Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1979/08/28 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 1979 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,, August 28, 1979, by Chairman Pro Tem Abraham. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Pro Tem Abraham led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lawson, Seibert, Stacy, Abraham Absent: Commissioner Breazeal Also Present: City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin, Planning Director Dragicevich and Planning Aide Putrino. Commissioner Seibert moved to excuse Chairman Breazeal's absence for cause, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the motion carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of August 14, 1979 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Seibert moved to approve them as written, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and the motion carried. asv PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 574 (Los Angeles County No. 13342) Emil R. and Dolores Metz - Owner /Applicant 2225 South Date Avenue Alhambra, California Site: 6131 North Golden West Avenue Zone: R -2, Light Multiple Residential Director Dragicevich gave the staff report, saying applicant proposes to construct four condominium units and was requesting approval of the tenta- time parcel map to do so. He explained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing existing and proposed development. Proposed are four two -story condominium units, each with a two -car attached garage and an additional carport for unit No. 1. One open parking space is provided. Proposed also is a 16 ft. driveway along the southerly property line. He also referred to floor plan and a rendering of the proposed project, gave the factual data on the subject property and surrounding area, and said the 'request is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Section 15103, Class 3, New Construction of Small Structures). He reviewed the conditions proposed if the project is approved, adding an additional condition, to provide extra parking (open) at the area south of unit No. 4. Respnnding to ques- tions from Commissioner Seibert, he said there would be sufficient turn- around radius for cars exiting from the garage for unit No. 4, and the space is sufficiently deep to accommodate additional parking space. • The Public Hearing was declared open. Mr. Emil R. Metz, 2225 South Date Avenue, applicant, said he intended to live in one of the units and wanted to build an attractive project which •would be an asset to the neighborhood. He had read the conditions for approval and had no objections to them or to the suggested additional condition. There was no one else to speak in favor. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1979 PAGE TWO In oppositiOn: Mrs. Eleanora Kempees, 6132 Kadffman, Objected to the project because of the two-story height. Mr. Alfred Ordino, 6138 Kauffman, said the present plan), with two-story construction, would block his sunlight and air. He suggested flipping the plan over so the buildingsiwouldbefagainst the church on ,the,south side and fhe -driveway to, the norf4:, He has a2iefif'al in the iear, which would be affected. ' He was also Siieaking-1,for:;an',-adjacent,neighi)Or"at 6126 Kauffman, whose property abuts the subject property, who objects to the plan as presented as it would block her ;144,,t,:110., sir. Answer-, ing a question from Commissioner Lawson, he said his was the only property on the street with two houses on it., In rebuttal, Mr. Metz said he made a survey of the neighborhood, From Garibaldi to Longden, on Golden West Avenue, and observed at least ten two-story homes there, , The proposed plan has a broken, height, concept, with the first 200 ft. being two-story, and the next 45. ft. single-story. He ,was not against reversing the plan, i,f that would be required. I . . - . ■•• ..• • . !)r r 3 `7 7 : - • )7 6 There being no one efse to speal. tb the issue', GonuraSlidner Seibert moved .. to ..closeL,-Public„-HeaOngse,condeCpy_.,CommissionerIawsonand the motion • 411 „._ „,.. carO 6,2,1)1.1 CommissionerjStauf said,fherp cOPSt/714ctioP. He reviewed the 'findiii6-fh'e Plahring:COM-thiSiorriliU:St'apprciVe'in granting the request and.saidlt,met_all_pf_them,,,and,was,rin,favOr,of,granPing • the applieaeicin,with,sfaff.donditi6n6- Adipodifidd. • • • • Commissioner Lawson agreed with three of -the findings but queStibiled' whether the one stating the designf9f(Ahe sOdilvisnd:impp7y,ed„improyements• would not cause substan4d1 epqrOpplOta0 ThiSMatter-COUld be resolvedbT:re7rsin01411.1,c'tfl- fr-u07, Commissioner Seibert said he-t4o4Ia:Uwt-b 4-eriy:he tract, but had no grounds to do that. He objected-td 'the- City-CoUncil approving hardship for .two cases in imposAng_a,mbratoriumi,on,,,condoiminiut construction, feeling it should haVelieehit-ihlu-SiV'e.--The-request meetsafl four findings required for,s2Proyal_in,h1s,,,ORinion„and he would have. to vote -•-, for it. 4:134h40::40Aeck nloratoLlum, howLver, he too .chad ri5--;ixbje-atitih:661heirOTet.--- ou gbm Jr.t9J-17.aolo.ifb COMMiSsioner,Seib'ert,..mO'Vddy,..ts5_,apprOvelentaii,VeJrace534 (LOS:AhgeleS,1 iJA1Vi County ( No .12242) 'a.s„ itt Meets ther,,foildwingconditror4, - - - 0 ,.`=% r.":”; 1?.1.1 f=1 411.41.3,RIP, design ,...1-T,PPF0Yerne-qT.,[4:4P/791529_ is - - - A 03 consistent. City's F.',Gelieral. Plan and that ,ai.e;re are no _ V A 1!..1k1t.,6 tH1,, 1,0 b (.1 pre,ciseiplanSapplicahlitOnsaid:pap; v f • r, r 8 (i)i: '[hati tiie site is hvsica11v suiLabi eT for the proposed 'qipe of •clidbOrrIP4 and proposed density of develoixnent, .desil#1 of subdivision and proposed ImprOveine:' • • . , f• • .);", (i ji-Lf are not likay.to cause substan#41. environmental 'damage..or to . . T cause .seriOus , heal th ifrbb F7' SC; ■;■■•,-' (d) That deSin--of the land division end the type 'iMprOVe • ilk' I , Inent will not Conflict with -eaSEmerits , acquired by ;the public at iare, for' access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; and approval will include staff conditions as modified, and with approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried by roll call: 411 vote with Commissioner Lawson voting against. Because of the opposition expressed to the request this evening, the City Attorney stated the case should, be presented to the City Council t for approval. He then read title to Resolution No. 79-866PC, A RESOLU- TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 574 (LOS ANGELES COUNTY NO. 12242). Commissioner Lawson moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and the motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1979 PAGE THREE • 6. PUBLIC HEARING: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 79 -2 Mary P. Wicks - Owner /Applicant 10159 East Lower Azusa Road Temple City, California Site: 10159,10167,10173 East Lower Azusa Road Zone: R -4, Limited Commercial -Heavy Multiple Residential Director Dragicevich gave the staff report, saying applicant proposes to amend the General Plan and change from Medium Residential (12 units per acre) to High Residential density (13 to 36 units per acre) in an area currently zoned. R -4. He read the applicant's statement supporting the, request and gave the factual data on the.subject property and surrounding area, summarized the Planning Analysis, and stated that, based on an Initial Study, and the Environmental Assessment Form, which revealed that there could be some adverse impacts upon the environment if the request is approved, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and .submitted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. • • He continued that the subject site is part of an area that, in 1974, was considered for a change of zone from R -4 to R -2. In May, 1974, the Plann- ing Commission recommended that the density on the General Plan for this area be revised to a density of 13 -24 units per acre, but the City Council rejected this recommendation. The Planning Commission then, at the initia- tive of a property owner,- held Public Hearing to downgrade from R -4 to R -2. Most of the property owners speaking at the public hearing opposed the zone change and it was denied. City Council expressed no desire to have high residential density on Lower Azusa Road either at the time of the General Plan adoption in 1971 or the major revision in 1974 -75. The present'request by the property owner is being made to allow, in the future, a condominium project on the middle two parcels. The request for such development was what prompted applicant to request a General Plan amendment as the first step to permit such development, upon the advice of the Planning staff. Under current General Plan density, a total of 13 units can be built on the site. If the General Plan amend- ment is approved, a total of 20 -30 units could be built (maximum possible number, in theory,, based on the R -4 criteria, is 40), Commissioner Seibert said the property involved was large enough for a Residential Planned Development, and the Planning Director replied he _ would still have to comply with. General Plan density. Commissioner Seibert asked if any thought had been given to considering the R -1 zone abutting R -4 and C -2 on the north side, and the Director said the application was for the subject parcels only, The Director' then showed slides of the area, provided by the applicant, who also supplied the description of the slides, The Public Hearing was declared open. Mr. Robert G. Wicks, 10159 Lower Azusa Road, son of the applicant, said he had lived at the subject site for 30 years, at which time Lower Azusa Road was two lanes wide, and the.area was predominantly dairies and farm- land. In 1960 the zoning, which had been A -1, was changed to R -4, the composition of the area had changed, and for the past 20 years it has re- mained R -4. The traffic on Lower Azusa is increasing and industry in that area is more dense. It is less suitable for single - family dwellings. Approval of the application would guarantee residential development, which would be better for other R -1 properties than commercial development. The present plan, if this application is approved, is for 15 -16 units on the two central lots, which is not really high density, and not apartments, but condominiums which will be owner- occupied, and will provide a transi- tion from residential to the commercial uses across the street. By develop- ing the two lots together it will eliminate narrow lot development in the future, and will allow design flexibility to design good units, facing each other. Narrow lot development won't allow that flexibility. Such develop- ment will upgrade the present property, Mr. Wicks concluded. Mrs. Donna Graham, 4823 Glickman, asked if her property could be included in the application. She was unaware of the request until she received a notice in the mail. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1979 PAGE FOUR The Planning Director said notices had been sent out with map on the reverse for a change for just the properties involved. City Manager Koski expressed the opinion that the General Plan is not that definite, the lines of demarcation are indefinite. There was no one else to speak in favor. In opposition: • Mr. W. C. Wickersham, 4818 Birchland, whose property backs up to the subject property, objected to high density abutting his property. There are presently no plans to review for the proposed development. He re ferred to the Environmental Impact Report, which he had reviewed, and which he found biased in favor of the applicant. The request, based on the Report, is prompted by economics, which factor should not be part of an environmental impact report. He referred also to the slides, and the applicant's comments on them, disagreeing with the implications he felt were made. He further stated that, while there is noise. from Lower Azusa Road during the day, at night it is quiet,'. Further, while . the applicant proposes 15 -16 units on the two central lots, if the property is sold to a developer, he may elect to build 36 units per acre. The Report states the proposed units would be of a price. range for young lip people, and Mr. Wickersham felt there are homes on Birchland which would qualify in that range, also, which would have back yards which the condo- miniums would not. The report does not address itself to the lack of privacy and increase in noise he would experience with e condominium development. Mr. Wickersham continued that recently, on Kauffman and Lower Azusa, an 18 -unit project was built, single - family residences, which indicates that type of development is suitable on Lower Azusa Road. He concluded that he was also against two -story development abutting his property. Mr. Jay Kimple, 4808 Birchland, said that, except for 4801 Birchland, all the homes on that street are single- story. He strongly opposed the pro- posed high density. Mr. Harold S. Hoyt, 4829 Glickman, opposed the higher proposed density and the possibility of two -story construction on the subject parcels. Mr.Anastasios Galanis , 4814 Birchland Place, was against two -story development. Mr. Carl Lublin, 4824 Birchland Place, said that, before he purchased his house, he surveyed the neighborhood. The Von's truck parking lot is 250- 350 ft. from his house, hedges in front of Von's are very high, obscuring the cars in the parking lot. Remaining are the office buildings. Pre- sently there is no noise on Birchland, but with a large development that might change. There being no one else to speak to the issue, Mr. Wicks, in rebuttal,, said the issue was to bring the General Plan in conformance with the R -4 zoning which has existed at this location for 20 years. When a development for this area is presented to the Planning Commission, he felt certain they would protect the surrounding properties. Commissioner Seibert moved to close Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the motion carried. City Attorney Martin said the law requires the Environmental Impact Report's adequacy be the responsibility of the City, and asked the Planning Director if he accepted the Report and found it adequate. The, Director responded he had accepted, read and found adequate the Report., He continued by saying there was the economic aspect to be considered, • but presently there is no precise plan to base economic impact on. The Report deals with the inconsistency between the present zoning and the General Plan density. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1979 PAGE FIVE Conuuissioner Stacy said the Report has not dealt with adverse impact on the west, only to the north. However, applicant is only asking for amendment to the General Plan and the impact of a development on surrounding property will be addressed when he presents a precise plan. Commissioner Lawson said at one time a change from R -4 to R -2 for that area was considered and never passed. He was still in favor of R -2 zoning and would like to leave the General Plan as it is•and deny the amendment. Commissioner Abraham said he would like the option of • looking at more than those three lots. • The City Attorney replied the General Plan is not meant to be precise as to boundary lines. There is no problem in enlarging or changing the amendment. The matter could be continued for'six months. The in- consistency between zoning and the General Plan must be resolved. Following discussion, it was determined that the matter be continued to allow staff time to study a larger area for amendment to the General Plan, accumulate data and statistics and prepare a new Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Stacy moved to continue the Public Hearing IIIwith staff to investigate the area from the west line of the commercial zoning on Arden to the east line of the commercial on Baldwin, and that staff would prepare a new Environmental Impact Report covering the properties involved. Commissioner Lawson seconded the motion and it carried. Chairman Abraham called a recess at 9:15 p.m:, and reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 79 -564 M. Douglas Barry - Owner /Applicant 1370 Van Dyke Road San Marino, California Site: Site: 6234 -62362 Temple City Boulevard Zone: R -3, Heavy Multiple Residential The Planning Director said the applicant is requesting approval of an illegally converted unit with reduced parking spaces, floor area, drive - s, way width and side yard setback located in an R -3 zone. He explained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing existing development consisting of a duplex in the front and a unit built over the garage in the rear. There is a substandard two -car garage built between the duplex and the unit in the rear, and a two -car garage below the unit in the rear. The unit labeled "Existing Bachelor Unit" was converted to living quarters without obtaining a building permit and has only 300 sq. ft. The present owner bought the property assuming all structures were legal. There is also less than the required open space on the property. The situation came to the City when a prospective buyer of the property came to the City Hall and checked the building records and learned there were only three legal units according to our records. City Attorney reviewed the violations, saying the driveway width and side - yard setback and open space requirements were established after the structures were built. The real issues before the Commission were the substandard parking and size of the bachelor unit. The Public Hearing was declared open. Mr. M. Douglas Barry, 1370 Van Dyke Road, San Marino, said he purchased •the property in 1971 as it now exists. The illegal unit is serving the rental market, for young people and students, mostly young single people. It is serving a useful function, not harming anyone, hidden from view. It has been in existence for 20 -25 years judging from the rest of the buildings on the property and aging characteristics. It is located ad- jacent to the neighbor's driveway so it does not affect the neighbor, The present driveway width is the same as other properties in the neighbor- hood. Parking and side yard setbacks are the same as those existing on other neighborhood properties. The existence of the unit does not violate the density of the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1979 PAGE SIX' Responding to questions from Commissioner Lawson, Mr. Barry said there . are separate electrical meters for the other three units, and the fourth meter supplies the garage and the bachelor unit (the garage houses the laundry facilities, also). He pays all the utilities. Mr. Martin Leska, 9622 Longden, was under the impression, from the notice he received, that an additional unit was being proposed. Learning the purpose of the hearing, he stated he had no objection as the property is well maintained and looks well. There being no one else to speak to the issue, Commissioner Seibert moved to close Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and carried. Commissioner Seibert said he was bound to consider the application under Section 9201 of the Zoning Code, and therefore could not approve the request. The unit is substandard in size, not built with building per- mit, inadequate parking which encourages on- street parking permits. The request for the variance is purely economic and the Commission cannot base its findings on economics. He was in favor 'of denial. Commissioner.Stacy asked if the other two dwelling structures were legal,All and the Director replied they were, having been built in 1949 through 195 The side yard setback deviation refers only to the one structure which is legal, nonconforming. Commissioner Stacy continued that the driveway width is adequate and pre- existing. He was in favor of approval. Commissioner Lawson said what concerns- him is that the .subject unit was converted, by the previous owners, from a garage to a dwelling unit and it is unknown if it meets housing standards,, Granting the request would be perpetuating a problem which happened in the past. Chairman Abraham reviewed the parking available on the property, the sizes of the garages, and concluded there was insufficient parking for even three units, discounting the fourth unit. The case has too many problems to grant. He was against approval: Commissioner Seibert moved to deny Zone Variance 79 -564 as it does not meet the requirements for granting under Section 9201 of the Zoning Code. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lawson and carried. City Attorney Martin read title to Resolution No. 79- 867PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING ZONE VARIAN. IN CASE NO. 79 -564. Commissioner Seibert moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and carried. 8. COMMUNICATIONS - there were none. 9. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH T.0 SPEAK - No one came forward. 10 MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS - City Attorney referred to two cases , continued from the meeting of August 14, 1979, for condominium develop- ment. Both cases had been affected by the moratorium on condominium development, and the developer had submitted letter to the City Council claiming hardship. City Council had continued the consideration to September 18th meeting. However, it was necessary that the Planning Commission act on them this evening as a continued matter from the previous Planning Commission meeting. The two cases were: Tentative Tract No. 35584 at 6351 Temple City Boulevard (R -2), for a 7 -unit condominium, and Tentative Tract 37582, at 4503 -15 Ellis Lane (R -4) for a 14 -unit condominium. Developer in both cases was J, H. Hedrick Co Commissioner Seibert moved to deny Tentative Tracts 35584 and 37582 on the basis of the moratorium imposed, however, that such denial is without prejudice to a re- application at a later date. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1979 11. ADJOURNMENT PAGE SEVEN There being no further business, Commissioner Seibert, at 9:55 p.m., moved to adjourn, seconded by Comm y�,ssioner Stacy and the, motion carried. • Chairm