HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 8, 1960
,
,.
ROLL CALL
ZONE CHANGE
Dr. Ritter
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 8, 1960
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session
in the Council 'Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'cloek P.M., Mar~h
8, 1960.
The Chairman introduced Mr. Ervin H. Golisch the newly appointed Plan-
ning Commissioner and welcomed him to the meeting.
PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Golisch, Michler and Stout
ABSENT:
Commissioners Davison and Norton
OTHERS
PRESENT:
City Councilman Jess Balser:
Director of Public Works C. E.
L. M. Talley
City Attorney James A. Nicklin:
Lortz: Planning Secretary .
The commission held a public hearing on the application of Dr. Emil R.
Ritter and others for a change of zone from Zone R~l to Zone C-3 and
Zone D on property at 623 W. Duarte Road.
The Planning Secretary read from the application which stated briefly
there is a need for additional medical offices in Arcsdia, and referred
to the ideal location of this property because of its proximity to Med-
ical Square across the street. The application cited the commercial pro-
perty to the west and two properties to the east and the commercial de-
velopment on the south side of Duarte.
The Planning Secretary read the staff report which stated this is the
application of Dr. Emil R. Ritter' and others for a change of zone from
Zone R-l to Zone C-3 and Zone D on property located at 623 W. Duarte
Road.
The property is presently occupied by a single residence, garage and an
old chicken house.
The property to the west is Zoned C-3 and developed with a shopping
center. Across Duarte Road to the southwest is Zone C-3. To the south-
east is presently Zone R-l with Zone C-3 and Zone D tentatively granted,
but not effective.
Directly east of the subject lot is one lot zoned and presently used as
R-l. The second lot to the east is developed with a mortuary by reason
of a zone variance. It is reasonable to assume that the lot n~xt door
east of the subject prcper~y might have some commercial zoning.in the
future.
It is recommended that the subject property be rezoned to Zone C-3 and
Zone D.
Page One
March 8, 1960
r/
The requirements for the Zone D restrictions to be as follows:
1. Dedicate 12 feet for the widening of Duarte Road.
2. Dedicate 30 feet for the opening of Arcadia Avenue.
3. Remove al.l the existing buildings from the property.
4. Any new buildings to be set back not less than 10 feet
from the new front property line and the 10 foot space
to be landscaped and: maintained.
5. Signs to be l~mitea to one square foot of area for each
foot of building frontage. All signs to be mounted flat
against the..building, and no flashing or roof signs to
be allowed.
6. All lighting of the area and the buildings to be directed
away from residential property.
7. All plans to be submitted to the Planning Commission" for
approval as to plot plan, architectural treatment, wall,
landscaping and signs before issuance of a bu1+ding per-
mit.
The Chairman declared the public hearing opened, and asked for those in
favor of the request to come forward.
Dr. Emil Ritter, one of the applicants stated that he believed the app-
lication outlined sufficiently what he would like to state.
Dr. Clyde McCauley spoke in favor of the request as'stated in the pe-
tition. He explained to the commission the intention of the doctors to
be housed in a two story medical building: he stated there will be
diagnostic X-ray but not therapeutic X-ray.
Dr. Fremont Koch wished to go on record as being in fsvor of the grant-
ing of this variance.
Dr. Charles Shore explained that the location of this proposed medical
development was desirable because of the convenience it would afford the
sick person, having everything so close at hand.
Dr. Theodore Drake and Dr. Richard Vanderhoof also spoke in favor of the
change.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Stout and carried
to close the public hearing on this request for zone change.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Forman to recom-
mend the approval of the zone change request of Dr. Emil Ritter and
others for a change of zone from Zone R-l to Zone C-3 and Zone D on
property at 623 W. Duarte Road.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Acker, Forman, Goliscb, Michler and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Davison and Mr. Norton
Page Two
March 8, 1960
ZONE VARlANCE
Trampoline
'-'-.-'
The commission considered a decision on the application of Charles
Baca and Robert Mahoney for a zone variance to allow a trampoline center
at 910-912 S. Santa Anita Avenue, continued from the last meeting.
The Planning Secretary stated that the Zoning Committee had not had an
opportunity to meet, there is 'no report to present to the commission to-
night; he had made several inquiries around surrounding communities.
The Planning Secretary had received this afternoon a copy of an ordinance,
15 pages long, which had been officially adopted by the Board of Supe~
visors of Kern County in Bakersfield, this same day.
The Planning Secretary stated further that it seemed to be the trend
that all cities are concerned about the safety regulations governing the
use of trampolines. He recommended that this matter be continued, allow-
ing further study and a report.
The City Attorney stated for the record that this same subject was under
consideration before the E1 Monte City Planning Commission, March 7, and
the report was that the City of Los Angeles classified them automati-
cally in C-2 zone.
Commissioner Michler stated he was not only concerned about the safety
factors, but also the location and appearance of the proposed center.
He had been in certain parts of Los Angeles, in a section which was pri-
marily industrial, and the trampoline centers certainly did not enhance
the appearance of the area.
Mr. Charles Baca, one of the applicants, stated that he had personally
attended a meeting at which an attempt was made to organize an associa-
tion of trampoline operators. Councilman McGee, of the City of Los
Angeles was present at this meeting, and he seemed very impressed with
the recommendations made during this meeting. Mr. Baca suggested that
the commission allow the insurance man who is the agent for a great
many of the trampoline centers to 'address them, because he is somewhat
of an authority on the facility.
Commissioner Forman cited examples of posted rules he had observed 1n
his personal investigations. They were titled "Basic Rules" on a sign
about 4 feet square, which stated:
L Remove shoes.
2. One person at a time on a trampoline.
3. No clowning.
4. Jump at your own risk. (In large red letters)
He did not feel that these rules were sufficient to cover regulations
for operating such a center; he described the protection provided for
safety as entirely inadequate at those centers he observed; he also
saw two children Jumping from one trampoline to another.
Mr. Baca stated that he is well aware of the commission's concern about
safety regulations; particularly since he is directly involved in the
field of education, and has been dealing with young children for some
time. He felt that a great many of the centers operating are casting
a bad reflection on all trampoline centers.
The City Attorney stated that the related facilities in connection with
the trampoline center should also be cons'idered, specifically drinking
fountain and restroom facilities; many of the centers have no facilities
of this type.
Page Three
March 8, 1960
LOT SPLITS
The City Attorney continued stating this matter could also involve
Health & Safety Commission and possibly an independent ordinance may
be drawn to cover details.
Commissioner Acker suggested, as a safety measure, the possibility of
having nets placed along the sides of the trampolines.
Mr. Baca did not feel that this would be a very feasible idea for tr~
polines.
Mr. Sterne,insurance agent, came up and was asked to read the exclusions
of the insurance contract; he answered that the only exclusion dealt with
insuring supervised instructions. When asked if there were any mini-
mum requirements before insuring, he answered that there were, and that
he had given a copy to Mr. Talley. Mr. Sternes explained that this
policy only covers public liability.
The City Attorney explained to the commission that depending on the reg-
ulations imposed, as he mentioned earlier, it may well be that further
regulations independent of the zoning ordinance may be necessary. It
is very possible that the City Council would want to refer the subject
matter, ocher than the pure zoning matter, to another commission such
as the Health and Sanitation Commission. They have come up with recom.
mendations in the past Which have resulted in ordinances regulating
aspects of other businesses, and this may be one of those peculiar sit-
uations.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Forman and car-
ried to continue this public hearing until the next regular meeting on
March 22, 1960.
No. 283 - E. R. Johnson, 316 S. Second Avenue, referred to Mr. Michler
and Mr. Norton.
The Planning Secretary explained that this property is in Zone R-2, and
that it is proposed to divide lots into 60 feet, which are smaller than
required in Zone R-2; but directly across the street there are lots 60,
50 and 45 feet; directly behind there are 50 and 47 foot lots.
Commissioner Michler stated that he had viewed this property, and there
is a very nice duplex; the owner has plans to duplicate this on the
property which is. split. The split would conform with other properties
in the area.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Forman and car-
ried to recommend the approval of Lot S'plit No. 283, subject to the fol-
lowing conditions:
1. File a final map with the City Engineer.
2. Install a sewer lateral for parcel 2.
3. Dedicate 12 feet for widening Second Avenue.
4. Pay $25.00 recreation fee.
5. Remove the house on parcel 3 before final
approval of the duplexes to be erected on
parcel 2.
Page Four
March 8, 1960
~--"
)
No. 284 - Mrs. Grace C. Williams, 860 W. Huntington Boulevard,
referred to Mr. Michler and Mr. Norton
This property is located on the southeast corner of Huntington Boule-
vard and Golden West Avenue, Zone R-3. Parcel 1 is developed with 3
small dwellings; Parcel 2 is developed with a 2 story apartment house.
Commissioner Michler stated he was concerned about the grape stake
fence at the rear of the property.
The Planning Secretary explained that the grape stake fence is approx-
imately on the line between parcel 1 and parcel 2, north of the apart-
ment house, although it is not on t~e exact line.
Commissioner Michler went on to say that actually all that is being
requested is to separate two parcels, which in reality are already sep-
arated.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and
carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 284, subject to the
following conditions:
1. File a final map with the City Engineer.
2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee.
No. 286 - D. A. Wieland, 528 Lemon Avenue, referred to Mr. Stout and
Mr. Forman
No. 285 - Irene McKinnon, 601 Estrella Avenue, referred to Mr. Stout
and Mr. Forman
The Planning Secretary explained that these lots face the extension of
Wistaria Avenue. No. 286 and 285 are companion splits. There are 3
lot splits that have had tentative approval on Wistaria Avenue, which
have not been completed; the street work has not been installed yet,
because the subdivider has been waiting to try and get more land to
achieve a better use from the cost of the street improvement.
Lot Split No. 285 should not be approved without the approval of Lot
SPlit No. 286, because without it there would be no street reaching
this portion. The Planning Secretary added that when lot splits were
under conSideration on Wistaria Avenue some years ago, the commission
had a report from Everett Mansur, the Planning Consultant at that time,
and he recommended that the lot splits be gr~nted as they had been up
to this point, but not beyond the center of Lot 71. This lot split
would reach the limit of his recommendation; in other words, Wistaria
Avenue could not be extended any further until some access was provided
in ano.ther direction.
Commissioner Stout recommended that both of these spiUs be held over
for fur ther study.
Commissioner Forman believed that No. 286 conforms to lots on t~e north
side of the street and with what has been granted in the past. Going
east from this parcel most of the lots have 65 foot widths, and this
one conforms with these lots. He would be willing to make a motion to
recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 286.
Commissioner Stout agreed to withdraw his motion, since he had not had
an opportunity to look at the property.
Page Five
March 8, 1960
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler and
carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 286, subject to the
following conditions:
1. File a final 'map with the City Engineer.
2. Install a sewer main extension and a sewer lateral
to the lot.
3. Dedicate 59 feet for the extension of Wistaria
Avenue, including one foot along the south line
and one foot along the west line of the street in
fee to the city.
4. Pay $25..00 recreation fee.
5. Install all street improvements required by the Sub-
division Ordinance.
6. Remove all buildings from the street dedication and
from parcel 2.
Mr. Cecka, the developer and appiicant for lot split No. 285 addressed
the commission in support of his request.
After considerable discussion, Commissioner Stout suggested that in view
of the problems involved in this particular split, the commission refer
this split back to the Subdivision Committee for further study.
The Chairman announced lot split No. 285 will be held over until the
next regular commission meeting for additional study.
No. 287 - Julius R. Hector, 1052 S. Tenth Avenue, referred to Mr. Michler
and Mr. Norton.
The Planning Secretary explained that this proposal is to split a small
portion of land about 34' x 57' off of the rear of the property at 1052
S. Tenth Avenue, to be sold to the owner at 1024 Bungalow Place. The
owner at 1024 Bungalow Place wishes to have additional land to build a
swimming pool.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Forman and
carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 287, subject to the
following condition:
1. File a final map with the City Engineer.
TRACT
No. 25253 - Revised tentative map of Tract No. 25253 located on Fair-
view Avenue, west of Park Avenue, containing 10 lots, continued from
last meeting.
The Planning Secretary read a communication from Whitehead & Gaus,
Attorneys, which stated briefly that any attempt to extend the pro-
posed street in this tract and to acquire any portion of the Vogel pro-
perty at 360 Fairview Avenue would be vigorously opposed unless the
street runs straight, leaving the Vogel property in a line with the
proposed street.
