Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1978/06/27 - RegularO • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City was called to order at 7:30 p.m., June 27, 1978, by Chairman Seibert, 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Seibert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Abraham, Lawson, Stacy, Seibert Absent: Couuuissioners, Breazeal Also Present: City Manager Koski, Planning Director Dragicevich, Assistant Planner Kissell •4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 13, 1978: Commissioner Abraham moved to approve the minutes of June 13, 1978, seconded by Commissioner Lawson, and carried. • 5. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO, 78 -525 Henrietta Eyraud - Owner, 9823 East Olive Street Temple City, CA Clarence Krieger - Owner 9807 East Olive Street Temple City, CA Fairhaven Development Corporation - Applicant 8656 East Huntington Drive San Gabriel, CA, Site: 9807 - 9823 East Olive Street Zone: R -1, Single - Family residential Request: Create a 19 -lot subdivision, all of Which will have substandard lot area, and 11 will have substandard lot width, AND 6. PUBLIC HEARING: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 35012 Henrietta Eyraud - Owner 9823 East Olive Street Temple City, CA. Clarence Krieger -'Owner 9807 East Olive Street Temple City, CA. Fairhaven Development Corporation - Applicant 8656 East Huntington Drive San Gabriel, CA Site: 9807 - 9823 East Olive Street Zone: R -1, Single - Family residential Request: Approve Tentative Tract for a 19 -lot subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 27, 1978 PAGE TWO The Director, in giving a staff report, said that the applicant proposed to create a 19 lot subdivision with 11 lots having substandard lot width and all lots having substandard lot area. He stated that the subject property is a rectangularly shaped parcel fronting 292.35 ft. on Olive Street, 60 ft. on Golden West Avenue, and 54 ft. on Nadine Street. The subject property has a depth of 563.83 ft. and a total area of 3.83 acres or (166,905 sq. ft.). He indicated that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan but not with current zoning regulation. There are 73 lots in the immediate vicinity which are substandard either in lot size or lot width. The plan, proposed by the developer, would extend Golden West to Olive Street and would have 60 ft. right of way and 36 ft. roadway. The residential building at 9807 Olive would be revealed on one of the lots of the subject site and all other structures would be demolished. The developer's ,plan included . as part of net lot area, that portion of the parkway behind the sidewalk. The Planning Director then presented four alternative plans prepared by the staff: "A" and "B" would extend Golden West to Olive Street and would basically comply with City regulations. Both "A" and "B" would reduce the number of lots from 19 to 18. Alternatives "C" and "D" would result in a. reduction of two lots (from 19 to 17), because Nadine Street would extend to,Golden West. By extending Nadine Street, four lots would be redesigned to front on Nadine Street. Basically, Alternative "C" would. create 2 lots with substandard lot area and "D" 2 lots with substandard area and 4 lots with substandard lot width. Alternatives "A" and "C" have a slight curve on Golden West, "B" and "D" are designed in a straight line to existing streets. Director Dragicevich reported a draft of the Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. As a result, a full Environmental Impact Report was required and prepared. The report is based on the Initial Study which revealed the development could result in some adverse impacts on the environment. Chairman Seibert then asked the Director if he recommended 40 ft. instead of 36 ft. on Golden West, and do any of these alternatives take an estra 4 ft. into consideration? Planning Director Dragicevich stated that the alternatives take into consideration 60 ft. right of way and 40 ft. of roadway. 1 Assistant Planner Kissell then showed slides of the subject property. There being no further questions, the Public Hearing was declaring open. Mr. Bill Prentice, 13114 E. Live Oak Avenue, San Gabriel stated that he was representing Mr. George Wiegand, Sr. and stated that he had been aware of the subject property for a long time and that he felt that the proposed plan was a good one. He stated that he does disagree with the Director regarding the easement righto. He presented to the Commission a volume of County Ordinance No, 4478; a ,subdivi'S idn '. _ _. ordinance over the period of March 19, 1945 to April 21, 1978. He stated in Section 54 of the Ordinance that when the alternative, which means that you eliminate the parkways and sidewalks which are attached to the curb, that that portion of the highway marked with an asteric may be counted as that part of the net area of lot or parcel of land. He stated that the'Director was right, the legal does go to the easement right but can be counted as part of the net area and :that the property owner must maintain that portion. Mr. Prentice then presented the Commission with several maps which were circulated among the Commissioners and which were approved in the past by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE THREE MEETING OF JUNE 27, 1978 airman Seibert then as.ked.Mr, Prentice if he considered, ccording to the zone variance, the properties to be unique or unusual. Mr. Prentice answered the questions directed to him by the Commission by answering that-he felt the properties were not unique or unusual (other than it is in a.rectangular shape). He stated that the reason he is asking for 19 lots is because of the high inflation cost of land. Mr. George Wiegand, Jr., 1425 Melanie Lane, Arcadia, stated that he was in favor of the