Loading...
Minutes-ZA 2008/06/05• CITY OF ANAHEIM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008 9:30 A.M. City Council Chambers, City Ha11 East 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California STAFF PRESENT: John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Ted White, Senior Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Donna Patino, Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Zoning Administrator Agenda was posted at 7:30 a.m. on Monday, June 2, 2008 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:\Tools\ZAadminWCZA060508 zoningadministrator ananaheim.net JUNE 5, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 1. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: NONE Minu 2. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Zoning Administrator I Approved Meeting of May 22, 2008. Reports and Recommendations: None Page 2 ZA060508 JUNE 5, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Public Hearing Items: 3. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 15 AND I Continued to TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2008-131 June 12, 2008 OWNER: Crossroads Investors, LP 2321 Rosecrans Ave., #3225 EI Segundo, CA 90245 APPLICANT: Wayne Jolley Anacal Engineering 1900 E. La Palma Ave, #202 Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1600-1650 North Kraemer Boulevard: Property is approximately 11.07 acres, having a frontage of 405 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard approximately 207 feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue. Request to establish atwo-lot, two-unit industrial subdivision Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 10-day appeal period Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi (ethien@anaheim. net) John Van Doren, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing. He asked staff if there has been any written or oral communication regarding this item. Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, replied none received. Ms. Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 3 and stated that this is a request to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2008- 131. The applicant request to establish atwo-lot, two-unit, industrial subdivision at 1600 and 1650 North Kraemer Boulevard. The request does not include any new construction or any changes to the site. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property in order to sell each property individually. There is currently a monument sign located within the landscape area adjacent to Kraemer Boulevard and this monument sign is located within the right-of-way. The Public Works Department is requiring a sidewalk be installed along the entire frontage of this property adjacent to Kraemer Boulevard and the monument sign is located in that area. The Public Works Department would like to modify the recommended Condition of Approval No. 2 in the draft resolution to allow for the sidewalk to meander around the sign as well as any large trees that may be in the way. Read into the record was a change to Condition No. 2 that would state; The developer shall submit plans for review and approval by the Public Works Department Page 3 ZA060508 JUNE 5, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Development Services division for the construction of a 5-foot wide sidewalk and parkway adjacent to the right-of-way line, in conformance with Public Works Standard Detail No. 160 A and 110 B. Sidewalk location may be meandered to account for existing conditions (i.e., monument signs and trees). An encroachment license shall be obtained for all structures lying in the public right-of-way. Plans shall include a note that improvements, including the installation of landscape and irrigation shall occur within 180 days following recordation of the parcel map. A bond shall be posted and the street improvement plans must be approved prior to approval of the final parcel map. Staff from Planning and Public Works are available for any questions. Mr. Van Doren wanted to know if the 5-foot sidewalk and parkway would be inclusive or 5-feet each. Ms. Thienprasiddhi replied that it would be a 5-foot parkway adjacent to the curb, and a 5-foot sidewalk adjacent to the property line with the exception of where it might meander. Mr. Van Doren stated that the staff report indicated that there is no residential zone abutting this property, there is to the north but it is on the other side of a flood control channel. He asked staff if the flood control channel was in any particular zone as well and if so what zone. Ted White, Senior Planner, stated that it is part of the Northeast Area Specific Plan which is an industrial zone. Mr. Van Doren asked if the flood control channel would be in that zone. Mr. White stated it is. Mr. Van Doren asked staff if there was a requirement that would differ once the parcels are separated. He wanted to know if there was anything that would impact the parking. Ms. Thienprasiddhi replied both of the buildings are in the same zone and there would be no impact based on the subdivision. There is a condition that requires reciprocal parking and access. This would allow each building to accommodate the demand for parking. Mr. Van Doren asked if they would have assigned parking per parcel once the property is divided or if it would be shared parking throughout. Ms. Thienprasiddhi stated that the front building would have fewer parking spaces than needed once the building is occupied. The applicant would like to provide shared on the rear parcel, while the front building would not share its parking with the rear building. The front building needs more parking than would exist. once the property is subdivided, so parking on the rear property would be needed to fulfill that demand. Page 4 ZA060508 • JUNE 5, 2008 • ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Mr. Van Doren asked if the front building had a requirement for fewer or more parking spaces than currently available. Ms. Thienprasiddhi stated that proposed parcel 1 would have fewer parking spaces than required by Code if they were stand alone. She referred to the bottom of the map where parcel one shows 176 parking spaces that are proposed while 343 are required. Parcel two shows more spaces being proposed. There are 304 proposed while only 190 are required. Parcel 1 needs more parking than is provided on site. Mr. Van Doren stated that is the reason there is a shared parking requirement as a condition. Ms. Thienprasiddhi replied correct. Andrew White, BPG Properties, 719 Dianthus Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that he is representing BPG Properties. He reviewed the Conditions of Approval and they are willing to comply with all of them including installation of the sidewalk. The only provisions they are not willing to accept is in Condition No. 1, items, (b), (c), and (d), which require the addition of restrictive covenants. They believe these restrictive covenants would create a negative impact to the value of the property that would far outweigh any positive they would get from the subdivision. The applicant is willing to comply with provision (a) of Condition No. 1, which was discussed with regards to the parking agreement. They would provide an easement that would burden 1650 North Kraemer Blvd and benefit 1600 so that the 1600 building would then have the required number of parking spaces. They would put that condition into place as well as the other requirements relative to maintenance of the fire safety equipment, access easements, and the sign. The sign in the front would continue to serve both buildings. Mr. Van Doren stated as he understands the language in this condition and the applicant's acceptance of Condition of Approval No. 1, (a), which is to provide reciprocal access and parking but is objecting to part (b) which is to manage and maintain the property as one integrated parcel for the purpose of parking and vehicle circulation. Those two phrases seem to be mutually dependent so he was not sure how the applicant could object to that if they were going to provide reciprocal access and parking. He asked Mr. White if that is what he was also objecting to or if it was just the maintenance, signage, land use, and architectural control. Mr. White stated that they are going to provide a reciprocal access easement to benefit both buildings. They object to having to put a restrictive covenant saying that the two properties have to be maintained as one. There are requirements to clean up graffiti within 24 hours and they object to that. They want to be able to subdivide and sell the property to two different owners. The owners would comply with the requirements the Page 5 ZA060508 • JUNE 5, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES City has currently for the buildings but not have to go above and beyond those requirements with additional restrictions. Mr. Van Doren asked to what extent were these conditions reviewed and discussed with staff. Mr. White stated that he briefly discussed briefly the concerns of item one today and on the phone once before. Mr. Van Doren stated that it was not his preference to negotiate conditions of approval. He preferred that the applicant work his concerns out with staff. He has no way of gauging the implication should he consider the request to delete certain conditions without the substitution of preferred conditions that might meet the same goals. Mr. Van Doran recommended a continuance for one week to allow time for the applicant and staff to work through the condition of approval. Mr. White agreed. Ted White, Senior Planner, stated that staff stands by its recommendation for this condition of approval. Staff believes the reciprocal parking and access is necessary for this site, as well as the requirement for the signage to be maintained as one. The building in the rear would not be allowed to advertise on the front property that would be considered a billboard. It is necessary to maintain the parcels as one. The property was developed as a single parcel and existing levels of maintenance and architectural control should be maintained in its current capacity. This is not an uncommon requirement; there are numerous industrial subdivisions around the City that function under the same manner and controls. Circulation is necessary and reciprocal parking access is needed going both ways. It would not work if there was just parking encumbering one parcel but not the other. Staff stands by its recommendation and can answer any questions. Mr. Van Doren asked if there was any communications from the applicant regarding these conditions, other than today. Ms. Thienprasiddhi stated that she sent these conditions to the applicant approximately a week ago. Mr. Van Doren made a general statement regarding the options to approve, disapprove, or continue this item. Mr. Van Doren stated that he was not comfortable with negotiating conditions that were presented by staff that have been presented to the applicant that have not been worked out. Page 6 ZA060508 • JUNE 5, 2008 • ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES Mr. Van Doren asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this application; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Van Doren continued this item. Page 7 ZA060508 . • JUNE 5, 2008 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 A.M. TO THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2008 AT 9:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted: i ,, _, y / ,. _ L ~ ,= t~ Donna Patino Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Zoning Administrator on June 12, 2008. Page 8 ZA060508