Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 14, 1960 '--~" \-..-.' MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING JUNE 14, 1960 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8: 00 0 I clock P..M., June 14, 1960, with Chairman Acker presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Stout ABSENT: Commissioner Davison 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 24, 1960 were approved as written and mailed. ZONING OItDINANCE Al>lENDMENT 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 read the revised report which resulted from the committee meeting of a week ago; the report stated the committee and the staff have extensively restudied this problem and reviewed the suggestions mad~ by property owners and tenants at the conference held on June 6, 1960. It appears that the majority of the interested parties are in agree- ment with the general proposal for upgrading the old business area, but there are some differences on the proposed details. In the opinion of the committee and staff, any upgrading will be on an individual basis and it will take considerable time to accomplish the ultimate desire of the commission. We feel that any improvement in the srea is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged. The type of improvement we have in mind is the alteration and beauti- fication of the rear of the present buildings to create an attractive rear entrance for the present tenants, and not just to add an addi- tional tenant without providing the additional entrance to the exist- ing building. We recommend that the following suggestions be given serious consider- ation: Page One June 14, 1960 /---, Commercial buildings which have been assessed for the creation of a public vehicle parking district and which ar.e or may become non-conforming for the sole reason of not having the required off-street parking spaces may be added to or structurally altered to provide attractive rear entrances, subject to the following regulations: 1. Where such property abuts a public alley, such build- ing and its additions may extend to a line not l.ess than 35 feet from the alley line. 2.. A Portland cement concrete sidewalk, or its equivalent, not less than 8 feet wide shall be constructed the full width of the building site adjoining the rear line of the building. 3. A planting area not less than 5 feet wide shall be pro- vided adjoining the sidewalk; such planting area shall be con- tained within concrete curbs with suitable passageways for pedestrians, and shall be landscaped and maintained. 4. The rear 22 feet of the lot adjacent to the alley shall be paved and maintained as a public parking area. The parking area shall have painted lines marking the parking stalls in a manner most conducive to the overall parking plan of the area. 5. The addition or alteration of the building shall include an 8 foot wide marquee the full width of the builaing at a minimum height of 8 feet above the sidewalk. 6. No roof s.igns to be permitted on the rear of the build- ing. Any wall signs shall be mounted parallel with the build- ing and flush against the wall. Any slgn mounted on the marquee shall not exceed 18 inches in height. Any sign mounted under the marquee shall have a minimum of 7 feet ance above the sidewalk and a maximum of 5 feet length. flashing signs shall be permitted on the rear portion of building. clear- No the 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 granting such approval the commission shall require harmony and uniformity of design, planting and colors. 8. In areas where the subject property does not abut a dedicated alley, the Planning Commmission shall consider the area and attempt to work out a plan that will substantially conform with the above suggestions. 9. In the opinion of the committee the contemplated re- development of the area is of sufficient general interest that no additional contributions to the parking district fund should be required. The Planning Secretary explained that there have been some minor changes in this report compared to the earlier one presented,spec- ifically as regards .the parking at right angles to the alley at the rear of the buildings; the sign requirements have been modified to allow a sign mounted flat against the building, as well as to allow a sign under the marquee so that one could locate the different shops from the walk. Page Two June 14, 1960 The Chairman .suggested that this would be the time for cODDllents from the cODDllissioners on the report which had just been presented. C01lDllissioner Michler stated that he felt this report came as close to the solution of these problems as was possible. He added that it was his impression that this improvement is not going to be realized all at one time, but that it will probably stretch over a period of years; particularly in one case in which the merchant was not interested in making any improvement for at least seven years. Commissioner Michler continued that he concurred with the recommenda- tions in the report and the particular control covered by Item No.7, which stipulated that the commission must pass approval on all planned :lmprovemen ts. The Planning. Secretary read a cOlIDDUnication signed by John T. Hastings, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, which, briefly stated, that his wife Mrs. Lois M. Hastings is the owner of the property at 47-49. E. Huntington Drive, and that their present tenant Mr. Walter E. Gockley is an excel- lent one, who has contributed a great deal to the City of Arcadia. The letter went on to state that the writer believed this is a fine co~ mercial area, with a fine future, and they would like to make certain suggestions for consideration. Mr. Hastings felt that the type of com- mercial area whe1l!..bis property is located did not require much provision for loading space, inasmuch as a great deal of their shipping is done either by mail or express which is often handled right through the front door. In reference to parking, the writer felt that Arcadia had sufficient off Street parking, and he also recommended that the commission seriously consider the possibility of allowing the owners to improve the building back to the alley line which would be the full expanse of the property in order that the tenant may present his full line of merchandise. Commissioner Norton stated there might still be an avenue of possibility that these property owners could get together and entertain the possi- bility of doing this work at the same time and to have the cost pro- rated on an amortized basis, in order to accomplish the type of continu- ity which seems so desirable. Commissioner Forman stated that as long as the commission has adequate control over any improvements which would be sought, he did not feel that it would be practical, even though desirable to realize the com- plete and continuous development described by Commissioner Norton. He felt that the suggestions as outlined in the report were a step in the right direction. Mr. Ed Mullin, 51 E. Huntington Drive stated that he went along with everything except the recommended 35 foot setback from the alley; he is located right next door to the Goodyear Building which abuts the alley. He wondered what use could be made of the setback of 35 feet as .recommended in the report. The members of the commission informed Mr. Mullin that it was proposed to use this setback for additional park- ing. Mr. Mullin concluded that this sounded like a very feasible plan. Councilman Butterworth asked the Planning SecretarY what the purpose of a sidewalk with different lengths of setbacks might serve. The Planning Secretary answered that the committee and the commission had in mind the hope that eventually the stores would come out to the 35 foot line or to a uniform line of some sort, so that there would be a sidewalk area on which to walk from one doorway to another. That was the reason for requiring the marquee in case of inclement weather to accomodate the shoppers. It is realized that for some years this is Page Three June 14, 1960 not going to happen entirely. One of the merchants at the meeting on June 6 ,stated that he planned no improvement on his building for the next seven years. Others do not plan anything for the development .of their property., but it was the hope of the commission that eventually a continuous walk could be realized. . Councilman Butterworth stated that he concurred with the view expressed that unless there is a single plan submitted by the mer- chants themselves, he felt that inertia would almost terminate the idea. Commissioner Michler stated that he felt that this is a matter which will require the full cooperation of the owners., the staff and the Planning Commission. He felt that something has to be worked out in the interest of the merchants who do wish to improve and expand; may be the plans as outlined will not be the ultimate, but as the plans come before the commission, something might be worked out which would be very desirable. The City Attorney stated that he had two comments to make: One; if this plan is to result in the amendment of the ordinance the amendment would apply to any area where the parking district is estab- lished, and the requirements as outlined in the report have been tailored to more or less fit the present area under consideration. In creating abstract criteria the commission must keep in mind that it may also apply to other areas. Two; there is no relationship stated in these conditions limiting the amount of increased floor space that may be added. Floor space will increase the need for parking; it's important because the parking dis- tricts were formed and the properties assessed in large measure on the basis of the improvements on the property. A person who had unimproved property was assessed appreciably less than those who were fully developed. If, for example, a property owner had only one third of his property covered by a one story building; if he is allowed to build up to within 35 feet of the alley and make a two story building on top of that, he's going to get the greatest share of the parking and have paid the least of anyone in the. whole district. These are the possibilities which the commission should consider; there should be restrictiaB on the amount of floor area which may be added to existing structures. The 'Planning Secretary stated that when the hearings were first insti- tuted it was discussed that if floor space were added some contribution would be required. However, the merchants didn't seem to favor this plan; as an example, the leher from Mr. Hastings which was read earlier stated that he would like to build clear back to the alley, because they have more parking than is needed in the present public parking lot. We tried to point out to them that if the improvements are made they would need more parking, and that was the reason for keeping the rear 35 feet open to provide a certain amount of possible overflow parking. The City Attorney stated that properties were assessed in large measure by the improvements located on their property, and those improvements are the expensive item of the assessment. Compare this situation with a person who had less expensive improvements, and after has has received all the bill he is ever going to get, because you can never reassess a property nor ever include it in another district, adds to his floor area. It won't be a problem until somebody does build a large commer- cial building on one of the vacant lots which will use the lion's share of the parking. Page Four June 14, 1960 \"--) Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Forman to close the public hearing on this matter. Commissioner Stout stated there seems to be a wide divergence of opinion on the method of arriving at the amendments to Sections 15 and 16 of the Zoning Ordinance at this time. He was not so sure that a marquee is the best type of deSign for this area; West Arcadia shop- ping area does a fine business and they have no marquees; also, the walks do not line up inasmuch as the setbacks of the buildings are different. He felt that it is a matter of economics for any merchant to want to have a right to expand to obtain the maximum amount of use, out of it; one would have to be sympathetic to the desire of building right to the alley, which would result in more services to the people of Arcadia. Commissioner Stout cOlmnended the committee and staff for the fine work and study put forth on this matter as outlined in the report presented tonight. He recommended that the report be referred to the Downtown Businessmen's Association for their review, and end this matter until they come back with agreement that the recommendation be adopted or with whatever modifications they wish. The Chairman informed the commission that with the closing of the pub- lic hearing. a time limit on a decision had been established. Commissioner Mich~r stated that he had no particular feeling about a marquee; the only reason that it was included in the requirements was that a proposed plan had been submitted to the committee selected to study this problem, and this plan showed a marquee. Commissioner Norton stated that the commission would be defeating everything it had started out to accomplish if the uniformity of design was not maintained. Either the properties are improved on the basis of an overall plan; the commission must make it mandatory that the devel- opment be uniform or it will not be giving the merchants the. assistance they sought originally. .. The Chairman asked if it would be possible to establish some type of time limit, that if no improvements were realized by a certain date, the ordinance, as it now is written, will stand. The City Attorney stated that he did not wish to go on record as being opposed to assisting this downtown area, however, he has had experience enough to know sometimes in anxiety to help, you can fall into a trap and destroy the very thing that you're trying to accomplish by not making adequate safeguards. COllllll1ssioner Michler stated that in the interest of saving time, he would recommend that the matter be referred back to the Downtown Business Association for review and possible action. Commissioner Forman stated that he believed that the City Attorney has opened up new avenues of consideration, such as limiting the square footage of improvements on existing buildings and placing a possible time limit on the improvements. . These new thoughts necessitate the continuing of the public hearing to allow time for the businessmen affected t\>study and arrive at some definite con- clusions. It was pointed out that the motion to close the public hearing had not been voted on. The motion and the second were withdrawn. Page Five June 14, 1960 . . LOT SPLlT WEST ARCADIA ZON ING Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried to continue this public hearing unt~ the meeting of July 26, 1960. No. 294 - Charlotte L. Sutton, 1030 Portola Drive, referred to Mr. Forman and Mr.. Golisch. The Planning Secretary read the .engineer's report Which stated that this lot contains approximately 12,000 square feet and has a frontage of 190 feet. The split proposes lots of only 6000 square feet; it warrants consideration. The development of the lot presents serious problems because of its excessive frontage. The Planning Secretary read a letter from Wesley Davies of Rancho Santa Anita which stated that the letter was a certification that the corporation has approved the lot split. Commissioner Forman stated that he had viewed the property, and he could not see the practicality of allowing this split even though he could sympathize with the applicant's problem. He felt that 6000 square feet in a lot is entirely too small,.cand that to build two homes on the property would be very impractical. Mrs. Charlotte Sutton stated that she purchased this part of lot 6 six years ago; she has had the lot up for sale all this time, and has been unable to sell it. Because of the location of the lot it is not a good area for building a home and raising children, due to the traffic conditions which exist. After considerable discussion, it was IIlOved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried to recommend the denial of Lot Split No. 294. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker. Forman, Go1isch. Michler, Norton and Stout. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davison The Planning Secretary explained to the commission that along with Annexation l7-A the commission considered Annexation No. 14, and made certain recommendations to the City Council. The City Council has adopted the commission'srecommenclations as they apply to the pro- perty on the south side of Duarte Road. At the request of the commission the two resolutions pertaining to Annexation 14 and Annexation No. 17-A from Lemon Avenue north have been referred back for consideration. Plans have been submitted for the improvement of the southwest corner of Camino Real and Baldwin Avenue to a commercial development which would need a C-2 or C-3 zone to allow what is planned. Today a tentative plan was filed for the develop- ment of the two lots at the corners of Ca1lita Street by Robinson Brothers and it appears to be the desire of the commission to hold a new hearing on this entire matter of Annexation 14. The Planning Secretary pointed out on the map. the background of hearings and all steps leading up to the recommendations by the commission. He concluded that if the resolution pertaining to the balance of Annexation No. 17-Ai lying north of Lemon Avenue is in accord with the commission's Page Six June 14, 1960 . . views they should refer it back to the council for action so as not to keep the property owners waiting for any possible improvement they may wish to realize. Commissioner Norton stated that he wished to express himself that the complexion of the entire area.is destined for change. With the advent of the freeway, the potential turnoff of Baldwin Avenue will be a link- age from the San Bernardino'Freeway to the Foothill Freeway; rather than zone the area piecemeal, he wondered if it wouldn't be more real- istic to zone Baldwin Avenue entirely as it woul.d be affected by these anticipated changes; he believed that the people of Arcadia should be brought into this, and that they should take a long look now. The Director of Public Works in answer to a request for a description of the status of Baldwin Avenue stated that about 30 years ago a countywide master highway plan was established and Baldwin Avenue was one of the streets included in this master plan. Baldwin Avenue from Huntington Drive to Colorado was widened and improved through use of county funds; about 50% of Baldwin Avenue through Arcadia is now cap- able of handling 4 lanes of traffic; about 50% of it through county territory is available for 4 lanes of traffic. There are discussions and serious plans to construct an underpass at the Foothill Freeway at the prolongation of Baldwin Avenue; Rosemead .Boulevard and Santa Anita Avenue are the only main north-south routes in this area, and these two streets are carrying more traffic than they can comfortably handle. The improvement of Baldwin Avenue will lighten the load on these two thoroughfares. In the past few months funds have been set up for the widening of Baldwin from Live Oak Avenue to Las Tunas Drive. It may not be accomplished this or the next calendar year, because there is a County Flood Control 'District storm drain planned for Baldwin; it would not be practical to improve this portion until after the storm drain project is completed. The City Attorney added that south from Lower Azusa Road all the way to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, the county fairly recently opened and widened Baldwin Avenue, and they are in the process of surveying from the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to Valley Boule- vard; so far as it becoming a major highway, it has been so determined for some 30 years, and all steps have beenin that direction. Commissioner Stout stated that in support of Commissioner Norton's remarks, it should be observed that 30 years ago the planners could not possibly have envisaged that Arcadia was to be the city it is today; this master plan of highways should have no bearing on what the City of Arcadia wants to have. He believed that whether or not the city wants a throughway cutting up the city both from north to south and from east to west is a matter for the entire city to consider. The Director of Public Works stated that the 1929 master plan of high- ways has been followed very closely, and is constantly being reviewed, reevaluated and modified by the Regional Planning Commission and the County Road Department. After continued discussion the Planning Commission reaffirmed its decl:- sion on Resolution No. 364 pertaining to the part of Annexation No. l7-A lying north of Lemon Avenue, except the south side of Duarte Road. ROLL CALL AYES: Acker, Forman, Golisch, Michler and Stout NOES: Commissioner Norton Page Seven June 14. 