Loading...
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