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 `