The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutMinutes - 1989/05/23 - Regular" " CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1989 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER: Pursuant to Agenda posted May 19, 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,Griffiths,Muto and Chairman Seibert Absent: None Also Present: City Attorney Martin, City Manager Koski, Community Development Director Dawson 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Coolman requested corrections to the the minutes on Page 15. Commissioner Coolman moved to approve the Consent Calendar with corrections to the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of May 9, 1989 Approved as amended B. REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN APPROVAL: Site: Applicant: Approved as requested 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 9567 Las Tunas Drive Ideal Travel " Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 23, 1989 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE PARCEL 47039 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -986 Site: 5347 WELLAND Owner /Applicant: WAN -HUEI KANG et al 365 Sharon Road Arcadia, CA 91006 Engineer: ENGLES SHEN & ASSOCIATES 600 West Main Street, #205 Alhambra, CA 91801 Request: To allow the development of five (5) detached condominium units within the R -2 Zone. Chairman Seibert asked Director Dawson if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had been sent and presented the staff report and a video. Engles Shen, 600 West Main Street, Alhambra, presented a new rendering of the project. He stated it meets or exceeds the requirements of the Code and has open space and green areas. He further stated they had read the conditions and had no problem with redesigning Unit D and the parking spaces. Chairman Seibert asked if they had any problem with Condition 14. Mr. Shen stated they had no problem. Maria Agudello, 5347 Welland Avenue, stated she was a tenant at the site and had never been informed as to the plans for the redevelopment of the site. She stated the applicant had not been truthful with the tenants when they rented the existing residences. She stated there should be some form of compensation for the tenants. Julie Crist, 5347 Welland, agreed with Mrs. Agudello. She stated this was devastating to the tenants. Diane Willson, 10925 Wildflower Road, spoke about the redevelopment of this property and others in the R -2 Zone. She stated the rendering was very nice. The main concern was taking the number of units to the maximum. She stated she had previously expressed concern to the Commission regarding density. There is a lack of side- walks, street lights, and traffic control. She stated " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 23, 1989 she and many of the neighbors were not in favor of five units. She asked the Commission if they looked at the infrastructure. Chairman Seibert stated that was all addressed in the environmental impact report, which is filled out at the time of application and reviewed by both staff and Commission. She asked if there had been any particular record keep- ing on how much the density had increased in the R -2 since the General Plan was adopted in 1987. Chairman Seibert informed her there had not been special record keeping. Commissioner Coolman informed Ms. Willson that a fire hydrant, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, new street light and one street tree per house were required. Ms. Willson stated her concern was not just one piece of property, but the area in general. Chairman Seibert informed her that the items were a requirement for any new development in any area. He stated that as the properties are developed the side- walks, etc. would all connect. Ms. Willson recommended the Commission vote no on the project or at least a lower density. Claude Fowler, 5353 Welland, stated there seemed to be a proliferation of multi- storied units in the two -block long area. He stated traffic has increased and egress and ingress becomes a problem. He recommended the Commission accept the project as four units. Engles Shen stressed the project- was within the Code requirements. He stated that the property owners within the 300 foot radius had been notified as prescribed by law. The tenants were not notified. He stated they might be able to assist the tenants to relocate or find suitable apartments if requested to do so. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hear- ing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Chairman Seibert informed the opponents there was noth- ing the Commission could do to help relieve tenant problems as far as lack of notification. That becomes a civil matter with the landlord. He suggested they contact Mr. Shen as he indicated they were willing to work with the tenants. He reiterated the Commission has " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 23, 1989 no control, but that they could empathize and sympa- thize. He complimented Ms. Willson on her presentation. Chairman Seibert reminded the Commission that they do have a right to deny the request based on the fact that it is inconsistent with other developments in the area, even though it does meet all the guidelines