Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 22, 1959 r', ~ ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE V AR lANCE Doughman MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADlA REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1959 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 0 'clock P.~I" September 22, 1959, with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Balser, Nicklin, Forbes, Gardner and Mrs. Msroshek Metle Gardner was Acting-secretary in the absence of the Planning Secretary. The minutes of the meeting held September 8, 1959 were approved as written and mailed. The commission considered a decision on the application of James L. and Jean P. Doughman for a zone variance to allow the erection of a duplex at 9912-9914 E. Camino Real, continued from the last meeting. The Secretary read the Zoning Conooittee report which indicated the lot has an area of 16,340 square feet and is improved with two single family dwellings. It ill located in Zone R-l, by reason of annexation to the city. The property was acquired by the applicant on January 6, 1959 with the intention of bu,i:lding additional units. The annexation became effect- ive }~y 13, 1959, with the property being automatically placed in Zone R-l, Although the lot on either side of the subject property now has only one house, much of the surrounding area is developed to the equivalent of R-3 zoning. l~ile it might be desirable to hold this application pending the estab- lishment of permanent zoning of, the area, the committee feels that this wo,uld deprive the owner of property rights enjoyed by other surrounding property owners, In the opinion of the committee there are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, as it was acquired during the annexation proceedings. We feel that this construction will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and will not seriously affect the consideration of permanent zoning for the area. The Committee recommends that this application be recommended for approv- al, subject to the duplex being enlarged to provide a minimum of 1000 square feet floor area in each dwelling unit. Page One September 22, 1959 . . ZOl'lE VARIANCE Adcock The Secretary pointed out to the commission from the plot plan two exist- ing single family residences, an existing garage, and explained the app- lication is to provide a duplex on the rear of the lot. Discussion followed. The Chairman stated that in view of the contemplated changes in R-3 restrictions, he wondered if it would be wise to grant variances at this time, Also, in view of the pending public hearing on property included in Annexation 17-A, he felt that granting of this variance would be a little premature, Mr" Norton asked if failure to grant this variance would work any finan- cial hardship on the owner. Mr. Earl W. Favor, Attorney for the applicant, stated that denial wo,uld work a hardship on his client, inasmuch as they purchased this property with the intention of building additional dwellings. The applicant is all set to go having submitted plans with the applicat'ion; he added that the applicant would have to adjust the square footage to 1000 square feet per dwelling unit as a condition to granting the variance. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Wallin to recommend the approval of this zone variance. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Davison,Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: CommiSSioner Acker ABSENT: None The commission considered a decision on the application of Albert Adcock for a zone variance to allow the erection of a second dwelling at 1503 S, Fourth Avenue, continued from June 9, 1959. The Secre,tary referred to a recently received petition with signatures favoring the application, representing 15 properties, He displayed the plot plan stating that the new petition brought the total to 28 properties in favor of the applicant's request; one of which is outside of the 300 foot limit, which means that 27 were located within the 300 foot radius. The protestants represent 18 properties, and 11 of these properties are outside of the 300 foot radius. The new dwelling would be built in the rear of the lot, and would be about 65 feet from the front house. There is an existing building to be removed, and they propose to provide a separate driveway and garage f,or the second dwelling, Mr. Stout asked how it qualified under the new zoning Ordinance No, 1060; the Secretary an,swered that it does not qualify, Mr. Stout stated that if the commission allows this variance it, in effect, rezones the entire block as multiple dwelling property. Mr, Michler advised that he looked at this property on two different occasions; the street at this location is one of the older streets in Arcadia; he felt that the commission should go along with Mr. Adcock's request. A new house con- structed on this property would possibly touch off expansion of the area into some other new construction. He thought some consideration should be given to Mr, Stout's mention of the possibility of rezoning the area at a future date. The homes are at least 25 years old, and perhaps older. There is one house in particular which sets back on the rear, and he was quite certain that this commission would grant a variance if ,an app- lication were placed for a second dwelling on the front of this property. Page Two September 22, 1959 ..' . LOT SPLITS TRACT NO. 25253 After considerable discussion it was moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Davison to recommend the approval of this zone variance. ROLL CALL AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michkr, Norton and Wallin NOES: ~~. Stout ABSENT: None No. 265 - Henry A. Major - 1113 S. }~yflower Avenue, referred to Mr. Michler and Mr. Wallin. Moved by Mr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Michler and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 265, s~bject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the' City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for the south parcel. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. No. 266 - Robert C, Zack - 1111 S. First Avenue, referred to Mr. Michler and Mr. Wallin. Mr,. Forbes, the Director of Public Works, stated that the staff made an inspection, and he felt there are some things that need cleaning up on the lot, fences, some debris, etc'. Also, he stated there is an old shed On the back of one of the lots, and he believed it should be made a condition that the shed should be removed before approval of this lot split is recommended. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Wallin and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 266, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 3. Deposit $25.00 for future street lights. 4. Clear off shed on rear of the lot. The commission reviewed the tentative map of Tract No. 25253, located on the Westerly extension of Fairview Avenue, west of Park Avenue, containing 8 lots, continued from August 25, 1959. The Secretary read a letter signed by Mr. Fred C, Erickson, the subdivider, which stated briefly he had contacted ,Mr. Nelson to attempt to purchase 14 more feet for the purpose of establishing a better subdivision; Mr. Nelson's reasons for not selling him this additional footage were that he had a guest house occupied by his mother-in-law, and he built the carport for her use. If he sold the 14 feet he would have no place to put the carport, and the property line would come within 6 feet of the rear door of the guest house, leaving no backyard. The letter added that Mr. Erickson had opened up lots 6, 7 and 8 to 77 feet, and 76 feet wide so there are none undersize; he would like to add Lots 9 and 10 to the tract~ Page Three Septe~ber 22, 1959 .0" # REPORT R-3 M~, Forbes advised that Fairview Avenue at present is 625 feet long, and the proposed extension of 510 feet makes a total of 1135 feet of cuI de sac; the subdivision ordinance prohibits more than 500 feet without special approval; the wiiith of street "A" is 50 feet, which also needs special approval; Lots 5 and 6 will side onto a potential schoolyard; Lot 5 is also keyed by two lots. Mr. Stout stated that he looked this piece of property over; it's in a very fine area, but he felt that a better engineered plan could be worked out to produce a mOre desirable development. Mr. Erickson stated that because the city permitted a man to build a house on the south side of a proposed street which would have extended to Holly, there is no chance of bringing a street out to Holly Avenue. Considerable discussion followed. Mr. Stout suggested that the Subdiv- ision Committee meet with the Planning Secretary to iron out the problems involved; there are probably several variations of trris plan which could result in a better subdivision. The Chairman ordered ,the continuation of the decision on this proposed subdivision until the next regular meeting, pending a report from the subdivision committee. Mr. Erickson, the Developer, agreed to the delay. Report of the Zoning Committee regarding proposal to create a restricted R-3 Zone. The Secretary read the report whi'ch stated the committee has studied the proposal to create a restricted R-3 Zone, and feel there is a definite need of such a zone to be applied in various locations to act as a buffer between Zone R-l and other less restricted zones. It has been approached with the idea of allowing only smaller buildings with less units per build- ing , greater floor area in each unit, and more open spaces on the lot than is presently allowed in Zone R-3. It is recommended that the commission consider the establ,ishment of a restricted R-3 zone to include the following regulations: 1. All construction or establishment of multiple units shall be new construction only. 2. No more than six dwelling units shall be located in any one building. 3. No building shall exceed two stories in height. No por- tion of any building within 100 feet of the front lot line shall exceed one story in height. 4. There shall be not less than 3000 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. 5. The gross building area shall not exceed 35% of the total area of the .lot. 6, Each dwelling unit shall contain not less than 1000 square feet of floor area, exclusive of porches, garages, entries, patios and basements. 7. The front yard shall be 25% of the lot depth, but need not exceed 25 feet. Page Four September 22, 1959 ! ., , 8, The side yard shall be not less than 10 feet. 9. The rear yard shall. be not less than 20 feet. 10. The distance between separate buildings shall be not less than 25 feet. 11. There shall be 2 automobile parking spaces provided for each dwelling unit. At least one space for each dwelling unit shall be in a roofed garage or carport. Each parking space shall be not less than 10 feet by 20 feet unobstructed. 12. Minimum driveway width shall be 10 feet. If the drive serves more than 12 required parking spaces, or is more than 125 feet long, it shall be 20 feet wide, or two 10 foot driveways shall be provided (Paving and obstructions same as Resolution No. 341,) 13. The appearance and design of the building shall be com- patible with accepted contemporary architectural standards. 