Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1989/07/25 - Regular" " CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 25, 1989 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER: Pursuant to Agenda posted July 21, 1989, Chairman Muto called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Chairman Muto led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Budds, Griffiths, Seibert and Chairman Muto Absent: None - Also Present: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: City Manager Koski, Community Development Director Dawson and Assistant Planner Kates. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve the Consent Calen- dar. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unani- mously. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of July 11, 1989 Approved as written 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: PARCEL MAP 21132 Site: 4826 -4832 Agnes Owner /Applicant: SHYANG KAO 6704 MAYESDALE AVE. SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775 . Engineer: ENGLES SHEN 600 W. MAIN ST., #205 ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 25, 1989 Request: To allow a one lot subdivi- sion for a four (4) unit residential condominium project located at 4826 -32 Agnes within the R -2 Zone. Chairman Muto asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had been sent and pre- sented the staff report and a video. There were no questions of staff and the public hearing was opened. Engles Shen, 600 West Main Street, #205, Alhambra, engineer for the applicant, stated that the project meets and exceeds the requirements for open space and exceeds the parking requirements. The project had been redesigned to meet all the current requirements includ- ing the F.A.R. William Turner, 6037 Oak Avenue, representing his sister Jerry Turner, 4822 Agnes, stated they were not opposed to the project, but had some concerns and questions. He inquired as to the type of wall that would be constructed around the project and would it be located on the property line. Director Dawson replied it would be on the property line and would be a 6 foot high block wall except within the front 20 feet. Mr. Turner asked if they would be able to attach their wall or fence to the proposed new block wall. Commissioner Seibert stated that as long as it was on the Turner's property there would be no problem. Commissioner Griffiths stated that generally the walls are built entirely within the property and that the outside face would be close to the property line. Mr. Turner asked if sidewalks would be required, and if not he would like to request they be built. Director Dawson informed Mr. Turner that there is a list of conditions that the applicant has to comply with and that curb, gutter and sidewalks are required. Mr. Turner also asked about dust control. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 25, 1989 Director Dawson informed Mr. Turner that dust control was addressed in the negative declaration and that it is regulated by the building inspector. If it is not in keeping with the regulations, they would step in and require that the grader and contractor keep down the level of dust. Director Dawson also informed Mr. Turner that if there were any problems during the construction time, he should contact City Hall and an inspector would be sent out to take care of any prob- lems. Mr. Turner asked about patios on the south portion of the project. Director Dawson informed him that a 10 foot setback was required on both side and that no structures would be permitted in that 10 feet. Commissioner Seibert moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. Commissioner Griffiths stated it was straight forward and did meet all the requirements and he had no objec- tions to the project. Commissioner Seibert agreed with Commissioner Griffiths. Commissioner Budds also agreed and stated it exceeded the minimum requirements and had ample parking. Chairman Muto concurred. He stated it met all the requirements including the F.A.R. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -996, Parcel Map 21132, and the Negative Declaration based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Seibert and approved unanimously. Chairman Muto informed the applicant there was a 10 day appeal period during which anyone could appeal the project. B. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE 89 -1003 Site: 10558 DAINES Owner /Applicant: CHARLES & GEORGIA BROWN SHELBURNE 10558 E. DAINES DR. TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 " Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 25, 1989 Request: To allow the development of a two -story room addition with a 6 foot 6 inch second story side yard setback instead of the required 10 foot second story side yard setback in the R -1 Zone. Chairman Muto stated there was a request from the applicant for a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Assistant Planner Kates stated the applicant had come in that morning and written a request for the continu- ance. Commissioner Seibert moved to continue the hearing to August 8, 1989. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. FLAG LOT ORDINANCE Director Dawson presented the background information. Commissioner Seibert stated he was not in favor of restricting flag lots to single story dwellings. This would put an undue restriction on people. This whole thing came about when the General Plan was amended and zoning was changed on the large lots. The people at that time were informed something would be done for them so that they could get some usage out of the large lots. It is not fair to place restrictions on them. A 15 foot height restriction is even more ludicrous because it restricts the pitch on the roof. Commissioner Budds stated he was not involved with the discussions on the General Plan. However, his personal opinion is that he does not like flag lots. There is a flag lot ordinance and a lot of thought did go into that ordinance to accommodate those home owners. However, there are homeowners that surround those properties that could be flag lots and people move into a neighborhood and see what they see. Suddenly, the lot next to them changes with regard to a lot behind a lot and a two story structure goes up which may be intrusive into their privacy. He stated he was in favor of restricting development on flag lots to single story. He was not sure about the 15 feet. The City has the power and right to develop rules. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 25, 1989 Commissioner Griffiths asked about the 15 foot height limit. Director Dawson stated that most single story struc- tures would not exceed that. It is not a restriction at this time, but had been a recommendation Commissioner Griffiths agreed with Commissioner Seibert that 15 feet was too restrictive. He asked how many parcels of land still exist that might be affected by this ordinance. Director Dawson showed a transparency prepared in 1987 with various sizes of lots and a breakdown showing approximately 280 possible lots. Each of those lots now has to have 7200 square feet not counting the driveway. For all practical purposes you need to have over 16,000 square feet in order to accomplish a flag lot split. There are approximately 200 lots over 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Griffiths stated since it takes more than 16,000 to do the subdivision, perhaps there are only. approximately 150 -160 parcels that could possibly be subdivided. Director Dawson further stated that in some instances the houses on those lots that qualify are situated in such a way it is not possible to subdivide. However, there seems to be a steady flow of applications for flag lot subdivision. He did not know if the trend would continue. Commissioner Budds stated that the last two or three meetings have had requests for flag lot subdivisions without any type of proposal for development. Basi- cally, they can then build a two -story dwelling without any further hearing if they meet the setback require- ments. Commissioner Griffiths stated that the flag lot ordi- nance as it now stands requires the back portion to have a minimum net area of 7,200 square feet, the same as any other R -1 parcel. The present setback regula- tions coupled with the Floor Area Ratio would probably control the overbuilding aspect. Since there are only 160 parcels of land that might be subject to this consideration and also the one story limitation would effectively create a special class of R -1 lot, there- fore he was not in favor of changing the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 25, 1989 Chairman Muto agreed with Commissioner Griffiths. He stated that the approved increased setbacks for two story houses and the F.A.R. restrictions was a response to the concerns of the people with regard to over- building. These measures do mitigate the concerns of the people with regard to the large two -story dwell- ings. He agreed with the position that was taken last time to not further restrict the lot development. Commissioner Budds stated he had been the descending vote on that particular issue, therefore was not repre- sentative of the full Commission. Commissioner Griffiths asked if the City should impose condition of single story residence in the flag portion of a flag lot subdivision which would in effect create a special class or R -1. Why not consider increasing the square foot area required for flag lots to 9,000 or 10,000 square feet in order to keep the intrusion onto the neighbors down to a minimum. Commissioner Seibert stated that the neighbor you are concerned about intruding upon can build a two -story house, 15 feet from his back lot line, following the setbacks, and do exactly what is being objected to on the flag lot. That is not fair or right. If we are restricting that on the flag lot, why not restrict the owner of the standard lot. Commissioner Griffiths stated that the consideration is that the flag lot portion in the back impacts more surrounding property than one that faces on the street which would only impact 3 or 4 neighbors and the flag lot may impact 5 or 6 neighbors. Commissioner Seibert stated the single lot could also impact more. There is a multitude of possibilities. You are giving some owners rights that you are taking away from others. Commissioner Budds stated that the right being dis- cussed was given with the flag lot ordinance. The Ordinance gave the individual who had the large piece of property a right to cut that lot in half and have an additional lot. This should have been foreseen and the restriction placed at that time. Commissioner Seibert stated he would rather see the flag lot eliminated. Commissioner Budds agreed. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 25, 1989 Commissioner Griffiths stated the flag lot ordinance was created to address a specific need and the Commis- sion did a good job with that. Commissioner Budds stated that his perception of the flag lot ordinance was that both the Commission and the Council were trying to bend over backwards to assist individuals who had that type of lot and this is now backfiring. Commissioner Seibert stated that some of the large lots - were in the R -2, but the majority were not. When the General Plan was in the process of reducing density and by doing that the owners of the large lots were asking what they could do and the flag lot was re- established. Flag lots had not been allowed for a number of years. It is not the best, but was a solution at that time. He again reiterated he would like to see the flag lots eliminated totally. Commissioner Budds stated he had no problem with elimi- nating the flag lots as it chops up an R -1 neighborhood with a house behind a house. Chairman Muto stated the feelings had been expressed in detail and that there is not a great deal of support by the Commission. The recommendation is to reconsider possible limitation of development on future flag lots. Commissioner Budds moved to transmit their comments to the Council. Seconded by Commissioner Seibert and approved unanimously. 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None 9. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: Robert McGinnis, 6120 North Camellia, stated he had heard Mrs. Swain say the reason the City had incorporated was to cut down on building at the time. He stated he was con- cerned about the building on Lower Azusa just west of Glickman, one at 9545 Garibaldi and one at 6044 North Camel- lia Avenue. He stated these should not be called projects but rather developments. He stated the project at 6044 Camellia is working is reverse for the flag lot behind it, which is developed with a single story home. The develop- ment on Camellia will be two story homes and will invade the privacy of the flag lot. He was also concerned about addi- tional children and additional cars. There are no sidewalks " Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 25, 1989 for the children to utilize. Mr. McGinnis asked for clari- fication of the state law that allows the development of the property. Chairman Muto asked Mr. McGinnis what his specific question was and if necessary he would have Mr. Dawson respond. Mr. McGinnis asked specifically what state law allows those people to build on lots. Chairman Muto asked Mr. McGinnis what the zoning was on the property. Mr. McGinnis replied it was R -2. Chairman Muto asked Mr. McGinnis to formulate all his ques- tions and then they would be answered. Mr. McGinnis informed the Commissioners that the new pro- jects were not set back as far as the existing homes on the block. Mr. McGinnis asked what the state law was. Chairman Muto asked if he had further questions. He said he also wanted to know what was going to happen at 6029, 6033 Camellia and on Garibaldi. Chairman Muto informed Mr. McGinnis that Temple City was operating under their local ordinances. Director Dawson stated that in general terms the state law does require the City to adopt a General Plan and then development is permitted in accordance with that General Plan. Projects cannot arbitrarily be turned down if they meet all the standards and requirements as set forth by the City. The Zoning is regulated by the City of Temple City. Commissioner Seibert reiterated that as long as the devel- oper follows the Zoning Code and the laws of the City they can do their projects. All of this was reviewed when the General Plan was redone. Mr. McGinnis wanted to ask additional questions. Chairman Muto informed him he had received the answer to his questions. Planning Commission Minutes Page-9 July 25, 1989 City Manager Koski stated that the time for those in the audience who wish to speak should not become a question and answer period. This is a business agenda for the Planning Commission. Staff is available at City Hall during normal working hours to answer questions of the public. Calvin Jones, 4841 Agnes Avenue, asked what a negative declaration was. Chairman Muto informed him that meant a report investigating the impacts that a project could have in a particular area and the results of report or negative declaration concluded there would be no significant negative impacts. Mr. Jones asked who receives the report. Director Dawson stated the report was posted and was pro- vided to the Planning Commissioners for their consideration. The owner submits the application for the project and the staff conducts the environmental analysis and the negative declaration is prepared by the staff, recommended to the Commission and the Commission approves the negative declara- tion before they take action to approve the project. Mr. Jones indicated there was a great deal of traffic in the area around Lower Azusa and that people from El Monte are parking in the area. City Manager Koski stated that one of the problems was with the employees south of Lower Azusa parking on Agnes and Lower Azusa. Mrs. Jones stated they live next to some condominiums and asked if more were going to be constructed. City Manager Koski stated the Zoning Map in the rear of the chamber would help. The project approved tonight is the northerly. most R -2 lot where condominiums could be devel- oped. 10. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: None " 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1989 11. ADJOURNMENT: Page 10 As there was no further business, Chairman Muto adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, August 8, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 5938 North Kauffman Avenue, Temple City.