Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2008/04/24 • CITY OF ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2008 9:30 A.M. City Council Chambers, City Hall East 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California STAFF PRESENT: John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney: Dave See, Senior Planner Darrell Gentry, Consultant Planner Diane Bathgate, Consultant Planner Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer Elly Morris, Senior Secretary. Donna Patino, Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted at 4:40 p.m. on Thursday, April 17, 2008 inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, April 10, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT H: \To o I s1ZAa d m i n W CZA042408 zoningadministrator(a~anaheim.net • • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 1. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE Minutes 2. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Zoning Administrator Meeting of April 10, 2008. Reports and Recommendations: Approved 3. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1, AND MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2008-00240 Concurred with staff Approved OWNER: Wayne Morganthaler 32 Sidney Bay Drive Newport Coast, CA 92657-2105 15-day appeal period APPLICANT: Michael Ayaz 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 LOCATION: 511 West Chapman Avenue: Property is approximately 1.7 acres, having a frontage of 373 feet on the north side of Chapman Avenue. Request to modify a nonconforming use to upgrade an existing Type 20 ABC beer and wine license to a Type 21 ABC license allowing off-sales of beer, wine and distilled spirits as an ancillary use to its primary operation as amini-market. CEQA DETERMINATION AND MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION NO. ZA2008-6 Project Planner: Diane Bathgate (dbathgafe@anaheim. net) John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 3 and stated that this is a request to modify a nonconforming use to upgrade an existing Type 20 beer and wine license to a Type 21 full alcohol license for off premise consumption in conjunction with an existing convenience market in the Anaheim Resort area. As indicated in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the request. The Police Department 04-24-08 Page 2 of 10 • • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES submitted a memorandum and does not oppose the request. The resolution contains recommended conditions of approval which are typical conditions that would apply to alcoholic beverage sales. Michael Ayaz, attorney, 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106, Santa Ana, 92607, stated that the applicant has read and understands all the conditions within the resolution and is in agreement with those conditions. There is a condition prohibiting a pay phone outside of the premises that may be an issue. The pay phone is in front of the store but it is not within the applicant's control. The pay phone issue would apply to the landlord. He asked if staff was okay with that or if they would have to work with the landlord to remove the pay phone. He clarified that it is not their phone but the applicant is willing to work with staff. Mr. Van Doren asked if he addressed this issue with staff prior to today's hearing. Mr. Ayaz replied no. He received the staff report yesterday. He stated that they were okay with the conditions but the pay phone issue is not under their control. He wanted to clarify this issue so there would be no confusion in the future. Mr. Van Doren referred to and read Condition No. 10, that there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. Mr. See stated that the condition requires that the payphone shall be located within a building or removed if it is within the control of the applicant. This condition was recommended by the Police Department. Staff concurs that if the pay phone is outside the control of the applicant then this condition will not be applicable. Mr. Van Doren stated that his understanding is this condition is there for the purpose of regulating pay phones that would be under the applicant's control and outside of the building. The condition shall remain. Mr. Van Doren asked if there is anyone present to address the Zoning Administrator in opposition to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Van Doren took action to approve Resolution ZA 2008-6 which includes CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 1, and approving Miscellaneous Permit No. 2008-00240 based on the findings described in the staff report and draft resolution as prepared by the Planning Staff. 04-24-08 Page 3 of 10 i • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Public Hearina Items: 4. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11, AND ~ Concurred with staff VARIANCE NO. 2007-04744 Granted, in part, approved waiver (a); 'Advertised as Variance No. 2008-04744 and waiver (b) was withdrawn as OWNER: M & A Gabaee, LP requested by the P.O. Box 5357 Beverly Hills, CA 90209 applicant. APPLICANT: Tim Landon 1155 Beecher Street 15-day appeal period San Leandro, CA 94577 LOCATION: 1020 North Euclid Street: Property is approximately 4.3 acres, located at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue with frontages of 412 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and 271 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue. Request waiver of maximum letter height and maximum number of wall signs to construct wall-mounted channel letter signs for a proposed retail store. CEQA DETERMINATION AND VARIANCE Project Planner. Darrell Gentry RESOLUTION NO. ZA2008-7 (dgentry@anaheim.net) John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 4 and stated that this is a request for Variance No. 2007- 04744, waiver of maximum letter height and maximum number of wall signs to construct wall mounted channel letter signs for a proposed retail store in a commercial retail center. As indicated in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the Variance request. Staff feels that there are unique circumstances in this case because the proposed letter height is in proportion to the building. This is a larger tenant compared to other tenants in the center. He noted for the record that waiver B, the request for maximum permitted number of wall signs, has been withdrawn by the applicant. The only waiver being requested today is waiver A, for maximum letter height. Ronnie Bensimon, President of Dearden's, 1020 N. Euclid Drive, presented a drawing to the Zoning Administrator and showed how the sign would be placed on the building. He stated that they have a large frontage on this building and invested a lot of dollars improving it. He wanted to make sure they had a sign that was proportionate to the building. He showed how the sign would look like if they were within the City Ordinance. Mr. Van Doren asked what the distance from the street to the frontage was. 04-24-08 Page 4 of 10 • • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Mr. Bensimon stated that it was approximately 150 feet. Mr. Van Doren asked if there is anyone present to address the Zoning Administrator in opposition to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Van Doren took action to approve Resolution ZA 2008-7 which includes CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 11, and approving Variance No. 2007-04744 that includes waiver A. Waiver B has been withdrawn by the applicant. 04-24-08 Page 5 of 10 i • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 5. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1, AND VARIANCE NO. 2008-04751 OWNERI APPLICANT: Rod and Debbie O'Connor 111 Martin Road Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 111 South Martin Road: Property is approximately 0.5 acre, having a frontage of 181 feet on the west side of Martin Road approximately 85 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Request waiver of maximum fence height to permit a 7 foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters in the front yard of an existing single family residence. CEQA DETERMINATION AND VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 22, 2008 Project Planner: Darrell Gentry (dgentry@anaheim. net) John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 5 and stated that this is a request for Variance No. 2008- 04751. This is a request for waiver of maximum fence height to permit a 7 foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters within the front yard of an existing single family residence for the property at 111 S. Martin Road. As indicated in the staff report, staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. He pointed out that there are issues as to the permitted location of the fence. Staff recommends approval of the fence height. However, there are issues as to whether the fence can be located within any public easement area. As indicated in Condition No. 5, staff recommends that the fence be located outside of the easement area. Public Works Department staff is present to answer any questions regarding the easement. Staff pointed out corrections to the resolution. The resolution should indicate that this request is a CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 1. Staff also recommends that Condition No. 5 be modified. Staff read into the record the proposed wording; that plans submitted for building permits shall indicate that all fencing, gates and pilasters be located outside of, and shall not obstruct or block, the existing 40-foot wide private road and 20-foot wide public utility easement fronting Martin Road and the entire southern property line of the subject property. All fencing shall be limited to 6 feet high and pilasters, including decorative caps, shall be limited to a maximum of 7 feet high. The changes are the 40-foot wide private road easement and the 20-foot wide public utilities easement. Mr. Van Doren reiterated that the easement is 20 feet wide and the total right-of-way with easements is 40 feet wide. Mr. See replied the total easement width is 40 feet and within that the utility portion is 20 feet. Mr. Van Doren asked how wide the paved portion of the road is. Melanie Adams, Public Works Department, replied that the paved portion is approximately 20 feet wide. 04-24-08 Page 6 of 10 CJ • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Mr. Van Doren stated that the language should be that the 40-foot right-of-way restriction includes both the paved portion and the easements adjoining it for a total of 40 feet. Ms. Adams replied that is correct. Mr. Van Doren stated that the roadway could change in its configuration in the future but he wanted to clarify that it is a 40-foot wide right-of-way including easements that the City is restricting. Rod O'Conner, applicant, 111 Martin Road, Anaheim, 92808, stated that he is the homeowner. He stated that although he has to handle this issue he is not sure of all the issues being discussed by staff. It wasn't until he applied for this variance for fence height that he found out the fence is encroaching approximately 18 inches into the utility easement. When he completed his driveway and installed the gate and electrical lines underneath the cement, the City Inspector said he would have to get City approval before they could pour the concrete. He went to the City for the approvals and was told it only had to be setback 5 feet. He decided to go 10 feet back with the track for landscaping reasons and because he did not want to have any trouble. The gate is okay at 10 feet but the fence has to be in front of the gate and that means the fence will encroach a few inches into the easement. If he puts the fence behind the easement, his gate and motors would be in front making it look bad. He is concerned that the units will be vandalized. He wanted to know if he could put the fence against the front of the gate and as soon as he cleared the gate they would go back to how it is drawn on the plan. There is no utility underneath and all the utilities are out on the street. He was unaware this easement encroachment was going to occur when he installed the gate track. Mr. Van Doren stated that if this condition remains as stated today, it would require that everything be on the property and outside of the easements. Mr. O'Conner asked if he would have to go through the expense of tearing up everything. Mr. Van Doren explained that he just wanted to clarify what items would be inside and outside of the easement area. Mr. O'Conner stated that it is an undue hardship that he should have to go through this process because it is not just tearing up the track but also having to deal with the wiring underneath the driveway. This would be a major project. It was a mistake that he tried to prevent and he was misinformed by the City. It is an unusually shaped lot and this is his only yard and that is why he is asking for the high fence. He was also concerned because he is continually vandalized. Mr. Van Doren addressed staff and asked if the plans submitted with the house included gates and fences. Darrell Gentry, Consultant Planner, stated that the gate and track Mr. O'Conner is referring to were handled under a separate permit. The approval he is referring to is a traffic engineering approval for line of site considerations only. The approval was not included in this particular variance request but it is a factor in the analysis of the request. Mr. Van Doren addressed Mark Gordon, City Attorney. He stated that it seemed like the options are to approve the resolution and retain the condition that the fencing be placed outside of the easements and also to defer a decision until a later date to allow staff to work with the applicant on obtaining an encroachment permit. He asked if those options are not available and the applicant or anyone does not accept his decision today then could they appeal it to City Council. Mark Gordon, City Attorney, stated that he understands the case, the staff report, and the applicant's position. However, no one is at odds with the proposal concerning the variance of the fence height. It is 04-24-08 Page 7 of 10 • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES not as though staff would recommend against the heightening of the fence on the property given the circumstances that apply to the property. To address the applicant's concern about issues of security, he does not believe the City's position is that staff is opposed to allowing the applicant to construct a fence that is higher than 3 feet within the setback area. This situation is not the issue; the issue would be the location of the fence. The applicant is asking the City to approve the variance with the proposed location of the fence within the ultimate right-of-way of this private road easement, 20 feet of which of the west half of the road easement from the center line abutting Mr. O'Conner's property. The applicant is asking the City to approve the variance with the location of the fence within the ultimate right-of-way and that is not within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator. The height variance is within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator but the approval of the location of the fence within the ultimate right-of-way is not. The Zoning Administrator cannot approve the variance today with the proposed location of the fence being within the ultimate right-of-way, regardless of what the economic consequences of that decision is on the applicant. However, if the applicant wishes to continue this hearing to pursue some form of an encroachment into the public right-of-way before the waiver is approved, the applicant could do so by continuing this matter. The Zoning Administrator is left with the option of approving the requested variance with a condition that the applicant relocate the fencing outside of the ultimate right-of-way or continue this matter if that is what the applicant requests to allow him to pursue any other relief that he might be able to pursue to locate the fence within the right-of-way, which is not within the Zoning Administrator's jurisdiction. It could be properly conditioned or denied or it could be continued to deal with the issue on a different level because it would be the Public Works Department that would determine whether or not to grant an encroachment license in the right-of-way. Mr. Van Doren asked Mr. O'Conner if he understood the options that they both have. Mr. O'Conner replied yes. Mr. Van Doren stated that he does not have jurisdiction to approve a fencing encroachment into the ultimate right-of-way. Mr. O'Conner asked what would allow for him to do that. Mr. Van Doren stated that he believes that the applicant might be well served if he were to request a continuance. Mr. Van Doren would then be inclined to continue the variance of the fencing height for which no one is objecting. This would allow the applicant time to identify and pursue any options that might be available to him. If it comes back to the Zoning Administrator, which he does not have jurisdiction on the encroachment; he would only be able to approve the variance as to height but not the location of the fencing. He thought it would be appropriate to continue the item and allow two weeks for the applicant to work with staff to find out what his options might be. Mr. O'Conner stated that he was okay with the continuance. Mr. Gordon stated that they should defer to staff as to the time it might take to process the request and make a decision. He would not want the applicant to have to come back to the Zoning Administrator to find out that it would have to be continued in another two weeks if that is the desire of the applicant and the pleasure of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Van Doren stated that was reasonable because it allows the applicant the greatest latitude. He felt this would be a reasonable request. Mr. Gordon stated that the decision should be the applicant's decision because of the applicant does not want to defer a decision on this matter, then the Zoning Administrator would be left with two proposed 04-24-08 Page 8 of 10 • • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES possible actions. The actions would be to approve it with the condition that the fencing be relocated outside of the ultimate right-of-way or deny the request. Mr. O'Conner stated that he would like to defer this matter so that he could work this issue out with Public Works. Mr. Van Doren asked staff what was the time line was for scheduling the hearings. Ms. Adams asked for clarification from the applicant. She asked the applicant if he put his track system or gate on his own property line or did he place it outside of his property line. Mr. O'Conner replied it is 10 foot from the curb and is right at the edge of the easement. Ms. Adams stated if he in fact placed it at ten feet from the base of the curb he is at the property line and it is at the correct location. Mr. O'Conner stated that the gate is at the right location but the problem is the fence of each side of the gate has to go slightly in front of the gate. The goal is to place the gate behind the fence, and within the easement area. Mr. Gordon stated that he understands the issue between Public Works and the applicant. The applicant is indicating that the gate that has been established is located on the property line outside of the ultimate right-of-way but the proposed fence to connect to that gate would be partially located within the ultimate right-of-way. Mr. Van Doren stated that is not part of today's application. Today's application is for variance of the fencing height. He would like to accept the applicant's request to continue this hearing for the equivalent of two meetings. Staff would have to get back to the applicant in terms of when the hearing would take place. He will not act on the request for height variance or any other aspect at this time and will continue today's hearing for a date of two meetings from now. Mr. See stated that would be the meeting on May 22, 2008 and will be a four week continuance. He stated that within that time Public Works and the Planning Department staff will meet with and communicate with the applicant to try to come up with a solution. Mr. Van Doren stated that would be his recommendation and his order. Mr. Van Doren took action and continued the hearing until May 22, 2008. Mr. Van Doren closed the public hearing. 04-24-08 Page 9 of 10 ~~ i • APRIL 24, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 A.M. TO THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 AT 9:30 A.M. The Zoning Administrator meeting of May 8, 2008, was cancelled since no petitions were filed for that meeting. Respectful) submitte ./'. Donna Pati Secretary Received and approved by the Zoning Administrator on May 22, 2008. 04-24-08 Page 10 of 10