01-18-2005 -t
@r , - - • City of West Covina
9
Memorandum
TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager AGENDA
and City Council
ITEM NO. D-2
FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Planning Director DATE January 18, 2005
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 60602 AND VARIANCE NO.
04-06
Location: 226 and 234 Monte Verde Drive
Applicant/Appellant: Mimi McKenzie
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the
following resolutions:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
60602 ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
2. UeG -O 2
- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO. 04-06 ON APPEAL
OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
DISCUSSION:
The properties are located on the northeast corner of Garvey Avenue South and Monte
Verde Drive. The project consists of a request for the approval of a tentative parcel map to
subdivide two adjacent single-family residential lots totaling 73,770 square feet (1.7 acres)
into a total of four lots, thereby creating two new building sites. Parcel 1 (31,212 sq. ft.) and
Parcel 2 (22,581 sq. ft.) would front onto Monte Verde Drive and continue to support two
existing homes. Parcels 3 and 4 are both proposed to be 11,580 square feet in size and
would front onto Garvey Avenue South.. The applicant is also requesting a variance for
Parcels 3 and 4 to allow a reduction in the required lot size of 20,000 square feet for Area
District IV.
On December 14, 2004, the Planning Commission considered this proposal with a
recommendation of denial from staff. Essentially, the staff position was that the property
was suitable for subdivision; however, staff did not believe that there was sufficient
justification to support the proposed variance and the creation of two lots that would be
8,500 square feet below the established minimum lot size for this area of 20,000 square feet.
A concern was also noted that lots are required to be at least 20,000 square feet in size in
order to allow for the keeping of horses and that this proposal would create two lots where
horses would not be allowed in the midst of surrounding lots where horses are allowed.
The applicant has contended that location of the proposed lots near the I-10 Freeway
justified a smaller lot size. The applicant also indicated that single-family lots smaller than
those proposed have recently been approved within the broader surrounding area (e.g.
Creekside/Comstock Homes development).
The single-family residential ("R-l" and "RA") zones in West Covina are divided into a
total seven "area districts," with each area district having its own minimum lot size and
dimension standards. Minimum lot sizes within the different area districts vary from 6,000
square feet (Area District IA) to 40,000 square feet (Area District V). The determination of
area districts is based primarily on the prevailing size of lots within each particular area of
the City.
As stated, the subject property is located within Area District IV, which has a minimum lot
size requirement of 20,000 square feet. All of the surrounding lots in this neighborhood on
Monte Verde Drive and Garvey Avenue South are 20,000 square feet or larger in size.
Appeal of Tentative Pat Map 60602 & Variance 04-06
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Drive
January 18 2005 - Page 2
Whereas smaller lot sizes have been approved in instances such as the Creekside
development where the project created its own self-contained neighborhood, this site is
located directly in the midst of a neighborhood of conforming size lots.
Based on these circumstances, staff recommended denial of the parcel map and variance as
the proposal represented too great of a departure from the standard for lot sizes in the
neighborhood and there was not any unique... circumstances or characteristics related to the
property that justified such a significant deviation. Staff also indicated a concern that
approving this proposal could establish a precedent for similar proposals for lots with less
than the required size.
The Planning Commission concurred with the staff analysis and stated to the applicant that
they would not be supportive of creating 11,580-square foot lots in this location. An
alternative was proposed by staff to combine Parcels 3 and 4 into one lot of 23,160 square
feet that would meet the 20,000-square foot minimum standard. The Planning Commission
proposed to the applicant that the Commission might be inclined to approve this alternative
and. asked the applicant if she would like the opportunity to revise the proposal in this
manner. The applicant responded that she did not desire to do this and consequently the
Commission voted 5-0 to deny the project.
Staff received five form letters provided by the applicant, which were signed by her
neighbors. The letters stated that the as residents of the East Hills neighborhood, the owners
would object to sewers and sidewalks along the Monte Verde trails and that they do not
object to smaller lots for single-family residences near the freeway. Copies were provided
to the Planning Commission for their review.
FISCAL IMPACT: ,
Approval of the proposed tentative tract map and variance will permit the subdivision of
the site from two parcels into four parcels. The potential development of two new single-
family homes is anticipated to generate a nominal amount of additional property tax
revenue per year. The City, however, will be required to provide normal municipal
services to the new homes and residents.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
As stated in the body of the report, on December 14, 2004, the Planning Commission
voted 5-0 to deny the proposal. Royall Brown, Joann Wilner, and John Schueplein also
testified before the Commission in opposition to the proposal.
Prepare by: Sylvia Hernandez Reviewe Approved by: Douglas N. MCIsaac
Planning Assistant Planning Director
Attachment 1:
Draft City Council Resolutions
Attachment 2:
Letter of Appeal
Attachment 3:
Planning Commission Resolutions
Attachment 4:
Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 5:
Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 6:
Form Letters provided by the applicant
Attachment 7:
Applicant's Statement in support of Variance No. 04-06
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\CC\StaffReport.doc
i •
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO. 04-06 ON APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION
VARIANCE NO.04-06 '
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mimi McKenzie
LOCATION: 226 & 234 Monte Verde Drive
WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council a verified application on forms prescribed
in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, a request for approval of a
variance to:
Reduce the size of two lots to 11,580 square feet where the minimum lot size is 20,000
square feet
on that certain property generally described as follows:
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8277-002-021' and 8277-002-044, in the records of the Los
Angeles County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 10 day
of December, 2004, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt- Resolution No. 04-4991 denying the
application; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial was
requested by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 18th day of March, 2004, conduct a duly
advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the
Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties.
WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by the City Council and in its behalf reveal the
following facts:
1. The project consists of a request for the approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide
one 39,550-square foot lot and one 34,220-square foot lot (owned by the same property
owner) into four single-family lots as follows: Parcel 1 (31,212 sq. ft.), Parcel 2 (22,581
sq. ft.), Parcel 3 (11,580 sq. ft.), and Parcel 4 (11,580 sq. ft.). The applicant is also
.requesting a variance (for Parcel 3 & 4) to allow a reduction in the required lot size. The
project is located in the "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zone, Area District IV which
requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet.
2. Findings necessary for approval of a variance:
a. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances not applicable generally to
the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\CC\Denial Reso
VAR.final.doc
City Council Resolution No.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Street
January 18, 2004 - Page 2
b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question.
C. That granting such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property
is located.
d. That granting such variance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan and
any applicable Specific Plans.
3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is
considered to be categorically exempt (Class 15, Section 15315) in that it consists of a
subdivision and variance of a certain property in an urban area into four parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, the. City Council of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows:
1. On basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the City Council makes
the following findings:
a. The site is not exceptional or extraordinary in that the proposed lot sizes would
be significantly smaller than surrounding lots in the area. In addition, the
proposed subdivision would reduce the amount of equestrian -zoned property
and be incompatible with equestrian uses. The substandard lot configuration
will result in a disjointed, unintegrated pattern of development that will also
create an unharmonious pattern of development.
b. The owner is not denied substantial property rights since the property may be
subdivided and enjoyed as a three lot residential subdivision, the same as
other lots in the same zone.
c. There are no special or unique circumstances of the property such as size
shape or topography which impose a hardship on the owner. The property
may subdivided into three lots in the same manner as other properties in the
same area and zone classification.
d. The granting of the Variance would be inconsistent with the General Plan
designation of Very Low Density.
2. That pursuant to all evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further
based on the findings above, Variance No. 04-06 is denied subject to provisions of
the West Covina Municipal Code.
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 18`" day of January, 2005.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF WEST COVINA )
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\CC\Denial Reso
VAR.final.doc
City Council Resolution No. g� ,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Street
January 18, 2004 -.Page 3
I, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 18`f' day of January, 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
-City Attorney
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\CC\Denial Reso
VAR.final.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 60602 ON APPEAL OF
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 60602
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mimi McKenzie
LOCATION: 226 & 234 Monte Verde Drive
WHEREAS, there was filed with this Council a verified application on forms prescribed in
Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, a request for approval of a tentative
parcel map to subdivide one 39,550-square foot lot and one 34,220-square foot lot (owned by the
same property owner) into four single-family lots on that certain property generally described as:
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8277-002-021 and 8277-002-044, in the records of the Los
Angeles County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 10 day
of December, 2004, conduct duly advertised public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution No. 044990 denying the
application; and ,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial was
requested by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 18th day of January, 2005, conduct a duly
advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the
Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties.
WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by the City Council and in its behalf reveal the
following facts:
1. The project consists of a request for the approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide
one 39,550-square foot lot and one 34,220-square foot lot (owned by the same property
owner) into four single-family lots as follows: Parcel 1 (31,212 sq. ft.), Parcel 2 (22,581
sq. ft.), Parcel 3 (11,580 sq. ft.), and Parcel 4 (11,580 sq. ft.). The applicant is also
requesting a variance (for Parcel 3 & 4) to allow a reduction in the required lot size. The
project is located in the "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zone, Area District IV which
requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet. The Property has a General Plan
designation of Very Low Density.
2. Findings necessary for approval of a tentative parcel map:
a. . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
b. That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
C. That the site is suitable for the type of development.
Z':\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\CC\denial reso
TPM.final.doc
id
City Council Resolution No.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Street
January 18, 2004 - Page 2
d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish,
wildlife, or their habitat.
f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
l
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
r
3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed 111project is
considered to be categorically exempt (Class 15, Section 15315) in that it consists of a
subdivision and variance of a certain property in an urban area into four parcels.
NOW, therefore, the City Council of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows:
1. On basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
a. The site is not suitable for the density of development in that the proposed reduced lot
size of Parcels 3 and 4 will not comply with the zoning code requirement of a
minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and would be significantly smaller than lots in
the surrounding area. In addition, the proposed subdivision would reduce the amount
of equestrian -zoned property and be incompatible with equestrian uses. The
substandard lot configuration will result in a disjointed, unintegrated pattern of
development that will also create an unharmonious pattern of development. II
b. The lot areas of Parcels 3 and 4 are inconsistent with the General Plan designation of
Very Low Density.
2. That pursuant to all evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the
findings above, TPM 60602 is denied subject to provisions of the West Covina Municipal
Code.
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 18t' day of January, 2005.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF WEST COVINA )
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\CC\denial reso
TPM.final.doc
City Council Resolution No •
Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Street
January 18, 2004 - Page 3 `
I, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina,, California, at a regular
meeting thereof held on the `l 8`h day of January, 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
. City Attorney
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\CC\denial reso
TPM.final.doc
0
ATTAC H M E N T 2
Mimi McKenzie
234 Monte Verde Dr.
West Covina, Ca. 91791
To: West Covina City Council
Dear Sirs,
RECEIVED
DEC 2 1 2004
CITY CLERK'S OFFi' _
CITY OF WEST COVii,
December 17, 2004
I have submitted to the city a proposed plan to provide two pieces of property that will be
available for purchase, at the rear of our two West Covina residential properties. The
most imposing natural feature of these two properties is the 10 Freeway, both located
with access on South Garvey Ave. Similar to the residential development at Holt and the
10 Fwy, the freeway is a huge factor. This makes these properties under consideration,
different than any other custom home location in the entire area.
Previously proposed plans by the planning department isolated this area as unique
properties along the 10 freeway corridor. The proposed new lots are included in this
recognized, 10 freeway impacted area. NO OTHER PROPERTIES ON MONTE VERDE
FIT INTO THIS CATEGORY. At that time, the planning department staff recommended
commercial development for the freeway corridor in our neighborhood and attempted to
implement this plan with the 3 story commercial building at Holt Ave. and Temple Way.
They pushed this plan through the planning department complete with variances and the
planning commission put their blessings on the whole idea
The residents of the entire neighborhood were outraged and showed up in mass to protest
after being ignored by the planning department staff, and commission. The neighborhood
requested residential rather than commercial developments. You all listened to the
neighborhood and we now have high density residential homes happening within one
block of my proposed residential lots on the freeway corridor. No open protest to my
project has been launched by any of my neighbors affected, within the. notification zone.
Unfortunately the Planning Department staff and commission still do not have a clear
view of what the majority of my particular neighborhood is comfortable with. The vast
majority of neighbors that I contacted have no bbj ection to a smaller lot size along the
freeway corridor, in fact they were willing to sign, an opinion page to verify that fact, ,
which was submitted to the planning leadership which they ignored by not reading it"
Notices were then sent out for the Dec. 14" meeting NO INDIVIDUAL LIVING INSIDE
THE AFFECTED AREA SHOWED UP TO VOICE A PROTEST.
I therefore request this matter come before the city council in order to expose the LAND
USE ISSUES at the freeway corridor, and the discriminatory, deceptive definitions of lot
size.
'DATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 044990
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST,
COVINA'. CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.60602
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.60602
, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mimi McKenzie
LOCATION: 226 & 234 Monte Verde Drive
WHEREAS, there was filed with this Commission a verified application on the forms
prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a
tentative parcel map to:
Subdivide one 39,550-square foot lot and one 34,220-square foot lot (owned by the same
property owner) into four single-family lots
on that certain property generally described as follows:
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8277-002-021 and 8277-002-044, in the records of the Los
Angeles County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 14'' day
of December, 2004, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal
the following facts:
1. The project consists of a request for the approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide
one 39,550-square foot lot and one 34,220-square foot lot (owned by the same property
owner) into four single-family lots as follows: Parcel 1 (31,212 sq. ft.), Parcel 2 (22,581
sq. ft.), Parcel 3 (11,580 sq. ft.), and Parcel 4 (11,580 sq. ft.). The applicant is also
requesting a variance (for Parcel 3 & 4) to allow a reduction in the required lot size. The
project is located in the "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zone, Area District IV.
2. Findings necessary for approval of a tentative parcel map:
a. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
b. That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
C. That the site is suitable for the type of development.
d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish,
wildlife, or their habitat.
f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
ZAResos\2004 resos104-4990 TPM 60602 Denial Mimi McKenzie.doc
Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-4990
Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Street
December 14, 2004 - Page 2
3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is
considered to be categorically exempt (Class 15, Section 15315) in that it consists of a
subdivision and variance of a certain property in an urban area into four parcels.
NOW, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows:
1. On basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
a. The site is not suitable for the density of development in that the proposed reduced lot
size of 'Parcels 3 and 4 will not comply with code standards and would be
significantly smaller than lots in the surrounding area. In addition, the 'proposed
subdivision would reduce the amount of equestrian -zoned property and be
incompatible with equestrian uses. The substandard lot configuration will result in a
disjointed, unintegrated pattern of development that will also create an unharmonious
pattern of development.
I HEREBY CERTIFY foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 14d' day of December, 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES: Lane, Roe, York, Rozatti, Warshaw
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DATE: December 14, 2004
a
Stuart York, Chairm
Planning Commission
ZAResos\2004 resos\04-4990 TPM 60602 Denial Mimi McKenzie.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.044991
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO.04-06
VARIANCE NO.04-06
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mimi McKenzie
LOCATION: 226 & 234 Monte Verde Drive
WHEREAS, there was filed with this Commission a verified application on the forms
prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code; requesting approval of a
variance to:
Reduce the size of two lots to 11,580 square feet where the minimum lot size is 20,000
square feet
on that certain property generally described as follows:
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8277-002-021 and 8277-002-044, in the records of the Los
Angeles County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 14t' day
of December, 2004, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal
the following facts:
The project consists of a request for the approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide
one 39,550-square foot lot and one 34,220-square foot lot (owned by the same property
owner) into four single-family lots as follows: Parcel 1 (31,212 sq. ft.), Parcel 2 (22,581
sq. ft.), Parcel 3 (11,580 sq. ft.), and Parcel 4 (11,580 sq. ft.).. The applicant is also
requesting a variance (for Parcel 3 & 4) to allow a reduction in the -required lot size. The
project is located in the "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zone, Area District IV.
2. Findings necessary for approval of a variance:
a. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances not applicable generally to
the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question.
C. That granting such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property
is located.
d. That granting such variance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan and
any applicable Specific Plans.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is
considered to be categorically exempt (Class 15, Section 15315) in that it consists of a
subdivision and variance of a certain property in an urban area into four parcels.
ZAResos\2004 resos\04-4991 VAR 04-06 Denial Mimi McKenzie.doc
Planning Commission Resolutio��lo. 04-4991
o Variance No. 04-06
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Street
December 14, 2004 - Page 2
NOW, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as
follows:
1. On basis of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
a. The site is not exceptional or extraordinary in that the proposed lot sizes would be
significantly smaller than surrounding lots in the area. In addition, the proposed
subdivision would reduce the amount of equestrian -zoned property and be
incompatible with equestrian uses. The substandard lot configuration will result in a
disjointed,,unintegrated pattern of development that will also create an unharmonious
pattern of development.
I HEREBY CERTIFY foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of
11
the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 14d, day of December, 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES: Lane, Roe, York, Rozatti, Warshaw
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DATE: December 14, 2004
Stuart York, Chairm
Planning Commission
ZAResos\2004 resos\04-4991 VAR 04-06 Denial Mimi McKenzie.doc
ATTACHMENT 4
•
AGEND-A
ITEM NO. C-5
DATE: December 14, 2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 60602
VARIANCE NO.04-06
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mimi McKenzie
LOCATION: 226 & 234 Monte Verde Drive
I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
The project consists of a request for the approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide
one 39,550-square foot lot and one 34,220-square foot lot (owned by the same property
owner) into four single-family lots as follows: Parcel 1 (31,212 sq. ft.), Parcel 2 (22,581
sq. ft.), Parcel 3 (11,580 sq. ft.), and Parcel 4 (11,580 sq. ft.). The applicant is also
requesting a variance (for Parcel 3 & 4) to allow a reduction in the required lot size. The
project is located in the "Residential Agricultural' (R-A) Zone, Area District IV.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1) Adopt resolutions denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602 and Variance No. 04-06.
2) Continue this item with direction to the applicant to reduce the number of lots in
compliance with zoning standards.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is
considered to be categorically exempt (Class 15, Section 15315) in that it consists of a
subdivision and variance of a certain property in an urban area into four parcels.
IV. HISTORY
The 1,780-square foot home at 226 Monte Verde Drive was built in 1953. The existing
3,187-square foot home at 234 Monte Verde Drive was built in 1984. The property is
part of a neighborhood where equestrian uses are located and equestrian trails are located
along the Monte Verde Drive.
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\Stfrpt DRAFT 12.14.04.doc
Tentative Parcel Map No. 606024?Variarice No. 04-06
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Drive
December 14, 2004 -Page 2
V. SUMMARY OF DATA
REQUIRED/
STANDARD
EXISTING
PROPOSED
ALLOWED
T■'�, ,aa, z.+
O:L
fr1- �"
n Ow-, •r�,,,� fY r t' v� 'y�,`r :'3iu!" .�5..W.
lryxs�s'
iFS,4r?n'4,U
'
..tliS,tT
226 S. Monte Verde
39,550 sq. ft.
234 S. Monte Verde
34,220 sq. ft.
Proposed Parcels
Parcel 1-
Minimum lot
31,212 sq. ft.
size 20,000 sq.
ft.
Parcel 2-
22,581 sq. ft.
Parcel 3 —
11,580 sq. ft.
Parcel 4 —
11,580 sq. ft.
DEVELOPMENTST
Lot Width
Parcel 1 —157 ft.
Minimum 70 ft.
Parcel 2 —108 ft.
Parcel 3 — 71 ft.
Parcel 4 —124 ft.
Minimum 110 ft.
Lot Depth
Parcel 1-199 ft.
Parcel 2 — 208 ft.
Parcel 3 —147 ft.
Parcel 4 —109 ft.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
North: 10 Freeway and City of Covina boundary; freeway
and office buildings
South: L.A. County Unincorporated area and City of
Covina; single-family homes
East: "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zone, single-
family residences
West: "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zone; single-
family residences
Notices of Public Hearing have been mailed to 23 owners and occupants of properties
located within 300 feet of the subject site.
