Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 64-353RESOLUTION NO. 64 -353 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY GRANT- ING APPLICATION FOR A ZONE VARI- ANCE IN ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 63 -75 OF ROBERT C. AND ROJEANE L. BITTEN PERTAINING TO THE REAL PRO- PERTY LOCATED AT 6234 NORTH LOMA, TEMPLE CITY. WHEREAS, on December 13, 1963, Robert C. and Rojeane L. Bitten, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," made application for a zone variance upon the real property located at 6234 North Loma Avenue, Temple City, California, to create a parcel of land without frontage on a public street; and WHEREAS, the matter was duly noticed, pursuant to the Temple City Municipal Code, for hearing before the Planning Commission on January 6, 1964, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., in the City Hall of the City of Temple City, located at 9664 E. Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, California; and WHEREAS, after hearing before the Planning Commission the Plan- ning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 64 -61PC on January 20, 1964, denying the applicant's request for zone variance, and WHEREAS, within the time proscribed the Applicant filed an ap- peal from the decision of the Planning Commission with the City Council, and WHEREAS, a hearing was held on the Applicant's appeal before the City Council on February 24, 1964, at which time all persons desiring to speak were given the opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS the City Council has duly considered the matter, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby adopt findings (a) through (i) of Section 1. of Resolution 64 -61PC of the Temple City Planning Commission, as follows: "a) The property subject of the application is a rectangular shaped parcel fronting approximately 80 feet on Loma Avenue and having a depth of 183 feet. It is currently developed with a single - family residence, as shown on Exhibit 'A,' attached to the application, which Exhibit shall hereinafter be referenced as Exhibit 'A.' "b) The surrounding area to the subject property in all directions is developed to mixed residential uses. "c) The subject property has been zoned R -1 since March 24, 1930, when the area was part of the unincorporated territory of the County of Los Angeles. "d) North Loma Avenue is a local street having a 50 -foot wide right -of -way. "e) Applicant proposes to create a second parcel having the required area in the R -1 Zone (Single - Family Residence - 5,000 square foot minimum required area) but not having frontage on a public street as required by City Ordinances 63 -103 and 104. -1- 479 "f) The said plot plan, Exhibit 'A,' shows the proposed division of the subject property into two parcels, A and B, containing 6,624 square feet and 6,400 square feet of net area, respectively. "g) Parcel A would contain the existing residence and a relocated garage. "h) The subject Parcel B, lacking the required street frontage, is the site of a proposed 1,500 square foot resi- dence and a two -car garage. "1) Access to both parcels would be taken from Loma Avenue by means of a 16 -foot wide common driveway." SECTION 2. The City Council further finds as follows: a) The development of deep lots in the City of Temple City, that do not have reasonable possibility of becoming a part of a subdivision, or sub - standard subdivision, and do not have the reasonable possibility of having frontage on a public street as required by City Ordinances 63 -103 and 63 -104 present a large City problem which requires the careful consideration of each and every case by the Planning Commission as to the effect the granting of any variance will have upon the general area in which the pro- perty is located and upon the aims and objectives of a master plan for the best development of theCity of Temple City. b) The Planning Commission has given careful at- tention to all of the zone variance applications that have come be- fore it and the mere fact that a difference of opinion may exist between the City Council and the Planning Commission as to any par- ticular matter is in no way a reflection on the excellent work be- ing performed by the Planning Commission, any more than Appellate Court reversals are other than an honest difference of opinion based upon the same factual legal situation. c) The matter of whether to grant lot splits on the basis that the property remain under one ownership, generally referred to as ''non- severance" or permit the split to result in different ownerships, commonly referred to as "severance," is a matter which the City Council believes should be left to determina- tion in each case on its merits since the unique circumstances of each parcel of property may dictate severance in one case and non - severance in another. d) The Applicant did not fully acquaint the Plan- ning Commission with the substantial development to be accomplished upon the subject real property, which if fully known to the Planning Commission may well have resulted in the Planning Commission approv- ing the subject lot split on a severance basis, subject to the con- dition the property be developed in accordance with the applicant's plan of development. e) The granting of a lot split of the subject property on a severance basis will not adversely affect the sur- rounding area or the proposed master plan if the property is dev- eloped according to the plot plan submitted by the applicant and the plans and specifications of the applicant on file with the City Clerk. SECTION 3. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above the City Council does hereby reverse the Planning Commission decision set forth in its Resolution No. 64 -61, and grants the requested lot split application of Robert C. and Rojeane L. Bitten in zone applicant Case No. 63 -75 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION that before the lot split application shall become effective the -2- 480 applicant shall improve the area, including, but without limitation, remodeling of the present structure located thereon and the con- struction of a new dwelling thereon, all in conformity with the plans and specifications and plot plan on file with the City Clerk. The lot split shall become effective immediately upon the Building Department of the City determining the work has been done substan- tially in conformity with the plans and specifications and plot plan aforereferenced. The City Council retains the right in the event of any dispute between the applicant and the City Building Depart- ment, to determine if the work of improvement has been substantially completed insofar as the purposes of this resolution are concerned. SECTION 4. The Building Department shall, and is hereby dir- ected to, grant a permit subject to the provisions of Section 6 hereof, to Robert C. and Rojeane L. Bitten to construct the works of improvement upon applicant's property as set forth in the plans and specifications referenced in Section 3 above providing same comply with all of the building code ordinances of the City. SECTION 5. In the event the applicant shall not complete the work of improvement as provided in this Resolution the lot split shall be upon a non - severance basis and shall be retained under one common ownership, in which the ownership is an undivided interest in the total area. SECTION 6. Before the Building Department shall issue the building permit referenced in Section 4 the applicant shall file with the City a document, which the City may record, which shall acknowledge that the owner of the subject property is aware of and accepts the conditions set forth in this resolution and that the subject property, regardless of any change in ownership, is bound by and subject to the provisions of this Resolution and the condi- tions contained herein. PASSED and ADOPTED this 9th day of March 1964. ATTEST: C r City Clerk Mayor, City'of Temple City, Calif. -3- 481