HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1974/06/11 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 11, 1974
INITIATION
• 1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Pro Tem Clark called to order the regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Temple City at 7:30 p.m., June
11, 1974.
III 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Pro Tem Clark led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners: Atkins, Breazeal, Stacy, Clark
Absent: Commissioners: Lawson
Also present: Asst. City Attorney White, City Manager Koski, Public
Works Coordinator Leonetti, Planning Director Dragicevich and Asst.
Planner Burnham
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting of May 28, 1974
• There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner
Atkins moved they be approved as written. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Breazeal and passed.
1
1
•
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 74 -416
Soterios and Mary Bicos - Owner /Applicant
1282 Echo Glen
Altadena, California
Site: 9200 Las Tunas Drive
Planning Director Dragicevich informed the Commission that this case was
continued in order to give applicant and staff an opportunity to work
out details as to the physical development of the property, to attempt
to avoid the problems that existed with the previous restaurant at
this location. As a result of a meeting with the applicant, staff
developed a set of revised conditions and the Director also referred
to Revised Exhibits "A" and "B ".
In answer to Commissioner Breazeal's questions, the Director said the
proposed enclosure walls of the patio area on the west side would con-
sist of a solid .wall ._on the bottom portion with glass above. The
surrounding wall along the front and rear would be similar construction.
City Manager Koski requested the Commission give consideration to the
location of the outside food service window. In the past, in review-
ing convenience food establishments with such facility, it has been
observed that there is no control over service to the patrons, and
it is desirable, especially in the later hours, to have this control.
The trend, as for instance with McDonald's, is to enclose the service
windows.
The Planning Director informed the Commission that a petition had been
received this evening, with 52 signatures, asking the Planning Com-
mission to deny the request for a conditional use permit. Asst. City
Attorney White asked if the party who circulated the petition was in
the audience. Mr. Joseph Benti, 5844 Encinita, said he had circulated
the petition on Encinita, and others (not present tonight) had cir-
culated it in other areas. The Commission was instructed by Asst.
City Attorney that only the signatures on Encinita could be considered
tonight, since the other parties involved in the petition were not
in attendance.
Chairman Lawson arrived at 7:55 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF June 11, 1974 PAGE TWO
Commissioner Breazeal questioned the staff's recommendation to remove the
24" wall along Las Tunas Drive.. Mr, Burnham explained it will add
•to the aesthetics to have this area landscaped rather than the low block
wall.
1
Asst. City Attorney said all testimony heard at the previous meeting is
part of this meeting, and the Commission and those giving testimony
tonight should refer to the revised plot plan and not repeat what has
been previously said.
The public hearing was declared open.
Mr. Soterios Bicos, applicant, 1282 Echo Glen, Altadena, said the pro-
posed operation had no relationship to the Jack -in- the -Box; this was a
different type of operation and different management. He has been in
business 18 years and has had no problems with neighbors. Any problems
that arise, he will attempt to correct. He was open to any suggestions.
In answer to Commissioner Stacy, Mr. Bicos said there is a service window
inside the structure to serve those eating there, and one window outside.
One window is for orders and the other for pick -up. He is willing to
enclose the outside window, but it would not control the food going out.
He was in agreement with all the revised conditions as suggested by the
staff.
• Mrs. Wheatley, 5138 N. Camellia, owner of the property directly south of
the subject property, was concerned about the noise, and asked about the
hours of operation. She recalled .. the trouble they had with the previous
restaurant. She was not opposed to the request per se. She was familiar
with the applicant's business in Alhambra and spoke highly of the quality
of the food there.
1
Mr. Wheatley, 5138 N. Camellia, asked that the City consider requiring some
sort of device on the bins against the fence, with lids that bang against
the fence. Commissioner Clark said there existed an ordinance requiring
these bins to be closed.
In opposition:
Mr. Joseph Benti, 5844 Encinita, said he was responsible for circulating
a portion of the petition and said those who signed the petition, for the
most part had lived there when the previous restaurant was in operation,
and were happy to sign against the request. He was objecting because of
the former business, and said the outdoor setting of the proposed business
would encourage a type of clientele who will socialize there.
Commissioner Stacy remarked: that staff has been working with Mr. Bicos to
install sound barriers toward the rear and other areas to eliminate or
subdue the noise problem.
Applicant declined opportunity for rebuttal.
Commissioner Breazeal moved to close public hearing, seconded by Com-
missioner Atkins and the motion passed.
In closed discussion Commissioner Atkins said he had reviewed the new
conditions presented by staff, and revised plot plans and was very pleased
with them. Great effort has been expended to improve the building and
make the site acceptable to the neighborhood, and he was in favor of grant-
ing. The entire text of the petition is basically an attack on the previous
restaurant and the City Council felt the same way about the operation. Mr.
Bicos is proposing a different type of operation. He was disregarding the
petition as it is not relevant to this case.
Commissioner Breazeal concurred about 'the efforts of the applicant to make
the building acceptable, and the writing of the petition. With conditions.
• as outlined, every effort to provide maintenance and supervision extended
by the applicant, he was in favor.
Commissioner Stacy agreed, feeling the applicant has been cooperative in
attempting to block off noise to adjacent property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 11, 1974 PAGE THREE
Chairman Lawson abstained, having been absent
Commissioner .Clark said it would be unfair to
• of the operation of the previous restaurant.
places in the City that have take -out windows
operate, and create no problems.
1
•
1
at the previous meeting.
deny this application because
There are other food service
and they are allowed to
Commissioner Atkins moved to grant Conditional Use. Permit 74 -416 with
staff conditions as revised, as the request meets the criteria for granting
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stacy and passed by roll call vote with
Commissioners Atkins, Breazeal, Clark and Stacy voting for the motion, and
Chairman Lawson abstaining.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 74- 561PC, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT IN CASE NO. 74 -416. Commissioner Breazeal moved to waive fur-
ther reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and passed.
Chairman Lawson assumed the Chair.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO.. 74 -418
Herman and Michelle Tracey - Owner /Applicant
4849 Robinhood Avenue
Temple City
Site: 4849 North Robinhood and
10033 -37 East Lower Azusa Road
7. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 548
Site: 4849 North Robinhood and
10033 -37 East Lower Azusa Road
Chairman Lawson announced these two items would be heard concurrently
as they involved the same property.
Director Dragicevich stated the applicant proposes to divide the sub-
ject property into two parcels, one of which would have the residential
structure located less. than. 15 ft. from the rear property line. He
described the plot plan marked Exhibit "A", showing existing and pro-
posed development, and reviewed the factual data, concluding by list-
ing the staff proposals if the variance is granted. He then gave staff
proposals if the Tentative Parcel Map is approved, and concluded by
• saying that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, an Assessment of Environmental Impact was prepared, with a Negative
Declaration.
•
1
In answer to questions from the Commissioners, the Director said 1) the
lot to the east (4835 Ryland) had been split previously as it was part
of the original subdivision; 2) that there are no sidewalks on Robin -
hood, and the City Manager requested this item not be required, however,
the driveway approach should be upgraded; 3) setbacks of 15 ft. are
required by City Regulations, and the driveway turn - around conforms as
there is 30 ft. between driveway approaches, but the turn - around has to
be widened to 25 ft. (on Lower Azusa Road).
The public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Michelle Tracey, 4849 Robinhood, said they were requesting the lot
split so they can make improvements. They hope to build a 4 -plex in-
stead of a duplex. In answer to Chairman Lawson's question, Mrs. Tracey
said on the R -4 lot there would be 9 parking spaces, and presently there
is,only one. There are 4 units on it presently. Of the nine proposed
parking spaces, 5 would be covered and 4. open. The Planning Director
explained that, for the six units, they would be required to have 13
parking spaces, of which 12 will be enclosed. It was pointed out that
the Code allows maintenance of existing parking, but for new development
the applicant will have to meet Code requirements. The Director stated
there would be better parking than what was there, and extra parking
for existing units, outlined on the plot plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 11, 1974 PAGE FOUR
Commissioner Atkins said the existing residential unit is legal nonconform-
ing as far as parking is concerned, and he did not consider the parking situa-
tion germain to the cases before the Commission. If it meets the Code the
•
Commission cannot exceed Code requirements.
Mrs. Tracey answered Commissioner Clark that the existing shed was never
used as a garage, and is to be removed. She explained how the exist-
ing single garage is to be reoriented.
There being no further questions, Commissioner Atkins moved to close public
hearing, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and passed.
The Zone Variance was considered first, with Commissioner Breazeal opening
the discussion by saying the property is unique because of the dual zoning,
but it is not unique as far as topography, and the property certainly could
be used without a variance. He could see no hardship or denial of privileges
enjoyed by others. The application makes sense because of the zoning on
that property, but this is a major change in the rear yard setback and will
increase the density of single - family residence and overcrowding on the
size of the property. He could see no special circumstances and was against
the request.
Commissioner Atkins said he would like to see the split according to zone;
however, any endorsement from the Commission would encourage proliferation
•
and approval would not improve the neighborhood; the problems would still
remain and might increase. He was against the request.
Commissioner Stacy said the property is somewhat unique because of zoning
and he considered it a good idea to split it off - there might be problems
in the future if it is not divided now. The rear portion should be split
because of its zoning and location. He, too, felt there was no hardship
except perhaps the zoning. The request is consistent with the General Plan,
and he felt would not be setting a precedent. He was in favor of granting.
ICommissioner Clark was in favor of splitting the lot, letting property go
on Robinhood since it conforms to the neighborhood;. on the other portion of
the lot, if they are going to upgrade the property, this is desirable. The
houses are old but compatible to the surrounding area. He was in favor.
Chairman Lawson said this property is unique. Adjoining properties enjoyed
splitting off rear lots and this property was not split at the same time.
It is unfortunate that the house on the R -1 lot is sitting as far back
against the rear property line, but these people probably enjoy a greater
front yard than other properties in the area. There is adequate open space.
Improving the R -4 section would upgrade the neighborhood. He had mixed
•
emotions about the parking but realized additional parking requirements
above the code cannot be imposed, and added the applicant should consider
providing adequate parking for residents on this lot. He was in favor.
Commissioner Stacy moved to grant the zone variance request based on the fact
that the property is unique, with staff recommendations as modified. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed by roll call vote with Com-
missioners Clark, !Stacy and Lawson voting affirmative, and Commissioners
Atkins and Breazeal voting against. For the record, Commissioner Atkins
stated he voted against as this would constitute condoning the expansion
of a nonconforming use by the City and Planning Commission.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 74- 562PC, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE
IN CASE NO. 74 -418. Commissioner Stacy moved to waive further reading and
adopt, seconded by Commissioner Clark, and the motion passed unanimously.
The Commission next considered Tentative Parcel Map No. 548.
Commissioner Atkins said his feelings were as stated previously, that grant-
• ing would be a substantial expansion of a nonconforming use.
Commissioner Stacy moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map ,548 with conditions
as modified. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed by roll
call vote with Commissioners Clark, Stacy and Lawson voting for and Com-
missioners Atkins,and Breazeal voting against the motion.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 11, 1974 PAGE FIVE
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 74- 563PC, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPROVING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 548. Commissioner Stacy moved to waive further reading and
• adopt, seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed unanimously.
8. COMMUNICATIONS
1
1
1
(a) Future Development of Golden West Avenue
The Commissioners agreed to consider this matter at a study session
following the budget session on Monday, June 17, 1974.
(b) Amendment to the General Plan
East side of Temple City Boulevard
from Broadway to Olive Street
The Planning Director said the City Council, at their meeting of June
4, 1974, continued the public hearing on the above appeal to July 16,
and requested the Planning Commission to review the case and the appeal
of the applicant to determine whether a public hearing should be set to
consider an amendment to the General Plan.
After discussion the Commissioners instructed staff to write a memo
to the City Council that the Commission, in considering any case before
it, always takes into consideration whether the granting of a request
will comply with the General Plan, and if not, whether the General
Plan should be modified.
In consideration of the request for a zone change on Temple City
Boulevard, the Commission determined that there were not sufficient
grounds to justify recommendation to amend the General Plan.
9 TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK
Mr. Norman L. Kreuder, 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, one of the
owners of the Romanesque Apartments, 5610 -24 Welland Avenue and
5633 Santa Anita Avenue, referred to letter received from the Planning
staff as a result of the Planning Commission's consideration, on April
9, 1974, to conduct public hearing to determine existence of a public
nuisance. In that letter was a list of conditions to be corrected,
consisting of building, safety, health and fire code violations. Mr.
Kreuder reviewed them and informed the Commission what action had been
taken in each instance. While all the conditions had not been corrected,
he gave the progress report on those still uncompleted.
City Manager Koski asked about the restroom facility serving the pool
area. Mr. Kreuder replied it is handy to the pool but does not serve
it, and is locked now and will remain so until the saunas are refinished.
Mr. Koski also referred to the maintenance of the lawns on Welland, which
is a residential area. Mr. Kreuder responded that the manager had been
doing this maintenance, but he may have to resort to outside help
temporarily while improvements are in progress; he would discuss it with
the manager.
Mr. Kreuder pointed out that he and his partners had owned the property
for only about six weeks, and that it was badly run -down when they pur-
chased it. The Commissioners felt impressive progress had been made;
that the new owners had an investment to protect which was a motivation
to upgrade and maintain the property. If there was indication that
deterioration was again setting in, the matter could be brought to the
Commission's attention at that time. The Commissioners were impressed
with the progress.
10. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
(a) Property at 9044 Olive Street
Asst. Planner Burnham gave a report on 9044 Olive Street, a previous
property nuisance case, where the property owner had never completed
• correcting violations listed in the case. He listed specific items
for correction and recommended they be incorporated in resolution to
determine existence of a public nuisance, if this is the wish of the Com-
mission. Commissioner Atkins moved to conduct a public hearing to deter-
"
1
1
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N M I N U T E S
M E E T I N G O F J U N E 1 1 , 1 9 7 4 P A G E S I X
m i n e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a . p u b l i c n u i s a n c e o n J u l y 9 , 1 9 7 4 , a n d t o
i n c l u d e a c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e e x t e r i o r s t u c c o a n d t r i m b e p a i n t e d .
M o t i o n w a s s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r B r e a z e a l a n d p a s s e d u n a n i m o u s l y .
A s s t . C i t y A t t o r n e y r e a d t i t l e t o R e s o l u t i o n 7 4 - 5 6 4 P C , A R E S O L U T I O N
O F T H E P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N O F T H E C I T Y O F T E M P L E C I T Y D E C L A R I N G I T S
I N T E N T T O C O N D U C T A P U B L I C H E A R I N G T O D E T E R M I N E T H E E X I S T E N C E O F A
P U B L I C N U I S A N C E . C o m m i s s i o n e r A t k i n s m o v e d t o w a i v e f u r t h e r r e a d i n g
a n d a d o p t , s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r S t a c y a n d p a s s e d u n a n i m o u s l y .
"
( b ) M i n o r Z o n i n g M o d i f i c a t i o n C a s e N o . 7 4 - 3 3
D i r e c t o r D r a g i c e v i c h r e p o r t e d o n t h i s c a s e , w h e r e i n a p p l i c a n t r e q u e s t s
t o c o n s t r u c t a 1 3 - u n i t c o n d o m i n i u m p r o j e c t w i t h o n e s t r u c t u r e o v e r 1 5 0
f t . i n l e n g t h , a t 9 0 2 8 - 3 0 R a n c h o R e a l R o a d . H e r e v i e w e d o p e n s p a c e ,
l o t c o v e r a g e a n d r e f e r r e d t o P l o t P l a n i n t h e c a s e , a n d s a i d t h i s
p r o j e c t w i l l c o m e b e f o r e t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a s a s u b d i v i s i o n . T h e
C o m m i t t e e g r a n t e d t h e r e q u e s t t o e x c e e d t h e p e r m i t t e d l e n g t h o f a
b u i l d i n g , T h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s h a d n o q u e s t i o n s a n d a g r e e d w i t h t h e C o m -
m t ' t e e ' s - : d e e i s i o n . � . . . "
( c ) F e d e r a l L a n d U s e A c t
C o m m i s s i o n e r A t k i n s a s k e d t h a t a l e t t e r b e s e n t t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
F e d e r a l a g e n c i e s b y t h e C i t y C o u n c i l e x p r e s s i n g d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e
F e d e r a l L a n d U s e A c t . C i t y M a n a g e r K o s k i s a i d t h e C i t y C o u n c i l t a k e s
s u c h a c t i o n w h e n e v e r l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e y d e e m
u n d e s i r a b l e . H o w e v e r , h e s u g g e s t e d t h i s m a t t e r b e b r o u g h t t o t h e
s t u d y s e s s i o n o n M o n d a y w i t h t h e C i t y C o u n c i l .
( d ) F u n d s f o r P l a n n i n g a n d E n g i n e e r i n g A i d e
C h a i r m a n L a w s o n a s k e d t h a t t h e C i t y C o u n c i l c o n s i d e r a l l o c a t i n g f u n d s
f o r a P l a n n i n g a n d E n g i n e e r i n g A i d e t o a s s i s t i n t h e C o d e E n f o r c e m e n t
a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y p r o g r a m c o n t i n u a t i o n . C i t y M a n a g e r r e p l i e d
t h e C i t y C o u n c i l a d o p t e d t h i s p r o g r a m a n d i s a n x i o u s t o h a v e i t c o n -
t i n u e ; h o w e v e r , i n p u t t o t h i s e f f e c t f r o m t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
w o u l d b e a p p r e c i a t e d .
( e ) P r o p e r t y a t 1 0 6 5 9 D a i n e s D r i v e
C o m m i s s i o n e r S t a c y a s k e d s t a f f t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s p r o p e r t y . A s s t .
P l a n n e r B u r n h a m r e p o r t e d t h e s t a f f i s c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g o n t h i s p r o b l e m
a n d t h e C i t y i s c o n s i d e r i n g t u r n i n g t h e m a t t e r o v e r t o t h e F i r e D e p t .
4 1 / 1 1 . A D J O U R N M E N T
T h e r e b e i n g
t h e m e e t i n g .
u n a n i m o u s l y .
1
n o f u r t h e r b u s i n e s s , C o m m i s s i o n e r A t k i n s m o v e d t o a d j o u r n
M o t i o n w a s s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r C l a r k a n d c a r r i e d
M e e t i n g a d j o u r n e d a t 9 : 2 5 p . m .
. c .
C h a i r m a n