HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1996/01/23 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 1996
INITIATION:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Brook, Muto, Griffiths,
Seibert
Absent: Larson
Also Present: City Manager Riley, City Attorney Martin,
Community Development Director Dawson,
Code Enforcement Officer Daniel
Chairman Seibert stated that Commissioner Larson had
previously stated that he would be late in arriving.
Commissioner Larson arrived at the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
4. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: NONE
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 9, 1996
Vice - Chairman Griffiths moved to approve the minutes as
written, seconded by Commissioner Muto and unanimously
carried.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. CONTINUATION
DECLARE INTENT TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING - PN #95 -4
Site: 6161 - 61631/2 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD
Property Owner:
ROBERT CAMBIANICA
4840 N. HELEO AVENUE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
Date of Hearing: January 23, 1996
Request:
This case was reviewed at the
Planning Commission meetings of
October 24, 1995 and January 9,
1996. The Commission will consider
abatement progress and determine if
a property nuisance exists.
Vice - Chairman Griffiths abstained from discussion as he
owns property within 300 feet of the subject property.
Community Development Director Dawson said that during
the years, there has been an accumulation of storage and
debris at this property. At the meeting of January 9,
1996, the property owner's representative, Mr. Butch
Mecca, discussed the legal difficulties incurred
involving a tenant eviction. The case was continued in
order for the property owner to provide documentation of
involved personnel and State agencies for the City's
review. At this date, no documentation had been
provided. Video tape of the property was shown.
Director Dawson stated that the video tape and staff
inspection taken on January 23, 1996 shows that
substantial progress has been achieved. Staff recommends
a 45 -day continuance for the property owner to complete
the work.
Code Enforcement Officer Daniel stated that this property
has been substantially improved over the last two months.
There being no questions from the. Commission, Chairman
Seibert invited the property owner or any representative
to speak. No one came forward.
Director Dawson stated this property has an approved
subdivision map which is due to soon be developed. That
would greatly improve the property.
Chairman Seibert invited those against this case to
speak. No one came forward.
Commissioner Brook could make the findings to continue
this matter.
Commissioner Muto moved to continue the matter to the
Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1996, seconded
by Commissioner Brook and unanimously carried.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
•
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes
• Date of Hearing: January 23, 1996
•
•
A. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPERTY NUISANCE CASE #96 -6
Site: 9812 -9816 LEMON AVENUE
Property Owner:
Request:
GLEN COOPER
9812 LEMON AVENUE
ARCADIA, CA 91006
Page 3
At the Planning Commission meeting
of January 9, 1996, the Commission
declared its intent to hold a public
hearing to consider declaring the
existence of a public nuisance on
the subject site.
Community Development Director Dawson stated that notices
were mailed within a 300 foot radius of neighboring
property owners. Director Dawson gave the background
information contained in the staff report dated January
23, 1996 and video tape of the property was shown.
Director Dawson stated this property contains an
accumulation of weeds, overgrowth on the property,
packing boxes and other debris in the yard areas. Two
dwelling units and a storage building are also in great
disrepair. The property continues to be a nuisance with
very little improvement since the Planning Commission
meeting of January 9, 1996.
Code Enforcement Officer Daniel said the video states the
record.
There being no questions from the Commission, Chairman
Seibert opened the public hearing and invited the
property owner or any representative to speak on this
matter.
Glen Cooper, 9812 Lemon Avenue, stated he has made some
progress. The secondary structure will not be
rehabilitated. He has plywood sheeting to reroof the
main dwelling. He is continuing the work of clearing the
nuisances.
Chairman Seibert invited anyone else in the
speak on this matter. No one came forward.
Vice - Chairman Griffiths moved to close
hearing, seconded by Commissioner Brook and
carried.
audience to
the public
unanimously
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
Date of Hearing: January 23, 1996
City Attorney Martin asked Code Enforcement Officer
Daniel if he concurred with the draft PC Resolution and
was aware of all public nuisances stated therein.
Code Enforcement Officer Daniel answered yes.
Vice - Chairman Griffiths moved to approve the PC
Resolution and declare the existence of a public nuisance
at 9812 -9816 Lemon Avenue, seconded by Commissioner
Brook and unanimously carried.
