Minutes-ZA 1990/05/17~~ ~r
ACTION
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1990, 9:30 A.M.
Procedure to Exgedite Meeting:
The proponents for conditional use permit and variance applications which
are not contested will have 5 minutes to present their evidence. In
contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each have 10
minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the
complexity of the matter warrants. After the opponent(s) speak, the
proponent will have 5 minutes for rebuttal. Before speaking, please give
your name and address and spell your name.
Staff Reports are part of the evidence received by the Zoning
Administrator at each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior
to and at the meeting.
The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing
if, in the Administrator's opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned
will be served.
All documents presented to the Zoning Administrator for review in
connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable
visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by
the City of Anaheim for the public record and shall be available for
public inspection.
The action taken by the Zoning Administrator on this date regarding
conditional use permits and variances is final unless, within 15 days of
the Zoning Administrator's written decision being placed in the U.S. Mail,
an appeal is filed. Such appeal shall be made at any time following the
public hearing and prior to the conclusion of the appeal period. An
appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an
appeal fee equal to one-half the amount of the original filing fee. The
City Clerk, upon filing of such an appeal, will set said conditional use
permit or variance for public hearing before the City Council at the
earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said
hearing.
After the scheduled public hearings, members of the public will be allowed
to speak on items of interest under "Items of Public Interest". Such
items must be within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator. Each
speaker will be allotted a maximum of 3 minutes to speak. Before
speaking, please give your name and address and spell your last name.
1732H
Page 1
' • •
la. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5
lb. VARIANCE N0. 4044
OWNER: MR. MRS. JIM .MORALES, 5883 East Mountain Loop Trail,
Anaheim, CA 92807.
AGENT: GARY HOUSTON, 4054 Del Ray Avenue #205, Marina Del Rey, CA
90262.
LOCATION: 451 S. Canon Ridge Drive. Property is approximately 0.50
acre on the south side of Canyon Ridge Drive approximately
400 feet south of the centerline of Canyon Hills Road.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct 3-additions to an
existing single family residence.
Continued from May 3, 1990, Zoning Administrator meeting.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-23
2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3
2b. VARIANCE N0. 4047
OWNER: JOHN J. STEVENS, 1570 W. Ratella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 1570 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately .26
acre on the south side of Katella Avenue approximately 225
.feet each of the centerline of Bayless Street.
Waivers of permitted location of freestanding signs and permitted wall
sign to construct a 52 square-foot freestanding sign and,wall signs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.
Approved
~~
Continued
to 5-31-90
~~
Page 2
• •
3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1
3b. VARIANCE N0. 4050
OWNERS: LEWIS and SHEILA FRIEND, 1309 North Minot Street, Anaheim,
CA 92801
AGENT: MILLIE CZECH, 13925 Yale Street, #100, Irvine, CA 92720
LOCATION: 1309 North Minot Street. Property is approximately .14
acre on the west side of Minot Street approximately 570
feet south of the centerline of Cornet Avenue.
Waiver of minimum rear yard to retain~an existing 230 square-foot
patio enclosure attached to a single-family residence.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90--24
4a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1
4b. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT N0. 90-01 (PUBLIC HEARING)
OWNER: VICKIE BEARUP-GAMARRA, 855 Redondo Drive East, Anaheim, CA
92801
LOCATION: 855 Redondo Drive East. Property is approximately 0.16
acre on the west side of Redondo Drive East approximately
670 feet north of the centerline of North Street.
To permit a large family day care facility for up to 12 childrennn.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-25 ~"I~
5a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1
5b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0044 (PUBLIC HEARING)
OWNER: SHARISH PATEL, 1600 S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 1600 S. Harbor Blvd. (Desert Inn). Property is
approximately 1.03 acre on the east side of Harbor Blvd.
approximately 640 feet north of the centerline of Freedman
Way.
To convert eighteen (18) 2-room suites of an existing 114=unit motel
into thirty-six (36) single units (132 units in total) with waiver of
.minimum number of parking spaces.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.
