Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1999/03/25ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, MARCH 25,1999 9:30 A.M. ZA032599.DOC PRESENT John Poole, Acting Zoning Administrator Dave See, Associate Planner Melanie Adams, Public Works Dept./Development Servcs. Patricia Koral, Word Processing Operator Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager Max Slaughter, City Attorney 1 a. CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 150611b1131} 1b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 156 CONTINUED TO 4122/99 OWNER: CTF-3 HILLS LLC 4001 MacArthur Blvd., #100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: pAVID BALL 4001 MacArthur Blvd., #100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 500 S. Anaheim Hills Road. Property is 2.10 acres having a located at the southeast corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road. Waiver of 271 parking spaces required; 260 parking spaces proposed tp construct a 1,200 square foot accessory document storage area for on-site storage within a parking garage. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ---------- Appeal period ends, March 24, 1999 at 5:00 p:m. Remarks: Dave See, Associate Planner stated that staff has received lwo (2) letters of opposition and Applicant has requested a public hearing. This item has been continued to April 22, 1999. 03/25/99 Page / PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 154 2a. CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061(b)(31} APPROVED APPROVED ADDED/MODIFIED CONDITIONS -- OWNER: ISMAEL SILVA, JR. M.D. 1717 E. Center Street Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: THOMAS A. CATANIA, M.D. 2756 Green Valley Pkwy. Henderson, Nevada 89014 LOCATION: 1717 East Center Street. Property is approximately 0.56 acre located at the northeast corner of Center Street and Evelyn Drive. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (48 spaces required; 44 spaces proposed) to construct a new 580 square foot MRI building addition to an existing office building with 44 parking spaces proposed (48 spaces are required for this building including the addition). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99-10 Applicant: Dr. Thomas A. Catania, MRI expert (guest -Terry Giblin, Atachi Representative for Southern California, Mr. Paul Hock, San Diego, Architect Engineer helping design the modular building that would be built off-site and brought to the 1717 East Center Property were present). Atachi MRI machine is not available in the city including in any of the hospitals. The building is owned by the Orthopedic Medicine Group headed by Dr. Silva. We were asked to come to the area because of the newer MRI Machines, referred to as the "open MRI" which will .accommodate all patients as well as large patients and children that cannot be scanned in conventional machines. Regarding the site, one of the individuals in opposition is present and is in full support of the proposal. We are not adding to the existing building. The building owner and property owner will be Dr. Catania's landlord. We had a choice to place the MRI in the building which would create more construction and more problems and, being it is a magnetic field, there is no radiation or isotopes. It is a strong magnet and radio wave, but to block interference from cars and outside it needs a special room around it and that was the reason to build the separate room. It is 14 ft. wide and 42 ft. long and would be placed close to the building, about five (5) feet away, and we would lose no parking. 03/25/99 Page7$~ Both letters and comments in opposition were confused about the location of the building and that the parking lot would be impacted. We won't be losing any parking we will be gaining 7 spaces. Next to the building there is a large slab, 15 ft. beyond that is parking area. The unit was specifically designed to fit between the parking lot and the building it would go on a slab and would be built off- site in northern California and brought to the site and placed with a crane. It will be about 12 ft. high 2 rooms inside; a small waiting room and then the room far the machine. It would be installed on the slab next to the building between the building and the parking lot. It would be white to match the main building with some fancy trim around it and all new landscaping around it which are in original proposal. We also are trying to get the main building repainted, and maybe beautify a matching cover over their front door, actually upgrade the area in terms aesthetically. Now, regarding the parking, when you do your calculations for parking requirements we are adding a "permanent structure" although it can be removed. Considering it a permanent structure 580 ft., (14X42 that requirement being "medical space" for 300 ft.) it required two more spaces, and that is how the notion came up that we need more parking. Currently the doctors there have a need for this equipment, they bring in a mobile from out town like an 18 wheeler and they have a permit with the City. This is brought in during the night time and is parked there. There is noise, generator equipment and a tractor trailer, a tractor brings it in and where they have to park it, actually takes up seven of the existing spaces, The point is, if that is there a day or two a week those are the two days where they have more patients and the parking needs are increased and those are the two days where the machine itself, the current machine not ours, is using up seven (7) spaces. From where it sits, its about 48 ft. long so that day they need two or three extra spaces and they are losing seven (7) so that in effect is about 5 spaces short. Hence, the neighbors say, there are some people on the street and, its hard to get in and out of that lot and if they add to the building parking is going to get worse. The unit that will be replacing it will have no noise is quiet electric and all brand new equipment, new air conditioning. With a parapet it will be out of sight and almost no noise. We will permanently gain the seven (7) spaces that are gone two days a week and the need does not change at all. Because the curzent machine has a driver, a technologist and a patient so they need 3 spaces. We don't need a driver, we will have one employee there which will be employed by Dr. Catania, who is not in the curzent office. We are a separate entity. We will have one employee to operate the machine, a MRI Technologist, and one patient at a time that will be scheduled through our WATTS line, days ahead a time. We will be doing one patient an hour, its not an emergency thing. They cannot walk- in; it needs to be scheduled by their doctor and approved by the patients insurance company prior to scheduling the appointment. So we might do six (8) patients in a day, where they may do 100 in the main building. Mr. Poole, interrupted and asked if Dr. Catania had an opportunity to read the staff report and in the conditions that they were recommending for approval. Dr. Catania stated he just drove in from Arizona and did not see it. Mr. Poole stated that it may help if Mr. Catania would take a few minutes to review the staff report and Mr. Poole will ask staff to comment on the application then will give anyone in support, including Dr. Catania an opportunity to speak again, and then anyone in opposition. Then you will be able to speak to me again if there are any comments in opposition. Lets have the planner give us comments regarding your application and while he is doing that, if you could review those conditions. It may help you with your comments if you can see what we are suggesting. Dr, Catania states there are neighbors here that we would welcome their suggestions, we actually are trying to be a friend to the community, we are not trying to cause the City or the neighbors any problems.. In fact, it is a tremendous asset to all the people of Anaheim and the neighbors. l don't see any down side. If there is something we haven't thought of we are happy to address it with the neighbors and make it a good as possible. David See, Associate Planner, this is a parking waiver fora 8°/u deviation from code requirements due to this construction of this MRI Unit, Staff would Tike to point out that this MRI unit would 03/25/99 Page replace a current entitlement for temporary MRI Unit being used in the parking lot that is permitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 3543, and since it is being replaced, staff is recommending that that entitlement be terminated, that is condition No. 4 and staff is recommending approval of this Administrative Adjustment. Melanie Adams, Public Works Department, states that one of the neighbors had submitted a letter concerning the trash service and pick-up and she would Itke to add a condition to address their concerns. That prior to issuance of a building permit the developer shall meet with the Public Works Department, Sanitation Manager, to review trash pick-up service and increase the number of pick-ups per week if necessary. Mr. Poole asked if a copy of that letter is in our records, Melanie stated yes, its a letter addressed to Mr. Kevin Bass, dated February 18, from Delores Stuetz, 116 Evelyn Drive. Mr. Poole stated that if the Applicant would like to make any comments after hearing or/ reviewing the staff report, he would entertain those to come forward. Mr. Catania, agreed with Ms. Stuetr. For clarification, he's not the owner of the property or the building. It is not his garbage or responsibility to remove it, however, he will help Ms. Stuetr, because he is in full agreement and he has spoken to the owner. He would like to share his comment. Dr. Silva is an orthopedic surgeon in the area and he actually has 8 offices and this is their main office in Anaheim, but he is there only one day per week because they have rotating doctors from USC and the Los Angeles etc. He was also upset about the garbage and looked into it and he said that he took photos and had people watching. Apparently, what is happening is that in the evening, people such as landscapers pull in after work and fill this dumpster, throwing trash next to it and when the employees come out the next day it's filled with garbage. Mr. Mallard stated that there are homeless people that he has caught at night drinking behind the dumpster and throwing the bottles there. That the owner/physician is very concerned and we have already spoken about having instead of a once a week pick-up, a twice a week pick-up. Ms. Stuetz, mentioned that maybe they need two (2) dumpsters. We all thought it would be unsightly, then it could also take a parking space, so we agreed we already talked about a two day a week pick up. Dr. Cantania wanted everyone to know it is not Dr. Silva's garbage or his employees. His employees aren't dumping it on the ground. Its people in the driving in the neighborhood. Our door to the MRI will face the dumpster. If we are going to have conditions in writing, I have the verbal agreement by the landlord, but just to let you know I'm actually not the landlord nor do I own the dumpster nor do I arrange for the pick-up, but the doctor who owns it said he would be happy to work with us. Mr. Poole asked if there was anyone in support of this item, now is the opportunity to speak. Mr. James Mallard, 239 Evelyn Drive, I have lived there since 1947. I originally started out writing a letter to the Commission voicing my concerns of an MRI being installed on the property because the current system that they are operating under has been a source of great grief and aggravation to me and my family. They are operating under this