Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1991/07/23 - RegularTEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 23, 1991 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to the Agenda posted on July 19, 1991, Chairman Budds called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Coun- cil Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Chairman Griffiths led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Griffiths, Muto, Souder and Budds Also Present: City Attorney Martin, Community Development Director Dawson and Associate Planner Kates Absent: Commissioner Seibert Commissioner Griffiths moved to excuse Commissioner Seibert for cause, seconded by Commissioner Muto and unanimously carried. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of July 23, 1991 B. SIGN APPROVAL: SIGN NO. 91 -44 Site: 9564 LAS TUNAS DRIVE Applicant: MASSIES C. USE APPROVAL: 9607 LAS TUNAS DRIVE Request: A request to sell previously used clothing as a secondary and incidental use within a proposed boutique in the C -1 Zone. Chairman Budds removed Item C from the Consent Calen- dar. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve Items A -B, seconded by Commissioner Souder and unanimously carried. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 23, 1991 Chairman Budds asked how conditions could be attached to this approval. Director Dawson stated that the Code allows for a review by the Planning Commission and therefore condi- tions could be incorporated into the approval of the request. He also mentioned that the conditions were that no signage referencing the used clothing shall be visible from the exterior and that no used merchandise shall be displayed in the window area. Chairman Budds wanted the minutes to reflect that the approval of the request included these conditions mentioned by Director Dawson. Commissioner Muto moved to approve Item C with condi- tions, seconded by Commissioner Souder and unanimously carried. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE 91 -1094 Site: 6251 PRIMROSE AVENUE Owner /Applicant: JOHN BRUMMELKAMP 6251 PRIMROSE AVENUE TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780 • Request: A Yard Determination and Zone Variance to allow a 4 foot side yard setback for both the first and the second story of a new two -story addition in the Single Family (R -1) Zone. Chairman Budds asked if the notices ad been sent. Director Dawson stated that the notices had been sent and continued with the presentation of the background information stating that the applicant proposes to construct a two -story addition to the existing house. He stated that staff determined that the east portion of the lot be the front yard, the north and southwest portions be .considered side yards and the western portion be the rear yard. He further stated that the • side yard setback for both the first and second story would be 4 feet from the southwest property line, instead of 5 feet for the first and 10 feet for the second. He concluded by stating that although the lot " Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 " " July 23, 1991 was slightly less than the minimum required lot size, the addition could be accommodated without benefit of a zone variance. There being no questions for staff, Chairman Budds opened the public hearing. John Brummelkamp, 6251 Primrose Avenue, stated that the planners had done a good job in assessing the situa- tion, but that the conclusion that he could redesign the addition to meet the required setbacks was not true and that he had met with a number of designers and architects and had attempted to meet the required standards but was unable to. He stated that changing the design would require extensive unpinning of foot- ings and extensive reorganization of the walls inside the house which would displace his family for a period of 6 to 8 months. He also stated that if he met the setback he would lose about 100 square feet. He stated that the variance would not negatively impact any property owners since he abuts a school yard. He further stated that he contacted the school office at the district and was told that they did not feel there would be a negative impact upon the school. Chairman Budds stated that between the garage and the house there was an existing breezeway. He asked Mr. Brummelkamp if he considered enclosing the breezeway or possibly building over it. Mr. Brummelkamp stated that the current plans show building over the breezeway, but not closing it off. The breezeway was 10 feet wide and would not accommo- date another bedroom. Commissioner Griffiths asked if the addition could be moved to the north about 4 or 5 feet would it interfere with the living space below. Mr. Brummelkamp stated that moving the addition would require significant footing work and would cause the windows to be askew and that one of his primary con- cerns was to make the addition look aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Souder asked Commissioner Griffiths if his question was if Mr. Brummelkamp could move his garage pad forward. Commissioner Griffiths stated that his questions was if the addition could be slid northerly five feet. Commissioner Souder asked if they were all attached now. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 23, 1991 Mr. Brummelkamp stated that was all attached by the front roof line. He also stated that the garage was already set pretty close to the 20 foot front setback line. Commissioner Souder stated that the setback would be about 29 feet. Commissioner Griffiths stated that the 29 feet included the curb and public right -of -way Mr. Brummelkamp reiterated that the lot was an odd shape and it was an undersized lot. Erna Maron, 6248 Primrose, stated that she lived across the street from the Brummelkamps and would be one of the neighbors that would be negative affected by the addition. She stated that the Brummelkamps had given much thought to the addition . and she did not have any problems with the addition. She also pointed out that there was a school yard on the other side of the sub- ject lot. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hear- ing, seconded by Commissioner Muto and unanimously car- ried. Commissioner Griffiths stated that he agreed with the yard determination, but he could not make all the findings to grant the variance. Commissioner Muto stated that he viewed the case a little differently. He continued stating that the size and configuration was a problem and where the addition was located seemed reasonable. He did not believe the addition would be a detriment to the properties and could make the findings for approval. Chairman Budds asked what Commissioner Muto thought about the yard determination. Commissioner Muto answered that he had no problem with the determination. Commissioner Souder agreed with both the Commissioners, but he also had some problems and felt that the archi- tect could have designed it so that it met the City requirements. He concluded by stating that he had no problem with the yard determination. • • • " " Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1991 Page 5 Chairman Budds stated that he could make the findings and also stated that the corner with the 4 foot setback backs up on a school yard. He asked if the Commission- ers wished to discuss it further. Commissioner Griffiths said he had the findings. Chairman Budds asked if a tree Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Souder asked what kind of tree. some difficulty with be included in the Director Dawson stated that staff would suggest a 15 gallon box -size tree. Commissioner Muto moved to approve the Yard Determina- tion and Zone Variance 91 -1094, with the additional condition that a 15 gallon box -size tree be planted along the two story building wall, based upon the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Griffiths and unanimously carried. Chairman Budds stated that there was a 10 -day appeal period in which anyone may appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Council. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Site: Owner /Applicant: Request: ZONE VARIANCE 91 -1098 10915 WILDFLOWER ROAD RAYMOND CLEMENTI 10915 WILDFLOWER ROAD TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780 A Zone Variance to allow a home addition with 374 square feet of open space rather than the 500 square feet required in the Single Family Residential (R -1) Zone. Chairman Budds asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson stated that the notices had been sent and continued with the presentation of the background information stating that the lot was currently improved with a 1,191 square foot dwelling on a 5,227.6 square foot lot. He continued by stated that the applicant wishes to construct a 583 square foot addition with a total floor area of 1,776 square feet and that a vari- ance was for open space. He explained that the re- quired open space was 500 square feet and that with the addition only 374 square feet of open space would be Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 23, 1991 provided. He concluded by stating that surrounding properties had similar type additions and that there would be no impact on surrounding properties. Director Dawson stated that he received written testi- mony from Mae Rosenkranz, 5351 Welland Avenue, stating that allowing the variance would be in keeping with the aesthetics of the neighborhood and would affect the density, sewerage, traffic, police or fire departments, environment or overcrowding of the schools which are my main concerns. She continued to state that must homes in the area were on substandard lots anyway and would qualify for the open space requirement either. In closing she stated that she was in favor of the re- quest. Commissioner Souder asked if the patio was fully en- closed. • Director Dawson stated that it was an open patio that would be removed and replaced with an enclosed build- ing. There being no other questions for staff, Chairman Budds • opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Raymond Clementi, 10915 Wildflower Road, stated that his lot was substandard in size and because of this it made it difficult to design an addition for a modest size home. He concluded by stating that by granting the variance the Commission would allow him to enjoy a right enjoyed by other property owners. Chairman Budds asked how many people resided in the home. Mr. Clementi answered that four people lived in the home. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hear- ing, seconded by Commissioner Souder and unanimously carried. Commissioner Muto stated that the lot was extremely small and that even with the addition the floor area would only be 1776 square feet which was considered small by today's standards. Commissioners Souder, Griffiths and Budds agreed with • Commissioner Muto's comments. " Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 23, 1991 Commissioner Souder moved to approve Zone Variance 91 -1098, based upon the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Muto and unanimously carried. Chairman Budds stated that there was a 10 -day appeal period in which anyone may appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Council. C. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE 91 -1097 Site: 5539 PARMERTON Owner /Applicant: ROBERT McCORMACK 1328 EAST PUENTE STREET COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91724 Request: A Variance to allow an existing room addition with a rear yard setback of thirteen (13) feet rather than fifteen (15) feet in the Single Family (R -1) Zone. Chairman Budds asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson stated that the notices had been sent and continued with the presentation of the background information stating that the lot was 5,880 square feet and was improved with a 1,645 square foot dwelling with a 367 square foot family room that was built without permits. He also stated that the request was for a zone variance to allow a 13 foot rear yard setback instead of the required 15 feet. He further commented that the subject request was not likely to have a significant impact upon the neighboring properties in that the Arcadia Wash was to the rear of the lot. Commissioner Souder asked when the enclosed patio was converted. Director Dawson asked Associate Planner Kates had any information. Associate Planner Kates stated that he did not have that information, but the applicant was present and could possibly answer that question. Chairman Budds asked how this was brought to the City's attention. Associate Planner Kates stated that it was the result of a code enforcement complaint and then the Community Development Department was called out to the site and confirmed that there were no permits for the structure. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 23, 1991 There being no other questions for staff, Chairman Budds opened the public hearing and invited the appli- cant to speak. Robert McCormack, 1328 East Puente Street, Covina, stated that when he purchased the property, the en- closed patio was existing and that he just improved what was there. He also stated that he would like to bring the property into conformity with the Building codes and that it was desirable to have the family room. Commissioner Souder asked when he purchased the property. • Mr. McCormack stated that he purchased the property in 1986. Commissioner Souder asked if the patio was enclosed. Mr. McCormack answered yes Commissioner Souder asked if it was currently in the • same condition. Mr. McCormack stated that it was existing. Chairman Budds asked if he lived in the home. Mr. McCormack answered that he did not live there at this time. Commissioner Souder asked if he intended to move into this house. Mr. McCormack stated that he lived in the home for two years and now used the home as a rental. Chairman Budds asked how Mr. McCormack felt about a condition of approval requirng that the addition be brought up to code. Mr. McCormack stated that he would agree to the condi- tion. Mark Crisci, 5532 Parmerton, stated that the only reason Mr. McCormack was here tonight was because he got caught and that another good reason to allow the addition was that it was a monetarily beneficial in the marketing of the rental. He also stated that the addition was not on a raised slab and that the founda- tion was part brick and part slab. He stated that you could see light come through the fireplace near the • " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 23, 1991 roof line and that he was not sure if there was rebar or if it meets the side setback. He also pointed out that the skylight was made by cutting a hole in the roof and placed a piece of corrugated fiberglass. He concluded by stating that he had also gone through the variance process and he understands why there were certain code requirements, but if the Commission al- lowed this type of construction it would not benefit anyone other than Mr. McCormack. He concluded by stating that Manny Aquino, the neighbor to the south, was not able to attend, but was also against the grant- ing of the variance. Chairman Budds asked if Mr. Crisci objected, because it was not owner occupied. Mr. Crisci stated that he did not object to that as long as it has good tenants. Chairman Budds stated that the majority of his objec- tions was that the building addition did not meet the Building Code and asked if that was correct. Mr. Crisci answered that was correct. Chairman Budds asked if he had a problem with granting the variance with the condition that the addition be brought up to code. Mr. Crisci stated that he saw his point, but the foun- dation is not up to code and that would have to come off so what was the point of granting the variance if the addition would need substantial corrections. Chairman Budds stated that of course if that was the condition, then it would have to be done. Mr. Crisci stated that he had to go through a lot to get approval of his addition. Chairman Budds stated that he had a letter from Mr. Anderson of 10778 Daneswood Drive in Temple City ob- jecting to the variance. He presented the letter to the Commission Secretary. Mr. Crisci stated that the enclosed patio was not enclosed with screens when Mr. McCormack purchased the house. Mr. McCormack stated that the Commission should take in account that the modifications had been there. He also stated that Mr. Crisci was angry because of previously undesirable tenants living in the house and that during the process of evicting the tenant Mr. Crisci would Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 23, 1991 call at all hours of the night to complain. He felt that this was simply a matter of spite and that he was more than willing to bring the addition up to code. Kathy Nign, 5545 Parmerton, stated that she had lived in her home for fifteen years and that when Mr. McCormack enclosed the patio he bragged that he had done it without permits. She was concerned that if it was not built to code, the electrical wiring could cause a fire. She provided the Commission with pic- tures of the interior of the family room. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hear- ing, seconded by Commissioner Souder and unanimously carried. Director Dawson asked if there was a report from the Building Inspector. Associate Kates stated that he was not aware if the Inspector was called out to the site. Director Dawson stated that one option would be for the Commission to continue the hearing to the next meeting and request an inspection by the Building Inspector to determine whether or not the addition would meet the code. City Attorney Martin stated that it may not be possible to bring the addition up to conformity. Commissioner Griffiths stated that based on the infor- mation received he might have granted the variance, but after hearing the testimony and seeing the pictures he felt that the Building Inspector should go out and conduct an inspection. The other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Griffiths moved to continue the public hearing for Zone Variance 91 -1097 to the meeting of August 13, 1991, seconded by Commissioner Souder and unanimously carried. Chairman Budds stated that the public hearing was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on August 13, 1991. • • Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 23, 1991 D. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE 91 -1091 Site: 5939 OAK AVENUE Owner /Applicant: JOHNNY TAN 5939 NORTH OAK AVENUE TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780 Architect: Request: RICHARD C. DIRADOURIAN, AIA 2613 HERMOSA AVENUE MONTROSE, CALIFORNIA 91020 A Variance to allow two (2) 121 square foot structures at Leo's Body & Fender business, an existing non - conforming use in the General Commercial (C -2) Zone. Chairman Budds asked if the notices had been sent. Director Dawson stated that the notices had been sent and continued with the presentation of the background information stating that the property owner had in- stalled two 121 square foot structures at the front of the property and that the property owner wishes to utilize one of the structures as an office. He com- mented that the two structures do improve the view from the street to the site by concealing the body and fender shop. He also stated that the existing business was nonconforming in the C -2 Zone and that he was requesting to extend this non - conformity. He further stated that it would be difficult to develop this lot in accordance with the C -2 uses unless the lot could be combined with other lots in order to make a better development. He stated that the City Attorney sug- gested abating the use in three years unless extended by the City and this condition had been included in the Resolution. He also stated that a condition was in- cluded that stated the approval did not extend or alter the non - conforming status of the use or the abatement thereof. A video was shown of the site. Commissioner Muto asked if it was one structure. Director Dawson stated that there was two separate structures with about a one inch separation. Commissioner Muto stated that it was said that the lots that abut to the north were zoned commercial, but it appeared that there were some residential lots. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 23, 1991 Director Dawson stated that the shallow lot to the north was the only commercial lot and the others were residential. Commissioner Muto said that it appeared that the struc- tures were placed on parking spaces and he asked if that caused a parking problem. Director Dawson stated that there was enough parking for the use. Commissioner Muto stated that the only reason the Commission was reviewing this case was because of the two units being proposed. He asked how many other non- conforming uses were in the city and if they were given abatement dates. Director Dawson stated that the Code sets the abatement period and that it was very clear that the abatement period be 10 years from the date of non - conformity. He stated that this use became non - conforming in 1974 and to this none of the businesses had been given notices of abatement. Commissioner Souder asked if these were pre -fab and set on the site or were they built on -site. Director Dawson stated that he believed they were built on -site and without foundations. Commissioner Souder asked how the City found out about this. Director Dawson stated that the applicant had spoken to the City about placing a storage shed on the site and that staff indicated that a permit was not necessary for a 120 square foot shed for storage. He concluded that there was miscommunication and two sheds were placed on the site. Commissioner Souder asked what the Building Code said about the number of sheds allowed. Director Dawson stated that one shed could be placed on the property. Chairman Budds stated that the three year abatement period would probably be the minimum abatement period to amortize the value. He asked if that was the value of the business or the shed. City Attorney Martin stated that it was either or both. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 23, 1991 Eloise Ward, 415 California St., #5, Arcadia, stated that she was very familiar with the property and that there have been a series of misunderstandings. She stated that safety was a big concern of the owner and that before the sheds were placed on the property a client would have to go into the repair area to conduct their business. She said that the sheds hid the nature of the business and protects the customers. She pre- sented the Commission with letters from 41 people in the immediate area urging approval of the request. She mentioned that Mr. Tan was not told of a two shed restriction. She also stated that Mr. Tan purchased the property in 1989, and he specifically asked the seller if there were any restrictions on the property and was told there were none. She stated that he had a 30 year mortgage and would be unable to abate the use in three years without a financial burden. Commissioner Griffiths asked if Mr. Tan was the owner of the property and the business. Ms. Ward answered yes. Commissioner Souder moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Griffiths and unanimously car- ried. Commissioner Muto stated that he agreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Griffiths agreed with the approval, but felt that the abatement period was too strict. Commissioner Souder agreed with Commissioner Griffiths comments, but wanted to make sure that the electrical wiring would need to be inspected. Commissioner Griffiths stated that he understood that the City had abatement procedures on the books that have not been used. Commissioner Souder stated that the applicant has a 30 year mortgage and three years was to restrictive. City Attorney Martin stated that the Code provides for a ten -year abatement provided we have noticed the business owners. His recommendation would be to give the owner a 10 -year notice and upon review extensions could be granted by the City. Commissioner Muto asked if this period could be in- creased. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 23, 1991 City Attorney Martin stated that the code limits the abatement period to ten years and that increasing that amount would require a code amendment. Director Dawson stated that one item that came to mind was that the City has a lot of interest in the downtown revitalization and his reservation about extending the abatement period beyond the three years period was that later the City would be limited to what can be done to that property. City Attorney suggested possibly changing the condition to state that abatement will begin three years from the date°of notice. Chairman Budds asked how that would be tracked. City Attorney Martin stated that it could get lost. Chairman Budds stated that it would be too hard to track. He stated that he had a problem with the non- conforming use, possibly abating the use and extending the non - conformity with the two structures. He stated that he could not reconcile all of these issues. Commissioner Griffiths felt that it was immaterial, because the abatement period will be used over the next several years. He stated that without some type of plan or proposed development for the downtown area, he could not justify the three year abatement period. City Attorney Martin suggested making a three year abatement period that starts upon notice and allow the City the opportunity to abate the uses once a plan for the downtown area was completed. He stated that the City could notify all uses that are non - conforming at one time rather than singling out one business. Commissioner Souder asked if the variance was denied, would the two buildings need to be removed. Director Dawson stated that actually there was no permit required for one 120 square foot shed, but it was questionable whether or not it expanded the use. Commissioner Muto asked if a five year abatement period could be required. Director Dawson stated that if there was a policy to abate all non - conforming uses, it would be a safe assumption that we would have to give a three year notice. " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 July 23, 1991 City Attorney Martin stated that you have to give a reasonable notice. Commissioner Souder asked if the two businesses to the south were also non - conforming. Director Dawson answered yes. City Attorney Martin stated that the abatement process leaves the owner on pins and needles. Chairman Budds personally felt that five years was too long and that after three years they could ask for an extension. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve Zone Variance 91 -1091 and revise Condition No. 5 to require a three year abatement period from the date of notification from the City, based upon the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Muto and unanimously carried. Johnny Tan, Oak Avenue, asked that if an abatement notice was given to him, if the other non - conforming uses would be abated. City Attorney Martin stated that in all probability, all non - conforming properties would receive the same notification. Mr. Tan asked if he would be the only one getting the notice. City Attorney Martin stated that it was not likely. Commissioner Griffiths stated that the process would be started if and when development in that area was possi- ble. City Attorney Martin explained to Mr. Tan that 4 or 5 years from now that area could be designated retail only, then every property in that area would receive a notice. Chairman Budds wanted the record to state that Mrs. Ward presented several letters that were in favor of the request. He also wanted Mr. Tan to understand that the abatement period will begin upon receipt of a notice from the City and that the Commission could not represent to him that the notice would not be given tomorrow or ten years from now. City Attorney Martin stated that this would be true if Mr. Tan had never come to the City with his proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 July 23, 1991 Chairman Budds stated that there was a 10 -day appeal period in which anyone may appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Council. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: NONE 8. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: NONE 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: Community Development Director briefly discussed three possible code amendments which had been under study by staff. The code amendments relate to front yard setback requirements, side yard setback exemptions and signage. Chairman Budds asked the Commissioners if they had any input or objected to setting the public hearings for August 13th Planning Commission meeting. There were no comments and Chairman Budds asked Director Dawson to proceed with the public hearings. Chairman Budds asked if all the Commissioners received copies of the Draft Housing Element Update. All stated they had. Chairman Budds stated that he had written some comments and passed them out to the Commissioners for their review. Chairman Budds welcomed Commissioner Souder to the commis- sion. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chairman Budds adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, August 13, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 5938 North Kauffman Avenue, Temple City. • •