Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1972/10/24 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 1972 INITIATION 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City was called to order by Chairman Garvin at 7:30 P.M., October 24, 1972. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Chairman Garvin. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners - Atkins, Beckman, Collister, Lawson, Garvin Absent: Commissioners - None Also present were City Manager Koski, Asst. City Attorney White and Planning Director Dragicevich. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of October 10, 1972 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Collister moved they be approved as written, seconded by Commissioner Beckman. Motion passed by roll call vote with Commissioners Atkins, Beckman, Collister and Garvin voting affirmative, and Commissioner Lawson abstaining. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 72 -378 Vince C. Fazio - Owner /Applicant 94142 E. Las Tunas Drive Temple City, California Site: 9861 E. Lower Azusa Road The Planning Director stated notices had been sent as required by law, and continued that the applicant requests a change of zone from R -4, Limited Commercial - Residential, to C -2, General Commercial zone. He gave background information on the subject property, which had been granted a variance in May, 1963, for a real estate office, then became vacant before 1967. He reviewed the factual data on this property, and 4110 the applicant's statements for requesting a zone change. He concluded with staff proposals on file in the Planning Department. The second part of Director Dragicevich's report was related to the environmental impact if the request is granted. He pointed out that traffic, noise level and safety problems would increase. Further, granting the request would represent "spot zoning ". On the positive side, if the property is occupied and properly maintained, it would add to the physical improvement of the neighborhood. Under the present zoning, or with variance, the property could be used for a real estate broker's office or uses currently permitted under the R -4 category. The public hearing was declared open. Mr. Vince C. Fazio, 94142 E. Las Tunas Drive, stated he intended to use the house on subject property for his import business. Location is next to an apartment house, and across the street (in El Monte) is C-3 (heavy commercial) zoning. He referred to pictures of his property and pointed out an easement between his property and the apartments to the west, where there is an accumulation of trash and he intends to build a wall to screen this problem which is created by residents of the apartment house. He also referred to a parking layout he had prepared for his proposed use of the property. Property has been vacant for two years; it is not suitable as a residence. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1972 PAGE TWO There was no one else to speak in favor of the zone change. r. J. B. Hoskins, 4822 N. Agnes, Questioned what kind of "import" business as proposed used furniture, books, clothing, cars. He submitted pictures of the subject property to qualify his question. Pictures were taken October 15 and 22, showing a sale of used merchandise being conducted out - of- doors. The corner has a number of accidents on record, and the proposed zoning would only increase the traffic hazard at that location. There is a number of vacant buildings on Las Tunas Drive, within a four -block area, IIIwhich could be used for retail purposes. The trash situation referred to just recently started. Under present zoning the property could be used for a doctor, dentist or lawyer's office. Mr. John Brown, 9913 E. Lower Azusa Road, stated that the properties along Lower Azusa Road get serviced by law enforcement agencies and fire fighting agencies of both Temple City and El Monte, and if the subject property goes commercial it would be an ideal location for robbery attempts. If the properties along Lower Azusa Road are going to be rezoned commercial, it will raise his taxes, too, which were raised when his property was zoned R -4 from R-1. He felt a spot in the new CRA area could be found for this business. Mr. Vince C. Fazio, in rebuttal, stated the merchandise on display in the pictures Mr. Hoskins presented to the Commission, was an accumulation of items he no longer had use for and so he held a garage sale on two success- ive weekends. A charge was made that ;he blocked the approach for trash men to collect the trash; at the time he bought the property he was not aware of the easement and considered that portion of the property his and parked his car there. The property went into escrow in October, 1971; prior to that the house had been vacant for over a year. He added that Lower Azusa Road is scheduled to be widened 4 ft. on each side and there will be more traffic, but not generated by his business. He chose this location over others in the City because he prefers Lower Azusa Road, with the heavy traffic. His original intention in buying this property was to Ilive there, but after he started negotiations, he became aware of the trash condition next door and the traffic, and decided it was not suitable for a residence. However, he could not get out of the real - estate deal. Commissioner Beckman moved to close public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the motion passed. In closed discussion Commissioner Beckman said he did not object to commer- cial development on Lower Azusa Road as it will ultimately end up being a commercial thoroughfare. However, this parcel is too small, and with widen- �ing of the street, it will be smaller still, for commercial development. If ackaged together into a larger parcel it might be usable. Commissioner Lawson concurred, adding that rezoning one piece of property would be "spot zoning ". Commissioner Collister agreed that the parcel is too small, it would be spot zoning, and added that it is not compatible with the General Plan. Commissioner Atkins stated he did not like spot zoning, but could see no other answer. It is not suitable as a residence. He was in favor of a zone change. Chairman Garvin felt there was some question of reasonable use of the Iproperty in its present state. To approve the request would definitely be spot zoning. While traffic may be no problem, the property is not adequate in size and the applicant is limited in assembling additional property. Commissioner Beckman moved to accept the environmental impact report as submitted by the staff, seconded by Commissioner Collister and passed. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1972 PAGE THREE Commissioner Beckman moved that Zone Change Case No. 72 °378 be denied as property is too small to properly develop for commercial use and granting the request would represent spot zoning in an area where no other commercial zoning exists. Commissioner Collister seconded, and a roll call vote was taken. Commissioners Beckman, Collister, Lawson an and Garvin voted favorably, with Commissioner Atkins voting against because he felt the property is unique because of its location. Mo- tion carried, • 1 Asst. City Attorney read title to Resolution 72 =472PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING ZONE CHANGE IN CASE NO. 72 °378. Commissioner Beckman moved to waive further reading, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed. Commissioner Beckman moved to adopt Resolution 72- 472PC, seconded by Commissioner Collister. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Beckman, Collister, Lawson and Garvin voting affirmative, and Commissioner Atkins voting negative. Motion carried. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 72 °379 Griffin Blake ) 1006 S. Baldwin Avenue ) Arcadia, California ) Joseph M. Bland i no ) 6257 N. Rosemead Boulevard ) Temple City, California ) Mr, and Mrs. Mark A. Ha 1 1 ) 8922 E. Longden Avenue ) Owners Temple City, California ) Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Copple ) 6251 N. Rosemead Boulevard ) Temple City, California ) Mr, and Mrs. Raymond E. D i l l berg ) 8916 E. Longden Avenue ) Temple. City, California ) Dr. and Mrs. C. E. Carmichael- Applicants 8932 E. Live Oak Avenue Temple City, California Site: 6247, 6251 and 6257 N. Rosemead Boulevard 8916 and 8922 E. Longden Avenue Director Dragicevich gave the staff report, stating the applicant re- quests a change of zone from R °1, Single-family Residential, to R °4, 1111 Limited Commercial-Residential. He gave the factual data on the properties involved, the zoning history, and applicant's statements in support of the request. He concluded with staff proposals on this case, on file in the Planning Department. The second part of his presentation was concerned with the environ- mental impact report which stated the effect of the potential uses, if the zone change is granted, would increase the traffic volume, but no increase was expected in other areas affecting environment. The posi- tive environmental effect would be that older structures would be re- placed by new ones. In conclusion, the staff felt no negative sig- nificant impact is anticipated in this area. Commissioner Beckman was concerned about preserving or replacing any trees and landscaping that might be affected in this request. Chair- man Garvin was interested in the ultimate goal of the subject property.' The Planning Director said the environmental impact report ultimately goes to the City Council with a more detailed report before a building permit is issued. The public hearing was declared open. Dr. C. E. Carmichael, 8932 E. Live Oak Avenue, said the staff report was comprehensive, but he would be happy to answer questions. His office is presently located in the CRA area, and he intends to relocate on the southernmost property involved in this zone change, on Rosemead Boulevard. Presently he has no plans for the rest of the property, but the higher- density zoning has more potential and the property owners were interested in having it rezoned. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER '.24, 1972 I PAGE. FOUR Mr. Herbert We i shan,. 