HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1968/01/09 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
January 9, 1968
1. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Temple City was called to order by Chairman Beckman at 7:30 P.M.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Chairman Beckman.
3. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners: Garvin, Lawson, Millham, Oakley, Beckman.
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Koski, Asst. City Attorney Flandrick,
Planning Director Dragicevich, Planning Tech. Burnham.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Adjourned Meeting Minutes of December 21, 1967:
Commissioner Oakley called attention to page two, para. 3, that he
had asked Mr . Frank Spichtig, if he were a homeowner, and the reply
was that he was not, and had recently moved into the area. On page
Mine, last para., Commissioner Oakley corrected the sentence to
read "to have a new plot plan and .corrected elevation of the service
• station . ". Chairman Beckman noted these minutes should have been
of the "adjourned meeting" instead of "regular" as written. Commis
sioner Garvin then moved the minutes be approved as corrected, and
Commissioner Millham seconded, and it was so moved.
5 PUBLIC HEARING.: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -238
Thomas F. Minahan, Owner-Applicant
215 N. Tamarind, Compton, Calif.
Site: 5430 N. Halifax Road, Temple City
The Planning Director stated the . public notices had been sent out as
required by law. He then went on to say that the applicant proposes
to divide and develop subject' property having substandard side yard
area for the front parcel and having less than required street front-
age and lot width for the rear parcel. He described the plot plan
"Exhibit "A" as showing existing and proposed development,
Planning Director Dragicevich then went on to quote the applicant's
statements that "the square footage of the subject property is far
larger than is practical for the single family dwelling now in exist-
ence," and "better than 80% of the property within, or partially
within, a 300 -foot radius of the subject property with similar cir-
cumstances have been improved in like manner ".
The property was described by the Planning Director as a rectangular
parcel fronting 85 feet on the eastern side of Halifax Road and hav-
ing an average depth of 217.17 ft., and a lot area of 18,460 sq. ft.
He stated the area surrounding the subject property has a number of
lots with more than one residential dwelling. Several lots in the
immediate vicinity were subdivided without providing any street front-
age. There is no "flag lot" or lot split, however, abutting to the
north or south of the subject property. He read the staff recommenda-
tions on file at the Planning Dept., and added one more to the list
presented in the staff report, i.e., that after approval of the zone
variance the applicant shall prepare and file a parcel map in accord-
ance with the State Map Act.
In answer to Commissioner Millham's question, the Planning Director
stated that within 300 ft. radius there were eight applications for
zone variances or lot splits. Commissioner Lawson asked how the
20 ft. lot width was determined, and the Planning Director explained
• that the average lot width is determined by dividing the entire length.
by 2. Commissioner Garvin asked if the color -coded land use map was
accurate and the Planning Director said it was, that two or three
parcels were subdivided but the owner had never sold.
1
1
1
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JAN. 9, 1968 PAGE TWO
Commissioner Oakley asked to see the aerial map and the Commissioners
took a few moments to look it over. There being no further questions
Chairman Beckman declared now was the time for the open public hearing.
Mr. John Wolfe, 10541 Olive Street, representing the applicant, stated
that the logical thing to do would have been to put in a cul -de -sac. He
said this was the only lot large enough on Halifax to split as none of
the others have the depth. He said Mr. Minahan wants to build a nice
home for himself and family. With a 20 ft. access there would be ample
room for fire trucks. The property was purchased several years ago with
the intention to divide it, but because of financial difficulties it
could not be done until this time.
Commissioner Oakley asked if Mr. Wolfe was a property owner on Olive,
and Mr. Wolfe informed him that he was. Chairman Beckman asked if the
back portion was a separate acquisition and Mr. Wolfe said that on the
deed it was a single parcel and must have been that way for some time.
Commissioner Oakley asked if the property is noW used as a rental and
Mr. Wolfe said on the front parcel it was and it was in good shape.
Mr. Thomas F. Minahan, 215 N. Tamarind Ave., Compton, said he bought
the property two years ago with the intention of building a rear house,
and could see no good reason why he couldn't do what has been done in
this area by others.
