The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutMinutes - 1989/09/26 - Regular" INITIATION: 1. CALL . TO ORDER: CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 Pursuant to Agenda posted September 22, 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: Also Present: City Attorney Martin, Community Develop- ment Director Dawson, and Assistant Planner Kates. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Seibert moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Griffiths and approved with Commis- sioner Budds abstaining. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of September 12, 1989 Approved as written B. VACATION OF STREETS - BLOCK "A" Location: Elm Avenue between Reno Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard & Reno Avenue between Elm Avenue and Las Tunas Drive Made finding that proposed street vacations are consis- tent with the General Plan. " " " r Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1989 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Page 2 A. CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING: PARCEL MAP 21300 ZONE VARIANCE 89 -1004 Site: 10546 E. DAINES DRIVE Owner /Applicant: Engineer: Request: RICHARD GILCHRIST 10546 E. DAINES DRIVE TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 PAUL D. SHIPLEY P. 0. BOX 479 SAN GABRIEL, CA 91776 To subdivide an R -1 Zoned Lot into two parcels, one being a Flag Lot and a Zone Variance to allow an existing garage to be relocated along the east prop- erty line instead of the re- quired 5 feet therefrom. Chairman Muto asked Director Dawson for an update. Director Dawson informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a revised plot plan and has requested a withdrawal of the variance portion. Director Dawson further stated that the applicant had opposition to Con- ditions 27, 28, and 29 with reference to fire flows and to Condition 35 which required all utilities be placed under- ground, including the utilities serving the existing building. He stated that these conditions are typical for flag lot subdivisions and other property owners have been required to meet these conditions. Director Dawson stated there was a policy question with regard to the fire hy- drants in that this particular area does not have suffi- cient water pressure to meet the minimum requirements of the Fire Department. He stated that the Fire Department may grant a variance from the fire hydrant requirement if the dwelling has fire sprinklers installed. Director Dawson asked if the Commission wanted to approve subdivi- sions of flag lots when there is inadequate fire flow to meet the minimum standards or do we want to allow the Fire Department to grant variances to eventually build on these lots and have a full sprinkler system in the dwelling. In terms of the utilities, the applicant was still dis- agreeing. However, staff feels that condition must be met. All utilities must be underground, including those serving the existing dwelling. City Attorney Martin asked what the hardship was. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 26, 1989 Director Dawson stated that as he understood it, the applicant could not meet the required flows because the water company did not have adequate pressure in the area and the applicant was seeking relief from a condition. Chairman Muto asked it that related to more than one condition. Director Dawson replied it related to Conditions 27, 28, and 29 which were received from the Fire Department. The Department has a set of standards and in certain in- stances, particularly if a lot is already in existence, the Fire Department has a variance procedure and they will grant a variance to allow sprinkler systems in a new house on already existing lots, however, in this case, the lot is not already existing, but is being proposed to be created. The public hearing was re- opened. Richard Gilchrist, 10546 D. Daines Drive, reiterated he was requesting approval of a flag lot. He stated that in response to the previous meeting and the Commission's concerns regarding the relocation of the existing garage to set directly on the property line on the easterly side of the property, he was withdrawing the variance request and has placed the garage in an area that would meet the Code standards and not require a variance. With regard to the underground utilities, he stated he understood the City's concerns and he would agree to meet that condition. With regard to the Fire Department requirement for fire flows, the California American Water District and their engineers had informed him there was nothing he could do to the system that exists in the area to improve it in such a way to meet the standards. The Water Company is aware of the problem and has budgeted a construction project for fiscal 1991 in which they would redevelop an existing well and run feeder lines to the various streets in the area. Upon completion of the water company pro - ject, the hydrant in the area would then meet the stan- dards. They have budgeted $300,000 to develop the well and $186,000 to install the proper pipelines required. Mr. Gilchrist stated that in order to complete his subdi- vision and record a final map he needs to have that com- pleted. He was concerned about the time frame set forth in the conditions and the fact that the water company might not have the project completed. He stated that in lieu of that he contacted Forester & Fire Warden since they had specified the standards for fire flows. He read a letter from the Fire Department that he had just re- ceived and provided the Commission with a copy. He indicated a copy had been sent to the City, but probably " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 26, 1989 not received as yet. The letter indicated that in lieu of meeting the fire flows, a sprinkler system designed and constructed to meet National Fire Prevention Association 13 -D Standards would suffice. He stated his goal was to have a fire system that was sufficient to meet the stan- dards at the time of recordation of the final map, and with inadequate water flow he might not be able to meet those standards unless allowed to have a sprinkler system. Mr. Gilchrist reiterated the fact that he was removing his variance request and that he was in agreement with the City requirements for underground utilities. He stated he was not opposed to meeting the fire flow standards and have proper fire fighting capability, but asked that consideration be given to the alternative the Fire De- partment would allow. Chairman Muto asked what the date was on the letter. Mr. Gilchrist stated he had sent a letter to the Forester and Fire Warden on August 30 and their reply was dated September 22, 1989. Mr. Gilchrist also provided a copy of the letters from the water purveyor explaining their situation and indicating they are going to redevelop the system in 1991. There was no opposition. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Seibert. Commissioner Budds stated he had reviewed the minutes of the last meeting and was familiar with the case. City Attorney Martin asked if there was any objection to Commissioner Budds' participation. There was no objection. Commissioner Seibert asked if the three fire flow con- ditions were eliminated in lieu of the sprinkler system, what burden would be placed on the City to follow through when the property is being developed. Director Dawson stated that as a condition of recording the final map a covenant could be recorded that prior to the sale or any construction on Parcel No. 2 the sprinkler condition must be met. A copy of that requirement could be placed in the building files and address file. How- ever, there is a chance it would be missed. Checking " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 26, 1989 those files is not automatic. Any future buyer would be advised with the covenant recorded. There is no automatic system. Commissioner Seibert asked if it were put into the con- ditions, what happens. Director Dawson stated that the conditions are checked before the final map is recorded, but construction would come after that. Chairman Muto asked if during the subdivision process a clearance from the Fire Department is obtained. Director Dawson stated that the Fire Department does review the final map, but with the variance from the Fire Department for sprinklers, that Department would probably sign off the final map. There is not an automatic review of every new dwelling by the Fire Department, only through the tract map procedure. Commissioner Budds again asked about the tracking. Commissioner Griffiths stated there was none. Commissioner Budds asked about the fire hydrant. Director Dawson stated there would be a tracking if the City required the fire hydrant be improved or upgraded prior to recordation of the final map. The applicant would be held up on the subdivision until there was ade- quate fire flow. Commissioner Seibert stated if the water company could not meet the required fire flows, then there should be no development in that area at all. Director Dawson indicated that staff did not know what the cumulative effect would be if the entire area is defi- cient. They may not want to approve any additional flag lots in that area or they may want to look at the magni- tude. Commissioner Griffiths expressed concern about substitut- ing the sprinkler system for the required conditions and the shortage of water in the area and possible other applicants coming forth in the same area that also would be unable to meet the conditions. The applicant cannot increase the fire flow until the water company does some- thing. The Commission will have to make a choice whether to allow any development at all in that particular area or to allow the sprinkler system. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1989 Page 6 Commissioner Seibert stated that there was no true follow up to make sure that sprinklers are installed. He stated that if the water company cannot provide the required flow, why allow subdivisions. Commissioner Griffiths asked about holding off the whole process and having the applicant re -apply when the water system is upgraded. Director Dawson asked City Attorney Martin if there was any other mechanism for identifying flag lots that would require fire sprinklers if such a condition were imposed. City Attorney Martin stated that at this time an outside study should probably be made and under the circumstances of the water company's lack of water perhaps we should have a moratorium in that area. If the recommendation is yes, we should have the moratorium, then we should not be approving anything. Commissioner Seibert asked if they could deny without prejudice or with prejudice, whichever was correct. Commissioner Griffiths stated the whole package looked very good with the exception of the fire flows. City Attorney Martin stated there was a long history with Cal American of things that were going to be done and never get done. Commissioner Seibert asked if the case should be continued indefinitely. City Attorney Martin stated that possibly within two to four weeks the City should be able to get a definite answer from Cal American or the Fire Department and ask if under the circumstances that the water company does noth- ing, would they recommend expanding the buildable area or would they recommend a moratorium until there is a solu- tion. He stated he was not in favor of people building houses that cannot be protected. Director Dawson indicated a study should be made to deter- mine the total cumulative impact of how many lots are in the area that could be subdivided. City Attorney Martin stated it should be determined if it just does not meet technical standards or if it is just outright dangerous. Director Dawson indicated he would contact the Fire De- partment to determine the requirements. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 26, 1989 Commissioner Griffiths asked if the Fire Department stan- dards real or just wishes. Commissioner Seibert asked Mr. Gilchrist if he would have any objections to continuing the public hearing for an- other month while staff researches the matter. Mr. Gilchrist indicated he would accept approval of all conditions. Commissioner Seibert stated his choice at this point was continuance or denial until answers are received from the water company and the Fire Department. Commissioner Griffiths asked if the Fire Department would change the values to something that could be met. He also stated he wanted to know when and how they could be met by the water company. Mr. Gilchrist indicated the water company said the flow was about 150 gallons off the requirement or approximately 18% low. Commissioner Seibert moved to continue the public hearing to November 14, 1989. Seconded by Commissioner Griffiths and approved unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21384 Site: 5114 -5116 DOREEN AVENUE Owner: MR. & MRS. TIEN -FU CHENG 218 N. EL MOLINO ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 Architect: Engineer: Request: STEVE SHIH -YUAN WU 748 SOUTH GARFIELD AVENUE MONTEREY PARK. CA 91754 BRIAN WANG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1641 W. MAIN STREET, #410 ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 To subdivide an existing 17,647 square foot R -1 Zoned Lot into two parcels, one being a Flag Lot. Chairman Muto asked if the notices had been sent. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 26, 1989 Director Dawson replied they had and presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Steve Wu, 748 S. Garfield Avenue, Monterey Park, stated he had not looked into the issue of fire flow. He stated he did not know whether he should look into the matter before the Commission acted. Commissioner Seibert asked if he had any opposition to the conditions on fire flow. The applicant stated he had no objections to any of the conditions. Director Dawson stated there had been a lot split on the corner of Freer and Doreen which was approved within the last eighteen months and the final map has been recorded which would indicate that the fire flow had been met at that location. City Attorney Martin reiterated that Mr. Gilchrist had stated the flow was 18% below that required. However, what is unknown is whether that is like saying your watch is no good because it is three seconds slow or your watch is no good, the hands fell off. Pete B. Florio, 10604 Freer Street, stated he lived on the corner of Doreen and Freer and the water pressure was not too good. He wanted to know why someone would want to divide a 17,000 foot lot and build two new homes. He felt new homes might be too large. He further stated the community had been talking about restricting growth. There is good reason to do that. He stated he had moved to Temple City because it was known as single family residences. Chairman Muto reminded Mr. Florio that the issue before the Commission was to divide one lot into two lots and that the owners of large lots in Temple City have that right as long as they meet the Code requirements. He asked Mr. Florio to explain why he felt that this particu- lar request should not be considered or approved. Mr. Florio said it would take water from the lines that are not supplying enough now. He stated they did not want to see a lot of little teeny houses come in to neighbor- hoods that have single houses on 18,000 foot lots. He was not in favor of small lots within the City. Commissioner Seibert moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Budds. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 26, 1989 Commissioner Budds stated he was not sure that they were short of water in the area. It has not been established that this proposed lot split is in the same water company as the previous request. Commissioner Griffiths stated that with a little effort that could be answered. Director Dawson stated that would not tell us the water pressure. Commissioner Budds stated there were already two houses on the lot so the conditions would not be any worse. Commissioner Seibert reiterated the applicant was not objecting to the requirement. Commissioner Griffiths stated it was a reasonable require- ment, however, can the requirement be met. The facts to support an answer to that are not available. Commissioner Budds stated that if the requirement could not be met, he could not build. Commissioner Seibert stated that if the requirement were not met, the final map could not be recorded. Director Dawson stated that clearance from the Fire De- partment must be obtained before approval of the final map for recordation. If the fire flow requirements cannot be met, the final map would not be approved. Commissioner Griffiths stated the applicant should verify that information before he proceeds too much further. Commissioner Seibert moved to approve Parcel Map 21384 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. B. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21360 ZONE VARIANCE 89 -1005 Site: 5214 DOREEN AVENUE Owner /Applicant: Engineer: BLAISE HABELL 5214 DOREEN AVENUE TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 EDWARD J. DeVRIEZE P. 0. BOX 479 SAN GABRIEL, CA 91778 " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 26, 1989 Request: To subdivide a 110 foot wide R -1 parcel into two (2) 55 foot wide lots instead of the minimum required width of 60 feet. Each proposed lot would consist of approximately 10,807 square feet of area. Chairman Muto asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had and presented the staff report. The Commissioners looked at a map provided by staff show- ing the water companies serving Temple City and indicated it was a different water company. The public hearing was opened. Ed DeVrieze, 1320 South Gladys Avenue, San Gabriel, engi- neer for the project, stated that the applicant, Mr. Habell had no objections to any of the conditions includ- ing the water. Bruce J, Berghoefer, 2329 North Cathryn, South San Gab- riel, owner of property at 5033 North Pal Mal stated that the City of Temple City had a requirement of a minimum 60 foot wide lot. When you start cutting up the lots you end up with substandard widths. He thought perhaps there were other ways of subdividing. He was not in favor of lots of less than the minimum width requirement. He had no prob- lem with the additional house. Commissioner Seibert asked how wide his lot was. Mr. Berghoefer replied his was 75 feet wide and 175 feet long. He stated he did not live at the Pal Mal address, but at the South San Gabriel address. Commissioner Seibert moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Griffiths. Commissioner Seibert asked Director Dawson how wide the lots were on Pal Mal. Director Dawson replied he did not have the figures. Commissioner Griffiths indicated it looked like the lots were around 75 feet. Commissioner Seibert asked about the dotted lines shown on the map. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 26, 1989 Director Dawson stated those were lots that were created before the Subdivision Map Act was enacted. Basically, they were lot splits that occurred by sale. They are considered separate lots and are under separate ownership. Commissioner Seibert indicated he had no problems with the proposed lot split. Commissioner Griffiths stated the variance would be required no matter how the property was cut up. In the immediate neighborhood the properties have been cut up into much smaller parcels over the years. On the north end of Doreen there are also a number of flag lots, tier lots, etc. On the basis that the rest of the neighborhood has been subdivided into smaller parcels he stated he had no problem with the request. Commissioner Budds agreed with Commissioner Griffiths. The area is already subdivided and there is only this lot and a couple of others that can be split. There is no reason to deny the applicant the right others in the area have had. Chairman Muto stated that the two lots would still be oversized lots at 10,800 square feet each. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map 21360 and Zone Variance 89 -1005 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Budds and approved unanimously. Commissioner Seibert asked Chairman Muto to indicate to the audience that this is a different water company than the previous request. Chairman Muto indicated to the audience that the Commis- sion had looked at a chart indicating the different water companies and this particular proposal does indeed have a different water company. Chairman Muto also informed the audience that there was an appeal period of 10 days for any project. If someone is not satisfied with the decision of the Commission they do have the right of appeal within a 10 day period. C. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20992 Site: 5529 EL MONTE AVENUE Owner /Applicant: DAVID & JUDY KNIPSCHEER 5939 N. OAK AVENUE TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 September 26, 1989 Engineer: EDWARD J. DeVRIEZE P. 0. BOX 479 SAN GABRIEL, CA 91778 Request: To subdivide an existing 21,576 square foot R -1 Zoned lot into two parcels, one being a Flag Lot. Chairman Muto asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson replied they had and presented the staff report. Commissioner Seibert indicated the water district was California American. Director Dawson indicated that in the future, staff should require that the water pressure tests are completed prior to submittal of the application to avoid such a problem. Normally, just a condition is imposed. However, in the previous case, the applicant looked into it further and uncovered the problem in meeting the condition. There may be others that have been approved and unbeknownst to the property owner, it may not be possible to meet such a requirement. He reiterated that staff would require the water pressure information be submitted at the time of application. The public hearing was opened. Ed DeVrieze, Engineer, stated they had no problems with the conditions for the parcel map. He asked if they were locked into the location of the garage. They would rather move it back near the rear property line and further away from the south property line and still have the driveway come out onto El Monte Avenue. Commissioners Budds and Seibert indicated there would be no problem with the relocation as long as the setback requirements were met. Mr. DeVrieze asked for clarification on Ordinance 89 -654 which would limit the house on Parcel No. 2 to a single story. Commissioner Seibert indicated to Mr. DeVrieze that the City Council had passed that Ordinance. Mr. DeVrieze asked if there was a grandfather clause. • " Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1989 Page 13 Director Dawson indicated that the Ordinance had been approved by the City Council on the 15th of August and took effect on the 15th of September and any flag lots approved after that date by law can only be single story residences not higher than 20 feet. It was included as a condition for advisory purposes. Mr. DeVrieze asked about Condition 43 which required a covenant for the front house. He said his understanding was that this was necessary since the front of the house would only be 14 feet from the new property line after the dedication for the street. He stated that the porch on the house is the total width. He indicated that to re- strict that house to its conforming now as it is only 1200 or 1300 square feet would place a hardship on the owner if they wanted to add a bedroom. He asked if it would be possible, if they were to remove most of the porch and only have a porch and step for the entrance, for the house to be remodeled at some future date. Commissioner Griffiths asked what the depth of the porch was. Mr. DeVrieze stated the depth was 6 feet. Commissioner Seibert indicated the house could be remod- eled as long as it fell within the 20 foot setback re- quirements. If that involves removing the porch, then that is what it would be and redesigning the entrance would be a possibility. Mr. DeVrieze reiterated that if they maintain a 20 foot setback from the new property line they could then remodel in the future. Joseph Tanacsos, 5537 El Monte Avenue, stated he had no objection to the project, but did have some questions. He asked about the double line on the plan. Commissioner Seibert indicated that was the distance from the property line to the driveway. Mr. Tanacsos asked about the Pine trees that might be affected. Commissioner Griffiths stated it did not appear there would be any need to take the trees down. Director Dawson indicated there was no proposed street widening at this time. Only the dedication for right of way is involved. The trees that would be in that 8 foot right of way could remain as they are. " " Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1989 Page 14 Mr. Tanacsos asked about the grapestake fence. He wanted to know if there was any plan to remove the fence and replace it. Director Dawson indicated there was a requirement to provide a 6 foot high block wall constructed down the center of the lot to separate proposed Parcel No. 1 and proposed Parcel No. 2 on the new common property line. However, there is no other suggested requirement for fencing or walls. Doug Kempt, 10650 Danbury Street, also asked about the possibility of a wall on the north side. He reiterated Mr. Tanacsos' concerns that it was an old fence. He proposed a 6 foot block wall on the north side of the property to distinguish it from the other properties. He also stated he agreed with the single story requirement for flag lots. Commissioner Griffiths indicated the tier lot property owners should accomplish the wall through some cooperative arrangement with the owner of the proposed flag lot. Commissioner Budds moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Seibert. Commissioner Budds stated he had no problem with the request. With regard to the block wall on the north property line, there is already a driveway in existence as well as the two dwellings, which would not increase any traffic and he did not feel the block wall was merited. Commissioner Seibert concurred. Commissioner Griffiths stated this was the same water company and he said he would like to know if the applicant can improve the fire flow. He also questioned the word perpendicular in Condition No. 39. He said it should read parallel. Commissioner Budds moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map 20992 based upon the findings and subject to the con- ditions of approval with Condition No. 43 modified with the addition of "unless said dwelling unit is brought into conformity in terms of the front yard setback ". Seconded by Commissioner Seibert and approved unanimously. Chairman Muto informed everyone of the 10 day appeal period. " " Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1989 Page 15 D. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE 89-1019 Site: 5532 PARMERTON Owner /Applicant: MARK T. & FILIPPA CRISCI 5532 PARMERTON AVENUE TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 Request: To allow a second story side yard setback of 7 feet instead of the required 10 foot second story side yard setback Chairman Muto indicated the applicant requested a continu- ance. Director Dawson indicated that when the staff report was being prepared, it was discovered there were some errors made in terms of lot dimensions and size of the proposed addition, which created problems in meeting the Floor Area Ratio. Staff met with the property owner, who has re- quested a continuance to a date uncertain. The property owner will revise his plans and may come back with single story construction rather than two -story construction. Commissioner Griffiths moved to continue the public hear- ing to a date unspecified.. Seconded by Commissioner Seibert and approved unanimously. E. STUDY SESSION (Cont'd) Commission will review current moratorium ordinances and dis- cuss Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) restrictions. Commissioner Seibert moved to hold the study session after the completion of the rest of the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Griffiths and approved unanimously. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None 8. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: Cheryl Avelar, 5104 North Doreen, indicated there was some confusion as to the decision on the property at 5114 Doreen. She asked about the water district. Commissioner Seibert indicated it was in different water dis- trict. " Commissioner Griffiths stated it was not in the water district that the Commission knows has a flow problem. " " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 September 26, 1989 Ms. Avelar indicated the Commission had approved it, but stated they had requested the applicant obtain a study. Commissioner Griffiths stated it was just to advise the appli- cant that he should check out the water flow before proceeding too far. Ms. Avelar asked about the one story restriction on flag lots and did it apply in this case. Commissioner Griffiths stated it applied to the flag lot por- tion, but not the front lot. Ms. Avelar asked for clarification of a flag lot. Commissioner Seibert stated it was the lot behind with a drive- way on the side for access. Ms. Avelar expressed concern about vacant properties and the lack of maintenance. She stated Temple City does encourage residents to take pride in ownership. Commissioner Seibert indicated that they asked for help from the citizens of the community to advise City Hall of any public nuisance problems. Ms. Avelar asked if owners were required to maintain the lots until they start building. Commissioners Seibert and Budds indicated they were required to keep it within reason. The weeds cannot become a public nuisance. Bruce K. Berghoefer, 2329 North Cathryn, South San Gabriel, stated that one of the most important reasons for maintaining a property is fire danger with tall weeds. They should be kept under 6 or 8 inches high. Commissioner Griffiths indicated the City had the mechanics to make it happen, but they had to be notified. 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: Commissioner Budds stated that the Fire Department requires certain conditions be met, and then send the applicant a letter granting him a variance that occurs after construction with no follow up mechanism to be sure it is accomplished. He asked Director Dawson to address the matter with the Fire Department. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 September 26, 1989 Director Dawson stated it was a problem only with single family homes. On multiple family projects, the plans are referred to the Fire Department during the plan check process. He indi- cated he would confer with both Building & Safety and Fire Department to straighten out the - inconsistencies. 10. ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business, Commissioner Griffiths moved and Commissioner Seibert seconded the motion to adjourn to the study session at 9:15 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, November 26, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 5938 North Kauffman Ave- nue, Temple City. ATTEST: elej-2,7 Secretary