Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 22, 1956 "- ) " . . Council Chamber, Ci1Qr Hall, Arcadia, Cali!or~a, Mq 22, 19S6, 8,00 P. M. TO, ALL CITY ooUNCIDIEN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SUBJEX:T: PLANNING COMMISsION MINUTES The CityPlann1ng Commission met in regular meeting with Chairman Pratt presiding. PRESENT: Comm1ss10ners Acker, Balser, Daly, Pratt, Robertson and Vachon. ABSENT: Collll1l1ssioner Sorenson. OTHERS PRESENT: Carozza, Mansur, 1I1okl1n,. Phillips, McGlasson and Talley. Lot split No. 105 (ReVised), being the request of Joe E. Earll to divide property on Alice Street, was considered. Report from the City Engineer stated that the revised map will now oonformto the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, as long as Parcels 1, 2, 3 aI1d4 remain as individual parcels on the assess- ment roll. Mr. Robertson stated that this property is partially developed and that an alley was dedicated when the service station WBnt in. He still fee!ls that the property could be developed as a subdivision. It was brought out that in the future Mr. Earll intends to request permission to lIIOVe the 20 foot alley frOJll the south line of Parcel 4 to the north line, thus providing a buffer area to be usad for parking. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that the request to divide lots 12, 13, 14, 15. 16 and 17 of Block 61" Santa Anita Tract. be recOl1llllended for approval subject to the folloWing conditions: 1. That a final map be filed with the City Engineer; 2. That 2 feet additional be dedicated for widening Seoond AvenueJ .3. That parcel 4 shall be held as one parcel and not be further sub- divided .'that no -additional bniMings_be constructed on it. Lot split No. 106. being the request of the Robinson Brothers to divide property at 1024 South Sixth Avenue, was considered. Report from the City Eng1neer pointed out that Parcel 2 shOuld, by deed restriction,. become a part of lot 21. and parcel .3 a part of lot 20, Tract No. 18241. This split is requested so as to provide rear line easements for utility poles and it also removes a non-conforming bni1,Hng. Notion by 14r. VachOn. seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that the request to divide the WBst 40 feet of the east 17.5 feet of the north 63 feet of the south 18.5 feet of lot 64. Tract No. 808, be recommended for approval Subject to the filing of a final map with the City Engineer. Lot split No. 107, being the request of Dni1 Bola, 101.5 North First Avenue, was considered. Report from the City Engineer stated that parcell, all but 2 feet of which is in Zone R-2, is approximately .5,000 square feet. and that parcel 2 is 6,700 square feet. Mr. Balser stated that the proposed lot sizes are in keeping with other lots in the area, and that 2 feet of the property is in a commercial zone adjoining a filling station. Motion by Mr. Balser. seCOnded by Mr. Robertson and carried that the request to divide the northerly .51.68 feet ot the southerly 164.68 feet of the westerly 96.7.5 feet of lot 1, C. B. Clapp Sub- division. be recOl1llllended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That a final map be filed with the City Engineer; 2. That a sewer lateral be provided for parcel 2; .3. That a recreation fee of $25.00 be paid. Lot split No. 109, being the request of Andrew Frohlich, 112.5 South Fourth Avenue. was considered.. Mr. Acker and Mr. Daly stated that they considered this property ideally suited for a split. !'lotion by Mr. Daly. seconded by Mr. Acm!' and carried that the request to divide the north 80 feet of the south 18$ feet of lot 38, ,Tract No. 808, be recommended for approval subject to the following .5-22-.56 . . conditions: 1. That a final map be filed with the CitY' Engineer; 2. That a sewer lateral be provided for parcel 2; 3. That a recreation fee of $25.00 be paid. Lot split No. 110, being the request of Farley- H. Archer and Sewanee Builders, 1041, 1041 and 1053 Loganrita ,Avenue, WlIB considered. Report from the City EngiJ1eer indioated that the lots confo~ to the ordinance in width and area. Motion bY' Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr'. Vachon and oarried that the request to divide the ellBt 160 feet of lot 20, Fe A. Geier Tract, be recommended for approval s)1bjact to the following oonditions: 1. That a final map be filed wit~ the City Engineer; 2. That a recreation fee of $25.00 be paid. Final map of Tract No. 22498, located on Sixth Avenue, sou:th of Longden Avenue, WlIB considered. Report from the City Engineer stated that the final map is in confonnity with the approved, tentative map. Fees and deposits to be re- lluired were set forth. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seCOnded by Mr. Balser and carried thet the final map of Tract No. 22498 be recommended for approval subject to the following fees and deposits: 34 street trees @ $5.00 each 1 street name sign $170.00 25.00 Recreation fee for 16 lots @ $25.00 each 400.00 A deposit will be required for steel street light poles in accordance with the plan of the Southern California Edison Comp~. Final map of Tract No. 20642, located on Foothill Boulevard ellBt of San Carlos ROad, WlIB consideredo Report from the City Er..g1neer stated that the firlU map conformed with the approved ter.tative map, but that in its present form, a sewer easement to the City of Arcadia along the southerly tract line should be shown. It was recommended that the Planning Comm.i.ssion coDs:i.der the desirabilitY' of requiring future streets to be dGdic&ted ar.d i!npro<r:,d' 1::> cOl1ju,nction \dth the development of this subdivision. K~'. Balsell' pointed Ol4t th:l desirability of obtaining a street east at the south end, indicating that this \~ould be a legitimate charge against the subdivider~ Mr. Salsbury, the developer, stated that he had made m~ required changes and that he "lIB now committ.ed on the lots. Other subdividers, he said, had made developments \dthout this charge. He stated that he felt it it was unjust, after meeting all requirerr,..at.s, that this charge be levied at the end of negotiations. Mr. Robertson stated that, unless this charge is paid bY' the subdivider, a precedent for city-financed street improvement on future developments would be established. Motion by 11r. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Robertson and carried that final map of Traot No. 20942 b~ recammended for approval, excluding paving of future street, and subject to the following fees and deposits: 38 street trees @ $5.0Cl each $190.00 2 street name signs @ $25.00 each 50.00 Recreation fee - 11 lots@ $25'.00 each 275'.00 3 steel street lights @ $145'.00 each 435'.00 Lot split No. 98. being the request of v,l. H. McCa,u!eY, 1l.36 South Sixth Avenue, and Maurice J~ Cla;yman, 1200 South Sixth Avenue, to divide property on Encino Avenue WlIB reconsidered. The question of drainage of the lots WlIB dis- cussed. The City Engineer pointed out that drainage of an entire street differed from the drainage of a single lot, and that at the present time drainage filtered into the ground on the Cllli)'l1lan propertY'. Mr. Robinson brought out the desira- bility of disposing two chicken ranches. He stated his desire to put up money- for future street improvements on Encino Avenue and Camino Grove extension. and to build on the lot in the future, but without paving Encino Avenue until the entire street to Camino Grove is improved. The City Engineer pointed out that - 2 - 5'-22 -5'6 . > . . the drainage would not be changed until the street was improved, at which time it might become a problEllll. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Vachon and cSit'ried that condition No.3, recOllllllended April 10, 19S6, be amended to provide that the short extension of Eneino Avenue not be paved until Eneino Avenus is extendsd to Camino Grove, and that condition No. 6,recammAnded ~ B, 19S6, prohibiting any building pemit on the Cla,yman pori1onj be rescinded. A cOllllllUDication was read from the Los Angeles County Road Department regarding a crossing of the Rio Hondo channel at Double Drive to replace the existing orossing at Tyler Avenue. The City Engineer pointed out that traffio would be put in a direct line on Santa Anita Avenue and that Tyler AVenue would dead-end on each side of the channel. He stated that he could see only benatit to the community. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Robertson and carried that the letter be answered' in a favorable manner. Lot split No. ill, being the requsst of James Kosturos, 220 West Foothill BOulevard. was assigned to Mr. Robertson and Mr. Vachon. The proposed rezoning' of Duarte Road in Monrovia was discussed. It was stated that the Monrovia Planning COlllIlI:i.ssion had voted 4 to 3 to recommend re- zoning of this property to Co02. The matter will now go to the Monrovia City Council for public hearing. on June 5. 1956. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Balser arid carried that a letter, sil1lilar to the one sent to the Monrovia Planning Commission;, be sent to the Monrovia City Council. The matter of disposing of City property on Camino Real east of Tenth Avenue was discussed. A lot purchased a few years ago for street purposes has resulted in an unused strip ll.32 feet wide. An offer has been received to purchase the strip and install curb, gutter and street, enabling a desirable lot split. The City Engineer sta.ted that this would allow the City to recover a part of the land cost. Motion by Mr. Daly, seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that the proposed sale of property at the corner of Tenth Avenue and Camino Real be recOllUllended for approval. Mr. Harry Vawta~, 881 West Foothill BOulevard, representing Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association, came before the Collllllission to protest the proposed Sears, Roebuok 8< Compllll,Y store and parld.ngl$TEla in Pasadena on Foothill Boulevard at the west side of Michi1iinda Avenue. He requested that the Planning' Collllllission present a letter to the Pasadena Planning Commission recolllDlending that this area be kept residential in nature. Mr. Nicklin stated that the City has no right to demand particular zoning of a neighboring city, but that property owners have such a right. Hotion by Mr. Robertson. seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that this Commission .recolllDlend that the City Council adopt a resolution advising the Pasadena Planning Collllllission that the City of Arcadia looks with disapproval on any change of zone or variance in this area of approximately 550 feet west of Michillinda Avenue. It was agreed that the Planning Consultant and the Chairman of the Planning Commission would represent the City of Arca:iia at a meeting of the Pasadena City Council at 9.00 A. M., on June 7, 1956. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 219 instituting proceedings to amend the zoning ordinance as it applies to the zOning of all property not other- wise zoned, zOning of property upon annexation to the City, extension of variances. regulation of off-street parld.ng, and elimination of real estate offices from the C-O Professional Zone. Motion by Mr. Acker, seconded by Nr. Daly and carried that the reading of the bOdy of the resolution be waived. 11otion by Mr. Daly. seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that Resolution No. 219 be adopted. The Secretary read a Declaration of Covenant to be attached to the request for approval of a second dwelling requested by Samuel Alexander~ 69 West Woodruff Avenue. Motion by Mr. Daly, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that a permit be granted for a second dwelling and garage. located substantially as shown on. plot plan, upon recordation of Declaration of Covenant, said property to be used as one parcel and no additional structures to be constructed on the property without .prior approval of the City. The Secretary read a report. from the "Live Oak Zoning Comnrl.ttee" concerning proposed rezoning of the Triangle area between Live Oak Avenue, Das Tu.naa Drive and E1 Monte Avenue. The Chairman stated that the oomnrl.ttee was to be cOlllDlended for doing a good job. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. A<<ker and carried that the report of the "Live Oak Zoning Committee" be submitted to the City Council recommAntli 'fig approval. - 3 - 5-22-56 . . , . . . There was discussion on the proposed Sign Ordinance submitted by the Planning Consultant. It was decided that it would be held over until the neXt meeting for further study by members of the Commission. The CollDllission was inf.omed that a tempo~ary man had been employed to enforce the Sign Ordinance, with particular emphasis on real estate signs. In the tirst week, thirteen violations were discovered, seven ot which were corrected 11nmediately and the other six to be tollewed up. The Chairman requested that the City CoiulCll be contacted to see if' a joint meeting between the Planning Commies ion and the City Councll was desired on the tifth Tuesday in Ma;y. Mr. Albaugh addressed the Commission regarding the sal.e ot property of Mr. Cassady along the west side of the County Park. He requested that the Commission give indioation of its opinion on possible zoning ot this area. The Chairman stated that the Commission could not ofter definite suggestions as to zoning, but that the Staff and the Planning Consultant were available for con- sultation. Mr. Robertson and the City Engineer stated that tw;f zoning matters must be handled by formal procedure as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning COnsultant presented his findings on lot split and subdivision tees charged by other communities. He stated that the majority charged $10 to $15, plus $1.00 per lot for lot splits, and $25, plus $1.00 per lot on sub- divisions. The City Engineer stated that the fee of $10 to $15 would not begin to cover the actual. expense of processing lot splits, but that it would act as a deterrent to repeated applications for splits. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Robertson and carried that th~ City Attorney be requested to draw the necessary resolution to recOIIDnend that the subdivision ordinance be amended to require the following fees I Subdivisions: $25.00 fee plus $1.00 per lot; Lot splits: $10.00 fee plus $5.00 per lot when more than one new lot is requested. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. '-, -..,.", \7~#l "n,'lJ L/j1tc{!h~t/ ( 1, M. TALLEY Secretary -4- 5-22-56