HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1967/07/25 - Regular"
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N M I N U T E S
C I T Y O F T E M P L E C I T Y
J U L Y 2 5 , 1 9 6 7
1 . T h e r e g u l a r m e e t i n g o f t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n o f t h e C i t y o f
T e m p l e C i t y w a s c a l l e d t o o r d e r b y C h a i r m a n P r o T e m O a k l e y a t
7 : 3 0 P . M .
I 2 . T h e P l e d g e o f A l l e g i a n c e t o t h e F l a g w a s l e d b y C h a i r m a n P r o
T e m O a k l e y .
3 . R O L L C A L L : P r e s e n t : C O M M I S S I O N E R S : G a r v i n , L a w s o n , M i l l h a m
O a k l e y
A b s e n t a n d e x c u s e d : C O M M I S S I O N E R : B e c k m a n
A l s o P r e s e n t : C i t y A t t o r n e y F l a n d r i c k , C i t y
M a n a g e r K o s k i , P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r
D r a g i c e v i c h .
4 A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S : R e g u l a r M e e t i n g M i n u t e s o f J u l y 1 1 , 1 9 6 7 :
C h a i r m a n P r o T e m O a k l e y c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o p a g e t h r e e , p a r a . 3 ,
t h a t t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o e x p a n d t h e w i d t h o f t h e p r o p o s e d
d r i v e w a y t o a m i n i m u m o f 1 5 f e e t s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d a s p a r t o f
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r g r a n t i n g t h e v a r i a n c e . C o m m i s s i o n e r G a r v i n
m o v e d t h e m i n u t e s b e a p p r o v e d a s c o r r e c t e d , a n d C o m m i s s i o n e r
M i l l h a m s e c o n d e d , a n d i t w a s s o m o v e d .
R e g u l a r A d j o u r n e d M e e t i n g M i n u t e s o f J u l y 1 1 , 1 9 6 7 : U n d e r t h e
h e a d i n g " G e n e r a l R e g u l a t i o n " , C h a i r m a n P r o T e m O a k l e y n o t e d t h a t
t h e R P M h a d n o t b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d b u t w a s t o b e s t u d i e d w i t h f u r -
t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . C o m m i s s i o n e r M i l l h a m m o v e d t o a p p r o v e t h e m i n -
u t e s a s c o r r e c t e d a n d C o m m i s s i o n e r L a w s o n s e c o n d e d a n d t h e m o t i o n
p a s s e d u n a n i m o u s l y .
"
1
"
P U B L I C H E A R I N G :
Z O N E V A R I A N C E C A S E N O . 6 7 - 2 2 5
R u s s e l l a n d I d a M i l l e r , O w n e r - A p p l i c a n t
9 8 4 0 E . H a l l w o o d D r i v e , T e m p l e C i t y
P e r m i t a d d i t i o n o f r o o f s t o r a g e w i t h
r e d u c e d s e t b a c k s .
P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r D r a g i c e v i c h a d v i s e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s
w i t h i n t h e 3 0 0 f t . r a d i u s h a d b e e n n o t i f i e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
r e q u i r e m e n t s . H e s t a t e d t h e a p p l i c a n t p r o p o s e s t o a d d t o e x i s t -
i n g a c c e s s o r y s t r u c t u r e s a r o o f e d s t o r a g e a r e a w i t h r e d u c e d
s i d e s e t b a c k s , a n d t h e n h e r e a d t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s f o r
g r a n t i n g t h e v a r i a n c e , a n d g a v e b a c k g r o u n d d a t a o n t h i s p r o p e r t y ,
a n d t h e f a c t u a l d a t a o n s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y . H e r e a d t h e s t a f f
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e f a c t u a l r e p o r t a n d s h o w e d
s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r b u i l d i n g s o n t h e v i c i n i t y
m a p , a n d e x p l a i n e d t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t o n t h e p l o t p l a n . B a s i c
i s s u e s a r e 1 ) n o p r o v i s i o n i n P l o t P l a n f o r s i d e y a r d s e t b a c k f o r
r o o f e d s t o r a g e a r e a ( i t i s r e q u i r e d 5 f t . ) ; 2 ) E x i s t i n g 2 - c a r
g a r a g e , w h e n a t t a c h e d t o t h e h o u s e , b e c o m e s p a r t o f r e s i d e n t i a l
b u i l d i n g a n d i s r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n a 5 f t . s i d e y a r d a r e a .
C o m m i s s i o n e r G a r v i n a s k e d i f e x i s t i n g r o o f w a s b e i n g a p p l i e d f o r
u n d e r b u i l d i n g p e r m i t w i t h p r e v i o u s m o d i f i c a t i o n t h a t a p p l i c a n t
h a d r e c e i v e d f o r s i d e s t o r a g e a r e a i n e x i s t e n c e t h e y w o u l d n o t
h a v e b e e n a l l o w e d t o a t t a c h r o o f t o g a r a g e . T h e P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r
s t a t e d t h e y w o u l d b e a l l o w e d i f t h e y m a i n t a i n e d p r o p e r s e t b a c k s .
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e b u i l d i n g c o d e t h e p r e s e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a c c e p t -
a b l e b e i n g o p e n a t b o t h e n d s f o r v e n t i l a t i o n .
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1967
PAGE TWO.
Chairman Pao Tem Oakley pointed out that the plan indicates
existing storage roof extends only to 2 ft. of the house, but
visiting the house he found this to be a moot point with two
living room windows there m the roof doesn't actually
physically touch, but virtually overlaps the eaves of the house.
He wanted to know how the building code required, and the Plann-
ing Director said he discussed this with the Building Department
and this would not create any problem as long as the sides are
open all around.
There being no further questions from the Commissioners the
hearing was declared open to the public.
Mr. Russell L. Miller, 9840 Hallwood Drive, spoke in his own
behalf. He presented photos for the Commissioners to view.
He said the owners of the property in the rear had given him a
written letter of approval to erect the storage area, and he
had only one other property involved at this time. He explained
how he had planned the storage areas so there would be continuity
in the appearance of the roof line, the roof line in the rear
having a pitch to it m a continuity of the shake roof to the main
roof. The shed roof is perfectly flat top roof. Area in back
is flat top roof. He stated there was only one person affected
by his addition but with water downspouts and gutters installed
it would not affect the neighbor's property.
No one else ,came forward to speak in favor. Mr. Seth A. Carson,
4913 North Agnes, spoke against the granting of the variance. He
stated he was a building inspector with the City of Los Angeles
for 13 years and had investigated many building violations. He
went on to say that if this is permitted there is no reason why
he, too, cannot put a roofed storage over his property, and the
fellow next to him, and this would create quite a fire hazard.
He also said Mr. Miller is a roofing contractor,and as such should
know better. He said he had sent a letter to the Planning Director
and it was read into the record:
"1) This was a deliberate act to circumvent the
intent and purpose of our laws - no permit applied
for. 2) A deliberate disregard for the proper re-
quirements in the actual location and structure of
such an addition; and 3) The very need for such a
structure and the request for a variance are in them-
selves in direct violation of another law forbidding
the conduction of a business from a residence zoned
R 1.
The letter is on file in the Planning Department files in the City
Hall.
Mr. Miller, in rebuttal, stated that the continuity and water
drain -off is a real problem but that the continuity was not
broken and the photos bear him out. Mr. Garvin asked him if
he was a licensed roofing contractor, and was informed he was,
and he further asked Mr. Miller if, as such, he was not aware
that he needed a building permit before starting construction.
Mr. Miller responded he was not aware he needed one for a
residential open storage structure.
Commissioner Garvin moved to close the public hearing; Commis-
sioner Millham seconded and it was so moved.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1967
PAGE THREE.
Commissioner Garvin stated it was unfortunate that the applicant had
888 square feet of roofed storage on the property, but in this case
he felt it the responsibility of the individual to be aware of the
building requirements as they exist in the City. If he had developed
his property properly he would be able to enjoy it and have no problem
with his neighbors. Chairman Pro Tem Oakley agreed with Mr. Carson's
statements. In the case of fire it would jump from one roof to another;
Mr. Miller failed to get a building permit, this is illegal and he was
against granting the variance. Commissioner Lawson concurred. Commis-
sioner Millham stated the law definitely requires a 5 ft. setback; the
property is not unique; as a licensed contractor he should have known
he needed to take out a building permit to build; it would be defeating
the zoning ordinance if this is allowed without the required setback,
and he was against granting the variance. Chairman Pro Tem Oakley con-
curred with opinions stated, adding that the applicant had full control
over what he was doing and he was against granting the variance.
