HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1972/02/22 - Regular"
I N I T I A T I O N
1 , 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
F e b r u a r y - 2 2 9 1 9 7 2
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 w a s c a l l e d t o o r d e r b y C h a i r m a n D e n n i s a t 7 : 3 0 p . m . , F e b r u a r y
2 2 , 1 9 7 2 .
2 , P L E D G E O F A L L E G I A N C E
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 w a s l e d b y C h a i r m a n . D e n n i s o
3 . R O L L C A L L
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 , G a r v i n , L a w s o n a n d D e n n i s
A b s e n t : C o m m i s s i o n e r S t a r t i n .
A l s o p r e s e n t w e r e 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
a n d 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 .
I n a s m u c h a s C o m m i s s i o n e r S t a r t i n w a s a b s e n t d u e t o h i s a t t e n d a n c e a t
t h e L e a g u e o f C a l i f o r n i a C i t i e s ' P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n e r s S e m i n a r s C o m -
m i s s i o n e r A t k i n s m o v e d , . a n d C o m m i s s i o n e r G a r v i n s e c o n d e d , t o e x c u s e
h i s a b s e n c e f o r c a u s e . M o t i o n : : , c a r r i e d .
A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S m F e b r u a r y 8 , 1 9 7 2
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 o v e d t o a p p r o v e a s w r i t t e n , s e c o n d e d b y C o m m i s s i o n e r L a w s o n
a n d c a r r i e d .
5 e - P U B L I C H E A R I N G : C O N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T N O , 7 2 = 3 6 3
H o w a r d M . G i l f o r d : m A p p l i c a n t f o r
T e m p l e B e t h D a v i d
6 8 E . A r t h u r , A r c a d i a
S i t e : T e m p l e B e t h D a v i d
9 6 7 7 E . L o n g d e n A v e n u e
T h e P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r g a v e t h e f a c t u a l r e p o r t , s t a t i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t
p r o p o s e s t o a d d t o t h e e x i s t i n g s a n c t u a r y , a n d o f f i c e s t r u c t u r e , a
r e c r e a t i o n h a l l a n d k i t c h e n f a c i l i t y . H e r e f e r r e d t o t h e p l o t p l a n
m a r k e d E x h i b i t " A " w h i c h s h o w s e x i s t i n g a n d p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t ,
g a v e t h e f a c t u a l d a t a o n t h e p r o p e r t y , a n d s t a f f p r o p o s a l s . H e c o n -
c l u d e d b y s a y i n g t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l p u b l i c h e a r i n g o n t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y , f o r e n l a r g e m e n t o f f a c i l i t i e s , w a s h e l d o n J a n u a r y 1 4 , 1 9 6 9 ,
b u t a p p l i c a n t s f a i l e d t o . e x e r c i s e t h e i r c o n d i t i o n a l u s e p e r m i t w i t h i n
t h e p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d o f t i m e .
T h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g w a s d e c l a r e d o p e n .
M r , H o w a r d G i f f o r d a n d M r . B e r n a r d B e n d e r , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t ,
i n f o r m e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t t h e m o n e y , i n t e n d e d f o r t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s
a p p r o v e d u n d e r t h e p r e v i o u s c o n d i t i o n a l u s e p e r m i t , w a s u s e d t o r e m o d e l
t h e e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s , . a n d l a c k o f f u n d s . p r e v e n t e d t h e i r e x e r c i s i n g
t h e c o n d i t i o n a l u s e p e r m i t . T h e 1 i t t l e , f r a m e h o u s e t h a t h a d b e e n o n
t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y p r e v i o u s l y , a n d w h i c h ` s e r v e d . a s a k i t c h e n , w a s
d e m o l i s h e d , a n d p r e s e n t l y t h e f a c i l i t y i s w i t h o u t a - k i t c h e n .
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 22, 1972 PAGE TWO
•There were no questions from the Commissioners, and no one else to
speak for or against the application. Commissioner Garvin moved to
close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Lawson and carried.
In closed discussion the Commissioners agreed that the request met the
requirements for granting, a: conditional ; use permit;.: the request had
been granted previously, and they had no objections to the proposal,
Cormmi ssi oner Atkins moved to grant` Conditional Use Permit 72 -363 as the
site for the proposed use is adequate, has sufficient access to streets
and highways, adequate to carry the traffic generated by, the proposed
use, and the use will not have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment
or valuation of adjacent properties. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Lawson and carried.
1
Asst.. City Attorney, White read title to Resolution No. 72- 444PC, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 'r
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN CASE NO. 72 -363. Commissioner
Lawson moved to waive :further reading and adopt, seconded by.Commis-
sioner Garvin and passed. Chairman Dennis informed those present of
the ten -day appeal period,
• PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE :72 =364
John and Dorothy J. Sell — Owner /Applicant
2023 Bella Vista ;Drive, .Arcadia
Site: 4945 N. El Monte Avenue, Temple City
Director.Dragicevich gave the factual report,, stating the applicant
proposes to create a: subdivision of six parcels with less than the
required lot area for all parcels. He referred to the plot plan marked
Exhibit "A" which shows proposed subdivision' of the subject property,
IIIand gave the factual .. data:on the property, and - reviewed the staff
proposals.
The Commissioners had no questions, therefore the public hearing was
declared open,
Mr. Bud Heck, representing the app1icant, stated that, with the
C i t y ' s requirements for dedication on Key West and : E 1 Monte Avenue,
the property; i s reduced in size °where it would be economically unfeas-
i b l e to create only -five ldts and meet the City's required improvements.
•He continued that the builder intends to create three 4-bedroom homes
and three 3- bedroom and ,fami l y . room .homes. They w i l l run from 1400 to
1650 sq. ft. of floor area', and sell for $3 1 , 000 to $33 , 000, which i s
above what is 1-4i .. he. area presently.
Mr. Dennis.; Dobranst 1, 10653 E. Sparklett Street, asked: if the brick
wall between Sparklett and Key 'West = :would be removed, and he was told
it probably would not. To his questions about adequate sewers, etc.
the City Manager replied these concerns would be considered at the
subdivision hearing, which would also be open to the public. Sidewalks
would be required for the subdivision. If other property owners wanted
sidewalks they should contact City Hall for information regarding
arrangements for them.
III Mrs, Dennis Dobranski, 10653 E. Sparklett Street, was concerned about
drainage, and whether property owners in the vicinity .would be notified.
She referred to another casein the area which was denied by the Plann-
ing Commission, and approved by the City Council by appeal, and the
property owners were not notified of the appeal hearing. It was ex-'
plained that drainage would be considered at the time of the subdivision
hearing; that the City Council has the right to determine an appeal
on, the record, without a public hearing, if they, so desire. However,
Sshe was assured that the property owners involved would be notified of
the subdivision hearing,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
�ruary 22, 1972 PAGE THREE
1
1
In rebuttal, Mr. Heck said there were no plans to tear down the wall
mentioned previously. The houses will be facing either Key West or
Sparklett. Regarding a wall being built along El Monte Avenue, that
would be resolved under requirements for subdivi i.on.
Commissioner Garvin moved to close public hearing, seconded by Com-
missioner Atkins and carried.
In closed discussion, the Commissioners generally agreed that the
proposed subdivision would be an asset to the area, the size of the
lots was not detrimental, rather they considered the proposed plan
favorably, as being good use of a large parcel. The wider frontages
will give the illusion of large lots. In addition, Key West will
be widened, thus resolving the traffic problem in this area. The
request, they agreed, meets the requirements for granting a variance.
Commissioner Garvin moved to grant Zone Variance 72 ®364 for reasons
as stated, that it will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
adjacent properties nor in conflict with the General Plan. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Atkins and carried.
Asst. City Attorney White read title to Resolution No, 72- 445PC, a
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE IN CASE NO, 72-364. Commissioner Atkins moved
to waive further reading and adopt, seconded by Commissioner Garvin
and passed,
7, PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
RE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 27331
1
•
Site: Northeast corner of Rosemead
Boulevard and Pentland Street
Director Dragicevich gave the factual report, stating the applicant
proposes to create a one-lot subdivision for a six-unit condominium
project. He continued that a Minor Zoning Modification, regarding
parking spaces, was granted on October 12, 1972, The Director ex-
plained the plot plan marked Exhibit "A ", gave factual data on the
case, and listed the staff proposals. He then called the Commissioners'
attention to an exchange of correspondence with the Los Angeles Fire
Department regarding fire flow requirements and installation of a
hydrant at this location. The Planning Director continued that the Fire
Department requires a fire flow for this development of 2500 gallons per
minute. The developer was concerned because of the expense involved to
provide this fire flow requirement and the installation of a required
hydrant. He advised the Commission that the representative of the Fire
Department was present to answer any questions regarding this matter.
The Fire Department requested that an additional fire hydrant be in-
stalled at the northeast corner of Pentland and Rosemead Boulevard and
that the proposed development meet the fire flow facility of 2500
gallons per minute. The Fire Department is working on the basis of
their ordinances and regulations and those of the subdivision committee.
Mr, Lou Webb, Euclid Land and Construction Co., 722 E. Valley Boulevard,
addressed the Commission, saying they elected to build a 6-unit condomi-
nium, but if it were an apartment house they could build 7 or 8 units
and still meet parking ratios. He feels they are creating more value
with a condominium and therefore it would be more economical and feas-
ible. Each unit will have a patio; each buyer, when he purchases the
unit will receive a grant deed for unit, patio, two parking spaces and
one-sixth interest in all the land. This project will be a California
Statute condominium and California non-profit corporation,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 22, 1972 PAGE FOUR
41110i e then referred to the fire protection , requirements, Normally his organiza-
tion checks with the Fire Department of. the city and obtains permission from
the Fire Chief in form of a letter or signed plot plan of water requirements
for fire ..safety. Developer covers this phase before proceeding because it
could be expensive to find out later that :fire requirements could be pro-
hibitive. Other utilities (gas, .electric and telephone): pay for their
_utilities. :Water .companies :do not, which can create a: problem. On the
subject property they approached.the Los Angeles County Fire Department
who are consultants to.Temple City; The - person on duty whom:they,con-
sulted told them_ ;that, because the lot is less .than 150 ft. from the .curb
face, it is not under their jurisdiction and no additional fire hydrant was
needed. They• optioned the .property and put :it: into escrow, had renderings
done and some engineering work, tentative tract maps drawn. When they
asked for a- signature or letter of approva 1 from the Fire Department that
no additional fire hydrants were required, they learned the:ori.ginal in-
formation was erroneous. Generally, speaking, they may have_ passed this
property by if they had known :earl. i er of the .water problem.
They then contacted the Southern California Water Co., Mr. Sam Keller,
Chief. Engineer,, who said they -would need a flow of 1700 gallons per minutes,
The property was purchased for $21,000. I n talking with the water company,
•for1minute and 2000 ft. from subject property . to pick up
700gallcnsper
the -adequate flow line, it would cost. from $20-25,000. These prices were
in line with information .regarding another property in the vicinity (on
,Sereno.Drive,.where the Fire.Departmentsaid a hydrant-would be needed to
develop that site, and the cost at that ;location would 'have been $40,000).
If the plans were for an,8 -unit apartment house they.could get a building
perm,i t, Mr. Webb continued, His .organization : has developed many houses,
lots of spl i tti ng of four or less, and never encountered problems with the
Fire Department as long as they did not develop a "subdivision ",
In .Arcadia, Mr..Webb went on, there is a "parking district plan" which
Temple City might consider for relief on items such .as this. If the mer'
chant or .builder of_ a_: n,ew ;store i s perhaps two parking spaces .short, . for
__.. example, . he can p1age : into an account with the City, perhaps in an interest
bearing ;savings account,'' for purchasi ng ,future - land which will be con -
tiguous to this particular property or•in; some -other needed place in the
City. The amount of donation :would be the cost of the - land, asphalt and
improvements, and this sum, agreed upon: and negotiated between the City
. and the_ bui lder, :would be put into a parking fund, . so at a later date,
•:wheare accumulated and land can be purchased, then the land
can be uti�l i zed for parking as a parking 'district i n that area. I f there
nmoremonies
:i s ,a problem in that contract c i-t i es are not able to meet the fire system
that the Los Angeles County: wants, . perhaps .some :sort of equi table set of
circumstances, such as outlined . for parking, can : be made. I f a 10" water
l i ne . i s $,10 . a foot, and the .developer has .200 .ft. of frontage, . $2, 000 is
an :equ itable.sum to charge, . but to go ,2, 000 'ft, to provide water for an
area much larger than his) i -s unequi table. •
He further informed the Commissioners that there . is a plan where the de-
veloper.: gets the money, put into the water system,back, over a.22 year
period. The water company.wi 1 l pay; the developer back, with certain
percentage (15 -2O %)j the total bi l' i s that are .paid over a 22 year period.
Investors will buy this contract from the developer for 8 to 11 on the
dollar. His organization has :done this .- compute the present worth of
Ithe dollar into ,22 years and .theY;,were .willing to sell for 8,-11 on the
dollar.
Mr. Webb concluded his presentation by showing a rendering of the proposed
six units', and said they would be similar to the condominium his company
built on Farago, with less units, but with more refinements and would sell
for more .money.
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 22, 1972 PAGE FIVE
Ilk. Jos. Rote l 1a, Bata1 l i an Chief, Research & Planning Division, Los
eles County Fire Department, took the podium at Chairman Dennis'
He .stated that the County now has a minor land ordinance should
you split any property into two or three lots the developer would go
through the same procedure as for a tract, He continued that the Fire
Department is concerned with safety,: whether or not the system is adequate
to protect the building. When an ordinance applies or recommendations can
be made it should be done and the subject project, being a subdivision,
falls under certain ordinances, Therefore the staff made recommendations
that certain conditions be imposed upon the tract. This body can modify
or recommend to the City Council that "these recommendations be deleted
or modified i n any way they ,•wish, If the request had come as a standard
6 =unit apartment house there would be no applicable code. If any portion
of this building was more than 150 ft. off the street, then it comes under
.
the Fire Code and then the same conditions would be imposed. However,
the problem still would exist as far as the water being, inadequate for
fire protection. The Fire Department conducted a test on the subject
system and it produced 408 gallons per minute, The water company indicated
that a 1400 gallon per minute pump was out of service and would be out of
service until after January 1st.
Mr, . Rote l la continued that one 22" hose would use 250 gallons of water per
inuteo Based on the square footage of this building, and that it is two -
tory, frame structure, in a bade fire the amount of water required could
e from 35,000 to 40,000 per minute. It is possible ten hoses could be
used simultaneously, two of which would be to protect adjoining properties.
The water presently ,supplying that area i s". inadequate to protect the area.
This area was A °1 prior to incorporation, and was changed by the City to
higher zoning use. 480 gallons per minute, which is the present capacity,
is not adequate for R-3 development,
If the Commission is inclined to provide some measure of relief, Mr..Rotella
Isaid he could suggest how the situation could be improved, I f a 6 " fire
hydrant is installed on a 6" main at the northeast corner, and if another
were installed on the west si de of Rosemead opposite Pentland (which has a
different source of supply) between those two hydrants it would be possible
to generate 1500 gallons per minute. He :estimated : the cost of this .approach
would be between $2,000T”,000. Use of this hydrant would necessitate lay-
ing the hoses across °Rosemead - Boulevard and blocking that State highway. He
too, expressed concern about the .varying prices of installing hydrants, and
wished there were some form of control.
410 e informed the Commission that at the State level there is a move by the
ublic Utilities Commission to set standards that water companies must .meet
elative to fire protection. Presently these companies have no:responsibi-
lity except to supply domestic needs. The State proposes to give :them the
responsibility of providing fire protection.
The Commissioners were of the opinion that the developer should have an
opportunity to investigate the alternatives presented this evening, along
with staff, and that this matter should be considered again at the next
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Atkins moved to continue the
discussion on this matter to the next regular Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Commissioner Lawson and passed,
8. COMMUNICAT$O NS m There 'were none.
III9. TIME -FOR THOSE IN .THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK. There was no one.
0, .MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS
A. Director Dragicevich presented to the Commission a proposal to
modify the boundaries of the present Community Redevelopment
Agency area on Rosemead. He explained the -present- boundaries
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE SIX
February 22, 1972
and the proposed ones, which approximate those of the original
survey area. The Planning Commission has an opportunity to
modify the boundaries before going to public hearing before
the CRA.
•
The City Manager addressed the Commission on the proposed
boundary changes and the reasoning behind them, and why this
move must be considered now. Basically, the new boundaries
would give the Agency control over both sides of Rosemead
Boulevard.
The Commissioners discussed the changed proposal vs. the present
boundaries, and were of the opinion that they would like to
study and discuss this further. It was agreed to continue
the discussion at an adjourned meeting on February 29, 1972.
B. Commissioner Lawson announced there would be a California
Planning Commissioners seminar in Anaheim April 5-7 as listed
in Western Cities Magazine.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Commissioner Garvin moved,. and
Commissioner Atkins seconded, to adjourn to an adjourned meeting
on Tuesday, February 29, 1972, at 7:30 p.m. in the North Meeting
Room of the City Hall. Motion carried, and the meeting adjourned
at 9:30 p.m.
IATTEST:
Secr tary
Chairman