HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1961/02/21 - RegularP L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N M I N U T E S
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
February 21, 1961
1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Temple City was held in the City Hall, 9664 East Las
Tunas Drive, Temple City. The meeting was called to order
by Chairman Pursley at 7 :30 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag was led by Chairman Pursley.
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Burr, Harker,
Nunamaker, Meek, r Ors ley,
Absent: Commissioners: None;
Also Present: W'ooi Lett, Hoiden, Shatford, Koski.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Meek made a motion that
the minutes of the meeting of February 6, 1961 be approved,
seconded by Commissioner Harker and carried unanimously.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Zone Change Case No. 61-15: Rogers.
Chairman Pursley announced that this was the time and
place for a public hearing on the above listed case and
asked the Planning Advisor to appraise the case.
Ed Holden, the Planning Advisor, explained that the
subject request was for a change of zones from Zone R -2
to R -3 on property located on the East side of Temple City
Boulevard between Longden and Lemon, said property being
approximately 195 feet north of the intersection of Longden
and Temple City Boulevard, and having dimensions o'; 105 x 300.
He further explained that the property under consideration
is at the north end of an R-2 strip on Temple City Blvd.,
and that the property to the north and surrounding is R -I.
This change would create e spot zone of R -3, Me continued,
and would likely begin a trend toward additional R -3 zoning
in the vicinity. iMr. Holden advised that Temple City's
law pertaining to R -3 zones has not been amended to keep
pace with new amendments made in the County Ordinance or
with changes initiated by surrounding cities. Therefore,
this fact should be considered by the Commission in its
determination as to whether or not to grant a multiple
zoning in this location at this time. There is presently
no minimum area requirement for -3 in Temple City,
Donald C. ,Rogers, 9222 De Adalena, Rosemead, part owner of
the property involved, spoke substantiating his application
as follows: (1) the granting of this change would
permit a higher type of development than is presently
possible under the R. °2 zoning; (2) nothing would be gained
by waiting for the Master Plan as °rely R-3 or the present
R -2 could eventuate; (3) location of property lends itself
well to multiple zoning. He informed the Commission that
he tentatively planned to build 20 to 22 units with from
800 to 850 square feet per unit, having two bedrooms and
some two story buildings. He asserted that the deed provides
for 10 feet of the property for widening of Temple City
Boulevard, in response to Mr. Holden's information that
ten feet widening is recommended to bring the boulevard to
planned width. (Temple City Blvd. is presently 60 feet
wide adjacent to the subject property).
Mr. Vern Rogers, 9331 De Adalena, Rosemead, part owner of
the property located at o320 Temple City Boulevard, substan-
tiated the case by adding that the construction planned
for the location would be an asset to the City; that it
would bring increased business to the City; that the
boulevard easily lends itself to this type of development.
L. J. Flaherty, 6327 Temple City Boulevard, spoke opposing
this change, cautioning: -.(1) that 40% of apartment dwellers
would park in street; (2) that there would be additional
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1961
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PAGE 2
hazards created for school children; (3) that R -3 would
ruin the neighborhood; (4) that there is a drainage pro-
blem during storms on streets to the north.
James Gledhill, 6330 Temple City Boulevard, opposed this
proposed change, asserting that there is plenty of R-3
available in the City.
Herbert Cloud, 9646 Craiglee, asked to be entered on the
record as opposed to the proposed change.
John Kilburn, 6338 Parella, expressed strong opposition
to the subject case as being detrimental to an already
established residential neighborhood,
Howard H. Miller, 6346 Temple City Boulevard, spoke against
the proposed zone change commenting that nothing should
be done here before the Master Plan study has been made.
Ensuing discussion among members of the Commission revealed
the following points. Commissioner Meek advised that
the widening of the boulevard would create an undesirable
residential area because of increased noise and traffic, and
that R-3 zoning should be considered for (1) old areas
needing urban renewal.; and (2) areas adjacent to heavily
traveled roads. Commissioner Nunamaker advised that there
is a demand for R »3 in the City, and that the trend is
:o to locate such zoning close to schools and business and
good transportation. Chairman Pursley described on the
zoning map the location of present R-2 and R-3 zoning and
advised that the problem under consideration is that of
density rather than height of buildings. Mr. Cloud, 9646
Parella, advised against spot zoning, and advised that
a change in the area very likely will occur naturally.
