HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 24, 1960
M IN UTE S
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 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'clock P.M., May 24,
1960, with Chairman Acker presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Golisch, Michler,
Norton and Stout
ABSENT: None
OTHERS
PRESENT:
City Councilman Edward L. Butterworth
City Attorney James A. Nicklin
Director of Public Works C. E.Lortz
Planning,Secretary L. M. Talley
--"
.--
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 10, 1960 were approved as written
and mailed.
ZONING
ORD1NANCE
AMENDMENT
The commission continued the public hearing on the proposed amendment
of Sections 15 and 16 of the Zoning Ordinance concerning structural
alterations of non-conforming buildings.
The Planning Secretary displayed a drawing to the commission, and
pointed out in detail the proposals as outlined in the staff report
which stated the comIilittee has studied this matter and inspected on
the site the area north of Huntington Drive, between Santa Anita Ave-
nue and First Avenue..
This matter was previously studied, and a report made by a committee
consisting of one councilman, two planning commissioners and one park-
ing district commissioner.
We are in agreement with situation No. 1 of that report, wherein it
was recommended that structural alterations be permitted to be made
to non-conforming business buildings where there is no addition or
expansion of area of the present building.
In reference to alterations to buildings that do involve an increase
in area, and that will not comply with required parking areas, we
point out that the above-mentioned block has been used as a typical
study area, and the following suggestions will require some modifi-
cation to conform to conditions in other areas.
As to this particular block we suggest the commission consider the
following:
On property which is included in the assessment district
of any vehicle parking district additions and structural
alterations will be allowed to be made to buildings con-
structed prior to the recording" date of an assessment to
Page One
May 24, 1960
''----/
\__/
provide public parking areas, subject to the follow-
ing regulations:
1. Where such property abuts a public alley, such
building and its additions may extend to a line
not less than 35 feet from the alley line.
2. A Portland cement concrete sidewalk not less than
8 feet wide shall be .constructed the full width of
the building site adjoining the rear building line.
3. A planting area not less than 5 feet wide shall be
provided adjoining the sidewalk; such plant-ing area
shall be contained within concrete curbs with suit-
able passageways for pedestrians, and shall be
landscaped and mainta.ined.
4. The rear 22 feet of the lot adjacent to the alley
shall be paved and maintained as a public parking
area shall have painted lines marking the parking
stalls, which shall be at right angles to the alley.
5. The addition or alteration of the building shall
include an 8 foot wide marquee the full width of
the building.
6. No signs shall be permitted on the rear of the build-
ing, except a sign mounted on the marquee parallel
with the marquee, and not exceeding 18 inches in
height. No flashing signs shall be allowed.
7. All plans for such additions and alterations shall
be subject to approval by the Planning Commission
before the issuance of a building permit. In grant-
ing such approval the commission shall require har-
mony and uniformity of design, plant.ing and colors.
8, In the opinion of the committee, if this area can be
redeveloped along the lines suggested, it will be to
the advantage of the individual owner, the tenant,
the area, and the city as a whole and it is suggested
that no additional contribution to the parking dis-
tract funds be required.
9. In areas where the subject property does not abut a
dedicated alley, the Planning Commission shall con-
sider the area and attempt to work out a plan that
will substantially conform with the above sugges-
tions.
The Planning Secretary pointed out that the commission should bear
in mind throughout the discussion that the buildings under discus-
sion are non-conforming because of not having required parking. There
could be and there are buildings which are non-conforming because
of other reasons, but only the non-conforming buildings because of
parking are now under consideration.
The parking stalls which are currently behind Mel Pratt's music stare
are now painted with diagonal white lines, which only allowed him two
stalls; if the parking stalls were at right angles to the alley he
could realize three stalls.
Page Two
May 24, 1960
In answer to questions about the practicality of turning into the
parking stalls, the Planning Secretary explained that originally
they had planned to have 20 foot stalls; the alley itself is 20
feet wide, and there WOuld be 42 feet in illl by eliminating the
wheel bumper in the stall; he felt that it would be a feasible sol-
ution.
