HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 25, 1958
~,
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
HEARING
VARIANCE
Margolin
~--'\
'-____j
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION. OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
February 25, 1958
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular
session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, at 8:00 o'clock
P.M., February 25, 1958, with Chairman Vachon presiding.
PRESENT: Commissionsrs Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Robertson
and Vachon.
ABSENT: Commissioner Pratt
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Reibold, Nicltlin, Carozza, Cook, Talley,
and Mrs. Andrews.
The minutes of the meeting of February 11, 1958, were approved as
written and mailed.
Pursuant to notice given, a public hearing on the application of
Vivian J. Margolin for e zone variance to aDow C-3 uses and auto-
mobile parking on property at the northwest corner of Santa Anita
Avenue and Las Tunas Drive was held. The application was .read and
the plot plan was e7Xhibited.
Letter from R. V. Senior, 119 W. Live Oak Avenue, supported the:
~equest of Mr. Margolin for the variances needed for use of land
for C-3 purposes. He stated thet with the development proposed,
it was necessary to provide all the possible space for parking.
The opening of Sandra Avenue south to Las Tunas Drive will be a
real benefit to the residents of Sandra Avenue as an every day con-
venience and a special benefit during the heavy rains when El Monte
Avenue is flooded. This property has been under discussion for
various plans during the past twelve years or more. Mr. Margolin,
has proposed the best possible development, in Mr. Senior's opinion,
for- this ptece of property, and he is ready to proceed with the
building if these needed variances are granted.
The Secretary pointed out
requested in the zoning.
corner of Las Tunas Drive
construction.
on the map the changes that had been
The filling station had been sold at the
and Live Oak Avenue which is now under
Praponents were then given an opportunity to be heard:
Nate 'Margolin, of Beverly Hills, the builder and developer of this
proposed project, felt. that Mr. Talley had sufficiently covered and
presented the request, but he added that it was the aim and desire to
construct and develop a shopping center which the community will
be proud of. He was sure that the Commission realized that the
proposed shopping center would. develop an ateraction that would
draw from communities beyond Arcadia, as fer as bringing a volume
of business to Arcadia, and the resulting increase of tax revenues
that would came into the City. He pointed out to those people who
objected to the apartment house originally requested, that this
could be beneficial inasmucb as there would not be a tax burden
placed upon the residents of the community. Ordinarily an apart-
ment house bringing in many families puts a burden on the school
system, etc., and contrary to that, this development would bring
in tax dollar revenue rather than a liability.
Commissioner Robertson stated $11,000,000 was mentioned in one
of tbe newspapers as the investment in this project. It was
difficult to realize that this was the figure contemplated.
February 25, 1958
Page One
"
Mr. Margolin said that, it was probably a figure that was upgraded
a little bit. He justified the figure by stating tbat tbe total
value was based on the earning potential of the guaranteed mintmum
leases. If this center is developed in full, ao he anticipated it
to be, it would make a value of an $11,000,000 project considering
the cost, the mortgages and the return on capital investment. He
had computed this, and on a ,bailis of a 7% capital over and above
the servicing cost of the loans; the loans on this WDuld run about
$5,500,000.
~mmiss1oner Michler asked if the, variance were granted, if Mr.
~rgolin contemplated completing the entire project.
Mr. Margolin explained tbis has been designed with an eye to
flexibility of movement, financing, etc. He had arbitrarily
divided the project into three or four sections: The market wiil be
an independent unit, and construction will begin on that immediately.
He hoped that the otber three key major tenants (a drugstore, a
5 & 10 cent store, and a variety stare), would go up simultaneously.
The department store will be a separate unit, and the balance of the
ahops on the first floor level would be the fourth unit. The
financing will be arranged so that they are independent of one
another as to tbe erection and operation.
Commissioner RobertSOn asked if the architectural and construction
drawings would be ar~nged so that anyone unit proposed WDuld be
integrated with the whole overall development at the time that the
first unit was to go in.
