Loading...
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