Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1974/01/22 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 1974 • INITIATION 1. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Lawson called to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City at 7:30 p.m., January 22, 1974. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Lawson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL • 1 • 1 • Present: Couunissioners - Atkins, Breazeal, Clark, Stacy, Lawson Absent: Commissioners - None Also present: City Manager Koski, Asst. City Attorney White, Planning Director Dragicevich and Assistant Planner Burnham. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 8, 1974 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Breazeal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and passed unanimously, to approve minutes of regular meeting of January 8, 1974, as written. Adjourned Meeting of January 8, 1974 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Clark made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Breazeal, and passed unanimously, to approve minutes of adjourned meeting of January 8, 1974, as written. Adjourned Meeting of January 17, 1974 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Breazeal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and passed unanimously, to approve minutes of adjourned meeting of January 17, 1974, as written. 5 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.CASE NO. 74 -409 Louis P. Smaldino - Owner 621 W. Wisteria Arcadia, Ca. 91006 Fotomat Corporation - Applicant 14649 Lanark Street Panorama City, Ca. 91402 Site: 6246 Rosemead Boulevard Director Dragicevich gave the staff report, saying applicant proposes to construct a Fotomat kiosk (drive -in photographic supply) in con- junction with an existing and commercial development on the subject property. He explained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A" which shows existing commercial development on the north and east side of the subject property and the proposed development on the south side of the property, the proposed parking layout and new commercial building pre- viously approved with conditions relating to the approval of the Fotomat. He also referred to Exhibit "B" which shows elevations and signs for the proposed Fotomat, gave the factual data and staff proposals if the re- quest is granted. The issue in this case is that drive -in businesses require a conditional use permit under the Zoning Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of January 22, 1974 PAGE TWO He stated that a Negative Declaration had been prepared on Assessment of the Environmental Impact if the use is approved. IDCommissioner Atkins questioned staff proposal No. 1, that the construction of the Fotomat shall not begin until construction is commenced on commercial development approved in MZM Case 73 -28. The Planning Director explained part of the reasoning behind that proposal was aesthetic, and further, the accesses to the facility and paving must be done prior to the kiosk being IIIinstalled. If these improvements were installed prior to the building of the kiosk there would be no objection to having it built first. Commissioner Atkins questioned proposal. No. 2 (that upon termination of use or the conditional use permit for cause, the kiosk and appurtenant structures shall be removed) and the City Attorney said this condition is not enforceable. Commissioners Breazeal and Atkins next referred to proposal No. 5, limit- ing hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The Director stated the applicant proposed these conditions in the application form, and to prevent possibility of crime it was the staff's opinion the hours should not be extended beyond 8:00 p.m. The Commissioners felt this was a ques- tion of economics and should be at the discretion of the applicant and operator. Commissioner Clark was concerned about an existing building on the east side of the property . which was residential. He was informed it is not to be demolished, the owner would use the upper floor for offices and the ground floor for parking spaces. It will be renovated and have a commercial appearance. The public hearing was declared open. Miss Rori Nordhausen, 14649 Lanark Street, Panorama City, representing Ithe applicant, referred to condition No. 1, saying applicant would like to be able to begin cnnstruction before owner is ready to start the com- mercial project. Lessor is willing to pay for paving and ingress and egress. Condition No. 2, relating to demolishing the kiosk upon termina- tion of use is a condition of the lease Fotomat has with lessor. She questioned the length of planter specified in condition No. 4, and was told it could be less than, but not more than 30 ft. in length. She did not want the hours restricted. as it might prove more profitable to vary them because of location and other conditions. Regarding the condition to have a permanent irrigation system, the company has maintenance trucks servicing the stores to water the planters on a regular basis, and per- •sonnel from the operations area offices visit the stores once or twice a day to see that maintenance is being taken care of. She did not feel a permanent irrigation system was necessary. Responding to an inquiry from Commissioner Atkins, she said if one of their stores is being burglarized regularly or frequently, the company sets up a burglary system. The Fotomat on Lower Azusa Road and Halifax has been in operation successfully since 1970 and has no record of being burglarized. Mr. Louis Smaldino, 621 W. Wisteria, Arcadia, owner of the subject property, said his lease with Fotomat stipulates that, in the event Fotomat terminates business, the kiosk will be removed, and they will leave the land in conform- ance with remaining property. IThe Fotomat structure takes only a couple days to install. He was in favor of it being built prior to other improvements; the parking is adequate.He is agreeable to provide ingress and egress and paving. Presently, with prices for construction rising daily he is not certain when he will proceed with his plans for the commercial development; however, the existing build- ings have already been partially face - lifted, have been converted to offices. They were vacated as residential buildings two years ago. As for the • irrigation system, the cost for installing it for the entire project is minimal, and including the Fotomat planter in their system plans was not objectionable to him; however, the cost might be a factor to Fotomat. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of January 22, 1974 PAGE THREE Mr. John Neil, Temple City, objected to the location of the Fotomat on the commercial development, feeling better use could be made of the property. • There being no one else to speak to the issue, Commissioner Breazeal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and passed, to close public hearing. Commissioner Atkins opened discussion by saying the project is basically consistent with criteria for granting conditional use permit. The traffic IIIflow at this location will be worked out. The use will not generate that much more traffic, anyway. He felt the Fotomat could be installed prior to planned future development of the commercial property if the paving and driveway accesses are put in prior to construction; the condition to remove the kiosk and appurtenant structures upon termination of the use should be deleted because it would not be possible to enforce; hours of operation will be dictated by economics, and the requirement for a permanent irrigation system should remain as the property owner said it would be a minor item. He was in favor of granting with these changes in staff proposals. Commissioner Breazeal was in concurrence with these changes, except he would not require the permanent irrigation system. Property nuisance standards of the City and regular inspection by the Fotomat officials would take care of landscaping care. IIICommissioner Clark also felt hours of operation should not be part of the resolution; and an irrigation system was not necessary with other City regulations. Commissioner Stacy agreed. with Commissioner Atkins' proposals, except that the irrigation system should not be required. Chairman Lawson concurred with other Commissioners. He said present plot plan should be modified so that the City has a new plan showing develop- "'of driveways. The permanent irrigation system will be installed in the entire development and could be tied in with this use at the same time, he felt. Commissioner Atkins responded to comment made by Mr. John Neil, saying that both uses can be tied in with landscaping and the end result will not de- tract from surrounding areas. He then moved to grant Conditional Use Permit 74 -409 as it met tri.terial for granting, modifying Condition No. 1 to allow Fotomat to build the kiosk before construction of the commercial buildings, providing paving and accesses are in and applicant submit plot plan to Planning Department for approval, deleting Conditions 2, 5 and 6. • Commissioner Breazeal seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 74- 540PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CASE NO, 74 -409. Commissioner Atkins made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Breazeal and passed unanimously, to waive further reading and adopt. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 74 -410 Armenag and Aida Goganian ) 6127 North Golden West Avenue ) Temple City, Ca. 91780 ) Owners Edwin R. and Mary Allan ) 6131 North Golden West Avenue ) Temple City, Ca. 91780 ) Robert McClellan - Applicant c/o McClellan, Cruz, Gaylord & Associates 1199 East Walnut Street Pasadena, Ca. 91106 • Site: 6127 and 6131 North Golden West Avenue PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of January 22, 1974 PAGE FOUR Director Dragicevich stated,in staff report,that the applicant proposes to develop two contiguous lots with less than required lot area and open •space per dwelling unit in an R -2 zone. He explained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A ", showing proposed development, referred to vicinity map, renderings and floor plan. He gave the factual data on the subject property and the staff proposals if the request is granted. The issues in this case were the inadequate lot area per dwelling unit in the northerly parcel, and open space per dwelling unit for the northerly IIIparcel. If the two parcels were under one ownership they would meet the criteria of the Zoning Code. The density meets requirements of Zoning Code and General Plan. With reference to the Environmental Impact Report prepared on this case, the Director said the general conclusion is that the project will cause a slight increase in noise, traffic and air pollution, and demand for municipal services. In response to Commissioner Breazeal's question, the Planning Director said the requirement for a fire hydrant came from the Fire Chief. The closest hydrant is 300 ft. to the south, owned by a different water com- pany than the one which services the subject property. In answer to further questions it was pointed out that, if the project were developed under a condominium concept the open space could be con- sidered applicable to all nine units on the two parcels; the landscaping plan on display shows proposed trees, however, the tree in the driveway will remain with the drive designed around it. The public hearing was declared open. Mr. Robert McClellan, 1199 E. Walnut Street, Pasadena, representing the owners, said it was their intention to establish a common drive easement, and it will go all the way back, if necessary, to honor the "open area ". IHe considers this project a quality development, not overdeveloped. The existing home on Parcel "B" will be maintained. He attempted, in designing the project, to consider the present neighbors by eliminating windows along the north and south side of the proposed units and most entrance doors open onto the court area. He expressed concern about the requirement for a fire hydrant for reasons of economics; all other requirements were acceptable to him. In response to Commissioner Breazeal's. question why owners didn't consider a corporate agreement, Mr. McClellan said the owner of the southerly parcel wished to maintain an existing first mortgage. The owners intend •to have a common easement driveway. The development can't be realized without the two parcels. There was no one else to speak in favor of the request. In opposition: Mr. Chris Coulter, 6220 N. Golden West Avenue, spoke against the increased density. The subject area is predominantly single- family residential, and he would prefer it to remain that way. He felt, with multiple residential in this area, the property values will go down. Granting this request will encourage building more apartments with subsequent overcrowding of schools and need for additional services and more traffic, he concluded. IMs. Joan Clayton, 6138 Kauffman Avenue, asked if these were condominiums or apartments, and if they would be individually sold. The Chairman answered her questions, also telling her the height of the wall on the north and south side would be 6 ft., the houses will be two - story, with garages, in some instances, on the ground level. She expressed concern over removal of trees presently on the property, and about the noise and exhaust from eighteen cars for the nine units. She was against the zoning for apart- .ments, but if the City is going in that direction the whole area should be rezoned for apartments. The exhaust from the additional cars would definitely have an environmental impact, in her opinion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of January 22, 1974 PAGE FIVE Mrs. Georgie Coulter, 6220 N. Golden. West Avenue, said granting the request would change an established neighborhood.. Even though the area has mostly •single- family residences, because this is a neighborhood of families with children, there is already high density.. Homeowners tend to care for their property, community, schools, the City. Renters will cause the neighbor- hood to change. There are children going up Golden West Avenue to three schools, Oak, Longden and Temple City High School, and the increased traffic from this project will only add to the existing traffic on that Istreet. Once a zone variance such as this is granted it sets the precedence for others, and there is no turning back. Mrs. Kenley, 6114 Golden West Avenue, across the street from the proposed development, was concerned about the increased number of cars and traffic on Golden West Avenue. Mr. Jack Ferraro, 6219 Golden West Avenue, felt apartments belong on a street like Baldwin Avenue, but not in this residential area The request is based on economics, because one of the owners doesn't want to relinquish his first trust deed. If nine additional units are to be built and the nearest hydrant for that area is at Golden West and Longden, the °fire pro- tection as it exists is inadequate. Mr. James Vivona, 6137 Golden West Avenue, was not against the four units •on the southerly parcel, but objected to building five units on the northerly parcel. If the parcels were developed separately the requirement would be for two 16 ft. driveways, or 32 ft., and proposed is one 20 ft. driveway, which is quite a difference. He was against the reduced open space, concerned about the traffic, gas fumes, fire hazard, and wanted the City-to remain as it is presently. Mr. George Richter, 6203 Golden West Avenue, expressed concern about the minimal space each unit would have and reduced open space. IIIMr. John McClellan, 6226 Golden. West Avenue,. said he moved from Alhambra to Temple City because c the increased number of apartments being built in Alhambra, and he doesn't want this city to do the same. He also ob- jected to the two -story structures which would destroy the neighbors' privacy and light. Mr. Ken Larsen, 9819 Wendon Way, expressed concern about increased traffic if the request is granted. Chairman Lawson called a recess at 9:40 and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. IIIMr. Robert McClellan, in rebuttal, agreed that the only reason to request a zone variance was because the owners wanted to retain individual owner- ship. Regarding increase in vehicles, they will not all start up and go onto Golden West at one time. Regarding density, no one wants the environ- ment changed. He asked the neighbors to look at the layout in detail; he is asking for a minor revision to the City ordinance. Commissioner Breazeal moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Atkins seconded the motion and it carried. The environmental impact report was considered first. Commissioner Atkins moved to approve Environmental Impact Report No. 74 -78 as pre- pared by the Planning Director. Motion was seconded by Commissioner IIIClark and carried. In discussion on the zone.variance request, Commissioner Clark had no serious objections to the request but would prefer it were all under one ownership to keep open space available to all. He sympathized with the concerns of property owners in, the area, but said owners could build four units on each parcel without a variance, with the present zoning. Commissioner Breazeal. said that, while there are no special circumstances applicable to the property, nor are. the owners suffering hardship, and while he sympathized with the property owners in the area, especially owners of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of January 22, 1974 property contiguous to the subject property, the project is consistent with the General Plan, open space and will not damage others. He was in favor of the request. Commissioner Atkins expressed appreciation to all those who came to the meeting and spoke to the issue, and the concern shown for the environ- ment. He felt very strongly about the reduced yard area per unit, but particularly about the reduced open space being proposed. In looking at the plan he could see a "sea of concrete ". He was not convinced the applicant Ihad shown "special circumstances" or "hardship ", nor is the property unique to fulfill burden of proof requirements for granting variances. The applicant could come close to what he has applied for without a zone variance. There is not sufficient justification for granting this request. Commissioner Stacy concurred with Commissioner Atkins, and said there are no special circumstances, and the hardship is self - created. Applicant has right to build according to zoning. He was against the request. Chairman Lawson had considered the case before when it was before the Minor Zoning Modification Committee. He said he viewed it as to the effect on the City, and felt a 20 ft. driveway was preferrable to 32 ft. of driveway. If the two parcels were combined the case would not have to be considered by the Planning Commission. Applicant has tried to put together a reason- able proposal which will be to the benefit of the neighbors versus what it • could be if he didn't come in for a- variance. He was in favor. Commissioner Breazeal moved to approve the request in Zone Variance Case 74 -410, subject to staff conditions, as it meets criteria for granting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed by roll call vote with Commissioners Atkins and Stacy voting against and Commissioners Breazeal, Clark and Lawson voting for the variance. PAGE SIX 1 • 1 • City Attorney White read title THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 74 -410. reading and adopt, seconded by to Resolution 74- 541PC, A RESOLUTION OF CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING VARIANCE IN Commissioner Stacy moved to waive further Commissioner Atkins, and the motion carried. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE PAINTING, BODY AND FENDER WORKS The Planning Director said a request had been submitted to the City to build, on C -3 property, an accessory structure related to automobile painting, body and fender works. The use is now permitted in M -1 and M -2 zones. A variance application could not be recommended by staff since it would constitute a use variance. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of January 8, 1974, considered the above matter and moved to set public hearing for January 22, 1974, to consider an appropriate amendment to the zoning code allowing automobile painting and body works with or without conditional use permit in the C -3 zone. A negative environmental impact declaration had been prepared by staff. Asst. City Attorney. White read the proposed amendment (Section 9400, para. 3) in which a conditional use permit would be required for the above use. The public hearing was declared open. Mr. Murrey Seidner, owner of property. at 8850 Las Tunas Drive, where the San Gabriel Auto Body Shop is located, asked that the recommendation be approved by the Planning Commission. He has been trying for about nine months to get approval for this structure, which is badly needed. There was no one else to speak to the issue. Commissioner Atkins moved to close public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Breazeal and the motion carried. In closed discussion Commissioner Atkins questioned the Assessment of Environmental Impact, in particular items 22 and 24, having to do with increase in noise and dust, and felt a "Yes" would be more appropriate than "No ". It was pointed out by the Planning Director that the use PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of January 22, 1974 PAGE SEVEN will be in an enclosed building: The City Attorney further pointed out that there was a five -day period .. in which to voice opposition to the 410Environmental Impact Assessment, which time had expired. The Commissioners agreed the proposal was in line with their thinking. Com- missioner Atkins moved to adopt resolution recommending amendment to the Temple City Municipal Code ... relating to automobile painting, body and fender works. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Breazeal and passed. IAsst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution No. 74- 542PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9400 (A) (3) OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO USES IN THE C -3 ZONE. Commissioner Breazeal moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and the motion carried. 8. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. 9. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK - There was no one. 10. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS A. Development Standards for R -3. and R -4 Zoned Property • (involving density, parking and size of units) 1 Director Dragicevich said this matter hai been discussed at the study sessions with the Planning Commission, and if agreeable, he suggested setting public hearing at this time. The Commissioners set public hearing for the meeting of February 12, 1974. City Manager Koski asked -that -.this item be well developed for presentation and have good dissemination to community and building industry, so the public hearing will be mean- ingful. It was further decided, in discussion, to consider each item separately, so that if one item got "bogged down" action could proceed on the other items. B. Asst. Planner Burnham referred to the Code Enforcement and Environmental Quality program report he presented to the Commission previously, requesting comments prior to present- ing the report to the City Council to be implemented as City policy. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Atkins' comments that he was impressed with the report, that the program is very good - among the best in the area - and he heartily urged the City Council to adopt it as policy - it is something the City can manage with present resources. C. City Manager Koski introduced Bruce Davis, the new press repre- sentative from the Temple City Times. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner Breazeal, at 10:25 p.m., made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and passed, to adjourn to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Chairman