Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1966/09/13 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF TEMPLE CITY September 13, 1966 1. A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City was held in the City Hall, 5938 North Kauffman Avenue, Temple City. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Garvin at 7:30 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Chairman Garvin. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley;. Garvin Absent: Commissioners: None Also Present: Karl L. Koski, Robert Flandrick, George Dragicevich 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Commissioner Oakley that the Regular Adjourned Min- utes of August 22, 1966 be approved as mailed. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commiss- ioner Oakley that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 23, 1966 be approved as mailed. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: 5. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin None None RESOLUTION NO. 66 -219PC A RESOLUTIO\! OF THE'PLANNING COM1SS_ ION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING A VARIANCE IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 66 -.191. City Attorney Flandrick read title to Resolution No. 66 -219PC and reviewed the conditions. A motion was made by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to waive further reading and adopt. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: RESOLUTION NO. 66- 220PC: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin None None A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISS- ION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY CLAR- IFYING AMBIGUITY PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 1404. City Attorney Flandrick read title to Resolution No. 66 -220PC and reviewed the conditions. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commiss- ioner Oakley to waive further reading and adopt. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None Planning Commission Minutes Page Two RESOLUTION NO. 66- 221PC: September 13, 1966 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 499. City Attorney Flandrick read title to Resolution No. 66 -221PC and reviewed the conditions. A motion was made by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Commissione Beckman to waive further reading and adopt. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Garvin Oakley None Commissioner Oakley clarified that his objection was not against waiving further reading on the resolution but to the request itself. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 66-192 Lulu E. Woessner and Anna Wyeth Owners- Applicants 6203 North Loma Avenue, Temple City Chairman Garvin announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing. Verification of public notice was given by the Secretary. Planning Director Dragicevich stated the subject property is loc- ated at 6203 North Loma Avenue and the request of the applicant is to divide and develop the property with less than the required area and frontage for the rear parcel. Existing is a single fam- ily residence on Parcel "A" with a separate driveway access to the existing garage. Proposed is a single family residence and a 10' driveway for the rear parcel. Parcel "A" has 7,600 square feet and Parcel "B" 6,000 square feet of net area. The proposed drive- way contains 1,086 square feet of area. The area surrounding the subject property is developed to mixed single two and three family residential buildings. Some lots are divided and others are under single ownership. Chairman Garvin asked how far the distance was from the existing garage to the 10' driveway that is proposed. The Planning Dir- ector stated right next to it. Commissioner Oakley asked what the normal requirement would be for the rear yard setback for the existing garage. Mr. Dragicevich said if the garage is in the last 1/3 of the lot the garage could be built to the property line however if the garage is attached to the house, the setback re- quirements must be met according to the zoning ordinance. Comm- issioner Briggs asked if the driveway was included in the square footage what would the total square footage of the lot be. The Planning Director stated 7,086 square feet. After noting that there was no one present at the meeting to speak for this request a motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, sec- onded by Commissioner Oakley to postpone this item to the next regular meeting of September 27,1966 so that the owner and /or applicant could be contacted by mail of this meeting and to have a representative present at this time. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin Commissioners: None Commissioners: None Planning Commission Minutes Page Three September 13, 1966 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 66 -194 Jean J. Smith Owner - Applicant 9546 and 95462 East Olive Street Temple City, California Chairman Garvin announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing. Verification of public notice was given by the Secretary. Planning Director Dragicevich stated the subject property is loc- ated at 9546 and 95462 East Olive Street and the request of the applicant is to develop the property with reduced driveway width. Existing are a single family residence, a carport and a cottage. Proposed are a new 2 -story residence on Parcel "B" and a new 2 -car garage on Parcel "A ". The existing carport and cottage will be removed. The proposed driveway would be 12 feet wide. Parcel "A" would contain 7,500 square feet and Parcel "B" 12,660 square feet of area. The surrounding area is developed primarily to single family residences. Similar developments with 2 or more dwellings on a lot, under single or separate ownership, are in existence in the vicinity. Chairman Garvin asked what the distance was between the house and the driveway. The Planning Director stated 7 feet. Appearing in favor: Mrs,. Jean J. Smith, 9546 East Olive Street, Temple City, Owner - Applicant. Mrs. Smith thought that this lot is too large for her to maintain and felt this would be a very good development for the property. Commissioner Oakley asked if the driveway could be 15' instead of 12' so that it would meet the fire department driveway width requirement, Mrs. Smith said she didn't think so and felt 12' is ample. Also appearing in favor: Mr. Wynn Shirley, 9144 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City. Mr. Shirley felt there would be ample room with 12' and felt this development would be a benefit to the surrounding area. Commissioner Beckman stated he had visited the site and asked Mr. Shirley about the buildings that are visible from the street in the rear of the property and wondered if these build- ings would remain or be torn down. Mr. Shirley said they would be demolished. Commissioner Oakley felt that the fire department requirements for a 15' driveway should be met and would not hurt the development to have a 15' driveway. City Attorney Flandrick stated that the width of the driveway is immaterial at this time the matter at hand is the width of the lot extension which is 20'. Mrs. Smith clarified that the parcel map had not yet been filed with the County. Appearing in opposition: Mr. Brandt Dixon, 9560 East Olive, Temple City. Mr. Dixon stated he.is appearing for himself as well as three of the neighbors; has lived at this location for about 3 months and felt this development would not be to the best int- erest to the neighborhood and also would infringe upon the quiet- ness of the area, and would not be in favor of dividing the lot. City Attorney Flandrick again stated the purpose is not to divide the lot as it has already been done when the applicant applied for a lot split and it was approved by the Commission. The issue is the lot extension of 12' instead of 20' for Parcel "B ". After hearing all . those desiring to speak for or against this request a motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by. Commissioner Beckman to close the public hearing. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None Planning Commission Minutes Page Four September 13, 1966 Chairman Garvin stated that he does live within the 300' radius but felt that he would be qualified to give an unbias opinion of this variance case. Commissioner Beckman stated he would be in favor of this request and felt that a 17' driveway width would be the maximum that could be obtained and did not feel this would be proper; Comm- issioner Oakley stated that he would be opposed because of the driveway width being less than 15' which is the fire department requirement. Commissioner Briggs felt that it was too late to retrace any steps that had already been taken in granting the lot split previously and felt this request should be granted. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commiss- ioner Briggs to approve this request with the conditions that the division of the subject property shall be in accord with the Tentative Parcel Map, marked Exhibit "A "; that all improvements required pursuant to Section 500 et. seq. of Ordinance 66 -191 shall be installed and constructed at the applicant's expense; and /or a cash deposit or time deposit to guarantee the con- struction of said improvements at the discretion of the Director of Public Works as stated in Resolution No. 66 -215PC approved by the Planning Commission July 12, 1966. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Garvin NOES: Commissioners: Oakley ABSENT: Commissioners: None 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 66 -195 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Gannon and Mrs. Katherine Gannon, Owners- Applicants 10058 East Olive Street, Temple City Chairman Garvin announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing. Verification of public notice was given by the Secretary. Planning Director Dragicevich stated that the subject property was granted a variance on September 16, 1963 in Zone Variance Case No. 63 -57 by legalizing the guest house on Parcel "B ", fronting on Zadell Street, as a second residence without the right to divide the property into two (2) separate legal owner- ships. This clause was removed by a Modification of Zone Var- iance Case No. 63 -57, passed by Resolution No. 66 -196PC on March 8, 1966. The Planning Director stated the request of this zone variance is to be able to develop and improve