Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1988/07/14..'~ e ~~ ~, A C T I O N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY,; JULY 14, 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. 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. ~05.84H~ Page 1 ;' July 14, 1988 la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3-A lb. VARIANCE N0. 3815 OWNER: RICHARD E. COLLIVER AND JUDY J. COLLIVER, 382 Silverbrook Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: PETER E. CARSON, 10600 Magnolia, Suite I, Riverside, CA 92505 LOCATION: 7460 East Humming Bird Circle To construct a 2-story, 34.5 foot high, single-family residence with waiver of maximum structural height. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR N0. 2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3817 OWNER: DORIS E. MYERS, 135 W. Valencia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: JERRY D. WHITE, 3611 Country Club Drive, Lakewood, CA 90712 LOCATION: 135 West Valencia Street To construct a 197 square-foot living room addition and a 441' square-foot new garage with waivers of (a) minimum dwelling floor area and (b) minimum front setback. ZONING ADMINSTRATOR DECISION NO. ZA88-42 3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3819. OWNER: BADALIAN ENTERPRISES INC., 1540 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim CA 92802 AGENT: FARANO AND KZEVIET, ATTN: JOAN ALLEN, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., #340, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1520 South Harbor Blvd. To construct a 5-story, 103 unit motel including 1600 square feet~of retail shops with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION.NO. ZA88-42 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. VARIANCE N0. 3820 OWNER: CHI KEUNG KWOK, ET AL, P.O. Box 6551, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 506 South State College Blvd. To establish a 720 square-foot donut shop with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. Continued to meeting of 7/28/88 so . applicant can bring in revised plans lowering structural height 4~ feet Approved Approved with modification of request to 73 spaces instead of 76 spaces, & deleting Condition #7, modifying Conditions #10, #11, & #12. Continued to meeting of 7/28/88 in order t o re advertise proposal. Page 2 _ __ -, July 14, 1988 5. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0011 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5: Request to construct a 318 square-foot bedroom addition with waiver of required front yard setback (25' permitted; 22' 6" proposed), at 301 N. Bluerock Street. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 7. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Response to public notice ended 7/11/88, &~~.rio..oppostibn Baas received. Vone. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: (TIME) (DATE) LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: 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 3 .'•_ ~ '^ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - JULY 14, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Zoning Administrator was called to order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:35 a.m., July 14, 1988, in the Council Chamber. PRESENT• Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Lori Duca, Assistant Planner Pamela Starnes, Secretary Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the procedures for the meeting and that anyone desiring to speak about matters other than the agendized items would have the opportunity to be heard at the end of the meeting. ITEM N0. 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3A, VARIANCE N0. 3815 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: RICHARD E. COLLIVER AND JUDY J. COLLIVER, 382 Silverbrook Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: PETER E. CARSON, 10600 Magnolia, Suite I, Riverside, CA 92505. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.78 acre, having a frontage of approximately 210 feet on the southeast side of Hummingbird Circle, having a maximum depth of approximately'135 feet and being located approximately 1000 feet east of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard and further described as 7460 Hummingbird Circle. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story, 34.5 foot high, single-family residence. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and no. correspondence was received. Pete Larson, agent for owner, said they were requesting a height adjustment because they had designed a house with a fairly steep roof line that was consistent with other houses in the area. He said they felt the house would be in a position that would not affect surrounding properties in a negative manner. Ms. Santalahti asked what type of grading would be taking place on the property relative to the existing grading. Mr. Larson said they proposed a level change in the house itself, that. to the rear portion of the house • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 14, 1988 Page 2 they would have a two foot cut from the on existing grade. He said the highest section at the entry way would be raised a little bit also, therefore, the maximum split would be three foot. He said the pad grading was two foot and only in the area of the structure itself. Ms. Santalahti asked if the house basically went to the edge where the downhill slope began, and he said yes. Ann Bien, 6673 Paseo de Norte, said she would be speaking on behalf of the Anaheim Hills Coalition, and then on behalf of herself. She read a letter from the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition which is in the file and a copy is attached to the minutes. Ann Bien said she lived off Canyon Rim Road and the side of her house overlooked Hummingbird Circle. She said this proposal definitely impinges on her view. She said she did not see why the architecture could not conform to the landscape as it now stands. She noted that her house conformed, as well as other houses in the area, and that should be considered when talking about the optimum use of land. Sally Smith, 7370 E. Rite Drive, said her house is in the Stonegate Tract directly east of the Hummingbird Tract. She read and submitted a statement in opposition to this proposal containing approximately 100 signatures; which has been placed in the file, and a copy without the signatures is attached to the minutes. She said when they moved into their home in 1979, they were aware that homes were going to be built on Hummingbird Circle; however, since they were in the Scenic Corridor, they did not think the homes would be exceed 25-feet in height and they would still be able to see over them. She noted that recent construction has resulted in a considerable loss of their view. She said her view of the City lights would be~impacted by the building if in fact the roof lines were going to be higher then what was accorded. She noted that from a distance, 5-feet seems more like 45-feet, and it would really cover her view of the_city lights. She stated she had spoken to many residents who were concerned about the proposal but who were not present today. She said the whole point of moving to the hills was that everyone wanted a view. She said people who are moving into the area needed to have consideration for those already living there. Ms. Santalahti noted the location map showed Hummingbird Circle and Bunting Court and asked if Rite Drive was the next street easterly ,,and Ms. Smith said Kite Drive was actually in the Stonegate Tract. She said the street after that would be Night Hawk, then Kite Drive, and then Nighting Gale Circle. Judy Colliver, owner, noted that there was a difference of heights in all levels of the lots on Hummingbird Circle so, therefore, there would be a difference of heights in all of the structures on Hummingbird Circle. She said the architectural preference was a consideration of their custom home. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 14, 1988 Page 3 She said that the Stonegate Tract was a quarter-of-a-mile away, and she felt there was no way they would be obstructing anyone's view from that distance, other then the top of their roof. Ms. Santalahti asked if they had contacted the homeowners association for Hummingbird Circle, and she said she was a member of that association. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said she had looked at the property relative to the surrounding existing housing it clearly was much lower and fairly distant from other pieces of property currently developed. She noted that she did not feel a height variance of 30-feet was problematic in the Scenic Corridor; however, any variance of height above 30-feet was of great concern. She said she was not uncomfortable when it was basically an architectural detail such as an area over an entry way that was a maximum 10-feet across. She noted this particular proposal was for a relatively steep roof line, and a fairly long ridge line overall. She estimated that 1/3 or more of the elevation was basically the roof area as viewed horizontally in an east-west direction. She asked if they had looked at design modifications to lower the roof ridge line. Mr. Larson said the portion of the roof exceeding 30 feet, was a small percentage of the overall roof. He said that part of the reason it was measured so high, was because the lot had been terraced towards the back. He said if they were building the house on the level pad, without grading adjustments in order for the step down of the foundation, then the measurement would have been taken from the level area-with no consideration for the terracing itself. He said the stepping down affects only the interior of the home. He said they had to measure from a point which gave ~an overall dimension even higher then it would have been, and the percentage was only a little more or 6.5~. He noted they were terracing it against a very deep drop off into a ravine, and the ravine continues very steeply up on the other side, so the houses behind this proposal are almost 50 feet above,. He said it would be possible to slightly modify the roof line, however, the nature and style of the house pretty much demands a relatively steep roof line. He said the appearance of the house would suffer immensely by going to a shallow roofline, and since, the percentage was so low, they felt the request was within reason. Ms. Santalahti said one of the Variances she had approved in this area up on the hill, had a lot which dropped down from the street, so the street view elevation from Hummingbird Circle was at or close to code. She said when she looked at this property, she thought street height would be at code, and that it was the back side that would not meet code. She noted that stepping the lot down two feet, relative to 34 feet, was not the critical difference. Mr. Larson said it was just deep enough that it has a shallow drop off, a little steeper drop off and then really steep drop off.. He said if they go back any further on the pad, they would have a zero useable backyard, and the only backyard they would end up with would be whatever decking they can • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 14, 1988 Page 4 create. He said if they were to step the property down much more, they would be at the real steep drop off, and then the decking would be almost prohibitive to build, as far as the expense, because of that slope. Ms. Santalahti asked how deep the pad was measured from the, street, and noted it appeared relatively shallow. He said it was about 50 feet; however, because of the 25 foot setback, the building depth would be very shallow. He said they had cut it a little bit to help the conditions but there were still a lot things that were affected. Ms. Santalahti said that the majority of the hillside area waiver requests she has seen, seem to have very similar house styles, all of which have a deep roof relative to the elevation Mr. Larson said it was a typical style throughout the area, and noted there were a lot of high roof lines in the Anaheim Hills area as well as the Scenic Corridor. Ms. Santalahti said she felt many of the requests for Variances were made just because Variances had been granted in the past. She said she had very little difficulty granting some of the Variances, but in other cases she had a lot of difficulty, and if there was opposition in the immediate neighborhood she was even more concerned. She said the committee Mrs. Bien referred to was working on a height study and noted she had heard some of their preliminary input from staff. She said she would only approve this proposal for 30 feet excluding the chimney, and she would expect the building design to be proportionately lowered so it maintained an interesting character rather than making the ridge line straight across the top at 30 feet. Mr. Larson said did she mean 30-foot again measured from the lowest portion of the cut. He again stated that the more they cut in order to help the situation, the more they suffer by it because they are measuring from that point. Ms. Santalahti said she agreed that the three houses up the hill, which are the closest neighbors, are forty to fifty feet higher. She said on the other hand, Hummingbird Circle could end up having nothing but tall houses along it because this portion resembles a ridge line, and potentially whatever was granted on this property, could be requested in the future by the surrounding property owners. Mr. Larson said he believed the immediate adjacent neighbors were in the same sort of situation, and were either applying or close to applying for some kind of a variance. He said as far as an impact to an immediate neighbor, there really wasn't any because the views are front to back with a valley view for the homes on one side of the street and the city lights for the other side. He said they really don't enjoy each others view, so that if anything, this home would be impacted city light wise by the houses across the street more than the others would be by this house. Ms. Santalahti said she measured the roof height from the eave line to the ridge line, as viewed from the rear, as being approximately 14 1/2 feet, and noted 14 1/2 was a fairly tidy percentage of a 34-foot high house. ~„ 'w Anaheirln Hills Citizer~oalitior~ 6312 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 157 Anaheim Hills, California 92807 (714) 974-4619 July 14, 1988 Zoning Administrator City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, California 92805 Dear Zoning Administrator: We oppose the granting of Variance 3815. Therms is no evidence of hardship related to the land, nor any special circumstance which should allow this height variance. If the size. and shape of the lot require a two story home, such a home can be built within the 25 foot height limit. There is full use of the land without a variance. Architectural preferences are not hardships related to the land. Until the results of the Council-requested height ordinance review are complete, we ask that you uphold the present ordinance. Please do not anticipate changes wl~~icry are 11ot and may not be in place. The Planning Commission recently denied a tract height waiver request in the immediate vicinity of. this lot, 'and t.}~e Council upheld Commission's decision when appealed by the applicant. If you. grant this variance, the ap~~licant will be receiving a privilege denied to another wl~c is located a few thousand feet away. Staff indicates that surrounding land uses in~~lade undeveloped land in all directions . This imp_?.i.Fas there is no other, development in the area. That is not the case. Tn addition, the-petitioner's grade differential and pad elevations do not address existing homes i.n tl~,is tract and their relationships to the lots. This tract hc:~lds a prominent place c?n the vic.w:~cape of Anaheim Nills. To allow additional structural height adds to the intrusive effect of the development, emphasizing it rather than the hills. Scenic Corridor development standards aim to protect the scenic qualities of this area while allowing development. Please do not compromise tl-,ese standards. We urge you to deny Variance 3815. Executive Committee Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition Authorized by : - ~~J //,~,1 • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 14, 1988 Page 5 Ms. Santalahti said if she were to approve this she would prefer to have plans that are accurate relative to building permits, and going with a thirty foot height limit maximum to the top ridge of the top portion of the roof, which would basically drop the whole thing 4 1/2 feet. Ms. Santalahti said if she continued this item for two weeks or a month, could applicant take a look at revised drawings to see what he could come up with in terms of reducing the roof, and give the people who are concerned an opportunity to see them. She said it would be better to have the decision, if approved, with the proper drawings since her decision does go to the City Council and there was a possibility they would set it for public hearing since there had been neighborhood concern. Applicant requested a continuance of this item for two week's, until the meeting of July 28, 1988, in order to bring in revised drawings, reducing the roofline 4 1/2 feet. He said the revised plans would be submitted to the Planning Department within one week. ITEM NO 2. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 3817 PUBLICH HEARING: OWNER: DORIS E. MYERS, 135 W. Valencia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: JERRY D. WHITE, 3611 Country Club Drive, Lakewood, CA 90712. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.10 acre, having a frontage of approximately 62 feet on the north side of Valencia Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 70 feet and being located approximately 150 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street and further described as 135 West Valencia Avenue. Waivers of (a) minimum dwelling floor area and (b) minimum front setback to construct a 19,7 square-foot living room addition and a 441 square-foot new garage. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Ruth White, 135 W. Valencia, said they had a small lot and small house. She said they had purchased the house and it needed a lot of work. She said it has an existing porch which they would like to use and continue the building into the front setback consistent with that 9 1/2 foot porch setback. She said they understood that was not in keeping with the current code; however, the entire house was not in keeping with the current code so it was not possible to observe the setbacks or they would have a 10 foot deep house. She said they were trying to bring the house up to current standards, making it a three bedroom two bath home with a new kitchen, altogether a nice house, and still keep it a one-story style which prevalent in the neighborhood. She said there was an existing single car garage in very poor condition which they are removing to build a brand new two car garage. She said in order to do this .they needed to use a different code standard because the house was not going to come up to the minimum square footage since the lot was so small. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 14, 1988 Page 6 Ms. Santalahti asked if she had spoken with any of the neighbors to see if they had any comments regarding this proposal, and Ms. White said yes. She said they had also bought another property around the corner on which they planned to build a brand new house, and that the general feeling in the neighborhood was only a concern that they might be going to build apartments. She said they promised they would not, and the general feeling was one of delight. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti noted this item was Categorically Exempt. Ms. Santalahti said she would approve this Variance based on the fact that there are special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of its existing small size (13~ smaller than specified by current Code standards) and shallow depth (30~ shallower than specified by current Code standards) which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; that the requested waiver (a) is minimal because the existing floor area size is being increased by about 22~ (from 899 to 1,096 sq.ft.) although not to the full Code standard (1,225 sq.ft.) and that the deviance from Code is only 11~ smaller than required; and that the requested waiver (b) is minimal amounting to only 5~ less than required by Code. This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days. ITEM NO 3. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION,VARIANCE N0. 3819 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: BADALIAN ENTERPRISES INC., 1540 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim CA 92802. AGENT: FARANO AND KIEVIET, ATTN: JOAN ALLEN, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., #340, Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.17 acres, having a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet and being located approximately 700 feet south of the centerline of Manchester Avenue and further described as 1520 South Harbor Boulevard. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 5-story, 103 unit motel including 1600 square feet of retail shops. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Joan Allen, agent, said it was an uniquely shaped parcel being 85 feet wide and 600 feet deep. She said the property currently contained the Sands Motel which has 26 units. She said the owner would like to raze the existing structure and replace it with a 103 room 5-story hotel. She said the project, as proposed, meets all the Code requirements with the exception of parking. She noted they had a parking study prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates to substantiate the parking waiver; and that Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 14, 1988 Page 7 had reviewed and agreed with the study. She said, in compliance with Code requirements they have provided a fire access road, and a hammerhead at the east (rear) end because the size of the property requires the hammerhead turn-around. She said the plans before the Zoning Administrator show a loading zone and a trash enclosure area which would be accessible via the hammerhead. She said when they met with the Interdepartmental Committee members on Monday, the Fire Department pointed out that they were not in favor of this waiver because they were experiencing problems in that area because of people parking in the hammerhead. She said that as the plan exists now the owner is being asked to provide 40 feet in the back for the hammerhead, and an additional 10 feet in the front for a bus bay. She noted that was almost 10~ of the entire property length. She said since the Monday morning meeting their architect had gone back and did a proposed redesign, which she hoped would meet everyones requirements..' She said he had moved the loading area and the trash enclosure area forward so that access is not via the hammerhead. She said this would leave the hammerhead exclusively for Fire Department use, and the owner would be willing to put in turf block in that area. She said she talked with Janet Baylor of the Fire Department who is in favor of it because they don't have problems with people parking on what appears to be a lawn. She said they felt it added to the aesethetic appearance of the project. She said if this were agreeable they would need to amend the parking waiver to three less spaces or 73 requested instead of 76 spaces. She said according to their calculations, this still was above the parking demand ratio as setforth in Mr. Pringle's traffic report. She said they were requesting their project to be approved with the amendment to the parking waiver of 73 parking spaces instead of 76 parking spaces. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Ms. Santalahti asked if the Fire Department talked about what types of locking gates they should have. Ms. Allen said Janet Baylor indicated in the Monday morning meeting that locking gates might be a thought; however, if they put in the turf block there would be no need for locking gates, or any type of barrier, because people normally would not park on a lawn. Ms. Santalahti noted that City staff usually recommends that applicants in this general area contact Disneyland regarding height issues, and' asked if Ms. Allen had contacted them. Ms. Allen said she had not since they were within the height limitations. Ms. Santalahti asked Lori Duca if she had heard from Janet Baylor on the modification of the hammerhead, and addition of the turf block. Ms. Duca said she had not. Ms. Santalahti asked Paul Singer if he had heard about the increase of the parking waiver from 14~ to 17~ off the Code requirement. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 14, 1988 Page 8 Paul Singer said he did not see a problem with parking in this area. He said he was quite pleased that the applicant had decided to construct a bus bay, which was much needed on Harbor Boulevard, and noted his appreciation of their cooperation. Ms. Santalahti said Disneyland had indicated a general concern with the height situation. She suggested if she acted favorably on this proposal and since it does go to Council for review and they may be interested as well, that applicant might wish to contact Disneyland and provide Council some sort of reassurance about what impact, if any, this proposal would have on Disneyland. Ms. Santalahti noted that Condition No. 7 was an error and would be deleted and that Condition No. 10 that pertains to off-site fire hydrant installation prior to commencement of structural framing should read on-site. Ms. Santalahti noted a Negative Declaration was prepared on this project, and acted on staff's recommendation to approve it. Ms. Santalahti said she was going to approve this variance, and that due to provision of an adequate emergency vehicle turn-around area at the rear of subject property, the request will be modified for a minimum of 73 instead of 76 parking spaces (the City Traffic Engineer indicated that said modification was not a significant change); and that the parking variance will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity; also modifying the Conditions as stated deleting No. 7; inserting the word on-site in No. 10; modifying No. 12 by renumbering that Condition's Nos. 1 through 7 for the detail, and add: provided that locking gates need not be installed as shown on the new exhibit, and that the turf block or whatever landscaping is installed shall be maintained in perpetuity. 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION,VARIANCE N0. 3820 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CHI KEUNG RWOK, ET AL, P.O. Box 6551, Anaheim, CA 92806. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.32 acre having an approximate frontage of 138 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 104 feet, being located approximately 170 feet south of the ..centerline of Westport Drive and further described as 506 South State College Boulevard. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a 720 square-foot donut shop. This item was continued to the meeting of July 28, 1988 in order to readvertise the proposal for the correct location. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 14, 1988 Page 9 ITEM N0. 5. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0011 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 5: Request to construct a 318 square-foot bedroom addition with waiver of required front yard setback (25' permitted; 22' 6" proposed), at 301 N. Bluerock Street. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the Administrative Adjustment and noted the appeal period had ended July 11, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act on this item July 21, 1988. ITEM N0. 6 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None ITEM N0. 7 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: ~~~ Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary Minutes approved by: Annika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator. 0079g