HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 24, 1959
""
ROT.L CALL
MINUTES
PUBLIC
HEARING ZONE
CHANGE
(Lorena Ave.)
AMEND
Rear Yards
~
1-
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 1959
..
The Planning Commission of the City of .Arcadia met in regular session
in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8: 00 0' cl9ck P. M., February
24. 1959, with Chairman Acker presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Farman, Michler, Rohertson, Stout
and Vachon.
ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Reibald, Lortz, Talley and Mrs. Andrews.
The minutes of the regular meeting held February 10, 1959 were approved
as written and mailed.
The Chairman announc~d that this was the time and place for the hearing
on the application of R. C. Ellis and others for a change of zone from
Zone R-l to Zones R-2 and R-3 on portions of Lorena Avenue, Haven Ave-
nue and Newman Avenue.
The Chairman asked far those in favor of the application to be heard at
this time.
Mr. W. T. Beckwith, 107 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, stated that the
area east of Larena Avenue had' been subdivided and none of the lots had
been ~old, that it was surrounded by C-2, R-2 and R-3 properties; that
he felt in the interest of good zoning that the request should be
granted.. The lots were of such size that they would lend themselves
to the R-2 and R-3 uses. The north end of the area has an easement for
right-of-way and each of the lots in the area are now improved, but
that all of the lots within Tract No. 23948 are unimproved.
Those opposing this' zone change were then requested to present their
views. No one desired to be heard.
No communications for or against said application had been filed with
the Secretary.
The Chairman declared the hearing continued until the next regular meet-
ing for the purpose of receiving reports from the staff.
The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing
of the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to change rear yard
requirements as contemplated by Resolution No. 321.
This resolution was adopted in December, 1958, setting a public hearing
far this date, and is for the purpose of instituting of proceedings for
making recommendations and findings concerning the amendment of ordin-
ance No. 760 of the City of Arcadia by amending Section 15, and other
February 24, 1959
Page One
pertinent sections, to require the maintenance of an unobstructed
rear yard, measured from the rear lot line, under certain specified
conditions. No communications had been filed with the Secretary.
Those in favor of the amendment were requested to be heard.
Mr. Marks, representing Arcadia-Monrovia Realty Company stated that
he was very much in accord with this amendment; that they had taken care
of the same in their subdivisions in an R-3 area by deed restrictions.
He questioned just what the amendment would do to the already developed
areas where hard walls have been constructed. If this were to go in
as an aver-all, it would .effect the property owners who have not
already developed their property as there would be a vacant area to
the rear. The rear l~nes would not be consistent. Were the areas not
developed, then this amendment would. be ideal. The hard wall does black
out objectionable construction to the rear of new buildings. and in
many instances increases the value of the property by shutting out the
unsightly appearance of the adjoining property. He felt that the present
lots should be consistent. Had the amendment been proposed before the
lots had been developed so completely, then it would have been an extremely
fine movement, but at this time he questioned very much the good it
"'auld do. He felt that we already have the ideal rear yard in the R-l
areao
Mr. Bill Will'iams, Realtor, 906 S. Baldwin Avenue, Chairman of the
Civic Affairs Committee of the Arcadia Board of Realtors, stated that
the realtors were interested in the things that would be to the greatest
benefit of the city, because it is their livelihood. The entire commit-
tee of seven had met, two subdividers in the group, and one thing that
"'as discussed was that in an R-l area there are subdivisions in the city
that if this ordinance were adopted would never have been developed, due
to the fact that there are 100 or lro deep lots; that if 20 feet were
taken off that plus the rear yard area and the set back in the front, it
"'auld leave very little for the home to be built on. From the standpoint
of the un-subdivided ground, they strenuously objected to the passage of
an ordinance wherein R-l would be included in the amendment.
He felt that it was discriminatory and detrimental in a great many ways
as to the development of future subdivisions. R-2 is a small percentage
of property in the city and especially where a rear alley would be
developed, The prices of land value in the City of Arcadia do not make
&-2 property very desirable. because the cost per unit is prohibitive for
rental returns. R-3 could be developed with the rear y~rd. The
developers have been paying between $1,500.00 and $2,000.00 land per
unit.. on a 70 foot by 270 lot, there would generally be 14 units that
could be buH t. On a lot 140 feet, generally there could be at least
28 units. Many have been developed to the rear of the lots. When the
purchaser buys this ground, he is willing to pay on that basis and it
approximately figures aut $1.00 per square foot, even taking into con-
sideration the various setbacks, etc. If you eliminate 1400 square
feet, which under the ordinance permits one unit for 1000 square foot
of lot area, meaning the 750 square feet plus the 250 square foot off-
street parking, it would be taking 1-1/2 units away from that developer on
a 70 foot lot, there would be 3 away on a 140 foot lot. The price ",ould
amount to the same dollar persquare foot and the rentals would not
justify it. Most of the streets now do have this type of development,
somewhere in the middle of the block or at the end of the block where
ingress and egress for an alley would be absolutely prohibitive plus the
rear walls which as a rule do not go over 6 feet, but there are some
developments there just the same as in the R~l that would not justify
the passage of such an ordinance. There are thousands of R-l lots that
have barbecues, cabanas, swimming pools, etc. in the rear which would be
violation of the new ordinance if passed.
