Loading...
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