Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2001/05/31• ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2001 9:30 A.M. ACZA053101.DOC Staff Present: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Kathie Pfost, Associate Planner Kevin Bass, Associate Planner Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Janice O'Connor, Senior Secretary REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 4 1b. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER NO. 2001-00014 WITHDRAWN (To Be Reagendized) OWNER: Disneyland Resort 1313 S. Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: John Graves Walt Disney Imagineering 888 South Disneyland Drive Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: Disney's California Adventure Theme Park Back-of-House 10 day appeal period. Area located within The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1, 292-acre Theme Park District on the north side of Katella Avenue between Disneyland Drive and Harbor Boulevard Walt Disney Imagineering has submitted a request for approval of a Special (dherrickC~Danaheim.net) Circumstances Waiver to permit the issuance of 20 Special Event Permits, in addition to the four permitted by Code, for a total of 24 Special Event Permits during the 2001 Calendar year to permit the continued use of three temporary tents from July 13, 2001 through December 31, 2001, for the purpose of protecting parade floats from direct sunlight while permanent storage facilities are being designed/constructed. The temporary tents are located in the back-of-house area of Disney's California Adventure theme park and are to be screened from public view. ZA05/31 /01 Page 1 • 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04402 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 Way. Property is 0.51 acre located at the southeast corner of Coronado Street and Van Horne Way. Request for Termination and a status report from Planning and Code APPROVED TERMINATION of Variance. 15 day appeal period Enforcement staff pertaining to code violations, status of the outdoor (kbassCa?anaheim.net) mechanical equipment, and an update on the relocation plans of the subject business. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2001-18 OPPOSITION: One person (Jack First, neighbor) indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal. This item was continued for some additional information in looking at this, a request has been made to withdraw the proposal. Does this mean that everything is up to Code? 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. ZA05/31 /01 Page 2 • • 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 90th 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 orjust 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. ZA05/31 /01 Page 3 • • 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. That 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 tyLe 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. ZA05/31 /01 Page 4 • 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. David See indicated there is a 5/31/01 and 6/14/01 meeting. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti indicated the 5/31/01 meeting would be for a report to her. She is interested that the Council does see items she has and she wants to be sure they get information on updating and items like this so this would be one indirect way for this to be handled. They are often interested in ones that there are citizen concerns on violations outdoors. This would be one way to be sure to get something to them and it may just be saying everything is going as planned, and effective such and such a date the decision was prepared and that is going to be in effect one month from today. Mr. Malkoff returned to the podium and stated, last of all, he spent over 35 minutes with the Police Department in Anaheim and 3 detectives, 2 dispatchers and another unidentified person. They finally figured out that the way to get him "off their back" was to say "well, where did you originate the phone call?" Staff had asked him to call Jack (First) and tell him what "we" were proposing fo do. Which he did. On March 19th at about 3:45 in the afternoon, he had a rather lengthy discussion with him (Jack First) and at the end of it, I'm sure out of frustration, he said, and he could quote this but he doesn't have the sheet in front of him, but he can furnish the police report if we would like, he said if this keeps going, continuing on, 1 will throw shots overhead. Now that to me (Malkoff] is a serious threat, that is a threat of violence, that was reported to the police, that is being documented in the City of Villa Park because that is where he made his phone call, and it's all well and good to say he never said anything like that, but he had documentation on it. Item 2 is because of the need for make-up air, you cannot shut the door completely because the dust collection does not work properly. There is not enough outside volume coming in. What we do try to do is shut the main door for using the motor and the planers and we leave the back door open, you cannot shut all of the doors because then the system does not work because there is not an outside plumbed ventilation system to do make up air. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti asked where the door is located that would be open. Mr. Malkoff indicated it is the eastern door on the left side, as you face the property, at the back of the enclosed yard. Most of the time this door is closed, it can be closed partially because it is a roll door. If all the doors are closed the business does not run because there is not enough to run the dust collection system. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti asked, for clarification, if the door was on the eastern side (then she asked David See to take Mr. Malkoff the plans so he could indicate on them where this door is exactly). She then stated that the door that Mr. Malkoff indicated is the easterly of the two doors and it is the one that goes into the area in which the equipment, the outdoor equipment, is located. She asked Mr. Malkoff if he had already advised them regarding their hours of operation? Mr. Malkoff stated yes, that it is the hours of operation for the existing Napco dust control system, which was the original purpose of this hearing for the modification, which will become moot as the variance is terminated. After reviewing the previous decision, Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti stated that Condition No. 11 of the decision was the one that says that the daily hours of operation shall be as follows: which is Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Tuesdays and Thursdays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; two Saturdays a month 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and nothing being done on Sundays that requires the use of the exterior dust collection system or any outdoor equipment which results in noise to be heard over the property lines. ZA05/31 /01 Page 5 • Mr. Malkoff indicated those were the hours being proposed from April 4~', 2000 and that they have attempted to stick to those hours. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti confirmed the upcoming meeting date for the Report and Recommendations 5/31/01. PER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ANNtKA SANTALAHTI, WHAT WILL BE PREPARED IS BOTH A TERMINATION ON THE VARIANCE THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE BASICALLY ONE MONTH FROM TODAY AND THERE WILL BE AN INTERIM REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING STATUS (SOME DISCUSSION WITH DAVID SEE ABOUT HAVING THIS AT THE 6/14/01 MEETING AND DECISION BEING MADE TO STAY WITH THE 5/31/01 MEETING FOR STATUS REPORT). A FINDING THAT THE DOORS ARE TO REMAIN CLOSED TO THE BUSINESS WHEN THE DUST COLLECTION EQUIPMENT IS OPERATIONAL AND WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE EAST DOOR, THAT FACES IN AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT NO. 1 WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED, IS THE ONE THAT MAY BE KEPT OPEN DURING THE HOURS THAT ARE LISTED IN CONDITION NO. 11 OF THE ORIGINAL DECISION. David See requested clarification on the information in the report she has requested. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti indicated the report can be very brief, such as here is where they are now, if someone speaks with Mr. Malkoff ahead of time and finds out where they are, this is all she is looking for. She is thinking if the new equipment is hooked up or it is about to be hooked up or if they are in a plan check process that will take another week, not a big text report, just kind of here is where they are today. Zoning Administrator Annika Santalahti asked Mr. First if there was something else he wanted to say, at which time he indicated he was just going to put his address down. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT MAY 31ST IS A SPECIFIC DATE SO THE ITEM WILL APPEAR ON THE AGENDA AS A REPORT. ZA05/31 /01 Page 6 • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 15 3b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2001-132 APPROVED (SUB TPM N0.2001-00007) OWNER: American National Properties 1422 Allec Street Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: DCI Engineering, INC Attn: David Chatham 5100 E. La Palma Avenue, #117 Anaheim, CA 92807 10 day Appeal period. LOCATION: 1516 West Embassy Street. Property is 5.9 acres having a frontage of 528 feet on the north side of Mable Street and a maximum depth of 460 feet and is further located at the terminus of Embassy Street. Project Planner: (kbass aC~.anaheim.net) To establish a 2-lot, industrial subdivision for the construction of two (2) new industrial buildings in the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2001-19 No one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal. The Zoning Administrator approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-132 and will remove condition No. 7. ZA05131 /01 Page 7 • # 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04359 APPROVED OWNER: First American Trust, Trustee Taylor 421 North Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 AGENT: Wells Properties, Inc 23615 EI Toro Road, Suite "V" Lake Forest, CA 92630 LOCATION: 8285 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, #120. Property is 1.66 acres located at the northwest corner of Weir Canyon Road 15 day and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Appeal period. To permit the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing full-service restaurant within a commercial retail center in the CL (SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Project Planner: (gsk(a~anaheim.net) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2001-20 No one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal. The Zoning Administrator approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04359, based on the findings in the staff report and the conditions as recommended by Staff. ZA05/31 /01 Page 8 • • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04377 APPROVED OWNER: Fairmont Plaza Partners LLC Attn: Vic Peloquin 4740 E. Bryson Street Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 132-136 South Fairmont Boulevard. Property is 2.4 acres located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard. To permit the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in 15 day conjunction with a proposed full-service restaurant within an existing Appeal period. commercial retail center in the CL (SC) (Commercial Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2001-21 ~ Project Planner: (kbassCcilanaheim.nety No one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal. The Zoning Administrator approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04377 based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. 6. Items of Public Interest: NONE ACZA053101. DOC ZA05/31 /01 Page 9