1960 .. . . . ABSENT: Commissioner Davison RESOLUTICN No. 377 The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 377, entitled: "A RESOLUT"ION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS CONCEltN- ING THE REESTABLISHING IN ZONE R-l AND THE RECLASSIFYING TO SOME LESS RESTRICTIVE RESIDENTIAL OR COMI-lERCIAL ZONE THE PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN "WEST ARCADIA ANNEXATION NO. 14" AND FIXING THE DATE, HOUR AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEAR- ING TO BE HELD FOR SUCH PURPOSES." Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 377. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissbner Michler for the adoption of Resolution Na. 377. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Stout NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davison MASTER PLAN The Planning Secretary read a communicatio~ representing the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association, Santa Anita Village Community Association, West Arcadia Home Owner's Association, Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association and South Arcadia Home Owner's Association, which briefly, supported the adoption of a master plan for the City of Arcadia. The Planning Secretary read another communication from the Arcadia I!oard of Realtors. The Board of RealtoIl;.w1shed to tender to the city their complete services, records for surveys, appraisals, consul tation or in an advisory capacity at no cost or obligation to the city. The Chairman announced to the commission that he had received a verbal request from the Mayor through the City Manager to give consideration to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission for the purpose of listening to 3 or 4 professional planners, including some university professors allowing each about 30 minutes to present their case on master planning. Commissioner Stout stated that the commission should extend its thanks to the Realty Board for its offer to assist the commission in its con- sideration of a master plan. Also, he commented that in the first letter regarding the master plan the letter stated that more and more communities have been taking advantage of a master plan; in his inves- tigations he does not find a single city of the type of Arcadia pre- sently contemplating a master plan. The letter made reference to gen- eralities and vaguenesses in the Zoning Ordinance, and after reading all the ordinances he found nothing vague about the zoning law. The Chairman stated that when such meetings have been set up by the City Manager each member will be notified. Page Eight June 14, 1960 ". . .. COUNTY REZONING MATTERS FROM TliE AUDIENCE ADJOURN The Planning Secretary presented notice of a req'uest for change of zone from Zone A-l to Zone M-l-l/2 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) at northeast corner of Peck Road and Clark Street from the Regional Planning Commission. The Planning Secretary explained that. the Arcadia property across Peck Road is unzoned. The Director of Public Works described the present uses on the city 010llled property, Century Rock Products Company is conducting a quarry operation; there is a transmission exchange; a refueling station for diesel tank trucks, a wood yard and also a manufacturing plant for coping around pools, cement block, slump stone, etc. If the M-l-l/2 would allow an undesirable type of development, it could result in adversely affecting the city's plans for the redev- elopment of the Peck Road property. He suggested that the commission authorize the Director of Public Works and the Planning Secretary to attend the public hearing to find out as much as possible what the plans are for the use of this property. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried to recommend that the Director of Public Works and the Plan- ning Secretary attend the public hearing on this matter before the Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly, 725 Callita Street, asked about the status of Annexation No. 14. The Chairman explained that a resolution was adppted to set up a pub- lic hearing on the matter on July 12, 1960. James O. Warner, 1225 Lovell Street, addressed the commission on the subject of the master plan. He stated that before the city spends $50,000.00 or $60,000.00 of the taxpayers money that there should be some delineation of what will be included in the establishment of a master plan. He believed that the commission is very familiar with every foot of this city; he felt that the letter from the five groups characterized the city as a fine residential community which it is in a general sense; but it is not so fine as they would lead one to believe,' if certain areas are taken into consideration. The homes are old and run down; it is not realistic that R-l zoning should be maintained in suc~ areas. The peopl:e who signed this letter seem to be interested only in zon- ing aspects of a master plan; he did not believe there is any neces.- sity of delaying major improvements for the establishment of a master plan, which he understood includes drainage, sewage, transportation, con- servation, recreation, etc. Commissioner Michler expressed appreciation for Mr. Warner's remarks. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission the meeting was adjourned. i! 110. "'A~ L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary Page Nine June 14, 1960