HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1967/05/06 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
MAY 9, 1967
1 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Temple City was called to order by Chairman Garvin at 7:30 P.M.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Chairman Garvin.
3 ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners: Beckman, Millham, Oakley, Garvin
Absent and Excused: Commissioner: Lawson
Also Present: City Attorney Neher, City Manager Koski, and
Planning Director Dragicevich.
4 Chairman Garvin announced that now was the time for the annual
reorganization of the Planning Commission. The chair was turned
over to City Manager Koski who announced that nominations were
now open for position of Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Oakley nominated Commissioner Beckman, which was
seconded by Commissioner Millham. Commissioner Millham moved
nominations be closed and Commissioner Oakley seconded. Comm-
issioner Garvin moved a unanimous ballot be cast for Commissioner
Beckman, and Commissioner Millham seconded. It was so moved, and
Commissioner Beckman assumed the chair and thanked the Commission
for placing their trust in him.
Chairman Beckman declared nominations open for Vice Chairman.
Commissioner Garvin nominated Commissioner Oakley, and Commissioner
Millham seconded. The motion was carried unanimously.
5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Oakley referred to page 3 of
minutes of April 25, para. 4 and 7 being identical, and therefore
paragraph 7 is to be stricken from the records.
Page 4, para. 5, it was not noted who seconded the motion, and..
upon checking the tape it has been determined it was Commissioner
Millham.
Commissioner Garvin questioned the Condition 5, page 5, whether
no signs would be allowed on the buildings and it was explained
that there would be no signs on buildings that would face either
Cloverly or Oak Avenue. Commissioner Garvin felt the wording was
ambiguous and could be read in two ways. He also referred to
page 4, para. 4 which read 1It was made a condition of this zone
variance1t, which should have read 'tit was suggested to be made a
condition ...'t. Also on page 3, 1tthe maximum height was set at
16'..." should read "the maximum height was suggested at l 6 ° ...'t .
He also called attention to para. 2 on Page 7, "he intends to
use the building as it now exists ", which should read "the appli-
cant intends to use the building ...'t. He called attention to
Item 8, page 9, which read "City Commissioner Flandrick't and
should read "Assistant City Attorney Flandrick ".
Commissioner Garvin moved the minutes be approved with corrections,
it was seconded by Commissioner Millham and so ordered.
6 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 67 -217
Harold Shook, Owner, Applicant
4906 N. Encinita Avenue, Temple City
Request to continue to operate a breeding
kennel.
Planning Commission Minutes, page 2.
May 9, 1967
Chairman Beckman asked whether legal notices were sent according to law.
Planning Director Dragicevich advised that the property owners within
the 300 ft. radius had been notified in accordance with legal require-
ments. The Planning Director described the subject property, that the
area surrounding it is developed with mixed residential and industrial
uses, the property is currently zoned M -1 (Limited Industrial) and pre-
vious zoning was A -1 -5000 (Light Agricultural) established by County
Ordinance before incorporation; that Encinita is a 60 ft. wide collector
with 30 ft. of pavement. The subject property contains a residential
dwelling, a crate and grooming room, and 14 kennel runs enclosed by a
5 ft. high chain link fencing. The grooming room has fiberglass insula-
tion and soundproofing. There is chain link fencing on the northern
and wooden fencing on the southern property line. The Planning Director
read the staff recommendations for granting of a Conditional Use Permit:
1 Place a deposit or bond in an amount sufficient to
guarantee installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, drive-
way approach and street trees as specified by the Director
of Public Works.
2. Erect a concrete block wall 6 ft. in height around the
kennel structures starting 49 ft. from the front property
line and along 90 ft. of the northerly and southerly
boundaries of the subject area. This wall to be erected
within 90 days from the date of approval of this application.
3. Utilize view - obscuring partitions to enclose the individual
kennel runs and exercise yards.
4. Conduct kennel operations within a wholly enclosed and
soundproofed building, except for exercise yards and runs.
5. Provide and maintain all structures and buildings intended
for the housing of animals so as to prevent the escape
therefrom of animals.
6. Provide and maintain in all kennel runs and exercise yards
concrete flooring with adequate drainage.
7. Provide and maintain proper ventilation, lighting and sani-
tation facilities in all kennel buildings and structures.
8 Provide sufficient accomodations in all animal housing
cages and kennel runs to prevent overcrowding (the cages
should be 121e longer than the length of the dog and 6"
higher than the height of the dog.
9 Clean all exercise yards and kennel runs at least once a
day and store droppings in suitable metal covered containers
which shall be removed from the premises no less than twice
a week.
10. All buildings and structures utilized in the kennel operation
be operated and maintained in such a manner as to eliminate
excessive noise, and offensive odors emanating therefrom.
11. 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.
12. Obtain all required building permits for past and present work
immediately and complete work within 60 days.
13. Provide two additional off - street parking places.
In anwer.to.:Commi ssioner,. Gary i n's question about Item 12 of the Conditions,
the Planning Director explained that upon checking with the Building Dept.
it was determined from their records that the applicant converted a garage
into a kennel without any permits from the Building Dept.
Planning Comm:i s.s, i.on Minutes - page 3.
May 9, 1967
Chairman Beckman declared the hearing open. Mr. Charles H. Goldstein,
attorney, 9940 Ordenday Road, Santa Fe Springs, spoke in favor of the
applicant. He knew Mr. Shook's problems with the city had gone on for
a long time, and how difficult it is to map out a course of develop-
ment for an area and the interests of the residents. He explained how
Mr. Shook had checked with the Acting Planning Director before he pur-
chased the property and checked if there were any restrictions and he
found there were none. One of the reasons he came into the city was
because he felt he could build his operation here. Now he finds there
are certain conditions and he couldn't comply with them. He has a sub-
stantial investment in the kennels. In the next two years funds will
be available to him and he intends to build new kennels. He has been
looking for anotherplace after the City Attorney filed the complaint,
but he would prefer to remain where he is.
Regarding the conditions which were listed, Item 3, '"Utilize view ob-
scuring partitions to enclose the individual kennel runs and exercise
yards " - his contention is that when pedigreed dogs are isolated and
can smell other dogs and not see them it will drive them crazy. This
is inhuman and destroying the business. Item No. 2, "Erect a concrete
block wall within 90 days" - Case CUP 67 -208 was allowed a 2 -year ex-
tension to construct this. It was requested at least one year be
granted, at which time Mr. Shook would have capital to construct the
wall. Mr. Goldstein had no objections to the item regarding parking
spaces. Regarding the permits, Mr. Shook was under the impression
that the contractors had obtained these permits and if they could still
be obtained they will comply. He explained that as far as noise is
concerned, dogs bark, and that it was almost impossible to construct
a healthy kennel which is completely soundproof, but his client would
try and insulate his building as much as possible to prevent noise.
Commissioner Oakley explained that on CUP 67 -208 the wall requested
faced industrial property, a completely different situation as it was
not backed up to a house. He further asked if the applicant intended
to completely tear down and rebuild, and Mr. Goldstein turned the
interview to Mr. Shook of 4906 No. Encinita. Mr. Shook said he in-
tended to completely build a modern kennel building in 1968. He said
he had checked with Mr. Cushman and was advised there were no restric-
tions whatever, inasmuch as his was a non - commercial kennel, before
starting operations in Temple City. If he had been boarding or if he
took other dogs and built a new kennel there would be restrictions.
When he came out of escrow he showed Mr. Cushman the license he re-
ceived from the County of Los Angeles from whom Temple City was gett-
ing its licenses, and was told that was all he had to do.
Commissioner Oakley explained that the law has been changed, and perhaps
that all was true at that time, and Mr. Shook replied the law was there
and no one knew about it. Commissioner Oakley asked if he planned to
tear down all the buildings now on the site when he rebuilt, and Mr.
Shook advised that he did not intend to tear down the house or the garage
which at present is converted into crate and sleeping rooms.
The Planning Director stated that the Plot Plan as shown is now actually
in existence, but that he had asked for a plot plan for the future and
Mr. Shook could not produce it at this time.
Commissioner Garvin asked if the conversion of the garage was done by Mr.
Shook, and was told by the applicant that the work was hired done.
Mr. Shook explained that since he intended to rebuild his kennels he
would rather wait to construct the Wall.
Planning Commission Minutes - page 4.
May 3, 1967
Commissioner Garvin asked what heating and ventilating provisions there
were, besides doors and windows, and Mr. Shook said he had a ventilator
on top and 6" fiberglass insulation, plus the doors and windows. Chair-
man Beckman stated that in his inspection he noticed that the walls are
lined with gypsumboard or sheetrock and the dogs had eaten through, and
Mr. Shook explained that puppies do this, particularly when they are
teething.
No on else came forward to speak in favor. Those against were asked to
come forward.
Mr. Alfred H. Datolla, of 4910 Encinita, said the dogs were noisy and a
chainlink fence would be of no help, for the dogs reacted even to a
moving shadow.
Mrs. Ruth McClellan of 5345 Barela, rose to speak, stating first that
she had not received the public notice. Upon checking the file Chair-
man Beckman stated that according to the records she had been sent' one.
She spoke at length of the history of the controversy she and the resi-
dents of that area had experienced with the dog kennels, which Chairman
Beckman informed her was in the records. She was concerned that in her
opinion there was no one who could enforce the controls and conditions
that had been imposed on the kennels in the past. She asked about the
wall and was informed that it would go around the property on three
sides but not across the front, and the garage would still be exposed
on the front side of the property. She highly recommended that the
view - obscuring partitions be made part of the CUP, that this condition
and the wall would reduce one of the problems, of noise and the dogs
seeing people and other dogs and getting upset. She felt an 8' wall
would be better than 6'. Commissioner Garvin stated that even with a
14' wall the noise would go over the top. She asked if the 90 days
recommended was for beginning construction of the wall or completion,
and Chairman Beckman said it was meant to be completed in 90 days. She
wanted to know how this would be checked, and if it were not complied
with, to which agency or to whom it was to be reported. She went on to
say that Mr. Shook kept dogs in the house, and Commissioner Garvin ex-
plained the Ordinance regarding the number of pets allowed. She felt
that these kennels were not being operated property, the garage was not
a true kennel. One of her main concerns was who to contact in City Hall,
or where the authority was to enforce restrictions and conditions and
report violations and have the complaint followed through. City Manager
Koski explained that if it was a health problem the County Health Dept.
would inspect the premises, the Building Dept. issued permits, etc.
City Attorny Neher reminded those present that they should confine them -
selves to the issue at hand.
Mrs. McClellan concluded stating that she was against granting the CUP
because she was not sure Mr. Shook would comply with conditions.
Jerry McClellan, 4904 Encinita, spoke against granting the Conditional
Use Permit, stating that the lack of money on the part of the applicant
should not be taken into consideration, and that there had been too much
leniency extended to Mr. Shook already.
Becky McClellan at 4904 Encinita spoke against granting the Conditional
Use Permit, stating that in her opinion the property was too small for
expansion of the kennels or any additional building.
No one else came forward to object to the Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Goldstein spoke in rebuttal that Mr. Shook was willing to comply and
has in the past complied with health regulations, and that he was in
sympathy with the neighbors living near the kennel. it was unfortunate
that this was an M -1 zone with residential zoning in close proximity. He
requested a year to complete the wall, and felt that the partitions were
inhuman and unhealthy.
Planning Commission Minutes - page 5.
May 9, 1967.
Commissioner Oakley moved the public hearing closed, and Commissioner
Garvin seconded and it was so moved.
Commissioner Garvin felt a year to construct a block wall was unreason-
able, and that 60 days would be sufficient time. He felt the operation
was being poorly run and not a good example of a kennel. He inquired
what disposition would be made for the construction that has been done
with no permits and City Attorney Neher informed him that at present
he is in violation of the building code, and the recommendation of the
Planning Dept. was that he obtain all required permits and bring all
past and present work up to code. It would have to be inspected that
it was brought up to code.