Mr. Frank Biava, 10523 Daines, presented a petition with 51 signatures,
to the City Attorney. Petition contained names and addresses without
any reason for protesting variance. He pointed out that the proposed
variance did not meet the City ordinance of 35 ft, frontage - only 20
ft., and that the front house does not meet minimum 5 ft. setback,
only 1 -1/2 ft. Since': this is the case two windows in the house would
have to be blocked with a minimum fire wall; one bedroom and one bath-
room window. The proposed driveway would be an annoyance to the people
on the north side with autos ingressing and egressing. He spoke
against spot zoning, and that since the City had undertaken a General
Plan we should wait and work towards that. He agreed that 80% of lots
in that area were developed in this . manner, but not on Halifax. He
stated access to property is limited; rear parcel would require a per-
son to drive back to it on a driveway. There are legal problems in
the transfer of ownership of these properties; lending institutions
will not lend full value on these properties. He was concerned over
who ,would maintain the driveway, and that this could create a nuisance
to the neighbors.
Commissioner Oakley asked if all the people on the petition were proper-
ty owners, and Mr. Biava said yes. Commissioner Garvin asked Mr. Biava
if he was living on a flag lot, and the answer was yes, but that it Has
65 ft. frontage, and that there was at one time an easement granted in
that area for that entire block.
Mr. Clyde Files, 5431 N. Halifax, immediately opposite the subject prop-
erty, stated all properties on 5400 block were owner- occupied except this
property, and the next block was developed similarly with single family,
owner - occupied homes. He stated a good portion of the audience present
at this meeting were in opposition to granting the variance, and asked
those so opposed to stand. The City Attorney suggested they sign a cir-
culated paper with name and address for the record. Mr. Files continued
that split lots have a short period of ownership, they are for sale and
resale, and difficult to sell.
Mr. Abel Wiese, 5438 N. Halifax Road, spoke in opposition, and added that
if the variance were denied something should be done about the rear yard
of subject property which is so unkempt that it is a fire hazard.
• Mr. Howard Gray, 5422 N. Halifax, spoke in opposition, and stated that he
is the keyholder of property that runs immediately south of subject prop,
erty which would open the street to Pal Mal.
The applicant was asked why, if he owned the property, he wasn't presently
living in it, and Mr. Minahan said the house was too small, being only two
bedroom, and Mr. Minahan has three children.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968 - Page three
There being no further questions Commissioner Garvin moved to close the
public hearing, and it was seconded by Commissioner Oakley and so moved.
Commissioner Oakley felt there was nothing unique about the property; he
is not being denied any property rights that others are enjoying, flag
lots are undesireable, and he was against the variance. Commissioner
Millham concurred, adding he was against backyard homes, that flag lots
were not in the best interest of the community; property is not unique,
even though it is a large lot; the individual's rights are not being
taken away; and to grant the variance would be damaging to other property
in the area; flag lots tend to drive people away from a community, Com-
missioner Lawson concurred.
Commissioner Garvin agreed with what had been said, adding that at times
it is necessary to approve flag lot development, but this is not the case
here, that this street has not been developed with flag lots. Chairman
Beckman said that basically if there is a preponderance of two houses on
each lot or flag lots then applicant has right to be granted a variance,
but there were no other split lots in this block. Granting the variance,
he felt, would downgrand the neighborhood.
Commissioner Oakley moved the variance be denied for reasons given, and
Commissioner Millham seconded and it passed unanimously.
• Asst. City Attorney Flandrick read RESOLUTION 68 -279, A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING VARIANCE IN
ZONE VARIANCE CASE 67 -238. Commissioner Garvin moved to waive further
reading and adopt, and Commissioner Millham seconded and it was so moved.
1
1
•
Chairman Beckman advised applicant he had ten days after adoption of the
resolution to appeal the decision to the City Council.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 67 -241
William A. Carroll, Owner - Applicant
1131 De Anza Place, Arcadia
Site: West Side of Temple City Blvd.,
South of Lower Azusa Road
The Planning Director stated the public notices had been sent out as
required by law. He stated the applicant proposed to construct and
operate a batting cage business interested in promoting and improv-
ing baseball techniques for youth;:that the applicant's statements
were that this location is "centrally located for San Gabriel Valley
residents" and that the proposed use "would enhance the lot from its
present vacant status." He described the subject property as being
zoned C -2, established by Ordinance 65 -147. Previous zoning was A -1,
established by County ordinance before incorporation. Further, he
said the area surrounding the subject property is developed with
commercial and residential uses. To the north and northeast are com -,
mercial establishments; to the west, south and east are single family
residential dwellings. Subject property at present is vacant. He
explained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A ", showing proposed develop-
ment; proposed are a ticket booth, 6 batting cages and 6 pitching
machines; seven telephone poles are also proposed with a height of
30 ft. for net support. He went on that the required 15 ft. front
setback is shown on the plot plan, and that no parking facilities
are proposed on the property in question. He described the subject
property as an irregular parcel fronting 77.19 feet on Temple City
Blvd., with an average depth of 141.67 ft.; the lot area has 10,625
sq. ft. and is located on the western side of Temple City Blvd., 160
ft. south of Lower Azusa Road. He said lighting fixtures are pro-
posed to be between 25 to 30 ft. in height, and then read the staff
recommendations on file at the Planning Dept. of the City Hall. The
Planning Director informed the Commission that the staff had inspected
a similar operation in Glendale and had taken pictures which he passed
to the members of the Commission.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968 - Page four
Commissioner Garvin pointed out that the parking at the site was in-
adequate, and the haumburger stand nearby often had its parking spaces
filled with Vons grocery trucks and trailers. The stand is now closed,
but if it reopens with a similar business this same situation might
again prevail and there wouldn't be parking spaces enough for both the
hamburger stand and the proposed operation.
The Planning Director stated the hamburger stand is now closed, and
that the applicant had within a radius of 300 ft. to find parking space.
Commissioner Garvin further pointed out that the hours of operation for
the proposed venture were the same as those of the hamburger stand.
Chairman Beckman asked what the ordinance requires for parking for the
hamburger stand, and the Planning Director informed him 10 spaces were
required.
Commissioner Oakley asked if this would be a 7 -day a week operation, and
the Planning Director stated this was a seasonal business and would
operate 7 days a week during the season, but presently it is open only
weekends. Commissioner Oakley then asked about Item 5 of the recommenda-
tions requiring lighting fixtures of a height not to exceed 25 ft., and
the Planning Director said that with the height of the nets and tele-
phone poles the applicant had asked for fixtures of 25 to 30 ft. and the
staff recommended the lesser height.
• Chairman Beckman asked if center poles were required, and was informed
that they would be required in the rear of the operation. There being
no other questions the Chairman declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Edward Fitzgerald, a partner of the applicant, took the podium and
stated that most of the recommendations were agreeable to them; that
the parking problem would not be difficult because of adjacent property.
He said this type of operation does not attract older people who drive
cars, rather it attracts boys on bicycles, or a mother will drop off the
youngsters while she goes elsewhere. The suggested hours of operation
were agreeable, that they would not need to open at 8 a.m., they are
busiest in the afternoon and early evening. Immediately adjacent to
the property is a service station which is open until 9 P.M., and they
will close before the service station does. He seriously objected to
the masonry wall since this would be a costly item to install and then
have to remove all structures and appurtenances at termination, since
this is a temporary, facility. He stated there were no sidewalks in the
immediate area, and this seemed to be an unnecessary requirement for
this type of operation. He then called Mr. Carroll to the podium to
answer the commissioners' questions,
III Mr. William A. Carroll, 1131 De Anza Place, Arcadia, answered Commis-
sioner Oakle.y's question about the depth of the batting cages, saying
they were around 14 ft., and then he described how the fencing and nett-
ing is used in the construction of the facility, and that there was
fencing between each cage, that an arm of the pitching machine goes
through a hole in the fencing, and when a boy enters the cage a swinging
gate closes automatically. He pointed out that the Glendale operation was
five years old and in dire need of repairs, and not as artistic as it
should be. Also there were 7 machines at that location. He informed
the Commission the width of the batting cages was 12 ft., and in answer
to Commissioner Millham's query about 30' poles being inadequate, Mr.
Carroll said that the company who manufactures the pitching machines pro-
vides different set -up plans and they may choose the most suitable one;
III that the height of the operation was not as important as length and how
sharp a boy hits the ball.
Chairman Beckman asked if there had been any provision made for restrooms,
and Mr. Carroll replied no, that they were not in the food or beverage
business, and that the operators of the service station to the north were
agreeable to having the boys use their facilities if necessary, and were
very favorable to this operation.
1
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968 - Page five
Commissioner Oakley asked that, since Glendale did not have an aesthetic
appearance, what did the applicant have planned for this location, The
applicant replied that they would paint the poles, to put color into the
•
operation, and with streamers and ornamental things, and planting in the
front, and that the purpose of opening a venture in this area was that
they were tired of driving to Glendale.
Commissioner Garvin asked if there would be any vending machines or games
of skill and Mr. Carroll thought there would be a coke and ice cream
machine, but no hot foods, and no games of skill, nor juke box. Only
the ticket booth would.beenclosed, all else would be open. Commissioner
Millham asked about a public address system, and the applicant replied
no, only a bullhorn to call someone to stop any unruliness.
•
No one else came forward in favor of the case,
In opposition Mrs. M. J. Laby, 9575 Bisby Street, presented to the City
Attorney a petition with 19 signatures of property owners in the area
who are opposed to this operation. She stated they had unpleasant
experiences when the restaurant was open at that location, the drive-
way entrance off the alley was often blocked, and that there was no
parking for this venture. The people in the area thought this was a
Little League venture, not a commercial one. She was concerned that
there were no restroom facilities.
Mr. Jack Skorski, 9562 Lower Azusa Road, said that with the hamburger
stand, the clients had wrecked his fence twice, that this proposed ven-
ture would cause noise in the neighborhood, that this is a residential
neighborhood, with only the service station being commercial.
Mr. John S. Grover, 4505 Temple City Blvd., whose home is south of sub-
ject property stated he had received an offer if he would sell his home
for a parking lot. Mr. John Viera of 4443 Temple City Blvd., felt that
this venture would attract not only little kids and their mothers, but
teenagers and problems, that this area had a series of daytime burglaries
recently, within 500 ft, of his home there were five burglaries in day-
light, that his own home had been burglarized, and he was against the
variance.
There being no one else to speak the Chairman asked the applicant to
present his rebuttal. Mr. Fitzgerald came forward and said he agreed
with the Commission that parking was very necessary for this operation,
and they already had made arrangements for the parking in the area and
would use restaurant parking and could arrange for right of parking by
•lease. Regarding burglaries, he stated that the introduction of a
batting cage could not require that they police the area, but they have
full -time personnel there in the afternoons and evenings, and the type
of children this activity attracts are not those who run around. Re-
garding balls being a nuisance and hazard as was mentioned by one of the
opponents, he said that they could not afford to have the balls all over
the neighborhood, that the facility is completely enclosed. Their insur-
ance company wouldn't stand for it. Most of the customers are there for
only an hour or so,at this age parking isn't much of a problem. In ans-
wer to Commissioner Garvin's question that if restrooms would be added
would they be 'opposed to it, and Mr. Fitzgerald replied that in terms of
the lease it would make the operation prohibitive. He stated they had
no objection to a restriction on flags and streamers or neon lights.
Commissioner Garvin felt there were other motives than profit, and asked
if this operation really benefits boys the age of Little League. Mr.
Fitzgerald said if they don't use the facilities they wouldn't stay in
business, like any other commercial venture. Mr. Carroll then took the
podium and said he was speaking as a representative of the Arcadia Coast
League, and the reason no one was here to speak in favor of the venture
from the field of youth baseball was that up to this moment no one knew
•about this operation going in; they didn't want to build interest and
then not get a permit.
Chairman Beckman asked how long their lease would be, and Mr. Carroll
said that pending the granting of the conditional use permit, they had
a 3 -year lease. He answered Commissioner Millham's question that they
were agreeable with all staff recommendations except for the masonry
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968 - Page six
wall which he considered prohibitive, that other materials could be used
which are architecturally acceptable. Chairman Beckman asked if he
•would be in a position to assure the City that parking would be avail-
able on a lease basis on the adjoining property. Mr. Carroll . stated
that the owner of the property owns the complete parcel and said he could
work this out with her. He also felt something could be worked out
with the service station for restroom use, and if not, some type of
provision would be made during the times of operation. The City Manager
felt this point might be covered under the Health and Safety Department.
Commissioner Oakley moved to close the public hearing and it was seconded
by Commissioner Garvin and so moved.
Commissioner Garvin sympathized with the applicant but that he hadn't
convinced him that the improvement of baseball techniques needs this
operation, although there is a place for this operation. Temple City
and Lower Azusa is a busy intersection. This area has good potential
to it. He hadn't seen the Glendale operation, but has seen one in the
Valley area, and even though this may not have a nuisance factor, it
could be a policing problem. He was against granting the conditional
use permit in this area, and if other commissioners feel differently,
he had to add to staff recommendations.
0 Commissioner Lawson felt the particular site would be applicable for
such development here, the size, shape and topography. The additional
requirement of lease for parking would be acceptable, and if the case is
approved he, too, had some additional conditions.
Commissioner Millham felt this type of operation was needed in the San
Gabriel Valley. He felt, from a realistic standpoint, that the presenta-
tion of facilities is good for this area. The only concern is parking
and the safety factor of Temple City Blvd. With a 15 ft. staff required
setback, and sidewalks to keep youngsters off the street, the safety
hazard would be somewhat alleviated, and was in favor �f granting the
conditional use permit.
Commissioner Oakley concurred with Commissioner Garvin, that this is a
residential area and there is no buffer and noise would be objectionable.
While this use might alleviate some problems it might create others.
It is not aesthetic, has no restroom facilities and he was opposed to it.
Chairman Beckman felt that this is zoned commercial, and consideration
must be given that this is a temporary use, not going to be there for
years, that the City could use any form of regulated recreation. He
•
felt there should be provision for restrooms. As a safety factor, this
is a signal corner, and thetadditional sidewalks would help—that problem.
Commissioner Garvin pointed out that 1) a conditional use permit has no
time limit, and the Commission was assuming that this was temporary; and
2) the nearest operation of this kind was in Glendale, and this proposed
use would attract people from surrounding areas. There would be a traffic
problem and a nuisance problem, and a noise factor. Chairman Beckman
said this was zoned C -2 and can be used for C -2; that many C -2 uses are
noisy, and the hours of operation could control some problems. Commis-
sioner Oakley felt there must be some place in the middle of a C -2 zone
for this operation, but this location had residential right next to it.
IThe Asst. City Attorney stated that a time limit could legally be put on
a Conditional Use Permit if the Commission so desired, subject to renewal
with application.
In answer to the question of what kind of businesses were near the Glen-
dale operation, the Planning Director said the operation was located in
C -3, comparable to our C -m. This particular block has mixed uses, com-
mercial, residential; to the east is a barber shop and a restaurant; to
•
the west are offices and residential uses; across the street are mixed
residential and commercial uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968 - Page seven
Commissioner Garvin made a motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit
as the proposed business is not in good keeping with the area. A roll
call vote was taken as follows:
• AYES:, Commissioners: Garvin; Oakley
NOES: Commissioners: Lawson, Millham, Beckman
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
Commissioner Millham moved to grant the Conditional Use Permit with a
III3 -year time limit with staff recommendations and with masonry or ade-
quate wall to be worked out with staff, and to include restroom
facilities and parking must be provided, and no flags, streamers or
bunting, or juke boxes. A roll call vote was taken as follows:
AYES: Commissioners: Lawson, Millham, Beckman
NOES: Commissioners: Garvin, Oakley
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
1
The Chairman informed the applicant and audience of their right to appeal
within ten days after the resolution is adopted. Anyone so interested
was advised to contact the Planning Director.
The Chairman called a ten:-minute recess at this time.
The meeting was resumed at 9:35 by a call to order by Chairman Beckman.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 510
John A. Marshall, Applicant
1010 E. Las Tunas Drive, San Gabriel
Site:6101 North Reno, Temple City
8. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR',S DECISION
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 511
John A. Marshall, Applicant
1010 E. Las Tunas Drive, San Gabriel
Site:4918 Arden. Drive, Temple City
Because Items 7 and 8 on the agenda were concerned with the same
issue, it was announced by the Chairman that these two cases would
be heard simultaneously. The Planning Director stated that in
both cases this was an appeal on the staff requirement to install
a fire hydrant as a condition of approval of the Minor Land Sub-
., division application; that in following established procedures,
the staff approved this application subject to required improve-
ments. These improvements were stipulated by the Public Works Dept.,
Fire Dept., and /or L.A. County Engineering Dept., all of which
were contacted in these cases before approval was given. The Plann-
ing Director stated that the applicant states there would be a
financial hardship meeting the requirements of the staff. He then
explained the plot plan of each case, with reference to the site at
6101 N. Reno (Tent. Parcel Map 510) and to the site of 4918 N. Arden
Drive, (Tent. Parcel Map 511).
Chairman Beckman and Commissioner Oakley asked to abstain from
participating in the hearing as they both had a personal interest
in the property on Reno, and suggested that it could be taken to
the City Council. Commissioner Garvin felt that since he was
familiar with the decision of the Planning Commission meeting a year
ago he felt the three commissioners could decide the issue. The City
Attorney informed the Commission that the decision here is not on the
basis of whether the policy should continue, be modified or changed,
but whether the condition is reasonable as imposed. Chairman Beckman
stated he hoped the applicant understands that the City doesn't get
the money; the water companies set the price on installation of hyd-
rants and get the money. He then declared the public hearing open.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968 - page eight
Mr. John Malone, from the Building Industry Assoc.,1571 Beverly Blvd.,
came forward, and also wished to represent the applicant who was ill.
•He said there was no objection to any of the requirements except that
of the fire hydrants. The people in the community, where the lot splits
are located, are in the Fire Protection District, and the fire hydrants
are owned by the Sunnyslope and California Water Co. These companies
will not let the developer place anything out to bid on installation of
these but do it themselves and charge what they want to; one plug is
III$1,000 and one is $750,00. He further added that the cost is not the
sole objection; the fire hydrants benefit the whole neighborhood and
community, and why should one developer with one house make the fire
protection inadequate; does one house make the water system inadequate?
He said that there may have been a policy developed on this but the
Builders Industry Assoc, doesn't operate on policy, but by laws and
ordinances. It has to be a law before this type of thing can be re-
quired. He felt that the people in the district should pay their pro-
portionate share, not just one man. The developer also has to dig up
water mains and put in new ones. He stated that the L.A. County Fire
Dept. was making the same recommendations throughout the county, but
last Tuesday they eliminated them - they are requiring the developer to
put in water mains in subdivisions but not take out fire plug and put
in a new one. He could understand why the fire department would make
a recommendation such as this - they want their system as good as pos-
•sible, and don't care where the money comes from, but this should not
be the responsibility for one man to carry. This requirement has been
dropped in other cities, where there has been strong opposition. It
is easy to make a policy when you don't hear from the opposition. It
is in this City's lot split ordinance that fire plugs be required, but
there are no standards - how far apart. Just to say that they are to
be installed the way the L.A. County Fire Dept. wants them is not fair.
That is what the industry objects to and we hope to eliminate these
two conditions.
IMr. Homer Peterson, 9016 E. Valley, Rosemead, President of the San Gab-
riel Valley Chapter of the Building Industry Assoc., spoke as chapter
representative, as being opposed to replacing existing fire hydrants
in these two instances, that this was a very hard economic problem for
the builder as well as subdivider; the Federal Government and local
restrictions are making it extremely difficult for them. One of these
plugs is to cost $550 and the other $950 for the same type of unit, but
by two different water companies.
Commissioner Oakley questioned the figures Mr. Peterson quoted against
those of Mr. Malone, and was informed by Mr. Peterson that his figures
• were correct - $550 for Sunnyslope and $950 for California Water Co.
Mr. Roy Bassert, 650 W. Duarte, Arcadia, of the Building Industry Assoc.,
also spoke against the conditions, that putting in additional fire hy-
drant per house or two hydrants for two houses is unreasonable when 12
houses can be served by one fire hydrant; builders are unable to estim-
ate the cost of a project because of fire hydrants and other unforesee-
able problems. He stated that the Federal Government is coming out with
a building and zoning code for the whole country and if they have to
live with these conditions of adding to these requirements, it is just
one bad system or another.
No one else came to speak in favor or against. Chairman Beckman, who was
IIIabstaining in this case, made a statement before closing of the public
hearing, that he was in sympathy with the applicant's problem. The water
company imposes this figure and from his own experience they charge twice
what it would cost if applicant could do it himself under normal inspec-
tion. Originally the cost was $200 and now. it is about $1,000. He recom-
mended that the staff find out from the water company more details about
what the costs are and why they are so high. Commissioner Garvin asked
if the applicant would go along with continuing the case, and Mr. Peterson
•said he couldn't speak for the applicant who was ill, but inasmuch as two
houses were under construction, he felt it would be all right.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968 - page nine
Commissioner Garvin made a motion to continue the case as a continued
public hearing until the next regular meeting of the 23rd, and instruct
the staff to consult with the water company and justify the costs. Com-
o missioner Oakley asked that they differentiate between the cost of putt
ing in a new hydrant and taking out an existing one and replacing it.
Commissioner Millham seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken
as follows:
1
AYES: Commissioners: Garvin, Lawson, Millham
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSTAINING: Commissioners: Oakley and Beckman
Mr. Peterson asked for permission to speak and it was granted. He asked
for the City Attorney's opinion on requiring fire hydrants with a lot
split ordinance when there is no water ordinance or no standards for
this type of fire hydrant; that the County of Los Angeles could not re-
quire fire plugs and water pipe under the subdivision ordinance unless
you had a water ordinance that stated you could require it. The City
Attorney replied this was an area where the County Council and he dis-
agreed. Subdivision regulations provide that among other improvements
would be water lines, fire plugs and the like, that there is a reference
in the lot split ordinance that such improvements as are required for
subdivisions may be required of a lot split subject to being reasonable
under the circumstances.
• The City Manager stated this is an interesting point in how this relates
to other improvements that might be required for the development of a
lot such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks or trees or lighting standards -
has this group taken a position on concurrent improvements. Mr. Peter-
son replied he had never encountered a condition where the developer
had to improve fire plugs across the street from his development.
1
1
9. OLD BUSINESS
CONTINUEDMPUBLIC HEARING:
ZONE VARIANCE CASE 67 -240.
Noel and Mary R. Baldwin, Owner - Applicant
5302 N. Baldwin Avenue, Temple City
Site: 5837 N. Oak Avenue, Temple City
Chairman Beckman reminded the Commission that the staff had been instructed
to give this case some further study and called upon the Planning Director
to give his report.
Planning Director Dragicevich passed to the Commission photos reflecting
character of the immediate vicinity from the subject property. The area
has primarily residential character immediately to the south; to the
north of the property is a nonconforming . commercial use but the staff
feels this is not really a unique situation as there are similar situa-
tions in the immediate vicinity where there is commercial abutting
residential use. The Staff also feels in case of the variance that it
is up to the applicant to show he has a practical difficulty in develop-
ing or using his property. The crucial question is whether this request
should be granted as a "use's variance and whether this is a question of -
a dimensional variance where applicant has to prove he has a hardship
regarding topography, size or shape of lot.
There being no questions Of the Planning Director, the Chairman declared .
the public hearing continued, and Mr. Al Baldwin, 4116 Baldwin, El Monte,,
referred to a new rendering showing two apartment unit in the back con-
structed like a condominium with parking underneath; house in front has
1:,300 to 7.,400 sq. ft. There are six parking spaces under cover and 5
parking spaces open, for a total of 11. The second rendering shows what
is-.proposed for the facade of the exterior of the building. He felt the
• property was unique because the property on the north is abutted by com-
mercial property, an auto body shop, with noise and traffic problems and
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968- Page ten
a hazard for subject property. The projected market across the street
will add to traffic - by granting variance a buffer zone will be created
to residential areas. He further felt they had a hardship because of
• property rights. They are not able to use the residential property to
its highest potential. The front house, rented now, may soon be empty
because of this condition. He assured the Commission they were in favor
of the market and felt the City needed it, but it has created problems
with their property rights. They have no problem renting the rear
property. He referred to the, case study done by the City Attorney onn
variances, page 6, "Variances ... shall be granted only when because of
special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of zoning
ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications ". He stated
if the variance were granted this would be an off i ce for his father, brother
and himself, with two secretaries, with hours from .8 AM to 5 PM, no walk -
in trade, no noise or traffic, and they would not invest more than $1,000
in improvements on the exterior so that if the area were rezoned they
would not have to get too much money out of the project. He further
stated they were willing to sell at any time. They believe in equaliza-
tion; they have commercial property on one side and residential on the
other and they would like to use it as an office.
Commissioner Oakley asked if he was asking for the variance for the front
• house only, and Mr. Baldwin said yes. Chairman Beckman explained that
originally they were asking for front house only, that this wasn't a
change of statement, but that they might want to come back later and ask
for the whole property.
Mr. Noel Baldwin of 5302 N. Baldwin, Temple City, took the podium to add
to his son's testimony saying that they didn't intend to store anything
large, bulky or unsightly, mostly small hardware, not observable from
the street. He informed the Commission they tried, in their business,
to build something good and beneficial to the community, and take many
risks, such as the Town House, which they felt was quite a risk. This
apartment was a risk and did not turn out to be a good investment. He
pointed out that the house south of them has sold recently, and the house
south of that just had the "sold" sign put up, but that they have not
even had a reasonable offer on the apartment house. He was willing to
accept any conditions the Commission may wish to impose as for parking,
and would even accept a time limited variance, with the stipulation that
they come back every year or six months to renew.
There being no one else to speak for the application, and no one against,
Commissioner Garvin moved to close the public hearing, and Commissioner
• Oakley seconded, and it was so moved.
Commissioner Oakley said he had not been convinced that the property is
unique; since the Commission was involved in working on the General Plan
revision he would prefer not to vote in favor of a "toe in door" variance
with ramifications they were not sure of. In his opinion this property
is not unique enough to grant the variance. Commissioner Millham con-
curred, as did Commissioner Lawson, who added that he had not heard any
additional evidence this evening. Commissioner Garvin felt this did not
meet the requirements for a variance. Chairman Beckman felt this was a
form of spot zoning which we are trying to get away from.
Commissioner Oakley moved the variance be denied for the reasons as stated,
and Commissioner Garvin seconded, saying it didn't meet the conditions of
a variance. There being no objection it passed unanimously. Chairman
Beckman informed the applicant of his right to appeal.
City Attorney Flandrick read RESOLUTION NO. 68- 281PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING A VARIANCE IN ZONE
VARIANCE CASE 67 -240. Commissioner Garvin moved to waive further reading
and adopt, and it was seconded by Commissioner Oakley and so moved.
1
1
•
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 1968 - Page eleven
10. COMMUNICATIONS: None
11. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: There was no one.
12. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
The Planning Director informed the Commission that the City Council
at their regular meeting January 2nd had the first reading of
Ordinance 68 -258 re the extension for zone variances and condition-
al use permits once for a period of one year, that there was a pro-
posed change in wording on which the Council wanted the Commission
to comment and report back prior to the next regular meeting of
January 16th.
City Attorney Flandrick explained that the only major change is
in the first sentence, the words "to the extent the use authorized".
His opinion was to keep the present wording; proposed wording would
apply for variance with two separate and distinct operations which
happen to be on one lot - then it would be valid and work in a case
like that. The same thing can be accomplished, he added, by specify-
ing it in the resolution. If you feel one year is too long it can
be so specified in the resolution. While there may be problems with
the present wording, he felt there would be more problems if it
were revised. He explained to the Commission that a variance is not
required to be completed in a year, but that it must be begun, that
sometimes just taking out a building permit will keep the variance
active, and in some instances it would be physically impossible to
complete in one year. He felt that a variance for two separate uses
is a rare thing, and conditions and time limits could be in the
resolution. There can be a termination of the variance if the appli-
cant doesn't comply with the conditions. He said there were many
legal ways to handle situations where conditions of a variance were
not met. The City Manager felt that the conditions were important,
not the time limit, that a variance should be good for 1967, 68 or 69,
but that the whole project should be kept going as a unit, completing
conditions that are imposed. Occupancy permit controls use.
City Manager Koski instructed the Asst. City Attorney to work with
the Planning Director to draft a reply to the City Council, stating
that there are provisions in the existing code to make sure that
conditions are carried out within a reasonable period of time or
that there is legal machinery set up to pursue it, and to stress dif-
ference between use and conditions of variance.
• Commissioner Millham moved, and Commissioner Oakley seconded, that a
reply be drafted to the City Council as stated, and it was so moved.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Iec4
•
There being no further business Commissioner Millham moved the meet-
ing be adjourned to the adjourned meeting of January 11, 1968, and
it was seconded by Commissioner Oakley and _.assed unanimously. The
meeting adjourned at 10 :45 `P.M.
X"-j 4-t-1-474