Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 8, 1956 e" . CouncUChamber, City Hall, Arcadia, Cali!ornia May 8, 19,6, 8:00 P. M. TO: ALL CITY COUNCIL."IEN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The City Planning COIIllIIission met in regular meeting with Chairman Pratt presiding. PRESENT: COIIlIllissioners Acker, Balser, Daly. Pratt, Robertson and Vachon. ABSENT: Commissioner Sorenson. OTHERS PRESENT: Carozza, Mansur, Nicklin, McGlasson and TallBY'. Mr. Acker requested that the minutes of the meeting of April 24, 19~. be amended to show that his motion for approval of lot split No. 102, Eunice B. Carlson, 1221 South Second Avenue, was oonditioned upon the lot being increased. to contain 7500 square feet. With this oorreotion, the minutes of April 24. 19,6, were approved as written and mailed. Lot split No. 99, being the request of George J. Teague, 1009 South Eighth Avenue. to divide property on Encino Avenue was cOllllidered. neport from the City Engineer suggested certain changes to maintain the original lot line between lots 1 and 2, and a slight change in the north-south division line. Mr. Robertson and Mr. Vachon stated the request conformed substantially with lots in the area. and that the arrapgement would be an advantage to the lot at 719 Encino Drive. Motion by Mr. RObertson, seconded by Mr. Vaohon and oarried that the request to divide lots 1 and 2, Tract No. 182h1, and the west 15 feet of the east 295.71 feet of lot .69, Tract iio. 808, be recollDll6Ilded for approval, subject to the following conditione: 1. 1hat the north line of parceJ. No. J. be increased from 75.ll feet to 77.11 feet. 2. That ~ north line of parcel No.3 be decreased from 10,..36 feet to 103..36 feet. 3. That the division between parcel NO.1 and parcel No.2 be maintained on the original lot line J 4. That a final map be fUed with the City Engineer. 5. That a sewer lateral be provided for parcel No.3; 6. That a recreation fee of $2,.00 be paid; 7. That satisfactory easements be provided for power lines. Lot split No. 103, being the request of Vernon -We Bakkedahl, 1100 South Eighth Avenue, was oOllllidered. Report from the City Engineer pointed out that a similar request had been denied on this parcel on November 8, 19,,; that a similar request at 1110 South Eighth Avenue had been granted on March 23, 19,4; and that a similar request at 1214 South E:l:ghth Avenue had been recormnenlied for denial on March 27, 19~, but granted by the City Council on April 3, 19%. Mr. Balser pointed out that if this request were granted, and the proposed street cOlllltructed through the rear portion, that it would result in six lots ,7 feet wide, which would be substandard in the neighborhood. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Daly and carried that the request to divide the north 11,.62 feet of lot 79. Tract No. 808, be recommended for denial. Lot split No. 104, being the request of Beatrice L. Koupal. ,04 West Ianon Avenue, was cOllllidered. Report from the City Engineer stated that approval of this request should be subject to the extellllion of Wistaria Avenue. Mr. BaJ.sar stated that the request would comply with other lots in the area. Motion by Mr. Balser. seconded by Mr. Daly and carried that pennission to divide the south 180 feet of the east half of lot 69. Traot No. 4869, be recommended for approval. 5-8-56 ,. . . subject to the fOllowing conditions: 1. That a final map be filed with the' City Eng1noerL 2. That a sewer main and lateral be constructed to serve the new lot; 3. That Wistaria Avenue (6Ofeet wide) be extended aeross the lot and :improved as required by the SUbdivision Ordinance. That the west one foot and the south four feet be deeded in fee to the City to control future extension of the street, 4. That a recreation fee of ':)25.00 be paid for the new lot; 5. That all buildings be rel1loved from the lot, 6. That the above approval be subject to the completion of lot split No. 77. Lot split No. 105. being the request of Joe E. Earll. 221 East Duarte Road, to divide property on Alice Street was considered. Report froD! the City Engineer stated that the request as submitted would form seven contiguous parcels of land. and that it would be legally impossible to process as a lot split. Mr. Vachon stated that the plan had merit, but should not be handled as a lot split. Motion by ~r. Robertson, seconded by Nr. Vachon and carried that the request as submitted be recol1lll1ended for denial without prejudioe, and that it 'be resubmitted as a subdivision. Revised lot split No. 86. being the request of Farley H. Archer, 1070 South Tenth Avenue, to divide property facing Loganrita Avenue ,,,as considered. The original request had conteInplated the division of the Tenth Avenue frontage also. upon which a non-conform1ng duplex exists. Report from the City Engineer stated that this revised request conforms to the split previouely granted on the property to the north. Motion by Mr. Vachon. seconded by Mr. Acker and carried tliat permission to divide the sOUth half of lot 20, F. A.. Geier Tract, except the west 287.89 feet. be recommended for approvllll. subject to the following conditionsl 1. That a final map be filad with the City Engineer; 2. That a reoreation fee of fp25.00 be paid. Revised lot split No. 97, being the request of lMward Bailey. 476 Fa1rv1ew Avenue. was considered. Report froD! the Secretary pointad out that this request was identiaol with the original request, except that the proposed lot would be ons foot narrower. latter from Mr. Bailey stated that he wished to build two units on the east portion of the lot. Motion by YJr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that the request be recol1lll1endad for denial as not being in keeping ,d th the neighborhood. Lot split No. 106. being the request of Robinson Brothers to divide the rear portion of the property at 1024 South Sixth Avenue was referred to Mr. Balser and Mr. Vachon to investigate. Revised tentative map of Tract No. 21582. located between Norman Avenue and Lemon Avenue west of Holly Avenue was considered. Lot 10,having only 13 feet actual street frontage, was discussed. l.jr. Erickson stated it was impossible at the present time to extend the street ~ furtberwest. Lot 21. being 15 feet wide. was considered. and Mr. Erickson stated he had been unsucoessful in dispos- ing of it to the owner to the north, either by sale or gift. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seoonded by Mr. Balser and carried that revised tenta:tive map of Tract No. 21582 be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. That lots 10 and 11 be combinsd and made into one lot; 2. That lot 21 be deeded to the City, 3. That lot 19 be reduced to 75 feet in length. and deeded in fee to the City, or in trust to a title comp~ for an amo.unt to be determined later, 4. That lot 20 be deeded in fee to the City; - 2 - 5-8-56 . . 5. That the developer provide rear line utility easements and the necessary access easements; 6. All buildings within the subdivision to be removed; 7. That all s~et iIrq:lrovements. fees and deposits. be as required by the subdivision ordinance. The application of Samuel Alexander for approval of location of a second dwelling at 69 West Woodruff' Avenue was f'urther considered. Mr. Alexander submitted a map showing a method of subdividing the property by moving the existing dwelling and garage, but stated he had no intention of' completing the subdivision. He also wished to be assUred that he would be able to build on lot 16 f'ronting on Woodruff' Avenue. at some future time. Mr. Nicklin stated that under present conditions, the rear portion of' the property had no legal access to az:w street. Mr. Nicklin and Mr. Carozza poipted out that developments on private streets and easements had been stopped some tilne ago. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. DaJ,y and carried that the application for a permit to construct a second dwelling on the rear portion of this property be denied without prejudice to reconsideration, and suggested 'that the matter be resubmitted as a subdivision. The City Engineer and the Planning Consultant submitted a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing requirements for 1mprovements in of'f' street parldng lots. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary resolution initiating proceedings to amend the zoning ordinanc,e as it applies to of'f' street par!d.ng requiremants, zoning of all otherwise unzoned property, zoning upon annexation, and the extension of variances. Communication was received f'rom the City of Monrovia Planning Commission giving notice of the proposed rezoning of Duarte Road between the Santa Anita Wash and Fifth Avenue from Zone R-A to Zone C-2. Hotion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that the Secretary be instructed to inform the City of Monrovia that, in the opinion of this Commission. further commercial zoning is not now needed on Duarte Road, and suggesting 'that the twO Commissions work to- gether inaz:w future rezoning of this area. In compliance with conditi.on 4 of' lot split No. 98, being the request of W. H. McCauley, 11.36 South Sixth Avenue, and Maurice J. Cl~, 1200 South Sixth Avenue, to divide property on Eneino Avenue, approved by this Commission on April 10, 1956, the City Engineer submitted a report recommending that lot splits granted on the southerly extension of Eneino AVenue be required to deposit with the City an amount equal to a rate of (llO.OO per front f'oot for the f'uture opening of Camino Grove Avenue into Sixth Avenue. He stated that the Unified School District has agreed to pay the cost of the street that would abut the Camino Grove School. and that 'this had been taken into consideration in establishing the proposed rate. Mr. McCauley and Mr. RObinson, purchaser of the Cl~ property. addressed the Commission stating that the proposed rate I~ould be prohibitive and that the lot splits could not be accomplished. They also stated that if the property were to be assessed for the opening of Camino Grove Avenue that it should have been determined earlier and assessed against property further north on Eneino Avenue. thus reducing the front foot rate. The matter of street drainage along the Cl~ property was discussed. Mr. Robinson stated he was purchasing the property. and giving a portion of it to Mr. McCauley. to eradicate two chichen ranches near his subdivision. He stated that he did not intend to con- struct the street at the present time; that he would deposit suffioient funds for its future 1mprovement; but that he did not want to be denied the right to build a dwelling on the property. Motion by Mr. Balser that the action of this Commission taken on April 10, 1956, concerning lot split No. 98 be reaffirmedJ that the rate of $10.00 per front foot, amounting to ~750.00 each on the two 7, foot lots requested be approved f'or the deposit required by condition No. 4J and that a new condition No. 6be added, recommending that no permit be issued for a builditig on the Cl~ portion of the property until Encino Avenue is extended and improved, with satisfactory drainage arrangements. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried by the foUoldng vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Balser, Pratt. Robertson and Vachon NOES: Commissioner Daly ABSENT: Commissioner Sorenson. - 3 - 5-8-56 . . . . , , The Secretary read a report reco!Jllllending that a filing fee I:!e required on the filing of applications for lot splits to partiaJ.iy offset the actual expense incurred in the processing of such applications. The matter of requir- ing a filing fee for the filing of subdivision maps was ,discussed. The Planning Consultant was requested to investigate and advise what fees were being charged on such filings in other cities. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. " I l, Y;/ 'VvtJ . .~ oJ';, 'f) / )A.f.YJ..A~( /' r I (/ l. M. TALLEY Secretary - 4 - 5-8-56