Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 13, 1959 ROLL CALl MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING Parking Lot r "") '\1., .. , MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 1959 The"P~anning 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., January 13, 1959, with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Foreman, Michler, Robertson, Stout and Vachon. ABSENT: None OTllliRS PRESENT: Councilman Reibold, Lortz, Nicklin, Cook, Talley and Mrs. Andrews. The minutes of the regular meeting held December 23, 1958, were approved as written and' mailed. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing On the application of Professional Square, Inc., for a zone variance to allow a publfc parking lot and driveway on the property located at 639 Naomi Avenue. This application is for the purpose of providing public parking and driveway from Naomi Avenue to the properties to the north. This property was acquired mostly for the purpose of securing proper water drainage from the business property, and if allowed for parking and driveway would relieve pressure on all property adjacent thereto" and especially for traffic on Duarte Road. The Chairman asked ,for those in favor of the application to be heard at this time. No one appeared in favor of said application No communi~ations filed in behalf of or against the application. The Secretary read the staff report showing that this lot is 60 feet by 238.7~ feet deep containing 14,324 square feet, and is zoned R-l. It was purchased by the Professional Square, Inc., on October, L958. The dwelling and all other structures have been removed and the lot graded and entirely paved. Parking stalls have been painted for 42 cars. A dedicated and improved alley exists along the south line of the commer- ciaL property facing Duarte Road, but has no access except over privately owned property. The applicant proposes to use the subject property for public parking and driveway to the alley and to the parking area to the north. This paved lot also serves to carry the drainage water from the parking area to Naomi Avenue. The property both east and west and acroSs the street from this property is in Zone R-l and is used for resi- dential uses. If the variance is granted it should be on condition that the usual masonry walls should be constructed along the east and west sides of the lot and that any lighting installed should be of the hooded type so as no.t to shine on the property adjacent to this lot. >>r. James O. Warner, 1225 Lovell, asked if there was a general plan for .a zone change in this area. If this parking area were allowed, would the balance of the bloc.k be considered for re-zoning? If this area were to be commercial there would be no complaint, but he fel t some overall plan should be made as to the direction in which this area is to be considered. They were not fight,ing it, but were confused. Mr. Page One January 13, 1959 C. H. Skinner, 1229 Lovell Avenue, also inquired as to the proposed plan for the area, whether or not consideration had been made for changing the zone to either C-2 or R-3. Mi. Vachon stated that no plan had been made by the Planning Commission for this area, and so far as he knew nothing concerning the improvement of this lot had come before the COllllllission. The owners were permitted to clear the lot of all structures and to pave the same. They likewise were permitted to cut a driveway under the R-I zoning. Mrs. Archie Wilson, 626 Naomi Avenue, objected to the improvement of this lot and using the same ,for parking. She stated that although '10 variance had been granted, the owners were using the lot for public parking. She had purposely parked her car there for eight hours. She felt that this should be prchibited and that the owners of property in the neighborhood should be considered. Mr. Ralph Konasch, 632 ~aomi Avenue, was opposed to this type of zoning unless the balance of the area were re-zoned to multiple zoning. Mrs. Catherine Jason, 644 Naomi Avenue, said her property is a 'rental; and the people now living in this home have, already asked that the rent be reduced as they felt that the property was not as valuable as it was.. She depends on this for income. She had requested R-2 and had been turned down. Mr. Robert Long, 631 Naomi Avenue, representing his mother, whose property is presently rented, stated that he had observed the cars parked in the lot. He protested the entire action, as he felt it was illegal. Mr. T. W. Royer 606 Naomi Avenue, state,d that he object'ed to the manner in which this improve- ment had been made. Apparently,. no orie in the City off:l.ces knew that this type of action was going to be taken. He objected to a parking lot being permitted to operate in an R-l area. The curb had been broken for a 25 or 30 foot driveway, and even ,though the owners were required to barricade the parking lot. it would st;l.ll be an improved parking lot .in an R-l zone. . He very much opposed the granting of this variance. He felt the people should be made to replace the lot to the original condition. He called far those' in the audience to stand who were apposed to this variance. A count showed approximately 30 people were apposed to the varianc~. Michael J, Blake, 1245 Lovell Avenue spake against the variance, and was interested in future zoning of the area. Mr, PiCk, 635 Naomi Avenue, presented pictures of the wall showing that there was 2-1/2 feet excavated near his wall. unless something were done he would lase his wall. on his property He stated that Michael Blake, 1245 Lovell Avenue, stated that he was desirous of knowing what was to become of the house that had been removed from the lat. He felt that it had been moved pn a city dedicated alley and requested that a check be made of this. Mr, Acker stated that a check would be made into the wall and the hause, that the matter wo'uld be referrea to the Staff and Zoning Committee far a report and decision, Mr. Robertson stated that in view of the number of people involved in this problem and inasmuch as the improvements had all been made prior to obtain- ing a variance for the parking lot, he felt that immediate action should be taken. Any report the Zoning Committee could make could not change the feeling of the Commission. Mr. Stout concurred in this. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Stout that the public hearing on the appl.ication of the Professional Square, Incorporated, for a zone variance to allow a public parking lot and driveway on property at 639 Naomi Avenue be closed, and that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare a Resolution denying said application. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Robertson, Stout and Vachon. Page Two January 13, 1959 REPORT Car \~ash NOES: None Nr. NiclcUn stated the police department would investigate the illegal parking or violation of the ordinance. The ordinance provides that certain areas may be used for parking only if they have a Poverlay, or if they are zoned for uses that permit parking. The zoning ordinance was amended to prohibit the use of residential property as access to commercial pro- perties. So that the use ot" that property even as access to a commercial property is prohibited under the present wording of our zoning ordinance. As to the curb cut, it may not. be in violation, if a valid permit were issued. Insofar as the wall is concerned, answering Nr. Reibold"s ques- tion, as to the damage to the property adjacent, it would be a civil action. Nr. Nicklin stated that the property owner owes a duty of lateral support to the adjacent owner" and .there are pro-Jisions in the code giving them notice and instructions, etc. Those private rights, however, are to be' protected by the individual. The City affords a certain amount of protec-. tion, Le. had they not jumped the gun and done this work until they had had permission so to do, and had thatperlllission been denied, then the protection would have come by way of prevention, rather than by remedial action. In this present situation, however" it would be the duty of the abutting owner that 'has been damaged to seek his remedies against the person that committed the damage, except to the extent that the city is obligated to certain remedial steps which may O'r may not have the same result. Any private citizen could file a suit to enjoin the use of the property. The City can so do, but the exact type of action to be taken is reserved at this time. The Charter provides action to be taken and no motion is needed. The Secretary read the report of the Zoning Conunittee regarding the appli- cation of Fred Kovanen for a variance to allow the installation pf mechani- cal equipment in an auto laundry at 1414 S. Baldwin Avenue, showing that this application was previously recommended for approval by Resolution No. 313. Due to complaints of the surrounding property owners that they had not received notice of the public hearing a re-hearing was held. Protests were registered by the owner of the key lot at 670 Naomi Avenue and a pro- test petition signed by 123 members of' the American Lutheran Church was filed. The protest was based on the probable noise of the cars entering and leaving the wash rack and also the noise that might be attributed to the mechanical equipment. The applicant had stated that the equipment would be identical with that of the wash on Foothill Boulevard in the Hastin'gs Ilanch area. Members of the committee had visited that wash and in their opinion the noise waS not objectionable and not more than might be expected from other permissible uses in this zone. In this case a hand laundry had existed for many years and the improvements on the property are designed for use as an automobile laundry and are not readily adaptable to other commercial uses. The Committee realizes that in order to meet present day competition, it is necessary to install modern equipment. Also, that in surrounding .communities automatic car washes are installed in commercial areas similar to Baldwin. Avenue. The possible inconvenience that might ,be caused to the Church was considered and in the opinion of the Committee it would not be more than would be caused by other commercial uses. The Committee sees no objection to the granting of this variance subject to the following conditions: . 1. That a 6 foot high masonry wall be constructed along the south line of the lot; and along the west line of the alley at the rear except that the wall may be four feet high for a distance of 15 feet east of BaldWin Avenue. 2. All compressors, boilers, and exhaust fans shall be con- structed and maintained in the closed section of the structure and shall be adequately sound-proofed. 3. That the final plans for the building, including plot plan, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval before issuance of a building permit. Page Three Jan. 13, 1959 tOT SPLIT No. 228 (Stoyanovich) No other communications were 'received. Comments were made by the Commissioners. Mr. Stout stated that one thing he had learned from association with other planners of City and County was that in looking back at all the combined mistakes of all the Cities, there is one common denominator and every mistake in this category we are considering comes from down-grading by variances. He stated that West' Arcadia is composed of first class stores and that no down-grading should be permitted. He felt that the use requested under this variance was an M-l use. He suggested that such a use should be considered in the new tract sO.uth of Colorado and west of Santa Anna which is an M-l zone. 'Mr. Robertson fett that the report of the Zoning Committee was commendable as pertaining to the mechanized car wash. He had visited several car washes and had been at the hearings on mechanical car wash operations for the one at the triangle. The major portion of ~he lot would have to be used for this operation. 'He felt that with the type of operation proposed it would not be detrimental to the other businesses in the area. Mr. Forman stated that the one factor is the type of development in the area, and that all of the merchants are aware of this type of car wash, and also of the changes that are contemplated. There have not been major complaints. He felt that if the merchants were to be damaged by the opera- tion of such a business, they would have voiced a complaint. He did feel that a careful check should be made of the plans before a variance is issued. Mr. Vachon agreed with the amendment to the report that the final plans and plot plans should be submitted to the Commission for checking before a permit is issued. Mr. Davison also felt that the plot plans and building plan should be sub- mitted. He had visited many establishments, and felt that many were located in a similar zone and not in a manufacturing zone. In a C-2 zone other things could go into the area that would be much more annoying than a car wash. Mr, Vachon concurred in the remarks of the other Commissioners. Mr. Michler felt that if a variance for a car wash were before the Commission for the first time he would undoubtedly be against it, but the operation is already there and after many vistts he felt that the ope,ration could be improved. He felt that the main reason he was in favor of the variance was because none of the Busine'ssMen' s Associations had opposed this venture. Mr. Henry H. Hege, 660W. Duarte Road, representing one of the property owners. stated that definite consideration Should be given' to the noise ele- ment. So far as the West Arcadia Business Men's Association was concerned they had made it a rule not to intercede in 'controversial cases of this type. Mr. Max Thompson of Chem Therm, .re-stated the value of the new equip- ment and requested approval of the application The Chairman stated the hearing would be continued until January 27, 1959, at 8:00 P.M. and requested that the applicant furnish building plan and plot plan for consideration. It was recommended that the Staff make a study of the traffic conditions that may occur with the number of cars antici- pated to be washed. The report to be presented to the Commission, together with the final plans and plot plan at the next regular meeting of the Plan- ning Commission. No. 228. - Mike Stoyanovich, 210 E. Sycamore Avenue. Mr. Robertson and Mr. Davison. Was reported on by . The Engineer's report was read by the Secretary. This is a request to divide the rear portion of an R-l lot with a 20 foot private driveway to the street. A separate driveway will be constructed for the front house. Each portion of the lot will be more than minimum width and area. The request is very Similar to that granted Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler on the adjoining lot. Consid- erable discussion followed as to whether or not any development could be made of this area inasmuch as this is not considered to be good planning. Because of the split that had been allowed, and the nature of the remain- ing property, it was concluded that the area could not be developed in any other manner, but that the recommendation should not i~ any way establish a precedent for future lot splits. Page Four January 13, 1959 LOT SPLIT No. 229 Orbon LOT SPLIT No. 230 Keeler Moved by Mr. Robertson,. seconded 'by Mr. Davison, that Lot Split No. 228 Mike Stoyanovich, 210 E. Sycamore Avenue, be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1, File a finaL map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for Par.cel No.2. 3. Pay $2'5 .00recreat ion fee. 4. Const.ruct curb and gutter" including driveways on Sycamore Ave. 5. Install a .new water connection for Parcel 2. The motion was carried on the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Davison, Forman, Michler, Robertson and Vachon NOES: Commissioners Acker and Stout Lot Split No. 229. LeRoy Orbon, 112:5 S. Eighth Avenue - reviewed by Mr. Michler and Mr. Stout. The Engineer's .report was read by the Secre tary. This spl it. is the rear 33 feet of the Eighth Avenue property to be sold to the owner of the property at 1130 Encino Avenue. A similar request at 1103 S. Eighth Avenue was denied on June 11, 1957. In this case a deed has been recorded but the legal descrlption is incorrect, and .if the split is approved a new deed would be required. The matter had been reviewed and a discussion with Mr. Orbon and a deter- mination made that this was not good planning. ltJved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Acker, and carried, that Lot Split No. 229 in the name of LeRoy Orbon, li25 S. Eighth. Avenue be recommended for denial inasmuch as the lot lines do. not correspond and would be very irregular in shape, and another similar request at 1103 Eighth Avenue had been denied. Lot Split No. 230. - Harold S. Keeler, 623 W. Palm Drive, reviewed by Mr. Mich]a, and Mr. Stout. The Engineer's report showed that this lot is 130 feet by 286.75 feet, surrounded by smaller lots'. The request is to divide .into 62 and 68 feet. There is no opportunity for any furthe~ subdivision. The lots would be less than required width, but conform substantially with other surrounding lots. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Robertson, that Lot Split No. 230 Harold S. Keeler, 623 W. Palm Drive, be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for Parcel No.2. 3. Dedicate 5 feet for widening Palm Drive. 4. Pay $2:5.00 recreation fee. 5. Install a new water service for Parcel No.2. The motion was carried on the following roll call vote: Page Five JanuarY 13, 1959 LOT SPLIT No. 231 Jewish Com- ,munity Cent. LOT SPLIT No. 232 Howard TRACT NO. 21618 VETERINARY HOSPITAL FLOOD CONTROL RIGHT-OF-WAY AYES: Commiss ioners Acker. Forman, Michler, Robertson and Vachon NOES: Commissioners Davison and Stout It was pointed out in. making the recommendation that this is not good plan- ning, but with the subdivision at the rear, there is no other manner in which it can be fteveloped at this time. 'Lot Split No. 231 - 154-160-168 E. SycamOre Avenue. Was assigned to Mr. Robertson and Mr. Davison to review. Lot Split No. 232.- Vinitta S. Howard - 379 W. Lemon Avenue. Stout and Mr. Michler to review. ASsigned to Mr. Tract No. 21618 was presented to reconsider one of the conditions of the approval of the tentative map. On June 4, 1958, the Commission approved the tentative map subject. to certain conditions. Such conditions as stated by the tract engineer 'in his communicat.ion, will all be complied with, except the one effecting Lot 12, formerly Lot 13. The condition was that the west line of this lot should conform with the west line of Lot 13 which means moving the lot line west a distance of 13.7 feet. This line would then pass through the center of the present garage on the adjoining property. If the garage is moved south of the residence, it would not be used. Since the project is now ready to go ahead, the property owners are requesting that this condition be eliminated. A discussion was held and it was 'moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried that Tract No. 21618 be referred to the Subdivision Committee for reconsideration, and re-submitted to the Commission along with the minute record of the approval of the tentative map. The flecretary instructed to request 'the tract engineer to submit further detailed information as to the location of buildings on the lot. One of the conditions of the. variance granted for the veterinary hospital at 108 W. Las Tunas Dr. was that the final plans should be presented to the Commission for approval, A representative of the Architect was present. A discussion was had and study made of the plans as to the location of the building, the parking areas. and the arrangement. Moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Micher, that the final plans of the Veterinary Hospital at 108 W. Las Tunas Drive be approved. The motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Robertson and Vachon NOT VOTING: Stout (This for the reason that the matter had been considered by the Commission prior to his appointment on the CommiSSion.) Plans had been submitted by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the approval of the location and extent of right-of-way needed for the improvement of the Santa Anita Wash, north of Huntington Drive. A report was submitted by the Director of Public Works advising that bids are being received this month, and it is contemplated that the improvement will be constructed during the current fiScal year, The right-of-way requester is substantially the same as that now occupied by the wash with the inclusion of some areas for access and is recommended for approval. The City is the owner of two parcels at Colorado Boulevard, This approval of location in no way effects th.e City's right of negotiation with the Flood Control District for the City-owned parcels. Page Six Jan. 13, 1959 _ J . ~~ .. ....----..-, Mr. Madison, 920 North First Avenue, was concerned about the r.ight-of-way inasmuch as there may be contemplated plans for an equestrian trail snd many of the residents in the area were opposed to this activity due to the close proximity of the houses to the Wash. The City Attorney advised that those interested in the use of the property other than for the actual channel should direct inquiries to the Floo.d Control District and their attorneys. They would be in a position to advise as to the plans of what is going to be done. and why they are going to do it. Before the awarding of a contract for this flood control work, they must have title to the property over which the projects are to be constructed. They can get that title by filing a condemnation suit and getting an order for immediate possession, and it is quite customary for agencies in a situation of this kind to have a legal description drawn of all the property needed for the project, and then ffling condemnation suit on the property and get an order for possession, thereby assuring that they have the right of possession for the purposes for which they propose to use the property. The reason for so doing is, first, they must have the right of possession and, secondly, although there. may be easements of record, there m~y be questions as to the validity of the title under some of those. The condemnation proceedings usually recite the necessity for taking, that persons known or unknown claim interest to the property, and the Court order following is that those claiming interest be required to set forth the nature of their claims and the value they place upon the property. Mr. Stout suggested that perhaps a representative of. the Flood Control office might come out to a meeting and explain the purposes of the easement., in addi- tion to the use for channelization. The purpose of the request is for flood control purposes .only, that if other purposes are considered .it would have' to' be negotiated. between the Flood Control and the other agencies requesting other uses. The Director of Public Works stated that the extent of the right- of-way is needed now. The plans are on file in the Engineering Department and hsve been previously approved for construction only by the Department. Much of the property is occupied by the Flood Control with a channel at this time, but they are now clearing title for permanent construction. The City Attorney stated that the acquisition of the property for Flood Control purposes does not per se give them right to use it for other purposes. Also, that the agency desiring a right-of-way for equestrian trail is separate and distinct from the agency seeking the right-of-way for flood control channel and that the two agencies deJ;initely are separate. The Flood Control agency definitely states that the property will be used for flood control purposes and that if there is any excess land, then and in that event discussions may follow. There are plans for an equestr.ian tunnel, but that merely is to alleviate excessive expense in the future should the trail be obtained. The Chairman stated that it would be of interest to the Commission to have a meeting arranged whereby the Planning Commission could meet with Representa- tives of the Flood Control to ascertain the legal uses and proposed plans if any, for the easements. Moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Stout, that the plans as submitted by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for right-of-way needed for the im- provement of the Santa Anita Wash, north of Huntington Drive, be recommended for approval, for flood control purposes only. The motion was carried on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Acker, DaVison, Forman, Michler, Stout and Vachon NOT VOTING: Commissioner Robertson (for the reason that he is in a competitive business and is disqualified to vote.) RESOLUTION The City Attorney introduced Resolution No. 322, entitled, No. 322 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 2, 4, 5, 6 AND 7 OF ORDINANCE NO. 760 OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA. Motion by Mr. Michler, second by Mr. Davi,son and carried, that the the full body of Resolution No. 322 be waived. reading of Page Seven January 13, 1959 ...... . . . . RESOLUTION No. 323 ARCADIA AVENUE EXTENSION MUTUAL SAVINGS & LOAN R-3 Bldg. NEW ZONE R-l A REAR YARD AMENDMENT -.-/"- . .... T Moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Davison, and carried that Resolution No. 322 be adopted. The City Attorney introduced Resolution No. 323, entitled, A .RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TIlE DENIAL OF A. VARIANCE FOR PUBLIC PARKING AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 639 NAOMI AVENUE. The full body ,of the resolution was read by the Attorney. Moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Forman, and carried, that Resolution No. 323 be adopted. The Secretary advised the Commission that notices to the property owners abutting the proposed extension of Arcadia Avenue had been mailed by certified mail, in which was enclosed a map of the area and a post card to be returned showing whether or not they were in accord with the extension of the street. The Secretary had received a letter from the Mutual Building and Engineering Corporation, of Los Angeles, stating that it! consideration of the fact that the City of Arcadia has temporarily prohibited construction on the rear one- half of the lot at 602 Fairview Avenue, while studying the feasibility of creating a street at the rear of subject lot, they are requesting approval to permit cOnstruction of subject building, providing only open ground park- ing, until such time as a final decision is made relative to said proposed street. At a meeting ,on January 9, 1959, the architect, Mr. Sam Reisbord, met with Mr. Talley, Mr. Charles Lortz and Mr. Lawrence W. Cook, and presented a plan (revised parking lay-out, Sheet SUP,l, basement plan and sheet SUP.2, first floor plan) which would provide the required parking for subject build- ing., if it was decided to 'put in said street. It was understood that this proposal will not prejudice their right to provide the required parking in any other manner, as long as there is compliance with all the pertinent city codes. Should the proposed street be abandoned, they would then provide the required parking as indicated Ot! the drawings presently in the building de- partment. Delay of this project is resulting in considerable financial loss and they would appreciate any effort made to expedite this matter so the losses may be minimized and they may proceed with construction. Considerable discussion followed as to the feasibility of underground garages from the standpoint of ventilation and drainage. The matter was referred to the Staff for a further study and to report back at the next Planning Commission meeting of January 27th. The Chairman introduced the subject matter of the new zone to be created to relieve those cases not applicable under Ordinance No. 990. It was decided that it would be feasible for the Subdivision and Zoning Committees to meet with the City Attorney and Staff to draw up one or two forms to have ready before a meeting is called of the entire Commission for consideration. It was decided that a meeting would be held to draft material to be presented. The Planning Commission was to meet relstive to the amending of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the preservation of right-of-way for future streets in areas of deep lots. The matter was discussed at the December 23, 1958, meetinll and the recommendation made that it be refer.red to the full Commission and Staff for investigation and report prior to the public hearing to be held on February 24, 1959. It was recommended that Thursday, January 22, 1959, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. be set for the purpose of considering the above mstter. There being no further adjourned. the Commission, the meeting business to come before '/!. 'wv . L. M, TALLEY Planning Secretary Page Eight January 13, 1959