Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06/20/2012MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DOWNEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 6:30 P.M. I. A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held June 20, 2012. Chairman Murray invited two members of the public, Gordon Sodetani and Thomas Yabe to lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Following the Pledge to our flag, Chairman Murray took a moment to acknowledge Mr. Sodetani and Mr. Yabe as Warren High School Honor students who have been invited to China to China to study 400,000,000 year old fossils in the Northeastern desert area. Upon arrival in Beijing the students will tour the country. Commissioner Murray added that the study was commissioned by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, and that Dr. Li of Paleonto logy and Geology University in China will be their escort. II. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Robert Kiefer, District 2 Ernie Garcia, District 4 Hector Lujan, District 5 Louis Morales, District 3, Vice-Chairman Michael Murray, District 1, Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Brian Saeki, Director of Community Development Yvette M. Abich, City Attorney William Davis, City Planner Theresa Donahue, Secretary III. MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Lujan and passed by a 4-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Garcia abstaining, to approve the Minutes of June 6, 2012. IV. AGENDA CHANGES: Community Development Director Saeki stated there were no changes to the agenda. V. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Saeki stated there were no actions to report from the June 12, 2012 City Council meeting. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Chairman Murray noted there were no Consent Calendar items on this evening’s agenda. VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: There were no Public Hearing items to discuss. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : Chairman Murray opened Oral Communications. Medhat Iskarous approached the podium, stating that he was present to address the following item under Other Business regarding the property located at 10825 Lakewood Boulevard. Mr. Iskarous was informed that he would be provided that opportunity after staff presents their report. IX. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Adopt a Resolution relating to a requested Site Plan Review and Variance (PLN-12-00067) to legalize the changes that were made to convert a residential home into a professional office building at 10825 Lakewood Boulevard, zoned C-P (Professional Office). Chairman Murray asked staff to provide a report regarding the Resolution before them. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 1 Page 2 William Davis, City Planner, stated that the proposed resolution reflects the direction provided by the Planning Commission to staff at their May 16, 2012. He stated that the Findings provided were also created from comments provided by the Planning Commissioners. In addition, Mr. Davis noted that this approval includes a resolution supporting the site plan review, which had not been addressed previously. Mr. Davis then reviewed the Site Plan Review request, staff’s recommendation and recommended conditions of approval to support that portion of the request. Commissioner Kiefer asked Mr. Davis to review the required Findings that were developed to support the Variance. Mr. Davis complied by reading each of the following findings into the record: 1. That exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other . lands, structures or buildings in the same vicinity and zone The subject site is located within the C-P (Professional Office) zone, but it was developed under the single-family residential development standards in effect at that time. As such, the subject site and the existing residence are nonconforming because the use is not permitted in the zone and the lot width and the side yard setback do not meet today’s minimum development standards for properties in the C-P Zone. The minimum lot width for properties within the C-P zone is 60 feet, whereas the lot width of the subject site is only fifty feet wide. Approval of the variance request PLN-12-00067 proposes would allow the Applicant to change the use of the single-family dwelling into a professional office, which is a permitted use in the C-P zone. The Applicants modified the structure and the site prior to submitting a Land Use Permit Application and those alterations resulted in a structure and a site that do not meet the City’s development standards for properties in the C-P zone. At 34’-4” in width, the existing structure is too wide to allow for a five-foot wide side yard setback adjacent to the northerly property line and a twenty- five foot wide driveway aisle for two-way traffic aisle along the southerly side of the building. Consequently, the Planning Commission finds that the narrow width of the lot (50 feet) coupled with the width of the building (34’-4”) make the Applicant’s ability to convert the house into an office building difficult and impractical. 2. That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this article would deprive the applicant of rights under the terms of this article commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Section 9314.06 of the Downey Municipal Code requires a five-foot (5’) minimum side yard setback for properties within the C-P (Professional Office) zone. PLN-12-00067 would allow the change of use of the structure from single-family dwelling to professional office, thereby allowing the structure to encroach into the required side yard setbacks, allow the site to be deficient in off- street parking and allow the two-way driveway to remain at 13’-4” instead of 25 feet. Prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Code in October 2008, the minimum driveway width for properties in the same vicinity and zone was twenty (20) feet. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the C-P zone development standards would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, because the narrow lot width would require the Applicant to reduce the existing structure to an impractical width of twenty (20) feet, or require him to demolish the structure altogether and construct a new building closer to the rear of the site, which would be out of character for other properties in the vicinity. 3. That exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 2 Page 3 Approving PLN-12-00067 will allow the applicant to construct an addition that fails to meet side yard setbacks, minimum driveway aisle width for two-way traffic and parking requirements for properties in the C-P zone. Approval of the variance will not result in a special circumstance as a result of the action of the Applicant, because most land developers in this vicinity will encounter the same problems as the applicant experienced due to the constraints caused by the narrow lot size. Eleven of the twelve lots on the west side of Lakewood Boulevard between Fifth Street and Stonewood are fifty feet wide also. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Approving PLN-12-00067 will not establish a precedent in the vicinity and/or C-P zone, because several properties nearby maintain lot areas and lot widths that are similar to the subject property, and they will find it difficult to co mply with the City’s development standards. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission would consider similar variance applications on a case by case basis. 5. The granting of such variance will be in harmony and not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. The subject site has a General Plan land use designation of “O” (Office), which the Zoning Code implements through the commercial property development standards described in Section 9314.04. Goal 8.1 of the Downey General Plan seeks to promote quality design for new, expanded, and remodeled construction. Section 9314 of the Downey Municipal Code (Commercial Zones) explains that the intent and purpose of the Commercial Zone regulations are to provide appropriately located areas consistent with the General Plan for a full range of office, commercial, and service commercial uses needed by residents of and visitors to, the City and region. Granting the proposed variance would allow the applicant to alter the property in ways that do not comply with the commercial property development standards described in Section 9314.04 of the Downey Municipal Code for properties in the C-P Zone, and bu t approving the variance will allow the use to be in harmony with the General Plan of the City. 6. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The Applicants demolished a garage and paved the rear yard and the southerly side yard with concrete to create a parking lot and a new driveway. They also demolished walls and reconfigured the interior of the house to facilitate the office use. They requested approval of the variance aspect of PLN Case No. 12-00067 because the proposed change of use from a residential structure to an office does not conform to the provisions of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code. They prefer to maintain the building as it is configured even though the building encroaches into the required side yard setback (north), the driveway is narrow for two-way traffic, and the plan does not provide enough off-street parking spaces for the office use. However, approving the variance application allows the applicant to use the property as a professional office and that use of the property is consistent with the intent of the Downey General Plan. The Planning Commission also finds that the reduced side yard setback for the building, the substandard driveway width, and allowing four parking spaces instead of five, allow for the reasonable use of the small building and the small lot, in the C-P Zone. Commissioner Kiefer stated that he understood that Mr. Davis, City Planner, had followed the direction of the Commission in providing these findings and preparing this Resolution; however, he asked Mr. Davis if he, as the City Planner, agreed with these findings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 3 Page 4 Mr. Davis responded that his belief is that the proj ect did not meet the development standards of the City, did not comply with the non-conforming uses Ordinance; and he support the findings he developed to deny the request. Commissioner Kiefer asked Mr. Davis to affirm that 11 of the 12 lots in the area are 50’-feet wide. Mr. Davis said yes. Commissioner Morales asked if the side of the buildi ng (north elevation) would be required to close any windows; due to possible fire-rating of UBC? Mr. Davis stated that he was not aware if openings exist; however the Building Division would review that standard for compliance into the Building Code. Community Development Director Saeki noted that Co mmissioner Morales brings up an