Minutes-ZA 1989/05/04:.
• •
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MINUTES - MAY 4, 1989
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to
order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., May 4, 1989,
in the Council Chamber.
PRESENT•
Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
Leonard Mc Ghee, Senior Planner
Debbie Fank, Associate Traffic Engineer
Pamela Starnes, Executive Secretary
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the
meeting and that anyone desiring to speak about matters other than the
agendized items would have the opportunity to be heard at the end of the
meeting.
Ms. Santalahti notified the audience that Item No. 7, Conditional Use Permit
No. 3153, had been continued until the meeting of May 18, 1989 in order to
readvertise the proposal. She asked if anyone in the audience was present for
that hearing, and no one indicated their presence.
ITEM N0. 1 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 3927
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: EUGENE P. NOONAN, 126 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim,
CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.32 acres, having a frontage of approximately 258 feet on
the east side of Peralta Hills Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately
279 feet being located approximately 220 feet south of the centerline of Santa
Ana Canyon road, and further described as 126 Peralta Hills Drive.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a second story addition to an
existing single-family residence.
Continued from the meetings of April 6, 1989 and April 20, 1989.
There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and no
correspondence was received.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 2
Gene Noonan said they had lowered the ridgelines on the revised plans.
Ms. Santalahti asked what was the height of the ridgelines.
Mr. Noonan said somewhere between 29 and 30 feet.
Ms. Santalahti asked if they had made any other changes and he said no.
Mr. Noonan said they had lowered the ridgeline as much as they could to still
be able to keep the gables on the house.
Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, said the revisions that have been
made are essentially just putting hips on both ends of the structure. He said
this has cut down the length of the ridgeline which is about 29 feet from to
37 feet. He said this still does not meet the present Code nor the intent of
the proposed new Code that the City Council has directed staff to draw up. He
said when you look at the ridgeline directly on including the extension it is
about 44Vs of the total length and if you consider both directions it amounts
to 30gb of the total length of the ridgeline. He said this did not meet the
maximum 109s area of the roof being over the height limitation as contained in
the proposed new Code. He said they feel this cannot meet the requirements
for a Variance as there is nothing special about lot that would demand a
Variance and since it has already been built without getting a Variance there
is the additional problem that if this is granted because it is already built,
the City is saying to any future applicants if you can get it built before
anybody notices then you can get away with it. He said he felt in its present
form it should be denied.
Hoyt Vanderpool, 119 So. Peralta Hills Dr., said he would like to go on record
as being part of the opposition to this structure. He said he supported all
the things Mr. Krueger has said and noted he was surprised to see items like
this could be built without somebody seeing it prior to getting to this stage
which is going to cost somebody considerable money to change it. He said if
it needs to be changed it needs to be changed.
In rebuttal, Mr. Noonan said he has gone to considerable expense just to
change the roof. They have to take down 50~, of the roof and put it back up.
He said if you drive around the neighborhood there are plenty of structures
higher then his. He said he didn't know why no one objected to those when
they were being built. He said he did not see any thing aesthetically wrong
with the house. He said the people complaining don't even see the house. He
said it is not blocking their view, everyone in the area is way above his
house and they have a nice view. He said he didn't even have a view because
his house sits down. He said he doesn't think his variance should be denied
because he has shortened the ridgeline. He said there is no way to lower the
ridge further and still keep the English Tudor look with the high pitched
roof.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti noted she and Mr. Krueger had commented last time on the
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 3
pending Code change and said she feels strongly about these changes. She said
this lot is not an unusual lot in the sense that it is relatively simple to
develop because it is over an acre in size so it has a fair amount of
flexibility. She said the issue really comes down to a particular
architectural design. She said this has occurred in other places where
builders might have made mistakes or there have been changes in the building
materials or something has happened during the construction period after plans
have been issued and somehow the building ends up differently from what was
reviewed by staff. She said it can be a real problem and that staff has to
trust when plans are submitted to Building Division and then given to the
Zoning Division, that those plans are accurate and that there are not going to
be changes, that the type of foundation has been resolved, that grading has
been worked out so that no problems with having to raise one end of a building
when you had not expected to, that the roof tiles aren't too thick and things
of that nature. She said in general staff has heard all kinds of excuses
about why changes have been made. She stated that this piece of property is
at a very visible location, right at the entrance to Peralta Hills Drive so
there are a lot of people driving by, it is not an obscure site at the end of
a cul-de-sac or a private street where basically one could argue that only the
immediate neighbors are really affected by seeing it on a regular basis. She
said, as she commented last time, the way the building permits evolved on this
project are a little unusual so she could see why something might have gone
wrong. She asked if the Building Division had plans at this time on the full
amount of work being done.
