Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1992/01/28 - Regular" TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1992 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to the Agenda posted on January 10, 1992, 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 Budds led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Griffiths, Muto, Seibert, Souder and Budds Also Present: City Attorney Martin, Community Development Director Dawson and Associate Planner Kates 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of December 10, 1991 Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve the Con- sent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Muto and unani- mously carried. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE 6. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1115 Site: 5319 HALIFAX ROAD Owner: BETHLEHEM LUTHERAN CHURCH 5319 NORTH HALIFAX ROAD TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780 Applicant: RUTH LAI 751 KATHERINE LANE ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 28, 1992 Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow a pre - school with a proposed enrollment of 70 students at an existing church 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 current use of the site was a church and the school would be utilizing the classrooms on the site. He also stated that the school would have a maximum capacity of 70 students and that there were 51 existing parking spaces located on the site. He also stated that the primary vehicle access would be off of Freer Street. A video was shown of the site. Commissioner Muto asked if the existing classroom building was ever utilized for a pre - school use. Director Dawson stated that there was a request for a pre - school in 1981, but the request was withdrawn. He said that the rooms have been used for sunday school classes. Since there were no additional questions from the Commission, Chairman Budds opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to speak. The applicant stated that she did not wish to speak. Barry Vail, 5319 Halifax Road, said that the pre - school would not be a church related function, but that it would be open to all children and be a christian school. He said that the report addressed concerns with an increase in noise and cars. He said that since he lives and works on the premises, he would be moni- toring the activities very closely. Chairman Budds reiterated that this was not a church - related business. Mr. Vail stated that was correct. Chairman Budds asked if the facilities were just being rented out. Mr. Vail said that was correct. • • • " Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 28, 1992 Francis Turner, 5325 Halifax Road, stated that he lived directly north of the proposed site. He felt that a school with 70 children could generate an additional 140 extra cars. He said that on Halifax at Freer, Olive and Daines there were a number of accidents. He said he also had concerns with the noise level. He said that his bedrooms are directly facing the driveway to the church. He said that currently the Sunday meetings can be heard in his house, but since it is only once a week, he could tolerate the noise. He said that this request was for 5 days a week. He said that the church driveway on Halifax creates a hazardous situation for his children. He reiterated that he was totally against the request. Chairman Budds asked if his objection was to the number of children or the fact that children would be on the premises, and he asked if there was an acceptable number of children. Mr. Turner said that he was totally against the pro- posal. Ann Baziak, 10315 Freer Street, said she lived two doors from the school and asked what were the ages of the children. Chairman Budds said that ages would be from 2 -1/2 to 6 years old. Mrs. Baziak said that she did not feel that the site was a proper place for children, because there was mostly concrete with little grass area. She also felt that the parking facilities were too close to the play area. Maureen Weed, 10325 Freer Street, said that she lived next to the pastor, and she said that she found that there are 26 similar pre - schools in two towns. She commended the church in working with neighbors, but she was against the request because her bedroom window is only 4 feet away from the driveway. She also consulted with a real estate agent who said that the pre - school would depreciate her property value. Brandt Charters, 5335 Halifax Road, said his main concern was with traffic. He felt that even though parking would be provided on site, parents would still park on the street to pick up children and this could cause additional accidents on the street. He informed the Commission that motorist drive fast down Halifax Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 28, 1992 and that adding more cars would increase the potential for accidents. He also pointed out that the traffic would be at peak hours. Paul Tsai, 5328 Arden Drive, said that even with his doors and windows closed, he can still hear cars and people in the parking lot. He was concerned with the safety of children living in the neighborhood. Harold Aos, 5306 Arden Drive, said the number of chil- dren will not bother him. He asked why we have a residential area with a commercial type use. He said the school would only benefit the church. Ruth Lai, 751 Katherine Lane, Arcadia, said she had been a pre - school teacher for over 25 years and also a sunday school teacher. She said that at a school in Alhambra the site was more crowded, but the parents were very careful. She said that the school would have scheduled times for the children to be outside and that there learning time would be during the morning hours. Mr. Vail stressed that the church wanted to maintain good relationships with neighboring residents. He stated that the maximum number of children would be 70 with 8 staff members. He said that the alleyway off of Halifax would have gates that would prevent cars from ingress and egress onto the property. He also said that currently there is no air conditioning in the existing facility, but the Commission would be requir- ing air conditioning and double paned windows. He felt that the site was ideal for a pre - school. He agreed that it would increase traffic and would like to see a 4 -way stop at Halifax and Freer. He also said that the picking,up of students on the street would be prohib- ited. He said that a proper play area would be pro- vided once approval was grant and that play equipment would be located on the grass area within the church grounds. He said that the church was very concerned with the environment in which the children would be kept. Bob Pitts, 5312 Degas, said that child care centers are in need and he could not think of a better place for a pre - school and he felt that the conditions of approval would alleviate any problems. Mr. Charters said that for convenience parents will park on the street. Mrs. Baziak asked why it was being called a pre - school instead of a day care center. • • • " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 28, 1992 Chairman Budds stated that the issue before the Commis- sion was a school. Commissioner Griffiths said that he understood pre- school to mean a school for children too young to go to regular school. Mr. Turner said that the pastor said the gates would be locked, but these gates could easily be unlocked. Mr. Vail stated that the gates on Halifax would be locked the entire time. Mrs. Weed asked if that meant that the driveway near her would be the major in and out. Mr. Vail answered by stating the the Freer Street side would be used for ingress and egress. Commissioner Souder asked Mrs. Weed if her bedroom was 4 feet from the driveway. Mrs. Weed answered yes. There being no further comments, Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commis- sioner Seibert and unanimously carried. Commissioner Seibert stated that he had mixed emotions. He did not like the situation that the church is not operating the day care, but he felt the site was ade- quate for a pre - school. He said unfortunately anytime changes come about, somebody is affected in an adverse manner, but the Commission needed to weigh the good with the bad. He said he would be in favor of granting the conditional use permit. Commissioner Souder felt that the Traffic Commission should be notified that a four -way stop was needed. He further stated that he felt the proposal meets all the criteria necessary for granting a conditional use permit. Commissioner Muto also felt the site was proper and large enough to accommodate a pre - school. Commissioner Griffiths said that staff had included a number of conditions that would mitigate any adverse impacts. He said the condition requiring air condi- tioning would cause the windows to be closed. He said he could find no reason to deny the request. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 28, 1992 Chairman Budds stated that there are three findings that needed to be made in order to approve the request. He said he could make the finding that the size was adequate and that there was sufficient access to streets and highways, but he could not make a positive finding that the adjacent properties would not be adversely impacted, and therefore could not approve the request. Commissioner Seibert moved to adopt the draft resolu- tion approving Conditional Use Permit 91 -1115 and the Negative Declaration, based upon the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Souder and approved with the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners: Griffiths, Muto, Seibert, Souder NOTES: Commissioners: Budds 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: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1116 Site: 10018 DAINES DRIVE Owner /Applicant: GLENNA KRUSE 10018 DAINES DRIVE TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780 Request: To allow a home occupation for a direct sales cosmetic company (JAFRA) in the Single Family (R -1) Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any home occupation within 300 feet of a major thoroughfare. 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 subject property was zoned R -1 and the square footage was 6,996. He stated that the applicant would be using an existing bedroom for an office. He also stated that a letter of support was included in the packet and two letters against the request were received from Gilbert and Debi Coss and Stephen Lovas. He said the letters against the request stated that they had lived in the area for a number of years and felt that the increased traffic could cause " Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 28, 1992 traffic hazards. They also stated that there were UPS deliveries and an increase in vehicles because of sales meetings held at the applicant's home. The letters also pointed out that the business had been in opera- tion since 1986. Director Dawson stated that the conditions of approval would restrict the storage of merchandise and control