HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1968/05/28 - Regular1
•
1
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
May 28, 1968
1. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple
City was called to order by Chairman Pro Tem Millham at 7:30 P.M.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Chairman Pro Tem
Millham.
3 ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners: Garvin, Lawson, Millham
ABSENT: Commissioners: Beckman, Oakley
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Koski, Asst. City Attorney Flandrick,
Planning Director Dragicevich, Planning Technician Burnham.
Chairman Pro Tem Millham announced that Commissioner Beckman and
Chairman Oakley had sent notice to the Planning Dept. that they
were unable to attend because of other committments. Commissioner
Lawson moved to approve their absence; it was seconded by Commis-
sioner Garvin and so moved.
4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 14, 1968: Chairman Pro Tem Mill-
ham referred to page eight, para. 2, that Mr. Sells is not the
electrical engineer for Ralphs, only representing them that evening.
At the request of Chairman Oakley, he then referred to para. 3, same
page, that Mr. Oakley used a light meter manufactured by General
Electric ". Finally he referred to page nine, Item 11, which should
read "Asst. City Manager Recupero ". Commissioner Garvin moved to
approve the minutes as corrected; Commissioner Lawson seconded and
it was so moved.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE 68 -257
Glenn E. and Emily V. Simpson, Owner- Applicant
10817 E. Daines Drive, Temple City
Chairman Pro Tem advised the applicant that three affirmative or
negative votes are necessary to approve or deny the variance appli-
cation; a split vote would mean the case would be continued to the
next meeting and the absent members of the Commission would have
missed tonight's testimony, although they could read it in the minutes.
The applicant had the choice of going ahead with the hearing tonight
or postponing it.
Planning Director Dragicevich gave the factual report and explained
the plot plan, Exhibit "A", both of which are on file in the Plann-
ing Dept. files. The applicant requests permission to add to the
existing residential dwelling with less than the required rear and
sideyard setbacks. The proposed addition would have a 3 -1/2 ft.side-
yard and 10 -1/2 ft. rear yard. He then read the staff proposals if
the variance is granted. He concluded by presenting to the Commis-
sion a set of photos of the subject property.
There being no questions from the Commissioners the meeting was de-
clared open.
Mr. Cecil C. McGinnis, Contractor, took the podium representing the
Simpsons. He felt the addition would not be harmful to any neighbor
or property; neighboring properties in some instances have less set-
backs then they will have after the addition,
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 28, 1968 - Page two
Commissioner Garvin asked Mr. McGinnis to outline where the windows
and doors on the proposed addition would be, and this he did.
There was no one else to speak for or against. Commissioner Garvin
moved to close the public hearing; it was seconded by Commissioner Law-
son and passed unanimously.
Commissioner Garvin said there were two issues involved - is this pro-
perty unique and if the owner is being denied privileges enjoyed by
others. These lots are small. The addition will not affect anyone in
the nieghborhood. Property to the west of subject property comes with-
in 4 ft. of rear property line. There will be no access door on the
west. He was in favor, following staff recommendations.
Commissioner Lawson concurred, saying this property doesn't differ from
neighborhood property. He felt the applicant had a hardship in this
case, and he was in favor of granting the variance.
Chairman Pro Tem Millham felt the_same, mentioning that the property to
the west side of the building goes 4 to 5 ft. to rear. The addition,
situated as it would be, would cause no hard feelings with the people
next door.
• Commissioner Garvin added that although the property would have a very
small back yard, because the structures on the property behind it are
set quite far back, there is a lot of open space and gives the property
an open feeling. It makes a difference in this particular instance. He
then made a motion to grant the variance with staff recommendations.
Commissioner Lawson seconded and it passed unanimously.
Asst. City Atty. Flandrick read Resolution 68- 301PC, A RESOLUTION OF
THE' PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING A VARIANCE
IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE 68 -257. Commissioner Garvin moved to waive fur-
ther reading and adopt; it was seconded by Commissioner Lawson and so
moved.
1
1
6. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 68 -258
Margery J. Baker, Owner
9433 E. Lemon Ave., Temple City, Calif.
Gene Granich, Applicant
151 Woodruff Place, Arcadia, Calif.
Site: 9433 thru 9439 E. Lemon Ave.
Chairman Pro Tem Millham advised the applicant that he had the
choice to have his application considered that evening or postpone
it.b.ecause of the absence of two of the members of the Commission.
The applicant chose to have his application considered that night.
The Planning Director gave the factual report and explained the plot
plan, Exhibit "A ", both of which are in the Planning Dept. files. He
explained that the applicant requests to expand existing residential
building on an R -1 lot. He then passed to the Commission photographs
of the subject property.
There being no questions from the Commission the public hearing was
declared open.
Mr. Gene Granich took the podium stating that his address as of this
date was 9433 E. Lemon Ave. He stated his request was prompted by
providing suitable quarters for his mother who lives with them, and
the house as it stands now could not be remodeled reasonably to pro-
vide the necessary quarters, without resulting in a bad arrangement.
This addition will not impose any bad appearance or interfere with
anyone else's rights. He felt this addition would improve the house
architecturally.
1
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 28, 1968 - Page three
There was no one else to speak for or against the variance. Com-
missioner Garvin moved to close the public hearing; it was seconded
by Commissioner Lawson and so moved.
Commissioner Lawson felt the proposed addition would improve the
property substantially, and also improve the neighborhood. He asked
about public works improvements and was told they were all in at
that location.
Commissioner Garvin agreed; he felt theproperty is well kept and of
good construction. Because of its location the addition wouldn't
bother anyone nor be objectionable.
Chairman Pro Tem Millham agreed it was well maintained, with plenty
of sideyard setback to it. The addition would enhance existing
home.
Commissioner Garvin moved to grant the variance; Commissioner Law-
son seconded and it was so moved.
Asst. City Atty. Flandrick read Resolution No. 68 -302, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING
VARIANCE IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE 68 -258. Commissioner Garvin moved
to waive further reading and adopt; Commissioner Lawson seconded
and it was passed unanimously.
7 OLD BUSINESS - There was none.
8 COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Request for rezoning - Mr. Leroy Miller
9352 Lower Azusa Road
Mr. Miller took the podium and said he had nothing new to offer. He
just wanted to know which direction the Commission was going to
take - should he initiate action or will the City. He gave a little
background to his request. After discussion with the Commission it
was suggested that this matter should wait until the General Plan
is being discussed, and when his area would be considered he would
be notified and could attend the meeting if he wished. Mr. Miller
said he was not in any hurry, as long as something would eventually
come of it, and Commissioner Garvin moved to continue this discus-
sion until the Commission comes to that section of the General Plan
and at that time have Mr. Miller in attendance. Commissioner Law-
son seconded and it was so moved. Mr. Miller asked what the time
element involved would be and was informed it would probably be 6
to 9 months.
B. West San Gabriel Valley Preliminary Plan
Commissioner Garvin moved to continue this to June 11th. Commissioner
Lawson seconded and it was so moved.
9. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK
Mr. Raymond F. Holton, 9334 Lower Azusa Road, spoke about the zoning
on Lower Azusa Road, saying that he attended some of the meetings
when the entire city was being rezoned and he was of the opinion
that his area would be zoned M -2, and was surprised to learn it had
been zoned M -1. He leases a portion of his property from Southern
Pacific with a:.first option to buy if they should decide to sell,
and is concerned about the zoning. He asked if the minutes or tapes
or records of those meetings would show anything, and the Planning
Director replied that they had been examined and reviewed and there
had been various proposals for this property all the way from R -1
to M -1, C -M & R -4. He explained that when the City was about to
zone the entire city no individual notices were sent, but the notices
were published in the local newspaper.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 28, 1968 - Page four.
Chairman Pro Tem said this would be up for restudy at the time
the General Plan is reworked.
10. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
Planning Director Dragicevich directed the Commission's attention
to a memo they received relative to the parking requirements for
churches, saying that several inquiries had been received recently
to expand existing structures on church sites. The City's Ordinance
requires that parking spaces be based, on fixed seats or gross floor
area used for assembly purposes. Surrounding cities have different
parking requirements for church properties. He concluded that he
would like the Commission to consider this and possibly recommend
this matter for clarification of ambiguity.
In view of the fact that there was not a full Commission it was
the concensus of opinion that this should be differed to a later
meeting.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business Commissioner Garvin moved the hear-
ing be adjourned. Commissioner Lawson seconded and it was so moved.
At 8 :25 P.M. the meeting adjourned to the next regular meeting of
June 11, 1968.
ecretary
.-:;--- 4-k-Q-- 'N
1
•
•