HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1979/06/26 - RegularIIINITIATION
1. CALL TO ORDER
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 26, 1979
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple
City was called to order at 7:30 p.m., June 26,1979, by Chairman
Lawson.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
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, City
Services Coordinator Orville McCollom and Planning Director Dragicevich.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 12, 1979
There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner
Seibert moved to approve them as written, seconded by Commissioner
Breazeal and the motion carried unanimously.
5 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
5038 Doreen Avenue (Case No. 79 -49)
Temple City, California
Director Dragicevich said he inspected the property that day, and
noted substantial progress had been made to correct violations.
All that remains is for the storage shed to be painted. Staff has
assurance from the realtor that they will work with staff if any
problems arise in the future. He recommended the matter be terminated.
Commissioner Stacy said he, too, had viewed the property and observed
the improvements thereon. Responding to Commissioner Abraham's ques-
tion, the Director said he had discussed the future of the property
with the realtor. Ownership is changing hands, and the new owner
intends to live on the property.
The Public Hearing was declared open. No one came forward to speak
to the issue. Commissioner Seibert made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Breazeal, to close Public Hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Breazeal moved to terminate proceedings in Property
Nuisance Case No. 79 -49 as the violations had been substantially
corrected. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried
unanimously.
City Attorney Martin read title to Resolution 79- 858PC, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY TERMINATING
PROCEEDINGS IN PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE 79-49, Commissioner Breazeal
moved to adopt by title only, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and
the motion carried unanimously.
6 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 79 -560
Terry Fisher - Owner /Applicant
6012 North Reno Avenue
Temple City, California
Site: 6012 North Reno Avenue
Zone: R -2, Light Multiple Residential
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1979 PAGE TWO
In giving the staff report, the Planning Director said applicant pro-
poses to add to an existing residential dwelling and connect the pro-
posed addition with a garage that has a 14" side yard setback. He
referred to the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing existing and pro-
posed development. Existing are a single family residential building
and a detached two -car garage with a rumpus room. This rumpus room,
will be modified to have a 4 ft. side setback, the same as the existing
residential structure and proposed addition. The proposed addition
will connect the rumpus room with the garage which has 14" side yard
setback. He gave the factual data and zoning history of the area, and
reviewed the staff proposals if the request is granted.- He concluded
by saying this variance is categorically exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended (Section 15105: Class 5,
Alteration in Land Use Limitations). He then passed to the Commissioners
snapshots of the property, taken by the applicant.
Responding to questions from the Commissioners, the Director said he had
no information when the garage or rumpus room were built. There is a
detached garage on the neighboring property adjacent to the proposed
structure.
The Public Hearing was declared open. 11/
Mr, Terry Fisher, 6012 North Reno Avenue, applicant, said he is reducing
the size of his rumpus room by 80 sq. ft., which includes the removal of
a large fireplace, in order to maintain a straight line addition for the
proposed addition and rumpus room with the existing house. Responding
to question from Chairman Lawson, Mr. Fisher said he had a records search
made to determine when the rumpus room was erected, but apparently it was
built without a permit as there were no records. Checking with the neigh-
bors he learned it had been built prior to 1955, All the garages in the
area, he continued, were built 14 -18" from the property line, The addi-
tion he is proposing will be a master bedroom.
There being no one else to speak to the issue, Commissioner Seibert made
a motion, seconded by Commissioner Abraham and carried unanimously, to
close Public Hearing.
In closed discussion the Commissioners were in agreement that the request
met the requirements of Section 9201 of the Zoning Code; there are unique
and unusual circumstances, to deny his request would be denying a property
right enjoyed by others and it would not be detrimental to the public -
welfare or to the adjacent property. Applicant has made an effort to
comply with the straight line addition requirements at an expense to him
self. Commissioner Seibert made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Stacy
and carried unanimously, to grant a variance in Case No. 79 -560 as it met
all the conditions for granting under Section 9201 of the Zoning Code.
Attorney Martin read title to Resolution No. 79 -560, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING A VARIANCE IN
CASE NO. 79 -560. Commissioner Breazeal moved to adopt by title only,
seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried unanimously.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 37528
Frank Davidson - Owner
P.O. Box 1096
Temple City, California
F & A Realty - Applicant
9109 East Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, California
Site: 5602 -08 North Welland Avenue
Zone: R -3, Heavy Multiple Residential
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1979 PAGE THREE
In giving the staff report, the Planning Director said the applicant
proposes to built a tract consisting of a 9 -unit condominium in an R -3
zone. He reviewed the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing existing
and proposed development. Existing are 4 single- family dwellings.
