Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1990/06/14~~ '~ ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1990, 9:30 A.M. Procedure to Expedite Meeting: 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. 0502g Page 1 r • • la. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION lb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3276 OWNER: HWA JA RAH, 2207 W. Woodley Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. LOCATION: 2207 and 2211 West Woodley Avenue. Property is approximately .45 acre located at the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Woodley Avenue. To permit a child care facility for 30 children. Continued from Zoning Administrator meeting of May 31, 1990. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-31 2a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 2b. VARIANCE N0. 4055 OWNER: KLUTHE FAMILY TRUST, 22.51 Lake Forest Circle, La Habra, CA 90631. AGENT: ACTEC ENGINEERING CORP., 1312 W. Collins Ave., Orange, CA 92667. Attn: C.M. Thomson. LOCATION: 831_ youth State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.52 acre on the west side of State College Boulevard approximately 370 feet south of the centerline of South Street. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish an additional 279 square feet of storage area attached to an existing freestanding restaurant. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 3a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 3b. VARIANCE N0. 4057 OWNER: JUDITH CAMPANILE, 842 N. Helena Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: 842 N. Helena Street. Property is approximately .12 acre on the east side of Helena Street approximately 215 feet south of the centerline of La Verne St. Waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a 2-car garage for an existing single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-32 Granted for 1 year with added conditions Continued to 7- 12-90 Granted with added conditions 6-14-90 Page 2 • • 4. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3164 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Thomas Steinfeld requests for an extension of time for property located at 1421 W. Ball Road. 5. INFORMATIONAL ITEM: A. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT N0. 90-2: To permit a large family day care for up to twelve (12) children at 1208 N. Moraga St. (End of public notice period: 6-14-90) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA90-33 B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0051 and CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5: Waiver of min. building site width to eastablish a substandard parcel for a previously approved 12-unit apartment complex at 3625 West Savanna Street. (End of public notice period: 6-14-90) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA90-34 6. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Approved to ~~~ Approved if no opposition is received by n5:0~0 p.m. ~"~/dam'' Approved if no opposition is received by 5:00 p.m. Q~~ None 6-14-90 Page 3 ... _ • 1 ~;, REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - June 14, 1990 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., June 14, 1990, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney Alfred Yalda, Associate Traffic Engineer Fred Fix, Code Enforcement Officer Bill Small, Code Enforcement Officer Margarita Perez, Acting Secretary Janet L. Jensen, 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. 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 and 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.. One person indicated his presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Ms. Santalahti stated this item was continued from the Zoning Administrator meeting of May 31, 1990, for the applicant to submit some additional information regarding the fencing materials they have around the day care areas, and the proposal to modify the parking area in front of the property so that people dropping off their children do not back out onto Woodley Avenue. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 2 Hwa Ja Rah, 2207 W. Woodley Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. She stated that at the last meeting they discussed the parking and traffic situation. She referred to some drawings and stated she would be drawing a line and arrows on the parking area pavement (to outline the drop-off lane). She explained she gave a copy of this drawing to all the parents and at this time they do not have any problems using the parking lot in regards to loading and unloading children. Louis Dexter, 305 N. Ranchito Street, Anaheim, CA. He stated he is at this public hearing with mixed emotions. He explained he is tentatively opposing this permit and at the same time he wishes the applicant success in putting together something that will be acceptable to the community. He stated there appeared to be a language miscommunication because the last time he was at the hearing, he thought Ms. Santalahti suggested they put something more permanent on the loading zone than flower pots and markings. He stated he has looked at the drawings they submitted to go along with the report. He stated the drawings indicate several things that the City should be cautioned about and added they want to make sure the drawings that are submitted are what is going to be approved. He stated on the west side of the property there is no gate shown and no aisle shown. He explained that at the last meeting Bob Gilbert, the neighbor next door, complained about the children coming in and out at all hours and running down the pathway on the west side of the property. He stated they do not indicate on the drawing whether they will have the aisle there and he would like to make sure that it is clear. He added there is a gate there that is open. He stated the parking situation is where most of the disagreement is. He explained they have marked off some parking stalls at 2207 Woodley Avenue and that he had some photographs, however, he was unable to get them developed in time for this hearing. He stated they would have them back in time if they need to go to the City Council. He added the photographs would indicate different types of traffic movements that do not utilize the loading area as a turn-around area. He stated he has several suggestions. He stated one suggestion is that they post a "No Parking" sign on the garage door and on the property in such a way that no permanent parking will be in that area. He stated the drawing takes in three (3) different pieces of property and explained they want all the parking at 2207 W. Woodley and at the florist shop which the petitioner also owns. He stated if the loading zone was for loading only, that would alleviate some of the concerns they would have with people driving in and backing out the way they presently do. He stated they do have markings on the ground that indicate which way cars should ingress and egress. He added he has a concern about the cars that are parked perpendicular to the building. He stated it would not encourage turn-around as mentioned in the negative impact report and added he recommends very strongly that the women who park there almost all day long, park in the florist parking area not 2211 Woodley Avenue. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 3 He stated the Traffic Engineer's report states there is no traffic impact. He stated they might take issue with that, however, they cannot do that until they see what the impacts will be at the stop sign at Brookhurst and Woodley. He stated on item 7, page 2, it states 30 children and explained they would like that enforced and that the City make sure they do not exceed 30 children. He stated the Zoning Administrator may want to suggest that use of flower pots is not adequate. He referred to page 3, item 15 (d) and stated there are some people in the neighborhood who would take issue with this as they feel they are going to be impacted and, therefore, would like to leave that open for discussion. He referenced page 3, item no. 2 and stated they would like this to be emphasized, i.e., it is currently more like a parking space and the people who are loading and unloading sometimes load and unload in the streets and added he had pictures of cars turned in the wrong direction on the north side of the street. He explained the loading zone should be posted, in both English and in Korean. He added these minor changes should not be too expensive. He stated the garage that was originally intended to be for the employees to use for parking is no longer a garage, but rather it is part of their clubhouse activities. Ms. Rah indicated she is going to post the signs in both Korean and English Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated he has looked at the property in question. He explained it is a local street and the traffic generated by this use, if approved, will not have any effect on that street or the impact would be minimal. He stated a citizen was concerned about a traffic signal. He explained there is an existing traffic signal on Brookhurst, approximately 130 feet north of the property. He further explained there are requirements that are set forth by the State of California that must be met for traffic signal installation, however, at this location it is not necessary. He added there is a left-turn pocket at Brookhurst to make a left-turn onto Woodley Avenue. He stated when he reviewed the parking study, he indicated there should be no drop-off in the street, but rather on-site. He stated he saw a car parked in an area that would make it difficult for the parents to drop-off the children and make the turn-around. He suggested that the applicant speak to all of the parents and recommended they remove the parking stall. Ms. Santalahti asked about the arrows that were painted on the pavement and Ms. Rah stated she had drawn the arrows to indicate ingress and egress and referred to her drawing. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 4 Ms. Santalahti asked what type of paint would be best to use so the parents could see the markings and Mr. Yalda stated the paint will not do the job and suggested that the applicant make it a condition for all parents to drop off their children on-site and not in the street, regardless of the circumstances, and it should be part of their application. Ms. Santalahti stated a loop painted around the planter area might encourage drivers to enter and exit properly. Mr. Yalda stated it is his experience that drivers do not pay attention to such signs and there is no way of enforcing it, therefore, it is a matter of working with the parents to appropriately enter and exit. Ms. Santalahti stated she thought possibly the planter pots should be taken out and an actual landscaped planter installed with 6-inch curbing. She stated she was willing to go with this one for a temporary period of time for one (1) year and then it would be readvertised. She explained at that time it could be made permanent without further re-advertising, and to the extent that they comply with all the conditions that are required. She further explained at that time they can review the current method as to directing the parents and placing the flower pots in the appropriate place. She added this would remind the parents of the difficulties that occur for other residents if parents do not drive off the street when they drop-off their children. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. She stated in approving this item, she plans to make several modifications or additions to the conditions. 1. Applicant shall specifically direct all the parents in writing about the drop-off regulations, i.e., they shall drop-off and pick-up their children on-site and not on the public streets. 2. That the painted arrows be maintained and that applicant paint a line around where the, planter pots are located. 3. Planter pots are to be a minimum of 18 inches in height complete with a plant that protrudes so they can be seen. 4. Before the applicant exceeds 12 children, all conditions must be satisfied including the additional ones mentioned above. Ms. Santalahti clarified that this conditional use permit is approved for 30 children for one (1) year. She explained at the end of the time period, the applicant may make a request for additional time, i.e., applicant must come in, pay the fee and the item will be readvertised so neighbors are aware that the applicant wants to continue with the day care center. She further explained at that time there will be another public hearing, and assuming that all goes well, then it may be continued without any time limitations, and that, of course, is if it there are no violations or problems. MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JUNE 14 1990 PAGE 5 She stated during the next year the neighbors will be able to see how it works out at the property and if there is a problem, it can be discussed again. She stated, if need be, the front driveway or drop-off area could be further modified if it does not work out the way they anticipated. Mr. Yalda asked about the car that was parked in front of the driveway and stated the parking space should be eliminated. Ms. Santalahti stated that the paved area shall be used only for drop-off and any parking shall be done on the 2207 Woodley or the florist shop property, so it leaves 2211 Woodley open for anybody to drive-in and drop-off or temporarily get out of the car. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is no parking waiver involved here, however, if there is an assumption that the parking that is being considered is combined, perhaps they should consider some kind of parking agreement. Ms. Santalahti stated this particular petition covers two (2) properties, and in terms of the legal notice and the map and plans, the florist shop is not included as part of this petition. She asked Ms. Mann if it would be appropriate that the applicant give the City written information since they own all 3 properties? Ms. Mann explained it depends on what sort of parking plan has been provided for the child care and, if the parking plan includes parking on another property, then there should be some kind of an agreement that is recorded so that if ownership for any reason should change, they have the continuing right to use that property. Ms. Santalahti clarified 2211 Woodley would have the loading areas only and 2207 Woodley will have parking for a maximum of (four) 4 cars, (two) 2 in the garage and (two) 2 in the driveway. She stated with the people living there plus the employees, there would not be enough parking. She stated she could add a condition that requires the applicant to provide a written agreement which will be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's office. She stated from her notes from the last hearing, she put down there would be a at least three (3) employees on the property at all times and asked if that was correct? Ms. Rah explained at this time (for 12 children), the State requires only two (2) and not three (3). She stated if she gets permission for 30 children, she will be getting more teachers and that four (4) would be the minimum number she would have. She added that some people come in and park in the parking lot. Ms. Santalahti stated, in addition to the arrows, the applicant should have a painted line outlining where the pots are and, additionally, there should be a painted line on the far side as well to outline the drop-off lane. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 6 She stated Mr. Yalda had indicated, assuming that the drop-off area is kept clear, there appears to be space for one (1) or two (2) parked cars along the west property line of 2211 Woodley. She added if they paint in a lane and there is some space for parking, they must indicate that it is specifically for parking or paint lines so it is obvious where drivers must park so as not to park in the drop-off lane. Ms. Rah asked for clarification if when school is out and there are no children could they park there and Ms. Santalahti stated during the off hours of the school people could park there, but in a sense the same concern would remain, i.e., driver must ingress and egress properly and not back out into the street. She clarified that this particular limitation on loading will hold true for the operating hours of the school, however, any parking during non-operating hours must be done in a manner where they do not back into the street. Ms. Santalahti stated there is the issue of the fencing. She indicated the applicant had submitted a drawing showing where all the fencing is and stated Mr. Dexter brought up the fact that there have been children going along the westerly side of the property at 2211 Woodley. She stated the drawing shows there will be a wire fence which will block access altogether to that westerly area next to Mr. Gilbert's property and wanted to know if that fence currently exists? Ms. Rah stated it is already done and indicated Mr. Gilbert sold them the property and they want her to buy their house, however, she is not able to do that right now. Ms. Santalahti stated she wanted to make it clear that the play yard fencing and the fencing be done in such a manner that on the westerly side of the 2211 Woodley building the children cannot use that area for a playground in order not to disturb the adjacent residents. Ms. Santalahti noted, based on the maximum number of employees that would be on the premises, there needs to be at least four (4) parking spaces available and wanted to know if the properties need to be tied together with some kind of an agreement? She added the CUP covers 2 lots because the play yard extends towards the east. Ms. Mann stated that a covenant, rather than an agreement, would be sufficient because one (1) person owns them and the primary reason is to give notice to anyone that this situation does exist. She added since this is a CUP, if the parking were not available, the option would always be open to the City to terminate the CUP. Ms. Santalahti stated she will require that a minimum of four (4) parking spaces shall be available. She stated potentially two (2) would be on the one 2211 Woodley lot and explained she would probably ink it in on the drawings and make it part of the official exhibit; and in addition two (2) open spaces on the 2207 Woodley property (plus 2 garage spaces). She added if the number of employees exceeds four (4), then additional parking spaces will have to be provided. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 7 She clarified she did not want to tie the florist property into a parking agreement unless she had to. She stated the garage at 2207 Woodley is used for parking and therefore, it appears there is a potential for six (6) spaces without causing any difficulty. She explained while the approval would be for a minimum of four (4) spaces, that is intended to reflect the actual number of employees and if that number changes, then the applicant may need to do something on the florist property. Ms. Mann stated she was under the impression from the initial discussion and presentation that the florist shop was being tied in and that was her concern but, since the florist site under this discussion is not required for additional parking requiring a parking agreement, thought it would not be necessary particularly because this is a CUP. Ms. Santalahti stated she was still going to put it in as a condition that they maintain the number of parking spaces necessitated for the number of employees, i.e., if for some reason they would go to five (5) or six (6) employees, then the garage would have to be available at 2207 Woodley so that no one parks in a permanent way in the loading area at 2211 Woodley. She stated she is very concerned because people do what is easiest for them and they forget the problems that may be caused for others. She clarified that the applicant agrees with what Mr. Dexter suggested, i.e., that there be a sign posted on 2211 Woodley in the drop-off area in both English and Korean to remind the parents that this is for drop-offs only; they must drop-off on the property and not in the street, and they must not block the drop-off area by parking there. She further clarified this is a one (1) year approval. 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. 2. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 4055 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: KLUTHE FAMILY TRUST, 2251 Lake Forest Circle, La Habra, CA 90631. ACTEC ENGINEERING CORP., 1312 W. Collins Ave., Orange, CA 91667. Attn: C. M. THOMSON. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.52 acre, having a frontage of approximately 119 feet along the west side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet, being located approximately 370 feet south of the centerline of South Street, and further described as 831 South State College Boulevard. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish an additional 279 square feet of storage area attached to an existing freestanding restaurant. ~ ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 8 There were 6 people indicating their presence in opposition and a petition with 14 signatures was submitted in opposition and that no other correspondence was received. Mr. Thomson, 1312 W. Collins, Orange, CA. He stated he is designated as an agent for the Kluthe Family Trust. He explained he has been retained by the Rose and Crown Restaurant which leased the building from someone who built the building and leased the land from the Kluthe Family Trust. He added this is a Code Enforcement initiated action. He stated the restaurant bought a metal overseas shipping container about 8-foot square in height and width, and 18 to 20 feet long. He stated they store beer either in barrels or in cases. He stated they purchased it because they needed the space. He explained Code Enforcement said it was not legal to have a temporary building on the property and that it had to be put down on a foundation. He stated Environmental Health stated the building has to be attached to the existing building. He explained the beer has to go into the building and not an intermediate holding facility. He stated the storage container is in an area that is not available for any other use because of the parking configuration. He stated the parking that is there is not exactly what is shown on the originally permitted set of drawings. He stated the person who originated this got mixed up with the half width of the street and the extension of the property lines. He stated since they are not at right angles, the extension is not 53 feet, but closer to 55 feet, so they lost a couple of feet in their parking area. He stated they put a 5-foot walkway around the building .at the back and that moved the parking back a little more. He stated they now wind up with an area right outside the kitchen door that cannot be used for much of anything, so they put the storage container in that area. He explained since it is a storage container, it does not increase the number of patrons, nor does it increase the number of employees, therefore, it has little to no effect on the parking which has been there for some time and is now short under the current Code. He stated this is a lot of paperwork just to make an existing condition legal. He referred to condition no. 6 on page 3 of the staff report and condition no. 4. He stated the note he received at the Interdepartmental meeting (IDC) said that that the driveway shall be reconstructed to accommodate a 15-foot return. He explained the driveway is only a 10-foot driveway and a 10-foot return makes more sense. He asked why they were changing a satisfactory industrial-commercial drive approach from a YX sloped side to a radius? Ms. Santalahti explained this has been a standard condition for the last few years on arterial highways for anything that has any amount of traffic and therefore, it is pretty typical to require it if they do not have a driveway approach with radii. She stated the question of 10 feet versus 15 feet is a good question as this disparity arose on another item and Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner, stated he believes that 10 feet is correct. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 9 Mr. Thomson stated he would like to have this condition removed since there is a driveway approach now that is working and they are going to some expense to change a straight line to a curve and they will still drive in and out the same driveway approach. He stated this is just adding more cost to a project that is already getting out of hand. He stated it may be simpler in the long run to sell the storage container and forget about it. He stated this is a question that must be resolved by the owner and not by him. He explained the owner has already moved the 2-story bus and put in some landscaping. He stated a woman at the Interdepartmental meeting (IDC) was talking about a tree well that had been cemented over. He explained the tree well is there with a palm tree in it. He stated all they are trying to do is put a foundation under a box and Ms. Santalahti stated they should have stayed with their original CUP. Ms. Santalahti stated this item was originally approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 1975 and asked Mr. McGhee if he could have someone check out the original plans and the resolution that goes along with the CUP for the requirement of a block wall along the west property line next to the residential uses. She added the existing wall is distinctly lower than 6 feet. OPPOSITION• Larry Lazare (Secretary not sure of exact spelling of last name), address not given. He stated he was here on behalf of some friends, the Armstrong family, who reside in the single-family residence immediately to the west of this project. He stated this is a complicated case. He explained there are always problems when you have a residential use abutting a commercial use. He stated in this particular situation there is a long history. He explained this use has not been a good neighbor; the site has not been maintained in an orderly fashion, i.e., there has not been the proper landscaping, screening, etc.; and there have been a lot of problems with noise. He stated it is operated as a restaurant and pub and the pub has caused some problems. He submitted a petition with 14 signatures which details some of those problems and attests to them and added they have taken some pictures to substantiate their concerns. He stated Ms. Santalahti was right in that there is not a 6-foot fence; the Armstrongs provided a 6-foot wooden fence along their back yard which is about 2-1/2 feet below the grade of this property and this grade difference causes a problem. He explained patrons from the pub peer over the fence; there have been some situations where people jumped over and the Police Department has been called on several occasions; and added this petition is a result of Code Enforcement action. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 10 He stated the major problem is that the storage unit has a compressor fan on it and it is very noisey. He stated Code Enforcement and the Building Division went out and took measurements from the Armstrong's back yard and he believed they came up with a finding of 74 decibels and added that noise really impacts the recreation useability of the back yard as the fan operates constantly. He stated he noticed on the applicant's plans that the building will be reconfigured and it appears there will be a small wall and a gate. He stated he is not an acoustical engineer and he does not know if that will take of this problem. He stated, in addition, there has been ineffective landscaping and there is no irrigation system. He submitted some photos that indicate the current landscaping and the lack of an irrigation system. He stated they understand this type of use needs a storage facility, and they also understand they are asking for a parking waiver of 21~ which is rather substantial. He stated there are certain factors that could make this use a lot more compatible with the surrounding residences. He stated the landscaping that is provided are Italian cypress trees and explained this will not provide for adequate landscaping as they do not get large enough in diameter. He stated they would like to see cypress trees on 10-foot centers. He stated the irrigation system they currently have is a single spigot and the second picture shows that. He added this will not maintain those trees. He stated they would like an irrigation system designed by a licensed landscaped architect to be reviewed and certified by the City so that the landscaping provided is maintained. He stated it is also very important that all of the dirt area be landscaped and added landscaping would tend to discourage people from hanging out in that area. He stated they would also like an acoustical study and perhaps some kind of monitoring program. He stated they need a little more than a site plan to show that. He stated the metal building should have some kind of architectural treatment and roofing material on the side of it. He stated in the evenings when there are a lot of patrons, there is not adequate on-site parking. He stated he has a photograph of their trash dumpster area and they also have additional dumpsters. He showed the photograph. He stated the dirt strip along the northern property line is not landscaped, that it borders the commercial use immediately to the north of the property and that it should also be landscaped because it would discourage cars from parking there and loitering. He noted in the photograph, that the chain link fence had been partially knocked down along the property line by cars running into it. He added effective landscaping will discourage this. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 11 Wayne Armstrong (no address given). He stated he lives directly behind the Rose and Crown Pub. He stated his main concern was the noise. He stated they have a baby and have had to move her to another room to avoid the noise. He explained you cannot sleep with the windows open. He stated it affects their back bedrooms and living room. He stated you cannot carry on a conversation in the back yard without raising your voices to talk over the noise. He stated they are constantly dumping bottles into the dumpsters day. and night. He stated there are approximately 10 to 20 bottles being dumped at one time in the middle of the night and they crash against the metal and break. He stated they have called the Police on numerous occasions for that. He stated when patrons leave the premises, there are discussions and papers being thrown not only in the dumpsters, but in their back yard. He stated the fence is short and people are able to hop right over the fence into their yard and the neighbors' yards. He stated he did not think if there is just a wall built near the storage structure or if it is turned sideways, that it would be adequate. Gordon Duncan, 1838 E. Diana. He stated his property is directly west of the restaurant. He stated he attended the original Council meeting when the permit was issued and he was opposed to it then. He stated he was told that since it was going to be a dinner house and not a bar, there should not be any problem, however, it has been a constant problem. He stated since it has changed ownership, the problem has grown worse. He stated his main concern was the noise in the middle of the night and having to call the police which he has done on numerous occasions. He stated he has had trash in his back yard and people jumping the fence. He stated the problem with the fence is that it is 6 feet on his side, however, they have built the lot up to drain onto State College and, therefore, it is approximately 4 feet on the other side. He stated he consulted with a lawyer after the fence was built and he told him it would not do any good to heighten the fence because block walls do not stop any noise and that the only effective means would be a hedge or large trees of some sort. He stated he was also told at the time the permit was issued there would be a 10-foot planted buffer zone and this has never happened. He stated they made an attempt to plant some trees at one time, but they were never watered and since then they have planted cypress trees which do no good at all. He stated when they are watered the water tends to run off under the fence to his property and indicated there was evidence of some erosion. Alice Autonion, 821 S. State College Boulevard. She stated her concern was parking. She explained she owns a sandwich shop and explained due to the lack of parking spaces Rose and Crown patrons park on her lot and make a mess and then they are the ones who have to clean it up. Ron Richards, 1832 E. Verde Place. He stated his main complaint is the noise that is caused by the breaking of bottles in the trash containers. He stated when the facility closes there are fights and abusive language. • u MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 12 Louise Armstrong, 1831 E. Verde Place. She stated she owns the home in back of the Rose and Crown bar and has been there for 29 years. She stated her husband passed away 2 years ago and explained they did not complain because her husband did not like to do that. She stated she wanted to stress that it was important to her to have the landscaping. She explained she had a daughter that grew up there and indicated she had to put up with vulger language during the night. She stated when the compressor went in, it was the last straw and wanted to know why she must live with that. She stated she wants to cooperate and understands they have a business there. She stated on a couple of occasions she called them and they were very cooperative. She stated there is activity in the parking lot after hours and the person she spoke with told her after they left the place they had no further responsibility as to what went on in the parking lot. She added she usually tried to call them first instead of the police. She stated she thought there was a law that each bottle must be broken and indicated this is making it worse. She added they do not make any complaints until a time that is reasonable, however, 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. is too late to be up and listen to that kind of annoyance. REBUTTAL• Mr. Thomson stated he agrees that the noise was the biggest problem. He stated he cannot control the fights and does not have an immediate solution. He stated a landscape plan with an adequate irrigation system is a mandatory feature and should be done and he indicated this would not be a problem. He explained he suspects that the existing landscaping was done by restaurant employees in their spare time to get Code Enforcement off their backs and stated the landscaping was not that great and would probably not attenuate the noise very well. He stated he understands that it would take a depth of about 60 feet of trees to buffer any appreciable amount of noise. He stated the wall height should be extended; it will not stop everything, but it will help, i.e., it would keep people from jumping over it. He stated the property to the north, where the sandwich shop is, has a much shallower landscaping area at the back of their lot. He stated the wall at that location is a nice height. He stated to the south, the landscaping is wider than what it is at the sandwich shop, but less than the restaurant and, therefore, must have been approved at a different time. He stated there should be a condition to stipulate to constructing a wall on the restaurant side to the required height by Code; it will keep out but will not eliminate much noise. He added the landscaping would be an asset as well even though it will not stop a lot of noise. He stated the noise problem (generated by the compressor) concerns him. He explained he was standing there when the noise kicked in. He stated the residents have been more than patient. He stated if they angle the storage container and aim it towards the parking lot and put a wall in, most of the noise will be driven either up or north along the other parking lots. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 13 He stated a condition could be added that with the motor running the CNEL should be down to 60 to 65. He stated it would not be a problem to get the noise down to that level. He stated if the noise is not attenuated by the solution they suggest, then something more should be done. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti stated one of the things Mr. Thomson did not. respond to was a comment that the opposition made regarding other dumpsters being on the property and that they were not in trash enclosures and Mr. Thomson explained there is more than one trash receptacle because they separate their trash. Ms. Santalahti stated there may be some solutions for the complaints. She stated this Code, in 1979, when the original use permit for the on-sale liquor was approved, a 6-foot block wall was required between any commercial use and single-family residential uses. She stated for whatever reason. they were allowed to have what is existing now. She stated the quality of landscaping surprised her when she field-checked the property, and commented what good was it to have 20 feet of landscaping when you can clearly see through it and the rest of it is ground cover. She stated she knew that it was not the intent of the Planning Commission in approving the original CUP. She stated at that time there was a modification to one of the conditions that required a 20-foot wide landscaped planter and that is all that was said in the approved resolution. She stated this brings up the issue of when the City does not have a landscape plan, there is a tendency to do some pretty inadequate things. She stated she was not inclined to approve this today, but would like to give them an opportunity to come in with .some drawings that show increasing the block wall height to a minimum of 6 feet as measured from the highest grade of the property. She explained this includes verifying that there is no structural work that needs to be done, because if there is a retaining wall condition at all, then that has to be accommodated as well and added she wants to make it very clear that they understand what she wants them to do. Mr. Thomson stated the lot does not drain to State College Boulevard, it drains to the north. He stated the wall at the back is probably 6 feet from the low side and not from the high side. He stated the same condition exists along the north property line and the sandwich shop's parking lot is somewhat lower then the restaurant parking lot. He stated the sandwich shop is higher than the restaurant and added there is a great differential there. He stated he did not remember if they had wheel stops or not, but he thought a 6 inch curb along the future landscaped area to the north would make more sense then anything else to keep the cars contained. Ms. Santalahti referred to the photographs that were submitted earlier and stated this kind of storage unit is not what you would ordinarily see in a commercial area. She stated she did not know what can be done or what he is going to suggest in the plans that will be adequate. She asked if the mechanical specifications for the unit were available and did they indicate the noise generation of this unit? • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 14 Mr. Thomson stated that particular unit is manufactured by a person who buys these units, most likely used, then adds a coil or compressor and then sells them. Mr. Thomson stated by changing the fan blades there is a lot they can do to help reduce the noise. He stated staff gave him a whole set of regulations regarding metal buildings in commercial areas. He explained since there is only one wall that is involved that is not wooden, they can stucco it all around so it looks like a continuation of the building. Ms. Santalahti asked for clarification if the unit was going to be rotated about 45 degrees and Mr. Thomson indicated in order to redirect the noise this is what they were planning on doing. He explained because of the angle of the unit there is a space between the corner of the building and the north property line and that would essentially be a sound wall. He added nothing will eliminate the sound entirely. Ms. Santalahti stated she noticed from the plan that the wall that was put in is apparently running to the property line and asked if he was wrapping it around the property line along the north and Mr. Thomson stated he did not think they needed to and added if that does not take care of it they could put in louvers along the north property line. Ms. Santalahti stated they need to come up with a specific landscape plan with the landscape material identified as to size, species and placement including a permanent irrigation setup. She stated spigots work sometimes, but if they are not inclined to do the maintenance, then perhaps they need to install a timer. She stated she agrees that the landscape material could include something that discourages anybody from going over there in the first place. She stated there are a number of locations where block walls have been required and, the City has actually required there be climbing plant material because of the graffiti problem and added climbing plant material with thorns might be appropriate for this location. She stated the Code does require that any parking abutting a property line be separated by 6 inch curbing if there is nothing else to protect the neighboring property. She stated if there had been a landscape planter that had been maintained then that would have taken care of it. She added 6 inch curbing adjacent to the landscape planter along the north property line should be installed. Mr. Thomson stated the north property line will provide more landscaping. He explained parking does not go to the property line, however, it is 4 or 5 feet back. Ms. Santalahti stated because of the types of disturbances there are, they should start looking at ways to enclose the dumpsters and orient the doorways towards their own building so that the noise is buffered towards the neighbors. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 15 She emphasized that Mr. Thomson notify and remind the owners that they are under a conditional use permit. She explained the City has had CUPS come back for consideration of revocation for this kind of a business at similar locations with similar problems. She added if the neighbors continue to be unhappy and the owner of the business does not become the' solution to the problem, then they are always under the threat of losing part of their business. Leonard .McGhee, Senior Planner, stated the Zoning Administrator may want the owner of the business to look into the dumping and breaking of the bottles in the morning before the business opens and after the business closes and Mr. Thomson stated this was an operational problem and can be resolved. Ms. Santalahti stated there must be some practical methods of encouraging proper disposal. She stated the owners may want to contact the Anaheim Disposal regarding any suggestions they might have. Ms. Santalahti added this will most likely be first on the agenda for the date to which this item will be continued, however, she did not remember if she continued an item from another hearing or not and, if so, it might be first. (Secretary unable to identify this next speaker). He stated he appreciates the level of cooperation that Mr. Thomson is providing. He stated one of their concerns is that they get an acoustical engineer to take at look at this. He stated they do not want the reconfiguration of the building in such a way that it will still be a problem. Bill Small, Code Enforcement Officer. He stated the only one they have worked with regarding noise is Cecil Seale in the Building Division and he was the one who determined there was a 74 decibel noise level. Ms. Santalahti told Mr. Thomson that the owners might take a look at this as well. She stated he should contact a sound consultant and get some recommendations including if there is something that can be done with the fan. Ms. Santalahti continued the above item to the July 12, 1990, Zoning Administrator meeting in order that the Planning Department be provided the additional plans and additional information and clarified that such information needed to be in the Planning Department within about 3 weeks from today. She explained to Mr. Thomson if he needed more than the 6 week continuance to get his plans together then she would be willing to do that, i.e., if he did not have the plans done by then she would have to continue the item again. ITEM N0. 3 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 4057 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JUDITH CAMPANILE, 842 N. Helena Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .12 acre having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Helena Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 109 feet, being located approximately 215 feet south of the centerline of La Verne Street and further described as 842 North Helena Street. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 16 Waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a 2-car garage for an existing single-family residence. There were 3 people indicating their presence in opposition and a petition with 26 signatures was submitted in opposition and that no other correspondence was received. Judith Campanile, 842 N. Helena Street, Anaheim, CA. She stated this action was initiated due to a Code Enforcement action. She explained for health reasons she has converted an existing 2-car garage into living space for her private use and a study. She stated she had every intention of building a garage and indicated she was ignorant of the law, i.e., she thought because she was not doing anything to the outside part of the structure that she was neither bothering the neighborhood nor affecting it. She stated she did not know that she was using the rear yard space over the allotted amount. Ms. Santalahti asked Ms. Campanile if she had gotten a qualified individual to inspect the converted garage to see if the existing Building Codes were satisfied and it was useable for living space versus a garage. Ms. Campanile stated someone from the City of Anaheim inspected the addition. Fred Fix, Code Enforcement Officer. He stated when he arrived at the site he noticed there was a 2-car garage with a concrete slab foundation and on top of that a wooden decking had been constructed. He stated there is a bedroom, a closet and a bathroom. He stated the structure will require building permits and to his knowledge a Building Inspector has not been out. He indicated the electricity that runs from the house to the garage has more than likely been buried and he was not certain if it was inside conduit and properly installed. Ms. Santalahti stated if you convert a garage which was built to lesser standards than a house, there often are modifications you must make and sometimes they are rather expensive. OPPOSITION• Ruby Betzold (Secretary not sure of exact spelling of last name), 843 N. Helena Street. She stated she is representing the other homeowners in the area and that is because she and her husband are the Neighborhood Watch. She stated about one or two months ago, Code Enforcement was called for illegal occupancy of the garage. She read a portion of the Code. She stated in addition to the changes in the garage, they also added a storage building behind the present 2-car garage. She stated they added windows, carpet and cement. She stated the sewers have been a problem in this area since 1975 and explained the sewer line is only 6 inches in diameter. She added Code Enforcement had indicated that the people in the house would not let them check out the existing garage. MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 17 She submitted a petition with the names of 26 residents regarding this project. She stated this is a single-family residential area and they want to keep it this way and not overcrowd the neighborhood. Ms. Santalahti stated staff would make a copy of the petition and give it to the applicant. REBUTTAL• Ms. Campanile stated the tool shed will be taken down and indicated she wished she had notified her neighbors before building the addition; she has no intention of using the property for anything else other than her own personal v use. She explained she recently had a heart attack and her niece was staying with. her and emphasized she did not want to cause any more difficulties in the neighborhood. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti asked if there were any cooking facilities and Ms. Campanile stated none whatsoever and explained it is one large room and she uses it as a study. Ms. Campanile stated the plumbing was already there and agreed that there was a sewage problem. Ms. Santalahti stated she goes out and look at all the properties on the agenda and in an instance like this she also looks at the aerial photographs. She stated a number of lots in the area have rather similar additions in the back yard that appear to exceed 354, coverage. She added the proposal is about 38'b and that is not a great deal of deviance. She explained the concern the neighbors have, however, in terms of another residence, is one that does come up in other areas. She stated this is a sensitive issue to many people and the City of Anaheim does not want kitchens which would make converted garages a separate living unit. She stated there is nothing in the Code that says you cannot have detached rooms, i.e., architecturally, the house can be placed in any way. Ms. Campanile stated she originally wanted to add-on to the house, however, it would have cost her $30,000. Ms. Santalahti stated the only suggestion she would have is that she be careful as to how to place a garage like this because it is often difficult turning off the alley. She stated she was going to approve Variance No. 4057 for the lot coverage on the basis that it minimally exceeds 35`b as permitted by Code and that this property would suffer under more restrictive requirements and that the deviance of 3~ is very minor. She further stated the remaining back yard between the house and garages ranges from 19 to 25 feet which is similar to what Code requires, plus the front yard is 30 feet deep which exceeds Code and, therefore, there is on-site recreational area equivalent or greater to the actual requirement for Code in the underlying zone. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 .PAGE 18 She stated she will add a condition that the owner obtain all the necessary building, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits for the work that is done. She stated she would encourage her before they start any work on the new garage, to get the building inspected and find out what it will cost. She further added they must obtain the building permit for the conversion at the same time as they do for the new garage; that they have either completed that other structure prior to or at the same time they complete the conversion so both permits will run together, or the new garage will run ahead of the new conversion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. (Next speaker did not identify herself). Next speaker stated they had the same problem over on Dickel and there were about 20 to 25 people regarding the same kind of thing and they complained about the "granny" unit and now that place is up for sale with the additions. She stated 2 people moved into the house and there are now additional people. She explained they always say they are not going to sell it and then there is the possibility that the addition can be rented out. She added some of the other buildings were put in years ago. Ms. Santalahti stated this approval is specifically for rear yard lot coverage for a new garage, plus the converted garage is going to have to comply with all the applicable Codes as a house addition. She stated she will put in the decision as well that it shall only include the bedroom or study space plus a bathroom and shall include no cooking facilities whatsoever. She asked Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, if it would be appropriate to require that a covenant be recorded on the property so specifying in order that it be clear to any future purchaser that the converted garage is not a separate living unit. Ms..Mann stated a notice could be recorded and the purpose of this, more than enforcement, would be to give notice to anyone who purchases the property that although what was changed appears very suitable for apartment type purposes, those living quarters are accessory to the house and not intended as a separate rental unit. Ms. Campanile indicated she was in agreement with the recordation of a covenant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Santalahti stated she would include in the conditions that a covenant be recorded on the property, for review by the City Attorney, to specifically state that these are accessory living quarters to the existing house and that it is not an additional apartment or "granny" unit and this will notify future buyers that it cannot be used as a rental. She added the covenant is to be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit on either structure, i.e., whether it is the converted garage or the new garage. • ~SINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 19 She suggested to Ms. Campanile that she speak with the staff member she originally dealt with and have them provide a copy of a similar covenant and use that as a basis for what she or her attorney prepares. She explained further that it then be submitted to the Planning Department and they will forward it to the City Attorney's office for review and at that time it will be signed off. She further explained that Ms. Campanile must have the covenant recorded and that a copy of the recorded covenant be given to the Planning Department. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated, just so the applicant knows, it is the recorded copy that she must submit before issuance of any building 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. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3164 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Thomas E. Steinfeld requests for an extension of time for property located at 1421 W. Ball Road. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Tom Steinfeld, agent for the applicant. He stated his letter and the staff report is self explanatory. Ms. Santalahti stated she will approve the time extension because there have not been any modifications to the Zoning Code during the period since this was approved, nor has there been any new General Plan Amendments or new departmental conditions that would be required. She clarified said time extension is granted for one (1) year to expire on June 20, 1991. ITEM N0. 5 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT N0. 90-2: To permit a large family day care facility for up to twelve (12) children at 1208 North Moraga Street. (End of public notice period: June 14, 1990). Ms. Santalahti stated she had not received any letters or written correspondence to date, however, a neighbor to Jo Cornelius (Secretary not sure of exact spelling of name) had telephoned and she apparently lives across the street. Ms. Cornelius stated her concern was that the driveways on the two properties align opposite one another and cars backing out from the child care facility will impact vehicles exiting her driveway. Ms. Santalahti asked if this was a six (6) child operation? Ms. Herrick stated she was not familiar with this application, however, they could operate without the City's knowledge because up to six (6) children are a permitted use. S ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JUNE 14, 1990 PAGE 20 Ms. Santalahti stated Ms. Cornelius has commented that people had been dropping off children at the location and managed to do this at times they were trying to leave their driveway, thereby blocking cars. She said Ms. Cornelius has clarified it was not an actual complaint but a concern with that situation. Ms. Santalahti stated she would act on Administrative Use Permit No. 90-2 and noted the appeal period ended June 14, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0051 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION- CLASS 5: Waiver of minimum building site width to establish a substandard parcel for a previously approved 12-unit apartment complex at 3625 West Savanna Street. (End of public notice period: June 14, 1990). Ms. Santalahti stated they had received no written correspondence on Administrative Adjustment No. 0051 to date and noted the appeal period would end June 14, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. 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 11:30 a.m. Minutes prepared by: net L. Jense ecretary Pro T ore 0496g Minutes approved by: Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator