Minutes-ZA 2007/08/30
•
ANAHEIM
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
ACTION AGENDA
THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2007 9:30 A.M.
Plan-Check Conference Room, City Hall East
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
STAFF PRESENT: JoHn C. Van Doren, Zoning Administrator
Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney
Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer
.Scott Koehm, Associate Planner . ~` ~~
Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary._
AGENDA POSTING: A.complete copy of the Zoning-Administrator
Agenda was posted at 8:35,p.m. on August 24, 2..007 inside the
display case located in the foyer~of the Councii~Cliambers and also
in the outside display kiosk.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~ ,
PUBLIC COMMENTS ~ -
ADJOURNMENT
H:\docs\zoningadminlagendas\acza83007.doc zoningadministratorno,anaheim.net
• •
AUGUST 30, 2007
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA
1. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Antranik O. Zorayan, 1831 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated he owns 1811-
1831 West Lincoln Avenue, separated by Crescent Way Street, and is present to find
out what is happening to the adjacent property. He stated although he feels all
questions have been answered by the staff report (August 30, 2007), hearsay is that a
residential project is coming in the place of Target, and this information is important to
him, as the owner of the adjacent property. The staff report indicated sufficient parking
therefore he has no objections to the project.
Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, responded the site is currently designated as RM-3
zoning. It has been classified for residential development. At this time no formal
submittal has been requested to develop the property.
Mr. Zorayan asked if the property is owned by the same people asking for a variance
and if so, if they are planning to sale.
Dave See, Senior Planner, responded the zoning that staff is referring to is just for
Target, not the corner business. The corner retail will remain commercial and the owner
has a proposal to expand. His request is going to planning commission approximately
September 5, 2007. Target proposes to leave the site and relocate to Euclid Boulevard
and Lincoln Avenue. There is a developer negotiating with Target to buy the property
and the city is not a part of that process.
Page 2
ACZA83007. DOC
AUGUST 30, 2007
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING:
2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 I Concurred with staff
2b. VARIANCE N0.2007-04733 Approved
OWNER: Target Corporation
1000 Nicollet Mall 15 day appeal
# RC TPN 12F period
Minneapolis, MN 55403
AGENT: John Pedicini
20051 Cypress Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 1881 West Lincoln Avenue: This irregularly
shaped 10.46-acre property have frontages of 751
feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 545 feet
on the east side of Muller Street and 544 feet on the
west side of Crescent Way and is located at the
northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Muller
Street.
Request waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to
separate two contiguous commercial properties and reduce
parking for an existing Target retail store.
Project Planner:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION NO. ZA2007-09 (skoehm@anaheim.net)
SrVAR2007-
04733gsk.doc
John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing.
Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 2.
Applicant's Testimony:
Page 3
ACZA83007. DOC
•
AUGUST 30, 2007
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA
Mr. Van Doren noted there was no one in the audience to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the request nor was there a representative of the applicant present. He
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Van Doren asked the significance of a request for a parking variance for the Target
store if in fact they were relocating.
Mr. Koehm responded the request for a parking waiver is the result of the previous
subdivision for the lot at the southeast corner of Crescent Way and Lincoln Avenue for
that retail center. Also, in the event that the city receives a request to permit its
expansion, staff would need to make sure that the existing Target parking lot provides
adequate parking spaces; that the circulation is correct; and that the shared agreement
they had previously would no longer be in effect; bringing the existing Target use into
conformance with code.
Mr. Van Doren asked if the Target store moves and the site does not develop for the
new residential zone if it could be developed to where the parking would need to be
maintained based on the new variance.
Mr. Koehm responded correct.
Mr. Van Doren wished to clarify if the zoning classification is totally independent of the
Target move and new residential development. He asked if because of the subdivision
and joint use of the parking area, it is necessary to make sure if the new development
does not work, the retail center has adequate parking and the variance acknowledges
the actual demands per the studies and staff report.
Mr. Koehm responded correct.
Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, asked if Target was still at the retail center site.
Mr. Koehm responded correct.
Mr. Gordon asked how much longer they would be there.
Mr. See responded a couple of months before construction starts on the new site but
feels that would take a long time to get the 120,000 sq. foot building constructed;
possibly the middle of next year.
Mr. Van Doren wished to clarify that it is to bring them into conformance for their
operation or any future operation.
Mr. Gordon stated that if the use changes at that location, in the future, it could change
the parking demands at the location as well. Therefore, commissioners could very well
Page 4
ACZA83007.DOC
• •
AUGUST 30, 2007
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION AGENDA
have someone before them in a future date looking at some use or at some point staff
may need to look at the parking capacity once more.
Mr. Van Doren stated there was no opposition and there were no requests for additional
conditions therefore, he approved Variance No. 2007-04733, a request for waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces to separate two contiguous commercial properties
and reduce parking for an existing Target retail store. 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 15 days following the date of the decision.
Page 5
ACZA83007.DOC