HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1966/12/13 - Regular(` L ... r'i i s G is ':..� :� M 1 S _7 : 1. N i' S N U i E S
C TY OF .7°PLE CITY
December 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 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, Millham, Oakley;
Garvin
Absent: Commissioners: Caswell (excused)
Also Present: Asst. City Attorney Flandrick, Asst. to
the City Manager Recupero and Planning
Director Dragicevich
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Millham,
seconded by Commissioner Oakley to approve the Regular Adjourned
Minutes of November 17, 1966 as mailed. Motion carried unanimous?;.
A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner
M i i i ham to approve the Regular Minutes of November 22, 1966 as
mailed. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES;
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Millham, Oakley, Garvin
None
Caswell
Beckman
5. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 66 -201
Mr. L.W. Townsend, Owner- Applicant
5941 North Reno Avenue, Temple City
Planning Director Dragicevich stated this was a continued public
hearing. Chairman Garvin noted that Mr. Townsend was present and
inquired of him whether he wanted the hearing to be continued, and
Mr, Townsend replied that he wanted to go ahead now. Mr.
Dragicevich stated the applicant's request is to reduce the side -
yard setback requirement for Parcel "2 ". Existing is a single
family residence on Parcel "2" with a 2 -car detached garage, The
existing garage will be relocated to the southern property line.
of Parcel "2 ". A new driveway is proposed on Parcel "2 ". Frontage
on a public street would be 46 feet for Parcel "1" and 54 feet for
Parcel "2 ". Mr. Dragicevich went to the bulletin board and pointer
out the various aspects of the property on a scale drawing; statir( .
that the maps were approved on November 8, 1966. He outlined
briefly the facts of the matter stating the main problem was the
side yard on the second parcel would be inadequate according to
code. He listed the conditions which he felt would be needed for
approval: a) Parcel 1 shall be connected to the existing public
sewer system and any present system shall be abandoned; b) Old,
broken curb and gutter shall be redone; c) Sidewalks and street
trees shall be constructed along the entire frontage.
Mr. Oakley questioned whether it was clear that the driveway will
be replaced by curbs and gutters, and upon assurance that this
was a definite requirement. Mr. Garvin asked if the garage was of
standard size, and he was told that it exceeded 20x25 size.
Chairman Garvin asked if Mr. Townsend or anyone else wished to
speak in favor of the variance and then if anyone wished to speak
against it. No one came forward to speak. Mr. Beckman moved to
close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Millham and
carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minitcs
Page Two Decer„ber 13, 1966
Mr. Oakley stared that his first objection was to the less than
5 -foot side -d and he objected to the lot split and to the side
yard not meet`: i rrg the Code. Also, he considered this whole thing
sub - standard.
Mr. Millham stated he had been against the variance in the begin-
ning but looking at it now, if the driveway be moved and a 5-ft.
side yard maintained on the north, then he would go along with
recommending that the variance be granted. Chairman Garvin stater:
that the driveway would have to be relocated as shown on the
tentative map Mr. Beckman concurred and said if the driveway
were moved, then he would approve the variance, to which Mr.
Garvin replied that he felt the same. Both were also agreed that
it would be better than keeping the driveway where it was and
would give more than adequate room on the lot.
Commissioner Beckman moved to approve the variance subject to
the staff recommendations and particularly subject to the drive-
way's being relocated on the south portion of the property of
Parcel 1. Commissioner Millham seconded and the motion carried
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Millham, Garvin
NOES: Commissioners: Oakley
ABSENT: Commissioners: Caswell
Title to Resolution No. 66 -233 was read by City Attorney Flandrick..
A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman to waive further read -
ing and adopt. Motion seconded by Commissioner Oakley and the
Chairman so ordered in the absence of objections.
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 66 -202
Mrs. Ersa E. Anthony, Owner- Applicant
5949 North Encinita Avenue
Temple City, California
City Attorney Flandrick read a letter from the owner seeking
withdrawal of her application, and in answer to questions regard-
ing procedure, he stated that all that was necessary was to
dismiss the action. A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley,
seconded by Commissioner Millham to dismiss the hearing as re-
quested and there being no objections, the Chairman so ordered.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO, 66 -203
First Western Bank, Owner
9635 East Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, California
Heath and Company
3225 Lacy Street
Los Angeles, 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 Commission Minutes
Page Three Decer -ber 13, 1966
Planning Director Dragicevich stated the applicant's request is
to erect a doub ie faced roof sign in excess of 35 feet. The
plot plan shcws existing bank building and the proposed sign.
The size of the sign would be 18' x 12' (216 square feet per
face) and the height 42 feet from the finished grade of the lot.
