HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1964/10/05 - RegularI
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
October 5, 1964
1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Temple City was held in the City Hall, 5938 N. Kauffman Avenue,
Temple City._ The meeting was called to order byVice•Chairman
Erickson at 7 :30 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was
led by Vice - Chairman Erickson.
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
Absent: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
Also Present: H. Shatford, Cushman, Woollett,
G. Wh i t n a l l
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Clemson
that the minutes of September 21, 1964, be approved as written.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Johnston and carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Erickson
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
5. Public Hearing Reopened: Continued from September 21 Meeting
ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 64 -126
John B. & Alice C. Dollenbacher
5729 Cloverly, Temple City
Vice- Chairman Erickson explained that this item had been held
over from the previous meeting to permit further research into
the matter by City Attorney Shatford. Word had been received
that the City Attorney would be a few minutes late for the meet-
ing, and it was suggested that this item be held over until his
arrival.
6. ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 64 -120: Matter continued from August 17
and September 21 Meetings: William M. & Virginia B. Nigh
5039 Sereno Drive, Temple City
A motion was made by Commissioner Clemson that this matter be
held over to the meeting of November 2. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Johnston and carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
The reason for the above action was to give the City Council time
to reach a final zoning decision on the area containing this
property.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 64 -130
Herbert W. E. Esther M. Smith
5758 Rowland Avenue, Temple City
Vice - Chairman. Erickson announced that now was the time and place
for a public hearing. Verification of :public notice and property
posting was given by the secretary. Planning Advisor Cushman was
requested to present the factual data pertaining to the case.
Applicant is requesting a variance to legalize an existing guest
house with kitchen, to be a second residence on less than the
required area, in an R -1 zone.
Planning Commission Minutes Page Two
October 5, 1964
Planning Advisor Cushman':= stated that the building in question
contained a kitchen and %s`-'a ` violation of the zoning ordinance
at the present time.
Appearing in favor: H.11. Smith, 5758 Rowland, owner- applicant.
Questions were directe&tat.he applicant by the Commission and
City Attorney in regard' to'•.the possible existing lot split and
the wording of the building permit issued for construction of
the guest house.
Appearing in opposition: Kenneth J. Hill, 5742 N. Rowland. Mr.
Hill stated that he objected to this second residence because it
was not in character with the neighborhood. Ha presented a
petition containing 20 signatures of property owners objecting
to this request. The names - contained on the petition are as
follows: Harry & Mayne Utterson,5733 Rowland; Margaret E. & R.
G. Polley, 5748 Rowland; Ruth L. & Kenneth J. Hill, 5742 Rowland;
Theodora M. & Gilbert Fletcher, 5728 Rowland; Muriel B. Engle,
5702 Rowland; Joseph E. Gee, ,::.5 03 Rowland; Jacqueline J. &
Patrick W. Polley, 5729 Rowland; Leona C. & Howard K. Shanks,
5723 Rowland; Nina H. & K. J. Olsen, 5722 Rowland; Marjorie &
Paul Bousquet, 5710 Rowland; Mrs. Geo. Viele, 5741 Rowland; and
Mrs. Luanne Koch, 5736 Rowland.
Considerable discussion ensued in regard to the legality of the
existing lot split and the fact that the kitchen was a direct
violation of the issued building permit, since the permit stated
that a kitchen could not be placed in the building. After
further discussion, a recommendation "was made by City Attorney
Shatford that a motion be made to hold this matter over to the
next meeting with the provision that the applicant furnish us
with his policy of title insurance given to him at the time of
purchase.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston that we hold this
matter over to our next meeting and that the applicant present
his policy of title insurance at that time. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Clemson and carried by the following roll call vote.:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
5. ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 64 -126 (Continued from page one.)
City Attorney Shatford reported that if there is an existing use
and it is legal at the time and you change the zoning, it does
not make what is already there illegal, it becomes a non- conform-
ing use. However, such uses do ordinarily contain a time limit.
