Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 9, 1959 ROLL CALL ~HNUl'ES~ ZONE VARiANCE i.Lutheran Church) MINUTES PLA~NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING JUNE 9, 1959 The Flanni.ng COllUIli.ssion of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P.M., June 9, 1959, with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commlssioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Robertson, Stout and Davison. ABSENt: None OTHERS PRESENT: Lortz, Nicklin, Talley, Gardn.;r and Councilman Baiser. The mi,nutes of the meeting held May 26, 1959 were approved as written and mailed. Pursuant to notice gIven, a public hearing 'was held on the application .of the Shepherd of the Hills Evangelical Lutheran Church for a zone variance to allow the use of the property at 290 West Foo~hil1 Blvd. for church purposes in Zone R-l. The staff report, as read by the Planning Secretary, indicated that the subject property and all other'naarby property on the south side of Foothill is zoned R-l. The property across the street on the north side of Foothill is zoned R-O, the lot is slightly irregular in shape, It has a frontage of approx- imately 230 feet on Foothill Boulevard with a depth of 377 feet along Burnell Oaks Lane and has an area of 2 acres. It is presently im- proved wi.th a large, two-story frame dwelling apparently erected in 1915 or before, a guest cottage and a 3 car garage. To the best of our knowledge the property was owned by Mr. Burnell and his heirs until January 26, 1959, at which time it was transferred to Richard O. Yocum. The application states that the property was acquired by the church on April 19, 1959, but this is not yet reflected on our tax roll. We have received some 35 letters from persons presently residing i.n Sierra Madre, Pasadena, Los Angeles, 'Arcadla, Monrovia, Redondo Beach, Long Beach and Balboa'stating that thay have attended religious services <It the subject address for periods r~nging back to 1916, 10 the best of our knowledge these services have not been of the nature of commonly known and recognized organized churches, and the property has not claimed nor been given the tax exemption commonly given to churches. The petitlon is supported by the owners of 8 surrounding, properties, 3 of which are owned by Mr. Yocum who sold the subject properLy to the "hurch. Page One June 9. 1959 I I I / I I , Mr. Harry M. Vawter, 881 West Foothill Blvd., filed a lener stating that he is opposed to any change of policy..which would allow a church in an R-O or'R-l zone. The Communication. pointed out some of the facts that exist in Pasadena. In that 'ciLY the large churches which have the largest attendance are located in the business areas and t.hose of small attendance are generally in the R-3 and C-l zones. There is one factor which probably more than anything' else accounts for the large attendance to the churches located in or near the business centers and it is this; on Sundays the stores are closed and their parking space is available for the church goers. Parking space is not available on Sunday or any other day in R-O and R-l zones. The granting of this request for a varianCe will establish a precedent which later might develop into annoying difficulties. A letter from W. L. Heater., 291 West Foothill Blvd, registered a protest to the granting of the variance based on a traffic hazard created by additional flow of cars in and out of the church property. The other factor of protest was based on grounds that if the church was permined to establish itself at 290 Wes.t Foothill Blvd., property owners in tbe imnediate neighborhood might approach the city for concessions allowing multiple housing on adjacent R-l lots. James D. Harris, 285 West Foothill Blvd., submitted a written protest directing the Planning Commission's attention to the fact that a church located at 290 West Foothill Blvd. would te in the heart of one of the better Arcadia residential areas, Furthermore, if the church variance was granted, the traffic accident potential along Foothill Blvd'. would be increased considerably, J. W. and D. E. Watson, 2&1 West Foothil'l Blvd., antiCipated property devaluation if .a "change" in zoning occurred on the south side of FoothiH Blvd. and for this reason the "change" was protested. A protest petition representing .24 property owners, 9 of which lie within a 300 ft. radius, was presented. The petition outlined 3 reasons why the church variance should not be granted. In brief they are as follows; first, increased traffic would cause great peril to property owners" the generai public and mem~ers' of the congregation. Second, property values would be devaluated by thepresence of a church in an R-l zone. Third, taxes woula be increased to cope with the extra traffic burden: assessed evaluation would be lost to the city because of church exemption from tax rolls; a precedent would be set for future variance requests. The public hearing was opened and the following spoke in opposition to the variance: C. D. Stafford purchased property at 1029 Burnell Oaks Lane some two years age. At that time it was his understanding that the church activities would cease and the old house would be demolished, The . , traffic hazard was mentioned and it ~as suggested that the Secretary check into the ac.cident rate. Mr. Stafford stated that the church should show just cause why they should be permitted to operate at 290 West