Commissioner Harker made a motion that in view of all the
facts that have been brought out and the discussion relative
to the general trend and the consideration that the property
is at the northerly most end of a buffer R -2, that the
Commission recommend that the application for change of zone
be denied. Commissioner Nunamaker seconded the motion and
it carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Burr, Harker, Meek, Nunamaker, Pursley;
NOES: Commissioners: None;
ABSENT: None.
6. ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 60-11: A-1-1 to R-1: Mr. Ed Holden,
Planning Advisor, reviewed this case involving property
bounded by Olive, Arden, Green and Baldwin Avenue and
presently zoned A-1-1, explaining that this case had been
initiated by the City Council in order to determine the
desirability of changing this area to R -1 5000 at this time.
He briefly restated the zoning history of the area and
reiterated problem of drainage believed to exist on Green
Street, cautioning that an increase in urban type property
should include proper urban improvements.
Chairman Pursley asked to hear From people opposing a
change in zoning. Robert Ingram, owner of lots 13 and 3
between "Lade] and Baldwin, pointed out that construction
at the corner of Olive and Baldwin, retention of which
has been approved by the City Council, is in violation of a
light and air easement, and has prevented an orderly
development there, continuing that lots facing Baldwin
should be given the same perogative to violate said easement.
Mr. Ingram opposed any action in the matter until it can
be studied in conjunction with the Master Plan.
C. F. Haskins, 5305 Arden Drive, favored a change to A -1
5000 but opposed the suggested change to R-1 5000, stressing
his belief that a change to Rw 1 wou 1 d entail an increase in
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1961
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PAGE 3
the tax rate, as well as other costly improvements (curbs,
gutters, sewers).
Dick Lucas, 5301 Zadell, expressed his opposition to this
change, stating his reasons for postponing any further
consideration of change until the Master Plan is in full
swing: (1) patch work rezoning would only increase
problems; and (2) destroy free use of the property for
agricultural purposes; (3) cease fire safety and sewage
problems; (4) increase financial burden of property holders
and tax payers.
Mrs. Margaret Placek, 10111 East Green Street, expressed
annoyance over the fact that the area was being considered
for change to R -1 5000 rather than to A -1 5000, feeling
that the original request had been for change to A -1 5000.
After being advised by the Commission that this case had
been initiated by that body in order to determine the
feeling of the people living in the area, Mrs, Placek
stated that she favored a change to A -1 5000 which would
allow more uses of the land than R -1, but against the
case as presently being considered for change to R-I 5000.
In response to questions concerning the maintenance of
animals in the A and R zones, City Attorney, Shatford,
counseled that domestic animals were permitted in A -1
and R -1 zones with the exception of such kinds as pigs, and
that the number and method of maintenance of animals was
subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,
Mr. Carl Rasmussen, 10233 Green Street, fevored the
change to R -I, asserting (as discussed previously) that
the south side of Green was already developed and that
development of the north side is being deterred by the
A -1`l zoning. Mr. Rasmussen minimized the possibility
of a drainage problem in the vicinity, and was countered
by Commissioner Nunamaker, who advised that old County
records testify that there is a drainage problem there.
:Commissioners Nunamaker and Meek affirmed their approval
of a change to A-I 5000 at the present time.
W, R. Goren, 5311 Zadell, opposed granting a change at
this time, which would probably be only a type of
compromise measure pending study in conjunction with the
Master Plan.
Chairman Pursley advised that since the case had been
represented as a change to R -1, it could not be changed
to A-1 5000 at this time.
Commissioner Harker made a motion that, in view of the
fact that the Commission initiated this case for reasons
already noted; and in view of the fact of the pendin
Master Plan; thee' the'Comrniss.ion: reejeet the request For
the R -1 zone and review it at a later time after it has
been tied in with the Master Plan. Commissioner Burr
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
After some additional discussion, Commissioner Harker
made a motion to amend his motion to read that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the
existing zoning remain unchanged at the present time, with-
out prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Meek, and carried
unanimously.
Ralph Hughes, 10227 East Green, expressed consternation
over the decision of the Commission, and asserted that
peopie desiring a rezoning in the area had been put off
five times. Mr. Shatford counseled that the Commission
must attempt to make a sound decision, sometimes regardless
of the majority feeling.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1961
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PAGE 4
Mrs. Note Bates Talbert, 1004P, Olive, expressed dissatisfaction
with the decision of the Commission, adding that a change
has been desired here for twenty years; that the Master
Plan could require a long period of time; that restriction
had been placed on the Glickman Tract by Mr. Glickman.
The City Attorney advised that it would be unfair to some
property owners to consider the case in a manner other
than had been advertised, and recommended that the
Commission recommend to the City Council that the Commission
hold additional hearings regarding changing the zoning
of this area, and in particular that the hearings be held
to determine whether the people are interested in having
the zone changed from A -1 -1 to A-1 5000. Commissioner
Munamaker seconded the recommendation.
7. ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 60-12: UNDERW00D ET AL:
Planning Advisor, Mr.:Ed Holden, reviewed the case concern -
propertyon the east and west side of Weiland between Live
Oak and Freer and on the west side only of Double Drive,
stating that applicants desire that subdivisions be e tuded,
Request from A-1 to R-3 with no minimum area requirement
could be better considered in relation to the whole City
after the Master Plan work is completed. Mr. Holden
advised that the 100 right of way on Double Drive can be
expected to be improved to that entire width, and that
Welland, a 60° wide dedicated street, has not been improved
with curb, gutter or sidewalk.
City Manager read communications expressing concern and/or
opposition to the proposed change of zone from: (1) Mr.
and Mrs. Donald Porter, 10935 Wildflower Road; (2) Mrs. ea
Patricia G. Hanft, 5022 North Agnes Avenue; (3) Mr. and
Mrs. Reynold J. Blunt, Jr., 10922 Wildflower Road; (4)
Robert E. French, 5320 Farago Avenue; and (5) Mrs. Ri l ie
L. Warren, 5315 Welland Avenue; and (6) Mr. and Mrs.
Paul B. Williams, 10932 Wildflower Road. Also, Mr. Wool Jett
advised of the receipt of a petition protesting the
said change of zone, which contained 99 names representing
6 residence units as compared with approximately 260x.. i.
1esidence units which were notified of the proposed zone
change.'
Allen Schab, 10941 East Daines, opposed the change of zone,
asserting that questions pertaining to the matter had not
been adequately answered.
Mr. Don Porter, 10935 Wildflower Road, opposed, asserting
that flood conditions occur during rains; that schools are
already overcrowded; that there is insufficient police and
fire protection to handle increased density of population;
and that dead -end streets were a disadvantage.
Mr. and Mrs. James Longstroth, 5432 McCulloch Avenue,
represented themselves as favoring said change, and Mr.
Longstroth read a list of 19 home owners residing on the
east side of McCulloch Street between Daines Drive and
Freer Street who favored the change of %one:
Mr. Donald Isler, 5508 Welland Avenue, was strongly in
favor of the change to R-3, reasoning that: (1) about
1,300,000 square feet of the property involved was in large
lots, which cannot be developed economically under the
present zoning; a better type home will built if the zone
is changed; that average income property will sell for
approximately 70e a square foot; and that a change to R -3
should be expected to increase the value of the surrounding
land as has been the case in Arcadia where new apartments
have been constructed.
Avis Dykes, 5344 Double Drive, living on the east side of
Double Drive, mentioned several points: (1) importance
of land value; (2) eonly objections coming from people
living on culdesacs; (3) owners of large properties have
pair ,tooahigh taxes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES F EBAJARY 2,0, 1961
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PAGE 5
R. J. Neiderhouser, 534' Double Drive, favored theproposed
change of zone, substantiating his position as follows:
(1) taxes have increased in seven years from $07.00 on his
property to $494.00 this year thus necessitating some
supplementary income which can best be realized by the
addition of units on the property; (2) people on culdesacs
should be considered separately; (3) but majority should
rule in the matter.
Robert French, 5320 Farago, opposed the change, commenting
that people desiring this change are truly interested
in improving Temple City, and that in communities where
such changes have occured, the standard has gradually
lowered.
William De Bennedet, 5535 North Welland, owner of seven
houses on Welland, favored change to R-3 zoning, commenting
that this is a good location for multiples and that there
is and has been a great demand for them in the area He
suggested: (1) restriction of 1200 square feet per unit;
(2) provision for clearance of 70 to 80 feet on property
adjacent to culdesacs; (3) improvements (sidewalks) where
needed; (4) approval of each plan by commission before
issuance of permits
Disaussion ensued among the Commissioners during which
Commissioner Nunamaker commented that there is available
in this City R -3 property which is unused, and Commissioner
Pursley apprised those present of the current residential
development standards. Commissioner Harker advised the
assemblage that with the approval of the City Council, the
Master Plan should be launched immediately, and that the
area under consideration drould be given precedence at that
time. Commissioner Meek reaffirmed his opinion that
cheap reatais become slum areas in 10 to 20 years, and cited
nn area in Pasadena as exemplary,
Commissioner Meek made a motion that at this time, without
prejudice, the Planning Commission recommend denial of
this case and refer the matter to the master planners,
seconded by Commissioner Nunamaker and carried with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Burr, Harker, Pursley, Meek,
Nunamaker;
NOES: Commissioners: None;
ABSENT: None.
in response to requests for clarification from Mr. isier
and Reverend Coppin, the City Attorney explained that
the Commission is an unprejudiced body and that public
hearings will be held to determine the feelings of the
people in each area considered as the Master Plan progresses.
He continued that any Master Plan adopted by the City wi l l
be flexible enough to lend itself to changes as required.
Reverend Coppin, owner of property at 5433, 35, 37 and
39 Welland, expressed appreciation of the courtesy of
the Planning Commission in its consideration of the case.
v. REMOVAL OF EASEMENT ON LA ROSA: City Manager, William
Woollett, Jr., apprised the Commission of the receipt of
a petition signed by eleven residents, living on the
south side of La Rosa between Baldwin and Glickman,
requesting the removal of a 70 foot easement on the south
side of La Rosa. He informed the Commission that the
easement had been established by an ordinance in December
of 1954. Mr. Woollett advised that the property owners
had not been adequately notified, and discussion ensued
as to the advisability and extent to which the matter
should be considered. The City Attorney counseled that
at this time the main consideration should be as to whether
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1961
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PAGE 6
or not to recommend the matter for public hearing.
James Barnett, 10114 La Rosa Drive, substantiated the
petition that people d:.11rn.Lted by this easement are unable
to improve their homes to accomodate their growing families;
that these large front yards are not maintained as they
should be.
Betty ,M i n i ck, 10134 Las Rosa Drive supported the request
of the petition, affirming that it is impossible for her
to improve her property because of the present easement.
Myron E. Harpool, attorney representing Mr. Palmquist of
10117 La Rosa and Mr. Bruce Spenser of 10024 La Rosa,
spoke opposing the removal of the easement asserting that
(1) the beauty of the property and view would be destroyed
if easement were changed; (2) all properties between
Baldwin and Glickman have been improved; (3) and among
other points that the petition did not indicate any
alternative (no specific request). The attorney showed
pictures of a 6 foot fence (a violation of the Zoning
Ordinance) presently tend inge l.nto the easement on Mr.
Barnett's property.
Mr. Synder, 10100 La Rosa, commented that he was interested
in the removal of the six foot fence on the Barnett property,
and was advised by Chairman Pursley that the fence was
not the issue being considered, but only the consideration
of the removal of the easement.
Mr. Charles Ry1ie, 10044 La Rosa requested that his name
be removed from the petition.
The City Attorney suggested a motion that the names of
Mr. Ry l i e, 10044 La Rosa, Mr. Charles E. :eve 1 s, 10034 La
Rosa, and Mr. Spencer, 10024 La Rosa, be officially
removed from the petition, as they had requested. Commission-
er Meek seconded. The recommended motion was approved
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Burr, Harker, Pursley, Meek,
Nunamaker;
NOES :. Commissioners: None;
ABSENT: None.
Commissioner Nunamaker made a motion that the commission
hold the matter over until the next meeting, and that
everyone on the street should be notified by address,
seconded by Commissioner Harker and carried by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners : Burr, Harker, Pursley, Meek,
Nunamaker;
NOES: Commissioners: None;
ABSENT m None.
Planning Advisor suggested that future notices of public hearing
could include a phrase "and such other changes as the
Commission may wish to make", in order to allow for more
flexibility and give legal authorization to make changes
within the hearing.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:2; P.M. to the next
regular meeting of March 6, 1961.
ATTEST:
City clerk dy
airman `r 'anning â–ºomission