excessive traffic. Commissioner Souder asked if the applicant just re- cently came in to file for a home occupation business license. Director Dawson answered yes, but since the applicant was situated within 300 feet of a major thoroughfare, a conditional use permit was required. Glenna Kruse, 10018 Daines Drive, stated that she wished to continue her home business that she has conducted from her home since 1976. She stated that she holds a night meeting once every other month and also a day meeting. She said that there were normally five additional cars. She also stated that the UPS delivery is occasional and was not a day -to -day deliv- ery. Chairman Budds asked why she applied for a business. license. Mrs. Kruse stated that Steven Lovas turned her into the City. She stated that she did not know she needed a license until the city informed her of the violation. Commissioner Seibert asked Ms. Kruse if most of her work was done out of the home. Mrs. Kruse stated that the most of her work was done of the home. Commissioner Seibert stated that the home was mainly used for bookkeeping purposes. Mrs. Kruse stated that was correct. Chairman Budds asked if the applicant was familiar with the conditions of approve and if she had any problem with them. Mrs. Kruse stated she had no problems with the condi- tions. Commissioner Souder asked about the storage of the items that UPS delivers. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 28, 1992 Mrs. Kruse stated that she packages them for delivery to consultants at her next meeting which is usually within two days. Commissioner Souder asked if the all the products went with her at the next meeting. Mrs. Kruse answered yes. Chairman Budds asked how much was received. Mrs. Kruse stated that she received about two boxes. Commissioner Souder asked how many sales people worked for her. Mrs. Kruse stated that she had 8 manager and 6 to 8 consultants working for her. Robert Erdman, 10022 Daines Drive, stated that he had sent a letter, but he felt that he needed to speak before the Commission after hearing the two opposing letters. He said that those letters were the result of previous complaints to the city regarding unlicensed auto repairs and painting and Mr. Lovas was told he needed to clean up the area and unfortunately Glenna Kruse was an innocent victim. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the conditional use permit. There being no one else to speak, Commissioner Seibert moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commis- sioner Griffiths and unanimously carried. Commissioner Souder stated that he had no problem with this type of business in a home and as long as the applicant could comply with the conditions he would be in favor of granting the request. Commissioners Seibert and Griffiths agreed. Commissioner Muto also agreed and stated that the conditions of approval were very impressive and pro- tecting the adjoining neighbors. Chairman Budds also agreed. Commissioner Souder moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 92 -1116, based upon the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Seibert and unanimously carried. • • " Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 28, 1992 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: Site: Property Owner: Business Owner: Request: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1117 6446 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD LAWRENCE W. SMITH 6456 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780 DENNIS MANUS 6446 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780 To allow a home occupation for a fire preparedness consultant in the Single Family (R -1) Zone. A Conditional Use Permit is required for any home occu- pation. within 300 feet of a major thoroughfare. 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 there were no improvements being proposed and that the applicant wished to conduct a fire preparedness consulting business in his home. He also stated that the proposed office area would be in one of the bedrooms. A video was shown of the site. Dennis Manus, 6446 Temple City Boulevard, emphasized that there would be no one coming to his home and that his home would be strictly used for bookkeeping and report writing only. He also stated that he would not be receiving any mail at this home. Arnold B. Berger,_ 6427 Temple City Boulevard, said that the area was zoned R -1 and he was very much against the home occupation because it would start a business zone in our area. He said that there was already a lot of cars up and down the street everyday. He also said that maybe he could rent his apartment to a dentist or doctor. Chairman Budds asked if Mr. Berger's objection was to the business permit. He asked if he understood that he has only a desk in his bedroom. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 January 28, 1992 Mr. Berger said he understood. Commissioner Seibert moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Souder and unanimously car- ried. Commissioner Griffiths said he had no objection to the request. Commissioner Muto agreed. Commissioner Souder also agreed and added that this was a home business that would be monitored as a home occupation. Mr. Berger asked if Mr. Manus would be required to get a city license. Director Dawson stated that he would need 'a city li- cense and that no signage would be allowed. Commissioners Seibert and Budds concurred. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 92 -1117, 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. D. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1096 ZONE VARIANCE 91 -1095 Site: 9520 LAS TUNAS DRIVE Owner: DR. TSAI 114 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 Applicant: Request: CITI DESIGN ASSOCIATES RENGUAN ZHAO 222 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA 91776 A Zone Variance and Conditional Use Permit to allow the divi- sion of the former "Massies" 6,600 square foot commercial building into four individually accessible commercial units via an atrium -type court without • • • " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 January 28, 1992 adding nine required parking stalls located in the Retail Commercial (C -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 in October 1991, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying a subdivision into three units and said that they would consider a two unit split. He said that the applicant was requesting a four unit division with an atrium -type court. He said the units facing Las Tunas Drive would be over 1,250 square feet and would need to be used for retail and the units at the rear would be 1,800 square feet and could be used for service or professional type uses. He stated that the court yard would provide access to all the units. He said that the renovation would improve the appear- ance of the structure and that the primary issue of the request was parking. He said the applicant would need to provide 9 additional parking spaces and since the site is located within a parking district this could not be done. He said an option would be to require an in -lieu fee for each parking space. He also stated that the Specific Plan will address this type of prob- lem with parking and possibly the Commission would prefer to deny the request without prejudice until after the Specific Plan was developed. He said another option would be to deny the request for four units and approve a two unit division. Commissioner Muto asked if the applicant was aware of these options. Director Dawson stated that the applicant received a copy of the staff report. He also stated that the applicant expressed a willingness to pay an in -lieu fee. Commissioner Griffiths asked if the location within the parking district mitigate the shortage of parking. Director Dawson stated that the Zoning Code requires that a division of a unit necessitated three parking spaces per unit and in this case three units were being created and nine parking spaces were needed. He said that the location would not fully mitigate the defi- cient nine parking spaces. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 January 28, 1992 Chairman Budds said that he had many questions about the collection of an in -lieu fee. He asked how much was in the parking district fund and was told there was no money in the fund. He asked if anyone else ever paid into this fund and was told no. He also asked if a procedure was set up for taking in money, what guide- lines would be set for the use of the monies. He was also concerned that the cost of a parking space was $15,000, but the city would possibly take $5,000 or $7,500 and he wanted to know where the other money would come from to provide parking. He was told that the money could possibly come from the general fund monies. He concluded by stating that the process was very vague. Chu Hou Tai, 114 West Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, stated that he was representing the owner and that the reason the owner proposed four units instead of two was be- cause it would make the space more economically afford- able. He said that the amount of money needed to provide for the nine spaces was very high and it would cost about $70,000 plus improvement costs. He asked if $5,000 per space could be used instead of $7,500. He concluded by stating that the applicant agreed that the parking area needed to be increased. Chairman Budds stated that the actual cost of a parking space was $15,000 and that $5,000 and $7,500 were arbitrary amounts. Commissioner Souder asked the applicant if he was aware that the area in question was in the Specific Plan area and that development standards relating to parking, facades, signs and many other issues would be addressed. Mr. Tai indicated that he was aware of that. Chairman Budds asked if he could give the Commission an idea of which option he preferred. Mr. Tai said that he preferred Option 1 requiring an in -lieu fee for the additional parking. Sig Caswell, 9518 Olive Street, stated that he owned the apartments behind the parking district. He was concerned with the noise levels and also the fact that the city did not know what type of businesses would be occupying the units. He suggested an antique mall. • • • " " Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 January 28, 1992 Elmer Black, 9520 Las Tunas Drive, said that the build- ing had not grown in size and he could not understand- ing why additional parking would be needed if no additional square footage was being added. He said that he would like to see a parking problem in the city. Chairman Budds said that he raises a good point and he asked Director Dawson that same question. Director Dawson said that the larger units can be divided into more units and each of these units would have at least an owner, operator, employees and custom- ers and would utilize the existing parking and for that reason three parking spaces are required for each newly created unit. Mr. Black said that cities with a good retail climate have parking problems and he stressed once again that this building had 6,600 square feet and even after a division into four units it will have less than 6,600 square feet. Director Dawson again stated that by having the addi- tional units you will have additional owners and em- ployees as well as customers. Mr. Black asked how many employees Massies had. Director Dawson stated that he was not sure. Mr. Black stated that they probably had six. A gentlemen in the audience stated they had four. Chairman Budds stated that he did not know if the requirement was fair or not, but the Commission was governed by the Zoning Code and this was what the Zoning Code required. Paul Quakkelsteyn, 9518 Las Tunas Drive, stated that he would like to see the building renovated, but he would prefer that the building be split into two, not three or four. He felt that the businesses would probably be office uses which would not generate anything downtown. He would really like to see the store re -done with one tenant. Commissioner Seibert moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Souder and unanimously car- ried. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 January 28, 1992 Commissioner Muto said that the Commission has reviewed several cases like this one and he said they cannot provide the parking and want the Commission to grant the variance. He said the current proposal was similar and every more intense. He would have to vote for denial without prejudice and see if the Specific Plan will be able to address this problem. Commissioner Griffiths said that he liked the layout, but the parking was a problem. He felt that being in a parking district should mitigate parking some percent- age. He said he was not ready to establish an in -lieu fee until he knew more about how much, where it would be held and how it would be spent. He would deny the request without prejudice. Commissioner Seibert said that he was not in favor of granting this request. He did not feel it was the Commission responsibility to set fees and felt the City Council should address that issue. He would vote to deny the request without prejudice. Commissioner Souder said he like the exterior renova- tion and the 4 unit lay -out, but it would intensify the parking problem and he agreed with the other commis- sioners. Chairman Budds said that Mr. Black brought up a valid. He also said that recently there was a case when two unit were being combined into one unit and the case was approved because it was in the parking district. He also stated that there was a real estate office that was not part of a parking district and the Planning Commission turned it down and the City Council allowed the project to proceed. He said there needs to be some consistency between the Commission and the Council. He agreed with the other commissioners that the four units intensified parking problem and that could not be overlooked. Commissioner Muto moved to deny Conditional Use Permit 91 -1096 and Zone Variance 91 -1095 without prejudice, based upon the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Seibert 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. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: 8. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: • • " Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 January 28, 1992 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: City Attorney Martin made some remarks about parking dis- tricts. He said a parking district is formed when the city decides to put in a public improvement of some kind, and the city assesses the charges to those properties that benefit by that improvement. He said that in no way means that the payees or the property owners own that particular public improvement. He gave an example, if the city decided to widen all of Las Tunas so as to provide more parking area, diagonal parking or parking in the curb area, and assessed the property owners, that in no way means that the city could not in the future, when conditions change, take the parking out since it was a public street, and although it has been paid for in a slightly different manner, it is still public property and subject to the rules and regula- tions of the city. He addressed Elmer Black's question by stating that the Council had decided that until it gets better information there was a fair presumption that four stores in the place of one could and probably does attract more parking needs than the former situation. He said for example, if that particular store decided to change to a restaurant, it would require additional spaces. He said the old spaces in the parking district would no longer be appli- cable because restaurants take more parking spaces. He also said that just because parking was at one time adequate does not mean that the rules cannot be changed. He said those are the situations we are working with now and until better information becomes available that was what we have. He also stated that the better information was in process, and that raised the age old question of while you conduct a study, do you go along doing the same thing or do you wait until you get the full information. He recognized that the property owners have an immediate need, but the indication is that the city should proceed with the study process as quickly as possible. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chairman Budds adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, February 11, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 5938 North Kauffman Avenue, Temple City.