Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1978/11/28 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1978 ;I. INITIATION 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City was called to order at 7:30 p.m., November 28, 1978, by Chairman Lawson. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGAINCE Chairman Lawson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag 3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Abraham, Breazeal, Seibert, Stacy, Lawson Also present: City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin, Planning Director Dragicevich and Planning /Engineering Aide Alexanian. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of November 14, 1978 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Seibert made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Breazeal/to approve them as written. Motion carried by roll call vote with Commissioners Breazeal, Seibert, Stacy and Lawson voting affirmative, and Commissioner Abraham abstaining. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION Fees for Planning Department Services Director Dragicevich referred to a survey of current planning and zoning fees for Temple City and surrounding communities, He con- tinued that the average hourly rate for Planning Dept. personnel, including expense and overhead factor, . has increased, and he pre- sented a memo showing present and proposed fees. No fee increase was proposed for modification requests. Filing of final parcel maps and tract maps are payable directly to the County. No increase was recommended for zone variances as this is the service most re- quested by the private property owner. City Manager the Planning parameter of ing communit Commissioner City Council and carried, Koski said he had reviewed these proposed changes with Director and staff and they seem to be within the surrounding communities, and lower than most neighbor - ies. Seibert moved to recommend the . proposed changes to the for adoption. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stacy with Commissioner Breazeal abstaining. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: FRONT YARD DETERMINATION Henrietta Eyraud 9823 East Olive Street Temple City, Ca. Clarence Krieger 9807 East Olive Street Temple City, Ca. Site: Zone: .CASE NO 78 -539 • ) ) ) Owners Fairhaven Development Corporation - Applicant 8656 East Huntington Drive San Gabriel, Ca. 9807 -9823 East Olive Street R -1, Single Family residential PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 1978 PAGE TWO Director Dragicevich said the request is to determine appropriate front and side yard setbacks for corner lots of a new subdivision. He referred to the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing the proposed 18 -lot tentative tract with extensions of Golden West Avenue and Nadine Street. Determination for front yards was to be made for Lots No. 1, 12, 13 and 18. Properties adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the project site have a 20 ft. or more front yard setback(on Olive or Nadine). He gave the square footage of each lot involved. The City Attorney questioned whether the front yard setbacks were not approved at the time the City Council approved the tentative tract, and the Director explained that side yard setbacks were set at 15 ft., but there was no determination what is the front. yard, Chairman Lawson added that, once the Commission determines the front yards on the parcels involved, the applicant can position his structures on those parcels accordingly. Commissioner Stacy said all the lots appear to be oriented toward Golden West Avenue, and moved that the front yards of all four lots be deter- mined by the Planning Commission as being on that street. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Breazeal and passed with roll call vote, Com- missioners Abraham, Breazeal, Stacy and Lawson voting affirmatively, and Commissioner Seibert dissenting. Chairman Lawson read title to Resolution No. 78- 820PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ESTABLISHING FRONT YARD SETBACKS IN CASE NO. 78 -539. Commissioner Breazeal moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and the motion carried. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 78 -542 G. S. Bevli - Owner /Applicant 5714 North Muscatel Avenue Temple City, Ca. Site: 5708 -14 North Muscatel Avenue • Zone: C -3, Heavy Commercial The Planning Director said the applicant requests approval of .construction of a new child day -care center and pre - school in conjunction with an exist- ing school facility. He referred to the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing existing and proposed development. The existing child day cart center, at 5714 North Muscatel, was approved by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1971 in Conditional Use Permit Case 71 -353, for 40 children. The existing structure at 5708 Muscatel is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new one, with facilities for 60 children (Phase I). The existing auto repair shop will be removed and facilities provided for an additional 60 children (Phase II). No specific plan or parking relationship have been prepared relating to Phase II. Time schedule for Phase I is immediate and for Phase II, 4 to 5 years. Parking for Phase I will be provided with six additional spaces, based on one parking space for each 12 students. He then gave the factual data on the subject property and surrounding area. He continued by saying the pro- posed use is consistent with the General. Plan and Zoning Map of the City. A Negative Declaration has been prepared stating that the proposed use will not have an adverse impact on the environment as defined in Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as amended. He reviewed the staff proposals if the plan is approved. He added the applicant does not feel the trash enclosure of the size proposed is necessary as the use does not generate that much trash. The Public Hearing was declared open. Mr. Charles Lawrence, 1911 W. Victoria, Montebello, representing the appli - ant, said that he and the applicant had reviewed the conditions, and was appealing to the Commission for elimination and /or reduction of what he considers stringent conditions for a use of this nature. He referred to Condition 2, requiring an architectural wall, abutting Las Tunas Drive, to be designed and submitted to the City for approval, and said applicant intends to allow the existing business to remain for an indefinite time, and does not want to build the wall at the present time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 1978 PAGE THREE Air. Lawrence then referred to Condition 7, that a permit for the patio existing facilities) shall be obtained to comply with building regula- tions - applicant will bring the structure up to code. Condition 8, requiring removal of 189 ft. of curb and paving along existing curb and construction of189 ft. of curb and gutter, is a public works improve- ment to be accomplished by the City, in his opinion. Under the same condition, the installation of a mercury vapor light on the existing utility pole he considered also a City function. These are items re- quired for subdivisions, normally, on large scale projects, not for a project such as the applicant is proposing. Condition 12, requiring a 6 ft. x 8 ft. trash enclosure, was in excess of applicant's needs, Mr. Lawrence said, and he asked that it be eliminated. Condition 13, requiring that the parcels at 5708 and 5714 Muscatel be con- solidated into one lot, applicant feels it is not necessary to consolidate as he can function very well on two distinct parcels, and the consolida- tion may hinder him in getting financing. Dr. Bevli, 5714 North Muscatel Avenue, responding to question from Com- missioner Seibert, said that presently, for 40 children, only one 30- gallon trash container is filled and emptied and only once a week, although trash 11/ is twice weekly. The Planning Director, answering question from Commissioner Seibert, said the reason for requiring consolidation of the two lots was that the pre- sent patio extends to the property line and is not in conformance with City requirements. Also, the play area, according to the Dept. of Social Welfare, would not have the required square footage for the proposed number of children unless the lots are consolidated into one. Answering his next question, the Director said the proposed light would be a new one. Commissioner Breazeal asked if applicant had an option on the property east of the auto repair garage, and fronting on Las Tunas Drive. Dr. Bevli said that he did not. Responding to questions from Commissioner Seibert, Mr. Lawrence said that the existing curb is adequate for existing and the added traffic that the use might generate. The Planning Director stated the curbs in that area are in poor condition. Commissioner Seibert said, referring to required square footage for play area, set by the Dept. of Social Welfare, that this Commission had no jurisdiction to approve a use that did not meet those I requirements. Mr. Lawrence replied that approval could read in such a way that the use be approved for both parcels as one. Dr. Bevli took the podium to explain that the requirement for the trash enclosure of the proposed size would, interfere with his operation. The City Manager said the recommendation for such an enclosure was made by the Community Disposal Co., and they made the recommendation planning for the future expansion of the facility. Applicant does not have to employ the services of that company, however. They have the option of engaging whatever disposal company they choose. He suggested that the enclosure could be located anywhere on the property, to accommodate an adequate number of containers. There was no one else to speak in favor of the application. In opposition, Mr. Harold Kendig, 10549 Lynrose, owner of the property at 8826 Elm Street, and speaking also for Louise C. Wrenn, owner of property at 8820 -24 Elm Street, objected to the noise emanating from the present facility. Across the Flood Control Channel, to the east, where their properties are located, the noise from the play area travels and is objectionable. Presently there are only 40 children, and with the proposed 160, the noise would increase considerably. Responding to questions from Commissioner Seibert, Mr. Kendig said he anticipated there would be an increase in traffic on Elm Street, es- pecially in the daytime, as this is a daytime use. Elm is a narrow street, and with cars parked on either side, there is only room for one car to travel down the street at one time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 1978 PAGE FOUR There was no one else to speak against the proposed application. In rebuttal, Mr. Lawrence said the noise factor is not a serious problem II/ in his opinion. Elementary schools in the area are located in residential zones, and accommodate many more children than the proposed expansion of this use would, and there is more noise emanating from such schools. With reference to additional traffic, Las Tunas is one of the widest streets in the area, with the possible exception of Huntington Drive. Muscatel is a collector street and can accommodate 10- 12,000 cars a day. If each child arrived in a separate car, there would be an increase of a little over 100, and those using Elm would amount to only 25 -30 cars a day in an 8 -12 hour span. Dr. Bevli added that the school opens at 7 a.m. The educational program begins at 9 a.m. Some children are picked up at noon, being on a half - day program. The educational program resumes after lunch, to 2:30. The children are picked up until 6 p.m. There are rarely more than two cars arriving at a time. Pick -up and delivery is no problem. The children do not go onto the play area until after 3 p.m. He has received no com- plaints of noise from the resident adjacent to the facility to the north. Commissioner Breazeal moved to close Public Hearing, seconded by Commis- sioner Seibert and the motion carried. Commissioner Breazeal made a motion to approve filing of a Negative Declar tion of Environmental Impact as the Initial Study, prepared by the Planning Department, failed to disclose any significant adverse impacts which can- not be mitigated substantially. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Seibert carried. Commissioner Seibert, in closed discussion, said there was no reason not to grant the request, however, he suggested a condition to install side- walks in the parkway area. Eliminating the wall along Las Tunas is not an unreasonable request. He was in favor of requiring the proposed trash enclosure, saying applicant is underestimating the amount of trash the use will generate. Commissioner Breazeal said Phase I would meet the criterial of Section 9203 of the Zoning Code. He felt the additional traffic would not be objection- able. Regarding the noise factor, the Wash would act as a barrier. However, in consideration of Phase II, he was concerned about the southeast parcel. facing Las Tunas, which would be isolated and surrounded by the subject use, and would be capsulated. Approval of Phase II could have a substantial impact on that property and have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment and valuation of the property. He was not in favor of requiring the street light, considering the hours of operation of the facility. He concurred with requirements for consolidating the properties, for curb and gutter installation, and proposed trash enclosure. Commissioner Abraham concurred with Commissioner Breazeal's comments, add- ing that, in the evenings during winter, it is dark and the street light would be a desirable item when picking, up children. Commissioner Stacy said he felt Phase II would not have an adverse effect on the southeastern parcel on. Las Tunas. Demolition of the old structure on the corner of Las Tunas and Muscatel, and construction of new structure would have a desirable effect. The hours of operation of the subject, use and the use on that southeastern parcel (presently a bail -bond service) do not conflict. He felt it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to acquire this southeastern parcel. He reviewed the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, and felt the request met those criteria. He was in favor of eliminating requirement for a wall on Las Tunas Drive, in favor of requiring a street light, felt a trash enclosure adequate to meet the needs of the use is all that should be required. Regarding the consolida- tion of the parcels, if the use requires such consolidation, it,should be required. _3-112 orkl -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 1978 Chairman Lawson agreed with Commissioners Seibert and Stacy on the Spplication, and was in favor of granting, changing Condition 5 to IIPead 60 additional children in Phase I, and 60 additional children in Phase II. PAGE FIVE City Manager pointed out that the installation of the street light was a moot condition, as the installation is free. Applicant would only be required to request it and it would be installed. Commissioner Stacy said he would prefer eliminating all reference to Phase II in consideration of the proposal until applicant is ready to begin work on it. Conditions may be different at that time and the Commission may have to consider other factors than now. It was pointed out that the northwest corner of Las Tunas and Muscatel is a vacant parcel, and it is not known what use will locate there, and whether it will have an impact on the subject use. Commissioner Breazeal moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 78 -542 with the deletion of all reference to Phase II, modifying condition 5 to read 60 additional children in Phase I, that the trash enclosure is to be adequate to enclose the required trash containers for the use, and that a full width sidewalk be provided the length of the use along - Muscatel. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried. Chairman Lawson read _title to Resolution 78- 821PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT IN CASE NO. 78 -542. Commissioner Seibert moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded. by Commissioner Breazeal and the motion carried. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 78 -543 Luciano and Irena Scorcia - Owner /Applicant 5107 Sultana Avenue Temple City, Ca. Site: 5107 Sultana Avenue Zone:. R -1, Single Family residential The Planning Director said applicant proposes to build an addition, attached to the residence, that will create a 5 ft. rear yard setback. He referred to the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing the existing single - family residence with attached single -car garage. The setbacks .are 17 ft. from Pentland, 11 ft. and 7 ft, from Sultana. The proposed addition will be 390 sq. ft. Lot coverage with the addition would be 33.5% of lot area. He gave the factual data on the subject property and surrounding area, the zoning history, and said the request is categoric- ally exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Section 15105, Class 5, Alterations in Land Use Limitations), and he reviewed the staff proposals if the request is granted. The Public Hearing was declared open. Mr. Charles Chivetta, 106 E. Longden, Arcadia, representing . the applicant, . said the City's requirement for a 15 ft. rear yard setback will work a hardship on him. This parcel is a small corner lot and, with the location of the existing structure, he is limited where he can build an addition. Surrounding properties can expand without a variance. Open space will be provided in excess of City requirements. Applicant acquired the property in 1973, Mr. Chivetta said, responding to question from Commissioner Breazeal, and they did consider two -story construction, but the effect of adding the second story would be aesthetically displeasing. .There being no one else to speak to the issue, Commissioner Breazeal moved to close Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Abraham, and the motion carried. Commissioner Breazeal said the strict applicationcof Section 9201 of the Zoning Code makes it difficult to grant the request. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject parcel.. The owner is creating the problem. There are no exceptional or extra - ordinary circumstances or condi- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 1978 PAGE SIX tions applicable to the property which do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone. The variance is not necessary for the pr-e -.;.,; ` servation and enjoyment of a property right possessed by other property ` similarly situated and is denied to the subject property. He did not feel granting the variance would be detrimental to public welfare or ad- jacent property, but applicant did not meet two out of the three criteria for granting a variance. Commissioner Abraham considered the lot unusual - if it were not a corner lot applicant would have more yard area. The proposed addition backs up to a parking lot and not an existing structure. Commissioner Stacy concurred. The lot is shallow, the location of the existing structures precludes addition in any other manner, and to deny the application would be denying applicant a right enjoyed by others. It will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Addition backs onto a parking lot. Commissioner Seibert agreed applicant had unusual circumstances. Because the addition backs onto a church parking lot is unusual. However, with the strict application of Section 9201, he could not vote for the request. Chairman Lawson felt there were some unique circumstances with this small corner lot in relation to other lots in the area. Owner does not have the same rights and privileges of other property owners. He was in favor of approving the request. Commissioner Stacy moved to approve Zone Variance Case 78 -543. in that the proposal, as submitted, meets the criteria of Section 9201 of the Zoning Code. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Abraham and carried with Commissioners Abraham, Stacy and Lawson voting affirmative, and Commissioners Breazeal and Seibert dissenting. Chairman Lawson read title to Resolution No. 78- 822PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE IN CASE NO. 78 -543. Commissioner Breazeal moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and the motion carried. 9. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. 10. TIME FOR THOSE IN'THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK - No one came forward. 11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS (a) Set Public Hearing Proposed Amendment to Sign Ordinance Commissioners Stacy and Seibert felt that, if a businessman wanted relief from the present restriction of one roof sign or free - standing sign, he had the option of seeking a variance. The City Manager ex -. plained that most of the structures along Las Tunas Drive were only one - story, and are affected by this ordinance. If the buildings were two -or three -story ones, the situation would be different. He did not want to put these businessmen through the varance procedure if an amendment would accomplish it. Chairman Lawson pointed out that the businessman could still have a wall sign in addition to a roof sign. The Commissioners were concerned that such an amendment would result in a proliferation of signs along Las Tunas Drive and the malls. There has been only one request received by the City for a roof sign and free - standing sign. The City Manager suggested a letter be sent to the Chamber of Commerce, requesting their input, and Commissioner Seibert asked that such letter reflect the Commissioners' concern about the proliferation of signs that might result with such an amendment to the sign ordinance. i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 28, 1978 PAGE SEVEN (b) Set Public Hearing to determine existence of Public Nuisance 6051 Reno Avenue 9044 Olive Street 9445 Las Tunas Drive Commissioner Seibert moved to set Public Hearing for December 12, 1978, seconded by Commissioner Breazeal and the motion carried. Chairman Lawson read titles to Resolutions 78 -823, 824 and 825, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING.. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DECLARING ITS INTENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE, relating to the three locations. Commissioner Seibert moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Abraham, and the motion carried. (c) Set Public Hearing - General Plan Amendment Director Dragicevich referred the Commission to the area south of Lower Azusa Road between Ellis Land and Temple City Boulevard, currently zoned C -3 and R-4. The General Plan indicates proposed industrial use. One residential project of four units was recently completed in that area and another project of four units is under construction. Interest has also been expressed to build a 15 -unit condominium in the area. Because tentative and final tract maps must be found, prior to their approval, to be in conformance with the General Plan, it is suggested that an amendment to the General Plan be considered for the area to allow residential development. Commissioner Seibert moved to set Public Hearing on this matter for January 9; 1978, seconded by Commissioner Stacy, and the motion carried. Commissioner Seibert offered an explanation of his voting against the front yard determination in Case No. 78 -539, considered earlier this evening. He was not against such determinations, but in this instance, was against this total development, that it was a mistake to grant a variance for the development. He does not think, the development was well designed. There are still several .large parcels in the City to be developed, and the Commission must be wary of setting a precedent in what it permits as it is hard to reverse. OP12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner Breazeal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried, to adjourn. Time of adjournment was 9:40 p.m. ATTEST: t Se L'retary iiti,4,4.-Jt