Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1989/01/10 - RegularCITY OF TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1989 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER: Pursuant to Agenda posted January 6, 1989, Chairman Seibert called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Chairman Seibert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Budds, Coolman, Muto and Chairman Seibert Absent: Commissioner Griffiths Also Present: City Attorney Martin, City Manager Koski, Community Development Director Dawson and Senior Planner Saldana Commissioner Coolman moved to excuse Commissioner Griffiths for cause. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Budds moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Muto and approved unanimously. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of December 13, 1988 Approved as written. B. MONTHLY CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT - Month of December, 1988 Received and filed 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 10, 1989 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: PARCEL MAP 20350 ZONE VARIANCE 88 -962 Site: 10519 Olive Street Owner: Applicant: Request: Charles Bryan Gilbert Smith 9814 Nadine Street Temple City, CA 91780 Owen Construction 2035 S. Myrtle Monrovia, CA 91016 To subdivide one R -1 zoned parcel into two parcels of land, one being- a "flag" lot. Also a variance to allow a proposed two -story residence with a seven -foot second story side yard setback instead of the required ten -foot side yard setback. Chairman Seibert asked if the notices has been sent. Director Dawson replied they had and presented the staff report. Senior Planner Saldana presented the video. The public hearing was opened. Mike Mangana, 2035 South Myrtle, Monrovia, representing Owen Construction, stated their proposal was utilizing the new flag lot ordinance and meeting all the require- ments. He also thanked staff for the fine report and offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Rick Shroads, 135 E. La Porte Street, #E, Arcadia, representing Civiltec Engineering, Inc., stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have regarding engineering. Bryan Smith, 9814 Nadine Street, owner of the property, stated that the Owen Development project would greatly improve the property. Candelario Delgado, 5430 Halifax Road, who lives di- rectly behind the property, spoke in opposition to the project, stating he would have no privacy with this type of development. He would consider moving if this were allowed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 10, 1989 Commissioner Coolman asked if Mr. Delgado was aware that it was legal to construct two -story dwellings in the City of Temple City. Mr. Delgado stated he felt a two -story at this location would ruin the neighborhood. He felt the project was overbuilding, the area and would not fit in with the surroundings. Linda Seymour, 5422 N. Halifax, also stated a two -story home was not in keeping with the character of the neigh- borhood, which are single story homes on large lots. She selected this area because of the privacy it afforded. She stated that with the proposed development they would lose their privacy. She stated it would not ruin the neighborhood, but still was not in keeping with the existing neighborhood. She stated she personally did not care for the flag lot, but she strongly objects to a two -story development so close. It would affect five lots if this is developed with two -story homes. Sherry Christiansen, 5416 N. Halifax, strongly objected to seeing "Disney -like castles" in her back yard, which would happen if this project were approved. She was concerned about the driveway access, privacy and the character of the neighborhood. She was concerned about possible concealed access to her property. She felt a one -story development would be more in keeping with the existing neighborhood. She presented the Commission with a letter from Mary Morabito, 10511 Olive Street, who was unable to attend the Commission meeting, but was also opposed to the project. Ann Vanderwindt, 10525 East Olive, next door to the property, stated the proposed houses would be an eye- sore, and provide no privacy for the neighbors. She stated the existing house also provided no privacy, she could look into their window and hear what the people were saying. She stated they had put up with the ten - ants of the property for a number of years. She was concerned about fire trucks being able to access property because of the number of vehicles parked. John Seymour, 5422 Halifax, stated his lot would back up to the side where the new two story dwelling would be built. He stated this would change the character of the neighborhood and he was opposed to the project. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 10, 1989 William Mueller, 5416 Halifax, stated that codes were adopted for the betterment of the community as a whole. He felt this project would do nothing for the betterment of the community. He wanted to keep the existing charac- ter of the neighborhood and not have a two -story dwell- ing constructed. Mike Mangana stated the houses would not be as high as two -story developments in surrounding communities; they would only be about 25 feet high. He stated that if you looked at the property to the east, there are three lots on a lot of the same size. This project falls well within the concepts of the law. He stated the houses would be an attraction to the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed driveway had been moved to the other side of the lot and would not be in the back yards of the houses on Halifax. It would parallel another drive- way. He stated they were adhering to the flag