Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1965-11-16_Regular 1965C O U N C I L M I NUT E S CiTY OF TEMPLE CiTY TEMPLE- CITY -- :- - CALI:F.ORN IA NOVEMBER 16, 1965' INITIATION: 1. Mayor Harker called the regular meeting of the City Council to 2. order at 7:30 P. M. Invocation was given by Father Burch of St. 3. Luke's Catholic Church of Temple City, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 4. ROLL CALL: PRESENT :. Councilmen- Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker,Tyrell, Harker ABSENT: Councilmen -None ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Martin, City Manager Koski 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of November 2., 1965. Approv al of these minutes was held over until the next regular meeting for additions. PRESENTATION: At this time Mayor Harker requested Mr. Joseph Ronstad to come forward. The Mayor advised that Mr.. Ronstad served as Chairman of the observation of United Nations Day on October 24, and presented him with a Certificate of Merit from President Johnson and Mr. Robt. F. Benjamin, Pres. of the Com mittee for United Nations Day. Mr. Ronstad accepted the certi- ficate and advised the breakfast for the !':merican Field Service held on United Nations Day had Cleared $169. Mr. Ronstad also stated there is no community in the country that can match the record of Temple City with the Sister City program, the Foreign Educators program, and the American Field Service program. U1JFENISHED BUSINESS: 6. RESOLUTION NO. 65 -540: Appointing Recreation Personnel. City Manager Koski read title to Resolution No. 65 -540 A RESOLU- TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY APPOINTING A PART -TIME AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE. Councilman Dickason moved to adopt Resolution No. 65 -540, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, roll . call vote to carry the motion as follows: :YES: Councilmen - Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker, Harker NOES: Councilman-Tyrell ABSENT: Councilmen -None PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 P. M. APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 65 -167: i11iem E. Graham The Mayor asked the Deputy City Clerk if parties concerned had been properly notified and was advised they had been. Councilman Merritt moved to open the public hearing, Councilman Dickason seconded and the motion was unanimously carried. Cit► Attorney Martin stated this appeal was on the variance grant ed by Planning Commission Resolution No. 65- 167PC, which granted three variances to the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. William E. Graham, as follows: (1) reduced rear and side yard setbacks, (2) reduced distance between accessory buildings, and (E) a non severance core dition, or treated as one lot. This is a hearing de novo. The record of the Planning Commission is before the City Council and the minutes have been reviewed, and every Councilman has visited the scene. The Variance and conditions are familiar to the City Council. All matters have been reviewed by the City Council, The City Planning Director, Ray Cushman, cave the history of the Case No. 65 -167 before the = tanning Commission, as follows: the request was for a second dwelling with a rumpus room above the Garage, the lot contains approximately 15,13,E sq. ft:i and this would be a non - severance development in R -1 7200 zone. The ex- isting proposed dwelling is 5 ft. from the north property line, b ft. from the rear property line, and 6 •F t. from the south prop - erty line, on an 80 ft. wide lct. Presently there is a single family dwelling and garage. The new garage does not off -set the existing garage by about 22 ft. and lines up with the rear of the Front garage, and there is a solid wood fence separating the new building from the existing building, 829 Council Minutes, November 16, 1965, page 2 There is 17 ft. between the south fence and the south property line which provides access to the rear property. The original zone variance #64 -96 was approved July 6, 1964, under the old ordinance and in May, 1965, a revised plot plan was submitted and approved on a non severance basis. The building permits . were issued and construction began. In August the permits for building were suspended and investigated, and on Sept. 7 a Public Hearing was held on the stop order of the building permit The Grahams were required to submit a new variance request. On Sept. 7, 1965, the City Council reviewed the case and lifted the stop order. At the Sept. 21, 1965, meeting of the City Council their decision of Sept. 7 was reversed and the matter referred back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the Variance Case #65 -167 at which time the Planning Commission approved the zone variance with conditions. City Attorney Martin stated Zone Variance Case #65 -167 involves three variances, (1) reduction of side and rear yards to dis- tance shown on the plot plan, (2) less than required distance between main and accessory building, and to be developed on a non - severance basis and covenant and agreement to that effect shall be executed and recorded with the County Recorder and placed on file with the City Clerk. He advised only these subjects are germane to the Hearing. Mayor Harker stated the applicants may speak at this time. i'!m. E. Graham, 9217 Garibaldi, stated they owned the property at 5434 Temple City Blvd. They have been held up since August 30, and had been working on the construction 60 days previous to that date. Permits were issued and the fees paid. He feels they have been held up long enough. Ernest Jalker, 5435 Temple City Blvd., had no objection whatso- ever to this building. R. Johnson, 5442 Temple City Blvd., stated he owns the property north of the Graham property and had no objection and would like to see it completed. His lot is split with a rental in the back and one building in the front. Mrsi Marian Thorson, 5426 Temple City Blvd., stated she owns the property adjacent on the south, and would like to see the Graham construction completed, and that it would improve her property. Her lot is a split lot and has three units. Ralph Phillips, 5416 Temple City Blvd., had no objection and approved the building in the neighborhood, City Attorney Martin asked if these were lot splits and Planning Director Cushman advised under the county plot plans these could be sold but at this time they are not split. He also advised that under the first application it came under the old zoning ordinance where the lot could be split or a building on 5000 sq. ft. on non- severance basis. Mrs. Ervina Graham, 9217 Garibaldi, stated from the first all that was required was a plot plan and not a building plan. We could have severance or non - severance as they had enough square footage to put two houses on. They offered to put the old house in the rear and put two new ones on the front which they did not go for. She stated she came in and asked if they had to have another set of plans. She brought in the house plans and a Few things were required to be done which she did and brought the plans back and they were approved. Councilman Merritt said according to the Planning Commission minutes on page 2 of June, 1964, quote, "applicant had submitted new plot plans in accordance with their request. One with three parcels on a non - severance basis or two on a lot split." Mrs. Graham advised she asked if they had to take a lot split on it and were advised they did not if they did not want to. No one further came forward to speak in favor of the Zone Vari- 830 Council Minutes, November 16, 1965, page 3 ance request, and Mayor Harker stated those in opposition could now speak. - John Perovitch, Atty. with Rodiger & Kinkel, stated he represent- ed Donaid Kincheloe and first requested Mrs. Vett be heard from in reply to Mrs. Graham. Mrs. Grace Vett, 5476 Temple City Blvd., stated she attended the meetings on this zone variance request and she stated there was not enough square footage For three homes or for two homes with necessary ingress..and egress easement. The easement requirement cannot be considered as part of the square footage of the lot and in the new plan submitted there is not enough square footage for two homes. Removing the easement from 15,000 sq. feet there would not be 14,440 sq. ft.required for two houses. This is her main argument. The garage is 520 sq. ft. She suggested the Council ask Mrs. Thorsen how many houses she does have on her lot as she had stated three. She stated she abided by all the laws the Council made for all of us, and she first objected when the excavating began about it weakening the wail. The plot plan was 0.K'd by the Planning Director who had no authority to do sot, The City has stated they were in error and I do not understand why the permits were not cancelled immediately. It is no fault of mine if the building continued as I first complained in June. Kincheloes should not be penalized because of the error. One of the Planners stated they are not policemen and they are there tc make decisions whether they are following the ordinances or not. 1 thought they were made for the protection of all of us." (quotc . from testimony of Mrs. Vett.) Mayor Harker stated the Council wanted to be sure of the basic points on which she was objecting. #1 the area because of the easement, is that the basic objection? #2 the property is over- built for size of lot? Councilman Nunamaker asked what easement they are talking about as this is not an easement and the Planning Director advised this would be a point they are asking to allow this to be on a non - severance basis. Mrs. Vett said under section #1522 it states necessary driveway areas for egress and ingress shall not be computed in the area. City Attorney Martin advised #1522 relates exclusively to splits or divisions of lots, and that an easement cannot exist under one ownership or non - severance. An easement cannot be created over your own property. Mrs. Vett asked how many units are supposed to be built here? She stated it has been verified the unit above the garage is a separ- ate building and Mayor Harker stated this is supposition as this is nothing the Council has seen. The City Attorney advised the only variance granted was for a second dwelling unit, there was no variance for 3, 4, 5 or 6. Councilman Tyrell asked Mrs. Vett if she was including the play- room over the garage and she advised Mr. Buchan of the Building Dept, stated that this is a full unit. Councilman Tyrell stated Mrs. Vett is saying it is stubbed in for future time. She is anticipating it will be used as a separate dwelling. Mrs. Vett stated the detached building is designed for occupancy for one dwelling unit and the rear structure is for two dwelling units, the plumbing is in for two separate units which can be done by closing two doors, there are two forced air furnaces. Mayor Harker stated this is rumor, supposition and hearsay and he would not make the assumption the Grahams are going to violate the law. Mrs. Vett stated she is objecting because it is over- built, not the plan approved, and is in violation of every ordinance that was ever made for protection of the people of Temple City. It is not a single family residence. Mr. Perovich, Atty. for Kincheloes, stated the basic objection would be on the finding that the building is going up as opposed to what it was originally planned to be. The original plot plan 831 Council Minutes, November 16, 1565, page L. showed 1250 sq. ft. and now has 2590 sq. ft. Lot coverage ori- ginally was approximately 32% and now is actually 61% covered. He believesthis in violation of one ordinance which states a maximum coverage of 40 %. He advised Mr. & Mrs. Kincheloe have had their lot appraised by two independent appraisers and it was the opinion of both that their land would be devalued $5000. by these structures being put up as now planned. The main building extending over the fence blocks out light and air to their lot. He stated it should be pointed out that within six months after the Grahams purchased the lot they began building with the idea of it being income property which violates -1 zoning. Also if this is approved he stated he would advise them to start develop ing their own property. He stated according to the 1964 ordinary_ before any variances are granted the old violations in the ordi- nance should be restored and taken out of context of these viola tions. Councilman Tyrell asked Mr. Perovich how he reconciled this development as not consistent with the area concerned, the lot to the north has two houses, the one to the south three or four, and both are adjacent to this property, and asked him to observe the map which shows how many units on each lot. Regarding their being denied light and air, he asked the attorney how they can claim this when there are bushes or shrubs 12' to 14' high which deprives them of same light. He asked the Attorney if he had seen the property and stated the garage immediately south of them was built on the property line and only 3 ft. from the southerly boundary of their property. They have lived there two or three years and have not cut the bushes dcwnin that time. They also say it is not developed in accordance with the propert;, around it. The property to the north is built to the boundary line and immediately to the south, the south line is within four or five feet of that developed property. He asked the attorney if when the property to the north is developed with two houses and the one to the south with three or four units, is it not good zoning practice and the one adopted to allow the property in the middle like privileges? Mr. Perovich stated these uses were not apparent on the map he had and based on the idea zoning R -1 residential is the highest type and the general idea is to discourage other development, but if the plan of the whole area is two or three or more, all properties should be given the same opportunity. Mrs. Janet Kincheloe, 9633 Nadine, advised the property on the south was built 17ft. from their rear wall and on the north side 32 ft. from their wall, and this one is only 52 ft. from their rear wall which is on their property. No one else came forward to speak in opposition and Mayor Harker stated this was the time when the Grahams' could present a re- buttal. Mr. Graham stated they have a single family dwelling with a garage and a rumpus room over the garage, and everything they have done is legal. City Attorney Martin asked Mr. Graham the following questions, and his replies were as follows: 1. You stated you are goins to have only two dwelling units? Answer; Yes. 2. There will not be three? Answer: No. 3. You are going to live in the rear one? Answer: Yes, we have three boys, there are four bedrooms in the rear house and two baths. k. There are two meters? Answer: There is a meter on each side and 1 can connect to only one. 5. You are anticipating a zone change? Answer :: Yes. 6. You understand you will get only one connected: Answer: Yes, the same way with the gas. The City Manager advised Edison Co. will only set one meter in there, and Mr. Graham stated he was so advised by the Building Department, and he hoped the Council would stick with the Plann- ing Commission decision and not re- open.this. 832 Minutcs, November 16, 1965, page 5 City Attorney Martin questioned the Planning Director as follows: 1. Your field analysis indicated as Far as indicating whethen this voriance is a grant of a special privilege not enjoyed by others, you have found the property to the north of this enjoys a non- severance dual unit, and the property to the south enjoys a non - severance dual unit? Answer: Correct. 2. The side yards to the north are less or equal to those being requested here? Answer: Correct. 3. The rear yard of that property to the back and south, you had a south close set back? Answer: that is a detached garage on the Kincheloe property. 4. As far as the rear yard here is concerned it is greater than the first plot plan proposed as far as the garage is concern- ed? Answer: correct. Councilman Nunamaker moved to close the Public Hearing, Council- man Merritt seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried. Councilman Nunamaker stated a man cannot be condemned For lookin into the future and cited the building occupied by Liebergs where the store wishes to expand and the building structure will not allow a second story. Also in building his building he had done so in consideration of possibly putting on a second story in the Future. City Attorney Martin advised the Council they had three alterna- tives as follows: 1. Instruct the City Attorney to drew a Resolution in conformanc with the Planning Commission decision, or 2. Instruct the City Attorney to draw a Resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision, or 3. To take the request under submission for further study. Councilman Tyrell stated based on error of the City it is clearly within the principles of estoppel, and is consistent with the development surrounding it, and he moved to deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and to instruct the City Attorney to draw the necessary Resolution, Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen - Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker, Tyrell, Harker NOES: Councilmen -None ABSENT: Councilmen -None At this time Mayor Harker advised two students, Sherrill Miller and Marie Kline from Rosemead High School were in the audience as observers for a school class, and called upon them to stand and welcomed them. KW BUSINESS: 7. ACCEPTANCE OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS & RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORM- ANCE BOND: TACT #29569, Dnal Developers, Randwick & Degas The City Manager presented a letter from the Road Dept. stating this work has been satisfactorily completed and recommending the City accept the work and authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond No. 202617, issued by National Automo- bile & Casualty Insurance Co. in the amount of $24,600.00. Coun- cilman Tyrell so moved, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously. 8. PARKING DIST. #2: Final acceptance of work and authorization of final payment to Sully- Miller Co., for construction. City Manager Koski requested this be tabled until the next regu- lar meeting. Councilman Tyrell so moved, Councilman Nunamaker seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried. 9. PARKING DISTRICT NO. 3: SET ASSESSMENT HEARING Councilman Tyrell moved to set the Assessment Hearing for Parkinc District #3 For 7 :30 P. M. on January 4, 1966, Councilman Nuna- maker seconded and the motion was unanimously carried. 833 Council Minutes, November 16, 1965, page 6 10. TRAFFIC COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Item 5. placement of red curb markings adjacent to fire hydrants at following locations: a. west side of Rosemead Blvd. 30 ft. in front of #5313 & #5315 b. west side Rosemead Blvd. 17 ft. in front of #5343 c. east side Rosemead Blvd. 27 ft. in front of #5630 d. east side Rosemead Blvd. 15 ft. immediately south of Elm Ave. in front of #5770 e. east side Rosemead Blvd. immediately south of 2nd drive north of Longden adjacent to Market Basket for 30 ft. Traffic Engineer presented and explained the above recommendati- on. Councilman Dickason moved to approve, Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Item 6. redesign of Library Parking Lot: recommend approval of design for revamping & requesting County Librarian be contacted for permission to implement plan, and also approval of proper signing to prohibit loitering. Traffic Engineer Envall presented the above recommendations. He advised there are now 29 stalls, and the new plan there would be 26 stalls, and he located the bumps and panels on the propos- ed map and placement of signs. Discussion followed and the City Attorney advised we have no loitering law as such, we do have a curfew. Loitering laws are ineffective in general. Councilman Nunamaker recommended a discussion regarding loitering be held by the Council. Following further discussion Councilman Nunamak- er moved to approve the proposed plan and to submit the proposal to the County Librarian for approval to implement the plan, Coun- cilman Dickason seconded, and the motion unanimously carried. , Item 9. Las Tunas & Hart Ave.: parking revision -- recommend placement of 18 ft. parking stall and addition of 8 ft. red curb markings immediately west of first parking stall. Following discussion Councilman Tyrell moved to approve, Council- man Nunamaker seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously. Item 11. Business Alleys, adding controls: installation of white centerline striping on all east -west alleys in business district. F61lowing a lengthy discussion Councilman Tyrell moved to approve installation of white centerline striping only for one lot to divide north and south half of alley behind the First Western Bank entering from Camellia, Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Francis Stack, Clerk of Court of El Monte, spoke to the Coun- cil against center striping on any one way alley. Item 12. 'Wedgewood Ave. & Rosemead Blvd, -- parking restrictions: installation of 31 ft. red curb markings on north side of :ledgewood Ave. westerly of Rosemead Blvd. and 18 ft. on the south side. Following discussion Councilman Merritt moved to approve Councilman Tyrell-seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 65 -541: Warrants & Demands City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 65 -541, warrants and demands, Nos. 7280 - NO.7325, in the sure of $20,922.91. Council- man Tyrell moved to adopt Resolution No. 65 -541, Councilman Dickason seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 65 -542: Temple City P rking Dist. #1 Improvement Fund, warrant #108 in the sum of $250.50 City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 65 -542 in the amount of $$250.50 as shown above Councilman Tyrell moved to adopt Reso- lution No. 65 -542, Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion was unanimously carried. 13. COMMUNICATIONS: a. City Manager Koski presented a charitable solicitation request for St. Lukes School, Nov. 19 and 20 to sell Christmas cards in Stoppels Boys Store. Council man Tyrell moved to grant, Councilman Nunamaker seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 834 Council Minutes, November 16, 1965, page. 7 b. L. A. County Heart Assn, for fund raising campaign month of February, 1966. City Manager Koski presented the above request. Councilman Nunamaker moved to approve, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. c, American Cancer Society: City Manager Koski presented'a re- quest for their annual fund appeal for the month of April, 1966. Councilman Nunamaker moved to approve, Councilman Tyrell second- ed, and the motion carried unanimously. 14. TIME FOR THOSE I N THE AUDIENCE WHO d I SH TO SPEAK: Richard Manners, 6253 Temple City Blvd., Chairman of Pacific Ackworth School and Religious Society of Friends, requested approval to hold a Fair Carnival at the School, November 20th at the school for their benefit. Councilman Nunamaker moved to grant, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion carried unani- mously. Mr. Manners also requested allocated time on the next agenda to make a presentation on behalf of the School and Friends Society concerning the City's acquisition of their property. This was approved by the Council and Mr. Manners will furnish the City Manager the title of their recommendation in time to be included when the Agenda is prepared. 15. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: Councilman Tyrell requested on Council Meeting nights that five parking places behind the City Hall be reserved for the Council- men. City Attorney Martin advised he had read the Cukier lease in full and that it was adopted bythe City Council on April 13, 1964. It is a binding lease which the City must recognize and perform under unless the City Council would seek to invalidate ft at this time. The City by means of the lease is protecting public park- ing on the lot for 10 years. The Council in 1964 decided pre- servation of that for 10 years was worthwhile to the City and it does provide public interest to be served. There is no reason to find the public interest does not exist. He stated his re- commendation to the Council has no choice at this point but to activate the lease and to so acknowledge by payment of rental. Councilman Nunamaker moved.to activate the lease and that a warrant be drawn from July 1, 1965, in the amount of $85. per mox Councilman Merritt seconded. Councilman Tyrell stated he was opposed as the lease is for 10 yrs. and only for the use of that market, and the Improvement District is for 20 yrs., and he thinks it a foolish thing for the City to do. He stated that at that time he objected and his vote was against it. Following discussion by the Councilmen, the motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen - Dickason, Merritt, Nunamaker, Harker NOES: Councilman - Tyrell ABSENT: Councilmen -None The City Manager requested authorization of the advance of $50. to the Sister City representative for costs up to that amount on the trip to Magdalena. Councilman Dickason so moved, Council- man Merritt seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously. The City Manager presented a charitable solicitation request from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints to hold a Christmas bazaar and bake sale on Dec. 3 and k, at 9627 Las Tunas Dr., the American Savings Building. Councilman Merritt moved to approve, Councilman Dickason seconded, roll call vote all Ayes, with Councilman Nunamaker abstaining. 16. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Nunamaker moved to adjourn, seconded and unanimously carried. Council adjourned at 9 :45 P. M. The next regular meeting of the City Council on December 7, 1565, at 7:30 P. M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 5936 Kauffman Ave. ATTEST: `- c City Clerk 835