Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 27, 1960 . .. r' ~~, ~ ,-..0 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 27, 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;, DecelDber 27, 1960, with Chairman Acker presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Rutherford ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney James A. Nicklin Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz Planning Secretary L. M. Talley MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of December 13, 1960 were approved as written and mailed. The Chairman announced to the commission that he had received a note from the City Manager explaining that City Councilman Butterworth was unable to attend the meeting due to previous business commitments in another city. ZONING Sycamore The Planning' Commission held a public hearing on the appl'ication of D. C. Wheeler, Jr., and others for a change of zone from Zone R-l to Zone R-3 on property on the south side of. Sycamore Avenue, east of Second Avenue. The Planning Secretary explained from the board the location of the pro- perty on the map and explained that there were four lots which were not represented by signature on the petition, and by resolution the Planning Commission instituted proceedings to include the four lots. He advised that the area shown in red on the map represented those pro- perty owners who protested the granting of the zone change. The Planning Secretary read from the application which stated that the erection of apartments in this area would act as, a buffer strip, and suggested that school teachers would be provided with housing close to the new school. The application made reference to the grading which allegedly had dumped a flood of dirty water and mud onto the property during the last rain. 'The Planning Secretary read a communication from Sarah E. Klenhard, 1131 Valencia Way, which indicated opposition to the granting of the proposed change. The Planning Secretary then read from a petition submitted in oppos- ition to the granting of the change, signed by petitioners living in the surrounding area. The document outlined several reasons for :Page One December 27, 1960 " /~~ , -. , " opposing the zone change; among them, that the area is presently de- veloped with single family residences of good quality and architectural appeal. The lot sizes are generally inadequate for proper residential income development. The improvement value of most properties is too high to warrant their removal or demolition. The proposed change of zone would adversely affect the majority of properties being considered. The petition contained 33 signatures and exhibits. The ~lanning Secretary continued by reading the staff report which stated this is the application of. D. C. Wheeler, )r., and others for a change of zone from Zone R-1 to Zone R-3 on cer~ain property on the south side of Sycamore Avenue, east of Second Avenue. By Resolution No. 397 the commission included four other parcels for consideration. Property on Foothill Boulevard is zoned C-2 and PR-1. Ralph's Grocery is under construction at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Second Avenue. West of Second Avenue is property owned by the Foothill Jewish Community Center. It is zoned C-2, PR-1 and R-1. In 1959 a variance was granted to allow the construction of a temple and religious school. This im- provement was not made and the variance has expired. North of Sycamore a Junior High School is under construction. East of the subject property is zoned R-1. The subject property iS,extensive1y developed with desirable type single family houses, at least some of which are practically new. The only property available for building without moving the single dwellings would be on the rear of the lots. Three parcels have no access except by way of a narrow private easement off of Foothill .Bou1evard. The Chairman declared the public hearing opened and asked for those who wished to speak in favor of the change to please come forward. Mr. David H. Crane, 234 E. Sycamore Avenue, addressed the commission and asked if the applicants would have an opportunity for rebuttal. The Chairman explained that normally a rebuttal is not allowed; it is a case of hearing both sides; when new information or light can be thrown on the matter, either side would have additional opportunity to speak. Mr. Crane stated that in the past the area now under consideration was undeveloped to the point that deer were often seen in the vicinity; but now, as progress advanced the properties ~ave developed into commercial, school and residential lots. In the interest of continued development the granting of R-3 to the applicants would seem logical. He felt that those who were opposing the zone change would regret it in a year or so when the school is completed and Ralph I S operation is more extensive. With these developments the area is n010nger desirable for R-1 living. He made reference to a proposed 70 foot street in the vicinity of Oakhaven Lane to handle the increased traffic which may result from the school activity. The view of the property owners on the south side Page Two December 27, 1960 ,r--, " of Sycamore Avenue has been cut off by a 19 foot wall of dirt which is the grade' of the proposed new school. He stated that Mr. Murphy, one of the chief objectors, did not 'build his house, and it is common knowledge that he buys homes, improves them and then sells them for a profit. Mr. D. C. Wheeler, stated that they had not prepared anything like the opposition had in the way of documents'; he has been building apartments for many years, and he could say that most apartments he has built have not remained vacant for very long. He couldn't understand how anyone would complain about having an apartment house in back of him when he has to look at the high concrete wall that Ralph's market has produced. Those most opposed to the application are the most recent residences of the area. In reference to the traffic mentioned in the petition; the increase would not come from the proposed apartments, but from the school. The apartment he would build would be a beautiful one and would hide the bareness of Ralph's Market. Mr. Mike Stoyanovich, 210 E. Sycamore Avenue, spoke in favor of granting this zone change because it would help him obtain the best use of a large lot. He didn't believe the R-3 development would be injurious to surrounding property owners, but would rather enhance the area, since some of it has deteriorated already. The Chairman asked for those opposed to the granting of the zone change request to please come forward and give their names. Mr. Sonnenfeld, 246 E. Sycamore Avenue, described himself as the newest resident in the area. He stated that he has gone to a lot of pains to make a very beautiful home out of the home which he moved in on the pro- perty. He stated that he moved into this area after the school was already in progress; after Ralph's Market was anticipating building, after the west side was granted a variance for the Jewish Center. He believed that Sycamore Avenue was desirable for a residential area. He continued that he owns a number of lots on Hunti~gton Drive which are zoned R-3, and if he had any desire to raise his children in an R-3 area, he could have moved his house into a half an acre (which is still vacan~and live in R-3 zoning on Huntington Drive. He desired his chil- dren to be brought up in a nice neighborhood of single resident homes close to schools and all. He didn't think that the buffer point was very well taken, because eventually there wouldn't be any R-1 to buffer. Mr. John Murphy, 202 E. Sycamore, said he would take most of the blame for the document which was presented to the commission, primarily be- cause he is an appraiser, and has been for about 15 years. The house he was now living in has never been for sale; none of the neighbors have ever seen a for sale sign in front of the property. He cited the case of Mr. Novak who paid something around $35,000.00 for his home; his lot is about 12,000 square feet. The State of California probably sells more houses than any organization in the world; they are in the path of the freeway; the state gets a pittance for these housEls; some of them sell for as low as $1500.00 to $1700.00 to be moved off the lot. Assuming that property in order to be developed as R-3, that the improvements would have to be removed or demolished; a person like Mr. Novak, forinstance; assume that he could get about $1.50 a square foot (which is about the top dollar that any R-3 lot is worth in the City of Arcadia today); Mr. Novak would then recover $18,000.00 in land value and perhaps a few thousand dollars more. Assuming that he wants to stay there; he is going to suffer loss. It is a known fact that the typical home owner is not looking for a mixed neighborhood. The school at the moment appears to be an adverse influence; but he stated no one could be sure what the outcome will be. However, they have been assured Page Three December 27, 1960 , VARIANCE Fairview ( "- - that the school with the landscaping will result in an attractive improvement to the neighborhood. He believed there would be found duplication of names on both peti- tions, both for and against, which would mean that some of the people who signed it in the first instance Were not fully aware of what they were signing. He stated .thst he completed the document and presented the facts both for himself and the benefit of his neighbors. Mr. Novak, 220 E. Sycamore Avenue, asked if they consider this proposed change a bUFfer zone; what is to stop the zoning from moving up in all directions thereby surrounding his home with R-3 dwellings. He came from Glendora to this community a short time ago, mainly because he liked the school system. He is a professional educator, and could tes- tify that teachers do not like to live immediately adjacent to the schools at which they are employed. Mr. Burr Blanchard, 136 E. Sycamore, stated that he has been a resident of Arcadia for many years. He wishes Arcadia to remain an R-l community, no.t a community of R-3. Granting this zone change would only encourage the spreading of R-3 in the area; he was strongly opposed to the grant- ing of this change. Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman and unanimously carried to continue the public hearing on this application for zone change, pending report from the Zoning Committee and staff for decision at the next regular meeting, January 10, 1961. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application of G. M. Shumaker for a zone variance to allow a public parking lot at 652- Fairview Avenue. The Planning Secretary explained the location of the property under con- sideration; Arcadia Avenue is proposed to be opened between the bowli.ng alley and the medical center; to the north of the bowling alley is Mr. Goddard's lot; the lot .in red was where they proposed to put the parking lot; and the lots in green indicate those who have signed their consent to the zone change. If this is allowed it would provide access through parking lots all the way from Fairview to Duarte Road. The Planning Secretary read from the application and then read the staff report which stated this is the application of G. tl. Shumaker for a zone variance to permit the property at 652 Fairview Avenue to be used as a