Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1989/05/09 - RegularCITY OF TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 9, 1989 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER: Pursuant to Agenda posted May 5, 1989, Chairman Seibert called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Commissioner Coolman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Budds,Coolman,Griffiths,Muto and Chairman Seibert Absent: None Also Present: City Attorney Martin, City Manager Koski, Community Development Director Dawson 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Coolman moved to approve the Consent Calendar Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of April 25, 1989 Approved as written B. MONTHLY CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT - Month of April Received and filed 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 9, 1989 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE PARCEL 20849 Site: 9725 OLIVE STREET Owner /Applicant: Mahadeva & Chandra Sinha 9725 Olive Street Temple City, CA 91780 Request: To allow an existing R -1 lot to be subdivided into two lots, one of which is to be a Flag Lot. Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had and presented the staff report and video. There were no questions of staff and the public hearing was opened Mahadeva Sinha, 9725 Olive Street, stated he had read the conditions of approval and requested that the block wall requirement be deleted for the time being. He stated he had no immediate plans for construction on the subdivided lot. Constructing a block wall at this time would obstruct the view of the street. He stated that if and when the property was sold or a home constructed, it be mandated at that the block wall be constructed at that time. Mr. Mahadeva also requested clarification on the 5 foot sidewalk requirement. He stated that if the sidewalk is to be constructed prior to the final recordation, again he requested a delay until construction or sale of the parcel. There were no objections. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hear- ing, seconded by Commissioner Coolman. Commissioner Coolman asked Community Development Direc- tor Dawson how much other sidewalk was along that street. Director Dawson stated there was not any on that side. Commissioner Griffiths stated there was some on the south side, but not on the north. Director Dawson stated it was a standard condition. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 9, 1989 • Chairman Seibert asked if there was a way to defer those items until development. Director Dawson stated it was difficult. The approved Tentative Parcel Map is valid for a two -year period of time. It is incumbent to approve the Final Parcel Map if it complies with all of the conditions of approval for the Tentative Parcel Map. It does give the property owner a two -year period of time in which to comply. It is difficult to post a bond and have it go on indefi- nitely, particularly in this type of situation where there are no immediate plans to build; there is no mechanism to hold the bond or to keep in abeyance for a number of years. We prefer to have the necessary im- provements prior to recordation of the final map and once the final map is recorded the matter is put to rest and there are no loose ends. Chairman Seibert asked if something could be put into the requirements to the effect that prior to development or issuance of permits the work must be accomplished. Director Dawson stated it would be possible, however, if there is new or changing staff, someone would have to go back to the files and review the previous actions. Once a final map is recorded, you are relying on indi- viduals to check and double check and it is difficult. City Attorney Martin stated it was very difficult to sustain these over years by bond. A deed covenant could be recorded now and in the event the property changes hands or is developed the requirements would have to be met. Commissioner Griffiths asked City Attorney Martin if that was a viable solution. Chairman Seibert also asked if that condition could be put to the conditions. City Attorney Martin stated it could be. It could be stated that if those conditions are not met now, before the final map is recognized, a covenant must be recorded stating that upon development of any kind he will comply before any building permit will be issued. Director Dawson asked City Attorney Martin if the prop- erty did not change hands, and the present owner came in to obtain building permits, what mechanism would be available to the City. • " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 9, 1989 City Attorney Martin stated the City would have to keep track of it. Director Dawson stated a covenant would show up at the time of sale and would trigger the time when the improvements would be made. However, a mechanism is not set up at City Hall to flag that sometime down the road. Commissioner Budds asked about just disregarding these two conditions altogether; just recognize the lot and then at some point in time when someone comes forward to construct a residence, ask for the items. Chairman Seibert stated that unless a variance or zone change is requested, it will not come before the Commis- sion. They would only apply for a permit. Commissioner Coolman stated the project would have to go through Planning Department before building permits could be issued. Director Dawson stated there was no requirement for someone to build a block wall when they obtain building permits to build a new house. A note could be placed in the file and current staff members would certainly remember, but as time goes on there are changes. There would be no guarantee the improvements would be made. City Manager Koski stated it was a combination of what City Attorney Martin suggested and a condition. Chairman Seibert stated he found nothing wrong with the conditions. City Manager Koski stated there was a risk factor, but probably not significant. Commissioner Coolman stated that cities always have a packet of what has been done on a property and that would be a logical place to put a notation that certain conditions still must be met. Chairman Seibert asked if she would be in favor of deferring, but not eliminating. Commissioner Coolman stated she was. The applicant has a reasonable request. For instance, if his was the only place that did not have any sidewalk, that would be different. But that side of the block does not have any. When another house is constructed, then the block wall should be constructed. Why cut off the breeze, light and view at this time? Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 9, 1989 Commissioner Griffiths stated he was in concurrence. Building the 6 foot wall at this point is unnecessary and should be built when the front parcel is sold or developed. The sidewalk is not that important an issue. That will not block light or air, it would not harm anything to build it now. Commissioner Muto stated this could be handled by some type of recorded legal agreement with a copy in the City files. He stated that in an area where there are no sidewalks, it would not serve a useful purpose at this time. Commissioner Budds agreed and stated it was a beautiful piece of property. Putting in a wall or constructing a wall at this time should be deferred. Chairman Seibert agreed with the other Commissioners. He also stated he had no problem with the deferment, but that some notation should be placed in the files. Director Dawson stated a covenant could be drawn up to trigger action at the time sale and /or development and a copy can be placed in the address file. City Manager Koski stated that the resolution should have some phraseology that these items will be required prior to construction on Parcel 1. Director Dawson stated it can be covered with phraseol- ogy prior to development or the sale of either parcel. Commissioner Coolman moved to approve Tentative Parcel 20849 based on discussion to defer until sale or devel- opment the construction of the 6 foot block wall and the curbs and sidewalks to be evidenced by a recorded cove- nant and notation in address file. Seconded by Commis- sioner Budds and approved unanimously. Chairman Seibert informed the applicant the request had been approved with the deferment of the sidewalk and block wall until such time as the property is either sold or developed. A covenant will be recorded with the deed of the property and notation made in City files. B. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47219 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -971 ZONE VARIANCE 89 -981 Site: 5308 McCULLOCH Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 9, 1989 Owner /Applicant: Mur -Sol, Inc. 132 E. LaPorte Street Arcadia, CA 91006 Engineer: CivilTec Engineering, Inc. 2610 S. California Ave, Ste. B Monrovia, CA 91016 Request: To allow the construction of seven (7) detached condominium units with 3 of the units having guest parking spaces in tandem rather than independ- ently accessible in the R -2 Zone. Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had and presented the staff report and a video. The public hearing was opened. Rick Shroads, CivilTec Engineering, 135 East LaPorte, Arcadia, engineer for the project, stated that staff had done a very good job in explaining the project. They had worked with the applicant and engineers. Sidewalks will be built on McCulloch, and there are currently sidewalks on Freer. All conditions have been agreed to. He stated they met all the Zoning requirements except the tandem parking. The three units on Freer lend themselves to this type of solution. Chairman Seibert asked Director Dawson if the property was shown as Institutional on the General Plan. Director Dawson stated it was shown as Institutional on the General Plan and Medium Density on the Zoning Map. He further stated that later a discussion would be held regarding a change to the Zoning Code to permit Institu- tional uses in the residential zones with a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Seibert stated that the next time the General Plan is reviewed this could be included in the changes. Director Dawson stated that was correct. There is an Institutional Category in the General Plan, but not in the Zoning Code. Basically the Institutional Category was compatible with any of the Residential Zones. Commissioner Coolman asked if they are now putting it into residential use, could it revert to Institutional. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 9, 1989 Director Dawson stated that as long as it is designated Institutional on the General Plan, it could revert to an institutional use with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. It could not happen without a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Coolman stated it was a safeguard. Director Dawson stated it was. City Manager Koski stated a general plan change should be implemented. Director Dawson stated the process could be gone through and the General Plan amended. Director Dawson stated it could be made a condition of approval. Gregory Butler, Artech, 218 E. Longden, Irwindale, thanked the staff for working so closely on the project. Normally, they try to get as many units as possible, but in this case the owner wanted to fit in with the R -1 Zoning and keep the character of the neighborhood. Basically this project does keep the "R -1" look of the area. Different elevations have been designed for the units so it will look like they have been built indi- vidually and not as a condo project. They have also kept adequate side yard setbacks and a single story project in the back to alleviate looking down on the abutting homes. Eduardo Lopez, 5332 McCulloch, owner of the property which faces the back of the driveway stated his only concern was privacy because they were away from the street and noise. Chairman Seibert informed Mr. Lopez there would be a six foot block wall along the property line which would still maintain his privacy. Commissioner Coolman asked Mr. Lopez how far his resi- dence was from the property line. Mr. Lopez stated he was 12 to 14 feet from the property line. Commissioner Coolman said that would make a total of approximately 38 feet or more between his home and the proposed project. Joseph Mercado, 10843 Freer Street, owner of the prop- erty to the east of the proposed development, stated it was a good project, but wanted the omission of some windows because of his pool. " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 9, 1989 Commissioner Coolman asked how far the pool was from the property line and how far his house was from the pool. Mr. Mercado stated it was about 10 feet to the pool and 10 feet further to the house. They are objecting to something like a large picture window. he wanted to be able to maintain his privacy for the pool. Chairman Seibert stated he did not believe there were any large windows on that side. Clarence Meserve, 10769 Freer Street, asked what the access would be to the house in the narrow corner. He was informed they would be using a driveway on the project. Commissioner Budds moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Coolman. Commissioner Muto stated it was a good project. All aspects are acceptable, but questioned the tandem park- ing in front of the garages. They did try to make this project similar to single family projects. Commissioner Budds stated that with regard to Mr. Lopez's concern, there is an alley that is used for ingress and egress for his area and there will be a block wall. All setbacks exceed all the minimum re- quirements, including the rear yard and sideyard. This is an excellent project. Looking at 7 units as opposed to a maximum of 10 that could have been built. He stated he was in favor of granting all three requests. Commissioner Griffiths expressed same concerns about the parking as Commissioner Muto, however, the applicant is trying to keep single family character to the project and R -1 does not require guest parking. With the devel- opment looking like single family development he stated he was in favor. Commissioner Coolman asked about Condition No. 16 which prohibited construction of any structures in the private yard area. She stated that looking at the side yards and the requirements, the owners would be unable to put in a patio or anything. She stated this was restric- tive. The applicant has done an excellent job in pro- viding setbacks. " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 9, 1989 Director Dawson stated that Patio Covers had not been considered. The idea was to be sure that uniformity was provided for and did not have modifications that would make for dissimilar structures. It was only to ensure architectural integrity. Commissioner Coolman asked if patio covers could be excluded from the requirements. Director Dawson stated that one sentence could be ex- cluded City Manager Koski stated it could be modified to read "except with the permission of the Association." Commissioner Griffiths stated he would be in favor of amending the sentence but not deleting it. Commissioner Coolman stated she did not have any problem with amending the sentence. Chairman Seibert stated he had no problem with the project. He stated they had frontage on Freer to deal with the parking and it is similar to an R -1 development and with street frontage it would not present a problem. Commissioner Budds moved to approve Tentative Tract 47219, Conditional Use Permit 89 -971 and Zone Variance 89 -981 based upon the findings and subject to the con- ditions of approval as modified and contained in the attached draft resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Coolman and approved unanimously. The applicant was informed there was a 10 day appeal period if anyone disagreed with the decision. C. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE 89 -993 Site: 9837 MILOANN Owner /Applicant: Ronnie L. Brown 9837 Miloann Temple City, CA 91780 Request: To allow the development of a two -story room addition with an 8 foot second story side yard setback instead of the required 10 foot second story side yard setback in the R -1 Zone. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 9, 1989 Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had and presented his staff report and video. The public hearing was opened. Ron and Linda Brown, 9837 Miloann, stated they had also brought a video and that they had started this project back in August and at that time the City Planner con- curred they had ample room to construct a two story addition under the prevailing requirements and that they received a summary sheet showing those requirements. No one mentioned there was going to be any change in the requirements. She stated she contacted a contractor sometime in September and spent some time going back and forth with plan changes to fit their needs and to fit the neighborhood. She stated they asked professionals for opinions to be sure they were not overbuilding. She further stated they did not realize they had a deadline to meet. Mrs. Brown stated she would like to show her video. Chairman Seibert stated they did not want to take the time to see the video, but requested she continue her presentation. Mrs. Brown stated they had taken the video from the top of the roof to clarify any question as to privacy. Chairman Seibert asked she continue her testimony and if necessary the video could be shown Mr. Brown stated they believed they had exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. When they started in August, the Code requirement was 5 feet. They have been funded for the project since February, 1989 as they did not realize there was a time problem. Plans were not submitted until March at which time they were told of the Code change. They had planned to start the project in June after school was out as they would have to move out of the house during construction. This property is a corner lot and requires 10 feet. The proposed project conforms to the normal configuration of the existing structure. He stated if they had to change their plans, it would look like an add -on. He stated the nearest neighboring structure to the addition is some 20 feet with a patio and screen providing privacy. There is approximately 28 feet buffer zone between the property and the neighbor. If forced to move north with the plans, we will be closer to the neighbor's pool with trees being removed. He did not feet the additional two feet would grant move privacy or sunlight to adjacent properties. He stated their intention was to conform to " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 9, 1989 the trend in Temple City to go up and not out. He stated it was a good plan for the neighborhood and would help the value to appreciate. Mrs. Brown presented a signed petition and again re- quested they be given permission to show the video. Commissioner Budds asked to see the video. Mr. Brown presented the video showing the property and indicated it would not present an invasion of privacy. Chairman Seibert stated that when they had started the project, the Commission did not have any idea that the requirements were going to change. It was brought up because of some of the large homes and citizen com- plaints about them looking like boxes. Mr. Brown stated they had the impression that 5 feet was all that was needed and with 8 feet they felt they had more than sufficient space to add on. Prior to submit- ting plans they had no idea of the change. Chairman Seibert stated it was true in August, but not in February when they submitted plans. Commissioner Coolman complimented the Browns on an excellent presentation. John Wild, 4905 Baldwin, Temple City, contractor for the project, stated if they had known there was going to be a change, they would have submitted plans in November and have met the 8 foot setback. They did not feel there was a time problem to do so. One of the recommen- dations to the Browns was to move out of the home during the construction phase and doing so after school was out would be less disruptive to the family. The plans could have been submitted in time to avoid this process if they had known about the Zone change. To move the project two feet back would detract from the neighbor- hood. He stated he understood the Commission's con- cerns. He said he saw condominium projects springing up all over and they do not have to meet the same require- ments as a homeowner and it seemed to him single family residential property owners were being hampered. Chairman Seibert clarified that developments in R -2 and R -3 Zones have stricter setback requirements than those for R -1. 1 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 9, 1989 Richard and Loretta Tepler, 9843 Miloann, property owners just east of the Brown project, stated they were opposing the project as they had had only 5 days notice, and he had been appointed neighborhood representative. He presented a petition signed by 25 neighbors. He stated that 90% of the people in the area are opposed to the project. He stated they were aware of why the setback requirements were changed, not only for privacy, but because of lack of light and breeze. He stated he was not concerned about his own loss of privacy as there was sufficient foliage and screening, but was concerned about the loss of light after 1:00 in the afternoon. Commissioner Coolman asked if he was opposed to the two story in general or the specific 8 foot side yard set- back. Mr. Tepler stated he was opposed to both. He stated there was more than adequate property to build a single story addition. Commissioner Coolman informed Mr. Tepler that if the Browns met the setback requirements they could build a two -story addition without coming before the Commission. Mr. Tepler stated that the construction people who drew the plans knew they were illegal, in violation and because the Browns were crowded they just wanted to enlarge. He again stated he was concerned about the loss of light and breeze. Mrs. Tepler presented some pictures showing how dark the present area was and reiterated that the new addition would keep it dark all day and she would have a lack of breeze. Mr. Tepler asked why people were only given five days notice. He asked why they could not have more notice. Director Dawson stated the notices were mailed out 10 days prior to the meeting. He stated that Mr. Tepler had visited City Hall on the Monday after the notices had been mailed, which was the week before the hearing.. Mr. Tepler stated that was correct. Chairman Seibert informed Mr. Tepler that 10 days was the normal time for noticing. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 May 9, 1989 Mrs. Tepler stated she did not feel the neighborhood had been considered in bringing up the value of the prop- erty, but that theirs would depreciate because of the proposed property. Chairman Seibert informed Mrs. Tepler that depreciation or valuation of a property cannot be considered. Mrs Brown, stated they had a four bedroom house and this was not a rush panic situation. The contractor was not in violation when he drew up the plans. Had it been a panic decision, she stated they would have submitted plans before the zoning changes were made. She stated they have 3 teenagers and needed the additional room. Mr. Brown stated that if there was such strong opposi- tion to the building they were constructing, where was the opposition to the building around the corner. Commissioner Coolman moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Budds thanked both sides. The issue is not whether the applicant can build a second story. It is his property and he can do so within the law. The property owner has an opportunity with new construction to comply with the setback requirements. Whether or not the contractor knew or at what time the zoning law changed, it was widely publicized. He stated he was not in favor of the request. Commissioner Griffiths stated he agreed with Commis- sioner Budds that the two story was not the issue. The second story construction is perfectly legal and proper in any zone. The side yard ordinance and the change that came about a few months was an effort to alleviate somewhat the considerations of "not next door to me ". A great deal of effort was put into the changes and it was not done overnight. It was advertised. The new addi- tion as proposed by the Browns, being new construction, could be redesigned without any great time or expense to accommodate the setbacks presently in the ordinance. He recommended denial of the variance. Commissioner Muto agreed that requiring the full 10 foot setback was not unreasonable. If we allow this variance it would create a precedent. The ordinance was put in place in response to the complaints of the citizens. Commissioner Coolman stated that fortunately for the Browns this was a large lot. She stated she could not make the findings to approve the request. She reiter- 1 Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 May 9, 1989 ated they had done a great deal of study to get to the 10 foot sideyards. Obviously, it still does not make everyone happy. Chairman Seibert concurred with the other Commissioners. However, in defense of the contractor, he stated he was doing nothing illegal by drawing plans. It is perfectly legal to draw anything and propose anything you want. It would only be illegal if he constructed something without proper permits. Unfortunately the Browns were caught up in a change. He did not feel it was a major problem to redesign the addition to meet the required setbacks. Commissioner Budds moved to deny Zone Variance 89 -993 based upon the findings. Seconded by Commissioner Muto and approved unanimously. Chairman Seibert informed the Browns there was a 10 day appeal period. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None 8. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: Eduardo Lopez, 5322 McCulloch asked if there was any way a moratorium could be placed on tearing down of trees in the City. Chairman Seibert informed Mr. Lopez that no action could be taken tonight. He suggested Mr. Lopez contact the Community Development Director and it would be brought before the proper Commission. 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: Commissioner Muto stated he had learned that Lieberg's was leaving Temple City, and there had been an issue before the Planning Commission last fall about possible redevelopment of the entire block. Community Director Dawson stated a meeting had been held with Lieberg's, the City Manager and himself to discuss the situa- tion and they were committed to leaving Temple City. Director Dawson stated Katz Hollis, a consulting firm specializing in redevelopment, had been contacted regarding a possible feasi- bility study for the area It is hoped the information can be taken to the next City Council meeting. If all goes well, there will be an opportunity to look at the possibilities of forming another redevelopment area. " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 May 9, 1989 Commissioner Griffiths asked for an update on the possible change in the driveway width question for 5 or less parking places. Director Dawson stated he had 5 Code Amendments pending and they would be presented as a package for one public hearing even though they are unrelated items. Commissioner Coolman stated we have had complaints about the second stories and one of the concerns is the fact that we frequently have a footprint that meets the 50% requirement but with a second story you have a lot of house for the amount of lot. She stated she was at a building department that had a solution to this. They use a 60% floor area, including garage, ratio to lot size. She stated that might have some value. She stated several local cities have that type of ratio. It might be worth considering. Director Dawson stated that a number of Cities, including San Diego, regulate this by an F.A.R. which is floor area ratio, and perhaps the Commission would like to take a look at that in terms of limiting the bulk and scale. In addition to the front, rear and side yard setbacks, F.A.R. is a way of re- stricting development so that you do not have overdevelop- ment. He stated he would be providing the Commission some background information at a later date. Commissioner Budds stated that at the last meeting he had raised his concern with regard to the ordinance on Condi- tional Use Permits. The press activity with regard to the parole office in Alhambra and Pasadena piqued his interest as to how that would apply to Temple City. He presented a hypothetical problem with regard to the institutional land use. Could someone come in and put up a parole office with- out coming before the Commission or City Council. Director Dawson stated that in the General Plan there was an institutional category and in terms of zoning, it is some- times R -1, R -2, R -3, or might even be commercially zoned. The intention was that it would require a Conditional Use Permit to come in with any type of institutional use. He stated that Commissioner Budds concerns had brought to light the fact that we do not have an exhaustive list of all institu- tional uses that would be permitted. We specified that convalescent hospitals are permitted in the R -3 Zone with a conditional use permit, but it does not specify R -2 and R -1. It is an oversight in the Zoning Code and in order to have consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Code we do need to have a Zoning Code amendment where institutional uses would be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and we could expand on that to include other things besides conva- lescent hospitals, such as jail facilities, or parole, proba- " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 May 9, 1989 tion offices, schools, churches, or any type of institutional use. It would make sure we would not have some type of use without the Planning Commission having the opportunity to look at the project. City Manager Koski stated there are various institutional uses and office institutional uses. City Manager Koski stated he was concerned about the Tenta- tive Tract Map that is not consistent with the General Plan category. City Manager Koski stated it had to have a General Plan Amendment prior to final map approval. He further stated the applicant should be so advised. Chairman Seibert and Commissioner Coolman stated that had been the intent. Commissioner Budds stated his concern was not a pro or con situation. It was to make sure we did not get behind and if we see a potential interest to the community we should have a vehicle by which the applicant would have to come in and give the community an opportunity to be heard. Commissioner Budds said he had just looked at Conditional Uses and he did not see anything that would pertain. City Manager Koski stated that any type of governmental office should probably come under a Conditional use Permit and asked City Attorney Martin if that could be done. City Attorney Martin stated the State and Federal governments can do what they want. He stated he saw the other problem a little differently. We have a general plan that has an institutional designation and yet we have no zoning that has institutional. What is missing is the Zoning classification for "Institutional ". We could have a zoning classification designated institutional and all uses subject to a Condi- tional Use Permit. City Manager Koski stated we wanted to be very explicit as to what those institutional uses are. City Attorney Martin stated that primarily institutional uses are private. He also stated an "I" Zone is a floating zone over all zones. Director Dawson asked if we could accomplish the same thing by doing a Zoning Code Amendment with groups of uses such as institutional, governmental, etc, allowing those types of uses in any zone with a Conditional Use Permit. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 May 9, 1989 City Attorney Martin stated they could create the "I" Zone, or Institutional Zone as a floating zone, which attaches to all zones except residential and as to which all uses shall be a conditional use. Commissioner Griffiths stated that with the increased density and population, increases are going to have an effect on the availability of drinking water and the ability to get rid of trash. Is there any way to tie those types of conditions into what the Commission approves or denies. Commissioner Coolman stated that was what E.I.R.'s were for. 10. ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business, Chairman Seibert adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, May 23, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 5938 North Kauffman Avenue, Temple City. ATTEST Secretary