Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1967/02/28 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF TEMPLE CITY February 28, 1967 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 at 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Chairman Garvin. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Beckman, Caswell, Millham, Oakley, Garvin Absent: Commissioners: None Also Present: City Attorney Flandrick, City Manager Koski, Planning Director Dragicevich 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Millham, seconded by Commissioner Caswell to approve the minutes with the following correction: page 2, paragraph 7, line 3, insert "square" feet. Upon no objections, the Chairman so ordered. 5 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO., 67 -206 Carl W. Ludlow, Owner - Applicant 9615 East Las Tunas Drive Temple City, California Planning Director Dragicevich reviewed briefly the factual data stating that the applicant's request is to expand the existing commercial facili- ties without providing additional parking at 9615,19 & 21 E. Las Tunas. Appearing in favor: Mr. Carl W. Ludlow, 9615 East Las Tunas Drive. Mr. Ludlow presented.a letter dated January 25, 1967 containing signatures from Roney's Interiors, Free Travel Service, Temple City Letter Shop, Pink Petticoat, Dom's Family Shoe Store, Stoppels, First Western Bank and Pink Petticoat Beauty Shop stating they are in favor of the pro- posed project for 9619 & 9621 Las Tunas Drive with no i of r i ngment on the parking and building facilities for customers if the employee parking is properly handled by the City. Commissioner Oakley referred to,the Temple City Parking Lot Study and felt this parking problem would coincide with Lot "C" in the report. He asked the applicant if he would be willing to sign an agreement or deposit sufficient funds assuring that if an additional special assess ment district is formed, would he assure the City that he would part- icipate. Mr. Ludlow replied this would be agreeable with. him. Commissioner Beckman asked the applicant the approximate time of con- struction. Mr. Ludlow replied mid - summer. 1 1 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 Beckman .stated he was in favor of this request, didn't feel parking would be a problem because the parking lots during the day are not full. Commissioner Caswell stated he was also in favor of the request as it would be an addition to the main street, improve the area; didn't feel parking would be a problem used in this manner. Commissioner Oakley stated he would be in favor only if the applicant would participate in a parking district in the future when it becomes evident that parking is a problem. Chairman Garvin felt parking re- quirements in conjunction with the health club would be less than straight retail sales, but if parking does become a problem the applicant should provide the additional 17 parking spaces as required. Comm- issioner Millham concurred. Planning Commission Minutes Pa9e Two February 28, 1967 City Attorney Flandrick stated this would be no problem and could be imposed as a condition of grant to this application, but could not carry over to a new owner because he copld protest the parking district, but if the then owners do protest, this variance could be automatically void and of no further use. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commissioner Caswell to approve this request being the property is unique; it will improve the area; would not be detrimental to the public welfare and it is in the scope of the general plan and with the following conditions (a) that the second story addition be used only for a private men's club including health studio; (b) that if an additional special assess- ment district is hereafter proposed or formed to provide additional offr street parking facilities serving the subject property and adjacent properties, the then owners of the subject property, shall participate in the cost of the district, provided that if the then owners of the subject property protest such district, this variance shall be auto - matically void and of no further effect and the use permitted hereunder be immediately terminated. Upon no objections, the Chairman so ordered, City Attorney Flandrick reviewed the conditions and read title to Resolution No. 67 -239PC A motion was made by. Commissioner Beckman! seconded by Commissioner Oakley to waive further reading and adopt. Upon no objections the chairman so ordered. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 67 -209 James C. and Donna B. Brooks, Owners 406 West Camino Real Arcadia, California SITE: 5839 -41 North Rowland Avenue 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 applicant's request is to change the zone at 5839 -41 North Rowland from R -1 to C *2. The subject property is a rectangular parcel fronting appro?dmately 60 feet on Rowland with a depth of 190 feet and contains two dwelling units; the area surrounding the property is developed with commercial and resin dential uses. The Planning Director recommended the proposed change for the following reasons: (a) the subject property is bounded by commercial zones on the north, west and east and the subrject property would become a part of the e?cisting. commercial use and zone to the north; (b) the principal access from Las Tunas Drive to the subject property is conducive to a commercial type of development. Appearing in favor: Mr. M.0 Orr, A9ent for the owners, 3437 North Delta Avenue, Rosemead. Mr. Orr stated this property will be adjoining Mission Chevrolet and at the present time has no firm commitments as to what will be established there. Commissioner Beckman asked the applicant what the current development plans were and. Mr. Orr presented a rough _sketch of the proposed layout and stated if things go as presently planned, the present buildings will be torn down and re- placed. Commissioner Oakley asked if there would be a secondary ingress and egress on Rowland Avenue. Mr. Orr stated at present he did not know. Appearing as neutral: Mrs. Barnes, 5837 Agnes Avenue. Mrs. Barnes felt a buffer zone should be discussed between the C'Z on Las Tunas and the R -1 to the south on Rowland and Agnes avenues. Chairman Garvin stated the subject property does touch C -2 zones around it. Mrs. Barnes und!r- stood, but felt she would not want her property backed directly to a C -2 zone. Planning Commission Minutes Page Three February 28, 1967 Appearing in opposition: Mr. Joe Blackford, 5831 North Rowland Avenue, next door to the property in question. Mr. Blackford objected to this request on the basis that his R -1 property is too close to a C -2 zone now and was also concerned with a possible noise factor and felt sound proofing should be assured as his bedroom backs to the area that would be a noise factor. Chairman Garvin clarified to members of the audience that in a Zone Change Case, the Planning Commission cannot impose conditions as in a zone variance and any use permitted in a C -2 zone could be placed here. Also appearing in opposition: Mrs. L Tindel, 5838 Agnes Avenue, behind the subject property. Mrs. Tindel objected to this request because of commercial property surrounding a residential zone and was concerned in the future this entire area might become C -2. Appearing in rebuttal: Mr. M C Orr, Agent. Mr. Orr stated the area for the repair facilities will be housed in a room with a double wall between it and another surface with 281t solid concrete walls, plus a retaining wall in the back. Mr. Orr stated they will meet all requirements of the City and the building code and do not want to cause a disturbance as far as noise to the neighbors. After noting that no one else wished to speak for or against this request a motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commiss- ioner Millham to close the public hearing. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. Commissioner Oakley stated he would be in favor of the zone change, but did regret it abutting R -1 zone; does not jeopardize the general plan; would enhance the commercial area. Commissioner Millham stated he would be in favor of this request and would agree with Commissioner Oakley and felt in the future a buffer zone for that area should be discussed. Commissioner Beckman stated he was also in favor and felt this would be a step in the right direction in conformance to the general plan, but also felt a buffer zone should be looked at. Comm- issioner Caswell also was in favor and felt it would add to the commun- ity and would not be harmful to the R'1 zoned properties in the area. Chairman Garvin felt the property was unique in relation to its depth and size and is concerned with the surrounding R -1 zoned area being immediately to the south of this property; the intended use would greatly enhance and add to the property values and for these reasons would be in favor of this request. A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Millham to grant this request and recommend to the City Council the change of zone from R -1 to C -2 at 5839 -41 North Rowland Avenue. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. City Attorney Flandrick read title to Resolution No. 67- 240PC. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commissioner Millham to waive further reading and adopt. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. City Attorney Flandrick clarified to members of the audience that this is a recommendation to the City Council for approval of this request. The City Council will set and hold a public hearing within the next month. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 67 -211 James A. Butler, Owner- Applicant 9826 East Camino Real Arcadia, California SITE: 4916 North Encinita Avenue Planning Commission Minutes Page Four February 28, 1967 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 continue to operate as a dog kennel. The subject property is a trapezoidal parcel fronting about 50 feet on the east side of Encinita and has an average depth of 265 feet. The area surrounding the property is developed with mixed industrial and residential uses. The Planning Director stated if this request is granted, it is recommended to impose the following conditions: (1) close the eastern end of the kennel 'with a block wall of 7'6 "; (2) erect a 6' high concrete block wall around the kennel as shown and proposed on Exhibit "A'r and in accordance with building codes; (3) place a bond in the amount of $500.00 to guarantee installation of driveway approach, curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees as specified by the Director of Public Works; (4) view obscuring partitions shall be utilized to enclose the individual kennel runs and exercise yards; (5) the kennel operations shall be conducted within a wholly enclosed and sound - proofed building; (6) all buildings and structures intended for the housing of animals shall be constructed and maintained so as to prevent the escape therefrom of animals; (7) all kennel runs and /or exercise yards shall have concrete flooring, together with adequate drainage; (8) the kennel structure shall provide and maintain proper ventilation, lighting, sanitation facilities and be kept in good repair; (9) the animal housing cages and kennel runs shall be sufficient to provide proper accommodations and prevent the overcrowding (the cages should be in general 12" longer than the length of the dog and 6" higher than the height of the dog); (10) All exercise yards and /or kennel runs shall be cleaned at least once a day and all droppings . shall be removed therefrom and stored in suitable metal covered containers which shall be removed from the premises no less than twice a week; (11) all buildings and . structures utilized in the kennel operation shall be operated and maintained in such a manner as to eliminate excessive noise and offensive odors emanating therefrom; (12) all animals utilizing the kennel facilities shall be kept in enclosed shelters between 9:00 P.M. and 7 :00 A.M of any day. The Planning Director submitted pictures and marked them as Exhibits. Appearing in favor: Mr. James A. Butler, 9826 E. Camino Real, Arcadia, owner - applicant and operator of the kennel facilities. Mr. Butler stated his kennel was constructed. October 23, 1964 at which time he had talked to the Planning Director and was told his kennel facilities could operate at this location. His intentions are to comply with the City regulations and requirements, and items 10 and 11 of the staff recommendations have already been met. At the present time the kennel does not have a concrete block wall, but would be willing to construct one, would prefer a 6" high concrete; wall to an 8'. As to the view obscuring partitions enclosing the individual kennel runs and exercise yards, this is objectionable because this kennel is for professional high value show dogs and on that basis with thepartitions the dogs would be too confined and not good for the dogs. Chairman Garvin asked the applicant if the view obscuring walls would cut down the noise and Mr. Butler felt having the partitions the dogs would make more noise and would not be in favor of this recommendation. It is very important to be able to view these dogs at all times as they are show dogs and the kennel was built and designed on this basis; no more than 30 dogs are at the kennel at any onetime, but he could possibly handle 40; the kennel is not designed for large dogs, nothing bigger than an airdale. Chairman Garvin asked the applicant If he understood the recommendations presented to the Planning Director. Mr. Butler stated yes, and only objected to item 4 of the report. Appearing in opposition: Mrs. Ruth McClellan, owner of property located at 4902 -04 -06 Encinita Avenue. Mrs. McClellan wanted clarification of who resides at the property and takes care of it as Mr. Butler does not. Chairman Garvin stated this information would be immaterial to this case_ as long as the requirements made by the Planning Commission are met. Pinning Commission Minutes Page Five February 28, 1967 Mrs. McClellan was concerned with the jurisdiction of the property and who would make sure the requirements are met. Chairman Garvin stated this is not the Planning Commission's concern, but if a neighbor feels . the requirements are not being met, they should contact the City Hall and they in turn will investigate and enforce. She also objected because of the surrounding residential area. Mrs. Grace Allen, 5004 Fratus, Temple City. Mrs. Allen objected to the noise of the kennels. Mr. Art Polaskis, 4905 Encinita Avenue. Mr. Polaskis didn't feel that the kennels should be viewed from a residential zone; noise is a definite factor; didn't feel this is conducive to the immediate area and stressed the importance of the kennel operations being conducted within.a wholly enclosed and sound proofed area. Mr. Clifford Weeks, 4931 Sereno Drive. Mr. Weeks was concerned with noise and felt all of the restrictions should be met at all times for all of the kennels on Encinita. Mr. J. McClellan, 4904 Encinita Avenue was concerned with all the animals being kept in enclosed shelters between 9 :00 P.M. and 7 :00 A.M. of any day and felt due to the noise factor that on the weekend the morning hour should be 9:00 A.M. Mrs. K. Haley, 4912 Sereno Drive. Mrs. Haley asked if in the future new kennels would be able to be constructed. Mr. Garvin stated yes, -but they would require a Condit- ional Use Permit. Appearing in rebuttal: Mr. James A. Butler, 4916 Encinita Avenue, owner applicant. Mr. Butler stated that over $60,000 had been put into this property and that he would comply with the City restrictions. Chairman Garvin asked the applicant if he would be in favor of changing the morning hour to 9 :00 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays and Mr. Butler stated no because it would break the routine. Mr. Butler stated he owns the property and the kennel and intends to fulfill conditions of the Planning Commission. After noting that no one else wished to speak for or against this request a motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Comm- issioner Oakley to close the public hearing. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. Commissioner Oakley agreed with the staff recommendations as pre- sented. Commissioner Millham felt that a condition should be made that a maximum of 30 dogs be allowed in the kennel at any one time. Commissioner Beckman stated he would also be in favor as it is the proper zone, with item 4 of the staff recommendations eliminated for this particular case. Commissioner Oakley concurred. Commissioner Caswell agreed with the staff recommendations and a maximum of 30 . dogs being allowed at any one time. Chairman Garvin felt the only way to find out if this will work is to give it a chance and that the conditions will vary depending upon each case, and would go along with taking out item 4 of the recommendations; a maximum of 30 dogs only to be a high breed show dog. A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Beckman that this request be granted following the staff recommendations with the exception of item 4 to read: View obscuring partitions shall not be required enclosing individual kennel runs and exercise yards so long as the kennel operation is used for the boarding of high value show dogs and temporary boarding operations and with the addition that the maximum number of dogs permitted in the operation at any one time shall not exceed 30. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. City Attorney Flandrick reviewed the conditions and read title to Resolution No. 67.241PC. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman; seconded by Commissioner Oakley to waive further reading and adopt. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. Planning Commission Minutes Page Seven February 28, 1967 Di- scussion was held and the Commission felt the Ordinance should permit three children in R -1 and R -2 zones. Mr. Brown asked if the Commission could continue this to the next regular meeting so that further discussion could be held. The City Attorney told Mr. Brown that he could present his facts to the City Council when they hold their public hearings. Mr. Jay Kingry, Pacific Outdoor Advertising, 1740 Narva, Los Angeles. Mr. Kingry suggested criteria on conditional use permits for outdoor advertising structures as follows: 1.. That C -2, C -M & M be the zones where billboards might be considered; 2. Consider proximity to other billboards in the same area, perhaps suggest that no more than two structures within any 500' frontage on dame side of street; 3. Sign shall be kept neat in appearance and in good repair at all times; 4.. How does it fit with the adjacent structures and uses, overall characteristics; 5. Plot plan is to show size of the property that lease is binding on, with definite location of structure or structures; 6. Signs to be subject to review and renewal of permit in five years by bringing it to the attention of the Planning Director; 7. Structures are no -f to un- reasonably obscure existing business signs on adjacent property; 8. The back of the structure, might be required to be covered or latticed with an approved material for neat appearance; 9. Will the sign obstruct traffic in any way ?; 10. The signs must comply with the sign ordinance which includes height limitation, setback, etc. Mr. Kingry also asked if an urgency ordinance could be adopted for signs until such time the sign ordinance is worked out and take outdoor advertising out of a conditional use permit category. Mr. Edward Dato, Foster and Kleiser, 1550 W. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles. Mr. Dato agreed with the proposals by Mr. Kingry and was also in favor of an urgency ordinance being adopted at this time. City Attorney Flandrick stated the Commission could do this if they so wished. After noting no one else wished to speak for or against the revised ordinance a motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Caswell to close the public hearing. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. Commissioner Oakley felt that a Conditional Use Permit would give better control and would not be in favor of an urgency ordinance at this time. All of the Commissioners concurred. 