Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1967/02/14 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF TEMPLE CITY February 14, 1967 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. f ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Beckman, Millham, Oakley, Garvin, Caswell arrived at 8 :15 P. M. Absent: Commissioners: None Also Present: Charles Martin, Attorney, Robert Neher, Attorney, City Manager Koski, Planning Director Dragicevich 4, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Millham, seconded by Commissioner Beckman to approve the Regular Adjourned Minutes of January 19, 1967 as mailed. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to approve the minutes of January 24, 1967 with the following corrections: Page 2, paragraph 3, line 3 insert word "used "; paragraph 4, line 8 "above" instead of around; page 3, line 12 insert word "not" the point; page three, line 18 should be "parking requirements" instead of uses; page 6, paragraph 3, line 3 insert "lack of fire hydrants in the area ". Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Millham, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to approve the Regular Adjourned Minutes of January 30, 1967 as mailed. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -207 Billy L. Bell & Margaret Bell 18639 East Covina Boulevard Covina, California SITE: 10651, 57, 61 East Olive Street Temple City, California Chairman Garvin announced now was the time and place for the public hearing. Verification of public notice was given by the Secretary. Planning Director Dragicevich stated the applicant's request is to improve a legal nonconforming use in an R-1 zone. Existing is a single family residential building on the western portion and a structure used for commercial purpose on the eastern portion of the subject parcel. Commer- cial uses consisting of a barber shop and a food market (currently vacant) contain 2,037 square feet. Proposed is the installation of a "false front" (aluminum shake) over and above the existing outdated front canopy and new front doors. There are 4 parking spaces serving residential and commercial uses. The proposed addition is considered by the Building Department to prolong the economic use of the building. He also read the applicant's statements and staff recommendations as follows: 1) Abate the use 10 years from the date of approval of this application; 2) Dedi- cate a strip of 8 feet of the subject property for the road right-of-way facing El Monte Avenue; 3) Complete the construction of the sidewalk on the portion of the property facing Olive Street; 4) Establish one (1) parking space by removing steel posts located westerly of the commercial use; 5) Comply with Building Codes and requirements; 6) Permit one ident- ification sign not exceeding fifty (50) square feet in area per face. Commissioner Oakley asked how many feet would be left on the subject prop- erty after the 8 feet is taken for the road right -of -way. Planning Director Dragicevich stated about 2 feet from the proposed use. Planning Commission Minutes Page Two February 14, . 1967 The Planning Director submitted pictures of the subject property which were received as part of the file, Appearing in favor: Mr. Billy L. Bell, 18639 East Covina Boulevard, Covina, Owner - Applicant. Mr. Bell stated he had nothing further to add to the factual data presented by the Planning Director. Also appearing in favor: Mr. Marvin L. Aaron, 5404 El Monte Avenue. Mr. Aaron stated this property is now an eyesore, but fixing up the property as the applicant intends to do will improve the neighborhood and felt this request should be granted, Chairman Garvin asked Mr. Bell if he had reviewed the staff recommend- ations as presented by Mr. Dragicevich. Mr. Bell stated yes and would be particularly in favor of construction of sidewalks and also agreed with the abatement period of 10 years. No one wished to speak in opposition, A motion was made by Commissioner Millham, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to close the public hearing. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. Commissioner Oakley felt the property.is unattractive and would not be in favor unless the abatement period is 7 years as it now exists and . felt a 20' sign would be adequate for this purpose. Commissioner Millham felt this was a difficult situation to adhear to because the neighborhood shopping centers are nice for the people in the area; this property needs fixing up and also felt the abatement period should be 7 years from this date. Commissioner Beckman concurred and also felt the abatement period should be 7 year and also felt the proposed sign should be smaller. Chairman Garvin concurred and felt a sign not to exceed 25 square feet kept flush with the building would be adequate. City Attorney Martin reviewed the conditions discussed by the Commission as follows: The abatement period would be June 30, 1974; dedication be made of a strip of 8 feet of the subject property for the road right -of- way facing El Monte Avenue; construction of the sidewalk on the portion of the property facing Olive Street be completed; that one (1) additional parking space be established by removing steel posts located westerly of the commercial use; that the application comply with Building Codes and requirements; that a sign of not more than 25 square feet be constructed and maintained flush with the building. A motion was made by Commissioner Millham, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to approve the request with the above noted conditions. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered, Chairman Garvin advised the applicant of their right to appeal to the City Council within 10 days. 6, PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY. chairman Garvin announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing. Verification of notification in the Temple City Times was made by the Secretary. At this time City Attorney Martin clarified to the Commission and members of the audience that this is a public hearing to determine whether the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Council either tonight or at a later date. The purpose is to gather the consensus and feeling of the people with respect to the proposals made by the Planning Commission mainly to adopt a new zoning code. Planning Commission Minutes Page Three February 14, 1967 The zoning code as proposed does not remap or rezone any property in the City, the same zoning map as shown on the board will continue to be the zoning map. It makes no changes within the zones of the City, it is for the most part a clarification of the ordinance from the standpoint of mechanics and procedures with respect to code changes, code amendments, zone changes, zone variances and conditional use permits and the handling of nonconforming uses. There are two corrections to be made as follows: As a result of the Council's enactment of Ordinance 66 -207 the matter of kennels was resolved by the Council with 2 changes over that which is proposed in this draft prepared by the Planning Commission. 1) Those which are illegal nonconforming uses as opposed to legal nonconforming uses will have a chance to conform to the three or four requirements set forth in the code or to apply for a conditional use permit and the alter- native should be set forth in the proposed recommendations to the City Council; 2) the restrictions against extensions or enlargements and structural alterations to nonconforming kennels would be restricted to the kennel itself, that is they may enlarge their home without regard to the nonconformity caused by the kennel. With these two minor changes already enacted upon the Ordinance is being presented tonight for disc- ussion , if the Planning Commission wishes to arrive at a conclusion tonight they may or they may hold it over for further study to give consideration of the suggestions made tonight. It will then go to the City Council to hold a public hearing and if changes are made it will then be referred back to the Planning Commission and then adopted into Ordinance form. The remaping and rezoning will come before the Commission at a later time and will then go to the City Council. Chairman Garvin asked the Planning Director to briefly point out the basic changes in the ordinance. The Planning Director stated the basic changes include certain uses placed under conditional use permits such as churches, schools, kennels, service stations, cemetaries, etc. We have technical requirements such as open space for residential area such as R -1 and R -2 would be required to provide 500 square feet of open space for each dwelling unit; dwelling units in multiple residential zones would be required to provide 100 square feet open space for each dwelling unit. Parking requirements are less restrictive for most commercial and manufacturing uses; current ordinance is one parking space for 200 square feet within the building; proposed is one parking space for each 400 square feet within the building for most commercial uses; multiple resi- dential developments require each newly created lot contain at least 10,000 square feet with 80' frontage for an interior lot; corner lot minimum frontage is 100 feet. Driveway requirements are basically the same; R -4 excludes commercial development such as medical and dental offices; proposed uses in zones C -2, C -M, M -1 and M -2 are also basically the same. Chairman Garvin invited members of the audience to speak on the revised zoning ordinance. Mr. Jay Kingry, Pacific Outdoor Advertising, 1740 Nerve Street, Los Angeles. Mr. Kingry stated outdoor advertising does have a place in the community and submitted pictures showing standardized outdoor adv- ertising bulletins and 24 sheetbillboards. Before a sign is erected, the owner of the property is contacted; property leased and the owner would then have to be told we could lease the property if we can obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the City. They are presently not allowed in a C -2 