Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCity Council_Minutes_1968-03-05_Regular 1968C O U N C I L M I N U T E S CITY OF TEMPLE CITY TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA MARCH 5, 1968 INITIATION: 1. Mayor Pro Tem Briggs called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:30 p.m. after having welcomed members of the class of "The Citizen and the Law" and Sgt. Stevens, the instructor, who were present. 2. Invocation was given by Dr. James Webster of the First Baptist Church of Temple City, 6019 Baldwin, Temple City. Mayor Pro 3. Tem Briggs then led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 4. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmen- Harker, Merritt, Tyrell, Briggs ABSENT: Councilmen- Beckley ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin, Planning Director Dragicevich, Public Works Director Pizzorno Upon the Council's being advised by Mayor Pro Tem Briggs that Mayor Beckley was ill, Councilman Harker moved to excuse his absence. Councilman Merritt seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of February 20, 1968. Councilman Merritt corrected the minutes, page 2, first and fourth paragraphs, to show the street name as " Bisby" instead of "Bixby ", and moved to approve said corrected minutes. Coun- cilman Harker seconded, and there being no objection, the minutes of February 20, 1968, were approved, with Councilman Tyrell abstaining due to his absence from that meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 p.m. CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 20, 1968, APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 67 -238 - DENIED: Thomas F. and Kathryn D. Minahan, 5430 N. Halifax Rd. Planning Director Dragicevich presented the matter of Zone Vari- ance Case No. 67 -238, which was heard before the Planning Commission on January 9, 1968, and denied. The Planning Direc- tor stated that the subject property, located at 5430 N. Halifax, is 85 ft. wide and approximately 217.17 ft. in depth, contains 18,460 sq. ft. and the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas F. Minahan, were proposing to divide the lot into two parcels, with the rear lot having a 20 -ft. street frontage. He stated that, while other properties in the area had been split previously, there were no "flag" lots on either side of Halifax, which has a 60- ft. right -of -way and curbs and gutters are in. The Staff recom- mended: (1) new traffic approach to the north of the existing residences should be built; (2) five -ft. sidewalks should be constructed in the curb area; (3) a bond shall be filed with the City prior to the approval of any zone variance; (4) a de- molition permit shall be obtained to remove existing structures on the proposed rear parcel; and (5) that all fire and building code regulations shall be complied with as to street frontage and side lot area. The Planning Director also reported that it was the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission that this property is not unique and that other property owners in the immediate vicinity do not enjoy rights which are denied to the applicant, although the applicant in his appeal to the City Council states, "Better than 80% of the splitable lots within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property have been developed in a similar manner;..." Council Minutes, March 5, 1968 - page 2. An aerial photograph and maps of the area were examined, and Planning Director Dragicevich.answered various questions relating to the lot areas of the other properties in the vicinity in com- parison to the size of the subject property. Also discussed were alternatives to the proposed lot split, with Councilman Briggs inquiring as to the possibility of putting in a cul -de -sac and being advised that due to there being several houses on the adjacent properties, this would not be likely nor particularly profitable. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the public hearing opened and asked that anyone in favor of the proposed lot split variance come forward. Mr. John L. Shaw, 5816 Temple City Blvd., Temple City, stated that he represented the applicants who want to build a nice home on the rear parcel for their own family use. Mr. Shaw said that, in his opinion, this property is unique in that it is the only lot on Halifax which has sufficient area to be divided and which has not been split, and that a nice home, in the $30,000.00 range, would be preferable to a lot full of weeds. He also felt that a 16 -ft. wide paved driveway on the 20 -ft. frontage strip would be sufficient for the use of fire equip- ment, and landscaping along the strip would enhance the appear- ance of the entire frontage. Questioned by Councilman Tyrell regarding the proponents who actually reside on Halifax Ave., Mr. Shaw mentioned Charles E. Babhr, who is the tenant on the subject property, and Keith Graydon of 4829 Halifax, but stated that he had not personally checked the list except to verify that they all resided within the 300 -ft. radius. Mr. Shaw and Councilman Tyrell discussed the cost of the'proposed residence and the possibility of a non-severable variance to permit building on the rear portion. Mr. John Wolfe, 10541 E. Olive, Temple City, spoke in favor of the lot split, stating that he owns and lives on similar property and considers it an excellent place for children and that it has not been devaluated on account of the split. Mr. Robert Bock, 5328 Encinita, stated that he lived next door to property with three houses on it and he considered this a desirable lot split because it would tend to eliminate weeds, rubbish and rats which are a problem on large parcels of vacant land. Mayor Pro Tem Briggs requested anyone who opposed the lot split to come forward. Mr. Frank Biava, 10523 Daines, presented to the City Council several copies of documents (in brochure.form) prepared.by those opposed to the-lot s p l i t . -- A copy was-also-handed to -Mr. John Shaw. After members of the City Council, the City Attorney, and the attorney for applicants had examined the brochure, Councilman Tyrell asked Mr. Shaw whether his clients had any objection to the documents being presented as evidence in this judicial proceeding, or did they wish to waive their right. Mr. Shaw stated that, while his clients had no objection to submission in this manner of statements by persons who might not be present, they certainly did not stipulate that the facts set forth were true and correct, but would accept that the statements are probably similar to what such persons would so state if they were present. Mr. Biava summarized the objections of the property owners in the area, stating they felt the creation of a flag lot would be detrimental to their privacy, depreciate the value of other properties, cause traffic and noise problems, lessen the attractiveness of Halifax, and would destroy the continuity of planning i:.n the City. Further, they considered as reason to deny the split the fact that this lot of more than 18,000 sq. Council Minutes, March 5, 1968 - page 3. feet is the only one large enough to be divided. Mr. Biava also referred to the length of time that some of the residents had lived in the area and felt that they were entitled to maintain the status quo, mentioning in particular Mr. Weise, living adjacent to the subject property, who works nights and sleeps days. While viewing an area map showing land uses, the Councilmen were very much interested in two large parcels of land, marked in blue, one located on Olive Ave. and the other on Daines Dr., which would appear to be .a similar situation to the subject property. Since these two pieces of property are nearby, they were concerned that whatever decision was reached on the lot split problem before them would affect the future of the other two. In reply to questioning, Mr. Biava admitted that he owned and lived on a lot which was part of a flag -lot split, but he said he had bought it because he wanted to live in Temple City and that was all he could afford to buy at the time. Mr. Emil Weise, 5438 N. Halifax, Temple City, stated that he had lived at his present address for twelve years and had bought the property for the privacy it afforded. Contending that it would become a public street, he objected to a driveway being put in near his bedroom window since he sleeps days; and if the vari- ance were approved, he expected the applicant to erect and pay for a high concrete block wall, which a contractor had estimated would cost $745.00, between the properties. In rebuttal, Mr. Shaw mentioned that his client intended to build a very nice house costing approximately $25,000 to $30,000 and also wanted to erect a wall as high as the City would permit. As to a driveway becoming a public street, he stated that this would be no more true of this property than any other with a driveway. Also, if the owner 1 ived in the rear, then the front house would undoubtedly be kept in better condition. Further, the 20 -ft. frontage was permissible at the time Mr. Minahan purchased the property and the Planning Commission would have permitted the lot split at that time as "...it was easier to obtain this type of split then because the Planning Commission was more lenient." Mayor Pro Tem Briggs declared that he was on the Commission at that time and he did not believe that they were more lenient and that fewer than .a dozen of those (lot splits) were granted in some length of time. He stated, "I don't remember being lenient on any of them at that time. We scrutinized them very thor7 oughly. I'd like that for the record." Mr. Shaw indicated that he agreed that they did scrutinize the cases but that he meant that the requirements were not so stringent then. Mayor Pro Tem Briggs asked if anyone else wished to speak. There being none, Councilman Tyrell moved to close the public hearing, Councilman Harker seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 9:25 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Briggs declared a 5- minute recess at this time. 9:30 p.m. The Council reconvened at this time and was called to order by the Mayor Pro Tem, and discussion of the zone variance appeal resumed. Councilman Tyrell inquired of the City Attorney whether a denial of the appeal by the Council would constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of authority in view of the various fac- tors. City Attorney Martin replied that this was "probably as close to a textbook -type of variance as I have observed." He added that at first glance it would appear that this lot split should be granted but that the real crux was that this was not a lot split: it is an application for a variance, and the Council Minutes, March 5, 1968 - page 4. application does not state any justification for a 12 -foot side yard set -back which would result to the front property if a lot split were granted. In his opinion, a denial would not consti- tute unreasonable and arbitrary action by the Council. There was considerable discussion regarding the 20 -ft. frontage vs. the 35 -ft. frontage required by present zoning code, as well as the large area of the subject lot, and the attitude of the courts regarding the granting or denial of a zone variance. Councilman Harker summarized the four points for qualifying a zone variance as follows: (1) there is something peculiar or unusual about the property; (2) it is rather large, in fact larger than any in the area; (3) the privilege has been ex- tended int'the past- -not to property next door but to the rear- - so there might be some grounds for consideration; but (4) most concern is about the two "blue" parcels on Olive and Daines. He felt there was a big conflict with the ordinance. Councilman Merritt said he did not believe the "blue" areas were exceptional and that each would have to stand on its own qualifications, regardless of the outcome of the present matter. Mayor Pro Tem Briggs stated that he thought what had been done in the past with regard to large lots was immaterial to the issue, and that the important thing is to uphold the present high standards, and he could not see granting privilege over other people in the neighborhood. Councilman Tyrell moved to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission in case No. 67 -238pc on the following basis: (1) For the reasons stated by the Plan- ning Commission; (2) no hardship shown; (3) that it is gen- erally known that resale of split property is more difficult; (4) lot splits constitute depreciated. areas. Councilman Harker seconded the motion, stating with the hope that should the denial gain a favorable vote that the applicant or some future owner comes in with a plan that can be worked out. The motion carried by the following roll -call vote: AYES: Councilmen - Harker, Tyrell, Briggs NOES: Councilman - Merritt ABSENT: Councilman - Beckley City Attorney Martin stated that the appeal was denied, the recommendation by the Planning Commission was upheld, and the lot split failed. Councilman Tyrell moved, seconded by Coun- cilman Merritt, that in view of the closeness of this matter, the brochure of the protestants be made a part of our records. The motion carried unanimously. City Manager Koski announced that a resolution confirming this decision would be prepared and presented to the Council at its next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 p.m. CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 20, 1968, RE AMENDMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO R -3 AND R -4 ZONES HAVING PARCELS WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED WIDTH. Planning Director Dragicevich presented the report from the Planning Commission concerning R -3 and R -4 lots and recommend- ing that the zoning code be amended to delete the requirement for 80 -ft. frontage and permit development or redevelopment on lots 50 feet wide. Mayor Pro Tem Briggs declared the public hearing opened and asked if anyone desired to speak in favor of or against this change. No one came forward to speak. Councilman Tyrell moved to close the public hearing; Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilman Harker moved that Resolution No. 68 -286pc be approved and the City Attorney be instructed to prepare an ordinance in accordance therewith. Seconded by Councilman Tyrell, the motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes, March 5, 1968 - page 5. PUBLIC HEARING: 7 :30 p.m. CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 20, 1968, ASSESS- MENTS - CURB & GUTTER: South side of Live Oak Ave. between Rosemead Blvd. and Eaton-Wash. Public Works Director Pizzorno reported that the work on the south side of Live Oak has been completed and assessments have been filed with the City Clerk, with.a request that the City Council confirm the proposed assessments as follows: Description 5625 Rosemead Blvd. 8928 Live Oak Ave. 8920 ,Live Oak Ave. 8912 Live Oak Ave. 8900-8906 Live Oak Ave. 8856 Live Oak Ave. 8850 Live Oak Ave. 8844 Live Oak Ave. 8836 Live Oak Ave. Footage 120 70 55 95 55 60 60 91.64 Proposed Assessment $ 289.62 330.00 248.17 167.60 280.30 165.17 156.40 198.20 276.79 The Public Works Director read a letter from Mr. Floyd Brown, 8836 Live 'Oak, concerning certain complaints, namely that the entrance was too high and some cars dragged bottom when crossing, the cul -de -sac drainage was poor and permitted water to stand in front of his house and provide a breeding place for insects, and that in doing the work the construction crew had cut the roots on two of his trees so that they were no longer useful and in danger of toppling. Mr. Pizzorno stated that the Public Works Dept. had checked the complaints and had gone out there and made tests, using standard American cars. The test results showed that Mx. Brown's driveway was, in fact, one inch lower than the Los Angeles County Road Dept. standard. As to the "puddling ", the Public Works Director admitted that it does create a slight problem but it was not serious. Also, since it had been necessary to cut back the frontage, the Public Works Director recommended that the assessment be re- duced by the cost of 8 lineal feet, making an assessment of $259.99. Mr. Floyd Brown, 8836 Live Oak, discussed with the Council the problems which he felt had been caused by the curb and gutter work, and it was determined that the modifications had been within permissible limits. Mr. Brown asked whether he might take out .a permit to remove and reconstruct his driveway and was told that it would be necessary . for him to sign an assump- tion-of-risk. The Public Works Director expressed the opinion that the trees were not damaged by having the roots cut. Since it was felt that the cost of removing the one tree which might possibly become a hazard would be negligible, Councilman Tyrell moved that the City take out that tree, subject to Mr. Brown's signing a permit for the City to enter his premises and remove the tree and a waiver of any damage resulting while taking it out. Councilman Harker seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen-Harker, Tyrel l , Briggs NOES: Councilman- Merritt ABSENT: Councilman - Beckley Mayor Pro Tem Briggs told Mr. Brown that the forms would be mailed to him at a later date and that Public Works Director Pizzorno would be glad to confer with him on the other matters.. The Public Works Director informed the Council that a state- ment had been mailed to Mr. Brown and that the due -date was "five days following the public hearing of tonight." Councilman Merritt moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Tyrell, the motion carried unanimously. Council- man Tyrell moved to confirm the assessments for curbs and Council Minutes, March 5, 1968 - page 6. gutters on .the south side of Live Oak Ave. between Rosemead Blvd. and Eaton Wash on the basis of the recommendation to amend by the deletion of eight lineal feet from the Brown property at 8836 Live Oak Ave. Councilman Merritt seconded and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen- Harker, Merritt, Tyrell, Briggs NOES: Councilmen -None ABSENT: Councilman - Beckley 6. PARKING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Meeting of Feb. 15, 1968. A. Recommend that green and white trapezoidal signs, measur- ing 36 inches at the top and 30 inches high, reading "Enter" or "Exit", as appropriate, and the words "Back -In Parking Prohibited, T.G. Ord. 68 -261" be installed at the entrances to Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6. Public Works Director Pizzorno presented the above recommenda- tion. After considerable discussion regarding the size of the signs, the Council concluded that for aesthetic reasons smaller signs would be better, and determined that the matter be re- turned to the Parking Commission for further recommendations. B. ORDINANCE NO. 68 -261: 2nd reading, as amended, exempting all trucks in excess of three ton gross weight from the provisions of this Ordinance. City Attorney Martin presented for second reading Ordinance No. 68 -261, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ADDING NEW SECTION 3335 TO THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PRO - HIBITING OF BACK-IN PARKING ON MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS. Council- man Merritt moved to waive further reading and to adopt Ordi- nance No. 68 -261. Councilman Tyrell seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. NEW'BUSINESS 7. RESOLUTION NO. 68 -806: Appointing temporary personnel City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 68 -806, appointing a steno -clerk for the Recreation Dept. Councilman Harker moved to adopt Resolution No. 68 -806, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 8. FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT NO. 8001: Assignment to Krelle & Lewis for Payment for Work Completed City Manager Koski presented an assignment for payment to Krelle Lewis by the County Flood Control, Project No. 8001, of the sum of $2338.52, stating that the Public Works Dept. had ad- vised that the work had been completed as set forth and recom- mended that the Council approve the assignment. Councilman Tyrell moved to approve the recommendation, Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion was unanimously passed. 9. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASSESSMENT - Curb and Gutter: a. Emperor Ave., north side, Rosemead Blvd. to Oak Ave. b. Emperor Ave., south. side, Rosemead Blvd. to Sultana Ave. c. Emperor Ave., south side, Sultana Ave. to Livia Ave. d. Emperor Ave., south side, Loma Ave. to Oak Ave. Councilman Tyrell moved to set public hearings on the above items a, b, c and d for March 19, 1968, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 5938 N. Kauffman Ave., Temple City. The motion, seconded by Councilman Merritt, was passed unanimously. 10. SET PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT - Sidewalk Installation: a. Emperor Ave., north side, Rosemead Blvd. to Oak Ave. b. Emperor Ave., south. side, Livia Ave. to Loma Ave. c. Emperor Ave., south side, Loma Ave. to Oak Ave. 1 Council Minutes, March 5, 1968 - page 7. City Manager Koski presented the proposed assessments for side- walk installation. Councilman Tyrell moved to set public hear- ings on items a, b, and c for March 19, 1968, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 5938 N. Kauffman Ave., Temple City. Coun cilman Merritt seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 68 -807: Warrants and Demands in the sum of $29,717.08, No. 10642 through No. 10682. City Manager Koski presented Resolution No. 68 -807. Councilman Harker moved to adopt Resolution No. 68 -807, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion was passed unanimously. 12. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK. No one came forward at this time. 13. MATTERS :FROWC I TY OFFICIALS: City Manager Koski presented a request from the Chamber of Com- merce Merchants Committee to hold a Jazz Festival on the Malls on Saturday, April 6, 1968. Councilman Merritt moved to approve the request, Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. The City Manager presented a letter from the Union Oil Company requesting permission to conduct a geophysical survey using vibroseis equipment along Temple City Blvd. from the northern to the southern City limits. City Manager Koski stated that this was essentially the same type of survey as was conducted by Standard Oil along the railroad tracks, and Councilman Tyrell inquired whether there had been any complaints about the first survey and was advised there were no complaints to date. Mr. John L. Norris., of the Union Oil Company, 9645 S. Santa Fe Springs Rd., Santa Fe Springs, Calif., 90670, explained the operation of the equipment and its effect on the houses in the vicinity. He assurred the Council that the residents would be forewarned, and that there would be no damage. After consider- able discussion of possible problems and benefits to the City, Councilman Harker moved to grant Union 0i1 Company permission to conduct a vibroseis survey as requested, subject to liability insurance being posted, residents being notified, and with the understanding that complaints would cause an immediate halt to the work. Councilman Tyrell seconded, and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen - Harker, Tyrell, Briggs NOES: Councilman - Merritt ABSENT: Councilman- Beckley The City Manager mentioned the right -of -way program on Temple City Blvd., from Garibaldi north to Duarte Road, to widen it from 64 to 80 feet. After brief discussion, it was determined to postpone this matter to the adjourned meeting on March 11, 1968. 14. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Councilman Tyrell moved to adjourn to Monday night, March 11, 1968, at 7:30 p.m. Councilman Merritt seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. The Council adjourned at 11:08 p.m. M -yor Pro Tem