Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 28, 1956 " ~ '. . .. Council Chllll,1ber, City Hall, Arcadia, Calii'ornia, February 28, 1956, 8;00 P. M. TO: ALL CITY COUNCID1EN AND PLANNING CO~IMISSIONERS SUBJECT: PLANNING COBlfiSSION MINUTES The City Planning COlllIIIission met in regular meeting with Vice-chairman Robertson presiding. PRESENT: COIIlIIlissioners Acker, Balser, Robertson, Sorenson and Vachon. ABSENT: C011lll\issioners Daly and Pratt. OTHERS PRESM: Camphouse, Carozza, Nicklin, Mansur, 'McGlasson and Talley. The minutes ot the meeting of February 1ll, 1956, were appl'OVed as written and mailed. The COlllIIIission considered a decision on the application of David F. Buckingham for a zone varianCE! to allOW the property at 5 East Floral Avenue to be used as a dental office. Connnunication from Dr. Buckingham was read, enclosing a copy of the application with the signatures of nine property oWners favoring the granting of the application. Report of the Planning Consultant stated that vacant C-2 property was for sale in the neighborhood and available for the requested use. .Also that the applicant failed to show any exceptional circumstances applicable to the pro- perty, and that in his opinion the granting of the variance would be detr:iJnental to surrounding property and recommended denial. of the application. The C011lll\ission all agreed that professional offices should be in the zone permitting them, and not in residential zones from which such use had been eliminated. Motion by Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Hr. Vachon and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary resolution reconunending the .denial of the application. Lot split Ho.B5, being the request of Sewanee Builders to divide property at 1052 South Tenth Avenue was considered. Mr. Vachon stated it would be desirable to divide this double frontage, creating a new lot on Loganrita Avenue. Mr. Balser inquired into the possibility of securing three feet additional property to coincide with the rear line of lot 34, Tract No. 21714. 141'. .Allen stated he had purchased this Ilroperty ata prellliWll price during the time property was acq1rl.red for Tract No. 21714, and that no additional property o'Ould be purchased. I'Ir.. Robertson suggested that this property be combined. with the lot to the south to create three 75 foot lots. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by VJl'. Balser and ~arried that permission to divide the east 135 feet of that portio~ of the north half of lot 26, F. .A. Geier Tract lying west of Loganrita Avenue be recommended for approval, subjElct to the following conditions: 1. Filing of a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral to parcel No.2. 3. Payment 01' ::125.00 recreation fee for the new lot. Lot split No. 86, being the request of Farley H. Archer to divide property at 1070 South .Tenth Avenue was considered. 111'. Balser stated he favored dividing the east portion al10wn as parcel 3, but did not favor dividing the west portion into parcels 1 and 2, each being 57 feet wide. 11r. Vachon stated he felt that 57 foot lots were Ilubstandard and should not be allowed in this neighborhood. Mr. AUen stated he had no interest in the property but felt that denial of the appli" cation would arOUSEl much feeling since other similar divisions had been allowed in the general neighborhood quite recently. Motion by Mr. Balser that the request as submitted be denied, but that the east portion, shown as parcel 3 be reoommended for approval, and that the west portion, shown as parcels 1 and 2 remain as one parcel, Said motiC)n was seconded by I'Ir. Vaohon and lost by the following vote: AYES: Commisllioners Balser and Vachon NOES: CommilllliallQrB Acker ~ Rober.tson and Sorenson ABSENT: Coll1lllissioners Daly and Pratt 2-28.56 ". . . . . . Motion by Nr. Acker, seconded by .!fr. S9rensol)., H. Archer be recommended for approval as submitted. ing vote: that the request of Farley Said motion lost by the follow- AYES: Commissioners Acker, Robertson and Sorenson NOES: Commissioners Balser and l7achon ABSENT: Commissioners Daly and Pratt. Lot split i~o. 87, being the request of Edward T. Beidebach, to divide property at ll02 South Tenth A.venue into two 51 foot lots was considered. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Hr. Vachon, that the request be recommended for denial. Said motion lost by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Balser and Vachon NOES: Commissioners Acker, Robertson and Sorenson ABSENT: Commissioners Daly and Pratt. Lot split rro. 88, being the request of Wilbur W. longfellOW to divide property at lllO South Tenth A.venue into two 51 foot lots was considered. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Balser, that the request be .recommended for denial. Said motion lost by the follmiing vote: AYES: Commissioners Balser and Vachon. NOES: Commissioners Acker, Robertson and Sorenson ABSENT.: Commissioners Daly and Pratt. The Chairman directed that lot splits numbered 86, 81 and 88 above mentioned be placed on the agenda for consideration at the next meeting. He requested all commissio~rs to view the property and that the Planning Consultant submit a report on the matter. Lot split No. 89, being the request of ~1. H. HcCauley to divide property at 1136 South Sixth AvenUe was considered. Report from the City Engineer pointed out that the request was for a lot 64.16 feet ldde, immediately adjacent to lots in Tract No. 18241 whiCh were required to be 15 feet wide. Letters from Robinson Brothers, Pichard F. Urich and Robbins Realty Company all urged the approval of t.he request in order to eliminate a poultry ranch. Nr. Sorenson stated that :in ";ime Encino Avenue would be extended on south and felt that !,ir. l~cCauley should ,;(I:ln Inth his neighbors to provide 15 foot lots. Nr. NcCauley stated that property '[,::' the south was not for sale, and that the existence of four poultry ranches ,:o'.;.1d de:'.ay the street extension for same time. Motion by Nr. Sorenson, seconded III .11-"0 Bals'ilr and c8I'ried that the application be recommended for denial as not being up to the stancl.ard of ad.1acent lots. Lot Eoplit Ho. 90, being the request of Bertha L. Stephenson to cl.ivide property at 1004 South Sixth Avenue was considered. Report from the City Engineer stat.ed that this 40 foot deep parcel would be made a portion of lot 24, Tract Uo. 18241, and that necessary rear line utility easements would be obtained. i10tionby Hr. Acker, seconded by Mr. Sorenson and carried that permission to divide the east 40 feet of the west 260.11 feet of the north 92.5 feet of lot 64, Tract No. 808, be recommended for approval sub.1ect to the filing of a final map lnth the City Engineer. No recreation fee to be required because no neli lot would be created. Lot split No. 91, being the request of Fred C. Post to divide property at 1514 South Second Avenue was considered. The request was for an irregularly shaped lot, and report. from the City Engineer pointed out that each parcel would be less than 15 feet wide, and that. after widening of Second Avenue, parcel No. 2 would contain less that 1500 square feet. A revised map showing an alternate plan, providing a lot 62.5 feet by 120 feet, was submitted. 141'. Acker stilted Mr. Post had agreed to remove the porch from the existing dwelling. The Chairman ordered the matter held and placed on the agenda for the next meeting, and requested each commissioner to view the property. Lot split iIo. 92, being the request of Robert R. Hopper to divide property at 1214 South Eighth Avenue was referred to 111'. Daly and Mr. Sorenson to investigate and report. - 2 - 2-28-56 .. . .... . . CoJ1lJ11Ullication from li'red I~. Howser requesting a change of setback to allow a sign at the property line at 245 iiest Colorado Boulevard was discussed and re- ferred to Mr. Vachon and 11r. Balser to investigate and report. Tentative map of Tract No. 22661 located south of Foothill Boulevard east of San Carlos Road was discussed. Conununication from Egil Hopen requested approval with access to lots 1 and 2. through narrow private drives, but stated that a street 32 feet 'wide could be dedicated. He stated the subdivider would improve the future street to the north-south street in proposed Traot No. 20642, but that the future street in Tract No. 15430 to San Carlos would remain unimproved. Report from the City Engineer submitted a suggested revision to the map showing a 50 foot wide street to all lots. He suggested acquiring more land to the east to add to the depth of lot 3. He recommended a 5 foot planting easement along eaoh side of the street; landscaping along the railroad right of way; improvement of the future street to San Carlos Road, and standard subdivision improvements. Mr. Balser sug" gested including 50 feet more land to the north to provide wider lots. Motion by !lir. Vachon, seconded by 11r. Balser and carried that the tract as submitted be re- oonunended for denial without prejudice, and suggested that it be resubmitted along the lines of the City Engineer's recommendation with full street frontage for lots' 1 and 2. ' Tentative map of Tract No. 22793 looated near Hillorest Boulevard and Canyon Boulevard in the City of Monrovia was submitted for reconunendation. }Iotion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that it be reoonunended for denial because it does not meet Aroadia standards as to lot lddths and areas. Communication from U. T. B.eckwith stated thai! Hr. Arthur H. Rude, one of the owners Of Tract No. 19107 looated north of SycamoX'El Avenue and east of the Santa Anita Wash, objected to the installation of pavement, curb and gUtter along the north side of Sycamore Avenue between Oakglen Avenue and Oakhaven Lane before suoh improvements are instilled on other portions of Sycamore Avenue. Motion by Hr. Balser, seconded by ~Ir. Vachon a.'1d carried that the reconnnendation made Octo- ber 25, 1955, be revised to provide that curb, gUtter and pavement need not be con- structed along the north side of Sycamore Avenue between Oakglen Avenue and Oak- haven Lane provided there is now deposited with the City sufficient money to pa;y for such improvement, including engineering and inspection, and the City reserves the right to install such improvements at any future date. The Planning Consultant submitted a report on the proposed Architectural Design Zone reconunending that before any land is classified in such zone the Plan- nL-1g Commission shall recommend and the City Council shall adopt a resolution s~ocifying certain desirable standards and types of design to prOvide a guide for ~.pprova1 of plans for buildings in such zone. He was requested to contact and work t'Ut>. the City Attorney to prepare a draft of the necessary ordinance amendment. A discussion was held on proposed Tract No. 21919 looated north of Elldns l,y.'m'ltl. The City Engineer presented a study prepared at the request of the Com- !ldasion refleoting the disoussion had on February 18, 1956, when the Commission, the Ci'ty !:''ngineer, the subdivider's engineer and legal representative visited and inspected tnElsite. Such study showed some relocation of roads, change of grading plans, ane; additional acoess to the area through lot 22, Tract No. 20211. The Commission ~las infoI'l1led that an application for a building permit for a dwelling on said lot 22 had been withheld on February 27, 1956, penc'..ing final decision on the development of Tract No. 21919. Inasmuch as no revise'l tentative maps had been submitted by the subdivider since the denial of the original tentative map on ~lovember 8, 1955, no further aotion was taken. There bei!1g no further business the meeting adjourned., ~ , I ''X':'lVG, , -7 .../ 1\ /' /0. , \f, t.' ~I n . .i .vJ_MJ/ L. 1'1. TALLEY Secretary -.3 - , 2-28-56