HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-13-90 PLANNING COMMISSION .'�'�=-=-`9 . �� � �
. . , City Clerk
A G E N D A I � ,
�
LYNWOOD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers '�
11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, CA �'�
P�
MARCH 13, 1990 � ' ���. 0 � �pp�
R r�`( �F �� pFf10E 1
C1TV CIER •
M pR 0 8 PM
Donald A. Dove 1i2�g,4�5�6
Chairperson �
�� ��i�" �:
: �" l/
�,
Lena Cole-Dennis Carlton McMiller
Commissioner Commissioner
John K. Haynes Roy Pryor
Vice Chairman Commissioner
Lucille Kanka David J.Willis,
(Jamal Muhsin) Commissioner
Alternate Commissioner
C O M M I S S I O N C O U N S E L:
Henry S. Barbosa Douglas D. Barnes
City Attorney Deputy City Attorney
STAFF• I
Kenrick Karefa-Johnson, Interim Aubrey D. Fenderson
Director Community Development Planning Manager '
Department
Art Barfield Louis Omoruyi �
Planning Associate Planning Associate
Louis Morales �
Planning Technician
- I
,
__.. { .. , _ .
�
disk62:agendal4
;
I
i
f I 1 �
� '
I
t
.,,., ..: r
March 13, 1990
OPENING CEREMONIES:
A. Call meeting to order
B. Flag salute
C. Roll call of Commissioners
D. Certification of.Agenda posting.
E. Approval of Minutes for February 13, 1990
Planning Commission Meeting.
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. VARIANCE CASE NO. 5(VAR 5)
Applicant: Benjamin M. and Maria S. Munoz.
COMMENTS:
The applicants are requesting a Variance for a five (5')
foot high wrought iron fence along the front yard setback of
their property at 11516 Pope Avenue in the R-1 (Single
Family Residential) zone.
RECOMMENDED ACTZON:
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission deny the Variance Request:
A. Finding that a hardship has not been established that
would require a Variance for Case No. 5 as determined
by Section 25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning
Code.
B. Finding that the applicant/property owner will not be
deprived of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same.vicinity if the recommendation
of denial is upheld.
2. VARIANCE CASE NO. 6(VAR 61
Applicant: Jerry Rendl
COMMENTS•
The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance for a !
five (5') foot high wrought iron fence along the front yard ,
setback of his property at 11508 Pope Avenue in the R-1 !
�-- (Single Family Residential) zone. :,: =-- ;
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the �
Planning Commission deny the Variance Request:
disk63:agendal4
2
y 'a
C:`, .
A. Finding that a hardship has not been established that
would require a Variance for Case No. 6 as determined
by Section 25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning Code._ `
B.. Finding that the appkicant/property owner will not be
� deprived of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
psoperties in the same vicinity if the recommendation
of denial is upheld.
3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 7(ZOA 71
Applicant: City O£ Lynwood
COMMENTS• ,
The Staff is proposing to amend and add to Chapter 25, the
official zoning ordinance to Personal Storage standards City
wide.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2318:
A. Certifying that the project is exempt from the
provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended by
Section 15061 b (3).
B. Recommend that the City Council approve the findings in
Resolution No. 2318 waive the reading and introduce the
. proposed ordinance. �
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 37 (CUP 37)
Applicant(s): Michael Goldstein �
Comments
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to develop a two (2) story, duplex at 11700 Pope
Avenue in the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) zone.
Recommended Action
Staff respectfully requests that the Planning Commission
continue Conditional Use Permit Case No. 37, to its
regularly scheduled meeting on April 10, 1989.
, t,��,.' ..
_ .., . � _ _ a�°..:, _ _
disk63:agendal4
3
.`�'� , � � t; � � f'� Gi� i i'tf'�� NQ. ( �
; �
�r,;� (_ �! U. _���.._____._„ �
DATE: March 13, 1990 -
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION _. '
' FROM: Kenrick Karefa-Johnson, Interim Director
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 5
, . Applicant: Benjamin M. Maria Munoz S.
' � Pr000sal.
The applicants are requesting a variance for a five (5') foot.
� high wrouqht iron fence along the front yard setback of their
':propert_y at 11516 Pope Avenue in the R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) zone.
Facts
1. Source of Authoritv
While Section 25-4.7 of the Lynwood Municipal code regulates '
fences in all residential zones, Section 25=26 requires,that .
' a Variance be obtained from the Planning Ccommission when,
• because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such
. property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
- vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
2. Prooertv Location and_Size
The.site'is located on the East side of Pope Avenue between
Walnut Avenue and Cortland Street. It is rectangular in
shape and measured at approximately 5820 square feet.
' 3. Existina Land Use
� The site is deveToped with a Single Family home and is
surrounded by the following land uses:
North - Single Family
South - Single Family
, � East - Single Family
West - Single Family
'4. Land Use Description
' General Plan Zoning
, North - Single Family Residential R-1
.South - Single Family Residential R-1
East - Single Family Residential R-1
_ West - Single Family Residential R-1
5: Proiec£ Characteristics ;,��-' _ ' .
_.:�':_. .
The variance request would allow the applicant 'to extend the
height of the pioposed £ence from the maximum of (4) four
feet in height to (5) five feet.
6. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting of March 1, 1990, the Site Plan Review .
Committee recommended denial of thF ��roposed project, to the
� Planning Commission.
i
disk64•vai5
}�
, � �� � � ��
�
�
I . . , . . _ , _�
' „ ;:
7. Zoning Enforcement Historv '
None of record. . �
, 8. Public Response -
None of record.
' ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
L Consistency With General Plan
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing Zoning
_ classification R-1 and the General Plan designation'of Single
Family Residential.
�2_ Site Suitabilitv
The property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate a.
` standard fence relative to structures, parking, walls, .
fences, landscaping, driveways and other development features'
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
i
. 3. Compatibilitv '
, The proposed height of the fence is incompatible with the 4 ,
height of fences on neighboring properties.
4. Compliance With Develonment Standards
Specific Findings:
The property'is a standard lot with no hardships experienced
that would require an exceptional privilege and does not meet
the State requirements for findings of a Variance.
; Undoubtedly granting bf this Variance would set a precedent
in the city that would eventually result in the increased
construction of this nature.
" Staff's determination of these findings is to recommend
: denial to the Planning Commission on the Variance request.'
5. Environmental Assessment
• The Community Development Department Staff has determined
that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to section
15061 b(3) of the State of California Environmental Quality
Act of 1989 as amended.
RECOMMENDATION
�. Staff respectfully requests that after consideration the Planning
'Commissiom deny the Variance Request: '
• a. .Finding that a hardship has not been established that
would require a Variance for Case No. 5 as determined by
" Section 25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning
�� � _ � ._r.
b. Finding that the applicant/property owner will not be •
deprived of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
� properties in the same vicinity if the recommendation of
•denial is upheld.
� �
�d'isk64:var5
.
. �
<
� � � � � � 1 z
;
.
��
, .
'
� ,
. �.
Prepared by: '
Reviewed by:
� -Attachments: •
� 1. Location Map
2. .Resolution No.
� 3. Site Plan
� � � disk64:var5 ' �
3
LOCATION iVIAP -
� cE�n�vY eu
_
s° �i isr ei p i i � � r�sa•
w.� � � � (•
iPO ' IO ) � � =1 �II1J: �? p • t "� � � • � A .�. ;�
' = a � .:. 1 7 � 'i 9� :s .i:.• �.�. : . . � i _ . .. i:
. ; 12 13� �4` IS 16 er 18 14� 'ld 21� 22 23 24 ' 23 ^ 26 27 �29 29 - . ''�':'�'���.
� � �• b ; � fo i b e � . . .
\ �
��,� a „� � 34 3S 38 39 40 41 4 43 44 43 46 4T 48 49
M�I'��q. ��'"' .p 3 � ^ x e a" _: q L .
. . � Y n. „~ - > s �cy"- " , S `h - 3 : .� $�
a t
Y w.a� nv�
�+ � � „ � „ . 1 +
� �- a N'+� �` �asi �.ir e^ ��� r� p M1 isis � eiia a �eJ� '
� ti O i a0 pm h• : t0 0 sa N0� P� m � � 1��•• � 0 �nu � ♦ IO
m • __�_ iIO i
„u Il•n.n t0 p• � � .•2� ��r -� � ur ' . .
� 11 �
_q 1
'_ ui �o^ ���n
•�Ikl�. I � �b$•� a • Q Nf �i��r � ..
. p ' _ � us.. m O .� �r .
�
tl o II('• � 0 Hr nw• ^- �.u nn. Yf o O �
= In ♦ m 10 p /- � m � O� • p S .
n:
O� m m P�.r .u. q �an ,
' � k S�o � � n.i. $ �� 1� . yp � i�:.� O �.s�� �`
I�( p �u
I \ N` ��__����" � t0 F ���, • Il��o 01 m.�l � U.io 01• O IIfT � , �
f�
. 1 „` ; ��. p�l� 0 OI � ��♦ � or ____
�1�T ' 11: � �`.n�i�' � m � � ��� �� ..�n �i
-�� A"J.I ❑�•� .
• �i55V a�' � � �,,;.:, a g ,�:e� � � ,,,, � , � �„�, �
_� ��.;. ,�. - - -- � .
� � ,.. .° , � ::;:::
. nif p,, t ��sw v � �^ a _� ....,, '°' m � ' t ;.::.
i . �w s. ��D� f-6'�7s` �usr r£:.�> p� ���ie. � O'i�f : i::?
m♦ ° 8 GY1?. 7T.AN0 ° a� ... ` i..::
� . _ a . " . '�<i;•>..
o e. .o..� , ...a. . .. t
� � a e p Nr�� �Ml1Sa i p (iJy� O�:ey. <isJ Qp h eJ.Tr p (�(�:��..
: ; a au.i ��a°3 a. .a �... i.... vi ;�� a i n... Na �N � e�
�¢ • a • u � . fa., Y tf�
. C1U , / �e; ��� o� o��i��$ ' F • � -• `� 0 y Nh.1� !�\.�t N. N 4ae� Q .
� �n I � I /I.L ^ /af ' � , /f1. >I
�14�o n. � iw� nn... 0' , �w. �.,,s
Nf . P j � p ,.�n � e �j e ��..e �y f- �j .
— � . • <V N.
/ � (y 1 p Ilh) Wo- �p o nai � Q ... . .
{p li.i: ' u.i• m u.�f
II �l 9/ 1/ 1n• ' Q YY � u sl�� .Q ll.0 N N
h , � � r n�,. � „ ,
, a 7 1M. . Y u� nY iLs�' h h.i� p.�e O � I��n
---'o R o m �,.., a a <v N '__"_�
(� � /4 �� a -� i ��° ������ irq,r . .
� ^ ucaJ u�39,�. .m���. ,.., gE i°„s.. �F .� '�� ,�o; i -
� N q4a � a . ' _
- _ . N
. :_,- L
� ,�
. , . 3GL[:' h py".':':i
CAS E N 0. ��� � . ,..,,; .
�::
,;,,
; � t�GEND,4 ITEM N0. 2-�
(+ �,� _��
DATE: March 13, 1990 ��`�? �'' �:. -_��
' TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ' '
FROM: Kenrick Karefa-JOhnson, Interim Director
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 6
Applicant: Jerry Rendl
Proposal• '
The applicants are requesting a variance for a five (5') foot
high wrought iron fence along the front yard setback of their
property at 11508 Pope Avenue in the R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) zone.
Facts
1. Source of Authoritv.
While Section 25-4.7 of the Lynwood Municipal Code regulates
fences in all residential zones, Section 25-26 requires that
a Variance be obtained from the Planning Commission when,
because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
2. Propertv Location and Size
The site is located on the east side of Pope Avenue between
Walnut Avenue and Cortland Street. it is rectangular in
shape and measured at approximately 5,820 square feet.
3. Existing Land Use
� The site is developed with a Single Family home and is sur-
rounded by the following land uses:
North - Single Family
South - Single Family
East - Single Family
West - Single Family '
4. land Use Descriotion
General plan Zoning
North - Single Family Residential R-1
South - Single Family Residential R-1
' East - Single Family Residential R-1
� West - Single Family Residential R-1
�
5. Pro�ect Characteristics
,.
� The variance request would allow the applicant to extend the
� height of the proposed fence from the maximum of (4) four
i
feet in height to (5) five feet.
� disk63:var6
,
1 �
�
I - �
6.' Site Plan Review -
At its regular meeting of March 1, 1990 the Site P1an Review '
. Committee recommended denial of the proposed project, to the
; Planning Commission.
7. Zonina Enforoement Bistorv
None of record.
8. Public Restionse �. '.
, None of record .
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
' 1. Consistencv with General Plan .
The proposed land use is consistent�with the existing Zoning
classification R-1 and the General Plan designation of Single
Family Residential.
2. Site Suitabilitv
- ,the,property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate a
standard fence relative to structures, parking, walls,
. fences, landscaping, driveways and other development features
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Compatibility ..
The proposed height of the fence is incompatible with the
' heights of fences on neighboring properties.
, 4. Comoliance with Development Standards
Specific Findings:
� The property is a standard lot with no hardships experienced
that would require an exceptional privilege and does not meet
the State requirements for findings of a Variance.
Undoubtedly granting of this Variance would set a precedent
in the city that would eventually result in the increased
" ` construction of fences of this nature.
Staff's determination of these findings is to recommend
denial to the Planning Commission on the Variance request.
5. Environmental Assessment
The Community Development Department Staff has determined ,
"- that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to section
� 15061 b(3) of the State of California Environmental'Quality
Act of 1989 as amended.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration the Planning
- Commission deny the Variance Request:
disk63:var6
2 .
a. Finding that a hardship has not been established that
would require a Variance for Case No. 6 as determined by
Section 25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning Code.
b. Finding that the applicant/property owner will not be
deprived of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same vicinity if the recommendation of
denial is upheld.
i
Prepared by: Louis Morales
Reviewed by:
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Resolution No.
3. Site Plan
.
i
I � disk63:var6
I
i
i 3
�
I
. .. �v� ' , . _ . � . . � . . � . . . . . .. - — r . � .
�'� :.' . ' - . . � . . . _
�� � LOCATI�ON iViAP � - � � �
� Y CEN7U4Y �
�. . � •��°„� n �an i � �° ie ' ia �y r��a�
�� � a 3 � � ,'� 4' ' SI •I�l!' i! fO a' S e 1 : S� R : �.
a. . : Q N �l2 13 "' S i :� Bia'i .i:... �r�. : .. : : z . : .
