Loading...
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—