Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 10, 1956 ~, _. ~ '-, . . Council Chamber, City Hall, Arcadia, California. AprU 10, 1956, 8iOO P. M. TO: ALL CITY COUNCIll1EN AND PlANNING COMMISSIONERS SUBJEI:T: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The City Planning Commission met in regular meeting with Chainnan Pratt presiding. PRESENT:- Col1ll1lissioners Acker, Balser, Daly, Pratt, Robertson, Sorenson and Vachon. ABSENT I None OTHERS PRESENT: Camphouse, Carozza, Mansur, Nicklin, McGla.llson and Talley. , , The minutes of the meeting of March 27, 1956, were approved as written and mailed. Pursuant to notice given, a public hearing was held on the application of Russell H. Uhl for a zone variance to allow a sign at the property line at 614 West Las Tunas Drive in Zone C-l. i'lo collll1lUiUcations were received and no person desired to be heard. The Chairman declared the hearing closed. Mr. Balser stated that the neighborhood was primarily residential and a sign would give a too commercial appearance. 11r. Robertson stated ,that in his opinion a sign was necessary to advertise the ll\iniature golf course, but that it should have been considered in the granting of the original variance. Motion by Mr. Vachon that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary resolution to recommend the granting of the variance for a sign five feet by six feet, mounted on a post eight feet above the ground. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Daly and carried by the following vote: AYES: . Commissioners Acker, Daly, Pratt, Robertson, Sorenson and Vachon. NOES I Commissioner Balser. Pursuant to notice given, a public hearing was held on the application of Elmer H.. stegeman and NarioDelmonte for a zone variance to allow a beauty salon at 68 East Newman Avenue in Zone R-3, to be placed on the rear end, .of the lot facing First Avenue. The petition was signed by sixteen persons favoring the variance. Mr. Delmonte addressed the Commission stating that most of his customers were located in the Arcadia area, and that a small building on the rear of the property, ad.1acent to a commercial zone, would not be detrimental to the area. lire Edward Hansen, owner of properly in the area, stated that the lot was 53 feet wide with a 10 foot setback on First Avenue, which made it undesir- able for, residential development. I-ir. WIn. Gutstein, 70 East Haven Avenue, opposed the granting of the petition. He called attention to the denial of a variance to expand the business of Roush Printers a few years ago. He stated that the narrow width of First Avenue at this location would make par!d.ng a hazard. Also that there are now 52 vacant store buildings in Arcadia" which would be available for such a use. Nr. Roy Rathbun, 64 East Newman Avenue, opposed the petition ,on the grounds that the proposed plot plan showed the ex- isting apartment at the rear of the lot to remain and feels that it is not a sub- stantial building. Also that construction of a drivew~ along the west side of the lot would create a traffic hazard in Newman Avenue. Also that 'a building next to the exist~ commercial building to the south would present a drainage prOblem. lolrs. Rathbun stated she felt ,that women would not patronize a salon at the rear of a dwelling. Mr. Delmonte ;lgain epoke, s~ing that the protestants would be his neighbors' and that he did not wish to locate in an area where he was not wanted, and requested that the application be withdrawn. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by'Mr. Sorensoll and carried that the City, Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary resolution recOlilmending that the application be denied without prejudice. The Commission considered a decision on the application of Rancho Santa Anita, Inc., for a zone variance to allow an office for the California Thorough- 4-10-56 > . . bred Breeders Association at San Juan Drive and Colorado Place. The Association had presented a revised plot plan showing 25 feet of landscaping along Santa Rosa Road with a wood rail fence around ,the property. Entrance was to be frOlll San Juan Drive. parking at the north portion of the property, and a possible future exit onto Colorado Place when the flood control channel was covered. Report from the City Engineer stated that such a plan would not present any traffic hazards, provided the exit onto Colorado Place was not allowed to be used as an entrance. He called attention to the private street constructed along the north boundary of the subject property, recommending that it be eliminated !IS a street and be divided and a portion to be, used by the property" to the north for driveway purposes, and by the subject property to provide additional parking area. Report frOlll the Planning Consultant stated that in his opinion the re- quested use was much more desirable than other uses which lllight occupy the pro- perty, and recommended approval of the application. Mr. Balser stated that while there was considerable protest at the hearing, he felt that it might have arisen because of lack of knowledge of the character of the application. Mr. Wesley Davies statedtha;t. the Rancho Santa Anita had offered to convey, the private street to the adjoining properties and that the owners of the properties had agreed to replace the curb and gutters on Santa Rosa Road, thus closing the private street. rr,otion by Hr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Sorenson and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary resolution to reconunendthe granting of the application, subject to the reconunendation of the City Engineer and Planning Consultant, and that the disposition of the private street be submitt.ei to the Commission for approval before the adoption of s' formal resolution. Also that the planting strip be maintained along Santa Rosa Road and that, no vehicular access be allowed from Santa Rosa Road. The Commission considered a decision of the application of the Southern California Edison Company f,or a zone variance to allow tl1~ extension of an electric distribution substation on Second Avenue north of st. Joseph Street. Reports frOlll the City mgineer and Planning Consultant each stated that they saw no objection to the proppaed use. Motion by 11r. Balser. seconded by i'ir. Acker and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary resolution to recommend the granting of the, application. Lot split No. 96. being the request of Mrs. James Kieth, 501 Woodruff Avenue. to divide property facing on Los Altos Avenue was reported on by Mr. Balser and Mr. Daly. Report from the City Engineer stated that the souther- ly portion of Los Altos should be dedicated and iJilproved as required by the subdivision ordinance. Motion by lfl1'. Balser. seconded by l1r. Daly and carried that the request to divide the north 200 feet of the south 425.09 feet of the east 92 feet of lot 15. ~ J. BaldWin's Addition No. 1 to Santa Anita Colony be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That a final map be fUed with the City Engineer; 2. That a sewer lateral be inetalled for the north parcel; 3. That Los Altos Avenue be dedicated 39.91 feet wide, and 'improved as required by the subdivision ordinance, and that a one foot lot at the west end and along the north side be deeded in fee to the City; 4. That a recreation fee of ~25.00 be paid. Lot split No. 97. being the request of Edward Bailey. 476 Fairview Avenue, to divide property was reported on by Hr. Balser and Mr. Daly. Report from the City Engineer stated that, if approved, this lot would be less width than re- quired and less than the average of the lots in the area. Mr. Balser stated the lot would not conform to the neighborhood, and suggested that the existing house on the lot be .moved to the west to provide more width. l'ir. McLaughlin, re- presenting the owner, stated a part of the house was constructed of concrete blocks and would be too costly to move. He stated that the owners were in- terested in buUding eight units on the proposed lot, and was told that such a development on such a small lot would create a crowded condition not in keeping with the neighborhood. Motion by 11r. Vachon, seconded by l'ir. Daly and can'ied that the request be reconunended for denial without prejudice. Lot split No. 98, being the request of W. H. McCauley. 1136 South Sixth Avenue and ~laurice J. Cla.vman, 1200 South Sixth Avenue. w,as reported on by - 2 - 4-10-56 I, ~ . . Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Acker. Lettel's signed by the applicants stated that if the request were approved, all poultry liOuld be removed from the divided portions within six months and from the remaining pcrtions of the lots within one year. Report from the City Engineer stated that the extension of Encino Avenue should be dedicated and improve'd, and that the pro rated share of the. cost of opening Camino Grove Avenue to Sixth Avenue should be deposited by the owners of this property. Motion by };ir. Sorenson, seconded by 111'. Acker and carried that per- mission to divide the east 156 feet of the south 64.16 feet of lot 63, and the east 150 feet of the north 92.5 feet of lot 62, Tract No. 808. into two lots 75 feet wide. facing the extension of Encino Avenue, be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditionsl 1. That a final map be filed with the City Engineer; 2. That a sewer lateral be provided for parcel 2; 3. That the west half'of Encino Avenue be dedicated and improved as re- quired by the subdivision oI'dinance, or that a cash bond be posted, sufficient to pay the cost of such improvemen1;s. That the easterly one foot and the southerly 6.66 feet of proposed Sncino Avenue be deeded in fee to the City; 4. That a cash deposit be made with the City to cover the pro rata share of the cost of opening Camino Grove Avenue to Sixth Avenue. Tlj.e amount to be determined by the Engineering Division prior to sub- mission to the City Council for tentative approval; 5. That a recreation fee of ~2S.00 be paid for each new lot. Lot split No. 41, being the request of Arcadia Mortgage Discount Corporation to divide property at 312 East Huntington Drive, was reconsidered. Thisapplica- tion had been denied on May 10, 1955. pending the rezoning of the rear portion and ad,iacent property. Motion by Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried. that the request to divide the east 48 feet of lot 3. Tract No. 5205, except the north 179.86 feet and except the south 25 feet, be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a final map be filed with the City Engineer;. 2. That a recreation fee of 525.00 be paid. Lot split No. 99, being the request of George J. Teague, 1009 south Eighth Avenue. to divide property was referred to Mr. Acker and ~ll'. Vachon to investigate. Lot split No. 100,. being the request of Camden-Wilshire compan;y to divide a I' portion of land north of lot 18, Tract No. 20211, to be used with lot 18. was considered. The City Engineer reported that north of this property was a high, steep bank and that other lots to the north were not practical. 1\1so that Can;yon Road should be dedicated and improved in front of this property. l,jotion by P~. RObertson, seCOnded by Mr. Balser and carried that permission ,to divide a 50 foot wide portion of Section 15, T. 1 N., R. llW., to be used with lot 18, Tract No. 20211, located at 2109 Canyon ROad, be reconunended for approval. sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That a final map be filed with the City Engineer; 2. That Canyon Road be dedicated to the north line of the subject property, and improved as required by the subdivision ordinance. Tentative map of Tract No. 21241, being the north extension of Seventh Avenue, was considered. Report from the City Engineer, was read. Motion by Mr. Balser. seconded by Mr. Vachon and carded that tentative map of Tract No. 21241 be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. All existing buildings on lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 to be removed; 2. The north lines of lots 2 and 5 to be made radial and located to provide 75 feet width at the building line; - 3 - 4-10-56 '. . . 3. All fees, deposits and illIprovements to be made as required by the subdivision ordinance. 4. The future street reservation in lots 2 and 3, Tract No. 16,837 to be accepted for street purposes. COIrII1lUllication from the City Council requested the COllDllission to take steps to recommend a proposed rezoning of the property betueen Live Oak Avenue and Las Tunas Drive, eaot of El Monte Avenue. Mr. Daly was appointed to replace Mr. Sorenson on the committee appointed on February 14, 1956, to study this matter. Mr. Robertson requested that maps and information be assembled for such a study. and that a meeting llIe held on some Thursday. The Chairman requested that the matter be placed on the agenda for ,the next meeting. Communication from the Regional Planning Commission gave notice of a hearing on AprU 12. 1956, on the application of SUperior Concrete Block and Building Supply COlIIPany for an extension of their business at 10836 East Live Oak Avenue. The Secretary was instructed to place this with the information concerning the rezoning of Live Oak Avenue. Mr. Sorenson requested a leave of absence from his duties as Commissioner untU July 1, .1956, on account of a planned trip. ?10tion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that such a leave of absence be' granted. Mr. Pratt stated that he would serve as a member of the I>1odification Committee during the absence of l>lr. Sorenson. and that he preferred that meetings be held at 1:00 P. M., on liondays. Conditions applying to lot splits at 1070, 1102 and mo. South Tenth Avenue were discussed. The Secretary stated that he would again inspect the property at 1070 and 1102 and report back to the Commission. ~ir. Vachon reported that the Sign Committee had met and discussed the problem. and asked the desire of the Commission in the type of regulation con- templated. It was suggested that such a regulation might include a height limit. size limit and an increase in the license fee. There being no further business the meeting adjourned. ..-, , .. .......L,. '\ , ! ,j1 rf.... r.-V, A . . ,-,.' " 11" I \ .I)' !/A J ,A. '-'Vl? L. N. TALLEY Secretary -4- 4-10-56