and ordi- nances are followed. He verified this with City Attor- ney Martin. City Attorney Martin stated that was correct although a procedure needed to be adopted. Commissioner Coolman stated there were many lots`in the area that had similar developments and very few with one and two houses. When the General Plan was amended, this was one of the areas that stayed R -2. Most of the city was downzoned. She stated although she would like to see the Floor Area Ratio applied in this case as well as several others, the ordinance does not yet exist. She stated she did not have grounds to deny the request. The applicant has met the requirements. They have tried to maintain the single family character with the de- tached units. Commissioner Griffiths stated it is within the guide- lines and he reiterated that when the General Plan was revised the neighborhood wanted to keep the R -2 zoning which permits this type of development. There is no reason to deny this project. Commissioner Muto stated the attempt to bring the maxi- mum permitted at the site has resulted in a tight design which congest the rear portion of the lot. He stated there was a condition which did address these concerns but he did not feel it was the best possible design for the site. He stated that as far taking advantage of new authority regarding compatibility, a survey of the area shows the large lots have been developed with multiple units, but none of them exceed four. The lot to the north is the same size and has only four units. Commissioner Budds stated the Commissioners have covered the items. He stated that he prefers the applicants to come in with less than the maximum allowable and he agreed with Ms. Willson it would be preferable to come in with four units instead of the five. He further stated that the ordinance did allow five and Condition 14 mitigates the problem with regard to maneuvering vehicles and he would be in favor of granting the re- quest. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 23, 1989 Chairman Seibert stated the development of the property is something that will be done. He stated he felt the property was being crowded to the maximum and that a better design could be arrived at by eliminating one of the units or making them smaller. It is within the confines of the Codes and Ordinances, but it does push it to the limit and is not a good development for that fact. He stated it was not in favor and could be de- nied. Commissioner Coolman moved to approve Tentative Tract 47039 and Conditional Use Permit 89 -986 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioners Budds, Coolman, Griffiths Noes: Commissioners Muto, Seibert Absent: None Chairman Seibert informed the applicant it had passed on a 3 to 2 vote and that there was a 10 day appeal period for anyone who might wish to appeal. Director Dawson informed the applicant that this project involves a Tract Map it automatically goes before the City Council and a separate public hearing is conducted. The residents would be re- noticed for this hearing. B. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20941 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -987 Site: 4840 GLICKMAN Owner /Applicant: - CHEN MING KU 212 Avondale #A Monterey Park, CA 91754 Engineer ENGLES SHEN & ASSOCIATES 600 West Main Street #205 Alhambra, CA 91801 Request: To allow the development of four (4) detached condominium units 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. There were no questions of staff and the public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 23, 1989 Aldo Liou, 1388 North Alameda, Azusa, designer of the project, stated they did meet all the requirements of the Code and had no problem with the conditions. Robert Cheney, 4836 Glickman, stated he was opposed to the project because of too much density for the area and is two story as well. There is nothing else like it on the street. Commissioner Coolman asked if he was opposed to the project or to the fact they were two - story. Mr. Cheney stated he did not mind the fact they were two - story, but he felt the four units provided too much density. Howard Spiegel,4832 Glickman, spoke for Mrs. William Meyer who lives next door to the project. He stated there has never been any project like this in the area. He stated it would dismember the whole area. He felt it would be like having a high rise in the area. Commissioner Coolman asked if Mr. Spiegel if he were objecting to the two -story or to the amount of homes. • Mr. Spiegel stated he was objecting principally to the • two stories. Mrs. Coletta Marold, 4820 Glickman, stated she was objecting to two stories and to the four units. She stated other property owners had been refused permission to build additional units. Ms. Diane Willson,10295 Wildflower Road, stated that many of the citizens had spoken on the General Plan revisions, expressing concerns that they wanted to see Temple City remain a low density community that would encourage people to purchase homes. It is a nice commu- nity to live in and a good quality community in which to raise a family. Many of the citizen stated they were not in favor of the R -2 zoning in some of the areas. They felt the Planning Commission heard these views and that the plan adopted reflected a range of density that did allow for some R -2 areas. The community did not expect to see the type of changes in the profile of Temple City with large two -story homes. The use of the area needs to be considered. Commissioner Coolman stated there are people who do have other opinions and as has been pointed out, this was one of the areas that had petitioned to be an R -2. " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 23, 1989 There was no rebuttal. Commissioner Coolman moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Budds stated he appreciated the comments by the community and that there was an exhaustive process, part of which was input with regard to the General Plan and what the development standards are in a particular area. The standards have been set and therefore when a property owner complies with the rules they should be able to develop. The applicant has met or exceeded all the minimum requirements and he stated he was in favor of granting this request. Commissioner Muto agreed with the staff report. Less than the maximum is being developed. There is no at- tempt to crowd the area. They have met all the new setback requirements and this should be approved. Commissioner Coolman stated she had no problem with the project and pointed out that one of the requirements for any type of multiple dwelling was three parking spaces for each unit which would help to keep cars off of the street. Commissioner Griffiths agreed. He pointed out many times there are different viewpoints. Some months back the room was half -full of residents from the neighbor- hood that wanted this area zoned R -2 and this type of development goes with the R -2 zoning. He recommended approving the project as it meets the requirements. Commissioner Coolman pointed out that a great deal of downzoning was accomplished when the General Plan was reviewed. Chairman Seibert concurred with the other Commissioners. He stated the R -2 Zone was not arbitrarily picked and applied to an area. The areas were looked at with respect to their usage at the time. The number of units were taken into consideration as well as the public input from the property owners in attendance. He fur- ther stated that two story dwellings can be built any- where in the City in the residential zones. They are restricted to a height limit of 35 feet. Commissioner Budds moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map 20941 and Conditional Use Permit 89 -987 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the draft resolution. Seconded by Commis- sioner Muto. Approved unanimously. " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 23, 1989 C. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20683 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -979 Site: 6213 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD Owner /Applicant: Joseph C. & Joan G. Campione 6028 Primrose Temple City, CA 91780 Engineer: Nelson Consultants, Inc. 2500 East Colorado, Ste 300 Pasadena, CA 91107 Request: To allow the development of four (4) detached condominium units within the R -3 Zone 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. James Nelson, 2500 East Colorado Boulevard, #300, Pasadena 91107, representing the applicant pointed out the project was on R -3 property and not R -2 as were the preceding cases. The units are all detached and it closely resembles a single family environment. He stated they were in agreement with all of the condi- tions, but wished to discuss three of them; Conditions 38, 39 and 54, all relating directly or indirectly to the Fire Department requirements for access. He stated that when the project was first proposed with the inten- tion of keeping the houses with nice sized rooms, the driveway was proposed to be less than the normal minimum for the Fire Department in order to drive the rigs towards the rear of the project. A discussion was held with the Fire Department as to what could be done about this and in response the applicant stated they proposed to provide sprinklering for the units. That resulted in Condition 54. Because of a great deal of confusion with letters going back and forth, the conditions are worded in a tentative way. Condition 39 ends with the words, 'unless a lesser width is approved by the Fire Depart- ment.' The applicant suggested that each of the conditions, including the one immediately before 38 which provides for the access for the Fire Department to get within 150 feet of the most distant structure, conflict somewhat with one another. The sprinklers were provided as a means of alleviating the problem, yet the conditions are " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 23, 1989 there anyway. The applicant; has no problem with sprinklering the units, but would like to request that 38 and 54 be modified in a very minor way to add the words 'unless otherwise approved by the Fire Depart- ment'. He requested the conditions be brought into consistency with one another. He requested the project be approved with the changes. He stated that if the Commission was not willing to make the change, they would still accept the conditions. Director Dawson stated that basically these were the conditions we received from the Fire Department with the