The Director of Pub~ic Works stated he too believed that these right
angle parking stalls would be the most practical solution to the
need for additional parking.
The Planning Secretary continued explaining that all the properties
between Santa Anita and First face..Huntington Drive; this situation
does not exist on the properties east of First Avenue; there are lots
facing First Avenue that have no alleys behind them, although the
remainder of the lots on Huntington Drive do abut an alley.
There were three separate requests from merchants on Huntington Drive
who are interested in proceeding with alterations to their buildings.
The Chairman announced that this is the time and place for public hear-
ing, and asked for the comments from anyone in the audience, before
the cODDllission itself reviews the situation.
Mr. Walter Gockley, co-owner and manager of the Brown Shop, was very
much interested in the recommendations of the Planning Commission. His
only question was whether or not parking was necessary immediately in
back of the stores, because there is adequate parking in back of the
alley.
Mr. Gockley stated further that his business is looking towards expan-
sion, it would certainly improve the traffic through the back door,
and right now it seems to be a fifty-fifty deal, so it is important
~hat the back end of the store is looking good.
Mrs. Covell, owner of the Covell's Dress Shop, stated that she felt
very much'as Mr. Gockley did. She did not feel that there should he
an ordinance which would prohibit their enlarging and improving their
businesB structures. She would like very much to have,' her store
extended so that she could have sportswear as well as dresses. She
added that she might be able to persuade the landlord to add to the
property if the ordinance were amended to allow the structural changes.
Commissioner Forman felt that the suggested plan is certainly a step
in the right direction.
Commissioner Golisch stated that before the commission should state
its pOSition too definitely, he felt that the business group affected
should make suggestions and show a more representative reaction from
the merchants themselves. He wondered if a haphazard arrangement
might not result if all the merchants are not interested in going
ahead with these improvements; this would defeat the possibility of
the desired uniform arm ngement.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Davison, the Planning Sec-
retary stated as of today, additional parking is not required, be-
cause the public parking lot is not filled to capacity, but if im-
provements stimulate business, and if the north side of Wheeler Ave-
nue develops (which also paid into this parking district) there is no
way of knowing how much parking would be required.
The Director of Public Works cited an instance of past experience in
a neighboring city which is rather tantamount insofar as sales tax is
concerned; approximately a million dollars a year derived from busi-
ness. Their problem was exactly what is facing the downtown area
today in about 1945; during the period of 1950 to 1958 over a million
Page Three
May 24, 1960
\-./
dollars was spent by the property owners to provide essential parking.
The Director of Publ ic Works continued; it doesn I t appear that this
ar~,needs much parking now, but when the stores commence to develop
with attractive fronts at the rear entrance, and customers start pat-
ronizing the stores, the parking space is taken up and every foot of it
is needed.
Commissioner Norton stated that he thought the commission should pay
attention to the Director of Public Work's opinion, and realize that
maximum parking space should be provided since the plan is to attempt
to 'attract people to this area. Attention must be paid to improving
the parking facilities.
The Planning Secretary stated that the approximate parking on the pro-
perty to the rear of these buUdings, theoretically would allow 165
spaces on the south side of the alley.
Commissioner Davison stated that he did not think it would be a very
attractive looking back if cars are parked all along the rear of the
stores at right angles to the alley. The walk will go so far and stop
due to the difference in the setbacks of the buildings now existing.
He also expressed concern about how loading and unloading would be ac-
complished.
Commissioner Michler stated that there are very fine merchants along
this strip; he is very familiar with the situation having been active
in the Chamber of Commerce for many years; he knows what their prob-
lems are. Obviously the tenants are going to have to sell their land-
lords on the idea of investing additional funds in the property, in
the hope of expanding these buildings, and thus increasa business activ-
ity. He used as an example the Covell Dress'Shop, which, if it were
expanded, would allow rear acceSS to Huntington Drive. He personally
felt that these business people are worthy of substantis1 confidence
in their attempts to improve their properties and ultimately their
businesses.
Commissioner Michler continued that he believed a meeting should be
arranged with the business people interested in this expansion. He
felt that there should be a larger representation of the businessmen;
since. . there is not, he would recommend that this matter be continued
to the next regular meeting, so that they could come in and give
their views as to the acc~ptance of this idea.
Mr. Gockley, owner of the Brown Shop, stated that when the matter first
was brought up, the association selected Mel Pratt as their representa-
tive. It has only been recently that they realized the commission
would like to have a more plural representation of the association.
He knew that there would eventually be the problem of selling the land-
lords on this idea, but first step was for the city to institute pro-
ceedings resulting in the amendment of the ordinance to indicate its
willingness to go along with the possible improvement.
The City Attorney explained that there is no deadline on this public
hearing, and he would recommend that the commission not close the hear-
ing if they anticipated any further reports or discussions of any kind.
The City Attorney continued that the problem stems from the fact that
the requirement of off street parking is of relatively recent vintage.
The burden of that requirement does not effect the newly developed
areas so greatly as they were able to plan their buildings with the
Page Four
May 24, 1960
requirement already in mind. The buildings which pose the real pro-
blems are those which were constructed. some as far back as 30 years
ago. at a time when most of the general transportation was mass tran-
sit in bus. and particularly rail.
The City Attorney continued that possibly some more sweeping amend-
ments would better accomplish the desired end. First of all, under
the ordinance, public parking districts do not satisfy the require-
ment for off street parking for any particular property, and as long
as that provision is in the ordinance then you cannot assume that be-
cause there is so much public parking that they have met their require-
ments; they have not. You may run into constitutional difficulties
if you base it on that.
The providing of parking by an off street parking district will not
achieve more than a portion of the parking that is required under our
ordinance, because of the limitations on assessments that may be made.
There again. you cannot be misled by the fact that they are in a dis-
trict. A party might be included in the district and .not provide one
parking space for his property. because the property owners forming the
district determine the amount of parking that they are going to acquire.
If you make that a criteria they could go into a district and not pro-
vide any parking to speak of and be off and running on the same basis
as some of these other areas that have provided the maximum parking
a district could provide under assessment limitation.
The City Attorney added; with respect to the commercial loading, he
thought it would be well to consider some of these areas as areas
rather than individual lots, and to provide properly spaced loading
zones that would serve two. possibly three stores, rather than to
think of providing a loading zone for each property. It's not common
that all the loading spaces are occupied at the same time. He person-
ally would oppose the permitting of commercial loading and unloading in
the alley. because most of the trucks are pret~y close to the maximum
width. and your alleys are pretty close to the minimum width. and if the
vehicle doesn't hug the extreme edge of the alley you have blocked the
entire alley, not just half of it,
The City Attorney would recommend that the commission consider the
possibility of one way alleys rather than two-way alleys, as presently
exist in the city; the flow of traffic is greatly increased by such
an innovation.
The City Attorney concluded that the area might be given a lift if
there were a relaxation of the off street parking requirements in the
pre-developed areas, those areas which were essentially developed prior
to the time requirements were established. If these back entrances
are improved and made attractive, they will probably be~ome the main
entrance in a short period of time; the parking lots to the rear will
be the ones with the heavy use, not the ones on the street at the front.
Commissioner Michler stated that he felt many items had been brought up
tonight of which he had not been aware; he would like in the interest
of saving time to have the matter referred back to the Zoning Committee.
He would agree that the report whould be made available to the mer-
chants involved.
Commissioner Stout stated that he felt there is a problem which pre-
sents a real challenge. This appears to be a problem essentially of
economics.
Page Five
May 24, 1960
Lot SPLIT
TRACTS
No. 25439
,
\ /
After considerable discussion it was determined by the commission
that the Planning Secretary should arrange a meeting of the commission
and the members of the Downtown Businessmen's Association, furnishing
them withcopies of the report for the meeting.
Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and
carried to continue this public hearing until the meeting of June 14,
1960.
No. 293 - O. M. Knutsen Building Company, 717 Camnno Grove Avenue
referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Forman.
This request is following out the suggestion of the Subdivision Com-
mittee at the time the applicant submitted the subdivision for the
extension of Encino and Camino Grove to provide another lot facing
Camino Grove Avenue.
Commissioner Forman stated that he had viewed this property, and it
appeared that it would be a very acceptable lot split.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by COlIIIDiss.ioner Stout and
carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 293. subject to
the following conditions:
1. File a final map with the City Engineer.
2. Install a sewer main and lateral to serve
the lot.
3. Dedicate a 5' planting and sidewalk easement
over the front of parcell.
4. Pay $25.00 recreation fee.
The cOlIIIDission considered the final map of Tract No. 25439 located on
Winnie Way and Eighth Avenue containing 20 lots.
The Planning Secretary read from a. report from the Subdivision Commit-
tee and staff which stated this is the final map of Tract No. 25439
located on Winnie Way and Eighth Avenue containing 20 lots.
The map conforms to the revised tentative map approved by the commis-
sion on April 12 and by the Council on April 19, 1960, and is recommended
for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Pay the trust established by Tract No. 22279.
2.
Remove all buildings within the tract.
3.
Provide all necessary rear line utility easements.
4.
Install all street improvements required by the sub-
division ordinance.
5.
Pay the following fees and deposits:
44 Street trees @ $ 8.50 $ 374.00
1 Street name signs @ 35.00 35.00
4 Steel street light posts @ 135.00 540.00
20 lots recreation fee @ 25.00 500.00
$1,449.00
6.
Tbe city shall release the covenant recorded against
the property at 706 E. Camino Real.
Page Six
May 24, 1960
TRACT NO.
19065
MASTER PLAN
7; The city shall dedicate the present barrier at
Eighth' Avenue for street purposes,.
The commission considered the revised tentative map of Tract No.
19065 located on Lee Avenue south of Longden Avenue containing 21
lots.
The Planning Secretary read the Subdivision Committee and staff re-
port which stated this is a revised tentative map of Tract No. 19065
located on Lee Avenue south. of Longden Avenue containing 21 lots.
A map of this tract was approved by the commission on December 22, 1959
and by the Council on January 5, 1960. That map showed a future s.treet,
and a lot north of lot 10.
The subdivider has been unable to secure the rear portion of the pro-
perty at 138 E. Longden Avenue to provide these. He has requested
that the future street and the lot north of it be eliminated from
the tract, and that lot 23, being 1 foot by 300 feet, be approved.
Lot 23 will be deeded in trust to a title company, and a subdivision
trust will be established. This will enable the subdivider to recover
a portion of the cost of opening the street, and will provide the city
with control on the future subdivision of the land to the west.
This revised tentative tract is recommended for approval, subject to
all the conditions recommended in the previous approval, except as fol-
lows:
1. Eliminate condition No.9 requiring the dedication of
the proposed future street north of lot 10.
2. Change condition No. 10 to require a 5 foot planting
and sidewalk easement along the north side of lot 10.
Commissioner Forman stated that during the meeting of the Subdivision
Committee it was generally felt that this is a good solution to the
subdivider's problem, and he would move that the revised tentative map
of Tract No. 19065 be recommended for approval.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Michler, subject to the new
conditions as outlined in the report dated May 19, 1960.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Golisch, Michler
and Stout
NOES: Commissioner Norton
ABSENT: None
The Planning Secretary read communications from the following people
'who spoke in favor of the establishing of a master plan for the City
of Arcadia.
Mr. Charles T. Carlson, 631 Santa Rosa Road
Mr. Kermit D. Ferguson, 305 Armada Road
Mrs. LeRoy Patnou, 457 W. Longden
Mrs. William V. Hull, 237 W. Camino Real
Page Seven
May 24, 1960
. , . .
The following person submitted a communication which opposed the
idea of a master plan.
Mrs. Claude H. Perier, 518 Columbia Road
Discussion ensued.
Councilman Butterworth stated that he bel,ieved $10,000.00 had been
included in the proposed budget fot the fiscal year 1961-62; and will
be expended apparently in one of two ways one to undertake a comprehen-
sive master plan with respect to the entire city, a full scale master
plan in all res\lects,. He knew that there would be no doubt about the
establishment of a full scale master plan being a much more expensive
matter than the' money appropriated ai: this time, perhaps a realistic
estimate of $40,000.00 or $50,000.00.
