HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2002/04/09 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 9, 2002
• INITIATION:
1. CALL TO ORDER
Pursuant to the Agenda posted April 4, 2002, Chairman Arrighi called the
meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April
9, 2002.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners — Capra, Le Berthon, Griffiths,
Seibert, and Arrighi
Also Present: City Attorney Martin, Community Development Director
Dawson, and Senior Planner Williams
4. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK
None
• 5. CONSENT CALENDAR
•
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March 12, 2002
Commissioner Seibert moved to approve the Minutes of March 12, 2002, as
corrected by Commissioner Griffiths, seconded by Commissioner Le Berthon, and
unanimously carried.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE:
CASE NO:
A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 165 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CONVERTED
DENTAL OFFICE WITH SIX (6) PARKING
SPACES (INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES). THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C -2) ZONE.
5800 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
ZONE VARIANCE 02 -1489
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 2
PROPERTY OWNER: DR. AZUCENA AND BLAS TAON
5800 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
APPLICANT:
L.J. HAUSNER CONSTRUCTION
ATTN: EVONNE MORTON
75 VIA SANTA MARIA
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA 92672
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Hear Staff Report
2) Hear those for and against
3) Project is Categorically Exempt
4) Adopt Resolution
Director Dawson — summarized the Staff report dated April 9, 2002.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked if there were any questions of Staff and opened the Public
Hearing.
Evonne Morton (75 Via Santa Maria, San Clemente) — Stated that she represents the
contractor and property owner. Stated that they are replacing something that is already
existing and mentioned that on November 27th she received the approval from the
Building Department and thought it was interesting that the Building Department did not
have a problem with the structure. Further stated that she did not understand why the
Planning Commission has a problem with the project because it makes the property
more usable and look nicer than what is there. She stated that the business did not use
all the current parking spaces and that parking has never been a problem. She spoke
about the handicap parking space and possibilities of moving it and that it was not a
possibility. She stated that the project is better than what is there and she said they
could change the look of necessary.
Chairman Arriahi — Asked if there were any questions of the Applicant.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that he was looking at an old sketch and that there is
no dimension shown between the edge of the handicap parking space and the building.
Evonne Morton (75 Via Santa Maria, San Clemente) — Stated that it was five feet.
Commissioner Griffiths - Asked how wide must that area be for off loading.
Evonne Morton (75 Via Santa Maria, San Clemente) — Stated that it should be eight or
nine feet.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that it was labeled as eight feet.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
•
•
•
"
"
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
A p r i l 9 , 2 0 0 2
P a g e 3
E v o n n e M o r t o n ( 7 5 V i a S a n t a M a r i a , S a n C l e m e n t e ) S t a t e d t h a t s h e h a s a n o t h e r p l a n
a l s o t h a t w a s p r e s e n t e d w h e n t h e 2 0 0 s q u a r e f o o t a d d i t i o n w a s c r e a t e d a n d t h a t i t h a s
m o r e d e t a i l .
C o m m i s s i o n e r G r i f f i t h s A s k e d i f t h e l a n d s c a p i n g a r e a i s d i m e n s i o n e d a t 2 2 f e e t 4
i n c h e s .
F v o n n e M o r t o n ( 7 5 V i a S a n t a M a r i a , S a n C l e m e n t e ) A n s w e r e d y e s .
C o m m i s s i o n e r G r i f f i t h s - A s k e d i f t h a t c o u l d b e r e d u c e d t o 2 0 f e e t w i t h o u t c o m p l i c a t i n g
a n y t h i n g .
F v o n n e M o r t o n ( 7 5 V i a S a n t a M a r i a , S a n C l e m e n t e ) S t a t e d t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t
c o m p l i c a t e a n y t h i n g , h o w e v e r , t h e y c a n n o t u s e t h e f i v e - f o o t a r e a f o r p a r k i n g o t h e r w i s e
t h e y w o u l d h a v e .
V i c e - C h a i r m a n S e i b e r t S t a t e d t h a t i t c o u l d p o s s i b l y b e u s e d f o r t h e h a n d i c a p p a r k i n g
s p a c e s l i c e d a r e a
C o m m i s s i o n e r r i f f i t h s S t a t e d t h a t h e w a s w o n d e r i n g i f t h e h a n d i c a p a r e a w e r e t o b e
p u t n e x t t o t h e b u i l d i n g i f t h e r e w o u l d b e e n o u g h r o o m f o r o n e a d d i t i o n a l s p a c e b u t h e
w a s u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e i t a t t h e t i m e .
E v o n n e M o r t o n ( 7 5 V i a S a n t a M a r i a , S a n C l e m e n t e ) S t a t e d t h a t s h e w a s n o t w e l l
v e r s e d o n h a n d i c a p p a r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s .
C o m m i s s i o n e r G r i f f i t h s S t a t e d t h a t h e w a s a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s p e r h a p s h e s h o u l d h a v e
t h e a n s w e r s t o b u t h i s Z o n i n g C o d e b o o k s w e r e b e i n g r e v i s e d a n d h e d i d n o t h a v e
t h e m e a r l i e r . F u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t h e h a d n o w a y t o c a l c u l a t e i t .
E v o n n e M o r t o n ( 7 5 V i a S a n t a M a r i a , S a n C l e m e n t e ) S t a t e d t h a t p e r h a p s i t w a s
p o s s i b l e a n d i t h a s a l i k e l i h o o d o f w o r k i n g a t t h a t t i m e . S h e s a t d o w n a n d w o r k e d o n
c a l c u l a t i n g t h e n u m b e r s .
C h a i r m a n A r r i a h i A s k e d i f a n y o n e w a n t e d t o s p e a k i n f a v o r o f t h e p r o j e c t .
A 7 u c e n a T a o n ( 5 8 0 0 R o s e m e a d B l v d . ) S t a t e d s h e w a s t h e o w n e r o f t h e b u s i n e s s a n d
t h a t o n c e a g a i n s h e w a n t e d t o s t a t e t h a t t h e m a i n p u r p o s e o f e n c l o s i n g t h e s p a c e i s t h e
m a k e t h e b u i l d i n g l o o k n i c e r a n d t o g e t u s e f u l s p a c e f o r a b r e a k r o o m f o r t h e
e m p l o y e e s . S h e s t a t e d t h a t s h e h a s s e e n a s i m i l a r d e s i g n o n L a s T u n a s D r i v e , b u t
t h a t i t w a s i n t h e C i t y o f S a n G a b r i e l a t a r e s t a u r a n t .
C h a i r m a n A r r i g h i A s k e d i f a n y o n e e l s e w a n t e d t o s p e a k i n f a v o r o f o r i n o p p o s i t i o n o f
" t h e p r o j e c t . F u r t h e r a s k e d i f t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a g e n t w a n t e d t o a d d r e s s t h e P l a n n i n g
C o m m i s s i o n .
N : \ W o r d \ D e p a r t m e n t \ C D D \ M I N S \ P C M I N U T E S 2 0 0 2 \ P C M I N U T E S A p r i l 9 , 2 0 0 2 . d o c
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 4
Evonne Morton (75 Via Santa Maria, San Clemente) — Stated that because the parking
spaces were full size because compact was not allowed in the City of Temple City, the
calculations did not work to put in another parking space and they were lacking about
two feet.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Asked Director Dawson if he knew the building code
requirement.
Director Dawson — Stated that he was not really familiar with it but that it could be taken
back to the building department and that the inspector would be most familiar with it.
Commissioner Griffiths — Asked if the off loading area could be six foot wide that it
would work, but if it has to be eight foot wide it would not work.
Vice- Chairman Seibert — Stated that he just did a handicap space in his warehouse but
it was not eight foot wide, but that he was not sure.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that he was going to look today, but he did not have
the books.
Director Dawson. — Stated that it was in the building code.
Commissioner I e Berthon — Asked for clarification on the issue, and if it was that they
needed two handicapped spaces or just one more space.
Director Dawson - Stated that it should only be one handicapped parking space.
Vice - Chairman Seibert Moved to close seconded by Capra and unanimously carried.
Chairman Arrighi — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that he liked the idea of the improvement, stated that
the definition of whether that area is a porch or usable building space. Stated that if it
was totally enclosed and used and interior space entirely it would become part of the
building and require seven parking spaces, but if was just improved as repairing an
existing porch and still could be considered a porch, then a variance is not necessary.
Further stated that if a variance is necessary he had a problem with the variance
because the increased area of the building would require seven parking spaces per the
ordinances and that he has difficulty trying to approve a variance for additional parking.
Stated that the suggestion of exploring the idea of redesigning the parking to come up
with seven was made without any real expertise but thought that maybe it would work.
Stated that he was in favor of the improvement but that it was going to be called part of
the interior use of the building it would require an extra parking space and that he was
not in favor of a variance. Stated that he hoped that there would be a way to make the
project work without the need of a variance.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
•
•
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 5
• Commissioner Capra — Stated that he felt the same way as Commissioner Griffiths, but
he would like to see the applicant go back and see in fact was it required for that space
and perhaps do some altering to the parking area in order to get one more space, so
that there is no need for a variance. Stated that he felt the addition would make the
building look a lot nicer but he was unable to make the findings to approve a variance.
Commissioner Le Berthon — Stated that he agreed with the other two Commissioners
in every way and that he was unable to make the findings to approve a variance.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Stated that he agreed and that the restrictions of granting a
variance are very clear and that there are no extenuating circumstances to show the
ability to grant a variance. Stated that the applicant could appeal the decision to the
City Council or go back and see if they could reconfigure the parking area so that they
would not need a variance. Further stated that he is unable to make the findings for a
variance.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that the definition of whether that is a porch or
enclosed building space within the building is kind of open ended and you can see the
consummation with that. It has been that way because there has been walls and a roof
around it but not a door, the proposal shows a door, which makes it enclosed space
and it changes the definition of it from a porch to usable office space and that would
require a new parking space. Stated that if it came to that he would not be able to grant
• a variance.
•
Evonne Morton (75 Via Santa Maria. San Clemente) — Stated that the Building Code
says it is open recreational space.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that if it remains that it would eliminate the need for a
variance because it would not be space within the building.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Stated that he believes it is not just a door that presently the
whole thing is not totally enclosed and that with the proposed addition it would make it
totally enclosed.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that he would very much like to see the change made
but the Planning Commission does not have the power not to agree with the ordinances
but the City Council might.
Chairman Arrighi — Stated that he concurred with the other Planning Commissioners.
Director Dawson — Stated that is seems as though there is a question - if the Planning
Commission views this as enclosed space and that the Staff looked at it and said it was
enclosed space, asked if it was appropriate to ask the Planning Commission to make a
clarification of ambiguity in that regard.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 6
City Attorney Martin— Stated that the Building Code speaks for itself as to whether it is
enclosed or not and that the motion apparently is to deny the variance but to tell the
applicant that she can either get a 7th space out of the existing parking area or she can
modify the building to such an extent that the building area is a porch rather than an
enclosed space and that in either case she would not need a variance.
Evonne Morton (75 Via Santa Maria, San Clemente) — Stated that she had a copy of
the Code.
Commissioner Griffiths — Moved to deny the variance seconded by Vice - Chairman
Seibert and unanimously carried.
Chairman Arriahi — Stated that the motion carried and that there was a 15 -day review/
appeal period.
B. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE INSTALLATION OF THREE SECTORS
OF TWO (2) (POPSICLE STICK) ANTENNAS
EACH FOR A TOTAL OF 6 ADDITIONAL
ANTENNAS AS WELL AS GROUND
MOUNTED AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT TO
SERVE SPRINT PCS WIRELESS. THE
ANTENNAS WILL BE MOUNTED ON THE
ROOF OF THE EXISTING THREE -STORY
SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING IN THE EAST COMMERCIAL (EC)
DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA.
SITE: 9700 LAS TUNAS DRIVE, TEMPLE CITY
CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01 -1473
PROPERTY OWNER: TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ATTN: RICHARD STEDRY,
CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICIAL
9700 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
APPLICANT:
COX ASSETS (SPRINT PCS)
4683 CHABOT DRIVE, #100
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
•
•
"
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
A p r i l 9 , 2 0 0 2
P a g e 7
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : 1 ) H e a r S t a f f R e p o r t
2 ) H e a r t h o s e f o r a n d a g a i n s t
3 ) N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n
4 ) A d o p t R e s o l u t i o n
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n s u m m a r i z e d t h e S t a f f r e p o r t d a t e d A p r i l 9 , 2 0 0 2 .
C h a i r m a n A r r i g h i A s k e d i f t h e r e w e r e a n y q u e s t i o n s o f S t a f f a n d o p e n e d t h e P u b l i c
H e a r i n g .
R y a n I e a d e r m a n , 1 2 2 5 W . 1 9 0 t h S t . # ? 5 0 , G a r d e n a , G A S t a t e d t h a t S p r i n t a g r e e s
w i t h S t a f f s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d t h a t t h e y d i d m o d i f y t h e i r p l a n s f r o m 1 2 a n t e n n a s t o 6
a n t e n n a s a n d t h e y a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r e s e n t a n t e n n a s . S t a t e d t h a t S p r i n t d i d n o t
h a v e v e r y m a n y c h o i c e s i n t h i s n e i g h b o r h o o d a n d t h i s w a s t h e b e s t o p t i o n f o r S p r i n t .
P a s s e d o u t p r o p a g a t i o n m a p s a n d s h o w e d t h e g a p s i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d a n d t h e n e e d
f o r t h e s e a n t e n n a s , e x p l a i n e d t h e n e e d f o r t h e a n t e n n a s t o h a v e p r o p e r s e r v i c e t o t h e
c u s t o m e r s .
C h a i r m a n A r r i g h i A s k e d i f t h e r e w e r e a n y q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t a n d i f a n y o n e
w a n t e d t o s p e a k i n f a v o r o f o r i n o p p o s i t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t .
W i l l i a m G r o w , 5 8 0 7 G o l d e n W e s t A v e . , T e m p l e C i t y - S t a t e d t h a t h e w a s n e i t h e r i n
" f a v o r o f o r o p p o s e d t o t h e p r o j e c t b u t t h a t h e h a d c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e
a n t e n n a s . H e a s k e d i f t h e r e w a s a P u b l i c H e a r i n g f o r t h e p r e s e n t a n t e n n a s o n t h e r o o f
n o w . A s k e d t h e h e i g h t a n d s h a p e o f t h e a n t e n n a s . A s k e d i f s i x a d d i t i o n a l w e r e g o i n g
t o b e a d d e d a n d h o w m a n y a n t e n n a s w e r e o n t h e r o o f n o w . A s k e d i f t h e a n t e n n a s
w e r e g o i n g t o b e a n e y e s o r e . A s k e d i f t h e a n t e n n a s i n t e r f e r e w i t h a n y l o c a l e l e c t r i c a l
p o w e r , c a b l e t e l e v i s i o n . , s a t e l l i t e t e l e v i s i o n , r a d i o , a n d c o r d l e s s p h o n e c o v e r a g e . A s k e d
i f S p r i n t w a s g o i n g t o p a y t h e C i t y o f T e m p l e C i t y a r e n t a l f e e o r t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t a
f e e , a s k e d i f t h e y h a d a c o n t r a c t . A l s o a s k e d w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n o f t h e s e a n t e n n a s
b r e a k d o w n . L a s t l y , h e a s k e d i f t h e s e a n t e n n a s w o u l d b e a t a r g e t f o r t e r r o r i s m .
R y a n I e a d e r m a n , 1 2 2 5 W . 1 9 0 t h S t . # 2 5 0 , G a r d e n a , C A S t a t e d t h a t S p r i n t c u r r e n t l y
d o e s n o t h a v e a n y a n t e n n a s o n t h e b u i l d i n g a n d t h e a n t e n n a s t h e r e b e l o n g t o a n o t h e r
c a r r i e r . S t a t e d t h a t t h e h e i g h t o f t h e a n t e n n a s w i l l b e 5 9 f e e t 8 i n c h e s a n d t h e y a r e a
l o l l i p o p d e s i g n . H e s t a t e d t h a t t h e y a r e l i c e n s e s b y t h e F C C f o r f r e q u e n c i e s o f 1 8 5 0 t o
1 9 0 0 m e g a h e r t z a n d t h a t o r d i n a r y a p p l i a n c e s o p e r a t e u n d e r d i f f e r e n t f r e q u e n c i e s a n d
t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e n o i n t e r f e r e n c e . S t a t e d t h a t i f t h e r e h a s n o t b e e n a n y i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h
t h e c u r r e n t a n t e n n a s t h e r e w i l l b e n o d i f f e r e n c e . F u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e a n t e n n a s a r e
n o t g o i n g t o b e o n t h e S o u t h s i d e o f t h e b u i l d i n g . S t a t e d t h a t t h e y h a v e a l e a s e w i t h
t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t a n d t h e y w i l l b e p a y i n g r e n t b u t h e d i d n o t h a v e t h e f i g u r e s w i t h h i m
a n d t h e c o m m u n i t y w i l l b e n e f i t . S t a t e d t h a t w i t h r e g a r d t o t e r r o r i s t a t t a c k s t h e p r o p o s e d
a n t e n n a s w i l l n o t b e a n y d i f f e r e n t t h a t t h e a n t e n n a s t h a t a r e p r e s e n t l y t h e r e a n d h e
d o e s n o t f e e l t h a t t h e y w i l l b e a t a r g e t f o r t e r r o r i s t a c t i v i t y .
"
C h a i r m a n A r r i g h i A s k e d i f S t a f f h a d a n y o t h e r q u e s t i o n s .
N : \ W o r d \ D e p a r t m e n t \ C D D \ M I N S \ P C M I N U T E S 2 0 0 2 \ P C M I N U T E S A p r i l 9 , 2 0 0 2 . d o c
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 8
Vice - Chairman Seibert Moved to close seconded by Capra and unanimously carried.
Chairman Arrighi — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Commissioner I e Berthon — Stated that was in favor of approving.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Stated that he concurred.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that he concurred.
Commissioner Capra — Stated that he concurred.
Chairman Arrighi — Stated that he also concurred.
Commissioner Le Berthon - Moved to approve the draft resolution 02 -PC and C.U.P.
01 -1473 for the installation of three sectors of two popsicle stick antennas along with
the Negative Declaration second by Vice - Chairman Seibert and unanimously carried.
Chairman Arrighi — Stated that the motion carried and that there was a 15 -day review/
appeal period.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAPIOCA
EXPRESS RESTAURANT LOCATED IN THE
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C -2) ZONE.
SITE: 5528 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -1487
PROPERTY OWNER CHIN -LIN LIN
430 WEST NAOMI AVENUE
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91780
APPLICANT
ALLEN HUANG
8450 EAST VALLEY BOULEVARD, #116
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
•
•
•
"
"
"
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
A p r i l 9 , 2 0 0 2
P a g e 9
A P P L I C A N T ' S
R E P R E S E N T A T I V E : T A P I O C A E X P R E S S
C / O F R A N K L I N C O M M E R C I A L
A T T N : F R A N K S H E N
2 1 5 8 D U R F E E A V E N U E
E L M O B N T E , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 7 3 3
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : 1 ) H e a r S t a f f R e p o r t
2 ) H e a r t h o s e f o r a n d a g a i n s t
3 ) N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n
4 ) A d o p t R e s o l u t i o n
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n s u m m a r i z e d t h e S t a f f r e p o r t d a t e d A p r i l 9 , 2 0 0 2 .
S e n i o r P l a n n e r W i l l i a m s n a r r a t e d a n d s h o w e d t h e v i d e o
C h a i r m a n A r r i a h i A s k e d i f t h e r e w e r e a n y q u e s t i o n s o f S t a f f .
V i c e - C h a i r m a n S e i b e r t A s k e d i f t h e 1 1 a . m . o p e n i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s r e q u e s t .
S e n i o r P l a n n e r W i l l i a m s S t a t e d t h a t t h e 1 1 : 0 0 a . m . o p e n i n g t i m e w a s w h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t
h a d a s k e d f o r .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t h e l o o k e d o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a n d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t s a s k e d
f o r t h e s a m e t i m e s t h e y w e r e p r o p o s e d .
V i c e - C h a i r m a n S e i b e r t A s k e d i f t h e r e w e r e a n y v i d e o g a m e s o n t h e p r e m i s e s .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t a n y i n c l u d e d i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a n d t h a t i t
c o u l d b e a d d e d a s a c o n d i t i o n t h a t n o v i d e o g a m e s w o u l d b e o n t h e p r e m i s e s .
C o m m i s s i o n e r L e B e r t h o n A s k e d i f t h e a p p l i c a n t w o u l d n e e d t o a p p l y f o r a C o n d i t i o n a l
U s e P e r m i t i f t h e y w a n t e d v i d e o g a m e s .
D i r e c t o r D a w s o n S t a t e d t h a t m o r e t h a n f o u r v i d e o g a m e s r e q u i r e s a C o n d i t i o n a l U s e
P e r m i t . F u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t p e r h a p s t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d l i k e t o i m p o s e a
c o n d i t i o n t h a t n o I n t e r n e t g a m e s o r v i d e o g a m e s a r e a l l o w e d o n t h e p r e m i s e a t a l l .
C h a i r m a n A r r i g h i A s k e d i f t h e r e w e r e a n y q u e s t i o n s o f S t a f f a n d o p e n e d t h e P u b l i c
H e a r i n g .
N : \ W o r d \ D e p a r t m e n t \ C D D \ M I N S \ P C M I N U T E S 2 0 0 2 \ P C M I N U T E S A p r i l 9 , 2 0 0 2 . d o c
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 10
Frank Shen, 2158 Durfee Avenue, El Monte, CA — Stated that he was representing the
applicant and wanted to address some concerns. He stated that one potential tenant for
the unit next door was an insurance company. He stated that there was no problem with
the operating hours or video game issue and that the signage would be removed. He
stated that his concern was the condition regarding the block wall around the perimeter.
He stated that this was not negotiated with the landlord and the tenant and if they need to
do this in order to get approval they will but they rather speak to the landlord first. He
stated that as it stands now it is a chain link fence.
Director Dawson — Asked if there was a block wall on the rear property line or if it was
chain link.
Frank Shen, 2158 Durfee Avenue, El Monte, CA — Stated that he did not recall.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked Senior Planner Williams to show the video and the video
showed a wooden fence.
Frank Shen, 2158 Durfee Avenue, El Monte, CA — Stated that it was a wooden fence
separating the residential area from the commercial.
Director Dawson — Stated that the primary concern of the Staff was separating the
commercial area from the residential area so that the residential area was not adversely
impacted.
Commissioner 1 e Berthon — Asked if that could be imposed on a lessee.
Director Dawson — Stated yes, because it was on the property itself.
S;ommissioner Griffith z — Stated that the video shows that it is a partial block wall.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Stated that a block wall constructed along the wall would
suffice.
Frank Shen, 2158 Durfee Avenue, El Monte, CA — Stated that it was something that was
not negotiated in the lease but if that is what it takes to get approval then the applicant will
agree to that condition.
Chairman Arrighi — Condition number four calls for a perimeter along three sides and the
Planning Commission is willing to require it along the back side. Asked the applicant if he
read the conditions and if the applicant was willing to comply with them. Further asked if
the property owner was willing to take down the sign that is presently standing there.
Frank Shen, 2158 Durfee Avenue, Fl Monte. CA - Stated that he cannot speak for the
property owner but as far as he was concerned they do not object to the sign being taken
down.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 11
• Vice- Chairman Seibert — Stated that it is one of the conditions and that someone has to
do it.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of the
project.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked if Staff had any other questions.
Commissioner Griffiths Moved to close seconded by Chairman Arrighi and unanimously
carried.
Chairman Arrig — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
•1111 •,-
.•<
— Stated that he had no problem with the project and as long as the
applicant complies with all the conditions he can make the findings for approval.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that he agrees and stated that the change needed to be
made to condition number four regarding the block wall and he did not know how to
enforce condition number seven regarding the sign being removed because of the owner
being involved. Stated that he does agree with condition seven.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Stated that he agreed with the addition of no video game as
• condition number 18, the change on the block wall and that with respect to the sign
someone has to do it if they want to occupy the space.
•
Commissioner Le Berthon — Stated that he agrees and it seems to be an attractive use
of the property.
Chairman Arrighi — Stated that he also concurred.
Commissioner Capra - Moved to adopt the negative declaration and approve
Conditional Use Permit 02 -1487 with the addition of condition 18 and the change to
number 4 second by Vice - Chairman Seibert and unanimously carried.
Chairman Arrighi — Stated that the motion carried and that there was a 15 -day review/
appeal period.
B. PUBLIC HEARING: A ZONE VARIANCE AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT CONSISTING OF
TWO (2) DETACHED UNITS. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE HIGH
DENSITY (R -3) RESIDENTIAL ZONE
SITE: 6202 -6206 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 12
CASE NO: TENTATIVE PARCELMAP 26573
ZONE VARIANCE 02 -1490
PROPERTY OWNER: HOURIG BAGDADIAN
9237 LOWER AZUSA RD., #H
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
ENGINEER /APPLICANT: UPRISE ENGINEERING
ATTN: ALOMAR
10045 LAMPSON AVENUE
GARDEN GROVE, CA 92840
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Hear Staff Report
2) Hear those for and against
3) Negative Declaration
4) Adopt Resolution
Director Dawson — summarized the Staff report dated April 9, 2002.
Senior Planner Williams narrated and showed the video
Chairman Arrighi — Asked if there were any questions of Staff and opened the Public
Hearing.
Joseph Bagdadian — Applicant (9237 I ower Azusa Rd. #H, Temple City)- Stated that he
was asking for approval because of the reasons that he mentioned when he was before
the Planning Commission at a previous meeting.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Director Dawson — Stated that the applicant might want to refresh the Planning
Commissioners on what his circumstances were.
Joseph Bagdadian — Applicant (9237 LoweLAzusa Rd. #H, Temple City) — Stated that he
built two nice homes for his daughter to live in one and his sister -in -law to live in the other.
During the time they were building the homes his sister -in -law passed away and now he
wishes that he had subdivided and planned to build four condos and asked the Planning
Commissioners to grant him the variance he is asking for.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the project.
Leonard Kahnke — 5038 Temple City Blvd., Temple City — Stated that he was in favor
of the project.
Sylvia Bagdadian — Applicant (9237 Lower Azusa Rd. #H, Temple City)— Stated that she
is the daughter of the applicant and that one of the homes was built for her. She stated
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 13
that the two homes were approved prior to the zoning amendment and it would have
been possible to have a two unit condominium project and she feels that since the
plans were approved prior to the Zoning Amendment, she feels that the Zone Variance
should be approved. She explained some reasons why the permits were delayed. She
further stated that she has seen other two unit condo projects and that their homes
meet the standards required. Stated how difficult it was to sell the property the way it is
because there are no comparable lots in the City.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked of anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the project.
LA I •11. I
1
M.. -- 1!
— Spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he
homes are very nice homes and that they would be taken care of better by an owner
than if they had to be rented out and that would benefit the City.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked of anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the project.
Jim Law -9521 Wedgeworth, Temple City — Asked what the square footage of the lots
are and what the Zoning was.
Director Dawson — Stated that the parcel was zoned R -3 and the lot was over 10,000
sq. ft. in size.
• Jim Law -9521 W .dgeworth Tem In e cv - Asked if they were split would each one
have 5,000 ft.
Director Dawson — Stated that is correct, but the lot would not be split, it would still be
one lot but that they would be condominium units with an association and common
areas.
Chairman Arrighi — Asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of or in opposition of
the project.
Vice - Chairman Seibert moved to close second by Commissioner Capra and
unanimously carried.
Commissioner Le Berthon — Asked if two condo projects were allowed would these
meet the regulations needed to be approved.
Director Dawson — Answered yes, that in order to get permits it would have to meet the
regulations and that this is in the R -3 zone and it is consistent with other developments.
Chairman Arriahi — Closed the Public Hearing and began discussion.
Vice- Chairman Seibert — Stated that unfortunately the applicant had a problem, but
looking strictly at the requirements for a variance, this did not qualify for a variance.
Further stated that there is not anything unique or unusual about the property and he
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 14
chose to build two homes to maintain the same ownership. Stated that the ordinance
was changed for a purpose because two condo units usually have trouble agreeing on
maintenance issues. Further stated that unfortunately the findings could not be made
to grant a variance.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that on condition number three under the zone
variance it stated that the subdivision would create two lots and that it was a minor point
but that it needed correction because it would not create two lots but rather two owners
of the lot.
Director Dawson — Stated that technically it was incorrect and that it should be
reworded.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that particular condition is not appropriate in the denial
process but the other ones do apply and he was not sure how to handle that and a
further comment is that on the standard conditions, should it be approved, there is one
missing that states something about the 12 inches of fill should be listed as a condition
if the variance were approved.
Director Dawson — Stated that there was a subdivision meeting on the matter and that
the City has not had a condo conversion and this just short of a condo conversion and
the only reason it is not is because the occupancy certificate had not been issued.
Further stated that that condition as removed because it did not apply
Commissioner Griffiths — Continued speaking and stated that he agrees with Vice -
Chairman Seibert and he cannot make the findings for granting the variance and that
he cannot find in favor of condition number three to deny it.
Commissioner I e Berthon - Stated that there are no exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances and he cannot find in favor of approving the variance.
Commissioner Capra — Stated that he cannot make any of the required findings to
approve and therefore he would have to deny the variance.
Chairman Arriahi — Stated that he concurred.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Moved to deny Zone Variance 02 -1490 and adopt the
resolution second by Commissioner Capra and unanimously carried.
Chairman Arriahi — Stated that the motion carried and that there was a 15 -day review/
appeal period.
Joseph Bagdadian — Applicant (9237 Lower Azusa Rd. #H, Temple City) — Stated that
four blocks away from his property there are two houses being built like his and the
property is much smaller and it is being approved as a condominium project.
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 15
Senior Planner Williams — Stated that it was outside of the City limits and it was Arcadia
or L.A. County.
Joseph Bagdadian — Applicant (9237 I ower Azusa Rd. #H, Temple City) — Asked what
was so bad about his houses and why was there similar ones being built so closely.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Stated that if the homes were in the Temple City jurisdiction
they would not be built.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that if it is outside of Temple City then the Planning
Commission cannot do anything about it but if the property is inside of Temple City then
the Planning Commission needs to go by the rules.
Joseph Bagdadian — Applicant (9237 Lower Azusa Rd. #H, Temple City) — Asks what is
so bad about what he wants to do.
Commissioner Griffiths — States that it is not a matter of being bad but a matter of not
meeting the ordinance.
Joseph Bagdadian — Applicant (9237 Lower Azusa Rd. #H, Temple City) — Stated that he
first asked for single family type houses and the Planning Commission wanted condo
• type houses and he agreed to this even though it reduced the property value of his
homes. Stated that he feels if he had just seven feet more then he would meet the
standards for a single family house.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Stated that the public hearing was over and that this point he
could appeal the decision to the City Council.
Joseph Bagdadian — Applicant (9237 Lower Azusa Rd. #H, Temple City) — Stated that he
was going to do that.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Explained to the applicant that the City Council has the power
to reverse the decision and that he should appeal if he wants to try to get his project
approved. Stated that the Planning Commission cannot change the situation
according to the law.
8. COMMUNICATIONS: None
9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS:
a. Flag -Lot Subdivision Review: The City Council has requested that the
Planning Commission review the City's Flag Lot Ordinance. Staff will present
background material and suggest that a public hearing date be set.
Commissioner Griffiths — Stated that the suggestions are good and timely and that
would solve the present problem of having some variances as a personal land use
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
Planning Commission
April 9, 2002
Page 16
opinion the 100 foot limit is reasonable because sometime a parcel is more than 100
foot wide the proper way to subdivide is a flag lot rather than a lot split. Stated that he
felt it was a useful tool to have and the last paragraphs covers if the lot should be cut
down the middle or a flag lot are property worded. Stated that this tool should stay
because it is a useful tool to have when needed.
City Attorney Martin — Asked if Commissioner Griffiths was suggesting setting it for
hearing.
Commissioner Griffiths — moved to set a public hearing seconded by Vice - Chairman
Seibert and unanimously carried.
b. Business Retention and Attraction Program: On March 19, 2002, the
City Council approved in concept a Business Retention and Attraction
Program. The Planning Commission will be asked to provide input,
particularly in regard to establishing appropriate criteria for participation in an
Enhanced Facade Improvement effort.
Vice - Chairman Seibert — Asked if increasing the facade improvement program up to
$10,000 going to make a difference.
Director Dawson — Stated that it could create stronger retail uses.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Arrighi adjourned the meeting at
9:07 p.m.
ATTEST:
kuvikt/K aekt,tu
Secretary
N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2002 \PC MINUTES April 9, 2002.doc
•