� . ' y �. . . � � 14 � 13 16 � 17 � � 23 24 ' 2S 26 27 2B 29 };
'.• �i' , e�t • . . . .
. ' Q ;�.� a „� 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42� 4 44 45 46 47 48 49
i n � n. i1/' --- � ,� " : . � ';`:;..';
� Y - ti E ; . „_. � : : � 8 . � : ;::::; :
„w .,>. �, 3,
o a#'w s �e .L • �y :F' so -
� Y WAIAUT . ':''
�:';;.:::;
��'' , e, s < < o �n „ i ,�
h o N'� �isi b �.v G u rs p p t�r/ ' ealr �y a 7yi
. g �n I w .,�.., h , : �p o.o � P m .� � P... p � � �n., : so ' .
m �u � 11..•� �q+e.$ LI � ., ..o_� im Y
�__ p 10 S �. ��� O� Q Il�.i =� ,
Q
''• S
Oe � nitil�. �� �j. bh.� M. f � - � u� '�iii N' ' O ���'� .
e � 10 o IIS'^ � 1Qi. ' n<u A- �.n� - �
..41� nfi. I�f�t
� 1A Q O
• � 1(1 p � 0 �
_ � �lqL � f` m • asu '
' Y :� � m d�m0 itt u�N C Q!qn M ..
i : M b i:n $ nn r �` � e 4:�.
• ,l p u:.� .:,.:,
- ��N�� f_ IS7� io F , ua�o q �..n, A �"_', ._.:..
I J.i• .. 1 �` .t] 1 �� � IIfP • • � ..
1 \ r .` I�S•• -_ W .i. O 01 .f. o� ••• W l� _
�I�q II;�. nv� 4 m m y ��� 0 , __'R
o ____N,�mr_�_' �i... p0 ..•v
. . U55V � o.• ,�:e ,,.,
, _�, .' Q .�osS�`•nR ;�,.. �. $ on, � � +�
� I�SS a � „ IifY4 Q ���f / : �y . ��, � �' � _ __ J
. .n��
� ; . ,. ; �0 9 ^f:I, � ` .,,m m .'° � �..ti1' '
. �:.. " ACQ4TLAN0 � � �
S -
� �.
� ,q � . .�., � ,«., � .<... y
&�:e.� .�nlrw.� �:a :a� �;� �.� et�N �i .�? � x �i`: Ny�.� ri.fs p.
� � L Y� • + ' ti ..� � : i a l Y , c i� � ••
- � a lu l. - o �j nYa ,� ...
1 ��Aop•� F. ° O, C : �° a awi p . �,�. N ^ �p tke� Q o
� I �. m. ` irr.ri CV !:�'i:�
�' tlWI , r-i,v �w� , mn... 0. Mw,. �:'�::�
Q M • a ..n ° ,� � _ �..,. � r , ..: j y:s:;:..
� �� � ua� � w�. $ .. :' Q N . .. � `y�''''
° u.,
II ll �I� I! � MY � i. �i ' ��"• m��•!\
ll h Rf P ^�u '~ tt.0 . N N
T uL00 �//�i?/ IlL�1� . a..• . ` L.. in � 4/�.Sl- .
I
�
I
�
�
I
1 .
� � , .. . . �i..!e.
I
. N
�
`
� i: '".
�:�:, : C A S E N 0. �A�. 6-- �::;;.
. �:
: y _
,_,� fr �!G E��� D,�, !;`Cf�J� NU. 3
:a �
DATE:, March 13, 1990 �qs� N � + n�� i
� ��, �
` TO: Planning Commission
FROM: 'Kenrick Karefa-Johnson, Interim Director
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Case No. 7.
Personal Storage Standards, City-Wide
Proposal•
The Staff is proposing to amend and add to Chapter 25, the
Official Zoning Ordinance, personal storage standards; city wide.
Background•
In reviewing the City of Lynwood Zoning Ordinance, it is apparent
- that a deficiency exist, in reference to the regulation of mini-
storage facilities. The current ordinance does not address
personal storage facilities and in the past has been regulated
loosely, as storage buildings in the City's Industrial Zones.
Issues And Analysis: °
It is the intent of this proposed amendment to create a new use
classification,, "personal storage" and establish development
standards for their regulation. Staff has received inquiries and
one formal pr'oposal for development of a personal storage
facility.
, ' The city has one existing personal storage facility,located at
11230 Wright Road, it totals two 2 acres, has 960 storage units
with an office and managers unit. The facility was permitted as
a storage building under the existing code.
, Staff reviewed deyelopment standards for personal storage
facilities for eight (8) cities: Bellflower, Cerritos, Compton,
Gardena, Montebello, South Gate, Huntington Park and Lakewood.
', � The findings are included in the attached study and disclose that
the City of Lynwood is deficient in its regulation of personal
' storage facilities.
Proposed development standards include zoning, use
• classification, minimum lot size, frontage, setbacks, lot
coverage, parking, on-site circulation, minimum driveway width,
, building,height, fencing and landscaping:
, Environmental Assessment:
The Community Development Departmenf has determined that the
. project could not'have a significant effect on the environment.
.' Therefore,, a Notice of Exemption has been prepared and is on file
in the Community Development Department and the office of the
' City Clerk.
Recommendation
, Staff respectfully requests, that after consideration, the Plan-
ning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2318 �'
A. Finding that Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Case No. 7 is exempt
from the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended
by Section 15061 b(3).
disk64:ps's
1
. '
r.: . , ' " '__- . .. ..
.. i.. .. . . � .
' B. Recommend that the City Council approve the findings in
Resolution No. 2318 waive the reading and introduce the
proposed ordinance.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by; . -
Attachment• '
1. Study: Including survey of cities
` 2. Resolution No. 2318
3. City Council Ordinance
�
�
i
i
, ,
.'. . disk64:pss - �
2
, � !
RESOLUTION NO. 2318
•- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
.' OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD RECOMMENDING
CITY ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTERS DEFINITIONS 25-2 AND 25-11.2
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO
PERSONAL,STORAGE FACILITIES STANDARDS.
- WHEREAS, the Plannin'g Commission of the City of
' Lynwood, did, pursuant to law, conduct a public hearing on a
proposed amendment to the Lynwood Municipal Code with respect to
the above subject; and
WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood °
considered all pertinent testimony offered at the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has
determined that the project is exempt from the prqvisions of the
, State CEQA GuideTines as amended by Section 15061b (3.) and is on
., file in the Community Development Department and the office of ,
the City Clerk.
. Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds and
determines as follows:
A. The proposed amendment wi11 be consistent with the
, objectives and the development policies of the City of
Lynwood.
° B. The proposed'amendment will not unreasonably constrain
the use of property by landowners and developers.
C. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the
General Plan.
4. � Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of �
Lynwood, based upon the aforementioned findings and
determinations, hereby recommends City Council adoption of the
proposed amendment.
' APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March 1990 by
the members of Planning Commission voting as follows:
AYES: ,
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: -
"" . Donald Dove,.Chaizman
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
:�
Kenrick-Karefa Johnson,, Interim Douglas D. Barnes
' Director Community Development Deputy City Attorney
Dept.