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\Stfipt DRAFT 12.14.04.doc
Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602 & Variance No. 04-06
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Drive
December 14, 2004 - Page 3
VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
The project consists of a request to subdivide two parcels, which have the same owner,
into four parcels. The lot sizes will range in size from 31,212. square feet to 11,580
square feet. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a reduced lot size on two
parcels. The required lot size within this area of the City requires a minimum of 20,000
square feet and the applicant is requesting a reduction of two lots to 11,580 square feet.
The project is located in the "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zone, Area District IV.
The subject sites are located at the northeast corner of Monte Verde Drive and Garvey
Avenue. The parcel at 226 Monte Verde Drive is irregular in shape and sits directly on
the corner. Currently there is an existing single -story 1,780-square foot single-family
home, with a pool and barn on the property. The home was built in 1953. The property
at 234 Monte Verde Drive is somewhat rectangular in shape. Currently there is an
existing two-story 3,187-square foot home and detached garage on the site. The home
was built in 1984.
There are approximately 19 trees on both sites combined. Specifically, there are the
following types and quantities of trees: 2 palms, 1 juniper, 1 pepper, 3 pines, 1
persimmon, and 8 oaks. The applicant anticipates that the trees will remain on site until
grading to construct houses takes place. However, one oak tree, which by code definition
is considered significant, is located on the property line between Parcel 3 and Parcel 4. It
is uncertain whether the tree will need to be removed in order to grade the property. The
Zoning Code requires that a tree removal permit be obtained prior to removal of any
significant trees.
The site is surrounded by the San Bernardino Freeway to the north and single-family
residential to the south, east, and west. The City of Covina boundary is north of the
subject sites and the L.A. County boundary is south of the sites. The lot sizes of the
parcels along Monte Verde Drive (outside of the City's boundary) range in size from
41,382 square feet to 103,672 square feet. Within the City's boundary along Monte
Verde Drive, the lots range in size from 34,220 square feet to 67,520 square feet. The lot
sizes of the parcels along Garvey Avenue South (within the City's boundary) range in
size from 20,130 square feet 20,980 square feet. Southwest of the site along Holt Avenue
the properties range in size from 21,580 square feet to 47,480 square feet.
The Zoning Code allows properties within Area Districts IV and V to have equestrian
uses when the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet or greater. The subject properties
are within Area District IV. Assuming that properties within these area districts maintain
the minimum square footage they canhave equestrian use on their property. With the
reduction in square footage of Parcels 3 and 4, equestrian uses would not be permitted.
The required lot depth for parcels within Area District IV is 110 feet. Parcel 4 is
proposed with a lot depth of 109 feet and therefore requires the approval of a variance.
The proposed subdivision of two 11,580-square foot lots will not resemble any properties
within the City of West Covina boundary. The smallest properties in the vicinity in the
County area are two properties that are 20,000 square feet.
Tentative Parcel Map
The existing single-family homes on the property are proposed to remain and are
currently located on proposed Parcels 1 and 2. The Engineering Division requires the
approval of a final grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed on -site and
off -site improvements.
Generally, the subject property drains to the north with a higher elevation on Lot 2 than
Lot 1. The area of Lots 3 and 4 consists of a low-lying depression with a drainage inlet
on the north side of the property allowing water to drain out. Any development of that
portion of the property on Parcels 3 and 4 would require a significant amount of fill (four
to five feet), which could affect the preservation of the trees on the property.
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\Stfrpt DRAFT 12.14.04.doc
Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602 & Variance No. 04-06
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Drive
December 14, 2004 - Page 4
Proposed Parcels 1 and 2 will gain access from Monte Verde Drive. Parcels 3 and 4 will
gain access from Garvey Avenue. In this case, all parcels will have separate driveways,
therefore an access easement will not be required.
The request for a subdivision of two parcels into four parcels is the subject under review.
The applicant has not submitted plans for new houses on the lots. However, during
review for the subdivision, staff asked that. the applicant indicate approximate locations to
construct a single-family on each lot. The plans indicate a pad area where a single-family
home could be constructed.
Should the applicant, or any future owner, propose to construct houses, the plans would
require review by the Planning Department prior to submittal to the Building Division.
The maximum unit size for proposed Parcels 3 and 4 at 11,580 square feet each'is 3,999
square feet. Therefore, a house greater would require the approval of administrative use
permit. The maximum unit size for proposed Parcel 1 at 31,212 square feet is 6,000
square feet. Parcel 2 at 22,581 square feet would have a maximum unit size of 4,000
square feet.
Prior Tentative Parcel Map Submittal by Applicant
The applicant originally submitted a parcel map to subdivide the two parcels into three
parcels with all three complying with required lot size and width. Staff indicated to the
applicant that reducing the lot sizes to accommodate four parcels would require a
variance application. Staff discussed with the applicant that staff would not recommend
approval of a subdivision that does not comply with minimum standards.
Following some time, the applicant returned to staff with a new parcel map indicating
four parcels with two parcels below the required 20,000-square foot lot size.
Conclusion
Staff is not adverse to the subdivision of large lots. Staff does possess a concern,
however, that the proposed lots will not be consistent with the average lot sizes in the
area. As stated earlier in the staff report, there are no other lots in the area that are less
than 20,000 square feet.
The prior submittal by the applicant to subdivide the two parcels into three would meet
the required lot size and lot width and also provide better compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood. Because the new parcel could potentially gain access from
Garvey Avenue a three -parcel subdivision may be more feasible to comply with the
Zoning Code.
While staff recognizes the property owner's desire to capitalize on the size of their lot
and provide for the creation of an additional building site, staff believes the manner in
which this is being proposed could pose negative impacts and set an adverse precedent
for similar type requests. Furthermore, the creation of lots of less than 20,000 square feet
(the minimum size for keeping horses) could cause problems for those individuals who
have horses. Staff is therefore recommending denial of this request.
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\Stfrpt DRAFT 12.14.04.doc
Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602 & Variance No. 04-06
226 & 234 S. Monte Verde Drive
December 14, 2004 - Page 5
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1) Adopt resolutions denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602 and Variance No. 04-06.
2) Continue this item with direction to the applicant to reduce the number of lots in
compliance with zoning standards.
Sylvia H andez
Plannin ssistant
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
D McIsaac
ing Director
Attachment 1: Parcel Map Denial Resolution
Attachment 2: Variance Denial Resolution
Attachment 3: Neighborhood signatures in support obtained by the applicant
Attachment 4: Supporting Statements from applicant
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\Stfipt DRAFT 12.14.04.doc
• Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT?
Page 6 — December 14, 2004
current sign needed to be modernized and that signage was important to attract patrons to
West Covina businesses.
OPPONENT:
Mimi McKenzie spoke in opposition to the. sign variance and stated her preference for
more subdued signage.
Chairman York closed the public hearing.
There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the requested variance. It was the
consensus of the Commission that the proposed sign would not be out of character with
the surrounding commercial center. It was further agreed that signage that would
promote the less visible businesses would be beneficial to the business and the city. The
Commissioners also agreed that the proposed sign was well designed and would be an
asset to the businesses in the center.
Motion by Warshaw, seconded by Lane, to adopt findings as recommended by staff.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Warshaw, seconded by Lane, to waive further reading of the body of the
resolution and adopt Resolution No. 04-4988, approving Variance No. 04-10. Motion
carried 5-0.
Motion by Warshaw, seconded by Lane, to adopt findings as recommended by staff.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Warshaw, seconded by Lane, to waive further reading of the body of the
resolution and adopt Resolution No. 04-4989, approving Administrative Use Permit No.
04-44, as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
Chairman York stated that these actions are final unless appealed to the City Council
within ten days.
Chairman York called a recess at 8:45 p.m.
Chairman York reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
(5)
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.60602
VARIANCE NO.04-06
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mimi McKenzie
LOCATION: 226 and 234 South Monte Verde Street
REQUEST: The project consists of a request for the approval of a tentative
parcel map to subdivide one 39,550-square foot lot and one
34,220-square foot lot (with same property owner) into four single-
family lots as follows: Parcel 1 (31,212 sq. ft.), Parcel 2 (22,581
sq. ft.), Parcel 3 (11,580 sq. ft.), and Parcel 4 (11,580 sq. ft.). The
applicant is also requesting a variance (for Parcels 3 & 4) to allow
a reduction in the required lot size of 20,000 square feel to 11,580
square feet. The project is located in the "Residential Agricultural"
(R-A) Zone, Area District IV.
Planning Assistant Sylvia Hernandez presented the staff report. There was ashort
discussion by the Commission regarding the code requirements for the keeping of horses
in this area. Planning Director Doug McIsaac also explained what the zoning
requirements are for this particular property.
ZAPLANCOAMINUTES\2004 MINUTES\12 14 04 Minutes.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7 — December 14, 2004
PROPONENTS:
Mimi McKenzie, applicant, and Robert Sullivan, engineer on the project, addressed the
Commission in favor of the application. Ms. McKenzie addressed the Commission
regarding her disagreement with the recommendation by staff and the procedures
followed in the review of her application. Further, she stated that she felt her property
was unique because of its close proximity to the freeway. Ms. McKenzie also stated that
it was not her intention to develop the lots but rather to sell them in conjunction with the
sale of her home.
Robert Sullivan, engineer on the project, stated that he is present to answer any technical
questions the Commission may have. There was a short discussion by the Commission
regarding the number of trees that are currently present on the property.
OPPONENTS:
Royall Brown, Joanne Wilner and John Scheuplein spoke in opposition to the project.
All of them indicated their opposition due to the small lot sizes proposed by the applicant
and the possibility of a precedent being set that could change the nature of the area. Mr.
Scheuplein also stated that the elimination of properties that could support the keeping of
horses could result in higher densities and smaller lots in the area.
I1*1:3 lily 11�
Ms. McKenzie stated her disagreement with the statements of the opponents and further
stated her opposition to RV's parking on large lots in her area.
Chairman York closed the public hearing.
There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the requested variance. It was the
consensus of the Commission that this property was not unique and, therefore, did not
meet the criteria for the granting of a variance. It was noted by the Commission that the
subdivision of this lot could occur without the need for a variance if the applicant would
reduce the number of requested lots from four to three. In addition, it was the consensus
of the Commission that smaller lots would not be consistent with the surrounding area,
which is zoned RA, (Residential Agricultural), and allows the keeping of horses.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Chairman York suggested that this matter be
continued to allow the applicant time to redesign her project and eliminate the need for a
variance. Ms. McKenzie indicated that she didn't want to incur more any more fees and
declined the opportunity for a continuation of the hearing.
Motion by Lane, seconded by Warshaw, to adopt findings as recommended by staff.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Lane, seconded by Warshaw, to waive further reading of the body of the
resolution and adopt Resolution No. 04-4990, denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 60602.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Lane, seconded by Warshaw, to adopt findings as recommended by staff.
Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Lane, seconded by Warshaw, to waive further reading of the body of the
resolution and adopt Resolution No. 04-4991, denying Variance No. 04-06. Motion
carried 5-0.
Chairman York stated that these actions are final unless appealed to the City Council
within ten days.
Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2004 MINUTES\12 14 04 Minutes.doc .
.+w . �• �., u�... � ..._v �u...�... ...u. n...�• • u� w..a• u..�.�.�. w • nut c•c
ATTACHMENT 6
Mary McKenzie Thomas
234 Monte Verde Dr.
West Covina, CA 91791
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
May 1, 2004
Over the years our neighborhood has weathered various storms of change that have
brought both improvements and potential detriment to the neighborhood.
In the recent past several financially motivated groups have attempted to put two gigantic
hi -tech moving picture signs on the down hill curve to the 10 fwy, that would flash and
glow right into many of our homes like a giant TV screen day and night. We objected,
and the proposed sips were seen as a bad idea
Another motivated group, Dynamic Builders, attempted to propose a 3 story office
building with 2 levels of under ground parking that resembled a spy tower. All this
located at one of two major freeway access areas for our neighborhood. We objected and
the West Covina City council was attentive and understood the detriment to the
community.
In 1984 our immediate neighborhood gained an improvement in the fora of a large
drainage tile down the center of Monte Verde, relieving the potential for flash flooding
that previously undermined driveways and property up and down the entire street. This
system has worked well and allows us to enjoy the rural personality of the neighborhood,
without a curb and gutter system.
Recently, West Covina is attempting to require our residences at 226 and 234 Monte
Verde Dr. to install curbs acid gutters in front of these two homes only (ire conjunction
with a lot split at the rear of these properties along south Garvey). This will result in a
mismatched situation. In order to relieve this mismatch....... the only choice will'be to
propose curbs and gutters for the entire neighborhood at homeowners expense, this
proposal could come up at any time regardless of what happens at 226 and 234 Monte
Verde. This would be coxw=tion for construction's sake, a boondoggle for the City and
county, and a financial burdsn to the homeowners, not to mention, the taking of Square
footage of property to dedic c riding trail space that is easily available now without
curbs and gutters. Please join us in objecting to this non -improvement.
Another recent improvemeat to the neighborhood includes the high value homes at Holt
Ave. and Grand Ave. These homes are on very small lots, close to the freeway, with
Large square footage of house. This ratio of small exterior space with large interior space
is a good choice for this location, and increases all of our property values. This
development includes a riding trail along the ravine that is single file for a hill area.
We are always interested ui preserving riding trails and trail safety. The dedicated county
riding trail that passes to the rear of our property is vulnerable to horses spooking on the
curve. Even with a fence, two horses side by side -can cause a chain reaction, dumping a
rider over the fence, and into the street, thus a single file space with an exterior fence is a
good solution. On a straight away, a horse is less 111mly to spook since they have clearer
sight as to what is coming at them, and can more easily sense what is behind them. As a
result a wider space is appropriate and a fence less necessary.
The proposed lot split at the rear of 234 and 226 Monte Verde (along South Garvey and
close) to the freeway will Axult in two large residential Iots in excess of 11,500 square
feet. These two custom lots will be considered large for most residential standards and
am in fact substantially larger than lots at the Grand Ave and Holt development, but
sirialle' than many is the area, requiring a variance. Still a good choice for a custom
home in a unique area.
Please let us know that you support the proposed suggestions in order to protect the rural
atmosphere in the neighborhood, improve, the safety of the riding trail, would not object
to a lot size vadaucc in this locatiou. and would vote to prevent unwanted improvements
on Monte Verde such as curbs and gutters, sewer lines with hook-up and maintenance
fees, sidewalks, easements lbrridiM trails, (all at homeowners expense), which are
ttrtnwmary, financially, and in every other way.
cerely, :..
MCXCAZle Thomas
Ot '
As a resident of the East gills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Vence and South
Garvey 1 hold the following opinion:
i fsel the neighborhood bt:nefits firm its rural attaosphorc: dxwfore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any lane for riding tails adding
systems, signs, ect. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single fanuly maidences Yery close to the freeway_
Signature: L/ t.d ,� Date:
Addrass: 3 0
J
__-_""__.
As a resident of the Fast Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I feel the neighborhood benefits from its rural atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, signs, act. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway.
Sigma
Address: �.�' �% MIOA-�I 29A .
Date: 1' �/O/�
UO/ 17/ LUUY G7. L7 OL070:JLO r 7 I nVl•tx.ly" Gt\Vit\c cR1Y\til . nVt. V V
1 _
As a resident of the East Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I fbel the neigbbodiood benefits from its raw atmosphere: therefore Y am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalk, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, signs, eat. on Monte Verde Drive, Lomcita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
1
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway.
Signature: Date:
�� a^s•�,(� �(�Cc�.,,,J � � O'er
Address:
UOl 17/GGIVY
VJ. LJ
VLV JVJLJfJ
...VI�MJ\ vltVi.l...���r•n,.
•
G
As a resident of the F..ast 1it71s Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the Wowing oFimvn
1 feel the neighborhood benefits from its rural atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional casements at auy time for riding trails, adding sewer
Systems, signs, ect. on MMIC Verde Drive, Lorenaita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such Wcomnendadous.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway,
signa
;WM:
./
Address:
-fir
Date: 15- = 6 —C;I --�
0
VV/ ✓. .II LVV, VJ• I./ VI..V.IV.IrV � �
As a resident of the Fast Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
i feel the neighborhood benefits from its rtual atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, Signs, ecL on Matte Verde Drive, iorencita, Golden Bougie, act. T would
actively object to aay such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the fxeeway.
Siguaturt: Ui... �' • Date:
Address:
ATTACHMENT 70
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Supporting Statements
a. That there are Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances not applicable generally to other
properties or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
The properties under consideration are located on Monte Verde Dr. and are 2 of the only 4 properties on
this street with West Covina addresses. The remaining residential properties are in unincorporated Covina
and under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles. These properties are the only 2 properties on
this very quiet residential street that back up to the freeway at interstate 10 at the base of Kellogg Hill
and are on the east side of Monte Verde. Properties in the West side of Monte Verde back up to other
large residential properties that access from Golden Bough or the small private road Theodora. Other
properties on the east side include, or back up to a small valley or ravine at the rear of their properties
which share property lines that are part of the Classic Homes development or adjacent to quiet Lorencita
properties. All these other properties are buffered from the imposing presence the freeway by substantial
topography, or other residential properties. The proposed property to be divided are also unique because
no freeway wall exists as a bather to freeway noise, and these properties along with one adjacent
neighbor on South Garvey are exposed not only to the freeway but also to an on ramp and the additional
noise that sometimes creates. To our benefit, mature trees and landscaping plus a slope around the rear
perimeter add some protection from the freeway factor. Other adjoining properties on south Garvey are
different from the standpoint that they are tract homes, and not on custom building sites, with no mature
landscaping, native oaks etc.
b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but is denied to the property in
question.
This variance is advisable due to land -use issues raised by the substantial close proximity to the Interstate
10 freeway. At this location the 1-10 has a curve, substantial up and down hill grades, and an on -ramp.
Cars, trucks and motorcycles accelerate on the on -ramp, grind gears on the hill, backfire and downshift
on the down hill side. Slow trucks going uphill are not only noisy but clog up the right hand two lanes
causing congestion that adds more noise. No other property except one is without a wall, of any sort, or
a buffer zone, no other property except one shares the additional influence of an on ramp and the
additional noise that is created. The ultimate affect of this unique condition is a reduced ability to enjoy
quiet outdoor activities such as gardening and outdoor living. If you want total peace and quiet in this
location a homeowner is not likely to retreat to the garden. This is evidenced by surrounding properties.
Frouzan and Mike Dupont across the street on South Garvey and the freeway. on -ramp is only now
completing their garden after 20 yrs. I can say by years of observation that families in the Classic Homes
development who have'/z acre lots spend less time outside and their properties are equally less
maintained because of the noise factor and the visual pollution of watching commercial trucks passing
30+ feet from their yard access areas. Therefore their additional land space is wasted.. Four better choice
for these locations would be a ratio consisting of larger interior space and smaller land space as this
application requests.
C. That the granting of such variance will not be a detriment to public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located..
The 2 new proposed parcelsWill have low impact, on other properties in the area. Even new multi -story
• residences will be difficult to see from any adjacent existing residence because extensive landscaping and
topography (with the exception of 234 Monte Verde which belongs to the applicant) The slope around
the rear perimeter of these properties will buffer impact on the area. Additionally, submitted and attached
are letters signed -by most local residents who do not object to a smaller lot size at this particular location.
Residents of the area feel strongly about the rural nature of the neighborhood and prefer that the streets
and the landscaping be disturbed as little as possible. Granting this variance will improve the safety of the
skyline equestrian trail on the curve of south Garvey by adding an outside fence rail to the perimeter
reducing the chance of any equestrian accidents.
d. That the granting of such variance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan and' any
applicable specific plans.
It is assumed that the General Plan for West Covina is to provide a safe community where residents can
live happily, work, raise their children, enjoy economic prosperity that includes increased property values,
that provide a strong tax base. This proposed variance will help accomplish the above goals with
improved land use options for this unique property.
a-.�. �., ...-•x � : - r-; •sit -� . -s -i • - � — - c � +- � t �a ,,,. ':; _ � ' #cr �' m- - :,.. a •-i--..-- . z • } `'� I - ... ;cy - a a , ,ill' � i-'.�
r. .
.,-� = _ ,_.. .u�- - .� � #. '-, .Y.'..4 � ... y . �'�., _ r �Ly n - F''"" ` �✓` •`:. ,> - 1, - .•4 -i�*+� f-, , t , j. i
- ,zr-T'_ y - v y :4,`t 1 t: .w.,•,a' ''11�i +R.'`.
` �1 -( �• ,` ,.6-; .* S♦ c .1� f"". ,��. . _ �t ��j _ 1>...'O. .`-•..-+ '� �: �+t` -�`� �*�";�''`' - - :,'(�' " 3,. - �9�'�i
ar OF
L,..._�. � � _.. ,r y � "'r. :• '- •. . ' �'• ...', � y . . , .`,. �' 4l« `�sY,". w .°� 'r,. r� pR. tr'� fi'
I
-�=" ,� / ' t, ��u--�:"• - S -4`'- � ,.J,Jrr?'�s.� - '``•iy fs.,
' G Y
r
' � .r- •�:.�� .t -' t v� ' .-F fib, �:�. ,i-�3i..-}
.,.. F'i" � t.. • <} �••{..>'Y f,,._•- e,. = � ^mom -t �i""x. -- �{ ��.} . "'"` Ra � "` �`• � �•:.�"t ' � �-`'vt... • k �l
•. - �. Y� � q p'- , V `PV �,.. J } I +._ - - : ' - - 7 �9r Y '�'i ..w" �., .y � y M"� f'_
W
4
_a _ • - , .. �y. � , rLJ, _ ♦r li. - _'• `'�.!' .._---.1• ,t., r—. _. _ Q . r�'i— �)3- f �'� _-4 ''�`'-- :..�., • '�Z� -�. :� .,.
,
r
+
,'�r. ~ . 1�� 1. ��"`�-,. �•�?�: -:_- O5 ).� �''v re� '��'S� t: �� -`'yi. _ --'-�'5:,� - � .l-` � p- `3�x^ r r,. 4",�. �,�:� _ �}...
e
�'� + 1 c i �... :., I�: 3 '!#�} - i ,�! f`"�„�. '` Y ,. � � =ray q,�.•,p� �, ^.� `'"
" : �f i ` i 3 I I-�',..✓'' � -., � � .. �� "; ;{� ' tau-. ��,,.•�-, e:�s4 . ,+�'�, �. i.',�, v 1,.=' o.�� 4 ,L��_y Stay � . . fi a.:
. , - ,1 ; y..-.`3 'I �i y � —a _r-.- ��7, ��_ -' � � � � 7"7:`�2 �' r , : "' ,�'1; �:'. �� ' •`3-'t� -,F- �' - , 7. ��'; ti',� •> • y,,, s„ , •� ,� _. "" ;c
_ Al Y{ _
l ,�•-� ', � �. - �'� � ;
_
- r� _apa i •- _".-. _ -'_'�, 1' � i. � ,.. �t t 6.j,,.� �f s..k,�"c' is ' {. ru a' � �.. r,,,�x �`'^•k-..�
` y.�" 1'�- �• � t. 'V� S'"�S ��. _ ',-�+•'I+•..`� b.` '. -s' dry.
_
2935 '��,. 1 '� f/ •�+ ,G,y _ , ;. ! � yam• ` '.�� A ^ `� ��r r
'�- � ���"` 'iy . . i_-_ ci i'.,".,---•.t�-� .} -r i tv� _ •1 r-�_ f - � 1�'�4` � 1 _ -t' .i iC:: :f
s:.. i•-;7`^' -. t�' - _ -. 1, 1+�� - "�t �r ' 1 . � � �'.; � �C . r,P" r[ S , . �ry , ; O �: �S � .'r. .�••.�. -
-
lA
k'` j ,.�,,� nl Sy /�•-°- �::_ i �rrl• l;[ 1'.5 s a �.'-- �`, y _ i ct�f: ;� Key '-w
,
N.�':' I$
� 2• �� - ,.107 � a ;•���' 0. $4ta' Ta.
., 4 ,., t- .- _ �'-l'. a• = ,� 1 �-" � ='t�. •,• � � �', F:. 4•' r-� ��- �=i,���� `� -'h-v � c � }ems:-_` � ;;1,a
0
Mimi McKenzie
234 Monte Verde Dr.
West Covina, Ca. 91791
To: West Covina City Council
Dear Sirs,
RECta--IVED
DEC 2 1 2004
CITY CLERK'S OFFIC"
CITY OF WEST COV iN"
December 17, 2004
I have submitted to the city a proposed plan to provide two pieces of property that will be
available for purchase, at the rear of our two West Covina residential properties. The
most imposing natural feature of these two properties is the 10 Freeway, both located
with access on South Garvey Ave. Similar to the residential development at Holt and the
10 Fwy, the freeway is a huge factor. This makes these properties under consideration,
different than any other custom home location in the entire area.
Previously proposed plans by the planning department isolated this area as unique
properties along the 10 freeway corridor. The proposed new lots are included in this
recognized, 10 freeway impacted area. NO OTHER PROPERTIES ON MONTE VERDE
FIT INTO THIS CATEGORY. At that time, the planning department staff recommended
commercial development for the freeway corridor in our neighborhood and attempted to
implement this plan with the 3 story commercial building at Holt Ave. and Temple Way.
They pushed this plan through the planning department complete with variances and the
planning commission put their blessings on the whole idea.
The residents of the entire neighborhood were outraged and showed up in mass to protest
after being ignored by the planning department staff, and commission. The neighborhood
requested residential rather than commercial developments. You all listened to the
neighborhood and we now have high density residential homes happening within one
block of my proposed residential lots on the freeway corridor. No open protest to my
project has been launched by any of my neighbors affected, within the notification zone.
Unfortunately the Planning Department staff and commission still do not have a clear
view of what the majority of my particular neighborhood is comfortable with. The vast
majority of neighbors that I contacted have no objection to a smaller lot size along the
freeway corridor, in fact they were willing to sign an opinion page to verify that fact,
which was submitted to the planning leadership which they ignored by not reading it.
Notices were then sent out for the Dec. 14`h meeting NO INDIVIDUAL LIVING INSIDE
THE AFFECTED AREA SHOWED UP TO VOICE A PROTEST..
I therefore request this matter come before the city council in order to expose the LAND
USE ISSUES at the freeway corridor, and the discriminatory, deceptive definitions of lot
size.
�-
erely,
Mimi Mc ' nzie `
n-d
Issued By:
City of West Covina
City Clerk's Department
Miscellaneous Cash Receipt
NOT A RECEIPT UNLESS MACHINE VALIDATED.
R41611.fF 11,1 N 6 FEUS y
Date: 1 j /,q / `) q
Received From: ,I J � � k t 21 d,
F$q . 0c)
The Sum of: Alf" --6C i�� r11, l"41 iR�. 6 �' r �I P ` -¢f�u°C�
- Y'r 1. — 0 —�I ,j Q
Purpose: A 1-71i/ r �- ��knnrA V E G,alkill q.�PCt Clui-`l
GENERALFUND AMOUNT
OTHERS AMOUNT
Franchise 110.00.4120
Business License 110.00.4140
Other Permits 110.13.4290
Other Court Fines 110.31.4320
Interest 110.00.4410
Rents 110.00.4430
Returned Check Fee 110.13.4642
Miscellaneous 110.13.4818
Sale of Codes, Maps 110.21.4813
Passport Execution Fee 110.12.4644
Photo Copy Fee 110.13.4641
Filing Fee 110.21.4612 =2,2• (90
DEPOSIT TRUST
GL NO.
ACCT. DESCRIPTION
DEPOSIT IN NAME OF
PURPOSE
AMOUNT
550.22211
Miscellaneous
550.22223
E.I.R.
550.22212
Donations
MDelira's C:my docs/forms/MRC
Distribution of copies: White - Payor's receipt Yellow - Finance Pink - Numerical file copy Golden Rod - Office copy
1 8277-008-034 2 8277-008-043:,.:,
Michael P. & Frouzan Dupont.:—Luci�,� x ZL1;;asa A VVil:ia111s
371-2 East Holt Avenue ' 3700 East Garvey Avenue
West Covina, CA 9i791-240j oV2s C:;�;i�,u, 9,1 Ji
4 8277-008-010
Felix D Hurtado & Jackie Guerrero
3640 East Holt Avenue
West Covina, CA 91791-2318
7 8277-008-022
David & Karen V B Jacobs
2935 North Monte Verde Drive
Covina, CA 91724
10 8277-008-040
Hector & Socorro Ruiz
2903 North Monte Verde Drive
Covina, CA 91724
5 8277-008-038
Gabriel & Marison Geballos
3654 East Garvey Avenue
West Covina, CA 91791-2345
8 8277-008-041
Juan A & Rita S Gonzalez
2929 North Monte Verde Drive
Covina, CA 91724-3837
11 8277-009-040
Myge & Virginia Templeton
2899 North Monte Verde Drive
Covina, CA 91724
13 8277-009-042
14 8277-002-045
Lawrence E Beard
Jovent & Violetta Mapa
2431 Chico Avenue
316 South Monte Verde Street
South El Monte CA 91733-1685
West Covina, CA 91791
16 8277-002-031
17 8277-002-046
Victor H & Edith Castellanos
Jovent & Violetta Mapa
310 South Monte Verde Street
316 South Monte Verde Street
West Covina, CA 91791
West Covina, CA 91791
19 8277-002-034
Alex V & Carolina Fountanilla
3806 East Garvey Avenue South
West Covina, Ca 91791
22 8448-019-048
Leretta Corporation
1123 Park View Drive
Covina, CA 91724
23 8277-002-044
McKenzie Family Trust
226 Monte Verde Drive
West Covina, CA 91791
20 8277-002-033
Chart Chawal & Tanya Loharun
3800 East Garvey Avenue South
West Covina, CA 91791
3 8277-008-036
:laria Salcido'
3650 East Exult Averlie
W= �Ccw t � ,. r:'k 91191,
6 8277-008-037
Lewis A & Brooke Parker
3658 East Garvey Avenue
West Covina, CA 91791-2345
9 8277-008-039
John & Linda S Morales
2911 North Monte Verde Drive
Covina, Ca 91724'
12 8277-009-039
i Leonard & Debra Hoffstetter
2877 North Monte Verde Drive
Covina, CA 91724
15 8277-002-032
Jerry C & Janice R Gleim
312 South Monte Verde Street
{ West Covina, CA 91791
+; 18 8277-002-035
Martin Matta
3812 East Garvey Avenue South
West Covina, Ca 91791
218277-002-003
Stuart R & Audrey J Bates
244 South Monte Verde Street
i West Covina, CA 91791-2407
t
23 8448-019-049 1 24 8277-002-021
Farmers Insurance Exchange it 1, i McKenzie Family Trust
ATTN: Real Estate Accounting Manager 226 Monte Verde Drive
4680 Wilshire Boulevard West Covina, CA 91791
Los Angeles, CA 90010-3807
OWNER
Ms. Mimi McKenzie
234 Monte Verde Drive
West Covina, CA 91791
e I0NdGe ueww iur use Of % UUIILY t lerK U111yJ
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE
affiliated with
SGV Newspaper Group
1210 N. Azusa Canyon Road
West Covina, CA 91790 .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REC'C JAN 10 �,00a
PROOF OF PUBLICATION_-
(2015.5 C.C.P.) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, -
'CITY OF WEST COVINA I
I"- CITY COUNCILPURSUANT TO . ff
LIN
CONFORMANCE THE WITH ' LAW ANu' THE j'
!MUNICIPAL CODE YOU ARE HEREBY
Pr(NOTIFIED OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF
,THE CITY • OF WEST COVINA CITY
,COUNCIL.
!APPEAL .OF TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO; 60602
I am a citizen of the United States, and a resident I APPEAL OF VARIANCE NO. 04-06
of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of ;CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION .
eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in
� APPLICANT: Mimi McKenzie
the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE, a
newspaper of general circulation which has been
adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation
by the Superior Court of the County of Los
Angeles, State of California, on the date of
September 10, 1957, Case Number 684891. The
notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy,
has been published in each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:
County of Los Angeles
1/7/05
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California
this 7 day of JANUARY 20 25
signature
13
LOCATION: 226 &234 Monte verae
Drive
REQUEST: , - The applicant is
requesting an appeal of
the Planning Commission
decision. to deny a
tentative parcel map to,
subdivide one
39,550-square foot lot and
one 34,220-square foot lot
(with . same property
owner) into four
single-family' lots as
follows: Parcel 1 (31,212
sq. ft.), Parcel 2 , (22,581
sq. ft.), Parcel 3 (11,580
sq. ft.), and. Parcel A
(11i580 sq. ft.). The
applicant: is also
irequesting'a variance (for
Parcel 3 & 4) to allow a
reduction in the required
lot, size of. 20,000 'square
feet to 11,580 square feet.
The project is located in
the "Residential
Agricultural' (R-A) Zone,
Area District •IV.
Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project
is considered to be categorically exempt
(Class 15, Section 15315) in that It consists
of a subdivision and variance of a certain
,property in an -urban area into four
parcels.
If you wish to challenge the actions))
taken .on the request(s),' you may be
limited to raising only those issues, which
you (or someone else) ralsedl orally al
this public hearing or in writter
correspondence received by the City at of
before the hearing.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE
HELD:
PLACE: West Covina City Hall
1444. West Garvey Avenu
f South
City Council. Chambers
Level One
DATE: January 18, 2005 l
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
If you have any questions, we urge you to
contact.SYlvia Hernandez at (626) 939-8767
or (626) 939-8422 or Room.208, at CItY
•
0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
wgs� CITY OF WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL
PURSUANT TO THE:. LAW AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE
YOU ARE HEREBY `NOTIFIED : OF; A PUBLIC. HEARING OF THE .CITY OF WEST
COVINA CITY COUNCIL. p`; s
� r it , •
r
APPEAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.60602
I� 'zr t ! r r'�.'.zY, +. ,,f •..' t t�':r � 1;; � x i:{ t tt
s
"`' A hr °APPEAL .OFVARIANCE
I
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mimi McKenzie
LOCATION: 226 & 234 Monte Verde Drive
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission
decision to deny a tentative parcel map toysubdivide one 39,550-square
foot lot and one 34,220-square foot lot (with same property owner) into
four single-family lots as follows: Parcel 1 (31,212 sq. ft.), Parcel 2
(22,581 sq. ft.), Parcel 3 (11,580 sq. ft.), and Parcel 4 (11,580 sq. ft.).
The applicant is also requesting a variance (for Parcel 3 & 4) to allow a
reduction in the required lot size of 20,000 square feet to 11,580 square
feet. The project is located in the "Residential Agricultural" (R-A) Zone,
Area District IV. ,
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is considered
to be categorically exempt (Class 15, Section 15315) in that it consists of a subdivision and
variance of a certain property in an urban area into four parcels.
If you wish to challenge the action(s) taken on the request(s), you may be limited to raising only
those issues, which you (or someone else) raised orally at this public hearing or in. written
correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD:
PLACE: West Covina City Hall
1444 West Garvey Avenue South
City Council Chambers - Level One
DATE: January 18, 2005
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
If you have any questions, we urge you to contact Sylvia Hernandez at (626) 939-8767 or (626)
939-8422 or Room 208, at City Hall.
EH wr.
W
Only through citizen participation can your government build a better City.
Date Published: January7, 2005
BY ORDER OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA
t
N
Z:\Case Files\TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP\2003\TPM 60602 Monte Verde\CC\NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING.doc
, I -"" 71 I �, I J. - - - ,% - - , -,., I ��,- - - ".�- %� "; . '-- , 4." , . -- , -
" � 1-1 , � I' , , ,,, , -,�L - - ,� �',� ; , � , , - , 1. 4 1, 4 - I - , . -
I , I
I -
,, 1:-
:I
,",, , ,.,1�'-;: -��", ��,
,l
i .�:����,,;-�I1,�"f ,-', "
.,_.,"" .�.,,,:� ,1-,I.'I, ,,��t,,:�-i,--I,"-,
,—,1.,,-x,.�,�.�
,-
,,� ',,"-5"
S
�"-�-.:r��.�1M,,
1
"-1
,, �
f
I
4
,
� ,
,,---
'..
*
,i
.:
�.,.,.
I"
.
,1
,
,,.,.
. .
.-
-
,
�
,,, -� , ",a tr'J, I -
,
.-
1I !
,
�
- .-
-
,
,
--1�I
,I
"
.'..�
....,�
�
-
i1I
-
.,.:
, ,I
-
I,
�
"
..�
.,
-...
-
,-
.. ".- I
,.
-
I,..
..I.�-.
. *,
,
...
:
,.
-
�,I
I�
1
,.
�
-.
,�.
�
.
r,,� i , ,
, , ,� , ? �,a } ,, ) Zti t. +
��FREEWAY'CdtRIDOR'PROPetM
This p1rdject consists bf,large,resid6ntiaFI6ts, directly adjacent the f0jtdawiy�66,S uth-.Garvey &6
,e,los'are�arrahed�on4,i6161 loaded are-noteatily'vieW§d,on anya jacentpropelies1.
,r—"The undevelopedWrcAsekbeotbrjences' and -existing; protected ,native oaks wfii6h-are .n-,16cat, ns,t6a 1,
, � allowI ired neway,a666s16:86athGarvey Ave wiihoufthexemovaf oi'any ree,1r tt:na ive.' ,
is located onthecenter prdpery1ine,and is therefore not vulnra6le t6lemova.- ac H t.is? . Vn ;,� . ,s
�-bdildible; w.11,kavel own -property )ine;,-sharrjg access drainageThe Isk.lifi6�ri5in trail borders thee
dUtsi��Oenrheterof,both.properfies,an 1 e'propeity' owner is"willingprbvi e for an outside rail; fenewt6—y
provide couble railing and,additional ,isafety alongouth'Gavey' ,-.
THIS -pR6kRfY-HAS.OEEN�idpktd ' THE CITY OF COVI�NXAS-PkbOERTY
IMPACTEDAND 'LOCATED MITHI,HEFREEWAY � 10 RZbkt
4 - .---� -9- -— �-
, , ," ; y—II � -1- ,,,;,' '," - ��-"-,f" '`, �,72'0�7� , I1, ,,4
� �I 4
, I }
1,"n , I ;c,,
( �
x
•, , "-
d ham' 1"—. , -,
.2jI � i,- .� %1 " 1 ,.� t , �
�, �1,erC4,;;.,4.��1r7-A- 226., I ��j-; .
" -P��,Q�o,�f,,V
v �c- -� *�—-,F , I-!
rt�,M- 4
��Z% I" A �-11 I ,_ 5 11I- ,'_� "-
Noht4. erde
,I , ,",_,, ,.I ', -"
_-�, "! , , �,Y i ",
tfiispro�eftty.i6rdeve1opedimac6fifiland
l,=Y,AI-,,,, � 1 I _'--i $,�"�
,\ -"', . j
, (r � , I- ti , t p ,
., 1i �; � � - 1,,,I � ,,",
ll I�,I,� 1�, a ,
,F -,s I �l
4 f 'e,f 1, L"1 "5 14
,a 2 , , I I ��" 3 k,
- a l , I � �O 7
4; "v�,,1, ), j, ) , I; $ .
�
I
.I.�..4
,
...
I
..
,
I
1,
�
I
12 ,iI t, . . re . �, ; ,* I'' - ",r- 1._('
,
, , 1 , - .,
, ,�� I , , , , � � ", , ; . , I � , � I . . , �,
, .. � , , , , z . .. I I - I -.', " - - , � : ,
� r . I . I - . , '. , , . , - , �' , -, �, , . " " - - , , I , 1 - ,
� - � I , , , �� ,- ;'� , ' , -� , r :�',' � ' � " I'll I , , , , � " - , , ,
, I11-, "I .1 "I,
',�,-, , ; � " ��, , I �� � � ,� , , , " - z , , I - I I 11 I I I -
, " ,� - , � I � �, ", l?"I", 111� --]�111 � ,`1,11,�
I � � . - � i I , � L, �-,
,,,,
View From Nearest Neighbor
244 Monte Verde
New lot's Oak trees in far distance
This view fromlthe front
driveway of 244 Monte
Verde towards 226
Monte Verde will not
change.
Neither will this view:
The two new'lots
cannot be seen easily
from the driveway or
residence of the
adjoining neighbor,
even if 2 2-story
residences were
11
added in the future.
The native and
protected oaks on
both properties block
the view.
SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
PROBLEMS: Five of the seven homes directly on the freeway in
this aerial photo have difficulty in providing good yard area maint-
enence. Noise pollution, the sight and sounds of large commercial
vehicles, along with the expense of large property maintence, make
these home owners less motivated to do yard work. Smaller yards
along the freeway corridor is a better choice.
w
�{ ¢ �"e. it y� ,�•M �'tlH`� � ,��'B�F � a
�� . �' ,.e '�4� .,p.^*w �i :�a •• , r�t?..1 �"° ,,, jam. A -
i {
fi.3��'��
"
a r ,jj
t; 1�
no
Ski,
'p f Lr
�g�
6,3 J t Lis*
IAI
Vr
�, '�� S ,,,,rii' � �. ' 4.�� � j �d kti .•i 7 � �1.'S� H { �' SM i ��
' I Ste" C
`'.l`'`. t.. "'�`" "Gp 4+'♦ Y h� s ra
r
.,47
s
'x.a �'. fit+ ' ;. '3r ' 4 r `�� -,•'� / \". `"' ��
t Af
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ALONG THE FREEWAY CORRIDOR
Recently developed R-A zoned property, now
occupied by single family residences on lots
described on the average as 4,800 to 5,2003F
in size (unless you talk to the Planning depart
ment who describes these lots as 20,000SF in
the infamous and deceptive smoke and mirrors
MARCH 2O04
2004
NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PROCESS: TEMPLE WAY AND HOLT
( one block from this project, on freeway exit'
0
r�
30,220 SF
buildable
space.
Currently
Graded foi
4 separate
homes
Aprox.
7,SOOSF
per home
r
Mary McKenzie Thomas
234 Monte Verde Dr.
West Covina, CA 91791
May 1, 2004
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Over the years our neighborhood has weathered various storms of change that have
brought both improvements and potential detriment to the neighborhood.
In the recent past several financially motivated groups have attempted to put two gigantic
hi -tech moving picture signs on the down hill curve to the 10 fwy, that would flash and
glow right into many of our homes like a giant TV screen day and night. We objected,
and the proposed signs were seen as a bad idea.
Another motivated group, Dynamic Builders, attempted to propose a 3 story office
building with 2 levels of under ground parking that resembled a spy tower. All this
located at one of two major freeway access areas for our neighborhood. We objected and
the West Covina City council was attentive and understood the detriment to the
community.
In 1984 our immediate neighborhood gained an improvement in the form of a large
drainage tile down the center of Monte Verde, relieving the potential for flash flooding
that previously undermined driveways and property up and down the entire street. This
system has worked well and allows us to enjoy the rural personality of the neighborhood,
without a curb and gutter system.
Recently, West Covina is attempting to require our residences at 226 and 234 Monte
Verde Dr. to install curbs and gutters in front of these two homes only (in conjunction
with a lot split at the rear of these properties along south Garvey). This will result in a
mismatched situation. In order to relieve this mismatch....... the only choice will be to
propose curbs and gutters for the entire neighborhood at homeowners expense, this
proposal could come up at any time regardless of what happens at 226 and 234 Monte
Verde. This would be construction for construction's sake, a boondoggle for the City and
county, and a financial burden to the homeowners, not to mention, the taking of Square
footage of property to dedicate riding trail space that is easily available now with out
curbs and gutters. Please join us in objecting to this non -improvement.
Another recent improvement to the neighborhood includes the high value homes at Holt
Ave. and Grand Ave. These homes are on very small lots, close to the freeway, with
large square footage of house. This ratio of small exterior space with large interior space
is a good choice for this location, and increases all of our property values. This
development includes a riding trail along the ravine that is single file for a hill area.
We are always interested in preserving riding trails and trail safety. The dedicated county
riding trail that passes to the rear of our property is vulnerable to horses spooking on the
curve. Even with a fence, two horses side by side can cause a chain reaction, dumping a
rider over the fence, and into the street, thus a single file space with an exterior fence is a
good solution. On a straight away, a horse is less likely to spook since they have clearer
sight as to what is coming at them, and can more easily sense what is behind them. As a
result a wider space is appropriate and a fence less necessary.
The proposed lot split at the rear of 234 and 226 Monte Verde (along South Garvey and
close) to the freeway will result in two large residential lots in excess of 11,500 square
feet. These two custom lots will be considered large for most residential standards and
are in fact substantially larger than lots at the Grand Ave and Holt development, but
smaller than many in the area, requiring a variance. Still a good choice for a custom
home in a unique area.
Please let us know that you support the proposed suggestions in order to protect the rural
atmosphere in the neighborhood, improve, the safety of the riding trail, would not object
to a lot size variance in this location, and would vote to prevent unwanted improvements
on Monte Verde such as curbs and gutters, sewer lines with hook-up and maintenance
fees, sidewalks, easements for riding trails, (all at homeowners expense), which are
unnecessary, financially, and in every other way.
Most Sincerely,
Mary McKenzie Thomas
r
As a resident of the East Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I feel the neighborhood benefits from its rural atmosphere: therefore I am against curb's
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer:!
systems, signs, ect. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway.
Signature:
Date: — C�
i�
Address: 3 0J�2.
1 7�`
As a resident of the East Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I feel the neighborhood benefits from its rural atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, signs, ect. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway,
Signat Date: / D/
Address: �/ ��
As a resident of the East Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I feel the neighborhood benefits from its rural atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, signs, ect. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the fieeway.
Signature: Date:
U
Address:, �rr� �,-,.-tk v0�-C alp, ,e.C51 t . &,/ -.. U / 7 V 1
As a resident of the East Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I feel the neighborhood benefits from its rural atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, signs, ect. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Hough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway.
Signature:
Address:
Date: �6-- 6 - o --/
As a resident of the East Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I feel the neighborhood benefits from its Waal atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, signs, ect. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway.
Signature: l} Date:
V
Address: 3 � L S
As a resident of the East Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I feel the neighborhood benefits from its rural atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, signs, ect. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway.
Date: (� 7
As a resident of the East Hills Neighborhood surrounding Monte Verde and South
Garvey I hold the following opinion:
I feel the neighborhood benefits from its rural atmosphere: therefore I am against curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, additional easements at any time for riding trails, adding sewer
systems, signs, ect. on Monte Verde Drive, Lorencita, Golden Bough, ect. I would
actively object to any such recommendations.
I do not object to smaller lots for single family residences very close to the freeway.
Signature: Date:
l 1 �-
Address: .3 8cro S
5'c4 y
0 c
fa
n b HOW ABOUT .L IL ®T OF YOUR OWN! Q O a
,ems o
CZ? Hi, my name is Mimi McKenzie. I live in a neighborhood nearby. My family ands
ow' buildable residential property along the 10 Freeway corridor in a really nice
S , eighborhood, ( I have lived there since 1959). The West Covina planning department
recently denied a request to allow me to divide this property, that is directly adjacent to the p V `
—Q10 freeway, into large residential lots in excess of 10,000 sf. During the discussion with
'yI the planning department, I mentioned neighborhoods such as yours that are a good use Gif
T freeway corridor space with higher density housing in really nice neighborhoods. I was
a q k
1yt vp ,� shocked and horrified by what I was told. I was told that you all have 20,000 sf lots and � o
..► ®� r haring your property with your next door neighbor. I am still horrified. I consider this
"®
a completely deceptive description of lot size. I assume that you maintain your own front
and back yards, and prefer your own space. Wouldn't you also prefer to own your own
a Oproperty lines? My project will come before the West Covina city council probably?
' January 18'' to ask for two 11,500 sf lots. I have submitted signatures to the city from a % 6
� 1
substantial number of my neighbors who do not object to a smaller lot size for new+►
" w residential properties along the freeway corridor. Not one neighbor in the notification . o
�. zone voiced any objection to the -smaller size lots in this location. p
0 9 ? Please come to the January City council meeting that has the McKenzie. project on ',
�p Q � e
the agenda and voice your support for non -deceptive lot descriptions, ask them to o over
recognize the reality of smaller lot sizes at the freeway corridor, rather than semantics over o �
�q invisible lines, ask them to approve smaller lot variances for our new and individual - ®�
Q properties.
o IDEMAWID Y®vR OWW SIPAcIE 9c
For Questions please contact: Mimi McKenzie at 626 665-6550 1'
ER
m
Mimi McKenzie
234 Monte Verde Dr.
West Covina, Ca. 91791
To: West Covina City Council December 17, 2004
Dear Sirs,
I have submitted to the city a proposed plan to provide two pieces of property that will be
available for purchase, at the rear of our two West Covina residential properties. The .
most imposing natural feature of these two properties is the 10 Freeway, both located
with access on South Garvey Ave. Similar to the residential development at Holt and the
10 Fwy, the freeway is a huge factor. This makes these properties under consideration,
different than any other custom home location in the entire area.