Commissioner Garvin moved to deny Zone Variance Case No. 67-225 on the
basis that no special circumstances exist; the applicant would not be
denied reasonable use of his property; no permits were obtained, and the
5 ft. setback requirement was not met. Commissioner Millham seconded
and the motion carried by the following roll call vote:
iAYES: Commissioners: Garvin, Lawson, Millham, Oakley
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT:Commissioner: Beckman
1
•
1
•
City Attorney Flandrick presented Resolution No. 67-266 PC, RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING A VARIANCE
IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -225. Commissioner Millham moved to waive
further reading of Resolution No. 67 -266 and adopt, and Commissioner
Garvin seconded, and it was so moved.
Chairman Pro Tem Oakley advised the applicant his variance was denied
and he did have the right of appeal Within.teri'days.if he so wished.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -229
B. W. Mathews, Owner - Applicant
5651 Rosemead Boulevard, Temple City
Permit to use a room for personal use not customarily incidental
to the commercial business.
The Planning Director read the applicant's statements in apply-
ing for the variance, and explained the Plot Plan, giving factual
data about the subject property and surrounding area. The
property is in a C -M zone. Staff recommendations were read; basic
issue is that the proposed addition is not customarily connected
with the commercial use.
Commissioner Garvin asked how the new sidewalks the staff recom-
mended were going to affect the parking, and it was determined
that the sidewalks are presently on the site and would have no
effect on the parking. There being no further questions the
meeting was declared open to the public.
Mr, Bruce Gary, 1514 Van Dyke Road, San Marino, spoke as a re-
presentative of applicant. He verified that there was already
a sidewalk there, 10 ft. wide; 20 ft. existed from the building to
sidewalk and that there was enough room to pull out a car, and
the sidewalk existed down to Las Tunas Boulevard. The room is
used for private use - started with one pool table, now there
are two. Mr. Mathews was not aware he required a variance for
the room but is quite willing to go along with what is required
to meet Planning Commission approval. He .i.5 willing to take out
a building permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1967
PAGE FOUR
There was no one else to speak in favor of granting the variance and
no one came forward to speak against. Commissioner Garvin therefore
moved the public hearing be closed, and Commissioner Millham seconded,
and it was so moved.
Commissioner Garvin wanted to know how this recreation room within a
building came to the attention of the Planning Department, and the City
Manager Koski informed him that someone had reported it to the Building
Department.
Chairman Pro Tem Oakley stated he was generally in favor of granting the
variance provided staff recommendations are adhered to and Mr. Mathws.;
complies with all building codes, proper ventilation for occupants using
the room. He felt the stairs were far under code. Commissioner Garvin
asked if the Building Department inspected the project. City Manager
Koski said yes, and it meets building code except all concrete blocks
are in and you can't see what footings and steel are there. Chairman
Pro Tem Oakley said they can get a good structural engineer and see that
it meets the building code. He added this would be the applicant's
burden of proof to meet the codes. Commissioner Garvin felt that since
this started as one pool table and now had two and a 700:..sq. ft. room,
there wourldlbe no telling how large it could become, and what the hours
of use would be. City Manager Koski said it was not a residential zone
• and the building could be open 24 hours for retail purposes.
Commissioner Millham moved the variance be granted with staff recommenda-
tions, with Item #2 if it was in order. Commissioner Lawson seconded and
a roll call vote was taken as follows:
1
AYES: Commissioners: Lawson, Millham, Oakley
NOES: Commissioners: Garvin
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman
City Attorney Flandrick presented Resolution No. 67 =267PC RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING A VARIANCE
IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO, 67 -229, and Commissioner Millham moved to
waive further reading of Resolution 67 -267PC and adopt, and Commissioner
Lawson seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Pro Tem Oakley advised the applicant of his right to appeal on
any condition within ten days if he so desired.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -230
Robert & Elsie Kukurin - Owner - Applicant
1434 Finegrove Avenue
Hacienda Heights, Calif.