Conditional Use Permit No. 3543 and on the last page of the staff report, I marked items no. 2 and 3, One of them states that the permanent power source shall be supplied and maintained and at no time shall gasoline or diesel generators be permitted. At this very moment they are running a gasoline engine on that equipment and it .has been running since 3:00 am this moming. The Anaheim Police came out. However they stated it is out of their hands and recommended that he come to the Zoning Administrator Hearing and present this problem. So, this moming I also went over and spoke to the people in the office about it and they said there wasn't really much they could do, it wasn't their MRI. They only rented it. The other one, Item no. 3 says that the hours of operation "shall not arrive before 7:00 A.M. and equipment shall be removed before 7:00 P.M. This moming they arrived at 3:00 A.M. , a diesel tractor, and I had the police come out the sergeant went over and spoke to them. He told me basically I'm approaching the problem from the wrong end. This is probably a code violation. Well Code doesn't work at night, but I've talked to them since then and I've got a listing of all the hours 03/25/99 Page~.rL that they arrive in the middle of the night and it is really quite destructive so when I heard they were going to put in another MRI in a building, I didn't know that this was going to be a mobil unit wheeled in and pulled out on a weekly basis for the details were not clear to me. I'm merely expressing in the letter my deep concern over a continuation of the noise that takes place in the night and the excessive noise that takes place during the day of running engines at high speed..- Since speaking to the doctor that is going to be in charge of it, he has alleviated my fears and showed me what his plans are and I think it will be a great improvement over the existing problem that we have today. I have the nearest piece of property, my home sits directly behind it and I'm in favor that his request be considered for approval. I think it will certainly help me. I would like to see something in writing between the people that are going to be operating that MRI and the City where they are restricted from external power sources other than electric. Mr. Poole stated that we do have in the record your letter that you referred to Is it your position now that you would like to withdraw your opposition? Mr. Mallard stated absolutely, if they are able to meet the requirements I have just stated, being able to operate it without external noise, setting up a diesel engine on a pad running it or having a roof mounted air conditioner that is not visible and noisy, this is what I' am concerned about as long as they can keep the noise within reasonable limits. I didn't object with this first deal where the present people wanted a mobil unit brought in and when I read that I said I can live with 7:00 A.M. sounds good to me but by 7:00 A.M. this morning my patience has run out and this is not a one time occasion. I've been over there repeatedly to talk with the officer/manager and the problem basically is they managed the office internally. What happens outside the front door they don't seem to have a tot of control over. Mr. Poole asked if there was any one else who would like to speak in favor this proposal? Terry Giblan, with Atachi Medical Systems America, the manufacturer of the MRI equipment. He would like to address Mr. Mallard's concerns regarding the external power sources other than electrical. If anyone would like to review the site planning guide of the Atachi error system which is proposed to be installed, he has one for review. Mr. Hock, with HCG Builders is also in possession of these and he has incorporated that into the building structure and our requirements for operation of this system are single phase 40 amp power. Mr. Poole asked if he would like to enter it into the record for this hearing? Mr. Giblan replied yes. The requirements electrically for the scanner and environmental control are single phase 40 amp, so there is no need for external power source such as generator, propane, or diesel. It is a self contained system, there is no requirement for operation of this system either on an emergency basis or on a routine operational basis. Mr. Poole asked about the cooling system for this equipment? Mr. Giblan stated that the nature of this equipment is a permanent magnet. It is a rare earth material where there is no cryogenic cooling system, no water or chillier required, there is actually a very low electrical current that goes into the magnet that maintains it at a constant temperature. Therefore, there is no need for any cryogenic systems which may require recyclers, pumps, chillers or generator. That has been eliminated. Mr. Paul Hock, 1125 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA, Architect with HCG for this project. Yes, the power is coming out of the existing building. There is a feed there now for it, We will be using that for the electrical service. There will be a roof top packaged air conditioning unit a 4-ton Carrier unit. Mr. Poole asked if that's for the entire building? Mr. Hack continued, The mechanical equipment is required for the building and the equipment. The equipment is the new generation of equipment which requires a very nominal amount of air- conditioning; actually a 1/2-ton is all the equipment needs, the balance is just for space conditioning. This is a commercial unit with normal acceptable noise levels, there will be a parapet 03/25/99 Page S on the building so that it will be screened from the adjacent property owners view and parking lot and we also act as a sound'baffle from anyone that is below the roof line. The building itself architecturally will look like a site building. This is not a trailer, this is steel on a concrete building Type 2 construction which will have an exterior synthetic plaster finish that will look like the existing building, so it will blend in with the existing structure. Mr. Poole asked if there is anyone else that wanted to speak for or against the project? There was no response. He then asked if the applicant would like to make any final statements or if there is anything else that hasn't been covered? Dr. Catania, had a question regarding a comment in the staff report regarding no sign shall be permitted (pg. 4, Item 3 under "Propose Condition") no signs permitted on the expansion, asked for clarification. The current building says Anaheim Orthopedic Sports Medicine and there are sign permits and signs on top of building, I don't think the neighbors could see the main building. Dr. Silva thought he had one old sign permit left for the main building, so we thought we could either add to his sign, or if he has one left put one that would say Anaheim Open MR. on the top of the main building which I believe is already permitted for. All we were going to do on the small building is something over the door so when people park and are looking for us in the parking lot and they see two doors, we didn't want the MRI patients going into the orthopedic practice which is separate, we wanted to put something very pretty and fancy saying "Anaheim Open MRI" over the door. We just didn't want the patients going to the wrong building, there they are separate enclosures with separate doctors in them. I just notice #3 "no sign shall be permitted, I need clarification, do you mean something on the roof? We just wanted to have a sign on the glass on the door or over the door "Anaheim Open MRI"? Mr. David See, Associate Planner, I believe the applicant is referring to a name plate which staff is not opposed to provided it is facing the adjacent building which is facing the west and not facing the street. Mr. Poole, asked Dr. Catania, if he understood Mr. See? Mr. Catania replied yes except that there is only going to be 4 ft. between the buildings and no one would see it. Not the patients or the employees. We were just going to place it over the door sign. Mr Poole asked if the sign that Dr. Catania is proposing is on the plan.. Dr. Catania replied he did not recall. Because we didn't have the name whether it was going to be Anaheim Open MRI or Orange County Open MRI. I just meant a name on the door. We may do an arch over the door. Mr. Poole, stated that the Ciry is very concerned with the aesthetics from signage and when Planning Staff reviews atI applications they are very aware ofsign blight. There is already a roof top sign on that building that wouldn't be permitted. Dr. Cantania, stated that he does not need that. Mr. Poole asked staff if there is something they could suggest on condition number 3 on limited identification signing. I could understand the applicants concern, because he doesn't want his patients going into the main building. Mr. Catania agreed. Mr. David See, Associate Planner stated that the applicant is referring to the two door ways which face and north which faces the adjacent building in the parking lot. Staff would not be opposed to small wall signs or name plates facing those directions because they do not face the public right- of-way. The condition could be worded to allow signage on the north and west elevation only. 03/25/99 Page~4'~ The main concern would be on wall signage facing the eastor south which would be visible from Lincoln Avenue. Dr. Catania, agreed, Mc Poole, stated that then the condition could be changed to that wording to allow signage on the north and west elevation only. Acting Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the CEQA Categorical Exemption Class - 3, and further to approve the Administrative Adjustment No. 154, Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces 48 required, 44 proposed to permit a 580 sq. ft. addition to existing office building for an MRI unit based on the minimal deviation for spaces or 8% from code requirements and based on the approval of the parking letter of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, who has reviewed said letter and has determined that the parking supply is adequate for this site and further based on no expansion, since this addition will replace the use of apreviously-approved temporary mobile MRI unit. Mr. Poole is concerned about the letter concerning trash although the applicant does not have control over that and we can address that through Code Enforcement because it's the owner's responsibility so we will work to get the owner of the building to take care of that citizen's concern. I believe that this will be better than what has been going on there now; however I do ask the applicant to be diligent and make sure that there is minimal disruption to the neighbors because that has been a problem in the past. Mr. Greg Hastings suggested that the Acting Zoning Administrator may want to indicate the condition number that the conditions as attached in the staff report will be part of the decision and that condition No. 3 would be amended to reflect the discussion that we had after the hearing. Mr. Poole stated "in which the applicant agreed to" Mr. Greg Hastings, replied yes. Mr. Poole, Thank you Mr. Hastings. 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION {15061(b1111} Continued April 8, 1999. 3b. VARIANCE NO. 4349 OWNER: JOHN H, and DONNA M. CURRIE 7570 E. Martella Lane Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 7570 East Martella Lane. Property is approximately 1.0 acre having a frontage of 146 feet on the south side of Martella Lane, having a maximum depth of 309 feet and being located 627 feet east of the centerline of Martin Place. Waiver of minimum front yard setback to construct an 811 square foot garage addition for an existing single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ------------- Continued from the Zoning Administrator meetings of December 3, 1998 and January 28, and February 25, 1999. REMARKS: John Poole, Acting Zoning Administrator has been notified that the applicant has requested a two week extension until April 8, 1999, Mr. Poole stated he is willing to grant that but 03/25/99 Page~lk1~ because this is a public hearing item I would like to make sure that we give anyone that is present an opportunity to speak. Applicant, Mrs. Currie, stated that basically she was asking for the continuance, but while reading the notes in the staff report, she would like to make a correction, Mr. Poole, asked Mrs. Currie, to give her name and identify herself as the applicant. Donna Currie, 7570 Martella Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808.\ Mr. Poole replied Thank you and you wanted to make a correction. Mrs. Currie replied yes, It states that she looking into the abandonment of the easement in place of the variance. This is partially true, she asked the staff a few questions as to whether or not she could go in that direction after the January 28th meeting however, she hasn't gone any further since. What she has been doing is in between the January 28 and the February 25th meeting she went home after that meeting and after she spoke briefly about the abandonment and she decided to look at staffs recommendation on putting the garage on the left side of my property. So, she has been working since then with an architect to see if that would work out aesthetically and get us the space we needed. It basically was not until March 18, 1999, after finding out that the architect doesn't see that it will work properly. She then phoned the Ciry Council Office to seek help so that she could see which way to approach this, should she look at the abandonment or should she go through the variance. What she is really seeking is somebody that can look at both or all aspects of it so they can guide her so that she doesn't make that mistake again. What happened to her originally on this project is that she didn't understand the entire procedure. She spoke with the Public Works Department and also Zoning and Planning and she didn't realize that one department had their comments and the other had theirs. Public Works indicated that as long as she didn't build on khe easement it probably would work, but I'm finding out differently now that she is going through this, so she is in contact with Council. She has phoned them about three times. She is of the understanding that they are reviewing the variance. She hasn't heard from any one. She has phoned three times to see if they were..., what the procedure was. Mr. Poole, Will grant the continuance of lwo weeks until April 8, because of the California Streamlining Act on projects moving through the process to be developed that we will need a letter submitted to our Planning staff from you stating that you request the extension until April 8, 1999. If you think you need more time then staff can work with you on that, because it sounds like you might be doing some redesign, but we do need the letter from you. Mrs. Currie, you need it after today's meeting or at the April 8 meeting? Mr. Poole, no, we would need it after todays meeting. Mrs. Currie, even though I'm within the six months? Mr. Poole, well, by the time you go to April 8 you wouldn't be. It can be a very brief thing we can even help you before you leave, it just requesting that it be continued to April 8. The staff will be happy to help you draft that. Mrs Currie said it was her understanding that it was not six months until the end of April. Mr. Hastings; Mr Administrator, that time period does include any possibility of council review as well and under the streamlining act there is a provision which allows a 90 day time period for conclusion of their request but we can work with Mrs. Currie. Mrs. Currie stated the only reason she is leaving this open is because she knows she could have been denied or withdrawn it and she was .not sure which way to go not knowing which way to go in the future. 03/25/99p Page~jl' CJ Mr. Poole, it sounds like you want to do some redesign? Mrs. Currie: I don't see that I'm going to be able to redesign because since the last meeting the architect indicated that he doesn't see how that will work, out especially since the addition will be a 30 by 30 size garage. If 1 put that on the left side of the property it will come into where the front doors are and with the plans with the back half of the lot will not work so I'm not going that direction. Now I'm looking at either abandoning the easement or appealing the variance. Mr. Poole, in order for the matter which is scheduled for today, again, I will grant your request. However, I do need that very brief letter which Planning staff will help you with. So that is your wish then to have the matter continue until April 8? Mrs. Currie, replied that she hopes that will be enough time. Melanie Adams, Public Works Department, with clarification as to what the applicant is seeking, do I understand properly that she would like to make an application for an abandonment and have that application in your decision reach the City Council at the same time? Mrs. Currie, the reason I called Council was because I was speaking to individual Departments. I was trying to find someone that could look at the whole picture, Public Works speaks, the way I see it, about issues of their own concem. Planning and Zoning speaks about issues of their concem. Now lam looking at an abandonment or going further with a variance which looks like it was going to be denied, so then I would end up with City Council with an appeal, John Poole, the decision of the Zoning Administrator can be appealed to the City Council. Mrs. Currie, so the reason I went to Council was to see if they could look at both and tell me which way it would possibly work even though I know it has to go through voting, I just wanted to get somebody's comment that wasn't just separate departments.. Melanie Adams, then the City Council would actually be the ones to approve the abandonment, so that if that was goal we should allow at least six weeks so that Mrs. Currie could make her application, that could be routed to the appropriate divisions concerning the abandonment and that the application be ready to go to City Council and at the same time that your decision or the Zoning Administrator decision would be reaching them. Max Slaughter, It indicates that this is a private street and I don't know that the city would be involved in an abandonment at all. Melanie Adams, it is a private street and the city holds a public utility easement across the entire private street. Mrs. Currie. Of which I wouldn't try to abandon the public utility. The only portion lam concerned about Planning and Zoning Department told me that if it was just a Public Utility Easement I could use that portion if it was abandoned (the road portion of it) then that could be my set back. Max Slaughter, there is no dedicated public street here is there? Mrs. Currie replied no, its private. Max Slaughter, do you have private easement across your property to some other property owner in this area, or is it just your concem for your purposes on the city putilic utility easement? Mrs. Currie, replied no, there was 2 or 3 large parcels. In 1959 when the property was sold they put on there a 20 ft. road and public utility easement, and I'am assuming that the City of Anaheim required it. So you have 20 ft. that came off our property and 20 ft. that came off of the property 03/25/99 Page which is across the street. Today the .road is built 20 ft. wide on the people across the streets property. That is all we are utilizing, the whole area is only 20 ft., So now, what I was asking to do on this variance is, can I use my 20 ft. as set back easement and they are denying that, So now I'am looking at it, if I can't do it that way is there a way to abandon that, because I have not had any neighbors complain at all and I don't see that is ever going to be widened. Mr. Poole, that is just staffs recommendation of denial, it hasn't been heard by the Zoning Administrator and if you have it heard by the Zoning Administrator and if you don't agree with the decision of the Zoning Administrator then you have the right to appeal to Council. Mrs. Currie, Right, I didn't understand that but I didn't know if I needed to appeal to Council and approach it this way or should I approach it with the abandonment. Mr. Poole, the procedure is you have to go through the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission on any Item such as this. Then if you don't agree with that decision then it would go to the City Council. You start off with Council, you go through the process to either the Planning Commission hearing or Zoning Administrator hearing. Mrs. Currie, The abandonment also? Mr. Pool, replied, no, that is City Council, so if you wanted to do something on the abandonment, you will need to schedule this Zoning Administrator hearing out beyond two (2) weeks because Melanie Adams with Public Works, said it would be six (6) weeks. That's probably fast tracking. I would continue it out further if that is what you wanted to do, but I would suggest to leave it now until April 8, get the letter then talk to staff because you were saying that the Planning Department said one thing then Public Works. But what the Planner does is take comments from all of the departments and works with you individually so I think if you use this time you have until the 8th and if you need more time we could work with you on that, but today I would go ahead and continue to the 8th and decide on what you want to do on the abandonment. If you want go forward with that then you are going to have to go out farther with a continuance of the hearing because we can't on the 8th. Mrs. Gurrie, then it turns into the abandonment? Mr. Poole, Acting Zoning Administrator: No there are two separate ways, the abandonment is one item and that is handled by City Council, the variance is handled by the Zoning Administrator. If you do not agree with the Zoning Administrator decision then you can appeal that to the City Council but you can't start off with City Council on the variance. Max Slaughter, City Attorney: The confusion is the staff recommendation to the Zoning Administrator for denial which to this point is not written in stone. Yet the Zoning Administrator has not made that decision, That is where we are right now. In consideration of your request to continue this hearing until April 8, I am unclear from staffs standpoint as to whether the six (6) month permit streamlining act will come in to effect before that continuance date is granted, in other words are we concerned about that at this points. Mr. David See, Associate Planner: states staffs concern regarding the time issue is that the application was accepted on October 27, 1998 and the six (6) month time would expire on April 27, which would be approximately one month away from this time. John Poole, Acting Zoning Administrator: If you are doing the letter you are going to get a continuance and staff will work diligently to give you direction on where to proceed. Mrs. Currie, Okay, that's fine. John Poole? So make sure you see one of the planners before you leave 03/25/99 Page ~ l~ Mrs. Currie, so you still need the letter? John Poole, stated yes. You are continued to April 8 and if you need another date then let staff know and thatcan be arranged 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NON E 03/25/99 Page `~