Leonard McGhee said staff had reviewed the plans that were submitted and that
the ones that were brought to the last Zoning Administrator meeting were not
the complete set. He said upon finding and reviewing a complete set he found
staff had approved a height not to exceed 24' 3 " which was stamped on the
plans.
Ms. Santalahti said she was going to deny this Variance based on the fact that
approval of this height waiver on this specific site and at this specific
location would be undesirable because the proposal would be very visible; it
would be on a relatively flat lot which has a similar and lower grade than the
abutting public street (Peralta Hills Drive); the proposed residence would be
located within about 200 feet of the intersection of Peralta Hills Drive and
Santa Ana Canyon Road which intersection is one of the entrances to Peralta
Hills, the roof area which exceeds the permitted height is the roof ridgeline
parallel to Peralta Hills Drive; the specific area of the proposal which
exceeds the permitted height is the 36-1/2 foot long ridgeline; the length of
said ridgeline is not consistent with the pending Zoning Code amendment
permitting certain limited architectural features or embellishments to exceed
25 feet; and that changes, revisions, inconsistencies or errors in
construction plans are not a basis for approval of a variance.
Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt.
This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in
writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15
davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City
Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 4
ITEM NO.ITEM N0. 2 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3937
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JAMES I. SWENSON AND SUSAN G. SWENSON, 1231 Simon
Circle, Anaheim, CA 92806. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 0.23 acre, having a maximum depth of
approximately 90 feet, being located approximately 352 feet north of the
centerline of Coronado Street, and further described as 1260 North Lance Lane.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 940 square foot
addition to an existing industrial building.
Continued from the meeting of April 20, 1989.
There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and no
correspondence was received.
Larry Gibson, architect, said he had prepared the final site plan showing the
existing parking and the proposed new parking for building #4. He said
Details was required to construct the waste water treatment facility in order
to comply with environmental regulations. He said the analysis in the staff
report calls that portion of the development "building", but the 940 square
feet is not an addition to a building. He said the roof covering proposed
treatment facility is required for the operation, it keeps the sunlight from
hitting the equipment which must be protected from solar radiation. He said
they would like to have the staff report revised to show this area is not a
part of the building and therefore does not require additional parking. He
said the office space that will be within the building is not for research and
development but simply office space, therefore it has a different parking
ratio. He said the parking ratio in the report says 4 spaces ,per thousand
square feet, but he thought it was 3.5 per thousand. He said when those two
adjustments are made it would mean that the parking required for the storage
and manufacturing operation would be reduced to 5.8 instead of 8.2, the office
area would be 8.1 instead of 9.1 for a total of about 14 spaces. He said
currently there are nine parking spaces on the site. He said they can achieve
the parking that is shown on the exhibit noting it was still substandard but
noted they are caught in a tough position. He said in order to continue the
business in the present location without having to shut down the business they
have to install this equipment. He said the where it is being installed means
they lose three parking spaces. He said if the equipment were to be placed on
any of the other sites, because of the configuration of the parking on those
sites, they would lose an additional parking space perhaps even two more. He
said there are 28 employees who carpool. He said the adjacent streets are
wide enough to support on-street parking. He said because this is an
industrial area rather than a retail area there is little traffic during the
day to use adjacent facilities. He said they took photographs of adjacent
properties showing there are parking lots that are pretty vacant. He said
Details is not interfering with the operation of surrounding businesses. He
said they are not intentionally taking parking from any of the surrounding
lots and have attempted to regulate their employees so they do not park in
adjacent facilities.
John Tempke said he owns the industrial park across the street at 3031 E.
~ •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 5
Coronado, and at 1220, 1230 and 1240 Simon. He said he understands the need
for the waste water treatment facility. He said he has approximately 20,000
feet of building. He said he supplied two parking spaces per thousand square
feet which is roughly 25 spaces and noted Details does not have 25 spaces at
this time for all four buildings. He said he took a picture of 1260 this
morning and even though it is not in use, they don't bother to unlock the gate
and there are two cars parking in the driveway outside. He said if there are
empty parking spaces inside there is no way they could be used so Details'
attempt to alleviate the problem at this time is not very good. He said when
he left the meeting two weeks ago and returned to his office, there were three
of Details' cars in his parking lot. He noted his parking lot is not always
full and is maintained. He said the prime parking spaces are right across
from Details and those are the spaces Details cars park in, not the ones
behind the building. He said he had pictures showing where two cars can park
today where they could put six cars. He said at the Details building at 1240
Lance they have six parking places that are reserved for management
executives. He restated his concerns voiced at the meeting of April 20,
1989. He again stated that the parking problem is an area wide problem and
noted he had pictures of various other businesses in the immediate area that
had no parking because they had junk sitting all over their parking lots and
employees parking on their lawns. He said he wished there was an easy
solution to this situation. He said he did not want Details to be forced to
move but did want the parking situation resolved.
In rebuttal, Mr. Gibson said he could not really comment on other businesses
parking on their lawns and having junk taking up spaces in their parking
lots. He said the issues here is that Details is required to build this
facility for the water treatment or they have to close their business. He
said this is tough, not only from the standpoint that they are going to spend
a lot of money to build the facility, but if they don't do this they will be
out of business. He said whatever the number of employees involved here
whether there are 80, 90 or, 100 they will be laid off because the facilities
will be shutdown. He said obviously Details does want to do business and that
mean there are some trade offs involved. He said in this case they are losing
three parking spaces on the existing site. He noted there was street parking
available.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti said the reason she had asked for the plans of the area for the
entire business complex is because she wanted to see what was going on over
all at the four separate building with four separate parking lots, and with
two different streets involved. She said in seeing the plan and on the visit
she made to the area, it looks like on none of the lots, except perhaps
Building No. 1, are the parking lots being used as they are supposed to be.
She said there are gates all over the place and that is something that the
City Traffic Engineer is concerned about. She said Building No. 2 has a lot
of outdoor storage which has reduced the useable parking spaces to three. She
said even Buildings Nos. 1 and 3 have storage sheds on the parking lots. She
asked if any consideration had been given to modifying and connecting the
parking lots between Buildings Nos. 1 and 3 so that there is a through flow of
traffic. She said that way whether the employees come in on either street
they can travel between the two easily.
• ~
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 6
Mr. Gibson said Building No. 1 has a small storage shed and it is located on a
triangular piece of property that cannot be used for parking. He said if the
driveway went through the problem would be losing two parking spaces at the
end and the two on the other side of the fence and also there is a change in
topography. He said he did not think parking could be picked up by putting a
driveway through the two areas.
Ms. Santalahti said she wondered if what was available technically was
available in practice.
Debbie Fank said Traffic Engineering had looked at the project and they did
not approve the plan as submitted. She said they approved the parking study
but the parking study included more parcels then the submitted plans show.
She said they did question the parking management, such as the gates being
locked. She said they would like this item continued so the applicant could
submit a plan including all the parcels that the parking study included and
which showed enough spaces, and, secondly, could they submit a plan to Traffic
Engineering detailing how they would manage the parking so it is accessible
and would be used in practice as the Zoning Administrator earlier stated.
Mr. Gibson said they would not be adverse to taking a look at the property and
seeing if they could maximize the parking by changing the configuration by
removal of gates. He said they wanted to work with the City to maximize the
parking and minimize the traffic problems.
Ms. Santalahti said she would like to see the situation improved and noted
that even a lOsb improvement would be a lot better. She said she would like to
see this item further continued so the applicant could work with the Traffic
Engineering Division to try to maximize the use of what is available.
Mr. Swenson, owner of Details, said he wanted to clarify that the small metal
building on Lot No. 1 is a requirement of the City of Anaheim Fire Department
and it holds the safety equipment for handling any kind of emergency or
chemical spills at Details. He said the Fire Department wanted this equipment
in a separate building with their locks. He said the gate is locked on the
fourth building because it is being used to store the $167,000 waste treatment
system sitting there with a tarp over it. He said since no one is occupying
the fourth building, if the gates were left unlocked for parking at this time,
it would be easy for anyone to steal the equipment. He said the equipment is
too large and too heavy to move inside the building. He also stated he used
to have a Ford van to transport employees to an off-site parking lot but it
was totalled by one of his employees.