He further stated that it would appear that Mr. Dollenbacher has
a legal non - conforming use, if that use was in existence before
our new ordinance went into effect. This is an unfortunate
situation that would have to be permitted.
Appearing in favor: Francis Welton, Temple City Attorney,
representing Mr. & Mrs. Dollenbacher. Mr. Welton stated that he
had affidavits from two adjoining property owners acknowledging
the fact that the kitchen had been built before the applicant
bought the property. Also, that no legal proof seems to exist
in regard to a building permit having been issued, and that this
was a complete unit in 1557. The aforementioned affidavits were
presented as evidence, containing signatures of Mary M. Parrish
and Louis E. MacCosbe.
Appearing in opposition: Ann L. Ruth, 5709 N. Cloverly.
Planning Commission Minutes Page Three
October 5, 196k
City Attorney Shatford stated that the problem at hand is not a
door- opening act. It does not mean that anyone else can con-
struct anything like the applicant has, and does not mean that
there is a license being granted for people to go ahead and
violate all building codes or ordinances. All that this means
is that there was a building constructed on this particular
property and the City, so far, has no way of proving that that
was illegal. It has been there a long time and there is no
building permit to show that it was not granted or that there
was anything about it on record. We cannot presume that it was
illegally done. The issue is whether or not we do have a legal
non - conforming use. As a legal non - conforming use, there would
be a minimum of five years that the building can remain, but it
would eventually have to come down. You can either grant this
variance legalizing this building, or you can just declare and
deny the variance, but make finding that it is a le9a1 non-con-
forming use and it will stay there then for the length of time
permissive under our present zoning.
A motion was made by Commissioner Clemson that the public hear-
ing be closed. Motion seconded by Commissioner Johnston and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
Discussion followed among members of the Commission. Commis-
sioner Johnston stated that he would look upon this as a non-
conforming use and felt that this should not be granted as a
variance, but as a non - conforming use, and it would than fall
under the normal abatement period. Commissioner Clemson agreed
with what the City Attorney said, above.
Gordon Whitnall added to the City Attorney's remarks that the
City's attention had been called to an alleged violation of the
zoning ordinance and the owner therefore was required to file a
variance to make this use valid. The issue before the Commis-
sion, therefore, divides into two alternatives. You have
gathered through testimony and through your own investigation a
set of circumstances that probably are sufficient to determine
whether the total of the circumstances constitute this improve-
ment on this property, a non- conforming use within the definition
of the ordinance. If it does, then about the only thing you need
do or could do, because you can't validate a non - conforming use,
is call it legal non - conforming or a violation. Our current
ordinance defines a non - conforming use as the use existing which
does not conform to the provisions of the ordinance covering the
zone in which it is located. If at the time those things were
done that make it now not conforming to the present ordinance
were legally done, then it is a non - conforming use. If any of
these acts that have produced the circumstances that are alleged
to be a violation were not all done legally as of the time they
were done, then you have a violation.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston that the City Attorney
be instructed to draw a resolution denying the variance, but
finding that it is a legal non - conforming use. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Clemson and carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Erickson
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
Planning Commission Minutes Page Four
October 5, 1964
8. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 64 -131
Charles R. E. Judith M. Adams
8919 E. Live Oak, Temple City
Vice - Chairman Erickson announced that now was the time and place
for a public hearing. Verification of public notice and property:
posting was given by the secretary. Planning Advisor Cushman was
requested to present the factual data pertaining to the case.
Applicant is requesting a variance to maintain and use an under
width driveway in conjunction with two existing dwellings and a
proposed duplex in the R -3 zone.
Appearing in favor: Charles Adams, 8919 E. Live Oak, owner -
applicant. Commissioner Johnston asked the applicant if he
would object to placing the front garage to the rear of the
front house. Applicant stated that it would detract from the
appearance of the house, as well as take the backyard that they
are presently enjoying.
No one appeared in opposition.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston that the public hear-
ing be closed. Motion seconded by Commissioner Clemson and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
Discussion followed among members of the Commission, Planning
Advisor and City Manager. Commissioner Johnston stated that he
would reel better about the plan if the front garage was removed
and a double carport added at the rear instead of a single. City
Manager Woollett suggested that we require a 12 foot driveway all
the way through, and that we require that the applicant meet the
requirements of the ordinance with respect to parking for all
residence units.
