Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 9, 1960 . ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE CHANGE Annexation No. l7-A & 14 M I.N UTE S PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 1960 The Planning Commiasion of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P.M., February 9, 1960. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler and Norton ABSENT: Commissioners Davison and Stout. OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Jess Balser: Director of Public Works C. E. L. M. Talley. City Attorney James A. Nicklin Lortz: Planning Secretary The minutes of the meeting held January 26, 1960 were approved as written and mailed. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the proposed zoning of Annexation No. 14 and Annexation No. l7-A, north of Lemon Avenue as contemplated by Resolution No. 353; property located west of Baldwin Avenue and south of Duarte Road. The Planning Secretary read a report from the Zoning Committee which stated the Zoning Committee and the staff submitted a report, dated January 11, 1960, which recommended certain zoning, broken down into eight different areas. On January 12, 1960, the majority of the com- mission concurred with the recommendations, excepting item Number 3, covering Annexation No. 14, and item Number 8, insofar as it concerned the corners of Golden West Avenue and Duarte Road, which had previous C-2 zoning in the County. '. On January 26, 1960, it was tentatively agreed that Annexation No. 14 should be zoned as recommended in the report of January 11, 1960, except that if the conditions set out in Ordinance No. 954 were com- plied with within one year, then the tentative zoning established by said Ordinance should be adopted. The committee has again considered the zoning of the corners at Golden West Avenue and Duarte Road. Mr. Beauchamp made the statement that this area was Zoned C-2 by the County in 1938. At least a part of the area was used for business pur- poses prior to that time. The two lots on the southeast corner are comparatively small. Mr. Beauchamp's lot on the corner is 57.43' 'by 78' containing 4479 square feet. Mr. Agostino's lot next door is 62' by 100' containing 6200 square feet. We understand that there is a 6' easement covering the west portion of Mr. Agostino's lot. These lots are both so small that they would be difficult to develop for an R-3 use. Page One February 9, 1960 We believe that no property in Annexation l7-A has been placed in a lesser zone than existed before annexation. ADOOrdingly, we recommend that the C-2 zoning be reestablished at these two corners. On each corner the County C-2 zoning had a depth of 125' south from Duarte Road. On the southeast corner this depth overlapped onto the lot facing Golden West Avenue, which is now fully developed with residential units. It is recommended that the city C-2 zone include the 125' by 240' lot at the southwest corner; the 57.43' by 78' lot at the southeast corner; the 6' by 78' easement to the east and the 62' by 100' lot to the east of the easement. The Chairman opened the continued public hearing, asking for comments from the audience. Mr. Roach, 1609. S. Baldwin, desired to clarify the zoning of his parcel, because of some information he read in a local newspaper. Planning Secretary assured him that the news article was in error, that his property is proposed to be Zone R-3 on the Baldwin Avenue tage, with the west 180 feet to be zoned R-l. The and fron- Mr. Walter Routery, 716 W. CalUta Street, wished to have the commis- sions thinking on the two corners at Baldwin and Callita. The Planning Secretary pointed out on the map that the vacant corner on the southwest corner of Baldwin and Callita is proposed to be zoned R-l; on the northwest corner, a portion of the lot facing Baldwin Avenue is proposed to be Zone R-3, and the first narrow lot facing qallita is R-l. He explained the proposal to extend for one more year the conditions of the original ordinance under which Annexation 14 was taken into the city. Mr. Routery explained his concern about the property, because it has been difficult to get prospective buyers of his property interested, because they wonder what will be done with the adjacent property. Mr. Reinsma, 731 S. Baldwin Avenue, repeated his request for R-2 at this address, inasmuch as the church next to him is zoned R-2. Mr. Kelly, 725 W. Callita Street, was opposed to R-3 on property north of his, because his home would be in the shadow of a two story apart- ment, which would in his opinion devaluate his property by tending to destroy the privacy of his backyard. He stated he would rather have a C-2 zoning backing up to him than apartments; he would insist on a reduction of his taxes if such a development were allowed. Mrs. Hilfert, 721 W. Call ita Street, objected to having an R-3 zoning on the property to the rear of her lot; particularly the 2 story type. Mr. Charles Field, 717 Call ita, stated his property would be immedi- ately next to a future apartment house zone. The Planning Secretary explained that according to the map there is a 55 foot lot between his property and the lot about which he is con- cerned. The Chairman asked for a motion to close the public hearing; it was moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried to close the public hearing on this Zone change. In answer to Commissioner Forman's question, the City Attorney explained that after the commission has announced his decision, it Page Two February 9, 1960 ZONE VARIANCE church . may well be that a majority of the commission may be in favor of certain parts of it as opposed to o.ther parts; if that be the case, then he could not expect to get a majority vote on one resolution, then the City Attorney would decide if it would be feasible to put it into one resolution or break it into two. Commissioner Forman, stated he was in concurrence with the staff re- commendation on Annexation No. 14, however, he would be opposed to granting C-2 zoning to the property on the southwest and southeast corners of Golden West and Duarte, because it would constitute spot zoning, in his opinion, and the possible beginning of a strip commer- cial development along the south side of Duarte Road; until a definite decision has been made on the rezoning of West Arcadia from Duarte to Camino and Baldwin to Lovell, he would not favor C zoning for this part of puarte Road. Commissioner Michler agreed with the recommendations for Annexation No. l4, however he would tend to go along with the desires of the property owners requesting C-2 at the southeast and southwest corners of Golden West and Duarte, inasmuch as they have enjoyed this zoning in the County since 1938. Commissioner Acker concurred with Commissioner Michler that Annexation No. 14 as outlined in the report was a good recommendation, but felt that the people asking for C-2 on the cornerS of Golden West Avenue and Duarte Road should not be denied. Commissioner Norton agreed with Commissioner Forman that the recommend- ations covering Annexation No. 14 were good, but that he could not go along with the request for C-2 zone at the corners of Golden west and Duarte. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Reinsma's property at 73l S. Baldwin Avenue. The Planning Secretary explained that there is a possibility of subdividing adjacent property and the rear of his land. Commissioner Forman stated that this changes the picture considerably and he did not believe changing Mr. Reinsma's property to R-2 would be in the interest of future development of good R-l property. The City Attorney explained that it may be necessary to contain this decision in two Or possibly three resolutions and the action would be an order to instruct him to prepare such a resolution along these lines. This was done. The commission held a public hearing on the application of the Shepherd of the Hills Evangelical. Lutnran Church for a zone variance to allow the construction of a church and church parking at the northwest corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; also a variance of the fire zone building requirements. The Planning Secretary read the application and then read the staff report which s.tated this is the appl ication of the Shepherd of the Hills Evangelical Lutheran Church for a zone variance to allow the location of a church at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Santa Anita Avenue. The site has a frontage of 349.79 feet on Foothill Boulevard and 250 feet on Santa Anita Avenue. A square 250 feet on the corner is Zoned C-2, with a service station now on the immediate corner. Lot 77 with a frontage of 99.79 feet on Foothill Boulevard is Zoned R-O, but is not subject to the established tract restrictions. Page Three February 9, 1960 The church is also acquiring lot 78 which is Zoned R-O, and has tract restri~tions. On this lot they plan to build a dwelling, complying with tract restrictions, as a residence for the minister and to act as a ,buffer between the church and residential property to the west. The plot plan shows that the rear portion o.f lot 77 and the north por- tionof the C-2 property will be used for automobile parking. This will require the usual wall to separate the parking from the residen- tial property. At least a part of the wall is now existing. Several of the surrounding property owners have signed consent to the granting of. the variance. The applicant has indicated to the staff that it is their intention to build a church bu~lding now on the westerly portion of the property, with the service station to remain until theEKpiration of their lease, which is about 13 years. At that time the station would be removed and the main church building erected. In the opinion of the staff this general area is a good location for a church. The church is a permissible use in the C-2 Fire Zone. We see no objection to the granting of a variance to allow the church on lot 77. If the C-2 property were fully developed for commercial uses, it is quite possible that some variance would be requested on lot 77. If the variance is granted it should be subject to the following con- ditions: l. The entire development shall conform substantially with the plot plan submitted. 2. The parking lot shall be paved and separated from adjacent residential property by a 6 foot masonry wall and there should be approximately 5 feet of landscap- ing installed adjacent to the wall. 3. We recommend that a variance from the provisions of Fire Zone No. 1 be granted so that the construction of the church building.may correspond ~ith other churches outside the No. 1 Fire Zone. This conforms with the variance granted the Foothill Jewish Center. 4. Final plans to be approve~ by the Planning Commission before issuance of a building permit. The Chairman opened the public hearing, and called for those in favor of the zone variance to come forward and state their position. Mr. Kenneth Hlllgartner, 450 S. Third, stated he is the President of the Church Council, and would like to express his appreciation for the assistance which the City Council members, the Planning Commission members and the Planning Secretary had extended them in preparing their application, and in helping them locate land for a church site. The Chairman asked the speaker if his organization would consider signing a covenant to the effect that the land now occupied by the gas station would be used for the future church structure. Mr. Herbert Chambers answered the question, by stating that the church would not be willing to sign such a covenant; because they are not pre- pared to make such a statement, and their plans are not formulated. Page Four February 9, 1960 He stated that the church is in complete agreement with the condi- tions as outlined in the Planning Staff recommendations. The architectural plan has not been completed, but when they have been prepared, they will bring them in for approval. It is their intention to start with what appears to be a church, but which will ultimately be used as a Sunday School building. The City Attorney stated he assumed that the drawing which was pre- sented to the commission is typical of the modern church of th~par- ticular denomination, and something that they would attempt to strive towards, without being committed to each detail as shown on the draw- ing. The applicant could hardly be expected to go to the expense of having drawings completed, without precise knowledge of the site upon which the building is to be located. Pastor Ray Hansen stated he has found after two and a half years of visiting homes that the entire ar~a of Arcadia north of Foothill is without a church. He asked for all those in the audience in favor of this zone variance application to please rise. The vast majority of those in the audience were in favor of this request. He introduced Mr. Raymond A. Darn, the developer of this area, and asked him to speak in behalf ot h:ls zone variance. Mr. Raymond A. Darn, stated he commenced the development of this pro- perty in 1936. He has maintained close architectural supervision for many years. They have been trying to keep this area the finest resi- dential development in this whoie district. Everyone who..bought a lot in this tract signed a contract agreeing to withhold lot 77 from the residential restrictions, because of its close. proximity to commercial property. He stated he has had ~ny opportunities to pass judgement on other types of commercial endeav- ors, but until the offer of the church had not felt that the other p~oposed improvements would be in keeping with the fine residential development of the surrounding homes. He felt that the installation of a fine church would solve for all time the problem of this parti- cular parcel of property. Mr. Herbert Pratt, 230 W. Orange Grove Avenue, stated that he owned the property across the street, and he had con'tacted all of his tenants who had no objections to this proposed variance. The Chairman asked for those. opposed to the granting of this variance to come forward. Mr. phil Smith, 28 West Sycamore, stated that he owns lot 73, directly north of lot 77, and is probably more interested than anyone in the development of lot 77, because of its proximity to his lot. He had no objection to the church, as such, however, in view of the remarks that it is not necessary to present a more definite plan of the pro- posed church, as owner of lot 73, he is particularly interested in what is planned, for lot 77. He purchased this property with the understanding that the property was zoned R-O which would be a guarantee of close surveillance of what was built on adjacen t parcels. He wished that the commission would give proper consideration to the effect this improvement would have on his property. The Planning Secretary stated that the C-2 zone allowed the church already, but would require a No. 1 Fire Zone, which would necessitate Page Five February 9, 1960 masonry building, and be too restrictive insofar as church archi- tecture is concerned. Mr. Raymond Darn s.tated that the architectural Committee which has exUted since the inception of Santa Anita Oaks is still active. The sale of this property will carry one restriction, which requires the same architectural commitee .to pass judgement on any buildings erected on this property. The City Attorney stated that to correct an impression which might have been made; he did not mean to infer that there is nothing de- sirable in or no merit in the submission of precise plans for a completed structure; certain factors in the zoning ordinance which, coupled with the commission's right of approval of the final plans, plus the approval of the plans by the architectural committee that supervises the entire tract might tend to lessen the objections made by Mr. Smith. The plot plan, including the description of the pro- perty is required to be submitted; plans and descriptions of the proposed use of the property with ground plans and elevations of the proposed buildings. Mr. Phil Smith stated he did not wish to express mere doubts, ~ut would prefer them to be recorded as firm statements. Commissioner Forman stated he would like to ask Mr. Darn a question, referring to the proposed sketch of a typical church, which was on view for the commission; he wished to know if that type of architec- ture would be suitable or might be approved by the Architectural Com- mittee of the tract. Mr. Darn answered he could not tell too well what type of design it is; all he could be certain of is that any church buil t would have, to have the approval of the architectural committee. As proof of their taste he would refer to the beautiful homes in the area. He would hesitate to pass an opinion on something that he did not believe was submitted as a definite scheme, nor to speak for the entire com- mittee. Mr. Anthony Bell, 1105 Rodeo Road stated he was a member of Santa Anita Oaks Property Owner's Association. He had to go through arch- itectural inspection, and his house was altered to better the sur- roundings. This occured in 1951, and he was certain that the pro- posed church would not hinder nor degrade Mr. Smith's property in any way. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried to close the public hearing on this zone variance. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Norton to recommend the approval oJ the application of the Shepherd of the Hills Evangelical Lutheran Church for a zone variance to allow the construction of a church and church parking at the northwest corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; also a variance of the f ire zone. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler and Norton NOES: N.one ABSENT: Commissioners Davison and Stout Page Six February 9, 1960 . , . . TRACT NO. 25368 The commission considered the final map of Tract No. 25368 located on Ninth Avenue, containing 13 lots. The Planning Secretary read the staff report, which stated this is the flnal map of Tract No. 25368 located on Ninth Avenue south of Magnolia Lane, containing 13 lots: Lots 14 and l5 are remnants of property re- served for future extension of the street. This final map conforms with the approved tentative map, and is recom- mended for approval, subject to the following conditions: ---- ~- ~ l. Record a covenant stipulating that lots l4 and l5 will not be used for any building purpose, until they are approved by the city as a part of a full lot. ,/ 2. Dedicate lot l6 in fee to the city. ,/ 3. Remove all buildings within the tract. Remove or reloc- ate the garage on lot 9 to .provide required clearance from the lot line. v 4. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. ....-- 5. Install all street improvements, including adequate drainage facilities, required by the Subdivision Ordinance. 6. Pay the following fees and deposits: 4 26 l3 steel street light street trees lots recreation fee posts @ @ @ $135.00 8.50 25.00 $ 540.00 221. 00 325.00 $1086.00 7. The city shall dedicate a portion of lot 27, Tract No. 24311 for street purposes. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to recommend the approval of the final map of Tract No. 25368, subject to the following conditions: 1. Record a covenant stipulating that lots 14 and l5 will not be used for any building purpose, until they are approved by the city as a part of a full lot. 2. Dedicate lot l6 in fee to the city. 3. Remove all buildings within the tract. Remove or reloc- ate the garage on lot 9 to provide required clearance from the iot iine. 4. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 5. Install all street improvements, including adequate drain- age facilities, required by the Subdivision Ordinance. 6. Pay the following fees and deposits: 4 steel street light posts @ $l35.00 $540.00 26 street trees @ 8.50 221. 00 B lots recreation fee @ 25.00 325.00 $l086.0.0 Page Seven February 9, 1960 . . . . RESOLUTION No. 360 MATTERS FROM AUDIENCE LOT SPLIT No. 380 7. The city shall dedicate a portion of Lot 27, Tract No. 243ll for street purposes. No. 360 - The Planning Secretary s.tated that this afternoon he re- ceiveda call ftDm :. Walt, 2530 Greenfield Avenue. She had been out of town two weeks ago during the public hearing, and wished to know if pinball machines and skill games of different varieties would be allowed on this miniature golf course. She had no objections to the golf course, as such, but was not in favor of any such games. The City Attorney stated that the prior course had some, but the pro- perty was zoned in such a way as to allow these games. Games of this kind require a permit from the City Council, and he would not pretend to determine whether or not this would or would not be granted. The City Attorney continued that the resolution, as drawn, would not permit anything but a miniature golf course. The property in question is zoned R-3, and as such would not permit any type of commercial venture, without being outlined specifically in the recommendations contained in the resolution. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 360, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANT- ING OF A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AT 131-l37 EAST LIVE OAK AVENUE." Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 360. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton to recom- mend the adoption of Resolution No. 360. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker,Forman, Michler and Norton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Davison and Stout The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the commission, and no one responded. The Planning Secretary presented lot split No. 280, D. C. Wheeler, 228 E. Sycamore Avenue, in connection with the proposed Ralph's Grocery on Foothill Boulevard. The request is to divide the south 45.5 feet to sell to Ralph's, and to divide 20 feet from the front parcel to add to the rear parcel. The only condition to be required is the filing of a final map with the City Engineer. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman and car" ried to recommend the approval of lot split No. 280, subject to the filing of a final map. Page Eight February 9, 1960 . . .. PLAN APPROVAL E. Live Oak Avenue PLANNING BUDGET ADJOURN . The area east of Tyler in Annexation No. 19 was zoned CoM with a 0 overlay. One of the requirements of this zoning was the submission of plans to the Planning Commission. We have an application for a com- mercial building, 20,000 square feet, just west of the Triangle Rock Company office. It will set back 20 feet from Live Oak Avenue, and it will be required to put landscaping in the front. There is almost l7,OOO square feet of parking which is more than is required; the wall and landscaping is shown along Lynrose, which conforms to the requirements and everything seems to be in order. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried for the approval of plans fOr a commercial building for R. G. Harris Company on E. Live Oak Avenue, portion of lots 11 and 12 of Rancho San Francisquito Tract. The Planning Secretary stated that the Budget Committee had met and made certain recommendations. The request will be increased a little from last year, because the stenographer clerk's time is not now charged into the Planning budget. Our budget last year was $23,070.00; as proposed this next fiscal year, it will be $27,005.00. A special project submitted separately from the budget will be the study of the area along the freeway, which includes a proposal for $7,500.00 for the services of a Planning Consultant, and for other areas of the city to be studied an additional $lO,OOO.OO. ' The Director of Public Works stated that he had reviewed this proposed budget rather thoroughly, and certainly could recommend its adoption. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried for the adoption. of the proposed budget for 1960-6l. There being no further business to come before the Plan~ing Commission the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. ~.":,~ Planning Secretary