A second communication was read, dealing with the property owned by
Mr. & Mrs. Harold C. Twiss,,350 Fairview Avenue, which expressed
opposition to the proposal to extend Fairview Avenue at an angle to
reach Holly Avenue.
Page Six
March 8, 1960
The signer would not raise objections to a proposal to extend Pair-
view Avenue straight out to Holly, but was opposed to the present
tentative proposal before the commission tonight.
The Planning Secretary read the staff report which stated this third
revised map of Tract No. 25253 is located on the extension of Pair-
view Avenue, westerly of Park Avenue to Holly Avenue, and consists of
10 lots.
The Holy Angels church has offered to dedicate land to allow the exten-
sion into Holly Avenue, provided the dwelling is moved and the street
improved at no cost to the church.
The alignment of Pairview Avenue has been changed to provide for a
straight extension, which will require less land from the two owners
on the south and make the street parallel with their houses.
All lots are above minimum requirements as to size and area. A portion
of the street is shown as 50 foot wide dedication.
This ~p appears to provide the only practical way to connect this
street with Holly Avenue, and is recommended for approval, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Dedicate a five foot planting and sidewalk easement along
the west side of lot 4, the front of lots 5, 6, 7 and 8,
along the north side of lot 6 and along the north side
of the property at 1000 Holly Avenue.
2. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements.
3. Dedicate 12 feet for widening Duarte Road along the
south line of lots 7 and 8, Tract No. 10726.
4. Remove all trees from the street area, and remove all
miscellaneous buildings within the tract.
S. Install all street improvements required by the Sub-
division Ordinance.
6. Pay the following fees and deposits:
7 Steel street light posts @ $135.00 $945.00
2 Street name signs @ 35.00 70.00
42 Street trees @ 8.50 357.00
10 Lots recreation fee @ 25.00 250.00
$1,622.00
7. The dwelling .at 924 Holly Avenue shall be relocated to
the satisfaction of the Holy Angels church and at no
expense to the church.
8. This recommendation for approval is based on the sub-
divider installing full width standard street improve-
ments from the present dead end of Fairview Avenue to
Holly Avenue.
Mr. Erickson, the developer, stated that if he could get approval of
this tentative map, he would then attempt to negotiate with the two
property owners to the south.
Page Seven
March 8, 1960
Mr. Gaus, Attorney representing Mr. Vogel wished to know if the
street is actually going to be a full street in front of Mr. Vogel's
property.
The Planning Secretary stated that the staff recommendation is based
on the s~reet being a full street.
Mr. Erickson explained that the street is shown. only as a half street
in front because he does not have any interest in the two properties.
The City Attorney stated that ~t the moment it is only a staff recom-
mendation, the commission has not acted on it as yet.
Mr. Gaus asked the question if the proposed angled street was not an
unusual method in which to bring a street through; he wondered if it
wasn't nor~l to bring a street straight through, instead. He added he
felt Mr. Twiss would object to this type of a street on account of the
lights from oncoming automobiles shining in his windows.
Commissioner Stout stated he believed this tract provided for good
planning for the aree, on the assumption that all of the conditions
outlined in the report can be met, and he would recommend its approval.
Mr. Victor Seidler, 341 Fairview Avenue, addressed the commission stat-
ing that the west boundary of his property is just 90 feet from the
land proposed to be subdivided. All the lots in his tract are of sub-
stantial size. All the homes are very nice, and represent sizeable
investments. The property owners have done their part to maintain
Arcadia as a city of beautiful homes. He did not feel that this pro-
posed tract is based upon sound planning; they do not oppose the open-
ing of Fairview Avenue, but they felt it should be done in a sane, safe
and logical manner, not haphazardly. Originally this tract was to pro-
vide 6 or 7 lots, and now he understood there might be 10 lots; he
felt that this would be crowding the area to place such a subdivision
immediately adjacent to a tract which is zoned R-O. He felt that the
lots should be fewer and that the sizes should be commensurate with
surrounding properties.
Mr. Twiss, 360 Fairview Avenue, concurred with Mr. Seidler's remarks;
his big complaint was that the homes will be situated on small home
sites, causing a crowded situation. He added that he will not will-
ingly deal with Mr. Erickson; the city might have to deal with him by
condemnation.
Mr. Wasseberger, 332 Fairview Avenue, doubted the wisdom of the cur-
ving of this street, because it would reduce the sight distance to the
motorist, and someday a child could easily be hit.
Mr. Slavin, 347 Fairview Avenue, stated that he is in favor of a cuI
de sac street. He felt that to open up the street would encourage
traffic from the race track to use Fairview Avenue, thus creating a
hazard for the residents of the proposed street extension.
Commissioner Michler stated that he would like to see this area opened
up and developed. He would like to see the church benefit also.
Rather than approve this tract tonight, he would like to refer it back
again to the Subdivision Committee and the Zoning Committee, and see
if something can't be worked out. He believed that it is the duty of
the Planning Commission to open up this landlocked area, and basically
he was in favor of the present tentative tract map; but in view of the
many protests he would like to take a further look at it.
Page Eight
March 8, 1960
. .
Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Forman to
recommend 'approval of Tract No. 25253, subject to the conditions
set out in the report.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Forman, Stout, Acker
NOES: Michler
ABSTAIN: Golisch (because 'he was not in attendance at earlier meetings.)
ABSENT: Davison and Norton
The Planning Secretary stated that it takes 4 votes to carry, and this
3 vote constitutes no action.
Commissioner Stout stated that he felt this is a very difficult situa-
tion; he expressed sympathy with Mr. Slavin's and Mr. Siedler's views,
they are in an R-O Zone. However, the conunission is dealing with an
R-l zone, and the minimum requirement ~f the Subdivision Ordinance for
a lot is 7500 square feet. When a subdivider comes before the conunission
having met all the requirements, and meets and exceeds the 7500 square
foot minimum, he didn't know on what basis the commission could refuse
him.
The City Attorney stated that a second motion would be in order to
refer this matter back to the committees. This map does comply with the
minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. One of the reasons
the conunission could deny this tract might be that they consider the
street layout hazardous. He also referred to the statements that the
race track traffic might use this new street, thereby adding to the
possible hazardous traffic; he would point out that customarily the
Police Department blocks off the residential streets that enter. the
main thoroughfares during the thoroughbred racing season, channeling
the bulk of the traffic on the through streets. He felt quite certain
that this would be one of the streets that would be blocked off. Fair-
view Avenue is already in excess of the maximum allowed for cuI de sac
streets, and any further extension of it further exceeds that maximum
length as specified in the ordinance.
Moved by Conunissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Stout and
carried to hold decision of this tentative tract and refer it back to
the Zoning and Subdivision Committees for further study.
RESOLUTIONS
No. 365 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 365, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CLASSI-
FICATION OF THE BUSINESS OF A TRAMPOLINE CENTER AS A
SPECIAL USE UNDER SECTION 17 OF ORDINANCE NO. 760 OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA."
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Forman and
carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 365.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Stout for the
adoption of Resolution No. 365.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Acker, Forman, Golisch,. Michler and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Davison and Norton
Page Nine
March 8, 1960
~ .. .
No. 366 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 366, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY P~ING COMMISSION OF, THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL
OF A ZONE VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
OF A SERVICE STATION AT THE CORNER OF HUNTINGTON
BOULEVARD AND SUNSET BOULEVARD IN SAID CITY."
Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Forman and
carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 366.
Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Forman for the
adoption of Resolution No. 366.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Acker, Forman, Michler and Stout
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Golisch
ABSENT: Davison and Norton
TRACT NO.
22034
The Planning Secretary informed the commission that at the regular
meeting of January 26, 1960, the commission gave final approval to Tract
No. 22034. Through error the matter was completely left out of the
minutes.
The City Attorney suggested that the approval of the final map of
Tract No. 22034 be approved upon the conditions recommended by the
staff, and that the minutes of January 26, 1960 be amended to show
the approval at that date.
Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Forman and car-
ried to reapprove the final map of Tract No..22034 on the conditions
recommended by the staff, and that the minutes of January 26, 1960
be amended to show the approval at that date.
Commissioner Golisch abstained from voting on this matter, because
he had not been in attendance at any previous commission meetings on
this matter.
ADJOURN
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission,
the meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
L. M. TALLEY
Planning Secretary
Page Ten
March 8, 1960