Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2000/12/12 - Regular" PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2000 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to the Agenda posted December 8, 2000, Chairman Zovak called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2000. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners  Capra, Griffiths, Arrighi, Zovak Commissioner Griffiths moved to excuse Commissioner Seibert for cause, seconded by Commissioner Capra, and unanimously carried. 10 Also Present: City Attorney Martin, Community Development Director Dawson and Associate Planner Williams " 4. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: City Manager Martin Cole addressed the Planning Commission and thanked them for their service the past year. He stated that he had a very successful first week as City Manager and said that he looked forward to working with the Commission in the coming year as there was much to be accomplished. 5._. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice - Chairman Arrighi moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Griffiths, and unanimously carried. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of November 28, 2000 B. REQUEST: TIME EXTENSION TO ALLOW RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP Case No: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24916 Site: 10157 LA ROSA DRIVE Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 2 Applicant: ENGLES SHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1111 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, #302 MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 Recommendation: Approve as submitted 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARING: A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE AN R -2 PARCEL OF LAND IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT TWO (2) DETACHED CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6052 KAUFFMAN AVENUE Case No: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26154 Site: 6052 KAUFFMAN AVENUE Applicant/ TRITECH ASSOCIATES Engineer: 135 N. SAN GABRIEL BLVD., #100 SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775 Property JACK KO Owner: 17195 NEWHOPE STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 Recommendation: 1) Hear Staff Report 2) Hear those for and against 3) Categorically Exempt 4) Adopt Resolution Director Dawson summarized the staff report dated December 12, 2000. Associate Planner Williams showed and narrated the videotape of the subject property. • • " " " Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 3 Chairman 7ovak inquired as to whether the application for the project should have been for a Conditional Use Permit. Director Dawson explained that the Code required a Conditional Use Permit for three or more units. Chairman 7ovak inquired as to whether there were any requirements with regard to setbacks being that the project involved a corner lot. Director Dawson explained that by approving the project as proposed, the Commission in essence would be making a front yard determination that the front yard would be on Garibaldi and the side yard would be on Kauffman. He stated that because the lot was virtually a square, that the reverse could be done making Kauffman the front yard and Garibaldi the side yard. Chairman Zovak opened the public hearing and invited interested parties to come forward to speak on the matter. - " 1 f - - .1 .. 1 - , stated the applicant and owner of the project had read all of the imposed conditions and agreed to accept them. She stated that she would be happy to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Commissioner Griffiths requested an explanation of the configuration of the second story and whether or not it was open space. Christopher Loh, CL Design, 1704 Cortez Street, West Covina, explained that the open space which was being questioned was attic space and there would be no access to it. City Attorney Martin inquired as to whether the space could be converted into a bedroom. Christopher Loh stated that it would be impossible to convert the area into a bedroom. Chairman 7ovak inquired as to what the height of the attic space would be. Christopher Loh stated that it would be a height of six feet. City Attorney Martin inquired as to whether there would be any objection to including a condition which stated that the area could not be made into a bedroom. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 4 Christopher Loh stated that it would be impossible to create a bedroom with a six -foot ceiling. He stated that the reason the attic was designed in this way was to create an arch on the facade of the structure. Commissioner Griffiths inquired as to where the two arched windows above the doorway were placed in the plans. Christopher Loh explained that as a person looked at the structure, they would be looking through the arches to the windows, which would be behind. Director Dawson inquired of Mr. Loh whether he knew that a ceiling higher than 12 feet or a roof higher than 18 feet per single -story portion of a two -story building was counted as double. Christopher Loh stated that he was aware of that requirement and that his design was within those parameters. Commissioner Lagra reiterated that a condition could be included prohibiting the space from being turned into a bedroom. Gail Littlejohn stated that the owner and the applicant would not have any objection to that condition. Director Dawson inquired as to why the homes were designed to face north as opposed to west. Christopher 1 oh stated that Kauffman was a busy street and the owner preferred that the homes face either north or south. Director Dawson inquired as to whether there would be any objection to turning the homes the other direction. Christopher Loh stated that he would have to speak with the owner about changing the direction of the homes. Commissioner apra inquired as to whether there had been concerns in the past with regard to CC &Rs and smaller -scale projects. Director Dawson stated that there had been concern expressed in the past with regard to small -sized projects and homeowners' associations. Commissioner Griffiths stated he had concerns in general with two -unit condo projects but • • " " Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 5 acknowledged that by ordinance they were allowed. He went on to state that conditions should be imposed which ordered compulsory and binding arbitration should disputes between the parties arise. Chairman 7ovak inquired as to which areas of the project were going to be designated as common areas. Christopher Loh pointed out that all of the green area as depicted on the presentation board would be common area. Vice- Chairman Arrighi inquired as to whether there would be a block wall separating the two units. Christopher I on stated that there would be a six - foot -high block wall separating the two units set back 20 feet from Garibaldi all the way down the length of the project. Vice - Chairman Arrighi pointed out with a block wall between the two properties that the area would not be considered as common. " Christopher oh stated that the block wall would have a 20 -foot setback, thus creating a common area at the front of the project. Director Dawson inquired as to what the association would be taking care of in common. Gail Littlejohn stated that the project was two single units but had to be condominiums because of the zoning; the project did not meet the requirements for single - family dwellings. Director Dawson inquired as to whether there would be a reserve fund which would cover the cost of re- roofing, etc. Gail I ittlejohn stated that there would be such a reserve fund. Vice - Chairman Arrighi inquired as to whether there would be a common irrigation meter. Gail I ittlejohn explained that if the block wall were allowed to be erected, that each unit would take care of their own landscaping. She went on to explain that the project was a one -lot subdivision with two units so there was common area. She further stated that the maintenance of the common area would be up to the individual homeowner. Director Dawson inquired as to whether the CC &Rs could be written so as to allow the individual homeowners to be responsible for painting and roofing, etc. or whether it was required by State law to be the responsibility of an association. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 6 Gail Littlejohn stated that it was not required by the State of California Department of Real Estate to have a reserve set aside for roofing and exterior painting. She went on to state, however, that a condition could be made that a reserve account be set up whereby the homeowners would have to pay every month into a reserve account for painting and roofing. City Attorney Martin inquired as to whether that condition was part of Tritech's CC &Rs. Gail Littlejohn stated that it was. Director Dawson stated that the City had a condition along the same lines but that it specified that the CC &Rs shall make the homeowners' association responsible for the uniform painting to maintain a uniform exterior appearance of the buildings. He further explained that the City's condition did not state that homeowners could not paint their own units but that they must paint them at the same time so that they maintained uniformity. Gail Littlejohn stated that was an article that would be put into the CC &Rs. She further stated that Temple City did have certain covenants that they required be put in the CC &Rs. Commissioner Griffiths stated he was concerned that the project was not a condominium development at all but just a way to get around the requirements because the lot was too small for two separate Tots. He went on to state that having two separate owners with no CC &Rs in place to handle maintenance and grievance issues would be a shaky proposition. He inquired of City Attorney Martin what his thoughts were 'concerning the matter. City Attorney Martin stated that he agreed with Commissioner Griffiths that this project was really just two homes on one lot and the usual condominium CC &Rs were not applicable for two units. He went on to state that a similar situation had occurred years earlier and at that time the City was made a party to the process to help resolve any disputes that might arise. He concluded by saying that he hoped the Code would be changed in the future so as to circumvent similar cases. Commissioner Griffiths stated that he would like to suggest that the issue be placed on the agenda in the near future. Discussion ensued concerning the possibility of a variance and re- zoning the subject property as an R -1 property. Chairman Zovak inquired as to what changes besides a zone variance would have to take place if the property were to be developed as an R -1 property. • • Director Dawson explained that if a zone variance were granted and the lot was able to be split into two R -1 zoned lots, the development would have to comply with the R -1 standards, io " " " Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 7 which would mean a reduction of square footage for each of the units. Chairman 7ovak inquired of the applicant as to whether there would be any opposition to an inclusion in the CC &Rs of an arbitration clause in the case of disputes arising between the owners. Gail1 ittlejohn stated that the arbitration clause was already provided for in the CC &Rs. Rudolph Jurado, 6057 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City, stated that the majority of the properties on this street were single - family homes. He went on to state that in the long run these condominium projects and other types of multiple - family units were never maintained as well as single - family residences. He concluded by saying these projects were done by private investors who did not live in the City and it was people like him and his neighbors that were stuck with the consequences of having these rentals in their neighborhoods and that ultimately their property values would be affected. Chairman Zovak explained to Mr. Jurado that he lived in an R -2 zoned area and that the Code allowed the development of such projects and all of the necessary requirements had been met. Rudolph Jurado also expressed concern that the layout of the houses would be facing Garibaldi, which meant that the residents on Kauffman would be looking at the sides of the condominiums. He stated that all of the other dwelling units on Kauffman faced Kauffman. Diane Harper, 9662_F. Garibaldi Avenue, Temple City, stated that the lot in question had already been subdivided twice. She stated that she understood the lot was large but that she would rather see a large, single - family home built instead of building up more density in the area. Adrienne Gee. 6051 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City, stated that she had several concerns regarding the development: 1) that she would be facing a block wall 2) where the driveway would be located on the project and 3) the fact that there would be increased traffic on the street. Director Dawson addressed each of Ms. Gee's concerns. Commissioner Griffiths moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Capra, and unanimously carried. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Cam stated that while he sympathized with the neighbors' concerns, the project had met all of the zoning codes and therefore he could find in favor of the application. He went on to state that he would like to see the issue of two -unit condominium projects addressed on a future agenda. Vice- Chairman Arrighi stated that he could also sympathize with the neighbors but that from the renderings, the project looked to be very nice and by all accounts should enhance their neighborhood and not harm it. He stated that for those reasons he could concur with Commissioner Capra. He added that he would also like to see the issue placed on the agenda in the future. Commissioner Griffiths stated that he reluctantly concurred. Chairman Zovak stated that the home that was presently on the property was very nice and what many people believed Temple City should look like. However, he agreed that the property owner had the right to develop the property to the R -2 standards and all of those requirements had been met. He also agreed that the issue of two -unit condominium projects should be addressed sometime in the near future. He concluded by saying that the project had a single - family look to it and he could find in favor of the application. City ttorney dam suggested the addition of three conditions: 1) that the CC &Rs attempt to correct the problems of two -unit condominiums 2) that the designated attic area be a non - habitable area and 3) that all said conditions would be enforced by the Sheriffs office. Commissioner Capra moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 26154 along with the conditions as outlined by City Attorney Martin, seconded by Commissioner Griffiths, and unanimously carried. Chairman Zovak explained that the application had been approved although three conditions had been added to the approval. He further stated that there would be a 10 -day appeal period. B. SUBJECT: Recommendation: LAS TUNAS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY PLAN Adopt resolution designating boundaries of the Las Tunas Redevelopment Project Area and approve a Preliminary Plan Director Dawson summarized the staff report dated December 12, 2000 and introduced Mr. Lang and Mr. Wagner, consultants hired by the City to prepare a Redevelopment Plan and EIR. • • " " " Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 9 Mike Wagner, 218 Massachusetts Lane. PIar.entia, stated to the Commission that what was before them was the Preliminary Plan, which was the second step in a 9 -10 month process to do a Redevelopment Plan for Las Tunas Drive. He explained that the first step was the designation of the Survey Area by the City Council on October 3, 2000. He went on to further outline the process which would take place over the next several months. He went on to explain to the Commission that the Redevelopment Plan would be made a part of the General Plan, which was altered from time to time. City Attorney Martin asked Mr. Wagner to explain why the consultants chose to go with one project area rather than to break it up into six smaller project areas with regard to the proof of blight. Mike Wagner stated that there was a legal description which divided it into four areas but at the present time they were going to go with one area and wait and see what happened with the Project Area Committee meeting to see whether they would go forward with all four areas. He stated it was his belief that they would be able to go forward with all four areas. He also stated that the blighting conditions within the whole project area would be documented at that time. City Attorney Martin inquired as to whether the reason behind going with the one area was to make an overall assessment of blight as opposed to having to prove blight in several smaller areas. Mike Wagner confirmed that was the reasoning behind going with only one area. Commissioner Griffiths inquired as to whether going with only one area for the time being would impinge on getting the whole area approved now as far as blight was concerned. City Attorney Martin stated that they would be going ahead with this area as the designated project area, which had been substantially cut back from what had been originally designated. Director Dawson explained that the proposed Redevelopment Area had been reduced from the original plan so as to only include the first two residential lots on the side streets within the eastern portion of the Las Tunas Drive area. Discussion ensued related to how the boundary lines were drawn for the various survey areas. Chairman 7ovak requested clarification regarding the Market Rate Housing Program as defined in the redevelopment goals. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 10 Mike Wagner explained there would be new housing within the Project Area and there were specific housing requirements under redevelopment law. He further explained that opportunities would exist for funding outside the Project Area referred to as the 20% fund, which would be set aside for housing. Chairman 7ovak inquired as to what would happen with the original land use designations if the Project Area were adopted. Mike Wagner explained that the land uses permitted in the Redevelopment Area would be the land uses permitted under the General Plan and the existing zoning as may be amended from time to time in the future. He went on to explain that one of the findings that the Planning Commission had to make when it received the Redevelopment Plan was that the proposed uses of the Redevelopment Plan conformed to the General Plan. S:hairman 7ovak inquired as to what percentage of the properties would actually be used in the project. Mike Wagner explained that over 20 to 30 years one -half to two- thirds of the properties would more than likely be used. He went on to state that the retail center area would probably be the highest area of plan implementation over the next 10 to 20 years. Chairman 7ovak asked for Mr. Lang's comments. nudl- .i• ► •. - • • .: • - • : 1 1 • • • . stated that a project of this relative scope and size depended on market forces and how soon the project began to develop. He explained if there were immediate development in the retail section and that spilled over into the town center section, it was possible that all of the property could develop because it would become a domino effect. He went on to state that if the Agency were able to capture the tax that it should from the new development that takes place, then it would be able to develop the rest of the properties much more quickly. He stated it was conceivable that every property in the project area could develop. He concluded by saying that everything was dependent upon the economic situation at the time and it would be hard to forecast until the process started moving forward. Chairman 7ovak inquired as to whether Mr. Lang thought the City had missed the boat as far as the economic situation was concerned. Dudley Lang stated that he did not think the City had missed the boat and, as a matter of fact, felt that the City would have some nice projects proposed to it as soon as the redevelopment process began. • • • " Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 11 Chairman 7ovak inquired as to whether the consultants felt the redevelopment project would attract some viable developers. Mike Wagner stated that there was a great demand for retail services in the Temple City area but not much land to put them on. He stated that the combination of market forces, development opportunities and the Agency should be able to make some projects happen. Director Dawson inquired as to the next time the Planning Commission would be involved. Mike Wagner stated that, according to the schedule, the Planning Commission would be involved at the end of March. Commissioner Cam inquired as to whether there would be numerous obstacles to overcome as part of the redevelopment process. City Attorney Martin stated that although there were numerous hurdles that would need to be gotten over, he felt that it was a worthwhile project and should be attempted as opposed to sitting by and doing nothing. Chairman 7ovak inquired as to whether new businesses within the Redevelopment Area " would require Agency review. " Mike Wagner stated that technically all new businesses within the Project Area should go before the Redevelopment Agency. City Attorney Martin explained that each new business would have to sign either an Owner Participation Agreement or a Disposition Development Agreement. He further explained that the Agency Board would have far more power than the City Council or the Planning Commission with regard to property not in a Redevelopment Area. Chairman 7ovak inquired as to if a business within the Redevelopment Area became vacant and a different use wished to come in, would the new business need approval of the Redevelopment Agency. Dudley Lang stated that the answer would be yes without going to the Agency. 1" . mi. 1- " 1- " " -1" inquired as to where within the Redevelopment Area would service -type businesses be located. City Attorney Martin stated that the area in question would be primarily retail although some service businesses would be allowed alongside the retail. " " " Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page 12 Linda Payne commented that Las Tunas Drive was primarily service in nature at the present time and that the City would more than likely get opposition from those service businesses. City Attorney Martin stated that any property that the City took had the right of owner participation and those would be subject to negotiation and settlement at that time. Mike Wagner stated that he would like for the Planning Commission to approve the resolution and select and designate the boundaries of the Las Tunas Redevelopment Project Area as described and depicted on the map in the Preliminary Plan, which was attached and incorporated as Exhibit A. Commissioner Griffiths moved to approve the resolution, seconded by Commissioner Capra, and unanimously carried. Director Dawson stated that the resolution would be officially presented to the Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday, December 19, 2000. 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: Director Dawson informed the Planning Commission that the meeting of December 26, 2000 would be cancelled due to the Christmas holiday. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Zovak adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The next regularly - scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is Tuesday, January 9, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 5938 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City. ATTEST: Secretary Chairman