HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 64-377RESOLUTION 0-377
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
DENYING APPEAL OF FREDERICK P.
GARSIDE FROM DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION IN ZONE
VARIANCE CASE NO. 63 -71.
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1963, Frederick P. Garside,
hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," made application for
a zone variance upon the real property located at 5503 North
Temple City Blvd., Temple City, California, to establish,
operate and maintain a 97 -bed convalescent hospital and ap-
purtenant facilities, including encroachment into the set-
back area, in the R -A Zone; and
WHEREAS, the matter was noticed for hearing before
the Planning Commission on December 16, 1963, at 7:30 o'clock
P.M., in the City Hall of the City of Temple City, located
at 9664 Las Tunas Dr., Temple City, California; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant and all other parties desiring
to be heard upon the said application were given an opportu-
nity to be heard on December 16, 1963, at the time and place
set for the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution
63 -57PC adopted January 6, 1964 denied the Applicant's re-
quest for zone variance, and
WHEREAS the Applicant appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council pursuant to the
Temple City Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS on February 10, 1964 the appeal came on for
hearing before the City Council, and
WHEREAS at the hearing before the City Council on
February 10, 1964 a question arose as to whether proper no-
tice had been in fact given of and concerning the public
hearing before the Planning Commission, and the matter was
thereupon continued to February 24, 1964 for decision of the
City Attorney, and
WHEREAS on February 24, 1964 the City Attorney ruled
that inadequate notice may have been given; that since a
prime requisite of a fair hearing is that proper notice be
in fact given, it was mandatory a new hearing be held before
the Planning Commission, after proper notice given pursuant
to the Temple City Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS after notice duly and properly given a public
hearing was set before the Planning Commission on April 6,
1964 respecting the subject application, and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission duly considered the
evidence brought before it at the hearing held before the
Planning Commission on April 6, 1964, and did thereafter duly
adopt its Resolution No. 64 -73PC denying the application for
zone variance in Zone Variance Case No. 63 -71, and
WHEREAS within proper time the applicant duly appealed
the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council
of the City of Temple City, and
WHEREAS the matter of the appeal was set for a public
hearing before the City Council and all parties desiring to
-1-
517
speak were heard at the public hearing on May 25, 1964, and
WHEREAS the City Council has duly considered the record
of the Planning Commission in Zone Case No. 63 -71 and has
duly considered all matters brought before it at the afore-
said public hearing, and
WHEREAS the application in Zone Case No. 63 -71 was
commenced under the zoning laws of the City of Temple City
effective prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance
on April 8, 1964 and completed under new zoning ordinance
the applicant was given full opportunity to be heard and
present evidence at a public hearing before the City Council
on the subject appeal to assure the applicant and all inter-
ested parties full opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS the City Council has hereto by voice vote at
a roll call duly taken on May 25, 1964 voted two for and two
against a motion to deny the said appeal of the applicant,
with one member abstaining, and
WHEREAS, any reversal of a decision of the Planning
Commission shall be by the affirmative vote of a majority
of the members of the Council, and
WHEREAS the City Council desires to comply with Section
9100 -1815 of the Temple City Municipal Code requiring a for-
mal resolution, announcing findings and decision,
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY DOES RESOLVE. AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
a) The subject property is a rectangular
shaped, corner parcel fronting approximately 208 feet on
Temple City Boulevard and 395 feet on East Broadway. It is
currently developed with three residences and a commercial
building.
The area surrounding the subject pro-
perty is developed to single- family residences, except for
a church adjacent to the north and a school approximately
100 feet southwesterly.
b) The subject property has been zoned
R -A since September 8, 1953, when the property was part of
the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles.
c) Temple City Boulevard is a fully dedi-
cated secondary highway at this location.
d) East Broadway is a local street with
right -of -way width of 60 feet.
e) The Applicant proposes to establish,
operate and maintain a 97 -bed convalescent hospital and ap-
purtenant facilities, including encroachment into the set-
back areas, in the R -A Zone (Residential- Agriculture).
f) The plot plan marked Exhibit "A," at-
tached to the application and hereinafter referred to as
Exhibit "A," shows the proposed 97 -bed convalescent hospital
with adjoining parking facilities to accommodate 97 cars;
that to comply with the new aioning ordinances of the City of
Temple City 97 parking spaces would be required; that access
to the parking area is taken from East Broadway by means of
a 22 -foot wide driveway.
g) Fourteen parking spaces and several
concrete block screening walls would encroach into the 20-
-2-
518
foot front yard setbacks; that in addition, the administra-
tor's residence, located on the westerly portion of the
subject property, would extend into the rear yard setback;
that signs of indeterminable size are proposed at the two
main entrances to the hospital.
h) The use requested is permitted in the
R -4 Zone as a matter of course.
i) That the requested use will cause noise
and traffic to the area greater than that contemplated in
R -3, the zone in which applicant's property is located.
j) That there are no special circumstances
applicable to the subject property relating to shape, topo-
graphy, location, or surroundings that do not apply generally
to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity
and zone or to the requested use within the limitation of
the definition of a variance.
k) That the variance requested is not nec-
essary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right or use possessed by others in the same vicin-
ity and zone, but which because of special circumstances is
denied to the property in question.
1) That the subject property has within
the past twelve months been fully and completely studied in
respect to the adoption of a master plan by the City of Temple
City and has been zoned R -3 as of April 8, 1964; that there
has been no change of circumstances since the public hearings
concerning the zoning of the subject property in connection
with the master plan proceedings, concluded April 8, 1964 to
justify granting a zone variance to permit the subject re-
quested R -4 use.
m) The granting of the requested variance
would be detrimental to the property and improvements in the
vicinity.
SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby deny the ap-
peal of Frederick P. Garside from the decision of the Planning
Commission in Zone Case No. 63 -71. Reasons for the denial
are set forth in findings 1), j), k), 1) and m) set forth in
Section 1 above.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 8th day of June 1964.
Mayor, C ty of Temple City, Calif.
ATTEST:
y er , i y
Temple City, Calif
-3-
519