Mr. McGhee noted the parking study done on the project had included lots that
were not even a part of this proposal.,
Ms. Fank said she felt the changes that are necessary are fairly straight
forward, noting they needed to include the parcels that were included in the
parking study, some gates would probably have to be removed and there should
be a parking management plan. She said Traffic Engineering knows what they
would like to have revised and it was just a matter of sitting down with the
applicant and working it out. She felt two weeks would be adequate.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 7
Mr. Gibson said they would like to have a two-week continuance in order to
work with Traffic Engineering and bring in revised plans.
Ms. Santalahti continued the item to the meeting of May 18, 1989 and noted it
would not be readvertised.
Mr. Tempke submitted his photographs.
Mr. Al Anderson, for Details, submitted photographs noting they had been taken
the day before between 11:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m.
ITEM_3, CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3938
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GERALD D. & DEBORAH M. BARNES, 743 South Thrasher,
Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: WILLIAM R. EDWARDS ASSOC., 234 E. 17th Street
#205, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 3.8 acres, having a frontage of
approximately 32 feet on the north side of Avenida de Santiago, having maximum
depth of approximately 480 feet, and further described as 7051 Avenida de
Santiago.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a single family dwelling.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition (one concerned person
spoke) and no correspondence was received.
Bill Edwards, Principal Architect, said approximately 50~ of the ground level
footprint of the building has a height excess of 25 feet. He said the design
includes a ridgeline or peak elevation of 33.5 feet. He said the site is
approximately 3.8 acres and a relatively small pregraded and approved pad
currently exists on-site and because of this they are applying for the
increase in the allowable height.. He said the pad is located at such an
elevation, approximately 95 feet above existing residences on a cul-de-sac at
the toe of the slope. He said there is a small portion of the tract up above
the site that has been under construction for some time. He said that project
is between 45 feet and 95 feet higher then this proposal. He said they felt
sufficient precedent has been established to support this request which
includes a portion of the Prado Ridge Tract above this residence as well as
due to the specific and custom nature of the site. He said this proposal has
minimal if any impact in terms of view encroachments. He said they had no
objections or problems with the recommended Conditions.
Charles French, 544 Tumble Weed Road, Anaheim, said he closed escrow within
the last two weeks on the property at 7071 Avenida de Santiago which is
directly up the hill from this proposal. He said he was expressing his
concerns rather than opposing this project. He said this was obviously a
lovely home but he could not tell where 37 feet is by just eyeballing it so he
didn't know if it would interrupt his view. He said he had no objections if
this proposal interrupted his view of other homes down the hill but would
object if it blocked his view of the reservoir.
Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. French to look at the location map and point out his
property, which he did.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 8
Mr. French asked if there was a way to determine if the chimneys would be
obstructing his view of the reservoir, and if they were, could they be lowered.
Mr. Edwards said he would like to thank Mr. French for being present today to
obtain the clarifications he needs as far as this application is concerned.
He said there was a meeting between Mr. French and Mr. Barnes relative to the
proposal and at that point it was expressed to him that there was a
substantial elevation difference between the two pads. He said Mr. Barnes had
informed him of the issue. He said he has done some calculations relative to
the ground level elevation and location of Mr. French's pad and and noted that
exhibit had not been posted on the chamber wall. He said the exhibit includes
a cross-section profile through the tract including pad as well as others
above and below this project. He said Mr. French's lot relative to theirs had
a net differential of 72 foot in elevation.
Ms. Santalahti asked what the dimension across the pad from his lot to the
furthest edge of the pad.
Mr. Edwards said something equal to about 480 feet width is shown on the
plan. He said the pad was located at the approximate center of the overall
horizontal site.
Ms. Santalahti said it was obvious when she went out to the site, that
lines-of-sight were not an issue in this case.
Mr. Edwards said they would be happy to go over the cross-section profile with
Mr. French.