Site: 4804 N. Doreen Street, Temple City
The Planning Director read the applicant's statements regarding
his request for zone variance, exhibited an aerial photo of the
area and the vicinity map. He presented the plot plan marked
"Exhibit 'A'" and stated the subject property is zoned C -2, and
read the factual data as presented in the factual report. He
read the six staff recommendations if the variance were .granted,
to be imposed on the applicant. He said the basic issue in this
case was that a coin operated car wash is first permitted in a
C -M zone.
Commissioner Lawson stated that car washes were permitted under
C.U.P., and was told that these were not automatic, but an auto-
matic car wash is a drive -in type operation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1967
PAGE FIVE
Chairman .Pro Tem Oakley, in referring to staff recommendations for tree
wells, asked flow many trees on Doreen and how many on Lower Azusa, and
the Planning Director said one would be required on Doreen and two on
Lower Azusa. There were no further questions.
Chairman Pro Tem Oakley declared the public hearing open.
John L. Shaw, 5816 Temple City Boulevard, Temple City, spoke for the
applicant as his attorney. He stated he had reviewed the zone ordinance
and coin operated car washes are not even listed in the ordinance. The
car washes that are allowed sell gas, tires, repairs, etc. This kind
of operation dispenses soap and water only. No repairs or sales of any
kind will take place here. It was pointed out that car washes are in-
cluded in the new zoning ordinance, and Mr. Shaw said he had used the
old zoning ordinance in his research. He stated that all pumps, water
heaters, etc., are to be in an enclosed room and can be insulated so
that it will be soundproof. He felt the appearance of the structure
would upgrade building along Lower Azusa. The lot being only 70 ft.
deep would prevent a major commercial development although it is zoned
for general commercial. This property is limited to a very small type
of development. There are sufficient parking spaces as he pointed out
• on the plot plan and rendering which was exhibited. He countered the
charges of noise and people congregating at the location by saying there
was nothing to attract people to congregate - usually people that use
this type of car wash are neighborhood type people. He felt this would
be an attractive addition to Lower Azusa, and a real benefit to Temple
City and to the community. He said the requirements set forth by the
Planning Commission were all acceptable to the applicant. Rather than
ask for a clarification the applicant had chosen to seek a zone variance
feeling that the Planning Commission would then have a chance to put
restrictions on the development.
Commissioner Lawson asked if this would be similar to the car wash on
Olive and Rosemead, and Mr. Shaw said similar but much nicer appearing
building. Since that was in the C -M zone all that was necessary was
to get a building permit, meet the code and build a concrete block
building. The proposed car wash would be a nicer building hut it was
the same general type of operation. In answer to Commissioner Garvin's
questions of hours of operation, Mr. Shaw stated it was a 24 -hour opera-
tion. Chairman Pro Tem Oakley asked if anyone would be in attendance
and was informed that during peak hours there would be an adult in
attendance, but this would have to be determined after the operation be-
gan, and he further stated that the owner was going to lease the proper -
ty. He stated that the height of the sign will be as required by the
Planning Commission.
Arthur Eaton, Alhambra, representative of Edwin Levingston & Sons of
Kansas City, described the history of this particular car wash operation,
that it was a high pressure cleaning system for industry. This parti-
cular machine is used in hospitals and for cleaning cement. The only
thing exposed is the hose and it is on a 360 deg. circular boom. The
machine operates on pressure and uses 2 gallons of water per minute,
and if all four units were running it would use 8 gal. of water a min-
ute. There is a water runoff contained within the perimeter of the
building, the floor being pitched to drain to the center of the build-
ing. He said there was no local installation of this unit, but men-
tioned two or three locations in the San Gabriel Valley area. Chairman
Pro Tern Oakley asked why structure was located so near Doreen, and it
was explained that, they had to provide six parking spaces at one end .
or the other, also there were two vacuums on western wall and the en-
trances and exits had to be considered, but that the building could be
placed as the Planning Commission would recommend.
1
1
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1967
PAGE SIX.
Mr. Giordano, 10619 Lower Azusa, felt this would be a public nuisance,
with teenagers around, and that the hours of operation would create a
problem, with cars racing and radios going. Mrs. Clifford Leroy, 4648
Doreen, stated there are 25 children within eight houses up the street.
Traffic had increased since the taco stand went up on Doreen and Lower
Azusa, and this would increase the traffic. Children have to walk there
to and from school. She stated the weeds on the vacant lot were a
traffic hazard, and wondered about the height of the planter proposed
on the car wash building. The Planning Director instructed her that
it would be up to 36 ".
Mr. Russell Whipperman, 4810 Doreen, objected to the car wash being
open all night. He lives to the north of subject property, and objected
to the 6 ft. buffer wall proposed, and asked if it couldn't be dropped
to 5 ft. as it would darken his house, and then to 4 ft. to the street.
He stated he was not against the car wash as such, but the all night
operation was undesirable to him.
Mr. Al Bloechle, 4832 N. Doreen, stated it would create a nuisance, with
noise and lights 24 hours a day, and this would add to the traffic on
Lower Azusa which has heavy traffic already, and would create more of
a hazard on Doreen, particularly for the children, of which there are
• many. He said he had seen other coin operated car washes and they tend
to become run down and unsightly. Mr. Armstrong, 4842 Doreen, stated
that this type of high pressure steam cleaning is most frequently used
by teenagers to clean the engines of their hot rods, and this is just
what the residents don't want. Mr. R. P. Burger, 5417 N. Sultana, lives
near the carwash on Rosemead and Olive, and was happy to have this type
of operation on his street. The large lights are turned off at 1.1 :00
but cars can still be washed all night.
Mr. Shaw, in rebuttal, stated that the statements he heard were those
that would apply to anything that would go in a C -2 zone, same traffic
problem. As for becoming a nuisance - anything can become a nuisance,
private homes can be a nuisance. Nothing here to attract people to
congregate, no beverage or entertainment - existing car wash proves
this. The lighting system would be directed away from the residential
district. Keeping the lights on would deter crime and illegal activities,
which would be the real reason for leaving the lights on. Chairman Pro
Tem Oakley asked if the floodlights would be the same height as the
taco stand, and was assured they would be whatever the Commission ordered.
There was no objection to moving building 5 ft. east. Regarding the wall
• on:the north side which was recommended to be 6 ft., for air and ventila-
tion to have the wall 5 ft. .Commissioner Millham asked if there was
any objection to shutting off lights at a certain time, and Mr. Shaw re-
plied the lights were for protection purposes and it would not be a wise
thing but they could turn them off at midnight. Commissioner Oakley
said that in the night hours sounds seem magnified and this might be an
irritant. Also there should be an enclosed trash yard, possibly on the
northeast corner, and this was agreed to by Mr. Shaw.
Commissioner,Garviin moved the public hearing be closed, and Commissioner
Millham seconded, and it was so moved.
Commissioner Millham stated that he did not feel that the property was
unique, and the present ordinance allows a. car wash in a G -M zone, not
C -2. He did not feel this was the right development for this corner.
He was against a 24 -hour operation because of the lights and the nuisance
to the neighbors. He did not feel denial of the variance would injure
the owners of the property, only the applicant. Property could be reason-
ably used as zoned. He was against it.
1
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1967
PAGE SEVEN
Commissioner Garvin agreed with Mr. Shaw, that it could be a nuisance
even if used under the right zone. He stated that the taco stand is in
El Monte which jogs into the Temple City boundaries at justthat one
point. He felt car washes as listed in the zoning ordinance were in
the right zone, and nowhere else, and was against granting the variance.
Commissioner Lawson concurred with what had been said. .Chairman Pro
Tem Oakley concurred with Commissioner Garvin that this use did not
belong in this particular zone.
Commissioner Millham moved to deny the variance for reasons stated,
and it was seconded by Commissioner Garvin, and carried unanimously.
City Attorney Flandrick presented Resolution No. 67- 268PC, RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING A VARIANCE
IN ZONE VARIANCE. CASE NO 67-230. Commissioner Garvin moved to waive
further reading and adopt and Commissioner Millham seconded, and-the
motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Pro Tem Oakley called a five minute recess. He reconvened
the meeting at 9 :30 P.M.