Page 3
Approved,
Modified
Condition
No. 1
Approved
Continued
to 6-28-90
~~~
c •
6. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
•
A. VARIANCE N0. 3950 REQUEST REVIEW OF REVISED PLANS FOR
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: J.R. Drukin requests review of
revised plans for substantial conformance.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.
7. INFORMATIONAL ITEM:
A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0049 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION-CLASS 5: Waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces to expand an existing restaurant (Ararat's). (End
of public notice period: May 17, 1990).
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA9.0=26
8. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
q .~r^~ 5~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ 0 LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE
(TIME) (DATE) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY RIOSR
SIGNED•
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written
correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator or City Council at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
Page 4
Approved
No opposi-
tion was
received.
(Approved)
/~2~
~~~~~ O
• ~ ,,
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MINUTES - May 17, 1990
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to
order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:40 a.m., May 17, 1990,
in the Council Chamber.
PRESENT•
Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney
Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner
Margarita Perez, Acting 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 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5, VARIANCE NO. 4044
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: MR. and MRS. JIM MORALES, 5883 East Mountain Loop
Trail, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately .50 acre having a frontage of approximately
20 feet on the south side of Canyon Ridge Drive, having a maximum depth of
approximately 178 feet, being located approximately 400 feet south of the
centerline of Canyon Hills Road Drive and further described as 451 S. Canyon
Ridge Drive
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct 3-additions to an existing
single family residence.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
Ms. Santalahti stated this item was continued from the May 3, 1990 Zoning
Administrator meeting for the applicant to submit plans to the Homeowners
Association so that they could take a look at them.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED
Gary Houston, 4054 Del Rey Ave, Marina Del Rey, stated he had the opportunity
to speak to the Homeowner's Association and he would like to submit the
Chairman's approval for the project.
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 17, 1990 PAGE 2
Ms. Santalahti asked if they signed of the first page of the plans to show
their concurrence with the proposal and Mr. Houston said yes and added they
are in full approval of the project.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti stated this item is a Categorical Exemption from the
requirement to process an EIR and she will go along with that. She stated she
is going to approve Variance No. 4044 on the basis of the terrain that
surrounds the property in question. She stated this particular lot is in
excess of twenty feet or more below all the adjacent properties so that
anybody who might otherwise be affected as might occur on a flat piece of
property is not to be affected here because they will look across the roof of
the property regardless of the building height. She stated you cannot see the
property from the nearby public streets.
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.
ITEM N0. 2 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 4047
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: JOHN J. STEVENS, 1570 W. Katella Ave.., Anaheim, CA
92802. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately .26 acre, having a frontage of approximately 89 feet on the
south side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 126
feet, being located approximately 225 feet east of the centerline of Bayless
Street, and further described as 1570 West Katella Avenue.
Waivers of permitted location of freestanding signs and permitted wall signs
to construct a 52 square-foot freestanding sign and retain 5 wall signs.
There were 2 people indicating their presence in opposition and no
correspondence was received.
John Stevens, 1570 W. Katella, stated they need the sign because they need to
have more exposure to create more business.
Scott Nash, 1820 Eileen Dr., stated his house is directly to the south of the
subject proposal. He stated that property's driveway enters about midway to
the center of his backyard. He stated there is not a lot of tree coverage
hiding it and with the large sign in the front, he might see a lot of neon
reflection through his backyard. He stated he is mostly concerned about his
privacy. He stated his den is in that area and he is going to get a lot of
reflection in it. He stated he believes that everybody has the perfect right
to put anything they want to substain their business,, but when it affects the
personal aspect of other peoples' homes it can become a real problem. He
stated it might even take away from his property value if he sells the house.
• •
MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR May 17 1990 PAGE 3
Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Nash what kind of a fence or block wall is there
between his property and the subject property and Mr. Nash responded it is a
six foot cinder block fence and that there are trees lining one side of it.
Hal Roach, 1537 W. Nottingham, stated their project is a condominium complex
which consists of thirty units. He stated he is president of the Homeowners
Association and they have discussed this with most of the residents there. He
stated they purchased their property because they wanted to live in a
residential type area. He stated they did not know anything about this
building going up and now it has a neon sign in front of it that faces Katella
and makes it look like a commercial type area. He stated. the homeowners where
he lives are concerned that if they start to put a lot of signs it will
attract a lot of people into the area and they will loose the fact that it
looks like a residential area and also diminish their property values.
John Stevens stated his building is very high and the sign facing to Katella
Avenue will have no flashback to the back of his yard. He stated the top
elevation is over thirty-five feet. He stated the signs have been very neatly
done, and they are very clean and attractive. He stated his business was very
publicized when he went before the Supreme Court and legalized fortune
telling. He stated it was in the newspapers and on television. He stated he
had a sign when he was constructing the building that read "Palm Reader,
Coming Soon" and the City made him take it off because he did not have a
permit for it. He stated when he first applied for a building permit a
neighbor came and objected to the large sign and now she has sold her property
and moved away and other than that, they have had no problems with other
neighbors. He stated a lot of the neighbors came by and congratulated them
for the beautiful job they have done and how well they maintain their
building. He stated the monument sign would be very neatly done, it would not
hurt any other businesses in the area and it would not be a distraction or
look like an eye sore. He stated this is a classy building and that is the
way they want to keep it up. He stated he is willing to work with the City
any way he can.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked if the freestanding sign has been reviewed by the City
Traffic Engineer regarding the visibility from the driveway to Ratella Avenue
and Mr. Stevens responded they told him it needs a thirty-five foot setback to
the next adjoining property. Ms. Santalahti stated Mr. Steven's original
conditional use permit established a number of waivers in connection with the
the residential structure with a commercial use which is a legitimate use
permit and, at that time, there was quite a bit of discussion on the signage
and, in fact, one of the waivers originally advertised did request rather than
the eight-foot sign that was permitted under code, a thirty square foot sign,
but that particular waiver was withdrawn at the hearing. She stated, in
addition, another concern is the commercial recreation area enhancement study
which is referred to in the staff report. She stated signs are a major visual
impact and that monument type signs, which are low signs, are clearly
• • ~-
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 17, 1990 PAGE 4
what that study is going to recommend. She stated this property leads into
the commercial recreation area and is within a few thousand feet of it. She
stated she was hoping that there had been some discussion between Mr. Stevens
and staff regarding a monument type sign about four feet high.
Mr. Stevens stated there has been no discussion over that, but this sign was
suggested by the designer. He stated they need a sign to create business.
Ms. Santalahti stated the building. is very close to the street. She stated he
does have a hardship because his driveway is so close to the building and the
side property line in the sense that the building already blocks the
line-of-sight. She stated the only kind of freestanding sign she would
approve is a monument type sign.
Ms. Santalahti stated she would like to continue this item for at least two
weeks because she would like a four by four foot monument sign. She stated
Mr. Stevens should take a look at his property relative to where he would like
to have the sign re-located and then verify with the Traffic Engineer's Office
that that location will not block the line-of-sight between the driveway and
Katella Avenue. She stated she has seen a number of signs for businesses like
his and some in very similar types of areas. She stated she thought a
monument type sign would not cause any type of problem with glare from
lighting.
Ms. Santalahti asked if he would accept a two week continuance. She stated
that would mean he would have to come up with an elevation drawing within one
week so that staff has time to review it and Mr. Stevens agreed it would be
okay. She stated the City will not renotify his neighbors and that his item
would probably be first on the agenda.
Leonard McGhee stated he does not think this type of sign or its animated
nature has been addressed in terms of the CR-Study.
Ms. Santalahti stated Mr. McGhee is correct and that all she has talked about
was the physical size of the sign but there is more to it. She stated she is
going to continue this for two weeks, but during those two weeks Mr. Stevens
has to take a look at where he can put it in the front of the property, to
talk to his sign designer and submit an elevation to staff which includes the
actual message on the sign.
She continued this item to the May 31, 1990 Zoning Administrator meeting. She
stated she has not discussed the existing wall signs and she will wait until
the next meeting to talk about them.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 17, 1990 PAGE 5
ITEM N0. 3 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 4050
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: LEWIS and SHEILA FRIEND, 1309 North Minot Street,
Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: MILLIE CZECH, 13925 Yale Street, #100, Irvine, CA
92720. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately .14 acre, having a frontage of approximately 59 feet on the
west side of Minot Street, having a maximum depth of 104 feet, being located
approximately 570 feet south of the centerline of Coronet Avenue, and further
described as 1309 North Minot Street.
Waiver of minimum rear yard to retain an existing 230 square-foot patio
enclosure attached to a single-family residence.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received. '
Millie Czech, 13925 Yale Street, Irvine, stated she has pictures to submit.
She stated this situation has existed for about fifteen years.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked, if she approved this, could the owners obtain a building
permit on the structure and does this property comply with today's codes. Ms.
Czech answered yes, that the inspectors have been out and they have approved
everything. Ms. Santalahti stated there is a five-foot wide public utility
easement to the rear, and asked if she has talked to the Utilities Department
to see if they can obtain their approval. Ms. Czech answered the electrical
and plumbing inspectors have all been out and they have approved it.
Ms. Santalahti asked how the physical electrical lines actually sit relative
to this proposal, do they go over this property and Ms. Czech answered they do
not go over the proposal. Ms. Santalahti asked if all the neighbors have been
contacted personally and Ms. Czech stated everyone has talked about it and
there has been no problem regarding the proposal.
Ms. Santalahti stated the aerial map shows that the setback goes down to about
five feet in the rear and what concerns her is whether utility lines are a
problem or not. She stated this'is a little closer than some of the other
miscellaneous additions that have been made to neighborhood houses.
Ms. Santalahti asked why is this variance being filed and Ms. Czech answered
the property has been sold and this was an outcome of the sale.
Mr. McGhee stated the Utilities Department goes out to determine what
requirements are necessary, but they have not approved anything yet.
The Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class
1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 17, 1990 PAGE 6
Ms. Santalahti stated she is going to approve Variance No. 4050 on the basis
that there are several other lots in the area that have similar setbacks that
appear to go as close as five feet to the rear property lines, however, they
will have to obtain a building permit in accordance with all the current
regulations that are applicable and she is going to modify Condition No. 1
which is that they apply for an encroachment permit for the encroachment into
the five foot utility easement if required by the Public Utilities Department
and also that proof of the approval be submitted to the Planning Department.
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
a s 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.
ITEM NO 4 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1, ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT N0.
90-01 (PUBLIC HEARING)
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: VICKIE BEARUP-GAMARRA, 855 Redondo Drive East,
Anaheim, CA 92801 Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.16 acre, having a frontage of approximately 79
feet on the west side of Redondo Drive East, having a maximum depth of
approximately 91 feet, being located approximately 680 feet north of North
Street and further described as 855 North Redondo Drive East.
To permit a large family day care facility for up to 12 children.
This was originally advertised to give public notification of the proposal and
during the notification period, the City received one telephone call in
concern and opposition with the project, therefore, a public hearing was
scheduled.
There were 2 people indicating their presence in favor and no correspondence
was received.
Vickie Bearup-Gamarra, 855 N. Redondo Drive East, stated she is applying for a
permit of a large family day care of twelve or less children.
Sally Lewis, 855 Redondo Drive East, stated she hopes that Mrs. Gamarra will
get this permit. She stated she understands she is self-supporting and does
not wish to put her two-year old son in someone else's care at this time. She
stated Mrs. Gamarra has been taking care of children with a license for up to
six children and since she lives right across the street there does not seem
to be any problem with parking or mothers dropping off their children.
Leslie C. Webb, 849 Redondo Drive East, stated he lives next door to Mrs.
Bearup-Gamarra. He stated there has been no disturbance and they are glad to
have her there and he thinks she is well qualified for the job she is doing.
He stated she is a benefit to the City and to their neighborhood.
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MaY 17, 1990 PAGE 7
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked Mrs. Bearup-Gamarra how long has she been licensed to
operate with six or less children and Mrs. Bearup-Gamarra answered for
thirteen months.
Ms. Santalahti stated the protest call received on February 22, 1990 was
concerned with the loading and unloading of children in the street and the
possible increase of traffic in their neighborhood associated with a larger
facility. She stated that a facility for six children does not go through any
kind of public proceeding so the City sometimes does not know about it. She
stated based on others having both six and twelve children facilities, she is
not aware of the City receiving any complaints based on traffic. She stated
she does not think Traffic Engineering has ever found it to be a problem,
including anybody even complaining about it.
The Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class
1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
Ms. Santalahti stated she will approve Administrative Use Permit No. 90-01 on
the basis that the property complies with the existing site development
standards of the underlying RS-10,000 Zone and that the proposal is in
compliance with the appropriate State of California regulations as to the
findings including the minimum required distances from any other Large Family
Day Cares and adequate parking being available on site.
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.
ITEM N0. 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0044
(PUBLIC HEARING)
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: SHARISH PATEL, 1600 S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92802. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.03 acres, having a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the
east side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 600
feet and being located approximately 640 feet north of the centerline of
Freedman Way, and further described as 1600 South Harbor Boulevard (Desert
Inn).
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to convert eighteen (18) 2-room
suites of an existing 114-unit motel into thirty-six (36) single units (132
units total).
• •
MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 17 1990 PAGE 8
John Swint, 707 W. North Street, stated the owners and he have both read the
staff report and they are unhappy with the recommendations stated. He stated
he understands what the intent of Ordinance No. 5126 is, and that they are
concerned about not issuing any permits for any enlargements or expansions
whatsoever. He stated he would like to emphasize that this building is under
construction, that there is no added footage intended, no added plumbing and
that there is no need for any new permits. He stated he is hoping that the
Zoning Administrator can disregard item (B) of the staff report entirely and
act favorly today on this proposal.
Larry Young, Manager of Legal Department Administration for Denny's
Restaurants, 3345 Michaelson Drive, Irvine, stated he directed a letter to
Mr. Kevin Bass on April 16, 1990, noting some concerns that Denny's
Restaurants have relative to the project under construction. He stated they
are directly south and adjoining the project under construction. He stated
within the next day or two after his letter, they reviewed a traffic study,
certain plans, inspected the site, and thus have determined the project under
construction will present no problem whatsoever for Denny's Restaurant. He
stated they are supporting this request and hope that the City can agree that
it is a favorable improvement to that property and that the Traffic Study
answered all the questions they had.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti stated the difficulty with this project is that while it is not
an increase in square footage it is an increase in density in that the number
of actual leasable or rentable units are being increased thereby necessitating
a greater number of parking spaces and although, it may only be a seven
percent requirement that they are off by, it fits into the Urgency Ordinance
adopted by City Council recently.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated that ordinance prohibits any kind of
expansion. She stated the fact that the parking requirement is expanded would
be an indication that there already has been analysis that indicates that
there is somewhat of an expansion even though the square footage remains the
same.
Ms. Santalahti stated on that basis this item does have to be continued at
least until the Zoning Administrator meeting after the date Council will be
reviewing the Urgency Ordinance and that is to the June 28, 1990 Zoning
Administrator meeting. She asked Mr. Swint if the owners concur in that she
will either have to continue this item or if they insist on a decision she
will have to deny it on the basis of it being in violation and not consistent
with the Urgency Ordinance.
Mr. Swint stated he does not think they have any other choice than to continue
it.
