Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. PC Draft Minutes - 08-06-14 DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DOWNEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, August 6, 2014 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 6:30 P.M. Chairman Kiefer called a Regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order on August 6, 2014, at 6:38 p.m., at Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA. After the Flag Salute, the secretary called roll. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Louis Morales, District 3 Matias Flores, District 4 Jim Rodríguez, District 5 Hector Lujan, District 1, Vice Chairman Robert Kiefer, District 2, Chairman COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Aldo E. Schindler, Director of Community Development Yvette Abich-Garcia, City Attorney Edwin Norris, Deputy Director of Public Works William Davis, City Planner Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner David Blumenthal, Senior Planner/Building Supervisor Rik Hobbie, Building Official Mary Cavanagh, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS; REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS; AND CONFERENCE/MEETING REPORTS: Commissioner Rodriguez and Chairman Kiefer attended the City event, “Downey Night Out’, which was hosted by the Downey Police and Fire Departments and commented that it was nice to have interaction with the Police and Fire Departments in a non-stressful manner. PRESENTATIONS: None REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PLN-14-00140: (Variance): Chairman Kiefer opened the public hearing for PLN-14-00140, and Ms. Cavanagh affirmed proof of publication. City Planner William Davis gave a brief background of the request that began in 2013 as a code enforcement case in response to a complaint at the subject site. Mr. Davis explained that variances involve certain hardships; however, this property is a standard lot in the R-1 5,000 (Single-Family Residential) zone, which is typical for properties within this vicinity of the City. In the course of approximately one year, the Code Enforcement, Building and Planning staff had discussed the illegal structure with the applicant, and at one point, advised Code Enforcement that he would consider demolishing the structure. However, the applicant chose to pursue a variance instead. Mr. Davis continued with a PowerPoint presentation of the request for a variance to allow the non-permitted 497 sq. ft. addition to the single-family residence, to exist within the required setback of the property located at 13506 Gunderson Ave. This property is located within an area of similarly zoned and shaped properties, which abut a shopping center/Food 4 less store at Lakewood Blvd and Rosecrans Ave. The site plan illustrates the addition that the applicant added to the house without Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2014 - 2 - building inspection or plan review of any type. Initially, Code Enforcement was told that this was a patio cover that was enclosed; however, aerial photos show that the patio was oval and the expansion is rectangular. The applicant expanded the house by adding a family room and expanding a bedroom, leaving approximately a 10’ 4 in. setback from the rear property line, which violates the Code’s minimum 20’ setback requirement. Approximately 14 of the properties located to the easterly side of Gunderson have room additions or patio covers within the rear yard setback, 12 were permitted and two were not, one of which is the applicants. The permitted expansions occurred from 1957 to 2007; however, standards have changed since 2007, and the findings cannot be made to support the request for a variance. Mr. Davis gave examples of what would be done during a building inspection of an illegal structure for safety reasons, which would leave very large holes in the walls and foundation of the structure. This would be very destructive and almost pointless to keep the structure. He continued by saying that with the current standards, findings cannot be made to support the request; therefore, staff is recommending denial of the request for a variance. The Commissioners reviewed the aerial photos of the structure both before and after the expansion, the legal non-conforming expansions in the area, and the process to request a variance to construct a legal addition, which the applicant did not do. City of Downey Building Official Rik Hobbie reviewed the Building Code and inspection process with the Commissioners. Community Development Director Aldo Schindler advised the Commissioners that if we were to turn our backs to the California Building Code, and something were to happen, the City would be liable. Commissioner Rodriguez disclosed that the visited the site today and spoke to the applicant. Chairman Kiefer called for a break due to technical audio difficulties, and then re-opened the public hearing. Commissioner Rodriguez asked Building Official Hobbie for clarification of the differences between an enclosed structure and an enclosed patio, specifically to what was explained as an enclosed patio is not inhabitable and conditional. Mr. Hobbie explained that a structure is conditioned: air conditioned, and heating, whereas a patio wouldn’t need a moisture barrier, it could have infiltration air through screens or windows; there are stricter standards for a conditioned space. Applicant/owner James Alvarez 13506 Gunderson Ave stated that he never said that he would demolish his construction; he purchased the home in 1997 with an existing patio structure and he thought that he was doing an upgrade; if he broke the law, it was because of his lack of knowledge. Chairman Kiefer asked Mr. Alvarez if he was unaware that he needed permits, to which he responded by saying that he thought about it, but because the structure was already there, he thought that it was just a remodeling and brought pictures to show the enclosed patio to Commissioners. Commissioner Rodriguez discussed the condition and detailed description of the structure at the time that Mr. Alvarez purchased the home. He asked for clarification as to what type of materials the walls were made of, and the height of the walls at that time. Mr. Alvarez stated that the home was about the same size as the current structure, when he bought the home the roof was round and he made it rectangular; it had walls, wood on the top and bottom, with windows in the middle and was enclosed. Mr. Alvarez gave present the Commission with pictures of the enclosed patio for their review. Mr. Alvarez stated that the walls were made of Formica from top to bottom, which he had a contractor take out the Formica walls and put the proper wood and beams. Commissioner Rodriguez asked Mr. Alvarez if the contractor dug a new foundation to support the walls, and was there any plumbing done in the structure, to which he responded by saying that he did not think the contractor dug a new foundation and confirmed that no plumbing had been done. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2014 - 3 - Vice-Chairman Lujan asked if concrete had been added to the original foundation to which Mr. Alvarez responded by saying no, the structure was built on the patio foundation which is approximately six to eight inches deep. Director Schindler presented the Commissioners with an aerial map that Senior Planner David Blumenthal located on Google that shows an aerial view of the prior patio structure. Commissioner Rodriguez commented that Google doesn’t show the date, to which Mr. Blumenthal stated that it is not shown on that photo; the current aerial maps that were being displayed on the PowerPoint screen is based on construction time frame that is approximately April 2013, so we see that there was no structure there; the picture that is passed around was before that time. The patio cover is a different size and shape than what is there now. Mr. Blumenthal continued by saying that the owner met with him approximately nine months ago when the code case first started. He did more research then and discovered the patio cover was built without permits two to three years after home was built. The original house did not have a patio cover, so it was an illegal patio cover. You can see how it has changed over time from the patio cover with no walls, with the claim of having walls that were being torn down to where were it is today with the illegal room addition. Noreen Samuelson, 13503 Gunderson Ave, stated that she purchased her home over 20 years ago with a room addition that is just less than ten feet from the back wall, and has an approximate 13 x 15 yard. Ms. Samuelson stated that there is a neighbor that harasses the applicant and it is very unfair. He has a professionally done beautiful room and hopes that this will be considered when making their decision. Joshua Alvarez, 13506 Gunderson Ave, stated that he is the son of the applicant. He explained that Mr. Alvarez built the room for family visits and expanded a very small bedroom for him that previously did not have enough room for his bed. Olivia Camilo Brooks, 13507 Gunderson Ave. Mrs. Brooks stated that she’s lived at this address since 1986 and had been in the home with the previous owner, and testified that the structure was there with walls made of wood and windows. Mrs. Brooks described the Alvarez family as wonderful neighbors that do not cause problems and keep a very clean spotless home. Ralph Brooks 13507 Gunderson Ave stated that he had been a contractor for many years including involvement in the Stonewood mall and sees no problem with the structure and believes that he did a perfect job. Commissioner Rodriguez asked Mr. Brooks if he had seen the foundation, to which he stated that he had not, but what he had done is going to last a long time. Tom Samuelson 13503 Gunderson Ave reiterated what was said by his wife and neighbors and hopes that this can be permitted. He said that it is an improvement to the home. Commissioner Rodriguez asked Mr. Davis if it were possible to allow a variance for the enclosed patio, not a habitable structure, to which Mr. Davis clarified that because it is attached to the main dwelling the rear setbacks would apply, therefore, it would not be appropriate to approve it based upon the development standard requirement of a minimum 20’ setback from the main dwelling to the rear prop line. City Attorney Yvette Abich-Garcia advised Commissioner Rodriguez that there is no possibility to do so; the Commission must make a decision on the application as it is being presented only to legalize what is there, not to legalize it as something else. Chairman Kiefer closed the public hearing. The Commissioners stated that they understood the applicant’s intention to improve his home and make it more comfortable for his family, and they sympathized with him. However, they could not vote in favor of the Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2014 - 4 - project for the following reasons: • They cannot meet all six findings to approve the request. • The current Code does not allow the structure • This is not a unique or extraordinary situation to consider the approval of a variance. • There is a potential safety issue for the inhabitants of the house; outer appearance of the structure does not ensure that the structure was built to Code requirements and is a safe structure that would not collapse in an earthquake. It was moved by Vice Chairman Lujan, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and passed by a 5-0 vote, to adopt Resolution No. 14-2885, thereby denying the request for a Variance (PLN-14-00140). NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: 2. Approval of the Minutes from July 16, 2014 3. PLN-14-00147 (General Plan Consistency): A request for approval to find that the Capital Improvement Program for the 2014-15 fiscal year is consistent with the General Plan. 4. PLN-13-00156 (Final Parcel Map): Consider Final Parcel Map No 72381, which subdivides a 19, 188 sq. ft. of land into two residential parcels on property located at 7725 Third St. 5. PLN-14-00160 (Code Amendment Initiation): A request to initiate a Code Amendment, amending Section 9806 of the Downey Municipal Code regarding appeals and calls for review. 