Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1990/05/31• ACTION AGENDA L~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1990, 9:30 A.M. Procedure to Expedite Meetinct: The proponents for conditional use permit and variance applications which are not contested will have 5 minutes to present their evidence. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each have 10 minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. After the opponent(s) speak, the proponent will have 5 minutes for rebuttal. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your name. Staff Reports are part of the evidence received by the Zoning Administrator at each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to and at the meeting. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in the Administrator's opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. All documents presented to the Zoning Administrator for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the City of Anaheim for the public record and shall be available for public inspection. The action taken by the Zoning Administrator on this date regarding conditional use permits and variances is final unless, within 15 days of the Zoning Administrator's written decision being placed in the U.S. Mail, an appeal is filed. Such appeal shall be made at any time following the public hearing and prior to the conclusion of the appeal period. An appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee equal to one-half the amount of the original filing fee. The City Clerk, upon filing of such an appeal, will set said conditional use permit or variance for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. After the scheduled public hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest under "Items of Public Interest". Such items must be within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of 3 minutes to speak. Before speaking, please give your name and address and spell your last name. 0491g Page 1' la. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 lb. VARIANCE N0. 4046 (READVERTISED) OWNER: GEORGE & JUNO LU, 118 S. Montgomery Way, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: NORMAN McCURRY, 3315 E. Miraloma #114, Anaheim, CA 92806. LOCATION: 118 South Montgomery Way Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story 37-foot high single family residence. Continued from Zoning Administrator meeting of May 3, 1990. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-27 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 2b. VARIANCE N0. 4047 OWNER: JOHN J. STEVENS, 1570 W. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1570 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately .26 acre on the south side of Katella Avenue approximately 225 feet east of the centerline of Bayless Street. Waivers of permitted location of freestanding signs and permitted wall signs to construct a 52 square-foot freestanding sign and wall signs. Continued from Zoning Administrator meeting of May 17, 1990. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-28 Approved with revised plans Approved, in part 5-31-90 Page 2 .. 3a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 15 3b. VARIANCE N0. 4051 OWNER: Pierco Development, 14771 Plaza Drive, Suite A, Tustin, CA 92680. LOCATION: 712, 718, 724 and 728 West Romneya Drive Waivers of (a) minimum building site width and (b) minimum side yard setback to establish a 4-lot subdivision of a 16-unit apartment complex (under construction). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-29 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3276 OWNER: HWA JA RAH, 2207 W. Woodley Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. LOCATION: 2207 and 2211 West Woodley Avenue To permit a child care facility for 30 children. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 5. INFORMATIONAL ITEM: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0050 and CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5: Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story 11,169 square foot single-family residence at 267 Peralta Way. (End of public notice period: 5-31-90) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-30 6. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Approved Modified Cond. Nos. 2 & 10 Continued to 6-14-90 Approved if no opposition is received by 5:00 p.m. None 5-31-90 Page 3 ~n • • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - MAY 31, 1990 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., May 31, 1990, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Della Herrick, Associate Planner Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Margarita Perez, Acting 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 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE N0. 4046 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GEORGE & JUNO LU, 118 S. Montgomery Way, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: NORMAN McCURRY, 3315 E. Miraloma #114, Anaheim, CA 92806. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Lakeview Avenue and Montgomery Way, having approximate frontages of 232 feet on the west side of Lakeview Avenue and 187 feet on. the south side of Montgomery Way, and further described as 118 South Montgomery Way. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 37-foot high single-family residence. Continued from the Zoning Administrator meeting of May 3, 1990. There were 2 people indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Ms. Santalahti stated this item was continued from the May 3, 1990, Zoning Administrator meeting in order for the applicant to look at revisions to the plan to reduce or eliminate the waiver being requested. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 2 Norman McCurry, 520 Londerry Dr., stated the staff report is incorrect in that it reads the maximum height is thirty-seven feet but it is actually thirty-five feet. He stated they were at twenty-five percent (over 25 feet) in the past but now the new plan is twelve percent of the roof area over twenty-five feet of which two percent exceeds thirty feet. He stated they feel they have made many concessions and done a great job at getting this project closer to Code. He stated they met with some of the neighbors to try and show them more in depth what the project is. He stated the variance will not change the look of the house from any side. He stated the thirty-five foot point takes place right at the center of the house and from the back of the house you will see a deck of a two-story house and a similar view in every other direction. Ms. Santalahti asked are there any actual roof ridge lines involved and Mr. McCurry answered there is a ridge line, but it is at twenty-five feet. Mr. McCurry stated there is no ridge line that exceeds twenty-five feet. Ms. Santalahti asked if the area between twenty-five and thirty feet is a peaked roof area. Mr. McCurry answered ten percent of it is flat and two percent is a peaked roof. Ron Pharris, 130 E1 Dorado Lane, stated his property backs up to the development on Montgomery Way. He stated he has submitted two letters and has met with the owner's representative. He stated he is very happy to see that the project was reduced to twelve percent instead of twenty-five percent over 25 feet high. He stated his concern from the E1 Dorado side is that their homes back up to that development and they would not want a precedent set so they are going to be looking at other thirty-five foot high structures. He stated a future developer of a future home backing up to the residences on E1 Dorado Lane is going to look and see what has been previously approved, and they are going to argue the point that the City let the person across the street have a 35-foot house and now they should let him have 35 feet also. He stated he is speaking more to protect himself in the future when, potentially, there will be a hearing on another height variance. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, stated over ninety percent of the Peralta Hills area is now developed within the Code standards. He stated there have been a number of occasions in the past when people have asked for height waivers and they have been denied because there were no special circumstances related to the land. He stated the City would be inconsistent from that standpoint to grant this variance with height as high as thirty-five feet. He stated it would create a precedent even though there is not a lot of land left to be developed. He stated there are still a lot of remodelings and that means that Peralta Hills can end up with a lot of high rise residences that approach a three-story, thirty-five foot height. He stated from the stand point of consistency the City should deny this application. Ms. Santalahti stated there were a number of opposition letters received prior to the last hearing. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 3 Mr. McCurry stated they have done a lot of work to bring the height down. He stated there is no way you can see the thirty-five feet from any place outside the house. He stated if there was an identical situation to this lot with a stepped lot and an identical house plan, then a precedent might be set. He stated they have come very close to Code and made a lot of design concessions on the project at great cost not only in terms of design, but also in terms of time delays. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti asked what will be the relationship or difference between the finished pad of this property to the property that is immediately to the south and also to the homes on E1 Dorado Lane further west. Mr. McCurry responded that the existing pad height is probably three or four feet above the pad to the south and very close to other pads on E1 Dorado Lane. He stated in the re-design of this project they have lowered the highest roof line two feet. Ms. Santalahti stated under the revised plans a total of twelve percent of the roof area is going to be over twenty-five, with ten percent between twenty-five feet and thirty feet, and another two percent over thirty feet. She stated there are no ridge lines over twenty-five feet, but there is a peaked roof. She stated the area over the two percent that is over the thirty feet is in the center of the house, but other than that, as viewed from all directions the actual wall planes people will be able to see are all going to be at Code and then as you go to the middle of the building there is going to be a spot where the earth is down deeper than it would be if the lot were graded differently. Ms. Santalahti stated this project was categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report under Class 3. She approved Variance No. 4046 with the revised plans because only two percent of the house deviates from the permitted ten percent which can exceed twenty-five feet, and that there are no exterior walls over twenty-five .feet high which are entirely visible from the base of said wall to the top. She stated Mr. Pharris's concern regarding precedence is always valid because people have a tendency to come in and' comment on other projects, but each project is really its own. She stated the lots that are between this one and the El Dorado Lane homes become really critical because of that nearness and they will be looked at much more strictly if anybody does come in with a height variance. She stated each approved project must stand on its own and other than somebody coming in with an identical lot, with an identical house configuration and in identical location relative to the neighbors they cannot expect to be approved simply because another person got a height variance between thirty and thirty-five feet. 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. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May, 31, 1990 PAGE 4 ITEM N0. 2 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE N0. 4047 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JOHN J. STEVENS, 1570 W. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .26 acre, having a frontage of approximately 89 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 126 feet, being located approximately 225 feet east of the centerline of Bayless Street, and further described as 1570 West Katella Avenue. Waivers of permitted location of a freestanding sign and permitted wall signs to construct a 52 square-foot freestanding sign and 5 wall signs. Continued from the Zoning Administrator meeting of May 17, 1990, for the applicant to revise the plans to reduce the amount of signage. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. John Stevens, 1570 W. Katella Avenue, stated the required sideyard distance to maintain the forty percent of lot width from the side property line to the monument sign would create a problem with the existing overhead awnings that he has on his building. Ms. Santalahti asked what is the reason for the base of the monument sign being three feet, three inches high. Mr. Stevens responded this is so that it can go over the existing fencing that he has in the front. Michael Badders, 1521 W. Nottingham Lane, stated the property itself is well advertised as it sits. He stated he feels an abundance of signage is being proposed. He stated during the night the flourescent signs on the windows are all lit, the awnings also have signage and it is all just one big advertisement. He stated he lives in a residential complex two lots away. Hal Roach, 1537 W. Nottingham Lane, stated he bought his property in 1983 and was one of the first persons to buy there. He stated at that time it was a residential area situated between two commercial areas to the east and to the west. He stated since that time the commercial areas have been encroaching into the area. He stated they have more and more signs going up for different businesses. He stated the building is very pretty. He stated he is concerned about this business lowering the value of area properties and is also concerned about more businesses coming into the area. He stated he is against having more and more signs being put in the area. Mr. Stevens stated they are living on Katella Avenue which is the gateway to Disneyland and if they did not desire to live in a commercial district then they should have never bought in a commercial area. He stated his feelings are that the residential condominium complex never should have been built there. He stated the City's Master Plan shows all of Katella Avenue as being commercial. He stated he bought property at this location because he wanted to be at the gateway to Disneyland, which supports good business. He stated • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 5 the signage they have now is not very visible. He stated the signs against the building are not visible unless you turn your head directly in front of the building. He stated this was his dream when he went to the Supreme Court and legalized fortune telling throughout the state of California, and to build a beautiful business for the community. He stated his request is not any different from any other businesses that are on the area and the signs are needed to bring money in. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti stated the revised plans reduce the size of the monument sign from fifty-two to thirty-nine square feet. She asked if the sign was moved more towards the center and Mr. Stevens responded it was moved to almost the middle of the building. Della Herrick stated it was moved twenty-nine feet, but it is still not in compliance with Code. Ms. Santalahti stated the sign is perpendicular to the street so that you would see the sign as you drive east and west. She stated the reason for the signage limitation on this property is that the property is under a conditional use permit which is for commercial use of a residential structure. Ms. Santalahti stated this proposal is categorically exempt from the requirement to process an environmental impact report under class 3. Ms. Santalahti stated she planned to approve Variance No. 4047, in part. She approved the monument sign as shown (39-foot square on a 3 and 1/2 foot base), the one wall sign that faces directly onto Katella Avenue on the north wall of the building and deny the other four signs which are on the east and west sides. She stated the reason for that denial is that the proposed monument sign will accomodate the traffic that will be coming in and that the sign is high enough to not be obstructed by the landscaping or fencing. She stated she does not think the other wall signs are necessary or desirable. She stated one of the concerns that was voiced at the last hearing was from one of the neighbors from the south and he was concerned about sign lighting that might shine into his residential lot. She stated the signage she is approving does not reflect into his lot and it is a favorable compromise which eliminates four wall signs. Mr. Stevens stated the awning signs are painted on the canvas and they do not show very much. He stated the only reason they put those up was so that people can find the entrance. Ms. Santalahti concurred with that. Ms. Santalahti revised her approval of this proposal, as she described before but allowing the two canopy signs specifically because they are dimensioned and with the wording that is on them right now, one facing east and the other facing west. As before, she approved the new neon wall sign that faces north and the new proposed and revised monument sign perpendicular to Katella • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 6 Avenue. She stated the reason that she is going along with this request is that if this property were developed commercially you could under code have a free-standing sign bigger than this monument sign and the three wall signs as approved. She stated commercial property with eighty-nine feet of frontage can have almost one hundred and eighty square feet of free-standing signage plus one wall sign on each building wall. Mr. Stevens stated he was offered one million two dollars for his building by Century 21. He stated Century 21 could take that building over and imagine what they would put there. Ms. Santalahti stated if somebody else buys the building, they can use it as commercial offices as long as the parking is all to Code, but they are going to have to live under the conditional use permit that is on the property. She stated it is not impossible to make modifications that would eliminate the residential part. She stated the conditional use permit and this variance will stay with the property in its current building configuration and if anybody proposes a change to the signage, they have to come back to the City for permits. She stated any signage on the property is limited by this variance as well as by the earlier conditional use permit. 