HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 26, 1954
~
.
.
Council Chamber, City Hall.
Arcadia, CaJ..ifom1a
October 26. 1954
TO: ALL CITY COUNCILlolEN AND PLANNING CO!-ll-lISSIONERS
SUBJECT: PLANNING COHMISSION MINUTES
The City Planning COllIlD:ission met in regular meeting with Mr. Pratt
presiding as ~aUman pro tam.
PRESENT: Commissioners Anderson, Pratt, Robertson and Sorenson.
ABSENT: Commissioners Balser. DaJy and Knopp.
OTHERS PRESENT: Forbes, Mansur, Nicklin and McGlasson.
In the absence of the Secretary, Assistant. C1ty Engineer Frank Forbes
served as Acting Secretary.
The minutes of the lIIletiI!g of October 13, 1954, Olare approved as
written and mailed.
The Com:mission again consid.e1.'ed the sllocation of costs to be charged
to the owners of property adjacent to proposed Tract No. 19647, mo m:q
des:l.re to avail themselves of improvements conetructed by the subdivider.
Three 1lletbods of mak1ng the assessment 'llere tabulated in a report from the
City Engineer. A letter from Mr. Allen, listing additional costs incurred
in connection vith this subdivis10n, was read. A oOllll1lUll1cation from
~label Clausen, attorney for Mr. Karl Hart. raised the question as to whether
the land acquired for street. purposes on Leda Lane and Fifth Avenue con-
stituted a part of the lots to be BOld by the subdb:l.der. Mr. Forbes stated
that. the cost. of the land referred to in Miss Clausen IS let.ter lilElN not
included in the cost of the subd1.v1s10n, but for street areas on4r. bre
vas some discussion as to whether costs . should be apport1oned on lot basis,
areo. basis, front foot basis or a composite of an. three) also whether the
decision on this tract should set a precedent for all.ocat1on of costs on
future t.racts. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Sorenson am unani-
mousJy carded that the Planning COllIlD:ission recozmnend to the C1ty Council
that the cost distribution on prop... Ues adjacent to proposed Tract
No, 19647 be based on the front foot. basis on this ,particular tract on4r.
Later in the meeting the final map uf Tract No. 19647 vas considered. !-lotion
by Hr. Pratt. seconded by Mr. ~ertson and unanimously carried that final
map of Tract No. 19647 bEl recOllUliElllded for approval subject to oerti1'ication
of impositions recommended by the City Engineer am subjeot to tI1eir approval
by the G1i<\T Engineer prior to subm1ss1o:1 to the Cii<\T GouncU.
The COllIlIlission reconsidered the proposed new school s1 te on Third
Avenue. A report from the Planning Consultant pointed out that on4r one
short, local fre1ght train and three passenger trains were scheduled during
the school hours of 9:00 A. 14., and 3:30 P. 1'1. that the santa Fe Ra1lroad
1itlUld not oonstitute a barrier because there is a grade separation at
Huntington Drive and Second Avenue and also a pedestr:l.an underpass under the
railroad at Fifth. Avenue. A report f'rom the City Engineer stated that a
dedicated 60 foot paved. street between Third Avenue and Second Avenus along
the southerJy line of' the park would allow better circulation of traffic
to and from the school. Parallel park1ng would be perm1tted on each side of
the street and of'f.street angle park1ng provided f'or t.he school and park.
A map of this proposal was subm:1.tted. Mr. Mansur pointed out that the
dedication of a street would create frontage for the property to the south
of the park. Motion by Mr. Anderson, seoonded by Mr. SClrenson and unanimousJy
carried that approval of the Th1rd Avenue school site be recommended to the
10-26-54
,-
.
.
City COuncil mth the suggest.ion that t.ha stre~t betmlen Second Avenue and
Third Avanus be developed as a private street rather than a dedicated street.
The COilllIIiasion reconsidered the advisability of annsxing land on the
north side of Live Oak Avenue east of Sixth Avenue. There was some discussion
as to the advisability of use of the property as a garage and body shop.
~lr. Mansur again pointed out the hazard of hauling in vrecked. cars on Live
oak Avenue at the Wash. Motion by Mzo. liObertson. seconded by Mzo. Anderson and
unan1mous.~ carried that the Planning Commission recammend approval of the
advisability of the annexation or the land on the north side of Live oak
Avenue east of Sixth Avanue am that it automatically be zoned R~3 under
the present Zoning Ordinance and 0-1 under the proposed C-Zona amendmsnt.
1be COIlllIIission again considered the proposal of Ross Himes to extend
Sandra Avenue into Las Tunas Drive. A report from the City Engineer stated
that if the GXtel1sion of Sand:t'a Avanue conforms to zoning requirements that
it is raconnnended that it be approved on the condition that curb and gutters
be installed and 36 foot paving; crOBS gutter extending to the easter~ side
on the north-south connection to Las Tunas Drive with sewers extended to the
easter~ end of the pavement and all water and gas lines crossing streets be
installed before paving. A report from the Planning ConsuJ.tant stated that
if the H1mas property ware to be developed for b11ilding sites, a pel'lllllll9l1t
street as suggested by Mr. Himes would be logical. b~t that it was unnecessary
for the Planning Commission to act on the rezoning of the property at this
time. ~Iotion by Mr. Robertson. seconded by Mzo. Anderson and un.animous~
carried that the secretary be instructed to advise Mr. Himes in response to
his letters of September 30th and October 6th that the PI_nt Tlg COll1III1ss1on
would look with favor on the extension of Sandra Avenue to Las Tunas Drive
if Sandra Avenue is to be closed at the ~lashJ that as to the suggested re-
zoning of the property on the north side of the proposed eastward extension
of Sandra Avenue that this entire area. including the suggested R-3 classifi-
cation of such norther~ portion were fUl.ly discussed at the time the entire
Hilnes property was UDder consideration. and that for this reason this Com-
mission would not attempt to give an inf01'llllll opinion on this phase of his
suggestion.
The COlIIIIlission considered the request of Frank J. Rice for a change of
setback for a sign at the Frontier Drive-In located at 250 Ivest Colorado
Bou1evard. Tne request was referred to Mr. Knopp and Mr. Pratt for inspection,
and a report from the Pollee Depart!ll9nt vas requested on the matter.
A second revised tentative map of Tract No. 20642 was presented and dis-
cussed. A report from the Planning Consultant suggested that the east and
wst street be improved to within two feet of the east property line as this
subdivision is not furnishing arq street out to Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Robert-
son stated that the revised map was still not the best plan because it left
ad,iacent property almost impossible to develop. Mr. Pratt stated that 75 foot
frontage should be maintained. Mr. Mcnvenna. representing Morris W. Finley
ComplU\Y. asked for conditional approval and for a statelnent of what was re~
quired for developlll9nt of the tract. Mr. Mansur stated that an overall plan
of the entire area should be considered and suggested that the developer
work with the City Engineer and Planning Consultant. Mr. Bone. 274 West
Foothill Boulevanl.. owner of the property to the east. stated that he would
be willing to work with the subdivider and Mr. Merry to the east of him in
the development of the entire area. Motion by Mr. Anderson. seconded by
Mr. Robertson and ~ carried that the second revised tentativa map
of Tract No.2Q642 be denied and that a more satisfactory plan be submitted.
A revised tentative map of Tract No. 18512 located on Greenfield Avenue
south of Duarte Road was considered. A report from the Oi tv Engineer stated
that the map corresponds with the map prev1ousJ;r subm1tted; that if the 5<>
foot street of Greenfield Avenue were granted. a 5 foot planting and side-
walk easenent along each side should be granted. Also. if the property
facing Duarte Road were to be placed in a connnercial zone in the future, a
20 foot alley in the rear of Lot 1 should be dedicated and .improved, and that
the widening of Duarte Road should include the dedication of 10 feet and the
- 2 Q
10-26..ch
. . - .w
.
.
construction of curbs and gutters as 11811 as street improvements. Mr. Robert-
son stated that the 25 foot street extension to Duart9 Road would not be
acceptable. !.lr. Pratt stated that it would be better to wait untU lots 13
and 14. adjacent to the proposed tract, could be included or a plan submitted
that would not preclude their future development. Motion by Mr. Robertson.
seconded by Mr. Alrierson and unanimousJ,y carried that the first revised
tentative map of Tract No. 1853.2 be recOlllDl8llded for denial as submitted.
A final map of Tract No. 18616 located on Fifth Avenue south of Duarte
Roa1,vas considered. A report from the CiV Engineer called attention to
the./ foo1; planting and sidewaJll: easement required along each side of the
50 foot cul--de-sao and street improvements as require by City Ordinance.
!.lotion by Mr.' Robertson, seconded by Mr. SOrenson and l1XllIlI1mcIusJ carried
that final map of Tract No. 18616 be recQllDlended for approval subject to the
recommendation and impositions of the City Engineer.
A final map of Tract No. 20600 located on Doolittle Avenue was considered.
A report f'rom the City Enjp.neer was read, calling attention to the street im-
provements required and the reIDOV'al of all buildings fl'Olll the subdivision
and from adjacent propert,y to provide the proper yard clearances. Motion by
Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Pratt and 1III8JI1mousJ,y carried that final map
of Tract No. 20600 be recOlllI11Snded for approval subject to the recammandations
of' the Oi t;r Eng:l..neer.
The request of Edward R. Johnson to divide propert,y at 320 SOuth Second
AvelIUe was rei'erred to Mr. Sorenson and Mr. D~ to investigate.
~lr. Anderson advised that he ~ be out of the cit;r for the nwr:t t'w
Planning Commission meetings.
~flR~
FRANK FORBES
Secretary pro tern
- 3 -
10-26-54