Loading...
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 • •