Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/04/07. ,. ' AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY BONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY,,~APRIL 7, 1988,.9:30 A.M. .~ ACTION 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 2ublic 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 Y.he 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. 014$Tr Page 1 ., ~ - • • April 7, 1988 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS la. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION = CLASS 3a lb. VARIANCE N0. 3765 OWNERS: JAMES TUNSTILL AND MAUREEN TUNSTILL, 6215 New Haven Court, Yorba Linda, California 92686 LOCATION: 7415 East Hummingbird Circle Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 30-foot high, single-family residence. Continued from meeting of March 24, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 88-17 2a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-.CLASS 3E 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3766 OWNER: EMBEE MANAGEMENT INC., 1411 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: PAUL BOSTWICK, 1411 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1411 S. Anaheim Boulevard ! Waivers of (a) minimum front setback and permitted encroachments and (b) maximum fence height to construct an 8-foot high wrought iron fence adjacent to Midway Drive and: Anaheim Boulevard., ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 88-18 3a. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND 1 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3769 OWNER: JACK E. KRUGER, 1019 N. Cambria Place, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1019 North Cambria Place Waivers of (a) minimum dimensions of parking spaces, and (b) minimum "front-on" garage setback to construct a 1-story, 982 square-foot, addition to an existing single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 88-19 Page 2 Approved in part. Highest portion not to exceed 27 feet. Approved to permit a beige wrought iron fence & gates. Added 2 conditions. 1) Gates to remain open during business hours , 2) will be no outdoor storage. Approved 4/7/88 ,C ~ .. April 7, 1988 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' 4b. VARIANCE N0. 3775 OWNER: GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, Attn: W. C. Ressler, 1515 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: ~ SHOOK BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., Attn: Chris Quesada, 2055 S. Baker Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761 LOCATION: .1515 East Katella Avenue Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to retain an approximate 153,612 square-foot warehouse and wholesale distribution facility. 88-20 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. VARIANCE N0. 3776 OWNERS: GERALD R. BUSHORE AND BEVERLY V. BUSHORE, 5483 West Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 381 South Henning Way Waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum corral setback to construct a 33-foot high single-family residence and 1 horse corral. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 6. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0004: Request to construct a 2-story addition to an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum side yard setback (5 feet required; 4 feet proposed) at 523 S. Citron. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. B. ARCADE PERMIT N0. 1001: To permit a 50-machine arcade at 240 West Lincoln Avenue, Unit C. ~= "_ . ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.`~-`-`~ 7. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST None Page 3 Approved Continued to 4/21 for applicant to do additional research. Wi11 be advertised & set for public hearing as received 1 letter in opposition. 4/7/88 __ i ~, r, AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby certify that a compQl~ete copy of this agenda was posted at: 8~ ~v LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASEI (TIME) (D E)) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK 'I SIGNED• L~~1~1 / ~1J.'~~P.~~ Page :4 4/7/88 • • REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., April 7, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Lori Duca, Assistant Planner Pamela Starnes, Secretary ITEM N0. 1 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 VARIANCE N0. 3765 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: JAMES TUNSTILL AND MAUREEN TUNSTILL, 6215 New Haven Court, Yorba Linda, California 92686. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.74 acre, having a frontage of approximately 79 feet on the southwest side of Hummmingbird Circle, having a maximum depth of approximately 314 feet and being located approximately 90 feet north of the centerline of Canyon Rim Road and further described as 7415 East Hummingbird Circle. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 30-foot high, single-family residence. Continued from meeting of March 24, 1988 so that the Canyon View Estates Homeowners Association and interested property owners could review the plans. Two interested people indicated their presence at the March 24, 1988, public hearing; and two people indicated their presence in opposition at this public hearing. No correspondence was received. Mr. Tunstill, said he tried to design a home that blended well and flowed with the established neighborhood. He noted at that time he was unaware of the 25 foot height limitation which he was informed of at the time of submission of plans to the Planning Department. He said he went back to his architect and they were able to reduce the roof peaks from 33 feet to 30 feet. He noted the pad elevation was three (3) feet lower than the street, bringing the house down to 27 feet. He said only 13~ of the roof line is above 25 feet. He said he was more than willing to work with the architectural review committee. Dave Martin, 775 S. Bunting Ct., said he was here today as an appointed spokesman for the Canyon View Estates Homeowners Association, to voice their opposition to the approval of this variance request. He said it was their • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 2 unanimous opinion that the 25 foot height limitation should be upheld. He noted their major attraction to the area was its open unobstructed appearance and they want to preserve this appearance. He said there was no hardship on this property so they felt to approve this variance would be granting a special privilege Ann Bien, 6673 Paseo del Norte, said she was speaking on behalf of the Anaheim Citizens' Coalition. She said Mr. Martin spoke on behalf of the residents in the tract above this lot and she was speaking on behalf of .the other members who support the goals and policies of the Canyon Area General Plan, and the ordinances which were placed to support it. She said there are no special circumstances relative to the property to warrant granting a variance. She said this property can be developed without the variance. She felt the design of the house could be changed to meet Code. Mr. Tunstill said time loss from the architect as well as the City Planning Department would put this project one-year behind which is a hardship. He said all the lots sit on difference elevations. He noted some of the houses in the area seemed more massive than they were because of the elevation of the pads. He noted this house was just the opposite as it sits lower than the street, and looks smaller driving up to it. He said they have tried to work within the guidelines. He noted they have been talking to the architectural review committee. He noted the majority of the house was at. the 25 foot height limit and it was just the peaks that exceeded 25 feet. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti asked if they had looked into modifying or lowering the peaks. Mr. Tunstill said yes they had, and noted the first time they submitted plans the peaks were 33 feet high and they cut them down to 30 feet high. He said in looking over the plans again he could probably cut the peaks an additional two feet and the overall height of the house one foot bringing the peaks down to about 27 feet in height. He noted both the towers could be brought down. He said one area that could only be brought down one foot would be the roof line over the master bedroom. Ms. Santalahti said if that were. done even though the building would be 27 feet high measured from street grade it would be 25 feet in height. Ms. Santalahti approved the variance, in part, for a maximum height of twenty-seven feet, on the basis that the building height, as viewed from • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 3 Hummingbird Circle would be twenty-five feet above said street; and the adjacent lots have higher and lower building pads; and Canyon Rim Road is approximately 30 feet lower than subject's building pad. She said the request was approved for two chimneys, two towers and a hip roof. She noted this item was Categorically Exempt. This decision shall become final unless' an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless a member of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 2 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 VARIANCE N0. 3766 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: EMBEE MANAGEMENT INC., 1411 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: PAUL BOSTWICK, 1411 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.18 acres located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Midway Drive, having a frontage of approximately 300 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and a frontage of 146 feet on the north side of Midway Drive and further described as 1411 S. Anaheim Boulevard. Waivers of (a) minimum front setback and permitted encroachments and (b) maximum fence height to construct an 8-foot high wrought iron fence adjacent to Midway Drive and Anaheim Boulevard. No one indicated their presence in opposition, and no correspondence was received in opposition. Paul Bostwick; 1411 S. Anaheim Blvd., said that since their last variance the size of motor homes have grown considerably, as well as the fact their business has prospered. He said they would like to put a wrought iron fence on the front of the property and one gate on the side (Midway Drive). He noted they have had a security and vandalism problem, of both their property and their customers' property. He said by fencing the property off it would provide protection as well as the utilization of their total property. He said that neighboring properties had similar types of fencing. He said he believed they had paid the street lighting fees in 1974 when they developed the property that were noted in Condition No. 1. He said he did not understand Condition No. 2 the Park in-lieu fees. Ms. Santalahti said the requirement of Condition No. 2 was an error and would be deleted. • • M_I_NUT_ES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti said our records did not indicate the fee had been paid, but if applicant would bring in a copy of his receipt we would. delete Condition No. 1. She noted it was not the intent of the City to have someone pay twice. Ms. Santalahti asked if they were going to upgrade their landscaping and Mr. Bostwick said they would as soon as the fence was installed. Ms. Santalahti asked what the color of the fence would be and he said probably beige to match the building. He said they would have three gates, two on Anaheim Blvd., and one on Midway. Ms. Santalahti asked if the gates would be electronically controlled and applicant said no, they would be roll back. She asked if they would be open during business hours and he said yes, they would be open the same hours they are open which is basically 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Ms. Santalahti verified that the fenced in area would not be used for outdoor storage. Ms. Santalahti asked if they were retaining all four driveways and applicant said yes. He noted they currently have chainlink fencing from the corner of the property on Midway up to the easterly driveway and that there was an existing sliding chainlink gate on Midway. He said they were going to put wrought iron from that point to the front. Ms. Santalahti said she would like to see the chainlink fencing .removed and replaced with wrought iron fencing if she acted favorably on this variance. Ms. Santalahti approved the variance for a beige decorative wrought iron fence with beige wrought iron sliding gates, with only wrought iron along the entire street frontage's, on the basis that the proposed fencing is wrought iron and that the applicant has agreed to upgrade the landscaping in the existing planters along the streets. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless a member of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. • . MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 5 ITEM N0. 3 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND 1 VARIANCE N0. 3769 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JACK E. RRUGER, 1019 N. Cambria Place, Anaheim, CA 92801. Subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.14 acre, having a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the west side of Cambria Place, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and being located approximately 200 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1091 North Cambria Place. Waivers of (a) minimum dimensions of parking spaces, and (b) minimum "front-on" garage setback to construct a 1-story, 982 square-foot, addition to an existing single-family residence. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received in opposition. Jack Kruger, 1019 North Cambria Place, said he would like to add on to his existing garage. He said he still had enough room to park two cars in front by installing a roll-up garage door. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti asked if he had talked to his neighbors on the north and west and applicant said yes and noted they did not have any problems with his proposal. He said he talked to all neighbors adjoining his property and no one had any problems with his plans. Ms. Santalahti approved this variance as the request was minimal with an average garage setback of 24 feet from the front property line and that there was a pending Code amendment which will permit the front-on garage setback, as proposed with a roll-up garage door, which the applicant was going to install . Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless a member of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION VARIANCE N0. 3775 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, Attn: W: C. Kessler, 1515 E. Ratella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: SHOOK BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., Attn: Chris Quesada, 2055 S. Baker Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761. Subject property is irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 16.8 • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7,.1988 Page 6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 590 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue having a maximum depth of approximately 1,457 feet and being located approximately 740 feet west of the centerline of slate College Boulevard and further described as 1515 East Ratella Avenue (General Foods). Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to retain an approximate 153,612 square-foot warehouse and wholesale distribution facility. No one indicated their presence in opposition, and no correspondence was received in opposition.' Chris Quesada, Shook Building Systems, 2055 S. Baker Ave., Ontario, said they were going to subdivide•the property and then changed their minds and wanted to cancel Variance No. 3652. Upon doing that, they discovered to meet the Code requirements for the existing facility they needed an additional 356 parking spaces in addition to the 73 already provided. He noted they had approximately 43 employees and felt they did not need the additional parking spaces. He said this would also impose an economic hardship on the corporation. He said it would cause them to cut back on the new facility which was approximately 85~ completed. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti asked for clarification of the request. Lori Duca said the requirement is for 424 parking spaces and they have 73 existing parking spaces on the site. She said the old variance was approved for 73 existing plus the additional 356 spaces proposed, however, the applicant does not want to provide the 356 required but to stay with the existing 73 parking spaces. She noted that they had already done the construction that was approved under the old variance. Ms. Santalahti said there is a lot of parking shown on the. drawing she had and wanted to know if that land area would be left alone, ie., not striped for parking, and applicant said yes. Ms. Santalahti said this building as being used by General Foods with its current circumstances and employee count does not present a problem, but if this building were sold, her main concern was that the new. owners would be physically able to modify the site, pave additional area in order to provide the necessary parking. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 7 Ms. Santalahti asked whether people other than employees would normally be here and applicant replied only salesmen. She noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. Ms. Santalahti approved this variance on the basis that land area is available for additional parking to meet Code on the same parcel of land; and if the building use changes or the occupancy changes, the future users will be able to provide the Code standard of parking or possibly seek anew variance. She said the traffic engineer had reviewed this proposal and did not express any opposition. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless a member of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM N0. 5 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION VARIANCE N0. 3776 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: GERALD R. BUSHORE AND BEVERLY V. BUSHORE, 5483 West Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.0 acre, having a frontage of approximately ,137 feet on the west side of Henning Way, having a maximum depth of approximately 363 feet and being located approximately 1,100 feet south of the intersection of Quintana Drive and Henninq Way and further described as 381 South Henning Way. Waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum corral setback to construct a 33-foot high single-family residence and 1 horse corral. There was~one person indicating their presence in opposition, and no correspondence was received. Gerald Bushore, 5483 West St., noted a few corrections that needed to be made on the cover map. He said he was basically here to request a height variance. He noted he had revised his plans since appearing before the Planning Commission in January of 1986 in connection with a prior petition regarding a garage, and the garage had been moved forward, presently showing 25 feet which meets the rear setback, however, he said he would like to keep the two prior waivers that were approved by the Planning Commission and consider this a separate application. He said two things were overlooked when his previous variance was approved and they were 1) he was • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 8 planning to build the garage first before the house and 2) the height of the garage is actually as it appears today and rio one caught that it was three feet over Code or he would have requested a waiver to cover it at that time. In the meantime, the house was also to be 28 foot. He noted he was under the impression that the elevation is measured from the highest portion of the structure to the highest finished grade level at the foundation, and to get the 33 feet you would measure from the lowest portion of the foundation. He said all this time he thought he was only asking for three feet, but if measured in that manner he is asking for eight feet. He wanted clarification, was he asking for 28 feet on both structures or was he asking for 28 and 33 feet in one instance or 28 feet on the other. Lori Duca said the maximum structural height on the single family residence was 28 and 33 feet, and maximum structural height on the garage was 28 feet. Ms. Santalahti said she was looking at the front elevation of the house and she calculated 33 feet. Mr. Bushore said he wanted to point out that the only portion above the elevation is the very peak of the roof on both structures and that peak only affects the property to the south which is below his property. He noted he had worked diligently with his neighbors to show them all of his plans. He also pointed out that he has shown three separate locations for the horse corral, and he was requesting that any one of the locations be approved as suitable. ` Ann Bien, 6312 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, said she was speaking on behalf of the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition. She said they knew of Mr. Bushore's prior service to the City of Anaheim and his recent support of his neighbors and our members in their endeavors for correct development in the Henning Way area. She said, however, they could not set aside their commitment to the General Plan and ordinances that support it. She noted this home will be located in the Scenic Corridor whose restrictions were known to Mr. Bushore when his plans were made. She said Mr. Bushore's comment that his home exceeds the restriction by only three feet, and therefore, was not an unreasonable request was unacceptable. She noted that Mr. Bushore's lot is located in an area where the 300 foot notification radius may not reach all residents who may want to comment on his request. She said they felt when there were no hardships or special circumstances, and the property could be developed without waivers to Code requirements, residents should be able to trust the City of Anaheim to follow its own rules. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 9 Mr. Bushore said that three years ago when he started this project it was his intent to follow Code. He said he went to the Planning Department and was given a copy of the RS-HS-22,000 ordinance that said the height limitation was 30 feet, and so his architect designed to that height. He said he had gotten additional waivers and still did not realize they were exceeding the height limitation. He said when he brought the plans into plan-check, someone realized that the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone took precedence over the ordinance under which he had designed his house. He said he now has about $25,OOO.tied up in the plans. He again noted that he has talked to his neighbors about his plans. He said his proposal did not block anyone's view. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti said that north of him there appeared to be one house and the other structure was a shed, and applicant said that was correct. He said the Whirthers owned the properties there with the one dwelling unit and the shed. He said that the house that was closest to the north was on a lower elevation and he would actually look over the roof line. He said the property to the south is considerably higher in elevation and they were concerned about their view. Ms. Santalahti asked if they had seen these drawings. Applicant replied yes, and said they did not have a problem. He said their name was Staube. Ms. Santalahti said when she went out and looked at the site, she noticed the southern neighbor was quite a bit higher than applicant's. Mr. Bushore said. their home was quite prominent and had a peaked roof much higher than his proposed roof. She asked how long the house had been there, and he replied it had been built within the last eight years. Ms. Santalahti asked if when he said the height differential after grading subject property ranges from three to 14 feet, he means, basically 14 feet lower on the south side. He said on the uphill (south) side he was putting up a retaining wall that will range from zero to three feet for a portion, and then step up to 9 feet for a length of 55 feet. He said he had a choice of lowering or raising the lot on the other end which could have required an horrendous ugly retaining wall of approximately 20 feet high. He said by stepping the lot, it is aesthetically much better looking. Ms. Santalahti asked if he had talked to the neighbors about the horse corral issue. He said the only neighbor that had any concern was Mr. Whithers. He said when Mr. Whithers found out it was not going to be close to his front property line, he was no longer concerned even though he might see it. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 10 Ms. Santalahti noted that per the staff report, the existing houses were more than 195 feet away and he said that was correct. Ms. Santalahti asked if Mr. Bushore's earlier discussion on measuring the roof line to the highest grade on the property at 28 foot was basically at the southwest corner of the house and he said yes. He said that would be the only portion that would really be in his neighbors direct view line in terms of how they look out of their house. Ms.' Santalahti said the way the house was angled on the property, the two neighbors who were most affected and who were going to have the impact of the roof ridgeline, were to the north and south. She noted that the applicant had been in contact with those neighbors. She said anyone viewing it from either Henning Way or further to the west across the ravine would be looking at the house on an angle that was 45 degrees or so out of their line of sight. Mr. Bushore said he questioned the requirement of Condition No. 8, and said Ms. Duca was going to check with Engineering about that requirement. Ms. Duca said she had talked with Engineering and they were very firm on keeping that as a condition of approval on this application. She said they wanted to change the Standard Detail No. 118. She noted No. 122 was for streets and gutters and No. 118 was for a 14 foot wide road from centerline to the drainage or berm area. Mr. Bushore said his neighbors would be very unhappy with that requirement as they are even thinking of putting a gate at the bottom of the hill so only residents would be using the street. Mr. Bushore also questioned the requirement for Condition No. 7 as there is a fire hydrant on the property just installed in 1987. He said because he didn't want a hammer-head turn-around on his lot, he had relocated his house to about 120 feet from the road instead of the original 160 feet. He said he was under the impression that by doing so he had also eliminated the fire sprinkler requirement. Mr. Bushore asked if he could have a two week continuance in order to do additional research and speak to the Engineering and Fire Departments. Ms. Santalahti continued this item to the meeting of April 21, 1988 and noted it would not be readvertised. ~ ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, APRIL 7, 1988 Page 11 ITEM N0. 6 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0004: Request to construct a 2-story addition to an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum side yard setback (5 feet required; 4 feet proposed) at 523 S. Citron. Ms. Santalahti said this item had to be advertised as a Variance and set for public hearing because one letter was received in opposition. B. ARCADE PERMIT N0. 1001: To permit a 50-machine arcade at 240 West Lincoln Avenue, Unit C. N0. 7. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Lori Duca said several telephone calls were received in opposition to above request but not close to 50~ of those that were notified, therefore the permit could not be denied. The permit will be approved by staff this date. This item was on this agenda for informational and tracking purposes only. The decision has a 10-day appeal period during which time it will be placed on the Council Agenda. There was no one indicating a desire to speak. ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 11:15 a.m. ' Minutes prepared by: d ~• ' Pamela H. Starnes, Secretary Minutes approved by: Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator 0008g