HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 28, 1960
I
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
ZONE CHANGE
y
r
..
~
Lc ~ ~_-c
~~
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMJ;SSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 28, 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., June
28, 1960, with Chairman Acker presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Golisch, and Stout
ABSENT:
Commissioners Michler and Norton
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 June 14, 1960 were approved as written
and mailed.
The commission held a public hearing on the application of D.A,R. In-
dustrial Leasing, Incorporated, for a change of zone from Zone R-2
to Zone C-l on property located at 208 E. Duarte Road.
The Planning Secretary eXplained to the commission that this property
is just east of the corner of Second Avenue on the south side of Duarte
Road; it is a 100 foot wide lot; the west half of the lot is presently
Zoned C-l; the east half is zoned R-2; part of it is south of a dedi-
cated but unimprOVed alley and zoned R-2; the property to the east is
zoned R-l; across the street to the north is zoned C-l.
The Planning Secretary read from the application, and then presented
a report from the Planning Staff which stated this is the request of
D.A.R. Industrial Leasing, Incorporated, for a change of zone from
Zone R-2 to Zone C-l.
This property is 100 feet wide by approxlmately 320 feet deep. A dedi-
cated but unimproved alley divides the rear 80 feet of the lot. It is
presently occupied by an old frame dwelling, garage and several sheds.
The westerly 50 feet of that portion between Duarte Road and the
alley is in Zone C-l. The easterly 50 feet and the portion south of
the alley is in Zone R-2.
The request is to change to Zone C-l on the entire lot. The appli-
cant proposes the construction of an office building. It should be
pointed out that if the change is granted any use permissible in
Zone C-l would be allowable.
Page One
June 28, 1960
.1
.
---
.~
The property to the west, on the corner of Second Avenue, is Zoned C-l
and developed with a service station. Across the street on the north
side of Duarte Road is Zoned C-l and has a service station on the cor-
ner, and an office building under construction directly in front of
this subject property.
It might appear reasonable for this 100 foot lot to have a uniform zon-
ing, as a 50 foot parcel is narrow for the development of either commer-
cial or duplexes, and, without a lot split being granted, it might be,
difficult to finance either.
If the portion south of the alley is to be used only for parking, it
might be well to leave it in Zone R-2 with the addition of a Zone P over-
lay.
The Chairman advised this is the time and place for public hearing and
asked those in favor of granting the variance to come forward and give
their names.
Mr. C. S. Northrup, 55-1/2 E. Foothill Boulevard, Arcadia, stated that
he represented the applicants; he believed that the supporting state-
ments as outlined in the application were sufficient to express his
reasons for speaking in favor of the variance.
Mr. David Hermanson, the applicant, Secretary of D.A.R. Leasing Incor-
porated, stated that they intend to build an office building, but they
did not have the precise plan as yet. He could not be certain what
type of building would be constructed because so much depended on the
available financing.
Commissioner Forman stated that as outlined in the report the parking
would be located on the rear 80 feet of the lot, south of the dedicated
alley. He wondered if it would be disadvantageous to the applicant to
have a P overlay, leaving the basic zoning as R-2.
Mr. Hermanson felt that in order to obtain the best possible financing
the entire property invoved in the zone variance request should be zoned
C-l.
The Chairman asked for those opposed to the granting of the variance re-
ques,t to come forward and give their names. No one, responded.
Commissioner Forman stated he believed this matter should be referred
to staff and the Zoning Committee for additional study. Past Experience
would indicate there could be problems which someday might have to be
faced if the property on the south side of Duarte Road should ever develop
commercially. If such ,a possibility should occur it would behoove the
commission to layout some kind of an alley pattern so that a jumbled
up situation would not be the result in the future.
The Chairman declared the public hearing continued to the next regular
meeting for decision, pending a report from the Zoning Committee and
staff.
The City Attorney in answer to a ques~ion as to the possibility of in-
serting as a condition to granting this change the specification of type
of building to be at'lowed, stated the Planning Commission and the City
Council in the adoption of Section 8.2 of the Zoning Ordinance relative
to C-l zoning has declared as a matter of principle that certain uses
are compatible, and are proper in a given zone.
Page Two
June 28, 1960
.
STREET NAME
CHANGE
, '
'~
"
The City Attorney continued;. accordingly, if a property is zoned
C-l, it is not the generally accepted practice to impose conditions
on what uses they can make of the property within that Zone C-l.
There are other procedures that make that type of provision, e.g.
the Architectural Overlay zone D; if the commission feels that an
area, location"size or relationship to adjacent properties requires
some protective features, then ,it would be in order to institute
on its own motion, inasmuch as the applicant has not done so, pro-
ceedings to consider the imposition of the D zone overlay and the
regulations that should be imposed thereunder.
The City'Attorney concluded that insofar as parking is concerned,
there are certain parking requirements already established in 0-1
zone; if the commission does not feel they are adequate, then
perhaps a look should be taken at the basic ordinance. On occasion
when a person has asked tor a given zone, and the commission has
felt that relief was in order, but not to the extent requested
by the applicant, a recommendation for denial of the particular
zone requested, and then recommended either a lesser zoning ( in
this case it would be c-o ) or the commission has in the past,
recommended the denial of the baSic zone change and the granting
of the variance for the purpose of allowing him to do certain
things that are permitted in the zone which he has sought to have
established. In granting the variance then you have a right to
impose certain restrictive connitions.
The matter was continued to the regular meeting of July 12, 1960.
The Planning Secretary read a report concerning changing the name
of Huntington Boulevard to Huntington Drive which stated it has been
suggested by the postmas.ter ,that changing the name of Huntington
Boulevard to Huntington Drive would eliminate confusion.
The original s,tree t on the south side of the 01 d Pacific Electr ic
Railway was named Huntington Boulevard. When the portion to the
north of the railway, now westbound, was opened it was named Hunting-
ton Drive'.
The portion from Holly Avenue to Santa Anita Avenue, along the south
side of the county park has since been changed to Huntington Place.
When the new northbound portion between the City Hall and the park
was opened, it was named Huntington Boulevard.
On account of possible confusion in street numbers, it is recom-
mended that the new northbound portion between the City Hall and the
park remain as Huntington Boulevard, but changing the eastbound por-
tion between Michillinda Avenue and Holly Avenue to Huntington Drive
would no doubt elininate confusion in finding addresses, either
personally or by the mail carrier.
The Planning Secretary pointed out on the map the existing street
names and how the application of th~ recommendations of the report
would effect them. He explained that if the area from Holly north
to the intersection of Huntington Boulevard and Huntington Drive
should develop with buildings on both sides of Huntington Drive and
Huntington Boulevard, there could be a confusion in addresses in the
future if both streets had the same name; consequently, the recommend-
ation of the report that this area remain as it is now.
The Director of Public Works explained that people in addressing mail
will indicate Huntington Drive when they mean Huntington Boulevard
Page Three
June 28, 1960
thus c~eating much confusion. Because of the existence of the median
strip there are only addresses on the nortp and south sides, and
there wouMbe no possibility of duplication if the change were made
from Michillinda east to Holly Avenue.
Moved by Commissioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Forman to
recommend to the City Council the chan~s as outlined in the report
from the staff regarding Huntington Drive from Michillinda east to
Holly.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison and Forman
NOES: Commissioners Golisch and Stout
ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton
After considerable discussion the City Attorney advised that the
property lying between Holly and the Flamingo Hotel is all owned by
the City with the exception of the armory site which is a deed with
reversionary clauses t9 the National Guard. To date, there is only
the hospital, the former nurses quarters and the training quarters in
that entire area some 21 acres. Appreciably more development is
planned in this location, and it may well be some clinical type of
improvement for which there will doubtless be addresses on both of
those lanes. The area between Holly and the intersection of Huntington
Drive and Huntington Boulevard will have to maintain a separate name.
Whether they be Huntington North and Huntington South will at ieast
provide a different name to make it possible to differentiate the
address numbers that csn be assigned in that area. He did not believe
that the commission could safely sssume there will not someday be
additional development on the other side of those two streets; whether
or not it is advisable to call two lanes like that Huntington North
and Huntington South is a questial.
The Director of Public Works stated that the telephone company and
other local utilities have experienced difficulty in servicing the
local customers, as well.
Th~ Planning Secretary added that his office had received a call from
Mr. John Bryant. of the Pacific Telephone Company enthusiastically
endorsing this proposed change,
Considerable discussion continued, and the Chairman declared that pe
would entertain another motion.
Moved by Commissioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Forman for
recommending the change of name of Huntington Boulevard to Huntington
Drive from Michillinda Avenue east to Holly Avenue.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Golisch and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton.
The Planning Secretary informed the commission that the Post Office
also requested that in future subdivisions where streets have no
Page Four
June 28, 1960
possibility of connection or future extension they be given dif-
ferent names.
COUNTY
REZONING
The Planning Secretary presented a request for change from Zone R-3
to Zone C-4 (Unlimited Commercial) on the south side of Ranchito
Street, 200 feet east of Peck Road.
This property is quite well removed from the city; Peck Road is all
commercially developed, and he could not see how this matter could
affect Arcadia in any way.
The Planning Secretary stated that 'he receives reports on all the dis-
position of zoning requests from the Regional Planning Commission.
Another request had been received dealing with property on Laurita
Street, about two blocks north of California Street on the east side
of Rosemead; it's a request for zone variance to operate and main-
tain four residential units on less than the required land area. Rose-
mead at that point is zoned commercially; Laurita Street is a little
short street which runs east from Rosemead, and then branches off to
What apparently is a private street; a 24 foot pavement, and houses
only about 10 feet back from the fence, and he did not see that this
was any concern to the City of Arcadia.
The Planning Secretary reported that he had attended the Regional
Planning Commission meeting dealing with the property on the. east side
of Peck Road across from city-owned property, where they had requested
the zone M-l-l/2. The owner of the property at the present time;testi-
fied he had no definite plans in mind for the use of the property; that
he had been told the property would se~l better if he could obtain a
zone change to M-l"1/2; the property is presently used as a hog farm.
He plans to dispose of the hogs, and discontinue that use, and the
property is for sale.
The matter was taken under advisement by the commission, and no deci-
sion has been reached.
TRACT NO.
25803
The commission considered the final map of Tract No. 25803.
The Planning Secretary read a report which stated this tract contains
16 lots, and is located on Santa Anita Terrace, west of Santa Anita
Avenue, and turns south to connect with Camino Real east of the Arcadia
Wash.
The tentative map was approved on April 26, 1960. As submitted and
approved, it contained 24 lots, and provided for a connection to Santa
Anita Terrace extending to Santa Anita, :Avenue. However, at the time
of approval the subdivider stated he had no options on the easterly
260 feet of the area, but would try and include it.
The tentative map was approved by the City Council on May 3, 1960, with
the stipulation that the tract could end at the east line of lots 10
and 19, and that the subdivider deposit with the city a sum of money
!!qual to 3/5, as est.imated by the City Engineer, of the cost of the
drainage structure over the storm drain east of the tract; said deposit
to be returned, without interest, at the end of 10 years if the s.truc-
ture is not constructed within that time.
The final map conforms substantially with the tentative map as
approved by the City Council. Approval should be subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
Page Five
June 28, 1960
1. Remove all buildings within the tract and any trees
within the street right of way.
2. Provide all necessary rear line utility eas.ements.
3. Install all street improvements, including drainage
facilities required by the subdivision ordinance in
accordance with plans and to grades to be approved
by the City Engineer.
4. Pay the following fees and deposits:
7 Steel street light posts @
41 Street trees @
3 Street name signs @
16 Lots recreation fee @
$135.00 $945.00
8.50 348.50
35.00 105.00
25.00 400.00
$1,798.50
5. Deposit cash with the city in the amount of 3/5 of
the estimated cost of construction of a bridge struc-
ture across the storm drain channel to the east. The
estimated cost of the structure to be determined by
the City Engineer.
Commissioner Stout stated that in spite of the long cul de sac he felt
that it met all the requirements as outlined in the tentative map., and
the City Council saw f~t to grant approval of the tentative. He did
wish however, to have some idea of What the cost of the drainage
bridge might be~
The Director of Public Works stated that the engineer, the subdiv-
ider and the staff looked at the subdivision in the field, and they
concl~ded that if he, the Director of Public Works were to estimate the
cost of the structure, he wou,ld have to actually do the engineering
on it, and this work is customarily done by the private engineer
hired by the subdivider. Consequently,. he had left this matter to the
subdivider, and had taken the attitude that the design and estimate
would be approved by the Department of Public Works. He felt that the
final map could still be processed, contingent on the one item which
dealt with the estimated cost of the drainage structure.
Commissioner Stout asked if the final map would be approved if the
actual fi'gure had not been submitted..
The Director of Public Works answered the estimate would have to be
submitted before he would sign the final tract map.
The City Attorney explained that the subdivider has to know that he
is actually going to obtain approval, before he can go to the expense
of engineering a structure. He did not feel the commission should be
too concerned with Whether their contribution should be 3/5 of
$5,000.00 or 3/5 of $15,000.00, as long as the subdivider must deposit
that percentage of whatever the estimated cost would be to build the
structure, Which meets the design requirements of the City Engineer.
They only have a year to complete the subdivision after approval of
the final map, so they are not going to be able to waste too much time.
