Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 10, 1960 . . ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE VARIANCE Pelt Process ~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARcADIA REGll1.AR MEETING MAY 10, 1960 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chambe;- of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P.M., May 10, 1960. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Gol'isch, Michler, Norton and 'Stout ABSENT: Commissioner Forman OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Edward L. Butterworth City Attorney James A. Nicklin Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz Planning Secretary L. M. Talley The minutes' of the meeting of April 26, 1960 were approved as written and mailed. The cOlIDllission continued the public hearing on the application of Rico Land and Investment for a zone variance to allow pert processing at 126-128 Wheeler Avenue. The Planning Secretary read the Zoning Committee and Staff report which stated the application of Rico Land and Investment Company for a zone variance to allow the processing of nutria pelts at 126 Wheeler Street has been reviewed by the Zoning Committee. This property is in Zone C-2, but the location is not conducive to nor- mal retail trade at the present time. At present, the only businesses on the street in this block consist of a wood working mill, a public garage, the post office and the subject building. At the public hearing four protests were received. ,The main objection seemed, to be the possibility of obnoxious odors. The Planning Secretary visited a dressing plant in Redondo where chin- chilla pelts were being dressed. There was no odor from the process, either inside or outside the building. The soaking of the pelts to soften the hide is done in a solution mainly of salt and alum. There was no indication of any fire hazard. Pending future development in this commercial area, we see no objec- tion to the granting of this requested variance, subject to the follow- ing conditions: Page One May 10, 1960 1. All operations on the premises shall be conducted in such a manner that no obnoxious odors or dust shall be emitted. 2. No manufacturing processes shall be conducted on the premises. 3. The variance shall be limited to a period of not more than 5 years, at which time the matter should be reconsidered in the light of conditions at that time. Commissioner Stout asked for a clear definition of processing as com- pared with manufacturing, in relation to this zone variance request. Commissioner Michler explained some of the history of the building pro- posed to be used for the pelt processing; the property was previously used for the manufacture of play clothes, namely cowboy and cowgirl outfits carrying the name of Hopalong Cassidy. Later, manufacture of clothing continued, establishing that the property had been in use for manufacturing purposes. Commissioner Michler continued stating that the applicants for this variance do not propose to use this building for manufacture of fur coats or fur pieces of any kind. These pelts are received through the United States mail or by express, and obviously could not exude an offen- sive odor, or the Post Office Dep~rtment would not accept them for mailing. Commissioner Stout maintained that if this pelt is the finished pro- duct, someone has to manufacture it;, even though the final product is not a fur coat, the pelt is manufactured on the premises. If it is going tc be used as an M-l Zone, then it should be called an M-l zone. The City Attorney asked if the end product of the applicant was sold wholesale. The Planning Secretary answered that it is sold to the wholesale fur buyers who manufacture the fur pieces. The City Attorney advised that it would seem to be primarily a whole- sale business" and that the p.rocessing is inc'idental to the wholesale trade. The Chairman, Mr. Acker, expressed concern about whether the process could be labeled tanning, since there are a number of tanks involved with the drying and change of water, and, if so, whether this is a proper location for such an establishment or not. Commissioner Golisch stated that he understood one of the operations that causes odors is the tanning process; the commission could resolve this aspect of the application by adding to the conditions of the granting of the variance that there wilt be no tanning operation. Considerable discussion ensued about the true meaning of tanning, and'whether this process could be classified as such. Mr. Rice, ,the applicant explained to the commission the tanning pro- cess is the act of removing the fur from the hide, and is accomplished first by bacterial action. After the hide is removed from the ani- mal it is hung in a humidity controlled room, and is not permitted to dry out at all; the resulting bacterial action is what causes the odor. Page Two May 10, 1960 It is then put through a machine that pulls the hair from the hide; then the hide is split. The process from then on is known as dress- ing. In the case of processing, nutria pelts the hair is not removed. Mr. Rice continued that in the processing the skin must be cured at the ranch to protect it from any bacterial process which would cause the hair to fall out, thus destroying the value of the pelts com- pletely. The Chairman asked how much water is used to complete the process. Mr. Rice explained there is a tank which holds about 100 gallons which will take about 200 skins; there is no change of water, except for the next batch of s~ins. He also explained that refrigeration is needed and kept at an average of 48 to 55 degrees; the intention is merely to hold the pelt and deter any bacterial action; it is not frozen. This would require about a 3 ton unit. Mr. Rice added that the individual in charge of the tank solution checks the solution with a device to be certain that all elements are present which are necessary to'the process. The solution contains salt and alum; no acids can be used at all, because they would attack the fur. Commissioner Stout asked about the parking situation; he wondered if in view'of the variance request, it would not be proper to discuss the parking. The Chairman stated that the parking would be included in the public parking area. The City Attorney explained that public parking does not satisfy the requirements of the zoning ordinance, per se; although it can be taken into consideration. The Chairman declared the public hearing closed. The City Attorney pointed out to the commission that from the evidence presented, it appears clear that this is either a wholesale process or a manufacturing process; he did not feel the commission need debate whether or not the request would be a proper use, technically under the zoning, but only whether there are circumstances applicable to the intended use of the property itself that would make this use obnoxious, detrimental, etc. Commissioner Norton stated that after reviewing the min~tes of April 2~, he noted that the surrounding property on Wheeler Avenue is com- posed of differe~t types of industrial operations, e.g. aCross the street is a millwork, beyond that a garage; and since there does not seem to be an obnoxious condition, and in view of the control covered by the conditions' outlined in the report; he felt that this type of operation would be compatible with the surrounding area. Commissioner Norton moved that the application of Rico Land and Invest- ment for a zone variance to allow pelt processing at 126-128 Wheeler Avenue be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions of the Zoning Committee and Staff report of May 9, 1960, with the revision of condition No. 2 to read "No manufacturing or tanning processes shall be conducted on the premises." The mation was seconded by Commissioner Michler. Page Three May 10, 1960 ZONE VARIANCE Bowling Alley ZONE VARIANCE Car Storage ~ ',,-_/' ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Stout NOES: None ABSENT: CODDDissioner Forman The commission was to continue the public hearing on the application of John W. Hunter and G. M. Shumaker for a zone variance to allow a bowling alley at 1020-1030 S. Baidwin Avenue; the Planning Secretary read tWo cODDDunications: The first was a letter from Mr. Lawrence Bourquin, which stated briefly that he was enclosing a set of the proposed apartment house plans for his property at 645 Fairview. ,He stated that if a bowling alley were allowed, he seriously doubted if he would build the apart- ment, because he felt that the bowling alley would not be compatible with the adjacent R-3 property. The second communication was signed by the applicant, Mr. G. M. Shumaker, and requested that the petition for the zone variance be withdrawn. Plans have been submitted which have been approved in accordance with the present zoning for a 24 lane bowling alley, and the request for zone variance will not be necessary at this time. The City Attorney stated that the ordinance makes no provision for ~he withdrawal of an application after notice, nor ,for the termina- t,ion of proceedings. In the past, he has suggested a minute resolu- tion, whereby the commission recites the request for termination, and that the commission recommend the proceedings then be terminated and the variance be denied without prejudice for the consideration of any new application hereafter filed. Moved by Commissioner, Stout, seconded by Commissioner Davison and carried to recoDDDend the termination of proceedings of the request for zone variance of John W. Hunter and G. M. Shumaker to allow a bowling alley at 1020-1030 S. Baldwin Avenue, and also to recoDDDend the denial without prejudice of this application. The commission considered a decision on the application of William A. Behrens for a zone variance for new car storage at 151 Alta Street. The Planning Secretary informed the commission that the public heartng on this matter had been closed at the Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 1960. He read a cODDDunication submitted by Mr. William A. Behrens, which stated he was enclosing pictures in support of his request. Mr. Behrens felt that the five foot setback he is requesting would not be out of pace with the balance of the street. The Planning Secretary passed the pictures to the commission for view- ing, and then read the Zoning Committee and Staff report which stated this is the application of William A. Behrens for a zone variance to permit the property at 151 Alta Street, in Zone PR-3, to be used for storage of new automobiles and a variance from the wall requirements. In the opinion of the committee this type of proposed land use is not incompatible with the parking uses permissible .inZone PR-3. Page Four May 10, 1960 --< In Zone PR-3 an entire lot may be used for parking purposes under specified conditions. however,we feel that a definite front set- back and a higher wall should be established' for automcibile storage as it applies to this application. Therefore, it is recommended that a 5 foot high ornamental concrete block wall be constructed across the width of the lot at the 30 foot front setback' line, and the setback area be landscaped and maintained. The application is recommended for approval, subject to the follow- ing conditions: L Remove the existing buildings from the lot. 2. Construct a, 4 foot high ornamental concrete block wall across the lot at 5 feet north of the front property line. 3. Landscape and maintain the 5 foot front area and the parkway on Alta Street. 4. Construct new curb on Alta Street at the present driveway,. 5. Construct a, 4 foot ornamental block wall along the east and west lines of the lot from the front wall to the 30 foot set back line, then a 6 foot ornamental block wall to the rear line of the lot. The design of the ornam,eIltal block wall and the type of landscaping shall be approved by the Modification Committee. 6. Pave the lot and conduct the drainage to the alley or street. 7. Direct all 'floodlighting away from residential pro- perty. The Planning Secretary explained that this report varied from the report submitted to the commission two weeks ago in that condition No. 3 stated the front 30 feet be landscaped, while in the report read tonight it is the front 5 feet; and condition No. 5 was changed from requiring a 6 .foot chain link fence along the east and west lines to the new recommendation of an ornamental block wall. Commissioner Stout stated that his experience with storage cars shows that it is vastly different from cars on a parking lot. Cars have a tendency to sit in the back not cared, for; the property is never kept clean. Commissioner Michler stated that many of the staff and members of the commission have viewed this area; he believed that the pictures sub- mitted at the meeting tonight gave a graphic picture of the area. He felt that the ornamental block wall and the landscaping required by the conditions of this variance would certainly add to the area. Commissioner Michler subsequently moved that the application of William A. Behrens for a zone variance for new car storage at 151 Alta Street be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the revised report of the Zoning Committee. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davison ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Golisch, Michler and Norton Page Five May 10, 1960 . . -" ~ NOES: Commissioner Stout ABSENT: Commissioner Forman TRACT NO. 21618 The commission considered the final map of Tract No. 21618 located on Greenfield Avenue, north of Pamela Road containing 14 lots. The Planning Secretary read the Subdivision Committee and Staff report which stated this is the final map of Tract No. 21618 lo- cated on Greenfield Avenue north of Pamela Road, containing 14 lots. The tentative map was approved on June 4, 1958. Slight changes were approved on February 3, 1959 and April 21, 1959. A one year extension of time was granted on May 5, 1959, and a 6 month further extension granted on May 3, 1960. The final map conforms with the approved tentative map and approved alterations thereof. A portion of the cul de sac at the south end of Greenfield Avenue is taken from city owned property and it will be necessary for the city to approve this dedication and for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the title sheet of the tract map. The tract is recommended for approval, subject to the following con- ditions: 1. Construct a full masonry veneer wall on the east wall of the garage adjacent to lot 3, with roof drainage not to drain on to lot 3. 2. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 3. Install all street improvements required by division Ordinance in accordance with plans grades to be approved by the City Engineer. the Sub- and 4. Pay the following fees and deposits: 31 Street trees @ $ 8.50 $ 263.50 2 Street name signs @ 35.00 70.00 5 Steel street light posts @ 135.00 675.00 14 Lots recreation fee @ 25.00 350.00 $1,358.50 5. The city shall dedicate lot 11, Tract No. 18618, M.B. N> .611 - 79 and 80 for street purposes to be known as Greenfield Avenue. 6. The city shall dedicate a small portion of the Camino Real reservoir site for street purposes and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the title sheet of the tract. Commissioner Stout stated that this seems to be a fine tract, and he would move that the final map of Tract No. 21618 be recommended for approval; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried unanimously, subject to conditions Nos. 1 through 6 of the Staff report dated May 5, 1960, as outlined above. Page Six May 10, 1960 . . TRACT NO. 21701 Final map of Tract No. 21701, located on Oakg1en Avenue north of Sycamore'Avenue containing 10 lots was to be considered by the com- mission, but the Planning Secretary advised the commission that the subdivider, Mr. Beckwith, again requested that this tract be removed from the agenda until some of the minor items are resolved. TRA!lT NO. 25253 The commission considered the revised tentative map of Tract No. 25253 located on Fairview Avenue containing 8 lots'. The earlier tentative map approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council showed two lots on the south side of the tract, lots 9 and 10, which have been removed from the tract, because the subdiv- ider has not secured the ground. The street has been shifted a little, so that a full street would be dedicated to that property, and there would be enough deaicated so that a fully improved 36 foot section of street can be constructed. The subdivider has requested that he be allowed to set up a subdivision trus't on the proper,ty so that if it is developed in the future he would recover a portion of his costs. The Planning Secretary then read the Subdivision Committee and Staff report which stated this tentative tract, located on Fairview Avenue was approved by the commission on March 22, 1960 and by the Council on April 5, 1960. The subdivider has been unable to secure the land for lots 9 and 10,' and has submitted a revised map eliminat1ng them from the tract. This has necessitated moving the street slightly to the north, making lot 4 about two feet shorter. However, all lots are still above minimum requirements. The revised map is recommended for approval, subject to all the con- ditions previously recommended, except that condition 3 should be eliminated and two more conditions added, as follows: 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 sid~ of the property at 1000 Holly Avenue. 2. The subdivider shall dedicate lot 10 in fee to the city. 3. The subdivider shall dedicate lot 9 in fee to the city, or will be permitted to establish a subdivision trust on this lot to recover a portion of the cost of developing the street. The amount of the trust to be approved by the city. 4. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 5. Remove all trees from the street area, and remove all miscellaneous buildings within the tract. 6. Install all street improvements required by the Sub- division Ordinance. Page Seven May 10, 1960 , . LOT SPLIT MATTERS FROM TIlE AUDIENCE 7. Pay the following fees and deposits: 7 Steel street light posts 2 Street name signs 42 Street trees 8 Lots recreation fee @ $135.00 $945.00 @ 35.00 70.00 @ 8;50 357.00 @ 25,.00' 200.00 $1,572.00 8. The dwelling at 924 Holly Avenue shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the Holy Angels church and at no expense to the church. 9. 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. Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and carried to recommend the approval of revised tentative map of Tract No. 25253, subject to the conditions Nos. 1 through 9 contained in the Subdivision Committee and Staff report dated May 5. 1960 as outlined above. No. 292 - Magnor A. Hanson, 809 Fairvlew Avenue, referred to Mr. Forman and Mr. Stout The owner is asking that the land be subdivided into two lots of 70 feet each. The west half now has an apartment house under con- struction, and on the east half an apartment house is planned. Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried to recommend the approval of lot split No. 292, subje d: to the following condition:.: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. A gentleman in the audience questioned the commission on the pos- sibility of changing the lot split procedure. The Director of Public Works explained that there had been some dis- cussion at the management level in the interest of handling lot splits with greater velocity. This plan would eliminate their consideration by the City Council, particularly if the lot splits are perfectly in accordance with all of the existing 'requirements. The matter is still being explored; however, nothing firm has been determined as yet. The City Attorney advised that it is the thought of the Council if the lot splits meet all the criteria, so that the commission could not deny it, that the ordinance be amended to permit the issuance of a building permit and the completion of the lot split on the staff level; bu:t any deviation from the set standards would have to be presented to ,the commission, and poss'ibly they would be ,able to take definite action except in the case of appeal for consideration by the City Council. The City Attorney continued that it is the Council's opinion that many details. the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion, could be handled on the staff level to save time. Page Elght May 10, 1960 . . RESOLUTIONS 362 & 364 NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMllISS ION ABANDONED BUILDINGS DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN Commissioner Norton asked if this would also include the viewing of the property by the staff. The City Attorney answered that the fixed set of standards could very well include the compliance of buildings on adjacent lands. It would be certainly proper that the ordinance could require staff viewing because frequently the conformance of adjacent buildings is an important factor in the consideration of a lot split application. The City Attorney went on to say that. in the delegation of any dis- cretion whatsoever to the staff level, the criteria must be spelled out to the point where there can be but one answer, otherwise the matter would have to go at least to the Planning Commission level. The Planning Secretary read a communication from the City Clerk'S office informing them that the City Council had referred Resolution Nos. 362 and 364 back for their review. The Planning Secretary explained that Resolution No. 362 was con- cerned with Annexation No. 14; and that Resolution No. 364 recom- mended zoning of Annexation No. l7-A on the property lying north of Lemon' Avenue except the portion on the south side of Duarte Road. The Chairman referred the matter to the Zoning Committee. The Planning, Secretary read three notices of public hearing to be held before the Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles County dealing with properties in the adjacent Los Angeles County area. The Planning Secretary was instructed to draw up a standard letter notifying the Regional Planning Commission that the matters do not meet the standards of the City of Arcadia. The Planning Secretary then presented copies of the proposed Foothill Freeway to each of the Planning Commissioners for their use; they also received copies of the Ordinance which estabiished the Planning Com- mission and its two or three amendments. The Chairman stated that there is no control of abandoned build- ings of Arcadia. He wondered if there shouldn't be some study to see if the city should give some consideration to providing for the control of these buildings. The Chairman referred the matter to the staff for study and a repor,t. Councilman Butterworth asked the Chairman and the commission if any thought had been given to the engaging of a Planning Consultant for the study of a general plan. The Chairman stated that a master plan had been discussed a number of times; it isanticipated that funds will be set aside in the budget for a consultant to study the area of the city Which will be affected by the proposed Foothill Freeway. The Chairman stated further that a master plan involves such a wide range of thinking it is questionable what a master plan actually is. He believed that Los Angeles County had what could be termed a master Page Nine May 10. 1960 . . ., using an overlay system, which shows exactly how a city is growing and developing, but the cost of continuing such a system of master planning is prohibitive. As soon,as any inprovement is made, each time, it must be checked and recorded on the overlay map: The cost of maintaining this type of overlay plan is very high. Councilman Butterworth asked if there had ever been any study of how much R~3 zone Arcadia ultimately wants to have or can stand. Commissioner Stout stated, in his opinion, it can't stand any more; the city has too much already. Councilman Butterworth added that with extensive R-3, a city becomes involved in the problems of density; the problems of children housed in R-3 property with the question of where to put them in the schools; when R-l property becomes old and deteriorates there is often pressure to convert it toR-3. The Chairman stated that the realization of the possibility of these problems is what motivated the commission to institute proceedings to upgrade the R-3 ordinance in the hope of restricting it to lower density., Councilman Butterworth stated that in his opinion no matter how much R..3 is restricted more population is realized than with R--l, He won- dered if there might not be danger of suddenly waking up and realiz- ing that a density situation has been created which cannot be undone. Councilman Butterworth continued expressing concern about the proper- ,ty adjacent to the proposed Foothill Freeway. There has been a pattern of pressure being generated by subdividers for R-3 along a freeway. The idea of lining a freeway on both sides with R-3, he felt, is deplorable, and yet he could ,not say what the answer might be. Commissioner Norton stated that he believed a community should deter- mine which way it is going and pass legislation which will guide them in the right direction; he would certainly concur that now is the time to commence such action to maintain and improve the desirable trends for theCity of Arcadia. At the opening of the meeting the Chairman introduced to the commis- sion, City Councilman Edwsrd L. Butterworth, as the recently appointed Council Representative to the Planning Commission, and welcomed him. ADJOURN There being no further business to co~ before the Planning Commission the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. 'f. hu ~ L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary Page Ten May 10, 1960