Resolution-ZA 2005-04~ ~
DECISION NO. ZA 2005-4
A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2004-04641
OWNER: Charles Anderson
563 South Peralta Hills Drive
Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: James Halliday
21980 Alameda Del Monte
Wildomar, CA 92595
LOCATION: 563 South Peralta Hills Drive
CEQA STATUS: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 3
HEARING DATE: February 3, 2005
OPPOSITION: One concerned person submitted correspondence regarding the proposal; no one
indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal and no
correspondence was received in opposition.
REQUEST: Waivers of the following to construct atwo-story, detached, accessory recreational
building in conjunction with an existing single-family residence in the RH-1 (Single-
Family Hillside Residential) Zone:
(a) Section 18.04.080.020 - Maximum floor area of accessory buildings.
(1.700 sq.ft. permitted for all accessory structures;
total 4,314 soft, proposed for a recreational building and an
existing pool house)
(b) Sections 18.04.100.010.0101 - Minimum side and rear yard setbacks.
and 18. 74.040.020.0205 (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed from the north and east
property lines)
Having been appointed Zoning Administrator by the Planning Director, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 18.60.020 (Establishment of Zoning Administrator Position), to decide the above-referenced
petition and a public hearing having been duly noticed for and held on the date set forth above, I do hereby
find:
1. That on June 8, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5920 to approve a
comprehensive update to the Zoning Code; that said update included increasing the minimum setbacks
between buildings and property lines in the RH-1 (Single-Family Hillside Residential) Zone (the former RS-
HS-43,000 Zone) from 15 feet to 20 feet; and that said ordinance exempted certain projects from any new
requirements in the Zoning Code if such projects had commenced construction before the effective date
of the ordinance, or if the necessary building permits had been obtained prior to that date, or if necessary
zoning entitlements had been obtained prior to that date, or if a zoning entitlement had been submitted
and was deemed complete prior to that date.
2. That although this proposal does not exactly qualify for the exemptions addressed in Finding
No. 1, above (because construction had not commenced before the effective date of the ordinance, nor
had a building permit been obtained, nor had a zoning entitlement been obtained, nor had plans for a
proposed zoning entitlement been submitted and deemed complete), the applicant's agent submitted
information at the public hearing indicating that he started researching the City's regulations regarding
ZA2005-04.doc - 1 of 3 - ZA2005-4
• •
setbacks, building height and lot coverage in February 2004, and had contacts with City staff through May
2004 regarding various development standards, preparation of complete architectural and structural
drawings, preparation of landscaping plans for the rear yard slope including identifying any specimen
trees, and obtaining geotechnical work including test boring and slope stability analyses; that following his
obtaining all the necessary information and input from staff, he prepared plans which were submitted in
October 2004 after the effective date of the updated Zoning Code; and that, based on this information, it
is determined that the agent's contacts with City staff, research and other efforts undertaken over a period
of many months to prepare plans which satisfy City codes, are consistent with the objectives of Ordinance
No. 5920 (that is, that substantial work was competed regarding this proposed project prior to the effective
date of the updated Zoning Code) and, therefore, it is appropriate that this variance be approved given its
specific circumstances and history.
3. That correspondence, dated January 27, 2005, was received from a neighbor at 557 South
Peralta Hills Drive, expressing concerns (i) that the proposed structure, because of its location in relation
to his property, not adversely impact his existing house by causing flooding or geological problems, and (ii)
that the proposed structure not be used for any commercial purposes; and that the neighbor's concerns
are addressed in that, as conditioned herein and as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code, the
applicant must obtain the appropriate permits from the City for construction, grading and landscaping in a
hillside area, and, further, that Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones), as it pertains to the RH-1
Zone, does not permit the commercial use of any accessory structures including recreation buildings.
4. That if the proposed accessory structure were attached to the existing house, a maximum floor
area waiver would not be necessary.
5. That the proposed accessory structure will, except for the setback waiver, be located where an
addition to the existing house is permitted; and that only 5% (or approximately 208 sq.ft.) of the proposed
structure will actually encroach into the required 20-foot setback along the north and east property lines
(the combined length of which is 461 feet).
6. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, consisting of its location and
surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity and that strict
application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity, because most, if not all, of the homes in the surrounding
Peralta Hills area were built when a minimum 15-foot setback was permitted (that is, prior to July 8, 2004
when the required setback was increased from 15 to 20 feet).
Based on the evidence and testimony presented to me, I do hereby determine to approve Variance No.
2004-04641, subject to the following conditions:
That the proposed grading and any retaining walls shall conform to the requirements of Chapter
17.06 (Grading, Excavations and Fills in Hillside Areas) and subsection .130 (Crib and Retaining
Walls) of Section 18.46.110 (Screening, Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping
and Screening) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate approvals
and permits from the Public Works Department and the Planning Department for any grading plans
and retaining walls, including any required landscaping.
That if any trees are proposed to be removed in connection with the new building, the applicant shall
submit landscaping plans, which identify a!I tree types proposed to be removed, to the Planning
Services Division for review and approval. If any specimen trees are proposed to be removed, a
Specimen Tree Removal permit shall be obtained prior to removal in accordance with Section
18.18.040 (Tree Preservation).
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant, and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7.
ZA2005-04.doc - 2 of 3 - ZA2005-4
i •
4. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this decision (such as issuance of a
grading permit or building permit) or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this decision,
whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions
for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170
(Extension of Time to Comply with Conditions of Approval).
5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
This Decision is made, signed, and entered into the file this 10th day of February 2005.
Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
NOTICE: This Decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing and
accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this
Decision, or unless members of the City Council request to review this Decision within 12 (twelve) days of
the date of signing.
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: I do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on the date set
forth below, I did deposit, in the United States Mail, a copy of the Decision to the applicant and did forward
a copy to the City Clerk.
DATE: February 10, 2005 ` ~ ~' ~
i
Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary
ZA2005-04.doc - 3 of 3 - ZA2005-4