The proposed sign would be located on the western side of the
building.- Structural specifications are shown on Exhibit "A ".
The surrounding area is developed with commercial and multiple
residential buildings. There is a similar development in the
area which is American Savings with a sign of 45 feet in height.
At issue is the proposed height for the sign being 42 feet;
permitted is 35 feet.
Mr. Oakley inquired whether the American Savings and Loan sign
was there prior to the Ordinance and was told it was Mr. Drag -
icevich stated there were no staff recommendations on this matter
and Mr. Garvin asked if the sign proposed to be erected met all
specifications otherwise than the height and was told it was
according to standards. In reply to this question, Mr. Garvin
was told that the sign on the American Savings was exceeding 200
square feet and is approximately the same size as the proposed
sign for 1st Western.
At the request of the Chairman, the Applicant's representative
stepped to the microphone and introduced himself as Jack Lloyd,
9835 East Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, and added that Mr.
Gillespie of the 1st !Western Bank was also present. Mr. Lloyd
said it was just coincidental that he was a resident of Temple
City but that as a result he had been able to view the signs,
buildings, and street vantage points while driving to his home
and he felt that the American Savings sign was much larger, about
12x30. He presented two photographs (for clarification) which
were put in exhibit after he was informed by the City Attorney
that same would become a part of the permanent records if he
used them at all. Mr. Lloyd discussed and described fully the
new standard sign which 1st Western has developed, which is
12x18 ft., the same size as it proposed for the Temple City 1st
Western Bank. It is the same as the sign on the roof of the
1st Western at Rosemead and Colorado but differs from the drawing
made by the artist in that the lettering is white with black
outline on a turquoise background. He mentioned several times
that the lighting was very subdued, and instead of 800 milliamps
they use 430 milliamps. Mr. Lloyd explained that the reason
1st Western wanted to place their sign above the limit was that
if it were kept within the 35 feet limit, the bottom of the sign
would be only a foot above the parapet wall, and also that it
would be difficult for anyone to see their sign while driving
down the street because it would be obscured by the American
Savings sign.
Since the artist's sketch of the sign did not quite agree with
the actual measurements, Mr. 0akTey asked whether the drawing
were accurate in any respect and Mr. Lloyd admitted that the
figures on the building hei ght were done by guess but that all
other measurements were correct.
Mr. Lloyd replied, in answer to Mr. Garvin's question, that the
1st Western proposed sign would not be obscured by the American
Savings sign, nor would it obscure American's sign, due to the
projection. Commissioner Beckman commented that, looking at the
pictures, he believed the sign would be visible even if it were
erected as shown in the present pictures, to which. Mr. Lloyd
replied that unfortunately the pictures could not be taken from
the middle of the street.
Planning Commission Mintes
Page Four December 13, 1966
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak for or
against the proposed variance, and Mr. Richard D. Dreyfuss,
9465 Wilshire Boulevard,Beverly Hills, came forward, stating
that he represented the American Savings and Loan Company, who
have no objection to the sign itself or to its location on the
building. However, since it is only three feet lower than Amer-
ican Savings'., it is American's feeling that it will definitely
obscure its sign until the intersection, and from the other
direction it also will, in ,American's opinion, block a substan.
tial portion of lst Western's sign. He added that it was the
feeling of American Savings that a somewhat lower height, poss-
ibly to 37 or 38 feet, leaving 6 or 7 feet between the two signs,,
would benefit both banks.
Mrs. Neils, the owner of apartments at 5944 -462 Camellia, Temple
City, stated that she and her husband were against any high signs
and were particularly concerned with their tenants living in the
upper apartments. She also felt that people going to the bank
would ,be familiar with its location and would not need a sign,
and so she and her husband were definitely opposed to the pro-
posed sign.
When the Chairman asked if the applicant had any rebuttal, Mr.
Lloyd stated this was one of the reasons why 1st Western uses
the subdued lighting so that there would be practically no w.y
in which the sign could interfere with any residents. He also
pointed out to American Savings that their sign is non - conforming.
and said that he felt 1st Western should not be penalized becaus.
of a sign which is above the height limit. He emphasized that lsr
Western planned to put the sign on the extreme west end of the
building so it would not block the American Savings sign. Mr.
Gillespie, member of lst Western's staff, added that the present
sign is somewhat antiquated, and although he sees the American
Savings sign daily, he does not note whether it is conforming
or not. In reply to Mrs. Neils' comment, Mr. Gillespie added
that while the bank could take care of its present customers,
they would like to attract new ones.
Mr. Garvin asked Mr. Lloyd if he were familiar with the Security
Bank, to which Mr. Lloyd replied that he checked it as he was on
his way and relied on his judgment as a sign man. Mr. Garvin said
they had a factual report and the sign is less than 40'
and is clearly visible for some distance. Mr. Lloyd explained
that with a sign 8 or 10 feet above the wall, this would be true
but if one is at ground level and the building is 50 to 75 feet
away, the building itself will cut off the view of the sign.
In reply to Mr. Garvin's question of whether there would be any
objection to going up to 42 feet, and keeping the edge of the
sign even with the building instead ofprojecting, Mr. Lloyd
stated that lst Western would not realize the benefits of a sign
at all and that they were not aware of the 35 feet height limit
when they designed the sign, which was designed for proper view-
ing instead of too high as most people don't drive convertibles,
and all the Bank wants is proper identification.
Commissioner Oakley moved to close the public hearing. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Beckman and the motion carried unani-
mously.
In his discussion of the matter, Mr. Beckman brought out that the
new ordinance was one that had been strongly backed, particularly
with respect to the height limit of 35 feet and while it was
difficult to decide, with a non - conforming one next door, he felt
it was necessary to start somewhere and stick to it. He believed
the height could be cut down a little better, perhaps the area of
the sign, stating that he would like to see one of the standard
signs since at this time he was not in favor of the variance.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page Five December 13, 1966
Commissioner Oakley said he had driven up and down the street
and did not share the Bank's idea of viewing this sign as he
believed it could be seen for three blocks away. He stated he
was very much in favor of keeping signs to 35 feet and did not
feel that anything was to be gained by permitting it to go to
this proposed height. Mr. Millham added that a great deal of
work had gone into the drafting of this ordinance and he did
not feel anything was to be gained by granting this application,
but he would like to see a nice sign in this location. He also
admitted that it was unfortunate that somebody had to get
"stuck" but felt it bad policy anyway for each one to try to
out -do the next person and in regard to this.particular sign,
he thought that if it could be seen from a block away, that was
sufficient.
A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commiss-
ioner Millham to deny this variance application. Upon no objec-
tions the Chairman so ordered.
City Attorney Flandrick read title to Resolution No 66- 234PC.
A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commiss-
ioner Oakley to waive further reading and adopt, and upon no
objections the Chairman so ordered. Chairman Garvin advised
the applicant of their right of appeal.
8. OLD BUSINESS
The Chairman discussed having a study session and indicated that
if each one went over the papers at hand, indicating his desire,
and unless something was found to the contrary, he would leave
it to the individual Commissioners whether there should be a
study session during the holiday season. He also mentioned the
matter of parking which might need talking about but felt that
one evening would wrap this project up and have it ready for
public hearings. A general discussion followed regarding meet-
ing on January 5th or 6th, 9th. The members concurred in
setting a date of January 5th for an adjourned meeting.. The
Planning Director stated the proposed zoning ordinance copies
are in each of the Commissioners folders.
DOOTSON DRIVING SCHOOL VARIANCE
Commissioner Oakley asked if, when the variance was granted to
Dootson Driving School, there was any requirement to replace
the old curbing and he was assured by the Planning Director
that this was agreed to by the applicant and he would check
to see that it had been done. Mr. Oakley stated he was con-
cerned that it might have been left out of the conditions of
this variance.
PARKING FOR APARTMENT HOUSES
The Planning Director stated that the current parking re quire -
ments are 2 spaces for each rental unit, and felt the Commiss-
ion should study this with an idea perhaps of providing 22
spaces which could be adjustable among the tenants. Consider-
able discussion was held including overnight street parking and
the suggestion was made that this might be studied in conjunc-
tion with the Traffic Commission. Mr. Millham pointed out that
as R -3 areas develop, so will the parking problems. The
Planning Director said he would write a memo to the Public
Works Department and the Chairman said he would call the matter
to the attention of the Chairman of the Traffic Commission.
1
Planning Commission Minutes
Page Six December 13, 1966
9. COMMUNICATIONS - None
10. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
Commissioner Oakley asked if the Commission, subject to the
approval of the City Manager and the Mayor, would like for him
to contact the U.S.C. Architectural Department to see if they •
would do a serious study of our community, particularly thru
their Planning Department. He said that when he had been a
student there his class had done a study on Catalina island,
which was paid for by the Island Company, and had come up with
a number of very interesting and new suggestions for planning.
If agreeable to the various City officials, Mr. Oakley will
contact Dean Hurst regarding a voluntary project.
11. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK. None
12. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded
by Commiss oner Millham to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8 :36 P.M.
ATTEST:
City C erk