HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 25, 1961
..
.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
ZONE VARIANCE
901 W. Duarte
Road
/---,
.
,---"
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
April 25, 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., April
25, 1961, with Chairman Acker presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton,
and Acker.
ABSENT:
Commissioner Rutherford.
OTHERS
PRESENT.:
City Attorney James Nicklin, Assistant City Engineer
Frank Forbes, and Planning Secretary L. M. Talley
The Planning Commission approved the minutes of the regular meeting
of April 11, 1961, as written and mailed.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application of James
C. Greer for a zone variance to allow a service station at 901 W. Duarte
Road.
The Planning Secretary directed attention to a map showing the northwest
corner of Duarte Road and Golden West Ave, as the area proposed for the
service station and also pointed out the property represented in favor
and opposing the application.
The application states that the property is located on the northwest
corner of Golden West and Duarte Road. The zoning at present is R-3 on
which is a one story frame house approximately 50 years old. On the
southwest and southeast corners of Golden West and Duarte Road, C-2
zoning prevails. The property has ceased to be suitable for residential
purposes. Service stations are legally recognized as a public convenience
and are rigidly regulated by State law, so that such a use is not detri-
mental and would not lower the values of the property in the vicinity.
The construction of such a building would enhance the appearance of the
property. The R-3 zone on the property does not afford the highest use
of the property. Arcadia now has approximately a 20% vacancy in apart-
ments - the highest in Los Angeles County- with more under construction.
With the widening of Duarte Road, the additional traffic that will result
is not desired in a residential zoning.
The Planning Secretary presented the Staff report to the effect that the
property is located at the northwest corner of Duarte Road and Golden
West Avenue and is zoned R-3.
Across Duarte Road, the southwest corner, with a frontage of 240 feet on
Duarte Road, is zoned and used as C-2. The southeast corner, with a
frontage of 125 feet on Duarte Road, is also zoned and used as C-2. The
northeast corner is vacant.
All of the balance of the surrounding area is Zone R-3. With the exception
of two non-conforming uses on the south side of Duarte Road, the area .is
devoted to residential uses. The majority of the uses near the subject
property are single family dwellings.
This lot is a part of the area on the north side of Duarte Road which
was considered in the application for Zone C-3 in 1959 and denied by the
Commission on January 26, 1960 and by the City Council on June 8, 1960.
If the variance is granted, one of the conditions should be the dedication
Page One
April 25, 1961
~
--'"
,
'J
of 12 feet for the widening of Duarte Road, plus a corner cutoff.
One communication was received fram August J. Goebel, Attorney at law
representing D. A. R. Industrial Leasing Inc., and John R. Condon and
Grace May Condon, owners of Lot 131, Tract 2731. This property is
located on the north side of Duarte Road and is Zoned R-3. There is
a substantial investment on this propertY and this is relatively a new
improvement made in reliance that the property would remain Zoned R-3.
The protestants consider the granting of the requested variance to be
injurious to the property owned by them. There are two service stations
located on Duarte Road and Baldwin Avenue, a short distance from the
subject property. A service station with the increase of traffic flow
and unnecessary noise is not a suitable and advantageous use of the
property presently zoned R-3. The general pattern of property in this
area has been by way of construction of multiple dwellings or apartment
buildings. The granting of the variance would not be necessary to the
preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the
applicant possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity;
but on the contrary'would be to the detriment of property situated in
the same zone and vicinity.
The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing
of said .application and requested those in favor to present their case.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney at law, 49 E. Foothill Boulevard, Arcadia,
represented Mr. and Mrs. Greer. He stated the structure on the property
was very old, far beyond ability to bring up to code. This would have
to be torn down, and if the zoning prevails, the stru'ct'ure to be built
would be either a new dwelling or a multiple reSidential structure,
As an apartment house owner on Colorado Place, he had found that the
Standard Service Station across the street had in no way affected the
value of his property. On three different occasions he had had the property
appraised and the value had not depreciated in any way due to the service
station. He quoted the figure of 3700-3800 automobiles travel from
Huntington Drive south on Golden West, and the traffic count on Duarte
Road is 12,000 cars per day. The street will have to be widened to take
care of the east-west traffic because of its being a main thoroughfare.
On the east side of Golden West snd across the street there is a business
area. He' listed the types of C:olDlOarcial development and aho stated that
on this intersection a metropolitan newspaper uses this location as a
central depository and ten trucks unload papers for the entire area.
