Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 14, 1961 ~" 1/ , , '- ) MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR .MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1961 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., February 14, 1961. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Rutherford ABSENT: None O1'IlERS PRESENT: City Councilman Edward L. Butterworth Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz Planning Secretary L. M. Talley MINUTES The Planning Commission considered the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of January 24, 1961. Commissioner Golisch brought to the attention of the commission an error in the minutes noted on Page Five, Paragraph Seven. "under this proposal there could be 19. and under R-3-R would be allowed 8." The figure "8" should be changed to "13" units allowed in R-3-R. The minutes of January 24, 1961 were approved as corrected. LOT SPLITS No. 323 - Mrs. Petrea L. Andersen, 744 W. Camino Real, referred to Mr. Forman and Mr. Ferguson. This is a request to divide a small parcel 12 feet by 117 feet from one lot and added to the adjacent lot. Commissioner Ferguson stated he could see no disadvantage to granting this lot split as it would straighten out the lot line. The Planning Secretary explained that on the property marked 738 and 740 there are now 3 houses. it is zoned R-2, and has area enough to allow 4 houses, but they will need the 12 feet for driveway ,access. Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried unanimously to recommend the approval of lot split No. 323, subject to the filing of a final map with the City Engineer. No. 324 - R. B. Retzer, 1325 S. First Avenue, referred to Mr. Forman and Mr. Ferguson. The Planning Secretary explained that this is a request to divide the east 112 feet to make a new lot facing Greenfield Avenue. The proper~ is 73.75 feet wide with an existing dwelling. The property was actually Page One February 14, 1961 r? l divided and sold July IS, 1960; it isr.ecoDUDended that a 120 foot depth be required to conform with other lots. ~. Retzer, the applicant, stated that 5 years ago he came. before the Planning CODUDission for approval of the location of the house, but he had been turned down by the Building Department; he dedicated 30 feet to the City of Arcadia to bring a street through; he has done every- thing he has been told to do, and now he is required to give 8 feet 1II0re to conform to other lots; he claimed that it is not going to change the appearance of the tract if the split were approved as requested. He made reference to a business Which has been carried on in his neigh- borhood for many years. He comRlained about the dust and dirt result- ing from the activity; everyday there are trucks and equipment going in and out all day. the Director of Public Works stated that the objecting party has the priv~lege of reporting the nuisance to the 'Police Department. As to the possibility of a violation; that would bear investigation and proof that a business was actually being carried on at the location. CODUDission Michler suggested, and .the cODUDission concurred, that the Director of Public Works should investigate the complaint of a zone violation. Motion by CODUDissioner Ferguson, seconded by CODUDiasioner Forman to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 324, subject to the conditions outlined below. MLL CALL , AYES: CODUDissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler. Norton. Rutherford and Acker. llOES: None ABSENT: None the conditions for the granting of the lot split were as' follows: 1. File a final map with the City' Engineer. 2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 3. 120 foot depth required to conform with other lots. 4. Remove or move existing shed to provide 3 feet clear from new rear lot line. 5. Grant rear line utility easement if necessary. No. 325 - Marymac G. Maas, 1531 S. First Avenue. The Planning Secretary explained that this is a request to divide the west 70 feet of the property; it has a depth of 141 feet, well over the required area, but it is 5 feet short of the minimum width. Discuss ion followed: Page Two February 14, 1961 ., ,-----" .~J COllllllissioner Golisch stated that he felt the cOllllllission should be someWhat consistent. In the past they have turned down applica- tions because they are :below the standards. He believed that by creating lots like this the city would realize increased density and overbuilding. COllllllissioner Acker stated that in the past lot splits have been allowed even though below width requirements if the split conformed substantially with other lots in the surrounding area. COllllllissioner Golisch added he believed this is only compounding the problem. Motion by COllllllissioner Forman, seconded by COllllllissioner Ferguson to recommend the approval of lot split No. 325, subject to the conditions outlined below. ROLL CALL AYES: COllllllissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Rutherford and Acker. NOES: COllllllissionemGolisch and Norton ABSENT: None The conditions imposed for the granting of the lot split were as follows: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer laterai for parcel 2. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 4. Move existing garage ~rom parcel 2 to parcell. TRACTS No. 25782 - Final map of Tract No.. 25782, located on Lenta Lane. The Planning Secretary read the Subdivision COllllllittee and Staff report which stated the tentative map of this tract was approved by the cOllllllission on April 26, 1960, subject to making all lots 75 feet wide and all streets a minimum of 50 foot dedicated right of way with a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement on each side. On May 17, 1960 the tentative map was approved in substance by the City Council, subject to certain conditions, but not meeting all the conditions recollllllended by the cOllllllission. At the insistence of the property owner, a change was made in street alignment adjacent to lot 1. Otherwise, the final map is in sub- stantial compliance with the tentative map approved by the City Council. The final map is recollllDended for approval, subject to the following condit ions: 1. Record a covenant affecting the remaining portion of lots 9 and 10, Tract No. 11382, located north and eas.t of Sandra Avenue, agreeing to dedicate 6 feet for street purposes and 5 feet for sidewalk and planting purposes upon any change of ownership or division of the property. Page Three February 14, 1961 ... /----, --~, \, -~ 2. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 3. Install all street improvements required by the Muni- cipal Code in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4. Pay the following fees and deposits: 9 Steel street lights @ $135.00 $1215.00 62 Street trees @ 8.50 527.00 6 Street name signs @ 35.00 210.00 15 Lots recreation fee @ 25.00 375.00 $2327.00 The Planning Secretary explained in answer to a question that ~he State Map Act does not require the final map to come back to the commission at all. Under this same act, if the map conforms sub- stantially with the approved tentative map, the City Council shall approve it. Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler to recommend the approval of Tract No. 25782, subject to the conditions contained in the Subdivision Committee and Staff report with the addition that the map conforms to the tentative map approved by the City Council, but not to the recommendations of the Subdivision Com- mittee nor the Planning Commission. The Director of Public Works mentioned that there was nothing in the report regarding the removal of the plants at the time the dedication takes place. The Planning Secretary stated that he did not know whether the City Attorney had included this condition inthe covenant or not. Mr. Alfred Allen addressed the commission informing them that this stipulation was not included in the covenant because it would be made apart of the conditions for a lot split at the time the split was requested. ROLL CAlL AYES: Commissioners Forman, Golisch. Michler, Norton and Acker NOES: Ilone ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ferguson and Rutherford abstained because they were not members of the cOllDDission at the time the tentative map was submitted. ABSENT: None No. 26497 - Tentative map of Tract No. 26497, located on Santa Anita Avenue at Palm Drive, containing 6 lots. The Planning Secretary read the Subdivision COllDDittee and Staff report which stated this tract. consisting of 6 lots, is located on Santa Anita Avenue at Palm Drive. The tract as originally submitted proposes a 50 foot wide dedication for street with a 5 foot planting easement on each side. The lots 'all contain more than 7500 square feet of area but are shallow; 2 being 92 feet deep, and 2 are'77 feet minimum depth. Page Four February 14, 1961 , ~, , _J A revised map filed later proposes a 60 foot wide street dedication. The lots will still all contain more than 7500 square feet of area but will have correspondingly less depth. Two lots are 87 feet deep and 2 are 77 feet. Two lots are 74 feet wide. The committee feels that these lots are too shallow and recommends that the tract be disapproved, because the 100 foot minimum lot depth has not been met. If the tract is approved, the following items should be considered: 1. Require the full 60 foot street dedication 2. Consider the. advisability of granting a special front setback if. necessary. 3. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 4. Remove concrete block wall and all buildings from the tract. 5.. Remove all trees from the street area. 6. Install all street improvements required by the Munici- pal Code in accordance with plans and to grades satis- factory to the City Engineer. 7. Pay the fOllowing fees and deposits: 2 Steel street lights @ $135.00 $270.00 14 Street trees @ 8.50 119.00 2 Street name signs @ 35.00 70..00 6 Lots recreation fee @ 25.00 150.00 $609.00 8. Record a covenant stipulating that the remaining 42 foot lot south of the tract shall be used only with the 85 foot lot next south, now owned by the same owner. Mr. Harry Robinson, the subdivider, stated that he realized these lots were not very deep, but he had obtained all the land he was able to, and he felt they could build nice homes on a wide lot. Mr. Robinson made reference to the homes they have built in the past and the reputation they have established for building fine homes. Commissioner Forman referred to the remark made by Commissioner Golisch eariier in the meeting, that the city is attempting to main- tain certain standards, and in a case such as this he would hesitate to accept a tract so far below minimum standards. Discussion followed. Motion by Commissioner Forman seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously to recommend the denial of tentative map of Tract No. 26497 in compliance with the report of the Subdivision Committee and Staff and the conditions outlined therein. No. 26537 - tentative map, located on Magna Vista extension into LeRoy Avenue, containing 8 lots. The Planning Secretary before reading the Subdivision Committee and Page Five February 14, 1961 , Staff report explained that the map came in late and the entire Subdivision Committee did not have an opportunity to review it. The report stated this is the tentative map of proposed Tract No. 26537, being the easterly extension of Magna Vista Avenue and its connection with LeRoy Avenue. The tract as submitted contains 8 lots, and conforms substantially with a preliminary plan proposed more than two years ago. Through ,the improvement of Tract No. 20952 and lot split No. 250, the sum of $7677.00 was receiyed in trust to apply toward the extension of Magna Vista Avenue to LeRoy Avenue. This should be interpreted to mean a full width street and improvement. The present plan proposes Magna Vista Avenue to be 30 feet wide for a distance of 300 feet. The additional half street should be secured by the subdivider. If necessary, condemnation proceeding9 should be instituted by the city. The cost of the condemnation and the improvement of the street should be borne by the subdivider. All lots are above minimum depth an4 area requirements. Lots 4 and 5 are less than 75 feet wide at the buiiding line but are large building sites. The subdivider should attempt to secure the northerly triangular portion of the property at 221 LeRoy Avenue and include it in lots 6, 7 and 8. The tract is recommended for approval, subject to tbe following con- dit ions: 1. Secure additional land to make Magna Vista Avenue and its connection with LeRoy Avenue a continuous 60 foot right of way. 2. Pay the trust presently existing along the north line of Magna Vista Avenue in the amount of $1011.83 plus interes t. 3. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 4. The city shall dedicate the present barriers at the end of Magna Vista Avenue. 5. The city shall quitclaim the present sewer and drainage easement to LeRoy Avenue. The, subdivider shall do all necessary reconstruction of sewers and drainage facilities to make them continuous in the new street. 6. Dispose of excess land along "A" street in a manner satisfactory to the city. 7. The city shall pay to the subdivider the amounts held in trust as a share of the cost of opening the street to LeRoy Avenue. 8. The subdivider shall install continuous, full width street improvements in Magna Vista Avenue and its connection to LeRoy Avenue as required by the city code. Improvement plans and grades to be satisfac- tory to the City Engineer. Page Six February 14, 1961 -. 9. Pay the following fees and deposits: 5 Steel street light posts @ 32 Street trees @ 3 Street name signs @ 8 Lots recreation fee @ $135.00 8.50 35.00 25.00 $675.00 272.00 105.00 200.00 $1252..00 The Director of Public Works made reference to item No. 5 for the consideration of the collllilission. It may be that the people owning property along the westerly line of lot split No. 250 might desire the sewer and storm drain improvements removed. .This should be at least considered so that they wouldn't have these encumbrances on their property indefinitely. Commissioner Forman stated that he was happy to see this tentative map come in to allow a better flow of traffic to LeRoy. The one bad feature is the 30 foot 'street, but the other land is not acquir- able, and could possibly require condemnation proceedings by the city. Discussion followed. Motion by Commissioner Forman. seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously to recommend the approval of tentative map of Tract No. 26537, subject to the following conditions: 1. Secure additional land to make Magna Vista Avenue and its connection with LeRoy Avenue a continuous 60 foot right of way. 2. Pay the trust presently existing along the north line of Magna Vista Avenue in the amount of $1011.83 plus interest. 3. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 4. Th~ city shall dedicate the present barriers at the end of Magna Vista Avenue. 5. The city shall quitclaim the present sewer and drainage easement to LeRoy Avenue. The subdivider shall do all necessary reconstruction of sewers and drainage facilities to make them continuous in the new street, and shall remove the existing drainage facilities. and sewer manhole to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. Dispose of excess land along "A" street in a manner satisfactory to the city. 7. The city shall pay to the subdivider the amounts held in trust as a share of the cost of opening the street to LeRoy Avenue. 8. The subdivider shall install continuous, full width street improvements in Magna Vista Avenue and im connection to LeRoy Avenue as required by the City Code. Improvement plans and grades to be satisfac- tory to the City Engineer. 9. Pay the following fees and depos its: 5 Steel street light posts @ 32 Street trees @ 3 Street name signs @ 8 Lots recreation fee @ $135.00 8.50 35.00 25.00 $675.00 272.00 105.00 200.00 $1252.00 Page Seven February 14, 1961 , . '------/ BUILDING APPROVAL The Planning Commission considered t~e approval of a plan for a service station proposed to be constructed at the southwest corner of Baldwin Avenue and Camino Real. The Planning Secretary explained that this plan is for the Richfield Oil Station at this corner. He had not been able to locate the elevations of the proposed structure in the Building Department, which indicated they must have been sent for plan check. He sub- mitted for their consideration a plot plan of the original plan sub- mitted at the time of the zone variance request. It provides for the widening of Baldwin Avenue; he pointed out the angle in Baldwin Avenue just south of Camino Real; tneir plan originally showed the intention to dedicate following that angle, and with a corner cutoff making an irregular line. The Planning Secretary had written to Richfield suggesting that they dedicate straight through eliminating the angle, and he had received a letter from Richfie1diindicating their agreement to this suggestion. Councilman Butterworth suggested that since the commission 'was dealing blind (so to speak) on the elevations, why couldn't the plans be approved conditioned on the approval of the Planning Secretary as to the eleveations. Commissioner Norton asked when this variance was before them. he expressed concern about the further encroachment of commercial on Baldwin, Avenue. Motion by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Acker for the approval of the building plans for the Richfield Oil Station at the corner of Baldwin and Camino Real" subject to the later approval of the Planning Secretary as to the elevations and design of the proposed structure. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Go1isch, Michler and Acker. NOES: Commissioners Norton and Rutherford ABSTAIN: Commissioner Forman ABSENT: None RESOLUTION No. 404 - In the absence of the City Attorney, the Planning Secre- tary presented Resolution No. 404 entitled:: "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE RECLAS- SIFICATION TO ZONE C-l UPON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON DUARTE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND AVENUES." The Planning Secretary then proceeded to read the full body of the resolution. Motion by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson for the adoption of Resolution No. 404. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Go1isch, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Acker NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Forman ABSENT: None Page Eight February 14, 1961 . . PLANNING BUDGET The Planning Commission considered the proposed planning budget for 1961-62. The Planning Secretary explained that there is provision in the budget for the City Planner which is proposed to be hired; it is also proposed to continue the $10,000.00 appropriated last year(not yet used) for a planning consultant. Chairman Acker asked.if the Planning Consultant item was just for the fees attached to the hiring of a Planning Consultant, or for the payment of maps, photographs, charts, or studies which may be required. The Planning Secretary explained that it was his understanding the money was specifically for fees paid to the Planning Consultant, if his services were required from time to time. The Director of Public Works explained that there is no provision for additional manpower which might be needed for special field studies or charting and mapping; unless the commission desired to recommend that a certain portion of the money set aside for the Planning Con- sultant be used for this purpose. The Planning Secretary explained that he felt the money provided for personal services should take care of this and if much of the detail work over the counter and phones is taken out of the division as is proposed, then he felt that the City Planner and himself would have time to put in on actual planning. Considerable discussion followed. The Chairman suggested that some. thought be given to the possibility of recommending that 25% of the money set aside for the Planning Con- sultant fee be used for any additional cost for studies, field work, maps, etc., in connection with planning. Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and carried unanimously to approve the preliminary budget for 1961-62 as submitted, subject to the comments of the commissioners particularly in relation to the Planning Consultant fee. FREEWAY The Pl!lnning Secretary advised the commiss.ion that some weeks ago the commissioners decided that they should make arrangements to take a field trip to study typical interchanges in the surrounding areas comparable to the ones proposed for the Foothill Freeway in the City of Arcadia. Commissioner Forman suggested the possibility of investigating these interchanges by helicopter. He felt that in traveling by automobile, atrempring to view the traffic flow during the peak periods, they might become involved in the heavy traffic and not see any of the im. portant activity. Commissioner Norron suggested the advisability of taking aerial photo- graphs during the flight. Councilman Butterworth stated he felt this is a very serious matter, affecting millions of dolarsof expenditure and he felt that this is an excellent idea. Commissioner Michler stated that certainly the Director of Public Works should be one of those included on such a flight. The Director of Public Works advised the commission that the plans Page Nine February 14, 1961 ,.. . - REPORT ON MEETING ADJOURN -', J he had received depicting a typical incerchange were not satis- factory, and he fully intended to obtain better examples than he had received from the Division of Highways for further study, because once these interchange structures were installed they would be in for a long, .long time. The Planning Secretary was instructed to investigate the availability and cost of helicopter service and of securillg motion pictures. Chairman Acker requested a report from Commissioner Norton on the meeting concerning the proposed annexation of the area south of Live Oak. Commissioner Norton stated that relative to the school situation Dr. Taylor brought out some rather challenging information. There was some concern that in the future the, residents of the area would desire and possibly petition to be annexed to the Arcadia School District should they be annexed to the city. The businessmen expressed the desir- ability of the annexation. The points discussed were basically the same as had been discussed at the commission meeting. He cited as an example of some of the problems discussed that the zoning would be a potential problem since their zoning would not comply with the standards set for the City ,of Arcadia. There were some very valid points discussed both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed annexation. There being no further business presented to the Planning Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. 'f! Vvv . L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary Page Ten February 14. 1961