Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1989/04/20 • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - April 20, 1989 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., April 20, 1989, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard Mc Ghee, 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. ITEM N0. 1 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3125 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: INVESTOR REALTY COMPANY, 500 Newport Center Drive, 4th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.67 acres located at the northwest corner of .Ratella Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 350 feet on the north side of Ratella Avenue and 333 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, and further described as 1721 W. Ratella Avenue, Unit G. To permit on sale beer and wine within an enclosed restaurant. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Joe Vallee, owner, said he is moving his Togos Eatery (a sandwich and specialty deli shop) from across the street to this location. He said he has done business. there for it years. He said he currently sells beer and wine which comprises about 3~ of his business during the summer months. He said he needs a Conditional Use Permit to sell at his new location. Ms. Santalahti asked if the beer and wine was served only to people eating on the premises and if he provided take-out food. Mr. Vallee said there was take-out food but the majority of beer and wine that is sold is consumed on the premises. He said if beer and wine were to leave the premises it would have to be unopened. He said this amounted to only 1/4th of his sales. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ..1 • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 2 Ms. Santalahti asked if there was any prohibition on beer and wine sales in connection with the parking waiver granted in accordance with Conditional Use Permit No. 3139. Mr. McGhee said not to his knowledge, and noted that the parking was calculated for fast food use. Ms. Santalahti approved this proposal based on the fact that the proposed use is one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code; and 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. 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. ITEM N0. 2. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1, VARIANCE NO :. 3.927 ' PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: EUGENE P. NOONAN, 126 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.32 acres, having a frontage of approximately 258 feet on the east side of Peralta Hills Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 279 feet, being located approximately 220 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon road, and further described as 126 Peralta Hills Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a second story addition to an existing single-family residence. Continued from the meeting of April 6, 1989. There were three people indicating their presence in opposition and one letter in opposition was submitted at the hearing. Ms. Santalahti said she would like the applicant to explain why the .house was already being framed. Gene Noonan, owner,. said the house was framed anc'L~they called for a roof-sheeting inspection. He said at that time they were notified that they exceeded the height limitation by four feet. He said originally they were 'going to go with a 17-foot plate height, and then they lowered it and made the pitch of the roof steeper to accommodate the English Tudor look. He said the plate line on the. second floor was lowered •from eight feet to four feet nine inches. Ms. Santalahti asked if, before it was discovered that the roof height was over Code, had they made an adjustment between the building .permit and the actual construction that took place... Mr. Noonan said no. • .., • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 3 Roland Rruger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, said Peralta Hills is about 90~ developed and except for a few places that have received Variances, development is within the Scenic Corridor Standards of 25-feet. He noted the application stated that there were several houses in the surrounding area over 25-feet in height and Mr. Rruger did not feel this was true. He said there is one nearby that is over 25=feet; however, it sits up against a very steep hill and obviously met the criteria for a Variance. He said there is nothing unusal about this lot. He said it is very flat and there are no special circumstances applicable to the property. He said while this proposal is on the same site as the old house, so much has been demolished and altered it is essentially a new house. He noted it is the builder's responsibility to find out what is required by the Zoning Code and then abide by that Code. He said this proposal is clearly in violation of the height standards. He said he disagrees with the staff report as he felt the total roof area over 25-feet was more than 10~ if the ridgelines of the whole house were counted. He noted his concern about the fact this is in the process of being built without prior approval, and if a Variance is granted, a message is being sent to other builders that if you can find some way of getting the house built with nobody noticing it until you get it almost constructed, you are going to get your Variance approved. Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, said she came here. this morning under the impression there was a mistake made by the Building Division in signing off the permit. She said when she talked with a Planner she learned that the plans were submitted to Zoning at 25-feet maximum height, the Building Division signed it off as okay, and then when a Building Inspector went out to inspect the building he found it to be 29 1/2 feet high so issued a stop work order. She said she agreed with Roland Rruger, and stated that the total ridgelines of the whole house are approximately 125-feet. She said 57-feet of the total ridgelines were over 25-feet, and that is approximately 46~ rather than 10~ as stated in the proposed ordinance. She said apparently the builder took it upon himself to build it at 29 1/2 feet knowing no one was going to make him tear it down. She felt if this Variance is allowed it will set a precedent that will go on forever. She stated she was strongly opposed to this Variance request. She submitted a letter from the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition. She noted the letter was written prior to the information she learned this morning. Ms. Santalahti said she would read the letter when the other person in opposition has spoken. Nancy Vanderpool, 119 S. Peralta Hills Drive., said she lives across the street and had not received notice of this hearing except through her neighbor who had mentioned it to her two days ago. She said she has the same concerns as the two people who just spoke about the excessive amount of height above 25-feet. She said she is also concerned because this does not seem to be a isolated situation. She said she has been to other hearings where a permit was issued and the builder has taken it upon himself to do something other then what is the norm, figuring that the Council will feel sorry for him and the homeowners, and let them get away with it because of the expense. She • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 4 said they built their house as an owner/builder in 1978 and at that time no builders would ever have thought to do such a thing. She said now it is common knowledge among their builder friends that you can get away with this because it has been done on several occasions in the past. She said they built in Peralta Hills because of the restrictions and the quaintness of the area. She said she feels the law should be followed and they should get their building permits. She said if they want a Variance, then they should go through the procedure at the time, not after the fact. She. said she feels they knew exactly what they were doing and they should have to tear it down. Ms. Santalahti noted she did not see Mrs. Vanderpool's name on the mailing list, and said she would have someone check into why it was left off. Ms. Santalahti read the letter•from the Anaheim Hi11s Citizen's Coalition (copy attached). In rebuttal, Mr. Noonan said he was sorry about the opposition.. He said his whole house is not above the height limitation, just one portion. He said his lot sits approximately 7 1/2 feet below the street, and all the other houses around and behind his sit approximately 60-feet up on top of a bluff. He said the main part of his house exceeded the height limitation, and the maximum roof height on the remaining 70-feet was only 21-feet high. He said this house was identical to the house built on the corner of Cerro Vista and Peralta Hills Drive. He said the roof of that house is 3 1/2 feet higher than his roof. He said there are four homes in the area under construction that are over the 25-foot height limitation. He said one of those houses is 38-feet high, so he does not feel he is asking for any thing out of the realm of what is being built. He noted he was going to live in the house and wanted the English Tudor look. He said he has lowered the roof line toward the first floor as much as possible and still be able to walk into the room. He said if the Zoning Administrator feels he needs to bring it down,. he will bring it down, but feels the design would like kind of silly because he would not lower the pitch, just cut off the top of the roof. Ms. Santalahti commented on the history of the Peralta Hills area stating there has been a 25-foot height limitation for a number years. She noted this was not particularly an issue until the past few years when there was a lot of activity in building taller houses..' She said before, the interpretation of how height was measured was: do you measure at the tallest part of the house or do you average the tallest and the lowest, if you are on a hillside, do you take the middle of the hill and let the lower part be higher because the higher part is lower, and so on. She said it would not surprise her if builders got permits and built slightly beyond what they were supposed to because there was not a huge interest in what was happening at that time and the inspectors never really paid that much attention because 25-feet to 27-feet is not necessarily obvious. She also said the Building Division likes to make their measurements from the finished floor levels and Zoning Division from the ground levels: She said because of the activity that was going on, and the different kinds of interpretations that seemed to be taking place, the • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 5 City is taking a real strong look at the height standard.. She said, as you know, we do have a pending Code change that has been discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. She said Council sent the ordinance back to get precise wording on the height measurement, and probably since the time you talked to staff there has been a slightly different development addressing the issue of ridge~ines. She said before that, they were considering an ordinance that would not allow anything like a ridgeline but rather allow architectural embellishments and towers, etc. that were. features on the building, not the main part of the building. She said based on some recent discussions staff will probably present the Council with a draft that says a ridgeline can go over the 25-feet up to 30-feet; however, the ridgeline shall be either less than 20-feet long or shall not exceed 109, of the combined ridgelines of the dwelling or whatever is smaller of the two. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said this has happened before, where someone pulls a permit for modification and then modify beyond what she would consider a modification. She noted Mr. Noonan had pulled three building permits: in June of 1988 there was a permit to convert the garage to a room and add a new garage, in. July of 1988 there was a permit for an addition to extend the family room and in November of 1988 there was`a permit for an addition (this is where. the information came for the wording in the staff report) to add four bedrooms, a second-story and three .bathrooms. She said this seemed like an unusal way to go about getting a building permit. Mr. Noonan said originally they were just going to. add on to the existing structure and leave it a single-story, but then decided to go to. a two-story house. Ms. Santalahti said when a building permit is filed for new construction it goes to the Zoning Division, and they are the ones who would pick up the height requirements. Mr. Noonan said they changed their minds about what they originally wanted to do, and that was why there was a six-months difference in the permits. Ms. Santalahti said it sounded to her.like only certain staff saw this request, and others who should have didn't, and this was probably because of it being presented as an addition. Ms. Santalahti noted she had acted on one or two other Zoning actions not too dissimilar to this request; however, they were lower and she had used the pending ordinance as part of the reason for acting favorably.. She said in one case, she acted entirely favorable because it was .within 99.8 of the pending Code change. She said that particular Code change gives a little more freedom in terms of the design of the building.. She said she agrees that the property is below everything to the east, west and the south. She said, however, .... • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR;_APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 6 impacting views of neighbors is not the only concern addressed in the Scenic Corridor Height Standards. She said they are also concerned with .how things look as you drive around the area. She noted this property is in a highly visible location. ,She .said she felt it is a poor practice for builders to get permits for one thing and then make modifications that really require a new permit. Ms. Santalahti noted that this request is quite a bit beyond the intent of the draft ordinance. Mr. Noonan asked if all ridgelines are counted. Ms. Santalahti said they counted the ridgelines that are over floor areas. She said one type that worked out nicely was a house that had gabled roofs with relatively short ridgelines compared to the overall situation, and they came in with a total of approximately 10-feet 5-inches.. She asked applicant if he would like to make changes to his proposal. Ms. Santalahti said she could act favorably if applicant would submit revised plans showing a ridgeline .that does not exceed 20-feet or 10~ of the. total ridgelines. She said she would like to make a decision that. would be the best possible for everyone concerned. Mr. Noonan said he would like to have a two-week continuance in order to bring in revised plans. Ms. Santalahti continued the item until the meeting. of May 4, 1989 and advised Mr. Noonan he would have to have his plans into the Planning Department by 5:00 p.m. on April 27, 1989. Ms. Santalahti informed the audience that this item would not be readvertised. ITEM N0. 3 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 and being located approximately 35.2 feet north of the centerline of .Coronado Street, and further described as 12.60 North Lance Lane. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 940 square foot addition to an existing industrial building. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Al Anderson, Environmental Consultant for Details Incorporated, said they have three buildings, two on Simon Circle and one on Lance Lane.. He. said they are in the printed circuit board industry, and in-order to comply with Environmental Regulations they were required to put in a waste treatment • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 7 system. He said there wasn't available space on their present property to put in a waste treatment system, so they purchased property on Lance Lane to allow them to have space to put in a system that will accommodate all four buildings. He said there would not be any expansioia of personnel but some moving of operations into the new building to facilitate better working conditions. Ms. Santalahti asked if the building currently existed. Mr. Anderson said yes, it is an existing building and applicant made an agreement with the former owner that he would build him a new building if he could have the existing building in order to comply with the Sanitation District requirements. He said they are requesting the parking waiver so they can put in a building for waste treatment system. He said they will actually only lose two parking spaces. John Tempte, 3031 E. Coronado, said he has the industrial park on Coronado and Simon Circle. He said the parking problem is not all Details but an area problem. He said Details has over one hundred employees. He said there are gates between the properties so the employees can walk between the buildings. He said he has over 67,000 square feet of industrial buildings with very adequate and well maintained parking areas. He said several years ago Details (at 1241) got permission to use their parking lot for manufacturing. He said at that time Details was renting a building from him and he had 30 to 40 extra parking spaces they could use. He said the applicant no longer leases the property. He noted at that time Details was going to provide busing over to Kraemer and that never took place. He submitted pictures of various situations and stated that basically the 1231 building has no parking. at all, 1221 has parking modified to hold more cars than normal and employees can't get in or out when they have to exchange at shift time. He said the parking lot on Lance Lane is taken up with other structures. He said 1261 is a boat company which has one parking place and all the rest is fenced for storage of boats. He said 1251 has boat storage and a warehousing area in their parking lot. He said 1231 has manufacturing, which was approved, in their parking lot. He said 1211 has chemical tanks and other structures in their parking lot, plus they lease their parking lot out a night to a plumbing company to park their trucks. He said basically four out of six 5,000 foot buildings have no parking at all. In addition, he submitted a picture taken this morning showing two cars blocking his driveway noting the situation occurs everyday. He said Details. does have a big sign on their door stating that if anyone parks across the street, they are illegally parked, and will be towed away. He said it is not written in Spanish and the violators say they cannot read the sign and do not understand. He said they are approximately 30 cars over capacity during shift change and the police come in and ticket because employees are double parked. He .said this causes Details employees to use his parking lot. He said he felt the police ticketing actually created more problems. He said one picture shows cars blocking the driveway with a car parked illegally across the street on the curb. He said they also park blocking fireplugs and on the grass. He stated his tenants call daily • r ~ LJ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20. 