HomeMy Public PortalAbout9AAGENDA
ITEM 9.A.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 2, 2010
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jose E. Pulido, City Manager
By: Joseph M. Lambert, Community Development ManagerJL_
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING ZONE
VARIANCE 10-1765 TO MAINTAIN A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WHICH
DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION
9296M.4.G OF THE TEMPLE CITY CODE.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and adopt
a Resolution denying the zone variance.
BACKGROUND:
1. On June 22, 2010, the applicant was issued a Code Compliance Notice from one of
the City's Code Enforcement Officers for constructing a circular driveway on a
property that does not meet the minimum requirements for a circular driveway.
2. On July 29, 2010, the property owner applied for a zone variance to maintain the
circular driveway as installed.
3. On September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-2308
denying the Zone Variance (ZV 10-1765)
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the Temple City Zoning Code, a circular driveway may be constructed
provided that:
"A. Said driveway has, or connects with a driveway, which has direct access to a legal
parking area or structure as defined in section 9290: and
City Council
November 2, 2010
Page 2
B. The entire width of said driveway, at some point thereon, is located entirely behind
the required setback area for such zone; and
C. Said driveway shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') in width; and
D. Notwithstanding subsection M.4.B. of this section, no circular driveway shall exceed
twelve feet (12') in width; and
E. Each driveway approach shall be a minimum of twelve feet (12') at street level; and
F. There shall be a minimum of thirty feet (30') of full height curb between the two (2)
driveway approaches, including slopes, measured at their nearest points; and
G. No circular driveway shall be permitted on a lot less than seventy feet (70') in width."
In examining the preceding circular driveway requirements, the subject property and
subject circular driveway essentially complies with conditions A through F listed above.
As the subject property is only 45 feet wide, it does not comply with condition G which
states that no circular driveway shall be permitted on a lot less than 70 feet in width. The
intent of this regulation is to regulate the overall appearance and amount of visible
concrete in a front yard area. With a larger lot size and greater lot width, a circular
driveway takes up a smaller percentage of the front yard and is generally more
aesthetically pleasing. With a 45 foot wide lot, the subject lot is rather narrow and the
subject circular driveway dominates a significant portion of the front yard.
One unusual fact regarding this property is that the circular driveway actually leads to a
shared driveway on the adjacent lot directly to the west. The subject property has
easement rights to access and use this shared driveway. The access easement is 22
feet wide, and it could be argued that this 22 foot easement can be added to the 45 foot
width of the subject lot: 45 feet + 22 feet = 67 feet. However, it should be noted that this
easement is located on a separate lot and technically speaking; it is not part of the subject
property.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission could not justify the findings required to approve a zone
variance. The subject lot is 45 feet wide, has the appearance of a 45 foot wide lot, and
the existence of the easement does not justify the circular driveway. Even if the width of
the 22 foot easement is added to the subject lot's 45 foot width, the resulting width is still
only 67 feet wide, short of the 70 foot lot width requirement. In denying the request and
adopting Resolution No. 10-2308, the Planning Commission found that there is nothing
exceptional or extraordinary about the subject lot and that the property owner is not being
denied any rights possessed by other property owners in the vicinity. Staff concurs with
the Planning Commission's findings.
City Council
November 2, 2010
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 City Budget.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Memo from the City Clerk dated September 28, 2010 announcing the Appeal of
the Planning Commission's denial
B. Copy of the "Appeal" form signed by Mrs. Bersane
C. PC Resolution No. 10-2308 PC
D. PC Minutes dated September 14, 2010
E. Two letters of opposition
F. PC Staff Report dated September 14, 2010, and attachments thereto
G. Draft CC Resolution No. 10-4706
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
September 28, 2010
City Council
Planning Commission
Applicant and Owner
Interested Parties
FROM: Mary Flandrick, City Clerk
SUBJECT:
Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Denying Zone
Variance 10-1765 to Maintain a Circular Driveway Recently
Installed which does not meet the Requirements of Temple City
Zoning Code Section 9296M.4.g at 9655 Olive Street in the Single
Family Residential (R-1) Zone
You are hereby notified that an appeal of the Planning Commission decision of the
above item has been filed. This matter will be scheduled for public hearing before the
City Council, notice of which will be mailed separately.
Please note the decision of the Planning Commission shall be suspended until the
appeal is determined by the City Council. The decision of the Council shall be final and
conclusive.
Questions may be directed to Joseph M. Lambert, Manager of the Department of
Community Development at (626) 285-2171.
cc: 'f Community Development Manager
City Manager
City Attorney
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
APPEAL FORM
TO T
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
APPEAL BY:
Zone Change No. Zone Variance No. 162-- I !✓� (5
Conditional Use
Permit No.
cA.`vy\ i X S Coq
,/ (Appellant's Name)/
ON CASE NO. ZV ((62--[77(0.5--atr 1(0�at €
The undersigned
that certain de
day of
the following
should render
Commission.)
Dated:
Address
in the above -entitled matter does hereby appeal from
s f
i of the Planning Commission rendered on the i
, 20/0 , by Resolution No. /c— ' 4, upon
grounds: (State reasons why you think the City Council
a different decision than that rendered by the Planning
20 1b
* Filing fee non-refundable
BHP/FORM/7754.1
Address
(L26- k'2-7070
Phone No.
Rec ' d by: Cib-6 W1•�J`�l
(Authorized staff member)
Date:
(1/-71 ID
Receipt No.: ft— 10 [ O(o
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2308 PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A ZONE VARIANCE (ZV 10-1765) AT 9655 OLIVE
STREET TO MAINTAIN A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 9296M.4.G OF THE TEMPLE CITY
ZONING CODE. THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRE A LOT WIDTH OF NO
LESS THAN SEVENTY FEET (70') TO BE ELIGIBLE TO CONSTRUCT A CIRCULAR
DRIVEWAY AND THE SUBJECT LOT IS FORTY FIVE FEET (45') WIDE. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 AND IS DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY BY THE GENERAL PLAN. (ZV 10-1765) (BERSANE)
The Planning Commission of the City of Temple City does hereby resolve:
SECTION 1. Based upon a public hearing for the above Zone Variance,
the Planning Commission finds:
FOR DENIAL OF A ZONE VARIANCE REQUEST TO LEGALIZE AND MAINTAIN A
CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET
FORTH IN SECTION 9296M.4.G OF THE TEMPLE CITY ZONING CODE, DENIAL IS
BASED UP THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. That there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of such property which
do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone in that the subject
property is level in grade, is 45 feet wide and contains approximately 9,000 square
feet of usable land area. Although there is an access easement adjacent to the
subject property which is 22 feet wide, even if the width of the 22 foot easement is
added to the subject lot's 45 foot width, the resulting width is still only 67 feet
wide, short of the 70 foot lot width requirement for a circular driveway. Moreover,
the access easement is not considered in calculating lot width; and
2. That such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties similarly situated, but
which is denied to the property in question in that most lots in the vicinity are
between 45 feet and 65 feet wide, none of these lots would be eligible to
construct a circular driveway without approval of a zone variance; and
3. That the granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to adjacent or neighboring properties in that this zone
variance would allow the applicant to maintain a driveway which does not comply
with the Zoning Code, and being a 45 foot wide lot, the subject lot is rather
narrow and the subject circular driveway dominates a significant portion of the
front yard, which could result in and adverse aesthetic impact throughout the
neighborhood; and
Resolution 10-2308 PC
Zone Variance 10-1765
9655 Olive Street
Page 2
4. That there are no special circumstances as provided in Section 65906 of the
California Government Code, in that the subject site is rectangular in shape, level
in grade, and is larger in area than most properties in the same zone. The lot is not
unique or unusual in comparison to other R-1 zoned properties throughout the
City.
SECTION 2. Accordingly, Zone Variance 10-1765 is hereby denied.
SECTION 3. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 14th of September
2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner - Chen, Horton, 0' Leary, Seibert, Valenzuela
Commissioner - None
Commissioner - None
Commissioner - None
Secr ry
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
INITIATION:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL:
Commissioners: 0' Leary, Valenzuela, Chen, Horton, Seibert
Also Present: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Manager
Lambert, Associate Planner Gulick, and Planning Secretary
Venters
4. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK:
No one came forth at this time.
5, CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 24, 2010
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS SUBMITTED
Commissioner Seibert -- Stated that he would like to abstain from voting on this item as he was
not present at the Planning Commission Meeting of August 24, 2010.
Vice Chairman Valenzuela - Made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting
minutes dated August 24, 2010, seconded by Commissioner Chen and unanimously carried,
with Commissioner Seibert abstaining.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING:
NONE
A ZONE VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A CIRCULAR
DRIVEWAY WHICH WAS RECENTLY INSTALLED
WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
SET FORTH IN SECTION 9296M.4.g OF THE
TEMPLE CITY CODE. THE ZONING
REGULATIONS REQUIRE A LOT WIDTH OF NO
LESS THAN SEVENTY FEET (70') TO BE
ELIGIBLE TO CONSTRUCT A CIRCULAR
DRIVEWAY. THE SUBJECT LOT IS FORTY FIVE
FEET (45') WIDE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
ZONED R-1 AND IS DESIGNATED AS
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY BY THE GENERAL
PLAN.
Mann., Con m q pv. Mn.AM
oau di,M.,'. 54p[rnlN'4 20 ID
SUBJECT SITE: 9655 OLIVE STREET
CASE NUMBERS: ZONE VARIANCE 10-1765
PROPERTY OWNER/ SAM R. BERSANE, JR.
APPLICANT: 9655 OLIVE STREET
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) FIND THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL
Chairman O'Leary — Asked for a Staff Report.
Community Development Manager Lambert — Gave the Staff Report dated September 14, 2010.
Associate Planner Gulick — Gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Chairman O'Leary — Asked if there were any questions or comments from the Planning
Commissioners for the Staff. The Planning Commissioners did not have questions at this time.
Invited the applicant to speak.
Sam R. Bersane Jr., 9655 Olive St., Temple City, CA 91780 — Stated that he had noticed that his
neighbor had installed a circular driveway and had mentioned that a permit from the City was not
necessary. Stated that the evening his circular driveway was installed he had received a code
compliance notice. Stated that his property shares an easement with two other properties,
therefore, he feels that he meets the requriements to allow a Zone Variance. Stated that if he did
not share this easement his lot would be 45 feet wide and he could see how the Municipal Code
should be upheld. Stated that he has not received any complaints from his neighbors regarding his
circular driveway and was not aware that he was in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Stated
that he has invested approximately four thousand dollars in this project and should not be denied
the right to enter and exit his property through his easement.
Commissioner Chen — Asked Community Development Manager Lambert if the easement is to
the east of the property.
Community Development Manager Lambert — Stated that the easement is to the west of Mr.
Bersane's property. Stated that if the driveway was located on the opposite side of the property,
then he would be able to have access to his garage through the easement.
Chairman O'Leary - Asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or against the
proposed request. No one came forth at this time.
City Attorney Murphy — Acknowledged for the record that two anonymous letters in opposition of this
request were submitted to Staff.
Commissioner Seibert -- Made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Vice
Chairman Valenzuela and unanimously carried.
Commissioner Seibert - Stated that he becomes upset at those who make improvements to
their property without permits, get caught, and expect the City to accommodate them. Stated
�amnq Cc4.F,uwn 'Avian
Oil. 111Y„nq 54p4•npw 14 2010
that the applicant has access to his property from the easement, and it is also used by two other
homeowners, therefore, he is not in favor of this request.
Commissioner Chen — Stated that he concurs with the findings made by Staff and is not in favor
of this request.
Commissioner Horton - Stated that he concurs with fellow Commissioner Seibert and cannot
make the findings to approve this request. Stated that it is unfortunate that the applicant sought
advice from his neighbor and a contractor when City Hall Staff is available for free to help those
who would like to improve their property.
