Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 24, 1959 , ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE CHANGE Foothill Blvd. ~ "..- ,~ ---..r MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGU~ MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1959 ~he 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., November 24, 1959 with Chairman Acker pre~iding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler and Norton ABSENT: Commissioners Stout and Wallin OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Jess Balser, Nicklin, Forbes and Talley The minutes of the meeting held November 10, 1959 were approved as written and mailed. The commission considered a decision on the application of Elvin T. wayment and others for a change of zone from Zone PR-l to Zones C-2 and D at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Second Avenue. The Secretary read the report from the Planning Staff and Zoning Com- mittee which stated this application, . in the names of the present pro- perty owners, is 'for a change of zone from Zone PR-l to Zones C-2 and Dto allow the erection of a commercial building on the rear property line at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Second Avenue. The building is to be occupied by Ralph's Grocery. Apparently, c:he main question to be considered in this decision is the effect on adjacent residential property to the north, as the proposed parking layout seems to be a desirable one. The zoning ordinance requires a 20 foot rear yard in Zone C-2. If the building is moved forward 20 feet the resulting space will be worthless and a trash catcher. If it is moved it should be at least 50 feet to provide two tiers of parking spaces. This would also require moving the building west to allow circulation at the jog in the property line, which would eliminate one tier of parking along the west side of the building, and reduce by about one half the number of parking spaces in the front. It would also result in three right angle turns for cars using the area back of the building. At the rear of this property there are three building sites on the rear of the Sycamore Avenue lots which were created by lot splits. AS of this date these sites are vacant. If this request is granted it would allow the masonry wall of the building to be on. the lot line and approx- imately 20 feet high. This would preclude any disturbance to the reSidential lots from park- ing, loading, etc., but would not be desirable from an architectural standpoint. Mr. Donald Warren,the designer of the building, has informed the staff that the air-conditioning equipment will be within the building. Page One November 24, 1959 In the opinion of the staff, if the request is not granted as submitted the building should be placed at the front property line to allow a more efficient layout of the parking lot. The D zone requirements should include the following: 1. The building height shall be limited to one story and not more than 20' high at the north wall. 2. No signs to be placed on the north wall of the build- ing, except identification si'gns at the rear doors of the shops in the east wing.. 3. The parking lot to be separated from residential pro- perty by a masonry walt. 4. All exterior lighting to be directed away from resi- dential property. 5. All storage of crates, bottles, trash, etc., to be within the building. 6. All air conditioning equipment to be within the building. Mr. Norton expressed concern about the effect placing the building on the rear of the property would have on an adjacent existing dwelling to the north, particularly in view of the proposal to make deliveries on the northwest corner of the building. He also asked about the possi- bility of a future alley extending through property to the east of the site of the planned market. Mr. Nicklin explained for the benefit of .newer members of Commission the history of the property to the rear facinA nue. He referred specifically to the properties to date which had been granted lot splits. the Planning Sycamore Ave- undeveloped, Mr. Davison stated he felt that normally it is desirable to have a buffer separating C-l or C-2 from residential. He believed that a main source of patronizing this market would be from residents to the north of the property. He was in favor of a better appearance and plan for the entire development. Mr. Forman wondered if he were one of the residents living behind this development, whether he would like to see a 20 foot wall; and also he expressed concern how it would effect the air circulation on the rear of the properties, particularly if a house were built within 25 feet of the 20 foot wall. Mr. Davison stated he woul'd be inclined to want the building moved forward in order to allow for a possible alley coming through from pro- perties which may develop on the east; this would encourage ingress and egress from other streets instead of on and off fast Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Forbes stated that as the property to the east has developed the possibility of bringing an alley through at the present time is not good. Mr. Donald Warren, the designer, explained to the commission that load- ing could not be accomplished at a different location, because there would be insufficient turning radius for large trucks. Page Two November 24, 1959 Mr..Michler stated it would be his recommendation that the proposed building should come up no the rear property line. Mr. Acker's main concern was the effect construction of the market would have on the unusual properties to the rear, especially as it might reduce quite a bit