It was the unanimous opinion of the realtors group that the ordinance as
proposed would be a far greater hardship on the city insofar as presently
developed land or subdivided land, but they felt it would be handled far
February 24, 1959
Page Two
LOT
SPLIT
(Flann)
TRACT NO.
16568
LOT SPLIT
No. 237
SITE
CONSTRUCTION
Office
future subdividable land where it would be of a distinct asset to the
city. Their suggestion waS that the staff show a method or way that a
survey be made showing the possibility of development of new streets and
alleys. If it would be in conflict with a future street that had been
more or less planned out by the staff, then it would be detrimental and
should not be permitted.
The Chairman then called for those opposed to the amendment to be heard.
The Chairman declared the hearing continued for the purpose of receiving
reports from the staff and Zoning Connnittee and for a decision.
The Secretary reported that a connnunication had been received from Elroy
Flann, 1130 Encino Avenue, relative to Lot Split No. 229 which was
denied on January 13, 1959. This application had requested that 33 feet
of the rear portion of the property at 1125 S. 8th Avenue be split and
included with his property at 1130 Encino Avenue. Mr. Flann now asks
that instead of taking 33 feet from the Eighth Avenue property he now
wishes to purchase one-half of the lot. He did not desire to build
anything an this property at the present time..
Mr. Flann stated that he would like to buy the entire property but that
Mr. Orbon would not sell all at this time, but he felt the property was
too much for him to care for, and Mr. Flann desired to purchase the rear
one-half.
Mr. Acker stated that it had not been the policy of the Planning Connnis-
sion of splitting lots where there are no means of ingress or egress into
the lot from the street.
This is in the same manner as an appeal.
Moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that the original
decision or reconnnendation to deny Lot Split No. 229 stand, and that the
revised request of Mr. Flann be denied, both as to the original request
for 33 feet and also for the half of the property at 1125 S. 8th Avenue.
This is an application of the owners far extension of time for construc-
tion of Tract No. 18568, located north of Longden Avenue, beltween Santa
Anita Aver- and Second Avenue, consisting of 29 lots. This was originally
approved on March 19, 1957, with an extension of one year granted on
March 18, 1958. A connnunication was read from W. L. Hoffeditz, Engineer
for the owners, stating that the property owners believe that within a
short time the improvements can be made. No changes have been made an the
tentative map since it was originally approved.
Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Forman, and carried, that an
extension of one year be granted for the construction of improvements
in Tract No. 18568, provided no changes be made in approved tentative
map, and subject to the same conditions as the original approval.
Lot Split No. 237 - 2330 S. Santa Anita Avenue was referred to Mr. Vachon
and Mr. Stout for investigation.
MacDonald and Kruse, General Contractors for the construction of the
Santa Anita Wash from Santa Fe Railroad to the Debris Basin requested
consideration of property acquired from Mrs. Amy D. Phillips as a
site for a construction office and storage area. The area borders
Peter Kiewit Construction yard to the south, and the Santa Anita Wash
to the west. The zoning in general is R-l, except the section to the
nor th is R-I.
February 24, 1959
Page Three
.
RESOL1JTION
No. 324
ADJOURN
DisCuSSiQn followed. Mr. Robertson stated that in the past other
property had been designated to the contractors who had been awarded
CQntracts on local flood control projects.
Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Davison, and carried that the
request Qf the Contractors, MacDonald & Kruse for temporary construc-
tion site location be recommended for approval, subject to the condi-
tions outlined in the communication that the property would be oiled
etc. and that it be far the of the construction period of approximately
8 or 9 mQnths.
The Secretary introduced Resolution No. 324, entitled:
"A Resolution of the City Planning Commission of the City
of Arcadia, California, recommending the granting of a .
variance to permit the installation and use of mechanical
equipment in an auto laundry."
Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Davison and carried that the
reading Qf the full body of Resolution No. 324 be waived.
Motion by Mr. Davison, seconded by Mr. Robertson, that Resolution
No. 324 be adopted.
S'aid mot ion was carried on the following roll call:
AYES: Connnissioners, Davison, Farman, Michler., Robertson and Vachon.
NOES: Commissioners Acker and Stout.
There being no further business to c9me before the Commission the
meeting adjourned.
t~u~~(
Planning Secretary