HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 24, 1955
.
'.
.
.
Council Chamber, City Hall
Arcadia, California
May 24, 1955, 8:00 p.m.
TO: ALL CI'l'Y COUNCIIlolEN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE~
The City Planning Commission met in regular meeting.
PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Daly, Pratt, Robertson and,
Vachon
A.BSENT: Commissi.oners Balser and Sorenson
OTHERS PRESENT: Camphouse, Mansur, Nicklin, Rogers, McGlas~
son and Talley.
In the absence of the Chairman, Commissioner Pratt s.erved as .
Chairman pre tem.
The minutes of the meeting of May 10 and the minutes of the
Modificati.on Committee meeting of May 9 were appreved as written
and ma1led.
Pursuant te netice given, a public hearing was held on the
prepesed rezoning of Live Oak Avenue between Santa Anita Avenue
and Sixth' Avenue fromZonesR-3 and C-2 te Zones C-O 0 r C-l as
centemplated by Resoluti.on No. 186. A communication from Carl D.
and Lorraine E. Anderson, owners .of property at the northwest
c.orner .of Secend Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, urged the reclassi-
fication to Zone C-2. Communication from Helen N. Tyler, owner
.of preperty at the northwest corner of Live Oak Avenue and Louise
Avenue urged a C-2 zoning. Communicatien frem the Arcadia Cem-
munity Church requested that their property at the nerthwest cor-
ner of Third Avenue and Live Oak Avenue remain in Zone R-3.
A petition bearing 168 signatures and repres~nting 113 par-
cels of land 1ecated north of Live Oak Avenue and extending north
to Longden Avenue protested anyreclassiflcation to a commercial
zone as not being required by the general welf'ape. Verbal pro-
tests were entered by James H. Noble, 2601 Seuth Third Avenue;
Harold Wiberg, 2522 South Fourth Avenue; Fred Johns, 2515 South
Third Avenue; Clarence Davis, 2607 L.ouise Avenue; Mrs. E. W.
George, 2600 South Second Avenue; and Mrs. A. F. Niemann, 2608
Louise Avenue, on the greunds that the commercial needs of-the
area were amply supplied by the businesses on the south side of
Live Oak Avenue and that a portion. of the area pr.oposed to be re-
zoned was now under deed restrictions permitting only residential
use. Alse, that any commercial, development on the nerth side of
the street would be detrimental to residential property values'
nearby.
Mr. Frank Rush, 67 East Live Oak, and F.. A. Champane, 55
East Live Oak, supported the change in zone stating that the prop-
erty was net good for residential uses because of excessive n.oise
and dirt from the traffic en the boulevard. W. H. Rowland, 2634
Louise Avenue, favored the change .of z.one pointing out the loss
.of thousands of dollars in taxatien en business property on the
seuth side of Live Oak Avenue which might ceme te Arcadia had
the north side been zoned for business. He stated that recent
traffic ceunts showed over 20,000 cars per day on Live Oak Ave-
nue which indicated the area was not desirable for residential
use. a. N. Berger, owner of property at the nerthwest cerner
.of Greenf'ield Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, supported the change
to light commercial, stating that the area was entirely unfitted
for R-3 use on account of n.oise and dirt frem the street and
that. in his epinien, a light commercial use weuld net be detri-
mental to the area.
- 1-
5/24/55
,;
.
.
.
John Gillis, 2420 South Fourth Avenue, admitted that the
property on Live Oak would not be good for R~l use but felt that
it was adaptable for apartments. George Ewing, 2412 South Fourth,
requested information on businesses which might be allowed in
Zones C~O or 0-1. The allowable Uses were read by the Secretary.
He then asked if the property we r e zone d 0-0 whether there
was any assurance that the area would not be again rezoned in
the future. Mr. Pratt stated that there was no assurance that
rezoning would not be applied for in the future but that any re-
quested rezoning would require a public hearing. There was some
criticism of the rezoning recently allowed at the northeast cor-
ner of Second Avenue and Live Oak Avenue but the Chairman
stated that that was not a part of this hearing. No other per-
son desired to be heard and the Chairman declared the hearing
closed and requested that reports be submitted by the Planning
Consultant and the City Engineer. The Secretary was reques~ed
to indicate by color on a map the location of protests received
and also the location of persons supporting the rezoning.
Pursuant to notice given, a public hearing was held on the
proposed amendment of Sections 4 and 5 of the Zoning Ordinance
relating particularly to signs in residential districts as con-
templated by Resolution No. 187. A communication from the
Arcadia Board of Realtors stated that they had investigated and
approved~he proposed amendment on the ground that they had
always felt that too many signs or unsightly signs were detri-
mental to property values,.
Mr. P. B. Clausen, 928 Eighth Avenue, stated that he would
not object to signs in residential areas if set back eight or ten
feet from the front property line. Mr. Robbins, 140 East Duarte
Road, suggested that some consideration be given to allow at
least two signs, approximately four feet by eight feet in size,
for a limited length of time to advertise the sale of new subdi-
visions. Mr. Beckwith, 107 West HuntingtOn Drive, suggested
that four square feet in areaof signs would allow realtors to use
the standard signs which they now own. No other person desired
to be heard and the Chairman declared the hearing closed and
requested a report from the Planning Consultant and the City
Engineer.
The Commission considered a decision on the application of
Mrs. Irline V. Davison for a zone variance to allOw professional
offices at 812 West Huntington Boulevard. A report from the
Planning Consultant called attention to the fact that the prop-
erty is now improved with a two-story frame residence and a re~
modeled two-story stab~e which are probably more than thirty
years old. He stated that all the new and proposed medical
buildings on Huntington Boulevard are modern one-story structures
and that if the variance were granted to use this old existing
bUilding it would not conform to the standards of newer build-
ings. Also, that the property had been acquired by the applicant
on April 5, 1955, while present zoning provisions prohibited
professional offices and that it probably was acquired on a specu-
lative basis. He recommended a denial of the application. Mr.
Robertson stated that he felt medical buildings were suitable in
the area but that the Commission 'had been considering some
architectural control for this particular area and concurred with
the Planning Consultant that this particular building would not
be in conformance. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr.
Acker and carried, that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare
a resolution recommending the denial of the application.
The request of Pat Carmical to divide propenty at 624 West
Norman Avenue had been referred to Mr. Sorenson a~d Mr. Balser
to investigate. Due to the absence of both parties and the fact
that Mr. Carmical is also absent on vacation, the matter was held
until the next meeting.
/
\I
The request of Santa Anita Cr~st Investment Company to divide
- -- -----
- 2 -
5/24/55
rl. .
.
.
.-"
property at the southeast corner of Stone House Road and Grand View
Avenue was considered. A report from the City Engineer recommended
certain conditions to be applied if the request were granted. Mr.
Robertson stated that the proposed division met all'the require-
ments of the ordinance and were in conformity with other lots 1n
the vioinity. Motion by Mr. Robertson. seconded by Mr. Vachon and
carried. that the request to divide the East 190 feet of the north
280 feet of Lot 7. Blook 98. Santa Anita Traot. be recommended for
approval subject to the oonditions reoommended by the City Engineer
as follows:
#
50
j
AS
I.,
~
.!1
1)
I
U
"
-+-
+
f
...9
J
-r
..
,.
I.L.
1. Subm1t a final map prepared by an engineer or surveyor;
2. Provide sewer laterals for each parcel;
3. Dedicate an easement for sewer purposes over the south
six feet of Parcel 2;
4. Dedicate five feet for the widening of Grand View Avenue
and construct curb and gutter along the south side of Grand
View Avenue;
5. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 each for three new parcels
created.
The request of the Arcadia Unified Sohool Dis,trict to divide
property at 305 North Santa-Anita Avenue wa~-referred baok by the
City Council for reoonslderation of the conditions recommended. A
oomm~ication from the District requeste9 that the division be ap-
proved prior to the actual compliance with the conditions so that
the improvement of the street could be included in the general.con-
tract for the construction of shops and warehouses; stated that
after sale of the property and improvement of the street as required
by the City, the District would dedicate the required right of ~ay
for the street; and further requested that the recreation fee of
$25.00 per lot be waived. Motion by Mr.. Acker, se'conded by Mr;
Daly and carried, that the application to divide the property be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the east 144.68 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 Subdi-
vision Ordinance and according to plans and specifications
to be approved by the City Engineer, the pavelllent to be 48
feet wide;
2. That a one-foot strip along the north side of the east
144.68 feet of the street be deeded in fee to the City;
3. That the school district submit a fixed price to be ap-
proved by the City Engineer, the Planning Commission and the
City Council which would be required to be paid before property
to the north would be allowed to make use of the street;
4. That the street be dedicated and improved within a period
of one year;
5. Payment of the usual recreation fee.
The request for waiver of the recreation fee was considered but
the Commission felt tliat it was not within their jurisdiction to
make any recommendation on this matter because the fee is required
by Ordinance No. 909.
Tentative map of Tract No. 19107. located north of Sycamore
Avenue and east of the Santa Anita Wash was conside~'ed. A com-
munication from W. T. Beokwith, Subdivider, requested approval of
Lots 15. 17 and 18 having less than 75-foot frontage but more than
75-foot width at the building line. He also requested approval of
- 3 -
5/211/55
r . .
.
.
the street right of way 54 feet in width because such a street over
a portion of this property had had previous approval under Tract No.
18076.
A report from the City Engineer stated that the Santa Anita
Wash channel adjacent to this subdivision was in some places only
four feet deep and he fe~t that a report from the Flood Control
District regarding possible flood hazards should be secured before
any approval was granted. He also stated that the proposed street
should be extended north through Lots 17 and 18 to provide access
to a portion of the flood control property now being considered for
recreational purposes. He felt that the street should be shifted
slightly to the east to provide more depth in Lots 12.13 and 14,
He recommended that the street dedication be 60 feet wide and that
Sycamore Avenue be improved adjacent to the subdivision.
A report from the Planning Consultant concurred in the
opinion of the City Engineer and called attention to the fact that.
Lots 19 and 20 would become double frontage lots 'and that a sub-
standard parcel of ground would be created east of Lot 21. Mr. Beck-
with stated that he felt that if the street were relocat.ed adjacent
to Lots 12. 13 and 14 an erosion problem would be encountered along
the bank at the eas,t side of the street. Motion by Mr. Robertson.
seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried. that tentative map of Tract No.
19107 as submitted be recommended for denial without prejudice.
Seconq revised tentative map of Tract No. 21714. located north
of El Sur Avenue. between Tenth Avenue and Mayflower Avenue. was
considered. A report from the City Engineer stated that all lots ex-
cept Lot 10 have a 75-foot width at the building line. All lots have
the required area and Lots 7. 8 and 9 are very shallow. The east-
west portion of the street is shown as 50 feet wide. He recommended
that the corner radius on Lot 13 be increased to 40 feet.
A report from the Planning Consultant stated that this revised.
plan was much more desirable than the original map which was approved
by the Planning CommIssion. He called attention to Lots 8 and 9 as'
being only 64 feet in depth and Lot 10 having a width of 64 feet and
suggested that the subdivider submit plot plans showing how these
properties can be developed with the required yards. He also stated
that the subdivider should justify the necessity of a variation in
street width as it applies to the portions shown as 50 feet wide.
Mr. Robertson stated that he felt that this map was in substan-
tial compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. that the 50-foot
street width with a 5-foot planting easement as shown was probably
Justified by the nar~ow width of property available and that the
\ofidth of Lot 10 was in conformity with other lots located on May-
flower Avenue. He stated that he felt a deed restriction should be
placed on the property to require that buildings placed on Lots 30
and 31 be set back at least 20 feet from Tenth Avenue and that
buildings placed on Lots i9 and 35 be set back at least 15 feet from
the north-south street; also that the owner of the property' located
between Lots 15 and 16. which was shown as not a part of the sub-
division,be notified that this Commission would not consider any
future application for a di~ision of this property into parcels
less than 75 feet in width. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by
Mr. Acker and carried. that the second revised tentative map of
Tract No. 21714 be recommended for approval subject to the following
conditions:
J
1. That the radius on the corner of Lot 13 be increased to
40 feet;
2. That all improvements. fees and deposits be as r<equired by
the Subdivision Ordinance;
3. That the subdivider furnish a boundary survey indica,ting all
buildings within 10 feet of the tract boundary prior to approval
afthe final map.
- 4 -
5/24/55
, ..
.
.
4. That the subdivider work with the City Engineer to estab-
lish ~ullding lines to be included in the deed restrictions.
A communication from Betty Weir, 139 West Camino Real, re-
quested an opportunity to address the Commission on the matter of
glass houses and lath houses. The Secretary briefly reviewed the
~lations set up in Resolutions Nos. 62 and 67 limiting such
houses to 500 square feet. Mrs. Weir requested that the matter be
reconsidered to allow hobbyists room to expand thetr growing areas
and suggested first that glass houses and lath houses not be in-
cluded in the same definition; second, that there be a greater dis-
tinction made between structures use.d purely for the propagation of
plants and structures used for other purposes such as patio. shades,
work centers, arbors, pergolas, etc; and third, that the size of
the permitted buildings be related to the size of the lot and the
size of the dwelling and in no case to exceed 2000 square feet.
She submitted copies of the request for the information of each
Commissioner. Mr. James Giridlian, 345 West Colorado Street, stated
that in his opinion an injustice was being done to plant hobbyists
by the present 500 square foot limit of glass and lath houses. He
stated that for successful propagation of plants three different
temperatures are required and that the dividing of 500 square foot
houses into three portions made each entirely too small for useful
purposes. He stated that he felt the present limitation had been
established primarily to prevent commercialization of plant raising
and that such action should be by other means. .He also stated that
existing state laws require a .state licez:lse if sales are over $100
per year. Mr. W. G. McIntyre, 176 West Camino Real, stated that he
was the owner of a large parcel of ground and that a greenhouse of
more than 500 square feet would not be objectionable to any sur-
rounding neighbors.
The Chairman requested that Mr. Vachon, Mr. Sorenson and Mr.
Acker, act as a committee to work with a committee to be selected by
the plant hobbyists to determine their needs and attempt to reach a
satisfactory solution. Mr. Nicklin suggested that possibly the fol-
lowing matters might be considered by the Committee:
1. Relationship of the size of the glass house to the area of
the lotj
2. The location of the glass house in relationship to side lot
linesj
3. That no person be allowed to engage in a horticultural en-
deavor to necessitate a state license.
A communication from A. L. Daniels, owner, and George J. Smith,
prOD09Eld lessee" requested that the processing of foods, namely the
rre'uration of candied apples, potato dishes, etc., be approved as
E'.. U,3<! yermissible at 35 Indiana Street in Zone C-2. It was the
opinion of the Commission that such an application should be in the
fenn of a zone variance.
The matter of the request of William W. Ford to do bInding at
14 Morlan Place was considered. A comn~nication from Mr. Ford
stated that he proposed a small bindery doing job work for se~eral
small commercial printing shops, such bindery to employ some two to
five persons and the operations to consist of folding pamphlets,
stitching small booklets and magazines, gathering, padding and trim-
ming, and submitted samples of the type of work proposed. Motion by
Mr. Robertson, seconded, by Mr. Vachon and carried. that the City
Attorney be instructed to draw a resolution recommending that the
above requested uses, but excluding hard backed bindir.g.,be classi-
fied as a use permissible in Zone C-2.
A communication from G. L. Robbins requested that the owners of
property proposed to be included in Tract No. 18241, located on
- 5 -
5/24/55
r
. ~, ~ .
.
.
Encino Avenue, be given an opportunity to discuss the matter with
the Commission. Mr. Pratt stated and it was the general consensus
or the Commission that the matter of Tract No. 18241 had been fully
discussed and considered by the Commission and by the City Council
and had been denied by each body. He stated that he felt further
discussion of the matter was not required until such time as a new
map was submitted.
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 189, recommending the
denial of the appliation of Reuben V. Senior and others for a change
of zone on Live Oak Avenue from Zone C-2 to ZoneM-l. The findings
in the resolution were discussed. Motion by Mr. Daly, seconded by
Mr. Acker and carried, that the reading of the body of the resolu-
tion be waived. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Acker and car-
ried,that Resolution No. 189 be adopted.
The City Attorney prese~ted Resolution No. t90, recommending
the granting of the application of Pearle M. Nash for a zone vari-
ance to allow a medical building at 514 West Huntington Boulevard.
The findings in the resolution were discussed. Motion by Mr. Acker,
seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that the reading of the body of
the resolution be waived. Motion by Mr. Daly, seconded by Mr.
Vachon and carried, that Resolution No. 190 be adopted.
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 191, recommending.
the granting of the application of H. N. Berger for a zone variance
to allow the property at III East Live Oak to be used for medical
building purposes. The findings in the resolution were discussed.
Mr. Berger objected to the dedication of an alley, stating that he
planned to construct a building containing two medical units on Lot 2
and that he objected to the dedication of an alley on Lot 3 until
such time as conditions warranted the construction of additional
units. He stated that he would not object to the dedication of such
alley if both Lots 2 and 3 are zoned for commercial uses. The reso-
lution was amended to recommend the granting of the variance on Lot 2
only and that the application be denied as to Lot 3 unless and until
a~ alley 20 feet in width is dedicated at a location approved by the
Planning Commission and the City Engineer. Motion by Mr. Daly,
seconded by Mr. Acker and carried, that the reading of the body of
the resolution as amended be waived. Motion by Mr. Daly, seconded
by Mr. Acker and carried, tnat Resolution No. 191 be adopted.
The Secretary discussed with the Commission an application for
the construction of a two-car garage on the rear of a lot at 12 North
First Avenue where existing parking area does not meet the require-
ment of the present Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pratt requested Mr. Daly
to cooperate with him in viewing the property and making a recom-
me~1.da tion .
.There being no further business, the meeting adJ ourned.
f~Vvv ~~f.
L. M. TALLEY
Secretary
V~~ :lO.cb
"
- 6 -
5/24/55