The general feeling of the Commission was that twelve feet should
be the minimum width on a driveway on this type of development.
A suggestion was made that the applicant should be given an
opportunity to submit a new plot plan to be checked by the
staff, in order to not prolong this matter. Commissioner John-
ston stated that he felt that we should not force the applicant
to bring the existing dwellings up to the present standard on
garaging. It was also stated that placing the front garage to
the rear would make a better development and would permit a 12
foot driveway. Further discussion ensued in regard to whether
the two present dwellings should be required to have garaging in
accordance with the new ordinance.
A motion was made by Commissioner Clemson that we instruct the
City Attorney to draw a resolution granting this request for a
variance with the applicant resubmitting a new plot plan to be
approved by the staff, providing that the driveway width be 12
feet, and that the parking pertaining to the new construction be
done in accordance with our new ordinance. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Johnston and carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston
NOES: Commissioners: Erickson
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
Planning Commission Minutes Page Five
October 5, 1964
9. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 64 -133
Buford E. Joan K. Arnold
5409 -5413 Encinita, Temple City
Vice - Chairman Erickson announced that now was the time and place
for a public hearing. Verification of public notice and property
posting was given by the secretary. Planning Advisor Cushman
was requested to present the factual data pertaining to the case.
Applicant is requesting a variance to create two parcels having .
less than the required area, one of which lacks the required
street frontage in the R -1 zone.
Appearing in favor: Buford Arnold, 5413 Encinita, owner- appli-
cant. Applicant stated that the reason he wanted to split the
property was so that he could sell one lot.
No one appeared in opposition.
A motion was made by Commissioner Clemson that the public hear-
ing be closed. Motion seconded by Commissioner Johnston and .
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
Discussion followed among members of the Commission. Commis-
sioner Johnston stated that he felt it would be easier to add
to the existing structure, rather than to build a new rear
dwelling, but was against granting a lot split. Vice - Chairman
Erickson stated that he felt the applicant could modernize the
existing second house and that his prime disagreement with the
plan as a lot split is in the square footage.
Mr. Whitnall indicated that in an R -1, if there was already one
house in existence, a second could not be built without a special
action. Then the second house now is non- conforming and cannot
be remodeled or changed. You can structurally alter or enlarge
a non - conforming use only if the non - conformity involves solely
the matter of required open space.
Planning Advisor Cushman stated that interior remodeling can be
done and maintenance such as exterior painting.
City Attorney Shatford stated that the ordinance in Section 1704
indicates that remodeling can be done to make a nonconforming
act more conforming.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston that we instruct the
City Attorney to draw a resolution denying this request for a
variance. Motion seconded by Commissioner Clemson and carried
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
10. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 64 -135
Edward 0. Virginia M. Rushworth
9336 Broadway, Temple City
Vice - Chairman Erickson announced that now was the time and place
for a public hearing. Verification of public notice and property
posting was given by the secretary. Planning Advisor Cushman was
Planning Commission Minutes Page Six
October 5, 1964
requested to present the factual data pertaining to the case.
Applicant is requesting a variance to create two parcels with
less than the required area and without the required street
frontage in the R -1 zone.
Appearing in favor: Ed Rushworth, 9336 Broadway, owner- appli-
cant. The applicant stated that he originally had an approved
plot plan to allow four dwellings on this property. Legal
entanglements in court have lasted two years, and the approval
expired. Applicants desire to build two new homes to sell and
to bring the existing dwelling to compare with the new homes.
Also appearing in favor: Mr. Byers, 9330 Broadway; Noel
Baldwin, 5041 Baldwin, proposed contractor for applicant;
Virginia Rushworth, wife of applicant.
No one appeared in opposition.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston that the public hear-
ing be closed. Motion seconded by Commissioner Clemson and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
Discussion followed among members of the Commission concerning
the expired plot plan, the proposed creation of substandard lots,
and the possibility of whether or not the applicant would be
interested in building only one additional house. It was a
general feeling that the Commission would deny the request as
presented, but would be willing to grant approval of one addi-
tional house only. At this time the applicant was advised by
City Attorney Shatford that he would have the right to appeal
the decision of the Commission to the City Council. Even though
the Commission grants something less than desired, the applicant
does not waive his right to appeal for a division of the property
as applied for.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston that we instruct the
City Attorney to draw a resolution denying this variance as
applied for, but to grant it for a second dwelling upon the
premises in accordance with plot plans to be submitted for
approval of staff, due to the fact that this is a large lot and
would conform with the surrounding area. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Clemson and carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
11. DISCUSSION ITEM: Memorandum of September 29 to Planning Commis -
sion from City Manager.
City Manager Woollett stated that a memorandum was sent to the
Commission in regard to a discussion between Gordon Whitnall,
Ray Cushman, and himself. The matter for discussion was the
scheduling of study sessions, the second and fourth Tuesdays,
here, at 7 :00 p.m., to consider matters left for study. Subject
meetings were given Commission approval.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 64- 121PC: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS -
SION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANT-
ING APPLICATION FOR A ZONE VARIANCE IN
Planning Colomissian Minutes
OctobAr 5, 1964
Page Seven
ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO, 64 -129 OF
CATHERINE M, CAPP PERTAINING TO REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4€31 NORTH FIESTA
AVENUE, TEMPLE CITY, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
CONDITIONS.
Title to Resolution No. 64 -121PC was read by City Attorney
Shatford.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston that we waive further
reading and adopt. Motion seconded by Commissioner Clemson and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Erickson
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
13, RESOLUTION NO. 64- 122PC: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS -
SION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANT-
ING APPLICATION FOR A ZONE VARIANCE IN
ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO, 64 -134 OF NOEL
BALDtutiIN PERTAINING TO THE REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5503 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD,
AND 9545 & 9559 BROADWAY, TEMPLE CITY,
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Title to Resolution No. 64 -122PC was read by City Attorney
Shatford.
A motion was made by Commissioner Clemson that we waive further
reading and adopt. Motion seconded by Commissioner Johnston and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
14. COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Planning Advisor Cushman presented a letter from Floyd C.
Yoder requesting a six -month time extension on Plot Plan
481.
A motion was made by Commissioner Johnston that we grant
this extension for six - months. Motion seconded by Commis-
sioner Clemson and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Clemson, Johnston, Erickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckley, Briggs
b. City Manager presented a problem to the Commission. He
stated that a party had leased a building through a realtor
on Las Tunas, had opened an upholstery shop, and was sub-
sequently reported as in violation of the zone. He can be
given 30 days notice to file for a. variance to legalize the
operation, or to vacate within the same length of time.
City Manager Woollett is in doubt as to where our basic
responsibility ends in a case of this kind,
Gordon Whitnall stated that the ordinance is very definite
on this point. Article 23 of the Ordinance provides that
it is most important that Certificate of Occupancy Permit be
obtained from the Building Department. This would prevent
occurrence of the above problem.
Planning Commission Minutes - Page Eight
October 5, 1964
c. Mr. Whitnall presented the problem to the Commission as to
whether or not it is legal for a five man commission, with
only three members present, for one to abstain in roll call
vote, and the minutes still be carried. City Attorney Shat -
ford ruled that it was legal.
d. Mrs. Ann L. Ruth appeared before the Commission and stated
that she felt the Commission had been quite fair in the
Dollenbacher matter, Item 5, above. She asked a question in
regard to the length of the non - conforming use. She was
told that it would depend upon the condition and age of the
building.
15. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Clemson moved to adjourn, seconded by
Commissioner Johnston and carried unanimously. Meeting adjourn-
ed at 10 :05 p.m. to the next regular meeting on October 19,
1964.
ATTEST:
-Deputy Clerk
1
Cha rman, Planning Comas- on—