Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 10, 1955 . . . Council Chamber, City Hall Arcadia, Caiifornia May 10, 1955, 8:00 p.m. TO: ALL CITY COUNCILMEN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The City Planning Commission met in regular 'meeting with Chair- man Balser presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Balser, Daly, Pratt, Robertson, Sorenson and Vachon ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mansur,Nicklin, Rogers, McGlasson and Talley Councilman Carilphouse entered the meeting at 9.:20 p.m. The minutes of the meeting of April ,26, 1955, and the minutes of the Modification Committee's meetings of April 25 and May 2. 1955, were approved as written and mailed. Pursuant to notice given, a pUblic hearing was held on the applicntion of Mrs. Irline V. Davison for a zone variance to allow the property at 812 West Huntington Boulevard to be used for pro- fessional offices. Mr. Gilbert Zimmerman~ brother of Mrs. Davison. appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated thut the building would be more suitable for professional offices than .for a multiple dwelling., He stated that the applicant preferred professional uses such as offices for architects, attorneys. etc., rather than a medical building and that such use probably would not create as much traffic in and out of the property. Also, that the existing garage and apartment on the rear of the property would be removed and the space used for off-street parking. Mr. Marks, subdivider of property to the south, spoke in favor of the variance. stating that the removal of the garage apartment and the remodeling of the existing dwelling would be an improvement in the neighborhood but that he felt the use should be limited to medical or dental offices rather than other professional offices. He stated that he had dis- cussed the matter with Mr. Ormsby to the west and Mr. Conners to the east and that they concurred in his opinion. Mr. Jack H. Morris, 865 West Huntington Drive, protested the location of any professional building in the area even though all the existing buildings were removed and a new building constructed. He stated that he felt there was a need for more multiple resi- dences in the vicinity and that he would be willing to make an Offer for the property. No other person desired to be heard and the Chairman declared the hearing closed. He requested the Commis- Sion to again view the property and ordered the matter held for consideration at the next meeting along with a report from the Planning Consultant. The Commission considered a decision on the application of Reuben V. Senior and others for a change of zone from Zone C-2 to Zone M-l on property located on the north side of Live Oak Avenue between the Arcadia Wash right of way and Las Tunas Drive. A report from the City Engineer stated that ,he had no comment to make from an engineering standpoint except to suggest that concrete Curbs and gutters be required to be constructed on the adjacent street where they are not now existing. A report from the Planning Consultant stated that a C-2 Zone on the subject property was more nearly comparable with existing uses on Las Tunas and with the existing C-3 Zone on the south side of Live Oak Avenue than an M-l Zone would be. Also. that if an M-l Zone were granted; it would probably be used as an argument to - 1 - 5/10/55 . . rezone both the property on Las Tunas Drive and the property in county area to an M-l Zone. He called attention to the fact that some of the parcels extended from Live Oak Avenue to Las Tunas Drive and would have double frontage under one ownership which would make a problem of enforcement \. ibfzo ne. regulations. Also that if the Las Tunas Drive frontage has been unable to successfully develop as commercial property, as stated by the applicants, it would be less likely to develop if the southerly portion were in the M-l Zone. He recommended denial of the application. It was the consensus of all the Commissioners that it would be a mistake to allow M-l zoning anywhere in that particular area of the city. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried, that the City Attor- ney be instructed to draw a resolution recommending the denial of the application. The Commission considereda'deo:l.sion on' the application of Pearle M. Nash for a zone variance to allow a medical building ~t 514 West Huntington Boulevard. The matter was held for discussion along with the proposed rezoning of Huntington Boulevard between Michlllinda Avenue and Holly Avenue which had been referred back by the City Council for turther consideration by the Commission. Later in the meeting the application of Pearle Nash was again dis- cussed. A letter from the City Engineer stated that he had no ob- Jection to the variance from an engineering standpoint, but he called attention to the master street plan which indicated a street in the rear of the property and suggested that possibly dedication for a street or alley should be required if the application were granted. A report from the Planning Consultant pointed out that medical building use had been allowable on this property until the change in Zone R-3 and that a short distance west of this property a medi- cal building existed and a variance to permit an addition to the use had been recommended for approval. He recommended approval of the application on condition that the southerly 30 feet of the lot be dedicated for alley Dr street purposes or that an agreement is made to deed the property when access is obtained from the existing street. It was suggested that Councilman Camphouse call to the atten- tion of the City Council the need of a dedication for alley purposes at the rear of the Merriam property on which a zone variance is now pending before the Council and that such dedication include the rear of the Merriam property now developed for medical uses. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Acker and unanimously car- ried by roll call vote that the City Attorney be instructed to draw a resolution recommending the approval of tqe application of Pearle M. Nash for a medical building at 514 West Huntington Boule- vard with the conditions that the southerly 30 feet of the property be dedicated for alley purposes and that the plot plan and final plans and specifications of the building be approved by the City Engineer and Planning Commission. The Commission considered a decision on the application of H. N. Berger for a variance to allow medical purposes at 111 East Live Oak Avenue. A report from the City Engineer stated that there was no objection to the variance from an engineering standpoint but recommended that if the variance were approved 20 feet in the rear of the property should be dedicated for alley purposes. A report from the Planning Consultant stated that the property was in Zone R-3 and until recently could have been used for doctors' offices. Also, that it was in the area now being considered for rezoning to the C-O Zone. He recommended that the application be approved on the condition that a 2O-foot alley be dedicated along the northerly portion of the property and that a concrete block wall be con- structed to separate the parking area from the residential property to the north. Chairman Balser discussed the proposed alley and questioned whether or not an alignment could be secured to continue the alley - 2 - 5/10/55 . '. 1 ~ 47 . . '.... from Greenfield Avenue to Louise Avenue. The City Engineer recom- mended the requirement of the alley even tl1ov,gl1 it might be dead- end at the present time, stating that in the 'future it might be continued. ~Motion py Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Acker and unanimously carried by roll call vote that the City Attorney be instructed to draw a resolution recolnmending the granting of the application subject to the dedication of land for alley purposes and the construction of the concr.ete block walL The request of Robert A. Casey for a division of property at 312-314 East Huntil1Jl:tonDrive was reported on by Mr. Vachon and Mr. Acker. They reported that the rear portion of the property, for which the division was requested, had been sold to the Maler Plumbing Company. owner of the property adjacent to the west and that the Plumbing Company were now parking trucks on the property which is presently zoned R-3. Mr. Robertson pointed out that the new owner should make application for zone variance if he intends to use the property along with the plumbing business. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Acker and carried, that the request for the division of property be denied and that it be reconsidered if and when the purchaser of the:property applies for a zone variance as to its use. Revised tentative map of Tract No. 21714, located north of El Sur Avenue between Mayflower Avenue and Tenth Avenue was considered. The Subdivision Committee pointed out that the original tentative map of this tract provided for lots 68 feet wide and that the re- vised map reduced these widths to as low as 60 feet. The street width on the revised map came more nearly meeting the requirements of the ordinance than the.original map but was still Bupstandard in that it offered only planting and sidewalk easements adjacent to El Sur Avenue. It was the opinion of the entire Commission that possibly an error had been made in the past months in approving tracts showing lots of less width than required by the Subdivision Ordinance but that it had been done in an effort to work out subdivisions in the rear of deep properties. It was felt that where enough land was available to adjust lot sizes that the ordinance should be adhered to and that a better development both from the standpoint of the City and the property owner would be secured. Mr. Robertson pointed out that in this particular subdivision many protests had been re- ceived from owners living on El Sur Avenue and he felt that the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance should be adhered to. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Pratt and unanimously carried by roll call vote, that revised tentative map of Tract No. 21714 be recommended for denia~ as not being in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Alfred Allen, Subdivider, called attention to the fact most of the existing lots in the area, which was attempted to subdivide, were 114 feet wide and that some of the owners in the area had stated that they would not enter into the subdivision but would later apply for approval of dividing their property into 57-foot lots. He said that he did not think this would be a fair deal if he were required to hold 75-foot lot widths in the subldivieion. Mr. Vachon agreed that substandard iotsplits should not be allowed where other lots conformed to the ordinance. Mr. Robertson stated that it was not the duty of this Commission to work out problems between property owners and subdividers and suggested that the property owners meet with Mr. Allen in an attempt to solve their own problems. At this time the City Attorney' asked to be excused from the meeting in preparation of a trip to Sacramento. Tentative map of Tract No. 18241, located on Encino Avenue, was considered. A report from the City Engineer pointed out the fact that the tract had been submitted in two studies butthat study No. 1 did not include a parcel of ground on Eighth Avenue leaving - 3 - 5/10/55 . . . . . . the proposed street only half width and that the subdivider had stated that this property would eventually be included in the tract so that only study No. 2 should be considered. He pointed out that all lots on the west side of the street except the northerly two had a width of less than 75 feet and that if one lot were eliminated widths of 76 feet or more would be provided. Also. that lots on the east side of the street were substandard as to width and that by eliminating one lot, widths of 77 feet would be provided! A report from the Planning Consultant called attention to the narrow lots and that a strip at the south end of Encino Avenue should be deeded to the City to control the future extension of the street. A communication from Robbins Realty Company pointed out many tracts that had been approved with similar lot widths and stated that it would be a hardship on owners of this property if they were required to comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. Com- munications from Homer F. Rayle, 1233 South Eighth Avenue, W. H. McCauley. 1136 South Sixth and Ted Emm, 1102 South Sixth. requested that the map as submitted be denied and that the subdivider be re- quired to continue the street south to connect with Camino Grove Avenue adjacent to the school property. They stated that there were now several poultry ranches in the area south of the proposed tract and that if the street is not required to continue through at this time the future continuation would be difficult to obtain. . , Mr. RObbins. Subdivider, read a lengthy statement as to why the owners of this property felt they were entitled to an .approval of the tract and referred to many other areas that had been devel~ with lots as narrow as 60 feet. Hes'tated that the elimination of. a lot each side would reduce the return from the sale of the sub- division to where it might not be'reasonable to develop. He pre~ sented 16 post cards signed by owners in the area. stating their reasons why the tract should be approved. Some of these cards were read by the writers. Mrs. Bertha Stevenson. 1004 South SiXth Avenue. Mr. McClain. 1031 Sout~ Eighth Avenue. and Mr. H. S. Bryson all urged the approval of the tract and felt that a requirement of 75- foot lot Widths would preclude its development. The Subdivision Committee and the Chairman again pointed out that this tract was of sufficient size to well afforci to meet the requirements of the ordinance and that it was their opinion that in the past the Commission had been too lenient on lot widths. Motion by Mr. Vachon. seconded by Mr. Daly and unanimously carried by roll call vote. that the tentative map of Tract No. 18241 be recommended for denial as not complying with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. , The request of the Ford Litho Company. 14 Morlan Place. to add binding to their printing business was held over until receipt of further information. A communication from E. A. Park requested that the use of land for a pickle factory be included in M-l zoning. Mr. Mansur pointeci out that in the Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County ordinances this use was permitted only in Zone M-2 because of objectionable odors. Motion by Mr. Vachon. seconded by Mr. Acker and carried, that the use for pickle factory be classified as a use permissible in Zone M-2 and. not allowed in Zone M-l. / Request of the Arcadia Unified School District to divide prop- ertyat 305 North Santa-Ariita-Avenue was considered. A report from the City ~hgineer pointea out that the front portion of the property was proposed to be sold for industrial operations and that the rear portion would be used by the School District for bus storage and shOps and that on account of traffic connected with each use the street right of way should be 60 feet with 48-foot pavement. He recommended a standard curb and gutter be required along the north side of the street for a distance of approximately 144 feet adja- cent to the present veterinary hospital and that concrete rolled ~~ - 4 - 5/10/55 {" 1(ij . . / curb and gutters would be satisfactory on the balance of the street. The Distric~ had requested that the east 144-feet of the street be dedicated 54 feet wide and tne balance 60 feet. Mr. Pratt stated that he felt the property to the north should pay some share of the cost of the street if they intended to make use of it. Motion by Mr. Pratt, seconded by Mr.. Vachon and carried, that permission to divide the property be recommended for approval subJect to the. following conditions: 1. That the east 144 feet of the street be dedicated 59 feet wide and that the balance of the street be dedicated 60 feet wide, and that it be improved as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and according to plans and specifications to be approved by the City Engineer, the pavement to be 48 feet wide; 2. That a one-foot strip along the north side of the east 144 ~ feet of the street be deeded in fee to the City; i 3. That the School District submit a fixed price to be ap- proved by the City Engineer, the Planning Comm:l:ssion and the City Council which would be' required to be paid before prop- erty to the north would be allowed to make use of the street; 4. Submission of a fina.l map and payment of the usual recrea- tion fees. Tentative map of Tract No. 19107, located north of Sycamore Avenue and east of Santa Anita Wash was referred to the Subdivision Committee for study and report. The matter of the proposed rezoning of Huntington Boulevard between Holly Avenue and Michillinda Avenue was referred back by the City Council for further consideration. The Chairman appointed a Committee consisting of Mr. Vachon, Mr. Acker and Mr. Balser to work with the Planning Consultant to make a study of the area. The request of Pat Carmical to divide property at 634 West Norman Avenue was referred to Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Balser for in- vestigation. A communication from Betty Weir, 139 West Camino Real, re- quested permission to appear before the Commission on May 24 and discuss the present limitations on glass houses, lath houses, etc. The Secretary was instructed to include this item on the agenda for the meeting of May 24. The Planning Consultant exhibited a booklet published by the State of California, entitled Planning for Growth, and recommended that copies be secured for each Commissioner. The Chairman instructed the Secretary to order such booklets. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. < I < . ..-~ ' I . \... t " ~' ., . ;/ /7 ;;::"hv ! wJJ.J~i L. M. TALLEY (J Secretary . LMT:acb - 5 - 5/10/55