HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-14-95 PLANNING COMMISSION �---
�
.�
„
" % Yt
i
� AGENDA
�' �
LYNWOOD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
�
REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 P.M. '�
� � �I . �! k. t _ . !: 1 �,( /J, !�
� / City Hall Council Chambers - � � `-"
f 11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, CA � =. �" ��}'{ �� � I
- �' � � ;iT'i i�� l.'�P�•:�`iGGU �
,
i � Cii"9 C��^�.S t::: •.CE
` February 14, 1995 -;�
� , :_. , _ . . _
a;tij t"S`I
, . � n
Carlton McMiller '.� �
Chairperson �' �°� r
;\'�; I/ /_,/� 1 iL�I 1.l^ ��:,��- l \
, �;���;, i��!_ �n �'
� � �I /�.���'�-'��./� .f �� ��1� ���_-'
Errick Lee Donald Do�1e �) �� '
Vice Chairman Commissioner •
Eloise Evans Frankie Murphy
Commissioner Commissioner
Jamal Muhsin John Haynes � �
Commissioner Commissioner
,
1
C O M M I S S I 0 N C 0 U N S E L:
Michele Beal Bagneris
Interim Deputy City Attorney '
;
I
STAFF: i
Gary Chicots, Director Robert Diplock
Community Development Department Planning Manager
Art Barfield Louis Omoruyi .
Associate Planner Associate Planner
Louis E. Morales, Jr. Paul Nguyen
Associate Planner Civil Engineer Assoc.
7'
r:\wptiles\feb95
1
i
�
l
`i
February 14, 1995
OPENING CEREMONIES .
1. Call meetiny to order.
2. Flag salute.
3. Roll call of Commissioners.
. 4. Certification of Agenda Posting.
5. Approval and signing of minutes for the October 11, 1994,
November 8, 1994, December 13, 1994'.and January 10, 1995 ,
Planning Commission Meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. VARIANCE CASE NO. VAR 34
Applicant: Manuel Simental
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a Variance from provisions of the I
Zoning Ordinance in order to reduce the required parking for
a proposed restaurant from 23 parking spaces-to 13 parking ,
spaces at 10320 Long Beach Boulevard, in the C-3 (Heavy ,
Commercial) zone. This case was continued from January 10,
1995 Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant to
redesign his project to more effectively meet required
parkinq.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission approve the Resolution No. 2535:
1. Certifying that the project is categorically exempt from
the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2. Finding that the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specific regulation would deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same zone:
� 3. Determining that the required findings for the granting of
� the Variance have been made.
I
' 4. Approving Variance Application Permit No. 34, subject to
� the stated conditions and requirements.
' 2. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 119
j Appellant: Bruce Yingline
PROPOSAL:
� .
' The appellant is appealing the actidns of the Site Plan
� Review Committee approving Site Plan Review Case No. 119
� The proposal under SPR 119 calls for the operation of a
� concrete and green waste recycling center at 11655 Louise
' Street in the M(Manufacturing) zone. The Planning
Commission continued this case from the January 10, 1995
Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant and
, neighbors to meet and resolve issues surrounding the
' appeal. -
2
1 -
I
� ,
�.'
_,
,�
, RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission deny this appeal and affirm the actions of
the Site Plan Review Committee and the conditions imposed �
under Site Plan Review No. 119.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING:
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERt9IT CASE NO. CUP 157:
Applicant: Alexander Santos
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to convert an existing single family dwelling into a
duplex c��ith an existing detached four (4) car garage at
3200 E1 Segundo Boulevard in the R-3 (Multi-Family
Residential) zone.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: �
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopts the attached Resolution No.
2537:
1. Certifying that the project is Categorically Exempt
from the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines
under by Section 15061b(3).
2. Approving Conditional Use Permit Case No. 157
subject to the stated conditions and requirements.
4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CASE NO. ZOA 39
Applicant: Min Chae
PROPOSAL:
The applicant has proposed an amendment to Chapter 25 of the
Official Zoning Ordinance in order to allow off-sale liquor
establishments in multiple tenant retail centers. The
applicant has also filed apE�lications to modify his existing
Conditional Use Permit to a11o=.1 the'sale of alcoholic
beverages (CUP 31M) in a multiple tenant retail center and to
approve the sale of alcoholic beverages in an existing
multiple tenant facility (CUP 144).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission deny this proposed amendment. If the
Commission wishes to consider approval of this request, direct
staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for consideration at
the next meeting.
� 5. MODIFIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. CUP 31M
� Applicant: Min Chae
i
' PROPOSAL:
� The applicant is requesting a modification of Conditional Use
' Permit No. 31 in order to allow the sale for off-site ,
', consumption of alcoholic beverages in an established multiple
tenant retail facility retail at 3100 E. Imperial Highway in
the CB-1 (Planned Business) zone. •
3
��
,�
s , .
RECOi'ii•1Ei'dDED vCTIOid: .
SLaf[ resnectrully requests that, after consideration
the P1a;:ning Commission deny this application.
- COPiDITIO[?AL �SE PERiIIT Cr+SE N0. CUP 1�4
A���licant: ilin Chae
PROPOSNL:
The apalicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, Ca
144, in order to allo:J the sale for�off-site consumpti
alcoholic beverages in an established multiple tenant
retail center at 3'100 E. Inperial Highway in the CB-1 (P
Business) zone.
RECOMbIEP?DED ACTIOCI: �
Staff respectfully requests that, aiter consideration,
Planniny Comnission deny this application.
REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS: �
COMMENTS:
PliBLIC ORALS
CONiP°?ISSION ORALS
STAFF ORALS •
* Drive approach at 11590 Bullis Road
I ADJOURNMENT
�� Adjourn to the reyular meeting c2 ::^e Pianning Commission on
� lz, 1955 at 7:30 p.m. , in the �_ _. �:a11 Council Chambers,
Bullis Road, Lyn�r;ood, Californi,�.
;
i
�
i
'. r:��.:pr„o>vni,e�recv> -
�
, .
c ,
��
LYNWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOSER 11 1994
� The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood met in a Regular,
Session in the City Hall at 11330 Bullis Road, on the above date
at .7:30 p.m. . '
I
Chairman Lee presiding. •
Commissioners Dove, Evans, McMiller, Muhsin and Lee answered the�
roll call. � �
It was moved by Commissioner pove, seconded by Commissioner Evansi
and carried to excuse Commissioners Haynes�and Murphy ,_
Also present were Planning Manager Diplock, Deputy City Attorney�
Bagneris, Associate Planner Omoruyi and Civil Engineer Associate;
Nguyen. . .
Planning Manager Diplock stated the Agenda had been duly posted:
in.accordance with The Brown Act. '
Chairman Lee announced reorganization of the Planning Commission;
and nominated Commissioner McMiller for Chairman.
Commissioner pove nominated Commissioner Evans, however'
Commissioner Evans declined the nomination. �
ROLL CAI,L •
COIYIldISSIONER DOVE: , � � McMILLER " i
COIYIIYIISSIONER EVANS: McMILLER ,
C01�4SISSIONER McMILLER: kACF+.Srr,�;,�w
COI�ASISSIONER MUHSIN: � Mc�lY7:a�,}�li . �
COMMISSIONSR LEE: §lt,YkTLLER ' i
;
Chairman McMiller then nominated Commissioner Lee as� Vice� !
Chairman. ;
Commissioner Muhsin nominated Commissioner pove,. however
Commissioner pove declined the nomination.
Commissioner Muhsin nominated Commissioner` Murphy for Vice
Chairman. �
ROLL CALL• � i
COI�II�IISSIONER DOVE: MURPHY �
COMMISSIONER EVANSc � LEE
COI�IIKISSIONER McMILLER: LEE �
COMMISSIONER MUHSIN: MURPHY
COMMISSIONER LEE: LEE
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS ' '
Chairman McMiller announced the first item, Conditional Use
Permit Case No. 83049R, Applicant: City of Lynwood, and called
for.a staff report. �
A. ' . i
Planning Manager Diplock.stated.staff is requestinq that the
Planning Commission consider revoking Conditional Use Permit No.
�83049 that allows the operation of an automotive repair shop at
29'71 E. Imperial Highway. At staffs request this case was
continued by the Commission to its August 9, 1994 meeting. The .
Commission continued the case to its September 13, 1994 meeting;
to allow the property owner/lessee to comply with all conditions
of the Conditional Use Permit. On September 14, 1994, the
Commission continued the case to its October 11 meeting to allow
the property owner/lessee to complete compliance with-the
conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Also discussed were
violations and conditions that had not been met by business
owner. � •
Chairman McMiller then opened the Public Hearing.
, 1
;
', i
. �
. ;
s '
i
;
Manuel Franco 12431 McNerney, Owner of the business stated he had! �
met all the conditions of the CUP. '
Commissioner Lee questioned improvements that are still not in�
compliance, such as irrigation for landscaping and fence'
compliance.
Discussion between the Commission and the business owner
' continued regarding necessary clean up and compliance.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman McMiller closed the'
Public Hearing.
It was then moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner"
Hurley, to continue this item for 90 days or until the regular
scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission of January, 1995.
ROIS, CALL•
AYES: . COMMISSZONER DOVE, EVANS, MCMILLER� MUASIN, MURPHY, LEEi
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Chairman McMiller then introduced the next item on the agenda,.�
Zone Change Case No. ZC 11, Applicant City of Lynwood and Mr.,
Louis Ross. �
i
The Planning Manager stated this is a continued item from the�
last meeting. Staff and applicant are requesting approval of a I
Zone Change from R-3 to C-2A, in order to establish conformity to ' I
and consistency with the General Plan designation of Commercial �
for an area bounded by Long Beach Boulevard, Louise Street, Lewis'
Street, an unnamed alley and the Century Freeway. This item was
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 11, to I
`allow Mr. Ross the opportunity to present a proposal'/project' �
along with this request and to allow staff to prepare '
alternatives for consideration by the Commission. �
i
It was moved by Chairman McMiller to open the Public Aearing. ' ;
i ( Commissioner Lee questioned rationale the behind suggested zone
changes. � i
Commissioner Evans questioned the esthetics of the project. � '
After further discussion, it was moved by Chairman McMiller to '
open the Public Hearing.
;
Gavin Erasmus, Attorney for Louis Ross, spoke in favor of the j
zone change. He discussed restrictions and rezoning purposes. !
, �
Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Lee responded to statements �
made by Mr. Erasmus. .I
� I
odessa Haywood-11547 Lewis St., spoke in opposition t'o the Zone
Change. !
� �
i
Miguel Guzman-11553 Lewis St., spoke in opposition to the Zone �
_Change. ! I
i
Vicky Mesa-3343 Louise St., spoke in opposition to the Zone �
Change.
Mr. Erasmus, Attorney for Mr. Ross, responded to opposition �
voiced by surrounding residents. ,
I
Hearing no further discussion, it was moved by Chairman McMiller �
to close the Public Hearing. , I
Z � ;
�
` �
, (
" I
.
' ' i
� ;
,
.' �
: Commissioner pove responded to complaints brought forth by�
surrounding residents, and suggested alternatives. �
Commissioner Lee discussed alternative uses that. would not;
require a zone change. :
Chairman McMiller agreed with residents whose properties are .
adjacent to the proposed site.
It was moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Muhsin'
to continue Zone Change. Case No. ZOAll, pending staff report �
which would include a possible General Plan Amendment, to,
incorporate that residential area, directed staff to supply Mr.;
Ross' Attorney with a complete mailing list of all surrounding
property owners within a 300 mile radius and encouraged Mr. Ross
to contact these property.owners in order to schedule a meeting,
to discuss the proposed zone change prior to the next scheduled'
Planning Commission meeting and directed staff to look into other�
alternative.
ROLL CALL: i
AYES: CO2�Il�IISSIONER DOVE, LEE,. McMILLER, MUHSIN �
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER MURPHY, HAYNES !
Chairman McMiller introduced the next item, Conditional Usel
Permit, Case No. CUP 150. Applicant: Enrique Cervantez and
called for staff report.
Planning Manager Diplock stated applicant is requesting a� �
Conditional Use Permit in order to operate a van conversion
business in an existing upholstery shop at 11054 S. Atlantic Ave.'
At this time, staff is requesting, after consideration by the
Commission the CUP be denied, because the proposal does not meet�
•, the distance or parking zoning requirements. (
' �
It was moved by Chairman McMiller to open the Public Hearing. ;
1 I
Armando Rodriguez - 11054 S. Atlantic Ave., Applicant, spoke in �
favor of the Conditional Use Permit.
i
Planning Manger Diplock stated that this is a non-conforming use ,
already in existence. �
� '
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman McMiller closed the '
' Public Hearing. • i
- �
It was moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Evans i
to continue the Public Hearing, and to instruct staff to return
to the site in order to determine whether or not any type of
alternatives can be arranged with the business owner.
. i
Commissioner Evans also requested the business owner meet with I
staff in order to discusa any alternatives available in order tq I
keep the business in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. �
I
ROLL CAI,L • �
AYES: . CO2�ff+tISSIONER DOVE, EVANS, LEE, MUHSIN, McMZLLER I I
NOES: NONE '
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MURPHY ' ;
�
Chairman McMiller introduced the next Public Hearing, Conditional . �
Use Permit No. 151. Applicant: Ernesto Vides and called for a
staff report.
i
Planning Manager Diplock stated applicant is requesting approval.
of a Conditional Use Permit to sell beer and wine for off-site ;
consumption in an existing market at 4363 Imperial Highway. At
3
;
(
, �
i
� i
��
,
� . � ;
� ,.
.
,
this time, staff respectfully requests that, after consideration!
. the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit No. 151,
because the proposal does not meet the distance requirements set
forth by the Zoning Ordinance.
,
Commissioner Lee questioned existing business types located�
within the 500 foot area.
Chairman McMiller opened the Public Hearing.
Ernesto Vides, Applicant - explained his reasons and community
, benefits for submittal of his CUP.
Rick Sanchez spoke in favor of Conditional use Permit No. 151.
Helen, Helen's Liquor, 12432 S. Atlantic Ave., spoke in,
opposition to CUP #151. �
i
Hearing no further discussion, it was moved by Chairman McMiller!
to close the Public Hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Muhsin
to continue.the Public Hearing pending a chronology of events�
concerning the past approvals of surrounding liquor;
establishments.
r
ROLL CALL•
AYES: . COAII�SISSIONER DOVE, EVANS, LEE, MUHSIN, McMILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MURPHY '
REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS
Chairman McMiller introduced the next item, Determination of a i
Proposed Use, Applicant: Ray Barrett, and called for a staff
report. � �
Planning Manager Diplock stated applicant is requesting; I
determination of whether a proposed use, a retail/wholesale soft� �
drink distributor, is a permitted use in the CB-1 zone. Staff
respectfully requests that after consideration, the Planning'
Commission find this use can be permitted in the CB-1 zone.� i
Basic Redevelopment Plan and Zoning Ordinance standards require a �
predominately retail use in this zone. �
, i
Chairman McMiller opened the Public Hearing. � �
Ray Barret - 10524 8th Place, Lynwood, Applicant, stated he is ±
currently in the process of purchasing the property located at �
11245 Peach St. Also discussed proposed use and type of !
business. . �
Hearing no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Lee, '
seconded by Commissioner Evans to find that the proposed for a �
retail/wholesale soft drink distribution center, is a permitted I
use within the CB-1 zone. , I
ROLL CALL• '
AYES: . COMMISSIONER DOVE, EVANS, LEE, MUHSIN, McMILLER { �
NOES: NONE
' ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MURPHY , i
PUBLIC ORALS .
Gavin Erasmus discussed arrangements for his meeting with the
residents on Tuesday, October 25,,1994 at 7:00 p.m. at the �
Travelodge. � i
4 � i
' �
, �
, I
i �
!
� .
1 �
s,
;: � i.
. ,. ' -'� . ` .. � i
t
4
COMMISSION ORALS '
Commissioner pove requested a review of the General Plan �
Commercial Sections. He also questioned possible code violation �
on trucks and trailers parked on vacant lots between Ernestine ,
and the Library.
Commissioner Lee discussed the new sign ordinance and suggested ,
. mailing notifications to those businesses that are not in '
compliance, particularly those with banners. He also stated �
concerns with a project at Magnolia and Long Beach Blvd. ,
Commissioner Evans stated concerns in the area of Long Beach Blvd�
and Magnolia.
Commissioner Muhsin congratulated Chairman McMiller on his�
appointment. ,
Chairman McMiller discussed ongoing problems with western Waste.•
He also discussed blighted vacant lot'at Santa Fe and Weber. He
recommended that staff and the Commission attend the upcoming '
conference on planning in multi ethnic communities. He then
thanked colleagues on his appointment as chairperson.
Hearing no further discussion, motion and second to adjourn to.
the next regular scheduled meeting of November 8, 1994.
CHAIRMAN McMILLER
�
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: �
. �
;
f �
ROBERT DIPLOCK, PLANNING MANAGER i I
i
� i
i
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ; �
� I
� �
t
� i
MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS, I
INTERIM'DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY �
I
i . I
� i
'
' t
�
I
' I
�
�
f �
,
' 1 i
' � � �
, �
,
- , I
i
. :s � � � � . � �
; �� , , � .
�`-""�"� CITY OF LYNWOOD'PLANNING NOVEMBER 8, 1994 j
�. ' The P1'anning Commission of the City of Lynwood met in a Regular� `
Session in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 11330 Bullisi
. ' Road, on the above date at 7:30 p:m. �
Chairman McMiller presiding. " � .
' � Commissioners Dove, Evans, Haynes,;Lee, Muhsin, Murphy and� �
' McMiller answered the roll call. i
t
r
' Also-present were Director of Community Development Chicots, .
Planning Manager Diplock, Associate Planner Morales and Civil�
Engineer Associate Nguyen. • �
• z
Planning Manager`Diplock announced t'he Agenda had been duly�, ,
posted in.accordance with The Brown Act. , �'
i
t
Chairman McMiller introduced`the new Director of Community'
Development Gary Chicots.
r .
Commission took a 15 minute recess. j
1
Commission reconvened at 7:45. i
A plaque was present'ed to Co-Chairman Lee. on behalf of the{
. Commission. ,
- I
Chairman McMiller excuse�d himself from the remainder of thej
meeting. . �
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vice-Chairman Lee introduced the first Continued Public Hearing „
Case No. Zone Change ZCll, and called for a staff report. }
. . � j
- Planning Manager Diplock stated staff and the applicant are;
requesting approval,of a Zone Change frdm R-3 to C-2a in order to;
establish conformity to and .consistency with the General Plan in`
the Commercial General Plan Category for an area bounded by Long�
Beach Boulevard, Louise Street, Lewis Street;an unnamed a11ey and'F
the Century Freeway. This item was continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of October 11, 1994 to allow staff to prepare
alternatives for consideration by'the Commission and then was
continued to the Novemb"er 8, 1994 meeting to allow the applicant.-
to discuss the rezoning proposal with residents of the area. At}
�this time, staff requests that after consideration, the Planning
Commission approve Alternative C, rezoning indicated residential�
' properties and'direct Staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment'
to change the General Plan designation for remaining parcels to�
-- either a residential br transitional.General Plan category.
,. Commissioner pove questioned whether or not Alternative II is a�
variation of,previously submitted Alternative C, ,and discussed
,.. the overall differences bet�M1�een Alternative C and Alternative II.�
, �
Commissioner Murphy questioned if Alternative C was a compositet
- of Alternative B,'with•a little more leeway. G
. . {
Planning Manger Diplock stated Alteinative C is similar to+
Alternative B, with irrstructions to staff to conduct somei
� additional work in order to bring zoning and the'General Plan�
into conformity within a reasonable.period of time. �
,
Commissioner Murphy questioned the time frame.
�
. Chairman Lee reopened,the Public Hearing. � j
�
'" Gavin Erasmus, attorney for Louis Ross,.discussed the�amendment;
to the proposed, zone changes, specific, advantages and possiblet �
. future development. �
. i
,
- �� " . � . � � �� . .I �
- _ .. ' . , F . . - : . . _ . . . . . ,
' , 1
�
- - �. ,
, i
: �.
:; , , �
,.
,
, . . :• �
Commissioner Evans quest'ioned the proper.ties invoTved in the� •
rezoning. She also questioned the type of structure thel ,
applicant wishes to develop on the site. {
, Commissioner Haynes questioned the size of the'area involved inj
the development. • �
i ,
' Commissioner pove questioned the ownership of property locatedi
� along Lewis Ave. He also discussed provisions involved in legal'
° non-conforming uses in the event'of a natural disaster.
' Commissioner Murphy discussed the applicant's lack of a specific; �
development plan for the proposed site. , �
� �
Mike Guzman - ll552 Lewis Street, spoke in opposition to the Zonei
Ctiange . . t
. `
, Odessa Haywood - 11547 Lewis Street, spoke in opposition to the(
Zone Change. .
,
�
� Ernest Haywood - 11547 Lewis Street, spoke in opposition,to the�
Zone.Change. . , '
i
Hearing no further discussion, it was moved by Co-Chairman Lee tok
, close the Public Hearing. . �
It was then moved by. Commissioner Haynes, seconded by?
Commissioner Muhsin to accept staffs r�commendation, Alternativel
, B and direction to staf.f to rezone.properties owned by thef
Applicant Louis Ross indicated in the staff report, leave:
` ' semaining properties zoned R-3 and evaluate the,General Plan for�
='area in more detail.
�
� ROLL CALL• �
AYES: .COMMISSIONER DOVE, HAYNES, MUHSIN, MURPHY �
i
' NOES: COMMISSIONER LEE . � , t
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER McMILLER �
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER EVANS ; � ,
,.. Vice-Chairman Lee introduced the next item, Conditional Use�
Permit Case No. CUP 151. Applicant Ernesto Vides, and called for�
a staff report. , '
. i
• Planning Manager Diplock stated applicant is requesting approval
, of a Conditional Use Permit to sell beer and wine for off-sitet
consumption in an existing market at 4363 Imperial Highway. Thisi
case was continued from the October meeting in order to allow�
' staff to conduct an investigation on the permit history of nearby;
' stores and restaurants also selling alcoholic beverages, _ At this!
time staff is requesting Conditional U•se Permit No. CUP 151 bei
, denied because the applicants proposal does not meet the distancej
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. ` �
Vice-Chairman Lee moved tb open the Public Hearing. k
Ernesto Vides, Applicant and Market'Owner spoke in favor of the�
Conditional Use Permit and described his reasons for the!
, proposal.. . 1
, �
� Hearing no further discussion, it was moved by Co-Chairman Lee to;
' close the,Public Hearing. '
. .. i
It was moved,by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner�
, Murphy to deny Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CUP 151. .� ,
ROLL CALL• . {
AYES: . COMMISSIONER EVANS, HAYNES, MUHSIN, MURPHY �
� � � NOES: NONE � � �� �
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER McM2LLER :`
• ABSTAIN:: COMMISSIONER DOVE, LEE ' ��.
?. 4
' �
{
i
• �� 1
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vice-Chairman Lee introduced the next item on the agenda,�
Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CUP 152; Applicant: Eliu and;
Solio Saucedo.
Planning Manager Diplock stated applicant is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit in order to legalize an established
automobile repair center at 2991 E. Imperial Highway. At this,
time, staff requests that after consideration, the Commission`
adopt the attached resolution. �
Vice-Chairman Lee questioned the channel lettering currently oni
the building, and requested sign compliance be included in the,
CUP. .
i
Planning Manager Diplock suggested modifying Condition #15 ��ALL!
SIGNAGE MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, BUILDING�
AND REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION" to include Planning Commission'
approval on all signage. ;
Commissioner Murphy q-uestioned the number of conditions the
applicant has already complied with. ;
!
Motion to open the Public Hearing by Co-Chairman Lee. j
Eliu Saucedo - 12207 Louise Ave., property owner spoke in favor
of the CUP. He also discussed repairs and improvements made
under the direction of staff. �
Hearing no further discussion, Co-Chairman Lee moved to Close the
Public Hearing. '
It was moved by Commissioner Muhsin, seconded by Commissioner
Dove to approve the CUP and adopt: ,
RESOLUTION NO. 2528 ENTITLED: ��A RESOLUTZON OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AP•�ROVING CONDITIONAL USE
'PERMZT NO. 152 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF AN EXI3TING
AUTO REPAIR CENTER ZN THE C-3 (COMMERCIAL) ZONE, AT 2991 EAST
IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LYNWOOD CALIFORNIA'�. ;
Vice-Chairman Lee requested clarification on Condition 15. �
Deputy City Attorney Bagneris stated wording the conditions to
read all signage shall be approved/reviewed by the Planning i
Building, Redevelopment Commission including computability with
color scheme, lettering style, size of sign and other provisions
with respect to signs. A site plan showing all existing signs on
the property shall be returned to the Planning Commission within
90 days for review.
Commissioner Haynes questioned condition #8. �
� I
Deputy City Attorney Bagneris clarified restricted hours of
operation. She also restated the conditions that the damaged
sidewalk along State St. and Imperial Hwy. shall be corrected �
within six months and no later than May 30, 1995, and that this i
CUP be reviewed by the Planning Commission six months after �
approval. �
. ; �
ROLL CALL• I
AYES: • COMMISSIONER DOVE, EVANS, HAYNES� MUHSIN, MURPHY, LEE �
NOES: NONE ; I
AHSENT: COMMZSSIONER McMILLER �
Co-Chairman Lee introduced the next item, Variance Case No. VAR �
31, Applicant: Habitat for Humanity. i j
� ;
� I
I +
� I
3 , �
�
i
� �
I
I
'' C' � � �
Commissioner Haynes questioned the Planning Commission's�
authority to override an ordinance establistied by the City
Council.
It was moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Evans�
and carried to re'open the Public Hearing and continue this item
to the next regularly scheduled meeting. �
Vice-Chairman Lee introduced the next Public Hearing, Variance;
Case No. 33, Applicant: Genaro and Devora Lopez:
Planning Manager Diplock stated applicant is requesting a
Variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in order to
inaintain a second unit garage conversion at 3226 Lynwood Road in
the City of Lynwood. Staff is requesting that the Planning
Commission deny this request. The'City of Lynwopd Zoning�
Ordinance and Building Code prohibits the conversion of garages,
to residential use. Tlie only remedy to correct this violation is�
to deconvert and turn the unity back into a garage.
Motion to open the Public Hearing by Vice-Chairman Lee. f
i
Devora Lopez - 3226 Lynwood Road, applicant spoke in favor of thei
, variance. Stated the conversion was in existence when she�
purchased the property. �
Commissioner Evans questioned existing structure and costs;
involved in construction. �
Mike Ranson - 3222 Lynwood Road, spoke in favor of the variance. �
,
Motion to close the Public Hearing by Vice-Chairman Lee.
Commissione'r pove requested staff look into home loan programs�
offered by the City in order to assist the property' owner to
bring the property into compliance. �
It was moved by Commissioner Muhsin, $econded by Commissioner
Dove to continue this ifem to the next regular scheduled meeting.'
Commissioner Evans requested a rationale for the continuance. i
ROLL CALL• �
�
AYES: • COMMISSIONER DOVE, MUHSIN i
NOES: COMMISSIONER EVANS, HAYNES, MURPHY, 1
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER McMILLER
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER LEE ; I
Motion does not pass. � I
It was then moved by Commissioner Haynes, seconded byj
Commissioner Evans to deny Variance Case No, 33. 1 I
Commissioner P9urphy recommended setting guidelines in order to�
�
avoid the same problems caith similar cases. , I
�
ROLL CALL• '
f �
AYES: COMMISSIONER EVANS, HAYNES, LEE �
NOES: COMMISSIONER DOVE, MUHSIN � �
ABSENT: COMMZSSIONER McMILLER � �
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER MURPHY � 1 I
Vice-Chairman Lee introduced the next item, Appeal No. 19, Appeal�
of Conditions Imposed Upon Site Plan Case No. 125, Applicant:i i
i�Iartha Ibarra. I
Planning Commission recessed for a short break and resumed at . I
11:05 p.m. � i
, i
i
� �
�
I
5 i
j
�
� i
�
�
. . �
�
_ _. .. � . ' ' . �
�
� 4}i �
e • -
Planning Associate Morales stated_applicant is requesting a'
variance in order to allow the reduction of the required lot �
depth in order to develop a single family dwelling on a lot at �
3955 Louise Street. Staff respectfully requests that after �
consideration the Planning Commission approve the variance,
certify that the project is categorically exempt'from the �
provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines•,and find that a hardship
has been established that would require a Variance for Case No. ,
31 as determined by Section 25-26 of the City Zoning Code.
vice-Chairman Lee moved to open the Public Hearing.
Steve wriqht - Representative for Habitat for Humanity approached
the podium to answer questions from the Commission. ;
Commissioner Haynes questioned provisions for smoke detectors. '
Having no further discussion, it was moved by Vice-Chairman Lee '
to close the Public Hearing.
, It was then moved by Commissioner pove, seconded by Commissioner
Murphy to approve Variance Case No. VAR31 and adopt:
RESOLUTION NO. 2533 ENTITLED: ��A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST
(VAR. CA3E NO. 31) TO REDUCE THE LOT DEPTH FROM 100 FEET TO 80 ;
FEET AND LOT SIZE FROM 5,000 SQ. FT. TO 4,600 SQ. FT. AT 3955 �
LOUISE AVENUE IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, IN �
THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA��.
ROLL CALL• • �
AYES: . COMMISSIONER DOVE, EVAN3, HAYNES, MUHSIN, MURPHY, LEE
NOES: NONE �
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER McMILLER
Vice-Chairman Lee introduced the riext item, Variance Case No. VAR
32, Applicant: Matthews Redwood.
i
Planning Manager Diplock stated that applicant is requesting a� �
Variance from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in'order to �
retain existing barbed wire along the top of an existing chain I I
link fence along East Imperial Highway and barbed wire and i
concertina wire on the top of an existing chain link and
corrugated wire fence along Fernwood Avenue and Beechwood Avenue. ' �
Staff requests that after consideration the Planning Commission a �
deny this request. ,
Commissioner Ha nes uestioned ` I
Y q provisions within the ordinance
for fences constructed prior to adoption of Section 25-16.6e.
•. Planning Manager Diplock stated provisions were made within the 7 I
ordinance prohibited use of such materials on existing fences ' I
after September 1, 1994. • ;
' Motion to open the Public Hearing by Vice-Chairman Lee. � �
Hearing no discussion, motion to close the Public Hearing by �
Vice-Chairman Lee.
. �
Vice-Chairman Lee spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that I
he could not see where the barbed wire would be considered a� (
blighting condition since the business owner has removed the �
concertina wire along Imperial Highway and it is'not highly
visible from the street or the freeway. .
Commissioner Murphy stated he is not in favor of the use of
' concertina wire. i
Director of Communify Development Chicots discussed the ' I
Commission's option to continue the item in order to allow staff � �
to consider the concerns of the Co*ir�ission and to look into ' �
alternatives.
I
• �
Y � 1 i
� I
�
• �
• ,
� '�Commissioner Lee discussed the Magnolia and Long Beach Boulevardj
construction project, the condition of the residence at Bullis:
Road and Fernwood and illegal construction of the sidewalk and',
driveway. He also discussed a Conditional Use Permit which was
appealed to the City Council, and the discussions that occurred�
during the Public Hearing. He requested that staff notify all�
members of the Planning Commission any time a Commission action
is appealed to the City Council.
Hearing no further discussion, motion and second to adjourn to
the next regular scheduled meeting of December 13, 1994
CARLTON McMILLER, CHAIRMAN
i
Approved as to Form:
�
MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Approved as to Content: '
ROBERT DIPLOCK
PLANNING MANAGER '
, i
� I
I �
�
. �
�
�
I I
� �
� �
• : I
' I
' I
�
' i
�
I
i
�
9
'
L .
. ` ` I
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vice-Chairman Lee introduced the next item on the agenda,�
Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CUP 152; Applicant: Eliu and�
Solio Saucedo.
Planning Manager Diplock stated applicant is requesting a;
Conditional Use Permit in order to legalize an established
automobile repair center at 2991 E. Imperial Highway. At this`
time, staff requests that after consideration, the Commission
adopt the attached resolution. '
Vice-Chairman Lee questioned the channeT lettering currently on
the building, and requested sign compliance be included in the;
CUP. .
Planning Manager Diplock suggested modifying Condition #15 "ALL
. SIGNAGE MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, BUILDING
AND REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION" to include Planning Commission
approval on all signage.
Commissioner Murphy questioned the number of conditions the
applicant has already complied with.
Motion to open the Public Hearing by Co-Chairman Lee. ;
Eliu Saucedo - 12207 Louise Ave., property owner spoke in favor�
of the CUP. He also discussed repairs and improvements made
under the direction of staff.
Hearing no further discussion, Co-Chairman Lee moved to Close the
Public Hearing.
' i
It was moved by Commissioner Muhsin, seconded by Commissioner'
Dove to approve the CUP and adopt: ,
RESOLUTZON NO. 2528 ENTITLED: ��A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING,
• COMMISSION ON THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AP•gROVING CONDITIONAL USE
,'PERMIT NO. 152 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF AN EXISTING
AUTO REPAIR CENTER IN THE C-3 (COMMERCIAL) 20NE, AT 2991 EAST
IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LYNWOOD CALIFORNIA��. �
i
Vice-Chairman Lee requested clarification on Condition 15.
Deputy City Attorney Bagneris stated wording the conditions to� ��
read all signage shall be approved/reviewed by the Planning
Building, Redevelopment Commission including computability with , �
color scheme, lettering style, size of sign and other provisions i
with respect to signs. A site plan showing all existing signs on� i
the property shall be returned to the Planning Commission within'
90 days for review. �
Commissioner Haynes questioned condition n8. � I
� i
Deputy City Attorney Bagneris clarified restricted hours of� �
operation. She also restated the conditions that the damaged. i
sidewalk alon State St. and Im erial Hw �
, 9 p y. shall be corrected,
within six months and no later than May 30, 1995, and that this� ;
CUP be reviewed by the Planning Commission six months after '
' approval. ,
. i
ROLL CALL: i
i
AYES: COMMISSIONER DOVE, EVANS, HAYNES, MUHS2N, MURPHY, LEE
NOES: NONE I
ABSENT: COMMISSZONER McMILLER I
I
Co-Chairman Lee introduced the next item, Variance Case No. VAR� . I
31, Applicant: Habitat for Humanity. . '
i
' �
�
I
1 1
3 . . �
. . j �
I
i
�
I
�
. j
� ;
.: �
. ,3
Planninq Manager Diplock stated applicant is appealing conditions� '
imposed by the Site Plan Review Committee for Site Plan Review�
Case No. 125, an application to legalize a satellite dish system
at 3271 Tenaya Avenue. The existing system was constructed �
without a building permit. In reviewing the Site Plan �
application, staff became aware of the illegal conversion of a
, laundry room attached to a garage. As a condition of the Site
P1an Review approval of the satellite dish system, staff has
required the deconversion or elimination of the illegal unit.
The applicant is appealing that requirement.
Commissioner Murphy questioned plumbing and bathroom facilities
in the laundry room.
Commissioner Evans questioned deconversion of the laundry room
and whether or not it is currently occupied.
Planning Manager Diplock stated it does not comply with the�
' minimum size requirements for an apartment.
Commissioner Evans questioned the location of the satellite dish.'
Chairman Lee opened the Public Hearing. '
�
Bob Mayberry, 3271 Tenaya Ave., stated the construction of the
apartment adjacent to the garage has existed since 1951 and is on
file with the County Assessors Office.
Commissioner Evans questioned the plan layout when the applicant
purchased the property and whether-or not the unit was listed. ,
Commissioner Lee questioned parking spaces.
Sergio Flores, 3271 Tenaya Ave. Apt. C, representative for I
Property Owner, presented documentation received from the County,
Assessors Office. i �
Commissioner Haynes questioned whether or not the conversion took �
place prior to the Tax Assessor's evaluation. � I
�
After further discussion, Chairman Lee closed the Public Hearing.; I
It was then moved by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner� i
Haynes to deny Appeal No..19, Appeal of Conditions Imposed upon '
Site Plan Case No. 125.
ROLL CALL• � ��
AYES: . COMMISSIONER DOVE, EVANS, HAYNES, MURPHY, LEE �
NOES: NONE j
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER McMILLER
� ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER MUHSZN � � � �
� . I
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS �� �
Odessa Haywood discussed the alternative selected by the�
Commission, with regard to the application of Mr. Louis Ross. �
i
COMMISSION ORALS • '
Commissioner Nlurphy discussed the upcoming review of the Watts� �
Health Foundation.
Commissioner Evans discussed the backed-up sewage on Magnolia andi I
Bullis, the overhanging trees along Magnolia and the graffiti� at I
the intersection of School, Magnolia and Long Beach Blvd. ' �
Commissioner Haynes commended the persistence and dedication of� ' '
the residents a;hose properties ti��ere involved in tonight's;
discussion.
Commissioner Muhsin �:;ished everyone a Happy Thanksyiving.� � �
6 ,
i I
I
II
�1 •
� �
� . �
�� . _ • '
± Commissioner Lee discussed the Magnolia and Long Beach Boulevard '
construction project, the condition of the residence at Bullis�
Road and Fernwood and illegal construction of the sidewalk and�
driveway. He also discussed a Conditional Use Permit which was'
appealed to the City Council, and the discussions that occurred
during the Public Hearing. He requested that staff notify all;
members of the Planning Commission any time a Commission action
' is appealed to the City Council.
Hearing no further discussion, motion and second to adjourn to�
the next regular scheduled meeting of December 13, 1994
CARLTON McMILLER, CHAIRMAN
i
Approved as to Form:
•
i
MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS 1
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
i
Approved as to Content: �
. ;
ROBERT DIPLOCK � �
PLANNING MANAGER ; �
_ , i
.
� �
i
i
• I
f
'
i
. ' �
'� �
i
� i
' �
, . ' j
k j
� � I
i �
� �
, !
� � I
` � 1
! I
I
�
f.C. ,
\ ' � f
� :9 i
�. ��.. " ' � . .
��? LYNWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13 1994 '
The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood met in a Regular ;
Session in the City Hall at 11330 Bullis Road, on the above date
at 7:30 p.m. ,
Chairman McMiller presiding.
Commissioner Evans, Lee, Muhsin, Murphy and McMiller answered the
roll call.
Also present were Planning Manager Diplock, Associate Planner �
Barfield, Deputy City Attorney Bagneris, and Civil Engineer
Associate Paul Nguyen. .
Planning Manger Diplock stated the Agenda had been duly posted in �
- accordance with the Brown Act. �
It was moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Muhsin �
and carried to excuse Commissioner Haynes.
It was then moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded be Commissioner�
Murphy and carried to approve the minutes of September 13, 1994. '
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman McMiller introduced the first Public Hearing, Variance�
Case No. VAR 12, Applicant Matthew's Redwood and called for ai
staff report. .
Planning Manager Diplock stated the applicant is requesting a•
Variance from zoning ordinance requirements in order to retain
existing barbed wire along the top of a chain link fence, and
barbed wire and concertina wire along the top of a chain link and'
corrugated wire fence, located at Fernwood and Beechwood. This
item was continued from the November 8,'.1994 meeting in order to,
allow staff time to investigate possible alternatives to the�
material or design of the barbed and concertina wire fence top.'
'Staff submitted comparisons from surrounding cities and also,
stated that, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this type of
fencing is no longer permitted.
Chairman McMiller questioned alternative types of fencinq that;
would reduce visibility of the wire.
Bob Matthews,.Matthews Redwood, discussed attempt by the business; �
. to utilize alternatives. (
Chairman McMiller discussed certain Health and Safety violations; I
located adjacent to ex'isting fencing at the site.
The Commission discussed alternative security measures. �
Commissioner Evans recommended allowance of the variance, as well�
as allowing the business owner to continue to operate as long as
he complies with all codes. i
Commissioner Lee concurred caith C•ommissioner Evans and'
recommended working with the appli'cant on the health and safety'
matters that have been brought forward. �
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman McMiller closed the. '�
Public Hearing. i
i
It �:ias moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Evans�
to approve Matthews Redwood request for variance. !
Commissioner Murphy stated that he had concerns about qranting; i
the variance. He feels this is a policy decision and does not� ±
feel that the item should be dealt orith as a Variance. �
� � �� � I
1 I
, �
i
' �
� �
I
• '
. I
y c
_ r �
1� �
The Commission along with the Deputy Attorney discussed potentialj
problems should this variance be approved. �
Deputy Attorney Bagneris recommended denial of the variance andj
suggested staff pursue enforcement of tYie code. �
Director of Community Development Chicots recommended encouraging�
businesses to utilize alternative types of fencing. �
Deputy Attorney Bagneris recommended obtaining direction from the
„ City_Manager concerning enforcement of this provision at this
time, pending staff's investigation into possible alternative�
regulations. .
�
, Chairman McMiller reopened the,Public Hearing. �
Commissioner Lee questioned whether or not the applicant wouldi
agree to a ninety day continuance and, after confirmation,;
withdrew his.original motion. (
�
It was then moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by.Commissioner}
Evans to continue this item until March 19, 1995.
ROLL CALL• �
AYES: • COMMZSSIONER EVANS, LEE, MURPHY, McMILLER `
NOES: COMMISSIONER MUHSIN �
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER DOVE, HAYNES , �
� �
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS � �
Chairman McMiller introduced the next item, Conditional Use' j
Permit, Case No. CUP153. Applicant: Jose Antonio Gutierrez. �
Associate Planner Barfield stated that the applicant is� I
requestinq approval of a CUP in order to develop a five unit� i
apartment on a lot containing an existing single family residence' ,
;at 11117 Louise Ave. I
� � ; � I
Chairman McMiller discussed the conditions included in the CUP; I
and opened the Public Hearing.
Jose Antonio Gutierrez, 9409 Hildreth Ave., South Gate,� �
introduced himself as the applicant and owner of the property. i
� �
i
Chairman Lee questioned existing garage structure on the site. �
7
The Commission discussed with the applicant the hoursj �
construction would be allowed, and determined the applicant would� I
only be allowed to conduct construction from 8:00 a.m. to 5:OOj ;
p.m., Monday throuqh Friday, 8:00 a.m.. to 4:00 p.m., Saturdays: i
- and there would be no construction allowed on Sunday. ;
- �
, . r
Civil Engineer Associate Nguyen requested that provisions for �
landscaping and installation of a marbellite street light be ' ,
added to the conditions of approval. . � i
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman McMiller closed the? i
Public Hearinq. !
i I
It was then moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner' �
Evans to adopt: i
RESOLUTION NO. 2532 ENTITLED: ��A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING! I
- COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE' � �
PERMIT NO. 153 (CUP) TO DEVELOP A FIVE (5) UNITS APARTMENT WZTH
AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH TWO CAR�GARAGES FOR EACH� � I
. UNIT AT 11117 LOUISE AVENUE IN THE R-3 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL� . ,
. ZONE, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA". � .- '
� i
Motion carried unanimously. � �
� i
� �
• !
, i
I
' 4'
i�
�� v
�
� , �
e1 ` PUBLIC ORALS '
4,..' Representative from American Recycling Technology introduced,
himself to the Commission and spoke on behalf of their;
application. '
- COMMISSION ORALS ,
Commissioner Murphy commended the Commissioners Dinner i
i
Commissioner Evans commended the long awaited construction at the
intersection of School, Magnolia and Long Beach Blvd. She also
stated concerns with traffic problems at the Long Beach Blvd on-
ramp to the 105 freeway, concerns with the performance of the'
tree trimmers and requested a workshop o{ith the City Council.
Commissioner Muhsin wished everyone a Happy Holiday and ar
prosperous New Year.
Commissioner Lee requested staff direct Code Enforcement to�
Louise Avenue for an inspection of numerous vehicles parked on a,
piece of property. He. commended staff on improvements throughout'
the City and improvements at Dymally Park. He also discussed the
need for a joint meeting with the City Council. He also mentions;
the curb cut at Fernwood and Bullis Road and requested staff'
bring back a report on the calendar of events. He invitedi
everyone to the Christmas Mixer at First State Bank. -
Chairman McMiller complained about the delay in preparation of'
Commission minutes. He also stated complaints with property at�
3361 Agnes Avenue and Code Enforcement Violations and Health and
Safety violations. He requested staff send Code Enforcement i
Officers to 12001 - 12005 Lonq Beach Boulevard to investiqate
business operations and possible business license violations. He;
mentioned problems with trash and debris at the corner of Santa
Fe and Weber.
1
6TAFF ORALS ' � �
�Director of Community Development Chicots discussed matters I�
involving the Planning Department and the chain of command. � !
Planning.Manager Diplock discussed ordinance provisions� I
pertaining to paint color conformance. � I
� � Hearing no further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Evans, �
seconded by Commissioner Murphy, and carried to adjourn. '
i �
. i �
CARLTON McMILLER, CHAIRMAN '
i
Approved as to Form:
i
E �
MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS
I I
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY � • j
� '
Approved as to Content: . �
ROBERT DIPLOCK
I
PLANNING MANAGER � �
I
i �
' I
� ' �
� I
!
i
I
;
'�;2 , �� � � �
':;� LYNWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 10, 1995. `
� ., l � . . . ;
��'� The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood met in a Regular�
Session at 11330 Bullis Road on the above date at 7:30 p.m. �
�
Vice-Chairman Lee assumed the chair in the absence of Chairman; '
McMiller. �
Commissioners Dove, Evans, Muhsin, Murphy and Lee answered -the;
roll call. �
Chairman McMiller and Commissioner Haynes were absent.
Also present were Planning Manager Diplock, Deputy City Attorney
Bagneris, Associate Planner Omoruyi and Civil Engineer Associate
Nguyen.�
It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner
Evans and carried to excuse Chairman McMiller.
Planning Manager Diplock stated the Agenda had been duly posted�
in accordance with the Brown Act. .; i
i
CONTZNUED PUBLIC HEARING . �
Vice-Chairman Lee introduced the first item on the Agenda,
Conditional Use Permit Case No. 83049R, Applicant: City of,
Lynwood.
Planning Manager Diplock stated this item was heard at the�
Commission meetings of July, August, September and October il,,
1994, The Commission continued the CUP to its meztiag of Januar_v
10, 1995 in order to allow the Applicant sufficient time to.
. comply with all Conditions of Approval. At this time, the
Conditions of Approval have still not been fully met: Stafx"
inspection on January 6, 1995 showed that automobiles were being
worked on in the parking apron in front of the former auto glass
shop, the parking area was full of cars and trucks under repair, �
or awaiting repair, the metal gate was open so all automotive I
, repair was visible from the street, there was a large ,semi-'
trailer truck parked in the paricing aisle, and auto and truck
engines and transmissions were being stored along the wall on the I
east property line. In addition, the owner/lessee has not
_ submitted a landscape plan or revised plot plan as requested by �
staff on October 17, 1994. I
It was then moved by Vice-Chairman Lee to open the Public Hearing �
on CUP 83049. � I
I
Manuel Franco 10331 McNerney Ave. Sou��h Gate - Applican� I
approached the podium co discuss compliance/non-compliance of 1
conditions. ,
Planning Manager Diplock outlined the conditions in question, I
those being: , I
a) A minimum of eight off-street striped parking places �
with concrete coheel stops !
These spaces are unusable, because there ara automob��es awa'_��i:�;�, I
repair currently utiliz�ng these spaces.
+
b) All automotive repair should be conducted entirely !
within the workshop. � i
on at least three occasions, in the past two weeks staff nas
witnessed auto repair taking place within the parking area. ! I
�
c) A�1 damaged vehicles or vehicles awaiting repair shal;i '
be screened trom Imperial Hwy. by a six (6) ioot nign :masonrl �
wall, or fence covered with material. �. �
Currently as indicated by the site plan, there is an opaque i
gate, on a portion of the premises. However, throughout the past i
four inspections, the gate has remained open, allowing visibilitv ,
from the street of the work taking place inside. The applicant i
is now repairing cars on the parking apron in f.ront of tiie `ormer '
auto glass shop. �
� I
;
i
�
,
, i . ;
i i
� . .
. •
• �
d) Five percent of the total area to be landscaped and
irrigated. �
To date this has not been done. ,
Commissioner pove questioned any type of partial completion to
any of these conditions.
�
Commissioner Muhsin questioned whether or not the applicant held
possession of a Business License. ,
Vice-Chairman Lee discussed previous inspections he had done at
the site.
Commissioner Evans discussed continued non-compliance of
conditions.
Hearing no further discussion, Vice-Chairman Lee closed the
Public Hearing and called for a motion. '
Commissioner Muhsin stated he would like to see the applicant
given an additional thirty days to comply with conditions. �
Commissioner pove stated he would also like to see the applicant '
given additional time to correct the non-compliance:
Commissioner Murphy spoke against any additional continuances io�_
the applicant.
Commissioner pove suggested a staff inspection two weeks intu tHe
thirty day continuance.
�
It was moved by Commissioner Muhsin, seconded by Commissioner I
Dove, to reopen the Public Hearing and grant�the applicant�a i
thirty day continuance on CUP 83049.and instruct staff to conduct I
an on site inspection in two weeks. �
ROIS. CALI. • • �
AYES: • COMMISSIONER DOVE, MUHSIN
NOES: COMMISSIONER EVANS, MURPHY, LEE �
ASSENT: COMMISSIONER HAYNES, McMILLER
Motion does not pass. ,
It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner
Evans to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 83049. I
� �
_ ROLL CALL• i
AYES: . COMMISSIONER EVAI�TS, MURPHY, LEE �
NOES: COMMISSIONER MUHSIN
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER HAYNES, McMILLER ; �
ABSTAIN: COMMISSZONER DOVE I
Motion carries. �
; - �
Vice-Chairman Lee then introduced the next item on the Aganda, i
Conditional Use Permit Nc. 154, I�merican Recycling Technoloy}
Inc., Applicant:
" I
Commissioner Murphy stated that he and Commissioner pove had �
attended a workshop on January 9, 1995, presented by the I
Applicant. �
" � I
Planning Manager Diplock stated the applicant is seekinq the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a facilit}� �or
thermal and biological treatment of petroleum-contaminaced, non- i
� hazardous soil at 10650 Aiamed� Street i:i,the Manufacturing zon'e.
i
� ' � � . � .. � i �� I
2 , I
I
I
!
4
j
� �
, I
�
All petroleum-contaminated, non-hazardous soil will be orocassec'_i
and stored inside the buildings. It has been determined LY13t�
there are no potential environmental impacts from the project'
based on adequate safeguards, mitigation measures and conditions'
of approval.
Commissioner Murphy questioned the restriction on the number of
days allowable for operation, and discussed the transportation of
materials. F
�
Commissioner Evans questioned the impact on street conditions
along Alameda caused by the additional truck traffic in the area,;
and what provisions would be made for maintenance. � .
�
Vice-Chairman Lee moved to opened the Public Hearing on CUP 154.�
Brett McDonald 17351 North Client Ave., Executive Vice-Presidenc
of American Recycling Technology, Inc., offered a preseat�tio��
for the commission, outlining the project. '
; i
Commissioner Murphy questioned bio-remediation issues, the number
of facilities currently operating within urban areas and job
creation. �
�
i
Vice-Chairman Lee discussed measures being taken to ensure that
soil would not be stored on-site.
�
Commissioner Murphy questioned the time frame in��olved in the
soil recycling process and the amount of storage space raquired.�
� ,
; Commissioner Evans stated concerns with health issues, health
' hazards.and OSHA guidelines. �
Andy Niles, 34 Paradise valley, Carson, spoke in support c� tt:e
project. He discussed Health & Safety guidelines of Ar..e.•'_c?.,
Recycling Technologies and facilities.located in urban areas. ;
The Commission and the Applicant continued discussion oi�
employment for residents. 4
�
A1 walker, 701 Huntington way, Vice-President of Facilities &
operations at Jorgensen Steel and Director of Safety, spcke ��n
favor of the CUP and their responsibility towards the projec�c. �
Dennis Lord, District Mar.�ger for the Gas Co., spoke.in favor o`
the project. �
, :
Irene Garcia 2737 E. 111th,St., spoke in opposition to the CUP.'
�
Commissioner Evans suggested a meeting between American Recyclirig
and the surrounding residents in order to diaciiss ccnc�r%�,
� answer questions and provide the residents with a cle�r?r"
understanding of the project.
f
Deputy Attorney Bagneris suggested changes to the ��oposad
Resolution No. 2534, prior to the closing of the Public Hearing I
in order to clarify the language and more clearly identify the ,
Project Sponsor. Should the Commission concur, these changes �
will be added to the Resol.ution. :' i
.. Page 1, Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby aYprcves c.i:� �
Negacive Dc-claration and_appro��es Conditional Use Permit :J�_ 15�. �
t'" I
�
, � I
' I
3 ' �
�
I
J I
'
r
I
i ' .
�
1
Page 1, Community Development Department General Conditiun No. 1.
' A second sentence would be added which will read: The Applicant
will comqlv with all applicable Federal State and local laws
rules and reQUlations including but not limited to �ayment of
all fees related to the operation.
Page 3, Condition No. 26. Stack tests of equiQmea± s'.iail i��
conducted at least annually, or more frequently a: rEat!'_red bi�
the Air 4ualitk Management District to ensure that air_gu '
standards are met.
Page 3, Condition No. 29. Anolicant shall deliver copies of all
permits issued by other requlatory agencies to tha City's
Community Develo�ment Department within thirtv davs =�te
issuance of such permits. �
�
Page 4, Condition No. 36. Clarification "tiat shall be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Devalopment
Director" rather than just the Planning Department.
Page 5, Condition No. 46. °The Applicar,t shall conduct ai�
ongoing medical monitorinQ orogram as re�ired by CAL-OSHA with
monitoring records kept on file in the facility office!'. �
Page 7, Condition No. 66 Dedicate required propertv__as de _�rmin�cl
y the Department of Pub'_ic Works at the southwsst corner of
Santa Fe Avenue and Seminole Ave. to accommodate an adeqsate .
radius��. '
Page 7, Section 2 will become Section 3, and there would be a r.e�.:
; Section 4 which reads "'Phe Plannin�ommission hereb�adu�ca_u
monitoring oroaram and reporting requirements to encLre
compliance with Conditions of Approval set forth here.in. S aid I
pro�ram shall be set for in Attachnent A, at•cr�c..ed h�ratti _ i�
The citys consultant Wildan has prepared the Mitigeticn '
Monitoring Report which will-be attached. It sets forth the '
required measures that must be re�orted on and monitored pursuant �
to State Law.
A new condition if so des�red, "'�; aa,p�icant sha ii sts I
of emplo�ment agencies snd other emplo ment sources �rovi5al �:
the City, and make goo� f�a.th efforts to ensure_the_rEC?_u_tme�t_
. of Lynwood Residents as emuiovees". !
; I
Planning Manager Diplock stated the applicant had requested
clarification o'f Coi�dition No. 21 and stated the correct word�nq
should read: ' �
No truck shall be unloaded until the laad passes vi�r.nl. i
inspection and a copper wire tesc. Aft�.r cnlaa3ing, th2 scil
shall not be processed Lntil it passes au in-i;ausc��shora�c`r.
analysis of the soil sa«�pie. i �
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Lee moved to close cihe ,
Public Hearing. I
It was moved by, Commissioner Evans, seconded by Ccmmissi�iie� I
Muhsin to adopt: ; �
RESOL'UTION NO. 253h tiNTTTLED: "w RESOY,�JTIOL7 OF YY.F: PLriP12:T:�C �
COMMZSSION OF THE CIS": JF' LY!'ilOJ� AIFPROVIN� CONLZT?O:�AL L'�� i
PEEtMIT NO. 154 FOR A SCY':,S R�CY^L'!NG OPERAT_ION TO Bti CONDC'GTEJ �3'� �
AMERICAN RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES INC. AT 10650 ALAM€DA 31C. ,
LYNWOOD, Cr1LIFORNIA". j I
with amendments as stated'.
�
1 �
i
. i I
i
1
] I
1
{
�
, �
�
f
I
ROIS. CALL • �
AYES: • COMMISSIONER DOVE, EVANS, MUHSIN, LEE i
NOES: NONE �
ASSENT: COI•Q�SISSIONER HAYNES, McMILLER ;
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER MURPHY
Motion Carried
At this time the Commission took a brief recess. '
�
Chairman Lee then introduced the next item on the Ager.da,
Conditional Use Permit No. 156 and called for a staff report. �
Planning Manager Diplock stated the app'_ic�nt has reqaeste? thutl
the Commission continue th? s.item to � later dar.a •�o l�e
determined by both staff and t�e applicant. �
;
It was moved by Commissioner Muhsin, seconded by Commissioner�
Dove and carried to continue the item. �
!
Chairman Lee then introduced the next item , Variance Case .?u.,
34, and called for a staff report. • �
Planning Manger Diplock stzted ttie app).icant. is reqne;;tir.g a
Variance from provisions of tne Zoning Ordinance in orde:� to
reduce the number of parking spaces for a proposed restaurant
from 47 to 18 at 10320 Long Beach Blvd:, in the C-3 Heavy
Commercial Zone. A plot plan submitted as part of tk�.e
application shows conditions ttiat were �mposed by Public �dorks',
i.e., dedications for future street widening. The applican:. had
-to redesign the project and lost parki�ig �paces in the procee�:
� and is now down to thirtaea spaces. Sc�ff has revie�:ed th_.r�
oroject and is recommending a�rr.oval of zl,e Variance. �
Chairman Lee discussed an existing restaurant owned by •�he
' applicant immediately south of the site and current problems w�th
parking conditions at that site. (
i i
Commissioner pove questioned the impacc on the surrounr•inG �
residents, the community and traffic. E i
2lanning Manager Diplock staced that oue of the conditioa� o�f
� approval required a Traffic Analysis of the possibilitp a,f !
closing Cherokee Avenue. ; I
� I
Director of Community•,De�elop�rent Chicots stated scne �
alternatives to the proposed variance could be
a) An:ending the level of occupa^�7 � I
b) ar,iending the leve� of csage :
c) Utilize parking on prcperty to t::e r�orth � i
d) Possible vacation of a portion of Cherokee Ave. C'
S'caff could pursue these avenues with.the applicant and come back �
with possible modifications for review. � �
Chairman Lee moved to open the Public Hearing. ; I
i �
Manual Simental, 3347 C:�erokee, blis�.ie, owner and pru�e.�cj (
owner, spoice in favor of the vsr.iance. �
i I
Chairman Lee questioned whether or not the applicant would be'. I
w=lling to continue this item in order to allow staff more t;.i�e i
to work with him on the proposed oarking problems and alternatii�e ;
options. � I
Commission�r Murphy auesticned the l�rqe amount of ind _�-r_t��.r. I
iu�ocr dining area.'
i
I
5 i' �
I
� I
' n i
r
1� �
I
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Murphy,'
seconded by Commissioner Evans and carried to continue this i`_em;
to the next regular scheduled meeting of Fshruary 14, 1995.
Co-Chairman Lee then introduced the next itera, An Appeal of Site,
Plan Review, Case No. 119, and called for a staff report.
�
Planning Manager Diplock stated this is an appeal of a Site-Plan
Review, which was previously brought before the Commissicn and
sent back to staff for completion bf the Environmental Re•!itw.
Issues involved questions of noise and dusc from the uperat�o,t of
the concrete recycling operation. The 3i�:e Ylan Review Commit;.ee
required that the owner/applicant hire a consultant to review
noise and dust concerns. The Applicant has agreed to site �lan
review the proposed condition and now the neighbors are appealinq
the Committees approval of this project. At this time, staff is
recommending denial of the Appeal. �
It was then moved by Chairman Lee to open tiie Public Heari:iq.on
the appeal of Site Plan nev.iew No. 119. �
Bruce Yingline 11618 Louise Ave.,'Appellant, identified problems
with noise, excessive water; street flooding problems, drainage,
dust, and large vehicle traffic. �
Chairman Lee questioned the time in which the Site Plan r-as
approved. '
�
Planning Manager Diplock ststed conditior.s mere estabiished �.vien
the application was first submitted and a*_ that time. It was
determined that additionai �nformation was needed. Anplicdnc
, complied with required infor.mation and Site Plan Review committee
approved the application with conditions. �
. �
Chairman Lee discussed road conditions in the area. Thev are
badly in need of repair. He also discuse�:d Code �nforcc�n��.it
citations and a stop work c�rd.er at this prop�rty. '
Mr. Yi.Zgline discussed•pi.lee of concrete rubble on property. I
unattended parked..trucks, �eiivery trucks, dump trucks, and the
owners responsibility towards the upkeep of the property.
Chairman Lee discussed the cverweight vehicles on tre'prope.-}_� I
and the Code Enforcement history of the s�te. He also <�.�i��.d
whether or not the applicanc and business owner woulc] agree •`.c.>;a I
contiuuance to the next rer;i���;r sch��iule.a. ;t��_tiny �� Fabruary �4,
1995, in order to allow the Ccrar�ission more time for review. '•
Norman Robinson 35235 Nortr 49th St., Stagecre2k, AZ., properLy I
owner read aloud from a lett,�r written by James Murphy, Director
- Plant Operations. It listed several concerns wit.h the d�iet
levels that occur daily and strongly reqnested revocstio.z u� .:iie
approval. � i
Commissioc:ar Evans questi:.r.ed how iong c::e existing business or I
Mr. Fobinsons had been in �:n_ration. : �
Sergio Lopez 9602 Adoree :i., Downey, owner and oper.ator of t�he I
concrete and green waste recycling center at 12655 Louise StreE±, I
spoke in opposition to the Appeal. �
i
Michelle Leonard, Senior 2lanaer fro?n thc fi�r o:`. I,ockmar�� G �
Associates 249 E. Pe.mona ,3:��d, Mo^Lzr,;y rark, s`atad thaY. 'ic�r. i
firm had prepared th2 Envirc��n.eat Sttidy r�qcire3 i�y the City for. I
Mr. Lopez. She stated tha�_ r�.�ise studias caere cor.ducted b_� �a:: I
engineer specializing in *;�.a`. field, which -aer� inciuded in h'�r �
report. Stie spoke in suppo� �f the rncycling center. � i
� , � (
6 !
�
,
?4 ;
. .
� ,
;� ,
n� .. �
�
. 1
r
�
� i
Mr. Lopez proposed the con�t.-uction, by his �,o�:par.y, of an eigh�ci
foot high block wall alcng the property line in order toF
eliminate some of the co�i�arns of the asr.rounding resideni:s,�
business owners and the Cor.ir.i�ssion. t
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner E•�ans,'
seconded by Commissioner pove and carried te continuc� the Fub'.ic
Hearing of the Appeal of S�te Plan Revi.ew Case No. 119 to '�he;
regular scheduled meeting cf February 14, .1995. {
�
It was then moyed by Commissioner Evans, secunded by Commiss:�one:=
Muhsin to reopen the Publi<: i?�aring. �
�
Robert (Inaudible), 114 Sant3 Anita, Long Beach spoke in favur o=
the Appeal, because of dust, noise and floodi._?g conditions.
It was tren moved by Ccmaiissioner i�urphy,' secor.de3 �v
Commissioner pove, and czr,-ied to conti*�ce �:z �opeal oi Si��
Plan Review Case No. 119 to t`.a next regu.lar scl:edulec meetir.g o�
February 14, 1995. ;
,
PUSLIC ORAI. COMMUNICATIONS r
None �
� ,
C01�4[ISSION ORAI,S ,
Commissionar pove stated concerns with the lcr:qth of the maati:iq �
and the lare hour. i
It was moved by Commissic_2e:r Muhsin, se:,onded by Co:nmissi_one�r (
Evans and carried to adjosrn to the next regulsr schedsl�`d I
'meeting of February 14, 1995. �
, F I
CHAIRMAN CARLETON McMILLSR F.?" �+C�VFD AS ^� F032f f
D=.�:.��� :r.tor.ney Bagn�:i� I
I
APPROVED bS TO CONTENT: Rol�ar.t Diplock � �
�
• � I
I
� �
i
. �
, , I
. 4
� i
� i
i ,
�
' i
; i
I I
� I
i
; j
- t I
j �
i
. i I
, ' I
�.f'r.�.�.,� �?-rpn ��t' �
��„�- DATE: February 14, 1995 r'�����`�J� � i�I'i'I IV�. _
� TO: PLANNING COMMISSION CY�S± �JU. � �
� �
� FROM: Gary D. Chicots, Director ���'�
Community Development Department,�
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 34
Applicant: Manuel Simental. �
Proposal•
The applicant is requesting a Variance from provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance in order to reduce ttie required parking for a
proposed restaurant from 23 parking spaces to 13 parking spaces
at 10320 Long Beach Boulevard, in the C-3 (Heavy Commercial)
Zone. This case was continued from the January 10, 1995
Commission Meeting in order to allow the applicant to redesign
his project to more effectively meet required parking.
Facts
1. Source of Authoritv:
Section 25-26 of the Lynwood Municipal Code requires that a
Variance be obtained from the Planning Commission because of
special circumstances applicable to the property, and when
strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in'the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Sections 25-14.6.5 Minimum Off-Street Parking Reauirements of
the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance requires restaurants to have
one (1) space for each 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
2. Propertv Location and Size �
� �
The site is located along Long Beach Boulevard and State I
Street between Cherokee Avenue and Sequoia Avenue (see the I
attached location map). The subject property is a irregular
lot, approximately 12,400 square feet in size. 'I
3. Existina Land Use (
The subject property is developed with a 4,640 square foot
commercial building and associated parking area. The I
surrounding land uses are as follows: i
North - Vacant Commercial I
South - Commercial
East - Multi- Family '�
West - Commercial �
t
4. Land Use Desiqnation tI
i
The General Plan Designation for the subject property is
Commercial, while the Zoning Classification is C-3. The I
surrounding land use designations and zoning are as follows:
General Plan - Zoning �
North - Commercial C-3 I
South - Commercial C-3 '
East - Multi-Family R-3
West - Commercial C-3
�
�
f:\staffrpc\var34 . ,
1 �
• I
�
i , �
�
�� 5. Project Characteristics '
, �}
' The applicant is requesting approva� of a variance to reduce
the required on site parking from 23 to 13 spaces in order to '
operate a restaurant. The site is proposed to be developed
with a outdoor dining area, a remodeled two (2) story
structure and a parking area. The remodeled two story
structure will contain a food preparation area, refrigerator
and storage area, a utility room, bath rooms, and a kitchen
on its first floor. On its second floor, an office and
storage room is proposed. The remainder of the site is
proposed to be developed with landscaped planter areas (at
least 7% per cent of the site) and thirteen (13) parking
spaces including two (2) handicap spaces.
6. Site Plan Review
At a special meeting on December 8, 1994, the Site Plan
Review Committee evaluated the proposed development and
recommended approval to the Planning Commission. The
Committee determined that the applicant could establish a
hardship and justify a Variance from provisions of the Zoning I
ordinance with respect to parking requirements for the i
proposed restaurant. However, conditions imposed by the �
Committee further restricted available parking to 13 parking
spaces. '
7. Zonina Enforcement History �
None of record at the preparation of the Staff report. �
8. Neighborhood Response
None of record at the time of preparation of the staff
report.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: ,
1. Consistencv with General Plan and Zonina Ordinance
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing zoning
classification C-3 and the General Plan designation of
Commercial.
2. Site Suitabilitv I
The property is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed
structure. However, the lot, currAntly improved with a two �
' story commercial building, is irregular in shape and does
not allow for required parking. The site does meets current
development standards relative to structures, walls, fences,
landscaping, driveways and other feature required by the
Zoning Ordinance. ,
The applicant is currently operating a restaurant at 10350
Long Beach Boulevard, a small, 5,000 sq.ft. triangular lot
immediately south of the proposed site at the intersection of �
Long Beach Boulevard and Street. This restaurant, which
would be replaced by the proposed restaurant, currently
provides very limited off street parking.
The original restaurant was licensed for use in July, 1993.
Since that time business has grown significantly. However, a I
severe traffic safety problem has developed because of the
increase in business. The restaurant has five (5)
nonstandard parking spaces which are filled for most of the
hours of business. The location of these parking spaces '
causes traffic problems on State Street and Cherokee Avenue.
A relocation of the existing restaurant to the proposed
location would help correct this hazardous situation.
2
i
3. Comoatibility , �
;' The proposed development is surrounded by a mixture of
commercial and residential uses. Permitting the proposed
. restaurant will not have a negative effect on adjacent
, commercial or residential uses.
4. Pro�ect Review and Redesiqn
Pursuant to Commission instructions on January 10, 1995,
Staff reviewed the project design and recalculated parking
requirements per Section 25-14.6 3. (d) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff requested that the applicant review and revise his .
project design in order to more effectively meet required
parking. A request was also made to seek a shared parking
agreement for properties adjacent tcr and north of the subject
site.
The applicant submitted a revision of the project design that
more specifically defined the outdoor serving area, office,
preparation, and storage areas, and, relocation of the
driveway entrance onto the site. Staff established that
required parking is 23 parking spaces, two (2) handicapped
spaces, and one (1) parking space for each employee. The
applicant's redesign provides thirteen (13) standard parking ;
spaces, including two (2) handicapped spaces, and relocation
of one site entrance to State Street. In addition, the i
design identifies 2,245 square feet of outside serving area. �
The applicant has attempted to secure a shared parking '
agreement with the property owner for properties adjacent to �
' the subject site. Discussions were held but an agreement i
could not be reached.
I
However, the applicant has stated that he is willing to act �
on Condition No. 23 of the proposed resolution immediately
(the vacation of Cherokee Street), and attempt to acquire ;
the site he presently leases in'.order to provide more '
parking. �
i
�
Reauired Findings For Granting A Variance
Staff believes that in this case, the Commission can find; �
a. that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specific zoning parking requirements would result �
in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the City Zoning '
Ordinance; .
b. that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances �
or conditions applicable to the property involved, namely '
the irregular shape of the property and its location
between two major streets and a third cross street, which
do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zone;
c. that the granting of the Variance will not constitute
the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties ;in the same zone;
d. that the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; �
e. that the granting of the Variance will not adversely
, affect the orderl development of the City;
f�plannin9\staffrpt�f:var34 ,
3 I
I ;
(
' f. that neither present nor anticipated future traffic
I �1 volume generated by the use of the sites in the vicinity
reasonably required strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specific requirement.
g. that the granting of the Variance will not result in
parking or loadinq of vehicles on public street in such a
manner as to interfere with the free traffic flow of
traffic on the streets. •
h. that the granting of the Variance will not create a
safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with
the objectives of this chapter.
i. that the granting of the Variance will assist in
' resolving a hazardous traffic situation.
5. Environmental Assessment
The Community Development Director has determined that the
project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061b(3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines as amended.
RECOMMENDATION
I
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the �
Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 2535: �
A. Certif in that the I
Y q project is,categorically exempt
from the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines.
B. Finding that the strict or literal interpretation and !
enforcement of the specific regulation would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of -
other properties in the same zone.
' C. Determininq that the required findings for the granting '
, of the Variance have been made. �
D. Approving Variance No. 34, subject to the stated �
conditions and requirements. �
Attachments: ,
l. Location Map �
2. Site Plan I
3. Resolution No.2535
I
- i
�
�
�
i
f:�staffrpt\�ar34 ' . �
�
i
4 i
__.----
� __._..._._..-.- -_. __.._.__....---- -
--.__._._...._. ..._ --..----- . .... :
�....�.
�
,;
LOCATION i1i'IAP
,
"" .. fLB�l..__ �2 iwqTij•7<I M I /IO' � ,��� it� __..__— ___'_"_
' i3! o/saa� T .
-- - .. i96 �t ... � M/CH/GAM � R
15J ' — v
___ /O�u �o i � � � ��..,, ..,
� !Sa � ..iairo121 -- .� : i o . . . .
W - . �( __ _�JG[vV—� .. lOdoo_� '
y IIU \ `_ �
' W o 35s : �_uaj; � � ,� �9c[t `"� 97 � � ° �g e : 95 9a 93 9Z
�, � - j,-� n9 _ ICO "` !u • �o" -$ .
S h
� Q . 39 � �� B/o 9 /01 � . � ^ /Odi h a .
1�5 0� io>3 � 3
`' �� i�� � o.�, ,ot : 004 T � o� ; io � ion ios
so � . �� �„ /oa} io�av„ �U .S�
. �
�° ^ A ,^,�SC /�..� o " �
' .,
h �
�
p / �A � j� / 0 � � ... I
� z /!R/ o C :�
m � g �
� � L o a y� � 2I0 � rl �2/7 21B ZIT 1!6 ZIS � 2.:�.�: �
5 R !25 , /o Z ' �
I
3 at, I
� do �� L p � A 22E � � 195 "
, // p /� 7 /0 3) 'al Zt K � 03 �7
I • �6 /77 19tl 197 2U0 Zi ,
� I I 8 /0� � C� a /0 0 �
i 3 80 ° ' I
}� CHCROKEE $ ,� � � � �
'
' ' i � �" , i5z
I � � � � . . .
, � /1 /9 I 14 I `IS / �_� � �\ , e � I IC9 ICtl Itll � /tl6 /tl5 f i
N ` m n ib ' a4 'ioa 9 � � � � �
i9' R .
N � i I .. ' ; � i
- �— ZS e Z4 23 ;� 12 Z --�.�`,, ` 16d � '`�6T�.' /67 ��d �7�7 I / I
` \ so i3 z � �Q �` I� ��y w I" cw., I I
r9 1 � ��\ �w �m " � ° � I
°� TENAYA � .
� ` �
o�
� d; '� 3l� � l62 � �+ w� a w w w �
o � ' � � �� �� w �o �' ': r. � ?
16 v 27 ZB �' 19 �' �'v
. . �I t� : lu ~ ia3 rr/a`I 1 � /aYO 16l 1,�,7 �1,� �j$h -{�dc u �� ' t
ScnLE.!'•�co' � � �W W�� 3 �>v,s . C �� . f
. � nn ti Q i v7 d� � � � � -�.o � I
. � - v .w u � �[z�,� l36 � 1 30 .o' . � � . i
.. � 4Z °� dl 4G tIJ9'. �.` nf 35 oy � 135 �� 137 I.� �3y �� I
, iu �
� ov� y so o.� � W � �� I� y
.= eo �ni � ��� /.j�d � � ro � �- �o o :
o w Q i
a. � SEM/NOL E � g
,... ��' —� � � a ,
j ;
� � 1 /0 -Y� Z. .. ln '. . 4. .. W .� �
I
'
CASE N0. �
�.� � .,� ;
,
�- ---_ _ �
,
�
i
,,:
RESOLUTION NO. 2535
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING A VARIANCE
REQUEST (CASE NO. 34) TO REDUCE REQUIRED
PARKING FROM 23 PARKING SPACES TO 13 PARKING
SPACES IN ORDER TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN
THE C-3 (HEAVY COMMERCIAL) ZONE, 10320 LONG
BEACH BOULEVARD, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwo,od,
pursuant to law, held a public hearing on subject application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered all
pertinent testimony offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that I
the proposal is exempt from the provisions of the State CEQA I
Guidelines as amended; and
wHEREAS, the project is consistent with the General Plan in I
that�the subject site is designated "Commercial" on the General Plan �
Map; and
WHEREAS the �
, proposed use is consistent with zoning
regulations, being located in the C-3 (I Commercial) zone:
. �
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Planning Commission of �
the City of Lynwood does hereby find and resolve as follows: �
I
A. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement j
of the specific regulation would result in practical �
, difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent �
with the objectives of the CYty Zoning Ordinance. ;
I
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances �
or conditions applicable to the property involved, the
, property having an irregular shape and being located
between two major streets and a cross street which do not �
apply qenerally to other properties in the same zone.
C_ That the granting of the Variance will not consist of the
granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the .
limitations on other properties in the same zone.
D. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially ,
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
and .
E. That the granting the Variance will not adversely affect I
the City General Plan or the orderly growth and
development of the City.
F. That neither present nor anticipated future traffic I
volumes generated by the use of site or uses of sites in I '
the vicinity reasonably require strict or literal i
interpretation and enforcement of the specified �
regulation. , �
G. That the granting of a Variance will not result in the I
parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a i
manner as to interfere with the flow of traffic on the
streets . �
;
!
1
�
' i
'J
H. That the granting of the Variance will not create a safety
l� hazard or any other conditions inconsistent with the
�
objective of this chapter.
I. That the granting of Variance will provide more parking '
than currently exists and will help resolve a serious
traffic problem.
Section 1. The following Conditions of Approval shall pertain
to Variance Request Permit No. 34
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
1. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable
regulations of the Lynwood Municipal code, the Uniform Building
' Code and the Uniform Fire Code.
2. Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or
structures thereon, shall be first reported to the Community
Development Department, Planning�•Division, for review. This
conditional use permit shall apply exclusively to the subject
restaurant.
3. The applicant, or his representative, shall sign a Statement of
Acceptance stating that he/she has read, understands, and
agrees to the conditions stated herein before any building
permits are issued.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY �
i
4. Adequate access to restroom facilities shall be provided. �
Restrooms shall be signed and well lighted and confined to i
restaurant users at 10320 Long Beach Boulevard. ,
5. A signage plan shall be submitted for Redevelopment Division
approval, prior to installation. The signage plan must comply
with the Lynwood Redevelopment Agency Siqn Criteria and sign �
i
regulations under the City Zoning Ordinance.
6. The Building Department shall�examine the bathroom facilities
to assure that they fully conform'.to all applicable codes and ,
standards. �
PLANNING DIVISION '
7. The proposed restaurant use shall provide a minimum of thirteen
(13) parking spaces including two (2) required handicap spaces.
8. Pursuant to Section 25-16.6 h. of the City Zoning Ordinance,
shared parking may be secured to provide for additional parking
thus carrying out the intent of the Zoninq Code and the
objectives of the General Plan.
9. Where vehicles are to be parked immediately adjacent to a
public or private street or alley, a decorative masonry wall
(maximum of thirty-six inches in height measured from the �
finished surface of the parking area) or a berm with shrubs and
groundcover shall be provided. If a wall is provided, there ,
must be sufficient landscaping to screen wall from street
view .
2
� 10. Pursuant to the City Code and the attached Site Plan, each
.,�� off-street parking space shall not be less than twenty (20)
feet in length and nine (9) feet in width, exclusive of access
driveways or aisles, except as noted below:
a. Any standard parking space that is immediately adjacent to
a wall, structural column, light standards, or similar
obstruction on one or both of its longer sides shall be at
least ten (10') feet in width and twenty (20') feet in
length.
b. Two parking spaces desiqned for the handicapped shall be
provided. These spaces may be provided as follows:
l. The minimum dimensions of each automobile parking
stall for the handicapped shall be not less than
fourteen (14) feet in width by eighteen (18) feet in
length. Said stalls shall be striped to provide a
nine (9) foot parking area and a five (5) foot
loading and unloading ar�ea or;
2. Two (2) spaces may be provided'within a twenty-three
(23) foot wide area, lined to provide a nine (9) foot
parking area on each side of a five (5) foot loading
and unloading area. The minimum length of each
parking space shall be eighteen (18) feet.
11. All parking spaces for the handicapped shall be located
adjacent to the main entrance of the facility for which the
spaces are provided. The parking spaces shall be positioned so
that the handicapped persons shall not be required to walk or
wheel behind parked vehicles.
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS
12. Provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for a ten (10) foot
wide strip of property along Long Beach Boulevard.
13. Submit a drainage plan. Drainage plan will be checked by the
Department of Public Works. No permits will be issued prior to
the approval of the drainage plan.•,
14. Close existing drive approach and construct proposed drive
approach per City standard along Long Beach Boulevard.
15. Install four (4) 24" box street trees per City of Lynwood
City standard along State Street. Species to be determined by
the Public Works. A permit to install the trees is required
from the Engineering Division. Exact locations of the tress
will be determined at the time the permit is issued.
16. Regrade parkway and landscape with grass on State Street and
Cherokee Avenue.
17. Underground all utilities,
18.. Underground existing utilities if any modifications are
proposed for the electrical service panel.
19. All Edison vaults and structures shall be placed underground.
20. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all
off-site improvements.
21. All required water meters, meter service changes and/or fire
protection lines shall be installed by the developer. The work
shall be performed by a licensed contractor hired by th�
developer. The contractor must obtain a permit from the Public
worksjEngineering Division prior to performing any work.
22. No permanent structure shall be constructed on the proposed R/W
dedication (wrought iron fence, footing, etc).
3
DATE: Februar 14 1995 �� �' �
.�. Y , . _ �,�;C�l�; iT�:IJI f��J.
. -
��� TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ` � �- �,
C,��� i�0. S
FROM: Gary Chicots, Director ��
Community Development Department
BY: Robert'Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Appeal of Site Plan Review Case No. 119
Appellant: Bruce Yingline
Proposal• •
The appellant is appealing �the actions of the Site Plan Review
Committee approving Site Plan Review Case No. 119 (SPR 119). The
proposal under SPR 119 calls for the operation of a concrete and
green waste recycling center at 11655 Louise Street in the M
(Manufacturing) zone. The Planning Commission continued this case
from the January 10, 1995 Commission meeting in order to allow
the applicant and neighbors to meet and resolve issues
surrounding the appeal.
Facts•
1. Source of Authoritv
Section 25-32 d. f. of the�Lynwood Zoning Ordinance allows
the action of the Site Plan Review Committee to be appealed
to the Planning Commission.
2. Propertv Location
The site is located on the west side of Louise Street,
between Cortland Avenue and Fernwood Avenue (See attached
location map.)
3. Property Size
The subject site consists of a lot which is rectangularly
� shaped and approximately 22, 680 square feet in size.
4. Existing Land Use '
The property is currently occupied by a concrete jaw crusher
machine and concrete material. The surrounding land uses are
as follows:
North - Mixed Residential/Industrial
South - Vacant Land/I-105
East - Vacant/Residential
west - Industrial
5. Land Use Desiqnation
The General Plan Designation for the subject property is
f { Industrial while the Zoning Classification is M
1 (Manufacturing). The surrounding land use designations and
zoninq classifications are as follows:
l i General Plan: Zoninq:
j North - Industrial North - M
i South - Industrial/Transportation South - M
� East - Industrial East - M
I, West - Industrial West - M
i
�
�
i 1
i
�
�
�
1
I � �' • '6'. Pr-o�ect Character.istics: '
�, /
I � -''
Ir . �' J T�e_,,.site under review is proposed for the operation of a
concrete and green waste recycling center. The operation
will consist of a mechanical jaw crusher that will crush and
process concrete pieces into a finish product consisting of a
� base material used in the construction of public streets.
� The operation will be conducted from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Two
j employees will be required for the. operation. The site is
i proposed to be developed with a small, permanent office and
� portable toilet, a trash enclosure, three (3) parking spaces,
� a fogger system (to control dust), and a concrete access
roadway for material delivery and distribution. The site is
proposed to be enclosed with a eight (8') foot high block
wall on its east side (facing Louise Street), and a eight
(8') foot high chain link fence along its side and rear lot
lines. Some landscaping is proposed along the Louise Street
side of the site.
7. Site Plan Review
At its regular meetinq on June 28, 1994 the Site Plan Review
Committee evaluated the proposed development for the subject
site and required that the applicant to revise his site plan
to clarify and provide additional information on the
proposed operation. The Committee also asked that issues
regarding visual impact, hours of operation, management of
noise and dust, loading and unloadinq methods and procedures,
and delivery schedule be addressed in order to establish
Conditions of Approval.
On July 21, 1994, the Site Plan Review Committee met with the
applicant to review Conditions of Approval for the proposed
use. However, the sound level measurements requested by the
Committee were not submitted. Therefore, Conditions of
Approval for the use could not be established.
On August 24, 1994, Staff requested that the applicant
complete an extended Initial Study permitted by CEQA, in
order to focus on the issues of noise and dust created by the
proposed project.
The applicant has revised the original plan to comply with
recommendations of the Site Plan Review Committee and on
December 14, 1994 submitted the required sound measurements
and on December 15, 1994 submitted an Extended Initial Study ,
prepared by a qualified consultant. The consultant concluded
that, with the redesign and mitigations required by the Site
Plan• Review Committee, there would be no significant adverse ,
impaction on the environment or on the neighbors. (
8. Zonina Enforcement Historv
Pursuant to available records, on M�.y 25, 1994, the Compliant �
Department of the City received a compliant from a resident
� at 11622 Louise Street reporting that concrete dust was �
coming into the neighborhood from the subject site. The �
contractor of the operation was given a verbal order to stop
all work and dumping until a City Business License had'been
obtained.
i
On May 31, 1994, a compliant was received from a resident at �
11651 Louise Street reporting that grinding on the subject i
site was creating dust clouds in the immediate area. The �
contractor of the operation was given a verbal order to stop �
all work. ;
�
f\planning\staffrpt\spr119ap
2 .
,
;� 9. Public Response
y
On August 2 and September 6, 1994, Staff received a petition
and letters from nine (9) homeowners and businesses in the
vicinity of the subject use registering their opposition to
the project (see Exhibit A). The properties includes 11615,
11617, 11625, 11629, 11639, 11643 Louise Street and 5431,
5433 and 5428 Cortland Avenue. Tlais petition led to the
appeal filed'before the Planning Commission.
On January 30, 1995, the applicant and neighbors met at the
proposed site to discuss and resolve issue concerning the
project. However, the meeting ended in an impasse with the
neighbors continuing to maintain that they did not want the
use and applicant unwilling to seek another location.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
1. Consistencv with General Plan and Zonina Ordinance
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing zoning
classification of the M(Manufacturing ) Zone, and the
General Plan designation of Industrial. However, the
proposed use potentially conflicts with Land Use Policy 3
which calls for ensuring that residential neighborhoods are
protected from the encroachment of incompatible activities or
land uses which may have a negative impact on the residential
environment. There are three (3) residences immediately
north of the site and several others across the street. Many
of the residences have light ind�tstrial or storage uses '
associated with them.
2. Site Suitabilitv �
The property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed development relative to use,,structures, walls,
fences, landscaping, driveways and other development features �
required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, the site is not
served by developed curbs and sidewalks, and Louise Street is �
poorly surfaced in the .vicinity of the subject property. I
' 3. Compatibili� �
The proposed development is surrounded by a mixture of �
residential and industrial uses. Approval of this use would �
, be compatible with the adjacent industrial uses, but will !
have a negative effect on adjacent residential development if ,
' certain environmental factors are not mitigated i.e. noise �
and dust. �
4. Compliance with Develooment Standards i
The proposed project has been revised to comply with the
requirements of the Site Plan Review Committee, notably to '
provide adequate screening of the operation and a fogqer �
system to control dust. In addition, entrances and exits and
truck loading and unloading areas will be paved. Noise
measurements indicate that the operation meets the standards
of the City's Noise Ordinance.
i
5. Benefits to Communitv �
. I
The project, as modified, will provide for the recycling of
concrete materials and provide a limited amount of local
employment.
. i
f�planningAstaftrpt\spr719ap � � ,
3 •
,
s . 7. Environmental Assessment ,
T
The Initial Study and Environmental Checklist prepared by
Lockman and Associates indicates that, although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because
modifications have been made to the project and mitigation
measures have been imposed on the project to eliminate any
potential adverse effects. A mitigated Negative Declaration
caill be prepared.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission deny this appeal and affirm the actions of
the Site Plan Review Committee and the conditions imposed under
Site Plan Review Case No. 119.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Conditions of Approval
i
• i
I
�
f:\planning\staffrpt\spr119ap �
i
_ I
�
' I
'
�
i
4 ,
[
y
LOCATION iVIAP
� o. � � . . '. . . : . ' �_I._ ...... . . . • . .' ^ . .
� � :�ie .,i7 ,i6 � IS i4 i3 i2 � ii i0 9 8 7 6 3 4 3 2 I �
; , : = �, TR._ Ns - I 95 ' `
�� � : �� i f � , l/ • II N N4
! J i� ♦ ' ,`
L • LUGO PARK A� E
.__ . i �_��- . ' '� .!. !6• .9% • .� j .io ��n
� � � . .. : � . ...
I : , S • a � ' � , � ii:i?i'
�� i9 � 20 2i 22� 23' 24•I25� 2Cr 27 29; 29' 30 DI 52 3D S4 39 36 37 !B
, S . . . .
' I � � PORT/ON
i PORTION OF LO7' l
I I � n� OF LO � n
� m
� �� "° �
m o �
,.., a w c++r � a �
, SVoi y ' _ '::
�'�� _ ,...,,;..
JYO . , $ � e � � p .9 .;�.;:>_:
'A: i::.
��ri�
3 4 � ° �°>;:;
..
;xlvi,f ..Na —t—�— � i:�:'
a::: -> ;
• , r� c _
� I � � � � p.lY� �o
�fJi� i .i ; i i i r y . ij»'"' �Y31 �.
• � yi_ .i ''i ry� �i � _ k �Y'I �6e `SYJy � __SVY...� I
� = F l�`�� Cli �I `� � �` 1 �: i� l � '2�C- . .
�. r' �: I 1. in �r n I , ..
� i 1� 1' I I� 1'i fj'�� Sf71
`__ i � 1 1 j� �•� A ��2Vi . '
� .� ; s touis£ Sr. $ o --w�:: �
qs t � � - �••_•,
`' 2 a i� I a i= i a i' i= i �i a�.fJOy� .... �
6 O `S i S i♦ i !f . i'r i„� J� i C' w� y6q__ ���.� �
, a w,.,� o , , �, � , � ; � ,: a� � �`ie �� �sso� , '�} �
. i ` y� .�5 �4 d � i'�n ��_!ox1Q- " . i
} � 0 � �
_ 2 Y h � i , i i i y i S:S
i i i � � � ml�1�1�9 l�"2�_ �i:� i
�S � .{2igrt�w3�J�Y�pX�11SLtl ��� tuN a �� '
lA ff�4 �. I
�I S,� d /u J!1! � �
^ i�l JJe �i':(� I
� �' _IlL:'. .
Y
� � i '_��� '� . i
"ifli:, ..
--- `•�SSYr �
a""- �ni.', . � , . �
_--- w , i .. .
V i
. _..._ § pY
... _ _ � �
p'� I
: - 1 1+?z ; s ���G'
I �;�� , .
` _� - "a � � i . i� � I
�, ' �+ i`��. � . ' I
� S�-'. � . ' ' j� i o li � '
' � F ; f
. � i i � � w .; ._ ��.
� i �
I . ' ,a' .... I
H I
y I
i
... �
...��". B E q G N
I
�pNG i
,���, ,
� - ��
,
�
$. i
. ,
�qsE N� � - �
��
� ;
�
�'� Sergio Lopez
' 11655 Louise Avenue, Lynwood, CA.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - CASE N0. 119
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Community Development Department
1. The proposed site development shall comply with all
applicable regulations of the Lynwood Municipal Code.
2. Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or
structure thereon, shall be first reported to the Community
Development Department, Planning Division, for review.
3. The applicant, or his representative, shall sign a Statement
of Acceptance stating he/she has read, understands, and
agree to the conditions stated herein before issuance of
building permits for said application by the Site Plan
Review Committee.
4. The application shall meet the requirements of all other
City Departments.
REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION
5. A sign permit must be applied for and approved by the
• Department of Community Development for any sign to be
provided on the site.
PLANNING DIVISION
�
6. Revise site plan to show all aspect of the operation on or :
off- site, including location of parking and equipment. The i
site plan must be completely dimensioned. �
7. Review of final plans is required before issuance of
business license and/or building permits. Provide a legend
on the approved site plan. , '
8. Provide a toilet facility for the subject site. I
9. Provide a minimum of three (3) parking spaces and one (1) !
handicap space as per approved site plan, and pave and i
stripe per City standards. ;
10. All access to parking areas on site must be paved. Provide �
a gated, one-way access into and out of the site. �
11. Any construction shall comply with 'the approved site plan on
file in the Planninq Division. '
12. Noise levels resulting from the concrete crushing operation j
cannot exceed 70 dbs. at the property line. Applicant will
provide noise measurements annually to the Director of the I
Department of Community Development if required. '
Measurements shall be taken with the facility in full j
operation including dumping and loading.
13. Construction shall begin within six (6) months from the date
of issuance of building permits. �,
14. The recycling opeYation shall be conducted within the '
existing 17, 77.0 sq.ft. area unless modification is approved �
by the Department of Community Development.
15. A trash enclosure shall be provided per Building Division' '
standards. �
f\p�anning\spr\f:spril9 . �
' �
1
i
I
I
;�
a
r! 16. Provide water service to the site..
i
17. All electrical and plumbing installation shall be performed
by a license contractor.
18. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to receiving
building permits.
19. All driveway and required parking areas shall be paved and
shall have sufficient illumination for security.
20. A minimum of five (5%) percent of the lot shall be
landscaped.
21. Landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed in
accordance with the approved landscaping plan.
22. An application for all proposed walls or fences must be
submitted for the subject site and approved by the Planning
. Division before issuance of a building permits.
23. All security fences, grills, etc.'shall be architecturally
compatible with the design of the subject property and
adjacent building(s). In addition, no security fences,
grills, etc. shall be installed without the prior written
approval of the Director of Community Development or his
designate.
24. A cover sheet of approved conditions must be attached to I �
plan prior to submission to the Building and Safety i
Division.
25. The owner of the site shall maintain a pro-active approach !
to the elimination of graffiti from structures, fences, and �
any accessory building(s) , on a daily basis.
, i
26. The Community Development Department shall have the right
of reasonable inspection for the purposes of protecting the
� general health, safety, and welfare of the community. i
I
MITIGATION MEASURES �
27. A. The applicant shall: '
1) Comply with all Conditions of Approval as adopted by '
the City of Lynwood. �
2) Comply with all applicable regulations of the City '
of Lynwood Municipal Code. �
3) Establish a mitigating monitoring program for the �
project, reviewed and approved by the Department of �
Community Development, Planning Division before f
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the
Building Division. �
i
28. A dust control system, manufactured by Torgerson Machinery �
Inc. or equivalent, shall be installed as indicated in i
Initial Studv and Environmental Checklist Concrete
Recvcllnq Center, Lockman & Associate, December 15, 1994, I
Exhibit A2, '�DUSt Control System". If an equivalent system
is to be used, it shall be approved at the Director of �
Community Development prior to operation. �
29. Install, operate, and maintain two (2) dust foggers in the
incominq materials discharge area.'. .
�
30. Install and maintenance of two _(2) dust foggers adjacent to '
the crusher and pulverizer.
i
2
�
}
(, 31. The foggers shall be activated during all materials handing
, and processing operations.
32. To eliminate transport of any dust or dirt.off the site,
prior to exiting, inspect all trucks to make sure the
exteriors are clean. Wash all dusty or dirty trucks prior
to exiting onto Louise Avenue.
33. The project proponent will implement noise control measures
to reduce and/or eliminate the potential for off-site noise
impacts including:
a) Install concrete block walls, eight (8) feet in
height, along the northeast corner of the site and along
Louise Avenue (see approved plqt plan).
b) All site operations, including materials handling and
processing, will be conducted only between the hours of
8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
c) Maintain all crushing and pulverizing equipment in
proper operating condition and operate only as
necessary. Equipment will be shut down as soon as
possible upon completion of processing.
d) Maintain all trucks and vehicles accessing the site in
proper running condition to reduce the potential for
noise impact to the surrounding properties.
e) In order to eliminate noise associated with truck �
i
idling, require incoming and outgoing trucks to turn off j
their engines if and when they are queuinq. �
f) Incoming loads shall be dumped only in the center of the j
site and finished product will be discharged in the '
southern portion of the site only. I
�
g) Pulverizer shall be located on'•the Southwest portion of i
the site.
;
34. The project proponent shall implement measures to screen the �
site operations in order to reduce and/or eliminate the �
potential for off-site visual impacts. These measures shall j
include: ,
, I
a) Repair and maintenance of the existing chain link fence
surrounding the site. �
i
b) Installation of an eight (8') feet concrete block walls
along the northeast corner of the site, and along Louise
Avenue on the eastern boundary of the site. i
c) Installation and maintenance of landscap'ing in �
accordance with an approved landscaping plan. �
CODE ENFORCEMENT I
35. All materials must be enclosed and not visible from public !
right-of-way. . �
36. Noise and dust must be controlled at all times pursuant to �
requirements of the Lynwood Municipal Code.
'
37. No other site, except the subject site, will be used for
materials storage or any other purpose unless written'
approval is obtained by the Material storage or owner of the . �
property. �
i
38. There will be no blockage of Fire Department facilities.or
equipment, i.e. fire hydrant, or the public right-of-way or �
alleys.
, 3 � i
�
i
»
1� PUBLIC WORKS
39. Submit a drainage plan. The.drainage plan will be checked
by the Department of Public Works. No permits will be
issued prior to approval of the drainage plan.
40. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all
off-site improvements.
41. All required water meters, meter service changes and/or fire
protection lines shall be installed by the developer. The
work shall be performed by a licensed contractor hired by
the developer. The contractor must obtain a permit from the �
Public Works/Engineering Division prior to performing any
work.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department has found no cause to establish
conditions under this application.
GENERAL
42. Non compliance with these conditions may result in a
immediate revocation of this approval and'any business
license (s) issued for this use.
i
i
i
. I
� i
t:\spr\spri19
I
i
4
.
I
'� � .. �� ;' ., � .
� ti �f
AUGUST 1,1994
THIS IS A PETITION OF HOMEOWNERS, BUSINESSES�
AND RESIDENTS WHO ARE AGAINST CASE SPR 119
AT 11655 LOUISE AVE.
�3�,y �DiS �Ay �,6zz./� i 6i��i�6i4/i i�Oz�i� b'� �iuiS�
J,��s � . M�
L2is� ���1-q�oy�3�u� 63l-u
`
, ��U�e YIN�LIN�- /l6/BLvv/$� ;Av� �`'��, .
✓��� ir6� S� - /id � �
Cd()/ Sc'" ^ - v -P.
/a� c .e, F��i���fi7 C�a.� /�es' ,D• /<; l�e (oa.a �.c>
i
//6 � ��d,�q ,�o�,s.� a� ty�woo�l � t� .�'� �
/lL y� ��� �s� w�,�� � �- ;
�
��� �"` ��°�
��-�- ,�3 ��. � . - ;
d��°( , �'�. . 9 a�. � 2.
��--� �L �`�Ss�--t� _ - �
�/,� 1.� a�'� ��i�. � !
��w�� Q`�/ 9 � � �z- � ;
�� �.�.�Q,p, The� C�� ef ��y• C� Sy�4 Ca►��14��l� � �!
� U � p � � :; �
��,�-,bpq,,,K.. �-2.�.t-V+ / l 6 •� � Q�c„�,N<.t.L �...L; . - . ,
I
i ,
,
� . . . " . . ' .. . �
1
. ... . _._ _ . . . _.. .. . � i
.
. .. . ... - -- - --�--._ _
..- -
_---_... .. _ -
,.f _
, , v ;� . :
�.
AUGUST 1,1994
THIS ZS A PETITION OF HOMEOWNERS, HUSINESSES� �
AND RESIDENTS WHO ARE AGAINST CASE SPR 119
AT 11655 LOUISE AVE.
`, ,'�L.%t��._..l J�•_!C.^.- �'� l7 ���(iG�.1.Y�'�ai..�� .�yll,<.f.'�r�/C!� IL��i'•./�
G���� �.��� / /' / � / � /�� t � - otE�
' c5�� �� C.iU✓�� dN'd 5 � i� l.�. wai� -l•C�.� /
. �i% j'c-�W�' ��,�G.�_ /�.�i � � ��� �6 � �-�,�'�.y�� �(/e /�/(���JO cA � f'd��1L-
7
1��9wto� Co�%�2 /IG> / �.ov�Sc�`��,L,��NU�oa�qDZG2
�. _
� '
'
�
' �
;
� ;
. '
i
�
i
1
�
•r .
...__-�,:. ., .�:.. ^. +. _ ,
_.. _. _._.. ..... . . . ..� .. . � �
�� �r:.�-�i,_�� �1���f ►��. 3
k.�� DATE: February 14, 1995
j,j TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ���'�� � O• �� �
FROM: - Gary Chicots, Director ,
Community Development De�t �nt
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
Planning Division
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Case No 157 (CUP 1571-
Applicant: Alexander C. Santos
, PROPOSAL:"
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to convert an existing.single family dwelling into a duplex with
an existing detached four (4) car garage at 3200 E1 Segundo
Boulevard in the R-3 (Multi-family Residential) zone.
FACTS:
' 1. Source of Authoritv
Section 25-4.2 of the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance requires that
a Conditional Use Permit be obtained for any residential
development in the R-2 and R-3 (Residential) zones.
2. Prooertv Location '
The site is located on the South side of E1 Segundo
Boulevard between Alpine Avenue and Peach Avenue (see
attached location map}.
3. Propertv size
The site consists of a rectangular shaped lot approximately
11520 square feet in size.
4. Existina Land Use
: The property is developed with a single family dwelling and
a four (4) car qaraqe. The surrounding land uses are as
follows•
North -, Multi-Family Residential
South - Multi-Family Residential
East - Multi-Family Residential
West - Multi-Family Residential
5. Generai Plan and Zonina Designatioris
The General Plan Desiqnation for the subject property is
Mu1ti-Family. The surrounding land use designations are as
follows:
. General Plan Zoning
North - Multi-Family Residential North - R-3
South - Multi-Family Residential South - R-3
East - Multi-Family Residential East - R-3
West - Multi-Family Residential West - R-3
6. Pro�ect Characteristics:
. The_applicant proposes to convert an existing single family
dwelling of approximately 1660 square foot with two (2)
bedrooms, large living room area, kitchen, dinning, utility
and bathroom. There is an existing detached four (4) car
garage to the rear of the property.
� 1 .
�
�� The proposal is to convert the existing dwelling into..a
duplex with an 832 square foot and an 827 square foot unit
respectively. No significant exterior addition is proposed.
Most of the work to be done would be interior. The proposal
would require reconfiguration of the bedrooms, kitchens,
bathroom living room and the elimination of the utility
room. The duplex will then consist of two (2) bedrooms,
living room, one bath, kitchen and a two (2) car garage for
each of the units.
7. Site Plan Review
On December 28, 1994, the Site Plan Review Committee
evaluated the proposed development and recommended approval
to the Planninq Commission, subject to specific conditions
and requirements.
8. Zonina Enforcement History
None of record.
- 9. Public Response
None of record at the time this report was prepared.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
l. Consistency with General Plan
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing
General Plan desiqnation of Multi-Family Residential.
Therefore, granting Conditional Use Permit I�o. 157 will not
adversely affect the General Plan.
2. Site Suitabilitv
The subject property is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed development relative"to the
� proposed density, bulk of the structures, parking, walls,
fences, driveways, and other development features required
by the Zoning Ordinance: Furthermore, the subject property
is adequately served with the required public utilities and
offers adequate vehicular and pedestrian accessibility.
3. Compliance with Development Standards
The proposed development meets all the development'standards
required by the Zoning Ordinance regarding off-street
parking, front, and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage,
height, unit size, and density.
4. Compatibilitv
The proposed project will be located in a neighborhood that
is in substantial transition from single-family to multi-
family residences. However, properties located to the
south, east and west are developed as Multi-Family
Residential. �
5. Conditions of Approval
The proposed project, subject to the conditions recommended
by the Site Plan Review Committee, will not have a negative
effect on the values of the surroundinq properties or
interfere with or endanger the public health, safety or
welfare.
z
:,
f =�
� 6. Benefits to Communitv
The proposed development will add to the City's affordable
housing stock in furtherance of the policies of the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
- 7. Environmental Assessment
The �Community Deyelopment Department Staff has determined
, that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section
15061 B(3) of the State of California Environmental Quality
Act as amended.
RECOMMENDATION: •
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopts the attached Resolution No.- 2537:
1. Certifying that the project is Categorically Exempt
from the provision of the State CEQA Gu-idelines under
Section 15061 b(3). •
2. Approving Conditional Use Permit, Case No. 157, subject
, to the stated conditions and requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
l.. Location Map
2. Resolution No.2537
3. Site. Plan
f:�staFfrpt\cup157 _ ' � �
3
_
_ __
_ _ . --- . .__ _.
��...�:��:x�:�m�: —.�-- _..,._
�.,
�`�.
•� ,
. � • . '��rii
w;
`' J{ '
LOC�ATI�N iUlAP r°�
_ �, 5 y,
;n°�P � � � n %�ti so s � — �
�
dl`lyo �1 �e�< �VENUC $ � ' '� ---_" . .
i ° _ •
• ' � '. •
• � ��; o , °� a �ia ;t. ,.
; UG � . J, �c h �o & M rh �p� ,
. � \, � �" � M r' ` ' � ' b ' . . ` �d/�� � � 4 � ; :
M � � n �
.� i ' �°�(d,.�. '�
' °� a j7 is (,60 \ �' /a �� �' �-'
— n i3 �s n I �� �a . ,. �4u\ d //9 -,, � /3E : �
. . _ r , � � ia�� •� ' � ' ���'6
a g
. jao Y � y,, /,Tj i�.
- -- � \/,'�. � /�/ �q, .
_ �
� i�o A -�� ,.`' �
. - � �ao d � _ � 1e F`f . � ��ly a � 5 � .
i �0 3
s - _ q, �
�� 3e� %a � a zo �zs � a� sa I 1 y � -�r � Y � ,�� Y � ' � y ,
. �� , is u i° . � ` q^ �\ �� .' ^ �/ � ,�;` �V n�� , s � i
i� � ida o \ o �.e I � �y I � "' '�'roi �,� .- �'w�'rp� p �' a'�� � ���
L �[ � c7 �. `� � � ,.,v M��'��' S i . �' .� raa
�L7 l + \ �,:� M r� L,�o ;... �ya , V� ��a°� ��p . �
r' ;f/7/ �iGS � M , - ' �� '' n.ii•�i'w `� ' ". - I � •a ry/ .
"� V . oo � � M R
� 5 1 � t 6l6' 7P6� ` \ ... � ' ��-.��� � U � j = . \ i'4 I �' I 10,. Ly/ �. � / ._ ,( nJ
„. ro /
I � a U �., . ` O .
,---:__ ^-=---�� : � il � �1 \ QI ��� 1 oe x ra .�i LilL � �� � 6 �P
� � ro M � � ro� M ro � �h ?J ,- N e ���; � �
f T9
`° i i 4i s� 15 �" , li��! , � � � �da�� �,'�° �
/9
�� �i � i �� ` �g����g ,BU � �Y �
i i i / , . 1 . q �N ' •�i �
` I � 1 . �-� , u. � � 9T ���$ h� 6��_���,n o b �)' :,w �
� I I � � s , a ..� E �.� � ... i�� ..� ��� n � � .
. 1 1 � � � . ; y (Y> ;i S
R.� . 1 0 ��'1�0 ... „ �� , ,o '
I � � �
$ ;� '. � � /7Ja�f ��. �. if .;" .
3� �
. � . zs o ss �i�.i� se ;^ � !�3?)' /� W
ie To �� � s i � ii�s, :: � s #/ !.'.>
�- � � /6 � -- " r- � �„� . , � a ��� , �
i � o , r , i � � ° l � ai'd' 8�' ° ^ ti / n °� ; , , ,
J � �,
^ �„� . ^ � 9 , � r�ii c° r° � � � r C ' '° `� `�
� . �- � �' i r> � � s:a �x� i� -. . C/ k; �� , �,
- �' � ro ro .� r.� a° . _
� : � $_ _ AVENf/E � ,: ; � . Ws : :. �
,:.� .:. � �� :
i ' . .o� : �. � ��°
o , o` i ryil R:�}� ,,�^ � y �, �� ^/ ni ro �
� � � � � � MI , � / , o�� �.
� N � � �'� � 0. ro ro � �3 � � r ia��Y/So . � � � .
� �ro � � ro ; I� . K-_ � � hyi�'� 'i.l " �6
� : Y_ol �b �� � �j � e'7, 1 � I I � � r �y � ` r
/�o /s o� l9 8 2/ Z �2 ' � - ,�/�'/�3� � k�� \ ./
9 �� � � � � � h'�r �„Fl ; � � .::A �
/)Y�l �^ � � . j . � � ty � �/,� a ra '���ri'
�l
,6 /.7 So/ ' � ,c n (. M
� �74a� ' 2 � �� . z� � a9s .8-:Ji¢,Z ,� , "��,t� '"���;ry
. CT � , • . . �� �,>:./.
- � � ..R � � /9��,� �� n/ n - �o ���.
.. ' • 1j';>:.
� , ' �?.�'tn?': '
. C A S E N 0. � ;','-:;:;
r:.:.:::
.,::..
..::.
....
__._ ____ __.�..�.._.� _._ __ ._ �..� ..._.._..,...___..._....._.
.
a
��
RESOLUTION NO. 2537 �
,�- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF,
THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 157 (CUP 157) TO CONVERT AN
, EXISTING, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO A
DUPLEX WITH A FOUR (4) CAR GARAGE AT 3200
EL SEGUNDO BOULVARD IN THE R-3 (MULTI-FAMILY
, RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Planning Commission, pursuant to law,
on February 14, 1995 conducted a publi•� hearing on the subject
�application; and �
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, considered all pertinent
testimony offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined
that the proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303b of the State
CEQA Guidelines as amended; and
WHEREAS, a Conditional Use Perm.it is required for
residential development in the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential)
zone.
Section l. The Planning Commission hereby finds and
determines as follows:
A. The site of the proposed use is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the structures, parking, walls,
landscaping, driveways and other development features
. required by the Official Zoning Ordinance.
, B. The structures, as proposed,' subject to conditions,
will not have a negative effect on the values of
surrounding properties or interfere with or endanger
_ the public health, safety, or welfare.
C. The s.ite will be deveLoped pursuant to the current
zoning regulations and site plan submitted and.approved
by the Site Plan Review Committee.
D. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not
� adversely affect the General Plan.
'E. The proposed development will add to the City's
affordable housing stock in accord with the policies
, of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood,
based upon the aforementioned findings and determinations, hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit, Case No. 157, provided the
following conditions are observed and complied with at all times:
f:�eso2537 �
1
d
�
. . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable
regulations of the Lynwood Municipal Code, the Uniform
Building Code and the Fire Code and be in substantial
compliance with plans on file with the Community Development
Department.
` 2. . Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or
structures thereon, shall be first reported to the Community
Development Department, Planning Division, for review of
said modifications.
` 3. The applicant shall meet the requirements of all other City
Departments.
4. The applicant and/or his representative shall sign a
Statement of Acceptance stating that he/she has read,
understands, and agrees to all conditions of this resolution
prior to issuance of any building permits.
5. This Condifional Use Permit shall lapse and become void one '
hundred and twenty (120) days after the use permitted has
' been abandoned or has ceased to be actively exercised.
PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS
6. All work shall be performed by a licensed contractor as per
plans, specifications and current cbdes.
7. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Post Office (Lynwood
- main office) to establish the location of mail boxes serving
the proposed development.
. 8. Construction shall commence within (6) months from date
of issuance of building permits.
' 9. Landscaped areas are to be a minimum of twenty-five (25%)
percent of the lot area. �
10. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance
with a detailed plan to be submitted and approved by the
Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits.
The minimum plant material shall be trees and shrubs
combined with ground cover as follows: One (1) five (5)
, gallon shrub for each 100 square feet of landscaped area;
and two (2) fifteen gallon trees for each 500 square feet of
landscaped areas.
11. The required front, rear, and side'yards shall be landscaped
and shall consist predominately of plant materials except
for necessary walks, drives and fences.
12. A minimum two (2) car garage shall be provided for each
, dwelling. A total of four garage parking spaces shall be
provided.
13. A six (6') foot high block wall shall be installed along the
perimeter of the property, except within the twenty (20')
foot front yard setback: In this setback, if built, the wall
shall not exceed a height of four (4') feet measured from
top of curb.
14. No side yard shall be less than five (5') feet.
. 2
:�
�
15. Final building elevations, including material_s of
construction, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Building Official and the Planning Division prior to
issuance of any building permits.
16. Before any building permits shall be issued, the developer
shall pay $1.72 per square foot for residential buildings'to
the Lynwood Unified School District, pursuant to Government
Code Section 53080.
. 17. Al1 driveway and parking areas shall be paved,
18. Acoustical construction materials shall be used throughout
the units to mitigate freeway noise to the standards and
satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division.
19. Residential structures shall have an exterior siding of
brick, stucco, wood, metal, concrete, or other similar
material other than the reflective glossy, polished and/or
rolled-formed type metal siding.
20. Prior to obtaining a building pezmit, the design of any
exterior elevation changes to the building must be approved
by the Director of Community Development or his/her
' designee.
21. All-building elevations shall be architecturally treated in
a consistent manner, including the incorporation within the
side and rear building elevations of some or all of the
, design elements used for the primary (front) facades.
22. All security fences, grills, etc. shall be architecturally
compatible with the design of the subject and adjacent
building. In addition, no security fences, grills, etc.
shall be installed without the prior written approval of the
Director of Community,Development.
23. Air conditioners, heating, cooling ventilation equipment,
, swimming pool pumps and heaters and all other mechanical
devices shall be located within the rear yard or side yards.
Such equipment shall be screened from surrounding properties
and streets and operated so that they do not disturb the
peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents, in
accordance with the City's Noise OYdinance.
24. A cover sheet of approved coriditions must be attached to,
. plans prior to submission to the Building and Safety '
Division.
25. The.owner of the site shall maintain a pro-active approach
to the elimination of graffiti from the structures, fences
and accessory buildings, on a daily basis.
26. For the purpose of providing heating for any dwelling
proposed, only an energy efficient forced air. furnace shall
, be used, and the use of any wall furnace is expressly
prohibited.
" PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
. �
29. Install two (2) 24" box street trees per City of Lynwood
standard in an area determined by the Department of Public
Works. .
30. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all
. off-site improvements.
3
i
�
� FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department found no cause to establish conditions for
this application.
• Section 3. A copy of this resolution shall be delivered •
to the applicant.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1995,
by members of the Planninq Commission voting as follows:
AYES: �
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Carl'ton McMiller, Chairperson
, APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gary C. Chicots, Director Michele Beal Bagneris
Community Development Department Deputy City Attorney
f�i\resolutn:reso2537 �
. 4
�� 3
� ��. �� ; �::, �� !:?:�1 I �i� t i'Ji �� u .
��� � DATE: February 14, 1995 ��� � ��. � � � ���
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Gary Chicots, Director �
Community Development De�tment
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
Planning Division
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Case No. 157 (CUP 1571
Applicant: Alexander C. Santos
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to convert an existing single family dwelling into a duplex with
an existing detached four (4) car garage at 3200 E1 Segundo
Boulevard in the R-3 (Multi-family Residential) zone.
FACTS:
1. Source of Authoritv
Section 25-4.2 of the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance requires that
a Conditional Use Permit be obtained for any residential
. development in the R-2 and R-3 (Residential) zones.
2. Propertv Location '
The site is located on the South side of E1 Segundo
Boulevard between Alpine Avenue and Peach Avenue (see
attached location map).
3. Propertv size
The site consists of a rectangular shaped lot approximately
, 11520 square feet in size.
4. Existinq Land Use
The property is developed with a single family dwelling and
a four (4) car garage. The surrounding land uses are as
follows:
North - Multi-Family Residential
South - Multi-Family Residential
East - Multi-Family Residential
West - Multi-Family Residential
5. General Plan and Zoninq Desiqnatiorrs
' The General Plan Designation for the subject property is
Multi-Family. The surrounding land use designations are as
follows:
General Plan Zoning
North - Multi-Family Residential North - R-3
South - Multi-Family Residential South - R-3
East - Multi-Family Residential East - R-3
West - Multi-Family Residential West - R-3
6. Pro�ect Characteristics:
The applicant proposes to convert an existing sinqle family
dwelling of approximately 1660 square foot with two (2)
bedrooms, large living room area, kitchen, dinning, utility
and bathroom..There is an existing detached four (4) car
garage to the rear of the property.
1
,
`
I
�
;� The proposal is to convert the existing dwelling into..a
`� duplex with an S32 square foot and an 827 square foot unit
respectively. No significant exterior addition is proposed.
Most of the work to be done would be interior. The proposal
would require reconfiguration of the bedrooms, kitchens,
bathroom living room and the elimination of the utility
room. The duplex will then consist of two (2) bedrooms,
livinq room, one bath, kitchen and a two (2) car garage for
each of the units.
7. Site Plan Review
On December 28, 1994, the Site Plan Review Committee
evaluated the proposed development and recommended approval
to the Planning Commission, subject to specific conditions
and requirements.
8. Zoninq Enforcement History
None of record.
9. Public Response
None of record at the time this report was prepared.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
l. Consistency with General Plan
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing
General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential.
Therefore, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 157 will not
adversely affect the General Plan.
2. Site Suitabilitv
The subject property is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed development relative to the
proposed density, bulk of the structures, parking, walls,
fences, driveways, and other development features required
by the Zoning Ordinance: Furthermore, the subject property
is adequately served with the required public utilities and
offers adequate vehicular and pedestrian accessibility.
3. Compliance with Development Standards
The proposed development meets all the development'standards
required by the Zoning Ordinance regarding off-street
parking, front, and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage,
height, unit size, and density.
4. Compatibility
The proposed project will be located in a neighborhood that
is in substantial transition from single-family to ,multi-
family residences. However, properties located to the
south, east and west are developed as Multi-Family
Residential. �
5. Conditions of Approval
The proposed project, subject to the conditions recommended
by the Site Plan Review Committee, will not have a negative
effect on the values of the surrounding properties or
interfere with or endanger the public health, safety or
welfare.
Z
.,+
i�� �
' 6. Benefits to Communitv
The proposed development will add to the City's affordable
housing stock in furtherance of the policies of the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
7. 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 as amended.
RECOMMENDATION: •
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopts the attached Resolution No.- 2537:
1. Certifying that the project is Categorically Exempt
from the provision of the State CEQA Guidelines under
Section 15061 b(3).
2. Approving Conditional Use Permit, Case No. 157, subject
to the stated conditions and requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Resolution No.2537
3. Site Plan
f:\staffrpt\cup157 ,
3
_ .
_ .. . - -- --. ... . . _..
_..---- _----------
, �.... ,�..;-..�_.-�._._._...__------._.... —� ---
z._..._ �..x��;:.
_ _ ....... . . . ____� �
. - ��.�,,,�.
%�;'w
LO�CATION� MAP ��� � � '''�'
�
���,p _ T � � `il 30 - ___
M � SO�
dl'lya �S �zc �VENUC 8 � � J�,� .
� � . �""QC . _'-.. •
. ' '. ' V � / ;'':: ;.,"'
, � �!l O iQ � P �/ f.;:
. UG � � J_ ,a c� � St i"o �� . � ' `�����P
� � v ^ M M � . . d . . , /d� i \ d y .� ; ,.
` � � � � / �� ���',:/
M
� ri �' � 1 J' � � �� ���t � ��
_ � �s v ( „ 2 'w, �'�' °''�P. ��� . � .:
o c u � \ai� ' :iA� i .., /31:;:i:.:
7ao y \ ia��.� �'' �.>� ' .%w. 6 9: �:ic:.
. .;•;
-- - — - �"'� ��i3 � �� '''' � ::
. i,a, R - _.. ;• __
.
k � �aiay j .
- �aa d �/ F � � ' q ^. ` � O \ ;-' .
� ^ I e iao �)�y 5 i ?.
i. �is �� S � a zo �iz � z� se � 1 M1 �-nwr_ ,�� 4�( 'S � ,�y�� A : � ', ���.
t< y `:' ii
— IO I . \ � . � � � �y . � ii%�i:'
� . � ,:ii.,��.
/I h !�
'� x 0 0 0 �` � b o ro �j ��yi R � 9 � �P n ' , �c,�o� � �'� .u^�� I �'c'< ; : :: : �,
l� �a \ � o� ' �m I"a ` ���I� "�e i; so.� 4.
M ����� IM. h
� ` w� — � `� �„� ^ o !'� �S.ro . .::�.... , i r ^'� ,� �l � �q . �
� S ;,. a'D� � b �� .
�-as 3iai ���a M M . ' ' r � , n.p•nW I sM M a
u 1 S � 73 6[6' 7P6' �M1.� O V. v� v� Ba / �0 10,. Cs / p n J
' �, � ..L�J � "-�'�r" � j • � ?'y i5j0� ;' / �
� � �
_�— ^�— ` i �y. �e �� � °.�� c.�i ^ °� � ' � c�"'o �1 L�+� � F ���6 $
� T 1 � ro ro�i M Ka ` �' � � ��z9 � ...;`� ., e � � o � �
� � �
c 'i 4 �� 1J as �- ; /7a�r . � s � id� � �o /
I � �9 � � � , �g� — $ , x. � �' �
�� � �s � �. i�_'.�_�, : ev `� .
i i � �D�t7,y ' .� ,�?
i � i / , W 1 •
� � i �.,^; 0 3 v 1� b
� � , . �� . 9.�-k 3. x ,. ,,.:
i � i � . _ , � �.. ;� ..: � �, M n. o / q b � .
I � . , � ' k � 7 ��lp � rp � ra / 3� ' � . '.
a`ii.s
� pt � . ' . � � M :'i .i i
R c , . � 0 1�3�1 i� io �
. � y �_� o �J � , Y•;';,_,
� ` � : �. ��;:.;,
t � �>> a'd S;'� ': ;
. - h Z ,� ` p 16 �S.it 10 �i. ' !?3�)� a / � ` � •
3,I y
ia �° 70 �� � X '� � i�is::` �+��� -,.
�� ` � ia r c � :
� �__- 1 \ 1y o � i�� ai+� d+ ��� �e� .,
� �� �„� . �J � ��'2 ro r) o ,' �, \'b`h �, rj ,;�N r.
� j.. a � �" ��`oi co M w�' :< s �r� i� � - �., �l'Q[/�y��. _ � �,
ro ro . i � xs .. .._��
� � : � �_ "' AVENUE � i:.3 ' : . . �, ,
�
�I >:.r i � - Q 1'�1 R ��/O�ioo �^ . . , ��oo7d� j. / ry ��, � M �; � .
� . � 0� 1 rol � $ � �� � � M/
' ��i \ o o I � a ro c° j M�M a� r- 7 yi' � l �: ��.�, '. r..
6 N � '� � v � K%o6 �� � � .R.
ol rb r° �J C� ro t 1� .� ��5,� � :.��:�:����' �a
.4 �� . f ��1 2 / IJ e^ ?� Ip � � N; �� �y ��;n�
ii � ° is o ry � � I 1 /.W�3� � � �i9�?i � `
9 /� � 8 i � :�i/4C 'r i ' �...� .
�^ � � I � 5 ,h � :,'; �,.,.
�/3VIi G 1 � �o
` I . y M , , +�,�/ i n ..,���n
1 �i. /I So/ Y P • �� ^�
�74J� � � rs iaif ..�'Jia7'_: '��,t� •M�;❑
� � . � . �. . '�' ^ . . � . : `f� ��.:-:./.
e� ; o
� � y ..R � . �veu_ -" .G��+� n/ . n "���''e�
' ' ;'.:'�.`:. .
CASE N0. � ;`
- . • 4��:.�:J .
.: u
� _�..,....._�._....�.�wq�.w���...-.,.�..�..�.�...�.n.n�rn �+�w�w�.+�...w.�w�+w�.��....�� ....�...v�...,. _ .. . �.. .
a
��
RESOLUTION N0. 2537
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 157 (CUP 157) TO CONVERT AN
EXISTING, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO A
DUPLEX WITH A FOUR (4) CAR GARAGE AT 3200 �
EL SEGUNDO BOULVARD IN THE R-3 (MULTI
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE, LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Lynwood Planning Commission, pursuant to law,
on February 14, 1995 conducted a publi•� hearing on the subject
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning.Commission, considered all pertinent
testimony offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined
that the proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303b of the State
CEQA Guidelines as amended; and
WHEREAS, a Conditional Use Permit is required for
residential development in the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential)
zone.
Section l. The Planning Commission hereby finds and
determines as follows:
A. The site of the proposed use is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the structures, parking, walls,
landscaping, driveways and other development features
required by the Official Zoning Ordinance.
� B. The structures, as proposed,' subject to conditions,.
will not have a negative effect on the values of
surrounding properties or interfere with or endanger
the public health, safety, or welfare.
C. The site will be developed pursuant to the current
zoning regulations and site plan submitted and.approved
by the Site Plan Review Committee.
D. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not
adversely affect the General Plan.
E. The proposed development will add to the City's
affordable housing stock in accord with the policies
of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood,
based upon the aforementioned findings and determinations, hereby
approves Conditional Use Permit, Case No. 157, provided the
following conditions are observed and complied with at all times:
f:reso2537
1
d
�� .. ' . ' � � .
, . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
l. The proposed development shall comply with a11 applicable
- regulations of the Lynwood Municipal Code, the Uniform
Building Code and the Fire Code and be in substantial
, compliance with plans on file with the Community Development
Department.
2. Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or
structures thereon, shall be first reported to the Community
Development Department, Planning Division, for review of
- said modifications.
3. The applicant shall meet the requirements of all other City
Departments.
4. The applicant and/or his representative shall sign a
Statement of Acceptance stating that he/she has read,
understands, and agrees to a1T conditions of this resolution
- prior to issuance of any building permits.
5. This Conditional Use Permit shall lapse and become void one
hundred and twenty (120) days after the use permitted has
' been abandoned or has ceased to be actively exercised.
, PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS
6. All work shall be performed by a licensed contractor as per
plans, specifications and current cbdes.
' 7. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Post Office (Lynwood
main office) to establish the location of mail boxes serving
the proposed development.
8. Construction shall commence within (6) months from date
of issuance of building permits.
9. Landscaped areas are to be a minimum of twenty-five (25%)
. percent of the lot area.
, 10. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance
' with a detailed plan to be submitted and approved by the
Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits.
The minimum plant material shall be trees and shrubs
combined with ground cover as follows: One (1) five (5)
gallon shrub for each 100 feet of landscaped area;
and two (2) fifteen gallon trees for each 500 square feet of
landscaped areas.
' 11. The required front, rear, and side'+yards shall be landscaped
and shall consist predominately of plant materials except
for necessary walks, drives and fences.
12. A minimum two (2) car garaqe shall be provided for each
dwelling. A total of four garage parking spaces shall be
' provided.
13.. A six (6') foot high block wall shall be installed along the
perimeter of the property, except within the twenty (20')
foot front yard setback. In this setback, if built, the wall
shall not exceed a height of four (4') feet measured from
top of curb. .
14. No side yard shall be less than five (5') feet.
z
,
�
15. Final building elevations, iricluding materials of
construction, shall be submitted to and approved by the
Building Official and the Planning Division prior to
issuance of any building permits.
16. Before any building permits shall be issued, the developer
shall pay $1.72 per square foot for residential buildings to
the Lynwood Unified School District, pursuant to Government
Code Section 53080.
17. All driveway and parking areas shall be paved.
18. Acoustical construction materials shall be used throughout
the units to mitigate freeway noise to the standards and
satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division.
19. Residential structures shall have an exterior siding of
brick, stucco, wood, metal, concrete, or other similar
material other than the reflective glossy, polished and/or
rolled-formed type metal siding.
20. Prior to obtaining a building pe�rmit, the design of any
exterior elevation changes to the building be approved
by the Director of Community Development or his/her
designee.
21. Al1 building elevations shall be architecturally treated in
a consistent manner, including the incorporation within the
side and rear building elevations of some or all of the
desiqn elements used for the primary (front) facades.
22. All security fences, grills, etc. shall be architecturally
compatible with the design of the subject and adjacent
building. In addition, no security fences, grills, etc.
shall be installed without the prior written approval of the
� Director of Community Development.
23. Air conditioners, heating, cooling ventilation equipment,
swimming pool pumps and heaters and all other mechanical
devices shall be located within the rear yard or side yards.
Such equipment shall be screened from surroundinq properties
and streets and operated so that they do not disturb the
peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents, in
accordance with the City's Noise OYdinance.
24. A cover sheet of approved conditions must be attached to
plans prior to submission to the Building and Safety '
Division.
25. The owner of the site sha11 maintain a pro-active approach
to the elimination of graffiti from the structures, fences
and accessory buildings, on a daily basis.
26. For the purpose of providing heating for any dwelling
proposed, only an energy efficient forced air furnace shall
be used, and the use of any wall furnace is expressly
prohibited.
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
29. Install two (2) 24" box street trees per City of Lynwood
standard in an area determined by the Department of Public
Works.
30. A permit from the Engineering Division is required for all
off-site improvements.
3
�
� FIRE DEPARTMENT
. The Fire Department found no cause to establish conditions for
this application.
Section 3. A copy of this resolution shall be delivered
to the applicant.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1995,
by members of the Planning Commission voting as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Carlrton McMiller, Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gary C. Chicots, Director Michele Beal Bagneris
Community Development Department Deputy City Attorney
f : �resolum: resd537 � �
4
� �,i f� �' � 1
?�` h�r{ E, i s���ti i':'ll.
`, DATE: . February 14, 1995 •
, r, •-
�i . �; �,� � IV J. 'Z
TO: Planning Commission
�FROM: Gary Chicots, Director ��%�. � ,
Community Development 6epartment
SUBJECT: Zoninq Ordinance Amendment No. 39
" Applicant: Mr. Min Chae
PROPOSAL
The applicant has proposed an amendment to Chapter 25 of the
Official Zoning Ordinance in order to allow off liquor
esCablishments in multiple tenant retail centers. The applicant
' has also filed;applications to modify his existing Conditional
Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages (CUP 31m) in
a multiple tenant retail center and to approve the sale of
alcoholic beverages in an existing multiple tenant facility (CUP
144).
. FACTS . �
Section 25-35.3 0.6. of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the sale
of alcoholic beverages in the multiple tenant retail centers,
except in a bona fide restaurant. The applicant wishes to sell
alcoholic beverages in the Market Place, a multiple tenant retail
center at 3100 E. Imperial Highway and has filed the necessary
applications for ordinance amendments and Conditional Use
' Permits.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
One of the purposes of Section 25-35 of the Zoning Code is to
insure public safety and security within multiple retail tenant
facilities. Multiple tenant retail uses such as the Market
Place, can be places for anti social behavior when alcohol can be
purchased and consumed on the pxemises without supervision or
control.
A multiple tenant retail center is different from the typical
off-sale,alcoholic beverage store. The operator of a typical
liquor store receives customer who make purchases and leave the
premises. In addition, such customers can easily be monitored
during the time of service. In a multa�le tenant retail center,
the customer can make a purchase and remain on_the premise,and
has many locations where they can consume alcoholic beverages
unobserved. The applicant, the co-operator of the Market Place,
_ has stated that security for the retail center is in place and
adequate to protect and.customers. �
The Sheriff's Department, in a letter dated March 21, 1994,
`opposed this applicant's request to establish a liquor store at
this location (see Exhibit I). The Department stated that a
' high crime rate exists in and around the premises and
- Department indicated that the proposed use could contribute to
the already excessive crime rate in the area.
As indicated in the Sheriff's letter, there are a number of other
- standard type liquor stores in the vicinity of the Market Place
where liquor can be'purchased if desired. There appears to be no
need for this facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Director of Community Development has determined that the
project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
as amended. •
_ �
f�:\planning\ioa\zoa39 � �
1
� �
RECOMMENDATION:
k �
l . % . .. . . . . .
Y Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
' Planning Commission deny this proposed amendment. If the
Commission wishes to consider approval of this request, direct
F staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for consideration at the'
next meeting. •
Attachments:
l. EXHIBIT T, Sheriff's letter, dated March 21, 1994.
2. BXHIBIT II, Excerpts froin the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance.
� � f\planning\zoa\zoa39 � -
" 2
, .
s�#
�
COUNTY OF LAS ANGELES
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
OPP[CE COARESPONOBNCE
Date: March 21, 1994
C�L��:� .
FROM: CAROLE . MAN,,CAP IN TO: EMILIO M. MURGA
COMMANDER, TURY STATION DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: CUP 143 & CUP 144
I have reviewed the attached request for a conditional use permit
to sell alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption at the "Market
Place of Lynwood". The Los Anqeles County Sheriff's Department
wishes to protest the issuance of such permit. This protest is
based on the high crime rate in the vicinity of the, premises,
including Part I Offenses and street gang activity. In addition,
considerinq the high number of licensed premises in the area, it
would seem that another one does not serve any demonstrable need to
the community. Instead, it would most likely contribute to the
already excessive crime rate which our Department and community are
now subjected to.
_ CAF:HWG:hq
.
d .
2900-3go0 /M/? fll,Uy
'� ReportDate Nw,..,er Street Classificatio� Date
�9 EndDav
� � 3-t0796-2[12-077 8/30/93 2934 IMPERIALH4VY Burglary (Business,oth.)-459PC 8/28/93 -8/30/!
3-10931•2;12-389 9/2/93 2934 IMPERIALHWY Petty Theft (Other)-488PC gi1/g3 _y�Z�y �
93-10650-2:12-340 8/26/93 2971 IMPERIALHWY Burglary (Auto)-459PC 8/26i93 -00/00
94-02325•2'11-071 1/31/94 3000 1MPERIALHWY Burglary (Business,oth.)-459PC 1/30/94 -��30/!
93-11423-2!12-038 9/15/93 3100 IMPERIALHVNY CARJACKING 9l13/93 -00/00
� 94-05782-2'11-042 3/15/94 3100 IMPERIALHWY Robbery (Strongarm)-211PC 3/75/94 -00/00
94-05158-2'11-051 3/7/94 3100 IMPERIALHWY ADW (Gun)-245(A)(2)PC 3/4/94 -00/00
94-07569-2'it•052 1/20/94 3100 IMPERIALHWY ADW (Knife)-245(A)(1)pC 1/20/94 -00/00
94-00170-2'it•052 1/3/94 3100 IMPERIALHVVY ADW (Knife)-245(A)(1)pC 7/3/94 -00/00
93-08255-2:12-053 6/30/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY ADW (Other Wpn)-245(A)(1)PC 6/30/93 -00/00
93-11554•2!12-082 9/16/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Gr. Theft(PurseSnatch)•487.2PC 9/16/93 -00/00
93-14275-2:13•083 11/18/93 3100 IMPERIALHVYY Grand Theft (Shoplift)-487.1PC 11/18/g3-00/00
93-13019-2:12•083 10/22/93 3100 JMPERIALHWY Grand Theft (Shoplift)-487.1PC 10/21/93-00/00
93-09318-2;16-089 7/26/93 3100 IMPERUILHWY Grand Theft (Other)•487.1PC 7/26/93 -00/00
94•02747-2'11-091 2/4/94 3100 IMPERIALHyyy Grend Thefl Auta487haPC 2/4/94 -2/4/9
94-03387-2'11-091 2/72/g4 3100 IMPERIALHVyy GrandTheftAuto-48�haPC 2/�p�gq _p��2�
94-03335-2�11-091 2/11 /g4 3100 IMPERIALHWy Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 3/10/94 -3/10/!
94-03333•2'11-091 2/11ig4 3100 .1MPEFIALHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 2/11/gq -p/i t�t
94-02244-2'17-0911/2g/g4 3100 IMPERIALHWY GrandTheftAuta487haPC 1/29/94 -00/00 _
94-01334•2'11-091 1/18/94 3100 IMPERIALHVVY Grand The(t Auto-487haPC 1/18/g4 -i/18/!
94-00728-2'12-091 t/10/94 3100 IMPERIALHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 1/10/94 -00/00
93-16064•2;12-091 12/2g/g3 3100 IMPERIALHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 12/29/93-12/29
93-15528-2;12-091 12/16/93 3100 IMPERIALHVVY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 12/16/93-12/18
93-15259-2!12-091 12/q0/93 3100 IMPER�ALHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 12/10/93-12/t0
93-14328-2;13-091 it/19/g3 3100 IMPERIALHWY GrandTheftAuto-487haPC ����g�g3_����g
93-14412-2;12-091 11/21/93 3700 IMPERIALHWY GrandTheftAuto-487haPC 11/20/93-11/20
93•12753-2!12•091 10/15/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 10/13/93-10/15'
93-10963•2!14-091 9/2/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Grend Theft Auto-487haPC 9/2/93 -00/00 '
93-t0818•2!12-091 8/30/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Grand Thett Auto-487haPC 8/30/93 -00/00 �
�,93-09587-2;12-091 B/t/93 3100' �MPERIALHWIY Grend.TheftAuta487haPC 00/00/00-00/00
93-06917-2;13-091 8/2/g3 3100 IMPERUILHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 8/2/93 -8/2/9
93-08924-2;12-091 7/16/93 3100 IMPERIALHVW Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 7/16/93 -7/16/!
93-08523-2�;13-091 7/9/83 3100 IMPEFiIALHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 7/7/93 -7/7/9
94-01354-2 11-093 1/18/94 3100 IMPERWLHWY Grand Theft Truck-487haPC 1/18/94 -00/00
93-12543-2;12-093 10/10/93 3100 IMPEqIALHyyy Grand Theft Truck-487haPC 10/10/93-00/00
94-04728-2•11.150 3/1/9'4 3100 IMPERLqLhIWy Carry Concid. Firearm-12025bPC 3/1/94 -00/00
94-02311-2'11•150 7/30/94 3100 IMPERIIILFIWy Carry Concld. Firearm-12025bPC t/30/94 -00/00
94-01720-2'12-150 1/22/94 310Q IWIPERIAIMWy Carry Concld. Firearm-12025bPC 1/22/94 -00/00
94-00087-2�11-150 1/2/94 3100 IMPERWLHWY Carry Concld. Firearm-12025bPC 1/2/94 -00/00
93-15045•2:12-t50 12/5/93 3100 IMpERL4LHWY Carry Concld. Firearm-12025bPC 12/5/93 -00/00
93-12906-2:12•150 10/18/93 3700 IMPERIA�MWy Carry Coneld. Firearm-12025bPC 10/18/93-00/00
93-12847-2;12•150 10l17/93 3100 IMPERIA�HWy Carry Concid. Firearm-12025bPC 10/i7/93-00/00
3 3-17920-2;12-150 9/25/93 3100 ' IMPERWLHVW Carry Concld. Ftrearm-12025bPC 9/25/93 -00/00
33-11915•2:14-750 9/25/93 3100 IAAPERU1LHyW Carry Concld. Ftrearm=12025bPC 9/25/93 -00/00
�3•1°1335-2:12-150 9/11/g3 3100 IMpERIALHyyy Carry Concid. Firearm-12025bPC 9/11/93 -00/00 •
�3-10742-2:12-150 8/27/93 3100 IMPERL4LHWY CARRYIN(3ACONC.FIREARAA 8/28/93 -00/00
�3-10474-2:12-150 8/22/93 3100 IMPERIIILHyyy Carty Concld. Firearm-12025bPC 00/00/00-00/00
�3-10137-2;12•150 8/14/93 3100 IMPEqW�HyyN Carry Concld. F(rearm•12025bPC 8/14/93 -00/00
. ..
��l�iV ReportDate Nw...,er Street Ciassification BegDate EndDad
f �94•01359-2'12-444 1/i9/94 2900 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Suspicious Circumstances 1/19/94 -00/00
93-08780-2:12-034 7/13/93 2901 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Robbery (Armed)-2/1PC 7/13/93 -00/00
94-04807-2'11-071 3/2/94 2901 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Burglary (Business,oth.)-459PC 3/2/94 -3/2/9
94-02348-2'1 1-071 iJ31 /94 2901 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY Burglary (Business,oth.)•459PC 1/31 /94 -00/00
V 94-05035-2'11-261 3/5/94 2901 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Vandatism (<$1000)-594b3PC 3/4/94 -3/5/9
92-49721-1;12-732 9/10/93 2983 . IMPERIALHIGHWAY Vehicle/Boat Recov. (LASD Jur) 9/10/93 -00/00
94-04T82-2�11-733 2/22/94 3000 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Vehicle/Boat Recov.(Other Jur) 2/22/94 -00/00
93-12237-2!12-038 10/5/93 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY ROBBERY-ARMED211P.C. 10/2/93 -00/00
`,94-02877-2'11-089 2/6/94 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Grand Thett (Other)-487.1PC 2/6/94 -00/00
93•14578-2:12•091 11/25/93 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY, Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 00/00/00-00/00
93-09038-2:16•143 7/19/93 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Assault(NonAgr,OthWeap)-417aPC 7/18/93 -00/00
- 93-14225-2!12-150 11/17/93 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Carry Concid. Firearm•12025bPC 11/17/93-00/00
93-13189-2!12-150 10/24/93 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Carry Concld. Firearm-12025bPC 10/24/93-00/00
93•09714-2;12-150 8/4/93 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Carry Concld. Firearm-12025bPC 8/4/93 -00/00
93•10090-2!13-290 8/13/93 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Receive Stolen Prop.-496JPC 8/13/93 -00/00 -
93-09075-2!13-384 7/20/93 3100 IMPERIAIHIGHWAY Petty TheR (From Auto)-488PC 7/19/93 -7/19/!
94•04079-2'11-733 2/21/94 3100 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Vehicle/8oat Recov:(Other Jur) 2/21/g4 -00/00
93-11710-2:13,034 9/20/93 3126 iMPERIALHIGHWAY Robbery (Armed)-211PC 00/00/00-00/00
93-14349-2;12-150 it/20/93 3147 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Carry Concid. Firearm-12025bPC 11/20/93-00/00
93-J0282-2:12-251 8/18/93 ' 3167 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Hit & Run (Felony)-20001VC 8/18/93 -00/00
94-01127-2'11-041 1/15/94 3181 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Robbery (Strongarm)-211PC 1/15/94 -00/00
94-00295-2'11-150 1/5/94 3/81 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Carry Concid. Firearm•12025bPC 1/5/94. -00/00
94-02290•2'11-399 1/30/94 3181 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Misdemeanor (Other) 1/30/94 -00/00
� 93-13977-2!12•399 11/11/93 3181 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Misdemeanor (Other) it/11l93-00/00
93-15236-2:12-120 12/9/93 3197 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Sex Crimes Against Child-288PC 12/4/93 -00/00
93-14795-2:12-243 11/30/93 3200 IMPERIALHIGHWAY DUI (Alc above.l0%)•23152bVC 11/30/93-00/00
93-14077-2:t2-733 11/14/93 3200 IMPERWLHIGHWAY Vehicle/Boat Reeov.(Other Jur) 11/14/93-00/00
93-08771-2:12-031 7/13/93 32t5 IMPERIALHIGHWAY Robbery (Armed)-211PC 7/12/93 -00/00
93-14893-2:12-041 12/1/93 3215 IMPERUILHIGHWAY Robbery (Strongarm)-211PC 12%1/93 -00/00 •
94-01886•2'i t-071 1/25/94 3220 IMPER44L HIGHWAY Burglary (Businesa,oth.)-459PC 1/24/94 -00/00
93-15665•2:13-03912/20/93 3300 IMPERIALHIGHWAY 211PCCARJACKING-ROBBERY 00/00/00-00/00
,
.' ..
�
t � U�J ReportDate N�,.,oer Street Classification BegDate EndDaL
,� 93-09540-2:12•251 7/31/93 3t00 IMPERIALHWY Hit 8 Run (Felony)-20001VC 7/31ig3 —OOi00
94-01691-2'11-290 1/22/94 3100 1MPERIALHYVY Receive Stolen Prop.-496.1PC 1/22/94 —00/00
93•15704•2!12-290 12/20/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Receive Stolen Prop.-496.1PC 12/20/93-00/00
, 93•15128-2:12-290 12/7/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Receive Stolen Prop.-496.1PC 11/17/g3-00/00
93-15013-2!12-290 12/4/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Receive Stolen Prop.•496.1PC 12/4/93 —00/00
' 94•03848•2'11-340 2/18/94 3100 IMPERIALHWY Burglary (Auto)-459PC 2/18/94 —00/00
94-00039•2'11-340 1/1/94 3100 IMPERIAIHVHY Burglary (Auto)-459PC 1/1/94 —00/00
93-11609-2;12-383 9/17/93 3100 JMPERIALHWY Petty Theft (Shoplift)-488PC 9/17/g3 -g/�7/!
93-15596-2:12-399 12/18/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Misdemeanor (Other) 00/00/00-00/00
94•03923-2'11•442 2/19/94 3100 IMPERIALHWY Property LosVFound/Recovered 2/18/g4 —00/00
. 93-14532-2!12-503 11/24/93 3100 IMPERIALHWY Stolen/LosVFound LieensePlate 00/00/00-00/00
93•15086•2:16-091 12/6/93 3101 IMPERIALHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC 12/6/93 —12/8/!
93-i5395-2:12-38712/13/93 3161 IMPERIALHWY Petty Theft (From Bldg.)-488PC 12/13/93-00/00 "
93-121-02-2:12-031 9/29/93 3165 . IMPERUILHVW Robbery (Armed)-211PC 9/29/99 -00/00
94-03830-2�11-503 2/7/94 3165 IMPERIALHWY StoleMLosVFound LicensePlate 2/7/94 —2/18/!
93•11928-2:12-038 9/25/93 3181 IMPERIALHWY GTA/ROBBERY 9/25/93 —00/00
93-13722-2;12-052 11/5/93 3181 IMPERIALHWY ADW (Knite)-245(A)(1)PC 11/4/93 —00/00
93-15530-2!13-091 12/18/93 3181 IMPEAIALHWY Grand Theft Auto-487haPC /2/17/93-00/0�
93-13034-2:12-399 10/21/93 3181 IMPERIALHWY Misdemeanor (Other) _ 10/21/93-00/00
93-49286-1;11-732 1/15/94 3181 IMPERIALHWY Vehicle/Boat Recov. (LASD Jur) 1/15/94 —00/00
93-15018-2:12-181 12/4/93 3189 IMPERIALHWY Poss/Sales Cont. Subs-1135xHS 12/4/93 —00/00
94-03038-2'11-032 2/7/94 3199 IMPERIALHVW Robbery (Armed)-211PC 2%7/94 —00/00
94-00647-2'71-091 1/9/94 3200 iMPERIALHWY Grand The1t Auto•487haPC 1/9/94 —t/9/S
93-13340•2:12-031 10/27/93 3215 IMPERIALHWY Robbery (Armed)-211PC 10/27/93-00/00
93•10507-2!12-033 8/23/93 3215 IMPERIALHWY Robbery (Armed)-211PC 8/22/93 —00/00
93-10718•2:12-034 8/27/93 3215 IMPERIALHVW Robbery (Armed)-211PC 8/27/93 —00/00
94-04197-2�11-037 2/22/94 3215 IMPERIALHWIY Robbery (Armed)-211PC 2/22/94 —00/00
93-15176-2:12-048 12/8/93 3215 IMPERIALHWY ROBBERY/GTA-CARJACKING-211 12/6/93 —00/00
- 93•11044•2:12-057 9/5/93 3215 IMPERIALHVW ADW (Gun)-245(A)(2)PC 9/4/93 —00/00
94-00494-2'12-399 1/7/94 3215 IMPERIALHVN1f Misdemeanor (Other) 1/7/94 —00l00
93-15214-2:12-399 12/9/93 3215 IMPERIALHWY Misdemeanor (Other) 12/9/93 —00/00
' 93-14273•2!12-399 it/18/93 3215 IMPERIALHWY Misdemeanor(DFiINKINGINPU6LIC) 00/00/00-00/00
93-13038-2!12-399 10/21/93 3215 IMPERIALHVW Misdemeanor (Other) 10/21/93-00/00
.
94-00551-2�17-091 1/8/94 3220 IMPERWLMNY GrandTheftAuto-487haPC 1/8/94 —1/8/9
'
,, �
�� .
� �
��:�:E�i�r°r . � � �
EXCERPTS.FROM_TF{E LYNWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE
" � �.'-�-:� �IL�LTIPLE TEN,�'�T RETAIL CENTERS.
� =5-Sal Pnr�ose. �The purposes of,this section are the fcl'lo���r.;:
' � a Tb promote quality development multiple tenant retail centers ir the Ci:��
o: L;::.�obc; .
b. To maintain collection of sales and business license t2xes from �
within these centers;
c. To protect the safety of the public by investigaLing th�ose who � ppl�� to be- �
cor�:e operators of these uses, by requiring that a minimum level of security be pro-
��iced, and by requiring that vendors accept de£ective merchandise for re:urL;
d. To protect the heaith, safety and welfare of the public by proiibit:ng the
sale of certain items and requiring certain documentation of purchases;
e. To protect neighboring properties by requiring a standard for property
- des;gn and control of noise and light emanating from these centers, by requiring a
high staadard for on•site parking, and by limiting hours of business.
� . � lOrd. A�o. 1292, §7.�) � �
2i352 Conditional 1 P rmi . R Q iu red• A Conditional Use Per:�it must
be obtained before any building may be used in whole or in part as a mul:iple tenant
� ietail center. (Ord. No. 1292, §7J �
23-35.3 Deve!'opment Standards
o. Prohibited items.. It is unlawful for any person to sell, exchange, barter,
nr tr�de the follo�ving items of personal property at a multi-tenant retail center.
1. Used property, other than items which may be sold at an "antique
, s;ore" as defined in Section 25-2 of this Ccde.
_ 2. I'irearms, ammunition, explosives, firew�rks, or other weaponry. � '
3. .�ny item o£ nersonal pro?ert}� from which the senal numberor
icer.tify�ng number had been remo�ed.
4. any item of personal propertp which requires a special permit from
the City of L�mwood, County of Los �ngeles, State of California, or other gov-
ernment body when such permit hac not been obtained and displayed in the
�e?dor sales area.
�. Any item of personal propert}� whose sale is prohibited by law or is
noi permitted at the location of the � endor sales area.
6. Alcoholic beverages excep; in bona fide restaurant pursuant to
O� \o. 2127.
` 7. Auto parts, oil or similar �luids, hubcaps, wheels, batteries or tires.
<� . . ' � !��r'l (�q � '` � .�
� . . ` -- ; � � 111 �;
r, ,. �_ ; u �. ,� ; ! �� ; a v ,
DATE: February 14, 1995 Q
`�, TO: PLANNING COMMISSION � ���• ���M
FROM: Gary Chicots, Director ��//"`
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Modification of Conditional Use Permit Case No. 31
Applicants: Mr. Min Chae
Proposal•
The applicant is requesting a modification of Conditional Use
Permit No. 31 in order to allow the sale for off-site consumption
of alcoholic beverages in an established multiple tenant retail
facibity at 3100 E. Imperial Highway in the CB-1(Planned
Business) zone. .
Facts•
" . l. Source of Authoritv
Section 25-25.11 requires review and approval of proposed
modification, expansion, or other changes in an established
Conditional Use Permit.
2. Pronerty Location and Size
. The subject site consists of a single lot on the south side
of Imperial Highway at State Street. The subject property is
irregular in shape having a site area of 479,160 square feet
or approximately eleven (11) acres in size. (See attached .
. location map.) •
' 3. Existinc( Land Use
The property consist of an 82,368 square foot retail building
with a 2,520 square foot loading dock, and a 17,798 square
, foot retail building on the northeast end of the site. The
surrounding land uses are as follows:
North - Public/Multi-Family
Residential/Commercial
South - I-105 Freeway
East - Commercial/Public/Residential/Industrial
West - Industrial
5. Land Use Designation
The General Plan Designation for the subject property is
Commercial while the Zoning Classification is CB-1
(Controlled Business) zone. Th'e surrounding land.use
designations and zoning classifications are as follows:
` General Plan: Zoninct:
North - Commercial North - C-3
- South - Commercial South - CB-1
East - Commercial East - CB-1 '
West - Industrial West - R-3
� � f:�planning\staffrpt\cup3lm .
1 .
.�
, 6. Project Characteristics:
,t�
The.applicant proposes to modify his existing Conditional Use
Permit in order to sell, for off-site consumption, alcoholic
beverages in a multiple tenant retail center. The liquor
. store is proposed to be located in a vendor space 3,456 (72'
- x 48') square feet .in size. The proposed use will be-
located on the first floor, at the southeast corner of a two
(2) story retail building. 'The store is proposed to be
adjacent to the west entrance of the retail center.
7. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting on May 25, 1994, the Site Plan Review
Committee evaluated the proposed development and recommended
denial of the request. The Committee determined that the
proposal would violate the intent of the Multiple Tenant Use
Regulations of the Zoning Code.
8. Zoning Enforcement Historv �
' A history of code violations has beeh documented with respect
to the existing use on the subject property (see Exhibit I).
Cluttered aisles and parking lot requirements are common
violations at the subject use.
° 9. Public Response
None of record at the time of preparation of the Staff
report.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLOSION:
l. Consistencv with General Plan and Zoninq Ordinance
` The proposed land use is consistent with the existing zoning .
classification CB-1 (COntrolled Business) Zone, and the
General Plan designation of Commercial. However, the
proposal, requesting the approval of a liquor store within an
existing multiple tenant retail centez violates Section 25-
35.3. o. 6. The regulation allows, within multiple tenant
retail centers, the selling of alcoholic beverages only in a
bona fide restaurant.
2. Site Suitabilitv.
The property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed development relative to use, structures, walls,
landscaping, driveways, parking facilities and other
development features required by the Zoning Ordinance.
However, the subject multiple tenant retail center cannot .
meet the Zoning Code use requirement with respect to selling
alcoholic beverages.
3. Compatibilitv
The proposed development is surrounded by a mixture of
commercial, industrial, public, and some residential uses.
Approval of this Modified Conditional Use Permit request
could lead to behavior that would be incompatible with other
retail activity, particularly family shopping within the
retail center itself. Additional alcohol sales could have a
negative effect on surrounding uses. In addition, the
Lynwood Activity Center is located just east of the proposed
use..Directly north of this center is located a store selling
beer and wine and a liquor store.•,Allowing another liquor
store in the vicinity could have additional negative impacts
on the area even though this facility is more than 500 feet
_ away.
f\planning\staffrpt\f:cup3lm �
z
+
��t
, 4. Compliance with Development Standards
The proposal meets the development standards required by the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to setbacks; lot coverage and
building height. The proposal does not meet the use
requirements of Section 25-35.3 0.6. of the Lynwood Zoning
ordinance. '
The improvements as proposed, could have a negative effect on
. surrounding properties and interfere with or endanger the
public health, safety or welfare.
5. Benefits to Communitv
' The proposal will not benefit the Community or assist in
'• upgrading the property or adjacent commercial, industrial,
public and residential uses within the vicinity.
7. 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 1993 as amended.
RECOMMENDATION: '
Staff respectfull'y requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission deny this application.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map. <
2. Floor Plan and Vicinity Map.
3. Exhibit I, History of Zoning Code Violations.
� � f:AplanningAstaffrptAt:cup31m ' �
3
��dVV N011d�a
� � L �.i ._ , �i b 'Y u E 1 6 _ �a �7 P . � � � .
! !c'� — ' ��.�_ ' � . . _ .. .. .
j: �
�`� � �� � � 6
�°_�_ _ ' �'
�.t�i0 E�``., ,
' . � ' ��
. �✓' f `'''', �}{,
\/'' ✓ /�.I � � ��i"' , �
✓ / �
I \ ,
,� J�' �
-� �, � � . . �
\ "�f��.
' � •' V '� �� . .
r ���� ��t�, r ' :
1 1 � � � � � . I 1
r '
��Q`��� �� 1 �
i
�'�� � �
�'1 � �— ---T._,.�.-_.._. _
� - � �.�, �. ' � !
. . .�owe..a.e�..a+.�.'-il r_..ar.n�.n�....�.�. __ i
r� ,� : - � �1� ��
. ; _ - � a i ,.
, � �
I %°, � " 4• � , 1
. , � i �, 11 ��_� � I�
� - . € �; �' �' ,
� ' � ' - �
� ,;,;,, . . ........._ _ ;
� I � ;
-�- �:.x � sc.c.r �.��..,
r _:�1�-�:�. �
� � �.�.�-:�� �_-_._ �� ��
11 �=.�-�;�. # �
i � �_. . u .,� T� � ,,
, � � - � ---.,.�_--� — .
: � _.�; �_�..__ ��, �. -�- .
� 7,� � �l-�' � +r � � a
. �.,.-��_�"'��� - -�
�r+' „� .
� '. ,' _ ` .. li y /r I � ��--� p Y . `y.
. 7� r�.� � �� ' �- � 4 . . � i �' ' ;�;
- �_ , .; ���:� _ �,•. �"�' �s'
� i �- � ' ' �.,•�,�,,��f. ,
•vy�..+c�..��u+ . .. • . �; ..�;. �.�
,._ } � , . � . .�
, Y� ' • :, , � �.3,`:�:; °I
t , !�' � ,�
.� .�.��_. �. f_». , ,y. . ,' �.' + •,
� � i : ,'. °�, � �`��''' � , �`.;t:•;'.•i�"�, "�,�
• � . � • .• t .! ' ' ,.�.,.�'��.'.'��Y �° 1 ;:
� . , 1• i J1! � �,.. ' �"�\�t,�' � • y.' ��: � . �f
.4 � ir t:
� . • ' , St.r q'i3: i ...�.,��'i: � .
. . N . , , �,� . .Y� J' ��v F.'��./ �i �•�`��
•!.: �'�'�1 '•w ,�.� �
. � . .. 1 ' , � � M ' �!.�./�
, . . ' t� 1 � �1'r; ,"'�'^'^.^ 1:
� � �,?�:' l:�Y. o ��_
� . � .:H�'�.i'"..,�,, •
� . . . � . - . . ' � . , tii.�.
"i n;. = �� , �1�;=� �Tt;`v'� i��;�.�
r'• �...: � � �
�� , DATE: February 14, 1995 � _ •_�� . .. . �
�'� i� � i v t= �4 �. ^ V,---1�_Z
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION �
FROM: Gary Chicots, Director �.�/
� Community Development Department
� SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 144
j Applicants: Mr. Min Chae
Proposal:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, Case No.
, 144, in order to allow the sale for off-site consumption of
alcoholic beverages in an established multiple tenant retail
center at 3100 E. Imperial Highway in the CB-1(Planned
Business) zone. ,
Facts•
1. Source of Authoritv
' Section 25-16.20c of the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance requires
that a Conditional Use Permit be approved to allow
establishments to sell alcoholic beverages within the City.
Section 25-16.20 e requires a minimum distance of 500 feet
between such establishments. Section 25-35.3 0.6 regulate
the sale of alcoholic beverages in multiple tenant retail
centers.
2. Property Location and Size
The subject site consists of a single lot on the south side
of Imperial Highway at State Street. The subject property is
irregular in shape having a site area of 479,160 square feet
or approximately eleven (11) acres in size. (See attached
location map.)
3. Existing Land Use ' ,
The proper.ty consist of an 82,368 square foot retail building I
with a 2,520 square foot loading dock, and, a 17,798 square �
foot retail building on the northeast end of the site. The ;
surrounding land uses are as follows:
North - Public/Multi-Family
Residential/Commercial ;
South - I-105 Freeway ,
East - Commercial/Public/Residential/Industrial
West - Industrial
5.. Land Use Desianation !
The General Plan Designation for the subject property is �
Commercial while the Zoning Classification is CB-1 I
(Controlled Business) zone. The surrounding land use
designations and zoning classifications are as follows: �
. �
General Plan: Zonina• �
North - Commercial North - C-3 I
I
South - Commercial South - CB-1 . �
East - Commercial East - CB-1 i
West - Industrial West - R-3 �
�
I
1
i
� ��
I
,
,,, 6. Proiect Characteristics:
1�,t
' The applicant proposes to sell alcoholic beverages for off-
site consumption in a multiple tenant establishment. The
liquor store is proposed to be located in a vendor space
3,456 (72' x 48') square feet in size. The proposed use
will be located on the first floor, and at the southeast
corner of a two (2) story retail building. The store is
proposed.to be adjacent to the west entrance of the retail
center.
7. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting on May 25, 1994, the Site Plan Review
' Committee evaluated the proposed development and recommended
' denial to the Planning Commission. The Committee determined
that, although the proposal could meet the distance
requirements of the Code, it would violate the Multiple
Tenant Use Regulations of the Zoning Code and the
restrictions included in the current Conditional Use Permit.
� 8. Zonina Enforcement History
A history of code violations has been documented with respect
to the existing use on the subject property (see Exhibit I)..
Cluttered aisles allowing vendors to se11 items in the
parking areas are common violations at the subject use.
9. Public Response
None of record at the time of preparation of the Staff
report.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
l. Consistencv with General Plan and Zonina Ordinance
The pfoposed land use is consistent with the existing zoning
classification CB-1 (Controlled Business) .Zone, and the
General Plan designation of Commercial. However, the
, proposal violates Section 25-35.3. o. 6. of the Zoning
Ordinance. The regulation al•lows, within multiple tenant
retail centers, the selling of alcokiolic beverages in only a
bona fide restaurant. This proposal calls for the
establishment of a liquor store�: With respect to the
distance requirements for establishments selling alcoholic „
beverages, this proposal is in compliance with the City
Zoninq Ordinance.
I
2. Site Suitabilitv
� . � �
The property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed development relative to structures, walls, �
landscaping, driveways, parking facilities and other
development features required by the Zoning Ordinance. ;
However, the subject multiple tenant retail center cannot
meet the Zoning Code use.requirement with respect to selling i
alcoholic beverages. !
3. Compatibility �
The proposed development is surrounded by a mixture of �
commercial, industrial, pubic, and some residential uses.
Approval of this Modified Conditional Use Permit request '
could lead to behavior that would be incompatible with other -�
retail activity, particularly family shopping within the '
retail center itself. Additional alcohol sales could have a '
negative effect of surrounding uses. In addition, the �
Lynwood Activity Center is located just east of the proposed '
use. Directly north of this center is located a store �
selling beer and wine and a liquor store. Allowing another .'
liquor store in the vicinity could have additional negative i
z I
i
�
�
.�
-� impacts on the area even though this facility is more than
f 500 feet away.
T
4. Compliance with Development Standards
The proposal meets the development standards required by the '
Zoninq Ordinance with respect to setbacks; lot coverage and
. building height. The proposal does not meet the use
' requirements of Section 25-35.3 0.6. of the Lynwood Zoning
Ordinance.
The improvements as proposed, may have a negative effect on
surrounding properties and interfere with or endanger the
- public health, safety or welfare.
5. Benefits to Communitv
The proposal will not benefit the Community or assist in
upgrading the property or adjacent commercial, industrial,
public ancl residential uses within the vicinity.
7. 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 1993 as amended.
RECOMMENDATION•
. Staff,respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission deny this application.
ATTACHMENTS:
l. Location Map.
2. Floor Plan and Vicinity Map.
3. Exhibit I, History of Zoning Code,Violations.
' i
�
' I
�
. �
�
I
I
�
;
, ` I
�
, i
1
� �
, t:�plannfngAscaffrptAcup14G - i
'
, 3 �
�
r
�
• ' � ��
�w��� �� .� ,
,p �,. ,. �'
� , ������ts �•� ` ���� u ' ,l � .
� � ���� ,.. , ` �'
► rnt� •• . .. , �31�MN .R�G; `�'
�� . � ��G�rF��������?����'�EtF'►����� � ��
:uFU�sa � �y �' � � . �� --
� � �' � ���I���������������������� �.� ►��,��,�►�
�,..�����` .....II � `�,`�!�
� � �� � ��������������. ����
�� ���i�a��a��a���aa��a��� , . , .
� . �., -
-. •: 5 yr �' �;' e�� • � .:t� .i� , . �.
ar�rsr�.:� �r� r���' � � •� � �r��r. n�Y ��" 7 .'� �
� ���:�'Q����d����s���i'����������1!���������:�: � �.. _ . ,
�� .....������, �,��,���,�,��,��i��'��'����` . �►
�� '�� r
�� '� ����� ���������������������i�����. , ���
�.� r.�c�t�����.. .� � _ . � ,
����i� :�,����� � -
� � ,��;� ,;�.`. ,,,�.�.s ��ar � . . � _
�� �*��►�•'''t' � s�► °,�� �� � s ,
� � �,�� �o "-�i,����t,.�i►� � ��� ,+' ' .I
'�R� . 4.�i y �'�:n �'�►��►.�� '�r,t�� ; ,�� ,:
+� '�'r' �� �'�?r�i 4 � ��!
�p ' ' � ���'�i, . a�P �i �ai�!'
�� � ,• � w ! �''� ���"�+,.� �'R�"�' ��+�
�Lb t7� , �`� �� : , �
��r� �'�� � ��' •� -
��r �Q� ,��`�� ���
�'�: �.� ' � �,�
� 'ic !� � ' '�r`�,, :,
, �� � ��
� ������.
-. . � .,
..� �n.,
� '•� ���� �?�,���� � �
� •.� ��Ir�H� �� �
� �"... . . j
• � 1
�� �� , ,,'
Yr�.�
��� � �����'��►�e�
-.,�, �AI��IIlI�����I�� . �'. � �; � .
�
�
�
__�_.
x : �_ .;... , .. - rue i c. = `` � � � P. a2 �
� � '- -. -,.._ .... � . . ._ „..
�� �- ...... _.� .
��
:. 6
.��
- - -- ___- __- i i 1 I i � ".. :
� �.__ -r
, �-.-�_.._.
� ' „ � ' �,
. . ✓' � .. � , ' ' ,, 5 , i+ �
� `�,� � � :�:`�. �. ,
�. �,� S
� � ��
; j , ,
;�� �
�� � , _ , ,
�, ��8
/�� .' _.. � F � i �� , . .
t \15 ��� � ����
� � 3 . .
���,`' .: � �' �
' ' � �� �\�` ` � � . � ; - .
b� i
��� �, �
- � C -N- - -- --=-r�,.- - - _
`-- - r� i.,a, u. • , �
� . i "' . _ '^m�e..-a.v�..s+m-91 r_waww..�...�..,. __ I
e
• �• ' 1
' „�.,, =... .., � ,•�
- o� � ,
� ..7=• i � y _ I' p' ' .' j
� � � � ± �,
F � .�; � ' ;
� - � •ai « + I
� , j ' �. • ... .... � r ,
•- � .,,�:.� ���...�, �1_ � l i
.:�::..' ' �
, � � � � -���� f � � .� i
� ..�.:,' � �-' 11 �-�^..., _�-�. � �� � . i
, � ,
� y �: � � :
I . 'y ' F `� , `�.. _ , ' . , . • I
I � - � �C���� � � � : ;
� ��A � � � � � �
_ ;,,-�_�_ - � ,
_ --�.,,,.
_ ..� ' y %r . , 3 � ._ � � � � ,5 ,'' " �
�� �... � . �t � ', x' �' �
. ' . .�`. ' �+�� . + � � ��
� � ,�. • �y� r• i
. . � �.� ' , � � �l t ,'.��(�Sli� ii ••t i
' .. . �b7M+iLW•Ln � . .` � ' ''+; .'�tivl ',1 ;
� �
F �`li;\�lj••t�' •� i
' � ' � . -';a;e� Y -"i`-'�•� • , •. ' . �?i.i,�L'!#; � �'' �
' �� �.. a ': • �
. ' ..� ' ���'I ' r. . . .�j.:w):j � • .�.
� . , • I , 1 . .•�, �,�� 1�'�.:i�:' � .' ♦'T.�.1"��iT;'2i� , �
. . I� ';� � �' Y T:I �
. .� � . ' J� [ L f1 �.� ,
. 1� 'J(� � ' ' '. :,e :A� �,
� y d � )� i+ 4 I 5
. . . . � . �.���5� � �4 � i - /' . � �
. . e . �:} . ' . �' �;�. .
'r.:' • �.
. . • ^ � � . : 7 � '
. . . .� ' t� . , - �..+w...��... �)
. ' • �^�:' bi:�'Ye�::: 7:
. +P K
, , . � ' � . . � . . . • �.. . tr.�� !
�
�
I
�
i
I
� � � � , `I.. (� - _ (-.. ;
�{ � nnoarss �G .�.mp�>`��A/ �cJ�• j
— 1
04YNER/OCCUPANT �A�G� ChA� d � 0. em �7f'
ADDRESS / �1 / V . I �
CITY �.OS �nG±�'QS _ CQ 2IP /a I
TELEPHONE NO. �
�
: �
,, � �
��. , io � usrr �✓ � 11 c./� � ���
i
1-/4-` .0 ' — . ,
^ ,.'o- / �•r /U C �+ -�/o �Cf�t'i�r.TS �o,P .4iut/
f - .G
ir! U
- Na
�
- ^/O rLG
O
- D B
� �-3 --�iv �°� — /��T✓Y �'��rs)
,
I �2 �- - d .G
�- S� - �,�o ,o
-- 1 G� � o �
.,,
- �is 1r �6C_ .�ti )d /rv2 r�'�.v UF> >�,() 11/U �.YSA� iQ� . .
� v
' a.
�
_ � � o �
z�6 ,�-� t j-�v vr� �av �/�r,�-itz:,.o �.� �L C�-S n/o�d< �./lc.rv
� I - O i i � � �✓,v - .
: r..� f' �/�1�6t/C . �i �✓ rXVS � uTriPe[ w/ w77[Kh/
�� � �
