HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-08-94 PLANNING COMMISSION ��:_- ',� , ' R E �� � i '! ; � C1�
� � � cirr cF �vr;�v:;�, �
•; CITY CLE?F;.:, �J��:
AGENDA �`•.- � , . i
ANi PAA
7igi9iIDillil2ili2�3i4i3�6
LYNS900D CITY PLANNING COMMISSION a
,, I ,9;:
REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 P.M. C�:}'I.�IL'1�.,{1 !_ �'I��C'�
City Hall Council Chambers � �'��/j ���fJ��
11330 Bullis Road, Lynwood, CA J
November 8, 1994
Carlton McMiller
Chairperson
Errick Lee Donald Dove
Vice Chairman Commissioner
Eloise Evans � Frankie Murphy
Commissioner Commissioner
Jamal Muhsin John Haynes � -
Commissioneir � a. Commissioner �
I � a
C 0 M� M I S S I O N C O U N S E L:
, �
Michele BeaI R?: is
Intert:,: ;.ieputy City:Attorney
STAFF: ' I
Roger Haley Robert Diplock I
Special Assistant Planning Manager �
Art Barfielld Louis Omoruyi j
Associate Planner Associate Planner �
Louis E. Mlrales, Jr. Paul Nguyen j
Associate Planner Civil Engineer Assoc. I
!
� �
� I
I
j i�
t �
i �
� i
r � i
� i
i
± I
� • I
i:�upiiles'\nov94 . .
i
1 �
� f
I
.� 1�f..\ . .
�
J
, November 8, 1994
OPENING CEREMONIES
i
i 1. Call meeting to order.
2. Flag salute.
3. Roll call of Commissioners.
4. Certification of Agenda Posting.
5. Approval of Minutes for September 13, 1994.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
l. Zone Chanae Case No. ZC 11
Applicant: City of Lynwood and Mr. Louis Ross
PROPOSAL•
The staff and the applicant are requesting approving of a Zone
Change (ZC 11) from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to C-2A
(Medium Commercial) 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 alley and'the Century
Freeway (I-105). 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 November 8, 1994 meeting to allow
the applicant to discuss the rezoning proposal with residents
of the area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission:
A. Find that the proposed Zone Change from R-3
(Multiple Family Residential) to C-2A (Medium
Commercial) caill not have a significant impact on
the environment and that a Negative Declaration has
been issued pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act as amended.
B. Approval of Alternative C, rezdning those residential
properties owned by Mr. Louis Ross west of Lewis Street
and direct Staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment to
change the General Plan designation for remaining parcels
to either a residential or transitional General Plan
category.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. CUP 151
Applicant: Ernesto Vides
PROPOSAL:
The 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 in the C-3 (Heavy
Commercial) zone. This case was continued from the October
11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff
to investigate the permit history of nearby stores and
restaurants also selling alcoholic beverage.
2
,,
. DATE: November 8, 1994 � '
� � � S
'� r'..:;��l�`�R-''! E ; C � , YI I�dU.
T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
' r ;;-s
FROM: Gary D. Chicots, Director �;;^„_�.,' �, �_��
Community Development Department
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Zone Chanae - Case No. ZC 11
Applicant: City of Lynwood and Mr. Louis Ross
PROPOSAL:
The staff and the applicant are requesting approval of a Zone
Change (ZC 11) from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to C-2A
(Medium Commercial) 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 alley and the Century Freeway
(I-105). This item was continued to the Planning Commission
meetinq of October 11, 1994 to allow staff to prepare
alternatives for consideration by the Commission and then was
continued to the November 8, 1994 meeting to allow the applicant
to discuss the rezoning proposal with residents of the area.
i
FACTS:
!1. Source of Authoritv
' Section 25-27.1 a. of the City Zoning Ordinance allows
property owner(s) to initiate a change in zoning boundaries
and classification.
2. Property Location
The properties proposed for rezoning consist of existing
residential land uses and vacant lots. The properties are
identified in the Los Angeles County Assessors Book 6175, as
parcels 1,2,3,4,5, 28 and the remainder of lot 520, page 2;
parcels 13, 14, 15, and the remainder of lot 518, page 3;
and parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8, page 9 on the southeast corner
of Long Beach Boulevard and the Century Freeway (I-105) (see
attached Location Map).
3. Propertv size
The subject properties are a combination of irregular and
regular shaped lots, approximately 85,OOO,square feet in
total size.
4. Existina Land Use
The properties consist of existing residential uses, and
vacant lots. The surrounding land uses are as follows:
North - Freeway
South - Commercial, Residential
East - Residential
West - Commercial
5. Land Use Desianation '
The General Plan designation for the subject property is
Commercial while the Zoning Classification is R-3. The �
surrounding land use designations are as follows:
General Plan Zoning
North - Transportation North - C-2A, P-1
South - Commercial South - C-2A, P-1
1
I
. I
.�
East - Commercial, Residential East - R-2, R-3
`�< West - Commercial West - C-2A
6. Pro�ect Characteristics .
The Zone Change is proposed in order to establish
conformity to and consistency with the General Plan. As a
result of the General Plan Revision adopted by the City
Council in August, 1990, this area was designated
Commercial. In order for the zoni.ng to be consistent with
the General Plan it is necessary to change the zoning of the
properties from the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zone
to the C-2A (Medium Commercial) zone. The Zone Change has
been requested by the agent of the property owner.
7. Site Plan Review
On August 25, 1994, the Site Plan Review Committee evaluated
the proposed zone change and recommended approval to the
Planning Commission.
8. Zoning Enforcement Histor,y
Mr. Louis Ross has been cited by the Code Enforcement
Division regarding the clean up of rubbish and debris on
this property on several occasions.
9. Public Response I
Staff received one phone call from a residential property I
owner to the south asking that the owner of this property
discuss any potential devel?pment plans with the
surrounding property owners.
During the public hearing on this item the Planning
Commission meeting of September 13, 1994, the Commission �
heard testimony from several residents of the area in I
opposition to the proposed zone change. Major concerns were I
increased traffic and the creation of non conforminq I
residential parcels.
I
on October 25, 1994 staff and a representative of the �
applicant met with a number of the residents in the area to ;
explain and discuss the proposed rezone and possible
alternatives. Residents expressed concern about existing i
commercial activities along Long Beach Boulevard, drainage
problems caused by the laundromat, potential traffic i
problems, potential impacts on school children, suspected ;
illegal activity on residential property owned by the
applicant and property maintenance. i
No agreement was reached or an acceptable alternative that �
the residents could support. ' i
10. Plannina Commission Action ' �
At its regularly scheduled meeting of September 13, 1994, �
the Planning Commission heard testimony in favor of and in �
opposition to the proposed zone change. The Commission
continued this item to their October 11, 1994 when �
alternative to the proposed•zone change were discussed and i
additional testimony was taken. The Commission continued the
public hearing to November 8, 1994 in order to allow the i
applicant to discuss the proposal with neighboring I
residents.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS . I
I
1. Consistencv with General Plan and Zonina '
I
The existing zoning classification (R-3) is inconsistent I
with the General Plan designation of Commercial. The �
i
i
2 I
�
' I
i
�
� proposed zone change from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential)
to C-2A (Medium Commercial) zone will make the properties
'R'�, consistent with the General Plan designation.
The C-2A zone corresponds to the Commercial zoninq adjacent
to the property to the west. The proposed zone change would
make the existing residential uses legal non-conforming.
2. Area Suitabilitv
There is significant commercial development immediately to
the south, north and west of the proposed zone change. This
area has excellent access to a major arterial street, a
freeway interchange and a regional transit stop and is
appropriate for major commercial development.
3. Compliance with Develooment Standards
The subject area is adequate in size and shape to meet the
requirements of the Commercial zoning category and can
accommodate proposed commercial development relative to the
proposed density, bulk of �tructures, walls, fences, and
other development standards required by the Zoninq
Ordinance.
4. Compatibility '
The area proposed for the zone change is located east of
existing commercial land and there is commercial development
to the north, south and west and along Long Beach Boulevard.
However, there is residential development within and I
adjacent to the proposed rezone.
Future commercial development could adversely impact �
residential development to the east of the property. Any new ;
commercial development in'this area must be carefully I
designed and screened to minimize any adverse impacts.
The zone change will not have a negative effect on the
. values of the surrounding properties or interfere with or �
endanger the public health or welfare. ;
I
5. Benefits to Communitv �
The proposed zone change could lead to major new commercial I
development at this location and help upgrade the adjacent
commercial strip. The new uses likely would provide
additional local employment opportunities. i
Alternatives To The Pr000sed Rezoninq I
At the Planning Commission hearing on this item on September 13 I
and on October 11, 1994, because of concerns about potential
adverse impacts of commercial development, the Commission asked �
staff to look at alternatives to the proposed rezoning. �
Staff has identified several alternatives which are described i
below.
�
Alternative A
i
Approve the rezone of only those properties owned by Mr. Louis �
Ross (parcel 4,5 of lot 519, and remainder,of lot 520, parcels �
13, 14, 15, of lot 518, remainder of lot 518 and lots 754, 756,
757).
Advantages: Avoid creating legal non conforming uses on . I
property not owned by applicant.
�
Disadvantages: Leaves an area of inconsistent residential zoning !
in the middle of a consistent commercial zone. I
�
3 I
I
I
I
I
,j
p� Alternative B
Approve the rezone of only those properties owned by Mr. Louis
Ross west of Lewis Street (parcels 4, 5 of lot 520, remainder of
lot 520, and lots 754, 756, 757).
Advantages: Avoids creating legal non conforming parcels on
residential property.
Disadvantages: Leaves a large area of inconsistent zoning.
Alternative C
Deny the proposed rezone and direct staff to prepare a proposal
that would combine the rezone proposed in alternative B and a
General Plan Amendment to change the remaining Commercial General
Plan designation areas back to Residential or to a new
transitional category that would allow either commercial or
residential zoning to be found consisten't.
Alternative D
Deny the proposed rezone and direct staff to prepare a General
Plan Amendment to change all of the residential property
designated Commercial back to Residential or to a transitional �
cateqory.
I
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
�
I
The Director of Community Development has determined that no
substantial environmental impact will result from the proposed
zone change; therefore,.a Negative Declaration has been filed in
the Community Development Department and in the Office of the
City Clerk.
RECOMMENDATION: i
I
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration, the i
Planning Commission:
1. Find that the proposed Zone Ghange from R-3 (Multiple �
Family Residential) to C-2A (Medium Commercial) zone I
will not have a significant impact on the environment and i
that a Negative Declaration has been issued pursuant to-
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act as amended. i
2. Approval of Alternative C, rezoning those residential ;
properties owned by Mr. Louis Ross west of Lewis Street '
and direct Staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment to j
change the General Plan designation for remaining parcels I
to either a residential or transitional General Plan
cateqory. I
ATTACHMENTS !
�
1. Location Map
2. Exhibits l, 2, 3, 4 �
3. Resolution 2525 I
. I
�
I
i
i
f:\staffrpt\zcll.nov �
I
. 1
I
f
q i
�
I
.'-
s'..
I .
i.
:;; ,
+ :::,,.
I
e
'ON �Sd�
i'"_�i'4. ♦ V �
�•� nns
JL
-
N
�
�
�
.j
��
�dU1! NOIld�O�
I `�
s �
...�
,�t •
DATE: November 8, 1994 /�
� L TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ���;".;": �"t jT�-;':�%� i\
( •, 1 -: r� �'�' [ ; !-,
� ; _: ;._ i '`.� u.: : � F a ... .
FROM: Gary D. Chicots, Director �-�� '' / U�__��
Community Development Departm�nt V
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 151
Applicant: Ernesto Vides
Proposal•
The 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 in the C-3 (Heavy Commercial)
Zone. This case was continued from the October 11, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting in order to allow staff to investigate the
permit history of nearby stores and restaurants also selling
alcoholic beverage.
Facts
l. Source of Authoritv:
I
Sections 25-16.20c of the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance requires
that a Conditional Use Permit be approved to allow
establishments to sell alcoholic beverages.
2. Prooertv Location and Size �
The subject site is located on the northwest corner of i
Imperial Highway and Atlantic Avenue (see the attached (
location map). The subject property is an irregular lot,
approximately 16,875 square feet (135'x 125') in size.
3. Existing Land Use �
The subject property is developed wi'th a mini mall consisting I
of a market and approximately 6,600 square foot of other
retail stores (5 rental spaces). The existing 2,800 square
foot market, subject of the request for a permit for the sale
of beer and wine, is located within the mini mall. The
surrounding land uses are as follows: �
North - Commercial �
South - Commercial �
East - Commercial �I
West - Commercial I
4. Land Use Desianation �
The General Plan designation for the subject property is i
Commercial, while the Zoning Classification is C-3 (Heavy I
Commercial. The surrounding land use designations and zoning I
are as follows:
General Plan Zoning i
North - Commercial �-3 �
South - Commercial • C-3 i
East - Commercial �-3 �
West - Commercial �-3 I
i
�
5. Proiect Characteristics �
�
The applicant proposes to sell beer and wine only at an
existing food and groceries market. The site is developed as
a mini mall with five (5) retail spaces currently occupied
by Daily Donuts, La Pizza Loca, Auto Parts, and Video 5000 I
I
1 �
I
.�
� as well as Vides Market. There are 22 parking spaces
provided. The subject site meets the development standards of
the Code.
6. Proiect History
The subject property was originally a Circle K Market with a
license to sell beer and wine. The Corporation did not renew
their license in 1991, thus the license expired. On December
10, 1991 the Planning Commission denied an application from a
prospective lessee requesting a Conditional Use Permit (Case
No. 97) to sell alcoholic beverage at this address, in part
because the store did not meet the distance requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
The market was closed from 1991 through 1992. The current
applicant reopened the market on February 24, 1993 and
submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to sell
beer and wine on September 19, 1994. The applicant was
informed as to the problems regarding the site not meeting
the distance requirements established by the City Code
(Ordinance 1306), in that there are three other
establishments selling alcoholic beverages within 500 feet of
this market. •
7. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting on September 28, 1994, the Site Plan
Review Committee evaluated the proposed development and
recommended denial to the Planning Commission•. The Committee
determined that the proposal does not meet the distance
requirements established by City Code (Ordinance 1306).
Section 25-16.20 requires that all off-sale liquor
establishment shall maintain a distance of five hundred feet
from any other establishment where alcoholic beverages are I
sold for both off-sale and on-sale consumption.
8. Zonina Enforcement Historv
None of record at the time this report was prepared. i
9. Neiqhborhood Resoonse i
i
At the Planning Commission hearing of October 11, 1994, one !
person spoke in opposition to this application and one in �
favor (in addition to the applicant)., i
I
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: �
1. Consistencv with General Plan and Zonina Ordinance j
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing zoning I
classification C-3 and the General Plan designation of I
Commercial. The proposal does not meet the distance I
requirements of 500 feet between establishments selling
alcoholic beverages as required under Section 3. 25-16.20 of ,
the Zoning Ordinance. There are three (3) alcoholic beverage i
establishments closer than 500 feet to this market: A) off- I
sale at 11022 Atlantic Avenue, B) on-sale at 11004 Atlantic
Avenue, C) on-sale at 11020 Atlantic Avenue. I
2. Site Suitabilitv I
The property is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed
development. The lot/site meets current development standards
relative to structures, parking, walls, fences, landscaping, .
driveways and other feature required by the Zoning Ordinance
except for the distance requirement�,per Section 25-16.20. I
I
� �
Z I
I
=�
W
� 3. Compatibility
The proposed development is surrounded by commercial and
other uses. Permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages at
this site would not be incompatible with the adjacent
commercial uses, but may have a negative effect on nearby
residential uses.
4. Compliance with Development Standards
Section 25-16.20e Off-Sale Liquor Establishments of
the Zoning Ordinance requires that a distance of 500 feet be
maintained between an off-sale alcoholic beverage store and
other liquor establishments, as well as churches, schools,
hospitals, parks and playgrounds, and other similar
consideration points. The subject'site is within 500 feet
of three of the listed consideration points. Approval of this
application would be in violation of these requirements.
5. Permit Historv of Nearbv Stores and Restaurants
Atlantic Liquor, 11022 Atlantic Avenue
A liquor store has existed at this location since at least
1972. No Conditional Use Permit has been granted. In January
1985, staff determined that a Conditional Use Permit was not
required for a transfer or a renewal,of an ABC License since I
it was a legal non conforming use. According to Business
License records, this store has been in continuous operation
since 1985. • .
Viva Mexican, 11020 Atlantic Avenue I
. A restaurant and bar has existed at this location since at
least 1974. Business License records show a business license
since 1985, except for the year 1987. In 1981 the Zoning �
Ordinance was amended to exempt bonefide restaurants from the I
distance requirements in the Ordinance providing that they I
get a Conditional Use Permit.
In 1986 the Planning Commission approved a CUP for "the
continuation of operation of a restaurant and cocktail lounge
serving alcoholic beverages" at this location.
Pescado Mojado, 11004 Atlantic Avenue
On September 26, 1989 the Planning Commission approved �
Conditional Use Permit No. 22 for a restaurant serving beer �
and wine at this location. i
Staff determined that this use was a bonefide restaurant and I
therefore was exempt from the 500 fQet distance restrictions I
in the Zoning Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I
The Community Development Director has determined that the +
project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061b (3) of I
the State CEQA Guidelines as amended.
r
�
RECOMMENDATION I
Staff respectfully requests that the Commission,. after I
consideration, deny Conditional Use Permit No. 151 because the
proposal does not meet the distance requirements of the zoning
Ordinance, since it is for an off sale alcoholic beverage store
and is within 500 feet of three other establishments selling or
serving alcoholic beverages.
I
- I
3 � �
I
I
� I
;
,
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Exhibit A
l
I
I
�
• i
I
�
. �
. I
i
i
(
I
i
f:\staff\cup152.2 ,
I
�
(
. �
�
I
�
�
i
�
' I
4 �
�
i
�
4 �
� _. . . . . . _._..--- —'_'_ ,e.
r
::4
>•P,:
LOCATION iUTAP a ��`
,,;�
,,
o , ,.. .
,° wacR, ' r S ��, r` W , ,„
�� r r. o S, I � � n
,� �a '� �r � � e i� � r' "
; k a�lnq� a ^ �
° i� Iz � I �� � h u iF
� �
,. 6,, , �u � V Q • u ,w
.
io ..i_�� , V ti �� � � � 7 a �r
, .o ��v '1 I � „ ,—,— ;:;
�a I � � �--a- :>;.�:,.
o ��`�° v�� y����ys+ r� Y zve I �.+ � u
, _J.,.���rt�+t_ -u�.� PCNOLC ON AVf.
�—� � � ; -� — i , ::;�.
; o v .� R J �� r. .•:.. �
�Q�u� 4 1� �o,o , w . "' .....�u.�r — ul " ti ' � i r'' :::?:I.
� Ill 'i IJIJ� �� .....
R u+l Y�ro b i� ��,:::r:�
� \����7 - QI �N•� �I ki1.� ,. � ao , Rt';:
�9�.,,,., N�1o�� � K� K�� �I �.�„ IU111��� . II , i::.{:
I O1J a I � .I ; ia�.r �u! � 1 , If . •
J y �
� nf 3 a. OI � 60 J. �o R ��l�r !J '�' Q
� � a,J ( l! � �� I
_...,..� ^ � — „ �1 ;•:
° 3�' h a o:.u,a �,:;'r 3` ,,ir/ ',• R/�
_� , � o . ,erotu 1 s;;,<';:;
, a, r � o a ' • �l .i::;::
�o
�ir.�. "n=� .'� -� .. . �w�r._ 3 iV1o►t L �NIP . . �';:;'+,;.;i
e�o�� � � �� ��, � �� +' ,,,,, � �E
O��su �. JliJ�t' � .
�os�) �—� I � � � � �Q o5iy�: .) . ,
_..�__ .. .. � ; i '4 ���C, r� R'
.. �vri. � ^�, •, � .
�I � i �
� pf1Y My� w ..
ioS�� I •r.ii y��1��.yh,s�� '� � Ol.�yl 'S I�'!
.i�.w m o� ��w �i �4 �_� �—._N._.—
� r.n �
Tr�i�uA�. H/GNW�Y � �
�r n µ p N�J
� 'o .�'�, �f. �� I/ � JQ � 11 I/
' II � �f i "�� ��o ,,, �
.. „�ui � r
� O I 7 0 � r I r J 1i � � �' E + D '! / �d �
� ' ? ^ j. ' ; f f, .
�.
� Ill IN ll)
IM :'�' . .
' �� � „�,� �II `.i::f
� i •::::.. �.
ae ro^ O� i a. i � ia� �/J� � :/. a — - � ' y'
� r r a a + ��. T ��::•::;•
L !1 1 � ♦ 1 � • ,_tI1?� ! B�.V�. 1 f:.'. .
.A `� 1j.
,. r °,.
�".. ^ b
r > r M1• ... . `r " � : avl� — O � ..A.,�' ���' ,•v"��C 1 ia� �
� i � �
" /ioJY �+t� K N /1 K+� � ,���•�' r i.�� J � 'W 1
i � � V
� �. �. '. � �Iy1G '. ` ��-'�, c � '
�l Ori 'Oj •i.r�' • ��5�� � j � ' � t ' ,� 'ly !'::���'.:
�� �����.. , �,p � � g � � � 1'..,�..
, � re y�� /ioJ /' �N �. D � � ..
�` va ,/,Y9 � 1 s �- y_ �.I w q.'v� '!ii
�1.� � :.(: :
. ,' ' � / � /„ '„',' .
, 'ai' � i� � n s' ' J�o , :> , 'r';:
e _' ,� �� ;'
�oio ".� � , , 0`O � y ' �� f � � �, . .:r::
J d q,y 1 ' , �. i'j'f . , '
♦ � / A /
q oVj' ��� �j�� � ' w ne iy N� � �;:�' .
�� iii�� , i '
°ip � y � �� iN �
�� I ^ ' v /71 . ' !II/ �
1
a �v � 2 �y 9 3 , �� , �� � ' i�a . ,
b � ;;;'
ii v . �� < , �/ p � �� II . c(�•:
�l .
iJ . � i� y � � :' �:
i �t
'' � � .,J .�` 1 ia�
!I�
' . �' loihd 0.rndr.y
I C./> �/y.«wa.�
� �.
. � ''.; / i .
., '
C A S E N 0, ! �,�, .`:
t.� � '
4 DATE: November 8, 1994 �
, ,,,-, �; ,� �---�„ �
. � h'�.:-i"t: i I_�ii1 '(�
� To: PLANNING COMMISSION �`�`°`-�''-�- �'� E�%..a�fi IiiU,
r:: t _...
FROM: Gary D. Chicots, Directo�y �,`:, ,, �j u,P�_.
Community Development Department
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 152
Applicant: Eliu and Solio Saucedo
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in order to
legalize an established automobile repair center at 2991 E
Imperial Hwy in the C-3 (Heavy Commercial) zone.
FACTS: ,
1. Source of Authoritv
Section 25-16.15 of the Lynwood Municipal Code requires that
a Conditional Use Permit be obtained in order to operate any
business involving the sale, repair and servicing of new and
used automobiles, trucks and other vehicles.
2. Propertv Location
The subject property consists of a regular shaped lot on the
northwest side corner of the E. Imperial Highway and State
Street intersection (see attached location map).
3. Propertv Size
The subject property is approximately 11,650 square feet in
size. I
4. Existing Land Use
The subject site contains two (2),existing structures. The
structure to the north and rear of the property line is
approximately 1,680 square feet. The structure to the south
and front of the property is approximately 980 square feet.
The surrounding land uses are as follows:
North-Residential East-Commercial
South-Industrial West-Commercial
5. Land Use Descriotion
General Plan: Zonina• i
North-Residential North-R-1,R-3 i
South-Industrial South-M �
i
East-Commercial East-C-3
West-Commercial West-C-3 I
6 Pro�ect Characteristics: I
The applicant proposes to obtain a Conditional Use Permit I
to operate a full service automotive repair center �
(automobile repair, body and fender works and tire shop) in
existing structures. The repair center has been in operation I
for the past 3 years without the required business license
and the owner and lessees are currently attempting to secure �
the necessary licenses and permits. The existing body and I
fender shop and the tire shop are located in a structure � I
1 �
I
�
�
t-.
approximately 1,680 square feet, while the automobile repair
. shop consists of a small office and a covered outdoor work
area.
7. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting on Wednesday, October 26, 1994, the
Site Plan Review Committee evaluated the proposed
development and recommended approval to the Planning
Commission subject to the conditions and requirements stated
in attached resolution
8. Zoninq Enforcement Historv ,
Code enforcement records indict code violations of debris
and junk cars on the property and operating business without
City Business Licenses.
9. Public Responses
None of record at the time this report was prepared.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
1. Consistencv with General Plan
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing zoning
classification of C-3 (Heavy Commercial) and General Plan
designation of Commercial. Therefore, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 152 will not adversely affect the Lynwood
General Plan.
2. Site Suitabilitv �
i
The property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate I
the proposed development relative'to structures, parking, i
walls, fences, landscaping, driveways and other development
features required by the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Comoatibilitv
i
The proposed development is surrounded by a mixture of I
commercial developments; therefore, the project will be �
compatible with the surrounding land uses. ' �
I
4. Compliance with Develooment Standards �
The proposal meets the development standards required by the I
Zoning Ordinance with respect to setbacks, lot coverage,'
building height and density. However, the site plan shows ,
only 8 parking spaces where 9 are required. In addition, '
four of the proposed parking spaces are consistently �
occupied by wrecked cars and the other 4 spaces are �
partially blocked by the outdoor storage of tires. I
5. Conditions of Approval
The establishment as proposed, subject to the conditions �
recommended by the Site Plan Review Committee, would not I
have a negative effect on the values of the surrounding �
properties or interfere with or endanger the public health, I
safety or welfare.
6. Benefits to Communitv �
I
The requirements imposed by the Conditional Use Permit will 1
assist in upgrading the commercial use of the property and �
support the intent of the commercial designation of the i
General Plan.
i
i
�
2
I
�
I
r
7. Environmental Assessment
• Staff has found that no substantial environmental impact
will result from the proposed development; therefore, a
Negative Declaration has been filed in the Community
Development Department and in the cffice of the City Clerk.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration the Planning
Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2528:
A. Finding that the Conditional Use Permit, Case No. 152
will not have a significant effect on the environment
and certifying the Negative Declaration as adequate.
B. Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 152, subject to the
stated conditions and requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Resolution No. 2528
3. Site Plan
• I
I
I
I
I
I
�
f\:staffrpt\cup152
I
I
�
I
I
3
i
I
I
,. __. .:..,. . -- ---.._ __--------_..------ . -_ -- - - --- --
_. _ .. ....
, _ --. _. _ _ _
,� �
�} i
,
1 V� Y.
uv
LOCATION fUTAP ��
.,
,;
` '.YY.
� \
- ' //� / /�'\ \ �•J/.l
- - --- �' � rhR/�/ATION
BLl/D y C/RCLF y i0 � 9'� " o c a v a , c
i �� �o. e 'b ��^ �� ����I � � ��� M�
�� I, � �' ��—� -�--�—� ,"', 1,,,� �3 iu u ir' i, ia is ,v ir i`s� u io�ti tt t�i�., t� ¢c
� �
.� ��i � �, � I � � --- ��' ' I ,
�eln�nut+nirnro's��e I n��l� t � i�\\ t � R a I
i i
� � 1 1 i � .� i � .�� I ' ' i� � � � � . � � � i.:n::'r
y I j i I I � I i I� �� 6� �V ��) �' � R N � �
I I I ����/� i� ftc- � � i
i i ; i i s
i ; � ' %�� � 64636! 6i 605J 5b5� 56551S��5J�}7�51 }OU
� t i i�� � ' h�,',',,.! -.
.ise�vlweranuesaer �.r�:o�n�rzn e� �_ ,� ��� 6 666 , ,� � :1F �a y
' . .,, �� '
I '� �' p �I .. 2 i3n ' d5 i � !''� m 'I� f is
.I. . f ry .
- �-,�� `�., o ' OAKWO �
Al/E � y. I:G-. . .. . - - _ _ _ ;,;:�:j�:.;.
. . . . . .. . .... P �� � � � ��,� o�,':.';�' i �.:
r � �, 113oi :� � ��y �' ^� '7 � �., °� , .
. . I I �a � — � , ^�� ^i 1 � ?�:h'r,.
i:i
I I __ �. 3 � 14 H 71 71 70 G9 6! G6 65 bd 6� 62 �l 60 SJ � 5! ti 55 1.,.:;'., j�
r eo e. er u u e� ee r t� ko u�n )t n ar ie i� o: �� �•� �nl m`o �_ — ;13E d '
� I ?_ ...__ � . I � �::
� � i I I '. "_J W 5 i �.
i ..�' � ./l�' S
� I .�tt 1. . _ � r .
�»'/ �'° v/" r� • er �� .� zv n vo is ie n ie s i ,� iz . :�� �.—/p� II li 13 I� I'� I I:l, Itl 15 10 2� 72 (3 ld 15 76 17 ltl 79 70 31 ;
� =' 7 i ° +`�, y =i ' :
i _ � ,
�s �i �
$ . . H/GHWr7Y g IMPER/AL . ' � I
� . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . _iii. � . . . . � . � . . �. I � ,n . u . ;: ' � I
S I` � � � . ' �, n �i ,3 �
J) !f 60 U R U H 4 6 e�ltd ef �a n�: »>r �r. n n ie �r eu �—� 4`2 .1� 13 !7 /I � 6tl 67 G� 65 61 61 6 1 60 `J 5p 9 56 S,$�
I I
� � I I 8. -- a ` ? 0G7 ��
I ' 1 _' _ _ ' ' _ '_ _ � — _ ' — _ ' _' _"
�D ' � ii4p — .'n I
�� >>+ �� °�� r� +� u u r� �n e :o i� ie n i� ir ,� i� ii �� , a � �@ I f 11 Id IS 10 I( Itl U �0 71 l7 �) !d .(L II 7G 2Y 10 )I
� nrt7y �
: o i. , i . � i l '
. ... . �e � ' III'iqlUi � . '���' ':; 'ih. "',�rt�j �,cio� ^�
;HWO00 ': `. ;�� �
AVE � '�� BCECNW000
o) � 3e u... �� � o� ti:� � v r �.. i . j0� �v`� C� u �� �� ti J091. IIJr�10 � i/ 1C� � uAj J JiNI
` ' N I .m z�.,s : i�au��� ' '+ " � � -.�_ IW' ��:!�. i� � t(
C ' �z �i .m vs'�:n lv�z u �r n �i�ti 31" ` �i.... //dil � y • la nn Jtl �� \r �f� ii au40� �.
: e za '� Id J )= � \ .
° y ' ° � � � di3 yi�id� �.„ J ii � ��45��
s _
\ h y �.� � S'� '���JiD r7 0/i h.
� � .,� '�.. t b 5 =�\ ' S�., , a0�(
� i4 i t �� `.x.q fi : s �.� '��. =I5/5 "�. � ..�` 6/i,��.. .ii,`3� .r_� ,•� �.!!.',v�/j ;>
\'Y � , `I. "T IY
�T � ' w� n .I � / � �^ 7�� J/
d �'li �
ao �
�- , , . , , n ... z1 ° 'lpem�\ /ia�
� �; ;a>: �'' yaao�� ona;,s ���;a �_,.._,[ �` i� -°�; I
' \`i.�� ii� � � jy
�"*� a 10 � i�� )0 � S
� \.. q��\ „!!�'.'�., � /� �xS,r 'liJlyj '--.. � � \jd
: k ' C . !`!lY 5.• 9 � . .. J ."'.J/l.� ' �'� _` '.
y �� j �` ; . \�\ � B /0 iixd� � ti� � � � � YiJJq'� -�.
� , // � � � 3 ' ' . z.
� Q / ja
�I Ji + S i ,; b 1(, � � /5 e n �.. l6 /� 3+ _
• , .� ��'qki`� '.i' � / � � � ` '���
;N: .., ' � _ � �� ' � �uS.�„ . / /n`,, � j�
4
I
I
Y:Y.r' I
CASE N0. � �'
; ;:;
,.;,..;.
. .
__._. ----...._.._..._.__._ _ __ -----. ..
..
-- ______..- . _ _ . --- _ _ _ . _
Y
1
, RESOLUTION NO. 2528
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
NO. 152 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND
OPERATION OF AN EXISTING AUTO
REPAIR CENTER IN THE C-3
(COMMERCIAL) ZONE, AT 2991 EAST
IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, LYNWOOD,
CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood
pursuant to law, conducted a public hearing on the subject
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered all
pertinent testimony offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has
determined that no substantial environmental impact will result
from the proposed development; therefore, a Negative Declaration
has been filed in the Community Development Department and the
Office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the intent of the
General Plan in that the subject. site is classified Commercial�
and zoned C-3; I
Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds and
determines as follows:
A. That the granting of the proposed Conditional Use Permit
will not adversely affect the General Plan. I
B. That the proposed location of the Conditional Use is in I
' accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and
,' the purpose of the zone in which the site is located.
C. That the proposed location of the Conditional Use and the I
conditions under which it would be operated or maintained I
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or I
improvements in the vicinity;
D. That the proposed Conditional Use Permit will comply with I
each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
as stated in the conditions below;
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood
approves the proposed project subject to the following
conditions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I
1. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable I
regulations of the Lynwood Municipal Code, the Uniform I
Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. i
2. Any proposed subsequent modification of the subject site or i
structures thereon, shall be first reported to the Community i
Development Department, Planning Division, for review. �
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 I
permits are issued. I
�
(
1 i
I
�
• PLANNING DIVISION �
4. This permit shall become void one hundred twenty (120) days
after .the use permitted has been abandoned or has ceased to
be actively exercised, unless extended.
5. The applicant shall contact the U:S. Post office (Lynwood
main office) to establish the location of mail boxes serving
the proposed development.
6. All work shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed
buildinq for each of the businesses operating on site except
that tires may be repaired and installed outside of a
� building.
7. Provide a trash receptacle to be stored in an area that is
enclosed on three sides by a solid masonry wall and equipped
with a latched gate. ,
8. Daily•operating_ hours shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
9. Any artificial light shall be reflected away from
adjoining properties.
,
10. No damaged or wrecked vehicles shall be stored on site. No
portion of the site shall be used for vehicle storage unless
they are vehicles awaiting repair.
il. All damaged vehicles awaiting repair shall be effectively
screened from view from any public street or highway or
adjoining properties by the existing masonry wall and
landscaping.
12. On-site traffic circulation and parking shall be developed
in such a manner that ingress and egress accesses are
separated or channeled so-that conflicting traffic movements
are minimized.
13. The applicant/tenant shall provide adequate vehicular
circulation so as not to create traffic problems. There
shall be no automotive repairs or parking or storage of
damaged/wrecked vehicles in the driveways at any time.
14. Open storage of materials, products and equipment shall be
completely concealed from view of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic by an architectural barrier approved by the
Community Development Department Director or his/her
desiqnee. ,
15. All signacje must be reviewed and approved by the Planning,
Building and Redevelopment Divisions.
16. All necessary permits and licenses shall,be obtained prior
to operation. .
Landscapinq
17. No less than 50 of the total site, excluding lot area
dedicated to public right-of-way, shall be landscaped. Any
additional landscaping shall.be approved by the Community
Development Director prior to installation.
18. All planter areas fronting perimeter walls must be
landscaped and permanently maintained. Trees, shrub, and
ground covers are to be trimmed regularly, with all planted
area kept free of weeds and debris.
All plantings are to be kept in a healthy and growing
condition. An automatic sprinkler or irrigation system
shall be provided and maintained in working condition.
2
,Y �
`�
I, DATE: November 8, 1994 '� --• .
� . , . � , �. ' ."�` ,
{ . , �1.,..=-i'..i: .1� '�T 'SA F�.��.
� ���._t €f_�i� IY _., . '
T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
r ^ .:_ `.._` '
FROM: Gary D. Chicano, Director�:/;_.!- ;..,. .-����'
Community Development Department
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 31 �
Applicant: Habitat For.Humanity
Pr000sal•
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow reduction of the
required lot depth from one hundred (100') feet to an average of
eighty-four (84'-0") and lot size from 5,000 sq. ft. to
approximately 4,600 sq. ft. in order to develop a single family
dwelling on a lot at 3955 Louise Street, in the R-1 (Single-
Family Residential) zone, Lynwood, California.
Facts
1. Source of Authoritv.
While Section 25-4.5 of the Lynwood Municipal Code regulates
development standards in all residential zones. Section 25-
26 requires that a Variance be obtained from the Planning
Commission when, because of the special� circumstances
applicable to the property, the strict application of the
Zoning Ordinance deprives such propeYty of privileges enjoyed
by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning '
classi£ication. i
i
i
2. Prooertv Location and Size i
I
� The site is located at the northwest corner of Gertrude Drive ?
and Louise Street. It is irregular in shape and measures ;
approximately 4,600 square feet in size. I
i
3. Existina Land Use I
The site is vacant lot, and is surrounded by the following
land uses:
North - Transportation (I-105 Freeway)
South - Single-Family Residential �
i
East - Vacant Land I
West - Vacant Land I
4. Land Use Descriotion �
General Plan Zoning
i
North - Transportation '
South - Single-Family Residential R-1 �
East - Single-Family Residential R-1 I
West - Single-Family Residential R-1
5. Proiect Characteristics
The subject property is currently a vacant lot and is owned I
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lynwood. The
property is part of a remnant piece of land that was I
purchased by the Agency as surplus property from Caltrans.
The City of Lynwood, as part of its obligations to secure the
1992 Home Fund allocation, designated Habitat for Humanity as
1 �
�
t
�
r
�l.
the City's Community Housing and Development Organization
("CHDO"). They will be purchasing property from the Agency
� and developing a total of four (4) adjacent single-family
homes adjacent in Lynwood.
The property will be developed with a one story four (4)
bedroom home of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. and will have a
detached two-car garage. The property is irregular in shape
and smaller than the minimum lot size requirement of 5,000
sq. ft. due to the development of the I-105 freeway. Thus, a
variance is required relative to the area and depth of the
. lot. Although the lot is deficient, the development standards
with respect to lot building lot coverage, setbacks, and
landscaping will be met.
6. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting of October 26, 1994, the Site Plan
Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the
variance request.
7. Zonina Enforcement Historv
None of record.
8. Neiahborhood Response
' I
None of record at the time of preparation of the staff I
report.
I
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: I
1
i
1. Consistencv with General Plan and Zonina I
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing General �
Plan designation of Single-Family Residential. However, the I
lot does not meet the minimum area requirement of the R-1
zone. If the proposal is approved, the site will be developed '
relative to the allowable density under the General Plan.
2. Site Suitabilitv i
�
The property is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed I
development. However, the lot is substandard and does not �
meet current development standards relative to lot dept and
overall size. Therefore, a variance is required for the
project.
3. Compatibili� , I
The proposed project will be located in a neighborhood that
is predominately single-family residences. Single family
residences surround the project site and new single-family �
homes will also be constructed adjacent to the proposed
project. I
4. Compliance with Development Standards I
i
Specific Findings: � �
The property is a substandard lot with a hardship experienced
that would require an exceptional privilege and meets the
State requirements for findings of a Variance.
I
Staff recommends approval of the subject project variance for �
the reduction of lot depth and size. I
5. Environmental Assessment '
i
The Community Development Department has determined that the +
project could not have a significant effect on the �
environment and is categorically exempt from the provisions �
of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, a Notice of I
i
2 I
f
�
�� Exem tion has been
p prepared and is on file in the Community
Development Department and the office of the City Clerk.
,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration the
Planning Commission approve the Variance request:
A. Certifying that the project is categorically exempt from
the provision of the State CEQA Guidelines as amended by
Section 15061b(3).
B. Finding that a hardship has been established that
would require a Variance for Case No. 31 as determined
by Section 25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning Code.
C. Finding that the applicant/property owner will be
deprived of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same vicinity if Variance Case No. 31
is not approved. .
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Resolution No. 2533 �
3. Site Plan
I
'
i
�
�
I
I
�
�
I
I
I
i
I
I
�
f:planning\�ar:var31 �
I
. I
� . !
I
f
�
I
�
I
3 I
I
�
I
�
:J
RESOLUTION NO. 2�33
� ,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING A
VARIANCE REQUEST (VAR. CASE NO. 31) TO
REDUCE THE LOT DEPT 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.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood,
pursuant to law, held a public hearing on the subject
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered
all pertinent testimony offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the intent of the
General Plan in that the subject site is classified Single-
Family Residential and zoned R-1; and '
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined
that the proposal is categorically exempt from provisions of the
State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061b (3), as amended; therefore I
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of l i
Lynwood hereby finds and determines as follows: I
I
A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement I
of the specific regulation would result in practical difficulty I
or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the City Zoning Ordinance. '
I
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
which do not apply generally to other properties in the same '
zone. I
C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of ,
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
zone. .
D. That the granting of the Variance as conditioned will i
not constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent . I
with the limitations on other properties in the same zone.
E. That the granting of the Variance will not be I
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the I
vicinity. !
i
F. That the granting of the Variance will not adversely '
affect the orderly development of the City. I
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of i
Lynwood, based upon the aforementioned findings and the
determinations, hereby approves Variance Case No. 31, subject to �
the following conditions:
�
I
I
I
t:\resolutn\reso2533 I
1 ;
'
I
J
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
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 Director of
the Community Development for review and approval.
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 approval
� prior to issuance of any building permits.
PLANNING DIVISION
5. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Post Office (Lynwood
main office) to establish the location of a mail box
serving the proposed development.
6. Landscaping areas are to be a minimum of twenty-five (25%)
percent of the lot area. �
7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance
with a detailed plan to be submitted and approved by 'the
Director of Community Development prior to issuance of any
building permits.
8. 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 landscape area; and
two (2) fifteen (15) gallon trees for each 500 square feet
, of landscaped area.
9. The required front, rear, and side yards shall be
landscaped pursuant to Condition No. 8 except for necessary
walks, drives and fences.
10. No side yard shall be less then five (5') feet.
11. Acoustical construction materials must be used throughout
the unit to mitigate freeway noise to the standards and
satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division.
12. Before any building permits shall be issued, the developer
shall pay $1.65 per square foot for residential buildings
to the Lynwood Unified School District, pursuant to
Government Code Section 53080.
13. A minimum two (2) car garage shall be provided for the
proposed development.
14. All driveway and parking areas shall be paved.
15. Construction shall commence within six (6) months from date
of issuance of building permits. ,
16. Prior to the installation or construction of any masonry
wall, the property owner shall obtain a permit for and
submit the following information to the Planning Division:
a. Simple plot plan showing the location of the masonry
wall in relation to property lines, lengths, proposed
materials; and openings or gates to provide access for
vehicles and pedestrians.
2
r
7
FIRE DEPARTMENT
i
The Fire Department has 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 8th day of NOVEMBER 1994, by
members of the Planning Commission voting as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Carlton,McMiller Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gary D. Chicots, Director Michele Beal Bagneris
Community Development Director City Attorney
� '� f:\resolutn\reso2533
4
+ DATE:• November 8, 1994
',, % r ,, -_. ...�',` ,�' �., �i i s�'a �J,
�. TO: PLANNING COMMISSION -- -- `-'"" n
FROM: Gary D Chicots, Director ` , V.�.�-�I�'
Community Development Department
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 32
Applicant: Matthews Redwood/FOUr Seasons Outdoor
Products
Proposal:
I
The applicant is requesting a Variance to retain existing barbed
wire along the top of an existing chain link fence along East
Imperial Highway and barbed wire and concertina wire on the top
of an existing chain link and corrugated wire fence along
Fernwood Avenue and Beechwood Avenue in the M(Industrial) zone,
Lynwood, California.
Facts -
1. Source of Authoritv:
Section 25-26 of the Lynwood Municipal Code permits a
Variance to be obtained from the Planning Commission when
there are special circumstances applicable to the property,
and when strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives
such property of privileqes enjoyed by other in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
2. Prooertv Location and Size
The site is located on the south side of E. Imperial Highway
at Bellinger, Fernwood and Beechwood Avenues (see the
attached location map). The subject property is a generally I
rectangular shaped lot, approximately 43,650 square feet in
size.
3. Existina Land Use i
The subject site is currently developed as a wood products I
factory. The surrounding land uses are follow: I
North - Commercial '
South - Industrial
East - Industrial
West - Industrial
4. Land Use Description
The General Plan designation for the subject property is
Industrial, while the Zoning Classification is M. The
surrounding land use designation and zoning are as follows:
General Plan Zoning
North - Commercial C-3
South - Industrial M
East - Industrial M
West - Industrial [K
5. Pro�ect Characteristics
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to keep
both concertina and barbed wire on top of existing fences and
gates on Beechwood and Fernwood Avenues and barbed wire on
a fence along East Imperial Highway in order to protect
property against repeated break-ins, theft and damaqe to
fence, gates and buildings (see attached plot plan).
1
: l
• The applicant was cited by the City's Code Enforcement
Division since Section 25-16.6e prohibits the use of barbed
wire and concertina wire on modified fences in non-
residential zones. In addition, the same section prohibits
the continued use of such materials on existing fences after
September 1, 1994.
Mr. Matthews voluntarily removed the concertina wire along
Imperial Highway since he feels that traffic from the Justice
Center will discourage break-ins along the Imperial Highway
frontage of the property. However, he wishes to retain the
barbed wire on the fence for additional security.
There is very little traffic along Fernwood and Beechwood
Avenue portions of the property and this side of the
property is only partly visible fro�n ImperiaT Highway or the
Century Freeway. It is this area where most of the recent
break-ins have occurred and Mr. Matthews wants to retain both
concertina and barbed wire along these frontages.
6. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting on October 26, 1994, the Site Plan
Review Committee evaluated the proposed Variance and
recommended denial to the Planninq Commission. The Committee
determined that the modification of an existing fence by
adding concertina wire is prohibited, and that the use of
barbed and concertina wire on existing fences and walls is
prohibited as of September 1, 1994. The committee believes
that the necessary findings for granting a variance cannot be
met.
7. Zoning Enforcement Historv
The Code Enforcement Division cited the property owner for
the illegal concertina wire on fences around the perimeter of
, the property on July 7,1994.
S. Neiahborhood Resoonse •
None of record at the time of preparation of the staff
report.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
' l. _C_onsistencv with General Plan and Zoning
The existing land use is consistent with the existing zoning .
classification M and the General Plan designation of'
Industrial. The existing fence does not comply with the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance relating to permitted
materials.
2. Site Suitabilitv
The property is adequate in size to accommodate existing
development.The lot is standard and meets current
development standards relative to structures, parking, walls,
driveways and other feature required by the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Compatibilitv
The existing development is surrounded by a mixture of
industrial and commercial development and, therefore, is
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
I
2
f
,� The existing fences are compatible with the Industrial use of
the property, particularly along Imperial Highway. However,
the fences along Fernwood and Beechwood have a number of
heavy add on metal screens along with the concertina wire
that make the fencing obtrusive and unattractive . The fence
have only limited visibility from the freeway or Imperial
Hiqhway, so the visual impact is limited.
4. Findina Repuired for Granting a Var�ance
Staff believes that the required findings for granting a
Variance cannot be made for this request.
The applicant is not being'deprived of a right that is
enjoyed by others in similar circumstances. No one in non-
residential zones has the right to use barbed or concertina
wire. Granting this variance appears to be a grant of
special privilege.
The strict and enforcement of the specific regulation would
not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance.
There are alternative ways to increase the height of the
fence and gate so that wire would not be necessary.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property�involved which do not
' apply generally to all other manufacturing properties in the
City.
5. Environmental Assessment
The Community Development Director has determined that the
project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines as amended, Section 15061b (3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration the Planning
Commission deny this request.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Letter of Justification
4. Resolution
f:\statfrptWar32
3
„,
. `�
. � ' � �v� «'� �� .s.- � �� a - R ': � e� � � ' s �. ' 'r \ . . ,
' 1 ti ; ',;:t �, � , , �%
,°° „o � „: .,� , �; ; , �.: , . ;
� ' 99 . q; iK � �. A i �� r 1 � i 1 � ` + � � ; ^ �._ % s ' . . 1
/ ' , A/
9B , � •., ��� �_” �u� �i �e v v »silss.» n��ea���c s rc a� u:a(cs n �e�c. �:� i � I �' " 4 3 r
� i. z �
SJ I � iJ3 ,4, /fO Gn � � . � . �.�.� I � I I � � 5I � �
�ij ' . ° _ � � ' y y GI A I � � : � .
� _ . 96 suw e /69 Y� uY .a oa , � . . :.
s
' /iI ' J2 F u ' " . . . ... . . .
9s � o• , h iso � � ' � ' " ' . ' . . . . _ A � • , � i
• . � ii5 �J ; � ` . W ; . � I � . . � .
T� 0 � 94 � ^ /S/ � CJ 2 5) :�Y:Sl y�51 SS 36Is) v Y�e N N 1 I �� a •
� I � � G o ii6 3p f +� .asro Z ' � I � ' J ��v u � � � _.IH n ,- n�z �s eo�ei � _ s _ 113 i �
� 9j �.. iil � `'� 'i es � � i � 1 � � � � � • s ( r
�. ' o ' �.{ 1 � � i� � �
� ' `-�:� 91 ,� � ° , � C1 _ E g : o : : � �; ; � .� . � s IV . O �:
. , . . ` � e . _ . . , . M1 , . e � .:i�� �.
� � � ,� y s. 1?T�p: • : ��C � . ~ ' �: U N Il I1 I/ IO 9 S l I � � � ;. ,i . .
!�o � � 9 ` .r� 1? !«� ` � � y z � Ix�n c'vsbz zjz e.��is -.s��� i, �H
�e> � . '� � .. ' 'ss ° ` 1 � ( I . � . ! ' �. I � a I n r---a— �. , :
. / , ' . ' � ' . F_ � 1
,. b i �S ;' �: y ... i�� � .°.; ♦
O ,; ao� •' �f .� i e 6 ` /MP£R/AL g � �
� / l 92 ' a ��� H/GHKS4Y $ � .
/ �. b � '
� � \
� � /I1 , yi /z! ' : " � ' ' . . .. . . , . . _ � :,
� ' '' �i =- _ p�
/1� , r f °= . � _, � �. -��� �� � � ,_ q )`�
c: �, �� � � � ; z s�;.: ��rya �r —<—'-- ��� �V ' �
�, • � ^ I� .Sr ' � � I I � _ ;' � . : I
r • '� ' �s.� �, e \ r \� 1` ) t . � � �- . �i �-- — ` '_ ° 6 . � '.
� . . �.. I � .s-.. �1ia ' � ' " . �.�iP7� , .
� . .]a�� Y? d il�R:c < � � � :
I - I . �� I � � 1:
,-' d.6> , y . I. , . I I� , I c— F 9 .
. ' ' i I . � . . � � . „=,41C � .
p . BEEGHWOOD � �
a•zs � .{ y ✓ s,� .
� AVE� � $ � � i ;
_ ��G " t`�, r : , � � �.ti i.F `� � " jp �,
J e \. .L ♦ �` \I.C� O � � 9l. '� �
� Q � 'b �, ` "';' b ( '9 �' ° J i �'� %•z �, :, ���' ' 7B j � I j
, �
.5�5 1 -I��l��: � � .i � I
/ � s s
__ �(,�." 1 r I i� , Ri G/rT 4 ' , �v j � _i� ys � . - IS . � � �.
5�.5 11171
V S � r�S . �r �� s ' ��1
�� _ c i d. . + l: 77 � f
�p s � `, 2 � a., !' .� '��23
\ . O 6 � } � � n '�)� -(/ - ' �
. . \ b � � . s , ` � j . , e '$'10
, .,(� � � ,� 1 ? f , � y '1 : �" v F {� �,
- s . � � .. �e :
� � �
,� .� ,,, > � .
" � � � e.' "' _� . i: �� � . ' ..r . F ' � ` .�, � / � � � I
." \ _\ �J t ,�ll `� j _ � i
� �Y�-_ --- ;< ; _v'_ 4^ , " : �`.,R I . �
- - _ _ _ !
I
n , . - � � �_ - =- =- �" - __ _ _ i
-� a�'..�rz.cti! - . . � . --- - � :�a:-��� �..
a.> ,:_ , . ... , . .: - :_ :. ' � �-
- -.�:_, .. . -.-- ..-- . _ .:.. .,:; ' -" _ ��
` \'� i ; �.
1's ` � p ��1 `�
� � �
� ', - �
i n` ' �
� �,� � �= p�� - � _
1 ,, , .. - I
e' ►+ i�� C t+�� rJ �� �J K v y��� �
;,� � et ✓ " � / °� a p�
W i r� C�;�K3c a- ``_ • /'
� �� —
�, � f�- 2� ��+ g` 4� � O l 7� Z i I I :/�
�t _�_ �° /—�—
S I � OPLJZ( / �
STJC� O • . . .
�'' J 5r�2��� Q � ���, �
�_ C�rr �
��� � t -�S �+���j 5+�-� o - - _ ,_
�Jc� i��c —_ _ ./
� d J
_ , ,�
' �J
' �`°���`_� �=_ "'r ���; ��,`' �� � fl
`��20. i��� ��. ����,�� ��^� c;v "� `� �
� � � �, �—� � �'�' /�� ���(✓ � \ c�� �/
L � �I V � ` J( /
� � � 4
1 '�
( �/�i� I �.
\ �q�s � \
',• • t ry � ��' . � '�J� ��
�� _ y 20 _ ,�,�
< ti � � �, �
� `'�� la�r= - - _ ' � - ' .
� - ��i-�- � _ �
" � � �z � �H7E� _ - -
( �p 1�1(of} �.v� f2 �
� �J ITr1 NC�LT/JJ� W 1/<r �
. � As10 �i� �.; � 2 r
�1
� BEECH
r , • • .
,, ��� ;;
MATTHEWS REDWOOD `� �
'� FOl1R SEASONS OUTDOOR PRODUCTS �:,;.
��'.
.._.�_-�:
'. �N � . ��:'.... :- ..
�
October 3, 1994
RobeR Diplock
City of Lynwood
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, CA 90262
Subject: Variance Regazding Barbed Wire & Concertina Wire
Dear Mr. Diplock,
We will have removed the concertina wrire along our Imperial Hwy. fence by Friday, October 7, 1994.
Howzver, we ored to kzep the ba�bed wire on the Imperial fence and both the conceRina wire aod barbed wire
a(oog our Beechwood and Femwood fences.
The reason we need to keep both rypes of wire on Beechwood and Femwood, and the bacbed wire on Imperial I
is thaz over the last 12 months we have repocted 14 break-ins to the Lynwood sheriff. See copies of the repoRs
attached. They did catch 2 people in May going over our Imperial fence, both were convicted. In addition, we
have had az least another dozen break-ins where the loss was less than $50., and we did not repoR them.
In total, these break-ins cost us over $7000. in lost property and another $5000. in da�age to fences, gates and
buildings. Now, you can add another $1075. for the variance fee. We aze too small a company to afford 24
hour security. Without the wire, it will be open season on our plant. This would force us out of Lynwood,
along with the 60 people we employ.
I feel a bit safer in taking down the concertina wire on Imperial simply because ofmore sherifftiaflic due to the i
new justice center. But, along Beechwood and Femwood, there is no traffic. We need to keep our protection.
Our fence is not visible from the freeway. We have taken all precautioas we can to protect our facility with a
guard dog, extra lighting, double lock gates and equipment vaults. I
We are a civic minded company. We have been at tlils localion for 35 yea�s. We have been chamber of I
commerce membecs for 10 yeacs. I pe�sonally served on the chamber for a number of yeazs, one as �
vice-president in 1989 and as president in 1990. We have suppo�ted the mtary, St. Francis, and vazious other I
city functions over the years. We try to keep our plant clean and in good appearance, as you saw on your visit.
We need to have the city g�ant this variance, or we will be robbed right out ofthe city. Thank you for your
attention to this matter, and the time you given to our problem. Shouid you have any questioas, please, feel
free co call me.
�
S incerely, �
Bob Matthews, I
President, Matthews/Four Seasons
' I
2934 East Imperial Hwy • P.O. Box 248 • Lynwood, CA 90262 I
(800) 755-1757 • Ph. (310) 638-0493 • Fax: (310) 537-0979
., . : � - - '
.. . . : .:. . . .. , >. .
:
. _ .. _ . _:: .�. .. _,:. . _ , _...
i
� I
I
I
I
i
�
I
I
f �
RESOLUTION NO. 2529
� A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING A
VARIANCE REQUEST (CASE NO. 32) TO RETAIN
EXISTING BARBED AND CONCERTINA WIRE ALONG
THE TOP OF EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCES
ALONG EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, FERNWOOD,
AND BEECHWOOD AVENUES, IN THE M
(MANUFACTURING) ZONE, LYNWOOD,
CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood,
pursuant to law, held a public hearing on the subject
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered
all pertinent testimony offered at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the intent of the
General Plan in that the subject site is classified as
Industrial and zoned M (Manufacturing);'and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined
that no substantial environmental impact will result from the
proposed variance; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
filed in the Community Development and the Office of the City
Clerk. .
Section i. The Planning Commission of the City of I
Lynwood hereby finds and determines as follows: ' I
A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement �
of the specific regulation would result in practical difficulty
or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the i
objectives of the City Zoning Ordinance. . �
I
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary �
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved �
'which do not apply generally to other properties in the same �
zone.
� � �
C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of I
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
zone.
�
D. That the granting of the Variance as conditioned will �
not constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent I
with the limitations on other properties in the same zone.
E. That the granting of the Variance will not be j
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or I
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the �
vicinity.
F. That the granting of the Variance will not adversely �
affect the orderly development of the City. �
�
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of ;
Lynwood, based upon the aforementioned findings and the ��
determinations, hereby approves Variance Case No. 32, subject to I
the following conditions:
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �
1. The existing development shall comply with all applicable j
regulations of the Lynwood Municipal Code, the Uniform �
Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. �
I
I
• �
1
�
�
I
I
2. Any proposed subsequent modification of the variance,
� subject site, or structures thereon, shall be first
reported to Director of the Community Development for
review and approval.
3. 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 approval
prior to issuance of any building permits.
PLANNING DIVISION
4. The owner of the site shall maintain a pro-active approach
to the elimination of graffiti from the structures, fences
and any accessory building, on a daily basis.
5. A cover sheet of approved Conditions must be attached to
plans prior to submission to the Building and Safety
Division.
6. The existing property shall be maintained in sanitary
condition and in a neat and orderly manner at all times.
Failure to comply may result,in revocation of the approved �
Variance.
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works and Engineering found no cause to
establish conditions for this request. �
FIRE DEPARTMENT �
The Fire Department found no cause to astablish conditions for I
this request. �
Section 3. A copy of this resolution shall be delivered to I
the applicant. i
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of November , 1994, �
by members of the Planning Commission voting as follows: I
AYES: �
I
NOES: I
I
ABSENT: �
�
I
ABSTAIN: I
i
I
Carlton McMiller, Chairperson I
+ i
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: !
�
. I
Gary D. Chicots, Director Michele Beal Barneris I
Community Development Dept. . Deputy City Attorney I
t:\resolutn\reso2528 I
�
�
�
z i
. I
�
Y ''
i
� � �; � � - e 1 , n . ' { A � _
DATE: November� 8, 1994 ft , ;;? 'ti'V �`d�+'• "�"
v � ^'���
TO:: PLANNING COMMISSION '��
� � " � :,�. � �'.�. �
+.. -
FROM: , Gary D. Chicots, Director
Community Development Department
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 33 °
, Applicant: Genaro and Devora Lopez
Proposal•
The applicant is requesting a Variance from the provisions of the
� Zonincj Ordinance in order to maintain a second unit garage
conversion at 3226 Lynwood Road in the R-1 (Single,Family
` Residential) zone, Lynwood, California.
Facts
1. Source of Authoritv:
Section 25-26 of the Lynwood Municipal Code permits a
,, Variance to be obtained from the Planning Commission when �
there are 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.
. 2: Pro�ect Characteristics � . � "
The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to
maintain a converted garage as living quarters. The sub�ect .
site contains a one (1) story dwelling, a 380 sq.ft. room
addition attached to a 342 sq. ft. garage that is.being used .
as a habitable space. The remainder of the site consists of
lawn areas and a driveway. •
3. Property Location and Size �
The site is located on the west side of Lynwood Road between
Long Beach Boulevard and Alpine Avenue, (see the attached
location map). The subject property is a rectangular lot, .
approximately 6400 square feet (40' x 160') in size, '
4. Existin4 Land Use
� The subject site is currently developed with one (1) single
family dwelling and a two (2) car garage that has been
converted'into a second residential unit. The property does
not contain a garage. The surrounding land uses are follow:
North - Single Family Residential
' South - Single Family Resident..ial
. East - Single Family Residential °
West - Single Family Residential
5:' Land Use Description .
" The General Plan designation for the subject property is
Single Family Residential, while the Zoning Classification is
' R-1. The surrounding land use designations and zoning are as
• ° follows:
General Plan , Zoning
North - Single Family Residential R-1
South - Single Family Residential R-1
East - Single Family Residential R-1 �
` West - Single Fami2y Residential R-1
1 •
�j 6. Site Plan Review
,� At its regular meeting on October 26, 1994, the Site Plan '
Review Committee reviewed and recommended denial of the
' Variance request. •
7. Zonina Enforcement Historv
On August 15, 1994, the Code EnfoTCement Division Staff
, observed a possibly garage conversion at the subject site.
On September 1, 1994, a Notice of Violation was mailed to
the applicants regarding the garage conversion.
8. Neiahborhood Response
None of record at the time of preparation of the staff
report.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
� 1. Consistency with General Plan and Zonin4
The proposed land use is inconsistent with the existing
zoning classification of R- 1 and the General Plan
designation of Single Family Residential. Under the General
Plan designation and the R-1 zoning•classification, only one
' dwelling unit is allowed per lot. The Zoning Ordinance also
requires that a single-family dwelling provide two (2)
enclosed parking spaces. Two units on this site violates
the density limits of the General Plan and net lot area
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the�R-1 zone.
2. Site Suitabilitv
The property is adequate in size to accommodate one single
, family dwelling unit. The lot as developed cannot meet
current development standards relative to lot area,
structures and parking. The property does not contain the
required two (2) car garage, nor is a garage proposed for
the project. The site configuration, a.flat rectangular
shaped lot, does allow compliance with Zoning Code
regulations if the illegal second unit is removed.
3. Compatibilitv
The existing development is surrounded by single family
dwellings. The lot development is inconsistent with other
uses in the area. Upon field insp�ction, it was determined.
that the typical uses in the area are single family.
dwellings with two (2) car garages. The subject property'�
contains two units where only one is permitted.
4. The Creation of the Illeaal Use and Possible Remedies
The original garage was converted without a building permit
in 1951. Therefore, the City cannot determines if the unit
is safe and meets the requirements for a habitable space.
The creation of a second unit on this lot would not have
been permitted at the time of the conversion because it
• would have violated density limits and the limit of only one �
dwelling unit on a R-1 lot. The conversion also eliminates
, the required two car garage.
The only remedies to correct this violation is deconvert and
turn the unit back into a garage. If the property owner �
wishes, there is enough space on the lot to add an
additional bedroom and sitting room at the rear of the I
house.
. d
_' � �
I
, �
2
�
j` ,
<�, 5. Findinas Reauired for Grantina a Variance ,
�y Staff believes that the required findings for granting a.
Variance cannot be made for this request.
The applicant is not being deprived of a right that is �
enjoyed by others in.similar circumstances. No one in non-
, residential areas has a right to convert garages into living .
quarters under current regulations. Granting this variance .
request would be a grant of special privilege.
The strict enforcement of the specific regulation would not
- result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
' hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning
• ordinance.
There are=no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved which do not
apply generally to all other res'idential properties in the
City. .
6. Benefits to CommunitV
Allowi.ng retention of an illegal unit will not aid in
, upgrading the neighbor and creates a hazardous situation and,
potential liability.
'' In the past few years the City has consistently required the
deconversion or elimination of illegally created residential
units. In the pasf twelve months, Staff has identified 133
' illegal units and has required all of these units to be
deconverted or brought into compliance. If the property
owner does not comply, the violation is referred to the City .-�
Prosecutor and taken to Court. In the past five years, the '
Court upheld the City's determination and required'
, compliance in all cases.
' 7. Environmental Assessment ,�,
, The Community Development Department,Staff has determined �
., that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to State �
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15321 (a). �
, �
• RECOMMENDATZON �
_ � i
- . i
Staff respectfully requests that after consideration the Planning i
Commission.deny'the Variance request. '
' i
Attachments - • �
j
- l. Location'Map ' �
2. Site Plan
i
�I
' I
I
� . . ;
I
. „ ' f:�\ � sfaffrpt�va�33(ab/rd) - • . �- I
' _ � �
�
.. � " . . � . . �t
I
I
3 • ��
�
�
�
• t
�:
:. :.. ..:.: . _ �
� : ; ,: ;
� � - , _ . _. _
,.. _ <.... _„_.
�""� S , d t° �F r8� � � ° d - r�e �J r . O � ` ��e' �'�qN�
i de�. f a , 4, ,� � �� �y ��rc 9°�. .
s � os I . �
�`d' • 8F�l� � CC� o � oi �'d%oZ' � �' ` d .6
' N �� � O �i � ':�h� � ��n �/Cf 4 � "
Ft e '��f F< 1"F` "� � pii '^ w, m. / ` e
� . ' % �• � C � , ^, (y� �Q c G e p l� s: no �i. �Y os f y� 6�(� ,Q � � �
� ��/ � � � . c�PF � ,�.p�AfCh� % .✓�.ii, � °� 0 .. y � �
� �% C / P �� � � 9 C'C tl f�lg� 4� o.. '� � � e $ �
I � . � �'� � h �► � � �� � -g.� °`" � �/' .
� ° �%h �,� PF'a'� ` ,. o '�` \ ` C/ � ��, f! I or Pr � � d
. `�'£� �'�sc£ �- �" .r.rp�,�_ � ,� �,�,�, �� � a `'���F" i � �
i
N£ � � • �. � �� ` � �h � i.. ^ /7�
. e i ° p ' 0 Q.IrF �l` ` "' 'S�' , t, �- � ` � P. �� _. �y, � "d' �. (�`�, � � t/� �� /6.•
_. �,� � £ ti � s n �, y ''�-' � :Y. w ry .
�cc.r �. .
�' � j�e ��CF
� ` ��` c � C a ��F� �''�- C �"��'�� J
Q �� �. '��P £�� � d�� ` fSC ''�= e � �\f c� � '
��
sF � � d�,�, rf'c$'�� � rE �£f�, � 9 f �P�, �� o � 4 �F!
� 9 ``'� � � `�' sr�z;
` � `PF E,�� _ bi°e�, '���e..? ` , ` C D1, '�. ` C ��`� � ' ° �A . ���
1q' � ,
s ��
. ��, o , � � h+�' a '9.t cE d,`,,� pi��f '
� o
. Sit£ :� . � ,� � /' CPe vs � P �o � L i �o�p£ ` � w ° .' �' e �. 6�� c
I � rF ? .r r , � , ,Y `e?� � 4�b oy. ' �f ry , `!,.�' o_ �i( c V � . ';, p � S � ,
� `� o � r U �, e
� 6 �1' � � O� � , „ F `, � h � � � �� � �t£� `�` � `P£` °f ^ •\ � , `F £ t�' �b� .
' pF :' `� 0�'e- v F� ' � aCC � � \� � Y{, oD ♦ � � b �'
; ; p E h M1 � ppp ,^� c e{� e a° � �``�, J 0
; O � o � ti �_ � � 3 h 'PCC4 r r �ri ��; � o .. �
� a�p -,. Y� c N , a, �� ° d �°` m ,d J oi ; � r `
i � . �.�� �� �� ,� � o ' .. ` �� / �� °'-^�[.a or �� / P . 6
� Q ' � � �^���J'�,�k �� 'v ; � .J`^�...i.,' ��' ' ' C •
� HJV,,+ °r ` �. �� � '�' n h ,. N �� � .iN' ,� �� � /•OL YY O
/ \ � � �� C �^�, O e ° . ^ � b r - P Q ' r te
V �
� �s C O� q ^ �,'"� o °'� � q � � `�� � ��,��b'tip�v 9i � �
� , 8 \ �� ^ � � a fi\ ^�� �� � _ � ° �
a `
13 -�b1 ��� Ol' � M1 o n � O M` � p0 0� d^ 1 'p
J s ° � � p P_ ,' F�
i r° mro � `� o � iO,. .. �^ A � ��[/ � � I I I
� r 1 - � f� . � R W
I . � te pt ♦�� r �0 0 �` ��ll, /�
^` w T � � �/ /
_ �
I � �� Ao� ,
; /'� `,' g \ �
� �
� = y:
� DATE : November 8 , 1994 �"' �' ' f' ;� i "�"" r, r., ;� ; •-• �
-�� , . ' � � � �..i'-3 ��:'�..i. _ �
T0: PLANNING COMMISSION �, ;� , '�
a„ � . ., ... �
.. �.�f" ;�'�ii_�,
FROM: Gary D. Chicots, Director YV �
Community Development Department
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Appeal 19, Appeal of Conditions Imnosed Upon Site Plan
Case No. 125
Appellant: Martha Ibarra
Proposal•
The appellant is appealing conditions imposed by the Site Plan
Review Committee for Site Plan Review C:ase No. 125 (SPR 125) an
application to legalize a satellite dish system at 3271 Tenaya
Avenue in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zone.
Facts•
I
1. Source of Authoritv I
Section 25-32 f. of the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance allows an �
action of the Site Plan Review Committee to be appealed to '
the Planning Commission. �
Section 25-2 Definitions of the Lynwood Zoning Ordinance �
defines the term "garage, private'"as meaning a detached I
accessory building or portion of the main building for the �
parking or temporary storage of automobiles for occupants of I
the premises. i
Chapter 8 of the Lynwood Municipal Code adopts the Uniform �
Building Code (UBC) which regulates the construction of !
residential units and garages. Under the UBC, living i
quarters are not permitted in garages.
�
� Project Characteristics I
�The applicant (appellant) has applied for Site Plan Review �
approval to maintain eighteen (18) foot high satellite dish I
system on residential property containing three (3) dwelling �
units, a two (2) car garage, a one (2) car garage, and a �
i
laundry room that has been converted to an apartment. The �
system is mounted along side of garages located at the rear �
of the site. The system was constructed without a building
permit or the required Site Plan Review Approval.
In reviewing the Site Plan application, Staff became aware of i
a potential illegal conversion of a laundry room attached to �
a garage. Staff reviewed the evidence and determined that I
the site contained an illegally created unit. The
determination was discussed at least twice with the I
applicant. �
As a condition of the Site Plan Review approval of the I
satellite dish system, Staff has required the deconversion or i
elimination of the illegal unit. The applicant is appealing I
that requirement.
3. Prooertv Location �
The site is located on the north side of Tenaya, between Long �
Beach Boulevard and Mariposa Avenue. (See attached location
map). i
., �
4. Propertv Size �
The subject site consists of a lot which is rectangularly +
shaped, and approximately 7, 200 square feet in size.
� - f\planning�s[affrpt\f:appl9(ab/rd) - �
1 �
;
�
I
ti '
5. Existinq Land Use
^ .
�� The property is currently occupied by three (3) attached
dwelling units, a two (2) car garage, a one (1) car garage,
a laundry room converted to an apartment, and an installed
satellite dish. The surrounding land uses are as follows:
North - Residential/Commercial
South - Residential
East - Residential
West - Commercial
6. Land Use Designation
The General Plan Desiqnation for the subject property is
Multi-Family while the Zoning Classification is R-3 (Multiple
family Residential). The surrounding land use designations
and classifications are as follows:
General Plan Zoning �
North - Single Family Residential R-3
(City of South Gate) i
South - Single Family Residential/ R-3/C-3 �
Commercial �
East - Single Family Residential �R-3 i
West - Commercial C-3
I 7. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting on August 29, 1994 the Site Plan i
Review Committee evaluated the proposed development and I
issued the Conditions of Approval.
On October 3, 1994, the applicant filed an appeal to the
Planning Commission objecting to items l.a. and 2 of the r
Conditions of Approval that 1) that the residential unit at �
the rear of the property be converted to a legal use and 2) �
that subsequent modification of the•subject site be reported
to the Planning Division for review (See Exhibit I). ,
i
8. Zonina Enforcement Historv
�
On July 5, 1994, a Notice of Violation was mailed by the Code �
Enforcement to Francisco and Martha Ibarra �
regarding the satellite dish on the subject property. ;
On August 10, 1994, a Non Compliance Letter was mailed by the j
Code Enforcement Division to the appellant regarding the I
satellite dish.
�
9. Public Resoonse I
I
None of record at the time of preparation of the staff I
report. '
i
(
. i
I
I
f\planning\staffrpt\f:appl9(ab/rd) �
. 2 �
I
,�,
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
"� 1. Consistency with General Plan and Zonina Ordinance
The proposed land use is consistent with the existing zoning
classification of the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) Zone,
and the General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential.
However, the four (4) units on the property creates a
residential density greater than that permitted by the R-3
zone and by the General Plan designation (approximately 24
units per acre where a maximum of 18 units is permitted.
The converted laundry room also does not meet the Zoning
Ordinance minimum square footage for a residential unit.
2. Site Suitabilitv
. The property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
existing development relative to structures, walls, fences,
landscaping, parking, driveways and other development
features required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, it is
not adequate in size to accomodate the number of units on the
property.
3. Compatibilitv
The existing development is surrounded by a mixture of I
residential and commercial uses. Granting this appeal would i
create a density not compatible with the adjacent
residential uses. �
4. Compliance with Develonment Standards i
The proposal meets the development standards required by the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to setbacks and lot coverage.
The development does not meet density requirements of the +
Zoning Ordinance and does not provide the required number of �
parking spaces for four (4) units. The proposal does not �
comply with the Uniform Building Code which prohibits bedroom i
and sleeping areas adjacent to a garage.
5. Benefits to Communitv i
i
Allowing the retention of an illegal unit will not aid in �
upgrading the neighborhood and creates a hazardous situation �
and potential liability. �
In the past few years the City has consistently required the '
deconversion or elimination of illegally created residential �
units. In the past twelve months, Staff has identified 133 �
illegal units and has required all of these units to be !
deconverted or brought into compliance. If the property �
owner does not comply, the violation is referred to the City
Prosecutor and taken to Court. In the past five years, the
Court upheld the City's determination and required compliance i
in all cases.
7. Environmental Assessment �
The Community Development Department Staff has determined
that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section
15303 (a) of the State of California Environmental Quality
Act of 1992. I
�
I
I
t\p�anning\staffrpt\f:appl9(ab/rd I
I
I
3 ;
I
:Y
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission deny this appeal.
ATTACHMENTS•
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Exhibit I, Appeal Letter
4. Exhibit II, Conditions of Approval
I
I
�
, , i
�
�
�
I
'�f:\planning\staffrpt\f:appl9(ab/rd) I
I
I
�
I
i
I
� I
�
I
�
I
�
I
i
I
�
4 ' �
�
`, . _.
. � i:::::..
�'
:•
LOCATIC�N iV1AP
-- , ��,_ - . _ _ --
�. �0i�t� "vvn "� �j'� , �4od� - �ioi��� ]tJ 7y 8� Q �
/U h ioi 9l /O i a �l �
/170�Z . .. ,� .
a M/CN/CAM R g
� '�'� lD��l � � � � d� �''
iu
t ,� 151 ��GfW. � pdo0 � .
� y 1v�_�i9(U�y,j J .. .._._ ' .i,
. o .us uiu �_- �..._ I� „r. �r : gi°9'e" � ;,
\ � u9 � e.,� \/o _` 95 94 93 92
� __ � _
2 �sr ' i�e ° �; ��s �a t : ,� � � ;�:
i;. ,.
ttra�_ ieo��( � loi� h
113 117/I]dl v h . _ � Z
� � a .,.un�� n ..Oa1 � JP� C. 3 IOL IOT IOtl IOy
Y�
`� ^, �SCQUO/A � - o
r
� B �oJr�I1J $ � i
� ,� t �14/9_... �-11's.YL_� _/o p � tl00/
"'. 41o�u� •,� f7A ; , � ° �l71 I
�' ..ta5�4 +'� cw�t.: 'v IU � iltl � 11f = 116 `�
b 115 ��4 `
�ie —0°- � �'._7� �:,� � io� r
n,... . � .__ -.-- ----. .::
° m3� th rra , � id� ;
�i�,.'
/I . I U ', .....icS�d'� y ' rj; Q __.._... � :.
/olt ;� 117 ,. Iad.7Y
Y . i.ftl�7 1 ' IJ' I'JG l�l I'JU ly7 2W 1Ul �
u
H /01� � qr� i. I!U :� ���Z�l�o I
� CNCROKEE "� , i , ; � � ' - I
.� ; '.4 , ,. J.
ll � .,. Y1 �n `: .
I �l If7 _�im . I
.. /Li.:14....:�. � :� I
lI l.i I 14 /5 ll 1 v
a.�i.__. .. �;\ �.��a Itl9 ICU Itl7 I Itl6 / Iryq
� In J �
id . ` ' ' r, t r 'ioe
��:::.._ , R �
II , t� � z� t3 tz >�,'�, � S, ' 10��5�...._' �6� u� i ��\ � I � �
. � zi / i�r` fY '� � � e` ��'I��c� !I � w��� I
O 9013 ^ .' ,1}� O � � ( b 1 I� vl � I \ `� \ � �
7fNAYA -� � ` � "� � I
S �
a I
f � �. '�'/o7n� Ib 8 ' •
1G � 1/ '! ,. c:ni �40d ° " W �i o) w m' w,
Y�1 YiJ'J � 1. 37 /P.Y�.. .1� t Ir o I-0 l.l l w'e �,i r.r � I
• W 'r. �a�.a�!.eya1. ' iuvo i6� O �iay �b�, �� ��!° �i516 � ,� . ` , I
nr,C �'•�LO' ' iu ° � • .�I50 ° ` ;
� ov�
—__ �iri ~ h � i 3 �ovn� .i�v� �„ � � � i
�r �� iu
�1 � � �/0.7,/__ I
.� 3 � /3G o �� ,io au' . �I .
r7 ao �e � t.r�/nYi�� _..iac]2._._.._°. , , ..
41 4/ 4U �JO� I. �� ,„ � i � �
,,id '" I I Y� ' nuit �45 ' J 135 � lil 1 I 13 I 141
+� • '1 �i. f " �� w �w L
Ifll� N �� y Q �O W p�+ I\ � '. �
.. . � SfM/NOLE n '
` g ,. I
`„'''
' p 4 I s I n iu��l�" x a�o a w 'w w v I
+ .� �.. �,G � I � tl �7 . ./IU�S��� f W OS'�C. _° M a �� O �o W I�\' v
IJ �a \ ./J m � J7 iJO"Y °i,�y �C�� ��'° i
c� U_._._°, `I
,M �f iari7 �° I � �
i
- gfl' � .o.o..�.o '
„ .o
t�� � `� _ pr' , �. �,. ....a ,o• .�
a� ai a p i h �� J � a � t7. lofJi � � I
I �n �n .�BZ[or� .� no � uJ W �ia nl
� y
7 'ECUMSEH " n �'�' r � g0 r�ov o ��
'd g ' ` .r.: b i
� � f
4, n � � - ;
, �
.. �
. ;
.
�
' � kv I
� n c c � �� �..'�'��' ��,�: -
— --
_
— — -- -- � . _ P��`� _:��_�.���.N�, ------
.. . .
_.
.. __.
, ��' � __ - -------- -- --_ __
i �� 9 �
i
I � - - - --..... - - _ _ .... ......------- �� F �--- I
� --------- —_.._..
---
----- ..._ j ----.. --
. ti
w
'i ; j'
' )�s+ance �=rom k ; �i,%' (����C� �. CW� �,:.( ,:.:.
: v+r�r �ro�e��y�� � �'�,''' �- T�t�✓ � � (.. �, �=t ...... �I'�✓F. C�'���:
v
,
�> � �� �-�- � � ---
S�aTE "E�
:�— 25 I , % __._ ---- --- --= '
,,�__..._ _.. .._._...._ .__.--...1_ ._. ,
_ - --- i
� Y -,,� . _ I
o J ;�� � 7 F� I V L=� ,;{✓��� Y ,
ti� rt. � _.. _.._._ �,
� �, f� � � :
.
� w ---------.. _._..-----31 Fr ----�.
,� , , � 1 =---- ..... -----. . ...... _ _ _-- ---- .
, � ' ' i � ;
� � ,,-.. ,
, � I I � � �-� C . � `" �� ��
i �- �
i I ; � ' ' ;� ;,,
�
, .:... � . , �,n i
� � �. . . . . __ .. . �' . .. .... ...... . . _...___ _ ...---__'—. �- � �
, : � ,_ ,y�/— w= _ , , �
..V��, ��� F i � ,.. . � / � I�. j I
I 1 I � � � rJ
� ' p �� ;c;
�;;" � - ' �,�( �' /" � .,'
� � � .
,,
. ` ..
, �
., _ � I ,. .
-�. . , ; .
..:, a ,
;,. � k '
i x �
. ..- �
� � �
_.. _ ._-----....._�-------.._�_.._
— , 1 �--�--------� � �� ;
i n �
r,
�i • • n I
t'� J I � �
it
.,., ( � '� � y .
(.: �� 1 �
, `•r � � i i
..., ...:
,�
- � � , •.
• ..�-
---..._ ._ _ ,, _� _ __, _.
= ---. .. __......._._._.... ----
__. � �--- >/ `� ---- � . .._ , � � �
__.�::�-.
Y � ��,� � ;
. __ `
� ..� 3; ; _�L�►NT�i�_.__.... —.- m ..�L�NT��.__.---
j � f��RTf1�_I_��Fti�A ; i
� { t.l.� � , _ � ! }-
i ��-, � � � � 3271 T��IAY� �VE '�,
;�
�
;
i ;�
� � � � ��:�5 � �` LY •�. �
� � ---------.
w ` ; i �'-� ` i
' '� � ' 213 5��,— 5111 > ; !
��- �� —
,' � I , 3t" i I � �.
�
, :
� , ,
�` � T _ . . . _ __ __.;.... .----------- i
..._._ .
r- � _-�`------.-.---.: _ '==1 � [_ �d� L K � �
� r ,,y£� �
� G� S 5 --------- G �/"� S S `
�- �or
`�_ , ;
�fOjX)'.AjT -'JFt '.u:Ci � .'ror �t;C!' �---- �.
.
��
_.__ ____. __ _______'___ _ ___ __ ._ __-___ .___ ✓:.
J:
` . •
�� I
�
Which we were ready to pay and still are. To date we still have
not been notified by Mrs. M�r:tinez department oE what violation has
beefl found. .
sincerely,
Martha Ibarra
� I
i
I
' I
. ;
I
I
I
�
' I
'
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
�
� I �': • .
� � �', - � � - �
F� i
'�£ ' I
r�
�t`� � �
.�
� •
.'�
,
s
�
LY: ��^�.�-� �
�'♦ . � . . � � ,- 1 �qOlA.�.�.�0 • �. ' _
FARCEL� � eooR /.1
•. Building Descript on Bla �� Q�
. .� . .. ' . _ , LOf ANa[LG OU v� .
. . . . , . . . . . _... . . . � � �� AOB[p80R't O�IIC
.. . . ' ST. NO R�G p � PAG� /�,
. � . . ... � . ' ~'_ �
, . � � ' ' TRACT_�'�m�L �.
. ... . ' � . . ' ' . � �i
. . . .. , . . ' '. : � . . Lor No � B�o K No
' ' " . �� � EXAMIN[D BY
' D�rr�? 1 19.� .
. « 'W 7[III�
. , . �nplN `�;( 3� � �EATI�O [%T.fGTYIp
71qb RIP SI �� � /Yubw Sl�d� DII. iM1Iu1 �II IN
' ' DMtl� � S41 I ���M I�u411N CM.
, . �p����4. S � { � ��1 /PYN NX�I �YNy
. . .. SIIIN f�iqN 6.IIN O�Ib C �� •
. ' 611t��h IIM Wtl T� 0 1r1�.TIU. Ilah�
. Dnlily ►Y� fUlq ��� 7br. YW, pW
� Wro S�.IbHM �� W�Iy11��1
��Nh' Y�IelfNly �
VN «IMTII� IM11 I�I�N
. C�uY ' 'I�11 XMle1 ���
, y �� l r �W�rbI11q Yutlptbl7n
Cu� /)✓ dv Wnp�N In� I���IM AY K�W Hw Ih•�w1
�W� IfJ4 /Id C�Ir. IM �Mlt. A4 II.I. Cpw•' µ„
. fwl PNw �• �tp hy� �lu��l�p IIUI�.MW
. . �� �' lnuy( / �I.�r�� M11b hWIM
. . . . bM1GM fnl IPL/!IW CIa/ i hl�t ry
�r�Mlw Cwt YNI tMYI Ueb1UY
/4t Ib/Y � 1 1► y. 1 . WM�ti �ql�. �
M�Y�16 � � � IYIIT•111
.� i�4� 11ntM
' ;� µ�WU �Gt � IIM ;• pu1.0u IM
{41� hfA Iwlaw
. . f11. �IO, • �FoN tl� IH hp�t M11
� . 9�t St1Y Il�h �'�--,�� Wn CIMM
_ lOUMqAT10� ' �NW Irq �n� Yu�llu �1IW
w v�b� pltl ��I Calr. IIN Ir1 �I � �
� -._ _.. .. _ _. ....- � ' Mm��p tn.�h. � I 1 I �u�tr '
�,,., �..�, l ati„
� cnu nn. r.r c..� �i u . rw r.m I 1
� . 7trI1N�b fln ,��wi11qIM
i
USEIIFMT T^�'� Clw D�r - / 9 �/ I
TII� TlI� � CIASyII�CI}jo� -
. /rta Ty� ' TIbl�ll'� �
. Iwts ' y� � y� yi I�11 UCMTIMO �� �'I.t�b y :
Mf Ir� {p /�YI TnM qw1 CW YMIU I� '.
� 4. R ft ■41u �
. fl• A�ht / IIrYI CIhI 3� ,
( 1 �Y G .1l . i
lhlq �N
� ) r � � � I I
• lldq•Dldy
G�Il��llw \ �„1{.� � I
( 1 � I I
' Mlrw�� 1 '' � � � •
� � DrwIN `� �� 11.
, � � qIH �p��
��uiw W't
' . ' � � Y�b� I
^ .. r.� r.in Ko I
. x�d . 3
,�»
- r.i..
u:�.�.� b �w
� .i..� � r.�w
xiy/1�.r u I
N/d. 0� I
� ' . x�e. n.ir J
, . .0 . .
. ...... .... . - • I
� -<.r� •�"%J t 3 0 0
, . i�/n ... 4a1e v::; �
. . ' O�R. DNR Warl � ' � �
" qY D�R. 1W. Y�h� Y�111 tW 0�/. pN�. DII. 4e�M1 . t
. . . / . yr. Y�b� V�h� I
O . .. I
0 I
�
-.�� I
�
i
I
�
I
I
i
� � 1..... . �
1
i
I
I
i
• �. �
� ' �:,:
1
�':.� � �� , (
:,i. - . . ' . �
��
� _ � . � ^ _
'+ . ._ ,—. . ---_ ..- -----:- -,----- ---1 . ...'
/ - �. . : '
- LpCATION IF CUT ,: �
�� . . . .. . _
. � . .. DAT[ . . • .' .
. . . ' , . , . _. . . .
. . ' . . ' ' '. [. ON M. �. ON �W � �O-�c/-� .. , . . _ . ' . , �
' � � � - �• . . • .�. .:`. .. ' . _ ' . _ . ... _.__..._� — - • ,
//- � .,��/.
BY f^� U
' � . . , � OATL/f- p IJ�.. .
' .. . , � y7 . . .
n�j � � r, r Ca�.e. � c � a c � i p c c '
S
�,a--j ! u�r... a.C..�. . '
. .. . . .. . . �j � /Q I I-�w� F loYl'1 i SV 0 ZO , . .
. . �, � 1 �"-"^' G� 7r�Iyor , .
c.l.-..c f;C� a.��..tiR. .
i .11�,� _ ..,
J r . � : - - � • . : . ' � • _
. .. .� ..l .. �. .
_. . , ., ..../9Ys,et386
• �� 3!„_
3 f _ //�° �
x;
, � _..
_....- -- ----- -.. . � r
_ �_. J
� Q � , • .. . _ . ..: /�/ I
3 �N�TS '
.. . �
r xrr �� _ _77t
0
. j° se r � � =/t,(o
' � � . . -�ava.� _ ���—
- �� - � . . - � � � �
L •
�� _ .. -
� z3s9�'
_ � P�N
.._. ..... I
, � �.s �s" d . .
— 73 -- - .__ . .�, s - � - ..= - --� -- --�---._ �
. . . - —... .. —
. - OV,NLA -� � ; .. � . — .
- I
. . . ' NAML _' ' � ,
' . ' . � . ... . � _ . .. . ... .... .-_ .
� � � . V. �. cNauiu ' ►ar�tNo. O�n ' ArouMi : �i . ,
. . ' CAYR. CMIG[[O� I
. - . . . ' L ON I � � .
M. �. .' / �
�. . oea 9 14 JII . I
CONf�11{D . .. ' .. - ... �
�, �
� �
I
I
.. ' ��e �..� ..........�.. i . ... �.. . I
I
�
; i
i
I
' ' 1 I
;' /...; ..,- .: 1
. : ......... ' ' ..
�y �
'' •, I
i
,
�
n �
;, -
.
�
I
i
i
�
�
I
;_ ��o�. o.:� ,:.�;,, <..n�� �ae :,..
�
� rNE- :sr� fa. ro ..u-= • I
F.l:l_fC �lu== I':? UP1:1F,":'E:= O,Fl/:?`:''/9A .^,�'''�- vS?/C?!:i`±'
AS:�R TO N(7 RE(3 �:C USE ZiJ�lI: VC �7:?.(7 17'T fR'r" PR.L•3� �t fJ(:1 UC2 I?7 I:?J'f r:?�:; ,
0�'7£3 Gt? 0�:�^ 8 1^ 12�1(':;� 0^00 L'YF.:'. i� Ef;'�VEt:�G—: I.b00^l� 1. "f � Y OQ::-0 ;i
i
��!^i1E—S.CI'iJ:i AOUR'L-"ii3 �
IUi?R��'�:� RRi�1C]:5C0 FlD;L? Ci�.i:1GAt_UF'F: !' nt�!ii
C8^+1?ltA,i•L1RT11A I
:s�71 TENdiY�� AVf: I
�YNWfJO�J f:�l 90'�52 �
SUBP,r�k'1' GE::�iTC;N YR i;-'F' rd0 (iF' P!0 L•�' NO DF SiLI FT C;OHPOSTII::' I
KEY TYPE i:LF1:i5 Rt.i YR UAC[75 3DR�i" BraiNS i1A:[�I iiaUalf<L F'i
.: �- -� ? ?32.`i t � I
plb2 'u�'GO C�::'a .i .i1 `' �5 380
p�p'? OlOc) G:'SA i L S l l !. 1
I
luirlL "fOTAL TkF' PRTCE iff P�:T(::E tl':u :>G! F'T HASF' VAU.1F: Pi: RC '*.' I
UM [1'S t:il.� FT ?k=1i lJV IT Pf-"R S17 � f PFR !.1�1 C"( i.iaND JJOQO T ;?. �
q :?70:i 90i)00 59 G7ci 1M(' 10.`SG00 r ..i� �
I.ANi) UIpCFi I...;divi? I]F=PTF1 IJir19i.J3 ;::(� 'r'7 ta!:RC=S iOT�ll LF07UV �
:�:i ;'f.; �
'
]'i�ll�1 EI...; : � . j:'_ r;CCii�l 7XN7 10 -- MFP�LI; 7.1 = E:X'
F'P'l. :::. ti �,F.:W;i; i
I
I
�
' i
. i
�
I
' . �'....� . �
�
�� I
I
I
�. � �
I
. . . I' :� '. '
) �
�
��
t � EXHIBIT II
•, �PE PLAN REVIGW CASE N0. 17a
`� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL �
MARTHA IBARRA ,
3271 'PENAYA AVENUE
APT. C
LYNWOOD, CA.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable
regulations of the Lynwood Municipal Code, the Uniform
Building Code and the UniPorm Fire Code.
l.a. Pursuant to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code, Section 25-4.5
a. 12, deconvert illegal residential unit in garaqe back to �
laundry or storage room by removing all cooking facilities, �
refrigerators, air conditioners, any bathtub or shower any �
and other facilities or furniture that parmit the laundry
room to be used as a residence. As per City policy, an �
existing toilet and wash stand may remain. Any walls, �
closets or room expansions protruding into the required '
garage area must also be removed. ;
�� i
2. Any proposed subsequent modification oP the subject site or. '
structures thereon, shall be first reported to the Community �
Devolopment Department, Planning Division, for review. I
3. The applicant, or his representative, shall sign a Statement �
oP Acceptance stating that he/she has read, understands, and �
agrees to the conditions stated herein before any buildinq !
permits are issued. '
PIJ,NNING DIVISION � �
4. The maximum number of antennas that may be installed on any i
lot shall not exceed one (1) ground-mounted satellita ,
receiver disk on this residential lot. '
• The term "antenna" shall mean "disk" antennas and devices �'
having acting elements extending in any.direction, and �
directional beamtype arrays having elementa carried by and
disposed from a generally horizontal boom which may ba '
mounted upon and rotated through a vertical mast tower
interconnecting the boon and antenna support, all of which .,.�, �
are deem to be apart of the antenna. �` i
5. The structure including the receiving disk shall not extend "` !
higher then fifteen (15) feet.
6. No antenna shall be affixed or attached to chimneys or flues
on buildings without per�nission of the building inspector
. 7. No antenna shall be installed in any zone, when it impedes
the normal circulation, including ingress or egress, to and �
from any structure or facility including parking areas.
8. Antennas, including guy wires, supporting structures and
accessory equipment shall be located and deaigned so as to
minimize the visual impact on surrounding properties and '
from.public streets i.e. relocate the structure to minimize
the visual impact from the public streets.
9. Antennas should be screened through the addition oP '
archit.ectural features and/or landscaping that harmonize �
with the characteristics of the property. � �
I
10. The materials used in constructing the antennas shall not be `�
unnecessarily bright, shiny, yrayish or reflective. ' '
~r � t
11. The mast or tower shall be noncombustible and corrosive- �
resistant material:
f\planning�spr\f:spr125 ',
1 I
�
• 12. Every antei„-;a shall t�e adequately grconded for protection
^i against a direct strike of lightning, with adequate ground
wire. The wire shall be of a type approved by the latest
edition of the Electrical Code ,for grounding masts and
lightriing arrestors.
13. Whenever it is necessary to install an antenna near power
lines, or where damage o�ould be caused by its falling,a
separate safety wire must be attached to the antenna mast of
tower, and secured in a direction away from the hazard.
Antenna transmission lines shall be underground. It must i
maintain at least 6 feet horizontal and 12 feet vertical ;
clearance of utility lines. ;�
14. Size. The dish antenna shall not exceed ten (l0) feet in "
- diameter. �
15. Engineering calculations signed by a licensed engineer shall i
be provided for footings. i
;
i
16. A minimum of 20 lbs wind load shall be provided Por all i
connectors on dish or pole.
17. No part of any antenna shall encroach into a public �
right-of-way, and wires, cables, or guys, electrical or
mechanical, used for television antenna system, shall cross �
over or under any existing light or power circuit wires.
• Further, no such television antenna system wires shall cross r
any public street, or way, except that the Planning i
Commission may grant permission as recommended by the Public
Works Director/City Gngineer if the Commission deems the �
crossing to be in the public interest. If granted,
projection into the public right-of-way shall be calculated
from outside the radius of the dish antenna, not from the
pole. :��
18. Every antenna shall be maintained in good condition and in �°;
accordance with all requirements of this section. � '
19. Every person enqaged .in the business of installing antennas
shal'1 first obtain a license therefore from the City Clerk.
20. Every antenna shall be subject to periodic reinspection by �
the Inspector, in order to ascertain whether.or not the 1
antennas continue to remain in a safe condition, and in i
compliance with the terms of this section.
�
21. In caee any condition is round which might result in danger �
to life or property, the Inspector shall give written notice '
to the owner or operator of such antenna at last known i
addrese stating conditions, and notiPying him triat the same �
corrected within the (10) days after such notice. "Failure
� to abide by and faithfully comply with this section or with
any and all conditions that may be imposed shall constitute
grounds for the revocation of the permit by the Community
Development Director or authorized.
,,4�
�
,
+
�
'
. f:spr.spr125 . � �
i
.
' Z '
, • i