zone and signs that do exist in this particular zone are non- conforming. To be put under a Conditional Use Permit would cause undo expense, inconvenience, time to your staff; it will also cripple us to have this; we do not demand fire or police protection, emit odor or make noise or ask for extra services and felt the type of business that does should have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. This also means that everytime we wanted to move, raise or change from wood to steel posts ' we would be required to get a Conditional Use Permit; we are a definite service to the community and suggested that they be deleted from the non- conforming. Planning Commission Minutes Page Four February 14, 1967 If we lose a billboard in a C -2 zone, naturally we cannot regain our position, but ask that we be allowed to operate by getting a permit by the usual procedure and be allowed in the C -M and M zones as pres- ently allowed. Our structures are more valuable today than when they were constructed. He asked that the Planning Commission consider their position and take them out of the Conditional Use Permit classification and also that we be allowed to remain in the C -2 zone until such time the billboards disappear under normal development. Commissioner Oakley asked how much a sign would cost on a steel basis. Mr. Kingry stated it is based according to the height, but they do run about $1,500 to $2,000. Chairman Garvin asked if other cities impose Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Kingry stated yes, but a minority. Chairman Garvin also asked if stringent rules and regulations are written without requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Kingry stated yes this is also done. Mr. Paul Ryan, 5833 North Alessandro Avenue, Temple City. Mr. Ryan was concerned with commercial and residential buildings, and would like to have specific proposals for multiple changes of zones, in square foot- age and height of buildings in R -3 and R -4 zones. Planning Director Dragicevich stated height of the buildings is 35'; square footage would require a minimum lot area which is 10,000 square feet proposed; under current ordinance 7,200 and you can place maximum number of dwelling units based on one dwelling unit per each 1,000 square feet of ground area. The proposed ordinance is less restrictive; minimum frontage under the existing ordinance is 60'; proposed ordinance is 80' for an interior lot; existing lots are exempted under these regulations; prop- erty owners would be able to put same number of dwelling units auto- matically; the same zones will exist, this ordinance just simplifies and incorporates amendments to it. Mr. Ryan asked what the restrictions were on driveway widths. The Planning Director stated driveway widths serving single family and duplexes is 10'; 5-29 passenger vehicles 12'; -combining ingress and egress 16'; 30 or more passenger vehicles the property owners would be expected to provide separate driveways not less than 12' in width. If the driveway is longer than 125' the requirements would be not less than 15'; 12' for up to 125'. Mr. Ryan asked if only 8 -9' were available for driveway width what would be the procedure followed to develop the property. The Planning Director stated if you cannot comply with regulations, you would be able to file for a zone variance. He was also concerned with alleys, parking lots and the Chair- man stated these do not pertain to the revised zoning ordinance itself. Mr. Arthur Taal, 720 Roses Road, San Gabriel. Mr. Taal owns property at Sultana and Longden Avenues presently zoned R -2 and is concerned with multiple dwelling unit restrictions such as driveway width and square'footage of multiple dwelling units and felt a property owner with only 8,000` square feet would be somewhat penalized. Chairman Garvin stated these restrictions would only pertain to newly created lots in the City. Mr. Taal stated he had no further questions. 1 Mr. M.S. Aaron, 5404 El Monte Avenue, Temple City. Mr. Aaron wondered if he would be able to obtain a variance on his property which would permit him to build three houses and permit a garage apartment with 14,000 square feet in the lot. Chairman Garvin stated that an indivi- dual parcel cannot be rezoned because this is spot zoning, but there would be a possibility ofhan area being rezoned and did agree that certain areas in the City do need to be rezoned. Mr. Frank Zirna, 722 Sunset, Arcadia. Mr. Zirna owns property on the northeast corner of Emperor & Rosemead. Across the street the entire block is zoned C -2 and wondered if his property could also be rezoned for commercial use. Mr. Zirna asked if this property could be rezoned and Mr. Garvin stated he did not foresee it in the future except under the basis of one large commercial development. No one else wished to speak on the revised zoning ordinance, Planning Commission Minutes Page Five February 14, 1967 Commissioner Beckman felt this public hearing should be continued to the next regular adjourned meeting for further study.. A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Caswell to leave the hearing open and continue it to the next regular adjourned meeting of Monday, February 27, 1967 at 7:30 P.M., in the North Meeting Room. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. 7e OLD BUSINESS A. Child Day Care The Planning Director read the supporting data for Child Day Care stating the existing ordinance permits Child Day Care not exceeding six (6) children in zone R -3; it also permits it in R -4, but no provision is in the "C" zones in the existing ord- inance. The proposed ordinance defines the use, but does not include in the appropriate classification. Appearing in opposition: Mr. Dick Bruckman, 9722 East Longden Avenue. Mr. Bruckman felt Child Day Care should not be allowed in an R -1 or R -2 zone as many people do this for a business to make money; noise is a problem; along with abuse to the children. He also felt it should be restricted to R -3 and commercial zones and felt maybe the City could provide such a center in a commer- cial zone. Commissioner Beckman felt that someone taking care of 3 unrelated children in a residential zone could not be classified as a business; you cannot inspect every house in Temple City for abuse to the children but as a good neighbor if you suspect it, you can report it to the City and they in turn will investigate to see if there is a violation. Commissioner Millham felt if this was eliminated completely it might deny someone taking care of children to help put her husband through school or this type of situation. Chairman Garvin clarified we are not talking about a commercial child day care center as such, we are referring to some- one in a residential zone that would be able to take care of three unrelated children during the day not on a commercial basis with playground equipment, etc. Mr Bruckman again stressed that in the majority of cases this is being done strictly on a money making basis and felt residential areas should be kept as residential only. Chairman Garvin asked if he was against any number of children being kept in "R" zones or maybe a minimum number of children with the stipulation that no playground equipment be allowed® Mr. Bruckman stated a residential area should be kept as such. City Manager Koski stated this could possibly be controlled through the City Business License with the required fire and health inspection, but still allowing it as a private enterprise not a governmental activity. Commissioner Oakley felt this should not be permitted in an R -1 or R -2 zone and would be strongly opposed to it. Appearing in favor: Mrs. G. Bronson, 9617 Craiglee, Temple City. Mrs. Bronson stated she had been taking care of children for the past nine years, is licensed to do so. She takes care of six un- related children and has found no problems and is periodically checked by the welfare department to make sure conditions are good. No one else wished to speak on this matter, Planning Commission Minutes Page Six February 14, 1967 A motion was made by commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commissioner Caswell to hold the public hearing open and continue it to the next regular adjourned meeting of February 27, 1967 at 7:30 P M, Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. 8. COMMUNICATIONS a. Petition regarding Service Station Sign Regulations Planning Director Dragicevich read and presented a petition from nine service station operators in the City requesting the City Council to declare a one year moratorium on the building of any new service station because of hardships encountered, and also urge that a sign ordinance be enacted. City Manager Koski stated that the foundation of this petition is that the independent service station owners are concerned with the up-grading of service stations in the City and are attempting this through this request. The Planning Director stated he had prepared a set of standards for service stations. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commissioner Caswell to postpone this item to a later date when the sign ordi- nance is prepared and referred this to staff for consideration. ,:Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS a. The Planning Director stated there will be another meeting on "Service Stations" sponsored by the AIP Friday evening, February 17, 1967 at 7:30 P.M. in West Covina. Commissioner Beckman stated he would be able to attend. 10; TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK. a. Mr. Bruckman stated he was curious if Mrs. Bronson had obtained a variance to ,be able to care for six children. Mr. Garvin stated under the present ordinance she may have six children in her home and would be classified as legal nonconforming. 11. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Millham, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to adjourn to the next Regular Adjourned Meeting of February 27, 1967 in the North Meeting Room. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. ATTEST: