HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 14, 1954
.
.
Council Chamber, City Hall
Arcadia, California
Dec81l1ber 14, 1954, 8:00 p.m.,
TO: ALL CITY COUNCILMEN AND PLANNING CO~'ISSIONERS
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Tho Oity Planning Commission met in regular meeting with Chair-
man Balser presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Balser, Knopp, Pratt, Robertson and
Sorenson
ABSEN1': Commissioners Anderson and Daly
OTHERS PRESENT: Camphouse, Forbes, Mansur, Nicklin, MoGlasson
and Talley
'rbs minutes of the meeting of November 23, 1954, were approved
as written and mailed.
Pursuant to notice given, a public hearing was held on the appli-
cation of Ii. A. Valentine for a change of zone from Zone R-3 to Zone
C-2 on property at the northeast comer of Second Avenue and Live Oak
Avenue. The applicant was represented by Edward J. Till of the firm
of Stephen". CUnningham and Aesociates, Land Use and Zoning Oon-'
sultant~. Mr. Till called attention to the fact that previous appli-
cations for zone change had been denied by the City. He also called
attention to the statement of Judge Daniel N. stevens in the case of
Ross H~es vs the City of Aroadia where it was pointed out that the
interseotions of Santa Anita Avenue and Live Oak Avenue and Seoond
Avenue $nd Live OAk Avenue were the only major intersections in the
City not zoned for commercial uses.
He also filed for the record a copy of the Los A~elea Daily
Journal, dated April 1951, which oontained a summary of the above men-
tioned case. .Re stated that the applioant is the owner of the
adjoining lot to the north now zoned R-3 and that he intended to
develop this lot for multiple residential purposes which would serve
as a buffer between existing residential use and the requested com-
mercial use. Also, that he planned the construction ot masonry walls
around the proposed commercial lot. He stated that it was ~ropoBed
to lease the lot for a six-pump service station only and that the
lease would be for a 25-year perio4. In his opinion, this would not
be detrimental to surrounding residential property. ~
,.~,' \, .
Telegrams were reoeived from Mr. and Mrs. ~. L. Barrick and Dr.
and Mrs. E. U. George, protesting granting of the change of zone.
J. M. Cummings, owner of property at the northwest corner of Live Oak
Avenue snd Fourth Avenue, favored the chan~e of'zone. Oral proteats
were heard from Fred Johns, 2015 South Third; R. M. E1y, 2528 South
fhlrd, James Noble, 2601 South fh1rdi John A. Lynch, 2523 South fhird,
A. P. HsdoBsevlch. 2012 South Second; Ray Smith, 2520 South Second;
and Mrs. E. ~. George, 2600 South Second. They stated that in their
opinion there was no need tor more cOlIlJl.erola1 property in this vicinity
and that any oommercial development on this property or other property
on the north side of Live Oak would tend to depreciate the value of
residential properties on aocount ot noise, traffic and litter.
It was also brought out that school children were picked up by
a bus at the northeast corner ot Second and Live Oak &nd tohat a
- 1 -
12/14/54
.
.
servico station ~1th its entrances and ~xit~ oould be hazardous to
children. It ~as also brought out that,st the time the area north
or Live Osk and east of Seoond Avenue was subdivided by Dr. Valen-
tine and, sold as n,o;:i.ael.1i;1al pl."ope),>j;;y', all 01' the property on the
north side of Live Oak ~as'zoned R-3 and that residential properties
~ere purchased and developed with the understanding th~t Live Oak
vould rem4in DS R-3 property.
Re~. Allison, pastor of the Arcadia Community Church, stated
that hla church was the o~ner of property at the north~eBt corner of
Third AVenue and Live Oak Avenue, abutting the rear of the subject
property and th&t they proposed to erect a church costing no less
than $100,000 and requested that the Commission consider the beauty
of the area and the wishes of the majority of the property owners.
The Chairman declared the hearing olosed and stated that the matter
~ould be taken under advisement. ae requested all Commissioners to
view the property before the next meeting and requested a report from
the Planning Consultant.
Pursuant to notice given, Ii public hearing was held on the appli-
cation of Sam V. Gordon fora chenge of zone from Zone R-l to Zone R-2
on property at the rear of 802 Nort~ First Avenue. No communications
~ere r6~eived and no person desired to be heard. Mr. Gordon stated
that hl~ application set out the full deteiis and that his only ~iBh
was to Qerive more income from the property to protect his investment.
U~on questioning by Mr. Knopp, Mr. Gordon stated that there ~ere now
fiva l"esi.uential un:l.ta on the property and that he planned to ereot
three more units. The Chairman declared the hearing closed and the
matter r,as discussed by the Commlss.ion. Mr. Robertson statedtho.t due
to the fact this property had been before the Commission so many times
he felt that all the Commissioners were thoroughly familiar Dith the
conditions. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seoonded by Mr. Pratt and car-
ried that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare a resolution
recommending the granting of the application.
rhe Commission considered the decision on the anplication of the
Arcsdla Unified School Distriot for a zone varianoe to allow an ele-
mentary school on Elkins Avenue. The Secretary informed the Chairmnn
that protest petitions signed by 411 persons in various p~rts of tho
City hSQ bee~ filed as of this date. Upon order of the Chairman, the
contents of the petition were read. Also submitted ~ero copies of
the petition for each Co~nissioner and a proof sheet of a paid adver-
tisement ~hlch was to appear in the ~est ArcaJia Press.
An engineering report from the City Engineer sta~ed that seuer
service was adequate for the proooaed school use; th~t the site w()uld
be proteoted from flood hazard upon t~e completion of the flood pro-
tection ~ork in Elkins Canyon required to be done in connection with
the improvement of Tract No. 20211; that the Lannan Canyon Storm drain
is under construc~lon; th&t the street system would be adequate to
handle traffic needs; and th&t the site was adjacent to a site owned
by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and proposed to be
used for recreational purposes until needed by the Flood Control
Die trict.
A report of the, Planning Consultant reviewed the history of past
negotiations with the School Board relative to a SChool site in this
general area and called attention to the bction of the Commission un
Novembet' 24. li,J53, approving ehe aite as ana'Poroprlate location for
a school. He stated that, althouBh the site is now at the fringe of
residential development, a tentative map already anproved by this
Commission and additional vacant ~rea tL the north amounting to OVAI'
200 acres oreated the possibility of ssveral hundred hom~s being con~
structed to ths west and north of this site. !fe recommended the
grantine of the variance.
- 2 -
12/14/54
.
.
Commissioner Pratt stated that in his opinion most of theit:ams
contained in the protest petition referred to school administration
rather than zoning and were not a matter for decision by thIs Com-
mission. He stated that of personal knowledge he kneN it would be
difficult to find a sizeable site for a school at less cost than
this particular site. Commissioner Robertson stated that he felt
this particular site would affect fewer residents than most any other
site and that the future buyers to the _est and north would buy and
develop their property knowing of the existence of a school. Commis-
sioner Knopp called attention to efforts of the Commission to work
with the School Board to provide additional school aites in~' connec-
tion with other subdivisions and stated that in his opinion planning
for schools in this areahad been inconsistent.
Mr. Nourse, member of the School Board, informed the Commission
that Dr. Dice had been acting under the direction and with the full
support of the School Board. Motion by Mr. Robertson that the City
Attorney be instructed to prepare a resolution recommending the
grant1rig of the application for variance. Said motion was seconded
by Mr. Pratt and carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Balser, Pratt, Robertson and Sorenson
NOES: Commissioner KnOllP
ABSENT: Commiaaioners Anderson and Daly
Request of the Arcadia On1fie~ School District, addressed to
the City Manager, and request.lng the vacation of a portion of '!'hird
Avenue north of California, lying bet~een the proposed school site
and city-owned property, was referred to the Commission f.or recollllllen-
datio~. A report from the City Engineer stated that such vacation
should be that portion of Third Avenue between a point 570 feet north
of California Street and the Santa Fe Railroad and that this would
provide for a 50-foot dedicated street betw~en fhird Avenue and Second
Avenue along the southerly side of the city property.. Motion by Mr.
Sorenson, aeconded by Mr. Knopp and carried that the request for vaca-
tion of Third Avenue be recommended tor approval.
A communication from Leslie r. Bloom, the lessee of the restau~
rant located at 100 nest Huntington Drive, requested a change of set-
back to allow a new neon sign on an existing post now located within
the setback area. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Pratt
and carried that the request be recommended for approval provided the
sign be not over 28 square' feet in area.
The request of ~. J. Edwards, 1046 Fairview Avenue, for division
of property wae reported on by Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Balser. This
requested division was to oreate a lot 55 feet by 100 feet in Zone
R-3. A report from the City Engineer stated that if allowed, the
applicant should furnish a final map and pay the recreation fee. Mr.
Sorenson and Mr. Balser agreed that the requested size was too small
but that if the 55-foot width were carried the full lot depth, it
would be satisfactory. Motion by Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr.
Balser and carried that the application as submitted be denied but
that a division of 55 feet by 140 feet be approved subject to the
conditions set out by the City Engineer.
The request of Robert N. Reeves, 2311 South Sixth Avenue, to
divide property, whlch was recommended for denial on November 23,
was referred back to the Commission by the City Council for further
constderation. Further investigation showed that lots on either side
of this particular property were approximately the same width. A
communication from Mr. Reeves and G. L. Robbins pointed out that the
requested division would limIt construction to one house on each lot
and would be a benefit to the neighborhood., ._Motion by Mr. Sorenson,
seoonded by Mr. Balser and carried that the request be recommended
- :3 -
12/14/54
.
.
for approval subject to submitting a final, map and paying the
required recreation fee.
The request of'J. G. Stoebe to divide property at Duarte Road
and Second Avenue, recommended fo~ approval on November 23 and referred
back by the City Council for further consideration, was reconsidered.
It was the thought of the City Council that possibly more land could
be secured to the west to offset the land ~equired to ~ dedicated
for street puroosee for widening Second Avenue. Investigation showed
that this land to the west was being used as a paved driveway into an
adjacent garage. Motion by Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Balser and
carried that the application be returned to the City Council with the
original recommendation of this Commission as acquisition of sddi-
tional land is not feasible.
Tentative map of Tract No. 21122, located east of Sixth Avenue
and south of Longden Avenue was ccnsidered. Report from the City
Engineer. among other' things, called attention to the fact that all
lots in the tract ~ere less thUD 75 feet in width and less than 7500
-square feet in area. A report from the Planning Consultant stated
that. ~n his opinion, due to the location of the tract next to the
Santa Anita Wash and in an area of modest homes. the lot size was not
material. The matter,of a ~ridle trail along Santa Anita Wash was
discussed and the Subdivider"B. A. Park, submitted a report showing
that the Flood Control right of way had been acquired 'in fee by the
district. In the opinion or the Commission lot size's as shown on
tha map would not be detrimental in this particular area.
Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Pratt and carried that
tentative map of fract No. 21122 be recommended for approval as sub-
mitted. subject to the following conditions:
1. That six feet be provided along the southerly side of Lot 9,
east to the Santa Anita Wash to provide a drainage easement;
2. fh&t funds be deposited for street lights 1n accordance o1th
a plan to be obtained from the Edison Company;
3. 'fhat deposit be made for street trees and recreation fees as
required by Ordinance No. 860;
40 That all improvements conform to the existing city standards;
5. That information be submitted showing a separate sanitary
seoer easQlllent;
6. rhat all prooerty within the subdivision be snnexed to the
City of Arcadia;
70 That ~ t~o-foot lot be provided on the southerly end of the
street to control future extension.
8. 'fhat the subdivision be developed with or after tentative
rract No. 18820.
It ~as also recommended that if Tract No. 21122 is approved and
annexed to the City of Arcadia. the triangular portion of property
o~ned by Mr. Llndsberger and located west of the boundary line of the
tract also be snnexed to the City.
Revised tentat1ve map of fract No. 20642, located south of Foot-
hill Boulevard nnd east of San Carlos RO&d. was considered. A report
from the City gngineer stated that this plan would confo~ substan-
tially to the roaster plan of streets for the area; that all lots con-
tained more than the required area and- h6.d a minimum width of 75 fee't
at the building l1ns; end he reoomrr~nded that the Dfuture street"
shown at the eest end of the east-west street be dedicated and
improved. A report from the Planning Consultant agreed substantially
with that of the City Engineer. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by
Mr. Pratt and ~arried that revised tentative map of fract No. 20264
be reoommended fQr approval subject to the follo~ing conditione:
I. Compliance with any State Highway Department requirements;
2. Dadic~~lon in fee of a two-foot lot at the east end of the
east-west atreet and at the end of the north-south street;
3. That the future street shown adjacent to Lot 1 be dedicated
- 4 -
12/11/54
.
.
and improved.
4. Compliance with all requirements o.f' the City Kngineer as to
jmprovements and fees required by Ordinance.
Revised final map of Tract No. 19503, located on Hungate Lane,
south of Huntington Drive and 'east of Golden ~est, was considered. A
letter from Arcadia-Monrovia Realty, Subdivider, reque,ted that the
two-foot lot previously required at the east end of the south alley
be el1minatad so th.b.t accesa could be furnished to an owner of prop-
erty to the east, which would enable the subdivider to acquire more
property and eventually extend the subdivision. Motion by Mr. Pratt,
secondsd by Mr. Robertson and carried that the revised final map of
Tract No. 19503 be recommended for approval as submitted.
Report ot the PlanninK Consultant on the proposed rezoning of
Duarte Road from First Avenue east, including the intersections of
Second Avenue, was considered. The City Attorney was instructed to
prepare a resolution instituting proceedings for the proposed re-
zoning of this area to Z~nes R-2 and C-O or C-l. 'rbe Secretary ~as
instructed to prepare a mEp showing the proposed rezoning and to in-
vetigate the possibility of publishing the map along with the notice
of public hearing.
Consideration of the reoort of the Planning Consultant on the
proposed rezonIng of Huntington Drive from Michillinda Avenue to
Holly Avenue was held for study at the next n~etin~ on account of the
1ateneas of the hour.
The Commission considered plans submitlOed by the Planning Con-
sultant showing the location of proposed future streets to enable
subdivision of large lots. Motion by Mr. Knopp, seconded by Mr.
Robertson and carried that Sheet No. e be recommended for approval.
The Secretary was in~tructed to include other sheets in future agenda
as time would permit.
Request or Paul A. Anderson, 1030-36 Portola Drive, for a yard
variance to allow the construction or & laundry room within the exist-
ing lO-foct rear yard was referrdd to the Planning Commission by the
Modification Committee ~ithout recommendation. 'rbe applicant 1s also
the owner of property at 1040-46 Portola Drive and now has a common
driveway serving the two properties. Communication from Mr. Anderson
stated that if and when either parcel is sold, an easement would be
given from one to the other for drlveway purposes. Motion by Mr.
Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Pratt and carried th~t the requesCed yard
variance be granted subjeot to the recordation or such easement prior
to the effective date of the variance an9 prior to any permit for
oons truct ion.
CoPy of a communication from the Duarte Chamber of Commerce to
the Monrovia Planning Commission protesting any extension of Foothill
Boulevard east of Mountain Avenue was ordered filed.
Communication from ~. R. ReynoldS, 1115 South Fourth Avenue, re-
garding the opening of Third Avenue into Duarte Road WhS read. No
action was taken by the Commission but the Chairman asked the Secre-
taryto explain to Mr. Reynolds the necessity for payment of costs
for the extension of Third Avnue into Duarte Road by all of the
benefitted property o.ners.
the Secretary discussed ~ith the Commission the lack of require-
ment of a side yard for accessory buildings located in the rear of
main residential puildings. It was the consensus of opinion of the
Commission that a side yard should be required for two~thirds the
depth of the lot, not to exceed 100 feet from the front lot line. The
City Attorney and the Secretary were instructed to prepare the neces-
sary procedure for the re~uIrement of such side yards.
'mere being no further business, the~ting journed.
. )\0... .
. M. l'ALLEY
- 6 - Secretsry 12/14/54