Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1987/09/10 ~_ ., ~ • I ~ .. ' ACTION ' AGENDA ~ ' { '~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ; i ' THURSDAY„ SEPT~t4BER 10, .1987, 9:30 A.M. ', ' ~~' Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator , PRESENT• Cdith Harris, Planning Commission Secretary • Greg Hastings, Senior Planner 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 Ito 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. P,11 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 o.f the original filing fee. The City C:~erk, 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 0048T ,~ , ,.. ;. 4•^ r September 10, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS • ~ la. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 lb. VARIANCE N0. 3688 OWNERS: FRANK LAWSON LANDON AND PHYLLIS LOUISE LANDON, 4021 Maple Tree Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 4021 Maple Tree Drive Waivers of (a) minimum side yard structural setback and (b) minimum rear yard structural setback to construct a retaining wall structure and covered patio in the side and rear yards. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-19 2a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION?-CLASS 5 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3695 OWNERS: PERALTA L.T.D., 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621, ATTN: VIC PELOQUIN AGENT: WILLIAM J. KNIGHT, 922 Town « Country Road, Orange, CA 92668 LOCATION: 4851 Copa De Oro Drive Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 40-foot high, single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-20 t 3a. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3699 OWNERS: TAIYO INVESTMENTS USA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 19750 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 145, Torrance, CA 90502, ATTN: HIROYUKI ISHIZUKA AGENTS: JOHN BATES ASSOCIATES, INC., 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: LARRY KWIATKWOWSKI LOCATION Approximately 33.9 acres north of the northwesterly corner of Via Arboles and Ramsgate Drive (Tract 9524) Waiver of maximum structural height to construct 49, two-story, single-family residences ranging in height from 26 to 38 feet. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87-21 Approved 2 persons attending - Not really opposed. Approved no opposition pproved pproved 2 interested persons. Cond. added req. CC$Rs 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE 5. Administrative Adjustments - #87-04 - To be approved after 9-14-87 if o written 0 osition is received. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 87- 2 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted in the Council Chamber foyer display case and Civic Center Kiosk. BURNED: 10-35 a.m. DATE: SIGNED: MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SEPTEMBER 10, 1987 Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Edith Harris, Secretary Greg Hastings, Senior Planner The meeting was called to order at 9:40 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 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3688. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRANK LAWSON LANDON AND PHYLLIS LOUISE LANDON, 4021 Maple Tree Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION: 4021 Maple Tree Drive REQUEST: Waivers of (a) minimum side yard structural setback and (b) minimum rear yard structural setback to construct a retaining wall structure and covered patio in the side and rear yards. 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. Frank Landon, owner, explained approximately six months ago a commercial building was built across the freeway in Orange which is essentially in the middle of the view from his home and has caused a significant increase in noise due to reflection of the freeway noise off the structure. He stated he looked for alternatives to alleviate the problems and also provide some benefits and came up with this plan with a swimming pool, but in order to get the appropriate angle to the north and also provide'some buffer for sound and visual impacts, had to go close to the property line. He stated he talked to neighbors on both sides and attempted to talk to Caltrans; and that the neighbors had no problem with the plans and Caltrans has not acknowledged that they even own the property. He added he would have no problem complying with the proposed conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Annika Santalahti stated she looked at the property and the slope behind the property was even higher than she had thought. She stated it appeared the addition would not be visible from the road below because of the substantial difference in height. ~ ~.~ _ v ~ 0091T Mr. Labelle stated they will be taking a look at that issues with the Department of Real Estate. After reviewing the file on Tract 9524, Ms. Santalahti stated Condition No. 5 required CC&Rs and there is no record in the file of those CC&Rs. Ms. Santalahti stated the CC&Rs are necessary, especially since those are horse trails and some type of maintenance is required so she will amend her decision to include an additional condition in the approval of Variance No. 3699 requiring that prior to issuance of building permits, evidence shall be provided to the City indicating compliance with Conditions'4 and 5 of Tract 9524. Joel Caldwell, 6655 Canyon Hills Road, asked if trees could be required adjacent to his property. Ms. Santalahti stated it appears his property is adjacent to Lots 20 and 21, and there is a city requirement for a equestrian trail along the entire easterly and southerly property lines and asked if there are existing trees in that area. Mr. Caldwell stated there are no trees in that area and stated he would like to have the trees extended to soften the effect on those houses. Mr. Labelle stated they are planning to implement a significant landscaping plan and will be working on that as well as the CC&Rs to maintain those improvements. He stated they will keep in contact with the neighbors while working on the landscaping plan and will attempt to plant the type trees they are looking for. Annika Santalahti stated she would like to have seen the landscaping plan and since they will be looking into the neighbors yards, some natural-looking landscaping should be done along that side to soften the effect and it will probably take five years before it takes significant effect. She stated she is not comfortable including that as a condition and will trust the developer to comply because it would be naturally beneficial to both parties involved. Ms. Santalahti explained the 15-day appeal period. PUBLIC INPUT: None Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m. Prepared by: #0091T Approved by: `~ .~ ~v~ -2- Mr. Landon stated it is only visible across the freeway and that there is a flat plateau, and there are no slope stability problems. He responded to Ms. Santalahti the plateau is 90 feet from the rear property line. Ms. Santalahti stated basically the retaining wall would be seen from the northwest. Mr. Landon stated the storage room is primarily a retaining structure for the pool equipment and also is to save fill cost. He stated the visual impact to the neighbor on the east is mitigated by the fact that the stairway is there and that wall is something that neighbor .wanted because he has a dog. He stated the property to the west is 5-1/2 feet higher than his and there is no visual impact. 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. ACTION: Ms. Santalahti stated she will approve Variance No. 3688 with conditions as listed in the staff report and pointed out the wall has to be approved by Engineering and Building Departments. She explained she will approve the variance on the basis that on the rear property line where the majority of the structure is located, there is no visibility, except from across the freeway because there is a substantial slope of about 95 feet, and the visual impact on the two side property lines is just of, a retaining wall. She explained her written decision will be mailed within a';few days and the 15-day appeal period begins the day she signs the decision., ITEM N0. 2. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 and VARIANCE NO. 3695. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PERALTA LTD, 3150 E. BIRCH, BREA, CA. 92621, ATTN: VIC PELOGUIN. AGENT: WILLIAM J. KNIGHT, 922 Town & Country Road, Orange, CA 92688. LOCATION: 4851 Copa de Oro Drive REQUEST: Waiver of maximum structural height to construct ;a 2-story, 40-foot high, single-family residence. Bill Knight, 922 Town and Country Road, Orange, stated the main reason for this waiver is the architectural appeal of the house; that the width of the house is about 180 feet and there is only one point that goes to forty feet and that is a very narrow tower and the overall height of the house is about 28 feet. He stated the house does not obscure anyone's view from Nohl Ranch Road or from the lots below. Vic Peloquin, developer of Peralta Hills ,East, stated he is a member of the Architectural Committee and reviewed the, plans and is in favor of the request and feels it will be an asset. to the community. -2- John McGuinness, Architect, 31815 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, presented a detailed rendering of the house, similar to the exhibit in the file and pointed out the ridges of the structure and explained the majority of the house is 28 feet high, except for the towers. Annika Santalahti stated her concern is the view from the north. She reviewed the plot plan with the architect showing the towers and asked that the exhibit be left as a part of the file. Mr. McGuinness stated it was their intent to have an authentic country french architecture and felt it was necessary to change the roof plans. Pat Neylan, 250 Orange Acres, Anaheim, asked if this particular variance is for this particular house. Annika Santalahti responded this variance is for this house and the exhibits are a part of the record and any modifications other than a minimal change would have to come back for approval. Mr. Neylan stated he is not opposed and thinks it is a beautiful home and clarified this is for Lot No. 10. He stated he thought these hearings are wonderful and are needed and that he felt people requesting this type waiver should be dealt with fairly and not just turned down. He recommended this be approved. Sonja Grewal, 400 S. Canyon Ridge Drive, stated she is not particularly opposed to this, but would question the reasons for approval since this is a flat lot. She stated the variance granted on Chrisalta Way was because it was on a hillside. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Annika Santalahti stated she looked at the property and agreed the property is flat; however, these towers are just architectural features and she didn't consider that a problem and her only concern is how it affects the property to the north because it is on the edge of the Peralta Hills area and they would have the greatest view impact. Mr. Knight stated the neighbors to the north are approximately.600 feet further north up on Peralta Hills Drive. He stated they took the impact of the view to the houses below into consideration and about two months ago moved the structure 16 feet to the south so there would be less impact on those neighbors and also it would save money when they put in the pool to have it on the flat area. He stated the lot is 210 feet deep and the living room which is the furthest away is 55 feet to the toe of the slope and the slope ratio is 2 to 1 and it is 33 feet to the end of the lot and. he did not think there will be an impact at all. Responding to Ms. Santalahti, Mr. Knight stated the majority of the house is single story, with the rear portion being entirely single story and the two side portions are two story and those are to be lower elevations. He explained the two towers are stairwells to the second story. He stated reducing the towers to less than 40 feet would make them appear very squat and they would look silly, and they have tried to retain the integrity of the architecture. -3- Annika Santalahti stated no one could look out the upper portions of the 40-foot towers. 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. ACTION: Annika Santalahti stated she would approve Variance No. 3695 because the towers are architectural features containing stairwells to the second story and that approval is subject to proposed conditions and the plan submitted at this hearing will become an approved exhibit .' Ms. Santalahti stated her written decision will be made within the neat few days and the 15-day appeal period begins when the written decision is signed. ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3699. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TAIYO INVESTMENTS USA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 19750 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 145, Torrance, CA 90502, ATTN: HIROYURI ISHIZUKA. AGENTS: JOHN BATES ASSOCIATES, INC., 5031 BIRCH STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660, ATTN: LARRY RWIATRWOWSRI. LOCATION: Approximately 33.9 acres north of the northwesterly corner of Via Arboles and Ramsgate Drive (Tract 9524) There was one interested person indicating her presence. Although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. John Bates, agent, stated justification for approval of this variance is the significance of the down slopes for the majority of the lots which is about 30~; that the lots are stair-stepped down the hillside to minimize their apparent visual impact below and two of the plans appear as single-story homes from the street and that these are not two-story structures that have been transposed from another tract and planted on the hillside. Mr. Bates stated in their experience in dealing with other jurisdictions in the development of hillside projects, they have had a vehicle for an averaging height from the top to the bottom of the lot, but Anaheim's Code does not provide that vehicle. He stated they have been able in general to comply with all other developments and this tract will be compatible with other developments in the area which have had several of these variances and will be a compliment to the neighborhood. Sonja Grewal, 400 S. Canyon Ridge Drive, stated she may not be opposed and explained she lives in the tract adjacent to the east and asked how many lots need this waiver, pointing out the application submitted by the applicant indicated 18, but the staff report indicates more. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the original application said 16, but staff review revealed more and that application has been revised. -4- Ms. Grewal asked if all the lots exceeding the height limit are on a hillside. Ms. Santalahti responded the exhibits indicate the majority are on a hillside situation and are split level and at least two are on relatively flat lots and appear to be 29 feet at the highest point. She stated she was interested in the lots on the east which are the ones most 'visible to the neighbors and asked what the specific plans are on those lots. She stated the Code for the hill and canyon area on the height issue has a definition which works well sometimes, but does not work for lots which are stepped down the hill. She added she noticed the lots on Via Arboles are the equivalent of three stories. Ms. Grewal read the following statement" "The Executive Board of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition wishes to express its pleasure to the Zoning Administrator that Taiyo Investments USA and their agents appear to be developing the property according to the original intent of the General Plan for the Hill and Canyon Area. We are pleased that the RS-HS-22,000 Zone will be fulfilled in this area. The plans for the project indicate that it will blend with the neighboring Canyon Hills Estates which also received minimum grading with height variances allowed in order to accommodate hillside building. We do hope that Taiyo will make an effort to retain the specimen trees on the perimeter of the property as have other builders in the immediate area. Thank you." John Bates stated they intend to retain any significant trees and to enhance the property with additional landscaping. He added there will be a significant entrance which will upgrade the entire area. Ms. Grewal explained the trees are on the east side down in a gulley. Mr. Bates stated most of the grading has already been done and he did not think the trees will be affected. Annika Santalahti stated the tract was approved 7 or 8 years ago and trees were removed then, and any trees other than dead or diseased trees, would have to remain. assuming there are four or more on each parcel, and presumably the existing trees will not be touched. Ms. Santalahti stated the site started out a lot higher and dropped down further than she had expected and that she is more concerned about the easterly side of the property. John Bates stated Lots No. 1 and 23 have Plan 1 proposed and have a down-slope condition and that plan honors the most severe slope condition. He explained all the houses are basically split level, with a retaining wall and a portion of the house built into the hill. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. -5- ACTION: Annika Santalahti stated she has reviewed the proposal for waiver of maximum structural height to construct 49, two-story, single-family residences ranging in height from 26 to 38 feet on approximately 33.9 acres located north of the northwesterly corner of Via Arboles and Ramsgate Drive (Tract 9524); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that she 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 stated she will approve Variance No. 3699 because these are basically split level lots with the majority of the houses averaging 25 feet in height with a few exceptions which appear to be about 33 feet high; and that the tract goes downhill with significant grade differences and there is no view impact on surrounding properties. Ms. Santalahti explained the 15-day appeal period begins when her written decision is signed and that will occur within the next few days. Sonja Grewal asked if there will be a provision in the conditions to minimize the visual impact on the neighbors to the east because it is really looking right into the yards of the houses. Annika Santalahti stated Lot No. 16 is the lot furthest to the north on the east side and that house probably has the greatest setback.: She asked what Mr. Bates expects the property owners to develop in their rear yards, excluding balconies. Mr. Bates responded he thought any development would be minimal except for landscaping, and Ms. Santalahti stated it doesn't appear they would have an active back yard. Sonja Grewal asked about CC&Rs. Ms. Santalahti asked to review the file for Tract No. 9524. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Ms. Santalahti stated Code requires a maintenance mechanism to maintain the slopes and that that tract also had a horse trail which was recorded asnd explained it in the center of the property and asked if they plan to retain that trail. Neal Labelle, representing Taiyo, stated they intend to adopt a homeowner's association and that association would contract to maintain. the landscaping, irrigation, etc. Concerning the trail, he stated some of the trails lead nowhere and they would like to leave the decision up to the association whether or not they want to retain them and if it is a requirement of a prior approval, they can address that in some future meeting. Ms. Santalahti stated there was a trail required by the City which was located in an awkward location under the Four Corner Pipeline easement on the south property line and recommended that the developer take a look at deleting it before they sell the individual lots. -6-