lot ordinance. Commissioner Coolman moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Coolman stated that looking at the lot size there are others in the area that are smaller. She stated the lot split was reasonable. She did have a concern with the proposed setback. She stated that the Commission had gone to a great deal of effort to allevi- ate the second story problem with the current require- ments and still give people their rights to build a second story. She stated that the 10 foot side yard setback for the second story should be maintained, especially on a new house. She stated she was in favor of approving the flag lot subdivision because it was well within the ordinance, and disapproving the vari- ance request. Commissioner Muto stated he agreed with Commissioner Coolman regarding the lot split. He also agreed with Commissioner Coolman regarding denying the variance. He stated that this particular variance issue will come up repeatedly and that the Commission should not set a precedence. Commissioner Budds stated he did not have a problem with the lot split. With regard to the seven foot setback, he stated that in the discussions on what the setbacks would be, it was recognized that each case would be looked at on a case by case basis for Zone Variances. He stated that the seven feet they were looking at was from a driveway that was fifteen feet wide, which would give a 22 foot setback from the property next door. He " 1 " .s. , Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 5 stated that was more footage than what is on the other side. He stated he would support the lot split and granting the variance. Chairman Seibert stated that when he first looked at this proposal he questioned the seven foot setback, and his initial response was no way. The Commission had gone through a lot of work to establish the ten foot setback. He stated, however, that after looking at the plan and realizing there was a fifteen foot driveway in addition, he did not have a problem with the seven foot setback. He stated the lot split was fine. He informed the audience that there was no law stating a second story could not be built, as long as it follows the required setbacks. He further informed the audience that even if the Commission denied the seven foot set- back variance request, the applicant could still build a two -story dwelling with a ten foot setback on the second story. Commissioner Coolman moved to approve the lot split and to deny the Zone Variance. Seconded by Commissioner Muto. Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioners Coolman, Muto, and Seibert Noes: Commissioner Budds Absent: Commissioner Griffiths Chairman Seibert informed the applicants there was a 10 day appeal period. B. PUBLIC HEARING: PARCEL MAP 20356 Site: 10119 Green Street Owner: Theodore S & Maria A. Hoyt 10119 Green Street Temple City, CA 91780 Applicant: Request: Owen Construction 2035 S. Myrtle Monrovia, CA 91016 To subdivide an R -1 zoned parcel of land into two par- cels, one being a "flag" lot. Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson stated they had been sent and he pre- sented the staff report. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 10, 1989 Senior Planner Saldana: presented the video. The Commissioners had no questions of staff and the public hearing was opened. - Mike Mangana, 2035 South Myrtle, Monrovia, representing Owen Construction, stated the proposal was clear and concise. He further stated that staff had done an excellent job and that he would answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Ted Hoyt, 10119 Green Street, owner of the property, stated there were very few problems associated with splitting the lot. Several of the surrounding proper- ties already have two -story dwellings and that he was not requesting any variances. Bob Pitts, 5312 Degas Avenue, had a question regarding water standing on Green at the intersection of Degas adjacent to the west along Green due to the terrain. He wanted to know where the drainage would be coming from, and with the addition of a dwelling, would it contribute to the standing water on Green Avenue which sometimes becomes stagnant. Rick Shroads, Civiltec Engineering, 135 E. La Porte Street, #E, Arcadia, stated there may be a flat spot on the southeast corner. He stated that from the southwest corner to the southeast corner there is plenty of drop. The Conditions require that drainage be fixed if possi- ble and he stated the grades would have to be surveyed and re- engineered for proper drainage. Chairman Seibert asked Director Dawson if the Conditions did require proper drainage. Director Dawson stated Condition No. 27 specifically requires that the applicant must provide adequate fa- cilities for drainage. He stated that during Plan Check the County Engineer would be looking at the overall drainage of the proposed two new lots. Mr. Pitts reiterated he was concerned about the standing water and possible debris. Director Dawson asked Mr. Pitts if he was concerned about the street drainage. Mr. Pitts stated he was, and also the possible addi- tional drainage from the new lot. He stated he was in favor of the proposed lot split, but was concerned about water. He stated the drainage problems started when the curbs were installed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 10, 1989 Director Dawson stated that curb and gutter would be installed in front of the two new lots. He further stated that he would have the Public Works Department look into the standing water. Sam Soldano, 10102 Randwick Drive, owner of Lot 8 behind the proposed lot split. He stated he had done a lot of community work. He stated he was opposed to the pro- ject. He asked if the Commissioners would want to live next door to a project of this size. He felt it was about money and greed, not about living in Temple City or raising a family in an R -1 area. He was opposed to flag lots as he felt it was not consistent with the rest of the R -1 housing in the area as it increases the density. Valerie Sadler, 10065 Green Street, stated she came to the meeting to hear what was going on. Her only concern with a flag lot was that when you have a lot of houses behind other houses, you start to have difficulties in the area. These problems bring police activities. She stated that tensions seem to run high when you have people living closely together. She stated they had purchased their home in the area because there was almost a rural character, and a quiet neighborhood. There are large lots and it is nice to have room around the houses. She was concerned that the neighborhood density would be increased. Commissioner Coolman asked if she had two units on her lot. She stated that there were two addresses on her lot. She stated she had researched this and apparently the bache- lor apartment behind the garage was at one time consid- ered a second unit. She further stated she had opened the bachelor to the garage and was using this for stor- age, not as a dwelling unit. Mike Mangana, pointed out that the intent of the flag lot ordinance was to allow the approximately 280 lots within the City that lent themselves to the possibility of being developed to be split. The City is not going to go through a big change over of flag lots. The Ordinance does not allow most of the lots in Temple City to be divided. He further stated that many of the lots in Temple City were easement lots, which were created prior to the incorporation of Temple City, and had absentee owners. This might cause some of the police activities about which the neighbors had concerns. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 10, 1989 Commissioner Budds moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Commissioner Coolman. Commissioner Budds stated the issue of the pros and cons of flag lots was not before the Commission. If a flag lot ordinance was before the Commission he stated he would agree with the people in opposition to the flag lots. However, there is an ordinance existing in the City which does allow for flag lots with minimum re- quirements. He stated that looking at the ordinance and the minimum requirements, the request before the Commis- sion does meet those requirements, and on that basis he would approve the request. Commissioner Muto stated he agreed with Commissioner Budds statements. He also stated that since the request met the standards, he would approve the request. Commissioner Coolman gave some background on the crea- tion of the flag lot ordinance and stated the Commission had just as many impassioned pleas from the owners of the large lots who felt they could not do anything with them. That was why the minimum requirement for 7200 square feet was established. Commissioner Coolman stated a compromise had been reached which would allow the people with large lots to develop them by using the second half of the lot for a dwelling instead of having a weed patch, and still keep a residential quality. Commissioner Coolman stated the Commission was bound by the laws. The laws of the City say flag lots are legal. Therefore she concurred with the other Commissioners. Chairman Seibert agreed with the other Commissioners. Commissioner Budds moved to approve Parcel Map 20356 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as contained in the draft resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Muto and approved unanimously. Chairman Seibert informed the applicants there was a 10 day appeal period if anyone objected to the decision. C. PUBLIC HEARING: Site: Owner /Applicant: PARCEL MAP 20462 9361 Lower Azusa Road Dan Noriega 140 South Lake Avenue, #272 Pasadena, CA 91101 " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 10, 1989 Request: To subdivide an R -1 zoned parcel of land into two par- cels, one being a "flag" lot. Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had been sent and he pre- sented the staff report. Senior Planner Saldana presented the video. The public hearing was opened. Dan Noriega, 9361 Lower Azusa Road, property owner, stated he had lived in the area all his life and was utilizing the existing ordinance to develop and improve his property. He stated it would increase the property value in the area. Chairman Seibert asked if Mr. Noriega had read all the conditions and understood them. Mr. Noriega stated he had and based upon consultation with his Civil Engineer had no objections. Commissioner Coolman moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Muto. Commissioner Muto stated he agreed with the staff re- port. There was basis for approval. Commissioner Coolman agreed. Commissioner Budds agreed. Commissioner Muto moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map 20462 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as contained in the draft resolu- tion. Seconded by Commissioner Coolman and approved unanimously. Chairman Seibert informed Mr. Noriega there was a ten day appeal period. D. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHOPPING CENTERS WITH MORE THAN 75,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 January 10, 1989 Summary: The Planning Commission will consider a Code Amendment to Part IX of the Zoning Code to establish a specific parking requirement for commercial shopping centers with more than 75,000 square feet of total floor area. The park- ing standard being recommended for consideration by the Planning Commission would require a minimum of 1 off - street parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area for all uses in a commer- cial center of more than 75,000 square feet. Director Dawson stated a public notice had been adver- tised in the newspaper 10 days before the hearing. He presented the staff report. Commissioner Coolman asked for clarification regarding the parking at the K -Mart Center. It appears to have less parking than that proposed by this study, yet it seems adequate. Director Dawson stated the K -Mart Center would need slightly more parking. Chairman Seibert stated that by taking all the various uses at the K -Mart Center, the average came up to 244, which is underparked at this time. The staff has rounded up to 250. Commissioner Budds asked why gross square feet was used to establish parking requirements. Director Dawson replied that most cities use gross area for traffic studies and determining parking. From an administrative standpoint it makes it much easier. You don't have to debate useable versus unusable space. Commissioner Budds stated that using net would then require less parking space. He was concerned about utilization of space. Director Dawson stated again that by using gross square footage there was no debate on usable space. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 January 10, 1989 Commissioner Budds said the reason he asked the question was because of the the scenario laid out with regard to a shopping center. He asked if the parking requirement could be reduced even further to provide more space for buildings. Chairman Seibert stated it should be kept simple, and not get into debates as to what was useable and not useable. The formula itself could be modified as far as ratios are concerned. He stated the Commission was there to determine if the ratio of 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area was adequate. Commissioner Budds replied he felt it was more than adequate. The public hearing was opened. William H. Bretz, 8723 East Hermosa, stated the City is involved in working out a project at the corner of Rosemead and Las Tunas and the parking requirements of this proposed project should be looked at very closely. The K -Mart Center parking is not completely full, but at times, it is quite full. He stated that to establish a set standard of 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area may not work because it is not known what is going into a shopping center of 75,000 square feet. He understood that although there would be a Conditional Use Permit and the type of businesses can be regulated; only a certain amount can be restaurant. He stated there was a parking problem in the area al- ready with the Edwards Theaters. Quite a few times the parking has been underestimated. There is a lot of overflow parking going across Rosemead and up and down Rosemead as well as into the residential areas. He stated that someone had dropped the ball on that par- ticular project. Director Dawson stated that the problem with theaters was feast or famine. Most times there is more than enough parking, but there are times with big hit movies or over the holidays when the lot has an overflow. That is a problem inherent with that particular use. Mr. Bretz stated it was a seasonable thing, that the movie industry does put on a big push over the Christmas holiday season, which fills the lot as well as the shopping centers across the street filling their lots at the same time. He stated that the minimum number of parking spaces should be based upon the maximum possi- ble usage at peak shopping hours to compensate for all potential shoppers. If the shoppers cannot park, they will go elsewhere to shop. He stated the City has to be " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 January 10, 1989 very concerned with making sure they have enough parking for peak shopping hours. The thinking seems to be that if we keep the parking requirement low enough we can build out larger and have more square footage in the buildings. Then it is pushing the parking into the residential neighborhoods in the community and that is what the civic leaders should be very careful of doing. Once it is done, it is done. It is the people in the affected areas that will have to pay the price. There will be congestion. It will have to be well thought out in advance. Bob Pitts, 5312 Degas Avenue, asked what the current requirements were. Director Dawson stated there were no current standard requirements for that size development. However, the general commercial requirement is 1 space for every 250 square foot. Mr. Pitts asked if there was a requirement at the K -Mart Center. Director Dawson stated there was not a specific require- ment for large size shopping centers that would have a mixture of uses. Chairman Seibert stated that K -Mart was looked at indi- vidually. K -Mart store had to have so many spaces; Clark Drug had to have so many, etc., but as a total size there was no standard. Mr. Pitts asked if this standard were adopted would it affect the K -Mart shopping center. Chairman Seibert stated it would not affect K -Mart. Mr. Pitts asked if this was for future projects or was there one now. Director Dawson replied this would be for any project including the Block "A" area. He further stated that when parking standards are looked at, they are broken down by use and when standards were rewritten with the idea of having single uses on single lot, it did not consider large size shopping centers where people will park and go to several different stores with one stop. It seems reasonable to have a standard, specifically for those types of shopping centers where it is not a sin- gle, locational trip. " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 January 10, 1989 Mr. Pitts inquired if the same philosophy that was adopted for the K -Mart situation