8. OLD BUSINESS: The Planning Director advised the Commission that
the new zoning ordinance had been adopted by the City Council on
July 18 and would become effective 30 days later, or August 18th,
and the new zoning maps were ready and legal publication would
be Sunday, July 30th.
9. COMMUNICATIONS - None.
10. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK — None.
11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: Commissioner Lawson stated he had
not been receiving copies of the Planning Commission resolutions,
and asked to have this service resumed. '_Commissioner Garvin said
,phis used to be done, and then it was discontinued, but recently
there had been a resolution which was not worded as the Commis-
sioners had expressed it, and he preferred adopting the resolution
at the meeting following action on the case, giving the Commission
a chance to review the wording of the resolution which could be
sent to them in a preliminary form. If any changes or corrections
were to be made they could be, before adoption. It was brought
out that this would delay action on the case for two weeks but
the Commissioners all agreed that they would rather check the
resolution before it is adopted. Commissioner Millham moved the
Commission go back to the old system of adopting the resolution
at the meeting following the hearing. Chairman Pro Tem Oakley
felt that resolutions should be correct before presentation to
the City Council and in the best form they can produce. The Plann-
ing Director read from the adopted Zoning Ordinance the portion
relative to the effective date of the Planning Commission dedision
(Section 9208 of Ordinance 67- 238).1=- Commissioner Millham again
made a motion to continue to adopt resolutions following regular
meeting of the Commission where the hearing is held, and Commis-
sioner Garvin seconded. It was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Oakley brought to the Commission's attention a condi-
tion at the southeast corner of Hallwood and Golden West where
there is a display of cars on their sides and in poor condition.
The Planning Director said he would look into this.
Commissioner Lawson noted that the new proposed zoning ordinance,
in checking it against the old, some things had been omitted, and
typographical errors, and the Planning Director noted and said he
would check this out.
PLANNING COMMISSION 'MINUTES July 25, 1967
PAGE EIGHT
City Manager Koski informed the Commissioners that there would be
. 200 -300 copies of the new zoning ordinance run directly from the
newspaper type and asked what six, page they found most convenient,
and was informed that 82 x 11 for them was mo,t'acceptable;;;h1He
stated the new document in the papers is of little larger type and
little wider column but will prepare on 82 x 11 for them and the others
will be for public consumption. the Commissioners expressed a prefer-
ence for double- spaced typing and in three -ring binders.
Commissioners Garvin and Millham informed the Commission that they
would not be in attendance at the August 5th meeting. It was decided
not to hold a study session on the 27th of July, that the next study
session would be the 8th of August, at which time the Planning Director
said he would have prepared the last section of the proposed sign
ordinance.
Commissioner Garvin expressed concern regarding the appeals of the
Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. He felt that the
Council did not weigh the reasons for the Commission's decisions
sufficiently, and in one recent instance disregarded one recommenda-
tion entirely which he felt was one of the main issues in granting
the variance. He admitted that the City Council is the ruling body,
but that if Planning Commission decisions appealed to the City Council
are reversed more often then not, that the Commissioners will become
discouraged and feel their efforts are in vain. They invest much time
and effort in dealing with the cases that come before them. He further
stated that in the recent decision by the City Council reversing a con-
dition of the Planning Commission, they were influenced, he felt, by
the importance of the applicant, and that a man on relief should re-
ceive the same consideration when requesting a variance as a powerful
supermarket is given. The case should be considered on its merit,
not the importance of the applicant.
Commissioner Oakley concurred, stating that he, too, had felt that his
efforts were wasted and it was discouraging to have the City Council
repeatedly reverse Planning Commission decisions. It was suggested
by Commissioner Garvin that on appeals to the City Council from the
Planning Commission decisions that the staff should present points of
importance to the Council as considered by the Commission and explain
the reasons why they arrived at a particular decision.
Commissioner Millham moved to adjourn to the next regular meeting and
• Commissioner Lawson seconded and it was so moved. The Commission ad-
journed at 10 :00 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Planning' Commis-
sion will be August 8, 1967 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall, 5938 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City.
Se.Eretary
1
•
LC- P.v -tc�(`
an