Minutes-ZA 1989/03/09a
• s
A C T I :O N
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1989, 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.
0943H Page 1
la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1
lb. VARIANCE N0. 3914
OWNER: TING F. HSIAO, 328 N. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 310 North Philadelphia Street
Waiver of maximum structural height to convert a third level attic
space into a habitable area. ~
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-11
2a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
2b.~ VARIANCE N0. 3915
OWNER: PENNY L. BECK, 3161 Westhaven Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 3161 Westhaven Drive
Waivers of (a) maximum site coverage and (b) maximum number of
bedrooms to expand an existing single family residence.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-.1'2.
3a. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. VARIANCE N0. 3916
OWNER: INVESTOR REALTY COMPANY, 500 Newport Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 1711-1731 West Katella Avenue
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a maximum of
8,938 square feet for fast food use within an existing retail center.
• ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.
4a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
4b. VARIANCE N0. 3917
OWNER: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 300 South Harbor Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92805 `
LOCATION: 302 East Cypress Street
Waiver of minimum sideyard setback to move a single family house onto
an existing lot.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0.
Denied
~~8
Approved.
Withdrawn
d
Withdrawn
p'
March 9, 1989 Page 2
5. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENTS:
A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0025 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION Approved with
• CLASS 5: stipulation.
To establish a medical office office in an existing office
building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Property is located at 230 South Euclid Street.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-13.---
B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 0029 AND CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. Approved
CLASS 5•
To construct a room addition to an existing single family •
residence with waiver of minimum sideyard setback. Property is
located at 1839 South Janette Lane.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-14~
6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None
7. .ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
~S•ISO, m 3 13 I _ ~ LOCATIONS: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE
(TIME) (DA E) \ AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED • ~ \ ~~ ~c-~v~r.~
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY ONE OF THESE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECISIONS IN COURT, YOU
MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUE 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 T0, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
March 9, 1989 Page 3 '
..
. • •
1 .. _ .
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1989
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City zoning Administrator was called to
order by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, at 9:30 a. m., March 9, 1989,
in the Council Chamber.
NOTED:
Pamela Starnes, Executive Secretary, prepared minutes from the audio cassette
tape of this meeting.
PRESENT:
Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner
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 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1, VARIANCE N0. 3914
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: TING F. HSIAO, 328 N. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92801. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.11 acre, having a frontage of approximately 43 feet on the
eastside of Philadelphia Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 120
feet, being located approximately 140 feet north of the centerline of Cypress
Street and further described as 310 North Philadelphia Street.
Waiver of maximum structural height to convert a third level attic space into
a habitable area.
There were eight people indicating their presence in opposition and seven
letters in opposition were received.
Leonard McGhee said he wanted to correct paragraph No. 5 which should indicate
the request is for 3rd level attic space in all four units of an existing four
unit apartment building is proposed for conversion.
~ •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 9, 1989 PAGE 2
Ting Hsiao, 328 N. Beach Blvd., said other then the conversion, the building
complied with all of zoning and building requirements. He noted the actual
building height remains the same so nothing has changed.
Keith Olesen, 321 N. Philadelphia, said his opposition is not because of the
building already there; however, a great deal does change when you convert an
eight foot attic into units or living space because that increases the density
to almost double given the size of the existing units that are below that
attic space. He said this property is zoned RM 2400 now. He said the
property was purchased when this 96-acre downtown area was down-zoned from
RM-1200 and had a General Plan designation allowing RM-1200. He said that all
changed the week these building permits were pulled and the owner/requestor of
this Variance was made well aware of the fact that it was RM-1200 zoning and
that the only way such a structure could be built would be to build it exactly
to RM-1200 Code with no variances because it would have to go to a public
hearing which could not be held within the available time frame that he had
until that down-zoning change. He opposed a variance on top of an apartment
building that is currently twice the density allowable in that area, and
further, is the only apartment on that block in the middle of all single
family homes. He stated this request is more than just a height Variance it
is an•increase in density, and the number of people that can be packed into
that building. He noted the applicant's lack of~concern for the neighbors by
having dump trucks and dumpsters blocking driveways until 11:00 o'clock at
night, that people doing the work had knocked on doors asking how they can
findrthis man because he is not paying them and all kinds of other annoyances
that have little to do with the structure but a great deal to do with the
intent in asking for this Variance. He submitted letters from everyone in the
immediate area stating their opposition to the proposal.. He said there is a
note on the building plans on file with the City that have been approved
specifically stating the attic space is not for human occupancy. He strongly
requested this Variance be denied.