would be applied to the new proposed shopping center. Director Dawson stated that the K -Mart center was looked at individually and is underparked by today's standards. K -Mart itself needs 1 space for every 250 square feet; markets need to have 1 space for every 200 square feet, etc. When the K -Mart center went in the parking stan- dards were more lenient. However, there has not been a significant problem at K -Mart although it does not meet current standards. Mr. Pitts inquired about the downtown area being looked at as individual stores and uses for parking require- ments. Chairman Seibert replied the - downtown was looked at individually. Director Dawson replied the downtown situation was a little different as the C -1 area was in parking dis- tricts. Mr. Pitts asked if a restaurant was proposed in the future shopping center, how it would affect the parking. Would the square footage be the same? Director Dawson stated that was averaged in with the proposed 1 space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area for all uses. Mr. Pitts stated that realistically he understood why the Commission was looking at the parking standards, but on the surface weren't they putting the cart before the horse since the City had no 75,000 square foot shopping center to consider? Director Dawson stated it seemed to be a justifiable standard that should be in the code so that when and if the project happens, it is a standard that is applica- ble. Mr. Bretz asked if the current commercial regulation was 1 space for every 250 square foot and restaurants were one space for every 100 square feet. Director Dawson replied that was the standard. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 January 10, 1989 Mr. Bretz stated that since they were discussing a 75,000 square foot complex and there is a very good chance that in the only complex of this size in the future there will be a restaurant, wouldn't it be wise to instead of saying 1 for every 250 square feet to try and average in the restaurant space to possibly lower the square footage? Director Dawson replied that was one of the points of the suggested code change because of the experience with the K -Mart Center in particular, and with other cities experience with shopping centers in general, there is a shared parking that happens in the larger size centers that includes some restaurant uses. The K -Mart Center has restaurant uses and market use and general retail use. Mr. Bretz asked how many square feet were in the K -Mart Center. Director Dawson replied there were 225,955 square feet. Mr. Bretz asked what the percentage of Denny's Restau- rant was. Director Dawson replied. 4,500 square feet. Commissioner Coolman stated there were five restaurants, not just Denny's. Director Dawson stated there was Denny's, King Arthur, Burger King, Pioneer Chicken and the Submarine Restau- rant, with almost 14,000 square feet. Mr. Bretz asked if a percentage thing could be worked into the ordinance to keep a percentage of restaurant to a percentage of commercial in order to keep the parking under control. Director Dawson stated it would be possible, but would be a more cumbersome standard. Chairman Seibert stated that the requirement for restau- rant was figured into the average. Mr. Bretz stated the K -Mart Center was a lot smaller than what possibly might be in a new center. Chairman Seibert stated no one knew that. It might possibly be less. He further stated that the restaurant was figured into that average. " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 January 10, 1989 Commissioner Coolman moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Muto stated that staff made a very good case for the proposal of centers over 75,000 square feet. He stated we should not wait until something is upon the Commission before starting to prepare. This would fill the void. Commissioner Coolman concurred. It is virtually impos- sible to allow enough parking for a Christmas Eve day. This proposal is realistic. She stated she had been at K -Mart Center when it is very busy and Builders Emporium has as much traffic as K -Mart. She felt the request was reasonable and would simplify the ordinance. She realized everyone likes to park close to the front door, but there are times when people do have to walk. She stated she personally had never seen the K -Mart Center filled to capacity. There are always spaces; they may not be convenient and close, but there are spaces. She stated this was a reasonable averaging. Restaurants do bring people into the area and they will shop. She stated that perhaps all the restaurants in a shopping center should not be in the same corner. The parking is a reasonable solution. Commissioner Budds concurred. Commissioner Muto moved to adopt the Resolution recom- mending approval. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Approved unanimously. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None 8. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: William Bretz, 8723 East Hermosa Drive, stated he had hoped that more of the people who were at the meeting earlier had stayed because he wanted to address to them that the reason they had to be here was because they had not been coming to meetings and did not know what was happening in their City. They do not know what is affecting them when they need to know it; instead they wait until the last minute. 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: None Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 1989 10. ADJOURNMENT: Page 16 As there was no further business, Chairman Seibert adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, January 24, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 5938 North Kauffman Avenue, Temple City. •