Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/12/15'~i !. A C T T n N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1988, 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. will be served. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in the Administrator's opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned 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. oaasx Page 1 a • December 15, 1988 la. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION lb. VARIANCE N0. 3869 (READVERTISED) • OWNER: HAROLD V. TOLAR, P.O. Box 1106 Helendale, CA 92342 AGENT: RIRR TIMOTHY MUHEARN, 24680 Malibu Road, Malibu, CA 90265 LOCATION: 429 South Euclid Street To waive (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum open landscaped setback abutting a residential zone boundary to construct a 2-story, 5280 square foot commercial office structure. Continued from the meetings of November 17, 1988 and ^• December 1, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA-88-78 2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3860 OWNER: TIM WUSZ AND BONNIE S. WUSZ, 7395 Humming-Bird Circle, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 7395 Hummingbird Circle To construct a 600 square foot garage addition to an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum structural setback. Continued from the meeting of November 17, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3873 OWNER: MARIO M. BARNABE AND DESIREE T. BARNABE, 183 S. Mulberry Street, Orange, CA 92669 LOCATION: 853 N. Zeyn Street To construct an additional dwelling unit with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum rear yard setback. Continued from the meeting of November 17, 1988. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 88-79 Page 2 App roved ;Continued ~to 12-29-88 Approved ." ~. December 15, 1988 • 4a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 4b. VARIANCE N0. 3883 • OWNER: FLOYD E. HARRIS AND FEDORA E. HARRIS, 2109 W. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2109 West La Palma Avenue To waive maximum fence height to retain an existing 6=foot high wall in front yard setback. Property is approximately 0.14 acre on the north side of La Palma Avenue approximately 95 feet west of the centerline of Columbine street. ' ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 5. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. VARIANCE. N0. .3717 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Neville D. Libby requests an Extension of Time to comply with conditions of approval for property located at 1651 W. Cerritos Avenue. 6. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0020 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5 To construct a 5,300 square foot single-family residence with waiver of maximum. structural height. Property is located at 7445 Hummingbird Circle. (End-o~€-puh•Yrc-~cstice-pe-r-i:eda- Decemb.e.r 1-b , b9~8~8.) Eru d p f G~ w~ L/ c n~ a t~ t~ i 5 p ~ ~, a. ~ ~ l l~ ~! ~,~g8-SI s. To construct 6,000 square feet of future storage ;:mezzanine above office area with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Property is~located at 3839 East Coronado Street. (End of public notice period: December 16, 1988) ~,gg-So Withdrawn Granted ~,,, u ~k~ ~~8 8 ~~~~ ~~~~~ Page 3 .. December 15, 1988 7. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: i/ c..J ~• ~~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DATE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY RIOSK S If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone ,else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Page 4 r . ~' December 15, 1988 ADDENDUM TO AGENDA OF DECEMBER 15, 1988 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0020 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5: This item will not be continued to December 29, 1988 as previously posted. It will be heard on December 15, 1988. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby c~ejrtify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 9~0 /~/ _ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (D E) AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED • ~~ O./J1/~_/ Page 5 ,. REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - DECEMBER 15, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:30 a.m., December 15, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Leonard Mc Ghee, Senior Planner Pamela Starnes, Executive Secretary Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the meeting and that anyone desiring to speak about matters other than the agendized items would have the opportunity to be heard at the end of the meeting. ITEM N0. 1 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3869 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: HAROLD V. TOLAR, P.O. Box 1106 Helendale, CA 92342. AGENT: KIRK TIMOTHY MUHEARN, 24680 Malibu Road, Malibu, CA 90265. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting~,of approximately 0.28 acre, having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 122 feet and being located 650 feet south of the centerline of Broadway. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 5280 square foot commercial office structure. Continued from meetings of November 17, 1988 and December 1, 1988. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Kirk Mulhearn, architect for the project, said the property;is a bit difficult from an architectural point of view. He said they are surrounded on two sides by residences, and are only two of 14 properties on the street between Broadway and Orange that have this type of condition. He said the setbacks are really rigorous which is why they are asking for the waivers. He noted they are planning a small 'park' in the rear of the property with benches which they hoped would help out as far as the neighbors to the rear were concerned. He said presently the property is being used commercially and the present building with the carport is nine feet from the residence to the north, and the new building will be over 50-feet from the building to the north. • • MINUTES. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 2 Hal Tolar, property owner, said he thought there had been a General Plan Amendment on the area many years ago and he wondered if there were a Resolution of Intent to commercial. Ms. Santalahti said there was a study on the whole area that identified it for commercial uses but for some reason the north parcel had never come in. James Botsko, 413 S. Falcon Street, said he has lived there. since 1962 and one thing he would like to point out is that all the residents in the tract to the west were not informed. He said he had a notice, but a neighbor who is now vacationing and has a corner joining the property in question had not received a notice. He noted three properties over from the property`on Falcon Street and backing up to that property line also did not receive a notice. He said he felt it would be unfair to the residents of the tract to make a decision until they were notified. Ms. Santalahti asked, relative to the property, is he the immediate neighbor behind or to the north or south. Mr. Botsko said he was north and across the street on Falcon; however, Falcon Street has a curve that curves north and west and he is right on the curve. He said a building of two stories on that property would give very good visualization and surveillance of his property. He said for this reason he is opposed to the project. Ms. Santalahti noted that this item had been continued in order to readvertise the additional waiver so theoretically everyone should have received two notices. Mr. Botsko said they did not get either notice. Leonard McGhee said staff was made aware a number of properties were not notified so special letters went out last Thursday to each of the property owners that were not notified earlier. He said there was a copy of the special letter in the file. He said there were about nine people receiving the special notification. Mr. Botsko said if they went out last Thursday this particular person who is adjacent to the project is vacationing for 10 days and would not have received notice. Ms. Santalahti said the public is notified by three methods, the newspaper advertisement, the property is posted and the property owners within 300 feet as listed on the tag assessors rolls are mailed notices. She noted in this case they discovered an additional waiver so it was readvertised. She said 10 days is the legal timing to send out the notices and we have to legally advertise in at least two ways and the City actually advertises three ways, so the notification for this Variance was a legal notification. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 3 Ms. Santalahti said she would like to comment on the plan and that the height waiver is statistically very small as they are allowed to have a 12 1/2 foot building and they are asking for 13 feet which is quite minimal. She said at other locations it was not found to be a problem and those situations were higher and setback further. She noted this lack of problems was particularly true for office uses. Mr. Bostsko asked if they were also adjacent to residential homes or apartments. Ms. Santalathi said the situations were very similar and even much heavier commercial. She said she was specifically thinking of a development on Brookhurst, north of La Palma, where there is a mix including retail and restaurant, but the office uses have worked out quite well. She said the one exception that may be a problem is the trash enclosure and that looking at this plan, the trash bin is at the front of the property so there would not be a trash truck moving back and forth. Ms. Santalahti asked if the person not able to attend because of being on vacation was the neighbor immediately adjacent to the property to the west. Mr. .Botsko said that was correct. Mr. Botsko noted he had not received a letter only the cards. Mr. McGhee said the letters only went to the property owners who had not received the public notice cards. Mr. Botsko noted this project would restrict his view to the west. He asked how far the building would be from the Falcon property line. Ms. Santalahti said this proposal is 25-feet from the west property line and at a very slight angle and the remaining items in that area .are parking spaces plus landscaping. Mr. Botsko said across the street and over one or two lots there is a office building with at least two stories high and from those windows you can look down on at least three different properties. He said they have had break-ins on different properties in the area and he is concerned that people could look down and survey the area and know when people are coming and going. He was concerned about safety. He also expressed his concern about what type of commercial use it was going to be. Ms. Santalahti noted that this was a two=part building in that the portion closest to .the west is single-story and then goes up to two-stories near Euclid. She said the architect could comment on window placement on the second story and how far back the second story is going to be from the west property line. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 4 Mr. Tolar said there is more privacy with a commercial type of zone then some of the other types of zoning. He noted the office will be used Monday through Friday and not used on Saturdays or Sundays. He said the setback is 25-feet and, as Ms. Santalahti indicated, that portion is single-story so he doesn't believe any one could stand in the building and see in a backyard or over to Falcon. He noted they have a number of different companies interested in leasing, for example, an escrow company and an accountant. He said there are other uses that would be allowed but would not be compatible with the neighborhood but they have tried to put in a use that is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Mulhearn said as the architect on the project, he tried' to be as responsive to the neighbor to the west as possible. He said rather than have a 2-story building come all the way to the rear of the property, it was stepped back in a pyramid-like fashion. He said this was done, not only for the legal rules involved but the beauty of the building. He pointed out that the total height variance accounts for only seven percent of the total roof area. He noted that the building is legally setback on the rear side. Ms. Santalahti asked how far approximately was the second story portion from the west property line. Mr. Mulhearn said he thought it was on the plan. Ms. Santalahti scaled off the plan and said it was about 50 feet to the two-story portion which is 24 feet high and noted that complied with Code. Ms. Santalahti asked if there were windows on the second story facing in a westerly direction. Mr. Mulhearn said they did have a set of windows on the second story and said they could not put them on the south wall because of the "fire" wall that was legally required. He said the windows were not facing to the northwest, they are pointed directly to the west and there would be planting and trees in the "park" separating the windows from the residences. Mr. Botsko said he felt 24 feet was really high and noted his house was not that high and said most of the area homes were single-story and only one home on Fann Street had a second story. He said he was still concerned about the potential uses for the offices. Mr. Tolar said the lots on Falcon Street are approximately 100-feet deep and there is a street dividing Mr. Botsko's property from the project, so he is probably about 165 to 170 feet from this proposal. He said if he had a tenant he would be happy to tell Mr. Botsko who it was; however, what he has is interested commercial office tenants such as escrow companies, accountants, and those types of people that are allowed by right under the zoning on the property.. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED • ~ MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 5 Ms. Santalahti said this piece of property was approved for CL "Commercial Limited Zoning" in 1970, and the zoning finalized about 18 years ago, and that commercial uses including retail and a restaurant could technically be constructed. She said the difficulty, of course, on a site like this is the amount of parking, and the proposal today is an office proposal with office parking which is four spaces per 1000 square feet. She said any retail would take five and one-half spaces per 1000 square feet and this proposal is basically right on Code so any future use of this property is always going to be commerical office unless they decide to redevelop the property. She said right now they could come in for a building permit for a commercial building and all they would have to do was to move the building over a minimum of six inches (the building would be somewhat smaller) and they would have to have a minimum 10-foot landscaped setback and they could probably have a 4000 square foot office, two-story configuration similar to what they are proposing. She said so far as the commercial land use is concerned, that was approved a number of years ago. She said prior to the zoning there was a study that included 10 or 15 properties on this part of Euclid and all of which front onto Euclid which were residentially developed because there is always interest in converting lots of that type on well-travelled streets to commercial uses and, at that time, it was viewed favorably and the zoning was an outcome of that study. Ms. Santalahti asked if the block wall along the west property line was six feet tall at this time as measured up both sides and noted .she was going to add a Condition that says the block wall along the west property line shall be at least six-feet high measured from either side and that it may go up to eight feet. Mr. Tolar said he thought it was six-feet on both sides but if not they would be happy to bring it to Code. Ms. Santalahti noted they had not given specific details on the landscaping on the west side. She said Code required trees on minimal 20-foot centers and asked if they had considered anything beyond that requirement. Mr. Mulhearn said they had not except that they knew they needed tall trees. Ms. Santalahti said she was going to modify the Condition relative to the landscaping that minimally trees will have 20-foot centers and be minimally 10 gallon in size. Ms. Santalahti noted for Mr. Botsko's information that the Zoning Code does allow up to 30-feet in height for single-family dwellings without any special setbacks, so what is being built is entirely within the potential height of what anyone might do with a residential structure in the vicinity. Ms. Santalahti asked if any other properties in the area already developed with a commercial use, whether it is a house or converted house or commerical building, have a similar situation relative to the paving for the parking area going entirely to the westerly property line. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 6 Mr. Tolar said the next door neighbor to the south has his pavement going all the way to the back of the fence too. He said originally when that was zoned commercial there was an agreement with the City that there would never be a permanent structure on the back of the property because in the event that all the properties developed commercially under the Resolution of Intent, some day they might want to put an alley back there. Ms. Santalahti asked if the three driveways to Euclid Street currently on the property were being reduced to one, and Mr. Tolar said that•was correct. Ms. Santalahti stated that the Zoning is commercial limited "CL" and the proposal is for a commercial office with that parking requirement and the use is going to be held in that manner with this specific plan. Ms. Santalahti asked if there were any proposal for lighting in the outdoor parking area other then what would be on the building entrances. Mr. Mulhearn said Code required a minimum amount and they wanted to be sure at night those lights are not directly facing the residences to the west because they understand that can be a negative for the people trying to sleep. Mr. Tolar said they would stipulate that the lighting be less or no higher then the fence and it would be directed away from the west property line. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that waiver (A) is minimal because the building height is only 6-inches higher than permitted by Code and accounts for less than a 1-foot deep strip along the west portion of the building; that waiver (B) as it pertains to the north property line is minimal because said adjacent property, although zoned residentially, is designated for General Commercial land uses by the Anaheim General Plan; that waiver (B) as it pertains to the west property line is minimal because there will be a similar amount (1,100 sq.ft.) of landscaping and open patio area provided along the southerly 36 feet of said property line as that which is required by Code (1,000 sq.ft.) for the entire 100-foot long west property line, and that the northerly 64 feet will be used for open parking for the proposed office building which use will generally be a day time activity. She added a Condition that a minimum six (6) foot high block wall must be maintained along the entire west property line with the height being measured from the highest adjacent grade level and that a higher block wall not to exceed eight (8) feet may be constructed if the abutting property owners agree; and modified a Condition that the landscaping adjacent to the west property line must include minimum ten (10) gallon sized trees planted on minimum twenty (20) foot centers; and that the parking area lighting will be directed away from the west area. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 7 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 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3860 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: TIM WUSZ AND BONNIE S. WUSZ, 7395 Humming Bird Circle, Anaheim, CA 92808. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.45. acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the south side of Hummingbird Circle, having a maximum depth of•approximately 183 feet and being located 450 feet east of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard, and further described as 7395 Hummingbird Circle. Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a 600 square foot garage addition to an existing single-family residence. Continued from the meeting of November 17, 1988, and December 15, 1988. This item was not heard at this meeting and was continued until December 29, 1988, at the. request of the owner. ITEM 3 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3873 PUBLIC .HEARING: OWNER: MARIO M. BARNABE AND DESIREE T. BARNABE, 183 S. Mulberry Street, Orange, CA 92669. Subject property is a' rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.14 acre located at the southwest corner of Zeyn Street and La Verne Street, having a frontage of 113 feet on the south side of La Verne Street and further described as 853 N. Zeyn Street. Waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum rear yard setback to construct an additional dwelling unit. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Mario Bernabe, applicant, said based on the last meeting, one of the planners was going to check to see if he could have three units rather then the two he was asking for because of a possible change in the zoning and he wondered what had been discovered. Leonard McGhee said staff had researched the Reclassification that was processed back in 1970, Reclass No. 70-71-38, to reclassify properties fronting on the east and west sides of Zeyn Street between La Palma Avenue and North Street from RM-2400 Zone to RM-1200 Zone and which was approved by the Planning Commission on April 5, 1971. He said there was a'time extension that had expired a year and a half ago on May 5, 1987. He said within that time only one parcel finalized zoning to RM-1200 on the east side of Zeyn Street and one on the west side of Zeyn Street and with that Reclassification expiring, there being no further extensions of time, and there having been approved General Plan Amendment No. 216 and a new Reclass 86-87-23 which redesignated and rezoned all those properties mentioned