Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 14, 1956 ,. '. .' . . Council Chamber, City Hall, Arcadia, Cali:f'ornia;, August 14, 1956, 8:00 P. M. TO: AIJ.. CITY COUNCmm-r AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SUBJEXlT: PLANNING COUHISSION MINUTES The City Planning COIIlllI:1ssionmet in regular meeting with Chairman RObertson presiding. PRESENT: COIIlllI:1ssioners Acker, Balser, Daly, Pratt, Robertson, Sorenson and Vachon. ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Carozza, Pl1:11Hps, Mansur, McGlasson, Nicklin, Rice and Talley. The minutes of the meeting of July 24, 19$6, were approved as written and mailed. Pursuant to notice given, a public hearing was held on the application of Thomas E. Brooks, LeEtta Ma,y Brooks and Ralph D. stogsdill for a zone variance to allOlf automobile parking at the rear of the property located at 547 \iorlanan Avenue and at 2714 South Baldwin Avenue; _ and to allOlf the erection of a 6 foot wire fence along the south side of Lot 4-L, Tract No. 6641, in lieu of the required masonry wall. Mr. P. Eo Young, 54:L l'lorlllnan Avenue, wished. to know whether the variance would be permanent. He was informed that it would be. He stated that he is not opposed to the variance, but that he wants adequate policing of the area and also a masonry wall al.ong his property line. Mr. Ralph D. Stogsdill offered to answer questions. He pointed out the .need for additional off-street parking. He stated that one neighbor had asked him not to construct a masonry wall, but that hfil planned to filrect a six foot masonry wall adjacent to the Young and Brooks property. No one else desired to be heard and the Chairman stated that the publlc hearing would be continued at the next meeting for the sole purpose of receiving technical. reports from the Staff and Planning Consultant. Later in the evening, it was decided to consider a decision on this application. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Sorenson and carried that the Cit7 Attorney be instructed to draw the necessary resolution recommending approval of the application of Thomas E. Brooks, LeEtta Ma,y Bl'GGks and Ralph stGgsdUl f,or a zone lJu..j' to allow automobile parking at the rear of 547 Wer1anan Avenue and 2714 Seuth Baldwin Avenue, with the provision that a 6 foot masonry wall bs ereoted adjacent to residential property instead of the requested wire fence. Pursuant to notice given, a publio hearing was held on the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to provide for cash payment to the Cit7 in lieu of providing parld.ng area on a lot, as oontemplated by Resolution No. 222. The Secretary read a commun:ication from Elizabeth P. Thornton, 881-F West Huntington Drive, opposing the proposed amendment. No one spoke for or against the proposed amendment, and the Chairman stated that the public hearing would be continued at the next meeting for the sole purpose of receiving technical. reports from the Staff and Planning Consultant. The report of the Live Oak Zoning COIlIIIIittee was considered. The Secretary read portions of the report indicating uses deleted in the proposed C~M Zone. The report of the Planning Consultant regarding llmitations for laundry and machine shops was read. Mr. Balser rev1etofEld the previous meeting in which the area west of the wash was recommended for "paper industry"; the north side of Las Tunas DriVe was recllllllllended for C-o zone; and the area east of the wash for C-2 Zone. He stated that at the second meet"ing w.i.th the property owners, those east of the wash expressed their dissatisfaction w.i.th C-2 zOning. The COIlIIIIittee now reoOJ1ll1l8llds a C-M Zone for the entire triangle allowing the uses as set forth in the Planning Consultant IS report ot July 12, 19S5, with the exception of itam 3, automobile dismantling; item 8, oabinet shop or furniture manufacturing; item 13, tood products manufacture; and item 19, poultry and rabbit slaughter; and to add item 98, catering or cOllllll:1ssary; and item l2a, equipment rental serrlce;and to quaJ.1t,y item 16, laundry, by limiting to cash and carry; and item 22, tire rebuilding and recapping, by requiring it to be within a building. He further 8-14-56 --,. . . stated that the COIlIIdttee recommended an architectural overla;y".on the-entire triangle and a mason1'1 wall along the El Honte Avenue side of the triangle. Motion by Mr. Pratt, seconded by Mr. ~ and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary resolution to :1:nsii1tute proceedings for the creation of a new C.,.}-i Zone. The request of fferbert Kalliwoda for a zone variance to permit the erection and operation of an liutomobile laundry at 66 West Las Tunas Drive, was cons1dered. The plot plan and and an architectural drawing of the proposed building were displayed. The report of the Planning Consultant was read. The City Engineer stated that the plot plan should be more specifio as to size and location of drivew"iY"s. All the C01llJl1issioners agreed in favor of the variance provided that there be architectural control and proper drivews,ys on both the Las Tunas Drive and Live Oak Avenue sides. Mr. Balser suggested that Mr. Kall1woda confer with the starf in regard to these requirements. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to draw the necessary resolution recommend:lng that the request at" Herbert Klllliwoda for a zone variance to permit tile erection and operation of an automobile laundry at 66 West Las Tunas Drive be appl'oved, subject to the approval by the staff and PlAnning COIIIIIIission of a revised plot plan and architectural rendering of the bni1t11ng. The request of the Times-Mirror Company fora zone variance to allow additional parking area at the rear of the property known as llSO West Colorado street was considered. A cllllllllU1rl.cation dated August 10, 1956, from the Times- Mirror Company eJlPlaining the revised plot plan and possible uses for the 10S foot strip was read. The revised plot plan was displayed. Mr. Pratt stated that a covenant regarding the use of the 105 feet should be recorded. The City Attorney stated that COnsidering the integrity of the applicant, he believed the letter mentioned above would be binding in this regard. There was a discussion regarding the possible use and separation of the 105 foot strip. 14r. Bill Ruby, of the Times-Mirror Company, stated that they would be agreeable to installing a low fence along the north side of the 105 foot strip, but not a masonry liall. Notion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Pratt and unanimously carried by roll call vote, that the City Attorney be insi;ructed to draw the necessary resolution to recommend that the request of the T:l.n:es-Mirror Company for a zone variance to allow additional parking area at the rear of the property known as 1150 Hest Colorado street be ilpprovedsubject to the installation of a suitable bumper rail or wall along the south side of the parking lot, conforming with the recOllll1leIldations of the City Eng:lneerj installation of curb and gutter the full length of the property on 'the Miclii11i;;da 1lOulEivard s1dej the condition that no drivews,y be constructed on the 105 foot stripj and inclusion of the possible uses of the 105 foot strip mentioned in the letter from the Times-Mirror Company dated August 10, 1956. The City Attorney requested that if' and when the variance is granted, the index maps in the Building and Engineering Departments be posted to indicate the action taken on the 105 foot strip. The request of F'red ~I. Coxon and others for a change of zope from Zone R-l (One-family zone); Zone R-2 (TwO,-. family. zone)~ and Zone C-l (Limited Commercial Zone) to limited C-2 (General Commercial Zons) and Zone P (Automobile Parking Zone) at 125, 134. 140 and 208 E;ast Duarte Road and at 902 South Second Avenue, was considered. A map showing the area in question and all the property owners protesting the zone change was dispJ.s.yed. The report of the Planning Consultant, recOllll1lending that the zone change be not. approved, was read. f"11'. Harold W. David- eon, attorney for the applicants. offered to show a film of the area,but was informed by the Chairman that the public hearing had been closed except for reports from the staff. ~ir. Balser stated that he had made a tho~h study of the area about a year ago and again recently, and found no reason for a change of zone. lle stated that the area should remain C-l and. residential in consideration of the surrounding residential areaa. Mr. Daly stated that he concurred with the report of the Planning Consultant as to the zoning actions of July, 1955, and February. 1956, but that he felt that a zoning variance could be granted for a bowling alley. Hr. Vachon stated that he also had viewed the property recent:ly and a year ago and was reluctant to create a new commeroial area to fit this specific need. He pointed out that there is now sufficient area zoned for the use in question, and he is opposed to rezoning this area. lir. Acker stated that he concurs with the report of the Planning Consultant as to spot zoning but would, like to see this $650,000 development at a proper location in the City. Mr. Sorenson stated that the same applicants had been granted C-l zoning for 161 feet in 1955, and that - 2 - 8~14-56 . . this application proposed to extend those limits. He expressed the opinion that these parcels should be utilized first before creating new ones. Mr. Robertson pointed out that all the COlllIIlissionere had devoted much thought to this applica- tion and to the proteotion of the surrounding residential area. Motion by Mr. Pratt, seconded by l-lr. Vachon and unanimOusly oarried by roll oall vote that the City Attorney be instructed to draw the necessary resolution to recOmmend denial of the application of Fred M. Coxon and others for a zone ohange. Mr. Davidson addressed the COIIIIIlission to express his gratitude for their oonsider- ation. Lot split No. 121, being the request of E. B. Ousley;. to divide property at 14 South Third Avenue, was considered. The report of the City Engineer waS read. Hr. Sorenson stated that the split would result in a non-conforming bnnrling being 100 ated on a property line. The owners do not wish to move this building. Motion by Mr. Sorenson, seoonded by Mr. Acker and carried that the request to divide the south 40 feet of the north 105 feet of lot 2, Tract No. 5205, be recollllllSnded for denial. ' Lot split No. 120, being the request of Thomas E. and LeEtta Ha;y Brooks to divide property at 547 I-lorkman Avenue, was considered./Being in conjunction with a variance previously discussed, there was no further discussion on this split. 1.lotion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Daly and carried that the request to divide the northerly 41 feet of lot '40, Tract No. 6641, be recommended .t:or approval subject to the recording of a oovenant linldng ownership and use of the 41 foot parcel with lot 25, Tract }Io. 664J., and that a final map be filed witJI the City Engineer. Lot split No. 123,l:eing the request of Orville M. Knutsen to divide property at 1735 Holly Avenue. was held'for consideration with the final map of Tract No. 21582. Later in the rr.eeting, a decision was oonsidered. The new lot will be 73 feet :Ln width but meets the area requirements and oonforms in width with the new lots in the adjacent new subdivision. Hotion by l-lr. Balser. seoonded by t11'. VachOn and carried that the request of Orville N. Knutsen to divide the north 105 feet of the east 60.41 feet of lot 58 and the north 10S feet of the l~est 12';9 feet of lot 59, Tract !~o,.' 4869 be recOllllllElllded for approval subject to the following oonditions: . 1. That a. final map be filed with the City Engineerj 2. That a sewer lat:eral be provided for the new lotj 3. That a 15 foot radius corner cut-off at the interseotion of Holly Avenue and Sharon Road be dedicated for street; 4. That a reoreation fee of (/25.00 be paidj 5. That final approval not be given until Sharon Road is dedioated, thus giving the new lot frontage on a public street. Lot split No. 124, being the request ofBEikins Van and Storage Company to divide property at 37uest Huntington Drive, was considered. The ),'eport of the City Engineer was read. The Secretary pointed out that the split would make the remaining parcel non-conforming as to o1'f~treet parldng (18,800 square feet required, 9,800 square feet actual). The City Engineer brought out the fact that no trucks are parked in this area, and that this being a storage building. there was aotually no present need for as much parldng area as required by oode. The City Attorney suggested that the entire remaining area be paved and open for parking area. He pointed out that the required parldng area is out of proportion to the present use of the building. He stated that the first floor area might determine the required parldng area since the upper floors are devoted to storage. Nr. Robertson pointed out that the building oould possibly be converted to a multi-purpose building in the future, thus requiring additional parking. Nr. Pratt brought out the fact that a restaurant toms proposed for the new corner paroel, whioh would undoubtedly be short of parking area. He recollllllSnded that the matter be held over until the next meeting to allow disoussion with the owner. He stated that he would be absent at the next meeting, and requested that ~Ir. SlQl'enson replace him in a report on. this split along with 1'J1'. Acker. The Chatman stated that lot split l~o. 124 would be held for a decision at the next meeting. - 3 . 8-14.56 . . Finallllap oE Tract No. 2l~82. located betl-leen Norman Avenue and Lemon Avenue west oE Holly Avenue, was considered. The report of the City l!ng1neer. which stated that the :t'ii1al map was substantialJyin compliance tlith the approved tentative map. was read. It recommended that lot split No. 123 adjoining the tract to tha east be included in tpe subdivision. Mr. Erickson, the subdivider, stated that he will purchase the adjoining lot. only U the lot split is approved. He stated that to include the lot in the subdivision mm would mean considerable dela,v and Bltpense.He was informed that the final map would not be sent to tha City Council until a letter had been received Erom the Edison Comparv acknowledg- ing that easements for public utilities had been secured. Motion by Mr. Vachon. seconded by Nr. Pratt and c,arried that the final map of Tract No. 21~82 be recommended for approval subject to the following cond1tions. Eees and deposits I 30 street trees @ $~.OO each $l~O.OO 2 street name signs @ ~2~.OO each ~O.OO . 17 lots @ $2~.00 each . recreation fee 42~.OO 4 steel street light poles @ $lh5.oo each ~80.00 and further that utility eaaementsbe secured at the rear of all lots. with access to them. --r Tentative map of Tract No. 15033. located between Norman Avenue and Lemon Avenue west of Holly Avenue. and wes1; of Tract No. 2;1.582. was considered. Mr. Vachon stated that this tract and Tract i~o. 21582 ~lOuld open up about 90% of the area in this block without providing an additional exit. He stated tlmt the subdivider should place money in trust to cover the cost of a future street out to Lemon or NoI'lllall Avenue. A discussion followed on the possible loc ation of a future street. It was the opinion of the Commission that access should be provided at this time for the west portion of t he tract. This could be done by furnishing access to Norman Avenue or to Lemon Avenue. Another method would be by condemna- tion of a tight of WIq across lot 34 at the west end or the tract. the expense of the condemnation to be borp.e by the subdivider. The COl1lIIIission has been Wormed that the owners west of lot 34 are now ready to subdivide and continue the street into ilorman Avenue. It was proposed to place lot 22. along the unsubdivided portion in trust to inSure futUre payment of a portion of' the cost of opening and improving Sharon Road. In the opinion of the COmmission. the seven parcels not in the subdivision should not be allowed to be divided except into six lots of approximately 77 feet each. to conform with other lots in the proposed tract. It waS also pointed out that lots 13 and 14 do not confom in width to the require- ments or the Subdivision Ordinance. 11otion by Mr. Vachon. seconded by llr. Balser and carried that the tentative map or Tract No. 15033 be recommended ror den1aJ. without prejudice until such tiJne 'as a map is submitted which more near~ meets the requirell1Bnts of the Subdivision Committee. The tentative map of Tract no, 14818 located. on Rodeo Road north of Sierra Madre Boule"lrard. was considered. The report of the City Engineer was read. Mr. Egil Hopen. subdivider. explained certain reasons for differences in lot sizes. The City Engineer pointed out that the proposed BJCt.ension of Rodeo Uoad could be made the standard 60 feet and turned to the west to 1mprove the layout. Notion by Hr. Vachon. seconded by Nr. Balser and carried that the tentative map of Tract No. 14818 be ,recommended for denial without prejudice and that the map be resubmitted to meet the reqUirements of the Subdivision Committee. The report of the Planning Consultant on the proposed extension of Wistaria Avenue was considered. 111'. Balser stated that he concurred with the report and recommended its adoption. Notion by 11r. Vachon. seconded by Mr. ,Balser and carried that the Commission accept the report of the Planning Consultant and incorporate it in the approved street plan. The Secretary read a notice from the Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles regarding a zone exception for extension of the dairy facUities at 148 Jeffries Avenue. 'The Connn:ission agreed that a letter or protest should be stmt to the Los Ahgeles County Regional Planning Commission on this matter. The Secretary lias inst~ctE!<i to prepare the necessary communication. - 4 - 8.14.56 . . The Secretary read a communication from the City of Monrovia regarding the proposed :1nter-eity street to be located on the old abandonedPacii'ic Electric right of wa;y . The City Engineer stated that no action could be '.taken on the proposal until the necessary maps have been prepared. . The report of the Sign COIlIlII1ttee' is to be placed on the agenda of the next meeting. Mr. Balser adviSed the COIIlIl1ission that he would be absent the next two meetings. Mr. Pratt stated that he would be apsent the next meeting. Nr. Ralph D. Stogsdill addressed the Commission to express his gratitu~e for their action on the variance at 547 Workman Avenue and 2714 South Baldwin A enus. .. There being no .1'urther business, the Chai:rman declared the meeting adjourned. 'fWv~ L. H~ TALLEY Secretary - 5 - 8-14-56