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