excellent point, specifically that an approval here would not preclude the applicant from following all required Building and Safety and Fire Codes. This approval would be from a land use perspective, to allow physically; however, the project will still have to go through the plan check process. Commissioner Kiefer again asked Mr. Davis if, in his personal opinion as City Planner, he agreed with the Commission’s findings to support this Variance. Mr. Davis responded, “No”. Chairman Murray asked the applicant if he wished to address the Commission. Timothy Nilan, 9332 Gainford Street, Downey addressed the Commission. He stated that he had read and understood the recommended conditions of approval, and asked to address Condition #4, (Indemnity, defend, hold harmless). Mr. Nilan stated that he felt this condition would provide an advantage to someone that might have what might appear to be a personal vendetta toward him; that it lent toward an attitude of litigation. He added that what he has asked for is a Resolution from the Commission that is consistent with the Land Uses permitted and supported by the General Plan of the City; and is consistent with the activities along the corridor. He noted that the goal of the City is to phase out the residential along that corridor. Mr. Nilan referred to Mr. Iskarous’ letter attached to the staff report whereby he refers to this property as diminishing property values of the surrounding properties. Chairman Murray referred the applicant’s request to City Attorney, Yvette Abich Garcia. City Attorney Garcia responded that Condition Number 4 is a standard condition of the City that is imposed upon all land use entitlements, not specific to this request. She noted that the reason for the condition is to remove the risk to the City due to the potential of litigation on the various projects. She noted that the City feels it is a fair shift of responsibility to place on the applicants, in order to protect the City’s coffers from any potential lawsuits; noti ng these are costs that the City can no longer bear. Mr. Nilan stated that based on the City Attorney’s comments, and realizing this is a standard condition that is placed on all variances, he withdrew his objection to this condition. There were no further questions of the applicant. Chairman Murray invited members of the audience to address the Commission at this time. Medhat Iskarous, 8420 Lexington Road, Downey addre ssed the Commission and provided the following: He does not believe the six findings required for this approval can be made. He stated that these findings have been provided without analysis, particularly the finding that states the condition not be created by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 4 Page 5 applicant’s own action. He stated that the Commission has made its decision based on four aspects stated in Staff’s report, which he wished to review: 1) “The lot width of 50-feet creates a difficult situation for the applicant to convert the house into a professional office by requiring modifications to the building.” Mr. Iskarous stated that when the applicant bought the house and used it as a residence for a period of time, he knew its zoning and what the zoning permitted. When the applicant converted the house into an office without the proper permits, he created a difficult situation for everyone. 2) “The City supports the transition from residential uses to professional offices.” Mr. Iskarous stated, this statement has nothing to do with making a finding to support a variance. What is required is six findings found in a positive manner. If the City wants to support the change of use, they need to advertise that this entire block is being changed to professional office, and all the variances would be permitted. 3) “The option of placing parking in the front of the property would change the look of the street and result in consistency and appearance issues.” Mr. Iskarous stated that this is not a true statement, noting several addresses in the two block area where the parking is in the front of the building, th including 11041, 11071 (corner of 5 /Lakewood), 10111 Lakewood (apartment building), 10822 Lakewood (restaurant across the street), as well as In-and-Out Burger. He noted that the City has no criteria established that addresses parking in the front, or in the rear at this time. Mr. Iskarous pointed out other 50-foot lots that have provided the r equired parking and have developed their lots properly; one option to develop such a parcel would be to place the parking on the ground and build the office on the second floor. But, he stated, the applicant chose to use the existing building and go ahead and modify and then ask for a variance. 4) “The reduced lot size restricts the type of development that was permitted four lots to the north”. Mr. Iskarous noted that a 50-foot wide lot has less value and therefore costs less than a 60-foot wide lot; therefore, they are not equal and should not be treated the same. th th Mr. Iskarous pointed out how the findings were changed from the May 16 meeting, to the June 20 meeting in order to support an approval for the variance request, turning 180 degrees. Reading each of the required findings in order to support the variance, he provided the following comments: Finding number 1: “That exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same vicinity and zone.” Mr. Iskarous stated, the applicant doesn’t have to convert to an office. It could remain as a house, as was recommended in the previous Staff Report from May 16 (2012). Finding number 2: “ That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this article would deprive the applicant of rights under the terms of this article commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located.” Mr. Iskarous stated, the applicant is not being depr ived any rights being enjoyed by other properties in the same area. Finding number 3: “ That exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.” Mr. Iskarous stated that this condition does result from the actions of the applicant; noting there has not been any 13-foot driveway approved in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 5 Page 6 Finding number 4: “ That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located.” Mr. Iskarous stated there are other property owners being denied their projects, noting the proposal at 11003 Lakewood Boulevard was denied the ability to develop medical office based on a shortage of parking of .73, less than ¾ of one parking space (3% deficiency) just five years ago; whereby, this applicant is asking for an approval of 20% deficiency variance. Finding number 5: “ The granting of such variance will be in harmony and not adversely affect the General Plan of the City.” Mr. Iskarous stated that granting the variance will allow the applicant to alter the property in ways that do not comply with the City’s commercial property development standards as described by the City’s Municipal Code for the C-P zone and thereby would not be in harmony with the General Plan of the City. Finding number 6: “ That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure.” Mr. Iskarous stated that lot size alone is not a reason to make a finding to support the variance. Mr. Iskarous stated that Mr. Nilan’s testimony at the la st meeting was confusing, in regards to when the contractor was hired and what permits were signed off. Other issues he asked the Commission to consider were: 1) Where are the people involved in the work that was done by the original contractor? 2) How has Mr. Nilan’s actions hurt him, eg. removal of the fence? 3) The grade differential between their properties has been changed by five inches and will affect him negatively, unless the water is diverted. Mr. Iskarous asked the Commission to look at the facts before them. He stated that the Commission has commented that this is a tough decision, and have asked if there is some way to help the situation. Yes, it may enhance the look of the property and the applicant has said he is sorry and wants to pay for the corrections. He noted that the applicant has not corrected the problem with him, the neighbor, in regards to the wall that was removed. Mr. Iskarous stated that one Commissioner has stated that approving this Variance without making the proper findings would open the City up to a va lid complaint, and he cannot in clear conscience make such findings. He stated that what Mr. Nilan did caused him financial damage; created an unsafe condition; created lots of stress for the last y ear. He said that Mr. Nilan is using the City for his own financial gain. For example, Mr. Nilan put a wall up based on an inaccurate survey, which created months of legal battling. Finally, after seven months that wall was taken down. He stated that he is also a member of this community and his concerns need to be considered as well. He stated he has nothing personal against Mr. Nilan, but a condition has to be included to replace this wall, without which creates an unsafe condition and has been so for almost a year. Mr. Iskarous wished to make sure that his letter had been made a part of the report; and stated that if a decision is made to approve this Variance without the proper justification, it will force them to appeal the decision to the City Council and if a legal action has to be filed, it will be. City Attorney Garcia affirmed that Mr. Iskarous’ letter was indeed included in staff’s report. Commissioner Kiefer noted Mr. Contreras filed the application for the Variance, and inquired his part in the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 6 Page 7 Mr. Davis responded that Mr. Contreras was the designer hired by Mr. Nilan to assist with the change of use request, and who submitted the plans that accompanied the Site Plan Review and Variance application. There being no other persons in the audience wishing to address the Commission on this item, Chairman Murray brought the discussion back to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Garcia stated that this is a tough issue, noting that the applicant has stated that he would meet all the requirements, agreed to the conditions of approval, including Condition number 4 (Indemnity/hold harmless). Commissioner Lujan agreed that this is a tough deci sion, and possibility precedent-setting; however noted that every case is looked at for its own individual circumstances. He said Downey is a business-friendly City; he wants to see the business prosper. He noted that transitioning from a house into office created this impact with potentially great financial hardship, if portions of the house were to be removed. Commissioner Kiefer stated that the Commission is required to make six (6) findings and after two meetings he has not heard one reason to make these findings from Commissioners Garcia and Lujan. He stated that the applicant is seeking an approval fr om the Commission simply for financial hardship reasons, which is not a finding to support a Variance. He stated that he hoped as a Commission they are not voting because of a certain campaign contribution that was made. He asked the Commissioners to state their reasoning in supporting the variance; otherwise he cannot help but wonder why. Commissioner Lujan responded, he did not know w hat Commissioner Kiefer meant by campaign contribution, noting that he is not running for City Council or anything. Commissioner Kiefer stated there are certain Councilmen that are running for other offices. And asked how the Commission can make these findings. Commissioner Lujan said he wants to see the business prosper. Commissioner Kiefer responded, that is not a finding. He pointed out that eleven of the twelve lots along this corridor are fifty-feet wide, which does not make that a unique lot size. Commissioner Morales thanked staff for providing the findings for the Resolution to the best of their ability and stated that he felt the Resolution captured the concepts brought up at the last meeting. He stated that one of the main reasons he supports the variance is in looking at the land use and long-term goals of the City as set out by the General Plan, the City wants to encourage the transition of these properties into professional office, from their original construction from the 40’s and 50’s. He noted that the applicant will have to meet the City’s plan che ck requirements to bring the house to the City’s Codes and standards, in order to approve after the fact, through Building and Safety. But, his focus is on land use, looking at Vision 2025, the goal is to move into commercial. He said that he would have preferred the neighbors work together in order to make the projects work better, but the City doesn’t get involved in civil issues. He noted that they have to work with what is currently there, unless someone comes in with big money. He believed each property needs to be reviewed on a case to case basis. He said he is comfortable with the findings that were put together by staff. Chairman Murray stated although staff did a good job putting together the findings for the Resolution, he said he doesn’t see it, he doesn’t support it. He noted that it could be precedent-setting. Chairman Murray noted that they have had a lot of discussion on it and he is not in favor of it. Commissioner Morales made a motion to approve the Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 7 Page 8 Following Commissioner Morales motion, Commissioner Kiefer asked Commissioner Morales if he is also in favor of lowering the development standards of the other properties in that area, in order to transition into professional office? He stated that he believed they are all in support of transitioning into professional office, but does he want the development standards to be reduced. Commissioner Morales stated that he believed they would have to look at each property on a case by case basis, noting that the majority of properties will not have the five yard setback, so they may want to look at whether or not there is driveway between those properties to create the separation. Each situation may be unique and not similar to this one. Chairman Murray called for the second. Commissioner Lujan seconded. Calling for the vote, the motion passed on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Garcia, Lujan and Morales voting “Yes”, and Commissioners Kiefer and Murray voting “No”, to adopt the Resolution (No. 12-2773). Chairman Murray stated the action of the Planning Commission will be final unless the matter is appealed to the City Council, with the appropriate fee, within the specified time period as set forth in the City’s Ordinance. IX. OTHE R BUSINESS: 2. PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING City Attorney Yvette Abich Garcia presented a “refresher” Planning Commissioner Training PowerPoint. The areas covered in her presentation included: 1. Conflicts of Interest 2. Fair Decision-making and Due Process 3. Ralph M. Brown Act Ms. Garcia reminded the Commissioners that the Ethics course is required to be completed every two years. X. ITEMS F OR FUTURE AGENDA: Chairman Murray greeted the members in the audience. He also stated that he had attended the performance of “Pajama Party” at the Downey Theatre this past week-end, and he stated that he had enjoyed it very much. Chairman Murray asked fo r an update regarding the business next door to the Elks Lodge, which he had mentioned previously. Mr. Saeki stated that he had forwarded the matter to Code Enforcement and he would follow up and provide an update to the Commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business coming before the Planning Commission, the Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m., to Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, Ca. 90241. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of July, 2012. Michael Murray Michael Murray, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 8 Page 9 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Minutes were duly approved at a Regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 3rd day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Morales, Kiefer, Lujan, Murray ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Garcia ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None Theresa Donahue Theresa Donahue, Secretary CITY PLANNING COMMISSION H:\Community Development\Planning Commission\Minutes\2012\June 20, 2012-Minutes.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 20, 2012 – PAGE 9