Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1982/10/12 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. October 12,1_982 INITIATION 1. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City was called to order at 7:30 p..m., October 12, 1982, by Chairman Pro Tem Breazeal. Commissioner Froehle led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. . ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Breazeal, Froehle, Stacy Absent: Chairman Abraham Also present: City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin, Planning Director Shaw and Senior Planner Peterson. Chairman Abraham's absence was excused for cause.: 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of September 28, 198.2 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, they were approved by roll call vote with Commissioners Breazeal, Froehle and Stacy voting in favor, Chairman Abraham absent, and Commissioner Coolman abstaining. Commissioner Breazeal introduced Mary Coolman, who has been active in community affairs for a number of years, as the new Planning Commissioner. The Planning Commissioners greeted her and welcomed her to the Com- mission. . CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE 6402 Trelawney Avenue (Case No. 82 -79) Planning Director Shaw, in giving the staff report, said the conditions on the property which prompted property nuisance action were the over- grown and dry conditions of the yard areas and the presence of a dead pine tree. Staff inspection recently revealed that the yard areas . are cleared of overgrowth of vegetation, and the dead tree has been felled and all of it has been removed from the front yard area. He recommended that the case be terminated. Commissioner Stacy made a motion to terminate proceedings in Case No. 82 -79 as the objectionable conditions had been corrected, and to adopt by title only the resolu- tion terminating the case. Motion was seconded and carried. City Attorney Martin read title to Resolution 82- 1027PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS IN. PROPERTY NUISANCE CASE NO. 82 -79. 7.. PUBLIC HEARING: DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE 4952 El Monte Avenue (Case No. 82 -81) Mr. Shaw said the conditions on said property which prompted the pro- ceedings was the overgrown and dry condition of both the north and east yard areas abutting Grand Avenue and the alley respectively. In- spection by the staff this date showed no improvement. This property had been before the Commission previously, but at that time the property had a different owner, and he had corrected the condition of overgrowth of vegetation. Now the vegetation had again become a problem. The Public Hearing was declared open. No one came forward to speak, and the Hearing was closed. . Commissioner Froehle said the staff sent letters and noticed the owner regarding the conditions on the property, the photographs indicate there is a problem and the problem has not been corrected. He moved to de- clare the property a nuisance and to adopt by title only the resolution to that effect, and to recommend to the City. Council the abatement of the nuisance. Motion was seconded and carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE TWO • City Attorney Martin read title to Resolution 82- 1028PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DECLARING THE PROPERTY AT 4952 EL MONTE AVENUE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ABATEMENT OF SAME. At this time Commissioner Breazeal read into the record Resolution No. 82 82- 0000PC Et. Al, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PLANNING,COMMIS- SION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, signed by the Mayor, City Manager, Planning Commission and Planning staff congratulating Planning Director Shaw and his wife on the birth of their daughter Jennifer Lynn. Mr. Shaw accepted the Resolution and expressed his thanks to all responsible. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -654 ZONE VARIANCE CASE 82 -655 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82 -455 Frank Schrader, Administrator for Santa Anita Convalescent Hospital Retirement Center Applicant /Owner 5522 Gracewood Avenue Temple City, California Commissioner Stacy said he had received a telephone call from a property owner adjacent to the subject property, stating that she had not received notification of the hearing. Checking the records it was discovered that a number of notices had been returned that were addressed with a Temple City address rather than Arcadia. It was determined that the hearing should be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 26, 1982, and all property owners within 300 ft. of the subject property were to be renoticed and corrections made on the mailing list. Commissioner Stacy so moved, seconded by. Commissioner Coolman and the motion carried. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 82 -664 Silenus Ong for Third Estate, Inc. Site: 9510 Olive Street - R -1 Zone Director Shaw said applicant proposes to construct a new 20' x 21' two -car garage abutting the midpoint of the east property line. The required yard setback is 5 ft.. The request is to reduce the required side setbacks from 5 ft. to 0. As proposed the new two -car garage would be constructed to abut the east property line of the property and leave a 10 ft. wide passage to the rear of the property. Planning staff finds it is possible to construct the new garage and maintain legal side yard setbacks as well as separation between the two buildings. He demonstrated on an exhibit how this could be done. Mr. Shaw continued that the property presently has a one -story house with a detached accessory storage building. Building Department records do not show when either of the buildings was originally constructed.. One permit showed the accessory building was a garage in 1955 but there is no record of any subsequent conversion. However, as the garage was converted illegally and constitutes a zoning violation, a new garage is required by Code. He also mentioned that a large tree is situated behind the proposed garage location. The Public Hearing was declared open. Mr. Silenas Ong, President of the corporation that owns the property, 1910 So. Doncrest Street, Monterey Park, CA., said there would be an 11 ft. separation between buildings on the east side of the property, from the proposed garage to the neighbor's building. He does not want to remove the large tree if possible. The new garage would be of Spanish style, with tile roof. If the proposed garage were moved for- ward the front of the garage and the current building would not be in line. He then presented to the Chairman several snapshots of properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site that seemed to indicate zero or almost zero setbacks. Commissioner Breazeal said that from the pictures it was difficult to determine if the accessory . structures were in the rear third of the lot where they are not required to have a side setback. Mr. Ong continued that the new garage would add to the property value of not only the subject property but to the neigh- borhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE THREE • • Commissioner Stacy asked if Mr. Ong lived here, and was told he did not, and that the property was a rental. The house was bought in foreclosure and at that time the structure was in terrible condition and had to be restored. The accessory structure is being used for storage presently, Mr. Ong added. Mr, Shaw said that presently there is no garage on the property. The reason for erecting a garage is that the accessory structure was converted illegally and the new owner was informed he needed a two -car garage. Commissioner Coolman pointed out that the tree in the rear of the pro -.. posed garage is a Chinese Elm, a fast- growing tree, which is not giv- ing the subject property any shade because of its location. The shade goes to the neighbor. Was there a reason it could not be removed and replanted. Mr. Ong said it has been there ten years and has some economic value as well as aesthetic. There was no one else to speak in favor of the request. In opposition: Mr. Arron Grottolo, 9524 Olive Street, was concerned that the applicant was not a resident, and that the building in the rear would become a rental sometime in the future. Renters often do not care for the appear- ance of the property, he said. While the proposed addition may increase the subject property's values, it would decrease his because it is a rental. He was against the zero setback request. Mr. Ken Primising, 9508 Olive Street, said the accessory structure in the rear of the subject property was originally a chicken coop, and he described the poor construction of the roof and the flooring. He was concerned that the illegally converted garage would become a rental. Mr. Ong, in rebuttal, stated -the house at 9524 Olive Street cannot be seen from the street so he couldn't see how the addition would affect that owner. With regards to . the concerns that the property is a rental, since acquiring ownership of the property his corporation has done a lot of renovating of the structures and landscaping and the neighbors expressed appreciation and approval of the improvements. Commissioner Stacy moved to close public hearing and the motion carried. Commissioner Stacy said, in reviewing the conditions to be met to grant a zone variance, that he could see no unusual circumstances peculiar to the subject property which necessitates the approval of the variance. He recommended denial. Commissioner Froehle said in this case the garage can be constructed on the property and still meet Code requirements. The property owner next door to the east may want to build in the future, and this construction as proposed would then pose a problem and be a detriment. Commissioner Coolman indicated her opposition stating that she was con- cerned about the light and air space if the building - is constructed as proposed. Commissioner Breazeal said there are no unusual circumstances as far as size, shape or topography, and the variance is not necessary to preserve a property right. The situation requiring a variance is caused by the property owner. Commissioner Stacy moved to deny the request on the basis that there were no unusual circumstances to justify approval, and to adopt by title only the resolution of denial. Motion was seconded and carried. City Attorney Martin read title to Resolution No. 82- 1029PC, A RESOLU- TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING A ZONE VARIANCE IN CASE NO. 82 -664. 10. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE FOUR 11. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK - No one came forward. 12. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS (a) Set Public Hearing to Determine Existence of Public Nuisance for October 26, 1982: 6012 Sultana (Case No. 82 -82) . 6019 Sultana (Case No. 82 -83) Director Shaw said the public nuisance proceedings were instituted" in Case No. 82 -82 because the buildings on the property were un- painted and yard areas were untended. Kathy Wilson, daughter of the owner George Wilson, said the family all worked and could only give weekends to the repainting of the house. Since first contacted by the City about the problem they all have been preparing the house for repainting and should have the project completed by the first of next year. The Commissioners were in agreement that, since the property owner is proceeding in good faith, the matter will be held in abeyance until the first meeting in January, with staff inspections to be conducted every two weeks to observe progress. If there is no progress, or it ceases, the matter can be brought before the Commission prior to January. Director Shaw said that at 6019 Sultana there existed a second drive- way that does not lead to a legal parking structure: Aerial photos show the driveway was in existence in 1958, prior to City incorpora- tion. At that time it led to a garage and therefore was legal. The City Manager explained that there are a couple other such situations on Sultana, and the City is proceeding with the elimination of these excess and abandoned driveways and curbcuts. The case was set for Public Hearing for October 26,1982. (b) Environmental Quality and Code Enforcement Program Report - 9/1- 30/82 The report was received, reviewed and filed. (c) Extension of C -1 Moratorium Director Shaw, stating that the City Council, on July 6, 1982, adopted an urgency ordinance imposing a moratorium,on new construction and building permits within the C -1 Zone for 120 days. That ordinance . will expire November 3, 1982. The revisions to the C -1 Zone, will not be established prior to the November 3rd date and staff recommends that the Planning Commission request the City Council to extend the C -1 Moratorium for another 120 -day period. A study session with the City Council is scheduled for November 1st to consider this item. Commissioner Stacy moved to recommend to the City Council the extension of the C -1 Moratorium for 120 days. Motion was seconded and carried. (d). Acquisition of property for expansion of L.A. County Sheriff's Office The City has received notification from the Los Angeles County Dept. of Engineer-Facilities of their intent to acquire additional property to the south of the existing Temple City Sheriff's Station at 8838 East Las Tunas Drive. The City Planning Commission is required to make a finding as to whether the acquisition of the subject property conforms with the Temple City General Plan. Mr. Shaw continued by saying the General Plan shows the subject property as Commercial. The. Redevelopment Plan designates the area as Retail Commercial. The proposed acquisition does not appear to be in con- flict with either the Redevelopment Plan or the Commercial designation of the General Plan. He then demonstrated on the exhibit and on aerial map the property involved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1982 PAGE FIVE In conclusion Mr. Shaw said the Sheriff's Department needs the additional land to accommodate County personnel assigned to that location and it will provide additional parking space. The acquisi- tion will have no effect on K -Mart. Commissioner Coolman moved that the Planning Commission make finding that the acquisition of the subject property by the County conforms with the General Plan of the City. Motion was seconded and carried. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p. 41p ATTEST: Chairman