Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 23, 1957 r' . ( ) .. c Council Chamber, City Ball, Arcadia, California, April 23, 1957, 8:00 P. ~ TO: ALL CITY COUNCILMEN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SUBJECt: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The City Planning Commission met in regular meeting with Chairmen Robertson presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Balser, Daly, Davison, Pratt, lobertson and Vachon. ABSENt: None. 0'DIl!RS PRESENt: Mansur, Nicklin, Jacobi, talley and McGlasson. The lllinutes of the meeting of April 9, 1957, were approved as written and maUe4. Pursuant to notice ghan, a public hearing was held on the proposed reclassification from Zone R-3 to Zone C-o and Zone D of property located at 722 and 728 West Huntington Boulevud and at 400 to 650 West Huntington Bouleverd es cont8lllpleted by Resolution No. 246. The Secretary read the allowable uses in Zone C-O and the requirements for Zone D. No one spoke in favor of the proposed change. Mr. A. W. Baubelt, 630 West Huntington Boulevard, addressed the CoUP1ssion ,in opposition to the proposed change of Bone. He mentioned thet a similar proposal had been made in Jenuary, 1955. He stated thet he hed no objection to occasional spot soning for medical buildings, but feals that this action for a change of zone is premature. He objected to the lO foot setback which would result, stating that it would look unsightly adjacent to residences set back 50 feet. Be pointed out that fast traffic on Huntington Boulevard . presented a hazard at points of ingress and egress. Dr. Elmer De Gero, 716 West Huntington Boulevard, stated that he was not opposed to the proposed 80ne change, but wanted to know whether the dental office at 728 West Huntington Boulevard was in by variance. He asked whether the adjoining property owners could be advised of the uses allowed on each parcel. He was iuformed that only those uses allowe4 in Zone C-O wou14 be perlllitted. Dr. Frank W. Baynes, 380 West Normen Avenue, who owns property at 480 West Huntington Boulevard, stated thet he does not want any change of zone which would interfere with his medical practice at the Huntington Boulever4 address. No. one else desired to be heerd. The Chairmen declared that the public heering WOuld be continued at the next maeting on May 14, 1957, for the sole purpose of receiving reports from the Staff and the Planning Consultant. Pursuant to notice given, a public hearing was he14 on the proposed amendment to Sections 4 and 5 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish mintmum floor erea of dwellings in Zones R-O and R-l, and to regulate the construction and location of more than one dwelling on a lot in Zone &-1, as contelllplated by Resolution No. 247. the Secretary read the report of the Planning Consultant. No one spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. In answer to an inquiry from the audience, the Chairmen stated that the Commission hes no control over deed restrictions. The Secretary stated that those 4eed restrictions which allow only one house on a lot would not be affected by thiS proposed change. Mr. Oliver C. Benry, owner of property at 1030 South Sixth Avenue, inquired es to how such a chenge would affect his property. Be was informed thet if at least 60'& of the area is developed with more than one hou,se on a lot, a second dwelling would not be precluded. Hr. Oliver stated that he was oppoaedto the change. Mr. H. B. McGowan. 647 West Csm1no Real Avenue, stated that he has a 40.000 square foot lot now being used for a poultry ranch. He stated that when his poultry business is discontinued, he plans to develop the lend for rental units. He expressed the opinion that the proposed change would impose a hard- ship on hf.ID in limiting the number of units he could build. Mr. Harry Vawter, 881 West Foothill Boulevard. representing the Upper Rancho residents, addresse4 th~ssioD to request that the conditiODS,of deed restrictions in the . 4-23-57 ~- c ~ Upper Rancho area be written into the Zoning Ordinance when they ,ezpire.:, '.. He stated that this was the only way to prevent deterioration of this high class area. Mrs. D. C. Wheeler, 228 East Sycamore Avenue, expressed opposition to'the-proposed amendment. She stated that 60% of the lots in her area was not developed to 1IIOre than one dwelling, and therefore, these large lots would be restricted to one dwelling. Mr. Gordon Lund, 330 San Miguel Drive, inquired about the effect of this proposed amendment on lot splits. He was informed by the Secretary that there would be no effect. The City Attorney pointed out that although there would be no direct effect, the proposed amendment would tend to change the relationship between the newly split lot and the rest of the area. He stated that if 60% of the residents in an area favor two houses on a lot, they should apply for a change of zone to Zone R-2. Mr. Stoke, 1826 South Pirat Avenue, remarked that the amendment would be beneficial to the citizens of Arcadia. The Chairman declared that the public hearing would be continued at the next meeting on May 14,1957, for the sole purpose of'receiving reports from the Staff and the Planning Consultant. The Secretary was requested to send copies of the Planning Consultant's report and the Staff recoJlllllendations to all Commissioners as soon as possible. The application of Dorothy M. LoGuidice for a permanent zone variance for a children's day nursery at 530 West Las Tunas Drive, was considered. The Planning Consultant presented his report. Mr. Balser stated that the nursery was needed in the City, but that it should not be in its present Zone R-l location. Mr. Pratt stated that the granting of a permanent variance would result in lOBS of control by the City. Be stated that it should be kept on a temporary basis. Mr. DaviSon, Mr. Vachon and Mr. Acker concurred with Mr. Pratt. Mr. Acker suggested that the variance be continued for a period of' five years. Mr. Daly concurred with the five year suggestion. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to draw the necessary resolution recommending th~the request for continuance of a zone varil\1lC6 for a children's day nursery at 530 W st Las Tunaa Drive be approved for a period of five years with the number of pupils not to exceed 20. Lot split No. 146, being the request of Frank O. Gustafson to divida property at 1212 South Santa Anita AVenue, was considered. 'The report of the City Engineer was read. The Secretary advised the Commission that proceedings are under way, for condemnation of land for'the extension of Louise Avenue. Mr. Davison stated that he and Mr. Balser agreed that this property should not be developed until Louiae Avenue is extended. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Davison and carried that the request to divide the easterly 130 feet of the westerly 390.92 feet of the southerly 115.63 feet of the northerly 231.25 feet of Lot 9, Arcadia Agreage Tract, 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 $25.00 be paid; 3. That a covenant be recorded prohibit1llg use of Parcel 2 for a dwelling until Louise Avenue is open and improved. Lot split No. 147, being the request of Wayne P. Upson to divide property at 603 West Longden Avenue, was considered. The report of the City Engineer was read. Mr. Balser stated that the split meets all requirements. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Davison and carried that the request to divide the northerly 85 feet of Lot 16, Tract No. 8475 be rec01lllllended for approval ellbject to tha following conditions: 1. That a final map be filed with the City Engineer; 2. 'l'hat a sawer lateral be provided for Parcel 2; J; 'That 'a, recreation fee'of $25.00 ,be .:pald. Lot split No. 148, being the request of Genevieve Burnell Forgey to d~vide property at 290 West Poothill Boulevard, was considered. The report of the City Engineer was read. Mr. Pratt brought out that entrances for tbe two new parcels would be on Foothill Boulevard. He stated t~at he would prefer' two 2 - 4-23-57 c lots facing Burnell Oaks Lane. 'Mr,. Gordon Lund, attorney representillg Mrs. Forgey, suggested that the entrance for Parcel 2 could be on Burnell Oaks Lane. Mr. Pratt suggested that Parcell be reduced ill size so that Parcels 2 and 3 could be split west to east and increased in width. Mr. Lund mentioned the sewer easement on Parcel 2. Mr. Pratt suggested that the matter be held over for solution of the entrance location. Mr. Vachon requested that the map be returned to Mr. Finley for a better solution. He stated that entrances on Foothill Boulevard were undesirable. Lot split No. 149, beiug the request 'of Pred .J. Darms to divide property at 300 Palm Drive, was considered. The report of the City Engineer was read. The Secretary advised the Commiasion that tract restrictions on this lot, limit it to one dwelling. These restrictions expire in 1966. Mr. Acker stated that the requested split meets all City requirements but conflicts with tract restrictions. Mr. Darms expressed the opinion that deed restrictions do not prohibit the splitting of lots. He poillted out several lots in the area which have been split. The City Attorney explained that the City does not possess the right to enforce deed restrictions. but as a matter of policy has not knowingly granted lot splits in violation of existing restrictions. Mr. Robertson pointed out that anyone who buys in a restricted area, does so knowing the conditions imposed. The Planning Consultant suggested that the applicant get a release from deed restrictions and then re-apply for a split. Motion by Mr. Acker, seconded by Mr. Daly and carried that the request to divide the southerly 80 feet of Lot 60. Tract No. 13188. be recommended for denial. Lot split No. 150. being the request of W. A. Angel to divide property at 1709 Claridge Street. was considered. The report of the City Engineer was read. Mr. Vachon stated that he did uot consider this a good split considering the area. He pointed out that the existing house was too close to the property line. The Secretary stated that he had requested Mr. Angel to place the existing house at a normal building line. The Commission on .January 27, 1953, granted a var1ance for the house in its present location. Motion by Mr. Pratt, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carri.ed that the request to divide a portion of Lot 1. Tract No. 13894, be recommeuded for denial. Lot split No. 151, being the request of Peter L. Dtzikes to divide property at 2010 South Second Avenue, was considered. The report of the City Engineer was read. Mr. Acker stated that he considered this an excellent split. Mr. Daly pointed out that rear line utility easements should be provided. Motion by Mr. Acker. seconded by Mr. Daly and carried that the request to divide the easterly 39 feet of property located at 2010 South Second Avenue be recOllllll8nded for approval subject to the following conditionSl 1. That a final map be filed with the City Engineer; 2. That 12 feet be dedicated for the widening of Second Avenue; 3. That a covenant be recorded guaranteeing that Parcel 2 be permanently attached to Lot 12. Tract No. 19974; 4. That any necessary utility easements be granted. Lot split No. 152. being the request of Ray L. Scull to divide prope~y at 2121 South Third Avenue. WB8 assigned to Mr. Acker and Mr. Robertson ,to investigate. The revised tentative map of Tract No. 231~5. located in the Highlands on the ,northerly extension of Canyon Road. said tract containing 58 lots, was considered. The new map was displayed showing the new area included and changes in street and layout. The Secretary gave a verbal summary of the Engiueer's repor.t. He iIIdicated a new atreet in the IISW area. This street. Monte Place, wuld be 40 feet wide, 36 feet of which would be paved roadway. He stated that Lots 17, 18 and 19 are not in keeping whith ',the other lots. and therefore, lot lines to the west should be adjusted and Lot 18 should be eliminated to improve the ,layout of the other two. He stated that the rear line of Lot 55 should be adjusted to conform to the top of ,the cut on the."reservoir property. It was suggested that the City return a portion of the reservoir property to the - 3 - 4-23-57 c /~-" subdivider to accomplish this adjustment in exchange for the unusable land west of the reservoir. It was pointed out that the 20 foot access road alignment hes been improved. He suggested that the fill slope between the access road and the storm drain on Lot 4 be landscaped and provided with sprinklers and that the area between the storm drain and Canyon Road be deeded to the City with land- scaping to be maintained by the City. He pointed out that Lot 6 extends across the storm drain with limited frontage on Canyon Road involving e long road for access. He suggested that land be acquired from the lot adjacent to the south. said land being unusable for the present property owner; and added to Lot 6. In this way a bridge over the storm drain could be arranged and the property fenced to prevent dumping. The problem of maintenance and access to the debris basin was discussed. At present. it would appear to be by means of private driveway to tlie base of the clam. It was suggested that the rear of Lot 40 be added to Lot 37 for better appearance. He brought out the fact that Lot 36 is a long shallow lot on a steep slope with no apparent building sitie. He stated that if this lot is retained by the subdivider, it should be planted and that a guard rail Should be provided along the Canyon Road fron~age. Hr. Balser stated, that the map should be held for study with all tbe fore- goiDg points considered. Hr. Robertson stated that there were too many problems to be solved by open discussion. He suggested that they be worked out in conference between the Staff and the developer. Mr. Tegart. engineer for the tract. requested partial approval for the location of Canyon Road at this meeting. witb the other details to be worked out later. Mr. Balser stated that the general arrangement of Canyon Road and the two cul-de-sac streets is good. Hr. Tegard stated that a 15 foot sewer easement was to be shown on the finel map. The Chairman stated that the map should be held for study by the Staff. Engineer and Planning ConsultlUlt. He stated that the layout of Canyon Road csets with the general approval of the Commission but should be worked out with the City ; Engineer. He stated that this matter should be postponed until the meeting on May 14, 1957. Hr. Tegart consented to any necessary time extension so that these matters could be conp.idered. Motion by Mr. Balser, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that the tentative map of Tract No. 23145 be held over for further study by mutual consent of the subdivider and the Co_ss1on. The revised tentative map of Tract No. 15033. located on the westerly extension of Sharon Road. said tract containing 39 lots. was considered. The Secretary pointed out that the owner of Lot 19 did not want to be included in the tract, making it necessary to realign the cul-de-sac south of that lot and to provide a one foot strip to be set up in trust along the south line of Lot 19. There remains sufficient area in the lots south of the cul-de-sac. Motion by Hr. 'Vachon. seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that the revised tetltative map of Tract No. 15033 be recommended for approval with a trust to be set up against Lot 44 - a one foot strip. The final map of Tract No. 22220. located on Southview Road and Hungate Lane. said tract containing 7 lots. was considered. The Secretary gave the City Engineer's report. Motion by Hr. Pratt. seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that the final map of Tract No. 22220 be recommended for approval. with appropriate, action to be taken to vacate the alley between Soutbview Road and the alley parallel to the south and also take the necessary aCtion for the disposition of Lots 16 and 17, The tentative map of Tract No. 23937. located on the easterly extension of Birchcroft Street. said tract containing j,lots. was considered. The Secretary gave the Engineer's report. Mr. Vachon stated that this mep complies with previous suggestions. Motion by Mr. Vachon. seconded by Mr. Pratt and carried that the tentative map of Tract No. 23937 be recommended for epprovel with Lot 4, a one foot strip. to be deeded in fee to the City. and subject to all usual improvements. fees and deposits. A request for permission to circulate an annexation petition on certain property in the Newell Bstates located southeasterly of the Arcadia City boundary. was considered. It was pointed out that there are approximately 100 parcels in the area and about 80 property owners are requesting annexation. The City Attorney stated that the person who had submitted the petition informed htm that 95'% of the property owners were represented. He stated that the City would have - 4 - 4-23-57 to'move quickly to allow circulation of the petition, because until that time other cities could start proceed~ngs which would prevent action for a consider- able length of time. A committee consiating of Mr. Vachon, Mr. Pratt and Mr. Acker was appointed to study the issue. It was brought out that if the City Council grants permission to circulate the petition, it must be determined whether the annexation \IlOuld alter the school district boundary. The Arcadia Unified S~ool District is to be notified of the request by the Secretary. It was suggested that the City Engineer might report on adjacent 'property. The request of the City Council that the uses in Zone C-M be reviewed was considered. The Council had stated:that since most of the opposition waa to pOSSible manufacturing uses, such as garment manufacture, textile manufacture and to other kinds of manufacture as set forth in item 21, they wanted the Commission to review the matter before making a decision. Mr. Robertson inquired whether the Council wanted reconSideration of the C-M Zone or creation of a C-4 Zone. He suggested that the possibility that the C-M Zone, because of its psychological effect, be withdrawn as regards the Triangle, and' a. IlIIOre restricted eone considered. Mr. Pratt stated that a C-4 Zone Would include some of the allowable uses in C-M. He suggested that the east end of the Triangle might be rezoned to C-M with the understanding that all uses would require prior Council approval. Mr. Robertson expressed the opinion that nothing 1ilOuld be accomplished by a modified C-M Zone, since development of the area dependS on establishment of the area depends on establishment of definite uses. Mr. Acker pointed out that the proposed bowling alley would occupy a large portion of the Triangle, leaving only 3 or 4 parcels to be considered. He lXlnsidsred it impractical to modify the C-M Zone for so few parcels. Mr. Pratt asked the City Attorney if the matter could be resolved by eliminating certain uses. The City Attorney stated that the C-M Zone is good but perhaps does not belong in the Triangle. Mr. Robertson stated that the issue could not be solved at this maeting and should be sent back to Committee. Mr. Balser pointed out that the only area under conSideration for which C-M might be used was that portion of the Triangle east of the'Wash. Mr. Pratt stated that the Commission should act on the original recommendations of the Committee. The Planning Consultant suggested that the Colll\lliasion take the necessary action to allow the bowling alley to proceed and resolve the other problems after further study. MOtion by Mr. Pratt, seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that Section 3 a and b and Section 4 of Resolution 242 be recommended to the City Council for approval with the balance of the resolution to be held for study. Mr. Robertson stated that the C-M Zone was acceptable in certein parts of the City. Motion by Mr. Daly, seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that the City Council 'be, ,advised tnat, in the opinion of the Commission,tbs_C-M Zone as originally crested is a desirable eons and should be retained in the ordinance. A committee consisting of Mr. Robertson, Mr. Balser and Mr. Davison was nlUlled to reconsider the Triangle reeoning. Notices are to be sent to interested parties and a meeting dete established. The committee is to be notified of the meeting date. Tract No. 18352, located in County territory east of Peck Road near Jeffries Avenue, was considered. The tract was recommended for approval and ordered filed. The Secretary stated that he had received an inquiry regarding cooperative apartments. The Commission agrsed that nothing in the City ordinances prevented installation of cooperative apartments. Dr. G. Glenn Dollinger address,ed the Commission in regard to his applications for change of zone from Zone R-3 to Zone C-O and for a zone variance to allow a pharmacy. He stated that he had withdrawn his application for a zone variance, but after discussing the matter with the architec:t, he wanted to find out the possibility of reopening the request. The City Attorney stated that since the public hearing had been closed, the Commission had been required to render a decision which they had done by instructing the City Attorney to draw a resolution denying the varianc:e. The City Attorney stated that the recommendation for a change of zone could be sent to the Council with the understanding thet it be conSidered at the same time as the recommendation for a D Zone overlay, which overlay must be accolllplished by a separate action. Copies for the standards for D Zone are to be submitted and a time set for public hearing. - 5 - 4-23-57 " . . . The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 250, instituting proceedings for the reclassification of property located on the north side of Las Tunas Drive between El MJnte Avenue and the Arcadia Wash Channel to Zone D. Motion by Mr. Daly. seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that the reading of the body of the resolution be waived. Motion by Mr. Partt, seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that Resolution No. 250 be adopted. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 251, instituting proceedings for the amendment of Section 12.1 of Ordinance No. 760. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Daly and carried that the reading of the body of the resolution be waived. Motion by Mr. Pratt, seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that Resolution No. 251 be adopted. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 252,recommending the denial of a variance to permit the oper3tion of a pharmacy at the northeast corner of El Monte Avenue and Las Tunas Drive. Motion by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Balser and carried that the reading of the body of the resolution be waived. Motion by Mr. Davison, seconded by Mr. Pratt and carried that Resolution No. 252 be adopted. Mrs. D. C. Wheeler. 228 East Sycamore AvanUe, presented a letter 'Which was read to the Commission requesting reconsideration of a lot split. She was informed that she should resubmit the matter to the Councilor present a new request for a lot split. The Secretary was instructed to prepare copies of tbe Pl~ing Consultant's reports for distribution' to members of the Commisaion. There being no further business, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. --J) C7\. j i ~' J \d..~!-1/ ,\ Q L. M. TALLEY Secretary - 6 - 4..23-57