Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 8, 1959 , "'----, MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING SEPTEBER 8, 1959 The Planning 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., Septem- ber 8, 1959, with Chairman Acker. presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin ABSENT: Commissioner Davison OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Nicklin, Forbes, Talley and Mrs. Andrews MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held August 25, 1959 were approved as written and mailed. ZONING Live Oak The Commission held a public hearing on the zoning to be made applic- able to I;ive Oak Avenue area in connection with South Arcadia Annexa- t ion No. 19. The Secretary read the Staff Report which stated the City Council of the City of Arcadia has instituted proceedings for the annexation to the City of Arcadia of the property on the south side of Live Oak Avenue from near Sixth Avenue .to a point west of El Monte Avenue, (excepting therefrom the southwest cotner of Live Oak and Double Drive Avenues, and the Evergreen Sanitarium property east of El Monte Avenue). The Planning Staff has made a land use survey to show the present use of each parcel of land included within the proposed annexation. The Commission has studied this entire area, including the present uses thereof, the zoning now applicable thereto, present zoning, and also the present zoning of properties on the north side of the street already within the city. As a result, the following Arcadia zone classifications would most generally fit the present or intended use and development of properties within the proposed anneKl1tion: 1. C-2 zone on the southwest corner' of El Honte Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, now used for the Edison Co. substation. 2. Zone C-H on all properties from El ~~nte Avenue to Double Drive, wi'th the exception of course of the two parcels not included in the proposed annexation. 3. Zone C-2 on all properties from Double Drive to Tyler Avenue. 4. ZoneS C-M and D (Architectural Overlay) on all prop- ere. es from Tyler Avenue to the west lire of the apartment west of Lenore Avenue. PAGE ONE September 8, 1959 - ,'-'-, 5. Zone R-3 for the property at the southwes~ corner of Live Oak Avenue and Lenore Avenue presently im- proved with an apartment building. 6. Zone R-2 for the property at the northwest corner of Lenore Avenue and Lynrose Street presently im- proved with and used as a church. 7. Zone C-2 on all properties on the south side of Live Oak Avenue from Lenore Avenue to the present city boundary west of the flood control channel. 8. Zone C-2 on the northwest corner of Six th Avente and Live Oak Avenue. 9. Zone R-2 on the property at the northeast corner of Sixth Avenue and Live Oak Avenue presently improved with and used as a church. 10. Zone C-2 on all other properties on the north side of Live Oak Avenue between Sixth Avenue and the city boundary west of tEe flood control channel. The Secretary read the report covering the D overlay if applicable. The Secretary read a connnunication from the Southern California Edison Company, signed by Mr. Paul Langlie, District Manager, which stated that this proposed area to be annexed includes Edison Company's Anita Substation, 5641 N. EI Monte Avenue. This facility has been in con- tinuous operation since before 1925, and is a vital station in, the company's service to the area surrounding Arcadia. The letter requested that this substation be placed in the C-2 zone to permit continuous operation of this substation. The Chairman asked the Secretary to review the map studied by the cODDDission. At the request of the chairman the Secretary pointed out on the map various zonings recommended. Mr. Forman stated that this proposed zoning pretty much follows the zoning as the property is being used today, to a great extent. Mr. Nicklin explained that this annexation is being conducted under the 1939 Act, or the Annexation of uninhabited territory Act; since most of the territory in the proposed annexed area was already developed, and somewhat homogenous in its usage, and not so large as Annexation No. 17-A; that the Commission should consider and make recommendations to the Council concerning zoning to be applied concurrently with the annexation, so that it would not come in under the automatic R-l clause. The Chairman announced that this was the time for anyone to come forward and add to or make any comments on the zoning recoounendations made by the Planning Staff. Mr. Homer Shirley, Superior Concrete Block Company, 10836 Live Oak, stated he owns property with three lots located in the proposed annexation and two lots in proposed Temple City, and he wondered what could be done to have all 5 lots included in the same city. Mr. Nicklin declared that if the Temple City incorporation is not successful, the answer would be quite simple; the other two lots could be annexed to the City of Arcadia. If the Temple City incor- poration is successful., then it is possible Hit:l the owner's consent PAGE TWO September 8, 1959 '--_/" and with the consent of the respective two cities to transfer the lots either way the owner wishes them to go. He added for Mr. Shirley's information that the building material business is permis- sible in Zone C-M, not only as a non-conforming use but as a speci- fied use within the C-M Zone. Mr. Shirley felt that his usage was best covered by M-l zoning, and that his property should be annexed as M-l. Mr. Michler recommended that the property in question included in Annexation No. 19, Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Tract No. l0280, be placed in Zone M-l. Mr. Nicklin advised that there is room for doubt that C-M would cover all of his operation. The Chairman stated that the commission would bear this recommenda- tion in mind for discussions after the hearing. }~. Herbert Winslow, 1418 Oaklawn Road, stated that he is a member of the Arcadia Friends Church, and that the church is very happy to be incl uded in this annexation. He declared that the par t of their pro- perty that is not zoned R-2 they would like to have included in the annexation as R-2, along with the church. The parking lot to the east was omitted from the annexation, and they would like to initiate a petition to have that part. also included in the annexation, with R-2 zoning. Mr. John Blake, 417-19 E. Live Oak, stated he felt the C-M zoning was not a realistic approach to the zoning uses in the area. Mr. Nicklin explained that C-M zoning. was a comparatively new zone, comprising in part uses that were heavy commercial; most of them derived from what was lighter uses taken out of M-l. C-M and M-l are not in anyway similar, and as a further safeguard each use of a manu- facturing nature must be approved by the Planning Commission before it is permissible under the C-M which is not true under the M-l itself. Mr. John Riggio, 3930 E. Live Oak, stated that he owns two stores leased by the county library, and he will lose a tenant if his pro- perty is annexed to the city. Mr. Nicklin advised that technically there is no law which stipulates a county library cannot continue to operate within a city as long as it serves areas that are properly served by a county library. Mr. Forman declared that a great deal of thought had gone into the Planning Staff's recommendations for zoning of Annexation No. 19; he believed it was almost impossible with the varying uses to satisfy every individual property owner. He believed that the prol;lression and types of zoning are right for this area. Mr. Norton stated that the public should be made aware that the Plan- ning Staff tried to protect the value of surrounding properties; the fact that the Commission has chosen the D overlay factor is indicative of their sincerity to try to meet all problems in the best interests of the majority. Mr. .Michler recommended that the commission proceed with this proposal tonight, because he felt that this area has always been considered a part of the city in the thinking of the citizens of Arcadia as well as the Chamber of Commerce. The only other factor is to make the proposal 100% by granting Mr. Shirley his M-l, since he has always run a fine establishment, and would be an asset to the City of Arcadia. PAGE THREE September 8, 1959 RESOLUTION NO. 346 r ',-_/ Mr. Nicklin stated that this matter was under consideration by the city some ten years ago. TIlere is a little over $1,000,000.00 in assessed valuation in Annexation No. 19; he felt the t the commission seldom ends up with such un.iformity in zoning with such a diversity of previous zoning. He added that Mr. Shirley's request was under- standable in order to protect what he already hss. He felt that the overwhelming majority of property owners included in this annexation are in favor of becoming identified with the City of Arcadia. However, there is one facet of the C-M zone which needs consideration. He referred particularly to the property lying east of Tyler Avenue. The zoning ordinance stipulates that C-M zone permits other kinds of manufacture, etc. other than those which may be obnixious, etc. The owner has petitioned that zoning be accorded the property to permit plastics and electronics manufacture. Mr. Acker commented that this is a very important annexation, because it would place both sides of Live Oak Avenue in the city, thus creat- ing a better community spirit. He added that the C-M zoning is more or less a research type of zoning as used today in the electronic world; no noise emanates from this type of business. In other com- munities you see the beautiful buildings of these engineering firms and Arcadia has not made any real effort to obtain this valuable type of business of the future. Funds to the tune of billions are spent on this type of industry, and C-M zoning is the type of zoning that would encourage the advent of electronic industry to Arcadia. The Chairman declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Forman moved that the commission accept the zoning as recommended by the Planning Staff with the D Overlay on the C-M zone east of Tyler Avenue, and with Mr.. Shirley's property being classified as M-l instead of C-M. Said motion waS seconded by Mr. Wallin for approval of the proposed zoning for Annexation No. 19. Mr. Stout bro~ht up the subject of the parking lots in connection with the Arcadia Friends Church. Mr. Nicklin advised that the church property is fully developed with the exception of a small strip on the westerly portion of the proper- ty. R-2 includes parking incidental to the church only, and does ro t become a public parking lot as such. Properties across the street which the church is proposing to use are not a part of the proposed annexed area. The church should initiate action to include this pro- perty in another annexation. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wall in NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Davison No. 346 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No.. 346, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COHMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIG- PAGE FOUR September 8, 1959 ZONE VARIANCE Doughman -\ NATED AS "ANNEXATION NO. 19, SOUTH ARCADIA UNIN- HABITED (REVISED)", AND RECOMMENDING INTERIM EMERGENCY ZONING OF R-2, R-3, C-2, C-M AND D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY), AND M-l, THEREOF CON- CURRENT WITH ITS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA, RECOMMENDING REGULATIONS TO BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THAT PORTION THEREOF THAT MAY BE CLASSIFIED IN ZONE D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY AND MAKING DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING USES IN SAID CoM ZONE." Moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Norton and carried to amend the wording of Section 11 of Resolution No. 346 to approve the use of a machine shop and the manufacture processing or treatment of plastics and electronics, so long as they be conducted entirely within an enclosed building and be not obnoxious or offensive by reason of emission of odor, dust, smoke or gas, whether they comply with air pollution control district regulations or not and provided that they create neither noise nor vibrations perceptible upon adjac- ent properties. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Norton and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution 346 as amended. Moved by Mr. Stout and seconded by Mr. Michler for the adoption of Resolution No. 346. ROLL CALL AYES: Mr. Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Davison The commission held a public hearing on the application of James L. and Jean P. Doughman for a zone variance to allow the erection of a duplex at 9912-9~14 E. Camino Real. This property is contained in the area recently annexed to the city, and was automatically taken in under R-1. The Secretary read the staff report which indicated the lot contains 16,340 square feet, and has two existing single family dwellings. The proposed duplex would be located at the rear of the lot wtth a 26 foot rear yard. The proposed two car garage would be attached to an existing garage located at the center of the lot. The land use from the new West City Limit to Baldwin Avenue is ex~remely heterogenous. There is only one. multiple apar.tment develop- ment in the above described area, but some of the lots have as many as five single family dwellings. In the 300 foot vicinity along either side of Camino Real there are 19 lots of which 10 have 1 dwelling per lot; 3 have two dwellings per lot; 2 have five dwellings per lot; and one lot has an apart- ment building. The applicant requests 4 dwellings on his lot. No signatures or communications, either for or against the application have been filed at the time of this report. There being no further communications the Chairman declared the pub- lic hearing open, and requested those in favor to come forward and give their names. PAGE FIVE September 8, 1959 ZONE CHANGE West Arcadia Mr. Earl Favor, the Attorney for the applicant, stepped up to answer any questions for his client. Mr. Carl Kolo, lives opposite the applicant, and was speaking in favor of the variance, because he felt that the old dwellings werc a detrinlent to the connnunity; he thought this improvement was a step in the right direction towards a more beautiful neighborhood. The Chai.rman asked for those opposed to the variance to corne for- ward. The Chai.rman stated he thought the granting of this variance was a little premature in view of the coming consideration for rezon- ing of the property in Annexation No. 17-A. Mr. Nicklin stated that ordinarily one might consider granting a variance prematurely when you are planning hearings to rezone the entire area; at a previous hearing which city officials attended property owners present were informed that those owners who did not feel it convenient, or if there were particular hardships to wait for the Planning Commission, a variance could be considered. Discussion followed. Some concern was expressed as to the advisi- bility of granting a variance before the commission had the oppor- tunity to consider the entire zoning of the annexation. The Chairman declared that this hearing should be continued for a report from the Zoning Committee for a decision at the next regular meeting. The commission considered the proposal to change the zone from Zones R-l and R-2 to Zones C-2, C-3 and .D inl'lest Arcadia as con.- templated by Resolution No. 335, continued from the last meeting. The Secretary read one communication from Jeannette Van Krippen, 610 W. Naomi Avenue which stated briefly she is in favor of C-2 zone unrestricted; she believes. this is the logical and realistic planning in keeping with .the fine shopping area adjacent. The Secretary stated that he has spoken several times to the dif- ferent owners in the area who are confused as to some definite answers on the D overlay; the alley opening and street widening as to how it will be scheduled. He suggested that the commission could set up a meeting with the owners and the Attorney and the City ~ngineer to give more definite answers than he is able to give. Mr. Nicklin explained that the D zoning is used as an overlay; that the basic zone uses are permitted, subject to the architectural restrictions. Many lots in other areaS have not seen fit to dedicate the neces- sary footage for alleys, street widening, etc., so that we have technical compliance with individual lots, but we still don't have enough that we can use the streets and alleys. There are other ways of accomplishing it, one being the u~e of the special improve- ment district proceedings, e.g. 1913 Act, 1903 Act or the 1911 Act. He added that in view of past experience he might recommend either the openings actually occur or proceedings be properly started by PAGE SIX September B, 1959 petition of the owners so that, on account of the time element involved in these proceedings, the Council could be assured of the actual culmination of the work to be done. He agreed that the suggested meeting with interested property owners could serve a purpose of better acquainting thepeople con- cerned with details involved. ' Mr. Stout expressed some concern whether this zoning change should be considered at all, since confusion seems to be prevalent among the property owners, and he felt somewhat confused hi~elf. The Chairman answered that the city had lost many opportunities for . , good development because no such property was available, and didn t know when it would be made availalbe. You cannot accomplish any good development by' spot zoning, and the idea of reZoning this larger area was to attract a larger improvement. Mr. Stout replied that no such a developer is known, and that until such a person appears, he did not see the advantage of rezoning. The Chairman stated that the meeting which they are recommending with the property owners and the commission, the City Attorney and the City Engineer, could explore all of these factors, and perhaps they would find out that rezoning the area would be impractical at this time. Discussion followed to determine the best possible place to hold such a meeting. Mr. Norton stated that one of the things the commission is trying to do is to secure public reaction in consideration of an overall pro- gr~; this is not a program where the commission decides what's going to be done, but whatever results Will be accomplished by getting to- gether with the property owners. It was agreed to attempt to set up this meeting for September 29, 1959, Tuesday, at Hinshaw's. Mr. Nicklin suggested that this not be an official meeting of the commission, but rather an informal meeting between members of the commission and the interested property owners. The Chairman announced that the public hearing would be continued officially at the next regular planning commission meeting, October 13, 1959. LOT SPLITS No. 264 - George W. Williams, 35 E. Camino Real, referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Michler. Mr.. Michler reported that the newly created lot will be larger than other lots in the surrounding area, and he would therefore recommend that the lot split be granted, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Engineer. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Stout and carried to recommend tentative approval of Lot Split No, 264, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. PAGE SEVEN September 8, 1959 3. Pay the trust established by Tract No. 24350 in the amount of $2,038.30, plus interest for street purposes. 4. Remove the block wall along Louise Avenue or make it conform with ordinance requirements. 5. Construct a new door to provide adequate access to the existing garage. 6. Remove all buildings from Parcel 2. No. 246 - W. A. Angel, 1709 Claridge Avenue, approved May 26, 1959, requested modification of area. This request was to secure a revised alignment from a previous application. The adjoining owner has suggested that the line be wider at the rear and return to a point at the present front pro- perty line. The square footage involved would be approximately 410 square feet which is the same as the previous square footage. This is probably a better alignment of the two properties. Mo~ed by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Wallin and carried to recom- mend the approval of the modification of area on Lot Split No. 246, subject to the originally approved conditions. TRACT No. 22.862 Tract No. 22862 - located on the south side of Orange Grove Avenue cOIltaining 7 lots continued from the last meeting. The Secretary read from a letter signe.d by H. B. Winslow, 1418 Oaklawn Road. It requested the continuance of this matter because of urgent business matters and intervening holidays which made it impossible for inter- ested groups to meet for the purpose of reaching a compromise. Mr. Dexter Jones pointed out that the revised map filed with the Planning Division conformed in every detail with the requirements of the ordinance, the 60 foot street, lot frontage, square footage of the lots, etc., and he stated his client Mr. Clarizio was very anxious to see some action on it. Mr. Stout stated that he thought the commission was in agreement that this tract should be approved with the condition an architectural committee should meet with Mr. Clarizio to approve the design of thE; homes that would make the rest o.f the neighborhood feel they arE; in keeping with the quality of homes in the surrounding area. He felt that in spite of the fact that such a decision would not be popular with everyone, and affirmative decision would solve the disposition of a problem parcel. A &entleman in the audience requested that this matter be delayed in order that alternate plans could be submitted and discussed by both sides before any decision was made by the commission. Mr. Norton brought to the commission's attention that different mem- bers of the commission attempted to bring the two factions in this matter together to amiably resolve this problem. In fairness to the prospective developer, after having been delayed on several occasions, and in view of his fine cooperation, he has complied with aU restrictions applicable, and the members of the commission have no right to delay a decision in this matter any longer. Mr. Clarizio stated clearly that he would not agree to any further extension of conSideration for a decision on Tract No. 22862. PAGE EIGHT September 8, 1959 Mr. Nicklin advised that there is nothing in the ordinance that even calls for the requirements of an architectural committee except under the D ~one. It is pot improper, however, to include a condition in tract restrictions to be recorded if the owner of the property has volunteered to do so. He added that such a condition would be sus- tainable only under a theory of estopel in that the owner seeking approval of the subdivision has offered with no coercion on our part to insert such conditions. He adVised the Planning Commission to make its recommendation to be approved, subject to the conditions of the staff report and with the suggestion that deed restrictions be imposed upon the property; and architectural approval of any improvements so as to afford reas- onable protection to adjoining properties. Moved by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Stout and carried to recommend approval of Tract No. 22862, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove the existing 2 story dwelling and its accessory building. 2. Remove all trees and shrubs from the street right of way. 3. Dedicate a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement along Orange Grove Avenue within the tract. 4. Provide a drainage easement satisfactory to the City Engineer. 5. Install all street improvements required. by the subdi- vision ordinance, an.d the City of Sierra .Madre. 6, Pay all fees and deposits required by the. subdi- vision ordinance. 7. Provide necessary rear line utility easements. 8. Provide a sewer easement satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. It is spggested that an architectural committee be appointed to approve all building plans to pro- tect the surrounding properties. Mr. Forman added that he felt everything had been done to keep the lots as large as possible, and that seemed to be the chief objection of the opposition. He had hoped something would occur either through compromise or agreement, so that the lots could have been made larger, and more in keeping with the area in general. He expressed the thou~t that future possibilities of land suitable for development might be effected by the decision rendered tonight. In view of this he wished to go on record as intending to cast a negative vote. The Secretary mentioned that one of the conditions of the tract was to dedicate a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement the entire length of A Street, and along Orange Grove Avenue. Now that the street will be 60 feet, the first part of this condition should be stricken. PAGE NINE September 8, 1959 ~tr. Wallin stated .he had to ask himself. the question if this decision would be good planning for Arcadia; he would' like the R-O section to continue as it is in the Oaks with its larger lots, so he also Will cast his vote as "No". ROLL CALL AYES: Mr. Michler, Stout, Acker and Norton NOES: Mr. Forman and Wallin ABSENT: Mr. Davison SIGN Request of Joe Crizone for permission to erect a 'sign at the car wash at 66 W. Las tunas Drive. The Secretary explained that the car wash went in under a zone var- iance on an approved plot plan, which did not show a post sign. they want a post sign on the Live Oak frontage; the sign to be 5' x 9', and to be elevated 14' above the ground, and it would overhang Live Oak Avenue a little. The Secretary added he had requested the owner .to forward a letter stipulating why the sign is needed, but had not received one as yet. Mr. Nicklin advised that no building permit can be issued for this sign, because no sign was shown on the original plot plan at the time of the zone variance, and until some further application is made, there is no action to be taken by the Planning Commission. Lot SPLIT No. 265 - Henry A. Major, 1113 S. Mayflower was assigned to Mr. Mich- ler and Mr. Wallin for investigation.. The Chairman asked the City Attorney about the responsibility of a member of the commission in carrying out his duties according to the ordinances laid down; whether he can go beyond what is written. Mr. Nicklin advised that this is an advisory group, and as such the City Council is entitled to your planning advice. The subdivision and lot split ordinance wss actually formulated by the staff and the Planning commission and recommended to the City Council, so that it is the workmanship of this body. It is certainly proper for the commission to voice its disapproval of the strict application of the ordinance to a given situation, even if the matter is technically in compiiance, but in your opinion is not good .planning. The City Council then has no alternative legally, but to give their stamp of approval, unless they want to risk a law suit. ADJOURN There being no further business before the cOlIllllission, the meeting was adjourned. ~VVv, L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary PAGE TEN