the subject prop- erty with reduced rear yard setback for Parcel "A ". There is one residential building on Parcel "A" and a house on Parcel "B ". Proposed is a detached 2 -car garage with an 18 foot wide driveway on Parcel "B ". The proposed dividing line between the two parcel: would be the rear property line for Parcel "A" with 4' setback from the attached accessories. Parcel "A" would contain 7,686 square feet and Parcel "6" 7,200 square feet. The area surr- ounding the subject property is developed to single residential uses. There are some commercial and multiple residential uses to the west of the property in question at the intersection of Baldwin and Olive. Appearing in favor: Mr. Francis Welton, Attorney, 5811 Temple City Boulevard, representing the owners and applicants. Mr. Welton stated there are two houses already on the lot now and in order for the owners to obtain a loan from Home Savings the property has to be two separate lots. 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes Page Five September 13, 1966 The rear lot would have more than the required 7,200 square feet required and the front lot would contain 7,200 square feet. The house is presently located 15' off the west line, 30 feet from the front property line and 21' from the yard to the east. There is adequate room to get to the rear yard area and plenty of access area. This development is up to standard and would be a benefit to the area. Commissioner Oakley asked if regardless of where the garage is builtwould the driveway still be 18'. Mr. Welton con- firmed. Commissioner Oakley asked if there was a window on the existing garage on Parcel "A ". Mr. Welton confirmed. After noting there was no one else that wished to speak for or against this request a motion was made by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to close the public hearing. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs Oakley, Garvin Commissioners: None Commissioners: None Commissioner Briggs stated he would not be in favor of this re- quest because of the garage on Parcel "A" only being k' away from the parcel line and he would prefer a smaller lot and have a larger area between the garage and the parcel line. Commissioner Beckman stated if the garage was detached from the house it could be located on the property line but since it is attached the rear - yard setback requirement should be 15' and stated he would be in favor of this request. Commissioner Oakley said he would be in favor providing there is not a window fronting the existing garage and if the applicant maintains an 18' wide driveway; the garage attached and proper ventilation provided to the washroom; with the proposed garage not closer than 8' to the parcel line. A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Beckman that this request be approved with the conditions that development of the subject property shall be substantially in accord with the plot plan, Exhibit "A "; and the applicant construct and maintain sidewalks, driveway approach and street trees in and along the frontage on Zadell and Olive Streets; that no building or structure shall be located on Parcel "B ", closer than 8' to the lot line separating lots A and B' that no window or other opening be located on the northerly wall of the proposed garage on Parcel "B ". Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Oakley, Garvin NOES: Commissioners: Briggs ABSENT: Commissioners: None 9. OLD BUSINESS a) Consider a change in zoning regulations applicable to C -C, Commercial Center Zoned Properties. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Comm- issioner Briggs that this item be held over for further disc- ussion until October 11, 1966. Motion carried by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin Commissioners: None Commissioners: None Planning Commission Minutes Page Six September 13, 1966 b) Consider a change of zone from C -2, General Commercial to C -C Commercial Center on East Las Tunas Drive, between Oak Avenue and Kauffman Avenue to the north and between Oak Avenue and Golden West Avenue to the south. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Comm- issioner Briggs this item be held over for further disc- ussion until October 11, 1966. Motion carried by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin Commissioners: None Commissioners: None c). Child Day Care in R -1 and R -2 Zones. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Comm- issioner Briggs to hold this over for further consideration until October 11, 1966. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs,Oakley, Garvin Commissioners: None Commissioners: None 10. COMMUNICATIONS a. City Attorney Flandrick read a letter from W.P. Boatright requesting a one year time extension on Zone Variance Case No. 65 -170 to make this valid until September 28, 1967 for issu -• ance of building permits and commencement of construction. A motion was made by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Comm- issioner Oakley to grant this request. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin Commissioners: None Commissioners: None b. City Attorney Flandrick read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Paul F. Uhl requesting an additional one year time extension on Zone Variance Case No. 64 -119 to make this variance valid until September 20, 1967. City Attorney Flandrick clarified that a one year extension had already been granted and the Commission cannot extend the time limitation for more than a period of one year and sugg- ested it be noted and filed and Mr. and Mrs. Uhl advised of this situation. c. Planning Director Dragicevich stated he had received a request from Mr. Reynolds, 9422 East Las Tunas Drive owner of an auto supply store. He would like to relocate this use to the vacant building on Las Tunas in a C -2 zone and being this is a legal non - conforming use he felt this should come to the Commission for a clarification. The Planning Director said he visited the site and found no repairing done at all. Appearing in favor: Mr. Giles Shaw, Attorney, 5816 Temple City Boulevard, appearing in behalf of Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Shaw stated the general purpose as set forth in the zoning ordinance defining C -2 and C -M would indicate this type of business should be allowed in a C -2 Zone instead of first per- mitted in a C -M and read the purpose of classification in both zones to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes Page Seven September 13, 1966 He stated that an auto supply store is strictly a retail sales business and would be almost compatible to a hardware store and a hardware store is permitted in a C -2 Zone. There is no auto repairing or servicing done in this business and no selling of fenders, bumpers and large items. Mr. Reynolds would be relocating into the old "Bobbies" store on the corner, and felt this is an ambiguity that comes under Article 14 of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Reynolds is presently loc- ated in a C -2 zone and has been there for about 10 years, and felt it would be unjust to deny this right to have his business in a C -2 Zone. There are mall plans for the future in this area and Mr. Reynolds is very much in favor of this. He also said that in Los Angeles County this type of store is permitted in a C -1 Zone. Commissioner Briggs asked City Attorney Flandrick if a C -1 Zone in L.A. County compares to a C -C zone in Temple City. City Attorney Flandrick said essentially. The Commissioners felt this should be studied further and brought back to the next regular meeting of September 27, 1966 and asked Mr. Shaw if this would be feasible. Mr. Shaw said the lease has already been signed and this could present a problem if held up, Bobbies has already relocated and give up their lease to Mr. Reynolds. Commissioner Briggs felt the Commission should not be pushed into a corner because of the applicant not checking with the City on possible zoning prob- lems prior to this time. Copy in the telephone directory and a printed sign will have to be held up also if the decision is not reached tonight. Commissioner Briggs asked Mr. Shaw when he realized this would have to be brought before the Planning Commission. Mr. Shaw stated right after Labor Day weekend. After noting that no one else wished to speak for or against this request a motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, sec- onded by Commissioner Beckman this request be granted in total context of Mr. Shaws statements as an auto supply store of this type will not harm the area. Motion tied by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Oakley Commissioners: Briggs, Garvin Commissioners: None A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Comm- issioner Briggs this be taken under study and a decision reached by the next regular meeting September 27, 1966. Mot= ion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Briggs, Oakley, Garvin Commissioners: None Commissioners: None 11. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK. a) Mr. Paul F. Uhl, 5050 Sereno Drive, Temple !City. Mr. Uhl was concerned with the decision on his request for an add- itional one year time extension on his variance. Chairman Garvin stated nothing could be done by the Commission be- cause the Commission has the right to grant a one year time extension only and this is the second request, therefore a new variance will have to be filed or building permits ob- tained and construction started by September 20, 1966, or the variance will be void. Planning Commission Minutes Page Eight September 13, 1966 Mr. Uhl asked if a new variance is applied for, would it be granted. Chairman Garvin stated this would have to be determined at such time of the public hearing. b) City Manager Koski stated a copy of the revised zoning ord- inance has been given to each of the Commissioners and asked that a schedule be set for study purposes. The Commission set a date of September 29, 1966 at 7:30 P.M. for the first meeting and asked that the City Attorney be present. 12. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS - None 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business a motion was made by Commissioner Briggs, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to adjourn to the next regular meeting of September 27, 1966 at 7:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. ATTEST: 1 Chairma