plan and that he had done a preliminary investigation regarding same. He stated-that-he is concerned about people moving into the City. He said people move no further away than 5 miles and that he finds that older people no longer have a need. for larger homes, but are interested in-homes with pools. Mr, Wiegand is in favor of 19 lot plan. Mr. Tom Atkins, 5434 Cambury, Temple City stated that he lives in the Southeast corner of the proposed tract. He stated he is in opposition of the plan by the developers because it does not meet the standards of the zoning code, He stated there is nothing unusual about the land. IIAtkins stated he finds Alternative "A" feasible and is in favor opening up Nadine Street due to emergency hazards involved, when fire trucks, ambulances, etc cannot get through street. Mr. Atkins reflected that he is also in favor of Alternative "C ", Mr. Russell Parish, 9835 Nadine, Temple City stated he is in favor of opening up Nadine because of hazard created by enclosure and vehicles of emergency nature are unable to continue through street. Mr. John Best, 5459 N. Golden West, Temple City, is opposed to Plan ''C ", he is a deputy sheriff and once was a fireman and would like to see Nadine Street opened because of emergency vehicle usage. Mr. Best asked about the dust problem created by the construction by developers. Mr. Wiegand informed Commission that a water truck would be on the grounds at all times to help keep the dust down to a minimum. Mt. John Butler, 9832 Daines, Temple City stated. that he is neither opposed nor in favor of subject plane He is concerned about water drainage of proposed tract. Mr. Wiegand assured Mr. Butler that II/ drainage problems would be taken care of and that 90/0 of the water -roblem will be eliminated. There being no one else to speak to the issue, Commissioner Stacy moved to close Public Hearing seconded by Commissioner Abraham and carried. Commissioner Lawson then indicated that he is familiar with the area in question but does not find cause to grant the zone variance based on the criteria which the City requires. He stated that as far as Alternative "` " " "" " " fl p", he was not interested in any one A B , C or D he indicated-�that of those alternatives, but does favor Alternative "A" because he feels it is a good design arid it meets the City's requirements as far as width is concerned. He indicated that he feels width is important in this decision because most houses; are between 40 and 45 ft, wide and indicated that a good number of the people who can afford these type of houses do have recreational vehicles and will not be able to park them in their side lots or backyard lots if the width is not there. He stated that he could see advantages to extending Nadine Street because of emergency vehicle usage, but also felt that the price of the homes in that particular area would rise because the developer has to realize a profit on the homes. He also stated that this factor is not a. condition •egarding the Commissions granting or denying the variance° Commissioner Stacy stated that in reviewing this plan, he has tried to apply the developers proposal to the.set of circumstances for granting of variance. He stated that the developers proposal could in no way meet the requirements. He felt that Nadine is a bad area in that it is difficult for emergency vehicles to pass through the street and stated PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE FOUR MEETING OF JUNE 27, 1978 that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to grant a plan that would not remedy that situation. He stated he is in favor of granting of variance and implementing alternative "C" since it meets the City's requirements. He further stated that a combination . of public rights, access, developers rights, and also the rights of future residents has to be taken into consideration,. Commissioner Abraham stated that based on Section 9201 of the Zone Variance, he did not feel the developer has met the mandatory requirements and for that reason, he moved to deny the proposal. He stated that he would also like to hear from the residents of Nadine Street before a final decision is to be made. Commissioner Seibert concurred with the other Commissioners. He stated that he was affronted that the developer would have the audacity to submit to the Planning Commission a 19 lot subdivision with every lot substandard. He stated that our City has certain standards set which are to be maintained and that by maintaining those standards, the people of the City are all benefitted.He indicated that he respects the developers need to make a profit. Commissioner Seibert concluded in saying that he agrees with Commissioner Stacy, that Alternative "C_" is best. He stated he votes against the granting of zoning .variance as submitted. City Attorney Martin then asked Mr. Wiegand if he were ready with figures,, etc. should the 19 lots be denied. Mr. Wiegand replied by saying no, he was not ready with figures and other data. Mr. Wiegand indicated that he would like a two week extension period to gather his data. Commissioner Lawson then moved to reopen Public Hearing in response to Commissioner Abrahams request to hear residents of Nadine Street, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried. There being no further questions, the Public Hearing was reopened. Mrs. Rose Butler, 9829 Nadine Street, Temple City stated she is in favor of opening up Nadine Street. Mr. Russell Parrish, 9835 Nadine Street, Temple City indicated he is in favor of opening up Nadine Street due to emergency vehicle usage. Mrs. Florence Dinger, 9832 East Nadine Street, Temple City was in favor of opening :.Nadine Street up due to vehicle usage. Mr. Verl Dinger, 9832 East Nadine Street, Temple City stated in favor of opening up Nadine Street. Mr. Jack Manconi, 9824.Nadine, Temple City indicated that he is in favor of opening Street due to vehicle usage. Mr. Tom Atkins, 5434 Cambury, Temple City was interested in having the street opened up. Mr. Larry Reed, 9922 East Nadine, Temple City feels subdivision needed, wants Nadine Street open because of safety and trash collection. Mrs Joanne Beatle, 5429 Cambury, Temple City was in favor of opening iap the street. Mr. Paul Warman, 5410 Warman Lane, Temple City, stated Warman Lane has problems with trash trucks and fire trucks difficult access to his street. Mr. Ken Clark, 9802 Daines, Temple City expressed concern regarding traffic. He stated there would probably be 5 times more automobile traffic if Nadine were opened up. Mr. Clark was opposed to opening Nadine Street up PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 27, 1978 PAGE FIVE Joanne Manconi, 9824 East Nadine, Temple City indicated she is in favor of opening up Nadine Street, Mr. Larry Marlilly, 9660 Nadine, Temple City was opposed due to traffic and danger of small children on street. Mr. John Schlener, 5418 Cambury, Temple City was in favor, feels that opening up the Street.wili reduce traffic on Cambury. There being no one else to speak to the issue, Commissioner-Lawson moved to deny original plan to approve 19 lots and carry alternatives "A ", "B ", "C "and "D": over° for:- a two -week extension ,period for perusal,. . seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried' 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 78 -532 James Edwards - Owner P. O. Box 2655 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Vernon and Terry Gilbert - Applicants 12131 Martha Ann Drive Los Alamitos, CA Site: 9055 East Las Tunas Drive Zone: .0 -2, General Commercial City Attorney Martin asked Director Dragicevich if applicant Mr. Terry Gilbert had obtained the Owners consent to operate an amusement arcade in conjunction with-existing billiard hall. Director Dragicevich said that the applicant was not able to obtain the 'owner's consent. as of this date. Mr. Terry Gilbert, 12131 Martha Ann Drive, Los Alamitos came forward to state that no consent had been obtained, and agreed to a two -week extension to obtain consent and their presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Stacy moved to hold two -week extension, seconded by Commissioner Abraham and carried, 8. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: FRONT YARD DETERMINATION CASE NO. 78 -533 Kelly and Mary Crowell - Applicant /Owner 9252 East Key West Street Temple City, CA Site: 9252 Key West Street Zone: R -1, Single Family residential Director Dragicevich stated that the existing single family residence has an attached single car garage. The front yard setback of the . residence is 24.5 ft. from-Key West. and 19.5 ft. from Rio Hondo. A 5 ft-.4-in. block wall is proposed extending 194'5 ft:from the' residence to the east property line and from the east property,souch 87 ft. to the rear property line. This block wall will replace a wood fence which has already been demolished. An existing6 ft.high block wall is located along the rear property line. The Director stated the subject property is a rectangularry shaped parcel fronting 75 ft. on Key West Street and 113 ft. on Rio Hondo Avenue with 8,475 sq. ft. of lot area, Key West Street is a 54 ft. wide local street with 30,ft. of roadway. Rio Hondo Avenue is 60 lip ft. wide local street with 36 ft. of roadway. Commissioner Seibert asked for any questions or comments regarding this issue- Mrs. Crowell, Applicant, stated she did not have any additional comments to the staff's report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. PAGE SIX MEETING OF JUNE 27, 1978 There, being no one else come'forward to address the issue, Commissioner Stacy moved to approve the block wall construction, seconded by Commissioner Abraham and carried. 9. COMMUNICATIONS- There were none. 10. .TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK: Mr. John Eyraud, 4215 Lindsgrove, La Canada, stated correction of his name and pronunciation° Mr. Lou Smaldino, 9252 N. Rosemead,' Temple City stated the problem of Nadine is the same as on his street, he reported the hazards of busy street and children Who live and play there° He felt if Nadine is opened up, it will create a"freeway of traffic." 11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS; (a) Referral from City Council regarding Domestic Animals IIP Planning Director Dragicevich stated that the City Council at their regular meeting of June 20, 1978 had made referral regarding the number of Domestic Animals as related to zoning code. The Director stated that the Council had felt the decision should be based on existing land use, allowing three household pets for single family house, two for two dwelling units, and one household pet for three or more units on a lot regardless of zone classification. This proposal was referred to the Planning Commission by the Council on June 20th City Council Meeting. City Attorney Martin then indicated that before the Council would pass an Ordinance, they need the Planning Commission's recommendation. Chairman Seibert then moved to adopt the City Council's recommendation for determination of number of domestic animals by land use, seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried on a roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Lawson, Stacy, Seibert NOES: Commissioners: Abraham ABSENT: Commissioners: Breazeal Ilk; The pxoperty owners with minor Zoning "`Modification Case (MZM Case 78-78) not interested in a zone variance. They complied with the City requirements and the plan was approved. 1.2. ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Commissioner Stacy, seconded by Commissioner Seibert, meeting adjourned at 9:15 pam. Cc-Z:4-v Ae C1 irma `