This occurs at 2:,00 A.M. and the carriers pick up the papers after that
time. He felt a service station would not create near the confusion or
noise that this operation does. The applicants desire a smaller and
more modern home and would like to surrender their property for the use
appl1ed for. There are service stations on Baldwin Avenue just as close
to the property of the protestants and he felt this would be no more
detrimental than those now existing. He presented a rendering of the
~ype of station to be constructed by the Richfield Oil Co. if the zoning
is changed. Mr,. :Howser was asked the question as to the source of his
information for the vacancies in Arcadia. He advised that within the
past sixty days he had dis.cussed this with the gentleman who makes the
survey and he, 'hLmself, has been a member of the Los Angeles County
Apartment Association. The.information came from that office.
Mr. Rheinberger of the Richfield Oil Co. was also present.,:.
The matter of signs were discussed, inasmuch as this has always been
a problem in a C zone, due to the fact that the code requires them to
be mounted flat against the building. Mr. Rheinberger stated'on this
location the' Company would prefer having but one sign. This to be
at 450 at the corner.
Chairman Acker requested those who desired to oppose the request to
so state.
Pilge Two
April 25, 1961
..
ZONE CHANGE
Naomi Ave.
_J
Mr. W. C. Larson, 1218 South Golden West Avenue stated he was one of the
first to sign the petition but he was told the zoning was for small
office buildings, or rentals. He did not know the intent was for a
service station and wished to withdraw his name.
Mr.. J. M. Therion, 1211 South Golden West Avenue stated he had just
acquired his .property as income property and has three units on Golden
West and Duarte Road. He felt a service station would decrease the
value of the property; also when the petition was circulated he was
told the zoning was to be for multiple dwellings. Had he kn:own it
was for a service station he would not have signed it.
Mrs. W. C. Larson; 1218 South Golden West stated she had also signed
the petition for small office buildings, similar to those immediately
across the street.
Mrs. J. M. Thirion, 1211 South Golden West Avenue also stated she
was informed it was for small office buildings. They definitely would not
want a service station this close to their property.
Mr. Norris, representing'his mother who owns the property at 912-914
Arcadia Avenue stated that when the applicant approached his mother
no mention was made of the zone variance for a service station. She
signed the petition with the information that the construction, if the
variance were granted, would be small office buildings. She is definitely
opposed to the development of the property as a gas station. This type of
use would definitely be detrimental to her property. He questioned the
vacancy question and felt' it was temporary.
All of the remarks were made from property owners within the 300 foot
radius.
Discussion followed and it was determined that there were no exceptional
circumstances and that each of the signers of the petition: who had spoken
were not fully informed of the intent of the application; that the entire
area, other than the buildings on the south side of Duarte Road was all
residential; that a request had been made in 1959 for a C-3 zone which
had bee~ denied and that to allow this request would not be good plann-
ing.
Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton and
unanimously carried that the public hearing on the application of James
C. Greer for a zone variance to allow a service station at 901 West Duarte
Road be closed and that from the evidence introduced the request for the
variance be recommended for denial.
The Planning Commission considered a decision on the application of a
zone change from Zones R-l and R-2 to Zones C-3 and D for six lots
on the north side of Naomi Avenue, east of Baldwin Avenue.
The Planning Secretary stated that
held two weeks before and was then
Committees for stu~y and report.
a public hearing on this matter was
referred to the Zoning and Subdivision
There report is as follows:
"ThIs is the application of Ellen Miller and others for a change of zone
from Zones R-l and"R-2 to Zones C-3 and D for six lots on the north side
of Naomi Avenue, east of Baldwin Avenue.
Page Three
April 25, 1961
.
VARIANCE
918 West
Huntington
Drive
(Risser)
''----_/
.
This subject property is a part of the larger area that was rezoned to
Zones C-3 and D by Ordinance No. 1071, adopted January S, 1960, which
was defeated by the referendum election in April, 1960.
The Committee met with the proponents and other interested persons and
thoroughly studied and discussed the matter.
It was the thought that the present application would constitute strip
zoning, in that it is on one side of the street only. If ,granted, it
can reasonably be expected that other applications will request rezoning
both across the street and further east.
The Committee feels that piece meal zoning is not the proper way to
consider the development of this property. The entire area should be
restudied and made to conform with a general plan.
The Committee recommends that this present application be denied.
At the earliest possible time a study of the area should be made in an
effort to establish the best use of the area, including proper buffers between
this area and surrounding residential areas. At that time new proceedings
on the whole area should be instituted by the Commission."
No one in the audience desired to speak further in favor of the application.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and
unal!imously carried that the public hearing on the application of Ellen
Miller for zone change on Naomi Avenue be closed.