6225 Rosemead Boulevard, said rezoning to either R -4 or C -2 would be a;. definite improvement as the traffic on Rosemead is too IIazardous for single-family , residences. He has lived in the area for 23 years nd has seen the properties on ,Rosemead in ..that -block deter iora,te because V he noise and traffic and dirt discourage improvements. He felt the en- tire block to Garibaldi Avenue should be rezoned. It is the only block on Rosemead Boulevard that remains R -1. Chairman Garvin said that changing the zoning to higher intensity or IIIcommercial would .increase the value of the properti-es ` involved, but would also increase taxes and the owners of these properties might have to pay the increased .taxes for a. long time before the property would be developed to its zoned potential. On the east side of Rosemead, across the street, the .zoning. is R-4 and nothing, is being done to utilize that zoning. Mr. Weishan said the current construction of a= liquor mart on-the east side might encourage action. He ,said the property owners he had talked to on the west side were in favor of changing the zone. Commissioner Beckman said nothing would be gained unless the properties on Reno Avenue were also rezoned, as the properties facing. Rosemead are too shallow to develop properly with R -4 or C zoning. Chairman Garvin added that a change of zone had been discussed with some of the property owners in that area and they would rather see it R -1 with the possibility of consolidating parcels to add width, and go back to Reno in depth. They • didn't want to pay the increased taxes unless there was something definite. Commissioner Beckman moved to close public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed. Commissioner Lawson started the closed discussion by saying he felt the proposal made good sense, he would like to see the zone change expanded to Reno on the south side of Longden Ave., and on Rosemead to Garibaldi; however, he was in favor of granting this request as presented. ICommissioner Atkins agreed, but felt only the present request should be considered at this time. The proposal would make possible more effect- ive use of the properties involved. Commissioner Collister would like an opportunity to study the whole block, but presently he felt the current application should be granted. Commissioner Beckman agreed. The assembling of five parcels, with access off Longden and Rosemead was commendable. He was not in favor of tying any other parcels to these at this time as it would necessitate a delay. •He hoped this would encourage other people in the neighborhood to assemble larger parcels to make them .workable and marketable, with access off another street and take some traffic load off Rosemead. Chairman Garvin stated he felt there were enough R -4 unused properties that could be developed, and that the City was accommodating the applic- ant. This area had been examined in depth and left R -1 for the benefit of the people living there. Along Longden there will be three zones in one block area, -. which is not good zoning, or planning in connection with the General Plan. Commissioner Collister moved the Environmental Impact. Report, as prepared by staff, be accepted, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and passed. ICommissioner Beckman moved that Zone Change Case 72 -379 be granted as the request is compatible with surrounding area, a start of what should be done (assembling of properties), and could be developed into a really workable project. Commissioner Atkins seconded the motion, and a roll call vote carried with Commissioners Atkins, Beckman, Collister, Lawson voting for the motion, and Commissioner Garvin against it. Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 72- 473.PC, •A RESOLUTION •OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING ZONE CHANGE IN CASE NO. 72 -379. Commissioner Beckman moved to waive further reading, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and the motion passed. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1972 PAGE FIVE Commissioner Beckman moved to adopt Resolution 72- 473PC, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the motion carried with Commissioners Atkins, 1111 Beckman, Collister and Lawson voting for, and Chairman Garvin against the motion. 