Previously proposed plans by the planning department isolated this area as unique
properties along the 10 freeway corridor. The proposed new lots are included in this
recognized, 10 freeway impacted area. NO OTHER PROPERTIES ON MONTE VERDE
FIT INTO THIS CATEGORY. At that time, the planning department staff recommended
commercial development for the freeway corridor in our neighborhood and attempted to
implement this plan with the 3 story commercial building at Holt Ave. and Temple Way.
They pushed this plan through the planning department complete with variances and the
planning commission put their blessings on the whole idea.
The residents of the entire neighborhood were outraged and showed up in mass to protest
after being ignored by the planning department staff, and commission. The neighborhood
requested residential rather than commercial developments. You all listened to the
neighborhood and we now have high density residential homes happening within one
block of my proposed residential lots on the freeway corridor. No open protest to my
project has been launched by any of my neighbors affected, within the notification zone.
Unfortunately the Planning Department staff and commission still do not have a clear
view of what the majority of my particular neighborhood is comfortable with. The vast
majority of neighbors that I contacted have no objection to a smaller lot size along the
freeway corridor, in fact they were willing to sign an opinion page to verify that fact,
which was submitted to the planning leadership which they ignored by not reading it.
Notices were then sent out for the Dec. 14th meeting NO INDIVIDUAL LIVING INSIDE
THE AFFECTED AREA SHOWED UP TO VOICE A PROTEST.
I therefore request this matter come before the city council in order to expose the LAND
USE ISSUES at the freeway corridor, and the discriminatory, deceptive definitions of lot
size.
Most Sincerely,
Mimi McKenzie
Mimi McKenzie
234 Monte Verde St.
West Covina, CA 91791
To: City of West Covina City Council, Planning Commission,
Dear Sirs,
September 11, 2004
I have recently submitted a project for review to the West Covina City planning
department for a proposed lot split with a variance "as to lot size.
The City of West Covina has now collected $2400.00 in fees. The planning department
staff has now informed us that they do not recommend this variance. When asked for an
explanation as to why, I received some interesting answers. The project coordinator
stated that she had not read the proposal and they were only able to go strictly by the
code. When I appealed to the head of your department he made the same statement, he
agreed with the non -recommendation while stating that he had not read the proposal.
Your paid staff had not even taken time to read, the submitted and requested information,
therefore their decision totally arbitrary, discriminatory.
I know for a fact that the Planning Department Staff has recommended and strongly
supported projects within my neighborhood, that include some variances to zoning codes
and restrictions making the project coordinators statements flat out untrue. Some of
these projects have caused outrage in the community. I have addressed this subject by
submitting a letter with signatures of support by most of the neighbors who could be
reached for comment who do not object to this proposal.
A question arises as to why am I paying these high fees? Could these fees be for
administrative costs? If so, we have. another problem. We were called into the planning
department by the project coordinator for staff comments and corrections if any. I
arrived with my paid Civil engineer. The head of the engineering department called in to
ask if there was a meeting, he was nice enough to show up on short notice obviously
uninformed. We were handed corrections by the fire department and I immediately
commented that these corrections apply to a building permit rather than a lot split, (we
are not dealing with chimneys and combustible building supplies on this project). Your
staff project coordinator for the Planning Department blankly commented, as though she
was from outer space, that the fire department was only going strictly by the code. She
then asked me to coordinate the project myself by contacting the fire department and ask
them to do me a favor and remove some of their restrictions (to a house that I am not
building). I am not looking for favors in this situation only competence. This meeting is
where the project coordinator commented that she had not read the proposal, and that this
was all going straight to the planning commission. As far as I am concerned this project
is unadministrated.
My next concern is that my tax payer dollars that pay the staff salaries are all going to a
staff who is passing the real work of the city to a volunteer planning commission and city
council.
My previous staff meetings on the first round of this project consisted of a FEEDING
FRENZY by the staff, over curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewers, riding trails, fences,
driveways ect. or in other words what was the "city"was going to get. Fortunately these
are no longer an issue. I was publicly yelled at, insulted, undefended, while I again had to
explain that I am not applying for a building permit and am not changing what already
exists except the property lines. After being yelled at publicly for the second time by the
same staff person at the engineering counter, (over sewers), I called the police
department. Shannon Yatzee has been extremely polite.
My property is a very unique property and location. West Covina has consistently placed
its highest density housing along the 10 Fwy corridor. Along miles of West Covina
freeway frontage there is a consistent string of high density apartments, retirement
centers, condos and single family housing. New projects, such as that on Grand and
Holt Ave. with single family housing and retirement centers is consistent with the high
density policy for city planning along the freeway. Other similar projects exist or are in
process including one project one block from my property on Holt and Temple way.
I am not proposing high density housing where each family has a 6,000 sf. Space for
house and yard. My property is on, the freeway where a steep grade exists. Consistent
with higher density throughout the West Covina Freeway corridor I would simply like to
split into two very large residential lots (by most standards) because of location, and to
protect a large native Oak tree in the center of the property. I encourage you to read my
application as to why the property is unique in reference to the neighbors.
Up to this point in the process I feel insulted, discriminated against, harassed and
perplexed as to what the City is doing with my personal resources in terms of fees and tax
payer dollars. I am not reducing the number of horse properties, instead increasing the
safety, I am simply dealing with the reality of the freeway on an attractive property that is
not even viewed by other residences except my own, a property that is nicely bermed and
landscaped for privacy, and has a protected native tree in the center, making a single
residence in the future awkward to build.
I realize that this letter may not bring on a positive review by the existing fore mentioned
staff (although it had a negative response without being read) and "arguments" may
ensue. If the above management style was designed to get a response from me, be
advised that you now have my response in hand.
Please extend your polite, but swift, intellect and attention to my project, as well as this
problem before you.
Most Sincerely,
Mary McKenzie
ZONING
Sec. 26-253. Revocation.
(a) The planning commission may revoke,
amend or suspend a conditional use permit upon
finding that:
(1) The use is detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare or is a nuisance; or
(2) The permit was obtained by fraud; or
(3) The use has not been exercised prior 'to
the expiration date on the resolution ap-
proving the conditional use permit; or
(4) The use has ceased or been suspended for
a period of six (6) months or more; or
(5) The conditions of approval have not been
complied with; or
(6) The required findings for a conditional
use permit (as specified in section 26-247)
have been violated; or
(7) The use is not being operated in the
manner or for the purpose contemplated
by the approval of the permit-
(b) After notice of the alleged violations of the
conditional use permit has been given by the
planning director to the permittee and procedure
for setting a public hearing and notices have been
complied with as stated in sections 26-205 and
26-206, planning commission review of the per-
mitted operation for possible revocation, amend-
ment or suspension of the conditional use permit
may commence no sooner than ten (10) days, or a
period of time that may be required for review of
any applicable environmental statements or re-
ports.
(Code 1960, § 10503.08; Ord. No. 1333, § 1,
4-25-77; Ord. No. 1550, § 3, 6-28-82; Ord. No.
2030, § 4, 4-20-99)
Sec. 26-254. Compliance required.
No person shall violate or fail to comply with
any approved conditional use permit or any con-
ditions or provisions thereof nor shall a building
permit be issued for any structure which would
violate or fail to comply with any approved condi-
tional use permit for the parcel or parcels on
§ 2&2M
which such structure is to be located. In the event
any such permit is issued;. it shall be null and void
and have no further effect.
(Code 1960, § 10503.08; Ord. No. 1333, § 1,
4-25-77)
Secs. 26.255-26-260. Reserved.
DIVISION 4. VARIANCES AND SLIGHT
MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 26-261. Planning commission may grant
variance.
When practical -difficulties, unnecessary hard-
ships, or results inconsistent with the general
purpose of this chapter result tlirough the strict
and literal interpretation and enforcement of the
provisions hereof, the planning commission shall
have authority, as an administrative act, subject
to the provisions of this article; to grant, upon
such conditions as it may determine, such vari-
ances from the provisions of this chapter as may
be in harmony with: its general purpose and
intent, so that the spirit of this ,chapter shall be
observed, public safety and welfare secured and
substantial justice done.
(Code 1960, § 10504.01; Ord. ,No. 1333, § 1,
4-25-77)
Sec. 2&262. Purpose of variance.
ie-r ,:---- r
�le�soleepul�poSe:O�&IIjr VATIATPP'-
pareveut-, .m t1a and no variance shall be
granted which would have the effect of granting a
special privilege not shared by other property in
the same vicinity and zone in which such property
is situated.
.(Code 1960, § 10504.02; Ord. "No. 1333, § 1,
4-25-77)
Supp. No. 58 1781
Sec. 2&263. Required findings for variances.
Before any variance may be granted, it shall be
found:
(a) That there are exceptional or extraordi-
nary circumstances not applicable gener-
ally to,the other property or class of use in
the same vicinity and zone.
§ 26-263 WEST COVINA CODE
.b) (That such-warianm.7,is-., necw"rX-'fc r e
,preservation and�enloyment�of--.<<a;substan= 1 '
pi°a ep�rtY�gl?�-p�sesse��b3':ot�er.
�erty."ia: the same vicinity and :zone: -but. '
&b-J ch;is�.den�ed_t,67tlatet p opes t3' ;u goes
ton
(c) That the granting of such variance will
not be materially detrimental to the pub-
lic welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
(d) That the granting of such variance shall
be consistent with the adopted general
plan and any applicable specific plans.
(Code 1960, § 10504.03; Ord. No. 1333, § 1,
4-25-77; Ord. No. 2030, § 4, 4-20-99)
Sec. 26.264. Initiation of variances.
variances may be initiated by:
(a) The verified application of one or -more
owners of the subject property or by a
purchaser or lessee thereof with consent
of any such owner which application sets
forth fully the grounds for and the facts
deemed to justify the granting of the vari-
ance.
(b) Action of the city council.
(c) Action of the planning commission.
(Code -1960, § 10504.04; Ord. No. 1333, § 1,
4-25-77)
Sec. 26-265. Approval or rejection of vari-
ances.
Any variance application under this division
may be rejected, approved, modified and ap-
proved, or approved subject to conditions by the
planning commission.
(Code 1960, § 10504.05; Ord. No. 1333, § 1,
4-25-77)