Loading...
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