Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2004/01/22s. ~ • • . CITY OF ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' ACTION AGENDA THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2004 9:30 A. M . .. XCouncrL~Gha_mbers;'City.:.~Hall; 200 South ~An~ahetm_=Boulevard-_An'aheim,`California .fI ~ l P1 ~~c~ moo... x~-~._ yam. J .~ C l "4 y$t . f ~^.. 4. ~} -~Tr... / .. ~ , STAFF PRES'ENT~,, Anntka Santalahti, Zoning ~Adm~ristrator ~ 4, ° oses Johnson, Deputy~Atforney ~, ~. °~. ,, ~, r"'~~""~ .Charity Wagner, Planner~'~.~ ?' .~ -a°' ~~ ~ ._,J~ames~Ling, Associate Engineer~.~ ~ ~w ~ ! r1 ,r'k r ! i ~~A° 6, ~,Dantel{e Masctel,i~Word^Proce~ssing Operator ~, ~ ~ ,~ I ~ t r ~°4 r~ -t ; q ' .~v ~Y 'a ~~4, .N -1 /"°g _ t.~ ,e, Yt1 'y°1, r t if -4 6 f AGENDA POSTING A~com~plefe copyof~the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted~at $:30 a~rn~on`January~15~;~,2004~,rnside the display case located,~tn~the fo_ yer~of theACounctl~C~ha~mbers, and also in the outside dts Ia kiosk ~ -~~- ~- `~ ~= - PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin~Newspaper~o-nThursday, December 25, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT H:\docs\zoningadmin\agendas\acza012204.doc zoningadministrator(a~anaheim.net ACZA012204. DOC Page 1 ~J r~ U 1a. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE WAIVER N0.2003-00024 ~ Approved OWNER: Tracy Mc Lamb Wilmington Trust Company Rodney Square North 110 North Market Street Wilmington, Delaware, 19890 AGENT: Noe Pena Little & Associates Architects 1050 Lakes Drive, Suite 275 West Covina, CA 91710 LOCATION: 1095 North Pullman Street: Property is 18 acres, located south and west of the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and. Pullman Street, having a frontage of 623 feet on the west side of Pullman Street, and a maximum depth of 1,275 feet (Home Depot). Request approval of Special Circumstance Waiver (starting January 29, 2004 to expire July 29, 2004) to permit waiver of special event permit requirements to permit the accessory outdoor display of retail merchandise in conjunction with a home improvement store in the CL (SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. Continued from the January 8, 2004 Zoning Administrator meeting. 10 day appeal period Project Planner: (dsee(a~anaheim.net) sr2145ds.doc Q.s. 2os ACZA012204.DOC .Page 2 • PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3 2b. VARIANCE N0.2003-04590 ' OWNER: Kenneth M. Light 335 South Timken Road Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Pete Volbeda 615 North Benson Avenue, Unit C Upland, CA 91786 LOCATION: 347 South Timken Road: Property is 0.52-acre having a frontage of 192 feet on the south side of Timken Road and is ~~ located 373 feet east of the centerline of Coyote Lane. Waiver of minimum rear yard setback to construct a new 2-story single-family residence in the RS-HS-22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. Continued from the January 8, 2004 Zoning Administrator meeting. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. Continued to February 5, 2004 15 day appeal period Project Planner: (skoehm(o~anahiem.net) sr8689gk.doc Q.s. 202 ACZA012204.DOC Page 3 • • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04592 Approved OWNER: Elisa Stipkovich Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Kim McKay Anaheim Revitalization Partners 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1226. 1300, 1312, 1318. 1330 8~ 1334 West Cerritos Avenue, 1211, 1223, 1229,1319 & 1337 West Lynne Avenue, 1524, 1530, 1600, 1612, 1618 & 1624 South Ninth Street 1531, 1537, 1542, 1613, 8 1626 South Hampstead Street: The twenty-three (23) properties located within the "Jeffrey Lynne Phase Two Housing Revitalization Project" area encompass 3.38 acres, generally bounded by Cerritos Avenue to the north, Audre Drive to the south, Ninth Street to the west and Walnut Street to the east 15 day appeal period Waiver of (a) minimum number, type, and design of off-street parking spaces and (b) minimum structural setback to construct new decks, porches, Project Planner: balconies, trash enclosures, and convert garages to laundry rooms in tokoenm anananeim.net) conjunction with the "Jeffrey Lynne Phase Two Housing Revitalization Project' sr8685gk.doc in the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone. Q.S.# 66 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2004-3 °= Jean Mills, agent with Anaheim Revitalization Partner, stated that this project was in the second phase of a large neighborhood revitalization program in the Jeffrey Lynne area. This was more of a scattered site project than the original .core project in developing the design and other criteria two variance requests were needed. The covered parking was an issue. The variance request was for properties with existing freestanding garages or freestanding carports to be demolished and not replaced with new covered carport parking. There had been a series of discussions with the Police Department on the issues regarding gating the neighborhood, and not having the carports would help visibility from a security stand point and from an operational side with the maintenance in terms of kids climbing on them, trash being deposited on top of the carport and cars running into the structure. That was the only discrepancy our department had with the staff report, and therefore had requested a change in the wording on the conditions. Further she explained that the number of parking spaces would remain the same, which included the number of buildings with tuck-under garage parking where the garage doors would be removed for security reasons. These covered parking areas would remain because it is an integral part of the building. It is only in the instances where there is freestanding covered parking now. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, requested input from Scott Koehm on two basic conditions of freestanding parking structures and the setback variance being requested to allow the patio area and/or balcony to expand making more usable space for the tenants. She also wanted to confirm that the width of the balconies would remain the same but the depth might be adjusted. ACZA012204.DOC Page 4 • • Ms. Mills responded that it would depend on the structure of the different building types in the neighborhood. She stated that there was effort made to provide as much private space per unit as possible in order to improve the whole neighborhood. Ms. Santalahti asked Scott Koehm if the variance request stated that there were 132 covered existing and 127 covered being proposed with the changes. Scott Koehm, Planner, stated that the total number of parking spaces would not change: Just to clarify the statement of Justification of Waiver Form,, indicated that the carports would be eliminated, yet all the plans still indicated that the carports would be demolished and rebuilt. Ms. Santalahti, stated that she wanted to make certain that the action taken today would reflect the specific number of parking spaces and she wanted it to be clear on how staff assessed the proposed number of parking spaces. Charity Wagner requested that the applicant verify if there would be covered parking spaces. Ms. Mills responded that there would be some covered parking where tuck under garages existed previously. Those spaces would remain covered because they were an integral part of the building and that contributed to the final number of parking. The buildings along Cerritos Avenue included 28 covered parking spaces and along Lynne Street the garages would be demolished leaving opened parking spaces. The similar situation would exist along Ninth Street, as well as 1531 and 1625 Hampstead, with the tuck under parking. Ms. Santalahti took a moment to verify that the parking spaces were represented on the plans she had before her accurately. Ms. Mills pointed out that the staff report on page 5 contained a chart displaying the existing and proposed parking spaces. Ms. Wagner verified the parking spaces along with Madam Administrator. Andy Nogal with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, was present in full support; of this project and was available to answer any questions that might have needed to be addressed. Jakob Felder, Jr. at 31423 S. Coast Hwy, # 85, Laguna Beach, CA., was present in opposition of this proposal. He owns several properties on Lynne Street, Hampstead Street and Ninth Street. He was under the impression that modifications to a project such as this was required to go before a public hearing. Ms Santalahti responded that as long as the changes met the current code standards that it was not required. Mr. Felder asked about the setbacks and balconies. He stated that currently there was consistency with the buildings, which were constructed 4 years ago. The buildings were similar in appearance and numbers. With the proposal the buildings would appear different with a less compatible appearance. Approximately half of the buildings would be different in their configuration as well, which lacks aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood: We had been interested in updating the paint scheme and landscape so we wouldn't have. our buildings stick out like a sore thumb. The other concern was that the intention to take Lynne Street and Hampstead Street and dedicated the street so that it would eventually be closed off. This presented a very specific problem in letting us conduct our business because people would not have access to viewing our buildings for renting purposes. Recognizing that this might not have been the intention of today's meeting, the issue stated was that in the future it might cause hardship to him when renting our his apartments. . Ms. Santalahti stated that abandonment issues go before City Council and there would be a public notification sent out if it were brought before that deciding body. She assured Mr. Felder that the notification ACZA012204.DOC Page 5 ~ ~ would go out to the property owner as well as the tenants of the surrounding buildings. It is a major issue and has always been a major concern to address. Mr. Felder was supportive of neighborhood improvements. But on the other hand it would be a hardship if he wasn't able to conduct his business is a fashion that makes any common sense. With regards to the balconies and garages, as they extended to the property line it would end up giving a more crowded feel to the building next to it that wasn't participating. If this continued in the future with the other existing buildings it would seem very closed-in in the area. He stated his concerns with the future intentions of the City of Anaheim in this area. He also asked if there were any plans to exclusively fence in the buildings that participated separately from those that weren't. He stated that he preferred the open space and would like to know what was to come in the future. His main concern was the aesthetics of the carports and parking spaces. He stated that he preferred to maintain uniformity in the area. Ms. Santalahti assured him that the few larger projects that the City has been involved in have produced a rather nice environment and that parking is always a top priority. She further stated that from seeing the numbers the intent is not to reduce the parking at all. And the fact is that parking garages with doors tend to be used as storage rather than parking space. This proposal would help promote the actual use that it was intended for. She further asked staff if there were any proposal for abandonment in the area. Christy Reiff with Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, stated that they were working on a plan with the property owners and were preparing to schedule meetings to discuss it with them in effort to be as open as possible with the property owners. They received plans showing where gating would be placed and possibly adding additional parking for guests. This may include an easement with Edison depending on the way the meetings go. The intensions would be to show the owners the plans along with the color scheme, and creating more open space which would also include Phase 2. There were also further plans for a park across the street where Nate palms are which contributes to more open space. Ms. Santalahti asked if there was a time line in mind with the abandonment. Ms Reiff stated that the time frame would be 6 months and there would be Notices going out to the residences and owners whenever that took place. Ms. Santalahti addressed Mr. Felders concerns with the balconies. She stated that-the minimum setback for the balconies was required to meet the Building Codes. There wasn't a waiver allowed for that. The measurements that are used start from the property line. She asked staff what the minimum width of a balcony and if anything like that had been done prior to this proposal Mr. Nogal stated that the minimum width is 10 feet and approximately 7 to 8 feet deep. Further stating that they try to offer a fair balance of open space and private space. Madam Administrator closed the public hearing. Ms. Santalahti concurred with staffs recommendation of the Categorical Exemption and approved Variance No. 2003-04592 as recommended by staff including the conditions of approval beginning on page 9 of the staff report and also including the modifications to the carports. She informed the applicant that there is a 15-day appeal period that would begin on January 29, 2004 at which time if anyone would like to appeal this decision they could do so then at the office of the City Clerk. ,She directed staff to provide Mr. Felder with a copy of the Decision ACZA012204.DOC Page 6 • • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04818 Approved OWNER: Whitestar Group 1020 North Batavia Street, Suite B Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Roy Furito 1220 Date Street Montebello, CA 90640-6319 LOCATION: 2821 East White Star Avenue - Unit H and J: Property. is 2.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Blue Gum Street and White Star Avenue with frontages of 320 feet on the east side of Btue Gum Street and 15 day appeal period 395 feet on the north side of White Star Avenue To permit and retain an expansion to an existing fast-food restaurant with beer Project Planner: (evambao a(~.anahiem.net) and wine sales for on-premises consumption within an industrial complex in sr3059ey.doc the SP94-1 D.A.1 (Northeast Area Specific Plan -Industrial Area) Zone. Q.S.# 132 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2004-4 5. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None ACZA012204.DOC Page 7