In answer to questions from the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Edwards said they
planned to build out a portion of the pad with a garden wall which will extend
the pad out somewhat and limit the actual exposure of the structure relative
to those sites below.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti approved this proposal based on the fact that the proposal will
have minimal impact on any existing nearby dwellings because the subject
building pad is at a substantially different grade from any adjacent building
pads being approximately 50 feet lower than adjacent residences to the south
and east and approximately 75 feet higher than adjacent residences to the
north; and that the request conforms to the pending Zoning Code amendment
which will permit construction of maximum 35-foot high residences in the
Hidden Canyon area which includes lots on the north side of Avenida de
Santiago.
Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and
acted on staff's recommendation to approve it.
This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in
writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15
•
MI_NUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 9
a s of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City
Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days.
ITEM N0. 4. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5. VARIANCE N0. 3940
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: WILLIAM & MARY SNOW, 148 Leandro Street, Anaheim, CA
92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.66 acre having a frontage of approximately 57 feet on the
easterly side of Hummingbird Circle, having a maximum depth of approximately
186 feet, being located approximately 1,100 feet north of the centerline of
Bunting Court, and further described as 7480 Hummingbird Circle.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a single family dwelling.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
Bill Snow, owner, said he was available to answer any questions.
Ms. Santalahti asked if there was a roof exhibit on this project.
Mr. Snow said the height dimensions are 29 feet 4 inches to the top of the
chimney and two foot minimum from there down to the ridgeline.
Ms. Santalahti asked what was the scale of the drawing.
Mr. Snow said a quarter scale.
Ms. Santalahti said she scaled it off and the 27' 6" high portion is along a
14 foot long roof edge and the 25' 6" high portion is about 24 feet long.
Mr. Snow said that was correct.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Mr. Snow said he had a question about the Conditions. He said the permit was
issued for this residence over a year ago. He said he came back on about
March 21st, and paid a 50~ fee to get things going again. He said his
concerns were not with the fees but with the Condition No. 4 requiring fire
sprinklers. He asked if that was really applicable since the permit was
actually issued over a year ago.
Ms. Santalahti said her understanding was that a permit is only good for a
certain number of days and then an extension is needed.
Mr. Snow said that was correct and he had gotten an extension on March 21st.
Mr. McGhee phoned Janet Baylor and Wayne West to see if Condition No. 4 was
applicable and neither were available.
Ms. Santalahti said she approved this proposal based on the fact that the
requested heights are minimal, consisting of three chimneys at 29 feet, 4
inches and two roof ridgelines (14-foot long at 27 feet, 6 inches high and
24-foot long at 25 feet, 4 inches high), which heights are less than a 10~
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 10
deviance from Code; and that the proposal will have minimal view impact
because the building site is on a ridgeline with all visible existing homes
(except the immediate neighbors along Hummingbird Circle) being at either a
substantially higher grade level than subject building pad (50 feet higher or
more) or at a distance 1,000 to 1,700 feet away.
Ms. Santalahti said staff will check and if permits issued prior to enacting
the Fire Sprinkler Ordinance were still considered valid she would delete
Condition No. 4, if adoption of the Ordinance date was effective prior to his
permits being issued then Condition No. 4 stays in.
Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt.
Mr. McGhee said he had just spoken to Wayne West, Chief Building Official, and
Mr. West said that if the permit has been issued already, and even if the
extension has been granted already, his permit is good basically for a whole
year. Mr. McGhee said Mr. Snow has another 180 days before he would have to
apply for a new permit.
Mr. McGhee said, in other words, the first permit is good for six-months and
the requested extension is good for another six-months before a new permit
would be required.
Ms. Santalahti asked when the original permit was issued and Mr. Snow said May
19, 1988.
Ms. Santalahti said since they are dealing with something within a year from
today, based on that information relative to the permits the applicant has had
and the extension she would delete Condition No. 4.
This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in
writing, 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 shall request to review this decision within said 15 days.
ITEM N0. 5. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3942
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JAMES E. HUNDLEY, 2318 S. Vineyard Avenue, Suite A,
Ontario, CA 91761. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.99 acre, having a frontage of approximately 236
feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth of
approximately 219 feet, being located approximately 330 feet west of the
centerline of Jefferson Street and further described as 3726 East Miraloma
Avenue.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct 7,999 square feet of
office space within an existing 18,217 square feet warehouse facility.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
Rich Shumny, tenant in the building, said basically they needed the Variance
so they could build an office structure within the warehouse building.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 11
Ms. Santalahti asked what was the basic use of the property.
Mr. Shumny said 3726 Miraloma was basically warehousing and noted they had
refrigerators in the building because they deal with a product that needs to
be refrigerated. He said production is done next door at 3700 Miraloma.
Mr. Shumny had a question about Condition No. 1.
Ms. Santalahti said that is a one-time fee for construction of street lights.
She said sometimes when new construction occurs the developer is required to
do the installation, sometimes the City has done it; however, the City sees
that all property owners do pay for it once. She said staff could find no
record of it ever having been paid. Mr. Shumny said he would try to get the
owner to pay the fee.
Ms. Santalahti said if the owner has a receipt showing the fee has been paid,
she would delete the condition.
Mr. Shumny questioned the need for the radius curb returns.
Ms. Santalahti explained that Traffic Engineering is particularly interested
in driveways being reconstructed to accommodate ten foot radius curb returns
on busy arterial highways so traffic movement is smoother onto and off the
property, and also because of truck traffic which the petitioner has.
Mr. Shumny agreed.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the proposal is
for a single industrial business having 20 to 22 employees and consisting of
warehousing and manufacturing space (15,400 sq.ft.) and offices
(7,996 sq.ft.), that the petitioner has indicated the building is leased until
the year 2002, and that the Parking Demand Analysis for this specific business
substantiates the proposed number of parking spaces and was found to be
acceptable by the City Traffic Engineer.
Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and
acted on staff's recommendation to approve it.
This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in
writing, '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 shall request to review this decision within said 15 days.
ITEM N0. 6. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3943
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 10077, Santa
Ana, CA 92711-0077. AGENT: Kevin A. Coleman Alpine, 1315 E. St. Andrew Place
#G, Santa Ana, CA 92703. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 23 acres having a frontage of approximately
175 on the west side of Allec Street, having a maximum depth of approximately
• •
MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY 4 1989 PAGE 12
638 feet, being located approximately 618 feet north of the center line of
Cerritos Avenue, and further described as 1415, 1425, 1435 and 1445 South
Allec Street.
Waiver of required lot frontage to establish a four lot industrial subdivision.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
Kevin Coleman, agent, said he would like to clarify Condition Nos. 3 and 7.
He said their intent was to produce a dedicated water line into the project.
He said they had worked with Janet Baylor and their detector checks and water
meters would be adjacent to the properties as opposed to all of them being on
Allec Street and excessive lines being run to each site. He said he didn't
get any objections to this during the Interdepartmental Committee meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti approved this proposal based on the fact that the request is
minimal because appropriate reciprocal vehicular access and utility easements
will be provided between the proposed parcels and Allec Street.
Ms. Santalahti combined Condition Nos. 3 and 7, modified the wording of
Condition No. 9, added a new condition "that a minimum twenty (20) foot wide
reciprocal access easement shall be provided between the four proposed parcels
and Allec Street" and renumbered all Conditions from No. 3 on.
This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in
writing, 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 shall request to review this decision within said 15 days.
ITEM N0. 7. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3153
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: HENRY A.J. STEINBRINK & ROSA C.E. STEINBRINK, 1970
Trust, 720 E. Culver Ave., Orange, CA 92666. AGENT: MICHAEL A. BILLER, 5972
Gildred Cir „ Huntington Beach, CA 92649. Subject property an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting .of approximately 0.7 acre, having
a frontage of approximately 184 feet on the west side of State College
Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, being .located
approximately 231 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Street, and
further described as 407 South State College Boulevard.
To permit a 795 square foot addition to an existing restaurant with waiver of
maximum number of compact parking spaces.
This item was continued until the meeting of May 18, 1989 in order to
readvertise the proposal.
•
•
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MAY 4, 1989 PAGE 13
ITEM N0.8 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Large Family Day Care No. 89-03: To establish a large family day care
facility for a maximum of 12 children. Property is located at 2211 W. Woodley
Avenue. (End of public notice period: May 4, 1989.)
Prior to this meeting three letters were received in opposition and one letter
was received in opposition during this meeting. This item will be set for
public hearing and readvertised.
ITEM NO. 9 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
There was no one indicating a desire to speak.
ADJOURNMENT•
There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 11:07
a.m.
Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by:
Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti
Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator
0266g