Ms. Mann stated the applicant does have the choice of having it denied and
appealing it to the City Council.
• •
MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 17, 1990 PAGE 9
Ms. Santalahti stated in connection with the Urgency Ordinance when it comes
back to the City Council at the end of the initial forty-five day period the
Council is going to be taking a close look at it and among other things they
are going to take a look at projects presumably like his that are in some
state of flux as a result of the Ordinance. She stated there might be some
adjustments made to the Ordinance.
Ms. Santalahti stated she is going to continue this hearing to the
June 28, 1990 meeting and that the hearing will continue at that time.
ITEM N0. 6. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. VARIANCE N0. 3950 REQUEST REVIEW OF REVISED PLANS FOR SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE: J.R. Drukin requests review of revised plans at 924 South
Cambridge Street for substantial conformance.
Jerry Drukin, 710 N. Euclid St., #215, stated he is here to request that the
Zoning Administrator review.a set of revised plans for an apartment project.
He stated a variance for height was approved last year. He stated they have
changed the development plans and in most cases lowered the intensity of the
development. He stated they have changed from a five unit project to a four
unit project, they have decreased the amount of coverage on the site, the
number of parking spaces have remained the same even though they have
decreased the number of units due to an increase of parking requirements over
the last twelve month period, and the buildings are less intense because they
are divided rather than all in one structure. He stated they increased the
number of bedrooms, however, mitigated by the fact that they did not decrease
the number of parking spaces. He stated the square footage of the units was
increased. He stated he has been building small buildings in Anaheim for over
five years and he has come to a conclusion over a period of years in dealing
with tenants that they tend to like a larger unit and that is what he is
intending to provide now in his projects. He stated he believes his
submission should be reviewed and looked upon as in substantial conformance
with the existing approval. He stated one of the ridge lines on the building
is a little bit higher than what was pointed out on the staff report. He
stated on the plan it is twenty seven feet and on the staff report it is
called out as a maximum height of twenty five feet, although, he believes the
maximum height on his zone is thirty five feet.
Ms. Santalahti noted, on page two of the staff report on the chart of
comparisons, the parking appears to be incorrect. She stated it says the
original had a total of twelve covered spaces and the current one has a total
of eight covered.
Mr. Drukin stated now there are eight covered plus four open spaces.
Ms. Santalahti asked if the original proposal had only the twelve covered
spaces and Mr. Drukin stated the original proposal included a parking
structure and that is why you had the significant coverage on this lot. He
stated all the parking spaces were in the parking structure, so they were all
covered. He stated now he has twelve parking spaces, three and a half for
each three bedroom unit versus two and a half for two-bedroom units.
•
•
MINUTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 17, 1990 PAGE 10
Ms. Santalahti stated they have to correct the staff report before it is
distributed to the City Council to indicate that there are eight covered
spaces and four open spaces.
Ms. Santalahti asked how the trash is going to be accommodated and if this is
a project that can be done with trash cans being taken to the streets and
Mr. Drukin said it was.
Ms. Santalahti stated the only difficulty she has on this proposal is that the
bedroom count is being doubled from five bedrooms to ten. She stated she
realizes that there is an increase in parking so the project satisfies code.
She stated it is not a deck-type project any longer.
Ms. Santalahti stated she is going to approve the revised plans as being
substantially in accordance with the intent of the original height waiver.
She stated this item does not have a written decision, just a copy of the
minutes, but the information will be reviewed by the City Council as an
informational item.
ITEM N0. 7 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0049 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5:
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to expand an existing restaurant at
1827 W. Katella Avenue, #A & #C, (Ararat's) .
Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on
Administrative Adjustment No. 0049 and noted the appeal period would end May
17, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act on this item after May 17, 1990.
ITEM N0. 8 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 10:40
a.m.
Minutes prepared by:
Minutes approved by:
Margarit Perez Annika M. Santalahti
Acting Se retary Zoning Administrator
0485g