� disk63:reso2318 � � ��
' . . . . . . , . ,
�
'. Cerritos, Montebello, South Gate, and Huntington Park
- listed such uses as warehousing or mini-warehousing;
' Gardena listed the use as storage and warehousing; and
. Compton classifies the studied use as personal storage
facilities. However, Lakewood one does not specify a
use category for personal storage, but will process an
application for such a use.
C.'Minimum Area
• Minimum lot area requirements varies greatly among the
cities surveyed. Bellflower and Huntington Park require
large parcels for personal storage use, 85,000 sq. ft.
and 80,000 sq. ft, respectfully.
, D. Minimum Frontage
' Among oities surveyed, minimum frontage is either 100
feet wide, or 50 feet wide. Compton, Huntington Park, and
� Lakewood do not require any minimum frontage for personal
storage facilities.
� E. Setback Requirements
', All cities surveyed have some form of setback
� requirements regarding personal storage facilities. The
majority of the cities studied have established setback
requirements that protect and prevent encroachment on
adjacent or nearby residential uses.
1. Front yard. Bellflower requires a 25 foot front yard
when a personal storage use is adjoining a
residential use. Otherwise the requirement is ten
(l0) feet. Cerritos requires a 50 foot front.yard ,
when adjacent to residential, otherwise, the.
" requirement is 25 feet. Gardena and Montebello
• cities requires a 20 foot'setback if the use a. abuts
or is across from residential use(s) b. adjacent to
residential, or if a driveway goes through building,
or c. if fronting a sesidential use, 20 feet for one
story or 25 feet for a structure two stories or more.
Compton requires a ten (10) foot and Huntington Park
a five (5) foot front yard. South Gate and Lakewood
, do not require front yards.
2. Side yard. Bellflower, Compton, Gardena, and South
Gate have side yard requirements. Most cities
require five {5.) foot side yards if abutting or
adjacent to residential uses. Gardena requires a 20
. foot side yard if a property has a street sideyard.
• However, Bellflower requires a 44 foot side yard when
, adjacent to residential.
3. Rear yard. Compton, Gardena, Montebello, South Gate,
and Huntington Park have rear yard.requirements. The
purpose for the rear yard standards is to protect
residential uses and other areas from the negative .
impact of personal storage facilities. The rear yard
requirements vary greatly among the cities surveyed.
c disk:stand' .
Z
a . � � . ..'_'
`
Compton and Gardena require five (5) foot rear yards
if a. the proposed use abutts or is across from a
. residential zone, or b. adjacent to an alley adja-
cent to a residential zone. However, if the use is
� adjacent to residential use, a ten (lo) foot rear
R yard is required.
South Gate and Huntington Park require a twenty (20)
foot rear to either provide open space, or, if use is
abutting a residential zone.
Bellflower requires a 44 foot rear yard only if the
use abutts a residential zone or use. Montebello
. .',requires a 50 foot rear yard if the use is fronting
• on a major street. Cerritos and Lakewood do not
require rear yards set-backs at all.
F. Lot Coverage. ,
,. Bell£lower, Cerritos, and Compton require an average 500
percent maximum lot coverage. The remaining cities do '
' not requlate lot coverage.
F. Parking. _
Of the cities surveyed, parking standards vary greatly.
, However, the standards generally address the number of
, parking spaces per square feet of use, parking for office
° use on site, and parking for manager's unit.
1. Gross fToor area (g,f.a.) of proposed use.
a. Gardena, Monteb,ello, and South Gate require a
parking ratio of 1: 1000 sq.ft. of gross floor
area of building. '
b. Cerritos requires 1:1000 sq.ft. of gross floor
. area for the first 20,000 sq.ft. of building
space.
� c. . Huntington Park requires 1:17,000 sq.ft. of gross
, , floor area; whereas, Lakewood requires 1:250
sq.ft. of gross floor area of building.
2. Office
a. Gardena requires 1:300 g.f.a.' of office space on
site; and South Gate, 1:200 g.f.a. of office
_ . spaoe.
b. Montebello requires 1:400 sq.ft. of cubicles
adjacent to offices space.
f 3. Manaqer Unit
a. Huntington Park calls for, two (2) parking spaces
(uncovered or enclosed) per manager unit. Other
cities surveyed did not address parking
requirement for manager units.
. G. On-site circulation/mimimum driveway width.
On-site c'irculation regulations for cities surveyed
primarily address one way and two-way driveway width on
• ,. si£e.
c disk:stand
3
:, ,
: ;
� 1. One way drives. Gardena, .South Gate, and Huntington
, i Park require either a twelve (12) foot wide driveway;
a eighteen (18) foot.wide driveway that is used for
�� parking and travel lane; or, a ten (10) foot parking
lane with a fifteen (15) foot travel lane.
2. Two-way drives: Gardena, South Gate and Huntington
,` Park, also, require either 24 foot wide two way
drives; a 26 foot wide driveway providing parking and
travel lanes; or, a ten foot (10) parking lane and a
twelve (12) foot travel lanes.
Bellflower requires a 28 foot wide interior driveway
, widths and a maximum of 18 feet in width of driveway
aisles to storage units which are accessible from a
streent frontage.
Other cities i.e, four, did not contain regulations for
` on-site circulation or driveway width..
� H. Building Height
' Building heiqht requirements for personal storage uses
ranged widely for cities surveyed. Height requirements
were as low as 35 feet to 85 feet or seven (7) stories.
The prevailing height requirement is 35 feet. ,
However; Gardena requires 35 feet if the use is 100 feet
from R1 or R2 residentia1;�45 feet if the use is'100 feet
' from R3 or R4; or a floor area ratio (FAR) of 7:1 if
within a manufacturing zone.
I. Fencing (screening)
" Cerritos, Compton, South Gate, and Huntington Park,
require fencing or screening to protect other uses,
�particularly residential, from personal storage
. faciIities. The requirements, generally, call for a
eight (8) foot high block wall if the use is adjacent to,
or abutting a residential use or zone. Other cities.
simply call for a six (6) foot high block wall.
J. Landscape.
Five cities, Compton, Gardena, Montebello, Huntington
Park, and Lakewood require landscape on personal storage
sites. Bellflower, Cerritos, and South Gate does not
' require such regulations.
Compton requires five percent (5�) of the lot area be
landscaped; whereas, Gardena, requires five percent (5%)
of the parking lot be landscaped.
Montebello requires a five (5) foot strip along the
, • street frontage and two percent (2%) of the parking lot
to be landscaped.
, Huntington Park requires a five (5) foot landscape strip
if the use is adjacent to a nonresidential use, a 25 foot
wide landscape area adjacent to residential, or a 20 foot
landscape area within l00 feet of residential uses.
disk c:stand
4
. �� '
- The City of Lakewood has the-most restrictive landscape
requirements in the study. Lakewood requires a landscape
strip for every five (5) parking spaces; four percent
(4%) of the lot area landscaped; and, one tree planted
, for each,300 square feet of site area. .
The above regulations are established to be particularly
sensitive to personal storage uses impacting surrounding
residential uses.
, K. Limitations
, . All cities in the study, except Gardena and Montebello
place limitations on establishing personal storage uses.
These limstations address certain activify on the site,
design and environmental consideration, compatibility,
, floor area ratio (FAR), ingress-egress limits, and
placement of use to surrounding uses.
The City of South Gate has mandatory requirements that
address management and security of personal storage uses.
These requirements do not appear in the matrix for the
. study, but are considered as limitations and cited below.
Ths City of Bellflower prohibits sale of personal
• property on site, requires a manager on site, and
- prohibits outside storage; except, for Recreational
Vehicles, (RV's).
• The City of Cerritos requires architectural review of the
color of buildings_to match surrounding residential uses;
lighting for the site, and an environmental assessment of
the project's impact on the area.
The City of Compton places limitation on whether the use
is compatible with surrounding uses.
The City of Huntington Park places limits on ingress-
egress access points. It requires that vehicular •
ingress-egress be limited to one point on each side of
the property abutting the street lot line. It, also,
calls for one manager!s unit.
The City,of Lakewood limits personal storage use to be
, placed on closer than 50 feet to a residential use:
As mentioned above, the City of South Gate has mandatory
. requirements for personal storage use. They include
providing a manager's unit and having a manager or
employees on site at all times; having commercial dead
bolt locks for each storage unit; insuring that storage `
space doors cannot be removed; having an alarm system;
, having a check-in and check-out procedure; having
employees subject to police record check; and providing
sufficient lighting for security of the site. In
addition, the South Gate requires a floor area ratio
, (FAR) of 4:1 for personal storage uses.
Desicrn Considerations
A`review of literature and information regarding design of
personal storage reveal that the purpose of design guide-
, lines is to ensure that the development has a high design
quality appropriate to the design character of the zone.
disk c:stand
- 5
. Such design guidelines also seek to avoid the monotonous look
: of many industrial style buildings.
The design of personal storage uses are generally controlled
by a design review process e.g. Site Plan Review. An
application will be approved by a review body if the
� applicant can show that the design guidelines have been met.
Generally, design guidelines for personal storage facilities
address six (6) areas, building and roof design, building
materials, street facades, landscaping, fencing, and
security.
, A. Building and roof design, Design for building and roof
should be compatible with surrounding uses i.e.
residential. Design elements that break up long,
monotonous building or roof lines is desired.
• B. Building material. Materials for all structures on the
, site should be compatible with the character of the zone.
C. Street facades. Design and layout of the street side
of .the site provides for varied and interesting facades.
Guidelines may include the use of setbacks, building
placement, roof design, variations in building walls, .
fencing, and landscaping.
D. Landscaping. Landscaping provides appropriate tr`ansition
, from public to private spaces, separates and buffers the
„ building(s)_from other uses' e.g.,abutting residential
uses, and provide visual relief from stark, linear
, building wall.
E. Screening. Proposed screening (fencing) should be "
designed to be compatible with the character of the area
, and sensitive to abutting residential. Fencing such as
_ rolled razor wire is discouraged.
F. Security. The perimeter of the site should be designed
to provide adequate security for both the site and
'. abutting site. Fence'and wall materials and placement,
type and placement of landscaping e.g. thorny plant
" material, and desired visibility or privacy should be
consider.
disk c•stand
' 6 '
..� . . PERSONAL 5i'ORAGE S[1RVEY-EnR TE� QTY OF LYNWJOD *** COMPFRATSVP� ANALYSIS WITH NIIG[-ID�RiNGS QTiES�� 1990 .. � � . ,. .
DbUII.OPMQ�PP . � � . . ,
� SfANAT�RDS . BFIS,FT.GWII2 . C'ERI2I'i�S , CCF4�YCJN . GARDFNA � . . �' . . � � � .
, . � ��p SIXTiN GATE fNNPINGICN PARK . r.nucky�pp � � .
� . ZONE M-1 ' M . � . . �
� C U Required C U gequired �� �ne M-7 � GM, M-1, M-2 M-2. M-1,h�2,M-3,Qd M_� .
� . - �Nl� C U/SPR P.eauired
Ose �f - �ivice �� �� , .
' �O�4e . Wazehousin4 Facilities � War � WazehousuxJ � Mini-�ward�ousin9 Mini-warehousing . Unspecified
' � Min. Area. 80,000 Sg. F't. 20,000 Sq. Ft. � � � . . ' �
�- W/ Approved . 5,000 Sq. Ft, � -
- � � 85�000 Sq, ft. �
�. FYonta4e . . 100 Ft. 100 F't. ' �
�� ��� m �� 50 Ft. 20 ft. ne�ct to or 50 Ft, � �� � � �
� ��4 �7� �a#1 accross fran res. . [Zf Ss3jmait h� ttajQ . . �
. � . . . � � � �]
� FYont� Yaxrl 10 F't. 50 R. Fr7j. I�;. 10 Ft. � 20 Ft. -
25Et Pr7j..� - 25 ft. Pr2j. I�;. . l+dJ. to, or 20 ft h2j. �s. � . .. . .
� � Across fran R`��s : 2p ft, if I]i�,e qzs � 5 ft.
i�
, Side Yazd None 5 F't_ i£ ahrtts or 5 E`t, pa�.Res. - � �
44 Ft. Adj. Res. Across fran R zones 20 Ft. street . . 5 � . .
side
�r Y� None � . S ft. if at�ts ¢� 5 Ft Fdj. to allY 50 ft. fxcm .pircel I�... p ft, 4,�y sF�ce 20 ft. if abutting .. . .
-A¢oss from R 7Dnes� na� tn I�. � - £xnnting major
� � 10 Ft.. '. h� R-pm� stree}.s . � residential use or
Lot mvesable 50 g 55 8 . .. � zone
50 8 .
��arlun9 . 1I�0 G.F.A. ��'fioe 1/7�000 s;. Et � ot�. t I1000 G.FA �c€ Wx�e. 1/t00D G.F.A. W� 1 1700D
. . . 1/1000 f¢ fixst . � 1/30D fQ� . 1/500 in�C�f 7rz�e .. / 93.ft. G.F'.A - gq. ft. of G.F.A. --
� 2 .� s3-ft cff �' � 1/2b0 G.FA of c£fice 2 s �/250 .
. �I. 1�0 =� 1 i�rlic� � 1/900 frr � �Paces �for manager' . ..
. . 28 Ft. Ir�ai¢ Di�, � . .
- an - S1tC (5m�lai-Sm! 18 Ft. IYi�.ay Ajs1ES � 12 ft F��me-t�,gy �
t9n. �ice-�,aY �adth � y� �� � . � 24 ft. car.� h�.o-uay � MeY- 18 ft. � Pti* �.. u�iy _ 10 £t. Ac. ]ae .
. � � � 2 bap- 26 kL �rir� Ptl 15 ft. �11� . .
. . � . * p�� �� g � 2 tay- 10 ft Pk. 7ae
Sldg. Height � � - 72 ft. tra,c�1 ]ae �
� 15 ft. f+Boc_ 16 ft fa' offiae 35 L�. if 100 ft fivn�� . . � � .
..� � � 35 ft. f¢� Hld3. � �.NZ.Za� 45 £t if � 35 ft. max. ffi fr. ¢ 7 shxiES 6 ft. Four ( 4) stories, or �
- 100 fr. fran . R9 I 55 Ft. high
� � . 7:7 FPR . .
Fencin4 (screening) 8 �. blocic wall�res: � � . . - . ..
6 Ft. block wall/Ctrun. � . 8 ft. wa11 - � . .
. . � � . . - . . ak�d-1a�cJ I�d�tial. � S«eenln9 , . . � 6 £t. high wall' .
.. �P�4' . . 5 8 of lot az� � 5 8 cf FHddrg ]d . 5 R sb..ip alag. 5 fr. 5 or more Pk. sp.