Dr. William Koon, 821 N. Lemon St., said he•was Vice-Chair of the Central City
Neighborhood Council and also worked on the Community Development Block Grant
Fund Committee. He said he' was also instrumental in the two down-zonings in
the Central City. He said this was done to limit the density, traffic,
over-population of the area and, by denying this Variance, the Zoning
Administrator will•be going along with the letter of the law and the neighbors
appreciate her cooperation.
Judy Olesen, 321 N. Philadelphia, said the main thing they were objecting to
is there should not be a Variance granted on this property in view of the
down-zoning of the area. She said the neighbors are very unhappy the
apartment is there to begin with. She said they are very concerned about
over-crowding the area. She noted there were numerous Code Violations on the
property.
Bob Horton, 226 N. Claudina, said he was a member of the Anaheim Neighborhood
Association and said the area that is going to be impacted is directly
abutting some move-ons and the proposal will have a major affect upon those
future move-ons. He said he felt this was a ridiculous request after the
down-zoning has been put into place. He said according to the Zoning Code and
the definition of Variances there appears to be no hardship on the land, it
•
•
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 9, 1989 PAGE 3
appears to be a hardship on the developers pocketbook and you can not address
those types of things in Variances. He noted the applicant should not be
coming in a year after pulling the permits, having his plans approved, and
then having no concern for the Zoning Code or the Laws. He said members of
the Anaheim Neighborhood Association definitely oppose this Variance.
Rebecca Rodriguez was here on behalf of her mother, Virginia Johnson of 301 E.
Adele. She said she grew up in the house years ago and has seen a definite
change in the neighborhood and environment since she returned in October of
1988. She said a lot of new people have moved into this area that don't take
care of the neighborhood, while the residents that have been there for many
years take very nice care of their homes and have a real sense of pride in the
neighborhood. She said she did not know if the new residents were owners or
renters. She said she opposed this request.
In rebuttal, Mr. Hsiao said everyone seems to be against him. He said they
talk about density, over-population and pride of the property. He said he
would like to have someone go with him at mid-night and check how many cars
are in each parking lot and tell him what kind of density they are talking
about. He said, for example, the property across the street from his have
about six cars on the property. He said some of the neighbors have six
Mexicans living in the garage, so he doesn't understand why they are against
him. He said he offers a good housing plan for everybody in the area. He
said if he can get.a second bedroom he could rent to two single persons or
rent to a small family of four. He said he doesn't have any parking problems
because he has 10 parking spaces for a four unit apartment complex. He said
he didn't feel he has a density problem or an over-population problem. He
said as far as pride, these are really old homes and the most people do is
paint their houses.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti asked when the building permit was originally issued and this
was shown as attic space, what was the interior height and Mr. Hsiao said 7
feet 6 inches, and that it is the original design.
Ms. Santalahti asked what was the square footage of the units as the building
permit was approved and he said 3,023 square feet he believes.
Ms. Santalahti said she was interested in the square footage of the individual
units and he said about 768 square feet.
Ms. Santalahti noted, as viewing the plans, the highest footage height of the
building right now and as it would be if this were approved would be at about
26 or 27 feet.
Mr. Hsiao said no, about 25 feet or actually about three inches lower then 25
feet.
Ms. Santalahti asked Mr. McGhee what the standards were for habitable space
versus an attic space when the building permits were issued and he said he did
not know.
w ~
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 9, 1989 PAGE 4
Ms. Santalahti said an attic was not just an attic because it was called that,
it is an attic because of certain features such as the kind of stair used and
whether there are windows. She asked what kind of windows did the attic have
and applicant said on the northern side of the structure there were windows
that are covered by louvres so the neighbors would have privacy.
Ms. Santalahti asked if windows were shown when the building permit was issued
and he said no.
Ms. Santalahti asked what type of stairway access was proposed and applicant
said the stairs will go from the front side or living room area to the attic
area. She asked what was shown on the original building permit plan.
Mr. Hsiao said a pull down stairway.
Ms. Santalahti said it was a great concern to staff when the building permit
was issued and asked why applicant decided to convert the space or even decide
to make it that large because physically the attic area did not have to be
that size.
Mr. Hsiao said his idea was to offer people high quality living quarters.
Conway Cook, 505 E. Compton Blvd. (designer,of the proposal), said one of the
reasons '.f or the extra height was because of the high living room ceilings, and
a loft that opens directly into the living room and the primary windows are
tall and on the south side and that space that is used as an attic will open
into the living room itself.
Ms. Santalahti noted she had looked at the property and agreed with some of
the residents' concerns that this is certainly a single family area as far as
appearances go. She said she was familiar with the zoning history and the
down-zoning of the area and the huge amount of concern and effort that went
into the the General Plan Amendment and having the zoning lowered to RM-2400
for the whole area and the whole issue of density. She said the applicant was
lucky in terms of timing in the sense that he was ready for his permits and
was able to pull his permits prior to the down-zoning actually taking effect.
Ms. Santalahti noted one of the opposition commented on hardship findings that
are required in connection with Variances and, typically, the sort of thing
that comes into play with a height issue tends to relate to the terrain of the
property or something odd about the site in comparison to its neighbors, and
certainly this is a rectangular site and there are absolutely identical
properties around it so there is nothing about the property that one could
ever use as an argument relative to a Variance. She stated he had twice the
density that anyone else on that street is every going to get on an identical
lot under the current regulations no matter how perfectly they designed their
project. She said when you view the apartment project it is clearly different
from the other houses so the design of the project is not compatible with the
surrounding single-family houses.
Ms. Santalahti said she was going to deny this Variance based on the fact that
subject property is being developed with a legally nonconforming apartment
complex which has a density (4 units) two times higher than is permitted by
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 9, 1989 PAGE 5
the existing underlying RM-2400 Zone (2 units) due to building permits having
been issued while the property was still in the RM-1200 Zone, and that shortly
after issuance of building permits, the General Plan land use designation was
decreased from 'medium density residential' to 'low-medium density
residential' and the area was down-zoned to the RM-2400 Zone; that approval of
this variance could double the 'people density' of the project from 8
residents to 16 residents because the existing 4 apartments have 1-bedroom
each and the proposal would result in 2-bedrooms per apartment; that because
of the down-zoning to RM-2400, no other property in the area can legally be
developed with .the same residential density as exists on subject property;
that expansion of a nonconforming use of land is specifically prohibited by
Zoning Code Section 18.02.058.051; and that there are no existing 3-story
apartment buildings in the area because most, if not all, of the existing area
residences consist of 1- and 2-story single family dwellings.
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 N0. 2 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3915
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: PENNY L. BECK, 3161 Westhaven Drive, Anaheim, CA
92804. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 5,000 square feet on the north side of Westhaven Drive,
having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and further described as 3161
Westhaven Drive.
Waivers of (A) maximum site coverage and (B) maximum number of bedrooms to
expand an existing single family residence.
One person spoke in support of the proposal.
No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was
received.
Tom Cloud, 15812 Las Solanes Drive, Westminster, said he was doing the
remodeling work on the residence. He said when designing the project they
were not aware they were encroaching about two-percent over the maximum
allowable coverage. He said the two main reasons of the design were to keep
the integrity of the existing house and to make two fire escapes so there
would be two exits instead of one for safety reasons. He said most of the
two-percent they are over is for the two stair ways. He said this is actually
adding a master suite and the existing bedroom is going to be a den off the
kitchen.
Paul Stewart, 3157 W. Haven, speaking for the owner of the property Aurora
Garcia, said they were aware of their next door neighbor's plans and were
fully supportive of the project and feel the improvements will enhance the
neighborhood.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 9, 1989 PAGE 6
Ms. Santalahti said the downstairs portion of the addition as shown on the
plans is to expand the den into the outdoor area and then remove a wall and
have a partial wall between that and what appears to be the kitchen.
Mr. Cloud said that was correct.
Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the waiver (A) is
minimal consisting of a maximum lot coverage which is only 2$ greater than
permitted by Code; and that waiver (B) is granted because the underlying
RS-5000 zoning was adopted in 1971 when the development standards permitted
4-bedroom houses on 5000 sq.ft. lots and that there are other similar lots in
the area which are developed with residences having 4-bedrooms.
Ms. Santalahti noted this item is 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 N0. 3_NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VARIANCE N0. 3916
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: INVESTOR REALTY COMPANY, 500 Newport Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped .parcel of
land consisting of approximately 2.67 acres located at the northwest corner of
Katella Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 347 feet on
the north side of Katella Avenue and 334 feet on the west side of Euclid
Street, and further described as 1711-1731 West Katella Avenue.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a maximum of 8,938
square feet for fast food use within an existing retail center.
This petition was withdrawn by applicant in order to advertise a Conditional
Use Permit for Planning Commission consideration and action.
ITEM N0. 4 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3917
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 300 South Harbor Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 5,376 square feet located at the southeast corner
of Cypress Street and Philadelphia Street, having a frontage of approximately
48 feet on the south side of Cypress Street, having a maximum depth of
approximately 112 feet and further described as 302 East Cypress Street.
Waiver of minimum sideyard setback to move a single family house onto an
existing lot.
This petition was withdrawn by applicant in order to advertise a proposed
reclassification for Planning Commission consideration and action.
ITEM N0. 5 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS:
5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. - ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT 25 PUBLIC HEARING (ADVERTISED)
.'
•
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 9, 1989 PAGE 7
PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: Max Pearl Trust, c/o Fierstein & Sturman, 2875
Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067. AGENT: Dr. David L. Tsoong, M.D.,
5191 E. Crescent Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is a
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the south side of Euclid
Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 250 feet, being located
approximately, 440 feet north of the centerline of Broadway and further
described as 230 South Euclid Avenue.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a medical office
office in an existing office building.
There was one person indicating their presence in support of the proposal.
There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and no
correspondence was received.
Ms. Santalahti said that on on January 16, 1989, public notification of
subject administrative adjustment (to permit a 98 deviance from the minimum
number of required parking spaces) was given; that a letter in opposition was
received during the 10-day notice period; and that a public hearing was
therefore scheduled and held on this date in accordance with Code Section
18.12.080.040. She said 99 parking spaces are required and 90 parking spaces
are proposed.
Dr. David Tsoong, 5191 E. Crescent, Anaheim, said he has been an orthopedic
surgeon and has practiced in Anaheim for over 12 years. He said the office
would be used for physical therapy. He said there would be only five or six
employees of which three to five would be therapists. He said a therapist
would see no more then two patients at any one given time. He said the
turn-over is between thirty minutes to one hour. He said they would need no
more then 15 to 20 parking spaces at any given time. He said currently they
see 30 to 35 patients during a whole day. He noted there would not be any
doctors at this facility seeing patients. He said he felt the objections to
this proposal were due to the fact that it was a business college before and
students were coming and going all day. He noted they did not work on the
weekends.
Ms. Santalahti verified that the patients had scheduled appointments.
Greg Mickelson, 4000 Mac Arthur Blvd., Newport Beach, said he was here as an
agent for the property owners directly to the north which includes the
Standard Shoe Store and two smaller retail stores directly adjacent between
the shoe store and the proposed physical theraphy facility. He said they
support the Variance and would welcome more visits to this center,
particularly on a short-term basis, rather then as in the past when there was
a lot of long-term parking and those users were not shoppers. He said they
felt increased turnover in the parking lot is beneficial to all of the
retailers. He noted the peak demand for the retailers is on Saturday and
Sunday and with this physical theraphy facility being closed on the weekend,
in practice additional parking is picked up during their busiest retail times.
•
•
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 9, 1989 PAGE S
Richard Murg, said he owns the strip center just south of this location. He
said the center has nine stores and just a few years back when they had the
school at this location they had a lot of problems with parking. He said the
students would overflow into their parking lot and as a result they went into
litigation with the real estate board and the school. He said they went
before an arbitrator and came up with an agreement. He said the reason he is
here is he does not want to see a similar situation occur and have to go
through legal action again. He said if there is no problem with the parking
as the proposed owner states then he would not have any opposition.
Charles Allen, 240 S. Euclid, said he is the President of the Anaheim Board of
Realtors and is here representing the association and their property which
abuts the subject property. He said their concerns are the same as Mr. Murg
as they have over the years had a major problem and have entered into
litigation to try to resolve the parking problem. He said he was not sure
they were opposed to the physical theraphy facility moving in but their
concern is the parking. He said if the diagram on the wall is correct, and
from what he can visually see at the site, there are only nine parking spaces
in front of the subject property and 12 additional parking spaces in the
rear. He noted that the cars parked in the rear have been vandalized in the
past. He said they were looking for some kind of guarantee from the applicant
that they will in fact enforce the parking requirements that all of them need
in order to survive there together.
Greg Mickelson said he wanted to respond on behalf of the neighbors. He said
they have an reciprocal easement agreement which applies not only to their
retailers but also to the proposed physical theraphy use which basically
allows access across and onto Dr. Tsoong's property for parking. He said they
have a driveway which is not only utilized by the retailers to the north but
also the neighbors to the south. He noted that in their easement they have a
right to designate employee parking and they do designate employee parking in
the rear.
Ms. Santalahti said the Traffic Engineer agreed that the parking study for the
specific use at this location is adequate and notes that the rear parking lot
should be adequately lighted. She asked if the area was currently lighted all
night.
Mr. Mickelson said they have flood lights on the back of the buildings. He
said the ones on Dr. Tsoong's building have not been lighted since the
building has been vacant, but noted they are in place and will be put on a
timer.
Dr. Tsoong said they did not have any safety problems at their current
location. He said many of the patients are fire and police officers, and he
felt their presence would help make the area safer for everyone.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that a parking study,
to justify the proposed parking waiver, was submitted and was found to be
adequate by the City Traffic Engineer subject to the rear parking area being
adequately lighted so that it would be used, and that the proposed parking
• •
MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 9, 1989 PAGE 9
waiver is for a medical office for physical therapy; that the applicant
indicated that at any one time there will be a maximum of 6 staff on the
premises consisting of 5 therapists with a maximum of 2 patients each and that
the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the
immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses.
Ms. Santalahti noted this item is 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.
5b. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 0029 AND CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5:
To construct a room addition to an existing single family residence with
waiver of minimum sideyard setback. Property is located at 1839 South Janette
Lane.
Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the
Administrative Adjustment and noted the appeal period would end March 11, 1989
at 5:00 p.m. She said she would act on this item March 16, 1989.
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 10:45
a.m.
Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by:
Pamela H. Starnes Annika M. Santalahti
Executive Secretary Zoning Administrator
02068