HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 26, 1960
rr
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARING
ANNEXATIONS 15.
20 AND 21
.
,
--~:
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
ADJOURNED MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 1960
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in adjourned session
in tbe Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P.M., October
26, 1960, with Chairman Acker presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Golisch and Rutherford
ABSENT:
Commissioners Michler and. Norton
OTHERS
PRESENT:
City Attorney James A. Nicklin
Assistant City Engineer Frank F. Forbes
Planning Secretary L. M. Talley
The Chairman announced that the purpose of this meeting was to conduct a
public hearing on the zoning to be applied to a portion of Annexation No.
15, and to the proposed annexations No. 21 and 21. This covers land
situated on the east side of Peck Road, south of Live Oak Avenue in the
vicinity of Rio Hondo Wash in the area of'Clark Street and McBean Drive.
The Planning Secretary pointed .out on the map the exact area along
Peck Road, south of Live Oak Avenue, along the Rio Hondo Channel. In 1956
the CUy of Arcadia .annexed an area which was designated as Annexation
No. 15 which was a corridor running east from Peck Road and south to a
larger parcel; at that time the zoning was not determined before the
annexation, and according to the zoning ordinance the land came into the
city automatically as R-l; later on'the larger parcel public ):learings
were held and zoning established; there was a bas.ic M-2 zoning set on
that area, and special use permit was granted for the development of
rock and sand operation, but the corridor strip itself was not ~oned
and has not been zoned, and is still R-l; so that in this present pro-
ceedings we are determining the zoning to be applied to that corridor;
also to consider zoning on proposed annexation No. 20 and Annexation
No. 21.
The Planning Secretary read a communication addressed to Mr. Harold K.
Schone, City Manager, from Graham Brothers, which stated, in brief, that
it was their understanding that the City of Arcadia will provide them
with a special zoning permitting quarrying operations on the property
north and east of a line described below to the City of Irwindale" loca-
tion of which the Planning Secretary pointed out to the Planning Commis-
sion) If we are correct in our assumptions, we are in favor of the annex-
ations, and suggest the necessary steps be taken.to accomplish it; the
letter was signed by Mr.. Deris, Treasurer.
Another communication was read from the law firm of Hendler and Sacks,
also addressed to the attention of the City Manager, which stated that
at application for annexation to the City of Arcadia was enclosed,
signed by their client Mr. Max Goldring; in addition there was a
Page One
October 26, 1960
r-,
',--
letter enclesed, addressed te the City Ceuncil, which .outlined the
uses contemplated by their client en preperty .owned by him, and
included in the applicatien fer annexatien. The applicatien fer
annexatien cited the fellewing uses fer such land:
(1) The pertien lying nerth .of Clark Street; frem the
westerly beundary .of said property te a line parallel
to Peck Read, lying 300 feet east .of said Peck Read
te be used fer quarrying and fer the extractien .of
sand and reck preducts therefrem
(2) As te all .of the preperty .of the undersigned lying
east .of Myrtle, including, but net limited te the
preperty designated in Ne. 1 abeve te be used fer
a five year peried fer the raising .of sheep
(3) As te all .of the undersigned preperty in the area,
withe.ut exceptien,; including but net limited te all
.of land included in items 1 and 2 abeve te be used
fer light manufacturing permitted in M~l zening.
The Planning Secretary read the staff repert which stated:
ANNEXATION NO. 15
Annexatien Ne. 15, censisting .of a c~rrider appreximately 270 feet
wide, running easterly fremPeck Read appreximately 4200 feet, thence
seutherly appreximately 1000 feet, te a parcel centaining appreximately
95 acres aleng the San Gabriel River, was cempleted en December 24,
1956, and the preperty autematically became a part .of Zene R-l.
In .July, 1957, the larger parcel .of this annexatien was placed in Zene
M-2, and in January,.1958, a special use permit was granted te allew
.the develepment .of gravel and sand en the same preperty. The cerrider
leading t.o this last mentiened area still remains in Zene R-l.
ANNEXATION NO. 20
This prepesed annexatien has a fr.ontage .of 975 feet en the east side
.of Peck Read, and extends east amax!mum .of approximately 4000 feet.
It is located immediately seuth .of and abuts the seuth side .of the
cerrider pertien .of Annexatien No. 15. It has an area .of 72.56 acres.
A large part .of this land is vacant.
.ANNEXATION NO. 21
This prepesed annexatien has a frentage .of 432 feet en the east side
.of Peck Road and extends easterly 'abeut 1700 feet. It is lecated
seuth .of and abuts the seuth side .of prepesed Annexatien Ne. 20. It
has an area .of 10.72 acres.
McBean Drive, a private street, runs east frem Peck Read threugh the
center .of the annexatien. This land is almest cempletely develeped
as an industrial tract.
All .of these annexatiens are lecated acress the street frem land .owned
by the city aleng the west side .of Peck Read, which land 1$ now in the
precess .of being seld fer develepment as an industrial area.
C.onferences with and cemmunicatiensfrem the .owners .of a large per-
centage .of the preperty invelved indicates that they are all desireus
that a basic Zene M-l be established en all .of the pr.operty.
In additien t.o the basic zening, certain variances and special use
Page Twe
Octeber 26, 1960
/^-~,
permits are requested.
Mr. Davidson, owner of property between Clark Street and Dearborn
S.treet, and extending easterly from Peck'Road, requests a zone
variance to permit the establishment of a riding academy for a
limited length of. time while the property is developing into manufac-
turing. He proposes that buildings formerly used as, hog feeding sheds
will be converted into stables. for the horses.
Graham Brothers .requests a special use permit to allow quarrying oper-
~tions on property north of Dearborn Street and 400 feet east of Peck
Road and on all property north of Clark Street and east of Myrtle Avenue.
Mr. Goldring requests a special use permit for quarrying purposes on
slightly different property than that described by Graham Brothers.
He also requests a ZOne variance on property east of Myrtle Avenue for
a period of five years for the raising of sheep.
Consideration should be given to the dedication of land for widening
Peck Road and to the establishment of :fire districts to regulate the
type of buildings that will be constructed.
On the west side of Peck Road, on the city-owned property which is being
sold, it is proposed to establish a "D" architectural design zone to
regulate setbacks, landscaped areas, parking lots, outside work areas,
etc.., as well as the building desIgn. The commission should consider
this in connection with Annexation No. 20.
Inasmuch as Annexation No. 21 is almost completely developed now, it
may require different regulations.
The Planning Secretary read a communication from Mr. Kenneth L. Mikesell,
11917 E. Rio Hondo Parkway, Which, in brief, registered protest to the
zoning and particularly in relation to the proposed sheep and cattle
grazi.ng.
The Planning Secretary read. another communication from the Arcadia
Chamber of Commerce, which stated they wished to go on record as fol-
lows:
ANNEXATION. NO. 20
(1) The entire area be zoned M-l.
(2) Special variances and use permits be allowed as follows:
(a) Permits to establish a ridIng academy and pertinent
structure for such a period as appears reasonable.
(b) Permit to allow continued feeding of sheep and/or
cattle for a period not to exceed five (5) years
from date of annexation.
(c) Permit to allow development of natural resources to
a point no more westerly than 400' easterly of the
easterly line of Peck Road and no further southerly
than the northerly line of Clark Street.
(3) The area be placed in fire zone No.1.
ANNEXATION NO. 21
(1) The entire area be. zoned M-l.
Page Three
October 26, 1960
'-"
(2) The entire area be placed in fire zone No.3.
The communication concluded that these recommendations are made because
Uis felt they are in the best interests of the City of Arcadia.
The Chairman declared this was the time and place to be heard and asked
for those in favor of the recommendations to please come forward and
give their names.
Mr. Richard English, representing the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce.
s.tated tha.t the feeling of the members of the Chamber has been that a
need exists for the development of a more balanced economy. They are
well aware that, the greater part of the city has developed into a resi-
dential community; this proposed annexed area is a part of the territory
which has been recently opened up for a development into manufacturing;
referring directly to the city owned property to the west. The area in-
cluded in Annexation No. 21 is already developed and the buildings in
there should conform to the No. 3 fire zone.
At the present time. the special uses requested by the owners are in
existence or are already being permitted; insofar as the riding academy
is concerned the property owner has expressed the desire to use that
property for this purpose orily until the property develops into
manufacturing. It had been his understanding that the sheep operation
was already permitted in the area.
The Planning Secretary informed the commission that he had been on the
property about a 'month ago. at which time there were quite a few sheep;
he was there this afternoon. and there were none; he had been informed
by the Regional Planning Commission today that Mr. Goldring does have
aq application pending, for a special use permit, to allow the sheep.
and the hearing on that will be 'November 23. 1960.
Mr. Gordon Fisher, a real estate broker, representing the Max Gibboney
interests on Clark Street. Quite some time ago they had applied to
the City of Arcadia for annexation; we are directly across the street
from the property owned by Mr. Smith and the Goldring interests; he
wished to go on record that the property owners he represented were in
favor of this annexation 100%. This property has been in a period of
complete static; nothing has been developed until within the last year,
and the area surrounding it has been affected not realizing any benefits
from property development. It would enhance the value of the whole area
at least 100% ill value from the real estate point of view.
Mr. Lou Deris. representing Graham Brothers. stated he wished to go
on record as being in favor of this annexation..
He stated that they have property both in and out of the City of
Arcadia in this area, and it was his company's feeling that they could
much better develop their property Hthe balance of it was included
in the City of Arcadia, rather than being split up.
Mr. Bill Williams, Chairman of Civic Affairs of the Arcadia Board of
Realtors. stated that his organization did not contest the r.equests for
special uses in the area, because they felt that the Planning Commission
would decide what should be done with these matters. It is a well
known fact that every city that has no payroll has a hard time meeting
its bills; Arcadia is not quite in that position, but they felt that
it was the logical thing to do to anne,x this area if possible consider-
ing the expense of developing the west side of Pock Road, what with
Page Four
October 26, 1960
'-'
"-- /
additional water needed and all. The intention and desire was to
develop it into a good M-l zoning.
Mr. Williams continued saying that in placing a zoning of M-l on
t~e property, the commission will be enhancing the value of the area,
because uses under that M~l would preclude the possibility of
dangerous, obnoxious manufacturing taking place in that area; and
with a type of architectural overlay with its restrictions will make
it a proper type of development; and on behalf of the Arcadia Board
of Realtors they do favor the annexations of 20 and 21 very strongly.
Mr. Robert B. Rizzi, 900 E. El Monte Avenue, was representing his
father who owns property in the area located 600 feet east of Peck
Road on the south side of Clark Street, the 'area known as Chicago
Park. They favor the annexation strongly because his father had
owned the property since 1926, and nothing had been done up to
this date; by zoning the area Mql he felt that there would be more
opportunity to develop; .he felt that such improvements would provide
more jobs for local residents, and he and his father were very much in
favor of the annexation.
The Chairman asked for those opposed to the annexation to please come
forward and give their names.
Mr. William Lumbley, 11957 Rio Hondo Parkway, south of the Golding pro-
Perty, stated he had no objection to theM-l zoning, but insofar as
the special use forsheeI' .raising; they were promised by the Board of
Supervisors, when they bought the property that the hog farm would be
closed within 90 days; and it has been 14 years, and the man went out
of business less than 90 days ago. The odor that emanates from the
sheep when a damp spell hits the area is obnoxious. They obtained an
injunction from the county and the sheep are not there now, but he
(referring to Mr. Goldring) is trying to bring them back again. Mr.
Lumbley continued that Mr. Goldring said he will now annex into the
City of Arcadia, and then will be allowed to continue his sheep opera-
.tions. He intimated that they plan to slauglter them on the property,
although no such operation has occured as yet.
Mr. Milburn E. Nickerson, 12039 E. Conference, EI Monte, stated that
he has a considerable amount of residential property, and he expressed
concern about reference in the Notice of Public Hearing to M-2 zoning.
He would not object to a zone for light manufacturing such as M-l;
but M-2 is practicall.y unlimited. He made objections to the proposed
quarry operations of Graham Brothers, specifically because of the
noises which begin at early hours of the morning.
The .Planning Secretary explained .that the way the notice is worded
is "to M-2 or some mo're restricted. zone" which. could well be M-l.
Mr. Tom Spittler, 12023 Rio Hondo Parkway, stated he was not too much
opposed to the proposed M-l zoning, but was strongly opposed to the
sheep operation.
Mr. Orville Stephenson, 11929 Rio Hondo Parkway, which is near the pro-
perty wher.ethe sheep had been stated that he works in a slaughterholSe,
and he knew what nuisances such operations could be; he did not protest
the M-l zoning, only the sheep being located in the area.
Mrs. KiPI', 819 S. Roosevelt, Fullerton, stated that Mrs. Shandrich of
228 Main Street, Huntington Beach and she own 5 undivided lots begin-
ning at 1424-25-26 and 28, and were happy to hear the hogs had been
remove do
Page Five
October 26., 1960
.
/-
\
'-
They have owned the property for IS' years, and have been paying taxes
'on it ever since. They were agreeable to the possibility that the
property may be zoned for light, manufacturing.
Mr. Kenneth Zeller, .11921 Rio Hondo Parkway, stated that he is directly
adjacent to the property where the sheep were. He continued that he
moved in there 3 years ago, and he now had a. little girl 13 months old:
when the hogs were there, there was an overabundance of flies, and
his daughter had bites allover her body, which necessitated frequent
doctoring. When the hogs left, the flies disappeared; but when the
sheep came in the flies came back with them, and the situation was a
repeated condition for his child. He strongly opposed the special use
permit for the sheep operation.
Mrs. Marie Lumbley, 11957 Rio Hondo Parkway, wished to go on record as
I).ot being oppos.ed to the H-l, but only to the sheep; and she would
also like to have Randolph Street, which was abandoned, opened up
again, which would act as a buffer between the res,idences and the manu-
facturing zone.
Mr. Ben Gilmore, stated he 'was speaking for Doris McKendall, both of
whom live in .Los Angeles. 10 years ago he bought a lot in the annexa-
tion 20 area. They were opposed to the raising of sheep or any other
animal operation in the area; however, they ,;culd be agreeable to the
proposed M-i zone.
A woman from the audience stated that everyday she made four trips
across Clark Street. Everyday she noticed and paid attention to the
sheep and it was just like having the hogs back again. She was strongly
opposed to the sheep but not to theM-l zoning; she was opposed to any
type of animal in the area, which she felt would be injurious to health;
some people who do not live close to such conditions cannot realize
how obnoxious it can be.
~k.Harold Teer, stated he was speaking for Mr. Lee Dubreaux, 1139
Rio Hondo Parkway, and he felt the same as has been expressed already;
he was ,not opposed to, the annexation, but was violently opposed to the
sheep raising.
Mr. W. 'U. Hight, 5421 N. Cogswell, EI Monte, .felt that serious consid-
eration should be given to the protests registered tonight against the
sheep raising.
The Chairman stated that the pattern has pretty well been established
as opposed to "sheep". He asked for a show of hands in favor of the
sheep to which. there was no response; the hands raised in opposition
to the sheep raising were in the vast majority.
Hr. Kenneth Zeller addressed the commission once more desiring to know
what results this opposition to the sheep might produce, whether it
might influence the commission's recommendation.
The Chairman explained that the purpose of the public hearing was to
hear both sides of a problem and then to further analyze the matter by
referring it to the Zoning Committee as well as other members of the
commission for more detailed review before a decision is reached, and
there would be no decision 'arrived at tonight.
Mr. Don Oertel, l20?4 E.. Conference Street, wished to know if the
streets as displayed on the maps would b.e actually improved in the
future, because they are merely proposed streets at the moment.
The Assistant City Engineer stated that they are dedicated streets;
i'age Six
October 26, 1960
>''--"
title for them is recorded in County records; the improvement of them
is an item which would probably be covered under a D overlay, or, under
certain provisions of the building ordinances, improvements of them would
be required.
Mr. Oertel also wished to go on record as being opposed to the sheep
raising establishment as proposed.
Hr. Valentine, 12009 E. Clark Street, objected to any cattle or any
type of animal operation in the area.
.
Mrs. A. E. Shandrich, 228 E. Main Street." Huntington Beach, only wished
to support those people who have had to live in these unfortunate
conditions. The hog farm had held back development of the area for many
years, and she could not see how any animal operation could improve the
area, or help it develop.
The City Attorney, at the request of the Chairman addressed the commis-
sion stating that the proceedings on Annexation 15 are to reclassify
property that is presently in Zone R-1; at the time Annexation 15 was
annexed to the city no zoning hearings were held concurrent with the
annexation proceedings, and accordingly under the ordinance then in
effect, the property came in as R-I property. TIle larger parcel on
the southeas tend of that annexation was later considered for a reclas-
sification and it was rezoned, and a special use permit granted in
addition to the basic zoning for the quarrying of natural resources,
rock, sand and gravel on that portion of it north of Lower Azusa Road.
The portion south of Lower Azusa Road, not to be quarried, but to be
used as office storage area, and the like. Presently, the alignment
of Lower Azusa Road is being changed to the north, and what that is
$,oing to do to the zoning of it is a question; that will be s problem
to be answered later on.
The City Attorney.continued there were pages of conditions which were
attached to the special use of quarrying, many of which must be complied
with before that operation can be indulged in. Annexation lS is
actually a reclassification proceeding.
As to Annexations 20 and 21, the purpose of the hearing is to elicit
.the facts and for the commission to make a recommendation to the City
Council whether the property should be classified, concurrent with
its annexation rather than to come in as R-l, and if it should be
classified, what that classification should be. Both under the state
law and under the city ordinance, provision is made that you may
either annex it as R-1 or you may, concurrent with the annexation pro-
ceedings, conduct proceedings such as is being done tonight to recom-
mend different zoning from the basic R-1 concurrent with its annexa-
tion.