� . - . � � I� 2 8 of Eeddrx� ]ct �� , lac�{sd �
. . . - � - - . � 25 ft. h3j. L� �s. � 9 8 of ste �m
. ��I.imitdtions . ��Ie� C£ �s1- Aic3iitg.tral. ZEVis� m7¢ ts��mst Fe cA fil . � . 20 ft_ � W in 100 ft. IPS. ��� . . .
. � � . � �Y• M3c'. �H71 t2I of BirY3- tr> rtetdi ies. ..�at}t a,r.....�.'...� � l�rJriciil..� ' � .
, ' � � m�a39d3 : Ii��cg , . . -� �� � • � � 7.indt tr> a� p�'vit a�ch � �J• p]a�l c�tithin 50 ft.
� � . �R �t RV.S I.Ilrvi�a�il �a�t _ : ' . I . FPR 9:7 - �� � � ��� � �tl�tial tse ..
. . . . . . . . . . . �?a7rix�-. .I . _ , i� . - sha# lct 1ir�e. . . . _ , �
. . . . ' _ ,. . .. . . � - .. ��_ . . . . " . � . , . . - _ . . . , i . ; . _ �- �• �init - . . . , � . . . .
,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LYNWOOD
AMENDING CHAPTER 25, THE OFFICIAL ZONING
ORDINANCE, OF THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
WITH RESPECT TO PERSONAL STORAGE STANDARDS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND DETERMINE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Chapter 25, Section 25-2 (DEFINITIONS), 25-11
2.5 shall be amended. While 25-11 2.5 (Personal Storage
Development Standards) is hereby added to Chapter 25.
Section 2: Section 25-2 "Definitions" of the Official
Zoning ordinance is amended by adding a new definition as follow:
"Personal Storage" shall mean a place which
provides for rental of interior separated
areas within a building to private
individuals for the storage of nonhazardous
personal goods."
Section 3: 25-11 2.5 is hereby added to read as follows:
"4. Any personal storage use conditionally permitted in
any Manufacturing zone within the City.(Ord. No. ).
A. Development Standards:
(1) Minimum Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall be 85,000
sq, ft. in size.
(2) Minimum Frontage. Minimum frontage shall be 100
feet.
(3) Front Yard. Required front yard is ten (10) feet.
If the use abuts or is across the street from a residential use,
the front yard requirement is twenty (20) feet.
(4) Side Yard. Required side yard is five (10) feet,
if the use abuts or is adjacent to a residential use.
(5) Rear Yard. A five (10) foot rear yard is required
if the use abuts or is across from a residential zone. However,
if the use abuts a major highway, a rear yard is not required.
(6) Lot Coverage. Requirement for lot coverage is 50%.
(7) Parking. Minimum off street parking requirements
are as follows:
A. Minimum Storage Buildings:
One (1) space for each 25 storage cubicles and distributed
equally throughout the storage area; two driveways, one (1)
26 foot wide parking lane. (See Ord. No. 1326).
B. Office.
One (1) space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
(New)
disk C:storl.ord
1
,�: � .� �
,
..
I k.
C. Managers Unit.
` Two (2) uncovered spaces per unit.
(8) Building Heiqht. Building height shall not exceed_
two (2) stories, or 35 feet.
(9) Fencing (screening). If the use is adjacent to a
nonresidential use, an eight (8) foot high�block wall,fence must
be erected.
(10) Landscaping. A five (5) foot landscape strip is
require if a. the use is along a frontage street b. if the use is
within 100 feet of a residential zone or use, then a ten (10)
foot landscape strip is required.
(T1) Limitation. The Planning Commission may permit the
use of land in this zone for the purpose of'personal storage use
" on conditions as they deem just, but shall include as a minimum
the following:
a. Sale of personal property on site is prohibited.
b. No outside storage is allowed except the
RecYeational Vehicles (RVs'j.
c. Vehicular ingress/egress is limited to one point
each side of the property abutting the street lot
line.
" d. No building placed within 50 feet of a residential
use.
e. A manager's unit must be provided or the permit
' will be revoked.
f. A manager or employee shall be on the site at all
times.
` g. Commercial deadbolt locks shall be installed for
each storage area.
- h. For,any storage space doors that opens outward, the �.
' hinge pin shall be installed in such a manner that
it cannot be removed.
i. An alarm switchboard/indicator shall be installed ,
, in the office to indicate when the storage area is
opened.
j. A check-in and check-out procedure shall be
instituted requiring, among other things, that each
' visitor to the facility provide his/her name,
address, driver's license, or other legal
identification`number, vehicle license, storage
area visited, and time in and out.
k. The manager and any person employed shall be
' subject to a police record check.
1. That good and sufficient lighting, including roof
lighting, shall be maintained so that a person has
a good observation of the site and storage area
during the hours of darkness.
. ' disk c:storl.ord
. Z
S •
�
f
SECTION 4. Severabilitv. If any section,subsection,
subdivision, sentence, clause, phase, or portion.of this.
` ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or place, is
, for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court or competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance or its application to other persons or places. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this
ordinance, and each section, subsection,subdivision, sentence,
clause, phrase, or ,portion, thereof, irrespective, of the fact
that any one or more Sections, Subsections, Subdivisions,
Sentences, Clauses, Phases, or portions, or the appTication
thereof to any person or place, be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City
held on the ______ day of ______, 1990, and finally ordered
published at a regular meeting of said Council held on the
day -of , 1990.
AYES:
' NOES: '
ABSENT:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of ,
1990. ,
� Robert Henning, Mayor . -
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk '
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HENRY S. BARBOSA Charles C. Gomez
„ City Attorney City Manager
disk C:storl.ord .
3
�
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HENRY S. BARBOSA Charles C. Gomez
City Attorney City Manager
I
I I
I
I
�
;
1
i
', disk C:storl.ord
, 4
I
I _
r
AGENDA ITEM N0. _"""°""
CASE �JO. Cu� � _ � _
DATE: March 13, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:� Kenrick Karefa-Johnson, Znterim Director
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 37
Applicant: Michael Goldstein .,
Pr000sal
The applicant is requesting approva� of a Conditional Use Permit
to develop a two-story duplex at 11700 Pope �venue in the R-2
(Two Family Residential) zone. ,
At the Site Plan Review Committees regularly scheduled meeting on
March 1, 1990, the applicant did not appear because he was out of
town. Therefore, the applicants request tjhat this item be
rescheduled.
Recommendation
Staff respectfully requests that this item be rcontinued to the
Planning Commission meeting of-.April 10, 1990.
I
I .
I
i . .. �.. .
�
I
I
I , hard dick drive f
�
I
, r -
'� �
.�� r .,
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990
OPENZNG CEREMONIES
A. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Lynwood was called to order by Chairperson Dove on the above
captioned date at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of
Lynwood City Hall, at 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, California
90262.
B. Pledae of Alleaiance
Commissioner McMiller led the Pledge of Allegiance.
C. Ro11 Ca11 of Commissioners
Chairperson Dove requested the roll call, and Mr. Fenderson
complied.
