Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1999/09/09ACTION AGENDA REGULAR .MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 9:30 A.M. Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer David See, Associate Engineer Danielle Masciel, Word Processing Operator PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3 1b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-128 OWNER: James Warcen Schmidt 6200 Tobruk Court Long Beach, CA 90803 AGENT: Doug Boynton/Bob Dupuy 729 East Willow Street Signal Hill, CA 90806 LOCATION: 117 South Western Avenue (Q.S. 5): Properly is 0.87- acres, having a frontage of 129 feet on the west side of Western Avenue, and a maximum depth of 290 feet and is located 135 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. To establish a 2-lot commercial subdivision for an existing self-serve car wash facility and drive-through restaurant in the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Approved Approved ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA99-37 Continued from the July 29 and August 12, 1999 Zoning Administrator SR7483vk.doc meetings, Np one was present in opppsition of this project. Joseph Curd., Attorney 301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 460, Long Beach, CA 90803, present to represent the applicants. uososss.ooc Pagel Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Recapped the concerns of the last meeting. There were concerns with the rewording of the conditions. Another issue was in regard to the meeting with Streets and Sanitation Division. There were some questions asked verifying 'rf there were no on-site difficulties. David See, Associate Planner: Added that staff had also been working with Streets and Sanitation Division and they gave us revised comments recommending the deletion of Conditions 1-4 and the placement of one condition which required the refurbishment of the existing trash endosure. Mr. Curd: Stated that the refurbishment wanted was the trash enclosures gated. The Streets and Sanitation Division forwarded a set of plans that illustrated the types of gates they wanted and that was acceptable. Ms. Santalahti: Stated that the other item was whether Traffic Engineering staff could take a look at the project to see if there were any improvements to the on-site circulation in any way because of the drive- through restaurant portion of the property. Questioned if they had a chance to look at that. Mr. See: Responded that yes, in fact they did, and unless Melanie Adams had anything else to add, there were no further comments or recommend from the Public Works Department. Ms. Santalahti: Stipulated that one items be added as a condition regarding a requirement for no fencing to be installed which might adversely effect circulation between the two properties as well as between the alley and Western Avenue. The other item which was not addressed in the staff report was the applicant releasing access rights along the portions of the alley accept as currently shown on the sight plan. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer: Stated that the matter was discussed with Vanessa Knox, the project planner. Given the fact that we were allowing access at a certain points it did not seem appropriate for them to relinquish their access rights in other areas. I was not deemed necessary to go that extra step. Ms. Santalahti: Hypothesized that one or both of the parcels are redeveloped the issue of alley access would be visited again because at that time if there was some kind of reasoning for that then the City could in view of that specific project could require a partial or complete relinquishment of access rights. Ms. Adams: Responded to the correct statement that it could be analyzed at that time. The Traffic and Transportation Manager does review each project whether they are building by right or coming before the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. Mr. Curd: Recapped the discussion for clarity on a couple of the conditions and possibly negotiated the wording. Cond. No. 5 With respect to old C.U.P. or variances that we need to wave. Terminating Variance 2756 with respect to the Diagnostic Shop. C.U.P. 1026 the letter was prepared only to relinquish any CUP for the accessory Gasoline pumps. It was not my understanding that we would be terminating this CUP for the automatic car wash because in fact the owner of the carwash might wish to install such a feature in the future. There is one item missing. We did discuss the on-site beer and wine license for the drive-through restaurant. The discussion was that it was not currently being used. There isn't the sale of beer and wine. Ms. Santalahti: Requested clarification on which CUP appears to be the one that this property is .actually developed under, exduding the drive-through dairy and accessory gasoline pumps. Mr. See: Responded that CUP No. 1458 which is Item D and the other entittement would be for accessory gasoline pumps. Ms. Santalahti: Assumed by automatic car washes what was the proposal for. Therefore Item E was clearly not the site plan that they are developed under. Mr. See: Verified that the Zoning Administrator was correct in her assumption Zoning Administrator 09-09-99 Page 2 Ms. Santalahti: Referred to the gasoline pumps, it was strange enough that Gasification was necessary to make sure that the project was developed with that something that was approved 31 years ago I'm not ioo interested in that anymore. Mr. Curd: Clarified that a full waiver of CUP No. 1026 'rf the applicant wants to have an automatic carwash when he brings his project .back. Condition No. 7 referring to the signage would indicate that it is,legai nonconforming. It there is ever a change in the business than the sign has to be 50/50 split and it has to be brought up to current code. Ms. Santalahti: Questioned what the approximate distribution of signage between businesses? Mr, Curd: Responded that he doubts that it's not equal and not totally disproportionate. Ms. Santalahti: Added to Condition No. 7 "Existing pole sign is legally nonconforming and may remain as shown on the.., Mrs. Mann: Recommended that the "Nonconforming status" speak for itself. Stated that each tenant for Lots 1 & 2 shall share the square footage on the sign panels of the existing nonconforming sign and possibly something of the exclusive signage for the establishment or something to that effect. If there is going to be additional signage then it needs to be made conforming. Mr. Curd: Stated if the signage is changed and it needs to be conforming then it is not City Code that makes the signage 50/50 on the space so we need to inGude that in the condition. I can propose some language and hope the City Attorney agrees. "That each tenant for Lots 1 and 2 shall share the square footage of the sign panels on the existing nonconforming pole sign" Then add a sentence that reads, "If the sign is changed or revised in the future, signage shall be shared equally by owners/tenants of Lots 1 and 2" If desired by the City Attomey we will also state and we wBl, at that time, conform to existing code. Or put it at the end of the last sentence where it says, 'bvith the exception of... no further modification of the existing pole sign shall be allowed without conforming the sign to then curent standards." Ms. Santalahti: Concured with applicant's suggestion on the wording. The last sentence will read, "If the existing sign is changed or revised to conform with code standards the tenant should share equally in the advertising panels " Mr. Curd: Concurred with Condition No. 8 but wanted Garfication with what the Maintenance Covenant is. Is it separate or additional to Condition No. 9. For No. 9 applicant had prepared a reciprocal easement maintenance agreement that can be submitted to the Cily Attomey. Mrs. Mann: Requested that the letter be submitted later after wording has been corrected. That way the negotiations start from a near perfect point. Mr. Curd: Clarified the understanding of the parking issue. Recalled that parking was discussed with our Engineer. There was am argument on where the patio should be inGuded in the square footage and whether or not we had enough parking. We have 20 spaces, and the question was whether we needed 23 or 18 spaces. It all related to whether or not the patios were counted. Staff reported that if there are 5 seats or 5 tables on the patios then you count them. The Engineer said there was only one and then the conversation .moved on without any resolution. Ms. Santalahti: Stated that although the numbers in the staff report indicated that the restaurant's requirement would be 27 spaces. However'rf the patios is not counted then the parking is sufficient. Mr. See: Concured that the applicant was corect in the analysis that 10 or fewer seats and 5 or less tables would not increase the parking requirement. Zoning Administrator 09-09-99 Page 3 Mrs. Adams: Stated that Condition No. 8 could blend into Condition No. 9. The particular item that we have concerns with in this case is that they are probably sharing some private plumbing and sewer lines. Those issues need to be addressed now that they are having lwo parcels. Ms. Santalahti: Inquired how many seats there are in the outdoor seating area? Mc Curd: Stated that each patio has one table. One for patrons and one for employees Ms. Santalahti: Stated reiterated that there was shared sewer and plumbing. Are there any odd implications of that far them other than they both :pay for maintenance work. Mrs. Adams: They both need to share in the maintenance work and anticipate the maintenance issues. Mr. See: Stated that staff confirmed that there were only two tables on the lot. No one was present in opposition of this said project. Public Hearing Closed: Mrs. Mann: Stated that with regard to the deletion of the word "parking", that determination is being made on the basis of the use as it exist today. It does conform to parking and some sort of language is needed that would acknowledge that in the CC & R's if we are deleting that. This is such a small project, there has to be something that is recorded against the property that will in effect recognize that there is going to be cooperation between the two parcels in addressing any parking issues that arise. Ms. Santalahti: Stated that this is what the subdivision will reflect that if either tenant makes any changes that increase they either have to work together to deal with it or seek a waiver that may or may not be approved. It will be incorporated into the condition what the existing situation is on the property. Mrs. Mann: Requested that it be stated as a recital rather than a condition that indicates the basis for this decision. (i.e.: Whereas's). Ms. Santalahti: Stated her decision of approval for the project. Zoning Administrator 09-09-99 Page 4 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: 2b. VARIANCE N0.4367 OWNER: Walgreen's Company 128 South State College Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92806 Timothy J. and Daryldine Brunst 34205 Doheny Park Road Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Greg Gerry and William Briggs 2107 East Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Tim O'Neil -Evergreen Development 1300 East Missouri, A-200 Phoenix, AR 85014 LOCATION: 128 South State College Boulevard, 2015-2107 East Lincoln Avenue and 2104 Ward Terrace (ld.S. 112): Property is 1.45 acre, irregularly-shaped parcel having frontages of 394 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 145 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 129 feet on the south side of Ward Terrace. For waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (79 required; 73 provided). To consWct adrive-through pharmacy. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. Withdrawn sr1006tw.doc 3. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE ADJOURN TO THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1999 AT 9:30 A.M. FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING Zoning Administrator 09-09-99 Page 5