6. PLN-14-00162 (General Plan Consistency): A request to determine that granting a roadway and utility easement over the city-owned portion of the Promenade at Downey project conforms with the General Plan on property located at 12214 Lakewood Blvd. Senior Planner David Blumenthal read a correction to Item No. 2 (approval of the minutes from July 16, 2014) of the Consent Calendar stating that page two of the proposed resolution for PLN-14-00147 should reflect the following correction: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6thday of August, 2014. Louis Morales Robert Kiefer, Chairman City Planning Commission Commissioner Rodriguez requested Item No. 3 of the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion, and Chairman Kiefer requested Item No. 5 and 6 be pulled for discussion also. It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve Item No.(s) 2 and 4 of the Consent Calendar. Consent Calendar item discussions: 3. PLN-14-00147 (General Plan Consistency): A request for approval to find that the Capital Improvement Program for the 2014-15 fiscal year is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Rodriguez made inquiries regarding the allocation $25,000 toward the bike master plan and Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2014 - 5 - the $225,000 expenditure. How will the money be spent and what is it going to? Deputy Director of Public Works Ed Norris explained that the bike master plan is a grant from Cal Trans and the $25,000 is a required local match. The money will be spent toward the preparation of the bike master plan and it includes staff’s time spent on the development on the project, paying the consultant, and bringing the plan to the adoption stage. Commissioner Rodriguez asked for clarification of the $810,000 to be used for remodeling the Police Department and how it will assist the Police in being more efficient. Deputy Director Norris explained that remodeling and reconfiguring the space to make it a mor e efficient would virtually make it more efficient and therefore be in a better position to fight crime; the $810,00 is coming from the asset fund. It was moved by Commissioner Rodriguez, seconded by Vice Chairman Lujan, and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve Item No.(s) two and four of the Consent Calendar. Consent Calendar Item: 5. PLN-14-00160 (Code Amendment Initiation): A request to initiate a Code Amendment, amending Section 9806 of the Downey Municipal Code regarding appeals and calls for review. Chairman Kiefer asked is staff had detail on how they wish to proceed with this item. Director Schindler stated that it is conceptual at this point. The City Council, as a body, doesn’t have a unique appeal process or review process of Planning Commission items. As Downey grows and the economy improves, we’re seeing it grow on a rapid pace. That happens in many municipalities over various decades at multiple speeds to where at times its tough to keep up with that growth and that’s when you see the implementing of new laws. Tonight’s variance is one example as zone changes occur throughout the years. As more diverse topics come before the Planning Commission, the Council will also have an interest in weighing in on some of those topics. Director Schindler reviewed the current appeal process for both the Council and Planning Commission and gave examples of procedures for other cities procedures. Staff will be working closely with the City Attorney and City Manager’s office to come back with recommendations on how to proceed. The Commissioners discussed further options, concerns and ideas with Director Schindler and City Attorney Garcia. It was moved by Chairman Kiefer, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve Item # 5 of the Consent Calendar. Consent Calendar Item: 6. PLN-14-00162 (Code Amendment Initiation): A request to determine that granting a roadway and utility easement over the city-owned portion of the Promenade at Downey project conforms with the General Plan on property located at 12214 Lakewood Blvd. Commissioner Rodriguez disclosed that he owns property within the 500’ of the Promenade and recused himself from this item and left the Council Chambers. Director Schindler stated that in January 2012, the Planning Commission approved the site plan for the uses, the project falls within the umbrella of that plan approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. It was moved by Chairman Kiefer, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and passed by a 4-0-1 vote, with Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2014 - 6 - Commissioner Rodriguez abstaining, to approve Item # 6 of the Consent Calendar. STAFF MEMBER COMMENTS: Director Schindler gave the Commissioners a brief update on the progress of the View Project for affordable housing which should be complete by the end of October. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, Chairman Kiefer adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m., to Wednesday, September 3, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. at Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Ave. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 2014. Robert Kiefer, Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Minutes were duly approved at a Regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 20th day of August, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Mary Cavanagh, Secretary City Planning Commission