Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1972/07/11 - Regular" INITIATION I1. CALL TO ORDER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 1 1 , 1972 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City was called to order by Chairman Garvin at 7:40 p.m., July 11, 1972. 2, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.was led by Chairman Garvin. 3. ROLL CALL " Present: Commissioners - Atkins, Beckman, Lawson, Startin, Garvin Absent: Commissioners - None Also present were City Manager Koski, Asst, City Attorney White, and Planning Director Dragicevich. Commissioner Startin informed the Commission that he had tendered his resignation to the City Council who had accepted it at their meeting of July 6, 1972. He expressed his appreciation for the Commissioners' and staff's helpfulness, and that he had enjoyed the opportunity of serving on the Planning Commission. The Com- missioners and staff thanked him for his services. III4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Atkins moved they be approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, Motion passed. 5, PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 72-374 Mr. Brian Bolis - Owner 225 North El Molino" Street Alhambra, Calif. Mr. Odie Vaught - Applicant 6108 North Loma Avenue Temple City, Calif. 1 " Site: 6029 North Primrose Avenue Planning Director stated notices had been.sent out as required by law, and gave the staff report, saying the applicant proposes to construct a five -unit apartment building with less than required off -.' street parking spaces, driveway -width and open space area. The property is zoned R -3, (Multiple Residential). This case had been considered by the Minor Zoning Modification Committee on June 13, 1972, and approved subject to the Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting the same day, appealed the grant- ing of the case. Public hearing was originally," scheduled for June 27, 1972, and upon advice;of the City Attorney's.office, rescheduled for July 1lth. The Director then explained the:Plot Plan marked Exhibit "A ", showing proposed 5 -unit apartment building with four 2- bedroom units and one 2- bedroom and den unit, and an architectural drawing, and Exhibit "B ", showing the second floor with balconies. He gave the factual data on the property and staff proposals, both of which are on file in the Planning Department, and stated the issues.in the case, i.e., off - street parking.spaces (proposed - 10; required - 12), open space (proposed - 1,347 sq. ft.'; required.  1,500 sq. ft.) and driveway width (proposed - 10 ft.; required - 12 ft. ). PLANNING COMMIIION MINUTES MEETING OF July 11, 1972 PAGE TWO The public hearing was declared open. Mr. Odle Vauq, 6108 North Loma Avenue, applicant, said he had contacted his architect and he would be willing to reduce the width of the house to 33 ft. and construct a 12 ft. driveway. Also, he was willing to install a balcony over garage for open space, which would mean he would meet the open space requirements. The balcony would be usable, as he would install a sliding glass door in the adjacent bedroom, rather than a window. Number Iof parking spaces would remain the same. There was no one else to speak in favor. Those speaking against the request: Addison Hendrix, 6012 Primrose, was concerned about the inadequate drive- way width, and parking spaces. Construction of five units would generate traffic in that area, and he feared a rapid turn -over of tenants. He read a letter from Mrs, Betsy Robbins, 6015 Temple City Boulevard, on vaca- tion at time of hearing, which letter was in opposition to the variance, and is on file in the Planning Department. Inadequate driveway, which could be a fire hazard, narrow lot for five units, and two -story height which she felt would decrease property values, were her reasons for opposition. IIICharles Stein, 807 Leslie Drive, San Gabriel, owner of property at 6006 N. Primrose, was opposed to granting any of the three deviations from the zoning code, as this development would be setting a precedent for that area. Mrs. Estelle Meek, 5956 Primrose, was also concerned about setting a pre- cedent and Temple City would have higher density and result in over- popula- tion. Mr. Odie Vaught offered no rebuttal, except to reiterate that he was will- ing to provide a 12 -ft. driveway and a balcony over the garage to meet open -space requirements, and stay with 10 parking spaces, Commissioner Atkins moved to close public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Beckman and passed. Commissioner Lawson opened the closed discussion, saying he had sat on the Minor Zoning Modification Committee when this case was originally con- sidered. After hearing testimony of the County Fire Chief at the last Plann- ing Commission meeting he felt the width of the driveway would not have any bearing on fire protection in this instance, which had been one of the con- cerns in the past. He was not opposed to 10 parking spaces instead of 12. He would rather see two - bedroom apartments as they generally offer more stability in their tenants than one- bedroom apartments. He felt the front view of the complex would be aesthetically more pleasing without the bal- cony, and he would allow the reduced open space area. Commissioner Beckman said the property is zoned R -3, and the applicant could meet the parking requirements by cutting the size of the units to one - bedroom. This is poor economically as there would be more turn -over and less stability in one- bedroom apartment rentals. He, too, felt the width of the driveway posed no problem for fire protection. He was in favor of requiring applicant to meet open space standards as it adds to appearance of any development and will be usable open space for the potenti- al occupant. He would go along with the reduced driveway width and parking spaces. Commissioner Atkins referred to the checklist of standards for granting a variance, and did not feel the subject property was unique and applicant could make reasonable use of his property. He felt "open space" should be more than patios and balconies,- open space should be not just for the apartment dwellers but for the whole community, for aesthetic reasons, and would prevent overcrowding the community. He questioned that a 10 -ft. driveway would adequately serve the proposed complex. He was against re- ducing parking requirements. In granting this application he questioned what would happen if the entire area followed this precedent which could result in a high - density neighborhood with an overcrowded condition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF JULY 11, 1972 PAGE THREE Chairman Garvin said presently the Commission is studying parking require- ents for the City 'to encourage more two- and three- bedroom units to be built; however, he felt the parking is important as the street Is one that can be developed into R -3 and the parking problem could multiply. He had no objection to the balcony being added to meet open space requirements. The moment you start diminishing open space in one development, others will follow and the problem will be compounded. He was not convinced a 10 ft. driveway would be adequate, and until such time as this fact can IIIbe determined, he was against reducing the driveway width. He emphasized he was not against the density on the street if developed to City standards; however, when granting a. variance for three items in one application there could be a series of such applications for 50 ft. lots and some major prob- lems might develop. Commissioner Beckman moved to grant Variance 72 -374 subject to staff re- commendations, that adequate open space be provided, the driveway width be increased to•12 ft, as required, and parking remain at 10 spaces. Com- missioner Lawson seconded the motion. Roll call vote resulted in Commis- sioners Atkins and Garvin voting against the motion, and Commissioners Beckman and Lawson for it. Motion lost. Commissioner Atkins moved to deny Zone Variance 72 -374 as granting this IDvariance would be contrary to the General Plan and constitute bad preced- ence. Motion was seconded by Chairman Garvin as it does not meet the conditions of granting a variance. A roll call vote resulted in Commis - sioners Beckman and Lawson voting against, and. Atkins and Garvin voting in favor of the motion. Motion lost. Asst. City Attorney White read Section 9209 of the Temple City Zoning Code with reference to procedure to follow when Planning Commission is unable to reach determination as to zone variance, said variance automatically goes to the Council after 40 days. An alternative to this procedure would be to continue the matter until the next meeting with the possibility of IIIa new Commissioner being appointed in the meantime who could break the tie. Commissioner Beckman moved to deny the application only to avoid holding up the applicant's ability to appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Atkins seconded, and a roll call vote resulted in Commissioners Atkins, Beckman and Garvin voting for the motion, and Lawson against. Mo- tion carried. Asst. City Attorney White read Resolution 72- 464PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING VARIANCE IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 72 -374. Commissioner Lawson moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Beckman and passed. 6. COMMUNICATIONS Director Dragicevich referred to Public Hearing Notice on Regional Planning Commission Zoning Case Np. 5898 -(5) for a change of zone from R -A to R -3 for an 0.9 acre parcel on the south side of Green- wood Avenue west of Rosemead Boulevard. Commissioners instructed staff to send letter of objection to development under present County standards for R -3, which the Commission felt are inadequate, and the area will become over - developed. 7. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK - There was no one. 8. COMMUNICATIONS A. Commercial property at 9901 -05 Las Tunas Drive (Pit Stop) The Planning Director read report of changes, if any, that had taken place since the March 22, 1971, inspection. The City has received complaints from staff and from merchants regarding the maintenance of this property. Property owner was contacted over a year ago on this matter. The Director referred to a map showing location of buildings on the property. He told the Commission they could proceed under the Property Nuisance Ordinance to improve the entire property, or under the Rehabilitation Board Ordinance and this approach would improve one structure. " 1 1 " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF July 11, 1972 PAGE FOUR Mr. Art Nicholson, owner of subject property,addressed the Com- mission, explaining he was unable to rent a portion of his property because his business is nonconforming and the City will not allow another business to locate there. Methods of correcting this situa- tion were explained to him. Chairman Garvin reviewed conditions that are contrary to provisions of Section 9480 of the Muncipal Code of the City. .Mr. Nicholson agreed to demolition of structure at 9905 Las Tunas Drive, all repairs will be conducted within an enclosed structure, parking spaces designated, border barricades be installed a long. street frontage, . neccssarZ' permits obta irned . for shed structure. He did not agree to landscaping, resurfacing of parking lot, installation of doors on work bays. Commissioner Atkins expressed the opinion that the matter must be resolved, and the commission should proceed within the format of the Public Nuisance Ordinance. He therefore moved to adopt Resolution to conduct a public hearing on this matter and set the hearing for August 22nd meeting. Motion was seconded by Com- missioner Beckman and passed. Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution No. 72- 465PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DECLARING ITS INTENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE. Commissioner Beckman moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and passed, City Manager Koski suggested to Mr. Nicholson that he get together with staff to work out a solution to the matter in the interim period, and pick up a copy of the resolution which spells out the methods of abatement of conditions contrary to the Municipal Code. B. Minor Zoning Modification 72 -19: Planning Director reported this case had been heard that afternoon. Applicant had requested approval to construct a fence in excess of permitted height in the required front yard area. The background of the case was given. The .request was granted by that Committee with the pro- vision that a covenant be signed by the applicant, and recorded, to the effect that the Olive Street frontage would be retained as the front yard. The Commissioners concurred with the decision of the Committee. C. Planning Director gave report on three zoning violations brought to the staff's attention at the last Planning Commission meeting. Question was raised as to the time allowed to correct a violation, and in-the discussion that followed it was determined to adopt a policy of first notice granting a l0 -day or 2 -week period (depend- ing on type of violation), and second notice extending that period an additional 20 days if the offending party contacts staff in response to the first notice, or has extenuating circumstances. Thereafter the violation is sent to the attention of the City Attorney for handling through the District Attorney's office. Mr. Charles Stein, 6006 Primrose, recalled the zone violation at 6000 Primrose, a woman who had nine Great Dane dogs, and the violation was finally turned over to the District Attorney, and the length of time required to correct this one violation. The Commissioners concurred that taking a. violator to court was a long drawn -out process and gave the City bad publicity, and it would be better to handle it at the staff level, if possible, or through letter from the City Attorney's office. C. Notice of a Survival School on August 7, 8, 9, 1972, at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles, was referred to, and each Com- missioner was provided with application form if they decided to attend. _PLANNING. COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING 'OF Ju.l y 1 1 , 1972 9. ADJOURNMENT 1 • 1 • PAGE FIVE There being no further business, Chairman Garvin announced the meeting would adjourn to a study.session and thence to the next regular meeting on July 25, 1972. Time of adjournment was .9:15 p,m. ATTEST: Lc--y? Sec re ary J