Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 28, 1959 '. ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE VARIANCE G. H. Braun -~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 1959 The .Planning Commisaion of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8: 00 0 I clock P .,M., July 28, 1959 ,with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Balser, Nicklin, Lortz, Talley and Mrs. Maroshek ~inutes of July 14, 1959, pertaining to Resolution No. 336, are here- by corrected to remove Norton and Wallin's names from the aye votes, since they had abstained from voting on this matter. The minutes as amended were approved. The Secretary read the Zoning Committee report on the application of G. H. and Loretta F. Braun for a zone' variance to allow the erection of a third dwelling at 236 W. Foothill Boulevard. The report pointed out that the lot is 150 feet wide, and extends from Foothill Boulevard to the Santa Fe Railway right of way, a distance of approximately 800 feet. There is now one dwelling and a gardener's cottage on the lot. The Foothill Freeway, as presently proposed, will occupy approximately 200 feet of the rear of the property, and will remove both of the preaent dwellings. The applicant proposes to erect another dwelling of approximately 2300 square feet, located about 340 feet from Foothill Boulevard. In the opinion of the committe~. the fact that the proposed freeway will take a portion of the property, including both existing houses, constitutes exceptional circumstances that do not apply generally to other properties. It is recommended that the variance be recommended for approval, sub- ject to the filing of a covenant stipulating that all kitchen facili- ties be 'removed from the dwelling presently occupied by the applicant within 30 .days after occupancy of the new dwelling; and that the pre- sent dwelling will no longer be used as a separate dwelling unit. The Chairman declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Stout and carried that this zone variance ,be rec.ommended for approval, subject to the .condi tions as outlined in the Zoning Committee report. ROLL CALi.. AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: None ABSENT: None Page One July 28, 1959 RESOLUTION No. 337 ZONE VARIANCE D. C. Ryder RESOLUTION No. 339 '. ./ The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 337, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANT- ING FCRA VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE, ERECTION OF A THIRD DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 236 WEST FOOT- HILL BOULEVARD IN SAID CITY AND ZONED R-l." Moved by Mr'. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried to waive the' reading of the full body of Resolution No. 337. Motion by Mr. Forman, seconded by }tr. Norton for the adoption of Resol- ution No. 337. ROLL CALL AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: None ABSENT: None The Secretary read the Zoning Committee report on the application of David C. and Dorothy M. Ryder for a zone variance to allow the erection of a second dwelling at 903 N. Second Avenue" The report indicated: This lot contains 15,766 square feet of area; and of the 8 lots facing this portion of Second Avenue only 2 are presently developed with 2 houses. While there was no protest .to the application and the great majority of the surrounding neighbors recommended approval, the committee does not find any exceptional circumstance to warrant granting a second dwelling on this lot. It is similar to the many other large lots in neighborhoods that were partially developed with more than one house under the provisions of prior o~dinances. There being no other connnunications, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. Moved by Mr.. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman that th is zone variance be recommended for denial. R'OLL CALL AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michk, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 339, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 903 NORTH SECOND AVENUE AND ZONED R -1. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Davison and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 339. Moved by Mr. Davison, seconded by Mr. Forman for the adoption of Reso- lution No. 339 Page Two July 28, 1959 ZONE CHANGE R-3 ,~ The Secretary read the Zoning Committee report which conaidered a decision on the proposed changes in Zone R-3 requirements as con- templated by Resolution No. 330 (continued from July 14, 1959). The report stated that for some time the Commission and the City Council have been concerned about the intensive development of R-3 property occurring in tbe city. Particular attention has been given to the amount of parking space provided and the convenience of access to it to encourage getting the automobiles off the street. Resolution No. 330, adopted April 28, 1959, instituted proceedings for the consideration of the matter. A public hearing was held on May 26, 1959. The hearing has been continued from time to time. After considerable study and inspection of some of the construction presently underway, the committee recommends the adoption of the follow- ing regulations: 1. Living quarters in each new development in Zone R-3 shall contain an average of not less than 750 square feet of floor area per dwelling unit, exclusive of porches, garages, entries, patios and basements. 