Minutes-ZA 2005/03/31
ANAH E I M
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
ACTION AGENDA
THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2005 9:30 A.M.
Council Ghaml?ers,-City Hall .,.,
200 South Anaheim Boutevard, Anaheim, California
STAFF PRESENT: _~ Ant~ika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
~' M,~rk Gordon, Deputy Attorney
d David See, Senior Planner
'James Una, Associate Engineer
John Ramirez; Associate Planner
Pat~Chandler Senior Secretary ; ~~~~~~
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the` Zo,riing Administrator
Agenda was pasted at 9:50 a.m. on March 25, 2.005 inside the
display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also
in the outside display kiosk. ~~~. .
PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin=Newspaper on Thursday, March 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
H:\docs\zoningadmin\agendas\acza033105.doc
ACZA033105.DOC Page 1
f, J
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 15
1 b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.2005-123
OWNER: BKM Development Co., LLC
1945 Placentia Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Attention: Brian Malliet
AGENT: Development Resource Consultants
8175 East Kaiser Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92808
Attention: Rene Varga
LOCATION: 1363 South State Colleoe Boulevard: Property is 2.4 acres,
having frontages of 190 feet on the south side of Winston Road
and 574 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, and
is located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard
and Winston Road.
To establish a 3-lot, 4-unit industrial subdivision in the I (Industrial) zone.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO.
Continued to
April 14, 2005
10 day appeal period
Project Planner:
Qpramirez@anaheim.net)
Q.S. 106
Sr5220jr.doc
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, introduced item No. 1.
Neither the owner, BKM Development Co., LLC, nor the agent, Development Resource Consultants, was
available for comments.
John Ramirez, Associate Planner, indicated that the applicants were notified.
Ms. Santalahti stated Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-123 is c ontinued to April 14, 2005 in order for the
applicant to be present to provide additional information regarding landscaping along State College
Boulevard for the new parcels and the status of a prior recorded easement involvement with the adjacent
property, and also in order for staff to include a chart in the staff report regarding the proposed parking
spaces versus the required parking spaces, possible relocation of the driveway on Winston Road, and the
requirement for a handicapped ramp.
ACZA033105.DOC Page 2
•
2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3 Concurred with staff
2b. VARIANCE N0.2005-04646 Approved
OWNER: Thomas S. Waters
7680 East Danielle Circle
Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 7690 East Danielle Circle: Property is 0.8-acre, having a
frontage of 210 feet on the east side of Danielle Circle and is
located 170 feet north of the centerline of Owens Drive.
Waiver of maximum fence height to construct a 5-foot high block wall within
the required front yard setback of asingle-family residence in the RH-2 zone.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA2005-06
15 day appeal period
Project Planner:
(kwong2@anaheim.net)
Q.S. 208
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, introduced item No. 2.
Thomas S. Waters, the owner, 7680 East Danielle Circle, stated no comments.
Ms. Santalahti stated that a condition would be added specifying that the applicant submit a letter
requesting termination of existing CUP No. 2002-4615 regarding outdoor storage activity prior to final
map approval.
James Ling, Associate Engineer, clarified the private street right-of-way falls 2 feet behind the face of the
curb and the 5 foot public utility easement is behind the right-of way. The proposed wall encroaches into
the public utility easement and the applicant is processing the necessary permit with the Public Works
Department.
Ms. Santalahti clarified that the City easements are a total of 7 feet behind the curb.
David See, Senior Planner, clarified the wall is 4 feet from the curb and the setback would also be 4 feet
from the curb.
Ms. Santalahti asked why the original entry of a 5 feet high wall had been crossed out and replaced with a
3 feet high wall.
Mr. Waters responded that when he applied he was not aware that he could not go 5 feet high but was
informed of the details at the Building Department and they crossed out 5 feet and entered 3 feet, and
also informed him that he could apply for a variance. Additionally, he stated that he contacted the other
residents on the street and they approved of the proposed wall heights.
At Ms. Santalahti's request, no one else indicated his interest in speaking.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACZA033105.DOC Page 3
3. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None
ACZA033105.DOC Page 4