Loading...
Minutes-ZA 1989/03/23e • A C T I O N AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 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. 0976H Page 1 . . • • la. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3A lb. VARIANCE N0. 3907 OWNER: NICOLAE & PERSIDA BORTIS, CORNEL & EUGENIA MARORIU, VIOREL PRUNEAN, CORNEL PRUNEAN, VICTOR & ELIZABETH ILINESCU, 708 E. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: MARK DESIGNS, 22994 El Toro Road, El Toro, CA 92630 Attn: Joe Mark Denied LOCATION: 6268 Rio Grande Drive Waiver of maximum structural height to construct seven single-family dwellings. . Continued from meeting of February 23, 1989. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-15 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3 2b. VARIANCE N0. 3920 OWNER:. TOM & DEBBIE KENNEDY, 621 Lunar Ave., Brea, CA 92621 AGENT: BILL JOHNSON, P.O. Box 19608-342, Irvine, CA 92713 LOCATION: 112 Montgomery Way Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a single family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3 3b. VARIANCE N0. 3922 ~ ' OWNER: GREG B. JORNDAHL, 4475 Forest Glen Road, Anaheim, CA 928 LOCATION: 7450 Hummingbird Circle. Waivers of (a) minimum frontyard setback and (b) maximum building height to construct a 5,126 square foot single-family residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-16 d Continued until 4/6/89 in order to bring in revised plan App rove d ~% March 23, 1989 Page 2 • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5 4b. VARIANCE N0. 3924 OWNER: BRINRLEY AND YVONNE HULIN, 820 N. Dickel Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 820 North Dickel Street Waiver of minimum sideyard setback to construct a 296 square-foot room addition. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. ZA 89-17 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3135 OWNER: CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803 Attn: John Steinhaus LOCATION: 891 S. Walnut Street (Walnut Manor) To permit a child day care center (for the children of employees of Walnut Manor only). ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION N0. 6. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENTS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0030 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5• To construct an industrial building with waiver of minimum number of parking ~•:aces. (End of public notice period: March 23, 1989). ZONING ADMT B. ADMIT' CLA' ~ '1 ,~ To Con. ~' number o. \ \ March 23 ~, ~ g V NO . Z~ ~~ .0031 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ~y 79-unit motel with waiver of minimum s. (End of public notice period: Z~. ~ ~ - I S Approved Continued until 4/6/89 at request of applicant ~;~~' ~prarcd- a,~ March 23, 1989 Page 3 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 7. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: g • 3 ~ °` ^"~ 3 ~' ~ ~ -~ 9 LOCATIONS : COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE (TIME) (DATE) 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 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. None N one March 23, 1989 Page 4 .r~ ,~._ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES - March 23, 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 23, 1989, 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. Ms. Santalahti said that item No. 5, Conditional Use Permit No. 3135 for a child day care center in connection with Walnut Manor, has a continuance request in for the April 6, 1989 meeting in order to readvertise the proposal. She asked if anyone were present for this item and no one responded. Ms. Santalahti continued the item until April 6', 1989. ITEM N0.1 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 3907 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: NICOLAE & PERSIDA BORTIS, CORNEL & EUGENIA MARORIU, VIOREL PRUNEAN, CORNEL PRUNEAN, VICTOR & ELIZABETH ILINESCU, 708 E. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MARK DESIGNS, 22994 E1 Toro Road, E1 Toro, CA 92630. Attn: Joe Mark. ,Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.47 acres, having a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the south side of Rio Grande Drive, having a maximum depth of approximately 850 feet and being located approximately 1200 feet southwest of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct seven single-f amily dwellings. Continued from meeting of February 23, 1989. There were eight people indicating their presence in opposition. There were two letter received in favor and two letters in opposition. C] • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 23, 1989 PAGE 2 Ms. Santalahti stated that this item was continued so the petitioner could look at revising the plans and noted from the staff report no revisions had been submitted. A letter was received from the architect dated March 22, 1989 stating his clients had advised him to leave the plans unchanged and as submitted to the Zoning Administrator for the meeting of February 23, 1989. He said his clients did agree to slightly modify both height and positioning to accommodate neighboring properties within reason. Ms. Santalahti said staff had received five letters after the last meeting. Two in favor, one of which was from the applicant; one withdrawing his opposition; and two in opposition. Stephen Wambock, (secretary did not get spelling of name) interpreted for Mr. Bortis, who gave some interesting historical facts about his family and their immigration to the United States of America. He said they would like to be like brothers to their neighbors. He said they were not trying to disturb anyone's. property or interfere with anyone's privacy. He said their proposal would enhance the area and make the property beautiful. Ms. Santalahti read the letters from Kevin Wilkinson withdrawing his opposition and from Otto Henning in support of the proposal (copies attached) into the record. She said she would read the letters from those in opposition after we heard from those wishing to speak in opposition. Gene Boyle, 6276 Rio Grande, said he appeared at the last hearing and spoke for himself as an individual. He said he is also the President of the Pepper Tree Homeowners Association, which represents 40 homeowners in the area, and the the Board of Directors would like to go on record as opposing. Laureen Ernst, 6280 E. Palo Alto, said she w~ and wanted to go on record as being opposed. same as last time, with her windows being on to lose her view or any light. She asked a Shirk, pertaining to how much higher was the relative to the top of the hill. ~s also here at the last hearing She said her concerns were the the back side she does not want question for her neighbor, Bob tallest point of any of the homes Ms. Santalahti said the closest house will be about 35 feet away, the existing house is shown at 330 feet elevation and the closest one is shown at 360 feet elevation so that is a 30 foot difference in grade. Ms. Ernst said Mr. Shirk also asked her to state he had tried to buy this property several times to keep it as is since he is definitely affected by whatever is built on the property; however, the owners were unwilling to sell at that time. She noted she respected Mr. Bortis and was sure he had a wonderful a family. Linda Wilburger, 177 Canyon Woods Road, said her husband is Vice-President of the Pepper Tree Homeowners Association. She said they are also opposed to the • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 23, 1989 PAGE 3 Variance because they have a view side home and with these height variances increasing she has a terrible feeling they are going to block some of the view that they had paid so much money to keep. She noted she had nothing against the family. Shirley Robbins, 167 S. Canyon Woods Road, said she would like to bring to everyone's attention, that when you buy a piece of land it is "caveat emptor," let the buyer beware. She said this is an established area and they knew what they were buying. In rebuttal, applicant through his interpretor said he would like to have it approved as proposed or with a slight modification to the height and position of the houses. He said he has respect for the City Council and would like to have his proposal heard by the Council. Ms. Santalahti read letters in opposition received from Mr. Jorge Merino and Bob Shirk (copies attached). PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said she was specifically concerned about the extreme visibility as you look up to the property from the Arboretum Road area. She said in general it is very likely that few if any of the existing houses will actually have a roof line projecting above horizontal lines-of-sight, but that view is not the sole consideration, it is also what you see and setbacks, heights and coverage also have to do with the impact relative to the lot size. Ms. Santalahti said she was going to deny this proposal based on the fact that the the proposal does not conform to the pending Code change pertaining to residential• building heights in the Scenic Corridor which, if adopted, would permit a 108 portion or less of the roof area to be from 25 to 30 feet in height if said portion is an uninhabitable "architectural embellishment"; that the proposed heights are excessive, being 10 to 16.5 feet (408 to 668) higher than permitted by Code, that the highest elevations of the dwellings will face the adjacent existing residences along Arboretum Road making the proposal particularly visible, that the proposed building pads will be from 30 to 80 higher than the existing building pads along Arboretum Road, that one of the proposed dwellings (35 feet high) will be located only 30 feet from an existing residence on Arboretum Road, and that approval of this proposal would have a substantial visual impact on existing residences along Arboretum Road. 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 f.ee, 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. ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 23, 1989 PAGE 4 ITEM N0. 2 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 3920 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: TOM & DEBBIE KENNEDY, 621 Lunar Ave., Brea, CA 92621. AGENT: BILL JOHNSON, P.O. Box 19608-342, Irvine, CA 92713. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acre located at the northwest corner of Lakeview Avenue and Montgomery Way, having a frontage of approximately 438 feet on the north and east sides of Montogomery Way and a frontage of 327 feet on the west side of Lakeview Avenue, and further described as 112 Montgomery Way. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a single family residence. There was one person indicating their presence in support but not wishing to speak. There were two people indicating their presence in opposition and a total of four letters were received in opposition. Bill Johnson, agent for the project, introduced Tom Shaw who would be explaining the proposal. Mr. Shaw said they were asking for a height waiver because Lakeview Avenue and Montgomery Way are both 10 feet higher then the pad elevation, the lot directly to the south is 15 feet higher and the only other lot in the tract adjacent to this property is 30 feet higher then the subject lot. He said the only person they would be impacting would be~the person directly to the south. He said there are existing homes to the west, but there is a row of eucalyptus trees estimated to be about 40 to 45 feet tall dividing the two properties. He said this type of house needs to have interior heights of 10 feet with vaulted ceilings etc. He said it is not economical to build a house with a height limitation of 25 feet. He said they did not feel they would be impeding anyone's view. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, submitted three letters from neighbors in opposition. Mr. Krueger read the letters from Ronald Pharris, Michael and Barbara. Johnson, and Sarah and Dennis Alevizon into the record (copies attached). He said Mr. and Mrs. Blanchard at 120 E1 Dorado had also indicated they were opposed; however, he believed they were out of town. Mr. Krueger said, as you know, Peralta Hills is about 908 developed now and the vast majority is within the height limits and the few exceptions had special circumstances related to them and are very close to the 25 foot height limit. He said this is on a level lot, prepared and graded from the hillside, so there are no special circumstances related to the land itself as required in the present Variance procedure. He said he would like to emphasize it does not meet the intent of the new ordinance which the City Council has directed staff to prepare. He noted he was on the citizen committee that worked with staff and has represented the committee at various hearings related to the subject. He said the City Council clearly indicated that the maximum height of the ridgeline in the Scenic Corridor should remain at 25 feet, with an encroachment for towers, turrets, chimneys, and so forth not to exceed 30 feet. Mr. Krueger referenced their application which stated that the height • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 23, 1989 PAGE 5 requirements won't allow a raised floor house without a Variance, and he said this comment is irrelevant because the crawl space under the raised floor in the kitchen and living area is only about two feet so there is still a very large access above the floor level area and in fact the City Council did recommend that the height be measured from the floor instead of the finished grade. He noted petitioner stated that if this Variance is not granted they will have to scrap a $20,000 set of plans. He said that is unfortunate but it is irrelevant because any builder has a responsibility to find out what the rules and regulations are under which he must build and felt most anyone with some concern for his pocketbook would make such an investigation of the rules first. He said granting this Variance would also set a precedent for the other five lots in area. He respectfully requested this Variance by denied. Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, said all the people in the Scenic Corridor have the same thoughts. She said in the applicants petition for Variance to construct a house seven feet over the 25 foot maximum in the Scenic Corridor, Mr. Johnson states that reasonable use can be made of this property without a height Variance. She said after viewing this lot she agrees as it is a flat buildable lot in a lovely but highly visible area. She said his statement that a $20,00 set of plans would have to be scraped only points out that the hardship is not on the land but the architect's design. She asked that this Variance be denied and noted she could not help thinking that if this is granted it would be an open invitation for the other lots in the area to ask for 32 feet or even higher. She submitted a letter from Mitzy Ozaki. Ms. Santalahti read Mitzy Ozaki's letter into the record (copy attached). In rebuttal, Mr. Johnson said he felt that the people on the west side that are complaining about the Variance are not complaining about being able to see the structure just that there would be a structure in Peralta Hills over 25 feet in height. He said he did not feel they would be impeding anyone's view or detracting from the area in anyway and that they will be holding with the highest standards of construction and maintaining all property values in the area and that there is no detrimental affect from the 32 feet high roof that they are suggesting. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said in looking at the sections it is an L-shaped house with two ridgelines and it looks like most of the ridgelines are about three feet over the 25 feet height limitation. Mr. Johnson said that is correct but if the new Code is from finished floor then only one of the ridgelines might be a problem. Ms. Santalahti said staff some times has difficulty getting applicants to submit drawings that show all the dimensions that might be helpful. She said the finished floor is labeled in a few cases but there are no f ootages given and it would have been helpful if that kind of information is clearly given on ~ • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 23, 1989 PAGE 6 the elevations or sections. She said she understands more then most people, but even she has difficulties some times. Ms. Santalahti said, as commented earlier „ this is a very visible site which is a problem in granting the applicants request, the building pad is very flat and brand new so one can't argue that there are any lot configuration difficulties, so this would not be a valid hardship basis for this request. She noted that also the new ordinance was pending and this one looks like it could be relatively close to complying with the pending ordinance; however, until that is adopted anything that does not totally satisfy the existing Code would necessitate a Variance. Ms. Santalahti said she would like to have exhibits that clearly reflect exactly where the lowest finished floor level is and if it varies then it should be shown as higher at another location. She said she believed the ultimate Code will allow it to go up to about two feet and the reason for that is if somebody has a crawl space underneath you have to have access to the crawl space. She said they should also show at all points along the roof, what the drop is to the top of the lowest floor underneath, and staff needs to know the finished grade level, finished floor level and then the top of the roof at that point. She said this would be very helpful because another part of the new ordinance is that not more than 108 of the roof exceed 25 feet, so staff needs a plan of the outer roof edges showing those parts that are over 25 feet as measured from the finished floor. Ms. Santalahti said she was not prepared to approve this proposal unless it meets the pending ordinance. Mr. Johnson asked if he could have a continuance in order to bring in revised plans and asked if it would help if they also submitted a cross section of the entire street of pad elevations and Ms. Santalahti said if possible that could be helpful and basically in an east/west direction through Lakeview Avenue to the property to the west. Ms. Santalahti continued this item until the meeting of April 6, 1989 and noted it would not be readvertised. ITEM N0. 3 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3, VARIANCE N0. 3922 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GREG B. JORNDAHL, 4475 Forest Glen Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. Subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.75 acre having a frontage of approximately 300 feet on the south side of Hummingbird Circle, having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, being located approximately 500 feet north of the centerline of Bunting Court and further described as 7450 Hummingbird Circle. Waivers of (a) minimum front yard setback and (b) maximum building height to construct a 5,126 square foot single-f amily residence. Two people indicated their presence in support but did not wish to speak, no one indicated their presence in 'opposition and no correspondence was received. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 23, 1989 PAGE 7 John Cross, 7283 Columbus, said he has Cross Homes and is builder on the project as well as a partner of Gregory Jorndahl. He said he felt this was a very interestingly unique request. He noted that Bunting Court which is to the rear of the property is probably 80 feet higher their property. He said the people on the top would look down about 30 feet to the top of their roof so any height Variance would not really affect them. He said they did not affect the view of their neighbors to the right and he did not believe they were in objection to the request and believed they had also been granted a height and setback Variance. He said the view was across the street to the west; and to the east, they would be looking at the back of a hillside. He said, as you can see by the foundation plan, they have tried to be architecturally pleasing to the area. Ms. Santalahti asked if the foundations were already being framed on this property and Mr. Cross said that was correct. He said the head of the building division allowed them to proceed and he gave them a letter stating. that if this Variance was not approved they would modify the house appropriately. Ms. Santalahti asked if the house next to this one on the same side of Hummingbird Circle was being framed and he said yes. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact the requested front yard waiver is appropriate because it pertains to only a 20~ portion of the front elevation, that subject lot does not have a standard configuration in that its depth is shallow (120 feet) relative to its width (300 feet), and that the terrain drops off substantially within about 70 feet of the front property line thereby restricting the lot's development potential; and that the requested height waiver is minimal because it consists of a deviance of only 3.5 feet from Code; and that the proposal will not adversely impact the lines-of-sight from any surrounding residences because subject building pad is at a substantially lower grade (48 feet lower) than the dwellings on Bunting Court to the south and east, that there will be no development on the Hummingbird Circle frontage of the lot to the southwest, that the building pads of the lots on the other side of Hummingbird Circle are about 3 feet higher than subject property's, and that the adjacent property to the northwest has a height variance (No. 3815) for a higher residence (34.5 feet) than subject property's (28.5 feet). 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. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 23, 1989 ~ PAGE 8 ITEM N0. 4 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5, VARIANCE N0. 3924 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: BRINKLEY AND YVONNE HULIN, 820 N. Dickel Street, Anaheim, CA 92805., Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,338 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 48 feet on the east side of Dickel Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 109 feet, being located approximately 288 feet north of the centerline of North Street and further described as 820 North Dickel Street. Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct a 296 square-f oot room addition. No one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received. Mr. Brinkley Hulin said he wanted to upgrade his property. He noted he has done a considerable amount of work on this property. He said his neighbors have voiced a consensus of approval to the addition he is proposing. He said this house was built in the 1920's and he would like to maintain it's structural and design integrity. He showed before and after photographs to illustrate all the improvements he had made. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Santalahti said she had gone out and looked at this property, as she does all of the proposals on her agenda, and she could definitely see some work had been done. She asked is he was going to be leaving the driveway on Dickel Street basically in place and Mr. Hulin said yes, except for the carport area that is in front of the garage. She said she meant the driveway that connects to Dickel Street and he said yes, there would be three parking spaces available there. She said she wanted to make sure that other than the spaces in the garage he would have at least two more spaces available on the property and he said at least two were available and noted the two car garage had access to the back alley. Ms. Santalahti asked if he was aware that when you connect a house to a garage sometimes firewall modifications have to be made and he said yes, he had spoken to the Building Division about that and it will be easy to comply. Ms. Santalahti approved this Variance based on the fact that the proposal is a continuation of the existing garage side yard and, further, that the proposal is reasonable because the subject lot size and width are about 308 smaller than required by the underlying RS-7200 zoning which makes it difficult to maintain standard setbacks. 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. • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH 23, 1989 PAGE 9 ITEM N0. 5 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3135 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803. Attn: John Steinhaus. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.2 acres located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street, having frontages of approximately 744 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 618 feet on the west side of Walnut Street, and further described as 891 S. Walnut Street (Walnut Manor). To permit a child day care center (f or the children of employees of Walnut Manor only). This item was continued until the meeting of April 6, 1989 at the request of the applicant. This item will be readvertised as applicant is changing the request. ITEM N0. 6 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT ITEMS: A. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0030 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5: To construct an industrial building with .waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the Administrative Adjustment and noted the appeal period would end March 23, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. She said if no written opposition is received, she will act to approve this item on March 30, 1989. B. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT N0. 0031 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 5: To construct a four-story 79-unit motel with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Ms. Santalahti said they had received no written correspondence on the Administrative Adjustment and noted the appeal period would end March 23, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. She said if no written opposition is received, she will act to approve this item on March 30, 1989. ITEM N0. 7 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None. ITEM N0. 8 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: There was no one indicating a desire to speak. • • MINUTES, ZONING ADMINISTRATORS MARCH 23, 1989 PAGE 10 There being no further business, Ms. Santalahti adjourned the meeting at 11:05 a.m. Minutes prepared by: Minutes approved by: Pamela H. Starnes Executive Secretary 0215g An ika M. Santalahti Zoning Administrator