HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-10-94 PLANNING COMMISSION i � �
AGENDA
LYNWOOD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - 7:30 P.M. /�
/ �-4�-G�
City Hall Council Chambers
11330 suiiis Road, Lynwood, cA R,E C EIV E D
cirv oF �rNwoo�
CITY CLERKS OfFICE
May 10, 1994 M�r Q J iJa�4
� �
7�8i9i10illi12i1i2�3i4i5i6
Errick R. Lee �`��j� /��
Chairperson
� /�
Carlton McMiller ponald Dove ��
Vice Chairman , Commissioner
Eloise Evans Joyce Hurley
Commissioner Commissioner
Jamal Muhsin Frankie Murphy
Commissioner Commissioner
�
C O M M I S S I O N C 0 U N S E L:
Michele Beal Bagneris
Interim Deputy City Attorney i
STAFF:
Sol Blumenfeld, Director Robert Diplock
Community Development Department Planning Manage=
Art Barfield Louis Omoruyi I
Associate Planner Associate Planner
Louis E. Morales, Jr. Paul Nguyen
Associate Planner Civil Engineer Assoc. �.
I
�
I
f:Aupfiles\may94 � � �
1
�
� • •
.>�
*4"
` May 10, 1994
� .
OPENING CEREMONIES� .
A. Call meeting.to order. '
B. Flag salute.
C. Roll call of Commissioners.
D. Certification of Agenda Posting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. VARIANCE CASE NO. VAR 30
Applicant: Earle M. Jorgensen Steel Co.
, COMMSNTS: -
. ,
The applicant.is requesting a Variance to increase the height
of a proposed wall from eight (8') feet to fourteen (14') feet
along the rear Zot line of property at 10313 Alameda Street in
the M(Manufacturing) zone, Lynwood, California.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planhing Commission adopt Resolution No. 2512 approving the
Variance request.
1. Finding triat a hardship has been established that would
require a Variance for Case No. 30 as determined by
Section 25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning Code.
2. Finding that granting of the Variance as conditioned will
not constitute the granting of a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in .
the same zone.
3. Finding that granting of the Variance will not adversely
;affect the orderly development of the City.
4. Finding 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.
NEW PUSLIC HEARING:
2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE
Applicant: City of Lynwood
�OMMENTS
The City of Lynwood is consldering amending the Municipal Code
to restrict parking on $rpestine Avenue between Walnut Avenue
and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to residents only between
6:00 PM and 6:00 AM o� weekdays and Saturday and Sunday
between 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. �
Restrictions would be posted and permits would be issued by
the Parking Enforcement Division to residents of the portion
of the street that is restricted. Two visitor permits would be
available per resident. The permits would be affixed to the
car bumper.
2
�
; .
'"�+'�; DATE: . May 1�1994 ' •
_�� 1
. TO: PLANNING COMMISSION � r, �'` S'" ��^1 t� ���(�,� �{ n'
. 1.. :�. , b_.1�1 Iv� yv.
FROM: Sol Blumenfeld, Director � f� �;: ; , i -
Community Development Dep rtirient � 1'
l�
SUBJECT: Variance Case No. 30
Applicantp Jorgensen Steel Company
Pr000sal•
The applicant is requesting a Variance to increase the height of
' a proposed wall,from eight (8') feet to fourteen (14'j feet '
along the rear lot line of property at 10313 Alameda Street in
the M(Manufacturing) Zone, Lynwood, California. This c,ase was
continued from the April 12, 1994 Commission hearing in order to
a11ow the applicant to respond,to questions from the Commission
on the subject application.
Facts
l. Source of Authority.
Section 25-26 of the Lynwood Municipal Code requires that a
- Variance be obtained from the Planning Commission when
special circumstances apply 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. Property Location and Size �
The site is located at 10313 Alameda Street between 103rd
Street and 107th. It is a nearly rectangular shaped parcel of
approximately 382,000 square feet or 8.77 acres.
3. Existinq Land Use
The subject site is surrounded by the following land uses:
North - Industrial ;
South - Vacant Industrial
_ East - Industrial
West - Residential/School
4. Land Use Description �
� General Plan Zoninq
North - Industrial/ City of
•- Residential Los Angeles
_ South - Manufacturing M
. East - Industrial City of
, South Gate
West - Residential City of
• Los Angeles
�� � f\planning\staffrpt\f:var30 � - � ' . -.
1
� • •
h
�� 5. Proiect Characteristics .