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 N0. 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 15 AND VARIANCE N0. 4051 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Pierco Development, 14771 Plaza Drive, Suite A, Tustin, CA 92680. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .56 acre having a frontage of approximately 226 feet on the south side of Romneya Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet, being located approximately 90 feet from the centerline of Citron Street and further described as 712, 718 724 and 728 W. Romneya Drive. Waivers of (a) minimum building site width and (b) minimum side yard setback to establish a 4-lot subdivision of a 16-unit apartment complex (under construction). There was one person indicating his presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Richard Pierce, 1477 Plaza Drive, Tustin, stated he has four four-plex buildings with one sixteen unit building permit. He stated he did this because the timing of the purchase escrow did not allow him time to go through all the procedures with the City. He stated they tried to design the four four-plexes so that they would not have any problems asking for this permit. He stated he bought three old homes on three irregular lots and made them into one lot. He stated the surrounding properties have developed very similarly • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 7 to what he is asking. He stated there is a mistake in the staff report in that it indicates that the property to the south is a single-family residence. He stated there are four four-plexes built adjacent to and south of his property. He stated those lots have the same size and widths that he is asking for, fifty-six and a half feet. He stated the staff report has a clause that says the sole purpose of any variance or code waiver is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved that would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. He stated he is asking for the same thing. He stated the property to the east has manufactured homes with thirty foot widths and to the west is a small duplex on a very small lot. He stated four-plexes are generally owned by owners that live in the front unit and rent out the back three units therefore you have an owner living on the property. He stated they will take better care of the property and maintain it better than absentee owners. He stated if it is owned as a sixteen unit project it would probably be owned by a corporation and there would be an on-site manager. He stated a property owner living on the property will reduce lease and fire problems because they are there all the time. Maurice Barbarian (secretary not sure of spelling) stated he lives on Roysten Street to the north and he can see this project from his house and he noted there is not enough parking and they are going to have traffic driving down Roysten Street in front of his house. He stated when he cuts grass the people who park in front of his house do not like for him to get their car dirty and he has to tell them to move their car. He asked why didn't they put on a protective coating when they build the foundation to this structure to keep it from eroding. He asked why did they have to use a forklift to push the building and get it leveled. He stated usually when foundations are built after the cement dries they put tar or a coating of paint on it and in that way keep it from eroding. He stated he was born in New York, but he has lived on that block for twenty-five years. He stated they have bent the cables while installing them between the walls and that they cut them-too long and then they pushed them in. He mentioned he wanted to know who he could complain to about the malathion spraying. Ms. Santalahti suggested he contact Orange County which has the area Health Department and that he should contact them by writing to let them know his concerns. He also mentioned he is remodeling his home and wanted to know if the City is going move them out to build more apartments because he is hearing a lot of rumors. Ms. Santalahti responded everything north of~Romneya Drive is designated for single family uses so they do not expect to see any apartments over there without at least two public hearings to change the General Plan. She stated south of Romneya Drive is a different situation because it includes Multiple-Family Zoning. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 8 Mr. Pierce stated the sideyard that is in question is between two of the four plexes and not towards any surrounding properties. He stated they have the required parking for the four plexes. He stated they followed the approved set of plans during construction. Ms. Santalahti asked what size are the units. Mr. Pierce responded they are each two-bedroom, two bath, and they are approximately eight-hundred and fifty square feet. She asked if that meant he had two and a half parking spaces per unit and he agreed. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti stated the Parking Code has changed over time and when most of the apartments in the vicinity were built they were built at a substantially lower parking requirement. She stated this project will not generate a greater parking need and will satisfy its own parking requirement. She stated parking should not be a problem except for people choosing to park on the street. Ms. Santalahti stated since this property is located less than one hundred and fifty feet from single-family zoning, then there should be no windows or balconies on the north facing wall towards Romneya that faces the single family homes. Mr. Pierce responded the City required him to put screening in the front of those windows. Ms. Santalahti stated the difficulty she is having with this petition is the lot width and the reason is that all the lots that are developed to fifty six feet were developed a number of years ago. She stated the similarities to other properties in the area the petitioner is addressing in requesting this variance are a similarity to something that is thirty or forty years old as far as the Zoning Code is concerned. Mr. Pierce stated he built fourteen four-plexes on Pearl Street and they were built about ten years ago. Ms. Santalahti stated the site plan shows that the four subject lots share some kind of access whether it is pedestrian or vehicular. Mr. Pierce stated there will be two common driveways between each two buildings and easements will be established. Ms. Santalahti stated she also saw on the plot plan that there is a walkway that runs between the middle two lots and there are two stairways that come down into that walkway. She stated in reviewing Condition No. 2 as recommended by staff, the condition states that the petitioner provide perpetual easements between lots one and two and lots three and four and that takes care of the vehicular access, but there is shared pedestrian access as well. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 9 Mr. Pierce stated if that is a problem he can put in two separate sidewalks. Ms. Santalahti stated what has happened on properties like this in the past is that two owners become irritated with one another, they put a fence up the middle and all of sudden what was much more useable open space functionally is gone because now it consists of two five-foot deep yards instead of a single 10-foot yard. Ms. Santalahti stated she concurs with the Categorical Exemption, Class 15 prepared for this item. Ms. Santalahti stated she will approve waiver (B) sideyard setback because it is a minimal request pertaining only to the second story above the garages and that the deviance ranging from a 9.5 to a 10-foot setback is minor. She stated she will approve the lot width requirement on the basis of existing nearby RM-1200 lots that are developed on fifty-six foot lots and also because this property is developed to the RM-1200 Code except for the second story yard depth. She stated she will modify Condition No. 2 to require that in addition to perpetual vehicle easements for mutual access between lots 1 and 2 and lots 3 and 4, there be pedestrian access easements between lots 2 and 3 at the center of the property. She stated that no fences shall be constructed which reduce the usable open recreational space to less than a ten foot dimension in any direction. She stated the reason she is doing that is because the statistics of available recreational space change if that area is fenced. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated she also requests that the perpetual easement agreement be unsubordinated. Ms. Santalahti asked if each building has two open parking spaces that are tandem to two covered spaces. Mr. Phelps, the designer, responded it varies. He stated Building 1 has two tandem configurations and each unit has its own spaces identified. He stated Building 2 has two tandem configurations and the rest are double car garages. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED 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. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 10 ITEM N0. 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3276 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: HWA JA RAH, 2207 W. Woodley Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .45 acre, having a frontage of approximately 140 feet on the north side of Woodley Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 108 feet, being located approximately 75 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street, and further described as 2207 and 2211 West Woodley Avenue. To permit a child care facility for 30 children. , There were 5 people indicating their presence in opposition and a petition was received in opposition. Hwa Ja Rah, 2207 W. Woodley Avenue, applicant, stated she is currently operating a day care facility of twelve children. She stated she has received a lot of phone calls from parents who want to bring their children into this day care and this is why she is requesting a permit for thirty children. Ms. Santalahti asked how long has she been operating with twelve children and if she started out with six children before that. Ms. Rah responded she has been operating her business for nine months. Ms. Rah stated she has received compliments from her neighbors. She stated they said that after she moved into that area she improved the appearance. Lewis W. Dexter, 305 N. Ranchito Street, stated he received a notice regarding this meeting and he notices that it described the property as 2207 and 2211 W. Woodley so it is his understanding that they are just going to be talking about one of these properties. Ms. Santalahti stated this petition applies to both pieces of property. Mr. Dexter stated there are several flaws in the environmental impact report initial study. He stated the turnabout is never used like it was stated at the last meeting (for the Large Family Day Care Facility). He stated there are cars that are parked in front making it impossible for other cars to come in, drop the kids off and go out on the other side. He stated almost all of them drive directly in, let the kids out and then back out; and there have been several complaints from neighbors that they have almost been rear-ended by the people driving into them. He stated they are concerned with the time of day this project will be operating because most of the people will be dropping off and picking up their kids during the peak hours in the morning and the evening. He stated they are going to look at this project very seriously and if it does impact them then they are going to come before the Council and petition to get a stop light put in at Woodley and Brookhurst. He stated when they drive to Brookhurst they do it at risk. He stated he would also like to note a senior citizens development has been put at the other end of his neighborhood and that is going to impact traffic. He stated they have nothing against child care centers or the applicants but this is located at what the neighbors consider an unstrategic part of their development. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 11 Robert Gilreath, 2215 W. Woodley, stated he lives on the west side of the child day care center. He stated when they originally came with the request to have the child day care center, he did not object because he was under the impression that it would be a low profile center. He stated they were not aware of the fact that it was going to be an industrial type child day care center and it has gone out of control. He stated they have the entrance that comes in to the child day care center on his side of the property. He stated the applicant made a statement that they had 12 children and he thinks there are really fifteen or sixteen. He stated they come early in the morning and the entrance to the child day care center is located next to his bedroom. He stated the traffic is very bad. He stated they park in front of his house making it very noisy in the morning. He stated he fully supports Mr. Dexter and he opposes increasing in the number of children. Eugene Wickell, 224 W. Ranchito Street, stated he has been a resident there for about twenty years. He stated this project impacts the traffic on their neighborhood. The people do not look back when they back out of the driveway, they drive straight in and when they are ready to leave they back straight out. He stated people come into Ranchito all at once and if they do not find a parking place, they make a big "U" turn in the street. He stated they zip just like kids racing their cars and they turn wherever they want to. He stated it is a very dangerous street and they are going to triple this use to thirty kids. Mr. Dexter stated another neighbor, Monte Buy, was suppose to be here. He stated he lives directly across from the development on Ranchito. He stated Mr. Buy was unable to come but his sentiments are the same as his neighbors. Ms. Santalahti mentioned there was a fifth person in the audience in opposition but not wishing to speak. Ms. Rah stated they are taking care of twelve children. She stated there are times when other children come from other facilities to visit. She stated they are applying for a permit of thirty children because there are families that come to see her facility and want to bring their children to her. She stated they have enough parking spaces to the east of 2207 Woodley Avenue. She stated it is a flower shop to the east and they can use four of its parking spaces. She stated if the traffic problem continues then she can use an 8-passenger van that she owns. She stated she has a commercial license for driving the passenger van. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti stated under the state licensing you can get a license for six children and then the neat level is twelve. She asked if thirty is the next size. Ms. Rah stated she has experience in operating a day care and that is why they licensed her for twelve children. She stated people who do not have • MINUTE, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 12 experience in family day cares are allowed a maximum of six children. She stated if she has enough playground space for the kids she can apply for as many as fifty children, but she does not want a facility that large. She stated she has more than enough space for thirty children. Ms. Santalahti asked how many teachers or adults do you have to have on the premises. Ms. Rah answered right now she has two and including her there is a total of three. She stated one of the teachers is full time and the other one is part time. Ms. Santalahti asked if she lived on the premises. Ms. Rah answered yes. Ms. Santalahti asked if she lived in the house at 2207 Woodley and if the house at 2211 Woodley was going to be used for the day care. Ms. Rah answered yes, that is correct. Ms. Santalahti stated she understands nothing inside the house at 2207 Woodley will be used for the day care except for the back play yard which extends across the two backyards. Ms. Santalahti asked what time is the earliest child delivered. Ms. Rah answered it can be adjustable and it depends on what time the parents want to bring them in. She stated at this time they open at 8:00 and close at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Santalahti asked what kind of fencing separates the day care from the neighbor to the west. Ms. Rah answered on the west side of 2211 Woodley, six feet away from the wall are classrooms and there is little noise if the windows are closed. She stated she is going to be buying the house next door on the west side in the future. Ms. Santalahti asked if the 6-foot block wall ran along the entire west property line. Ms. Santalahti stated on the submitted plans it says that the play yard was sixty-five by forty-five feet. She stated it also shows a dotted line between the buildings towards the north, near the rear property line. She asked if that is another fence that keeps the children in the play area. Ms. Rah answered yes, that is another block wall over four feet high. Ms. Santalahti asked if there is a gate in that block wall. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 13 Ms. Rah answered there is no gate. Ms. Rah stated the entrance gate is located between her building and the west side residence. Ms. Santalahti asked if the children are limited to a certain play area. Ms. Rah answered the play ground area is between the child day care building and her house and there is no playground on the west side near her neighbor's house. Ms. Santalahti asked if there is a block wall on the north property line. Ms. Rah answered yes. Ms. Santalahti asked if there was also a 6-foot block wall against the parking lot of the florist shop on the east Ms. Rah stated that has chain link fence that is about six feet high. Ms. Santalahti asked if the applicant is using the van now or does she plan to use it if this petition is approved. Ms. Rah answered she will use it if this request is approved. Ms. Santalahti asked if she would be picking up a maximum of ten children and taking them back home. Ms. Rah agreed and added once in the morning and once in the evening. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Rah if she is on the premises at all time. Mrs. Rah answered sometimes she goes out, but there is always an adult at the facility to look after the children. Ms. Rah stated for thirty children there needs to be two teachers and two assistants and they have to be on the premises all the time and added she will be one of the part time teachers. Ms. Santalahti stated she went out when the twelve children application was requested and at that time the front area was paved for the turn-around area so that people could drive in and out. She stated she went out again this morning and noticed people had a tendency to pull in, drop off the children, and then back out again. Ms. Rah stated she will be talking to the parents so that they can be more careful . Ms. Santalahti stated staff from the City's Traffic Engineer's office also went out to this facility to look at some of the traffic concerns. She stated the additional number of children and the traffic generated is not considered as a numerical problem by the Traffic Engineer. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 14 Ms. Santalahti stated the pavement across the front needs a drop off area that is clear. She stated people should drive in, drive out and keep going in the same direction. She stated with the rolled curb the whole thing looks like a parking lot so people just drive in and do not look at it like a driveway. She stated she would like to see two changes before she acts on this petition. She stated one of them is that a modification should be made in the front drive area. She stated that should involve putting in a raised planter in the center of the property with curbs around it. She stated she would need to see the drawing in order to see whether there is enough space for one car to pass another parked car. She stated she would like to see the dimensions on the drawing to show whether a car can park against the building and then the others can pass by without any difficulties resulting in being forced to back out. She stated she understands child day care centers do not cause problems with traffic if the front drop-off areas are suitably designed. She stated parents tend to come at different times and you normally do not get a bunch of them trying to drop off children at the same time. She stated the other aspect is that the drawing which was submitted does not identify the fencing material at the back and the presence or lack of gates. She stated she would like the petitioner to identify the materials and the height of the fences around the playground. She stated thirty children playing outdoors could be a problem for neighbors if they are right up against their property line and she would like to be sure that the children will not be towards the west. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated they may need to know the ages of the children because the number of teachers is based upon the age of the children. She stated if the children are under the age of five then there needs to be one adult for every five children. Ms. Santalahti stated she would like to have written down the number of teachers Ms. Rah is going to have with the thirty children and also the ages of the children. Ms. Santalahti stated she would like a revised plan to include more information, to show what the play yard has for fencing around it, how tall the fences are and what they are made of, the redesign of front parking/loading area including a possible curbed planter adjacent to Woodley so that as people drive in they can see more clearly that they're meant to drive in and to drive out. Ms. Santalahti stated she will continue this item for two weeks. She stated all the revised plans need to be in by June 5, 1990 at 5:00 pm. The continued hearing date will be June 14, 1990. She asked Ms. Rah to be sure to show on the new plan exactly where the parking spaces will be. She stated if the garage is going to be used for parking space it must be labeled that way and also any front parking spaces at both addresses. Ms. Rah stated if this application is approved for thirty children, then no one is going to live at 2711 Woodley. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, May 31, 1990 PAGE 15 Ms. Santalahti stated she is assuming this building will be full day care facility and nobody will living on the premises at 2207 Woodley. Ms. Santalahti stated she is not too concerned about employee parking because the teachers and the assistants can be told where to park. She stated she is interested in the parking and the loading the parents do in the front. She stated the building entrance is not shown on the site plan, and asked that it be shown on the new plan. Ms. Santalahti repeated she is going to continue Item No. 4, Conditional Use Permit No. 3276 for two weeks until the meeting of June 14, 1990, for some additional information concerning all the fencing materials and heights on the property, the design of the parking-loading area at 2211 Woodley Drive including the installation of a planter that will encourage right turns, the marking off all the parking spaces and she would also like Traffic Engineer to be present at the next meeting for additional information. Ms. Santalahti stated there will not be a renotification on this item. ITEM N0. 5 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT N0. 50 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5: Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 11,169 square foot single-family residence at 267 Peralta Way. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on Administrative Adjustment No. 0050 and noted the appeal period would end May 31, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act on this item after May 31, 1990. 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 11:50 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: ~~~ C.~ ` Margar' Perez Annika M. Santalahti Acting Secretary Zoning Administrator 0494g