The City Attorney continued that it would be his recommendation that if
the City Council were to approve this sort of thing (3/5 of the es,timated
cost of the structure to be deposited) that the endorsements required
to be placed upon the subdivision map. by the various city official be
withheld untIl this amount is determined and the DIOney deposited with
the city.
Page Six
June 28, 1960
After considerable discussion it was moved by Commissioner Stout to
recommend approval of the tract. In seconding the motion Commissioner
Forman stated in reference to the long cul de sac, in this particular
tract there exists a slightly different situation than existed in some
of those which were turned down because of long cul de sacs.. Here is
an instance where it is known that in the near future there will be a
direct connection to an existing street.
The Planning Commission and the City Council has frowned upon long
cul de sacs where it would not be possible to connect with another
section of the street.
The recommendation for approval was made contingent upon changing
condition no. 5 to read:
5. Deposit cash with the city in the amount of 3/5 of
the estimated cost of construction of drainage
structure across the storm drain channel to the east.
The estimated cost of the structure to be approved
by the City Engineer.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Golisch and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton
LOT SPLITS
Nos. 288 and 289 - The Planning Secretary read a report which stated
on March 22,. 1960, the commission considered lot split No. 288, Ray
DuShane, 42 W. Grandview Avenue and lot .split No. 289, Eth el Ziegler,
34 W. Grandview Avenue.
These related lot splits were recommended for approval, subject to
certain conditions. Condition No.7 was to add 15 feet more ground
to lot split No. 289 to make the lot 100 feet wide.
At the Council meeting of April 5, 1960, Mr. Ziegler stated that the
additional 15 feet on lot split No. 289 would unreasonably reduce the
available yard area at 34 W. Grandview Avenue. Also, Mr. DuShane
stated that the cul de sac was taking too much of his land. The
matter was held by the Council to give the owners an opportunity to
work out details.
The Director of Public Works and the Planning Secretary visited the'
Ziegler property and were inclined to agree with the owner that the
15 foot strip was desirable. to be left with the north portion of the
lot.
The applicants have had a redesign of the cul de sac made by Treadwell
Engineering Company. The curve of the curb line was started further
south in the old portion of the El Vista Circle, thus not extending so
far into the new lots. This design has been approved by the City
Engineer.
The new lot on the Ziegler property will contain an area of 7936 square
feet after the street dedication. The minimum lot depth will be appro~
imately 76 feet.
Page Seven
. June 28, 1960
. . . ..
The DuShane lot contains 16768 square feet, and is well above
required minimums.
The owners are requesting that the lot splits be approved in accord-
snce with the redesigned cuI de sac.
Approval should be subject to all the conditions specified on March
22, 1960, except No.7, as follows:
1. File a final map for each lot split with the City
Engineer.
2. Provide a sewer lateral for each lot split.
3. Dedicate 5 feet for widening of Grandview Avenue
along each lot.
4. Dedicate a standard 40 foot radius cuI de sac for
the extension of El Vista CirCle.
5. The cuI de sac at El Vista Circle shall be improved
with standard curb, gutter, pavement, water service and
sewer service.
6. Pay $25.00 recreation fee for each lot split.
7. The city shall accept the offer of "future street"
at the present end of El Vista Circle.
The Planning Secretary explained that there is actually only one
change from the original reconnnendation which was to include 15
feet more land to the north on the easterly parcel to give more
building area; but by pulling the cuI de sac further down into the
old dedicated portion of El Vista Ciicle, and not extending quite so
far into the lot accomplishes about the same thing as giving more
building area. There are 7900 square feet of building area avail-
able including the. yards, which is more than minimum requirement.
Commissioner Forman stated that moving the cuI de sac forward has
closely resulted in what the commission had been seeking for making
this a better building site. Since it is in accord with the require-
ments as to minimum square footage, he would recommend the approval of
these lot splits.
After considerable discussion it was moved by Commissioner Forman,
seconded by Commissioner Davison to recommend the approval of lot
splits No. 288 and 289.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Golisch and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Norton and Michler
Page Eight
June 28, 1960
. . <t ~
,~
~-)
.~
The Chairman announced that at the next regular meeting July 12,
1960, the election of a new chairman would be in order.
The Chairman stated that this is the last night for Mr. Rudolph
Davison to attend a Planning Commission meeting as a Planning Com-
missioner, and he extended his thanks on behalf of the other members
of the commission, stating that they have all enjoyed wOrking with
Commissioner Davison.
ADJOURN
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commis-
sion, the meeting was ad~ourned.
I M TAl' r:v
L. M. TALLEY
Planning Secretary
Page Nine
June 28, 1960