HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1975/01/14 - Regular"
C A L L T O O R D E R
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
J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1 9 7 5
C h a i r m a n B r e a z e a l c a l l e d t o o r d e r t h e r e g u l a r m e e t i n g 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 a t 7 : 3 0 p . m . , J a n u a r y 1 4 , : 1 9 7 5 . .
I 2 . P L E D G E O F A L L E G I A N C E .
C h a i r m a n B r e a z e a l l e d t h e P l e d g e o f A l l e g i a n c e t o t h e F l a g .
3 . R O L L C A L L
1
1
P r e s e n t : C o m m i s s i o n e r s A t k i n s , C l a r k , L a w s o n , S t a c y , B r e a z e a l
A b s e n t : C o m m i s s i o n e r s - N o n e ,
A l s o p r e s e n t : C i t y M a n a g e r K o s k i , A s s t . C i t y A t t o r n e y W h i t e , P l a n n i n g
D i r e c t o r D r a g i c e v i c h a n d A s s i s t a n t P l a n n e r R i c h a r d s .
4 . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S : R e g u l a r M e e t i n g o f D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 7 4
T h e r e b e i n g n o a d d i t i o n s o r c o r r e c t i o n s t o t h e m i n u t e s , C o m m i s s i o n e r
A t k i n s m a d e a m o t i o n , 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 , t h a t t h e m i n u t e s
b e a p p r o v e d a s w r i t t e n . M o t i o n p a s s e d b y r o l l c a l l v o t e w i t h C o m m i s -
s i o n e r s A t k i n s , C l a r k , L a w s o n a n d B r e a z e a l v o t i n g a f f i r m a t i v e , a n d C o m -
m i s s i o n e r S t a c y a b s t a i n i n g .
5 . C O N T I N U E D P U B L I C H E A R I N G :
M O D I F I C A T I O N O F C O N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T 7 0 - 3 3 0
P a c i f i c A c k w o r t h F o u n d a t i o n
6 2 1 0 T e m p l e C i t y B o u l e v a r d
T e m p l e C i t y , C a .
T h e P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o r e p o r t s f r o m t h e L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y F i r e a n d B u i l d i n g a n d S a f e t y D e p a r t m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y , f o l l o w i n g i n s p e c t i o n s m a d e b y t h e r e s p e c t i v e d e p a r t m e n t s a t
6 2 1 0 T e m p l e C i t y B o u l e v a r d , a s r e q u e s t e d a t t h e l a s t m e e t i n g b y t h e
C o m m i s s i o n e r s . T h e F i r e D e p a r t m e n t r e p o r t w a s f a v o r a b l e ; h o w e v e r t h e
B u i l d i n g a n d S a f e t y D e p a r t m e n t m a d e s o m e , c o m m e n t s a b o u t w o r k t h a t n e e d e d
t o b e d o n e a s o u t l i n e d i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l i n s p e c t i o n i n 1 9 7 0 a n d w h i c h
h a d n o t y e t b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d .
T h e r e w e r e n o q u e s t i o n s f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n , a n d t h e C h a i r m a n d e c l a r e d
t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g o p e n .
M r . S t u a r t D e n k e r , C h a i r m a n o f t h e P a c i f i c A c k w o r t h F o u n d a t i o n B u i l d i n g
C o m m i t t e e , 2 0 2 3 L a F r a n c e , S o u t h P a s a d e n a , s a i d h e h a d r e v i e w e d t h e t w o
l e t t e r s t h e P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r r e f e r r e d t o , a n d w o u l d l i k e t o t a l k w i t h
h i s s t a f f a b o u t t h e m . I n a n s w e r t o q u e s t i o n s f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s
h e s a i d t h e F o u n d a t i o n e x p e c t e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e f i r s t g e o d e s i c s t r u c t u r e
i n t i m e f o r u s e t h i s c o m i n g , S e p t e m b e r ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; t h e y r a n i n t o c o m p l i c a -
t i o n s w i t h t h e C o u n t y i n O c t o b e r , 1 9 7 3 , a n d o n l y t w o w e e k s a g o t h e y
c o m p l e t e d t h e c o r r e c t i v e w e l d i n g . F u r t h e r , t h e y h a v e e n o u g h f i n a n c i n g
t o c o m p l e t e b u i l d i n g N o . 1 a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t a p p l y t o i t . T h e
f i n a n c i n g f o r t h e o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s d o e s n ' t e x i s t . T h e p l o t p l a n t h e y
s u b m i t t e d i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l r e q u e s t i s a " w i s h l i s t " i n a w a y .
T h e r e w a s n o o n e e l s e t o s p e a k i n f a v o r , a n d n o o n e o p p o s e d . C h a i r m a n
B r e a z e a l r e f e r r e d t o l e t t e r r e c e i v e d f r o m J o h n a n d L e n a L a t h b u r y , 6 1 5 9
N . C a m e l l i a A v e n u e , T e m p l e C i t y , i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e r e q u e s t e d e x t e n s i o n .
C o m m i s s i o n e r L a w s o n m o v e d t o c l o s e p u b l i c h e a r i n g , 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 t h e m o t i o n c a r r i e d .
C o m m i s s i o n e r S t a c y s t a t e d h e h a d r e a d t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e p r e v i o u s m e e t -
i n g a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g m a t e r i a l o n t h i s c a s e i n h i s p a c k e t a n d f e l t q u a l i -
f i e d t o s p e a k t o t h e i s s u e ,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF January 14, 1975 PAGE TWO
Commissioner Atkins said he had reviewed reports from the Fire and Build-
ing Department and got the impression both departments found the subject
property barely passable. He felt there was only one structure that was a
•real problem. He would consider a one -year extension of time but not five
years; this time would give the applicant time to complete Phase I of the
project and he would also like to see more evidence of 'good faith;to com-
plete the other requirements, such as better upkeep of the grounds, etc.
He felt there had been only a small amount of improvement evidenced in
four years.
Commissioner Clark was in favor of granting the extension of only one year,
at which time there could be a progress report.' He questioned whether the
Foundation had sufficient financing to complete that one building. Both .
he and Commissioner Atkins said they had been involved in different organiza-
tions where they had to seek financial assistance, and neither was insensitive
to the problems of raising money; however, their opinions in this matter are
based on their experience.
Commissioner Stacy compared this application to that of a shopping center,
that first they got their plans approved and obtained a conditional use per-
mit, and they then proceeded with the project. As long as they are going
forward with the construction he was in favor of extension of time, whether
it is one year or five years.
9 Commissioner Lawson said he sat on the original hearing. The objectionable
conditions that existed then are still there. He would go along with only
a one -year extension.
There was a question whether applicant could, under the present Zoning Code,
ask for more than a one -year extension, and it was pointed out that, if the
project had not been started at all, then applicant was limited; however,
in this instance, progress had been made.
Chairman Breazeal said it was the first time he could recall a time frame
Ibeing imposed on completion rather than for initiation. Applicant has
demonstrated an effort. Whether it is for a one, two, three or four years
has nothing to do with it. Applicant has encountered significant diffi-
culties. He would prefer removing a time for completion entirely from this
case:
Commissioner Atkins added to his earlier remarks that in four years' time
he felt applicant could have done a lot more with respect to maintaining the
grounds, removing the structures with donated labor, even if they lacked
funds. He concluded by moving that a one -year extension be granted, seconded
by Commissioner Clark, and the motion carried by roll call vote with Com-
emissioners Atkins, Clark, Lawson and Breazeal voting for the motion, and
Commissioner Stacy against it.
Asst. City Attorney White read title. to Resolution 75- 601PC,.A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING MODIFICATION
IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE 70 -330. Commissioner Atkins moved to waive
further reading atnd adqpt, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and the motion
carried unanimously. Chairman Breazeal informed those present of the right
to appeal the decision.
Chairman Breazeal welcomed back Mr. Pat Richards, newly appointed Assistant
Planner, who had been previously employed in another capacity in the City.
III 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE 74 -430
Joseph and Barbara Ledesma - Owner /Applicant
10761 Lynrose
Temple City, Ca.
Site: 10761 Lynrose
The Planning Director gave the staff report, saying the applicant pro-
poses to add to an existing single family residential building with
less than the required rear yard setback. He explained the plot plan
marked Exhibit "A" which shows existing and proposed structures, re-
viewed the factual data and the staff proposals.
The public hearing was declared open.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF January 14, 1975 PAGE THREE
Mr. Paul Arkane, Kustom Kraft Remodeling Centers, representing the applicant,
said the conditions were agreeable.as proposed by staff. The proposed addi-
tion is for a family room as the house is quite small and the family is in-
0 creasing. The encroachment into the rear yard area will not affect anyone
to the rear as the Arcadia Wash abuts this property, and on the one side
the garage, located to the rear of the property, would be a buffer to the
neighbors. He pointed out that it was not possible to enlarge the house in
any other direction.
Mr. Joseph Ledesma, 10761 Lynrose, applicant, in answer to question from Com-
missioner Atkins, said he had discussed the proposed addition with his neigh-
bors, inasmuch as they live on a cul -de -sac and it is a close community, and
there was no objection from any of them.
Commissioner Atkins,made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried,
to close public hearing.
The Commissioners, in closed discussion, agreed that the proposed addition
would not interfere with the enjoyment of anyone's .property, the property
is unique in that it abuts the Arcadia Wash, and the neighbors were in favor .
of it. Commissioner Atkins moved to grant variance in Zone Variance. Case
74- 430 inasmuch as there are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
property, the Wash provides a buffer to the next rear yard, the addition
will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. Motion was seconded by
0 Commissioner Stacy and passed unanimously.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution No. 75- 602PC, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANTING VARIANCE IN
ZONE VARIANCE CASE 74 -430. Commissioner Stacy moved to waive: further reading
and adopt,-seconded by Commissioner Atkins and the motion carried. Chairman
Breazeal informed those present of the right to appeal.
1
1
•
7. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE. CASE N0. 74 -431
Alba L. Runyon - Owner/Applicant,
5716 N. Rowland Avenue
Temple City, Ca.
Site: 5716 N. Rowland Avenue
Director Dragicevich gave the staff report, saying the applicant proposes
to add and connect an open patio cover between the house and garage with
reduced side setback requirements. He referred to the plot plan marked
Exhibit "A" which shows existing and proposed development, and reviewed
the factual data for the subject property, concluding his report by out-
lining the staff proposals if the request is granted. The reason for
the request, he said in answer to Commissioner Stacy's question, is to
provide protection from inclement weather when the applicant goes from
the house to the-garage.
Mr. Charles Engle, 355 W. Arrow Highway, Upland, speaking in behalf of
the applicant, said a portion of the garage is used for vehicular storage,
that the patio will be used as a carport when the weather is inclement,
so the applicant can get into the house without getting wet. The roofing
over the patio will be of metal (aluminum). The garage is a small 2 -car
size. While there is plenty of open space on the property where a patio
could be located, the proposed location was chosen because it would pro-
vide protection against inclement weather when applicant leaves his car
for the house, or enters the car from the house. The lot has many trees
and the applicant is reluctant to remove any of them to locate the patio
elsewhere on the lot. The applicant has discussed his proposal with his
neighbors and they have no objection to it.
There was no one else to speak in favor, and no one against the issue ,
therefore Commissioner Atkins moved to close public hearing, seconded
by Commissioner Clark, and the motion carried.
Commissioner Atkins was concerned whether this structure would be a car -
port or patio. The request does not meet requirements for granting a
variance inasmuch as the property is not unique, applicant is not being
denied any privileges enjoyed by other property owners.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING' OF JANUARY 14, 1975 PAGE FOUR
Commissioner Lawson said the house is 9 ft.•from the property line, the
garage only 2 ft. Granting the variance would be detrimental to the zoning
laws which require sideyard setbacks of 5 ft. He found conditions were not
• met for approving the request.
Commissioner Stacy agreed; there are no special circumstances applicable to
the property to justify granting. He was not sure of the intended use. If
it is to be used as a carport there are specific rules for construction of
it. It would have some effect on other properties and the public welfare.
ICommissioner Clark felt the proposed structure had many benefits, and would
not injure neighborhood in any way. there is a- °question whether this is a
patio or carport He was inclined to be in favor of granting request.
Chairman Breazeal said there may be future owners of the property who would
put this area to other uses. None of the criteria specified for granting a
variance in Section 9201 of the Municipal Code are met in this case.
Commissioner Atkins moved to deny zone variance. in Case No. 74 -431 as the
applicant has not demonstrated hardship, unusual circumstances nor is appli-
cant,denied privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the area. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed by roll call vote with Com-
missioners Atkins, Lawson, Stacy and Breazeal voting all in favor of the
motion, and Commissioner Clark voting against it
•Asst.;City- Attorney Wite read title to Resolution No 75- 603PC, A RESOLUTION
OF THE :PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING ZONE VARIANCE
IN CASE'NO. 74 -431. Commissioner Lawson moved to waive: further reading and
adopt, seconded by. Commissioner Atkins, and the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Breazeal informed those present of the right to appeal the decision.
1
8. PUBLIC HEARING: .ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 74 -432
Temple City Community Redevelopment Agency )
Floyd A. Brown — 8836 E. Live Oak Avenue )
W. F. Fleisher - 88722 E. Las Tunas Drive ) Owners
Thomas 0. Schlotfeldt - 8911 Wedgewood Street )
The. Planning Director said the proposed change: of zone is from R -3 and
C -3 to C -2, General Commercial. He outlined the location of the subject
property and gave the factual data on it. He said that 16 of the 18
parcels have already been acquired and are in possession of the Agency.
Further, he said that an Environmental Impact Report had been prepared
on the entire project and therefore another report on this zone change
is not required. In answer to Commissioner Clark's question about the
zoning for the remainder of the parcels in the Project Area, the Planning._
Director said as soon as they are acquired a zone change will be proposed,
or the City can seek a conditional use permit for the parking lot use.
There were no further questions, and the public hearing was declared
open. No one came forward to speak to the issue, therefore Commissioner
Atkins moved to close public hearing, seconded- -by Commissioner Stacy
and the motion carried unanimously.
The Commissioners, in closed discussion, were in agreement that this
proposal was required in order to proceed with the project and they
endorsed it. Commissioner Atkins moved to recommend-to the City Council
a change: of zone in Zone Change Case No. 74 -432. Motion was' seconded
by Commissioner Clark and passed unanimously.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution 75- 604PC, A\RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING A
CHANGE OF ZONE IN ZONE CHANGE CASE N0. 74 -432. Commissioner Lawson moved
to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and the
motion carried unanimously.
1
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1975 PAGE FIVE
9. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 552
C. Ray Johnston
10027 Green Street
Temple City, Ca.
1
1
Site.: 5325 -29 Zadell Avenue
The Planning Director gave'the staff report, saying the applicant pro-
poses to divide an existing lot and add to the contiguous parcel under
the same ownership. He'then' explained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A
which shows the subject property's existing and proposed lot lines and
development, gave the factual data and summarized the staff proposals.
Mr. C. Ray Johnston, 10027 Green Street, approached the podium_ and ex-
plained in detail to the Commission what he proposes to do, i.e., move
existing garage back 13 ft., demolish small shed lean -to, correct the
drainage. .There will be no common driveway as each parcel will have its
own driveway. Condition 5 of the staff proposals, calling for a fire
hydrant to be installed, he understood the Baldwin Development would
take care of this and the sidewalks. Location of the pool was deter-
mined by the location of trees on the property which the applicant wishes
to retain. He described the fencing location around the pool to prevent
access by the public. Curbs and gutters are already in at this location.
In Commission discussion Commissioner Stacy said he was pleased with the
proposal except for the shape of the lots. He was concerned if these
lots were to be sold separately in the future there might be problems
because of the shape of them.
Commissioner Lawson had no objection to the Tentative Parcel Map; increas-
ing a small lot to the proper size to meet the Code is an improvement
and the irregular lot shape has little bearing as long as the lot meets
the Code standards. If future owners of this property wanted to adjust
property lines this could be done.
Commissioner Clark agreed that the lot looks split up, but it is present-
ly split up, and the realignment is an improvement.
Commissioner Atkins considered the proposal a real improvement over what
is presently there. However., he agreed with Commissioner Stacy that at .
some future time it may be-necessary to make some property line adjust-
ments.
Chairman Breazeal agreed that the size and shape of the lot should not
be considered at this time; however, he did feel conditions 4 and 5 of
staff proposals..(easement for common driveway, and fire hydrant) should
be. deleted inasmuch as.applicant has stated there would be no common
driveway, and that applicant..should not be solely responsible.for the
fire hydrant required by the Fire Department.
Commissioner Atkins moved to approve Tentative Tract Map 552 with staff
proposals except for 4 and 5.. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lawson
and carried with Commissioners Atkins,'C1ark,.Lawson and Breazeal voting
affirmative in a roll call and Commissioner Stacy voting negative.
Asst. City Attorney White read. title to Resolution No. 75- 605PC,.A RESOLU-
TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 552.. Commissioner Lawson moved to waive.further
reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Clark and the motion carried_,
unanimously.
Chairman Breazeal called a recess at 9:05 p.m., and reconvened the meet-
ing at 9:16 p.m.
41110. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1975 PAGE SIX
11. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK - No one came forward.
41112. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
(a) Set - :Public. Hearing to Consider
Amendment to Municipal Code re
Outdoor_ ,Display of Merchandise in
Commercial Zones
1
(b) Set Public Hearing to Consider Amendment
to Municipal Code re Yard Sales in Resi-
dential Zones
The Commissioners concurred they wanted to study these items further
prior to setting public hearing. Commissioner Atkins moved to table
them to study session on January 21, 1975, for further discussion.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried.
In response to Commissioner Stacy's question about the City's parti-
cipation in Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the City
Manager explained that cities with population under 50,000 would not
receive funds directly but through the County as the Board of Super-
", visors adopted, a policy allowing for a contractual agreement for such.
cities, Temple City signed the agreement to participate in this Act
so we would have the option to work with the program.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Commissioner Atkins moved to adjourn
to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Stacy and passed, and the meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m.
1
ATTEST
/ *
Secretary
•
•
47%LGe-e.i d
Chairman