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