The City Attorney explained that notice of public hearing has been
sent to everyone within 300 feet of the entire area under consideration,
and the notices were made broad, rather deliberately for a number of
reasons. The proceedings on 15 as well as the notice on 20 and 21
stated that the commission will consider M-2 zoning or some more
restrictive industrial zone; the sole purpose of expanding it as far
as M-2 was to give the Planning Commission and the City Council juris-
diction to impose zoning on any portion of it that you and the council
might decide should properly be 'zoned M-2. It does not forecast that
any portion of it will be M-2. but it gives you the authority to malte
a recommendation to that extent, and the council authority to go that
far in its zoning. That is not anything new, we have done that on
more than one occasion, when the proceedings are more or less explor-
atory; where they are initiated by the commission itself. The notices
Page Seven
October 26, 1960
.
,r--'\
"
and th~ resolutions were drawn to go as far as M-2 if the facts
brought out warranted that heavy a zone on anyone or mor~ parcels
of it.
The City Attorney continued, as to the further proceedings that this
commisaion should take, they should consid~r all the evidence pro-
duced, the past records concerning the city as a whole and the par-
ticula~ area. and then make a recommendation to the City Council.
And th~ recommendations need not all be the same; there may be areas
which should be heavier than others.
After ~onclusion of the hearing before the Planning Commission and its
recommendations, there will be hearings conducted by the City Council
to consider your recommendation, the records in the matter and any
eviden~e which may be given at the council hearing. There were con-
tained in the notice, at least as to annexation 20, references to
special uses, which have been referred to by the owners at the time
they sought annexation to the city. They were refereed to in .the
notices not only for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction but so
that the people who received the notices (and he pointed out that the
city was not required to send the notices to the extent that was done,
but it was determined that everyone in the area who could possibly be
should be notified of what the desires of the owners are, so that they
might be heard on all facets in the matter) One owner had indicated
a desi~e to have a riding academy on a portion of the property; he
wondered if those who expressed opposition to animals were also refer-
ring to this proposed special use as well as the sheep operation. H~
referr~d to the plans for riding trails along the Rio Hondo branching
alQng the Santa Anita Wash, as' well as others. He also made referen~e
to the quarrying operations and the consideration. which must be given
to that request as well as the others. Until all the information is
available to the commission the hearings should not be close.d becaus~
whatev~r information you rely upon should be made part of the record.
He would point out also that the hearings on the annexation itself
(that is the technical aspects of the annexation proc~edings as dis-
tinguished from the zoning processes relating thereto) were postponed
to.Nov~mber .30, 1960., for the very purpose .of giving .the commission
a little more time to study the matter, keeping in mind that the hear-
ing on the annexation itself must, under the Government Code, be
held no less than 40 days nor more than 60 days after the council
adopts the resolution of intention, to allow all the possible time for
both the Planning Commission and the City CQuncil to hold hearings,
thus avoiding' a hasty decision.
Mr. Go~don Fisher desired to point out that from the standpoint of
recreation for the neighbors in the area, especially in regard to
the riding academy, many hours of fun would be offered to people
living nearby.
A woman in the .audience stated. in opposition to Mr., Fisher's
statem~nt, that many times she had Seen horse riders encounter small
children playing in the streets, and she considered them only a
hazard. Peck Road is an extremely busy street, and she could not
understand how the horses could get across the street to ride down
the wash.
The City Attorney answered that if the riding trail were to go along
the 'Sawpit Wash as has been proposed, there would be a horse underpass
under Peck Road as they have underpassed all the other major intersec-
tions. . Plans were drawn for that underpass, but he didn't believe it
had be~n constructed. He. explained in quite some detail the plans for
Page Eight
October 26, 1960
.. . . .
/'--"
,
",-.
the statewide riding trail which would ultimately join the trails
in the mountain areas.
Mr. Stephenson addressed the commission once more stating that if
they wanted their children to go horseback riding there is a stable
not too far away', and they wouldn I t have to ride on a busy street
to get. there;. and he would. be opposed to any riding academy being
installed.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and
carried to continue thts public hearing, pending a report from the
combined Zoning and Subdivision Committees of the Planning Commission
and the staff, prior to the next regular meeting.
The Chairman stated that if it is at all possible for the combined com-
mittees to visit the area to assist in a decision and recommendation,
they would do so.
There being no further business to come before the commission the
meeting was adjourned at 9:1'5 P.M.
f~
L. M. TALLEY
Planning Secretary