public parking lot. The property is presently zoned R-3 and developed with a single family residence and garage. The adjacent property to the west is zoned PR-3 and developed with a single family house. To the east is a large lot zoned R-3 with an old single family house. We are told that this large lot is to be developed with apartments. Across the street on the north side of Fairview Avenue the key lot is zoned PR-3 and is vacant. The next lot east is zoned R-3 with a single family house. The third lot on the north side of Fairview is zoned R-3 with an apartment under construction. Owners of four surrounding lots, including the ones adjoining on each side, have signed consent to the granting of the application. If this proper,ty is developed for parking, full circulation between Page Four December 27, 1960 f'. '''--- ~ Fairview Avenue and Duarte Road will be provided through the various parking lots. If this application is approved the commission should. consider land- scaping that might be required along the Fairview Avenue frontage. A masonry wall will be required along the east line. The Planning S~cretary read a communication from Anthony Piscitelli Whicbstated briefly, that in his judgement the granting of this vari- ance would eliminate a great deal of street parking congestion, and the signer was in favor of granting of this request. The Chairman questioned the statement in the staff report dealing with full access from Fairvie~ to Duarte; he expressed concern about the pos- sibility of barriers being constructed on the parking lot at any time, thereby obstructing the access between the two streets. The Chairman declared the public hearing opened; and asked for those who wished to speak in support of the ;'ariance request to please come forward and give their names. Mr. G. M. Shumaker, owner of the lot, and applicant, stated that they wished to provide as much parking as possible for the activities sur- rounding the lot. As to the question of barriers. to the access of the two streets, he stated that they have an agreement with Mr. Goddard and Dr. McBane. He stated that if the city wants an easement over the pr~ posed access he would be glad to grant it to them. Mr. Anthony Piscitelli, 618 Fairview Avenue, the owner of property on the northeast corner of Fairview Avenue and Baldwin Avenue, wished to go on record as favoring the granting of this. variance request. The Chairman requested those who wished to speak in opposition to this variance to please come forward. No one responded. Commissioner Forman asked if the apartment tenants would be permitted to .use the parking lot for overnightparking1 Mr. Shumaker stated that the parking was being provided for the bene- fit of the customers of the various surrounding commercial establish- ments, and any night parkers would have to be off by 6:00 A.M., ~len the bowling alley opened. Commissioner Norton asked if it would not be advantageous for the city to accept Mr. Shumaker's offer. of an easement to the city for an alley. The Director of Public Works stated tha.t he believed sometimes alleys are rather expensive to maintain; he felt that the same purpose could be accomplished if covenants were granted over the property, providing there were no objection from Mr. Shumaker and Mr. Goddard. An alley pavement is normally designed 3 inches thick with a concrete drain down the center of it, and would not be a particularly advantageous instal- lation in S parking lot. Mr. Shumaker stated he would be in favor of the covenants; they would maintain the parking lot; he cou1dn I t. .speak for Mr. Goddard, however. Motion by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Norton to recommend the granting of. the variance for parking at 652 Fairview Ave- nue and to instruct the City Attorney to draw up a resolution in accord with the staff report with the condition that covenants be recorded to ~ssure continued access from Fairview Avenue through to Duarte Road and Page Five December 27, 1960 c - and with the addition of' the words '''approved by the City Engineer" in relation to the landscaping mentioned in the report. ROU. CALL AYES: Acker, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Rutherford NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ferguson and' Forman ABSENT: None LOT SPLIT No. 329 - Henry L. Harris and others -, 824-840 Arcadia Avenue, referred to Commissioners Forman and Ferguson The Planning Secretary pointed out on the map, the two lots are identi- cal with an apartment house on each one. The Planning Secretary read the report' which stated this property is owned by a partnership consisting of Mr. & Mrs. Henry L. Harris, Mr. & Mrs. Mike T. Vallone and Mr. & Mrs. William Cesario. It consists of two lots, each being 140 feet by 240 feet, and each lot is developed with a 28 unit apartment house. The apartment at 840 Arcadia Avenue was constructed in 1948 and the one at 824 Arcadia Avenue in 1959. The original plot plan called for a drive- way along each side of Number 840 and another along the east side of Num- ber 824. The driveway along the east side of, the lot at Number 824 was never installed. Instead, a community driyeway was constructed between the two buildings, being partly on each lot. The owners now propose to dissolve the partnership. In order to pro- viae a legal drive for Number 824 they have requested, thrllugh the lot split procedure, that they be allowed to grant an exclusive easement covering the easterly 5 feet of Number 840 for the exclusive use of Number 824. These buildings ware constructed before the last amendment to the R-3 regulations, and are now non-conforming in that they do not conform to lot area, parking or driveway requ~rements. Any reduction in usable lot area would result in a greater degree of non-conformity. The original plot plan for 824 Arcadia Avenue provided for 7 open park- ing spaces along the driveway. When this driveway was not constructed five of these spaces were not constructed. Consequently, the building not only does not comply with present regulations, but' does not comply with the regulations applicable at the time of construction. If the driveway along the east side of Number 824 and the open parking spaces were installed as shown on the original plot plan there would be no need for the easement, and each parcel would conform with the requirements in effect at the time of construction. This construction would eliminate some patio and planting area. It is recommended that this request for an easement be disapproved and that the driveway and parking spaces at 824 Arcadia be required to be installed. Page Six December 27, 1960 c Commissioner Forman asked why t~e five open parking spaces were de- leted; how was this accomplished, since it is contrary to the zoning regulations and building code. The Planning Secretary explained that he could not be sure how it happened; it must have been an oversight. Mr. Alfred Testa, representative of Mr. Vallone and Mr. & Mrs. Cesario, stated that he had expected Mr. & Mrs. Harris and their representing attorney to be present tonight, and since they do not appear to be in the audience, he would respectively request that the hearing be postponed to the next meeting. Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously to continue the lot split for decision and further consideration at the next regular meeting. TRACT 26295 The Planning Commission was to consider a decision on Tract No. 26295 located south of Foothill Boulevard and west of San Carlos. The Plan- ning Secretary read a communication signed by the owners of property involved in the tentative application for this tract. The letter requested that consideration of the tentative map be set for the first meeting of the Planning Commission in May of 1961 in order to give the State High- way Department ample time to show evidence of their good faith in acquir- ing this land. Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried unanimously to continue the hearing on Tentative tract map No. 26295 until May 9, 1961.. Mr. TreadWell of Treadwell Engineering requested that a letter be for- warded to the State Division of Highways notifying them of the Planning Commission action. BUILDING APPROVAL The cOlIDDission considered approval of the plot plan for a medical build- ing at 623 W. Duarte Road. The Planning Secretary explained that this matter was before the commis- sion four weeks ago, and approval was held up on account of the 9'4" width of the driveway to the rear parking lot. The applicants were asking approval of this on thepresumption that Arcadia Avenue will come through to provide access to the rear. He stated that there is possibly one other solution; there was some discussion of ob- taining an easement over the driveway along the weS.t side of the property and at the rear of the stores on market square; and if this were approved, subject to the opening of Arcadia Avenue, or if subject to the procuring of this easement to the west it might be a .solution. The Director of Public Works explained that the majority of parking lots are not developed over 2" pavement, because the impact factors are not present with heavy traffic constantly traveling over it. Considerable discussion ensued. The Architect, Mr.. Jacobson, explained that he was unable to alter the floor plan in order to gain the extra width needed in the driveway,because each doctor was firm in maintaining the footage devoted to his particular office. In the course of the d~scussion the City Attorney explained that he dic- tated the contents of the proposed easement, and among other clauses Page Seven December 27,.1960 c that are contained in it is the fact that the easement cannot be re- leased without the c'onsentof the city, expressed by the minutes of the City Council. And there .is also a proviso that such consent shall be given if Arcadia Avenue is opened and improved to the easterly line of the subject property. Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Michler for the approval of the plans at 623 W.. Duarte' Road, subject to the record- ing of an easement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Rutherford NOES: none ABSTAIN: Commissioner Ferguson ABSENT: None ANNEXATION The commission considered a report of the Community Development Commit- tee regarding proposed annexation south of Live Oak Avenue. The Chair- man stated tpat this report is quite involved, and a very important annexation to be considered, and he advised that he thought it would be wise to have a meeting between both the Subdivision and Zoning Committees to review the report in detail. The City Attorney explained the report that is requested of them is the report pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code contained in the Annexation Act of 1913 (Inhabited Annexation). This is not the last time the matter will be before the Planning Commission. Assuming that the annexation progresses, the commission will then be asked in all probability to make a recommendation concerning the zoning to be placed on the property concurrently with the annexation. This is a re- port required by the Government Code; the scope of the report should include the nature of the subdivision and the conformancy of the sub- division and the improvements with the regulations that will become applicable after the annexation. It should be a factual type of report; much of the information that you would report upon has been completed already by the committee; there is a jurisdictional deadline on the making of this report, approximately 40 days after the matter has been referred to you; the penalty for failure to do so is that the City Council may then proceed without the report. The matter was referred to the full commission for a review and a report at the meeting of January ~O, 1961. RESOLllrIONS No. 398 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 398, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CLASSI- FICATION OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY LYING WEST OF PECK ROAD IN ZONE M-l AND ALSO IN ZONE D (ARCHI- TECTURAL OVERLAY)." Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 398. Page Eight December 27, 1960 .'. . .. ( ,,-. Motion by Commissioner Norton; sec~nded by Commissioner Ferguson for thE! adoption of Resolution No.' 398. The motion was carried unanimOUsly. . L No. 399 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 399, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING INTERIM EMERGENCY ZONING OF M-1, CONCURRENT WITH ITS ANNEXA- TION TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS ANNEXATION NO. 22. SOUTH ARCADIA (UNINHABITED)." Motion by Commiss.ionerForman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and cai-ried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 3~9. Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and cauied unanimously for the adoption of Resolution No. 399. No. 400 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 400, entitled: "i.. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CAI.:IFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROOEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONS IDERING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS CON- CERNING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF DUARTE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND AVENUES IN SAID CITY TO ZONE C-1 AND FIXING THE DATE, HOUR AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH PURPOSE." Motion by CODDDissioner Michler, seconded by Commissione.rNorton and carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 400. Motion by CODDDissionerMich1er, seconded by CODDDissionerNorton for thE! adoption of Resolution No. 400. ROLL CALL AYES: CODDDissioners Acker; Ferguson, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Rutherford. NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Forman ABSENT: None No. 401 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 401, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE USE OF PROPERTY AT 652 FAIRVIEW AVENUE AS A PUBLIC PARKING LOT UPON SPECIFIED CoNDITIONS." Motion by CODDDissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Michler and unanimously carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 401. Motion by CODDDissioner Go1isch, seconded by CODDDissioner Michler for the ~doption of Resolution No. 401 ROLL CALL AYES: CODDDissioners Acker, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Rutherford Page Nine December 27, 1960 .. . " MATTERS FROM AUDIENCE COUNCIL LIAISON ADJOURN ,~ ~ NOES: NOne ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman ABSENT: None Mrs. Charlotte Sutton, stated that she had received tentative approval of Tract No. 24144. and was requesting a modification to the approved plan. She wishe.d to move the house on Lot 2 to the east to clear the street, rather than remove it as required by the approved conditions. The Chairman declared that the rnattersho.uld be held for consideration at the next regular Planning Commission meeting January 10, 1961. Commissioner Golisch, Liaison to the City Council, explained some of the council action on matters relating to planning. Regarding the Arlinic Properties rezone matter, the only .change from the Planning Commission recommendation. was that with the Arlinic Properties dedicatio.n for street purposes,. so that the city can develop Arcadia Avenue, ;the city will put in the street improvement. Mr. Shumaker on the bowling alley side is also going to give up 30 feet, so that will assist in the opening of Arcadia Avenue. The dedication of the sidewalk in front of the building is on a covenant basis. The Director of Public Works stated ,that Arlinic is dedicating for a 7 foot sidewalk, with a covenant that the additional 6 fee~ will be dedicated at such time as the use of the building is changed from a medical building. Commissioner Golisch stated that the Schoof variance, 1218 S. Second Avenue was granted in accordance with the Planning Commission recommend- ation. Commissioner Golisch continued that the only other item of interest to the Planning Commission was the statement from a member of the audience at the City Council meeting of his intention to construct a 44 unit apartment building on Fairview Avenue, which might conflict with the plans for opening Arcadia Avenue. He stated that he believed the party subsequently consulted with the staff at city hall. The Director of Public Works advised that the party under discussion had come in and spoken to City Manager on one occasion; they talked with Planning Secretary this afternoon (12/27/60) for about 2 hours; they are going to be in again the next day and talk with the City Manager at 9:00 A.M. As of this moment the problem is that there will be insuf- ficient parking if the 30 foot dedication for Arcadia Avenue is made. What the ultimate resolution to the problem he could not say at this time. There being the meeting no further business to come adjourned at 10:40 P.M. t~. L, M; .TALLEY Planning Secretary before the Planning Commission Page Ten December 27, 1960