Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2007/08/02 • ANAH E I M ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2007 9:30 Q.M. Plan-Check Conference Room, Cify Hall East 200 South Anaheim Boulevard,, Anaheim, California STAFF PRESENT: William Sell, Acting Zoning Administrator gavid See, Senior Planner . ~~~~ Mark Gordon, Deputy City Atforn~y :. Sandie Budhia, Associate Engineer Scott-1<oehm, =Associate Planner Pa~~Chandler, Senior Secrei<ary _a_ AGENDA POSTING: A-complete.~py of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted at 8:40, pm. on July 28, _2007 inside'the display case located in.the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display~kiosk. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT H:\docs\zoningadmin\agendas\acza080207.doc zoningadministrator(o~anaheim.net • • AUGUST 2, 2007 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: PUBLIC HEARING: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 15 2b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-132: OWNER: Manuel Zavala Neutron Plating, Inc. 2993 East Blue Star Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: APEX Land Surveying, Inc. 8512 Oxley Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 2993 East Blue Star Street: Property is approximately 1.28- acre, having a frontage of 178 feet on the north side of the terminus of Blue Star Street, a maximum depth of 275 feet, and is located 402 feet east of the centerline of Red Gum Street. Request to establish a 1-lot, 2-unit industrial-airspace subdivision ZONING ADMINISTRATOR EXCERPT LETTER NO. SUBTPM NO. 2007-132 Concurred with staff Approved 10 day appeal period Project Planner: (skoehm@anaheim.net) S U BTPM2007-132gsk.doc William Seli, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 2. Applicant's Testimony: Manuel Zavala Jr., Neutron Plating, Inc., 2983 and 2993 East Blue Star, Anaheim, CA, stated they have reviewed the conditions and spoken to their agent (Apex's) and consultant (The Zapata Group) and feel the conditions can be met without any issue on their part and hope that the City will grant approval of their proposal. Mr. Sell closed the public hearing, He stated that he recalls when the applicant was before them the last time they were trying to subdivide two parcels which had a common wall and that issue posed a problem with him and staff. Mr. See referred to a site plan and pointed out the subject property at the end of the cul-de-sac on Blue Star Street. He stated originally it was a proposal to subdivide two separate parcels at the property line that went through the building, and the difficulty in finding the building requirements to essentially construct a second wall to make sure each property was independent of each other proved too complicated and the applicant ended up withdrawing. At this point the applicants have returned to submit an air space request which is tenant spaces and the remainder of the property is common. Page 2 ACZA080207.DOC u • AUGUST 2, 2007 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA Mr. Sell stated he understands that a part would be by association for the maintenance of the property such as the grass and trash. Mark Gordon stated regarding Condition No. 7, he did not know if there was really any intent to form an association because obviously when there is a residential subdivision they would form an association that would care for the common property. Therefore, he asked if they really intended to form a non profit association for the care of the property; stating that it seemed unusual given the size of the subdivision. Mr. Zavala stated he would speak with his consultant regarding that concern because currently they are a part of an association for maintenance on all of the buildings and the investment properties. He stated they pay individual association dues every month even though it is one parcel map. He ensured that they are going to incorporate all of the issues into their CC&R's and have an attorney address them to make sure they are in compliance. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, asked if there were any changes to the ingress and egress access and if the layout is still the same in the parking area. Mr. Zavala responded everything is still the same and that there have been no structure changes to the building whatsoever. Mr. Gordon stated the conditions would require that the property be kept as one parcel so that both building owners share the same access, have the same reciprocal access rights, and have use of the parking even though two separate units will be looked at by the City as two different structures. He stated that Condition No. 2 would require common upkeep of the property and since there could be two different owners on the property the question would be who is going to maintain the property. So the City's view would be that it would be mutual obligation of both property owners. He stated that the applicant would provide for that through CC&Rs and this would actually require a covenant be recorded pursuant to Conditions No. 1 and 2. He stated, regarding Condition No. 5, since there is only one fire system that serves the property, the Fire Department would be concerned with who is going to maintain that system - the fire sprinklers, etc. Mr. Zavala stated that there are actually two separate risers. Mr. Gordon stated that he did not believe the Fire Department was aware that there were two risers. Mr. Zavala clarified originally they were subdivided as separate parcels and were approved with separate risers but they merged the properties into one. Mr. Gordon asked if the access to the property is separate. Mr. Zavala responded yes there are separate addresses each having separate risers. Mr. Gordon asked if there is more than one fire line coming into the property. Mr. Zavala responded that he was not sure. Mr. Gordon stated the concern that the Fire Department would have is to make sure that if the water line servicing the properties is shared between the property owners then there should be some restriction that provides that they continue sharing the water line. Mr. Zavala Sr. stated there has always been two meters. Mr. Zavala Jr. concurred there are two separate meters. Page 3 ACZA080207.DOC • AUGUST 2, 2007 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA Mr. Gordon explained that if there are two water lines, there would be a fire line coming in that connects to the fire sprinkler system and also a water service line that could be separate, but what the Fire Department would be concerned with is the fire line. He stated if there is just a single fire line coming in there would need to be a restriction that requires that. Mr. Zavala stated he did not recall seeing anything about conjoined fire lines in the original CC&Rs. Scott Koehm, Planner, stated when it was conditioned in it simply stated that it should be a recorded use agreement for all parcels sharing fire protection for association purposes. Therefore, if the subject parcels do not share then this condition would not apply, and in the event that the Fire Department says there is indeed something about the two parcels that need some shared agreement then the condition would still stand. Mr. Zavala stated they would address the issue. Mr. Gordon stated that Mr. Koehm raised a good point with respect to Condition No. 5 and therefore, it would be the understanding that both the applicant and the City held. Additionally, he stated that conditions 1, 2, and 5 could be addressed in one single document and the planning staff and City Attorney's Office would assist them in assimilating the conditions into one single document. Mr. Sell asked if the landscape meets the City's parking requirements. Mr. See responded because of its existing conditions of two parcel maps, staff usually would not analyze that in the staff report; however, at close point there is a parking lot landscape requirement which appeared not to be met and staff would consider that being not in conformance. Mr. Sell confirmed that signage had already been addressed. Mr. Sell closed the public hearing and approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-132. He stated the decision would be written and signed no later than 7 days from the date of the meeting and would be final after the appeal period expires 10 days following the date of the decision. Page 4 ACZA080207.DOC