the Jolly Roger is allowed to make left turns. Ms. Santalahti stated the existing motel has 60 units and this proposal is for 100 units. and the Traffic Engineer has been consistent when there is any development on Katella, to close medians when there is any opportunity to cause traffic impacts. She stated everything should have been addressed, except the critical intersection and median when the building permits were issued. She asked if they had gotten any estimates for closing the median. Mr. Swint responded they don't have any estimate and that is what is bothering his client and also he does not like having to put money up front not knowing if and when the street will be widened and asked what happens to the money they deposit if the street is never widened. Ms. Santalahti stated that street will be widened and probably before some others and that the City has already gotten dedication for two corners. Mr. Swint stated he thought a bond would serve the same purpose. Ms. Santalahti stated the Code only permits bonding when there is a reasonable expectation when the widening will occur in the foreseeable future. Page 2 Mr. Swint presented an exhibit of the proposed motel. Ms. Santalahti stated she'd like to trail this matter until after Item No. 2 in order to hear from the Traffic Engineer. ITEM N0. 2. - EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 5 - VARIANCE N0. 3705 OWNERS: GARY G. LAUGHMAN, 6466 Via Corral Street, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6466 Via Corral REQUEST: Waivers of (a) minimum front yard setback and (b) minimum side yard setback to construct a semi-enclosed patio. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request. Karen Laughman, owner, explained the request is .to make an open air, semi-enclosed entryway and that the property is pie-shaped on a cul-de-sac. She explained the patio will have a 3-foot high wall on one side with wrought iron and 6-foot high posts to hold the wrought iron gate. Annika Santalahti asked if any roofing material is planned close to the neighbor's property. Ms. Laughman responded there is one beam and it is basically an open yard with hanging posts. Ms. Santalahti stated her concern would be the Building Code with flammable material being any closer than three feet to the neighbor's property. Ms. Laughman stated they showed the plans to the only affected neighbors and they had no problem. Ms. Santalahti stated the Building Code would override the Zoning Code and a wooden roof structure that extends to the property line might have to be set back further. She stated she reviewed the aerial photograph and if she approves this request, the Building Code would have to be satisfied. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti asked if Ms. Laughman had reviewed the recommended conditions on page 3 of the staff report, pointing out one requires compliance with Building Codes, and that development be done in conformance. with plans submitted. Ms. Laughman stated those will be done by the landscaper. She responded that they did speak to the neighbors, the Thompsons, on the west. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Page 3 ACTION: Ms. Santalahti stated she will approve waiver (a) on the basis that the request is minimal; and also grant waiver (b) on the basis that the. semi-enclosed patio has no solid wall and approval is subject to proposed conditions, including compliance with Building Codes. She explained the appeal period. BACK TO ITEM N0. 1 Annika Santalahti stated her question specifically related to Conditions 13 and 15 and whether closing the median to preclude left turns is the reason for the traffic study. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, responded the traffic study is required because the intersections in the area are exceeding capacity and the traffic study is needed in order to determine what mitigation measures would have to be made in order to alleviate the traffic congestion these added rooms would add. He stated the way the motel is designed would encourage traffic to travel the wrong way against the flow of traffic, therefore, the median island has to be closed. He stated if they choose to realign the driveway with the opposite driveway at the Jolly Roger, then closing the median would not be necessary. He stated the driveway has to be perpendicular to Katella Avenue and the angle shown on the plan is not acceptable and moving the driveway further west out of the median cut would cause an offset driveway condition. He added Katella is heavily congested and a traffic study is required in order to determine what mitigation measures are required to bring the Katella and Harbor, and Katella and West intersections to Service Level D. Mr. Singer responded he would still want the median closed if the westerly driveway is reconstructed to straighten it out. Mr. Swint explained the westerly driveway is curved to avoid moving an existing fire hydrant. Ms. Santalahti stated she would agree with the Traffic Engineer's concern regarding the westerly driveway. Mr. Singer responded that someday the median between the Convention Center and Harbor will be completely closed due to traffic congestion and accidents. He stated that is a controlled intersection at the Convention Center where left turns can be made. Ms. Santalahti asked if Mr. Singer realized this request is just to add the eight bathrooms to eight suites and they originally had approval for 80 units. Mr. Singer responded he did realize that and the parking waiver is minimal and parking is a great concern, but the major problem is the configuration of the driveways and the possibility of illegal left turns. Ms. Santalahti stated she would agree on closing the median, but since they are only adding bathrooms to eight units, she did not think the traffic study should be required. Page 4 Mr. Swint stated they would be willing to straighten the driveway, but are concerned about not allowing left turns into the property. Mr. Singer stated the left turn pocket on Katella holds two cars, but every car that enters has to make a U-turn and it is not a controlled U-turn. He stated he is more concerned with cars existing and trying to go east. Annika Santalahti stated she would agree that the median in Katella be closed because that has been discussed for several years and that Katella and Harbor is the most critical intersection, and the City already has some dedication and that may be the first one to be constructed. Ms. Santalahti approved the Negative Declaration on the basis that she had reviewed the proposal to construct a 4-story, 100-room hotel with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.08 acres, on the north side of Katella Avenue, approximately 345 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 631 West Katella Avenue (Waikiki Motel) and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the ..public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Ms. Santalahti approved Variance No. 3704 on the basis that the request is minimal and the parking study submitted was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and he has determined the proposed number of spaces to be adequate for the proposed use; and subject to conditions, modifying Condition No. 3 requiring the cash payment for street ,improvements to include "as required by the City Engineer"; and deleting Condition No. 15 on the basis that 'the specific proposal is insignificant with the addition of eight units. Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, asked that the street 1/2 width be verified. Paul Singer stated 60 feet is required and the plan shows 50 feet. He stated the plan is supposed to show the General Plan ultimate width, and that puts the future right-of-way for the critical intersection through the building where the gift shop is proposed, which probably means moving the building 6 or 8 feet. Mr. Swint stated the legal description reflects the size the property drawn on the plans. Mr. Swint stated they have no problem dedicating the 12 feet. He asked if the westerly driveway will have to be straightened if the median is closed. Ms. Santalahti responded she was not including straightening the driveway. She also pointed out the minutes will reflect the error of .:the street 1/2 width and the submitted plans should show the ultimate width of 60 feet. Ms. Santalahti explained her written decision will be prepared within the next few days and the 15-day appeal period begins with the signing of that decision. Page 5 ITEM N0. 3 - EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 5 - VARIANCE N0. 3709 OWNERS: PERALTA LTD., 3450 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: PAUL D. AND DIANE WILLIAMSON, 3450 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: Lot 32 of Tract No. 12576 (the northeasterly corner of Copa De Oro Drive and Nohl Ranch Road. REQUEST: Waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum rear yard setback to construct a two-story, 35-foot high single-family residence. Paul Williamson, 7283 Columbia Drive, Anaheim, 92807, explained the variance for height is due to the design of the house; that the waiver of minimum rear yard setback is due to this being a corner lot and the City calls it the rear yard. He pointed out the staff report refers to the 10-foot setback as 11 feet in two different places. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the staff report is in error and will be corrected and clarified the easterly property line is the rear yard. Mr. Williamson stated the slope is 2.1 and the adjacent lot is 33 feet below theirs. He stated the staff calls the private street the front. Mr. Williamson asked if the fees being required are extra fees or if they are just the normal fees usually required, particularly the bridge fee. Ms. Santalahti stated all these are fees that would be required when building permits are issued. She explained the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge fee was adopted by the County and is for the Eastern Transportation Corridor easterly of Weir Canyon and is a requirement of all new construction. Mr. Williamson explained the height waiver is necessary to get the volume on the roof due to the size of the house and stated the property is below the street and it will certainly have no impact on anybody's view. Ms. Santalahti explained the underlying zone permits heights at 30 feet, but when the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was adopted in 1971, the height limit was dropped to 25 feet and the Planning Commission, nor she, has not really had a problem with 30 feet to the ridgeline of the building and the variance which have been approved at 30 feet have clearly been architectural details such as towers and are not occupiable space. She added she is really concerned about this one at 35 feet. Mr. Williamson pointed out the waiver is only-for a small portion of the house and explained this would be a decorative type roof and will be very attractive, and he thought the area warrants it. Ms. Santalahti stated other variances have basically been for split level structures or on slopes; and that this lot is basically flat. She stated the setback waiver doesn't concern her and the definition of the front yard or the Page 6 back yard is a matter of interpretation. She added the height waiver is a concern and she did not think the ridgeline should be any higher than 30 feet, but the towers could exceed 30 feet. Ms. Santalahti stated she might change her mind if she saw, an exhibit delineating the roof portions which exceed 30 feet, but did not know whether that would make any difference. She stated she is inclined to approve this variance in part, approving the setback and approving the height waiver to 30 feet to the ridgeline, with any tower or architectural details above 30 feet. She clarified by tower she was referring to the chimneys. She added her approval, in part, basically drops the building five feet.' Mr. Williamson stated he would have to completely design another house. Ms. Santalahti stated she received a letter from Helga O'Brian opposing this waiver because there are no unusual circumstances in this tract and approval would set a precedent in the Anaheim Hills area. A copy of the letter was given to the applicant. It was noted there was also a call in opposition to the Mayor's Hotline from Mrs. Renish on Greensboro and one to the Planning Department. There was one person present in favor of the request and three (3) people present in opposition. Rosemary Lieberman, 545 S. Aberdeen stated she is not opposed to the building because she has seen some of Mr. Williamson's developments and they are beautiful, but that she is opposed to the height waivers; that she lives above this property and believed anything else built there with a height waiver would definitely infringe on her view. Sonja Grewal, 400 S. Canyon Ridge Drive, stated she was called this morning by Mrs. Mark Page to appear for the Canyon Heights Homeowners Association because their homes are overlooking Peralta Hills East; that the Page's address is 5075 Greensboro and they just found out about this hearing; that all the homeowners on Greensboro are concerned about any height waivers granted and feel 25 feet is more than adequate for architectural expression; that the lots are flat in this tract. She stated the homeowners to the east of the tract also expressed concern about any height waivers affecting their privacy, the lighting, and also establishing a precedent. Ms. Grewal stated one of the homeowners who got approval of a height waiver has had the matter set for a public hearing by the City Council. She stated she does not see~any hardship to justify the waiver; that the Code established reasonable limits to protect the integrity of the area. She stated granting this variance when there is no hardship seems improper and may set precedent and create problems for existing residents and may create problems in that tract itself and infringe on views of future homeowners. Page 7 Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, stated he was on the original Task Force and helped develop the Hill and Canyon General Plan and Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and that he is concerned about all these attempts to overcome the hill and canyon general philosophy; that when they put it together, they hoped to set up a community which would take advantage of the beautiful nature of the area and the height restriction at 25 feet was to prevent intrusions into the natural beauty of the area. Mr. Krueger stated other height waivers have been granted because of special circumstances related to the land, and the one mentioned in the staff report at 563 Peralta Hills which is adjacent to his property was'denied by the City Council for the same reasons discussed earlier, the ridgelne at 34 feet would intrude into the environment and also if one is permitted, everybody else. will want the same privilege and it would be difficult to deny them. Mr. Krueger stated many homes in the area have had to reduce their square footage to meet the codes; and that he knows this would be a beautiful home, but thought it could be developed within Code. Responding to Ms. Santalahti, Mr. Krueger explained the height limitation was changed from 30 to 25 feet because the Committee felt a 2-story structure could be developed within the 25-foot limit. Ms. Santalahti stated staff will be reviewing the Code and submitting a proposed Code Amendment to the Planning Commission to modify the height to 30 feet and more clearly define the exception. She added she has not had a problem with the 30-foot high architecture features. She added until recently, that was not a concern, but now the houses and roof structure are getting larger. Mr. Krueger stated it was felt structures should be restricted to two stories. Ms. Santalahti stated in some zones the square footage is not discussed, just the number of stories, with the definition of a story also included, but those zones are primarily flat land. She stated anyone interested in seeing that Code Amendment should leave their name and address with Planning staff in order to receive a copy of the staff report before that meeting. Mr. Williamson stated he was shocked at the opposition. He stated at a meeting last week a statement was made that these lots are down in a hole and it is way below street level. He stated one reason for the need for the height waiver is the width of the house; that the roof can't be steep because it will be the and he is trying to do something attractive for the community and the City. He stated the roof won't be seen by people on the street. Ms. Santalahti stated the point about the width of the house is well taken and as the house gets larger, the roof does go up, but that she still feels it should not be any higher than 30 feet, especially since this is a relatively flat parcel. She clarified the adjacent lot is 33 feet lower than subject property. Page 8 Mr. Williamson stated if this lot was even with the street, he could understand the opposition, but this property is down in a hole and if there was ever a variance warranted, it should be on this property because the roof would be well below the ridgeline since it is 200 feet from this house. Mr. Williamson stated he met with Mr. Zemel and showed him the plans and they went out to the site and Mr. Zemel indicated he would have no objection and liked the plans. Ms. Santalahti responded she would agree this would have very little, if any, impact on the neighbors, but agreed with the opposition that it would set a precedent. Responding to Mr. Williamson, Ms. Santalahti explained any variance approved at 40 feet would have been for a tower element with portions of the ridgeline at 30 feet or a little higher. She added she would like to see an exhibit showing the portions of the roof exceeding 25 feet for the, matter coming before the City Council, especially if it only affects a minimal amount of the roof line. Ms. Santalahti stated she would still have a problem with roof lines over 30 feet, and is interested in hearing what Council has to say, and that possibly the Code will be amended to consider that when there is a slope involved, it is measured from the highest grade to the ridgeline. However, that is not the situation with this property. She asked if there is any possibility of ' putting the house into the ground five feet. Mr. Williamson responded the house is definitely stepped up and down on the inside, but is not designed subterranean. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Ms. Santalahti approved Variance No. 3709 in part, approving the waiver of minimum rear yard setback on the basis that. this is a corner lot and the definition of side yard is subject to interpretation; and approving the waiver of maximum structural height to 30 feet at the highest ridgeline of the dwelling on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, and subject conditions. She explained her written decision will be made within the next few days and the 15-day appeal period begins at that time. Page 9 She responded to Mr. Williamson that the 11 feet reference in the staff report will be corrected to 10 feet. PUBLIC INPUT: None Adjourned: 10:45 Prepared by: Approved by: Page 10