Proposed are 9 two -story units as a condominium project in two build-
ings (one with 5 and the other with 4 units). Applicant has provided
the required parking. The Director said the density proposed is on
the basis of 16 units per acre. The subject site is zoned R -3, which allows
a maximum of 24 units per acre, but the General Plan designates the entire
area east of of McCulloch as medium residential density. Originally this
area was shown on the General Plan map as high residential density, having
24 units per acre. Then the General Plan was amended (1974) changing the
overall desnity to a lesser density, without amending the zoning map.
Since the area in general is zoned R -1, R -2 and R -3, the concept was
that the average density will not exceed 12 units per acre.
The Director continued by saying that a Draft Environmental Impact Report
has been prepared by the applicant and submitted in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. In reviewing
the Report the Director found several deficiencies which he reviewed.
This list, along with reports from several other agencies who reviewed
the Report, were included in the material on this case to each Commis-
sioner.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Mr. David Gaitan, representing the engineer on the proposed project,
said the proposed conditions had been reviewed by the engineers and
applicant and they were agreeable to them. Responding to Commissioner
Breazeal, Mr. Gaitan said they had considered designing a combination
of one and two story structures; however, they (the engineering firm
he represents) has a project similar to the proposed one near the
subject site which was approved.
There being no one else to speak to the issue, Commissioner Breazeal
made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Stacy, and carried unanimously,
to close Public Hearing.
Commissioner Seibert, in closed discussion, expressed displeasure with
the design of the project, comparing it with army barracks, with no
consideration for the neighbors, or for appearance. Some consideration
should also be given to the builder's obligation to the community. Com-
. missioner Breazeal agreed.
Commissioner Stacy said he could find no reason to deny. The Commission
does not have the criteria or ability to control design. He did not
care for the design of the project, but could find no justifiable reason
to deny the application.
Conunissjoneg Abxaha r said the. pgoj ect showed no 4. tagination. He would
like to have seen the 12 trees on the property "saved, or at least some
of them. He could find no reason, other than aesthetic, to deny.
Chairman Lawson was in agreement with Commissioners Seibert and Breazeal,
that the design of the project could be improved.
Commissioner Breazeal moved to certify the filing of the Environmental
Impact Report, with exceptions as raised by staff, deleting Item 6 there-
in (a subjective matter), and incorporating all public testimony and that
of the Commissioners at this evening's meeting. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Seibert and carried unanimously.
41/1 Commissioner Breazeal moved to deny Tentative Tract 37528 on the basis
the site is not suitable for the proposed type of development. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried with Commissioner Stacy
dissenting.
Attorney Martin read title to Resolution No. 79- 860PC, A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THEICITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING TRACT 37528.
Commissioner Seibert moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded
by Commissioner Breazeal and carried unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1979 PAGE FOUR
8. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 79 -551
and
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 36735
Mrs. Wiza Salvas - Owner
c/o George Pike
10816 Valley Boulevard
El Monte, California
Site:
Zone:
Fairhaven Development Corporation - Applicant
8656 East Huntington Drive
San Gabriel, California
North of Hallowell Avenue between Halifax
Road and Arden Drive (Seeman School)
R -1, Single Family.
Director Dragicevich gave the staff report, saying applicant requests
approval of a 55 -lot subdivision with less than the required lot area
for 40 lots in an R -1 Zone. He explained the plot plan marked Exhibit
"A ", showing the proposed subdivision. Lot sizes range from 6500 sq.
ft. to 11,075 sq. ft., with an average of 7,106 sq. ft. per lot. All
lots will have the required lot frontage of 35 ft. (on cul -de -sac) or mor
He explained the circulation system proposed and said interior streets
comprise an area of 1.878acre or 17.4% of the entire site. He then
gave the factual data on the subject property and surrounding area, and
the zoning history. Regarding density he said proposed is 6.15 units per
net acre. If streets are included in the gross area, then the overall
density of 5.08 units per acre is in compliance with the General Plan.
However, if we consider net acreage of the site, as is usually considered
for planning purposes, then the proposed development slightly exceeds the
General Plan density of 6 units per acre.
He continued by saying an Environmental Impact Report had been filed in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended. He stated staff had reviewed the Report and found several
deficiencies as outlined in memo to the Planning Commission, attached
with comments from several agencies that had also reviewed the Report.
He went on to say that staff made a survey of 104 lots adjacent to the
subject site, for lot area, and found some parcels have more than 7874
sq. ft., however, some parcels have 5000 to 6000 sq. ft. He concluded
by saying that the tentative tract map approval is contingent on the
approval of the zone variance, and vice versa.
Commissioner Stacy asked if the Environmental Impact Report should not
have covered existing facilities, as this one does not. It does not
cover the ability of the local schools to handle additional children -
no mention is made of this aspect at all. The Director said a copy of
the Report had been sent to the El Monte School District for their com-
ments. Commissioner Breazeal added that the Report addresses itself
to the tentative tract map and not to the variance at all.
Director Dragicevich stated Mr. Orville McCollom, City Services Coordinator,
Regional Planning Commission, was available this evening to answer any
questions the Commission may have.
Attorney Martin advised the Commission could proceed with the zone variance
hearing. If the Commission cannot accept the Environmental Impact Report
there was no point in proceeding further.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Mr. George Weigand, 8656 East Huntington Drive, applicant, said he did
not have a chance to review the Environmental Impact Report. The
project has good circulation, allowing for emergency vehicles. Because
of the configuration of adjacent streets to the subject site, he was
limited in how to plan the layout of lots. The substandard lots average
only 94 sq. ft. less than the City requirements for lot area, and many
of the lots are larger than the required 7200 sq, ft. Responding to
Commissioner Breazeal's question why the developer could not develop
53 or 54 units and meet City requirements on all the lots (for square
footage of lot area), Mr. Weigand said it was because of the way he had
to subdivide because of existing streets adjacent to the site,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1979 PAGE FIVE
IIMr. Weigand continued that, if he were building condominiums he could
have designed the area for 64 units. He was not trying to overload
the area - the average variance per unit was only 94 sq. ft. per lot.
He felt people wanted smaller lots, which is indicated by the popular-
ity of condominiums.
•
Attorney Martin said this request does not qualify for a variance when
40 out of 55 units are substandard in a development. There would be
no justification to grant it. Further, the Environmental Impact Report
is inadequate since it does not address itself to the variance at all.
Mr. George Pike, 10816 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, representing the
owner of the property, responding to questions from Commissioner Breazeal
as to how the variance met the requirements of Section 9201 of the
Zoning Code, said the property is unique and unusual because of its
size, suitable for a school, or a large development of condominiums or
single - family residences. Without the variance the developer will be
denied maximum use of that property. It (the development) is suited
to the surrounding area that hems it in. The improvement of new homes
will raise the value of homes in that area, not considering the economics
of the development to the developer.
Mr. Jim McClean, 10432 Miloann, said the City requirements and standards
should be upheld unless it is absolutely essential or if they prohibit
someone from enjoying their property. There are other lots in the area
that are substandard but they were established prior to City incorpora-
tion. This property could be developed to City standards.
Mr. Linden Gray, 4925 Halifax Road, was in favor of the single- family
development, but not substandard lots. He referred to the Environmental
Impact Report, p. 19, "a right -of -way will be required to serve the
various 'condominiums", which is erroneous, and further, the Report
should address itself to the safety of children. 80% of the traffic
will flow southerly. Many of the streets in the area are without side-
walks. The local elementary school is to the south and the children
walk on streets to school, competing with vehicular traffic. This
project will increase traffic on those streets.
Mr. Gray said the Zoning Ordinance was adopted for the best interest
of the people in the City. A 7200 sq, ft. lot is not unusual in size.
In the tract where he lives, 34 lots, all of them are 15% larger than
minimum, and some 50% larger. In the proposed tract one -third is
Op approaching 10% less than minimum, and three - fourths are smaller than
minimum. A substandard development is not in the best interest of the
community. The developer can eliminate four or five lots with no
re- alignment of the street system. The requirements for granting a
variance should be strictly adhered to, and this request, in his opinion,
does not meet those requirements. He asked for a development that the
community can be proud of.
Chairman Lawson said he felt the Commission had heard enough input from
the public to make a decision, and suggested the hearing be closed.
Commissioner Breazeal so moved, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and the
motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Breazeal reviewed Section 9201 of the Zoning Ordinance,
and, while the parcel is of fair size, it could be developed within the
Code. The topography is not unique. The Commission has allowed re-
duced lot size where public works were required in the past, but that
is not the case here. Variances were granted for reduced lot size for
cul -de -sacs, which would not apply for reduced size of many of the pro-
posed lots. Variances have been granted where there existed a hardship,
but in this instance the hardship is created by the developer. He ad-
mitted the plan meets the General Plan requirements of 6.15 units per
acre, that there is a housing shortage , but,in summation, it did not
meet the requirements for granting a zone variance. The rest of the
Commissioners agreed with Coiiunissioner Breazeal's statements.
Commissioner Breazeal moved to deny zone variance in Case No. 79 -551,
predicated on previous testimony and inadequate Environmental Impact
Report. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Seibert and carried
unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1979
PAGE SIX
Attorney Martin read title to Resolution No. 79- 861PC, A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING ZONE VARIANCE
IN CASE NO. 79 -551. Commissioner Seibert moved to waive further read-
ing and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried unanimously.
Attorney Martin asked the developer, Mr. Weigand, if he wished to re-
design the tract and present it to the Commission at a later date, and
Mr. Weigand said he would, but could give no date when such resubmission
would be forthcoming. The public was advised that they would be re-
noticed for the public hearing at a later date when the developer had
submitted a new plan for the subdivision. Commissioner Breazeal moved
to consider the tract when the developer submitted a new plan at a later
date, and to renotice the hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Stacy and carried unanimously.
Chairman Lawson called a recess at 9:00 and reconvened the meeting at
9:05 p.m.
9. COMMUNICATIONS
A letter from the Foothill Intercity Newspapers requesting to relocate a
newspaper office in the C -1 zone was received, The Director said this
use is not presently permitted in that zone, but, at one time, in con-
sidering uses to be allowed in that zone, such use was listed. The re-
quest is to relocate from 9044 to 9619 East Las Tunas, Suite C. This
address does not front on Las Tunas, but is located in the "Patio ",
consists of approximately 400 sq. ft. and presently will be occupied
by one full -time classified employee and a half -time editorial person.
The Circulation Department will remain at 9044 E. Las Tunas at this time.
The Planning Director said he saw no problem with traffic by permitting
this use.
City Manager Koski said the C -1 uses have been amended several times,
clarifying ambiguities. There are several uses that are compatible
with retail uses in the area as long as these services have quick turn-
over and are no detriment to the parking available. It also depends
on the size of the business, the number of employees, and has less than
1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
Commissioner Breazeal moved to recommend to the City Council an amend-
ment to Section 9399.1 to allow a newspaper office in the permitted
uses with less than 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Abraham and carried unanimously.
10. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK
Mrs. Helen Schraeder, Editor of the Temple City Times, thanked the
Commissioners for consideration of a request to locate in the C -1 zone.
11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
City Council Memo - 5/16/79 - re Ordinance
79 -475 - Condominium Conversions
•
Director Dragicevich referred to standards developed by staff, and comments
by Mr. Buchan of the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department, re-
lative to condominium conversions. The Commissioners reviewed them and
amended one to include attic separations and unit separations, and that
no main structure two years old or older shall be submitted or included
for conversion purposes (rather than five years). The Director said the
conversions are categorically exempt from an Environmental Impact Report
as they are existing structures.
Commissioner Breazeal moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of
standards for condominium conversion as modified, seconded by Commissioner
Seibert and the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1979 PAGE SEVEN
Commissioner Breazeal commented on the excellent presentation by Mr.
litLinden Gray, 4925 Halifax Road, in the hearing on Zone Variance Case
79 -551.
•
Chairman Lawson said that, since he would be absent at the next meeting
when the reorganization of the Commission would be held, he wished to -
express his appreciation for the cooperation and support he received
during the past year from the rest of the Commissioners, and wished
the new Chairman the same support and cooperation.
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being-no further business, Commissioner Breazeal made a motion
which was seconded by Commissioner Seibert and the motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Chairman