Commissioner Oakley said that the insulation Mr. Shook had in his kennels
presently was good thermal insulation but no good for soundproofing, and
that there were many materials available that would reduce the sound
appreciably more. He concurred that he should be allowed 60 days for
building a wall.
Commissioner Millham concurred with Commissioners Garvin and Oakley, and
felt that keeping dogs in such small containers was not good. Cha.irman
Beckman also concurred. Commissioner Garvin asked if there couldn't be
a time limit set for completion of the wall after the permit was issued,
otherwise Mr. Shook could do the work piecemeal and the actual building
of the wall could take much longer than the 60 days recommended, and
include in that time limit that he obtain all required building permits
for past and present work and complete all work within 60 days.
Commissioner Oakley moved the Conditional Use Permit be granted subject
to the 13 items as listed and read by the Planning Director as well as
per Exhibit A as now on the board as marked in red by the Planning
Director, as well as the 60 day time period relative to item 2; Change
item 2 from 90 days to 60 days from time of obtaining of building per-
mit for past and present work and clarifying that Item 3 shall remain
to be exercised at the discretion of the City if it becomes necessary,
without another hearing. Commissioner Millham seconded. Motion was
carried by the following called vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Millham, Oakley, Garvin, Beckman
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Lawson
City Attorney Neher read the resolution title, RESOLUTION NO. 67- 255PC,
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 67 -217, and Commissioner Garvin moved reading
of resolution be waived and it be granted by title only, and Commissioner
Oakley seconded and it was so moved. Chairman Beckman informed applicant
of his right to appeal to the City Council within 10 days.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -221
Earl and Virginia Hallinan, Owner- Applicant
8644 E. Olney Street, Rosemead.
Improve an R -3 property containing less than
the required number of parking spaces and
driveway width.
Subject property located at 5552 N. Sultana, TC.
Chairman Beckman asked whether legal notices were sent as required.
Planning Director Dragicevich advised the property owners within
the 300 ft. radius had been notified in accordance with requirements.
He then stated the applicant stated that the existing buildings
were constructed before the change in code, that several lots and
drives in the area are less than the required width, and that if the
varience were granted the owners would be living on the property
and it would be kept in better condition. There would be the same
number of parking spaces if the variance were granted, and the same
number of people living on said property. The owners wish to live
on the property and they need a larger apartment.
Planning Commission Minutes - page 6.
May 9, 1967.
The Planning Director went on to state that existing is an 8-
dwelling unit apartment building with 11 parking spaces and a 12
ft.wide driveway. Apartment #8 is proposed to be remodeled
and expanded to make a 3- bedroom and 2 -3/4 bath apartment. The
proposed expansion would take place on the second floor above the
existing carport, on the rear of the building. Subject property
is a rectangular parcel fronting 53.53 feet on the easterly side
of Sultana Ave., with a depth of approximately 177 ft. The lot
area contains 9,463 sq. ft. The age of the apartment building.
is 5 years. The area surrounding the subject property is developed
with mixed single, two - family and multiple residential uses. A
church is located directly westerly of the subject property. Sub-
ject property is zoned R -3, the previous zoning was also R -3.
Sultana is a 50 ft. wide local street with 36 feet of pavement at
this location. There are no curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
The staff recommendations, if the variance is granted were proposed
as follows:
1. Place a bond in the amount of $300.00 to guarantee construction
of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, concrete driveway approach and
street trees in accordance with city standards.
2. Follow construction of said improvements upon installation and
completion of storm drainage in this area.
3. Follow building codes and requirements.
Commissioner Oakley questioned that the plot plan showed 12 park-
ing spaces, but on personally viewing the property he found only
11 and one space occupied with a trash and garbage bin. The Plann-
ing Director stated this was true, which was why the report showed
only 11 existing parking spaces.
There were no further questions from the Commissioners, and Chairman
Beckman asked if anyone from the audience was present to speak in
favor, and Jack Turner of 4550 Hunter Avenue, El Monte, rose and
said he was the contractor for the applicant in the case. He asked
if there were plans for storm drains on that street and City Manager
Koski said yes, in May. Mr. Turner requested that sidewalks and
curbs and gutters could be put in after the drains were in and was
informed that was in the recommendations by the staff, but that a
bond must be posted. Mr. Turner explained that the present apart-
ment which was being considered for enlargement was too small for
the applicant's family, and by living on the property he could
take better care of it. Commissioner Millham asked how many more
automobiles this would mean, and was told that the present occupants
of the apartment were the son and daughter -in -law of the applicant,
both of whom owned a car, but they would be moving into the appli-
cant's present home when he moved into the enlarged apartment, and
he had only one car.
Mr. Earl Hallinan, 8644 Olney Street, stated in his own behalf, that
there has never been a lack of parking spaces for either his tenants
or their guests. He said he could turn the trash bin around so that
that parking space could be used if it were necessary, but that none
of his tenants have ever applied for an on- street parking permit,
and this could be checked at City Hall. He is proposing only an en-
largement of one apartment unit to accommodate his family better.
Chairman Beckman asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against
the granting of the variance and no one came forward.
City Attorney Nehr ,wished' :'i. ns:erted in the record two .commute i cat i ons
r, ece i veal . at the Cite flail opposing granting the variance. They are:
Planning Commission Minutes - page 7.
May 9, 1967
George G. and Lela A. Lawrence, 5539 No. Sultana Ave., Temple City
Leo and Marie Turner, no address.
The Planning Director explained that in both communications the
objectors were under the impression that additional units were to
be added and this was not the case.
Commissioner Garvin moved the hearing be closed, and Commissioner
Oakley seconded. It was so moved.
Commissioner Oakley spoke against granting the variance because of
the lack of adequate parking spaces, looking into the future when
the building might be sold, or rented, and more spaces would be
required than now. Commissioner Millham concurred with him, stat-
ing that the present requirements of two parking spaces per unit
is often insufficient.
Commissioner Garvin agreed that a parking space problem did exist,
but that there was a building in existence before the parking re-
quirements were effective, with the same number of units now as
then. The problem as he saw it was that the owner can't make use
of his property unless the variance were granted. In granting
the variance there would be a decrease in the number of automobiles
using the parking spaces. Chairman Beckman concurred, stating fur-
ther that the property was developed with only a 12' driveway and
the applicant can't do anything about it, and that the owner should
be entitled to utilize to its best use his property. He felt that
sometimes two spaces per unit was too high, particularly with one
bedroom units.
Commissioner Oakley moved the variance be denied because of the in-
sufficient parking, and Commissioner Millham seconded. The motion
tied with Commissioner Oakley and Millham voting to deny and Chair-
man Beckman and Commissioner Garvin voting to grant the variance.
Upon advice from City Attorney Neher a new motion was placed before
the Commission. Commissioner Garvin moved the variance be granted
inasmuch as there would be no additional units added, the owner
should have the right to make his property usable for himself, and
the building existed before the present requirements for parking
were passed, and he stipulated it be granted with staff recommenda-
tions.as set forth, and Chairman Beckman seconded. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Commissioners: Beckman, Garvin, Millham
NOES: Commissioners: Oakley
ABSENT:Commissioners: Lawson
City Attorney Neher presented Resolution No. 256, A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING A
VARIANCE IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -221. Commissioner Garvin
moved to waive reading and grant by title and Commissioner Oakley
seconded, and it was so moved.
Chairman Beckman advised the applicant of his right to appeal on
any condition if he so wished within ten days.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -222
Ralph G. Sproul, Owner
2905 Allenton Avenue
Hacienda Heights, Calif.
Val Powelson, Applicant
Build a restaurant at 4800 No. Baldwin Ave., Temple City with
substandard parking spaces.
Chairman Beckman asked if legal notices had been sent out accord-
ing to requirements and Planning Director Dragicevich stated that
they had.
The Planning Director read the applicant's statements regarding his
request that the existing lot and building as located will not
Planning Commission Minutes - page 8.
May 9, 1967
allow standard parking dimensions. The city acquisitioned 25 ft.
for Baldwin Ave. and 10 ft. for Lower Azusa Road in 1966 thereby
reducing parking area. He described subject property and the
area surrounding it was developed with commercial and multiple
residential land uses; subject property is zoned C -2; and that
Baldwin Ave. is a 100 ft. wide primary road with 80 ft. of pave-
ment, lower Azusa Road is 80 ft. wide and has 64 ft. of pavement
at this location. He further described the plot plan. The pro-
posed plan is to alter an existing service station to a restaur-
ant which would contain an area of 1,125 sq. ft. Proposed are 11
parking spaces that have a width of 9 ft. or less. It is pro-
posed also to remove existing asphalt and concrete slaps, islands
and pumps. Proposed also is a 40" block wall abutting residential
properties to the north and east.
Staff recommendations are 1) Provide a minimum of 6 ft. high
block wall abutting residential properties; 2) Reduce the height
of the wall to 40" for a distance of 15 ft. from the property
line on the northerly boundary of the subject property; 3) Ex-
cept for curb cuts, provide and maintain an open -work wall of
361t to 40" in height on both streets; 4) Reduce the number of
parking spaces, at the southwest corner, from 3:.to 2 (with full
dimensions) and modify the parking angle in order to provide
adequate turn- around radius (25 ft.) for the parking spaces
located southerly of the building; 5) Provide a 26 ft. wide en-
trance -exit driveway approach on Baldwin Avenue; 6) landscape the
southwest corner of the property; 7) Provide 6 ft. sidewalks and
landscape with sprinkler system the remaining portion of parkways
on both Baldwin Ave. and Lower Azusa Road; 8) Remove storage tank
and existing signs from the property; 9) Provide a walled -in en-
closure at least 5 ft. in height for storage of refuse and refuse
containers; 10) Maintain the parking area and the structure in
good condition and repairs; 11) Follow building and fire codes
and regulations.
The basic issue in this case was that parking space dimensions
are required to be 92' x 20 °.
Commissioner Garvin asked if George Envall, the County Traffic
Engineer had checked the application and if there had been no ob-
jections from him, and there had been no objections. He expressed
concern that people parking in the four spaces on Lower Azusa side
wanted to go south or westbound they would back out and go on
LowerAzusa, that traffic for two hours in the morning is quite
heavy and this could be a serious traffic problem; and if they are
southbound on Baldwin: they would try to get into the left -turn
pocket and go south, and that this is a bad intersection during
the months of the racing season at Santa Anita. He was also con-
cerned about the trash bins and how the garbage would be removed.
The Planning Director stated he had discussed this with the appli-
cant.
Chairman Beckman declared the public hearing open.
Robert Marx of Twin Castle Restaurants, 8879 W. Pico, Los Angeles,
came forward to speak for the applicant. He stated that the pic-
ture the Board saw of the restaurant was not identical but very
similar to their proposed building on subject property, and that the
sign shown was representative of the sign proposed for this site.He
stated that he felt that a sign facing the inside of the lot on
Lower Azusa rather on blacktop, specifically stating 'fright turn
only" and on the other side "entrance only" would be advisable. He
went on to say that the hours of operation for the restaurant would
begin at 11:00 o'clock in the morning, and as far as garbage pickup,
that usually occurs earlier than that hour, but if necessary he
could make arrangements to have it picked up early. With regard to
Planning Commission Minutes ® page 9.
May 9, 1967
the 9Z° wide parking spaces he stated he had never encountered
such wide requirements for parking. He felt that the ten spaces
would be adequate for them and would be close to the requirement.
Commissioner Oakley asked if there would be soffets with exposed
fluorescent tubes used, and Mr. Marx replied negatively.
Mr. Marx went on to say that Mr. Sproul had a hardship case since
his land was reduced for usability a year ago, that this is a
prime corner that is so small it has limited use. It would be
hard to find a suitable use, and he felt that his neighborhood -
type restaurant would be a good use for this corner. He explained
that this was not a drive -in or walkup trade type business, they
would have 40 seats at tables. He stated they would have four
employees. Commissioner Oakley asked where they would park, and
Mr. Marx felt that the employees would probably be local people
who would walk to work.
No one else came forward to speak in favor.
Mr. Hobart Clark, 4855 Robinhood Avenue, Temple City, spoke against
granting the variance because of the traffic problem, a heavy flow
of traffic in early mornings and the dinner hour, and during the
racing season, and that this was a dangerous corner. He also felt
10 or 11 parking spaces inadequate.
Mr. Ernest A. Vrooman, 4810 -12-16 Baldwin and 10011 ®10015 Lower
Azusa, said his property L- shaped around the subject property. He
submitted a layout of his buildings in reference to the subject
property. He was concerned that this property was too small for a
restaurant of any size, and that this would be a hot -dog stand
type of operation. He also felt that this operation would only add
to the traffic conditions at this corner, that this site was definite-
ly "accident prone "; he further stated that all the property from
Lower Azusa to Broadway was presently occupied by residential -type
buildings, very respectable, and if this one restaurant were allowed
to come in that this would encourage others to come into this area.
He feared hot rods and motorcycles racing around there late at
night, which would discourage people from renting his units. Since
there was inadequate parking the customers of the restaurant would
park in front of his units and this would discourage his tenants.
He was concerned about the 20' high wall that was presently there
as a firewall being torn down to erect another wall. Chairman Beck-
man said this was part of the existing property and would remain.
Mr. Marx replied in rebuttal that the wall was only 132° and not
20' and would remain, along with installation of walls as recomm-
ended by the Commission. He disagreed that there would be motor-
cycle traffic because the very fact that the parking space was
small would discourage any speeding motorcycles. He stated that
they did not intend to encourage hot-dog type business, for the
prices for a hamburger, for example, started at 55, and theirs
would be a family-type trade. They hope and expect customers
that can walk to the restaurant, rather than 40 people coming out
of cars.
Commissioner Oakley moved the public hearing be closed, and it
was seconded by Commissioner Garvin. There was no objection and
it was so moved.
Commissioner Garvin felt anything would be an improvement over the
present situation. He was not against the restaurant or the park-
ing space situation, but the traffic situation concerned him, and
he was against granting the variance. Commissioner Milham agreed,
being concerned about Lower Azusa, and suggested blocking off the
entrance off Lower Azusa and having only one entrance and egress
on Baldwin. Under the present circumstances he could not vote for
the variance. Commissioner Oakley, felt this property isn't big
enough to develop properly and was against it. Chairman Beckman
thought blocking Lower Azusa might be a good idea.
Planning Commission Minutes - page 10.
May 9, 1967.
Commissioner Garvin was advised by Attorney Neher that if he
wished further testimony and restudy the parking situation
he could move that the public hearing be reopened, which he did
and Commissioner Oakley seconded. There were no objections.
Commissioner Garvin asked Mr. Marx if he would be willing to
continue the hearing to the next regular meeting and submit
a new plot plan. Mr. Marx replied that he was willing to do
it in order to have the application accepted, but that he
couldn't use the property if it is not a corner, and by blocking
one entrance it does not have the features of a corner any more.
He would lose his customers on Lower Azusa Road. Commissioner
Garvin said this answered his question and moved the public hear-
ing closed, and Commissioner Oakley seconded.
Commissioner Garvin then made a motion that the application be
denied, stating that the parking is substandard, the traffic situa-
tion was very bad, and Commissioner Oakley seconded and it was so
moved.
Chairman Beckman informed the applicant of his right to appeal the
action to the City Council within ten days if he so wished.
City Attorney Neher read RESOLUTION NO. 67- 257PC, RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING A
VARIANCE IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -222. Commissioner Garvin
moved the resolution be approved by title only and Commissioner
Millham seconded. The motion carried by the following called vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Garvin, Millham, Oakley, Beckman
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners; Lawson
9. COMMUNICATIONS: a) Interim Ordinance 67 -232
City Manager Koski stated that the City Council at their regular
meeting of May 2 adopted two interim ordinances, and 67 -232
clarified the position or location of structures in the rear third
of an interior lot, and he stated that this would be an interim
measure for 90 days pending revision of the provisions of subject
ordinance and a recommendation coming back to the City Council.
Planning Director Dragicevich familiarized the Commissioners with
the situation and explained that the City Council wants the Plann-
ing Commission to come up with some recommendation within six weeks,
that it would take two readings and 30 days after that would be-
come effective, right to August 1st.
Commissioner Garvin stated that there was a study session scheduled
for service stations which would take the whole evening inasmuch
as he had been doing some research. The Planning Director said
that if the City Council adopted the new zoning ordinance then this
new zoning ordinance would take care of this situation, but we
should work on this in case the zoning ordinance is not passed.
Commissioner Garvin ;asked if it would be possible, instead of the
City Council giving the Planning Commission something and telling
them they have 90 days to get it done, why can't the City Council
tell the Planning Commission how they are getting on with the zon-
ing ordinance which will replace this work anyway. He asked if
this would have to be held before a public hearing and City Manager
Koski said it would be a public hearing at the next meeting which
will be held the second Tuesday in June. City Attorney Neher said
to set it for hearing June 13 and he would check whether it will
have to go or not.
Planning Commission Minutes - page 11.
May 9, 1967
b) Interim Ordinance 67 -233
The Planning Director explained that this was adopted at the regular
meeting of May 2 for 90 day period of time to provide an opportunity
for the Planning Commission to review the subject block and the merits
of either retaining CM zoning or reclassifying it to zone C -2. Staff
study will be made to provide the Commission with factual data, and
June 13 would be an acceptable hearing date. This is the area loca-
tion of Cloverly to Oak, north of Las Tunas, extending 200 ft. northerly,
now a CM zoned area, surrounded by C-2 on 3 sides and R -4 on the fourth
side to the north.
City Manager Koski stated,in answer to the question by Chairman Beckman,
that the staff would prepare reports but there would be no discussion
until the public hearing. Commissioner Garvin said that at the con-
clusion of the public hearing they can then be continued at an adjourned
meeti.ngand he- then made a motion both these items be set up for
June 13 when the staff will have reports. Commissioner Millham seconded
and-it was : SO moved i7
11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
Planning Director Dragicevich received a letter from Mr. Crowe,
4942:Encinita, who has a fiberglass operation at that address.
Mr. Crow claims he obtained all necessary permits before opening
his business, and in addition, there is a fiberglass operation
next door (Mr. Kline's) who did not get a business license or
permit from the Planning Department or the city. Mr. Koski in-
formed the Commission that Mr. Kline is on his way out. Mr.
Dragicevich went on to say that Mr. Koski and he visited the
operation and it looked clean, and was ready to start operation
soon. The Planning Director contacted Mr. Crowe and advised
him to write a letter to the Planning Commission. This operation
will be covered in the proposed ordinance (M -1 zone) but there is
nothing in the ordinance presently that covers this specific opera-
tion.
Commissioner Garvin suggested that there should be a wall to en-
close entirely the building, whether the operation is contained
indoors or outdoors, in the event that at some time he would move
part of his operation out-of-doors.
City Attorney Neher stated that it would be proper to submit a
resolution to the City Council to clarify ambiguity and classify
the fiberglass operation under Subsection 49 of Section 1101
(M -1) of Ordinance 63 -112 which reads "Manufacture, processing
or treatment of articles from previously prepared materials ". Mr.
Crow's operation consists of molding items from fiberglass.
Mr. Neher then read Resolution No. 67- 258PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL THE CLARIFICATION OF AMBIGUITY, and Commissioner
Garvin moved it be approved by title and waive further reading,
and Commissioner Millham seconded. it was so moved.
The Planning Commissioners and Planning Director thanked Commissioner
Garvin for his leadership and help while he was chairman of the Comm; . -
ission.
There being no further business, Commissioner Millham moved the meeting
be adjourned to the Regular Meeting of June 13, 1967 at .7: 0 P j' . Meet -
ing adjourned at 11:15 P.M .
10 /
a lima