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 72 ®380 Neal Vanderwindt and Manfred Herrmann ° Applicants /Owners 9436 E. Las Tunas Drive Temple, City, California Site: ,9436 E. Las Tunas Drive and 5845 N. Oak Avenue The Planning Director gave the staff report and stated applicants re- quest they be allowed to retain a painted wall sign in excess of the permitted square footage of the sign area. He gave the staff report, applicant's statements, and the staff proposals on file in the Planning Department. He then gave the Environmental Impact Report which states the request would have no environmental effect, but it is conceivable that the City might receive similar requests from other merchants in the area. At the present time no such requests from other merchants has been received. The sign was put up after effective date of the sign ordinance, but violation of the ordinance was not intentional, as the applicants were not aware of the existence of a sign ordinance. Illki r. Manfred Herrmann, 9436 E. Las Tunas Drive, said the wall painting is of two Volkswagens and one Porche, with red, blue, black and purple colors. He does not call it a sign. He is willing to remove the symbols and paint in solidly the colors that are now the background. Asst, City Attorney White said it is considered a sign because the automobiles relate to the type of services performed on the premises. If the automobiles are not part of the painting it would be a wall coloring. Mr. Neal Vanderwindt, 9436 E. Las Tunas Drive, said he considered the wall Ipainting "graphic art ". The building was in disrepair when he and his partner took it over. They have cleaned up the outside and consider it attractive and a great improvement over what was there previously. They have done some improving of the interior, but it is hard to keep it spot- less with the type of work done there. He has heard no negative comments on the wall painting. Many of his customers are young and he feels this painting attracts them. If the frontage on Las Tunas Drive and on Oak Avenue were combined perhaps he would have enough footage to be within the sign ordinance. While there are two business, and two licenses, at this location, they are under the same ownership, and he gets only one tax bill, and has only one street address. He pointed out that, if he emoved the automobiles from the wall painting, he could paint his build- ing any colors, and the Asst. City Attorney said it does not give him license to do that as the property could be construed as a public nuisance if the ultimate paint job was objectionable. Mr. Vanderwindt said that many people didn't know they had bought the body shop and were operating it, and the wall painting helped their business which was floundering for awhile. Chairman Garvin said it was not the sign that that made the difference, but probably the quality of the work they do. Commissioner Beckman moved the public hearing be closed, seconded by Com- missioner Lawson and passed. Commissioner Collister began the discussion by saying the request does not Imeet the requirements for granting a variance. Commissioner Beckman said the sign ordinance was quite comprehensive and was intended to upgrade Temple City, particularly Las Tunas Drive. While there are a couple signs larger than allowed, they are located on larger pieces of property. If the Commission approves this request there would be no way to deny other similar requests. It does not meet criteria' for granting a variance. IIII PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER'' 24, 1972 PAGE S I X Commissioner Lawson: disagreed with previous opinions, saying he thought the wall painting was an artistic work and an addition to the area. It S is not injurious to neighboring properties and has no adverse effect on .property values. By coming for a zone variance is one way the Commission can control future proposals. In this case he would accept this request in relations-hip to what could actually be put there. Commissioner Atkins agreed. The Thrifty - Ralphs sign is greatly over -size and was granted. This is a preservation of property rights. He felt the l" wall painting was aesthetically pleasing. The body shop needs some identi- fication. Chairman Garvin was against the proposal which is twice as large as per - mitted by the .sign ' ordinance which was developed to benefit the whole community. The Ralphs - Thrifty sign is big but the property is bigger. Commissioner Beckman wanted it brought out that Ralphs is on a parcel over two acres large which was taken into consideration. He then moved the-Envi'ronmental Impact. Report be adopted as submitted by staff, seconded by Commissioner Collister and .passed. Commissioner Collister moved that Zone Variance Case No. 72 -380 be denied because it does not - meet °the sign ordinance criteria in size, and the conditions of granting a variance per Section 9201 of the. Temple City Zoning Code are not met. Commissioner Beckman seconded and a roll call vote was taken, with Commissioners Beckman, Collister and Garvin voting for,,and Commissioners Atkins and Lawson voting against the motion which carried. Asst. City Attorney; White read t i t je to Resolution 42- 474PC, . A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING VARIANCE IN ZONE .VARIANCE CASE NO. 72 -380. Commissioner Lawson moved to waive fur- ther reading, seconded by Chairman Garvin, and the motion passed. Com- missioner. Lawson moved to adopt Resolution 42- 474PC, seconded by Chairman IGarvin, and carried by roll call vote with Commissioners Beckman, Collis - ter and Garvin :voting ,affirmative, .and Commissioners Atkins and Lawson against. Chairman Garvin declared a recess at 9:35 p.m. and called the meeting to order again at 9 :45 p.m. 8. COMMUNICATIONS A. Preliminary Draft of Open Space, .Recreation and Conservation Element The Planning Director told the Commission that additional elements are re- quired °by the State to be added to the General Plan. The draft consists of two elements, a) Open Space and Recreation and b) Conservation. He briefly explained the contents of the report, and concluded that the draft would be presented to the Traffic and Parks and Recreation Commissions for their comments. If there is a difference of opinion among the Commissions on this element .a meeting with other Commissions will be held. Commissioner Atkins moved to accept draft of the subject elements and refer it to the Traffic, Parks and Recreation and Youth Commission. Commissioner Collister seconded the motion and "i it carried. B. Environmental Impact Report The Planning Director called attention to the material in the Commissioners' packets on the Environmental Impact Report, including a letter from the City Attorney and the report which must be completed on each case that comes before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each building permit approved by the City must be accompanied by such a report, with a ''negative impact" report required on single - family residences and minor IIIadditions. The City Manager said it is possible to require a fee and place the financial burden . for completing the report on the applicant. He felt the Commission, in reviewing requests for conditional use permits, zone variances, etc.,, was already aware of the impact on the environment each request would have, but the state is making it mandatory to consider PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1972 PAGE SEVEN this impact in a more formal manner. In a zone change it could now be required to have the applicant submit a landscaping plan. An applicant who Ss denied a request because of the environmental impact report, can appeal o the City Council and then to the Courts. C. Joi:rit; Meeting with Planning :Commission and City Council City Manager stated a joint meeting would be held November 20, 1972, for Ithe Planning Commission and City Council to discuss various items, includ- ing the Environmental Impact Report. 9. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK - There was no one. 10. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A. Director Dragicevich referred to draft of an ordinance for move - ins, and asked if the Commission wished to proceed with this matter. It was the concensus of opinion to delay this item until possibly the second meeting in January, 1973. B. Director Dragicevich called attention to material in the Commis- sioners' packets on residential driveways, including circular drives. Commissioner Beckman moved to set public hearing for November 28, 1972, the regular Planning Commission meeting. Com- missioner Collister seconded and the motion passed. C. Environmental Quality and Code Enforcement Program: The Planning Director said the report on this matter sent to the Commissioners gives background on how this subject is being handled at the present time. He went on to say there are problems in certain areas, and would appreciate the Commissioners' suggestions in cor- recting the problem areas. Commissioner Lawson said as the people move out from Los Angeles into the suburbs, or from one suburb to another, they are not aware of ordinances in the new location,or their customs and habits are ingrained. It was suggested, in dis- cussion, that an emissary for the City go door to door, and meet the people in that area face to face, or to send a bulletin with a few facts, addressed personally. Further suggestions were that the City have something concrete to offer, such as information where to get home improvement loans, that street trees be available at cost through the City for those who would want to plant them. The City Manager said the present enforcement program has an 85% record for compliance. Chairman Garvin said there were a lot of things the people in the community were unaware of, however, the Newsletter is too infrequent, and there are many citizens who do not take the local paper, or if they do, they don't read it, so printed information would have to be distributed in some manner other than those two means. C. Planning Director referred to a new law which the State legislature passed requiring cities to have the zoning map correspond with their General Plan. He considered this premature zoning, especially in undeveloped areas, and bad planning practice. The Asst. City Attorney said an extension has been asked for compliance and said the City wi l l be advised of progress. D. Chairman Garvin said it would be a good idea to send both Environ- mental Impact Report and staff report to an .applicant for a condi- tional use permit or zone variance so he could peruse them prior to the hearing. This was agreeable to all concerned. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner Beckman moved to adjourn to the next regular meeting on November 14 conded by Commissioner Collister and passed. Time of adjournment ..s 10:!0 p.m. • 1 1 • CHA I ATTEST • R7J / S ECR'ETARY