Vice Chairman Valenzuela -- Stated that after hearing the testimony from the applicant and from
Staff he also cannot make the findings to approve this request.
Chairman O'Leary — Stated that he also could not make the findings to approve this request.
Commissioner Seibert — Made a motion to deny Zone Variance 10-1765, seconded by
Commissioner Horton, and unanimously carried.
Chairman O'Leary — Stated that the application was denied 5-0 and stated that there is a
appeal/review period.
B.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBJECT SITE:
CASE NUMBER:
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT:
RECOMMENDATION:
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
PLUMBING INSIDE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE (DETACHED GARAGE) ON THE
SUBJECT SITE. THE APPLICANT IS
REQUESTING PERMISSION TO RETAIN A
BATHROOM AND LAUNDRY FACILITY INSIDE
THE EXISTING GARAGE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 AND IS DESIGNATED
AS RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY BY THE
GENERAL PLAN.
6149 LOMA AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-1761
REYNALDO AND KAREN WENDT
6149 LOMA AVENUE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
15 -day
1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) FIND THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303
4) ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL
Chairman O'Leary — Asked for a Staff Report.
Community Development Manager Lambert — Gave the Staff Report dated September 14, 2010.
M 9711 Olive St. Temple City, C•1 97780 phone: (626) 286-7025
Email muhaelm l01 @sbeglobal.net
Joseph M. Lambert
Community Development Manager
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Dr.
Temple City, CA 91780
RE: Zone Variance 10-1765 September 5, 2010
Dear Mr. Lambert:
I received your letter regarding the above and have a few comments regarding the property in
question. I will not be attending the hearing as I have found dissenting commentary to have profound
effects on neighborly relations. In addition, my wish is to remain anonymous.
I have been a resident of Temple City since 1974 and am very familiar with the property located at
9655 Olive Street. Moreover, within the last ten years there has been a considerable amount of
"undesirable" activity on and about the property.
1) It has appeared that a host of individuals have taken residence at the property over the years
and social -activity "round the clock" is typical, especially on weekends. Attendees to the
events appear to be from "other" geographic areas.
2) Automobiles are typically parked on the lawn (part of the area which has been transformed
into the circular driveway in question).
3) 1 have witnessed auto repair being conducted on the front lawn area on numerous occasions.
In my opinion, and through direct observation, the driveway appears to serve the purpose of
automobile repair, and social activity (particularly, the loading and unloading of "party -goers). As
your letter states, the width of the property (45ft) is slightly more than half of the regulation width of
70 ft. Therefore, I can see 1;o other utilitarian means for this driveway other than the ones stated above.
I'm hoping that the best possible resolution is contemplated and that our neighborhood is restored to a
quality that was abundant in an earlier phase of Temple City's development.
I thank you kindly for your attention.
Sincerely,
Michae L. Magener
Subject: Zone Variance
9655 Olive Street
I would like to respectfully oppose this variance for several reasons. This residence has
been a known drug trafficking house for several years; several law enforcement raids
have been made there. This is why I would like to remain anonymous. The main reason
for the opposition is there is an illegal unit with a full kitchen and bathroom and a trailer
that are being rented out, an inspection would reveal this. The driveway would only
accommodate the illegal rentals as it is now, there could be up to 10-12 cars at one time
parked in the driveway, lawn and streets. This is an R-1 residential neighborhood and all
the cars are an eye sore. Several neighbors feel the same but are intimidated.
Thank you
October 26, 2010
Dear Members of the City Council
I request that my opposition to the request for variance regarding a circular driveway at
9665 Olive Street be considered at the Council meeting on November 2, 2010. I have
observed the driveway and it amounts to no more than a parking pad installed in front of
the residence. From the street it appears that some type of camper is parked in the
driveway behind the gate. I believe that granting the requested variance will set a bad
precedent. The west end of the driveway accesses the adjacent property's private
driveway, not a public street. The property is designated as low density. The driveway
mentioned in this request for variance will result in turning a residential property into a
parking lot.
Sincerely
0.Y1-ft-f-..illif' 244./Z7
Lawrence H. Mullaly
9661 Nadine St.
Temple City, Ca. 91780
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATE,OF_11i'IEETING� SEPTEMBER 94,_2Q10
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOSEPH M. LAMBERTS -R ---
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REPORT ON:
A ZONE VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A CIRCULAR
DRIVEWAY WHICH WAS RECENTLY INSTALLED WHICH
DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 9296M.4.g OF THE TEMPLE CITY CODE. THE
ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRE A LOT WIDTH OF NO
LESS THAN SEVENTY FEET (70') TO BE ELIGIBLE TO
CONSTRUCT A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. THE SUBJECT
LOT IS FORTY FIVE FEET (45') WIDE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 AND IS DESIGNATED AS
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY BY THE GENERAL PLAN.
PROJECT SITE: 9655 OLIVE STREET
CASE NO.: ZONE VARIANCE 10-1765
PROPERTY OWNER/ SAM R. BERSANE, JR.
APPLICANT: 9655 OLIVE STREET
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Lot: Area
Sq. Ft. Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
9,000 45' 200' Rectangular and level
Pubiic Improvements: Existing curb and gutter
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt [15301]
Pending Actions: Code Compliance Notice from Code Enforcement
Previous Actions: None
Background:
Public Hearing: September 14, 2010
Zone Variance 10-1765
9655 Olive Street
Page 2
The subjecfpropefjr is-=iocated of'9655" OliVeSreet-betinieenTGoideriWesf"AVeriue- and
Temple City Boulevard. The lot has a street frontage of 45 feet and an average depth of
200 feet, with a total land area of approximately 9,000 square feet. The property has
been improved with a 1,125 square foot single story residence with a detached two -car
garage in the back yard. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1) and the
General Plan Designation is Low Density Residential.
Proposed Development:
The applicant was issued a Code Compliance Notice from one of the City's Code
Enforcement Officers for constructing a circular driveway on a property that does not
meet the requirements for a circular driveway.
Analysis:
Pursuant to the Temple City Zoning Code, a circular driveway may be constructed
provided that:
A. Said driveway has, or connects with a driveway, which has direct access to a legal
parking area or structure as defined in section 9290; and
B. The entire width of said driveway, at some point thereon, is located entirely behind
the required setback area for such zone; and
C. Said driveway shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') in width; and
D. Notwithstanding subsection M4b of this section, no circular driveway shall exceed
twelve feet (12') in width; and
E. Each driveway approach shall be a minimum of twelve feet (12') at street level; and
F. There shall be a minimum of thirty feet (30') of full height curb between the two (2)
driveway approaches, including slopes, measured at their nearest points; and
G. No circular driveway shall be permitted on a lot less than seventy feet (70') in width.
In examining the preceding circular driveway requirements, the subject property and
subject circular driveway essentially complies with conditions A through F listed above.
As the subject property is only 45 feet wide, it does not comply with condition G which
states that no circular driveway shall be permitted on a lot less than 70 feet in width. The
intent of this regulation is to regulate the overall appearance and amount of visible
concrete in a front yard area. With a larger lot size and greater lot width, a circular
driveway takes up a smaller percentage of the front yard and is generally more
aesthetically pleasing. With a 45 foot wide lot, the subject lot is rather narrow and the
subject circular driveway dominates a significant portion of the front yard.
Public Hearing: September 14, 2010
Zone Variance 10-1765
9655 Olive Street
Page 3
One unusual fact ._.� �� . y . . •- -�
regar_ding this propert is the fact th-at ttie circu`far drivewayactualy'"
leads to a shared driveway on the adjacent lot directly to the west. The subject property
has easement rights to access and use this shared driveway, and a copy of the
Declaration of Maintenance Agreement (easement) is attached. The access easement is
22 feet wide, and it could be.argued that this 22 foot easement can be added to the 45
foot width of the subject lot: 45 feet + 22 feet = 67 feet. However, it should be noted that
this easement is located on a separate lot, technically speaking; it is not part of the
subject property.
To consider a Zone Variance request, the following findings must be met:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of such property
which do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone; and
2. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property similarly situated but
which is denied to the property in question; and
3. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan
nor the purpose and intent of the provisions of this Chapter; nor be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the adjacent or
neighboring properties; and
4. That there are special circumstances as set forth in Section 65906 of the
California Government Code.
After analyzing the findings, staff cannot support the zone variance request. The subject
lot is 45 feet wide, has the appearance of a 45 foot wide lot, and the existence of the
easement does not justify the circular driveway. Also, even if the width of the 22 foot
easement is added to the subject lot's 45 foot width, the resulting width is still only 67 feet
wide, short of the 70 foot lot width requirement. In staffs assessment, there is nothing
exceptional or extraordinary about the subject lot and the property owner is not being
denied any rights possessed by other property owners in the vicinity.
Recommendation:
The subject proposal is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to deny Zone
Variance 10-1765, based upon the findings contained in the attached draft Resolution.
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution for Denial
2. Project Application
3. Declaration of Maintenance Agreement (Access Easement)
4. Site Photographs
5. Vicinity Map
6. Land Use Map
7. Aerial Photograph
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2308 PC
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A ZONE VARIANCE (ZV 10-1765) AT 9655 OLIVE
STREET TO MAINTAIN A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 9296M.4.G OF THE TEMPLE CITY
ZONING CODE. THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRE A LOT WIDTH OF NO
LESS THAN SEVENTY FEET (70') TO BE ELIGIBLE TO CONSTRUCT A CIRCULAR
DRIVEWAY AND THE SUBJECT LOT IS FORTY FIVE FEET (45') WIDE. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 AND IS DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY BY THE GENERAL PLAN. (ZV 10-1765) (BERSANE)
The Planning Commission of the City of Temple City does hereby resolve:
SECTION 1. Based upon a public hearing for the above Zone Variance,
the Planning Commission finds:
FOR DENIAL OF A ZONE VARIANCE REQUEST TO LEGALIZE AND MAINTAIN A
CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET
FORTH IN SECTION 9296M.4.G OF THE TEMPLE CITY ZONING CODE, DENIAL IS
BASED UP THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. That there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of such property which
do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone in that the subject
property is level in grade, is 45 feet wide and contains approximately 9,000 square
feet of usable land area. Although there is an access easement adjacent to the
subject property which is 22 feet wide, even if the width of the 22 foot easement is
added to the subject lot's 45 foot width, the resulting width is still only 67 feet
wide, short of the 70 foot lot width requirement for a circular driveway. Moreover,
the access easement is not considered in calculating lot width; and
2. That such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties similarly situated, but
which is denied to the property in question in that most lots in the vicinity are
between 45 feet and 65 feet wide, none of these lots would be eligible to
construct a circular driveway without approval of a zone variance; and
3. That the granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to adjacent or neighboring properties in that this zone
variance would allow the applicant to maintain a driveway which does not comply
with the Zoning Code, and being a 45 foot wide lot, the subject lot is rather
narrow and the subject circular driveway dominates a significant portion of the
front yard, which could result in and adverse aesthetic impact throughout the
neighborhood; and
Resolution 10-2308 PC
Zone Variance 10-1765
9655 Olive Street
DRAFT
Page 2
4. That there are no special circumstances as provided in Section 65906 of the
California Government Code, in that the subject site is rectangular in shape, level
in grade, and is larger in area than most properties in the same zone. The lot is not
unique or unusual in comparison to other R-1 zoned properties throughout the
City.
SECTION 2. Accordingly, Zone Variance 10-1765 is hereby denied.
SECTION 3. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Chairman
1 hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 14th of September
2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner-
Commissioner-
Commissioner-
Commissioner -
Secretary
1PLE CITY
NNING APPLICATION
:conditional T.Use;Pefmit- m77-
Zone Variance
Minor Zone Modification
General Plan Amendment
Zone Change
Property Owner.
Address:
Applicant:
Address:
Address/Location of Project: ,•\''
FILE NO. Z\./ IC7-1765
(Assigned by City)
-Modjficationief bndititinal�Use Permit
Tentative Parcel Map (4 or less units)
Tentative Tract Map (5 or more units)
Other:
2 15 �"SL(�i�
0,/,65 01,c) )-e__:,5-Jrvr-,-t-
Phone %G 2-6 - 44Q-70 70
Phone Cya xv,-o A (onu�J
Description of pergt requested: Z 0if1'L V O r rci eD
(At e chdd additional sheets if necessary)
CAY
Reason given to support your request: Lc \C--e-DA / i1 LLn&.L
(Attached additi naLsheets if n essary)
l ►rC`P) 1" . %)' _• �� 15 1 S 221 ess
w2vItL
(14-r-(c,, . pasVr( A-- 4 oho ' ur:d.e k�, v -A 3' TA rick n -)
Notes: .1. All applications require site plan, floor plan(s), and elevations to be submitted, unless otherwise
specified by staff.
2. Additional processing documents may or may not be required to be submitted with this
application (e.g. environmental evaluation), schedule of classes, hours of operation (days & times),
schedule of facilities events.
3. A grant deed, showing the legal description, is required for all applications.
4. If applicant does not own the property that is the subject of this application, owner must
also sign application.
5. Applicant declares that this is an application for development approval.
6. Applications are not deemed complete until ALL REQUIRED MATERIALS are submitted.
Date: — o f b Signature
Date:
Property Owner
Signature
Applicant
(For Office Use Only)
Date Filed
Rec'd By
Fee Pd
Receipt No. rL o1Qo3Co
DECLA:.ATION OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
ex44899Pc829
1262 ien t
As.the undersigned owners of property edjoining_end._bounded by-.fhe-. olioea_ng
described easement:
An easement for ingress, egress and incidental purposes to be used in common
with others over the Easterly 22 feet of the Southerly 200 feet of that portion
of -Lot 53 of Mission View Acres, as per map recorded in Book 12 Page 150 of
Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county, described as
follows:
Beginning at a point distant North 80° 44' East 175.23 feet from the South-
westerly corner of said Lot 53; thence North 80` 44' East 22 feet;thence
North 9° 16' West to the Southerly line of Tract No. 15762, as per map
recorded in Book 619 Pages 51 and 52 of•Maps, in the office of the county
recorder of said county; thence Westerly along said Southerly line 197.23 feet;
thence South 9° 16' East 87 feet; thence North 80° 44' East 75.23 feet;
thence North 80° 44' East 100 feet; thence South 9' 16' East 172.49 feet to
the point of beginning together with that portion of Olive Street adjoining
said property on the South as vacated by order of the Board of Supervisors,
dated September 26, 1510, recorded in Book 12, Page 81, of the Records of
said Board.
We hereby agree and declare that we shall bear an equal share of any and
all costs required for maintenance and repairs of said easement under the
terms and conditions as set forth herein:
1. Said easement described above shall be used in common with other owners
of properties bounding thereon who use said easement for ingress and egress
and/or utilities.
2. Repairs on said private easement shall be equally divided between the
property owners and funds necessary' will be collected and administered in a
manner mutually agreed to by all parties whenever necessary.
3. Every owner of property bounding on said easement who cause or allow,
in any manner, said private street to be used, traversed or altered, by
vehicular traffic or otherwise, thereby causing damage to the surface thereof,
shall bear as his sole responsibility the cost and expense of repairing such
damage.
4. This agreement is to be construed as a covenant running with the land and
fir the mutual benefit of the undersigned, their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and assigns.
It is the purpose of the signature affixed hereto that this instrument
be recorded to the end and intent that the obligations hereby created shall
be and constitute a restriction imposed upon and shah be secured by the
said property, and any subsequent transferee thereof, by acceptance of
delivery of a deco to or conveyance of the said property shall be deemed to
-.,-.:e consented to a^d become bound by these presents.