2. Each driveway to a garage or parking space sban be at least 10 feet wide witb at least 9 feet paved and unob- structed. 3. If the driveway serves more than 12 required parking spaces, or is more than 125 feet long, it shall be at least 20 feet wide with at least 18 feet paved and unobstructed, or tWO 10 foot driveways as specified above shall be pro- vided. C--. ~ 4. In Zone R-3 at least 1-1/2 parking spaces shall be provided for each dwening unit. At least one such parking space for each dwelling unit shall be in a roofed garage or carport. Each parking space shall be not lesa than 10 feet wide and 20 feet long in net dimensions. All drive- ways and parking spaces shall be paved with asphaltic or cement concrete. Each parking space shall have aoequate access, including not less than 25 feet turning radius. A required driveway may not also be used as a required parking space. 5. In Zone R-3 no detached garage or carport may be erected in front of the main building if located on the front half of the lot. If the garage or carport is attached to and is a part of the main building not more than 35% of the total front- age of the building may be devoted to garage uses. The ChalrlD8n declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Michler stated that as the report indicates considerable time and attention had been given to this subject, involving several months, because of the importance .of this change. The Zoning Committee met many times, and in the interest of maintaining the general character of the city, the recommendation to the Council is in order. Moved by Mr,. Michler, seconded by Me. Davison that this proposed recom- mendation to Council be adopted, and the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary resolution. Page Three July 28, 1959 REAR YARDS LOT SPLITS The Chairman complimented the Commission for its excellent job of compromising this wide range of ideas on how Zone R-3 should be modi- fied without taking away too much, and yet keeping more in line with better development. ROLL CALL AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin . NOES: None ABSENT: None The Secretary read the Zoning Committee report which considered a decision on the proposed changes in rear yard requirements as contem- plated by Resolution No. 321 (continued from July 14, 1959). The report stated that on December 23, 1958, by Resolution No. 321, the Commission instituted proceedi.ngs to consider the amendment of rear yard requirements. A public hearing on the matter was held on February 24, 1959, After the hearing it was determined that the only phase to be consid- ered was rear yards pertaining to Zone R-3. After studying the data obtained in the recent land use survey, the committee feels that, because of the location of buildings in Zone R-3, no purpose would be served by any change in regulations. '_ --... -- If it is felt that alleys should be required in new R-3 subdivisions, or .in areas that might be re-zoned to R-3, the matter should be consid- ered at that time. The committee recommends that the present proceedings be abandoned. The Chairman deciared the public hearing closed. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Stout to instruct the City Attor- ney to prepare a resolution as outlined in the Zoning Committee report. ROLL CALL AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: None ABSENT: None No. 254. - Vivian Margolin - 1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue was reviewed by Mr. Acker and Mr. Michler (continued from July 14, 1959) The Secretary read the engineer's report as well as a petition with 38 signatures which had been .received protesting the granting of this lot split. The petition stated that objections were based on various fac- tors including the building of a carport, which would result in the structure being the only one on Pamela Road with such a car shelter; it also cited the insufficient back yard setback of the existing residence on Santa ,Anita Avenue. For these and other reasons the petition pointed out that the granting of this lot split would be contrary co the intent of the original tract developers. Mr. Nate Margolin, 605 Mountain Drive, Beverly Hills came forward and stated that the petition as read was completely new to him. He stated that with regard to the 25 foot rear setback, the plan he would display conforms with the required setback; that the swimming pool will be removed; that the propas.ed structure would contai.n close to 1200 square feet. Page Four July 28, 1959 ~~\ Mr. Acker stated that it is normally not the Commission's intent to interpret restrictions to suit conditions; he felt that this new development changes rhe picture considerably from what the Commis- sion originally considered. Mr. Margolin declared that in the process of purchashg the home in January, 1959, he found nothing about these restrictions; he further stated that if the lot split were granted he intended to erect a new home. Mr. Nicklin stated that the Planning CODDl1iaslon throughout the yeara has never knowlingly granted a lot split that would violate deed restrictions still in effect; the fact that this Commission might recom- mend and the Council might grant a lot split would not permit the applicant to violate the deed restrictions. He added that the re- strictions appeared to have applied particularly at the time they were drawn, and could not have possibly envisaged future development. Mr. Nicklin when on to say that the city may not, only the property own- ers can enforce the deed restrJ.ctions. 