HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1980/05/27 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 27, 1980
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., May 27, 1980, by
Chairman Breazeal.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Breazeal led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Abraham, Lawson, Seibert, Breazeal
Absent: Commissioner Stacy
Also present: City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin, Planning
Director Dragicevich and Assistant Planner Avery.
Commissioner Seibert moved to excuse Commissioner Stacy's absence
for cause, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of May 13, 1980.
There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner
Seibert moved to approve them as written, seconded by Commissioner
Abraham and carried.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
8928 -30 Broadway (Case No. 80 -54)
Director Dragicevich said letters were sent to the property owners on
three recent dates, concerning the deteriorating conditions that
exist on the subject property. A number of minor conditions, such
as broken windows, deteriorating reed fence and screen door, had been
corrected. However, the major eyesore is the exterior of the walls
of the two apartment buildings, which are streaked, stained and in
need of painting. A re- examination was made on May 27th revealed
that the situation on the property remains unchanged.
The Director continued by saying a representative of the owners, Mr.
Monitoli, called that afternoon and said the owners are out of the
country. He was too ill to attend this evening's meeting, but assured
the City that the buildings will be painted. However, he could give
no date when this would be done.
The Public Hearing was declared open. No one came forward to speak,
therefore Commissioner Seibert moved to close Public Hearing, seconded
by Commissioner Lawson and the motion carried.
City Attorney Martin asked that the record show that pictures of the
subject property were viewed by the Commissioners, that the members
of the Commission visited the site and are familiar with it and the
conditions thereon, the Planning Director visited the site, and the
conditions have remained unchanged, and that these conditions are down-
grading the neighborhood and are a public nuisance.
The Commissioners were in agreement that the property is a nuisance
and abatement of the conditions should be enforced. Commissioner
Seibert moved to determine the existence of a public nuisance and
recommend abatement thereof, and to waive reading of resolution to
that effect. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Abraham and carried.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 27, 1980 PAGE TWO
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMEND REVISION OF THE HOUSING
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The Planning Director stated that, pursuant to Government Code
65302(c) and Housing Guidelines the Department of Housing and
Community Development of the State requested that a revised Hous-
ing Element for each city be prepared and submitted to the State
for their review and approval. The original Housing Element was
included in the General Plan that was adopted in 1971. This re-
vised Housing Element shall include (a) standards and plans for the
improvement of housing and for the provision of adequate sites for
housing, and (b) adequate provisions for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
Data provided in this report, he continued, were based on the U.S.
Census of 1970, existing land use map and housing inventory and
current projects which were in the completion stage; it also covers
housing and population characteristics, needs and constraints,
policies, goals and implementation programs.
1
•
The Planning Director said staff was grateful to Chairman Tom Breazeal
for his input and suggestions in the preparation of this Draft.
He called attention to two corrections in the present manuscript,
and concluded by saying a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact had been prepared in conjunction with this Element, stating
that this revision will not result in an increase in noise, air
and water pollution or energy consumption, nor will it cause other
adverse factors upon the environment as defined in the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
The City Attorney asked if this revised Draft of the Housing Element
meet all guidelines,100% of those recommended by the State, and the
Director said it did.
The Public Hearing was declared open. No one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Seibert moved to close Public Hearing, seconded by Com-
missioner Lawson and carried.
Commissioner Lawson moved to approve filing of a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact, seconded by Commissioner Seibert and the
motion carried.
Commissioner Seibert moved to recommend approval of the Revised
Housing Element, and to waive reading of resolution. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Abraham and carried:
7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 80 -584
Warren and Margaret Anderson - Owner /Applicant
1915 South Santa Anita Avenue
Arcadia 91006
Site: 10859 -61 East Freer Street
Zone: R -2, Light Multiple Residential
Director Dragicevich said applicant proposes approval of reduced lot front-
age (90 ft. in lieu of 100 ft.) in conjunction with two -story units in a
condominium project. He explained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" showing
proposed development. Existing are two single houses with accessory
structures which are proposed to be removed. Proposed are five 2 -story
condominiums with 1325 sq. ft. of floor area. There will be a two -car
garage and patio for each unit. Three open parking spaces will be pro-
vided as required. Total lot coverage is 26% (allowed - 50 %,). Proposed
open space is about 5128 sq. ft. (required - 2500 sq. ft.).
He continued by giving the factual data on the subject property and sur-
rounding area, staff analysis and reviewed staff proposals. He said a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact had been prepared on the
proposed variance as it, by itself, will not have an adverse impact on
the environment. A full Environmental Impact Report may be required
upon receipt of tentative tract map and other drawings.
"
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
M E E T I N G O F M A Y 2 7 , 1 9 8 0 P A G E T H R E E
C h a i r m a n B r e a z e a l r e f e r r e d t o t h e s t a f f a n a l y s i s , i n w h i c h i t i s
s t a t e d t h a t a z o n e v a r i a n c e w a s g r a n t e d t o c o n s t r u c t a 4 - u n i t a p a r t -
m e n t b u i l d i n g o n a l o t w i t h a 4 5 f t . f r o n t a g e , o n F r e e r S t r e e t , b u t
t h a t w a s p r i o r t o a d o p t i o n o f t h e n e w o r d i n a n c e ; h o w e v e r , t h e C o m m i s s i o n
a n d C o u n c i l a p p r o v e d a c o n d o m i n i u m p r o j e c t o n S e r e n o , u n d e r t h e n e w
o r d i n a n c e r e s t r i c t i o n s , w h i c h a l s o r e q u i r e d a z o n e v a r i a n c e b e c a u s e o f
r e d u c e d f r o n t a g e , a n d , i n h i s o p i n i o n , t h i s w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b e t t e r
e x a m p l e t o u s e a s p r e c e d e n t .
T h e C h a i r m a n t h e n a s k e d t h e C i t y A t t o r n e y i f t h e C o m m i s s i o n c o u l d g r a n t
o r c o n s i d e r a z o n e v a r i a n c e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a t e n t a t i v e t r a c t w h e n
t h e y d i d n o t h a v e a l l t h e e x h i b i t s , a n d n o f i g u r e s a s t o f r o n t y a r d ,
r e a r y a r d , o p e n s p a c e , e t c . T h e C i t y A t t o r n e y r e p l i e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n
c o u l d a t t a c h c o n d i t i o n s o r a t e n t a t i v e r u l i n g i f a n d w h e n t h e m a p i s
f i l e d . A p p l i c a n t d i d n o t w a n t t o m a k e f i n a l d r a w i n g s b e c a u s e o f t h e
e x p e n s e a n d h e w a n t e d t o k n o w i f t h e C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d b e s y m p a t h e t i c
t o t h e z o n e v a r i a n c e .
T h e P u b l i c H e a r i n g w a s d e c l a r e d o p e n .
M r . P a t M u r r a y , 3 8 4 5 E a s t C o l o r a d o , P a s a d e n a 9 1 1 0 7 , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e
a p p l i c a n t , s a i d t h e p l o t p l a n o n e x h i b i t i s t h e s a m e a s t h e t e n t a t i v e
t r a c t m a p , a n d i s E x h i b i t " A " . H e o f f e r e d t o a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n s .
T h e r e w a s n o o n e e l s e t o s p e a k i n f a v o r .
I n o p p o s i t i o n , M r . W a l t e r W a r r e n , 5 3 1 5 W e l l a n d , s a i d t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i -
c i e n t s p a c e f o r t h e p r o j e c t o n t h a t p r o p e r t y , i t w o u l d a d d t o t h e t r a f f i c
o n F r e e r a n d W e l l a n d . H i s h o u s e w i l l b a c k u p t o t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t
a n d t a k e a w a y h i s p r i v a c y , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e p r o p o s e d u n i t s w i l l b e
t w o - s t o r y . a n d t a k e a w a y h i s a i r .
C h a i r m a n B r e a z e a l a s k e d h i m i f h i s m a i n c o n c e r n s w e r e l a c k o f p r i v a c y ,
i n c r e a s e i n t r a f f i c a n d t h e o c c l u s i o n o f l i g h t a n d a i r b e c a u s e o f t h e
p r o j e c t ? M r . W a r r e n s a i d y e s , a n d t h e C h a i r m a n s a i d t h i s p r o j e c t ,
a c c o r d i n g t o M r . W a r r e n , w o u l d h a v e a n e g a t i v e i m p a c t o n s u r r o u n d i n g p r o p e r -
t i e s , a n d n e e d s a f u l l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t r e p o r t .
T h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s w e r e i n a g r e e m e n t t h a t a f u l l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t r e p o r t
i s n e e d e d f o r t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e d e v e l o p e r w a s a s k e d h o w l o n g
h e w o u l d n e e d t o p r e p a r e s u c h r e p o r t . M r . M u r r a y w a s a g r e e a b l e t o a 6 0 -
d a y c o n t i n u a t i o n t o s u b m i t t h e r e p o r t , C h a i r m a n B r e a z e a l i n f o r m e d t h o s e
p r e s e n t t h a t t h e h e a r i n g w o u l d b e r e n o t i c e d w h e n i t w a s s c h e d u l e d t o b e
h e a r d a g a i n . C o m m i s s i o n e r S e i b e r t m o v e d t o c o n t i n u e t h e h e a r i n g f o r 6 0
d a y s , s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r L a w s o n a n d c a r r i e d .
8 . P U B L I C H E A R I N G : Z O N E C H A N G E C A S E N O . 8 0 - 5 8 5
9 . P U B L I C H E A R I N G : C O N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T C A S E N O , 8 0 - 5 7 8
1 0 . 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 9 6 8 4
C l e o r a R . G o r d o n )
8 9 1 7 - 1 9 E a s t H e r m o s a D r i v e )
T e m p l e C i t y 9 1 7 8 0 )
C a r l a n d O p a l D . P u l l a r o ) O w n e r s
8 9 1 3 - 1 5 E a s t H e r m o s a D r i v e )
T e m p l e C i t y 9 1 7 8 0 )
M i c h a e l D . K l i p a - A p p l i c a n t
8 1 3 5 A r r o y o D r i v e
S o u t h S a n G a b r i e l 9 1 7 7 0
S i t e : 8 9 1 3 - 1 9 E a s t H e r m o s a D r i v e
Z o n e : R - 2 , L i g h t M u l t i p l e R e s i d e n t i a l
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 27, 1980 PAGE FOUR
Director. Dragicevich said the proposed development will consist of
12 condominium units, two stories high, each with a two -car garage.
All enclosed parking will be completely subterranean. Proposed also
are 6 parking spaces, 2 of which will be subterranean and 4 open
parking spaces. Lot coverage is 46.5% (permitted - 50.0 %). The
development will have a 40 ft. front setback, 19 ft. rear setback,
and 10 ft. and 15 ft. side setback for first and second floor, re-
spectively. - He referred to Revised Exhibits "A ", "B" and "C" show-
ing the proposed project, floor and elevation plans, respectively.
The Director went on to give the factual data on the subject property
and surrounding area, zoning history, and said a previous zone change
was submitted on the basis of R -4 standards, which would yield 30
units per acre. The' proposed project will have 26 units per acre, which
represents a 15% reduction from the previous request. Because of a tie
vote at the Planning Commission level (4 members being present), the
case went to the City Council where it was denied 3:2. There is no
substantial difference between the plan presented at that time and this
plan except for density which is now 12 units per acre rather than 14.
He continued that a draft Environmental Impact Report had been prepared •
on the project, and that corrections in that report should reflect the
reduced density; energy and utility consumption would be reduced by 15 %.
He had reviewed the report and found that it met the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, with cor-
rections.
1
The Public Hearing was declared open. Chairman Breazeal informed those
present that testimony would be taken on all three cases and the Environ-
mental Impact Report, and the Commission would, in deliberation, con-
sider each item separately.
Mr. Mike Klipa, 8135 Arroyo Drive, San Gabriel, said he represented the
owners, and was the applicant, and would be available to answer any
questions.
Mr. Mike Bernard, 8803 Naomi, San Gabriel, said at previous meetings on
this project the question was raised why the corner lot on the northwest
corner of Hermosa and Rosemead was not included in the project. He ex-
plained that, at one time the properties in this project, along with
5905- 5915 -5919 Rosemead were in escrow, and after six months in escrow,
by Mr. Bob O'Leary of O'Leary Development Corporation, Mr. O'Leary
decided to purchase only the property on Rosemead. He has his own plans
what he intends to do. Regarding a previous testimony that there would
be vehicles racing up and down Reno and additional parking on Hermosa,
that is strictly a matter of opinion, there is no concrete evidence.
There was no one else to speak in favor. In opposition were the following:
Warren Umstead, 8909 Hermosa, has property to the west of the subject
site and claims the two -story condominiums will shut off his sun, and
block the breezes which flow east and west. He figures there will be
18 cars in the project and they will not park in their parking areas
but on the street. There is room for only 10 cars from Reno to Rose-
mead. He feared an increase in crime which he claims usually accompanies
the construction of condominiums. There is R -4 zoned property on Rose-
mead, but this area should remain single- family or two on a lot.
Edward Lamb, 5940 Reno, feared the encroachment of R -4 into the area
where there has been none before. He has no idea what Mr. O'Leary has
in mind to develop. He expressed concern about the increased traffic.
George Fairman, 6002 Reno, asked how the Planning ')irector could recommen
something which the City Council voted down. The new project is not
a big change from the previous one. Chairman Breazeal explained that, on
a parcel this size, the reduction of two units is a substantial decrease
in traffic, it will increase open space and is consistent with the
density of the General Plan. Mr. Fairman said he still felt this re-
quest is an opportunistic move, as there is plenty of R -4 zoned property
available.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 27, 1980 PAGE FIVE
Mr. Robert Rodenbacher, 5936 Reno, also felt this was an opportunistic
request, that the property could be developed to its present zoning, or
elsewhere where there is R -4 zoning. To grant. this case will be setting
a precedent, and soon other properties in the R -2 will be developed as
R-4
1
Mr. Robert Reedy, 5912 Reno, said he was against it before and still is,
as it is the same development, with only two units less. He has child-
ren and is concerned about the community. As the representatives of
the citizens of the City, the Commission should listen to their concerns.
Mr. Robert Rodenbucher, 5936 Reno, re- assumed the podium and said that
he is aware the proposed project is two units less than the previous
one, but this did not alleviate his concerns about traffic or a multiple
dwelling in that area - his objection is based on density.
John Piasecki, 5947 Reno, was in favor of keeping the area as it is -
low residential density.
Leola Axtell, 8903 Hermosa Drive, was against the project.
Mr.Michael Klipa, in rebuttal, said a charge that there would be an in-
crease in the number of people was debatable considering the downgrading
of the occupancy factor - to about 1.3 occupants per dwelling unit. Re-
garding the blocking of prevailing breezes - those breezes are from
southwest to northeast at that location. As to the height of the pronosed build-
ings, present Code permits two -story construction which; with a single -
family dwelling could be built closer to the property line than those
proposed. The density is a matter of economics and this development is
within the General Plan guidelines. As for future development. of this
type being built on Reno, the City guidelines state there must be a 60
ft. right -of -way before you can build to the proposed density. Because
of the number of units proposed, it will provide a buffer to the R-4
that can be built on Rosemead. Because of subterranean parking,
there will be less than ambient noise. As for crime increasing because
of this type of development, the proposed project will have gates at
the entrance to the subterranean garage and Mr. Klipa doubted there would
be problems.
Commissioner Seibert moved to close Public Hearing, seconded by Com -.
missioner Lawson and the motion carried.
Commissioner Abraham disagreed with applicant. There is a number of
lots on both sides of Hermosa and Reno that could be incorporated and
it would be difficult to deny R -4 zoning. He didn't feel the reduc-
tion of two units made the Project more acceptable to him and was in
favor of denying.
Commissioner Lawson said he was in favor of the zone change when it was
before the Commission previously, The R -2 on Reno provides a buffer
between R -4 and R -1. He was in favor of approval.
Commissioner Seibert considered the request spot and felt the
whole area should be studied. To rezone just two lots is doing the
whole area an injustice. He was against the request.
Chairman Breazeal agreed with Commissioner Lawson. He said two -unit re-
duction makes a lot of difference as there will be increased open
space, good setbacks, the project is consistent with the General Plan
and provides a buffer 'zone and is no incursion of R. -4 and R -2. Two -
story buildings can be built anyplace in the City. To ;rent this reques
will not set any precedent as the Planning Commission and City Council
consider each case separately.
Commissioner Seibert moved to deny the zone change for reasons previously
stated, seconded by Commissioner Abraham and resulted in a tie vote with
Commissioners Lawson and Breazeal voting against the motion in a roll -
call vote.
Commissioner Seibert moved to send the matter to the City Council for
consideration, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the motion carried.
LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF MAY 27, 1980
11. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none.
12. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK
PAGE SIX
Mr. Gary Hesselgesser, 5202 Persimmon, with reference to the
project proposed for 10859 -61 Freer Street, which was before the
Commission for a zone variance this evening and continued pending
receipt of an Environmental Report, spoke in rebuttal to the
person who spoke against the development, and the condition of
that person's property at 5315 Welland. He doubted that the pro-
posed development would affect his privacy, nor take away his air.
Traffic in that area generally goes on Freer, Santa Anita or
El Monte, but not on Welland. The person in opposition has a
property that is not in harmony with the neighborhood or City be-
cause of poor maintenance and accumulation of overgrown vegeta-
tion and old cars. He felt that person should clean up his property
411 which, in his opinion, is a fire hazard presently.
13 MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS - There were none.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Commissioner Seibert, at 8:45 p.m.,
moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and
carried.
%-drina4 if.4.eoggaX--
Chairman
Attest:
•