The applicant proposes to construct a fourteen (14') high
concrete tiltup wall running 890 feet along the western
property line in order to provide security, suppress noise
and dust that may be generated by the use, and protect the
residential uses adjacent to and to the west of the subject
property.
The property is currently used as a scrap metal yard. It
contains a metal building with offices and a loading dock,
approximately 15,00o square feet in size, a 10,000 square
foot isolation pad, and a concrete covered trench running
through the center of the property, The property is
surrounded by an existing eight (8') foot high chainlink
fence. The applicant is also proposing to construct an eight
(8') foot high masonry wall, running along the Alameda Street
and 103rd Street sides of the property.
6. Site Plan Review
At its regular meeting of March 30, 1994, the Site Plan
Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the
Variance request.
7. Zoning Enforcement History
None of record at the time of preparation of the staff
report.
8. Neiahborhood Response
On March 10, 1994 Kettering & Krussman, in conjunction with
Earle M. Jorgensen Inc,. mailed 25 letters to property
owners adjacent to the subject property requesting support
for the variance request. Ten property owners responded to
the request. Eight property owners support the request and
two letters were returned as not deliverable. No property
owner indicated opposition to the request.
Staff has notified the residents of the homes adjacent to the
proposed wall and have received no comments either for or
against this proposal.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
1. �Consistencv with General PTan
Th'e existing use of the property is consistent with the
existing zoning classification (M) and the General Plan
designation of Manufacturing.'
2. Site Suitabilitv
The site is suitable in size to accommodate the requested
concrete wall and the existing uses. �
. i
I
I
f\planning\staffrpt\f:var30 � �
I
�
2 I
I
�
__ I
;
�J � �
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully requests that, after consideration, the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2512 approving the
Variance request:
A. Finding that a hardship has been established that would
require a Variance for Case No. 30 as required by
Section 25-26 of the City of Lynwood Zoning Code.
B. Finding that granting of the Variance as conditioned
will not constitute the granting of a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in
the same zone.
C. Finding that granting of the Variance will not adversely
affect the orderly development of the City.
D. Finding 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.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Resolution No. 2512
3. Plot Plan
. f:\staffrpt\var30
4
i�� . � r' „,'r,
� +^ f ---. . . . .. ,
1"i`�? t_ (�1 '..t�`! �� i,. � �'a ll..
' DATE: May 10, 1994 �:`' ;�.�i"�
o: ..
l.t ,. ,
i .v:... f ! , �. �.._�__, ... ------*�*�
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Sol Blumenfeld, Director�
Community Development Depa ment
BY: Robert Diplock, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Municipal Code
°, Applicant: City of Lynwood -
PROPOSAL• �
The City of Lynwood is considering amending the Municipal Code to
restrict parking on Ernestine Avenue between Walnut Avenue and
Martin Luther King Boulevard to residents only between 6 P.M. and
6 A.M. on weekdays and Saturday and Sunday between 9 A.M. to
6 P.M.
Restrictions would be posted and permits would be issued by the
Parking Enforcement Division to residents ofithe portion of the
street that is restricted. Visitor permits would be available to
' residents.. Permits would be affixed to the car bumper.
FACTS:
1. Source of Authoritv
Section 22507 CVC et seq. of the State Vehicle Code grarits ,
authority to cities to prohibit or restrict parking on City
streets. The Lynwood Municipal Code, Chapter 7, Vehicles and
Traffic, Section 7-20.21 Parking Regulations on Certain Streets,
auth�rizes the City Council, by resolution or ordinance, to
designate certain parking restrictions on any street or portion
' thereof.
2.- Property Location:
The sections of street being considered for parking restrictions,
are both sides of Ernestine Avenue between Walnut Avenue and
Martin-Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
3. Existing Land Use: `
Existing �land use on the east side of the subject portion of
Ernestine Avenue is single family residential. Most of the west
side of the street is taken up by the City Civic Center complex,
including'Bateman Hall, a parking lot and parking and auto .
storage for the Sheriff's Office. At the northern end of
Ernestine at Martin Luther King is commercial development, and at
the southern end is single family development.
4. Land Use Desianation:
General Plan:
West Commercial, Public North Commercial,
Facility, Single Townhouse and
Family Residential Cluster Housing
East Single Family South Single Family
Residential Residential
� i 1
�
'`:i ;
�� � �
5. Proiect Characteristics:
This is a proposal by the City of Lynwood to amend the Municipal
Code to restrict parking on Ernestine Avenue between Walnut
Avenue and Martin Luther King Boulevard. The proposal would
limit parking to residents only between 6 P.M. and 6 A.M. on
weekdays and Saturday and Sunday between 9 A.M. to 6.P.M..
Restrictions would be posted as "Parking by Permit only"'between.
specified hours. Two free permits would be issued to each family
,, or residence on these three blocks and visitor permits would be
available for limited overnight parking.
6. Public Response:
� Five area residents spoke to the Recreation and Parks Commission
- at their meeting on January 25, 1994 concerning problems
associated with the use of Bateman Hall. Staff discussed the
proposal to.restrict parking with the Recreation and Parks
Commission on April 26, 1994 and two residents asked about the
number of permits to be issued and if visitor parking would be
available. � •
� In the past, neighborhood residents have also expressed concerns
' about�overflow parking from proposed commercial uses at the
�, corner of Ernestine and Martin Luther King Boulevard.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
1.;. Chronology:
, In January a number of residents of the Ernestine Avenue area
complained to the City Manager and Recreation and Community
Services Department staff about problems created by spill over of
patrons using Bateman Hall, particularly on weekends. Problems
included vandalism, noise and two shooting incidents. Problems
also occur from spill over parking from events being held at the
- National Guard_Armory.
Several suggestions to minimize problems were discussed with the,
Recreation and Parks Commission at their meeting on January 25,
1994. Suggestions included increased security and more efficient
supervision of activities in Batement Hall. Restricting parking
on Ernestine Avenue was also suggested as a way to help keep
Bateman Hall patrons away from neighboring residences and into
more closely supervised areas.
Z. . Analysis:
;,' Since there has been a history of problems associated with spill`
_ over from Bateman Hall activities, restricting parking for
_' portions of Ernestine Avenue would be one way to lessen the
` impact on neighboring residences. Any parking restrictions
should coyer a large enough area so that Bateman Hall patrons
' would be encouraqed to park in the City lot or on'Bullis, rather -
than 2 or 3 blocks down on Ernestine. Restrictions should cover
both sides of the street and probably extend as far south as
� walnut Avenue, which is only two blocks south of Bateman Hall.
Since major events are scheduled only for weekends, restrictions
'_ could be limited to nighttime parking on Friday and Saturday,
perhaps after 6 P.M., and all day on Sunday.
In order not to inconvenience residents and for simplicity in
enforcement, staff is suggesting using a"permit parking only"
system for the restricted hours. Parking Enforcement staff would
provide two free permits per household and establish a procedure
to issue special guest permits for people visiting residents of
2
�.�, � � � . � ..
� � . . . . . . � . .. . � •
�
the area. They,would also determine fines and assist in
enforcing the restriction. Fines would be commensu'rate with
street sweeping fines ($25.00). �
Approximately 30 residences would be affected and'approximately
100 permits would be required at no cost to the property owners.
Ten to twelve "restricted parking" signs would be required
costing approximately $100 each installed and direct enforcement
cost are estimated to be $400 per month. There would be ongoing
_ administrative costs. These costs would be recovered through.
parking citations.
• PROPOSAL: �
Section'7-20.21 of the Municipal Code provides an appropriate ,
_ place to add authorization for the type of restriction being
proposed. This section currently contains authorization to
prohibit parking totally or establish 1 or 2 hour parking
limitations between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M..
� Staff therefore proposes the following additions and amendments
to the Municipal Code (addit'ions shown by underlines, deletions
by strikeout):
- 7-20.21 Parking Regulations on Certain Streets. The City
Council may, from time to time designate, by ordinance or
.resolution, any street or portion thereof as an area in which:
a. Parking is prohibited altogether.
' b. Parkina is restricted to permit holders onlv, said germit
to be issued bv the Cifv. �
� c. Between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. of any day
except Sundays holidays, parking for a period of time longer
than one hour is prohibited.
e d. Between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. of any day
except Sundays and holidays, parking for a period of time longer
'� than two hours is prohibited.
� e.• Between the hours of 6 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. and/or all
dav on Saturdav and Sundav.
When authorized signs are in place giving notice thereof, no
person shall stop, stand, or park any vehicle upon any of the
streets or parts thereof desianated bv ordinance or resolution
and restricted as described in paragraphs a, b, c, d, or e in
` violation of said restrictions. _______ ____.______ __�___ ___ :..
, , ,
..L.�..1.. ..F �1-... ..Y.......�.. ...�.: 41..........F�.]....�...�...t.:.]
.-, �.. • .. ......... .. �... �. �.. ... -�
___ _ � _ � � 1
� . '�-^m�g�' ��ia31�i-,��xvii�S�hen att��le�'�Ee� �s��a3s a�'e -- r'-=== ;_�'� �. .
�e�tee t�te�ee�r;e-ge�se�r-s�}3��-6 � �
^ (Strikeout indicates deletion of redundant code sections)
If this amendment is approved, staff will prepare the necessary
- resolution for action by the City Council, the administrative
rules and procedures to provide for issuing permits and establish
the required fines and enforcement procedures.
3
� � .� !
�. �
RECOMMENDATION:
, Staff respectfully requests that the Planning Commission, after
consideration, adopt Resolution 2519 recommending approval of the
, proposed amendment to the Municipal Code restricting parking on
Ernestine Avenue.
. �
�
i
I
. 1
1
' I
, - planning�nopark:rep � � � � - . ' - �
I
( �
i
_ . . . � . . . � � � . .�
i
�
' � �
i
�
�
I
I
;
�
I
. �
i
4 . ,
I
' I
�
i
., .
� � �
�
RESOLUTION N0. 2519
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
- TAE CITY OF LYNWOOD RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LYNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 7,
VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, SECTION 7-20.21, PARKING
REGULATIONS ON CERTAIN STREETS TO AUTHORIZE
THE CITY COUNCIL,_BY RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE
`' TO RESTRICT NIGHT TIME PARKING AND PARKING TO
PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY ON SPECIFIED STREETS,
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA
- � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood,
pursuant to law, held a public hearing on the subject proposal, to
restrict parking on certain streets to permit holders only and
between the hours of 6 P.M. and 7 A.M. and/or all day Saturday and
-. Sunday; and -
' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heard testimony
concerning adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods from spill
over parking from adjacent non residential uses; 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 the proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061b
(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines as amended.
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood hereby
finds and-determines as follows:
- A. There is need to restrict night time parking in certain
residential areas in order to minimize impacts from adjacent uses.
B. 8ection 22507 CVC et seq. of the State Vehicle Code grants
authority to cities to prohibit or restrict parking on City
streets. .
C. The Lynwood Municipal Code, Chapter 7, Vehicles and
Traffic, Section 7-20.21 Parking Regulations on Certain Streets,
authorizes the City Council, by resolution or ordinance, to
designate certain parking restrictions on any city street or I
� portion thereof. ,
D. An amendment has been prepared to authorize the City
Council to restrict night time parking. j
E: The proposed zone change will be beneficial to residential
properties"adjacent to such areas of restricted parking. I
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Lynwood,
based upon the aforementioned findings and the determinations,
hereby recommends that the City Council approve the following
amendment to Section 7-20.21 of the Municipal Code (additions shown
by underlines, deletions by strikeout): j
�
7-20.21 Parking ReguTations on Certain Streets. The City
Council may, from time to time designate, by ordinance or
resolution, any street or portion thereof as an area in which:
a. Parking is prohibited altogether.
' b. Parking is restricted to permit holders only, said permit I
•to be issued by the Citv. j
1
1 �
�
x
� � �
�
� c. Between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. of any day
except Sundays and holidays, parking for a period of time longer
than one hour is prohibited.
e d. Between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. of any day
except Sundays and holidays, parking for a period of time longer
than two hours is prohibited.
� e. Between the hours of 6 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. and/or all day
on Saturday and Sundav.
when authorized signs are in place giving notice thereof, no person
shall stop, stand, or park any vehicle upon any of the streets or
parts thereof designated by ordinance or resolution and restricted
as described in oaraqraphs a, b, c, d, or e in violation of said
restrictions. Si}3en ax�he��-se� s��ns a�e ___ ____ �_.__.� _______
��re����rie�e�sen sha�� s�eg, s�an�; a�-pa�-a���ek:-:. ^ .= =-- --
F �-L... ..�.,......4.. ...i.-. 41....,.....F a....:,.. ��..a �.� �.. ...1. u.
�.'..:«����e� s��ns a�e�n-g�aee g-�-v�ng ne�#ee �he�ea£�e--�e-r-sa�
, �
Section 3. A copy of this resolution shall be delivered to
the City Clerk.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 1994, by members of
the Planning Commission voting as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Errick R. Lee, Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sol Blumenfeld, Director Michele Beal Bagneris
Community �Development Dept. Deputy City Attorney
f:\upfiles\p�anning\�opark.res .
2