of air circulation. He added the way the market is presently planned, it would be directing all the heavy flow of in and out traffic on to Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Donald Warren, the designer, explained to the commission that other plans had been considered, but none would be as practical as placing the building on the rear property line with parking to the front. The chairman closed the public hearing on this zone change request. Mr. Davison mentioned the potential traffic problem on and off Foot- hill Boulevard, unless a traffic signal were placed at Foothill and Second; in view of the speed of vehicles using Foothill Boulevard, he didn't think traffic should be directed on and off this street. He, would not vote in favor of this zone change without assurance of adequate means of traffic control on Foo.thill. Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Nicklin what are the city's prerogatives concern- ing control of access to or fr.om a public street, since Foothill Boule- vard is a state highway. Mr. Nicklin stated he did not believe there should be any problems. The Secretary stated he believed most of the speed problems existed on Foothill, west of Santa Anita. There are s'ignals at Santa Anita Ave- nue, First Avenue and Fifth, and he didn't believe speed was as pre- valent on this portion of Foothill. Mr. Davison stated he has had occasion to be at that particular corner, and he has seen many a fast car traveling on Foothill Boulevard come to a fast stop at this corner. He repeated he would approve this plan as shown with access on Foothill Boulevard denied until such time as a signal is' installed at Second Avenue. The Secretary pointed out that the properties to the east could get a building permit at any time with no other means of access to rear park- ing except from Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Davison answered that if such a possibility exists, then there should be a signal at Second Avenue and Northview Avenue before an accident occurs. Mr. Nicklin stated that if access from Foothill Boulevard was necessary to the market, then the plan as proposed would be the most practical, as it would allow complete vision on all sides. Mr. Davison reemphasized the traffic speed that exists on Foothill Boulevard and the many times he has seen people stop quickly in order to avoid a very bad accident. The Secretary explained to the commission that there is no setback gov- erning this C-2 property to the east; that the property developer may build right up to the front property line. Mr. Norton asked if the C-2 property to the east were developed with buildings right on the front property line, is it not conceivable that with the parking in front of the proposed market the driver's vision would be blocked. Page Three November 24, 1~59 The Secretary anawered not any more so than in the area further west, which he pointed out on the map, the south side of Foothill Boulevard, between Santa Anita Avenue and First Avenue, which is zoned commerci- ally and is most~y developed commercially and the only access any of the commercial properties have is from Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Forbes explained that there are two driveways on the plot plan shown to be approximately 24', and he would strongly recommend to them that they increase the size of the proposed driveways. The Director of Public Works also pointed out to the commission that there is a sight distance of 400 feet from Second Avenue, which accord- ing to the state manual is good for a speed of about 60 to 65 miles an hour, allowing the driver to see something entering the street. Moved by Mr. Michler to recommend the approval of this request for zone change, but the motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Mr. Nor,ton, seconded by Mr. Forman that the application of Elvin T. Wayment for a change of zone from Zone PR-l to Zones C-2and D be recommended for denial for several reasons, particularly from the safety standpoint, because of the lack of control over setbacks of possible development to the east which could be built right on the property line, as well as the heavy traffic on and off Foothill Boule- vard. ' ROLL CALL AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman and Norton NOES.: Michler ABSENT: Mr. Stout and Mr. Wallin LOT SPLITS No. 272 - J. K. Timbrook, 1035 S. Fourth Avenue, referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Forman. This split would divide the rear 15 feet of the lot at 1035 S. Fourth Avenue to be used with the lot at 315 Magna Vista at the immediate rear of the Fourth Avenue lot. Mr. Forman stated he went over the map very carefully, and saw no reason why this does not make a good use of Lot No.9, and he would recommend that Lot Split No. 272 be approved. Moved by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Norton and carried to recollllllend this lot split for approval, subject to the following condition: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. No. 273 - Clara L. T. Washburn, 115 E. Live Oak Avenue, referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Forman, divides the north 80 feet of the lot that faces Live Oak Avenue, and is presently zoned R-3; from the engineer's report the Secretary indicated that for several years the commission and council have planned an alley ,25 .feet south of the north line of this lot; the alley has been dedicated more than half way through the blo~k. This split, if allowed, will require substantial change in the alley plan; if it is allowed the southerly 10 feet of parcel 2 and the northerly 10 feet of parcell should be dedicated and improved for alley purposes; also the west 12 feet of parcell, including the radius at Live Oak Avenue should be dedicated for street purposes. Mr. T. R. Suttner, Attorney for Mr. H. M. Berger said the intention is to develop the two lots to the east for commercial purposes, and Mr. Page Four November 24, 1959 Berger was interested in the development of an alley to the north of the property to serve as access. After considerable d~scussion it was recommended that the applicant be allowed a continuation in order to attempt to secure an additional 20 feet to the south and then dedicate 20 feet to the north for alley purposes. Lot Split No. 232 - Vinita Howard, 379 W. Lemon Avenue, which was recom- mended for approval some time ago. One of the conditions of this lot split was that the plot plan for the dwelling must be approved. The Secretary read from. a communication from Mrs. Howard, which stated briefly that she was submitting a building plan to the Planning Commis- sion in compliance with conditions outlined in the tentative approval of her lot split request. Moved by Mr. Davison, seconded by Mr. Michler and carried for the approval of the plot plan and building plan for this parcel. TRACTS No., 25439 - located on Winnie Way, west of Eighth Avenue. The Secretary read the report which stated this is the extension of Winnie Way west from Eighth Avenue and provides for dedicating additional land to make Eighth Avenue a full width street. Eighth Avenue was constructed one-half width with the development of Tract No. 22279 in 1956. A subdivision trust in the amount of $3,198.00 was established along the west l,ine of Eighth Avenue. The proposed cu1 de sac will be about 580 feet long. A substantial dwelling prevents it from being extended to Sixth Avenue. All of the lots are above minimum requirements. The tract is recommended for approval, subject to the following condi- tions: 1. Dedicate a corner radius at Camino Real and Eighth Avenue. 2. Pay the trust established by Tract No. 22279. 3. Remove all buildings within the tract. 4. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 5. Install all street' improvements required by the Subdivision Ordinance. 6. Pay all fees and deposits required by the Sub- division Ordinance. Mr. Forman stated he studied the tentative plan of this tract with Mr. Stout, and although the cul de sac is a little longer than it should be, this particular street could not be extended any further. He added it is a good use of the land, and he would therefore recommend its approval. Moved by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Davison and carried to recommend the approval of tentative map No. 25439, subject to the following conditions: Page Five November 24, 1959 ) n/' 1. Dedicate a corner radius at Camino Real and Eighth Avenue. 2. Pay the trust established by Tract No. 22279. 3. Remove all buildings within the. tract. 4. Provide all necessary rear line, utility easements. 5. Install all street improvements required by the Subdivision Ordinance. 6. Pay all fees and deposits required by the Sub- division Ordinance. No. 19065 - located on the northerly extension of Lee Avenue, containing 5 lots in Unit No.1. The Secretary read a letter from the subdivider, Park Investment Com- pany, which stated briefly that they had been attempting for one year to present a satisfactory tentative plan for the extension of Lee Avenue, unsuccessfully, due to the death of one of the owners in unit No.3, and the transfer of ownership of the other piece of property contained in Unit 3. The letter requested cooperation of the commis- sion in its consideration of this tentative map. The Secretary read the report which stated this tract is located on the northerly extension of Lee Avenue to Longden Avenue consists of 19 lots. It was considered by the commission on April 14, 1959 and referred back to the Subdivision Committee. On May 12, 1959, at the request of the subdivider, the matter was removed from the agenda. This present plan meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Commit- tee at that time. Lots 13 to 16 are shown as 66 feet wide, but ,conform with other lots in this, vicinity on Longden Avenue and Second Ave- nue. Lots 17 and 18 are less than 75 feet wide, but all o~ the narrow lots are more than the required area. The tract should provide an offer of future street dedication on Lot 21. This will provide a way for future development of the lots on Longden Avenue and eliminate the long dead end of Greenfield Avenue. 12 feet should be dedicated for widening Second Avenue along all the property of which any part is included in the tract. It is proposed that this tract be developed in units, the unit No. 1 which is the southerly 400 feet of the tract. units will follow later. first to be The other If this method of development is approved the conditions applicable to Unit No. 1 should be as follows: 1. Dedicate Lee Avenue 59' wide, with the east one foot along Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Tract No. 9493 to be dedicated in fee to assure satisfactory lot splits. 2. Dedicate one foot in fee at the north end of Lee Avenue. 3. Dedicate 12' for widening Second Avenue along Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Tract No. 9493. Page Six November 24, 1959 . , 4. Record a covenant that Lot 7 will not be used for any building purpose until additional land is o.btained to make it 75' wide. 5. The city shall dedicate for street purposes the barrier at the present end of Lee Avenue. 6. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 7. Install all street improvements required by the Subdivision Ordinance. 8. Pay all fees and deposits required by the Subdiv- ision Ordinance. The Secretary explained toat a covenant shall be filed stating that Lot 7 not be used until the development of Unit 3; the lot would require additional land to make it full width. Mr. Forman explained that the reason for seeking approval of this unusual tract is the fact that extensive time and effort has been spent by both the subdivider and the Subdivision Committee trying to reach some successful solution; also in view of the money the developer has invested, there was hope that this would be the solution. In time the developer would subdivide unit 2 and unit 3 when the land was obtained. Mr. Orlando Clarizio came forward objecting to the subdivision because he wondered what will happen to the two pieces of property which will be left in the middle, and also was concerned about the long street which would .resultfrom allowing unit No. 1. Mrs. Park; stated she has tried many times to deal with Mr. Clarizio without success; she added that if Mr. Clarizio would allow her sub- division to go across the rear of his property, it would practically alleviate her problem of continuing Lee Avenue through to Longden Avenue. Mr.. Forman repeated that he himself has been in on this plan for many months, and that this is the best plan that has been submitted; that this approach would ultimately result in opening up the street from Longden, as well as the next step to continue the street through the two other pieces of property. ' Mr. Clarizio asked for more time to check with the owners or property adjacent to his. Mr. Forman explained the reason that options included in Unit No. 2 have expired is on account of the lapse of time; the maps that were originally brought in came up to the standards the commission wished to maintain. Mrs. Park's intent, having had options for these lots, would show good faith that she intends to complete Unit No.2. Mr. Norton referred to the 1500 foot length of Lee Avenue which is contrary to the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Clarizio insisted that the whole idea of Mrs. Park's plan was to box him in. Mrs. Park stated that she offered to give Mr. Clarizio for two 25 foot strips $4,750.00 and bring the street across his property, and he refused to go along with it. Page Seven November 24, 1959 - . . .. FOOTHILL JEWISH CENTER ADJOURN Mr. Davison stated he thought the commission would be in error to partially approve, when there are so many indicated problems in con- nection with this subdivision. He felt that when two people get involved in a tangle, it could be a very long time before a solution can be reached. . Mrs. Park stated the commission must realize that in order to encour- age future subdivisions it must realistically face the necessity of allowing sections at a time until the developer has been able to negotiate with property owners. Mr. Davison proposed the possibility of allowing Unit No. I if Lot 7 could be used as a turning radius for a means of departure. Mrs. Park agreed to pave and use this lot for such a purpose. Mr. Forbes informed the commission that the minimum turn-around dia- meter is 56 feet, and he wished to know how one could design the turn- around. with a 50 foot lot. Mr. Davison stated this would be merely a means of departure from the dead end street in order to allow emergency operations, etc. Mr. Nicklin stated that before the commission voted on this tract he wished to point out that the effect of an affirmative vote is the approval of a dead end street without a cu1 de sac which is 1500 feet long with no assurapce of it going 'any further. He suggested thst all the avenues of approach have not been exhausted as yet, e. g. the ,Street Opening Act, to acquire the property necessary to extend Lee Avenue up to the northerly street. There are ways of meeting impasses of this kind. The disadvantage of going ahead and approving one unit of this tract is the fact that there would not be enough remaining concurrent owners to force the district through, unless the city on its qwn motion institutes proceedings and exercises its, prerogatives under the constitution by a 4/5ths vote to overrule e~eiybody's wishes. If the entire area is taken as a district,:,;with the consent of the majority, you would be able to use a Street Opening Act. To approve this tract is to approve a cul de sac street which is con- trary .to the city ordinance with no assurance that it is ever going any farther. The Chairman recommended that this matter be continued until the next regular meeting. Mr. Davison suggested that the individuals involved make some attempt to find out what can be done relative to options on the property neces- sary to complete this street and to disclose at the next meeting such information which could influence the decision of the commission. The Secretary read a letter from the Foothill Jewish Community Center which stated briefly that the center had jus't made its last payment for the property covered by the zone variance. It stated that they are requesting a time extension of s'ix months, to give them time to commence with their plans. The Secretary stated the applicant has had the 6 months granted by the variance, plus another extension of 6 months. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried to grant the request for time extension of 6 months on the Foothill Jewish Community Center variance. There being no further business to come before the commission, the meet- ing was ad'journed at 10: 30 P.M. 'i,~,~dghA L. M. T~--;-f Planning Secretary