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, that the
present application be denied on the basis that at the earliest pOSSible
time a study be instituted to establish the best possible zoning for the
ares.
The motion was carried on the following roll call:
AYES:
FERGUSON, FORMAN, GOLISCH, MICHLER, NORTON
and ACKER,
NOES:
NONE
ABSENT:
Rutherford.
The Planning Commission considered a decision on the r~quest of J. Ray
Risser for a zone variance to erect additional apartment units and to
continue the use, without modification, of existing driveway and covered
carports.
A communication had been received from Lawrence J. Way, Fire Chief,
stating that on April 12, 1961, an inspection was made of the property
at 918 West Huntington Drive in regard to sufficient driveway width
and clearance. He felt that due to the setback of the buildings which
allows sufficient clearance on either side of the driveway, even though
the driveway itself is only 16 feet wide, it is possible to get fire
equipment into this property with very little difficulty.
The Planning Secretary presented the report of the Zoning and Subdivision
Committees which was prepared after a joint meeting of the two committees.
The report is as follows:
Page Four
April 2S. 1961
.
ZONE'CHANGE
Driveways
/-~;
.
"This is the application of J. Ray IIisser for a zone variance to allow
the erection of four additional apartment units at the rear of the
property and to continue the use, without modification, of the exi~ttng
driveway and covered carports. .
The committee was divided in its opinion and cannot submit a majority
recommendation.
Some were concerned with the density of population and would have favored
the variance if only two units were to be added. Some appeared in favor
of the application as submitted. Others would have favored had the
parking met ordinance requirements. All seemed agreed that the present
driveway would adequately serve the property.
It was agreed that if the variance were granted the electric service
wired to the apartment should be raised to allow access of fire equipment
as well as other services.
If the variance is granted for adding two units only, the present parking
facilities pluS the proposed four new open spaces would conform with the
Code.
If four units are added, the lot would be short one legal parking space,
which could be added at the front of the apartment."
Commissioner Norton stated that if the variance is to be granted, it
should be considered on the basis of the two additional units and com~
plying to the existing zoning.
Comm1ssione~ Forman was in favor of the granting of the variance if the
electric wires were raised and the additional required parking space
were provided in the front of the building.
Commissioner Golisch stated that thia is the development that more nearly
conforms to the type that is to be deisred and in his opinion is very
worth while and should be granted.
Motion by 'Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that
the hearing on the application of J. Ray Risser for a zone variance at
918 West Huntington 'Drive be closed and that the variance be granted
provided the electric service wires to the apartment are raised to
allow access of fire equipment as well as other services; and further
that the applicant provide the required legal parking space at the
front of the building, back of the front set back line.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS FERGUSON, FORMAN, GOLISCH and
MICHLER,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS NORTON' and ACKER.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER RUTHERFORD.
The Planning Commission considered a decision on the proposal to alter
the present driveway requirements in Zones R-2, R-3-R and R-3.
The Planning Secretary read the report of the Zoning and Subdivision
Committees as follows:
Page Five
April 25, 1961
~,
"These proceedings were instituted by the. Planning Commission to consider
the advisability of requiring wider and more adequate driveways in Zones
R-2, R~3-R and R-3.
The Fire Chief has stated that the Fire Department equipment requires
a minimum of 12 feet horizontal clearance and 13 feet vertical clearance
to afford adequate access to the property for fire fighting purposes.
In order to afford. the best fire protection to the occupants of the
buildings, the committee recommends that the Municipal Code be amended
to require that driveways in Zones R-3-~ and R-3 be 12 feet horizontal
clearance and 13 feet vertical clearance.
If the driveway serves more than 12 required parking spaces or is more
than 125 feet in length, then two such driveways should be required.
In lieu of the two driveways, one 20 foot driveway, with a minimum of
18 feet horizontal clearance and 13 feet vertical clearance should be
required.
Because Zone R-2 allows a limited density of population and a correspond-
ing decrease in the number of cars using t~e driveway, it is recommended
that those driveways be 12 feet 6 inches wide, with a minimum of 12 feet
horizontal clearance and 13 feet vertical clearance.
The Committee also recommends that the code be amended to authorize
the Modification Committee to make minor modifications in driveway
requirements.
They also recommend that the code be amended to require in Zones R-2,
R-3-R and R-3 that signs be posted to prohibi~ automobile parking in
required driveways."
The Planning Secretary stated that there was an omission in the third
paragraph. The Committee recommended that the driveway be 12 feet 6
inches wide with a minimum of 12 feet horizontal clearance. This would
allow 6 inches fora fence or hedge along one side of the driveway.
The 6 inches was omitted in the report but was included in the require-
ments for Zone R-2.
The Attorney had a' question pertaining to the horizontal and vertical
clearance. Was it the intent to allow buildings to extend over the
required driveway if they have a certain amount of vertical clearance?
If so, this would create long tunnels. If the intent is to permit
ornamental eaves, etc. this should be so stated. This was brought up
to clarify the intent and before a decision is made.
The Planning Secretary stated the present ordinance does not allow
cantilevering out over the driveway; and it was the thought of the
committee to continue that requirement; that the present ordinance
requires only a 7 foot eave clearance which does not allow fire equip.
ment to enter the property. This was raised to 13 feet to permit the
entrance of the equipment. The present ordinance requires a 10 foot
driveway be unobstructed to the sky except for a 3 foot eave overhang
which would leave 7 feet above the pavement. This is insufficient for
the fire equipment, hence the 12 foot clearance.
CommisSioner Golisch stated that some of the new buildings, permits for
which were obtained prior to the ,ordinance of approximately one year
ago, shows the need for the new requirements.
Commissioner Forman concurred with Mr. Golisch and added the "No Parking"
signs in driveways would be very beneficial to prevent obstructions in
case of fire, etc. He inquired as to the type and size of the sign and
'also the placement of it..
Page Six
April 25, 1961
LOT SPLIT
No. 331
(Eric:kson)
l
,~
~
The Planning Sec:retary stated if the lot has the minimum of 12 feet 6
inc:hes driveway, the sign would have to be at least parallel with the
building or parallel with the fenc:e on the opposite side of the driveway.
The matter of enforc:ement was disc:ussed. The erection of the sign was
no problem, but the enforcement would be practically the same as the
all night parking ordinance within the city. We do have the ordinance
available when the occasion arises to prevent abuses.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and
unanimously carried, that the public hearing on the proposal to alter
the present driveway requirements in Zones R-2, R-3-R and R-3 be closed.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton that the
proposal to alter present driveway requirements in Zones R-2, R-3-R and
R-3 be recommended for approval, and the City Attorney be instructed to
prepare a resolution delineating the recommendations as contained in
the staff report and also incorporating the pertinent limitations in
the present code which is applicable to the facts as presented in this
hearing.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS FORMAN, GOLISCH, MICHLER, NORTON and
ACKER.
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER RUTHERFORD.
The application of Fred C. Erickson, 202 W. Lemon Avenue, which had been
referred to Commissioners Forman and Ferguson was considered.
The report of the City Engineer was read by the Planning Secretary to
the effect that if this split were granted the following should be
required:
1. A final map should be filed,
2. A sewer lateral should be provided for Parcel 3;
3. Recreation fee of $50.00;
4. Record an irrevoca~le' offer of dedication and improvement
for stree.t purposes of the south 30 feet of the lot,
including a 15 foot corner radius, in a form approved
by the City Attorney;
5. Any building erected on parcel A shall provided a 30
foot yard along the proposed street, and a 20 foot side
yard along El Monte Avenue;
6. Any proposed building for parcel A shall be designed
to have a pleasing appearance facing the proposed new
street as well as facing'El Monte Avenue. The plans
for such building to be approved by the Planning Commission;
7. Water services to parcels.A and B shall comply with the
Uniform Plumbing Code.
8. Remove all buildings and increator from Parcels A and B.
9. Remove tbe fence along El Monte Avenue, or reduce it to
legal height.
This application, proposes to reserve 30 feet for a future street
south of Lemon Avenue. The approved location of this street requires
60 feet off of this lot, because of the unequal depths of present lots
on Lemon and Las Flores Avenues.
Page Seven
April 25, 1961
\. -_/
)
None of the three lots will have the minimum required depth of
125 feet, but all are above the minimum area ~equirement.
It is recommended that the street location approved in 1953 be
complied with. This would require the south 60 feet, with the
corner radius, to be reserved for street purposes.
Parcel A,facing the new street, should be a minimum of 125 feet
depth, leaving 199.16 feet depth for the existing improved lot.
Parcel A would have an area of 14,861 square feet, leaving
23674 square feet in the present lot.
Commissioner Forman stated he had viewed the property and there was
a wealth of unused property, especially along El Monte Avenue.
There has been an attempt to design a subdivision through this
area and no doubt is still being worked on. He would be in favor
of a lot split creating two lots only.
If such a split were approved, architectural control should be
retained so that a house would have frontage on the new street.
If it were built before such time as the street is constructed,
the design of the house should be so that either side would be
appropriate for the front elevation.
