Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2000/08/10 • ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 2000 9:30 A.M. STAFF PRESENT: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer David See, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Chris Martel, Code Enforcement Officer Danielle Masciel, Word Processor 1 a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 1b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2000-04241 OWNER: Imperial Properties P.O. Box 7250 Newport Beach, CA 92658 AGENT: Art Rodriguez and Associates 709 East Colorado Boulevard, # 210 Pasadena, CA 91101 LOCATION: 5775 East Santa Ana Canyon Road -Canyon Plaza Shopping Center: Property is 15.0 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, having frontages of 1,095 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 570 feet of the east side of Imperial Highway. To permit on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages within a restaurant. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-29 Approved Approved Project Planner (kbass@anaheim.net) No one was present in opposition of this proposal Art Rodriguez, agent, stated that it is a simple application for an on-sale license in a restaurant with no fixed bar where the sales of alcohol is incidental to a sale of food. The applicant is licensed in two other locations in Los Angeles since 1997, with no violations of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Their application with the ABC is pending. There were no letters of protestor phone calls to the Department. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, asked if a time limitation had been included in this Conditional Use Permit? David See, Associate Planner, confirmed that no time limitation had been recommended. The Police Department was not opposed to the application. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04241 to permit on- premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages within a restaurant without a time limitation. za,os~ooo.DOc Page 1 • 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. VARIANCE N0.2000-04402 OWNER: Jenne A. Knox 226 South Glassell Street Orange, CA 92866 AGENT: Malkoff & Associates 18456 Lincoln Circle Villa Park, CA 92861 Scott Minami LOCATION: 1190 North Van Horne Way: Property is 0.51 acre located at the southeast corner of Coronado Street and Van Horne Way, having frontages of 125 feet on the south side of Coronado Street and 179 feet on the east side of Van Horne Way. Waiver to permit and retain two existing unpermitted 22-foot high ground- mounted equipment for a wood shop facility in the SP94-1, Development Area No. 1 (Industrial Area) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-30 Approved Approved Project Planner (kbass@anaheim.net) One person was present in opposition of the proposal. Mel Malkoff, attorney representing the proposal, addressed the Code Enforcement violations. That included the placement of a large storage container, a chip box in the parking lot, the equipment installed by a manufacturer without permits and a general noise issue. Photos submitted showed improvements to the property. We needed to buy a $15,000-$30,000 chipper to get rid of one of the two units. In the photos there were views of the property from Van Horne and Coronado looking east. The trees did an adequate job of screening the mechanical equipment for the dust collection. We had requested a waiver of screening requirements because the building next door on Coronado protrudes out about five feet in the setback, which impairs the view of our building. Screening in front would use the only remaining storage yard. A permanent fence would block us from servicing the equipment and if we put a tree in front we are still going to have to trim the branches because we won't be able to drive into the yard. Another concern was the 10-foot radius on the curb returns. There is a City Water meter and an Edison light standard on one side of the driveway and a big Coral tree on the other side which provides screening for the equipment as well as a power pole within about 7 feet from the driveway. On our neighbor's driveway there is about a 24-foot rise so that condition would be difficult to meet. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, asked how long the business had been in operation and the time the equipment noise became a problem. Mr. Malkoff stated for 25 years . The equipment was installed 1 year ago without building permits. So the request relief is from Conditions 3, 10 and 11 pertaining to landscaping and the curb returns. Ms. Santalahti verified that the noise was generated from a 22 foot high tank. Mr. Malkoff stated that the visible tank worked like a cyclone and the air moved extremely fast through there and generated very little equipment, however the vertical stacks are the generating equipment. We bought $16,000 worth of mufflers just as an experiment. This was done without a permit because they Page 2 • • are still deciding on whether or not to keep it. The equipment did a significant reduction although not to the goal but there is an occasional pinging noise from the cyclon itself. There was also noise from the ground level, which may be dampened with acoustic enclosures. Ms. Santalahti asked if the noise attenuation could be brought down to the level recommended by staff as stated in Condition No. 7? Mr. Malkoff stated that there is an interpretation issue. A noise consultant was hired fora 58 hour monitoring in the boxes, the ambient level based on standard practice was between 68 and 73 dB in the neighborhood during the industrial day. To achieve a 60d6 was below what we measured as ambient. We had agreed with staff that we would work on this together but the 60 dB may not be attainable. Ms. Santalahti asked how long the applicant would expect it to take to comply with the noise issues as stated in Condition No. 7. Mr. Malkoff answered that it might take up to 6 months. Ms. Santalahti addressed Condition No. 10 regarding intertwining redwood or cedar slats into a new 22- foot high chainlink fence. Mr. Malkoff stated that the fence would be in the work yard and detracted from the visibility of the business. Also this condition is tied with Condition No. 11 which requires putting trees inside the yard in the work space area. Ms. Santalahti asked if there was anyone interested in speaking in opposition of this proposal. Jack First, 2881 Coronado Street, resides across the street from the business, was present in opposition. He provided photos of the business. His concerns are related to the noise that the machinery produced and did not feel there had been any improvements or changes thus far. Nor had he noticed any change in the Hours of Operation which stated that the noise exist from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Malkoff rebutted that they are working hard to resolve the problem. He added that the hours of operation had been modified by eliminating Sundays and some evenings. Two times the hours of operation were reduced voluntarily to make sure we stayed within the business day. Ms. Santalahti questioned if the applicant had compared noise levels with other businesses and how other companies solved the problem. Mr. Malkoff responded that they did check other dust collection businesses and discovered that they exceeded the noise standard well away from property lines. Equipment had been tested here, Arizona and Stockton. Dust collection systems make noise, but efforts are being made to take the approach used on oilrigs to try to dampen the noise. Ms. Santalahti addresses Mr. First to see if double pane windows would help to eliminate the noise. Mr. First answered that it would make a difference however the home is 30 plus years old which means that the ceiling or roof had not been insulated and there wasn't any double glazing on it. An air conditioner was installed, but then I was a prisoner in my home. 1 had not been able to stand in the front yard and have a conversation with anyone. The way we've had a conversation is to move to the side yard. The problem is that the noise is continuous because the business doesn't shut down at 4-4:30 when the other surrounding industrial businesses shut down. Ms. Santalahti addressed Code Enforcement regarding the noise problem. It seemed the solution may cost the applicant but there is a home there and it should be protected somewhat. Ms. Santalahti felt that there was some solutions that should be considered: However an approval would include a time limitation to review the project to verify that the improvements had made a difference in the noise. Also Page 3 • • hear from Mr. First that things had improved. 6 months seems to be a little bit long because there should be some progress before that time period. Chris Martel indicated that the time perimeter of the complaint was almost 1 year ago. Mr. First had been patient, and it has been longer then we usually let things go for. Ms. Santalahti referenced a standard condition that Engineering stating that the inclination is to leave the condition in the Decision but to note that as specifically identified by the Public Works Department if it is workable at all. There efforts are to make accessibility as clean as possible without damaging the curbs. Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer in Public Works, requested to structure the language to allow it to be subject to the City Engineer's approval. We do realize that there are field constraints out there. There are times when a condition had been generated that may cause the applicant to show us what the constraints are. In general, there are some opportunities for us to change radiuses to work around some of those concerns. Mr. Malkoff concurred with Mr. Gambino and Ms. Santalahti's discussion. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, suggested wording to the effect "or such alternative as is approved" Ms. Santatalahti asked about Condition No. 10 regarding the slats in the fence, if it appeared in person as it did in the picture in which case it seemed to be in need of repair. David See, Associate Planner, concurred that the fence was in need of some repair. Mr. Malkoff suggested redoing the fence with a green mesh material such as used on tennis courts. Ms. Santalahti addressed Selma Mann on the sort of approval that may be made and what her thoughts would be on the following ideas. First to approve the variance requiring status reports to be heard as a Report and Recommendation on the agenda. This would include notification to Mr. First that the item is to be heard in three months to determined how they have progressed on the sound system and then again in 6 months to verify that the improvements had been completed. Ms. Mann answered that it would be acceptable as a Report and Recommendation. On the other hand if any conditions were to change it would need to be heard as a Public Hearing item. It would depend upon how the condition is granted. There should be a definite standard that needs to be met for a condition of the variance since that is something that goes with the land. Ms. Santalahti stated that the conditions of approval should be satisfied within 6 months from today which would be February 2001. In 3 months, a status report from the applicant should be presented listing the improvements that had been made to date as well as any incomplete improvements that need to be done and the reasons why. Staff was directed to put this item on the agenda as a Reports and Recommendation item for review at the 3 month period and notify Mr. First in the normal public notification time method (i.e. 10 days prior) so that he is aware. The 3 month period would be scheduled for the November 16, 2000 Zoning Administrator meeting. Staff will need to hear from the applicant at least 2 weeks prior to this meeting because there will be a report on this item. David See iterated that there is some concerns on an alternative covering on the fence. Code did allow PVC or wood slats in fences. We would be concerned with any alternative use such as a mesh or netting as far as it's durability. Staff recommended a condition be added to obtain a business license for a cabinet making business and limit the hours of operation to match those listed in the Letter of Operation. Ms. Santalahti directed staff to forward a copy of the decision to Chris Martel in Code Enforcement and Patrick Ahle in City Attorney, Criminal Prosecution 1275 N. Berkeley Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92632 Page 4 • • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. VARIANCE N0. 2000-04409 Approved OWNER: City of Anaheim -Housing Authority 201 South Anaheim Boulevard # 1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 ATTN: Elisa Stipkovich AGENT: Anaheim Revitalization Partners L.P. 18201 Von Karmen Boulevard Ste. 400 Irvine, CA 92612 Frank Cardone LOCATION: 1545 -1633 South Michelle Drive, 1528 -1634 South Michelle Drive, 1529 -1633 South Jeffery Drive, 1528 -1634 South Jeffery Drive, and 1529 South Walnut Street: Property is 14.8 acres generally bounded by Lynne Avenue to the north, Walnut Street to the east, Audre Drive to the south, and Hampstead Street to the west, with frontages of 700 feet along the south side of Lynne Avenue, 765 feet along the west side of Walnut Street, 830 feet along the north side of Audre Drive, and 570 feet along the public alley immediately east of Hampstead Street. Waive required lot frontage and minimum unit size to permit a City of Anaheim Housing Authority -initiated multiple family rehabilitation project which will include the reconfiguration of existing units, increasing the number of bedrooms, adding floor area onto existing units, and reducing the overall unit count for an existing apartment complex. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 2000-31 Project Planner (kbass@anaheim.net) No opposition was received on the item Ms. Santalahti introduced this proposal and asked if there were any additional comments. David See responded that other than the staff report there would be no additional comments. Ms. Santalahti the first waiver was no longer needed due to the onsite street or circulation pattern that has been established and found to be equivalent to the street system. Also the inquiry was made about the number of one-bedroom units that are going to end up being less then the code required. Brent Schultz, Redevelopment Housing Development Manager, explained that in the core area as marked on the map is all one bedroom units. They are all 8-unit complexes. After the revitalization project there would be 71 one-bedrooms and 162 two-bedrooms, 64 three-bedrooms and 18four-bedroom units. Much of that product mix came from surveying the families that exist in those dwelling units now. This was designed so that the families could come back and reside in the project after completion. Ms. Santalahti asked if out of the 71 one-bedrooms what was the ratio of one-bedroom units that are at code and under code now? Page 5 • Kim McKay, Redevelopment, stated that there will be 38 smaller one-bedroom units and 38 smaller 2- bedroom units. Ms. Santalahti asked what the total unit count started at and what will it end up being? Kim McKay stated that currently there are 288 units and we will have 269 units. And about 40,000 to 50,000 square feet in new construction on add-ons to the ends of the buildings Len Spivak, owner at 1528 North Jeffrey Lane, one of the building that will be impacted by this waiver. I have a letter on behalf of our attorney to be submitted. The attorney's represent myself and my wife, the Justin Yani family at 1529 North Jeffrey, John and Mary Chang at 1538 North Jeffrey Drive and Jose and Rachel Perez 1607 & 1613 Michelle Drive. The property owners identified herein object to the proposed action to be considered by the Zoning Administrator on each of the following grounds. There is a reasonable possibility that significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed waiver due to unusual circumstances and CEQA Guidelines. The City has failed to make sufficient traffic studies to support the proposed waiver. The proposed waiver will adversely impact our clients properties without compensation being paid therefore. In light of the foregoing the identifying property owners object to the proposed waiver until such time as the developer has complied with CEQA. Ms. Santalahti asked if these mentioned buildings are actually the ones that will have modifications done to them or are these buildings that are going to stay in the area but will remain as is. Mr. Spivak said that they were being isolated. Ms. Santalahti there are 6 buildings being outlined in pink. Are those the ones that are nonparticipating properties. Selma Mann addressed a comment that was made with regard to CEQA and the use of the Categorical Exemption Class 26, which appears to be directly applicable here. A Class 26 consist of actions by a Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority or other public agencies to implement adopted housing assistance plan by acquiring an interest in housing units. The Housing units might be either in existence or possessing all required permits for construction when the agency makes it's final decision to acquire the units and then the unusual circumstances that are being referred to as in the exceptions when it indicates that a categorical exemption shall not be use for an activity when there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant affect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances would be a significant affect not withstanding the fact that there is a categorical exemption. In this instance there is a "Quit Claim Deed" that leaves the existing configuration exactly as it is and it provides access to the properties that have indicated that they have an objection as they do now. The reason for the deletion of Waiver A regarding required lot frontage, and in affect the definition of a lot are stated in paragraph 14 of the evaluation section and there is additional discussion of the "Quit Claim Deed" in paragraph 15. Ms. Santalahti asked Brent Schultz to describe the number of steps taken to get to this action today. Mr. Schultz explained that a CEQA Negative Declaration when the affordable and cooperative agreements and the revitalization plan went forward to the City Council and Housing Authority in July 13, 1999. It was taken forward with all required legal advertisements were completed. The City retained the services of John McClinden to prepare the initial study and to prepare the negative declaration documents. We did not get any opposition during the appeal period on that project after it was noticed. Ms. Santalahti inquired about the duration of this project. Mr. Schultz stated that the discussions with the owners took place about 2 years ago when the City was awarded the contract to the related companies and Southern California Housing to do a revitalization plan. At the end of that process in June we took the approach that we would go in there and offer to either acquire the properties, do property trades or leases with the owners or sign easements documents. Page 6 ~ • On the maps there is an area which indicates some of the owners that we haven't reach an agreement with. We are still hopeful that we can reach an agreement with everyone. We are in negotiations with 3 property owners with 4 parcels so we can continue to do the core are project. We have the financing and the tax credit allocation committee has allocated 28,000,000 to the project. We are going to close on that before September 1 S'. If everything is approved we will pull our permits and get started immediately. Ms. Santalahti approved Variance No. 2000-04409, in part, denying Waiver A, required lot frontage because that is no longer necessary and approving Waiver B on the basis of the findings in the Evaluation in the staff report on pages 3 & 4 and the Recommendations on page 5 and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. In this project the variance is granted subject to recordation of the lot line adjustment in an appropriate abandonment as listed in Item No. 1. The conditions will stand as they are written in the staff report. Ms. Selma added that the reasons for deletion of Waiver A be listed in the Decision. 4. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE Page 7