14. All plans to be approved by the Planning Commission before the issuance of ,a building permit. Mr, Nicklin advised that from the technical standpoint Item 13 of the committee report is a little vague, and does not set up a sufficiently definite standard to be the subject matter of a penal ordinance, which our ordinance is. This zoning ordinance is enforceable only by civil process, but more permanently by penal process; and basically the person char,ged with an offense is entitled to know what he is charged with; ,he didn't think Section 13 would meet that requirement. He added that to place property in the architectural overlay zone and to merely state that all plans have to be approved by the commission be- fore the property can be used is creating a subjective standard with no criteria to fix the realm,in which the regulations can be enacted, and the ordinance would not stand up. }oc. Nicklin stated further he did not believe an architect could describe contemporary architecture, because three different architects would pro- bably come up with three totally divergent types of architecture, and call it contemporary. Mr. Michler asked if it would be possible by the appointment of an arch- itectural committee to take a look at the particular plans, subject to the approval of, such a committee. Mr. Nicklin answered that from a legal standpoint, he didn't think it would improve the situation; there are ways of accomplishing the commis- sion's aims, e.g.; if you are considering the creation of a more restric- tive multiple family zone, and if you are considering that there may be some areas in which our ptesent requirements are adequate he would repeat an earl ier recommendation that the commission amend the city I s present: R-3 to be a restrictive zone, because all of the R-3 property is in it, and then create a new zone, and call it R-4 which is as unrestrictive as our present R-3 Zone ,thereby shifting the burden on the property owner; to come in and ask for a lessening of the restrictions on particular pieces of property, rather than to take into the commission's hands the necessity of upgrading a lot of properties that are already unrestricted R-3. Page Five September 22, 1959 .. . . , Mr. Davison stated that in initiating this study the commission had intended to create a type of restricted R-3 zone that would be of better design and more compatible for adjacent locations to R-l; and also to take care of some of the smaller lots in the city. As long as they can achieve the same objective he did not believe Mr. Nicklin's recommendation of a new R-4 would be opposed by the commission. Mr. Nicklin explained the reasons for San ~mrino's success in maintain- ing high type construction are that the city was laid out some 50 years ago as a single residential family community; this has been strictly adhered to and as a result there are no inroads on residential areas whatsoever. The Building Department has been very strict; adopting its own code, and they have enforced the code most rigidly. They have not attempted to control architectural design at all. Mr. Nicklin stated he believed the commissum could accomplish much if not the majority of its aims by specifying the basic elements that go in to these; by reducing the basic usage they can accomplish much of what they desire of property and then allow additional usage, only upon certain conditions; also by putting a number of very stringent require- ments on property as your basic requirement, and then allowing a relax- ation from those very stringent stipulations upon a showing made by the applicant that they are not necessary in this particular case, there- by shifting the burden on him. This should resul t in a much better plan. because he can get some concession from you if he will make some to you. This could be realized by some sort of a proceeding like a modification, or as you sometimes do in the case of a subdivision when you actually modify some of the ordinance requirements. Discussion continued. Mr. Davison stated that he could foresee all kinds of opposition if the commission tried to place all R-3 into a restricted R-3 status; the original concept of a restricted R-3 was a different type of multiple not to superimpose itself on R-3 as it exists. Mr. Michler stated that he would like to see the Zoning Committee get together along with Mr. Nicklin to further analyze this subject. The Chairman stated the matter would be continued for further study at a meeting of the entire commission along with the City Attorney. Mr. Vidican, 319 California Street, asked when the audience would have an opportunity to voice their views on this very important subject. The Chairman explained that as soon as the commission has had ample opportun- ity to review and consider all aspects, the matter would be placed on the agenda of a regular Planning Commission meeting for public hearing, at which time the public has the chance, and in fact is invited to voice its opinion. TRACT NO. 25275 The Secretary discussed the pcoposed County Tract No. 25275, located just west of Sunset, south of Duarte in County territory. The lots are 74' x 84', meeting the County requirement of 5000 square feet. The Chairman advised the Secretary to send the standard letter stating the proposed tract does not conform to the standards of the City of Arcadia. ADJOURN there being no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned. ~~~~ Planning Secretary Page Six September 22, 1959