Mr. Margolin replied that this would be so; all the development of
the proper.ty to the west side of the market was proposed to be of
reinforced concrete construction. That can be done in two sections:
themrward section, whiCh will have the key tenants, and tbe section
to tbe rear, or north of it, would be another section. The market
would be independent and of a different c,pe of construction as
would the department store; but aa a whole, the buildings would be
integrated.
Opponents were then asked to be heard:
l
D. S. Clark, 103 Sandra Avenue stated that his house was located
adjacent to the northwest portion of the proposed building site,
or next to the parking area. Three of his bedrooms are located on
the east Bide of his house, which would he approxiDlately 25 feet
from the boundary line. As be gathered, there was to be a wall
there approximately 6 feet in height. He could not accept tbe
fact that just a mere wall was going to protect the residents in
his bome and give him the adequate privacy that they now bave. It is
anticipated that parking, horns, noises, motors, and 'car lights in
the evening will all decrease the value of bis property. The pri-
vacy which a home is entitled to will no longer exist. He believed
that be should be given fair consideration befoTe this project is
completely allowed to go through in that some type of a buffer or
protection sbould be given him in his home and maybe the one across
tbe street from him, because it definitely, under the proposed plan,
will decrease the value of his property.
A. J. Clark, 109 Sandra Avenue, stated that from what he had gathered,
the plan that Mr. Margolin had submitted to tbe Planning Commission
seemed to be an excellent one, and speaking for Sandra Avenue
property owoells he stated that they were not against anything and
everything as they bave been accused; that they were merely for a
logical and equitable solution to this long-standing property
dispute. If the City of Arcadia can reasonably guarantee the weil-
being of the families, privacy, and property values, they would be
happy to go along with anything the Commission should decide on.
He did not feel that Sandra Avenue sbould be open to this cODDDercial
development. It would create a tremendous amount of traffic,
especially on MOnday and Friday evenings. This would entail a
considerable amount of bumper to bumper traffic. He believed that
February 25, 1958
Page Two
('
/----\
'-.
'-'-_/
if this should occur, then Sandra Avenus could no longer be con-
sidered a residential area. He believed that real. estate people
right now are trying to bpy up their homes, so if the proposed
development should become a reality, they will strive to develop
Sandra Avenue into an adjacent business area. If these problems
could be worked out, and if they could ba assured that property
adjacent to their homes will Mt be developed with buildings but
th,ey can be assured that this will be parking area and that they
will be cut off from the shopping area, most of the property owners
on Sandra Avenue would be willing to support tlhe present plans.
Rabert E. MOser, 62 E. WOodruff, thought that most of their .ob-
jections could be put in the form of questions that the Commission
Would no doubt consider and come up with the proper answers.
Living next to the property, the questions are even greater in
their oun minds. First, he wanted to know why the development
must be as it is with the commercial buildings set so far back
from the property. Every other good development in Arcadia haa the
building set to the street, which in this case would be Las Tunas
Drive, with tha parking to the rear. This development calls for
the buildings to set within 95 feet of the rear line. '!'he
question that the Commission would no doubt consider, is that
parking in front of the buildings, as proposed, will create quite
a traffic hazard getting in and off of Las Tunas Drive, and possibly
off of Santa Anita Avenue. If the buildings were placed closer to
the street with the parking to the rear, he felt that access
could be diverted to either end of the property or both ends
of the praperty which would make for safer aCCBSS to the parking
area. He called the Commission's attention to Section B,
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section 16 of the Zoning Ordinance, concer-
ning variances. He is very much in the vicinity of the property,
and he could get all the professional advice on it that he wanted,
but it comes right down to the point of desirability of living
in such property, and he thought. that the Commission would feel
that same way if they happened to be involved. If the Commission
were to decide in favor of this, if they were to grant this as a
property right, they would be denying him a property right. He
felt that he had rights in the matter too. If the variance were
granted, he wanted to know what provisions Wire proposed to pre-
serve the privacy of his property. He understood that there
would be a six fact wall ta divide any parking and residential
property. He, and others on the street, wanted tbe wall to be
six feet high from the present grade, and not any grade that may
be determined. Be had found nothing to indicate whether or not
there was to be a wall on the mezzanine parking proposed. They
would be exposed to cars coming in there. All of the residents of
Sandra Avenue and in the vicinity wished to know what provisions
in the plans, or what provisions could the Commission require to
prevent annoyance from lights at night. The main point that he
was trying to get across was just where the pro teet ion was of the
the variance laws; if they were to be changed merely by asking,
and if they were to say that this change was to go in without pro-
tection, they wouldfee.l that the variance laws were a farce.
Fred Woolf, 103 W. Las Tunas Drive, was in favor of the develop-
ment as proposed, and he had signed the statement to that effect.
However, he wanted to state his views regarding Sandra Avenue. Be
agreed with the other two gentlemen who spoke against Sandra Avenue
being opened up directly into the parking area, because that would
put the traffic directly adjacent to his house. He wanted to see
some protection of privacy even though Sandra Avenue does not open
into the parking area. .
The Secretary read the portion of the application which dealt with
Sandra Avenue coming through.
February 25, 1958
Page Three
VARIANCE
600 W.
HUNTING-
TON BLVD.
, .
'-.-/
It was declared that the publlc hearing on the applicatian of
Vivian J. Margolin for a zone variance to allow C-3 uses and
automobile parking on property at the northwest corner of Santa
Anita Avenue 'and Las Tunas Drive be continued to the next regular
meeting for receiving Staff Reports and a decision by the Planning
Commission. .
The Commission considered a decision on the application of Arcadia
Professional Center for a zone variance to allow additional med-
ical offices, a prescription pharmacy and a sign at 600 W.
Huntington Boulevard.
The Report from the Zoning Committee was read by the Secretary.
Commissioner Robertson discussed the specific items that should be
eliminated in the prescription pharmacy, such as magazines,
cigarettes, etc. .and suggested the use of the worD "sundries".
He thought that the probable intent of the Zoning Committee was to
eliminate those items that are commonly seen in drugstores.
Mr. Nicklin stated that the extent of the control depends largely
upon the workings that are used. A pharmacy normally engages in
pharmaceutical products. It was his understanding that they
proposed to use more than just prescriptions and hospital and
sick room supplies. He suggested that it be more specific as to
just what the Commission was gtanUng.
Commissioner Robertson felt it was the intent of the ZOning Commit-
.tee not to hold them down to a point where they could not sell that
sort of thing.
Loren Marsh, 1906 Alta Oaks Drive, Arcadia, felt that the word
"sundry" was a good word in general usage. The word is usually
a blanket cover for those things that have nothing to do with
medicine, and the pharmacists of california would like to see
medicinal products more or less restricted to drugstore super-
vision and sale. In this particular case, in view of the size
the room, would not permit the handling of sundries; or they
could say that they were simply asking for a permit to dispense
medicinal substances and other iteme for the health, and pres-
cribed for the patients by the doctor, which would include home
use. There are some cosmetic items that are made particularly for
sale under doctors' orders that are non-allergic cosmetics. All
they were asking for Was to be able ta supply such medicine' and'
sick room supplies, as ~,ll'as medical. skin care that would be
ordered by the doctor.
Commissioner Robertson suggested that it read as follows: "...a
prescription pharmacy limited to the sale of prescriptions and
medicinal and sick room supplies"', and leave out any reference to
the sundry items.
Mr. Nicklin brought up three controls that would be of a help in
a continuing control of the situation: firstly, the size of
pharmacy headquarters i's prescribed in the application. Secondly,
if the extent of the showcase were limited he thought it would
effectively curtail any attempts to engage in extraneous businesses
because they do not thrive except by exhibiting their products,
and by and large, prescription pharmacies have a very Small per-
centage of their waiting room devoted to the display of their
products. The third reason was that he felt that he had pretty
well sensed the feeling of the Commission and when they announced
their decision he would put it into resalutian form and get it to
them prior to their meeting so they could look it over and see if
he had picked Up the sense of the group.
Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Fo~, and carried that the
application of Arcadia Professianal Center for a zone variance to
allow additional medical offices, a prescription pharmacy and sign
at 600 ~. Huntington Boulevard be recommended for approval subject
to thereplllrt of the Zoning Committee 88 amended.
February 25, 1958
Page Four
.
.
LOT SPLIT
NO. 166
LOT SPLIT
NO. 176
;r--'
\, --
Mr. Merriam then stated that he had looked at the Methodist Ho~pital
sign and that the sign was small lind Was only on 'one Bide of the
rock base, and he wanted his to show both ways; He suggested that
pole, just high enough to clear the cars, so tbe cars won't blank
J:he sign out,be erected an the property line that would hang
over maybe 2-J/2 feet each way. He would like to do that because
it was already 15 feet back from the curb and it caimot be seen
taawell. I f they could not have it on a pole and extend tbe sign
over then they should have it high enough, eitber on a rock wall
or an one or two poles, to clear the top of a car bood.
Commissioner Vacilan thought that the way it was set up at tbe
present time, the Modification Committee could handle this for
him, and he was sure that they would be quite reasonable.
Delores Dickens, 1004 S. Alta Vista Avenue, referred to Mr. Michler,
Acker, Davison, and Forman.
Commissioner Michler stated that both Mr. Acker and he visited this
property, and said that Mr. Forman and Mr. Davison had gone down
later and requested that Mr. Forman give his impression.
Commissioner Forman felt that substantially, as far as the size of
the lot was concerned, it was not a great deal different than what
was across the street. However,it is three feet more on one
lot, and if that was the smallest that would ba requested, it
might be alright. He did not think that they should allow any
smaller than is already existing in the area, which is 53 and
052 feet.
CommiSSioner Davison felt that this request was reasonable, as
long as the split has.been originally approved, and the reason the
additional change is requested is to allow a driveway to get back
to a new garage. If they do not do this, they will have to
cut right through the property to get to this garage. In his
opinion, since the split had originally been granted, he saw no
objection to it, subject to the rear of the property being in-
cluded in a proposed subdivision.
The Secretary stated that this property now ~uns back to~e
City boundary. If the split is granted, and the subdivision is not
completed in the rear, then there is a land-locked piece of pro-
perty. This party ownsl07 feet all the way fram Alta Vista Avenue
to the City boundary line, and proposes to sell off the rear end
to a subdivision, and then split the front end. Unless the
subdivision is sold off, and is accompiished at the back end, this
lot split in front"is probably not appropriate at all.
Moved by Mr. Davison, seconded by Mr. Michler, and carried that
lot Split No. 166, Delores Dickens, 1004 S. Salta Vista Avenue, be
recommended for approval subject to the fOllowing conditions:
1. File a final map with the City Engineer.
2. Install a sewer lateral for Parcel No. '2.
3. Pay a $205.00 recreation fee.
4. This split should be conditioned on the completion of the
subdivision and change of City boundaries at the rear of
the property.
Joseph J. Muscolino, 1400 Highland Oakli Drive, .referred to Mr.
Robertson and Mr. Davison.
This was denied last October, and at the request of attorney Pred
Howser, it was brought up for reconsideration. Neither Mr. Howser
nor' the oVl1er were present.
Commissioner Robertson viewed this property and he personally
felt that it was completely wrong. It develops a type of lot
wlUch is not compatible with the developed area; it is an odd
shaped piece which cannot be oppartune or proper to the type of
housing that is .in the area; and he felt that it was setting a
wrong type of lot in the area.
February 25, 1958
Page Five
LOT SPLIT
NO. 195
TRACT NO.
24461
pOUNTY
ZONING
,
'-..J
Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Davison, ~d carried that
Lot Split No. 176, Joseph J. Muscolino. 1400 Highland Oaks Drive
be recommended for denial.
C & 8 'Investments, 1517 S. Santa Anita Avenue referred to Mr.
Robertson and Mr. FOnJ8l\.
The Secretary read the Engineer's report.
The proposed split would create lots s1mila~ to those in the new
subdivision.
Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. FOnJ8l\, and carded that Lot
split No. 195, C & 8 Investments, 1517 S. Santa Anita Avenue be
recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. File a final Ill8pwith the City Engineer.
2. Install 8Satller lateral for Parcel No. 1.
3. Dedicate a 5 foot sidewalk and planting easement along
Santa Anita :ferrsce.
4. Pay $25.00 recreation fee.
5. Remove or reconstruct existing driveways on Santa Anita
Avenue to conform to City Standards.
6. Remove non-conforming 5 foot fence along the street frontage.
7. Remove or demolish all existing buildings.
Tract No. 24461, 10catedon'Lee Avenue north of Live Oak Avenue
and tllest of Second Avenue containing 6 lots.
The Secretary read the report of the Subdivision Committee.
MOved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Davison, and carried that
Tract No. 24461, located on Lee Avenue notth of Live Oak Avenue
and west of Second Avenue. containing 6 lots, be recommended for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedicate 12 feet for widening Second Avenue.
2. Dedicate 1 foot in fee at the north end of the street.
3. Install all street 1mprovements required by the subdivision
ordinance.
4. Pay all fees snd deposits required by the subdivision or-
dinance.
5. Provide rear line easements for utilities.
6. City shall dedicate .lot 11 at the north end of Lee Avenue
in Tract No. 19707.
7. Remove all buildings within the tract." Remove the frame
addition on the rear of the rear house and make necessary
alterations to discontinue its use as a dwelling.
Notice af a request for a zone exception to permit additions to the
electric substation at the southwest corner of Live Oak Avenue
8Dd 81 Monte Avenue.
This is a hearing to be held before the Regional Planning Commission
and the matter is set for hearing Thursday, February 27, 1958,
at 9:00 o'clock A.M. It was put on the agenda to see lfthe
Commission wanted to make any recommendations as to street widening
on 81 Monte and Live Oak. also any planting. This application is
for an exception to the A-I zone in order to establish, operate,
and maintain additions to an existing electric substation.
Mr. Carozza suggested that the 8dison people had not yet indicated
exactly what is to happen to this plant. but maybe it was not
necessary as the property is in the County. He felt that there
would be nothing wrong inasmuch as this is on the boundary line
on two 'Irides of the City of Arcad1a. He suggested that the
Commission express to' the Regional Planning Commission the type of
landscaping that they have requested in this immediate vicinity,
and ask them to propose the same type of thing. It was suggested
that the SecretarY send a letter to the Realonal Planning Commission
February 25, 1958
Page Six
.
~
ANNEXATION
~
\_---"
recommending that they require suitable screening of the property.
Co~nication from the City Council referred to the Commission
the request of the American Ma~or Improvement Association. by
Floyd Larson, 3034 Doolittle Avenue. for 8nnexatton to the City.
The above named organization is the official representative of the
area known as American Manor. This, area is bounded on the north
by Live Oak Avenue. an the east by Peck Road. on the south by
the City of Monrovia. and on the west by the City of Arcadia at
the Santa Anita Wash. It is also known as County Tract No. 13780.
As representatives of this area of approximately 320 homes. they
petitioned for this area. now an unincorp~rated section of Los
Angeles County, to the City of Arcadia; They beiieved that that
area, with its high percentage of owner oc:cupied hOlDes, and its
many property improvements is in keeping with the residential
areas now maintained in the City. No map was submitted with the
application.
The Planning Division wss instructed to make a study of the area
and rpport to the Commission.
MODIFICATIDN Report fram the Modification C8I1llIlittee. as follows. was read:
FOR SIGN
The Committee has pending the application of Francis L. Cook.
for a variance to allow a sign at 123 E. Duarte Road. Mr. Cook
operates a liquor store set back about 25 feet from the widened
right of way of Duarte Road. or approximately SO feet from the
present curb. The sign requested would be 23" wide and 15' high;
the lower end of the sign would be 8 feet above the ground; the
supporting post Would be 25 feet from the existing curb and along
the west property line. The zoning' ordinance specifies tbat
signs in ZoneC-l shall be attached flat against the wall of the
building. The applicant contends that such a sign. so far back
from the street. will not serve his purpose. This applicatian
was considered on January 29. 1958. and held. pending a determina-
tion of the policy by the Commission. Some time ago. the Commission
instructed the Committee to look favotObly on identification signs
on poles for service s.tations. A variance was granted some time
ago for a pole sign for the miniature golf course on Las Tunas
Drive. Last week the City Council granted a variance for a roof
sign for a restaurant on Las Tunas Drive. All these mentioned
signs are in Zone C-l. So that the application of Mr. Cook
will not be held for an unreasonable time, the Committee is
referring 1t to the Commission withoutrecommendSUons.
RBSOLUTIDN
NO. 277
Commissioner Robertson felt that there was a lot of time and
effort that went into the original sign ordinance. and if there was
to be any change in that sign ordinance it should be done by a
change in the ordinance rather than by variance. He raco_nded
that all signs. until suCh time as they do have a change. be made
to conform.
It was suggested that before the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commission that the ZOning Committee and the Modification
Cammittaa meet and srudy the sign ordinance and make a recommen-
dation.
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 277. entitled A Resolu-
tion of the City Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia. Calif-
arnia recommending the reclassification of real property on the
north side of Huntington Drive between San Rafael Road and I:Iorlan
Place.
Moved by Mr. Acker. sec:ondell by Mr. Michler. and carried that
the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 277 be waived.
Moved by Mr. Davison. seconded by Mr. Forman. and carried that
Resolution No. 277 be adopted.
February 25. 1958
Page Sev~n
.
..
RESOLUTION
NO. 276
ORDINANCE
NO. 990
r:
'\..__J
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 276 entitled A
Resolution of the City Planning COmmission of the City of Arcadia,
California, recommending the reclassification of certain real
property from Zone R-3 to Zone C-O arid Zone D, located on the
sauth side of Huntington Boulevard.
The suggested Zone D requirement of a 10 foot landscaped sttip
along the front of the lot, and the prohibition of automobile
parking in front of the building was discussed.
Under Ordinance No. 257, a 50 foot setback now exists on the
property, and the medical center is now using this area for
parking. If a 10 foot strip were landscaped, the remaining
40 feet would be sufficient for only one row of cars. Mr.
Merriam had previously requested that the requirement be eltmi-
nated and that the landscaping be placed in the 15 foot parkway
of Huntington Boulevard.
Mr. Carozza mentioned the fact thet lIlUch' of tbe '.praperty would
probably be used for R-3 sees with landscaped front yards, and that
the City Council had appropriated $109,000 to beautify the center
parkway of Huntington Boulevard.
It was. finally decided to remove the restriction against parking
in the front yard, but to retain the requirement of the 10 foot
landscaped strip.
Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Davison, and carried that
the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 276 be waived.
Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Davison and carried
that Resolution No. 276 as .amended be adopted.
Mr. Acker asked Mr. Nicklin that since this meeting on Ordinance
No. 990, there might be some possible means of relief, end if steps
could be initiated to create a zone like R-lA, or R-Uf. In
other worlls, that if an OWIler has e hardship and goes through the
same process es a variance, and qualifies as a land-locked
piece of land, that the Commission might then give reUef by
placing the property in a new zone.
Mr. Nicklin stated that the variance procedure is intended to
do exactly that, and is not intended to do a number of things that
have been done with it. The variance procedure is the legal
safety valve to preserve the constitutionality of the ordinance
against the isolated situation Where its strict application
would be held ta be unreasonable and therefore unconstitutianal.
Some of these instances that were sited come squarely within that
definitian. If you have a situation Where you can see that
additional houses should be allowed to be bUilt, then you ate
stating that they should be in another zone, other than what
they are now in; namely R-2 or R-3.
Mr. Carozza stated that the Planning Division were now making a
study of thelats affected by Ordinance No. 990.
Hr. Nicklin Btated he would be interested in seeing the results
of such a study, because depending upon the frequency and the
specific situations, if they are isolated ones, we may already
have the answer. It is just a question of pointing them out
in the individual cases. He felt that perhaps some of the com-
plaint .under Ordinance No. 990 was that they may conceive that
they could get a variance, but they are put to the expense, time
and delay of getting one, and the fact that a variance lapses, if
not put to use within six months. This may be part of their problem.
There being no further business the meeting adjCl;urned.
/..1 ."
,.;" "1' </i,,-, (J
r/'\.. V'v. ! 'i)~. 'J'JJ(; February 25, 1958
PLANNING SECRETARY. Page Eight