previously to • • MINUTES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECEMBER 15 1988 PAGE 8 Low-Medium Residential land uses and RM-2400 zoning so that the existing zoning is currently RM-2400 which permit no more than two units on this sized parcel. Ms. Santalahti noted those actions were not clear last time and both had been approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council during the last year and had lowered the Zoning as well as the General Plan that lowered the permitted density on this project so there can be no more than two units on it under current Code standards. Mr. Barnabe said the letter from the City which he spoke about at the last meeting was the basis on which he bought the property. Ms. Santalahti said it was unfortunate that the letter is a bit generic in that it just states everything is all right without giving any details, although seeing the letter she could understand what Mr. Barnabe might have thought it meant. She said the history on this property is so poor in terms of what has been said by different people and what was really done under permits. She asked if this were the property where it was supposed to be a family room or something of that sort. Mr. McGhee said at one time it was approved for accessory ,l'iving quarters which did not include the kitchen which would make this an illegal unit. He said prior to that it was also approved for a boarding house nursey for children. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti advised Mr. Barnabe that he might wish to contact Debbie Vaghts in Community Development regarding the possibility of making one of the units affordable and in this manner be able to get approval from the Planning Commission for three units; however, she pointed out that he did have a critical parking problem to meet in order for the Planning Commission to feel comfortable about granting approval. Ms. Santalahti also noted she would delete Condition No. 5 requiring street lighting installation along La Verne on the basis of the construction involved because he is actually going to be modifying to eliminate a unit and street lighting costs would be above and beyond the cost of the improvement. Ms. Santalahti said she would approve this Variance based on the fact that the requested waiver (a) will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses; that granting of the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and that said waiver is minimal because the subject apartment has been rented for a number of years without any parking problems being experienced; that the requested waiver (b) is minimal because the shallow setback was approved by the City a number of years ago when the "accessory living quarters" were constructed and she deleted Condition No. 5 and renumbered the remaining Conditions appropriately. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 9 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 days of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM NO 4 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, VARIANCE N0. 3883 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: FLOYD E. HARRIS AND FEDORA E. HARRIS, 2109 W. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.14 acre, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 106 feet and being located approximately 95 feet west of the centerline of Columbine Street, and further described as 2.109 West La Palma Avenue. To waive maximum fence height to retain an existing 6-foot high wall in the front yard setback. Property is approximately .0.14 acre on the north side of La Palma Avenue approximately 95 feet west of the centerline of Columbine street. This item was withdrawn when it was found to be unnecessary. ITEM N0. 5 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: VARIANCE N0. 3717 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION. OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Neville D. Libby requests an Extension of Time to comply with conditions of approval for property located at .1651 W. Cerritos Avenue. Ms. Santalahti granted above requested .time extension until November 25, 1989. ITEM N0.6 ZONING_ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0020 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS-5 To construct a 5,300 square foot single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height. Property is located at 7445 Hummingbird Circle. (End of public notice period: December 26, 1988) Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on Administrative Adjustment No. 0020 and noted the appeal period would end December 26, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act on this item December 27, 1988. B. ADMINISTRATIVE .ADJUSTMENT N0. 0021 AND CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION To construct 6,000 square ,feet of future storage mezzanine''above an office area with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Property is located at 3839 East Coronado Street. (End of public notice period: December 16, 1988) Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on Administrative Adjustment No. 0021 and noted the appeal period would end • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DECEMBER 15, 1988 PAGE 10 December 16, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act on this item December 19, 1988. ITEM N0. 7 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 8 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 10:30 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: ~~~n~,c4~. ~~~~~~ Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator 0171g