Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1989/10/05s • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - October 5, 1989 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., October 5, 1989, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard Mc Ghee, Senior Planner 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. ITEM N0. 1. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE 3992 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CATANZARITE AND CO. INC., 2331 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: DAVID C. CARSON, 4420 E. Mira Loma, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of 226 feet being located approximately 760 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street and further described as 2331 West Lincoln Avenue. Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a deck. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. David Larson, agent, said there were two conditions they needed clarification on. He said Condition No. 3 indicates that the plans for the proposed parking structure be designed according to the Engineering Department. He noted the building has existed since the 70's. He said Condition No. 2 regards gates. He noted that the existing building has gates and that there has never been any traffic problems or back up of traffic because it is roughly 35 to 40 feet behind the property line. He said they have no problems with repairing curbs and gutters or the other Conditions. • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OCTOBER 5 1989 PAGE 2 Ms. Santalahti said that sometimes conditions are put in because staff doesn't realize it is an existing setup. She asked if he would describe what the proposed deck is for. Mr. Larson said the backside of the building has glass all the way across the rear. He said the proposed tenant improvements include six executive offices and they felt it would be nice for the executives to be able to walk onto a deck to be outside rather than having to walk into a less formal courtyard where other employees are. Ms. Santalahti asked if the underground parking went to the property line. Mr. Larson said yes. He said the underground parking went to the property line and the main structure itself is set 10 feet back from the property line so there is a 10 foot well above the parking, open to the sky, which they are covering up. Ms. Santalahti asked how far below grade the underground parking structure was at the rear of the property. Mr. Larson said it was at grade. Ms. Santalahti asked Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner, if he had looked at the prior variance to see how the parking got to the property line. Mr. McGhee said he did not see anything in the file on the original scheme. Ms. Santalahti asked if there were solid walls around the parking structure at the back. Mr. Larson said yes. He said for the final 10 feet it is solid wall six feet high and the rest of it is bearing walls open to the sky. Ms. Santalahti asked if he had contacted the property owner to the rear to find out if they had any concerns. Mr. Larson said he talked to the Rams Facilities Manager who indicated they had no problem with it. He said he couldn't remember his name but thought it was Doug. Ms. Santalahti asked what the structural materials would be. Mr. Larson said he believed the railing would be stucco Ms. Santalahti asked if the railing portion itself, where people have access, would be setback a few feet from the property line. Mr. Larson said yes. He said he drew the plan showing it coming the full distance out; however, because of the environment of the garage below and because of some Building Division concerns he felt that they will probably cut that deck back to somewhere between six and seven feet versus the ten leaving a four foot or so setback to the property line. • ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, OCTOBER 5, 1989 PAGE 3 Ms. Santalahti said she wondered about a setback being required because of the wooden decking which is then part of the main structure. Mr. Larson said after submittal he went and talked to Chris in the Building Division and determined how far the deck could protrude without having other problems. He said it can be done all the way out but the cost would be prohibitive. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti noted this item was categorically exempt. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that although the adjacent residential zoning is RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural), said adjacent property is developed with a non-residential use in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1897 (Rams office and training camp); and, further, that the proposed deck will project over part of the on-site parking area and will not adversely affect any parking spaces. Ms. Santalahti said that Condition No. 3 could be removed because this is an existing building and she will modify one of the other Conditions to make it clear that a building permit will have to be obtained and that the setback from the rear property line will have to comply with the appropriate building regulations. She said this may be a new Condition or just added in place of a deleted condition. Leonard McGhee said the only thing Condition No. 3 pertains to is to make sure that the location of any support poles doesn't impact the parking access or or reduce the size of spaces. He said the condition is for the design standards which apply to the construction of the deck. Ms. Santalahti said the final conditions will include the property to be developed in accordance to the plans and to meet all building standards, the applicant to obtain a building permit and new wording relative to any modifications required to construct the deck shall not adversely affect the layout of parking in accordance with the engineering standards for parking structures. Ms. Santalahti noted she expected to sign the decision tomorrow. Ms. Santalahti said the condition about the gate is used regularly because the City Engineer is always concerned that someone is going to install gates which impact street traffic. She said she did not imagine that the existing setup was a problem since the property access is via a circular driveway. Mr. Larson said he felt the way it read was probably all right since it says shall not be installed and they will not be installing any new gates. 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. ~, .. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, OCTOBER 5, 1989 PAGE 4 ITEM N0. 2 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 3 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 9:50 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary Minutes approved by: Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator 0374g