1989 PAGE 8 complaining they can't use their parking spaces because others are parked there. He said Detail's employees eat in his parking lot because Detail turns their sprinklers on at noon and the employees can't eat on their grass. He said he turned his sprinklers on at noon last week and they were broken off. He said the parking situation is terrible and someone has to do some thing about it. Mr. McGhee said one of the Conditions of approval requires the parking plan to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. He said that Condition was to include either the removal of the fence or that the fence be kept open at all times. He said this was indicated to the applicant at the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting. Lawrence Heap, 1265 Lance Lane, said he is the owner/user of the property across the street. He said as this applicant enlarges his business they have more and more problems on the street. He said his only concern is that the applicant allow enough room for his employees to park. He stated this was never done and applicant's employees are always blocking the driveways, etc. He said the police are out there everyday trying to do something about it. He said the police always correct it when they are called.. He had a picture showing how nice Lance Lane looks early in the morning but indicated by two or three o'clock in the afternoon it looks like a jungle. He said he doesn't know what can be done about it. Jim Swenson, President and owner of Details, said he was not expanding the employee count and noted there will not be any more employees then they have had the past two years. He said the only reason he purchased this building was to comply with the Orange County Sanitation District requirements to clean the copper out of the waste water. He said the area is not a private community like some of the industrial areas and the streets are a standard width. He said his office secretary watches Mr. Tempte's parking lot and advises their salesmen not to park in his lot. He said he has tried very hard to keep his employees off Mr. Tempte's property at lunch time. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said when she went out to look at the property she especially noticed what seemed to be a lot of enthusiasm for building in. the parking lots. She said she didn't think she saw a parking lot that wasn't either fenced off and used for outdoor storage or had .some type of construction in it. She said it appears most users do not have the amount of .parking spaces they originally had. She said the area was probably built when parking standards were a bit lower than they are now, and she could definitely see there was a problem in the area. She asked if there was a plan submitted along with the traffic study to the Traffic Engineer showing all of Detail's buildings, the accessibility between those buildings, and the availability of parking, as she had not seen such a plan. Mr. Swenson said yes. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20. 1989 PAGE 9 Ms. Santalahti said she understood Mr. Tempte's concerns. She said she would be very uncomfortable approving this Variance until the current situation is resolved. She said she only has one site plan of the building and would like more detailed plans. She said she would like the applicant to submit a site plan that includes the other building, shows specifically what is actual available parking, identify the fences and gates, identify if there is parking behind the fences and gates, and if there are other miscellaneous storage buildings, including canopied storage areas, etc., and show public .street access. She said she would also like an indication as to the employee count for each building. r Ms. Santalahti said since Traffic Engineering is interested in a traffic management plan of some type, she would also like to see the plan. She said she wants to see a plan that will improve the parking and that can really be implemented. Mr. Swenson said they would like to ask for a two-week continuance in order to bring in the plans requested by the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Santalahti continued this item until the meeting of May 4, 1989 and noted it would not be readvertised. She advised Mr. Swenson the plans would have to be submitted to the Planning Department within one-week. Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. McGhee to have staff check with the Traffic Engineer to find out what type of traffic parking management plan they would need. ITEM N0. 4 (PUBLIC HEARING) FAMILY DAY CARE N0. 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 and being located approximately 130 feet west of the centerline of Topo Street, and further described as 2426 W. Transit Avenue. To establish a large family day care facility for a maximum of 12 children. Property is located at 2426 W. Transit Avenue. There were four people indicating their presence in opposition. One letter and one petition containing six signatures were received in support, and one letter was received in opposition. Ms. Santalahti spoke to the audience about the history on Large Family Day Care Centers stating that the State of California has in many ways preempted what the City can do in this area. She said up until approximately five years ago, per Anaheim's regulations, a use involving this number of children would have required a Conditional Use Permit and a standard public hearing before the Planning Commission. She said the State of California made some changes to the regulations regarding the caring for children in a home atmosphere, etc., saying that the City can have public notification of the application but • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 10 essentially the City cannot deny the use. She said if there is written opposition to the notice, the item can be set•for a public hearing. She said the City basically cannot deny the request unless there is some thing untrue in the application itself.. She noted if there were another day care facility within a certain radius of this location, that would be a reason to deny the application. She said there might be some thing .that the City could add as a Condition of approval that may address the concerns of the neighbors. Kathleen Swanson, applicant, said she has had a license for six children and has increased this amount to 12 children. She said her mother would be acting as her helper.. She said they increased the amount of children because her mother has 13 grandchildren, of which eight are under the age of ten, and her social worker told her that when•she has six children at the center and the grandchildren visit she is over the limit of children she is allowed. She said she has been in the day care business for 18 years; however, not at this location. She noted she has already .received her license from the State and that the home met State requirements. She said there is adequate space even though it seems small. Bob Woolsey, 2427 Mall Avenue, said they were quite disturbed to receive the notice of the day care center. He said they have lived there 32 years. He said the day care center is immediately behind them. He said they were not aware they had a license for even six children. He said they noticed. the increase in children and the noise is horrendous. He submitted a drawing he had drafted to scale showing the lot in question and the surrounding houses. He submitted and described photographs of his yard and the day care center yard, along with a tape of the noises being made by the children and adults. He said most day care centers have a fenced play area in the front yard. He said Jonathan Borrego, Assistant Planner, measured an aerial photograph of the back yard of the day care center, and estimated the back yard to be 12 feet deep. He said that is a very narrow back yard for 12 children to .play in. He said the area where the children congregate is concrete or -some other hard surface patio. He said the house is high, approximately one and one-half stories behind the patio, and has a solid patio roof which makes a speaker box that points all of the sound directly towards his house.. He said his house is set 21-feet from the rear property line, but still when they open their doors or windows the noise is amazingly loud. He said the children aren't the only factor, the supervising adults are .louder as they have to be heard over the children. He said this has been their home and source of comfort for 32-years, and if this permit is granted, this will no longer be the case.. He said if the noise becomes so unbearable that they have to sell their house, he does not think they would be able to sell it very easily because of all the noise and would probably not get anywhere near the true value. of the house. He said he did not think the State should dictate to-the City to such an extent that a critical situation such as this could not be handled. He said he had looked at the file and saw the petition and letter in favor of the proposal. He said he wondered if these were working .people who were not home during the day. He said they were in favor of day care centers and • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 11 children, but if it affects his livelihood (he is semi-retired and has an office in his home), his retirement, and_the value of his home., they have to speak in opposition. He said they have had no difficulty with their neighbor and .she is a pleasant woman and nice neighbor. Ms. Santalahti asked if the fence between the two yards was a wooden fence. Mr. Woolsey said it was a block wall built to the legal limit and then he added a screen because the yards are so close together. Ms. Santalahti asked if the two lots were at a different grade and Mr. Woolsey said he thought his neighbors lot was one to two feet higher than his. Ms. Santalahti asked if the block wall was six-feet measured on his side or the neighbors side, and Mr. Woolsey said he thought it was about six feet on his side. Debbie Stacker, 2431 Mall Avenue, said their lot was situated diagonally south west of the lot in question. She said she agreed with everything Mr. Woolsey had said. She said her bedroom is situated in the back of the house and she hears noise all the time. She said she works only part-time because her health and she. needs a lot of rest. She said, as Mr. Woolsey stated, it is not just the children it is the adults, and hearing them above the children compounds the problem. She said she cannot understand how the State can preempt what the City can do. She said your residence should be the most private, personal, and peaceful place, and that right should not be removed. She said she felt it was livable with six children but considers 12 children in that small of an area to be excessive. Karen Lemmon, 211 S. Topo, said her house is on the map Mr. Woolsey submitted. She said there are two swimming pools to the east of the residence which concerns her for the children's safety. She said .she, is a retired school teacher and taught for 30-years so she is accustomed to children. She said yesterday afternoon she was on her back patio and the children were crying. She said if she had been entertaining it would have been unpleasant. She said her husband was an original owner. She said the back patio of the day care center is very small, and there is not enough room for play equipment for the children. She said she has taught from kindergarten to the fourth grade, and small children need play equipment. She said the applicant could fence in the front yard to give the children a better place to play. She said the neighbors to the east of the day care center work during the day. She noted that she and her husband were retired and they spent a lot of time in their yard. She said she has a garden and an orchid house in her back yard. She agreed with the neighbor that wrote the letter saying that children"s laughter is fun to hear; however, this neighbor works and is not usually home during the day. She said if the front yard were fenced the children could have swings, play equipment, and a place to throw balls and bean bags. Ms. Santalahti noted for the record that a petition containing six signatures in favor of the proposal was received, one letter in favor was received, and one letter in opposition from Mr. Woolsey was received. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 12 In rebuttal, Ms. Swanson said the woman in favor of her proposal works part-time and is in and out during the day. She said this lady enjoys seeing the children and hearing them. She said the man nest door to them is a day sleeper as he works the evening shift, and has told them that the children do not bother him that much. She said the children are not let outside until 9:30 a.m., and are out until 11:30 a.m. She said they come in and eat their lunch and take their naps. She said they get up from their naps and have indoor activity and then go out again at 2:30 p.m. She said they are out until approximately 3:30 p.m. when most of them are either getting picked up or getting ready to be.picked up. She said the children are really not outside that many hours. She stated the house has already been approved by the State and she already has the license to care for 12 children. She said the property has been measured and noted they are required to have 35 square foot per child indoors, and 75 square foot outdoors where the children would play. She said her yard does meet these standards. She said the children she takes care of do not know the swimming pools are in the neighborhood. Ms. Santalahti asked if she could operate now, or did she have to wait for the City to give approval.. Ms. Swanson said she has to wait for the City to give approval. Ms. Swanson said she is caring for five children now. She noted that four of the~l2 children can be under two-years of age and they would never be in the yard. Ms. Santalahti asked what the ages were of the children she was caring for at this time, and Ms. Swanson said she has a three-year-old girl, a two and one-half-year old girl, two two-year old boys, and a three=month old baby girl. Ms. Santalahti asked if this license were approved how many children did she expect to have, and Ms. Swanson said approximately two more children. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked if the State had a minimum fence height standard, and Ms. Swanson said not to her knowledge, that it only states she have a fenced in area. Ms. Santalahti asked if the neighbors to the east, with the swimming pools, were on the same grade level as her house, and Ms. Swanson said yes. Ms. Santalahti said the State does identify certain issues that the City can use to regulate large family day care centers. She said similar facilities cannot be located to close together, and traffic generated by the facility cannot create any problems in the neighborhood. She said concerns in other instances have basically been because of traffic issues such as parents parking in someone else's driveway to drop off children etc., and generally speaking the neighbors weren't even aware that there was a day care center in the neighborhood, so obviously noise was not an issue. She said the State • ~ MII~JTE~, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 13 does say that noise controls are pertinent; however, it then says the noise level should be consistent with the Noise Element of the City's General Plan.. Ms. Santalahti said the City's Noise Element is really quite general and she was not sure it took noise levels generated by children into consideration. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Swanson if anyone to her knowledge had ever complained to the County Agency about the noise, and she said not to her knowledge. Mr. Woolsey stated something .from the audience and Ms. Santalahti asked him to come to the podium. Mr. Woolsey said they were aware of an increase in noise but were not aware of any licensed operation. He said Ms. Swanson moved into her mother's house not too long ago, and they assumed there would be an increase in children's activity, but in terms .of a permanent situation of up to 12 children. He said if they had known that they would have complained to the County. Ms. Santalahti said she would like to have more information relative to the shallow rear yards. She said this wasn't a typical situation in Anaheim.. She said in the fifties when this property was developed, there were a number of similar projects being built in the County. She said she was not sure if the City could use the• noise factor as a means to regulate the day care center. Ms. Santalahti said even if the small yard meets the State standards, if the fact the yard is small results in a relative increase in noise, that might negate the yard meeting the standard. She agreed, with Mr. Woolsey, that a roofed deck/patio bounced sound differently then an unroofed deck/patio. Mr. Woolsey played the tape of the children's noise as heard from his back yard and said he was `not testifying that. the volume was accurate.. He said he just wanted to present the feel of the type of noise they .have been exposed to. He said the tape runs for about 10 to 15 seconds. Ms: Santalahti said in order to take a closer look at the State Regulations and the City's General Plan Noise Element, she would like to continue- this item four weeks until the meeting of May 18, 1989. She said the information may not ultimately affect the fact that she may have. to approve. this request. She noted this item would not be readvertised. Ms. Santalahti said copies of the State Regulations for the Zoning of Family Day Care Homes would be available at the Planning Department counter after 3:00 p.m.. tomorrow if 'anyone would like a copy. ITEM N0. 5 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: AMUSEMENT ARCADE PERMIT N0. 1004: To permit 20 amusement arcade devices. Property is located at 201 S. Brookhur'st St. (End of public notice period: April 17, 1989). • • MIN~JTES; ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 20, 1989 PAGE 14 U ITEM N0. 6 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: ~I ~ Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary 0254g nika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator