HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1977/01/11 - Regular"
1
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N M I N U T E S
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 1 9 7 7
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R
T h e r e g u l a r m e e t i n g o f t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n o f t h e C i t y o f
T e m p l e C i t y w a s c a l l e d t o o r d e r a t 7 : 3 0 p . m . , J a n u a r y . 1 1 , 1 9 7 7 , b y .
C h a i r m a n S t a c y .
2 . P L E D G E O F A L L E G I A N C E
C h a i r m a n S t a c y l e d t h e P l e d g e o f A l l e g i a n c e t o t h e F l a g .
3 . R O L L C A L L
P r e s e n t : C o m m i s s i o n e r s A t k i n s , B r e a z e a l , L a w s o n , S e i b e r t , S t a c y
A b s e n t : C o m m i s s i o n e r s - N o n e
A l s o p r e s e n t : A s s t . C i t y A t t o r n e y W h i t e , P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r D r a g i c e v i c h
4 , A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S - R e g u l a r M e e t i n g o f D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 7 6 :
( R e g u l a r M e e t i n g o f D e c e m b e r 2 8 , 1 9 7 6
w a s c a n c e l l e d d u e t o l a c k o f q u o r u m . )
T h e r e b e i n g n o a d d i t i o n s o r c o r r e c t i o n s t o t h e m i n u t e s , C o m m i s s i o n e r
B r e a z e a l m a d e a m o t i o n , s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t , t o a p p r o v e
t h e m i n u t e s . M o t i o n c a r r i e d b y r o l l c a l l v o t e w i t h C o m m i s s i o n e r s
A t k i n s , B r e a z e a l , L a w s o n a n d S e i b e r t v o t i n g f o r , a n d C h a i r m a n S t a c y
a b s t a i n i n g .
5 . P U B L I C H E A R I N G : Z O N E V A R I A N C E C A S E N O . 7 6 - 4 9 2
R i c h a r d S . a n d J o s e p h i n e S . W i l e m a n - : A p p l i c a n t / O w n e r
1 0 2 4 4 E a s t L i v e O a k A v e n u e
A r c a d i a , C a .
S i t e :
Z o n e :
1 0 2 3 6 - 1 0 2 4 4 E a s t . L i v e O a k A v e n u e
5 6 2 9 t h r o u g h ' 5 6 4 5 N o r t h G r a c e w o o d A v e n u e
R - 1 S i n g l e F a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l
A N D
6 . P U B L I C H E A R I N G : T E N T A T I V E T R A C T N O . 3 3 0 7 2
R i c h a r d S . a n d J o s e p h i n e S . W i l e m a n - A p p l i c a n t / O w n e r
1 0 2 4 4 E a s t L i v e O a k A v e n u e
A r c a d i a , C a .
S i t e :
Z o n e :
1 0 2 3 6 - 1 0 2 4 4 E a s t L i v e O a k A v e n u e
5 6 2 9 t h r o u g h 5 6 4 5 N o r t h . G r a c e w o o d A v e n u e
R - 1 , S i n g l e F a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l
T h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n w a s i n a g r e e m e n t t o h e a r t h e t w o c a s e s t o -
g e t h e r a n d t h e n m a k e d e c i s i o n o n e a c h s e p a r a t e l y .
D i r e c t o r D r a g i c e v i c h s a i d n o t i c e s h a d b e e n s e n t a s r e q u i r e d b y l a w .
H e t h e n g a v e t h e s t a f f r e p o r t , s a y i n g a p p l i c a n t p r o p o s e s t o d i v i d e
t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i n t o s i x p a r c e l s , t w o o f w h i c h w o u l d c o n t a i n
t w o r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g s e a c h i n a n R - 1 z o n e . H e e x p l a i n e d t h e
p l o t p l a n m a r k e d E x h i b i t " A " s h o w i n g e x i s t i n g a n d p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p -
m e n t , f a c t u a l d a t a o n t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y a n d s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a ,
z o n i n g h i s t o r y a n d P l a n n i n g A n a l y s i s . H e c o n c l u d e d b y s a y i n g t h a t
a N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t h a d b e e n p r e p a r e d o n
t h e s e c a s e s .
I n r e p l y t o q u e s t i o n s f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s , t h e D i r e c t o r s a i d t h e
d r i v e w a y s h o w n t h r o u g h t h e m i d d l e o f t h e t r a c t i s p r o p o s e d b y s t a f f
" t o b e e l i m i n a t e d ; t h e g a r a g e s o n P a r c e l s 4 , 5 a n d 6 a r e a l l s i n g l e -
c a r g a r a g e s ; t h e s h o r t d r i v e w a y l e a d i n g n o w h e r e i s o n P a r c e l 6 : t h e
h o u s e s w e r e b u i l t i n e a r l y 1 9 5 0 ' s ; t h e t w o - s t o r e s t r u c t u r e o n . P a r c e l 2 ,
o c c u p i e d b y o w n e r , w a s b u i l t i n 1 9 1 6 ; a p p l i c a n t i s p r o p o s i n g t o h a v e
t h e a c c e s s t o t h e p r o p o s e d t w o - c a r g a r a g e o n P a r c e l 6 f r o m t h e s o u t h
s i d e , h o w e v e r , t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t r o o m o n t h e n o r t h s i d e t o h a v e
a c c e s s f r o m t h a t d i r e c t i o n i f t h e y w i s h .
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Meeting of January 11, 1977
Thel Fb?lic Hearing was declared open.
Mr. Morris Finley, 1047 East Las Tunas Drive, San Gabriel, said the
proposed tentative tract is presently one lot on the assessor's roles.
The plot plan for the residences on this lot was approved by the
Regional Planning Commission and was legal at the time of approval.
Applicant is prepared to put in all required improvements. The two
smaller residences on Parcels 5 and 6 have a limited economic life.
As those residences become economically unsound they will be taken
out and, under the Zoning Code, could never be replaced. While he
had not reviewed the conditions of granting with the applicant, he
had briefed him on what to expect from the Subdivision Committee,
and the requirements are not unusual.
In reply to questions from the Commissioners, Mr, Finley said the
reason for bringing the driveway to the back of the house on Parcel
6 was that it served not only that parcel, but the one to the south.
The detached garage would serve the southerly residence. One of the
properties will be a rental. The northerly driveway on that Parcel
can be removed. He could not predict when the two residences destined
for removal would be demolished, saying that depends on the manner of
maintenance, the neighborhood, what the owners of those parcels de-
cide to do. The main reason for the proposed subdivision is to divide
the property. The present owner will keep Parcels 1, 2 and 3 intact,
and the approval of the tract map will provide a. subdivision so
that at some future time he can sell off parcels 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. John Stacey, 5626 Gracewood, said he had no objection to the tract,
but was against the requirements for curbs, gutters at this time, and
if there were to be more street lights required. on Gracewood. This
street, he continued, is bright now.
Mr. Bill Van Gorder, 10260 Live Oak Avenue, corner of Live.Ok" and
Gracewood, said his house is 9 ft. from the edge of the existing
roadway, and if Gracewood is dedicated on the east side, part of
his kitchen will have to be removed.. He wants to remodel but is
hesitant because of the possibility of such requirement.
In opposition:
Mr.Harold Wales, 5646 Gracewood, was concerned about what will happen
to the east side of the street - would those property owners be re-
quired to dedicate 15 ft. also? He was not necessarily opposed to the
project, but was concerned what it would do to property taxes? He was
told there was no plan to require dedication at this time, and that
the property taxes of adjacent properties would not be affected.
Commissioner Stacy asked the Asst. City Attorney if the City could require
the driveway presently shown as going up the middle of the subject prop-
erty, to be removed, and was told such requirement was permissible.
In rebuttal, Mr. Finley said it is planned to remove that driveway and
replace it with one going between lots 4 and 5. The garage straddling
parcels 2 and 4 will be removed. Applicant will comply with all City
requirements:
Commissioner Seibert made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and ..
carried, to close Public Hearing.
Commissioner Atkins made a motion to approve filing of Negative Declara-
tion of Environmental Impact, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the
motion carried.
Commissioner Atkins began the closed discussion by saying he was in
favor of granting the zone variance. Dividing the property will make
it easier to maintain, an advantage to the owner and to the City.
Other properties in the neighborhood are enjoying the same privilege of •
more than one residence on a lot. With reference to the tract map, he .
concurred with the staff recommendations and would vote for. approval.
PAGE TWO
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Meeting of January 11, 1977 PAGE THREE
Commissioner Seibert had no objection to either the zone variance or
the tentative tract, however, he was concerned about the off - street
parking, preferring to see a double garage for each residence.
Commissioner Breazeal agreed with this suggestion, and was in favor
of removal of pavement going to the structure on Parcel 6. However,
he couldn't see how the applicant could get a two -car garage on Parcel
4 easily. There is an existing structure, and a limited ability to
expand,
1
Commissioner Lawson was in favor of granting both requests. He said it
was unusual to have such a large lot in Temple City,
Chairman Stacy had no objections to the zone variance as it meets the '
requirements for granting. Regarding the requirement for garages,
it is planned to have two -car garages on Parcels 5 and 6, planning
for the future. He also would like to see the pavement removed on
Parcel 6.
Commissioner Atkins moved to approve the zone variance as there are
special circumstances applicable in that this is an extremely large
lot, and applicant is asking for the same rights and privileges presently
being enjoyed by others. There are a number of lots with two houses on
them surrounding the subject property. The variance will not cause
• adverse effect on the public welfare. There will be no increase in
density and the project is compatible with the General Plan. He made
the motion to approve with staff recommendations, and with the removal of tht
the driveway on Parcel 6. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Breazeal
and carried unanimously.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution No. 77- 736PC. A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING
ZONE VARIANCE IN CASE NO. 76 -492. Commissioner Atkins moved to waive
further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Seibert, and the
motion carried.
Commissioner Atkins moved to approve Tentative Tract Map 33072, with all
staff recommendations. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Seibert and
passed unanimously.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution No. 77- .737PC, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 33072. Commissioner Seibert moved to waive further
reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and the motion carried.
• Commissioner Seibert wanted to go on record as being dissatisfied
with the configuration of the subdivision. Although the Commission
approved it, he felt that a much better plan could have been developed.
The other Commissioners agreed.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 76 -495
E. J. Hannan Applicant /Owner
10641 E. Olive Street
Temple City, Ca,
Site: 10641..E. Olive Street
Zone: R -1, Single Family residential
IIIThe Planning Director gave the staff report, saying applicant . proposes to
build a 302 sq. ft. addition to the existing residence having less than
the required front yard setback. He explained the plot: plan marked
Exhibit "A" showing the existing and proposed development, gave the factual
data on the subject property, the zoning history and Planning analysis.
He reviewed the staff proposals if the request is granted, and said that
a Categorical Exemption was prepared in accordance with the provisions of
•the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Article 8, Section
15101, Class 1: Existing Facilities).
In reply to questions from the Commissioners, the Director said the alley
is 16 ft. wide and dedicated. The distance from the residence itself to
what the applicant calls his backyard is at least 15 ft. The garage is
only 10 ft. from that property line. .
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• MEETING OF January 11, 1977 PAGE FOUR
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Mr. Edward Hannan, 10641 E. Olive Street, Applicant, said the house
presently has only two bedrooms and he wishes to add a bedroom and bath
for his growing family. The addition is 24 ft. which goes past the
required 20 ft. setback.
In reply to why there is a 2 ft. space between the patio and proposed
addition,. Mr. Hannan said that, in the existing structure at that
location is a bathroom, and he does not want to block the window to
the bath. He intends to extend the patio after construction if the
request is approved.
There being no one else to speak to the issue, Commissioner Breazeal
moved to close Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and the
motion carried.
Commissioner Seibert moved to certify the filing of a Categorical
Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Atkins and carried.
In closed discussion the Commissioners were in agreement that the situa-
tion in this case was unusual in that the house faces a dedicated alley
rather than a street, which confuses the placement of front and side
yards in compliance with the definitions set forth in the Code. They
were in agreement the variance should be granted,
Commissioner Atkins made a motion to grant the zone variance in that
there are unusual circumstances (the placement of the house), there
will be no increase in density, the request will not affect the General
Plan, and to deny the request would be denying applicant rights and
privileges enjoyed by others. Commissioner Seibert seconded the motion
and it carried unanimously.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 76- 738PC, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING A ZONE
VARIANCE IN CASE NO. 76 -495. Commissioner Atkins moved to waive further
reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried.
Chairman Stacy called a recess at 8:35 and reconvened the meeting at 8:40
p m
8. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 76 -496
Irene Vermeulen.- Owner
11591 Cielo Place
Santa Ana, Ca,
Karl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. -. Applicant
1200 N. Harbor Boulevard
Anaheim, Ca.
Site: 9803 East Las Tunas Drive
Zone: C -2, General Commercial
The Planning Director gave the staff report, saying applicant proposes to
construct an 80 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the existing restaurant
building. He explained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing the
existing and proposed development, reviewed the factual data on the sub -
ject property and surrounding area, gave the zoning history of the sub-
ject property and the Planning analysis, and summarized the staff pro-
posals if the request is granted. He concluded by saying that a Categorical
Exemption had been filed under Section 15111, Class II of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1977 PAGE FIVE
Mr. Ronald Dorazio, 6710 Brentmead, Arcadia, representing the applicant,
said the only item of concern in the staff report was one of the condi-
tions, that pertaining to upgrading the fire hydrant. His organization
did not feel that adding an 80 sq. ft. freezer should affect the fire
hydrant requirements. He was agreeable to the landscaping requirements.
In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Dorazio said the
restaurants in the chain are all company - -owned and operated on a lease-
back arrangement. He did not feel there would be a noise factor as
the machinery will be placed behind the existing mansard and will not
add to the noise at that corner at all. With reference to parking, he
said the existing parking is adequate unless there is a promotional
activity going on when the lot is filled to capacity.
There being no one else to speak to the issue Commissioner Atkins made a
motion, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried, to close Public
Hearing.
Commissioner Atkins moved to certify filing of Categorical Exemption of
Environmental Impact, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and the motion
carried.
In closed discussion the Commissioners were in agreement that the proposed
addition, for the purpose of accommodating a freezer, will not increase any
fire hazard to patrons of the restaurant or surrounding residents, and the
requirement to upgrade the fire hydrant could be dropped. They had no
objections to granting the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Breazeal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and
carried unanimously, to grant the conditional use permit in that the
site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape, it has sufficient
access to streets and highways to carry the traffic generated by the use„
and the use will not adversely effect the enjoyment or valuation of ad-
jacent property or the public welfare.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution No. 76- 739PC. A RESOLU-
TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 76 -496. Commissioner Seibert moved to
adopt by title only, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and the motion carried
9. COMMUNICATIONS
Reference was made to letter from the Temple City Seventh Day Adventist
Church asking for an extension of time to construct an additional
building at their facilities at 9664 East Broadway, which was approved
January 13, 1976, in Conditional Use Permit Case No. 75 -459. Reason,
for requesting a one -year extension to complete their project was that
the complexities of having the plans drawn and the task of raising the
necessary funds delayed their time schedule.
Commissioner Atkins made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and
carried, to grant the requested one -year extension.
10. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK- No one came forward.
11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
(a) Environmental Quality and Code
Enforcement Program Report
The Commissioners commended Asst. Planner Richards on the splendid
job he is doing on this program, and received and filed the report.
(b) Environmental Impact Report Amendments
The Director referred to enclosed information re updated environmental
documents that are required by the Resources Agency as a result of
amendments to the original CEQA guidelines.
The most important change consists of an "Initial Study" that will be
prepared by staff and submitted to the Planning Commission and /or
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1977 PAGE SIX
City Council to determine whether a negative declaration or draft
Environmental Impact Report should be prepared. The new procedure will
delay development of discretionary projects for at least two weeks.
Commissioner Breazeal asked if a subcommittee could be appointed to make
the determination, or whether guidelines could be established determin-
ing when a negative declaration was required and when a comprehensive
report would b' required. The Asst, City Attorney replied that the pur-
pose of the amendment was to take the responsibility out of the staff's
hands and place it on a public body, and there was no way to circumvent
it
The Commissioners were unanimous in their disapproval of the amendment,
in that it was erosion of local control and would add onto the public
the burden of processing time. Staff was instructed to inform the
public, when discussing the time schedule to process a case, that the
delay is caused by State - mandated requirements regarding Environmental
Impact considerations. They further agreed that the City Council should
direct correspondence to the Secretary of the Resources Agency and other
governmental agencies and offices expressing their feelings on the
Environmental. Impact Report amendments.
(c) League of California Cities 1977
Planning Commissioners' Institute
The Commissioners were in agreement that, although the Institute would
be held locally this year, they did not feel the Agenda warranted their
attendance or interest.
(d) Commissioner Breazeal called attention to the
brochure distributed by the Department of Regional Planning, County of
Los Angeles, regarding the General Plan Revision Program, and listing
the time and place of public meetings on the General Plan alternatives.
He was impressed that the meetings were being held in various parts of
the County, making them more available to the general public, and sug-
gested that the Commissioners attend if they could.
12. _ADJOURNMENT ,
There being no further business, Commissioner Breazeal made a sic *_ion,
seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carriednanimously, to adjourn.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
airman