Chairman Seibert stated that the City Council will be
requested to confirm the existence of a public nuisance
at their meeting of February 20, 1996.
Director Dawson indicated to the property owner and
Commissioners that this property would be an excellent
candidate for new development; such a development would
recreate this property.
Mr. Cooper answered that he is investigating such a
venture with several developers.
B. DECLARE INTENT TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING - PN #96 -7
Site: 6128 MUSCATEL AVENUE
Property Owner:
WILLIAM SILL
6128 MUSCATEL AVENUE
SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775
Request: Staff has issued several Code
Compliance notices for this property
with little resolution of certain
public nuisances. It is requested
that a public hearing be set to
determine the existence of a
property nuisance.
Community Development Director Dawson stated this
property nuisance case involves an accumulation of trash,
leaves and branches on the property as well as an
inoperative vehicle stored in the driveway. This case
has been opened and closed several times since 1987 and
the Planning Commission was requested to ascertain
whether the violations constitute a public nuisance.
Video tape of the site taken on January 23, 1996 was
shown.
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
Date of Hearing: January 23, 1996
Director Dawson stated if the Planning Commission decides
to declare intent to conduct a public hearing, the
residents within a 300 foot radius would be notified of
the hearing.
There being no questions from the Commission, Chairman
Seibert invited the property owner or any representative
to speak.
William Sill, 6128 N. Muscatel Avenue, stated the front
of his property once had very nice landscaping. He said
that when the street was redone years ago, it caused a
big hole in his property which he has never corrected.
He is continuing to work on the property but also works
a full time job. Mr. Sill asked for a continuance and
plans to retire soon when he will have more time to work
on the property.
Chairman Seibert invited anyone else in the audience to
speak on this matter. No one came forward.
Commissioner Brook moved to approve the PC Resolution
declaring an intent to hold a public hearing before the
Planning Commission on February 13, 1996, seconded by
Commissioner Larson and unanimously carried.
Mr. Sill informed the Planning Commissioners that the
corner of Garibaldi and Rosemead Boulevard needs to have
a red curb painted.
Chairman Seibert answered that staff would follow -up to
the correct department.
C. STUDY SESSION: A -FRAME SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS AND
FLAGS /PENNANTS
Community Development Director Dawson stated that on
December 12,1995, the Planning Commission informally
discussed the City's current regulations regarding A-
frame sandwich board signs, flags and pennants. A recent
staff survey has proven that many of the San Gabriel
valley cities do allow them in certain areas under
certain circumstances and also limit flags, pennants and
banners to, a specified period of. time. Temple City
considers flags and pennants to be temporary signs which
are allowed for no more than 30 days in any six month
period.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
Date of Hearing: January 23, 1996
Director Dawson stated that in an effort to inform and
solicit input from the business community at this
meeting, a "town crier flyer" was mailed to various
affected businesses and hand delivered door -to -door in
the City Center District.
Director Dawson said the question is whether A -frame
sandwich board signs should be allowed or not. If so,
under what circumstances; on private property or in the
public right -of -way? The type of sign is also an issue,
whether or not such signage should be professionally
painted. Other issues are the design and size /shape of
the sign; hours of placement; anchoring; public right -of-
way liability insurance; and the possibility of limiting
their use to specific types of business use.
Chairman Seibert invited those in the audience to
comment.
Dodie Murset could appreciate such signs being utilized
to increase business, however, she felt that additional
signs would be difficult to enforce.
Ken Pica, Chez Cafe, stated that usual business signs are
set up in a way that, when driving by, potential patrons
cannot see a business sign. Other towns allow such
signs, with restrictions. Mr. Pica reminded the
Commission that businesses create sales tax money for the
City. He stated that in Monterey Park, overly strict
signage policies resulted in many businesses closing;
when stores are empty, the City suffers. Monterey Park
now has a method of attracting business shopping within
their own City.
Director Dawson stated the City does allow businesses to
have projecting signs twelve square feet in size. The
City also allows and encourages canopies or awnings which
would advertise the business. There is also a facade
improvement program within the City Center District
wherein the City assists the businesses for costs of
improving their signage.
Harry Crump stated there is little foot traffic on Las
Tunas Drive. The sidewalks are fairly wide and he felt
that A -frame signs would not hinder foot traffic any more
than the bus benches and planters.
Director Dawson stated that other cities surveyed do
allow such A -frame signs as restaurant menus. He
questioned whether such signage would significantly
improve patronage.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
Date of Hearing: January 23, 1996
Shari Pica, Chez Cafe, felt that a sandwich stand sign
does attract customers and that many customers do not
otherwise notice her building signs.
Marianne Milch stated that the signs should contain
pleasing artwork. Also, some business owners may place
the signs in the way of foot traffic.
Commissioner Larson asked Mrs. Milch if the Chamber is in
favor of these signs.
Mrs. Milch answered that the Chamber assisted the City in
getting the flyer out to Chamber members in hopes of
obtaining their input. She personally had mixed feelings
on the matter.
Vice - Chairman Griffiths had no objections to a proposal
which would assist the business community, however, he
did not feel that motorists would notice such signs. He
stated that if more businesses than presented at this
meeting were to become involved and would create some
criteria and likes /dislikes about A -frame signs, flags
and pennants, then this matter could be discussed in the
future. At this time, he felt the matter should be
tabled.
Commissioner Muto stated this matter has been discussed
previously over the years and he felt that any changes
should be tabled at this time.
Commissioner Brook stated that a sign board can be
effective, but felt that adequate interest was not shown
by a majority of the business community.
Chairman Seibert stated that Temple City is not an active
"pedestrian shopping oriented" city such as Monrovia or
Old Pasadena. He felt that the current sign ordinance is
adequate.
Vice - Chairman Griffiths stated that there was a very
small business turn out tonight.
Mrs. Milch asked that the inadequate A -frame sandwich
board sign be corrected at Apollo Burger.
Code Enforcement Officer Daniel stated that the currently
placed A -frame signs will be followed -up by. staff.
Rosemarie Sparks, Youmans Service Station, received no
flyer about this meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
Date of Hearing: January 23, 1996
Chairman Seibert stated that a volunteer delivered a
flyer to businesses.
Mr. Pica stated he lives in Temple City and these signs
are only one tool for improving business. He would pass
a petition if necessary.
City Manager Riley stated the City's concern is regarding
the liability. Very few businesses have taken advantage
of the City's facade improvement program which was
created and is offered to assist business success. Any
signage placed in the public right -of -way creates great
liability concerns for the City. He recommended against
approving such signs and added that banners can be
effectively placed for a short period of time.
Chairman Seibert asked for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Larson was disappointed that more business
owners were not present. He asked if the Chamber could
advertise more.
Vice - Chairman Griffiths moved to table this matter,
seconded by Commissioner Muto and unanimously carried.
Director Dawson stated that banners, flags and pennants
are now allowed for a thirty day period within each six
months. He asked if the Commission wished to change this
policy.
The Planning Commission concurred to leave the current
ordinance as is and to recommend to the City Council that
no change be made at this time.
Mrs. Milch requested that a particular trash receptacle
be moved over 5 -6 feet from the current location.
Director Dawson answered that staff will follow -up.
8. COMMUNICATIONS:
A. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PLANNERS INSTITUTE
WEDNESDAY - FRIDAY, MARCH 2O -22, 1996
For their information, staff furnished the Commissioners
with the brochure for the next Planners Institute at the
Long Beach Convention Center. The Commissioners were
asked to inform the secretary if they plan to attend.
9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS:
•
"
"
"
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 P a g e 9
D a t e o f H e a r i n g : J a n u a r y 2 3 , 1 9 9 6
A . D i r e c t o r D a w s o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e C i t y C o u n c i l w i l l h e a r
t h e c e l l u l a r a n t e n n a a p p e a l o n F e b r u a r y 6 , 1 9 9 6 .
1 0 . A D J O U R N M E N T
T h e r e b e i n g n o f u r t h e r b u s i n e s s , C h a i r m a n S e i b e r t a d j o u r n e d
t h e m e e t i n g a t 8 : 3 5 p . m . T h e n e x t 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 w i l l b e h e l d o n T u e s d a y , F e b r u a r y 1 3 ,
1 9 9 6 , a t 7 : 3 0 p . m . i n t h e C o u n c i l C h a m b e r , 5 9 3 8 K a u f f m a n
A v e n u e , T e m p l e C i t y .
A T T E S T :
m
C h a i r n