Commissioner Forman requested of Mr. Talley the information he might
have which would describe the theory of a master plan.
The Planning Secretary stated that Mr. Forman was referring to the
copy of the State Planning Act, which he did not have with him, but he
briefly uut1ined a part of it from memory.
The Planning Secretary explained that in a couple of the letters deal-
ing with the ma,ster plan the writer gave the impression that it con-
sisted primarily of the zoning ordina~e. The master plan consists of
many more items than just a zoning ordinance; the city has presently a
zoning ordinance. Among some of the items which could be included in
a master plan are a master plan of drainage (which Arcadia has), sewers,
(which this city has), transportation, conservation, recreation, sub-
division of property (the city has a Subdivision Ordinance) a master
plan of streets (among the streets which have been approved for the
expenditure of gas tax funds, we have all the e'lements of a master plan
of streets), ,schools, public 'buildings, etc.
Councilman Butterworth added the Master Plan would include the density
of population a city wants, the shopping habits, the shopping area, the
purchasing power of the community, the amount of business a community
desires'; there are a good many economic and financial surveys as well
that go into a comprehensive master plan.
CommiSSioner Michler stated that he has attended many of the meetings
of the California League of Cities, and he is of the opinion that there
is a lot of confusion among the experts on the subject of master plan-
ning. He personally had no real objection to the inception of a mas-
ter plan in the City of Arcadia, provided the citizens desire to
spend the amount of money required.
Councilman Butterworth stated he agrees with Commissioner Michler that
there is a great deal of confusion as to the meaning of a master plan,
even among the professionals who do the actual master planning; he felt
that the city would have nothing to lose in investigating and listening
to professionals. He added that the University of Southern California
has many experts in this field.
Commissioner Forman wished to go on record that he did not mean to give
the impression he was opposed to a master plan; he was merely attempting
to get across the idea that a master plan is much more than just the
matter of zoning ordinances.
The Chairman requested that Councilman Butterworth contact the councilmen,
and see if they would be desirous of inviting an expert from a reputable
Page Eight
May 24, 1960
RESOLUTIONS
university to address both the Planning Commission and the City Coun-
cil. When such desires are made known the commission can take the
necessary steps to arrange such a meeting.
No. 374 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No.. 374, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TIlE GRANTING OF A
ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STORAGE, DRESSING AND PROCES-
SING OF NUTRIA SKINS AT 126-128 WHEELER AVENUE."
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Mich1erand
carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 374.
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman for the
adoption of Resolution No. 374.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton
and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No. 375 - The City A't'torney presented Resolution No. 375, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE
ERECTION AND OPERATION OF A 32-LANE BOWLING ALLEY ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1020-1030 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE."
Moved by Commissioner Stout,. seconded by Commissioner Norton and
carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 375.
Moved by Commisaioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Norton for the
adoption of Resolution No. 375.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker,. Davison, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton
and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No. 376 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No.. 376 entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA,. CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRJINTING OF A
ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE STORAGE OF NEW AUTOMOBILES ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 151 ALTA STREET."
A question was raised concerning one of the conditions outlined in
the resolution pertaining to the ornamental block wall. Members of
Page Nine
May 24, 1960
L
.. ..
the commission questioned that the ornamental block wall should con-
tinue around the entire perimeter of the property, rather that only the
four foot wall across the front and from the property line to the
setback line should be ornamental.
The Planning Secretary stated that it had been his understanding the
entire wall should be ornamental. He added that the sides are what
the neighbors are looking at, and this, he had understood, was the
reason for the recommendation that the wall be ornamental around the
whole property.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Davison and
carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 376.
Moved by Commtssioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Michler for
the adoption of Resolution, No. 376.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Golisch, Michler and Norton
NOES: Commissioners ,Forman and Stout
ABSENT: None
ADJOURN
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission
the meeting was adjourned.
1!K~:"7
Planning' Secretary