Foothill Blvd, Up to this point., he felt that they had not done so, H. S. Bryson, 291 Foothill Blvd., believed that additional traffic imposed by a church would increase the already high accident rate on Foothill Blvd. Dean Lowery, 1037 Burnell Oaks Lane, added that most of the signatures on the petition are from property owners within a 400 ft radius of the proposed variance. Page Two June 9, 1959 ZONE VARIANCE (Adcock) John Hodges, 280 West Foothill Blvd., inquired as to proposed develop- ments for the area now that the Foothill Freeway Route has been adopted. Perhaps the Planning Commission should indicate the direction for any contemplated changes. The chairman then explained the city proceedure for any zone change or variance application. W. L. Heater, 291 West Foothill Blvd" asked if there had been a zone variance granted to the church. He was advised that there was no variance at the present, Pastor Ray Hanson, Pastor of the Lutheran Church and applicant of the variance request, spoke in favor of the application. A great deal of hard work had gone into the preparation of a proposed church site in as much as clearance from other Lutheran Churches in the vicinity had to be obtained. The Commission was informed that the church, in order to establish a site in Arcadia, had to locate north of the AT & SF RR, at least one half mile west of Santa Anita Avenue and at least one half mile east of Michill!nda Avenue. It is national policy to clear locations of new church sites through neighborlng churches. Pastor Hanson assured the Planning Commission that the Lutheran Church has plans to develop parking facilities on their own property. The applicant felt that the proposed freeway would alleviate much of the traffic flow along Foothill Blvd. Mr. Michler stated that he was little impressed with the proponent sig- natures originating as far away as Newport Beach; nor was he impressed with the fact that the church has been using the Foothill address since 1916, On the other hand he criticized the language of the protest pet- ition, with its assumption' that a church would hurt the tax rolls by excluding itself from the assessed evaluation, Mr. Davison questioned the reasons why the Lutheran Church had to define its boundaries in the above prescribed manner. Pastor Hanson explained that there are some ten such churches in Pasa- dena, One in Monrovia and one in Arcadia. Through courtesy to one an- other and because of national policy, the boundaries must be designat- ed. The meetings are now held in a temporary location in Sierra Madre, Some 50% of these members reside in Arcadia. There are around 100 total members of the congregation. After two years a temporary site became prohibitive. Mr. Nicklin clarified a. few points regarding applications as they are related to the Freeway. Heretofore they have been turned down because the route had not been adopted. After the precise alignment is. adopted there may be certain segments of land that are cut off from the general unified district of each specific zone. When this occurs there will doubtless be some minor zoning changes to take care of those situations. The chairman declared the hearing continued until the June 23, 1959 meeting pending a staff and zoning committee report. At this time Chairman Acker recognized Albert Adcock, applicant for a zone variance to allow a second dwelling at 1503 South Fourth Ave. Mr. Adcock asked if a decision on his variance request could be delayed 90 days due to current problems arising in the family. Motion by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Robertson and carried to continue the public hearing on the. application of Alpert Adcock. for a variance to permit the erection of a: second dwelling at 1503 South Fourth Ave.. until September 22, 1959 and further to instruct the Planning Secretary to immediately notify all protestants of this continuance. Page Three June 9, 1959 REAR YARDS Lor SPLIT No. 248 WI SPLIT No. 249 LOT SPLIT No. 250 , , ~ The Planning Secretary asked for a cont.inuance of the publ:i.c hearing on the proposal to amend rear yard requirements until the Zone R-3 Amendment decision is made. Motlon by Mr. Michler seconded by Mr.. Stout and carried to continue the public hearing on rear yard amendments until June 23, 1959. The Engineer's report was read indicating that the proposed split calls for the creation of two parcels both of which are less than 75 ft.. wide. Motion by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Stout and carried that in view of the present development: on Santa Anita Avenue plus the fact ,t.hat the split: would create 60 ft. and 65 ft. wide parcels respectively, application #248 be recommended for denial. W. R. Goodrich, 2511 South Second Avenue. Mr. Stout had viewed the property and advised the Planning Commission that the split conformed with the other splits that have been granted in the area, Mr. Davison inquired as to why the depth of the split could not be set. at 100 ft. instead of 90 ft. The Secretary stated that the entire area had been studied at the time of subdivision and it was realized at that time that future splits would not be uniform in depth. Present improvements on the lot also preclude a deeper division of property. Mr. Davison felt that 100 ft. should be a minimum R-l lot depth. Motion by Mr, Stout, seconded by Mr. Michler to recommend approval of Lot Split # 249 subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map prepared by a Registered Engineer or Land Surveyor. 2. Dedicate 12 ft. for widening of Second Avenue. 3. Pay $25.00 Recreation Fee, 4. Remove existing shed from Parcel #2. 5. The City shall dedicate a portion of Lot 10, Tract 19707 for street purposes. Said motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acker, Forman, Michler, Robertson and Stout NOES: Davison ABSENT: None No. 250 - W. L. Evans, 251 Leroy Avenue The Planning S.cretary read the Engineer's report and explained that the proposed split lies immediately east of and adjacent to proposed Tract 20952. Mr. Robertson agreed that this was a conforming split and anticipated a uniform development throughout the remaining land to the east. Motion by Mr, Robertson, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 250, subject to the following: Page Four June 9, 1959 LOT SPLIT No, 251 ---\ ,.....J 1. File a final map with the City EngIneer. 2, Provide a temporary sewer connection for Parcel No.2. 3. Dedicate 29 feet for the extension of Magna Vista Avenue and 1 foot along the north and 1 foot along the east to the city in fee, 4. Pay $25.00 recreation fee, 5. Install all street improvements required by the SubdiviSion Ordinance, including curb, gutter, pavement, water line, sewer tine, gas line, street light and street trees, &. .Provide a utility easement along the east prolongation of the south line of Tract No, 20952, 7. Record a covenant agreeing to take the street drainage from Magna Vista Avenue onto the lot until the street is extended. Also to provide a permanent sewer connection when the street is extended. 8. At tile option of the applicant, a trust may be eS.tablished to recover a portion of the cost from the property to the north. 9, Deposit $760.00 with the city for the future opening of Magna Vista Avenue into LeRoy Avenue under the same con- ditions applicable to Tract No. 20952. 10. The city should dedicate Lot 14, Tract No. 20952 for street purposes. No. 251 - Elsie R. Jirschefske, 1140 Eighth Avenue This property is located at the southeast corner of Eighth Avenu*, and Magnolia Lane, and is improved with two houses and a garage,. It is proposed to divide two lots facing Magnolia Lane, and reserve Parcel No. 4 for the future extension of Ninth Avenue and a new subdivision. '[he front house would occupy Parcell. The rear house and garage are lo~ated on Parcel 2. It is proposed to move the rear house to face Magnolia Lane and add to it. Mr. John McClaughlin, Real Estate Broker, 515 South First Avenue, wanted to know if the conditions of the split could impose an Architect- ural upgrading of the existing dwelling on Parcel No.2. A general discussion followed wherein it was agreed that as long as the building met city codes and standards, it would be approved as a dwelling for Parcel No.2. Motion by Forman, seconded by Robertson and carried to recommend approval of Lot Split No, 251, subject to the following: 1. File a final map wtth the City Engineer. 2. Provide sewer laterals for Parcels 2 and 3. 3. Pay $50.~0 recreation fee. 4. Make Parcel No. 1 103 feet deep from Eighth Avenue to clear the existing garage by 3 feet, Page Five June 9, 1959 r,OT SPLIT No. 252 TRACT No. 24499 TRACT No. 20073 -, I "-~/ 5. Divide the remaining 159 feet into two approximacely equal lots. 6. Move the dwelling on Parcel No, 2 to face Magnolia Lane and add to make a minimum of 1000 Square feet. 7, Remove all old sheds and junk from Parcel No.3. 8. Construct a new garage on Parcel No, 1. 9. The city should dedicate a portion of Lot 27, Tract No. 24311 for street purposes, No. 252 - Farley H. Archer, 1078 Tenth Avenue This request is to divide the rear 15 feet to sell to the owner at 1053 'Loganrita Avenue to provide space for a swimming pool and additional play area. thE rear line of the Loganrita Avenue Tract now has several offsets and the Commission feels this additional jog would not be undesir- able, Mr, Davison pointed out that the creation of shallow lots throughout the city has forced some owners to apply for this type of split in order to obtain adequate rear yard space for out door living. Once again the statement was made that short lots are inadequate, Mr. Dick Gibson, proapective buyer 'of parcel No.2, spoke in support of thE split. Motion by Michler, seconded by Davison and carried to recommend approval of Lot Split No. 252, subject to the following; 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2.. File a covenant to insure the use of the 15 foot strip with the Loganrita Avenue property, A letter from G. W. Marks, A & M Realty, requesting that final map No. 24499 be removed from the agenda was presented by the Secretary. The communication explained that there were some items affecting the Title Sheet that had to be cleared up before ac,tton could be taken. Motion by Robertson, seconded by Michler and carried to accept the request of A & M Realty to remove the matter from the agenda and reccmmend a three month extension of time to complete and record final map No. 24499. Tentative Tract No. 20073, located on the south side of Duarte Road west of Santa Anita Avenue containing 8 lots. Lots 1, 2,3, 7 and 8 are 7500 Sq. ft. Lots 4, 5 and 6 are above minimum square footage but do not have 75 ft. in width at the building line. Lots 7 and 8 are only 78 feet deep, and will cause problems of design of a suitable dwelling. The Commission felt that the proposed tract is not a good use of the property and recommended an area study be made.. Motion by Robertson, seconded by Davison and carried to recommend denial without prejudice to reconsideration wi.thout the payment of new fU ing fee of Tract No. 20073, and further that the staff and Commission as a whole study the area for possible future developmEnt. Page Si.x Jun.e 9. 1959 LO! SPLIT No. 207 Extension of 'rime ' DRAIN AGE (R. W. Maloney) RESOLUTION No. 333 LOT SPLIT No. 253 (Colll!llittee Ass ignmen1:) A letter from the o. 'M. Knutsen Buildi.ng Company was read. rhe Knutsen Company is now the owner of property at 521 West Norman Avenue on which Lot Split No. 207 was approved by the Council, June 4, 1958. Because the year time limit has elapsed, the request was made for an extension. Motion by Stout, seconded by Michler and carried to recommend a six month extension of time to the O. M. Knutsen Building Company in order that they may complete the required conditions of Lot Split No. 207. A communication from R. W, Maloney, 260 LeRoy Avenue, advised the Planning Commission that he, Mr, Maloney, will hold the City of Arcadia responsible for any damages incurred by drainage from excess water from the newly constructed drainage ditch in Tract No. 20952. The Director of Public Works stated that there is no immediate danger as far as normal runoff is concerned. The drainage on this particular location as it intersects LeRoy Avenue and e~tends east to the wash has only a drainage area of the block in question. Therefore there would seem to be no great problem involved. The Chairman instructed the Secretary to file the above communication. No. 333 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 333 entitled: " A resolution of the City Planning Commiasion of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending the granting of a variance to permit aD addition to an existing building and its conversion into a third dwelll.ng." . Motion by Forman, seconded by Michler and carried to waive the reading of the full body of. Resolution No, 333. Mr. Stout stated that the IlPproval of this type of variance would tend to set a precedent on t.he eve of the adoption of the newly proposed R-l Amendments. It would, as a matter of fact, override the present pol~cy of the Commission in regards to R-l Zoning. Mr. Davison felt that certain language can sway the PlannLng Commission on these matters. Pressure groups should not be allowed to influence the Commissioners' decisions, and he further urged the members to es- tablish and maintain hard and fast ~ules in matters of this nature, Mr. Forman and Mr. Michler agreed that this variance, along with its cond.it;ions, has many fine points, one of which will hasten the open- ing of Encino Avenue. Motion by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Davison to adopt Resolution No. 333. ROl,L CALL: AYES: Acker, F)rman, Michler, Davison and Robertson NOES: Stout ABSENT: l'Ione No. 253 - 1034 South First Avenue. The Ch~irman appointed Mr. Michler and Mr. Stout to investigate Lot Split Application No. 253, located at 1034 South First Avenue. Page Seven June 9, 1959 . . LOT SPLIT No. 245 COMMUNICATION (Chai rman Water Board) ADJOUFN \. ---) No, 245 - William Hovanitz, 1140 West Orange Grove Avenue. This split was recommended for approval on May 12, 1959, but on May 19 was referred back to the Commission for further study. The subject property is located on Michillinda Avenue, and is 115 feet by 296.73. The applicant has sold the front 226.10 feet, retaining the rear 70.63 feet to use with his Orange Grove property. The portion which has been sold is apove the requirements of Zone R'O. Ihe applicant stated that this 5 acre area is limited by deed restriction to only 4 building sites of 26,000 square feet each until 1965. After the expiration of the restrictions he hopes to furthet divide the Orange Grove' Avenue property, Mr. Harry Meske11, property owner of parcel No. 1 fronting on Michi11inda Avenue, stated that he had plans for a dwelling on the above parcel and therefore urged approval of the split. He then questioned the Engineer's Rep9rt as to the removal of the existing 6 ft. concrete wall in the park- way along Michillinda Avenue. The Director of Public Works related that the wa11removal should remain as a condition of the lot split approvaL The wall as it now stands is a definit< traffic hazard due to the obstruction of visibility from driveway to street. Motion by Davison, seconded oy Robertson and carried unanimously to recommend approval of Lot Split No, 245 subject to the submission of a possible futur.e development plan suggested by the Commission for the property to the north" and further subject to che following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Remove the 6 foot .concrete block wall now located in the public parkway on Michillinda Avenue. 3, File a covenant stipulating that Parcel No. 2 shall be held with and used as a part of the property at 1140 West Orange Grove Avenue. Chairman Acker read a letter from Frank Vachon, Chairman of the Arcadia City Water Board, inviting the members of the Planning Cormnission to attend the monthly meeting of the Water Board to be held June 15, 1959. It was noted that Mr. Laverty of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District would be guest speaker for the evening. There being no further business the meeting adjourned. R~. L. M. TALLEY PlannLng Secretary