Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 13, 1956 :. ~ t~ - ". . . Council Chamber, City Hall, Arcadia, California, March 13, 1956, 8:00 P. M. TO: ALL CITY COUNCill1EN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MpWrES The City Planning Collllllission met in regular meeting with Chairman Pratt presiding. PRESEN'l': Commissioners ACker, Balser, Daly, Pratt, RObertson, Sorenson and Vachon. ABSEN'l': None OTHERS PRESEN'l': Camphouse, Carozza, Mansur, Nicklin, I1cGlasson ani Talley The lIlinutes of the meeting of February 28, 1956, were aPproved as written and mailed. Pursuant to nO.tice given a public hearing was held on the application of Camden-Wilshire COIiIpllIV for a variance to allow a front building line of 15 feet on lots 13 to 22, inclUSive, Tract No. 18102, located on Vista Avenue north of E1ki.nB Avenue. No person desired to be heard. The Chairman declared the hearing closed. and requested that reports be submitted by the Planning Consultant and City Engineer. Lot split No. 86, held from last meeting, being the request of Farley H. Archer, 1010 South Ten1;h Avenue, to divide property was coneidered.Report from the Planning Oonsultant pOinted out small size ,lots now existing in the neighborhood and re- cOImllending the granting of this application and two adjacent applications, on the condition that existing structures be either removed or brought up to a higher standard according to recOl1Dllendatione to be made by a committee cOlilposed of all or !'lome of the following: a Planning Commission member,Building Inspector, Fire Chief, CUy Engineer and Planning Consultant. .Mr. Vachon objected on the grounds that the llots would be far belo\i standard and one parcel would have no access to its garage. l1r. Balser stated that in his opinion the three ad,iacent applicants should combine their properti~s to make standard lots With desirable homes. Motion by. Mr. Robert- sCln. that the request to divide the south half of lot 20, F. A. Geier Tract, into one lot facing Loganrita Avenue and two lots facing Tenth Avenue be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. ,That a final map be filed \iith the City Engineer; 2. .That a sewer lateral be provided to each parcel; . 3. That a . recreation fee of ~50.00 be paid for the two new lots; 4. That existing structures be either removed or brought up to a higher standard, as mentioned above. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Acker and clUTied by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Da]y, Pratt, Robertson and Sorenson. NOES: Conunissioners Balser and' Vachon. Lot split No. 81, held from last meeting, being the request of Edward T. '3eidebach, 1102 South Tenth Avenue, to divide property, was considered. This lot 1s COT.ectly like lot split No. (1'6, except that there is no part facing Loganrita Avenue. ;olt'tion by Mr. Acker that the request to divide the north one-half of lot 25, J<'" A. Geier Tract, into two lots facing Tenth Avenue be recommended for approval, ~ub,iect to the same conditions as imposed on lot split No. 86, except that the re- creation fee be ~,;25.00 for the one new lot created. Said motion was seconded by )'Ix. Sorenson and clUTied by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, DaJ.y, Pratt, Robertson and Sorenson. NOES: Commissioners Balser and Vachon. Lot split No. 88, held from last. meeting, being the request of Wilbur W. Long- .rellOli, 1110 South Tenth Avenue,to divide property, was considered. This lot is eXact]y like lot split No. 81. Hotion by Hr. Sorenson that the request to divide the south half of lot 25, F. A. Geier Tract, into two lots facing Tenth Avenue be recommended for appr<>val, subject to the same conditions as imposed on lot split 3-13-$6 . . No. 87. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Acker .and carried by the following vote: AYES: Conun1asioners Acker, Daly', Pratt, Robertson and Sor.enson. ~lOES: Commissioners Balser and Vachon. Lot split No. 91, held from last meeting, being the request of Fred C. Post, 1514 South Second Avenue, to divide property, was cpnsidered. Mr. Post had sub- mitted an alternate plan, showing a lot 62.5 feet by 120 feet in the sou.thwest cor- ner of his property to be divided. Report from the City Engineer pointed out that each parcel would have less than 75 feet frontage, and tMt after dedication for widening of Second Avenue the split portion would contain less then 7S00 square feet. l"1otion by Mr. Sorenson that the request be recOllllll6nded for approval. Said motion lost for lack of a second. Mr. Robertson stated he felt there was need for a better solution, as the remaining portion wouid allow three houses, with a drivew~ re- . quired to two rear houses past a front house on a 57 foot wide lot. Hr. Post stated he had no interest in building houses for rentals, but that the parcel was too large to care for, and he lfished to sell the portion requested for split.110tion by Mr. Acker that the request as submitted be recommended for denial, because of the large, irregular shape of the land-locked area in the rear. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Balser and carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Balser, Daly', Pratt, Robertson and Vachon. NOES: Commissioner Sorenson. Lot split No. 92, being the request of Robert R. Hopper, 1214 South Eighth Avenue, was COnsidered. Mr. Daly reported that the request was for two lots, each being 57.5 feet lfide, which would b.e in keeping with the balance of the neighbor- hood. The possibility of a future street through the rear portion of the property was discussed. The matter was ordered held, and the Planning Consultant requested to submit a report. Lot split No. 93, being the request of Miller-r-tYers Company to divide property located at 627 East Pamela Road was considered. The division requested was a 6.5 foot strip from lot 4,. to be used with lot 5 to allow a drivewa,y to the rear of the property. Motion by Mr,. Sorenson, seconded by Hr. Daly and carried that permission to divide the east 6.5 feet of lot 4, Tract No. 19384, be recommended for approval, subject to the fOllowing conditions: 1. That a final map by a registered engineer be filed with the City Engineerj 2. That the property be used with lot 5, Tract No. 19384. Request of Fred N. Howser for a change of setback to allow a sign at the property line at 245 West Colorado Boulevard, was reported on by Hr. Vachon. He stated that the property was located in Zone R-3, which requires identifioation signs for apartment buildings to be attached flat against the front of the building, and that the requested variance would, if granted, set a precedent for maqy more suoh requests. Motion by Mr. Vachon. seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that the, request be recommended for denial. First revised tentative map of proposed Tract No. 21919. located on Highland Oaks Drive north of Caro1woodDrive was considered. COIll11TUnication from Egi1 Hopen :reviewed the approval of Tract No. 202ll, located to the south, and stated that it tJould not be good usage of land to extendE1ld.ns Place northerly to this tract at this time. because street grades and the storm drain grades had not been designed for such an extension. He proposed anamergency exit through a 20 foot wide ease- l,lent located between lots 2 and 3, leading into the property of the Los Angeles '.::>unty Flood Control District. Mr. Robertson stated that most of the Commission had visited the site of the ;roposed tract an:!. that a full study of the matter had been made. He stated that in 'oheopinion of the Subdivision Committee the map as submitted .does not provide ade- q~late ingress and egress from the tract for normal traffic circulation, and par- ticularly in case of an emergency. Also that the emergency exit proposed would not be adequate because it would lead only into the Flood Control property which 1s normally fenced with all gates locked. Also that if an emergency exit were to be used. the location shown was too close to the street inlet of the tract. He stated ~. that this revised map showed better usage of the land than the original mapj pro- viding for 78 lots instead of the original 76; but that a better plan could be de- veloped. He said he realized that the extension of E1ld.ns Place into the tract would require some additional grading, street improvement and a bridge, but that enough extra lots could be created to at least partially compensate for such additional cost. - 2 - 3-13-$6 . . . . ~lr. Hopeh stated that the lots in Tract No. 20211 were now ao1d and not avail- able for the extension of FJldns .Place. Also that such an extension would be so near the steep mountain that lots could be created only by the expenditure of 810,000 per lot for grading only, and that they would not provide sufficient building space. Mr. Edward Neuhoff, attorney for and director of CamdenoWUshire Company, spoke at length on the negotiations leading to the approval 01' Tract No. 20211. He read popies 01' letters dated August 4, 19511, addressed to the City Manager, and Novem- ber 16, 1954, addressed to the Ci1<:1 Attorney, pertaining to their contribution to- ward the cost of construction of the Lannan Canyon storm drain; the requirement for Elkins Canyon drainage ditch, construction of a water system and other matters. He stated that lots 21 and 23, Tract ;fo. 20211 had been sold as interior lots and that the extension of a street between them would be oonducive of legal action. ! The City Attorney questioned 1'1r. Neuhoff as to eaoh condition in the letters he had read to the Commission, and in response, Mr. Neuhoff stated that each of the conditions had been complied with by the City, either as originally 1Jnposed or as subsequently modified by mutual consent 01' the parties. I. . . . i City Attorney Nicklin pointed out that the tentative map of Tract No. 21919 !Jontemplates a subdivision of 78 residential lots with but one access thereto by a public street. The site is bordered on the east by property 01' the Los Angeles Coun1<:1 Flood Control District, unimproved except for a storm channel, and in a rustic condition. It is bordered on the north and west be steep mountainous area with heavy verdure until devastated by fire within the past two years. The area has been sub- ject to special fire regulations of long standing and cannot be considered as a nor- pial subdivision. He stated that as late as 10:30 A. M. of this date the attorney for the purchaser of lot 22, TI:act 'No. ?0211, had stated that the purchaser was willing to exchange it for another lot of comparable size and character. He stated that the approval and recordation of Tract No. 20211 did not create the right to subdivide adjacent territory in a manner detrilllental to public welfare and safety. }Ie stated that the manner and extent of the ingress and egress necessary to the area was a matter 01' judgment, and that if in the opinion of the Commission, after due consideration of all conditions, more than one street entrance was required for the protection of the health and safety of the owners of 78 new homes, t.hat it would be iI.reasonab1e requirement for the approval of the subdivision. \ Motion by Mr. Robertson that the first revised tentative map of Tract No. 21919 ~e recollll11ended for denial withc1it prejudice as. not having adequate access and egress, and that further study of the area be made in an effort to deve10p a mutually satis- ractory plan. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Balser and carried by the following vote: I AYES: Commissioners Balser, Daly, Pratt, Robertson, Sorenson and Vachon. NOES: Commissioner Acker. COllll11unication from the City Council requested the Planning Commission to confer ~th the City of Honrovia relative to their proposed rezoning ad.iacent to the City bcundary in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and Duarte Road, to determine that such rezoning would not be detrill1ental to property owners in Arcadia. Communication fl'Olll the City Engineer stated that the City of Nonrovia has held only informal group ;ne,;'i;ings with the residents of the area studying probable zoning and that no com- r.;jt~lIllnts had been made to date, and that they will advise this city before any ac,tions or hearings are established. The matter was ordered filed. , The Chairman appointed Mr. Balser, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Daly to work with the 3b~~."etary in the preparation of a budget for the Commission for the next fiscal year. Mr. Vachon, chairman of the sign committee, stated that the Committee is working 0,: the matter but as yet has no report to submit. f The Planning Consultant and City Attorney presented 11 pre11m1nart draft of the ;::N:!I0sed al'chitectural design zone, and it was discussed. The Attorney was 10- ~tracted to proceed lvith its preparation and initiation of proceedings to amend the zoning ordinance accordingly. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 213 recOllll11ending the denial of the application of David F. Buckingham for a zone variance to allow the property at 5 Ea!lt Floral Avenue to be used as a dental office, and the contents of the resolu- tion was discussed. Hotion by Mr. Acker, seconded by Nr. Vachon and carried that the reading of the entire body or' the resolution be waived. Hotion by Hr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that Resolution No. 213 be adopted. - J - 3-13-56 . . . . The City Engineer read a cOllllllUncation from 1heLos Angeles County Flood Control District requesting approval of the acquisition of right of way for the improvement of the 'o/Elst branch of the Arcadia \~ash. i'lotion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that the location of the right of way needed for the Arcadia Wash, as shown on the Los Angeles County Flood Control District maps numbered l05-ML 9.1 and 9.2 be recol1llllended for approval, but that this action is to have no bearing on negotiations in process as to utility agreements or betterment agreements w:tth either the United stlltes Coxpsof Engineers or the Flood Control District. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. / ' " '-..L - ,f, hit... , ' Ckikr L. M. TALLEY secretary - 4 - :3-13-56