HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 95-34021
1
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -3402
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -1207, A REQUEST
BY PHUNG MY TA TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
TWO -STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WHICH EXCEEDS 3,500
SQUARE FEET OF LIVEABLE AREA. THE PROPOSAL IS TO
CONSTRUCT A 4,581 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING IN THE SINGLE
FAMILY (R -1) ZONE. (TA)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. Based upon testimony received at a noticed public hearing and upon facts contained
in the staff report and upon a review of the Planning Commission Minutes and testimony received at a
noticed public hearing before the City Council, the City Council hereby sustains the Planning Commission's
denial and fords:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. A fording could not be made that the site for the proposed use is inadequate in size, shape,
topography and circumstances.
2. A fmding could not be made that the site has insufficient access to streets and highways, adequate
in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed
use.
3. A fording is made that the proposed use will have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment or
valuation of adjacent property or upon the public welfare for the following reasons:
a. That the construction of a large home in a small lot area further reduces the open space
available for yards and open areas and increases the hard and covered areas of the
neighborhood, thus further defeating the goals of the General Plan. [Ramona 26 CR2d
140; Rodriquez 2 CR2d 50; Novi 215 CR 439; Guinnane 257 CR 742; Ewing 286 CR 382;
Siegert 111 S. Ct. 1789; Cash 938 F2d 406; Ratkovich 54 CR 333; Thomas 283 CR 815].
Furthermore, such massive construction with its attendant cost reduces the availability
of affordable housing as mandated by the Housing Element of the General Plan and
SCAG.
b. That development of orderly and compatible residential construction is desirable, and any
construction which is substantially smaller or larger than the norm in the area may cause
a detrimental impact upon the value and enjoyment of neighboring properties; such impact
in this case would be the "mansionization effect" i.e. visually overpowering, dominating in
scope, ill proportioned for optimum size, thereby detracting from the serene ambience now
extant in that area. The neighbors at the public hearings expressed in credible conclusions
(as reflected in the minutes) that in this area (of smaller homes on proportionately larger
lots) the construction of either small "ticky- tacky" homes on larger lots or large mansions
on relatively smaller lots will upset the balance of design and lifestyle of the neighborhood
and cause damage in valuation, peace and harmony, and ambience. [Dore 28 CR2d 2299;
Desmond 25 CR2d 842; Saad 30 CR2d 95]. This Council concludes that while absolute
euclidian or cookie- cutter development is not necessary or even desirable, outlandish
differences in lot size, home area (or the interrelationship of the two) make for
Resolution No. 95 -3402
Page 2
15303.a.
disharmony and loss of value. The City may and should discourage such disharmony.
[Harris 31 CR2d 31 CR2d 1; Crown 283 CR 356; Denver 912 F2d 405; Ross 238 CR 561;
Warner 3 CR2d 306; Garat 3 CR2d 504].
c. Aside from the General Plan, open areas and spacious yards with trees and vegetation are
desirable features of a residential area [Berman 348 U.S. 26; Metromedia 164 CR 510;
Village 416 U.S. 1], and too much lot coverage and hardscape as opposed to wide yards
and spacious landscaping makes for congestion and loss of neighborhood compatibility,
because many larger homes are perceived as assuming an isolationist posture instead of
a neighborhood component continuum. This is particularly true in the Hart Avenue area
where the application seeks to construct a comparatively large home on a relatively small
lot, thereby forcing the maximum use of second stories and presenting a boxy monolithic
appearance, lacking in aesthetic ambience and cutting off light, air, breeze and privacy.
d. The Council concludes based on the evidence presented at the hearings and preserved in
the records of these proceedings that the developer of the proposed project is attempting
to overbuild for this neighborhood and that such overbuilding would serve a detrimental
effect on the area with regard to: 1) valuation, enjoyment, open space and other planning
factors [O'Hagen 96 CR 484; Garavatti 99 CR 260; Groch 173 CR 534; Perez 29 CR 781;
Lartnec 603 FS 1210; Smith 259 CR 231], and 2) massive structures which by nature will
reduce the availability of requisite affordable housing mandated by the General Plan.
Accordingly, as to size of the home, said application is denied for the reasons set forth
herein and based upon the evidence presented at the hearings and the supplemental
findings of various Council members, as indicated in the minutes, and as authorized by
Selma 881 F2d 836; Buhl 20 CR2d 740; Korean 28 CR2d 530; Costa Mesa 13 CR2d 530;
Mira 252 CR 825; and Bakersfield 48 CR 889.
SECTION 2. This project is Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines per Section
SECTION 3. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 94 -1207 is denied.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter
it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON MARCH 21, 1995.
ATTEST:
1
1
1
Resolution No. 95 -3402
Page 3
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution No. 95 -3402 was adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of March, 1995, by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmember- Gillanders, Souder, Wilson, Breazeal, Budds
NOES: Councilmember -None
ABSENT: Councilmember -None
1
1