Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1974/08/13 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 13, 1974 INITIATION 1. CALL TO ORDER I ChaiLuuan Breazeal called to order the regular meeting of the Planning -Commission of the City of Temple City at 7:30 p.m., August 13, 1974. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Breazeal led the. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3_ ROLL CALL 1 1 Present: Commissioners: Atkins, Clark, Lawson, Breazeal Absent: Commissioners,: Stacy Also present: City Manager Koski. Asst. City Attorney White, Planning Director Dragicevich and Asst. Planner Burnham. Commissioner Atkins moved to excuse Commissioner Stacy's absence for cause. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lawson and carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of July 23; 1974 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Atkins made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to approve them as written. Motion carried by roll call vote with Commissioners Atkins, Clark and Breazeal voting affirmative, and Commissioner Lawson abstaining. Adjourned Meeting of July 23, 1974 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes, Commissioner Atkins made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to approve them as written. Motion carried by roll call vote with Commissioners Atkins, Clark and Breazeal voting affirmative, and Commissioner Lawson abstaining. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE 10800 Daines Drive (Case No. 74 -24) Robert McClendon The Planning Director said the property had been posted as required by law, and gave a background of the case, starting with November, 1969. A month following that time, when the property changed owners, staff contacted the owner regarding objectionable conditions which existed at that address, i.e., storage of inoperative vehicle and miscellaneous items. In October, 1972, the same conditions existed. Citations were issued for front yard parking, and this activity ceased; the inoperative vehicle was moved, removed and replaced at various intervals. Eventually . the property reverted back to Mr. McClendon, the original property owner, on Apr.5, 1974. The tenants left July 14, 1974, leaving behind large amounts of trash, garbage and other debris. The present owner was con- tacted in July and the property cleared of all trash and debris. How ever, the Planning Commission had already set August 13, 1974, as the date for the nuisance hearing. The Director. continued that the owner had contacted him that day saying teat, due to death in the family, he would be unable to attend this even- ing's meeting. He affirmed he would do his best to clean up the property. The outside grounds are cleared; however, some work remains to be done inside the house. There were no questions from the Commissioners, and the public hearing was declared open. No one came forward to speak to the issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1974 PAGE TWO Commissioner Atkins remarked that several windows have no glass in them, • and the house is open to entry. While the windows are shut, it wouldn't be difficult to raise them and enter. Presently he considers the property in a hazardous condition, with debris and broken glass in the house. Chairman Breazeal pointed out that broken windows were not listed as one of the conditions of abatement in Resolution 74- 571PC, wherein the Commission IIIdeclared its intent to conduct a public hearing on this property, therefore, it could not be considered at this time. A new property nuisance case for this condition would have to be instigated. Commissioner Lawson moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commis- sioner Clark and the motion carried. Commissioner Atkins moved to terminate proceedings in property nuisance Case No. 74 -24 as objectionable conditions had been abated. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried. Asst. City Attorney read title to Resolution 74- 5.72PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMICSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS TO ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE. Commissioner Atkins made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed, to waive further reading eland adopt. Commissioner: Atkins made a motion to set public hearing for September 10, 1974, to determine existence of public nuisance at 10800 Daines Drive because of the broken windows and attractive nuisance thereon. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed. Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 74- 573PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DECLARING ITS INTENT ITO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE. Commissioner Atkins moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the motion carried. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE 6374 Sultana Avenue (Case No. 74 -25) George Franzen and Carmen Placencia Director Dragicevich gave the background report, saying this property first came to the staff's attention April, 1973, and compliance was received from the tenant following letter from the staff. However, in May, 1974, the situation of weeds, carpet remnants and used lumber on the property reoccurred, and following inspections by staff and Fire Dept., the tenant was advised to clear the debris, and was granted extensions totaling 38" days. The property owner has made no effort to contact staff, and the tenant only cooperated when pressure was applied. Re- cently the property has been cleared of much of the debris in the rear yard, but some remains, including the used lumber. The Director passed pictures of the property to the Commission. The public hearing was declared open. Mrs. Galvez, 6374 Sultana Avenue, tenant, said the property was 7570 cleared, and the lumber would be removed by the 15th of August, as arrangements for its removal had been made. She questioned whether this property was under the jurisdiction of Temple City, inasmuch as the mailing address was San Gabriel. She was assured it was in Temple City. She remarked that the yard was large and she could not care for it, but the owner had made arrangements to have a gardener come every other week to care for the 'yard. 1 Commissioner Atkins made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed, to close public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1974 PAGE THREE. In closed discussion the Commissioners were in agreement that a property nuisance still exists, . and they should proceed with the case. Commissioner • Atkins moved to declare the property a public nuisance and order abatement. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed. Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 74- 574PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DETERMINING THE EXIST- ENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND RECOMMENDING ABATEMENT THEREOF. Commissioner IAtkins moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner, Lawson and passed. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE NO. 74 -415 (Precise Plan) C. Ray and Beulah L. Johnston ) Louise M. Ingram ) Maybelle Thompson ) Howard R. and Dorothy V. Spotts ) Thomas F. Mcllroy ) Richard and Eve Janda ) Owners William R. and Mildred C. Boren ) Richard J. McQuesten ) Eugene H. Thompson ) Leland. P. Tinkham ) James Baldwin - Baldwin Builders ) Site: 1 James Baldwin - Applicant The Baldwin Company 16811 Hale Avenue Irvine, California 10034 and 10040 Olive Street, on the south side of Olive Street, and 5204 Baldwin Avenue through • 5312 Baldwin Avenue, on the east side of Baldwin Avenue,_;..and 10017 through 10031 Green Street, on the north side.of Green Street, and approximately the westerly half of'5311 through 5325 Zadell Avenue, on the west side of Zadell Avenue. Director Dragicevich said notices had been sent as required. The appli- cant's present proposal is for approval of an RPD Precise. Plan relating to the construction of a 79 -unit condominium project. A zone change from R -1 to RPD (12.8 units per acre) was granted by City Council by Ordinance 74 -386 on June 18, 1974, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission.. The Director referred to the Plot Plan marked Exhibit "A" showing the proposed 79 unit condominium and existing residence at 10017 E. Green Street, Exhibit "B''; the architectural appearance of the development, Exhibit "C ", a conceptual landscape plan, Exhibits "D ", "D -1,." "D -2 ", and "D -3 ", elevation and floor plans. He reviewed the factual data on the subject property, and the zoning history. He stated that the Precise Plan before the Commission this evening is consistent with the Provisional Plan and the General Plan of the City. The staff proposals were reviewed in conclusion. The public hearing was declared open. Noel Baldwin, 5302 N. Baldwin Avenue, Temple City, representing. the applicanj, said he did not wish to add anything to the staff report. He had read the conditions and was agreeable to them. Asst. City Attorney White said applicant is in the process of acquiring an additional piece of, property and at a later date will come in with a new plan to incorporate that property into. his RPD; the only purpose of tonight's meeting is.approval of the adopted Provisional Plan as a Precise Plana There was no one else to speak to the issue. Commissioner Atkins moved to close public hearing seconded by Commissioner Lawson and carried.. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF-AUGUST 13,1_974 PAGE FOUR. The Commissioners, in discussion, were satisfied that the Precise Plan seemed to be in order with the Provisional Plan. They were agreeable to the suggestion from the Asst. City Attorney to incorporate Exhibits A, .B, C, D, D -1, D -2 and D -3, unless otherwise specified. •ommissioner Atkins moved to approve Precise Plan 74 -415 with staff pro- posals as amended. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed. Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 75- 575PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPROVING A PRECISE IIILAN IN RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE. NO. 74 -415. Commissioner awson moved to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner tkins and carried. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 74 -419 Mr. and Mrs. Roi Brown, Owner /Applicant 9818 -24 Longden Avenue Temple City 1 Site: 9818 -24 Longden Avenue Director Dragicevich said notices had been sent according to law. The applicant proposes to construct grapestake fence along front and side property lines in excess of permitted height. He gave the background of the case and the efforts of the applicant to secure the property and insure privacy thereon, the results being overheight fencing and panell- ing. Other means of gaining privacy were employed, such as black plastic sheeting strung along a portion of the property, and a 10 ft. high aluminum fence. The Director:showed the.Plot Plan marked Exhibit "A" showing existing development of the subject property and proposed fencing. Factual data on -the property were reviewed, and staff proposals, if the-Commission were to grant the variance, were listed. In conclusion, the Director said an Environmental Impact Report.had been prepared with a Negative Declaration prepared, inasmuch as the appearance of the property, with the cooperation of the property owner, could be improved and the proposed . .fencing would have no impact on the environment. -There being no - questions from the Commissioners, Chairman Breazeal addressed the audience explaining the conditions for granting a zone variance under. State law, and 'asked those speaking to the issue to -confine themselves to these conditions. -The public hearing was declared open • Mrs. Jere E. Brown,9818 -24 Longden Avenue, said she had said everything in her application and would stand on that. 1 There was no one else to speak in favor of the zone variance. In opposition: Mrs. Mary Petralia, 6304 Salter Ave., described the location of windows of her home and said they did not, by their location, affect the privacy of the applicant. She questioned whether the requested wall would look like the present one, which, she said, is overgrown with vegetation onto the public sidewalk. If that overgrowth were removed, there would be no problem. Dr. Glen Church, 6256 Golden West, said the present fence between the applicant and his property would not support any additional fence upon it. The installation of the requested fence would negatively affect his property values and all property in the.area. He would like to keep consistency in the area, and was against the variance. • Mr. Frank Spina; 6310 Salter, asked if the green fence in front of.-the subject property, which serves as.a gate and is higher than - specifications, was the subject of the variance and was.told it was. Mrs, Norma Winston, 6258 Golden West, expressed the opinion that a 6 ft. fence between properties, is adequate; a 10 ft. solid fence will cut air flow to the property. She suggested that trees and shrubs be planted if applicant wanted privacy above a 6 ft. height.. She said the existing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1974 PAGE FIVE - fence- between her property and the Browns was installed 20 years ago, and 4 the posts need replacing, but she has no way of replacing those on the Brown's property. Mr. Kenneth Larson, 9819. Wendon, submitted two pictures to the Commission- which show the foliage nn the subject property's rear yard, and said there was no need for the requested wall. The screen comes to the edge of his IIIgarage;- installing the requested fence would be,injurious to his property. Ms: Marguerite Smith, 9834 Longden Avenue, said portion of the fence describe in the drawing is already installed and is not safe as it has come down and been put back up. The block wall was installed by her at her expense,, and then the additional fencing was made. She would rather not have the variance granted. The present corrugated wall separating her property.from the applicant's makes it difficult to make her property attractive. • Ms. Catherine' Church, 6256 Golden West Avenue, felt the uniqueness of the :pub ject property has not been'established, A six ft, high fence around the property would be adequate. The view of the fencing around this property is what they have to look at. In rebuttal, Mrs. Jere Brown said one might wonder why would one construct ..something so high there, and both Mr. and Mrs. Church. have said that 6 ft. is adequate. Their house is so elevated that they can see into.Mrs. Brown.'s entire backyard. The fence between the subject property and the Church's, is not supposed to be a fence. There was a permit for a greenhouse which they obtained and consequently it is now a fence because they had to stop construction so it is not finished. .But it was put up to obscure their vision into. her backyard. Shrubbery would accomplish the sane thing but it . would take more time, and in the meantime she would lack privacy. She had bought this acre of land so her two teenage boys would be kept off.. the street and would have room to grow and play in complete privacy. With reference to the testimony of owner at 6304 Salter Ave., she made' a claim regarding.invasion of her privacy from their property. In reply to the Churches' testimony,. Mrs.. Brown said she had a' great: deal of difficulty with the people who lived there previously. The 6 ft. fence there is not adequate anymore than a 4 ft. fence. A 4' ft. fence cannot keep a dog out. On numerous occasions dogs have jumped her fence in the 'front. The ordinance does not allow adequate protection for residents if they want their property enclosed. 'A great majority of people here don't fence their front yard and that is their prerogative. In'reply to Mrs. Norma Winston's remarks, at 6258 Golden West, she (Mrs Brown) claims she observed Mrs, Winston examining her entire backyard and teasing her dogs. Her fence is rotted and Mrs. Brown has been propping it up. Mrs. Brown couldn't put any extension on Mrs -. Winston's fence because it is rotting. She has had to put new supports up which she is now doing. Replying to testimony of Ms. Marguerite Smith, 9834 Longden Avenue, Mrs. Brown said the fence referred to is not as safe as her fence and i_s not even made of fencing block, it is facing block and,. on numerous occasions she has had to pick up the blocks that feel on her (Brown's) property. Referring to testimony by Mr. Larson, 9819 Wendon, she said his children get IIIon top of the wall and tease her dogs, which she calls an invasion of.privac3 Commissioner Atkins moved to close public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, and the motion passed. Commissioner Lawson said he disagreed with the applicant's statements that there were special circumstances applicable to her property, re her state- ment that it was unique in relationship to other properties in that area The height restrictions presently in the Zoning Code are adequate to protect each property owner. H. was not .in favor of granting the variance or for an extension to be made to the height of fences on that property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1974 PAGE SIX Commissioner Atkins concurred, saying the applicant has no case for a vari- ance to be granted; the property is not unique, rights of this property are •he same as any other in the area; the variance, if granted, would be injuri ous to the public welfare and surrounding properties. Commissioner Clark agreed, adding that overheight fences (8-10 ft.) are not fair to the properties next door. Shrubs and other greenery be planted and there would be no height problem then. IIIhairman Breazeal said the request does not meet requirements of Section 9200 f the Zoning Code, therefore it could not be granted. Commissioner Clark made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and carried, to deny variance in Case No. 74 -419 based on the fact that it does not meet conditions as specified in Section 9200 of the Zoning Code. Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 74- 576PC, a RESOLUTION. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING VARIANCE IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE 74 -419. Commissioner Atkins made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed, to waive further reading and adopt. Applicant was informed of her right to appeal. 410. COMMUNICATIONS A letter from Ralph M. Klein, 10139 E. La Rosa Drive, addressed to the Planning Commission, referring to the economic health of the Central Business District, was received and filed. 10. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK Mr. John C. Beaty, 9236 Pentland Street, addressed the Commission regard- ing citations received by two of his neighbors for front lawn parking. In both instances he felt _there were extenuating circumstances for the citations. Mr. Bill Duvall, 9239 Pentland, explained the reason he had parked on his front lawn and subsequently received a citation. The City Manager informed him that the Sheriff's Department had been advised to use more discretion in issuing citations for this offenee in the future. However, front and sideyard parking is prohibited by the Municipal Code. 11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS • 1 • A; Chairman Breazeal, on behalf of the Commission, presented Couuuis- sioner Lawson with a plaque in recognition of his assistance to other members of the Commission, his knowledge and leadership .and willingness to serve the City, his church and the community. B. Report by staff on Seeman School - 4949 Hallowell Avenue Pursuant to instructions by the Planning Commission, staff prepared a report on Seeman.School, covering location, size of property; existing_ Land Use, zone, characteristics of the area and the potential develop- ment. The Director read the report, and referred to letter from the El Monte School District, saying that the subject property Is not needed by their district for a school site, nor is it part of their .master plan at this time. The Commissioners agreed that the report was comprehensive and well done, and the direction for the City to take was to consider amending the General Plan for this property. Commissioner Atkins moved to set public hearing on this item for September 24, 1974. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed. C. Environmental Quality and Zoning Enforcement Program Director Dragicevich gave a report on this program's-activities for the month of July, stating 74 cases had been handled, the major problems. dealt with were property maintenance and front and side yard parking. The City has one case going to the District Attorney that concerns keeping of- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1974 1 PAGE SEVEN horses in the City. Commissioner Clark expressed concern about the recent pressure on front yard parking by the Sheriff's Department, and was assured by the City Manager that this matter had been taken care of, with instructions to the Sheriff's Department to use discretion. D. Mal's Signs - 9665 E. Las Tunas Drive Director Dragicevich said staff received inquiry regarding legality of a sign business at 9665 E. Las Tunas Drive. The business license was issued on the assumption that this operation is primarily retail. After investigation, however, staff concluded that a good portion of the premises is being used for the preparation of signs. The subject property is locate in the C -1, Retail Conunercial zone. The Commission was asked to deter- mine whether this use is compatible with the C -1 zone classification. Mr. Mal lPPiperr, owner of the business at 9665 E. Las Tunas Drive, said -MOT his business was retail, as recorded in his books for June and July, for. the State of California records. He has not painted any trucks or done any wall paintings; all the signs were painted in his shop. He has some signs painted and available for sale, others are "special order ". He has put all his savings into the business, paid a license fee and signed a year's lease, but can't advertise because the license has not yet been approved. His complete income is from retail work. In order to strengthen • his retail sales standing he invited his brother to conduct his coin business at this location. 1 Mr. Piper, in answer to questions'fror: the Commissioners, said he has some artists' supplies for sale, but the bulk of his business is painting signs. There is an art supply business in Temple City presently, and he did not want to compete with it. Presently he is operating under a valid interim license until this matter is resolved. He worked for a market chain doing show cards and can paint such cards quickly for local merchants. Mr. Jerry Jambazian, President of Temple City Chamber of Commerce, sup-. ported allowing this business in the C -1 zone, saying Mr. Piper is an asset to Temple City. He has been able to move his business from home to the Boulevard which is a better situation. He is serving the merchants in Temple City; the City is realizing a return on the retail sales he is producing. He further suggested that. the permitted uses in C -1 zone should be reviewed periodically by the Commission and brought up -to -date, eliminating some inequities that, in his.opinion, .exist now. Mrs. Violet Borden, 561 N. El. Molino Ave., Pasadena, owner of subject property, said the store had been vacant for the past two years. She had • opportunities to rent it, but declined because she felt the use was not acceptable. She has been very pleased with Mr. Piper as a tenant, his shop is always clean, and he presents a neat appearance. ,She asked the Couiuiission to personally check out the operation. Commissioner Atkins, in discussion, said the C -1 zone was developed as a. retail shopping district for businesses that would be supported to a major extent by foot traffic. .The subject business is a service to the local merchants. The question before the Commission is whether this use is compatible in the C -1 zone. Commissioner Lawson said he considered this use suitable for C -1 zone, unless it developed into an obnoxious operation, Commissioner Clark • concurred, saying that, in his opinion, .it was a retail business because Mr. Piper was creating and selling what a segment of the buying public wanted. Chairman Breazeal agreed, saying as Mr. Piper increased his stock of printed cards it would devei:Jp into more retail sales than presently. The Planning Director said, in considering this use for the C -1 zone, • the Commissioners should impose some relationship for space, that the display area should be predominant part.of the'building, and the area for painting the signs be the smaller portion. There'should be no outside storage or display.- The City Manager said the Board of Equaliza- tion definition of retail sales differs slightly from the City's, which fact should be considered. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1974 PAGE EIGHT • 1 Commissioner Lawson moved to recommend to the City Council a clarification . of ambiguity in the C -1 zone, that the subject use should be retail sales of signs, show cards and posters, and on premise preparation of such signs, if such activity did not comprise greater than 50% of the floor area or 500 sq. ft., whichever is less. Motion was seconded by Com- missioner Clark and carried. Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 74- 577PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY. OF TEMPLE. CITY RECOMMENDING TO THE. CITY COUNCIL THE CLARIFICATION OF AN AMBIGUITY IN THE TEMPLE CITY ZONING CODE. Commissioner Lawson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Atkins and carried, to waive further reading and adopt. Mr. Jerr Jambazian, President of Temple City Chamber of Commerce, re- quested t as toe Commission give serious thought to updating the per- mitted uses in the C -1 zone, and that he would be willing to work withthetr. on it. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner Clark made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and carried, to adjourn to the next regular meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ATTEST: