Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 14, 1959 . MINUTES . PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIT,Y OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING APRIL 14. 1959 The Planning Comm1ssion of the City of' Arcadia met in regular session 1n the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P.M., April 14, 1959. with Chairman Acker presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT; Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Robertson, Stout and Vachon. ABSENT: Commissioner Davison. OTHERS PRESENT; City Councilman Reibold, Nicklin. Lortz. Talley and Mrs. Andrews .' MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held March 24, 1959, were approved as written and mailed. AMEND ZONE R-l The Commission considered a decision on' the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 760, Section 5 (Ordinance 990) as contemplated by Resolution No. 325. A report of the Zoning and Subdivision committees was presented by the Secretary, stating that the Committees have reviewed the requests and ideas submitted by various persons st the public hearing. They felt that in order to maintain a desirable residential atmosphere in the R-I zone that requirements prior to Ordinance 990 must be upgraded, but that prior suggested requirements may be too rigid. It is recommended by the Committee that Zone R-l be amended as follows: 1. One single family dwelling may be constructed at the ,front building line, a. Not to exceed two stories in height, b. Must contain not less than 1000 square feet floor area, c. Must be on a site containing 7500 square feet area, 2. If a portion of a lot has been re-subdivided since June 2, 1949, with the approval of the City, and the remaining portion of the lot contains 18,750 square feet or more in area, one additional dwelling may be erected, but not more than two single family dwellings shall be permitted on any such lot. a. Rear dwelling to be not more than one story in height. b. Must contain not less than 1000 square feet floor area, c. Must be on a site relatively the same shape and size as the Site of the front dwelling, d. Site size and shape and building location shall be subject to approval by the Modification Committee, e. Approval shall not be given if the proposed location interferes with the location of a future street or alley, the location of which has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, f. Approval shall not be given unless 25% or more of the lots in the block are already developed with two or'more dwellings., g. Minimum front, side and rear yards and dis- tances between dwellings to remain as now required. April 14, 1959 Page One / ! , ,,~ i , \~ Discussion followed that the sub-section "c" under paragraph 1 should read "not less than" and that subsection "c" in paragraph 2 should read "first" dwelling rather than "front", The Commissioners discussed in detail the thoughts behind the recommendations of the Committee and that the Modifi- cation Committee would still have authority to pass on building locations. Under the new amendment the required percentage is reduced from 60% to 25%. It was stated that any existing house that is less than 1000 square feet is non-conforming and in order to issue a building permit on this house it would be necessary to increase its square footage to 1000 square feet, so as to have it conforming to the present ordinance. John McLaughlin, 419 Leaa Lane, stated he had been unable to be present at the hearing. He felt that the City should still maintain a control over second houses to be built so that areas developed in an area such as where he lives would not have a rental unit built where it would obstruct the view and be practically in his rear yard. He felt a variance was or should be necessary so that a control is maintained. He stated that he had heard nothing pertaining to a key lot. He felt that people within 65 feet should be notified as in a modification or variance, and that no one should be hurt by the passage of an ordinance allowing a second dwelling. People should be allowed to use their property; also that a plot plan should be presented. Moved by Mr. Forman. seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried, that the public hearing on the proposeo amendment of Zone R-l (Ordinance 990) as contem- plated by Resolution No. 325 be closed.. Moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Michler, that the report of the Zoning and Subdivision Committees on the proposed amendment of Zone R-l require- ments as contemplated by Resolution No. 325 be approved subject to sub- section "c" under paragraph 1 to read as follows: c. 'must be on a site containing not less than 7500 square feet area" and that subsection "c", paragraph 2 be amended to read as follows: c. 'must be on a site relatively the Same shape and size as the site of the first dwelling". Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Acker, Forman. Michler, Robertson, Stout and Vachon. None The City Attorney was instructed to prepare ,a Resolution to be presented st the next Planning Commission meeting. In commenting on the subject, the City Attorney said tbat the amendment now proposed will change a number of provisions which were added to Ordinance 990, but from a technical standpoint 990 is not being amended. The imposing of architectural overlays would have a tendency to restrict liberties. The thought behind the amendment is to present a formula that will remit some of the hardships in Ordinance 990 without doing an injustice to those that are not affected by said ordinance. The report of the Committees is to Simplify the buIlding of a second dwelling on the larger Size lots, but still sets up certain procedural steps so that it is not just done "over the counter". So far as an architectural overlay, there is now such a zone. The restrictions in that are rather general and it is a fact that no one is going to be satisfied with that which is built on his neighbors property. This might not be satisfactory to everyone, But in a rather densely settled community you have to give and take" LOT SPLIT NO, 242 Lot Split No. 242 - Rolland G. Weddell, 2533 South Second Avenue. was reviewed by Mr. Stout and Mr. Acker. The request is to divide the west portion of the lot facing Lee, Avenue. The lot is in excess of the required minimum width and area,. and conforms with the established pattern. A Staff report was read by the Secretary. April 14, 1959 Page Two / , , "-- Moved by Mr. Acker, seconded by Mr. Stout and carried that Lot Split No. 242 - Rolland G. Weddell - 2533 S. Second Avenue be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a. final map with the City Engineer. 2. Dedicate l2 feet for the future widening of Second Avenue. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 4. Remove an existing shed. 5. The city shall dedicate a portion of Lot 10, Tract No. 19707 for street purposes to provide street frQntage for the new lot. 6. The owner shall provide any necessary easements for utilities._ TRACT NO. 19065 Tentative map of Tract No. 19065, located on Lee Avenue, south of Longden Avenue, consisting of 22 lots. The report of the Subdivi- sion Committee and staff was read, showing that at this proposed tract is located on the northerly extension of Lee Avenue. A portion of the property on the east side of the street is not a part of the s,ubdivision and will come in as future lot splits. As submitted 12 lots are less than 75 feet wide. All, lots have the required area except Lot 19 which is 50 feet by l40 feet con- taining 700 square feet,. Lot 23 designated as "future street" provides' for a future connection to eliminate the dead end of Greenfield Avenue which is now 1900 feet long. This will also open the way for subdivision of the property on Longden A enue. Because the Longden Avenue property is only 300 feet deep, the Committee is of the opinion that the "future street" should be moved south to the alignment, of the south line of the lot. The area south of this street would then cut into 3 lots about 78 feet wide instead of 66 feet as shown. Because the property facing Longden Avenue is predominately around 62 feet wide lots, and there are 3 narrow lots on Second Avenue near Longden Avenue, the Committee did not object to the 4 lots on the east side of Lee Avenue being 66 feet wide. Lot 19 on Second Avenue should be eliminated. The tract is recommended for conditional approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Move lot 23 to align with the south line of the Longden Avenue property and dedicate it fOr street purposes. (Designated as "A" street). 2. Make .the area between Lot 8 and A street into 3 lots. 3. Eliminate Lot 19 which is below the required width and area. 4. Provide one 75 foot wide lot north of A street. 5. Dedicate a 1 foot strip in fee to the city on the west end of A street and along the east side of Lee Avenue where lots are not shown. Page Three April 14, 1959 v TRACT NO. 2l6l8 PARKING AREA 6. Dedicate 12 feet for widening Second Avenue from the north line of the property at 2225 S. Second Avenue to the south line of the property at 2311 S. Second Avenue Discussions followed. Mrs. Park, the subdivider felt that another lot could not be taken out from a financial standpoint. This had been revised and she felt it was a good plan. Mr,. Robertson stated that when Greenfield was originally developed it was with the intent that there would be a cuI de sac at that time, but that it would eventually get through to Longden, or have another outlet. He was not sure but that an access to Greenfield through this tract should be made even without developing any lots that are on Longden Avenue. He felt that there should be a better plan so that Greenfield could be opened. The Com- missioners felt that the lots should be brought up to standard. The street would have to go through to Longden, but that Greenfield should be oper,e,d. Mrs. Park stated that there was a lot available on Longden where Greenfield could project through to Longden. It was suggested that a trust could be set up to assure a return on some of the funds paid out for the new street when the lots facing it were to' come in through lot splits. Mr. Robertson suggested that the matter be referred back to the Subdiv- ision Committee, to which Mrs. Park consented, and a fu~ther report to be presented at next Planning Conunission meeting. Mrs. Park, the sub- divider, also waived any time limit that might apply to the approval or denial of the tract. Revised tentative map of Tract No. 2l6l8, located on Greenfield Avenue, north of Pamela Road, consisting of l~ lots. A report of the Subdivision Committee was given, showing that this proposed tract received tentative approval on June 4, 1958, on February 3, 1959, a change in the depth of Lot 12 was, approved. The request by W. L. Hoffeditz, Engineer for the owners is for a modi- fication of lot depth on Lot 11 from 200feet to 120 feet thereby conforll>' ing to the west line of the lot to the north. .The property owners have elected to proportion the cost of the project on a square foot basis and that the 200 foot lot would be out of proportion to the others. The change in lot depth is recommended for approval, subject to all other previously approved conditions. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Stout and carried that revised tentative map of Tract No. 21618, located on Greenfield Avenue, north of Pamela Road consist'ing of 14 10,ts be recommended for approval, subject to all other previously approved conditions. A communication was received from Dick Thayer and Associates, 124 E. Foothill Boulevard, requesting permission to consider alley space as available parking area for a proposed building addition under considera- tion, which would be 25 feet to the rear of the present building. This would reduce the remaining portion of the lot to below that which would be required for parking facil i,ties.. The proposed building would resul t in 3000 square feet, which would call for a parking area for six cars. He felt that because the property was contiguous to the wash area to the west and the alley dead ended at the west property line and because of the peculiarity of the property he ,felt the alley did not need to be kept open for through traffic, and the request was made to cons.ider the alley space as available parking area, which would give approximately 1700 square feet and would comply with the .intent of the ordinance. The Commission felt that present parking requirements are an absolute minimum and should not be reduced, and that public alley area should not be allowed to be counted as parking area, even though it is a dead end alley. Page Four April 14, 1959 r TRACT NO. 20952 LOT SPLIT No. 98 RESOLUTION No. 326 Moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried. that the request of Dick Thayer and Associates, 124 E. Foothill Boulevard, for permission to use a part of a dedicated alley as required parking space be denied. A communication was received from Robinson Brothers requesting that certain conditions be applied to the required cash deposit for future street opening as a condition ,of the approval of the tract. This tract is located on Magna Vista Avenue, east of Lyndon Way, con- taining 11 lots and was approved April 7, 1959. Condition No. 5 required the subdivider to deposit the amount of $6.872.00 as his pro- portional share of the cost of the future opening of the street into LeRoy Avenue. The request at present is to modify this condition to the effect that in the event that Magna Vista Avenue is extended to LeRoy Avenue with the use of other funds, other than those acquired .from abutting pro- perties, or if the street is not constructed to LeRoy Avenue within the next ten years (April 7, 1969), the deposit shall be returned to Robinson Brothers, their heirs or assignees, with interest at the pre- vailing bank rate. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Michler, that Condition No.5 as required at the approval of Tract No. 20952 be modified so ss to set a time of ten years for the period of extension of Magna Vista to LeRoy Avenue with the use of other funds, other than those required from abutting properties; or if the street is not constructed to Le Roy A"..nue by Apr,il 7, 196.9, the deposit is recommended to be returned to Robinson Brothers, their heirs or assignees, with no recommendation on interest on the money deposited. Roll call vote showed the following: AYES: Forman. Michler, Robertson, Vachon and Acker NOES: None ABSENT: Davison ABSTAINED: Stout Communication from Robinson, ijrothers requested clarlfication of condi- tions applicable to the cash deposit previously made for the future opening of Camino Grove Avenue. This lot split was approved and a trust set up. It was the understanding at the time the trust was set up that there was a time limit but the minutes are not clear. The request of the Robinson Brothers, in connection with this lot split which was applied for by Robinson Brothers and W. H. McCauley, is that the time be clarified. A. copy of Mr. Robinson's letter, wi.th attachments of a communication from Mr. M J. Carozza, City Engineer, was read. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Michler, that the matter of the clarification of the condition pertaining to the trust fund set up in Lot Split No. 98 be continued for review of the staff and attorney and reported back at the next regular aieeting of the Planning Co.nnission. The City Attorney introduced Resolution No. 326. entitled: "A Resolution of the City Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending the denial of a requested zone reclassification from Zone R-l and Zone R-! to Zone R-3 of certain real property on Naomi and Lovell Avenues in said city.'! Moved by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Stout and carried that the public hearing on the requested zone reclassification be closed. Page Five April 14, 1959 RESOLUTION No. 327 RESOLUTION No. 328 Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that the reading of the full body of the Resolution No. 326 be waived. Motion by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Vachon that Resolution No. 326 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Acker,Forman, Michler, Robertson; Stout and Vachon. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davison The City Attorney presente,d Resolution No. 327, entitled: itA resolution of the City Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Cal iforna , recommending denial of requested zone reclassification from Zone R-.l to Zones R-2 and R-3. ~rr. W. T. Beckwith requested information as to time for protest in con~e;tion with above resolution and was advised that the matter would come before the City Council for public hearing and at that time he could present his protest to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the City Council would then hear his com- ments. Moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Forman, and carried that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 327 be waived. Moved by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Vachon that Resolution No. 327 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Stout and Vachon NOES: Commissioners Michler and Robertson ABSENT: Davi:son The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 328, entitled: itA resolution of the City Planning COll)lllission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending the denial of a requested zone reclassification from Zone R-l to Zone R-3 of certain real prope,rty located at l4 East Newman Avenue in said city." Moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Stout and carried that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 328 be waived. Moved by Mr. Stout. seconded by Mr. ~achon that Resolution No. 328 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Robertson, Stout and Vachon NOES: None ABSENT: Davison Page Six April 14, 1959 . - R-3 ZONING AMENDMENTS ADJOURN Mr. Vachon stated for some time the Commission and the City Council have been concerned about the intensive development of R-3 property occurr- ing in the city. Particular attention has been given to t~e amount of parking .space provided and the conVl!nlma! of access to it to encourage getting the automobiles off the street. The City Council has made a statement of policy declaring their interest in keeping Arcadia a city of fine homes and maintaining the high pro- perty values. Wi~h this in mind and after an inspection of some, of the R-3 developments, the Committee recommends that proceedings be instituted to consider the amendment of Zone R-3 in the following respects: 1. Living quarters in each new development in Zone R-3 shall contain an average of 750 square feet of floor area. 2. Each driveway to the garage and parking area shall be at least 10 feet wide with at least 9 feet paved and unobstruc- ted. 3. If the driveway serves more than ten dwelling units two such 10 foot driveways, or one 16 foot driveway with at least l5 feet paved and unobstructed shall be provided. 4. In Zone R-3 at least 1-1/2 parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each dwelling unit. At least one such parking space for each dwelling unit shall be in a roofed garage or carport. 5. In Zone R-3 no detached garage or carport may be erected in front of the main building. If the garage or carport is attached to and is a part of the main building not more than 35% of the total frontage of the building shall be devoted to garage uses. Moved by Mr. Vachon, seconded by Mr. Michler and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to draw a resolution instituting proceedings for the proposed changes to Zone R-3 regulations, in accordance with the above recommendations. There being no further business to come before the Commission the meet. ing adjourned. fliVv. L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary