Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2000/12/28! !- ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2000 9:30 A.M. Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney David See, Senior Planner Chris Martel, Code Enforcement Officer Danielle Masciel, Word Processor REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 b. VARIANCE N0.2000-04402 OWNER: Jerine A. Knox 226 South Glassell Street Orange, CA 92866 AGENT: Malkoff & Associates 18456 Lincoln Circle Villa Park, CA 92861 Scott Minami LOCATION: 1190 North Van Horne Way: Property is 0.51 acre located at the southeast corner of Coronado Street and Van Horne Way, having frontages of 125 feet on the south side of Coronado Street and 179 feet on the east side of Van Horne Way. Three month check on status of applicant's complying with conditions of approval regarding waiver of required screening for permitted accessory equipment (22-foot high screen required; 8-foot high wall existing) to permit and retain two existing unpermitted 22-foot high ground-mounted equipment for a wood shop facility in the SP94-1, Development Area No. 1 (Industrial Area) Zone. This item was to be reviewed in three months as an R&R item from the August 10, 2000 meeting. This item was continued ftom the November 16, 2000 to December 28, 2000. Received and filed staff report. Set for Public Hearing on 2/22/2001 to be readvertised ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. 99-48 Project Planner: (kbass(u~anaheim.net) ZA122800.DOC 12/28/00 Page 1 Mel Malkoff was present to represent the owner for this proposal. He contests with Condition No. 2, which pertained to the hours of operation. Also iterated that there had been difficulties retaining a building permit due to unforeseen problems with contacting the manufacturer to receive blueprint plans on the equipment. There is only a six month period to clear up this problem therefore requesting permission from the Building Division to request permits to erect a sound wall around the equipment in efforts to immediately address the noise problems. We do have the structural analysis report updated to current 1997 Uniform Building Code. The foundation that the equipment is on is stable. As for the owner he relied on a reputable manufacture to do what was needed to install the equipment and obtain the appropriate permits. The manufacturer made statements on the equipment's performance however it is undersized; the cyclone doesn't have the right velocities inside to suck the dust from a number of pieces that we have. We still are trying to pull final building permits and put up a wall within the six months period. Mr. Jack First was present in opposition. He stated that the only concern he had was the noise generated by the equipment and that he did not feel that there had been any improvement in that respect. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator addressed a question to Mr. First pertaining to the complaints that have been made. The concern is that the dust equipment noise goes beyond the hours of operation. Mr. First stated that he had logged the hours that the noise exists and there had been times the noise went on passed the operating hours. David See pointed out that staff recommended that this item be reconsidered at the February 22, 2001 Zoning Administrator meeting. A readvertisment was recommended and a change to the condition. Also draft new wording to address the separate uses that exist and make it enforceable. Staff would work closely with Code Enforcement, the neighbor, the owner and the City Attorney's office. Annika Santalahti stated that there are locations where the industrial impacts are still felt much more strongly and certain kinds of activities can take place in industrial areas that you would not have occurring in residential areas or commercial office areas. In this instance with the legitimate residential uses that remain in the area. Ms. Santalahti asked in regards to the issue on the sound generated by the equipment. Has an acoustical specialist looked at it and made any recommendations towards external improvements? Mr. Malkoff explained that he hired Shroan and Associates, an acoustical consultant. The recommendation was to purchase a muffler, which we did. It dropped the noise pressure levels by about 6 or 7 dBs yet we are 1 point above the allowance on the property line above the City's standard. The solution was to build a wall. We are still operating under the idea of finishing the construction within the six month time period however, the plans are still in plan check and we are just waiting for approval to get the building permits. Ms. Santalahti confirmed with staff that a 22 foot high wall is required as a visual screening and with the location of this wall there aren't any setback issues. Mr. See confirmed that the wall is outside of the setback area so it is considered more like a part of the main building wall. Ms. Santalahti acknowledged the efforts put forth by the applicant as well as the consistency from Mr. First with his concerns. I think in this instance I will accept this status report on the properties as submitted. I would like Variance No. 2000-04202 to be scheduled for public hearing on February 22, 2001 for the following reasons. First to consider amending the conditions of approval to change Condition No. 11 to reflect more accurately the business activities as limited by the hours of operation. The explanation seems totally reasonable. Secondly to give the applicant time to possibly relocate or perhaps get better imput from the manufacturer of the equipment so they could get that into compliance. 12/28/00 Page 2 • • The issuance of a building permit isn't something the Zoning Administrator would get involved with. It is strictly a Building Division issue. In setting this item for public hearing it is possible that the reason for the variance will no longer exist on that date. A public notice will go out to everybody and Code Enforcement will be checking up on everything. Mr. See asked Mr. First to let us know when the exterior equipment is functioning and Code Enforcement will remind the business owner of holding the hours that are listed in the decision relative to the dust collection equipment. A letter is going to go out on this meeting accepting the status report that has come in and noting that this item will be scheduled for a public hearing on February 22, 2001 or soon thereafter to consider amending Condition No. 11. Also forward a copy of the Decision letter to Mr. First. 12/28/00 Page 3 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 4 2b. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER N0.2000-00006 OWNER: Lederer Anaheim Limited 1990 Westwood Blvd., 3`~ Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Attn: Les Lederer AGENT: Alexis Kaiser, ProVantage Inc. 2713 Parco Avenue Ontario, CA 91761 LOCATION: 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard: Property is 14.74 acres, located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, with a frontages of 725 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue and 485 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard. To permit a three day outdoor used automobile sales event in the parking lot of the Anaheim Indoor Swapmeet property. Concurred with staff Approved Project Planner: (dsee@anaheim.net) Alexis Kaiser was present to represent this project. She stated that there were not extraordinary circumstances other than just an idea that they wanted to do something to bust January sales at the Marketplace. This is only a 3-day event. Annika Santalahti requested a description of what this event looks like in other cities and also how many vehicles do you expect at this location? Ms. Kaiser stated that the "Tent" area is where the business is conducted and that the vehicles are parked outside around the tent. This is a small site so we would probably have 200 cars. The sale sets up Thursday, conducts sales Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and is off site by Monday noon. Ms. Santalahti stated that this would be the first time something like this would be approved on property that is not a car dealership. Which makes it totally a precedent since we can see the out come of this. Because getting it approved one time doesn't make it a guarantee that they will get it again. Ms. Kaiser asked what would really be the difference from having a circus there. Ms. Santalahti stipulated that the Zoning Code identifies circus or fairs as a separate type of event. In the municipal code they consider issuing special event permits in the context that normally this property has retail sales and they could have a sidewalk or parking lot event under a special event permit. Further asked where the event would be located on the parking lot. Ms. Kaiser identified the packet that was attached to the staff report. Ms. Santalahti asked if there was imput from other departments that might have an interest in this event. David See stated that he did speak with Traffic Engineering and Redevelopment and neither were opposed to this proposal. There would be several other departments involved if it were approved such as the Fire Department and perhaps Utilities. Ms. Santalahti asked if the weekend of January 26, 27 and 28 was any type of holiday weekend. 12/28/00 Page 4 Ms. Kaiser answered that is was just a weekend that the slots were opened, because we take the show someplace different every weekend. And the swapmeet wanted something there during their slow time. Mr. See stated that in paragraph 5 page 2 of the staff report there is a brief description on special event permits being an issue on this property. The City Council did want to ensure that the property as a whole is considered for special event permits and not each separate business. On this property, since it had been approved, we have typically issued four special event permits per year for the property. As for this year there haven't been any special events permits issued to this property. Ms Santalahti asked how the advertising is done for something like this. Also what is on site in regards to a tent or hot dogs or anything else along those lines. Ms. Kaiser stated that it is done via the Pennysaver and insert ads. They also work with FISH radio and QUIZZ Radio. In addition we do not serve any food because we never like to interfere with the food courts. There is a tent that is put up and sometimes there is a giant Kangaroo or Clowns but that is unique to every city depending on what is permitted. Basically they will bring in three dealers for this particular show with upper end used cars and they will put a tent up where the business will be conducted. There will be a Disc Jockey playing music and probably a remote from one of the radio stations with give-aways. They will post signs and have employee sign walkers. We secure all state and local permits, licenses and insurance. There is an affixed banner on top of the tent reading "CAR SALE". Ms. Santalahti stated that she is willing to take a look at how this event turns out but wanted to make it clear that this does not have any precedence setting aspects to it at all. Anaheim Blvd. is quiet on the weekends and this location is not near any residential areas. There should be no noise problems generated by this event. Ms. Santalahti approved Special Circumstance Waiver. Conditions are as follows: 1) There will be a maximum of 200 cars on the site. 2) Any loading or unloading shall be done on the property. 3) They are not to do anything on the public streets (Anaheim Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue). 4) There shall be no food sales or give-aways on the property. 5) There shall be no inflated balloons of any size. 6) A Disc Jockey with music may be included. 7) That the signage on the property shall be limited to something attached to the tent itself, but no signage in the public right-of-way or off-site. 8) All the necessary permits be obtained through the City, including a Special Event Permit. 9) The days of this event include the set up on Thursday, the event on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and the take down on Monday. There will be no sales on Thursday or Monday. 3. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None 12/28/00 Page 5