� Present: Commissioner ponald A. Dove
Commissioner John K. Haynes
Commissioner Carlton McMiller
Commissioner Jamal Muhsin
Commissioner David J. Willis
Also
Present: Douglas Barnes, City Attorney
Aubrey Fenderson, Planning Manager
Arthur Barfield, Planning Associate
_ Louis omoruyi, Planninq Associate
John Oskoui, Civil Engineering Assistant
Joy Valentine, Minutes Clerk
Mr. Fenderson informed the Commissioners that Commissioner
Pryor had called staff and requested an excused absence
because he is out of town. Mr. Fenderson said he hadn't
heard from Commissioner Cole-Dennis, so he expected her to
walk in any minute.
MOTION by Commissioner McMiller, seconded by Commissioner
Muhsin, to grant excused absences to the absent
Commissioners, Commissioner Pryor and Commissioner Cole-
Dennis. MOTION carried unanimously.
�
Approximately six people were in the audience.
E. Certification of Aqenda Postinq
Mr. Fenderson stated the agenda was posted per the Brown Act.
F. Approval of Minutes "
MOTION by Commissioner Hayes, SECONDED by Commissioner
McMiller, to accept the February 13, 1990, minutes as
, submitted.
� min8disk:minul3
1
.� ,
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dove, Haynes, McMiller, Muhsin,
Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Variance No. 5(VAR 51
11516 Pope Avenue (Benjamin M. and Maria S. Munoz)
. Applicants request approval to build 5-foot high wrought iron
fence along their front yard setback.
Mr. Fenderson introduced Mr. Louis Omoruyi, who read
pertinent information, which culminated in a recommendation
of denial because no hardship or difficulties or any unusual,
difficult circumstances were established. Also, all existing
fences in that block are in compliance with the City Code.
Mr. Omoruyi listed the circumstances that must exist before '
the Planning Commission may grant a variance: Unnecessary
physical hardship, extraordinary circumstances, deprivation
. of privileges enjoyed by other owners in the same zone and
" the absence of any detriment to the public health, safety or
' welfare. Also, the granting of the variance must not detract
from the attractiveness of the surrounding neighborhood.
Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing.
Both Mr. Munoz, of 11516 Pope Avenue, and Mr. Rendl, of
11508 Pope Avenue, came to the podium (Agenda Item No. 2) to
present their cases.
Mr. Rendl stated that many, many fences over 5' and 6' now
exist in the neighborhood. He distributed pictures of
different houses, with their addresses, with over-height
fences. He conceded that these houses are not on the same
block, but in the same general neighborhood. Both applicants
want fences to keep their children in their yards.
` Mr. Munoz stated he was upset because of the neqative
recommendation.
' Mr. Fenderson stated that the homes on Virginia Avenue with
over-height fences are not within 300 feet of either 11516
Pope or 11508 Pope Avenue. He added that both fences are
proposed, not existing, and there is no difference between a
, 4' fence or a 5' fence as far as protecting children.
There being no one else wishing to speak in favor of, or in
qpposition to the proposal, Chairperson Dove closed the
Public Hearing.
Commissioner Willis commented that he had visited the site at
3:15 p.m., the gates were closed and no children were
present.
min8disk:minul3
2
�
,
Commissioner Haynes stated he had visited the site at 5:30
p.m., and the same situation existed. He could not see that
any hardship would be established by denying the variance.
' Chairperson Dove stated his preference, both aesthetically and
maintenance of for the 4' fence.
MOTION by Commissioner Haynes, SECONDED by Commissioner
willis, to deny the variance, (a), finding that no hardship
has been established, and (b), finding that the applicant
will not be deprived of privileges enjoyed by others in the
same vicinity.
MOTZON carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dove, Haynes, McMiller, Muhsin,
Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
2. Variance Case No. 6. (VAR 61
11508 Pope Avenue (Jerry Rendl)
Applicant requests approval to build 5-foot high wrought iron '
fence along the front yard setback.
Mr. Fenderson introduced Mr. Louis Omoruyi, who read �
pertinent information, which culminated in a recommendation
of denial because no hardship or difficulties or any unusual, '
difficult circumstances were established. Also, all existinq
fences in tHat block are in compliance with the City Code. �
Mr. Omoruyi listed the circumstances that must exist before
th'e Planning Commission may grant a variance: Unnecessary �
physical hardship, extraordinary circumstances, deprivation
of privileges enjoyed by other owners in the same zone and
the absence of any detriment to the public health, safety or
welfare. Also, the granting of the variance must not detract
from the attractiveness of the surrounding neighborhood.
Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Rendl, 11508 Pope Avenue, stated he had Mr. Munoz were I
trying to do everything properly, such as applying for the �
variance rather than just building the fence illegally. He
stated he wants to build the fence before something terrible �
, happens, such as a child being killed, rather than after, I
such as happens in unprotected crosswalks. He asked who will
answer for those children who are killed, and after all,
twelve inches isn't very much. � ;
Mr. Oskoui stated that the Public Works Department is not �
installing unprotected crosswalks.
Mr. Rendl again stated his desire to do everything legally
and added that the people who installed the fences pictured
in the photos he distributed to the Commissioners had not
requested variances or permits.
�
i
min8disk:minul3 ��
3
Chairperson Dove asked Mr. Fenderson to have the pictured
' fences checked as to legality.
Mr. Fenderson stated that the City of Lynwood has only three �
Code Enforcement Officers and 5' fences are not high on their
list of priorities, but he will have those particular fences
checked.
Mr. Rendl stated a 5' fence is harder to climb than a 4'
, fence.
Commissioner McMiller stated that an area is visually
downgraded by 3', 4� and 5' fences in close proximity.
Parents should train their children to stay within their
fence, regardless of the height of the fence. He added that
it is a mistake for parents to expect the police to raise
their children.
Commissioner Hayes stated that neither Mr. Munoz or Mr. Rendl
had established any hardship, they both wanted the 5� fences
to keep their children.
There being no one wishing to speak in favor of, or in ,
opposition to, the project, Chairperson Dove closed the
Public Hearing.
Chairperson Dove commented that he considers the front yard
more of a landscaped green area than a play area or part of
the living area.
Commissioner Haynes stated the variance rules exist to
, provide for definite hardships, he does not want to establish ,
a precedent and he does not want Pope Avenue to look like i
Virginia Avenue.
Commissioner Willis agreed with Commissioner Haynes. �
MOTION by Commissioner Haynes, SECONDED by Commissioner
Willis, to deny the variance, (a), finding that no hardship ��,
has been established, and (b), finding that the applicant '
will not be deprived of privileges enjoyed by others in the �
' same vicinity.. �
i
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dove, Haynes, McMiller, Muhsin, �
Willis
NOES: None I
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Pryor �
ABSTAIN: None ,
Mr. Fenderson informed Mr. Munoz and Mr. Rendl that they have
fifteen days to appeal the denial of the Planning Commission !
before the City Council. ` �,'
3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO 7(ZOA 7) ;
City of Lynwood
Staff proposed to amend and add to Chapter 25, the official I '
zoning ordinance listing persona2 storage standards Citywide. '
min8disk:minul3 ��
f q
{
Mr. Fenderson introduced Mr. Barfield, who read pertinent
information. The amendment is proposed to regulate personal
storage facilities, and eight neighboring cities were
surveyed concerning their development standards which
, included zoning, use classification, minimum lot size,
frontage, setbacks, lot coverage, parking, onsite
circulation, minimum driveway width, building height, fencing
and landscaping.
Several changes were made to the proposed ordinance, as
follows:
(4) Side Yard. Required side yard is ten (10) feet, if the
use abuts or adjacent to a residential use.
(5) Rear Yard. A ten (10) foot rear yard is required if the
use abuts or is across from a residential zone. However,
if the use a�u'�s a major highway, a rear yard is not
required.
, � (6) Lot coverage. Maximum requirement for lot coverage is
' S0%.
The rest of the proposed ordinance remains intact.
Commissioner Haynes asked if any provisions were made for
fire hydrants. He added that great problems had been
experienced at his worksite when firemen were trying to get
` water hoses to fires in progress. This led him to believe
that extra fire hydrants might be necessary.
Mr. Barfield and Mr. Fenderson replied that fire hydrants are
not specifically mentioned, but safety requirements are high
and Fire Department representatives will be present at the
Site Plan Review meeting so .such needs should be covered
under the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner McMiller commented that the Fire Department will
require fire hydrants if needed, this is,part of their normal
. procedure.
Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearing.
There being no one in the audience wishing to speak in favor
of, or in opposition to the proposal, Chairperson Dove closed
the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Haynes, SECONDED by Commissioner
Willis, to adopt Resolution No. 2318, "A RESOLUTION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD RECOMMENDING CITY
ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS DEFINITIONS 25-2 AND
. 25-11.25 OF,THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO PERSONAL
STORAGE FACILZTIES STANDARDS," finding that Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, Case No. 7 is exempt from the provisions of the
State CEQA Guidelines, as amended by Section 15061 b(3) and
recommending that the City Council approve the findings in
Resolution No. 2318, waive the reading and introduce the
proposed ordinance with the following corrections:
(4) Side Yard. Required side yard is ten (10) feet, if the
use abuts or adjacent to a residential use.
. min8disk:minu73
5
(5) Rear Yard. A ten (10) foot rear yard is required if the
use abuts or is across from a residential zone. However,
if the use abuts a major highway, a rear yard is not
required.
(6) Lot coverage. Maximum requirement for lot coverage is
50$.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dove, Haynes, McMiller, Muhsin,
Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 37 (CUP 371
11700 Pope Avenue (Michael Goldstein)
Mr. Fenderson requested that the Planning Commission continue
this item to its regularly scheduled meeting on April 10,
1990.
MOTION by Commissioner Muhsin, SECONDED, by Commissioner
Haynes, to continue Conditional Use Permit Case No. 37 to its
regularly scheduled meeting on April lo, 1990.
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dove, Haynes, McMiller, Muhsin, ,
Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None �
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 38 (CUP 38)
11165 Louise Avenue (Alfonso Avila) ;
Applicant requests approval to develop five (5) dwelling
units in the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone, with an
existing single family dwelling. �
Mr. Fenderson introduced Mr. Omoruyi, who read pertinent
information.
Commissioner Willis asked if the units will be single-family
units, or apartments. ,
Mr. Fenderson replied that the proposed units will be
townhouse-style, with an upstairs, downstairs and two-car
garage for each unit. It is a very good development. When ;
the existing garage is removed, there will be a recreational
area. In fact, there will be a very large amount of usable
open space in the rear. It was agreed that there will be two
buildings, one triplex and one duplex plus garages.
min8disk:minul3
" 6
• Chairperson Dove opened the Public Hearinq.
The owners, Mr. William D. Brown and Mrs. Patricia Brown,
rose to ask two questions.
Since there is a water shortage in Southern California, Mrs.
. Brown asked if the water supply is ample. Commissioner
Haynes assured her that the City of Lynwood has its own
wells, which are backed up by the Metropolitan Water
District.
Mrs. Brown then asked where they could obtain a marbelite
street light pole. Mr. Oskoui told her this will be handled
through the Public Works Department. The City will initiate
the request, she and Mr. Brown will pay fees of approximately
$1200 to $1500 and Edison Company will install the street
' light.
There being no one else wishing to speak either in favor of,
or in opposition to the proposal, Chairperson Dove closed the
Public Hearing.
' Mr. Oskoui stated that a necessary Public Works Department
condition has been omitted. A water service line must be
installed on the west side of Louise Avenue.
Mr. Barnes said this could be added as Condition No. 45.
Install new water service line on the west side of Louise
, Avenue.
Condition No. 45 was accepted by Mr. Brown.
Commissioner Haynes asked that the Edison Company phone
number be given to the Browns. He stated that he shares
Commissioner Cole-Dennis' concern that citizens should be
given help in dealing with the problems they encounter when
they try to improve their properties.
Mr. Brown asked if it would be possible to build one more
unit.
Chairperson Dove said he'd want guest parking if another unit ,
�is built. -
Mr. Barnes said an additional unit shouldn't be considered
without plans presented for the Commissioners� perusal. If
Mr. Brown wants another unit, he should return at a later
date with new plans.
Mr. Brown said he'd stay with the five approved units.
MOTION by Commissioner McMiller, SECONDED by Commissioner
Haynes, to adopt Resolution No. 2320, "A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 38 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE
(5) DWELLING UNITS AT 11165 LOUISE AVENUE, IN THE R-3
(MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 90262,"
subject to the stated conditions and requirements, adding
Condition No. 45: "Install new water service line on the
west side of Louise Avenue," and certifying that the project
is categorically exempt from the provisions of the State CEQA
Guidelines as amended by Section 15061 b(3).
min8disk:minul3 .
7 ,
MOTION carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dove, Haynes, McMiller, Muhsin,
Willis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Cole-Dennis, Pryor
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Brown thanked the Commissioners for their consideration.
REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS
None
STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Fenderson stated the "Notice of Preparation" for the General
Plan Land has been completed and the Environmental Impact Report
is underway.
Mr. Barfield stated he has been unable to reach Commissioner
Kanka to set a time for the presentation of her merit award. He
would like to mail a letter with the Commissioners' approval.
Chairperson Dove agreed this would be a good idea since she had
been in and out of the hospital.
PUBLIC ORALS
None.
COMMISSION ORALS
Commissioner McMiller stated that a business selling cars and
i repairing tires has been established on a City of Lynwood lot
i located at the corner of Weber and Santa Fe. Mr. Fenderson and
� Mr. Oskoui both said they would look into the problem.
� Commissioner Haynes stated that the people living in a purple
� house located at the corner of Ernestine and Le Sage had stacked
' construction trash on Ernestine.
'
�. Commissioner Willis thanked staff for interceding with the Edison
� Company on his behalf. They painted the poles, however, within a
� couple of hours, all the red graffiti had been repainted. He
i would like it repainted again.
i Commissioner Willis stated the church property on California and
j Mulford is in terrible condition. The reverend has not kept his
� promises to maintain the property. Mr. Fenderson promised he
j would ask Code Enforcement officers to check on this.
� Commissioner Willis stated there is a possible illegal
i construction on the rear of the lot at 11516 Pope Avenue. Mr.
1 Fenderson will have it checked out.
I
min8disk:minu73
I
�
8
i
I
Chairperson Dove suggested that parcels of land left vacant after
freeway construction might be planted in a botanical gardens
style so as to beautify otherwise unsightly bare pieces of land.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION was made by Commissioner Mushin to adjourn to the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on April
10, 1990, SECONDED by Commissioner Haynes, and carried
, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Donald Dove, Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kenrick Karefa-Johnson, Interim Douglas D. Barnes
Community Development Deputy City Attorney
Department
,
I
�
�
� min8disk:minul3
� 9
i
I