'He suggested that the Commis- sion stipulate in its motion that unless waiver of the deed restrictions be obtained the lot split must be denied. Mr. Stout stated that he had investigated this property, and felt th~t to do the things Mr. Margolin plans would cost thousands of dollars to build a structure compatible with residences in the neighborhood. He did not think that the plans as presented were in the interest of good planning, whether there are restrictions or not. Moved by Mr... Stout, seconded by Mr. Wallin and carried to recommend denial of Lot Split No. 254 wi.thout prejudice. Mr. MacDermott, 77 Pamela Road stated that there is not now nor has there been any existing violation in setback or other factors covered by the restrictions. He stated that if the Commission grants this lot split, it will force the property owners on Pamela Road to go to court; he declared that the restrictions are enforceable. Mr. Nicklin suggested a slight amendment to the motion that it be denied not only because it violates the provisions of the recorded deed restric- tions, but particularly because it is incompatible with the subdivi- sion as laid out, and the good planning of the area. ROLL CALL AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: None ABSENT: None No. 257 - Bank of America - 656 W. Duarte Road, referred to Mr. Acker and Mr. Stout (continued from July 14, 1959). The Secretary read a letter' from Mr. George Spragins, Manager of tie Bank of America stating that the bank does not now own the land upon which the bank or the parking lot at the rear are located. The bank has an op.tion to buy the portion of Lot 7 now leased for parking in 1963, and no objection to dedicating an alley at that time is seen now. He further stated that a covenant from. the bank could be secured that the south portion of lot 6 will be used for parking purposes only. Discussion ensued. Motion was made by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that Lot Split No. 257 be recodmended for approval, sub- ject to the following conditions: Page Five July 28, 1959 .. 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 3. File a covenant to insure that the retained south- erly portion will be used for parking purposes, and not as a building site. No. 259 -'C. Van Der Stad - 1715 S. Santa Anita Avenue, referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Norton. . The Secretary read the engineer's report. Mr. Nicklin stated that one of the conditions, should be that a covenant must be filed that Parcel No. 2 will be used aolely and in connection with Lot 4, and that it shall not constitute a separate building site. Mr. Stout stated that an6rderly development of 60 foot lots occurred, and an ell shaped lot is considered highly undesirable. He believed this split would create a disharmony in the area; if the applicant could purchase 30 feet from the property owners .to the north, thus creating an 88 foot lot resulting in a more desirable development. Discussion followed. Moved by Mr.. Stout, seconded by Mr. Davison and carried that Lot Split No. 259 be recommended for denial. No. 260 - Forrest L. Wilkinson - 1117-1119 W. Duarte Road, referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Norton The Secretary read the engineer's report. The original 140 foot lot was divided ineo 65 and 75 feet widths in 1955. The present request is to divide it into 70 feet and 70 feet; it is the understa~ding that the buyer intends to build apartment houses on it. The Secretary stated that he has a sworn statement from the owner agreeing to remove all buildings within 60 days after the close of escrow to clear the lot for the new dwellings. Moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. 'Forman and carried that Lot Split No. 260 be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Record a covenant to insure the removal of all existing buildings within. 60 days after the close of escrow. No. 228 - Mike Stoyanovich - 210 E. Sycamore Avenue, request for mo4i- fication of conditions. The rear portion of this Iot was divided; the lot was 100 feet wide and 255 feet deep on the south side of Sycamore, east of Second Avenue. Approval was given at an earlier date based on a 20 foot access strip from Sycamore Avenue to Parcel No.2. As the approach was constructed, 14 feet of it will serve Parcel No. 2 and only 6 feet will serve Parcel 'No. 1. The 6 feet is inadequate' for Parcel No. 1 and will nec- essitate encroaching on a portion of the approach of the adjacent par- cel which would be undesirable for both properties in the future. The request was made for a modification of the original application, reduc- ing the access strip of Parcel No. 2 from 20 feet to 17 feet. Page Six July 28, 1959 . ~--~, Discussion followed. Mr. Lortz explained it was originally expected a driveway should be installed for each separate piece of property; he ~tated that the department would not look with disfavor on con- structing this driveway far enough westerly thus making it a combin- ation driveway, serving both properties without the customary divi- sion in the center. Mr. Lortz recommended in the best interests of all concerned, particu- larly as to the aesthetics of the property, that the driveway be extended providing access to each parcel; further, if the driveway is extended that there is no need for a ~dification of' the original lot split. Moved by Mr. Davison, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried to recommend denial of the modification of Lot Split No. 228. No. 261 - Morris Roseman - 1208 S. Eighth Avenue The Secretary explained that in connection with the zone variance granted at this address, one of the conditions was to submit an . application for a lot split of the property facing Encino of a depth not less than 200 feet, which will leave the required rear yard behind the new dwelling as proposed. Property is to be sold to subdivider who is working toward the exten- sion of Encino Avenue. Discussion followed. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Acker and carried that Lot Split No. 261 be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the. City Engineer. 2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 3. Dedicate the west 30 feet of the pro(X! rty for street purposes, and post a sufficient surety bond to guarantee its full improvement as required by the Subdivision Ord- inance. 4. Deposit $925.00 with the ci.ty as a pro rata share of the cost of opening Camino Grove Avenue to Sixth Ave- nue; this amount being at the same rate and accepted under the same conditions as those applied to Lot Split No. 98, approved May 15, 1956. TRACT NO. 22862 No. 22862 - This matter was held over from the last regular Planning Commission meeting. The tract is located on the south side of Orange Grove Avenue, between Baldwin Avenue and San Carlos Road, consiating of 7 lots. As stipulated at the last meeting, a map showing the comparative lot sizes in the surrounding area was presented to the Commission. These lots are a little smaller than the surrounding lots; tract restric- tions require 15,000 square feet of land, also that any dwelling built shall not be less than 1800 square feet. The street, as proposed, is 50 feet wide; the subdivision ordinance requires a 60 foot street, unless the subdivider shall prove the nec- essity of a narrower street. If a 60 foot street were required, the lots would. probably not have the necessary 15,000 square feet. Mr. Orlando Clarizio, the proposed subdivider, came forward and stated Page Seven July 28, 1959 that he would like to emphasize the desirability of subdividing the property into 7 lots instead of 6, on account of the excep- tionally high cost of the land. He said that a contractor could not afford to downgrade the surrounding area, and still expect to sell the houses. He felt that he could build a house for not less than $70,000.00 or $75,000.00. Mrs. May' Schultz, 707 Joaquin Avenue, real estate representative, stated that this property has been in escrow three times, and each time the contractor has backed down on account. ,of the high price of the property; if 7 lots cannot receive approval, it will not be advantageoua to the developer to buy the property. Mr. Albert Hodson" 1454 Oak1awn, stated that it, was of great interest to him and other neighbors in the area. There has been trouble with the purchase and sale of this property. He stated that his home is aa nice as any in the area; if the tract is allowed to be cut up into 7 parcels, immediately the values of the surrounding properties will be reduced; he claimed that his taxes run $1,200.00 per year for this property. Discusaion continued. Mrs. Mary Tudor, 530 W. Orange Grove Avenue, stated that her lot is 350 feet deep, 120 feet at the front; she is located west of the pro- posed subdivision, and her main complaint was that. her property would be damaged, because her house is set back 50 feet from Orange Grove Avenue, and two lota in the new tract would make a key lot of hers. Mrs. Schultz declared that this is the first builder who intended to demolish the old house on the property; every other prospective buyer wanted to remodel the old structure, but Mr. Glarizio feels that it would ruin the development to attempt such a project. Mr. Reeder, 1444 Oaklawn, lives to the rear of this property; he stated that since the lots are so small, no one would pay the antici- pated price for these homes on such small lots,; he also wondered what will happen if the homes are on the market for a long time, and do not sell. Mr. Reeder stated that you can build a home for $8.00 a square foot, or you can buiid one for $16.00 per square foot; if it be the former, it would tend to devaluate their property. Mr. C1arizio cameforward again and said that he would be willing to assure the Commission he intends to build homes of 24do square feet, complying with the restrictions in the Upper Rancho. Mr. Davison said that he didn't believe the main concern was over the size of the proposed homes, but is mainly crowding too many houses in too small an area in that particular area. In checking the map he found that there were no lots in the vicinity less than 22,000 square feet. He suggested that if each lot were brought up to this square footage it could result in the development of approximately 5 lots; that this could allow the building of a home valued in the neighborhood of about $80,000.00. It was generally concurred by the members of the Planning Commission that the 60 foot street should be required, necessitating the develop- ment of only 6 lots. Mr. Nicklin advised that since the Commission did not seem to be satis- fied with this p,oposed subdivision, it would be in order to recommend their disapproval for the reason that it does not comply with the ordi- nance; but that the developer may experiment with a modification of the ordinance regarding the width of the street, if he so desires. Page Eight July 28, 1959 CO-OP !lousing PROPOSEDPLAN Margolin Market Motion was made for denial, but was not brought to a vote. Mr. Clarizio came forward once more, and requested the Commission'a permissJon for continuance of this matter to givehime time to con- sider the factors involved. The Chairman declared the matter continued to be taken up at the next regular meeting. The Secretary read a communication from Gilbert Realty Company regarding a proposed cooperative housing development. Mr. Gilbert was in the audience and came forward. He stated 'that this is not a corporation, but is a series of partial rei eases which are insured by the Title Company in the form of a grant deed. These cooper- ative ventures are quite prevalent allover Southern California. Mr. Gilbert stated there are some located in Pasadena and the beach areas. He explained that these units are particularly appealing to owners of homes which are beyond their capacity to care for a large lot, but pre- fer to buy a luxury type of apartment, which soives the problem of exces~ yard apace, excess rooms and also relieves them of the respon- sibility of caring for the development itself. The cooperative group as owners act as a board of directors, and they govern the management of the apartment project; secure the services of a maintenance man, gardener, plumber' and other services. The apart- ments as planned would range in the $20,000.00 category. Mr. Gilbert went on to say that the owner has all the individual rights he would have if he were reaiding in his own' private home. If he wishes to sell his apartment he is obligated to offer it first to the Board of Governors; if a suitable buyer is not found through the board, then he may place it on the open market for sale. The buyer is screened by the Board of' Governors, as to type of person he should be. Mr. Gi,lbert .continued to explain the facets of this type of development. There will be between 1000 and 1100 square feet in each unit and two bedrooms. Mr. Nicklin stated the photostatic copy of a typical grant deed indicates that the grantee receives an undivided portion of the entire lot, which is actually a community ownership and not an individual ownership of anyone portion of the lot; and as such he did not construe that to be contrary to our lot split ordinance. He added that if such a pro- posed development does not conflict with any ordinance, this decision does not even come before the Planning Commission, it goes to the Build- ing Department. The Secretary submitted the plans for a market to be built at Live Oak Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue for Planning Commission approval in accord- ance with the conditionso~ the zone variance granted at this address. These plans were to be reviewed by the Commissioners as to compliance with tentative plans after. which they are to be forwarded for Council approval. The Secretary stated that the variance requires the development should be complete within 3 years; Mr. Margolin stated that most of the details regarding the leases, the loan commi.tment and the plans are complete an d ELECTION OF OFFICERS . ADJOURN the.shopping cent~r shoul~ be complete withi~ a.short time. Moved by Mr. Fonuan, seconded by Mr. Wallin and carr.ied for the approval of the final plans for the market to be located at the northwest corner of Live Oak Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue. Mr. Stout spoke in praise of Mr. Acker's find accomplishments as the Chairman on,the Planning Commission the past year. Mr. Acker init.iated several very comprehensive plans of a view of the entire city from a mapping standpoint to give some idea of the latest developments showing how the city has developed in the past and ho~ it projects into the future. In view of Mr. Ac.ker's find leadership, his exceptional"interest in planning, Mr. Stout recommended that Mr. Acker be nominated for the chainuanship for another year. Mr. Acker was unanimously elected by oral vote to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the ensuing year. Mr. Fonuan and Mr. Michler were nOminated for the position of vice- chairman. Mr.. Forman was elected by vote of 4 to 3. There being no further bus.iness the meeting adjourned. f'Wv. L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary