Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1989/05/18• • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - MAY 18, 1989 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m. May 18, 1989, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT •. Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Pamela Starnes, Executive Secretary Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the meeting and that anyone desiring to speak about matters other than the agendized items would have the opportunity to be heard at the end of the meeting. Ms. Santalahti, stated Item No. 7, the public hearing for Large Family Day Care No. 89-03, (to establish a large family day care facility for a maximum of 12 children on property located at 2211 W. Woodley Avenue) will be heard on June 1, 1989, which is the date item was advertised to be heard. No one indicated their presence in the audience for this item. NO. 1 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION VARIANCE N0.3937 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JAMES I. SWENSON AND SUSAN G. SWENSON, 1231 Simon Circle, Anaheim, CA 92806. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.23 acre, having a maximum depth of approximately 90 feet, being located approximately 352 feet north of the centerline of Corondo Street, and further described as 1260 North Lance Lane. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 940 square foot addition to an existing industrial building. Continued from the meetings of April 20, 1989 and May 4, 1989. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. 1023MN MINUTES. ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 PAGE 2 Larry Gibson, architect, said they met with Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, and his staff and discussed the existing parking that was previously striped on the site. He said he took their recommendations and revised the parking plans. He said the second scheme seems to be the most appropriate and is fully in compliance with Code. He said previously they had to much compact parking on the site. He said they have generated 29 parking spaces that are in compliance with Code regarding compact versus standard, sized percentage of parking spaces and also with regard to State of California Title 24 standards for handicapped parking. He said the parking analysis of the building is based upon use within the buildings, they have 50 parking spaces required versus the 28 provided, therefore, 22 off-site parking spaces are necessary. He said they have submitted two leases for properties within the neighborhood for parking that will provide 24 additional parking spaces, two more than are required. He said they may have difficulty getting the parking lease recorded on the one property that has been purchased by an Orange County Pension Fund, so they would rather have a long-term lease. Ms. Santalahti asked if they had submitted a new site plan reflecting the overall scheme including the 50 parking spaces that are required. Mr. Gibson said no. Ms. Santalahti verified that the site plan dated April 24, 1989, was the last site plan submitted. Mr. Gibson said yes. He also noted that the staff report still indicated incorrect numbers for the parking required for this parcel as it'atates 17. He said they are counting the sanitary facilities as part of the building. He said on page one, staff indicates 940 square feet in addition to an existing 4,999 square-foot industrial building. He said the sanitary facilities that are going to be installed will not have human occupancy. Al Anderson, consultant, said he just wanted to point out that the waste treatment facility is necessary to maintain the environmental standards required for this type of operation and keep this company in compliance with the Orange County Sanitation regulations. John Tempke, owner of the industrial park at 3031 East Coronado 1220, 1230 and 1240 Simon, said he would like to know where the off-site parking would be as it is not shown on the exhibit. Leonard McGhee said the applicant did not submit plans showing where the off-site parking was located. Ms. Santalahti asked if it could be shown on one of the location maps. Mr. Tempke said this was similar to what was done several years ago at 1240. He said he even spoke on Details' behalf as they were going to rent 25 parking spaces from him. He said as soon as they got their Variance they no longer rented the 25 parking spaces. He said they are coming up with an excuse that they cannot get recorded rights which means next week we could be back with the same situation. he said this morning there were five cars illegally parked. MINUTES, ZONING ADMIN~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 • PAGE 3 He said when the tanker trucks come in to unload the waste they are in the middle of the street forcing any truck traffic on Simon Circle to go through his industrial park. He said Building No. 1 has 11 parking spaces behind a fence and they are not always accessible, and Building No. 4 that is now vacant has the gate locked so that parking is not available to anyone. He said he wants them to remain in business, but wants viable parking. Beverly Tempke said she has worked im the area under discussion at least 10 years. She said when they have to ask the people to move their cars they are abused with language. She said she asked one man to move his car when he had come out for his lunch and he told her he didn't have anywhere to go. She said people have parked in their driveway and the police have come out and ticketed the car and that costs $75. She said she felt bad, but the UPS truck could not get in. She said it has been a continual problem over the years for all their tenants. Paul Singer said they went up in the helicopter and took photographs of the parking problems in this area. He said the photographs indicated that the streets are totally occupied by parked vehicles. He said they also show that a great deal of the on-site parking is taken up by storage of materials, boats, trailers and various types of equipment requiring the employees of the area to overflow onto the street and have an adverse effect on the adjacent property owners. He said if this application is approved it was their recommendation that the applicant assure that his employees not overflow onto the street, that the applicant make arrangements to get rid of the storage material on the site and provide on-site parking and that the applicant make arrangements with adjacent property owners for additional off-street parking for employees. He said the overflow of parking of the street causes blind corners at intersections with driveways. In rebuttal, Mr. Gibson said he would like to see the photographs. He said he has been informed there is not any boat or trailer storage on their site and he wants to make sure we are talking about the right piece of property. He said there is storage right now on the site where the waste treatment equipment needs to be installed. He asked if Mr. Singer would point out the boat and trailer he made reference to on their site. Ms. Santalahti said Mr. Singer was speaking about the area in general and noted that contributed to the overall problem. Mr. Gibson said they do not have any boats, cars or trailers stored on their site to his knowledge. He said apparently Mr. Tempke did not recall from their previous conversation a few weeks ago that the gate on that site is locked because the equipment is worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars and cannot be left open to the public. He said once that equipment is installed they will be relocating fences, etc. and the gate will be unlocked. He said no one has debated the fact there is a parking problem and noted they are looking at a solution. He said he had been told that leases have been submitted to the City and asked if the leases were in the file. He said he had one of them with him. MINUTES. ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18. 1989 PAGE 4 Mr. McGhee said there were unsigned draft leases in the file. Mr. Gibson said he had a signed lease that he could be happy to submit and noted he has marked a map showing where the additional parking will be located. He said it is at the same distance which was previously the case so the owner will have to use a vehicle for transportation to and from that site. He said these people work in shifts so they arrive and left a specific times. He noted that public streets were designed for parking and he had a problem with somebody saying that somebody can't park on the street if there is street parking available. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Mr. Gibson said they did a total parking analysis. He said the staff report shows 2.5 and 4.0 per thousand for the office space. He said it is a composite analysis of all four buildings. Ms. Santalahti said she has a problem with the fact both of them have fenced in the parking areas, although in the picture taken from the helicopter the southernly one is open, and have put miscellaneous things in those areas that have further reduced the usability. Mr. Gibson said the only things are the trailer that is shown on the drawing and it would not benefit the parking situation if it were located elsewhere, and the building which is required by the Fire Department. In response to questions by the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Gibson said the buildings have roll-up doors and a manned door. Ms. Santalahti asked now many employees were involved. Mr. Gibson said there are approximately 50 employees involved in each shift for all four buildings. He said as was previously indicated, they presently have car pooling although it ie not mandated; however, he thought it would be mandated next July. He said when this is implemented it will reduce by 1/3 the amount of parking needed. Mr. Gibson said he felt their letter with the parking analysis makes them fully in compliance with the parking standards, although it doesn't make them fully compliant with the Zoning Code because part of the parking is off-site. Me. Santalahti did not have a copy of the exhibit submitted .on May 8th so Mr. Gibson gave her a copy. Ms. Santalahti said this plan was quite different from the one she had been looking at. She noted they had 56$ of the total number of parking spaces based on the industrial standard only. Ms. Santalahti as Paul Singer of he had seen this plan, she said it is similar but they have inserted a few extra spaces. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 ~ PAGE 5 Mr. Singer said he had seen the plan as he had worked with the applicant on the plan trying to .maximize the site. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. Singer for his thoughts on the issue, particularly Lance Lane. Mr. Singer asked Mr. Gibson how the shifts changes are handled. Mr. Gibson said there is a one-half four interval between shifts to allow for cars to exit prior to the second shift employees arriving. Mr. Singer asked what time does this take place and Mr. Gibson said he was not positive, but somewhere between two and three o'clock in the afternoon. Mr. Singer said the timing was good because that is when there is least activity taking place. He said he felt if the applicant can provide off-site parking for the perpetuity of this use that he would have no problem with the proposal. He said his only question is how are we going to assure ourselves that in fact this is where the employees are parking and not interfering with other businesses located on that street. Ms. Santalahti noted they had a signed agreement with Century Data to lease 20 parking spaces and an unsigned agreement to lease four parking spaces from Nick Vorona at 3021 Coronado, Unit B. She said if this is approved they would have to submit a signed agreement from Nick Vorona. Ms. Santalahti asked if this business were to move could the building used for the waste treatment equipment be occupied by another industrial user. Mr. Anderson said it could not be converted to anything else because it will have trenches, sumps, etc. because it is a chemical treatment area covered by a canopy that will be color coded to match the building so it will have an enameled finish on it. He ,said as far as destructing the unit, it would be very simple to be destroyed and hauled away for less than $5,000. Ms. Santalahti said the area could then be returned to its previous use as a parking lot and Mr. Anderson said yea. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance on the basis that the proposed structure is specifically for a waste water treatment plant which will not be occupied by employees or customers, that additional off-site parking spaces have been obtained for use by Details, Inc. as stipulated by the petitioner at the May 18 hearing, that existing fencing/gates will be removed from subject property and two other adjacent lots which are a part of subject business thereby maximizing the availability of parking spaces on those three lots, that a covenant will be recorded agreeing to remove the proposed metal building and reinstate 10 parking spaces on subject property if and when the waste water treatment plant is no longer needed; and that the petitioner stipulated at the May 18 hearing to compliance with Council Policy 526 "Metal Buildings" and, therefore, the need for a policy waiver has been eliminated. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 • PAGE 6 Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approved it. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM NO. 2 CEQUA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3153 SREADVERTISEDI PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: HENRY A.J. STEINBRINR & ROSA C.E. STEINBRINK, 1970 Trust, 720 E. Culver Ave., Orange, CA 92666. AGENT: MICHAEL A. BILLER, 5972 Gildred Cir., Huntington Beach, CA 92649. Subject property an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre, having a frontage of approximately 184 feet on the west side of State~College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, being located approximately 231 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Street, and further described as 407South State College Boulevard. To permit a 795 square foot addition to an existing restaurant with waiver of maximum number of compact parking spaces. Continued from the meeting of May 4, 1989. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Michael Anderson, 4095 East La Palma Avenue, said he was speaking on behalf of the owner. He said they have reviewed the conditions and concur, but would like a clarification of No. 4 as to whether it means street instead of alley. Ms. Santalahti said that pertains to the public alley as it touches applicant's property line and you would only be doing improvements to that portion. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti approved this proposal based on the fact that the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code; that the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; and that the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINt~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 ~ PAGE 7 ITEM NO. 3 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE NO. 3948 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: AURORA GARCIA, 3157 Westhaven Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,610 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 45 feet on the north side of Westhaven Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 102 feet and further described as 3157 Westhaven Drive. Waiver of maximum site coverage to construct a 520 square foot room addition. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Paul Stewart, 3157 Westhaven Drive, said he was asked to speak on behalf of Aurora Garcia. He said they were asking for the modification in the home for two reasons: 1) between the two of them they have a large family and need the space for cooking and dining when they have everyone over; and 2) they plan to retire in this home and they would like to add a bedroom downstairs for the future. He said currently all the bedrooms are upstairs. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that waiver (a) is minimal consisting of a lot coverage which is only 1~ more than permitted by Code, and that waiver (b) is minimal consisting of a lot which is only 4$ (240 square feet) smaller than required by Code, and that the underlying RS-5000 zoning was adopted in 1971 when the development standards permitted 4-bedroom dwellings on 5000 square feet lots and, therefore, there are other similarly-sized lots in the area which are developed with 4-bedroom dwellings. Ms. Santalahti noted the item was Categorically Exempt. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM NO. 4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE NO. 3949 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ANTHONY P & NANCY BROOKLIER, 1238 W. Dwyer Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 15,380 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 126 feet on the south side of Dwyer Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 192 feet, and further described as 1238 Dwyer Drive. Waivers of minimum rear yard setback and maximum rear yard coverage to construct a pool cabana. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Nancy Booklier said because of the location of the swimming pool this is the only area that is available to construct a cabana to service the swimming pool. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 ~ PAGE 8 Ms. Santalahti asked if this was a one-story structure and Ms. Brooklier said yes. Ms. Santalahti said they only needed the one waiver for lot coverage because as an accessory structure under Code Section 18.25.064.020 they are allowed to have detached accessory structure in the rear yard as long as they are not two stories or higher and meet the coverage requirements; in other words, the setback waiver is not necessary. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if there were apartments behind the property and Ms. Brooklier said she thought they were duplexes. Me. Santalahti asked what type of fence is along the property line and Ms. Brooklier said a six-foot high blockwall. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance, in part, based on the fact that the minimum rear yard setback waiver is eliminated because said waiver is not required for a detached accessory structure such as the proposed cabana; and the maximum rear yard coverage waiver is granted on the basis that said request is minimal because the usable yard area covered by the proposal is available elsewhere in the existing rear yard which is substantially larger than required by Code (minimum 25-foot deep rear yard required by Code; 75-foot rear yard existing). Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM NO. 5 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE NO. 3950 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CARLOS C. RODRIGUEZ AND HELENA S. RODRIGUEZ, 2545 E. Clark Ave., Fullerton, Ca 92631. AGENT: DAVID RODRIGUES, P.O. Box 9348, Anaheim, Ca 92812. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.2 acre having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east aide of Cambridge Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet being located approximately 240 feet north of the centerline of Camden Avenue and further described as 924 South Cambridge Street. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 5-unit apartment building. One person indicated her presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Rick Crane, architect, said he was available to answer any questions and would like to correct a few minor errors in the staff report. He said the frontage should read approximately 100 feet rather than 50 feet, and Page 2, Item (7) should read 20-foot wide driveway rather then 2-foot. He reference Condition MINUTES, ZONING ADMIN~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 • PAGE 9 No. 3 and said they are not opposed and feel some street lighting is needed on Cambridge, although in past the apartments approved and built in that area were not conditioned for street lighting. He said they were not opposed to putting forth a portion of the street lighting fee, but it does not seem fair to bear the full burden of the street lighting for a five-unit complex since it is not cost feasible. He said they had no problems with the other conditions. He said they felt the project was compatible with the neighborhood. David Rodriguez said he has spoken to property owners in the surrounding area and they are in favor of the proposal. He said the owner on the northeast lot is Orlo Fast (907 S. Lemon), the one on the south side is Ben Harvey but Mr. Rodriguez did not know this address although it is on Cambridge. Ms. Santalahti asked if these were both abutting property owners and he said yes. Ms. Santalahti noted several typographical errors in the staff report and asked staff to make the corrections before they go to the City Council. Betty Fennel, 213 West Camden Avenue (corner of Camden and Cambridge), said there is an overflow of parking especially between 5:00 and 5:30 in the evening. She said they park from the corner of Lemon Street on and even park in the yards. Mr. Crane noted they had met the code requirements for parking and they were not asking for any parking variance. Ms. Santalahti asked what the parking ratio was that they are providing and he said basically they are providing 2.5 spaces for the one bedroom units and 1.5 spaces for the bachelor unit which is on the lower level. He said they also worked with staff to get additional parking for visitors so that traffic would not be a problem. Ms. Santalahti noted three of the units would have tandem spaces. Ms. Santalahti agreed that one thing she noticed when she went out to look at the property was the on-street parking. She said probably the other projects had been built under a much lower standard then we have today. Ms. Santalahti said this is a one bedroom unit project with four one bedroom and one bachelor unit so the parking generated is lower then one would expect from a two bedroom unit. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED She said, in looking at the conditions, she noticed there was one standard condition that has been required of all apartment projects and that is that a covenant be recorded on the property limiting the occupancy of each bedroom to no more then two persons (other than children under the age of two years). She stated she was going to add that as a condition of approval. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 ~ PAGE 10 Ms. Santalahti approved this variance because any impact of the second story is minimal since only 2 windows face RS-7200 zoning and that said windows are located a significant distance from said zoning by the following: approximately 143 feet away from the RS-7200 zoning to the southwest and separated by Cambridge Street, and approximately 113 feet away from the RS-7200 zoning to the south and separated by existing 1-story apartments. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fees, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM NO. 6 (PUBLIC HEARING) FAMILY DAY CARE NO. 89-02: PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICANT: Kathleen and Delbert Swanson, 2426 Transit Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of 6,155 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 62 feet on the south side of Transit Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet, being located approximately 130 feet west of the centerline of Topo Street, and further described as 2426 West Transit Avenue. To establish a large family day care facility for a maximum of 12 children. Property is located at 2426 West Transit Avenue. Continued from meeting of April 20, 1989. There were seven people indicating their presence in opposition and three letters in opposition were received. Kathleen Swanson said she was not aware that people would be able to speak at this hearing. She stated she thought the Zoning administrator was just going to make her decision. She said the three people to the north and the two people to the west and one to the east of them would have come to speak in favor of the day care center. Opal Taylor said Elaine Bragges lives on the left hand side, the neighbor across the street is Trosky, at 2427, and people on the corner are named Stevens and she didn't know the lady's name directly on the side of her by the backyard as they moved in not very long ago but she is the one that wrote the letter. Mr. McGhee noted two letters had been received, one from Robert Woolsey and one from Debra Stacker also signed by Dorothy Stacker. Ms. Santalahti asked if Ms. Swanson had received a copy of the letters and she said yes, she had gotten copies at the last meeting. Ms. Santalahti said she thought one of the letters was received after the last meeting. MINUTES, ZONING ADMIN~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 • PAGE 11 Ms. Swanson noted one was a different letter and she was given a copy. She again expressed her concern. that they did not have their neighbors come to the meeting who were in favor of the proposal because they thought only the decision was going to be made and they did not think people would be allowed to speak. Ms. Santalahti said one of the issues, as stated at the last meeting, relates to the fact that large family day care centers are regulated basically by the State of California. She said typically any operational concerns need to be voiced to the County regulating agency. Mr. McGhee said the agency that does the licensing for 'day care centers is the Orange County Social Services Agency. Ms. Santalahti noted that that Agency would also do the inspections. Ms. Santalahti said applications like this are very difficult to deny unless there is a fairly extreme problem. She said a typical basis for denial in the past has related to parking situations where they cannot provide a safe drop-off for children, which doesn't hold true here. She said Ms. Stacker wrote a long letter discussing a lot of points with the noise issue being a major one and the other being inadequate space. She said she agreed with that point to the extent that what the zoning requirement is today for rear yard setbacks is 25 foot setback in the RS-7200 Zone, so the development of the property is different then it would be today. She noted the property might have been developed prior to annexation into the City of Anaheim. She said the narrow depth of the rear yard probably does contribute to making the noise from the children more noticeable plus the sound bouncing off walls because they are closer together. Ma. Santalahti asked what the operating hours were for the day care center and what hours the children were outside. Ms. Swanson said at this time her first child arrives at 7:00 a.m. and the last one leaves at 6:00 p.m. She said she is open from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. She said the children are outside from 9:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m., when they come in to watch Sesame Street, have their lunch and take their naps. She said they get up from their naps at 2:30 p.m., have indoor activities and their snacks. She said sometimes they go out from 3:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. depending on the weather. She said she has two children that get picked up at 3:00 p.m. She said she does not have night care for children. Ms. Santalahti said that means they are outside approximately 2 1/2 to 3 hours. Ma. Santalahti asked how tall the fence was that separated the Woolsey's property from her property and asked if the Woolsey's property was lower. Ms Swanson said she thought the fence was six foot tall on her side and she wasn't sure if the Woolsey's property was lower. Someone from the audience commented that the Woolsey's property was lower. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 PAGE 12 Ms. Santalahti asked if the basic fence was a block wall or a wooden fence. Ms. Swanson stated it was a block wall and explained there was some other type of fence above the block wall that was similar to bamboo and clarified the fence was on the Taylor property. Ms. Santalahti explained the letter discussed a lot of important points, but felt the noise was the major concern. She stated almost everything in the letter falls within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Social Services Agency who regulates all of the operations, the space required, etc. Ms. Santalahti stated the noise is really the only area that the City can have any practical involvement with. She stated the Zoning Code permits a 6-foot high block wall and when it is a split level lot situation, the 6 feet is measured from the highest side. She felt using more solid fencing material on the top part of the existing block wall would help in reducing the noise. Ms. Santalahti asked if they had considered adding an additional block or two to the top of the wall so the block wall would be 6-feet high. She stated she would like to see an effort made to improve the situation and because the yard is fairly shallow, the children will always be closer. Ms. Santalahti stated she will add an additional condition requiring that the applicant, within the next 90 days, raise the height of block wall to 6 feet. Ms. Swanson thought it was already 6 feet high on her side. Ms. Santalahti stated she was going to approve this because the State drafted the regulations for large family day-care centers and discourages Cities from denying such applications, unless there is something critically wrong with the property in question, but to have it denied on the basis of sound would require sound evaluations. ThQ State further states that children can be expected to make noise. Ms. Santalahti stated she was interested in the hours the children were actually outside because that would lessen the overall impact on the neighbors, but also the fact that screaming and yelling for a few moments and then being quiet for half an hour, does affect noise readings and it is not the same as being next to an industrial area. Ms. Santalahti approved this action with an added condition that within 90 days the block wall along the entire south property line that is not 6 feet high as measured on the north side, shall be increased to a maximum of 6 feet with cement blocks that basically match the existing fence. The area of difficulty with that would be if the fence actually belongs to the Woolseys. it was verified from someone in the audience that the wall is co-owned. Ms. Swanson verified that she could continue to operate as she currently is doing without doing anything to the fence. Annika Santalahti said that is correct, and everything that was discussed today was specifically concerned with increasing the center to 12 children. Ms. Santalahti stated another issue the City looks at is the parking and safety for children getting in and out of cars and if there were other family day care centers in the neighborhood, the State specifically says that is an area of regulation that the City can get into. MINUTES, ZONING ADMZN~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 • PAGE 13 Ms. Santalahti asked how many people are present today in opposition and stated she counted 7 indicating their presence and said after they all speak, the petitioner has the right to come back and comment again. Ms. Santalahti stated she would like to have different speakers from the ones who spoke at the meeting of April 20th. She noted that Mr. Woolsey, Debbie Stacker and Karen Levine were the three who spoke and four people at the time indicated their presence. Alan Dickey, 224 Mall Way, stated his concerns were those things that were under the City's jurisdiction such as the traffic and noise and he felt that approving the expansion of this facility would certainly increase those problems, consequently bringing about some degradation of property values. Russ Lemon, 221 Opal Street, stated noise is one of hie main concerns, and felt a different height on the rear fence will not protect them from the noise, because he is not directly in back of the day-care home. He explained they are on the corner and they do get the noise on their patio and said sometimes the noise is so great you can't watch TV or visit and stated it is like living next door to a school. Ms. Santalahti asked if his was the lot on the northwest corner of Mall and Topo and he indicated that was correct. He asked if the neighborhood was canvassed when the original permit was allowed. Ma. Santalahti stated that the license was issued by the Orange County agency and the City can't do anything. Mr. Lemon stated he would like to request that the back yard be assessed again and stated he did not believe the back yard was large enough to accommodate that many more children. He stated the width of the back yard from the house to the back fence may be about 16 by 50 or 15 by 50 and stated he did not believe there was enough room because of other things that are in the backyard. He stated this tract was bounded by Lincoln, Broadway, Gilbert and Monument with only two entrances to the tract, one off Gilbert and the other off Broadway and stated there are a lot of homes and a lot of traffic already existing, and this additional amount of traffic would be a burden. He agreed that this area has been a very good neighborhood and he is concerned about anything that would devalue the properties and felt if things like this are permitted it would devaluate the property. Ms. Santalahti asked if there was another person who would like to comment in opposition. Jill Martinez, 2436 Chain Avenue, stated she and her husband are opposed to this permit and were opposed at the time they received the original letter, but did not know they could object as the letter did not state they had the right to object. She stated she realizes there is a problem with available day-care as she has a 6 month old and a 2 year old and knows there is a problem in getting available day care, but she felt this is not the proper location for such a facility; therefore, she requests this permit be denied. She stated she would like to read a statement that was prepared by Debbie Stacker. Her statement is as follows: "I feel that my mother and I stated our objections very clearly in the correspondence to you as well as our belief there is ample justification for denying this permit, rather than repeat the information contained in that letter, I would like to make a couple of points that I fell will reinforce our objections. MINUTES, ZONING.ADMINZ~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 PAGE 14 One of our basic concerns is that the children's welfare be the primary consideration. I do not feel this is the case in this situation as evidenced by the fact that the County has granted a license without regard to the safety hazard which exists, specifically the washer and dryer located in the children's play area. An article in the May 1989 issue of Sesame Street Magazine Parents Guide states that "the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a warning about suffocation deaths caused by entrapments in large appliances or coolers. Since 1980 at least 76 children have died from being stuck inside washing machines, dryers, freezers, picnic coolers and ice boxes". While I realize that this hazard could easily be eliminated by relocating the washer and dryer, it has been allowed to exist during the time this location has been licensed as a small family day-care home. My point is that this exemplifies the lack of concern demonstrated by the licensing agencies and day-care provider and is indicative of the conflict which exists between the goal of providing a safe, healthy, "traditional Home setting" and the blase attitude with regard to the supervision and/or suitability of the location, based apparently on 'the fact that it is an in-home setting. There is an urgent need for day-care and I realize solutions must be found this brings me to my second point: The reason we seek solutions to problems, whether related to day-care, traffic, employment, health or housing is to protect or improve the quality of life for all people in our community; given this, any solution which diminishes the quality of life is NO SOLUTION. It is our sincere belief that allowing this permit would (or potentially could) negatively impact the quality of life for not only the affected neighbors, but the larger community and most importantly, the children. Therefore, we are left with the challenge of finding an alternative, realistic and appropriate solution. To be honest, my initial reaction to the notice when received was positive. I thought that maybe my sister could take my nephews to the day-care center when she returns to work; however, after long and careful consideration of all factors involved, I realized this was not an appropriate solution. I would not want my nephews, whom I love very much, to be cared for in this or any similar setting even if this attitude creates a hardship for my sister. Many other neighbors share our concerns including some who initially felt positive about this proposal and told us they had no objections. they too, after further considerations have realized the negative impact this would have on our neighborhood. It is unfortunate that the scheduled time of this hearing conflicts with most work schedules; thereby denying some the opportunity to voice their objections. In closing I would like to state for the record that the Woolsey's requested I reaffirm their opposition. An unalterable commitment made it impossible for them to be here today, but their objections to this permit continue to be emphatic and sincere. Considering this fact, there is one more concern I feel compelled to voice: the very real possibility that, if this permit is granted, we could lose the Woolseys as neighbors. They have been really wonderful friends and neighbors for almost 33 years. " MINUTES, ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 PAGE 15 I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak and I respectfully request this permit be denied." Jill Martinez stated that just for the record she had several more names and addresses of people who are unable to. be here; the Bentons, 225 Mall Place, the Weebees, 220 Mall Place and the Bowmans, 225 South Mall Way. Ma. Martinez stated there is a dispute here because her sister wrote down the times given for the children being outside. •She noted that just the other day, they were out and loud before 8:45 a.m. and she states this was not•an isolated incident. She realized Mr. Lemon spoke about the room for children being outside and that was also one of her personal objections .and stated she believed that with the washer and dryer and bushes, there is not the required space per child for the maximum of 12 children. Ms. Santalahti ask Ms. Martinez for a copy of Ms. Stacker's statement. Ms. Martinez asked if we got all the names and address of the other objections. Ms. Santalahti explained the only things that go into an actual decision are things that are typically read or spoken. the other will appear in the minutes of the meeting. Ms. Martinez said she had one other statement, that when the petitioner was talking about the surrounding neighborhoods with no one objecting, she said there were neighbors across the street who originally had no objection, but have since changed their minds. Since that person was not present, she did not feel at liberty to give their names. She asked if it would make any difference to voice an objection now. Ms. Santalahti said anything that comes in prior to the written decision will be considered when she makes her decision. Ms. Santalahti asked if there were any one else who wished to speak. Flo Tarlton, 229 Mall Place, stated the Center does not border her property, but she is talking from the standpoint that if it did, their yards are so small and the house are so close together, and sometimes a back room comes within 4 feet or whatever the Code is, and she stated she would not want 12 children behind her even though she realized we need day-care centers, and the traffic is a concern also. Dot Stacker, 2431 Mall Avenue, stated she is opposed to this permit on the basis and concerns in the letter she and her daughter sent. She is requesting this permit be denied. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Swanson if she would like to respond to what has been said. Ms. Swanson stated she is appalled at the way people are treating the young people in this society of ours. She stated she has been in day-care for 18 years and has never had a child hurt on her property. She stated these kids have never been out at 8:00 a.m. in the morning. The last child arrives at 9:30 a.m. She stated she objects to the lies that are going on and can't believe people do this. Ms. Swanson said for anyone to say she is neglectful is outrageous. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINI~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 ~ PAGE 16 Janice Mazza, 210 Topo Street, stated she is one of the original owners in the area. She stated that they have all-raised children and love children very much, but she felt a property owner has.a right to protect their privileges of a quiet neighborhood. She stated she feels if someone wishes to take care of children, they should do so in an area where it won't disturb other people. Ms. Mazza stated she feels her having 6 children is wonderful, but to expand it to 12 would create problems. Ms. Swanson stated she wanted to make one thing license for 6 children and the only reason that when her mother's grandchildren come over. Ms. worker advised her that when her brother with 3 operating illegally under her license conditions they want to "up" the license. clear, that is that she has a a license for 12 is required is Swanson stated her social children shows up, she is a, and that is the only reason Ms Santalahti asked if it is accurate to state that the additional children you are asking for,~other than immediate family members, will potentially be there sporadically. She clarified that Ms. Swanson would only be caring for 6 children on a regular basis and on occasion have relatives there which would expand the number to 12. Me. Swanson said that was correct. Ma. Santalahti said that was a point to make in terms of the neighbor's concerns, that is, that the practical situation will be 6 children except on occasion. Ms. Santalahti stated there is nothing she could do to deny this request for 12 children, but the neighbors have the right to object to the property County Agency if there are things the County should be checking into. She stated when the City Council was essentially forced to add the regulations of large day-care to the City's ordinances, there was a lot of discussion and concern about this type of use. She said one of the concerns is that this is basically a business, hence there should be regulations similar to business and perhaps appropriate locations. Ms. Santalahti said the State clearly states they are overriding these kinds of concerns because of the needs for child day-care. Me. Santalahti stated the traffic issues and parking concerns that were raised have been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. She stated the problems with traffic parking and letting children off, etc. are basically on busy streets where an unsafe condition would be created. She stated City streets can handle a surprising amount of traffic technically and safely which has nothing to do with peoples perception of what looks like too much traffic at certain times of the day and that the Traffic Engineer was not concerned with this particular location and does not feel that the traffic added by this particular, use is very significant in terms of traffic statistics. Ms. Santalahti stated the State and County regulations are beyond anything the City can deal with, but the area of concern where some improvement could be made is the noise level and she felt it is relative to the fencing. She stated in a typical situation in Anaheim, one could expect to see a 6-foot high block wall in a backyard, hence that would reduce the noise. She stated she will be approving this with an added condition that the block wall be increased to a height of 6 feet as measured on the highest aide, specifically with the intent of lessening the impact of the noise, maybe as much as 5$. MINUTES, ZONING ADMIN~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 • PAGE 17 Ms. Santalahti stated that often operators of day-care centers who are licensed for 6 children are requesting expansion to 12, so typically the operators who have expanded are experienced in dealing with Children. Ms. Swanson stated the County is no longer licensing any new day-care homes and that is one reason why there are many requests to expand to 12. She stated the State will be the Agency that will be issuing new day-care license. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti stated her written decision approving this permit with the added condition will be prepared within the next 7 days. She stated that this particular item is a bit different from the other items she has been hearing today and the appeal period for this particular item will be 22 days rather than the 15 days, in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code 1810.050. Ms. Santalahti stated the fence height issue will have to be resolved and her added condition is of the presumption that these two things will have to be considered: (1) that the fence can structurally support the additional weight and (2), since the fence is shared with the Woolseys, that they approve of adding the block. Me. Swanson stated she felt the Woolseys will not approve of the additional blocks on the wall and asked if she could put up a 6-foot high wooden fence on her side. Ms. Santalahti said yes. Ms. Santalahti stated the specific wording of this decision will be in the written action. She stated that basically what that means is within 90 days she would like Ms. Swanson. to come in with a plan showing what the fence will look like, assuming the Woolseys have approved it, and that structurally Building Division concurs that it will not be a problem. If the Woolseys disagree and evidence is received of their disagreement (i.e. some type of written letter), the improvement of the block wall will be a null and void issue. Ms. Santalahti stated the reason she was specifically interested in the block wall is that she felt that aesthetically it is a decent solution and also that has better sound attenuation characteristic than wood. Ms. Swanson confirmed that she could install a wooden fence if the Woolseys disagree with adding block to the existing wall. Someone from the audience asked if the wall is only required to be 6 feet on the back and not the sides. Ms. Santalahti stated the reason she is not asking for the additional block on the sides is because there would be two heights between the neighbors. Someone from the audience also asked about the washers, dryers, bushes, etc. and who would they contact to find out if the 75 square feet that is required per child is being provided. Ms. Santalahti said the Orange County Social Services Agency. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. MINUTES, ZONING ADMIN~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 PAGE 18 Ms. Santalahti stated the written decision will be available seven days from today and if anybody in the audience would like a copy, give staff a self-addressed, stamped envelope and write Day-Care 89-02 on it, and a copy of the decision will be mail to you, and again stated this a 22-day appeal period rather than 15. This decision shall become final. unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 22 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 22 days. ITEM NO. 7 (PUBLIC HEARING) Laroe Familv Day-Care 89-03 PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICANT: Moo Yeol Rah, 2207 W. Woodley Avenue, Anaheim, Ca 92803. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.16 acre, having a frontage of approximately 67 feet on the north side of Woodley Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 108 feet, being location approximately 150 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street and further described as 2211 Woodley Avenue. To establish a large family day care facility for a maximum of 12 children. Property is located at 2211 W. Woodley Avenue. This item was continued until the meeting of June 1, 1989 which is the date the item was actually advertised to be heard. ITEM NO. 8. (PUBLIC HEARING) AMUSEMENT ARCADE PERMIT NO. 1004 PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICANT: Lois Hagood, 226 Royce Place, Anaheim, Ca 92804. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 440 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 270 feet, being located approximately 210 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 201 South Brookhurst Street. To permit 20 amusement devices (19 videos and 1 pinball machine) in an existing bowling center (Linbrook Bowl). There was no one indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Annika Santalahti asked if the applicant was present. Lois Hagood, 226 Royce Place, Anaheim, stated she is the general manager of Linbrook Bowl and explained they are asking for permits to have videos. She verified they are an established business and will only be adding the videos to one room inside the building. Ms, Santalahti noted the notices for this hearing were mailed out May 5th to residents and business within 300 feet of this location and that would make the 15th the last date for anyone to appeal this request and since no one appeared in apposition and no correspondence was received, she expected to approve this application. MINUTES, ZONING ADMIN~TOR, MAY 18, 1989 PAGE 19 PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti clarified that this particular item has a 10-day appeal period and will be on the City Council Informational Calendar within that 10-day period and if Council would set this for a public hearing, a new notice would be mailed from City Clerk's Office. Ms. Hagood stated she did not believe there will be any opposition at the Council meeting, since this facility has been in existence for years. Ms. Santalahti stated she did not anticipate any opposition being that this request is in connection with the bowling alley. Ms. Hagood verified it will be inside the bowing alley and they do not have an arcade in there. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is"filed with the City Clerk within 10 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision said 10 days. ITEM NO. 9 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None ITEM NO. 10 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Me. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 12:17 p.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator