Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2001/05/03• • ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2001 9:30 A.M. ACZA050301. DOC STAFF PRESENT: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator David See, Associate Planner Chris Martel, Code Enforcement Ofcr. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Deborah Knefel, Deputy City Attorney Janice O'Connor, Senior Secretary Kevin Bass, Assoc. Plnr. 1a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 4 1b. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER NO. 2001-00013 APPROVED OWNER: Walmart Attn: Tom Ohlendorf 440 N. Euclid Street Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 440 N. Euclid Street: Property consists of 38.25 acres bounded on the north by Crescent Avenue, on the east by Loara Street, 10 day appeal period. on the south by the Santa Ana (1-5) Freeway, and on the west by Euclid Street. Request for a Special Circumstances Waiver to permit the long term outdoor SR1003CW.doc storage and display of merchandise including swing sets, seasonal displays, plant pallets, picnic tables, and banners fora "big box" retail store located (cwapner(a~anaheim.net) within an existing regional shopping center in the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. DECISION No. (letter doc. # scw2001-00013) No one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal. the Zoning Administrator approved Special Circumstances Waiver No. 2001-13 for the herein described special events, subject to compliance with the following conditions: That the outdoor displays shall conform with the dates, number of displays and signage specified in Finding No. 2, above; and that this approval is only for calendar year 2001. • • 2. That not less than five (5) days prior to commencement of the activities authorized by Special Circumstances Waiver No. 2001-00013, the applicant shall obtain a Special Event Permit from the Planning Department for each of the requested special events. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein. 4. That under no circumstances shall any of the displays encroach into the parking area or outside the area shown on Exhibit Nos. 1 (layout) and 2 (site plan); and that a minimum six (6) foot clear pedestrian access shall be maintained along the sidewalk between the displays and the landscaped planters next to the curb. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposal only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. In addition to those conditions, which will be attached to the decision in a letter done on it, the letter is specific as to what is permitted. She will add: a. Under no circumstances is any of this to encroach into the parking area out of the area shown on the plan. b. Around the planters next to the curb, there shall be a minimum six-foot clear radius on the sidewalk side. Which potentially means there might be approximately aten-foot distance from the curb to maintain that kind of pedestrian freedom of movement. • 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04402 Request for Withdrawal OWNER: Jerine A. Knox 226 S. Glassell St. Orange, CA 92866 AGENT: Malkoff and Associates Attn: Scott Minami 18456 Lincoln Circle Villa Park, CA 92861 LOCATION: 1190 North Van Horne WaV. Property is 0.51 acre located at Var. 15 day the southeast corner of Coronado Street and Van Horne Way. Appeal period. The petitioner requests a modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to permitted hours of operation for apreviously-approved waiver to permit and retain existing 22-foot high ground-mounted equipment fora Project Planner: wood shop facility in the SP94-1, Development Area No. 1 (Industrial Area) (kbassCcilanaheim.net) Zone. Continued from the February 22, March 22, 2001 meetings. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Doc. No. (Excerpt VAR2000-04402) David See, Senior Planner stated that he would let the applicant discuss that but there is a withdrawal request and applicant can, perhaps, discuss the timing and when the move will take place. Applicant's Statement: Mel Malkoff, Malkoff and Associates spoke represent Knox Cabinets, 18456 Lincoln in Villa Park, California. They have spent a year and half since he was retained, trying to find solutions to solve the neighbors problems and the noise/illegal outside usage. They have given up. They are opening escrow this week on a 30,000 square-foot facility in another town, the City of Orange, it is a 75 day escrow with the owner retaining the right for two, 30-day extensions. They anticipate by the end of September at the latest they will be gone. They have looked at a second building as well, but at this point, in discussions with the City staff (he took time to thank staff for visiting him in his hospital bed) and discussed a range of options and things that can be done. The bottom line was the variance was approved to allow the outside equipment to remain/be made legal and to screen it or otherwise soften its impression. They cannot get the manufacturer to cooperate, they have threatened litigation, and they have had no success. They have astop-gap solution right now to address the noise, they have purchased, and it is in their building, an internal dust control system and they intend to seek permits for it, they intend to install that system for the short interim time that remains and they are currently trying to see the dust collector system to anybody. They have asked for 90 days which is pretty much coincident with the time it takes to leave, they will either sell it or remove it. At this point, he thanks the City and Code Enforcement for working with them, there have been a lot of different options and it is just not working. Annika asked for clarification if he estimated that the equipment that is outdoors would be gone within 90 days if everything works. • • Mr. Malkoff agreed. He stated that whether they sell it or not, he has directed the client that if he cannot sell it by the 90'h day, he needs to remove it and either lay it down flat so it is not visually intrusive or remove it from that site. The other thing they offered in the letter of withdrawal was to continue with the original hours of operation of the dust collector system. He stated that he was talking with the neighbor Jack First prior to the hearing who advised him that the unit is still being used outside those hours. Mr. Malkoff stated he knows that Knox Cabinets (who was out of town this day) has a new shop supervisor and they will remind him of the appropriate hours of operation and if he cannot get a job done, he does not get to finish the job that day. Mr. Malkoff stated he did have a disturbing conversation with their neighbor Mr. First, on March 19, 2001, it has been reported to the police department because there was a threat of violence and it has been reported through the Sheriffs Department in Villa Park, as that is where the call originated. Between that and some discussion his client had with Planning and Building staff, they reached the conclusion that they just needed to move. He is there to answer any questions. Annika asked if staff had any additional comments. Kevin Bass, Associate Planner stated that in withdrawing this variance, it is pertaining to the screening of the unpermitted outdoor [noise] and staff would like to have that equipment disconnected and the ducts removed since there is going to be an alternative dust collection system and this system was the primary source of the complaint. If it is disconnected and ducting removed at the end of the appeal period, then they can start their process for taking it down and for selling it. At least it will no longer be hooked up to the building since they have an alternative dust collecting system that will be operating. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti asked if this was practical for Mr. Malkoff. Mr. Malkoff indicated they have the other dust collection system, it needs to be plumbed and permits need to be pulled for it. As soon as they have that working they can...well basically it padlocks the Napco [equipment] because it is simply no longer plumbed, it will physically standing there until they can sell it. They have some interested parties, but they will remove it as soon as they can. What is more important is as soon as they can put in the internal system, the Napco Equipment will not work and that will solve the outside noise issue. They are also asking the supervisor to do a better job of keeping the door shut when they are using some of the noisier equipment like the motor and the planers, which is the other principal source of noise. That usually comes through the open door. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti asked if it would be workable then to put a limitation that within a period of 30 days from May 3, 2001, that the outdoor stuff will be disconnected and not be utilized? She stated that the appeal period for her Actions, the physical appeal period, is actually 15 days from the date of the written decisions, that would be 22 days and she would be putting on another 2 days, making it a month from today [5/3/01]. She asked if there was some reason why this might be a problem? Mr. Malkoff replied that it would be 90 days to get a building permit. There is an interim solution and he guesses this is an awkward thing, he can either put it on the record or just ignore the fact, they could hook up the equipment immediately and get their permits. That would solve the noise issue. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti stated that she understands it is easy enough to disconnect it but getting the other [equipment] operational... Mr. Malkoff stated that if they do not have a substitute system the business is shutdown and that is not workable. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti stated this seems like a long time but she realizes this is more complex than wiring in some electrical outlets. • Mr. Malkoff stated it is a lot quicker to hook up the equipment which they could probably do in about 5 to 6 working days and they could then pursue the permitting, at least that would immediately extinguish the noise problem and that they could do within 30 days. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti asked what, in terms of installing the new equipment, what does that involve, is there actually a building permit involved because they are putting a hole in the roof or something of that sort? Mr. Malkoff stated that since they had an internal system before, they did not think they needed to get a new one as they are simply replacing it. Under that interpretation, they would simply put the internal system back in. The only issue they had before was that the Fire Department asked as to the placement of sawdust, this internal system will still require that they move bags out to the exterior system. That solves the Fire Department's concern in which case they can just go ahead and install it next week. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti stated that what she would do, since there has been so much time spent on the variance, the request that is technically before her is the modification of the approval the variance received some time ago. In withdrawing the request, the request for the modification or deletion, we are actually looking at terminating this variance, ultimately. Kevin Bass stated that they are looking at a termination of the variance because the outdoor equipment which is actually the essence of the variance will be removed, therefore the variance will no longer be necessary, it is a full termination that we are looking at. Mr. Jack First, 2881 Coronado Street, Villa Park. He does "not quite understand what is going on here right now" he knows they are talking about taking the machine down but they are also wanting to work longer hours and a lot of the work that is done there is done out in the parking lot, if they are going to be going into the night, they are running power saws, steam cleaners, forklifts and things like that, which are supposed to be, except for forklifts, inside the building. Thaf is going to be a concern with the noise. The other thing is, Mr. Malkoff, "1 don't know what he is thinking of but 1 never made any violent threats of gunfire or anything like that " (Note: Mr. Malkoff did not state what type of threat was made, i.e. gunfire, he just stated there was a threat of violence.] The noise after that time is what he is concerned with. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti indicated she did not think Mr. Malkoff was indicating that. She then went on to state that unfortunately if they continue to not watch what they are doing, they cannot do anything outdoors. As far as any of their regular processing, it was only the equipment which was the subject for this variance in any case. The reason she asked for the timing and how stuff is going on is how to actually handle this action today. If she were to take this withdrawal and terminate the zoning action, her inclination is to take action to terminate this variance, effective one month from today [5/3/01]. That is on the anticipation that things will be clearly down the path of moving and stuff will be happening that makes that obvious. Code Enforcement will continue to keep an eye out and Mr. First will complain to them and if they are doing any kind of operation outside that is not specifically related to getting the dust remover stuff taken care of, that is a completely separate issue and completely a violation too. They need to take care of that as that is a valid complaint regardless of whether or not there is a residential area near by, it is prohibited outdoor functions in the northeast industrial are to start with. She asked if staff had any additional thoughts or suggestions. Kevin Bass suggested that during the 30 day time period the door be kept closed during business hours. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti indicated that there would be no outdoor activities by the employees. She stated that she assumes Mr. First has a working relationship with Code Enforcement staff on this issue so if there are problems then Code Enforcement will make visits to the premises to remind them if Mr. Malkoffs recommendations do not sink in. She stated that at the 5/3/01 Zoning Administrator meeting there could be a report and recommendation at that time to give a status report on where everything is sitting and relative to whether Code Enforcement has had any interim difficulties during that time. • • 3. Items of Public interest: NONE