3 Discussion was held on the proposed R -4 zoning: The following professional - commercial uses were determined for R -4 : Attorneys, Dentists and Medical Doctors. Discussion was held on a filing and processing fee where an application for a zone variance and conditional use permit are made at the same time and pertain to the same develop- ment and property. The Commission felt this decision could be reached by the Planning Director and the City Attorney and inserted into the proper section. Discussion was also held in reference to vision clearance in a C -2 zone; front yard area in a C -2 zone when it abuts any "R" zoned corner lot; location of a garage on corner and reverse corner lots;and the correction of Child Day Care Center. to Child Day Care, in the appropriate zones. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commissioner Caswell to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the revised zoning ordinance with corrections and additions inserted by the City Attorney as discussed. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. Planning Commission Minutes Page Six February 28, 1967 Chairman Garvin called a 5 minute recess at 9:55 P.M. Meeting re- convened at 10:00 P.M. 8. OLD BUSINESS a. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 67- 238PC: A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to waive further reading and adopt inserting in condition (c) of said resolution, "including curb return ". Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. b. Planning Director Dragicevich stated that Mr. Harry Scheibel of 10317 Olive Street, Zone Variance Case No. 65 -150 has requested an extension of time to allow him to obtain recordation of a parcel map.. A motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Millham to extend his request for 90 days. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. PUBLIC.HEARING: CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS TO.REZONE AN AREA DESIGNATED AS "ANNEXATION' #10 INHABITED TO THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY Chairman Garvin announced now was the time and place for the public hearing. Verification of public notice was given by the Secretary. The Planning Director stated it is proposed to recommend to rezone "Annexation #10 as shown on Exhibit "A ": SW corner. of Rosemead and Longden to C -2; The eastern portion of the block, facing Rosemead Boulevard, between Garibaldi Avenue and Longden Avenue to R -4; Western portion to R -2; Area southerly of Elm Avenue and a portion of the area northerly of Elm Avenue, between Reno Avenue and the Eaton Wash to R -3; The remaining area, south of Hermosa Drive, be- tween Reno Avenue and the Eaton Wash to.R -2; All other areas in Annexation #10 to R -1 -7200. After noting no one wished to speak for or against this request a motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Millham to close the public hearing. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. Discussion was held on certain portions of the proposed zones. It was felt that this item should be further studied at a regular adjourned meeting of March 13, 1967 at 7:30 P.M. 10. COMMUNICATIONS a. Revised Zoning Ordinance City Attorney Flandrick stated this is a continued public hearing and further testimony would be taken at this time. Those wishing to speak were the following: Mr. Stan Brown, Division of Child Welfare, County of Los Angeles. Mr. Brown was concerned with enforcement of licenses for Child Day Care and Foster Home Care and explained the licensing procedure of the Child Welfare. Commissioner Oakley asked if the same rules would apply to the children that are not placed by your agency. Mr. Brown stated they do not actually place the child- ren in homes, we investigate homes and see if they are valid to have children; amount of children placed in a home can be from one to six. Commissioner Oakley asked what the area of jurisdiction was. Mr. Brown .stated the main control is zoning; if the Child Welfare Division investigates and finds that a person is not qualified to be licensed for child care a license will not be issued and asked that the ordinance permits 6 children in a home in accord with this division in R -1 and R -2 zones. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 1967 Page Eight City Attorney Flandrick read title to Resolution No. 67 -242. A motion was made by Commissioner Beckman, seconded by Commissioner Caswell to waive further reading and adopt. Upon no objections the Chairman so ordered. 11. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK. None 12. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS a. City Manager Koski reminded the Commission of the Joint Meeting to discuss the budget for the next fiscal 'year, Thursday, March 2, 1967 at 7:30 P.M. b. Planning Director Dragicevich stated that Commissioner Oakley and himself would be going to Monterey for the A.I.P. Annual Meeting March 16-18. 13. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Caswell, seconded by Commissioner Oakley to adjourn to the Joint Study Session with the City Council on March 2, 1967 at 7:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:05 A M. ATTEST: 1