I- WHEREOF,
we have executed these presents this
, 1974, at Temple C:,tv. California.
Maude C. Parkhurst
77 -1:e24 -1-1-2-k-3
Alien L. Murphy
Thomas L. Reiman
rise of
e . -lc- ./ / i'•,.r; Bu„
Mary Frances Morton
RE^_-ORDED IN OFFICIAL RECOR1XS
OF LOS ANGELES ODUt 1Y, CA
O[`7 10 1974 AT 8 A -M, I
Re•:Li:lct•'s Office
1
"--et, - i-
Mary/t, ,.0 rnhv
iman
26
1 33 4 1 . 22 1 H 2O _ r- i� r. --- 4 35 713 r-. 1it 1
1 ," 1 m L. ,1�1 Y�1_�
— 1# 1 1 4111 1
m 1 x 4 l
cm 1 d
t t' m i" 1
c 1 o 1 1 1 y.
l 1.-
1 .` •11 1 i N 1N
�O ! .76 L,__L-•"1 . tom,
1 ; N — — r 1 1 .72 ,�
.70 ....i--`.... 1 1
n 1% N N
I
,...1s . 60 — -'1 1 r l
t
� l .. t
C,D13 ,54 ----4 -° iN -•'1
s -- 1 N
.0440 .. .5Z 4 1
0.1 - l . .50 1 1 :sej+
.4e l5
19.
75'
. 7%'
"_� ~f~ 1111 1
j m 111 ii
114
+ 4
9
4
re.
4
41' CO
3S' }�
1p1.10
S
.0140 23'
W
13,
l0
03'
.42 1
.3e
35'
58 29'
r 25'
13'
09'
03'
4 NORTH
2 14 231 I _
Es E
6933
1,5600
NADINE
V
20
5300
$LAcKLE
14 1—
p ; ; of --
j;; I1� im ,ZV 10-1765
tnt
11� c - : 1
47
29
a "0
5400
A"
S
7
.06
. 00
0
to
26
. 1e
01 V
zoN,
520°6
d\?E
01
01
RESOLUTION NO. 10-4706
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AND
DENYING A ZONE VARIANCE REQUEST (ZV 10-1765) TO LEGALIZE A
CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 9296M.4.G OF THE
TEMPLE CITY ZONING CODE. THE ZONING REGULATIONS
REQUIRE A LOT WIDTH OF NO LESS THAN SEVENTY FEET (70') TO
BE ELIGIBLE TO CONSTRUCT A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AND THE
SUBJECT LOT IS FORTY FIVE FEET (45') WIDE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 AND IS DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY BY THE GENERAL PLAN. (ZV 10-1765) (BERSANE)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. Based upon information contained in the staff report to the City Council and
information contained in the Planning Commission staff report as well as the Planning Commission minutes
of September 14, 2010, and based upon a review of the plans and based upon testimony received at a
noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 14, 2010 and based upon a noticed
public hearing before the City Council on November 2, 2010, the City Council hereby upholds the action of
the Planning Commission and denies the Zone Variance based upon the findings set forth in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 10-2308 PC.
SECTION 2. Accordingly, Zone Variance 09-1723 is hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2"d DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution No. 10-4706, was adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 2"d day of November 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember-
NOES: Councilmember-
ABSENT: Councilmember-
ABSTAIN: Councilmember-
City Clerk
Wood Fence
Lam
Concrete
Rack
S.
,r -r
Exls'gng
Garage
329 Sq. Ft
Eds-tIng
Covered Conc. Patlo
— 237 Sq. Ft
Existing
Hobby Shop
304 Sq, Ft.
J
Rc
9t
Art Dort
Wood Gate V/
Swinging Doors
Black
Site Data:
Lot Size: 45' x 206' = 9,270 Sq. Ft.
House Size: 1,133 Sq. Ft.
Garage / Hobby Shop: 633 Sq, Ft.
Date
Revisions