exception of Condition 54 and the applicant indicated that he intended to provide interior fire sprinklers in each of the units and it was the applicant's intention to apply for a variance from the Fire Department in order to have a 16 foot wide driveway instead of the minimum 20 foot wide driveway. Staff has not received any official word from the Fire Department that this is an acceptable arrangement. That is the reason for the conditions as written. City Attorney Martin stated he felt the condos should be sprinklered. The applicant's Engineer stated they were not resisting the sprinklers as they had proposed them in the first place. The problem is the Conditions are in conflict with one another. To recognize that the Fire Department is the source of the conditions and leave them with the alternative of approving or disapproving of some layout that would bring the conditions into some sort of com- pliance would be a reasonable alternative. Commissioner Budds asked Mr. Nelson if he had any prob- lem with leaving Condition 54 as it stands, requiring the sprinklers, and modifying 38 as previously stated. Mr. Nelson replied he had no problem with that. Mrs. Velma J. Spencer, 6258 North Primrose Avenue, stated she knew there was nothing that could be done about the two -story structures, but they would lose a great deal of privacy. She wanted to know what was going to be done with the Pecan trees on the lot. She had seen trees taken out over the past few years and was concerned about the loss of trees. Chairman Seibert informed Mrs. Spencer there was a requirement that one tree be provided for each dwelling unit. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 23, 1989 Director Dawson stated there was one large tree near the rear of the lot that would have to be removed. Mrs. Spencer also inquired if a wall was required across the back. Chairman Seibert informed Mrs. Spencer a block wall was required. Mrs. Spencer asked if the Commission had a rendering of the projects before they were approved. She stated there were some buildings on Longden that do not fit the area. Chairman Seibert informed Mrs. Spencer that design could not be dictated and projects can be built as long as they fall within the parameters of the Code. Commissioner Coolman pointed out the project on Longden was built before the current setbacks were approved. Mr. Nelson stated the project had originally been ori- ented to try and preserve the Oak trees along the south- erly boundary and the only way that could be done is if the driveway is minimized in width at certain points and not required to have fire truck access. The conditions have allowed the tree to be maintained. Because of the preference given to certain types of trees, it is a fact that certain trees will have to be cut. The overall goal is to preserve the trees if possible. Commissioner Coolman moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Chairman Seibert stated that Condition 38 could be modified to read "unless waived by the Fire Department" and be acceptable. Condition 39 would stay as it is and Condition 54 would stay as it is. Commissioner Muto stated it was a good development and more than meets the standards. It is below the maximum permitted. No problem with the project. Commissioner Griffiths stated he had no problems with the project. Commissioner Coolman stated that we have not required sprinklers in the past and that condition should not necessarily stay in. She stated she had no problem with the project. It is a good development. Commissioner Budds commended Mr. Nelson on the project. It is evident that the tree issue has been considered. There are two units less than what could be developed. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 23, 1989 By having the fire sprinklers, the applicant can go to the Fire Department and state this is one of the condi- tions and therefore ask that the other requirement be waived. He stated it was an excellent project. He also thanked Mrs. Spencer for making her views known. Chairman Seibert agreed with the other Commissioners. Commissioner Muto moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -797 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 20683 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions as contained in the draft resolution including the amend- ment of Condition 38 to add at the end "unless waived by the Fire Department ". Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. Chairman Seibert informed the applicant there was a 10 day appeal period in which the approval could be ap- pealed. D. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 46828 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -955 Site: 5803 ENCINITA AVENUE Owner /Applicant: ALAN WONG 851 East Valley Boulevard San Gabriel, CA 91776 Engineer: SIMON LEE & ASSOCIATES 365 West Garvey, Suite 203 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Request: To allow the development of five (5) detached condominium units within the R -2 Zone Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had and presented the staff report and video. Director Dawson informed the audience there was a dif- ference between a Parcel Map and a Tract Map. Basically the Parcel Map is a subdivision mechanism for four or less units and the Planning Commission's decision is final and conclusive unless appealed to the City Coun- cil. A Tentative Tract Map is five or more units and always requires approval of the City Council. Commissioner Muto asked if the 5 foot high remote con- trol sliding gate was an issue. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 23, 1989 Director Dawson replied that if the recommended condi- tion to prohibit such a security gate, then the property owner would still have the option of redesigning and installing this kind of security gate out of the front yard area. The only technical problem is that it is located in the front yard area. Chairman Seibert stated a problem with the gate is that the project is on a very busy street and could cause a traffic hazard. Jeff Phillips, of Loren Phillips & Associates, 1740 East Huntington Drive, #206, Duarte, engineers for the pro- ject stated that they agreed with all the conditions of approval and have no objection to removing the security gate. They have worked closely'with staff to obtain a feasible project. Helen Rhee and Ken Wa Yung, 9174 East Bidwell, spoke against the project. They live in the R -1 which abuts the project. He stated it was inappropriate for the neighborhood. He stated the City needed to be more in tune with the urban fabric of the city. The growth is too rapid for the size of the City. How the growth is fostered is very imperative because of the tremendous changes in the City. She stated that more consideration should be given to the aesthetics of the surrounding area, not just meeting the code requirements. Even though the design has been geared toward the single family unit, it will be crowded with five units. We are opposed to the project. Andrew G. Kent, 5746 Encinita Avenue, expressed concern about the traffic and lack of stop signs from Las Tunas to Broadway on Encinita. By adding more homes the traffic will increase even more. The project would affect the property values. Jeff Phillips stated they had complied with the R -2 standards. Some sort of guideline has to be used to developed. Cannot just go in and develop. We believe we have a good project. Garages abut the rear of the project, not single family homes directly up against the project area. There is quite a bit of space between the existing homes and the proposed units. Commissioner Coolman Moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Griffiths stated that five units was the maximum, but the land use around it is not that much different. The project is within all the parameters established. He stated he appreciated the concern of " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 May 23, 1989 the neighbors, but the density will not increase that much as to what is already existing. He recommended approval. The ordinances would have to be looked at to make any changes in the density. Commissioner Budds agreed with Commissioner Griffiths. The developer has worked with the City on a complex issue of drainage, has agreed to take the security gate out. Anything done to the lot would increase the property value of the neighborhood. Commissioner Coolman agreed with the other Commission- ers. She pointed out that when the General Plan was redone, this particular large lot was zoned R -2 as it made a logical breaking point from R -2 to R -1 on the south. The project meets all the criteria. Commissioner Muto agreed. Two -story houses are permit- ted in any residential area. Extra setbacks have been provided. Chairman Seibert concurred. He stated a letter had been sent to Director Dawson in opposition to the pro- ject from A. Nakamoto at 9170 E. Bidwell. On Condition 54 the phrase, "prior to issuance of building permits" should be inserted prior to the land sentence. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve Tentative Tract Map 46828 and Conditional Use Permit 88 -955 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval with the modification to Condition 54. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. Chairman Seibert informed the applicant this project would be forwarded to the Council for their approval. Chairman Seibert called for a 5 minute recess. The meeting was reconvened. E. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE 89-989 Site: 9070 E. BROADWAY Owner /Applicant: DAN GOLDFARB 9070 E. Broadway Temple City, CA 91780 Request: To allow a 3 foot side yard setback rather than the re- quired 5 foot side yard set- back in the R -1 Zone. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 May 23, 1989 Chairman Seibert asked if the notices had been. Direc- tor Dawson replied they had and presented the staff report. Director Dawson clarified Section 65906 of the Government Code which had been handed out as a separate sheet. Variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordi- nances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which property is situated. Basically, the difficulty staff had was in making the findings. In effect there were no special circumstances that could be identified. Director Dawson presented the video. Director Dawson stated he did some research into the side yard requirement in 1964 at the time the room addition was constructed. In September of 1963, the side yard requirement was established at 5 feet. When this particular addition was accomplished in 1964, it was in violation at that time. Dan Goldfarb, 9070 East Broadway, stated that in 1964 when he made the original remodel of the property, he had a garage in the back and an addition in the front. He stated he spoke with the inspector during the con- struction and asked if he could put two walls to the garage and make it part of the house. Mr. Goldfarb stated the inspector told him there was no problem in doing it, so he proceeded to add the walls between the addition and the garage. He stated he assumed the inspector had done the necessary paperwork which appar- ently was not done. He further stated that a year ago when he applied for a loan, the bank stated the extra portion of the addition was illegal. Mr. Goldfarb stated he was just trying to legalize what had been done. He stated he had added a garage in the rear with permit and no mention was made of the violation. He stated he had no idea until about a year ago that he was in violation. He pointed out that just across the street the houses have 3 foot setbacks. Commissioner Coolman asked what the purpose of the garage on the property line was. Mr. Goldfarb stated it was used as a shop and fronts on the alley. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 May 23, 1989 Fred Grant, 9082 Broadway, stated he lives two doors down and that everything was accomplished at the same time. Henry Filot, 9102 East Broadway, four doors from Mr. Goldfarb, stated the house was connected to the garage at the time of addition. Mark Zuleski, 9121 Rancho Real, asked if the variance were not granted, what would happen to the particular room addition. Chairman Seibert informed him that Mr. Goldfarb had the right of appeal to the City Council. Should the Council deny the request, it could be left as is or require it be torn down. That would be a decision of the Council. Mr. Zuleski stated that granted Mr. Goldfarb thought the addition was in compliance with the law, ignorance is no excuse. He should have made sure that the necessary paperwork was completed. A person should be responsible for what they are doing and make sure it it legal and complies. Mr. Goldfarb stated he did the ,'addition under the aus- pices of an inspector under the job and thought it was being taken care of. He stated he did not follow up to be sure. Commissioner Coolman moved to close the hearing. Sec- onded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Coolman stated she did not see any problem with the addition. It has been there for 25 years and has not created a problem. She was in favor of granting the variance. Commissioner Muto asked how the problem surfaced. Chairman Seibert stated that apparently the applicant had applied for a loan and the lending institution said there was an illegal structure and Mr. Goldfarb came down to straighten it out. Commissioner Muto stated that in the absence of any counter information that what the gentleman says was not the case and as Commissioner Coolman pointed out it has been there for 25 years, it would be difficult to modify something that has been there so long. • " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 May 23, 1989 Commissioner Budds stated his concern was precedent. He agreed with Commissioner Coolman, but people building without permits in direct violation and then coming back later to ask for variances would set a precedent. Does the Commission send out the message "we cannot get a three foot setback if we go in with building permits to do construction, so we will just build and come back years later and ask for a variance". He stated he was in favor of denying the request. Commissioner Griffiths stated that based on the fact that there was not a building permit for that portion of the addition, it does cloud the issue. Had there been permits he would agree with Commissioner Coolman. However, under the circumstances, he stated he was in accord with Commissioner Budds and recommended denial. Chairman Seibert concurred with Commissioners Budds and Griffiths. This happened 25 years ago and we should not be asked to resolve a problem today because of someone's lack of checking at that time. He stated he was opposed to granting the variance. Commissioner Budds moved to deny Zone Variance 89 -989 based upon the findings co tained in the draft resolu- tion. Seconded by Commissioner Griffiths. Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioners Budds, Griffiths, Seibert Noes: Commissioners Coolman, Muto Absent: None Chairman Seibert informed the applicant the variance had been denied, but that he did have the right of appeal to the City Council within 10 days. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: The Commissioners wished Director Dawson happy birthday. 8. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: None 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: None r' • • Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 10. ADJOURNMENT: Page 17 As there was no further business, Chairman Seibert adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, June 13, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 5938 North Kauffman Avenue, Temple City. ATTEST