Commissioner Ferguson stated he also had gone over the property and
was in accord with the report of the Engineer. He, too, was in favor
of an approval creating two lots intead of three. as requested,
which should conform to the original street layout of the Planning
Commission.
A map
taken
lots.
leave
had been prepared showing the full 60 feet for the new street
from this lot, and then a division of the balance into two
The southerly lot would be 140 feet in depth. This wpuld
199.16 on the lot facing Lemon Avenue.
.....
Mr. Erickson, the applicant, stated that in the event the street
is approved as stated and taken entirely from the lot under
discussion, some trust should be set up whereby the property to
the south would not have the benefit of creating a new lot from
the rear and using the new street without participating in the
costs of improving the street,.
If an offer of dedication were to be set up without any trust
agreement there would be no way to prevent the owner to the south
from using the lot as frontage for the excess property to the rear
of his lot.
The City Attorney explained that this lot am the lot to the south
do have access to the side street and, therefore, if and when a new
street is created which would benefit the interior lots, a district
or trust probably should be set up so that the costs are distributed
according to the benefits received. In any street opening proceed-
ings the costs are borne by the property owners receiving the benefit.
These two lots have access without the opening of the new street.
No doubt it would be desirable for'them to face the new street rather
than El Monte Avenue, but that is a nominal benefit. This could be
handled by making a tentative approval and one of the conditions
would be spelled out that a one foot strip could be deeded to the
City pending the'improvements then the properties benefitting from
the improvement could share in the costs.
Page Eight
April 25, 1961
o
Commissioner Golisch stated that he felt it would be better to have
a tentative subdivision plan submitted rather than breaking the
area up in small parcels now. This is an opportunity to hold the
line until an adequate plan is submitted.
Commissioner Ferguson concurred with Commissioner Golisch, insofar
as the rear lot lines should be determined in order to keep them
as straight ~s possible.
Mr. Nicklin stated that the entire subdivision would not of necessity
have to be laid out and a tentative map filed before lots could be
split. If a general design were planned and the rear lines determined,
then as the individual owners desired to split their lots, deter-
mination could be made in accordance with the plan. If the Planning
Commission had a tentative location fixed for the street each lot
could conform.
Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson
that the application as submitted by Fred C. Erickson, 202 W. Lemon
Avenue be denied, but that tentative.approval be given to a lot split
in the manner and subject to the conditions shown in the Engineer's
report, and subject to the further condftion of dedicating or offer-
ing for dedication a utilities easement over the rear 6 feet of the
adjacent parcel; that an irrevocable offer of dedication be given
for the southerly 60 feet of the property. Said offer to be accom-
panied by the tender of a deed and with the right to insert in that
offer the reservation of a one foot strip on the southerly and
west~rly portion thereof; up~ condition that prior to final approval
a formula for the release of the one foot strip wi'll be worked out
to the satisfaction of the applicant and the Planning Commission.
Said motion was carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS FERGUSON, FORMAN, MICHLER,
NORTON and ACKER,
NOES': COMMISS"IONER GOLISeH
AaSENT: COMMISSIONER RUTHERFORD
LOT SPLIT
No. 332
(Masotti)
The application of Francis A. Masotti, 320 W. Foothill Boulevard,
which had been referred to Commissioners Rutherford and Golisch
was considered.
The Planning Secretary read the Engineer's report. If the lot split
is granted the following should be required:
1. A final map should be filed,
2. Sewer later provided for Parcell;
3. Recreation fee of $25.00;
4. Close the existing driveway from Foothill
Boulevard and construct new curb;
5. Disconnect water from Parcel 2. New water service
to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code;
6. New house to face San Carlos Road. Maintain 30 foot
setback from Foothill Boulevard.
Page Nine
April 25, 1961
.
Commissioner Golisch had checked the particular parcel and felt it
was along the line of the development of San Carlos. The 30 foot
setback required is in line with the property immediately across the
street. This is a reasonable request. He would suggest, however,
a little more width be given to Parcel 1 so that the lot would have
a better development and there is adequate space to permit this. The
lot has sufficient area.
Mr. Masotti spoke in favor of his application. He was not opposed
to adding a few feet to parcell, but felt 10 feet would prevent him
from constructing a circular driveway as it would not permit the
proper turning radius. He was agreeable to making the lot 95 feet.
Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and
unanimously carried that the application of Francis A. Masotti,
320 W.Foothill Boulevard, be approved, subject to the conditions
as set forth. in the Engineer's report, and subject further to parcel
1 being increased to 95 feet in width.
LOT SPLIT
No. 333
( Cecka)
The application of James J. Cecka, 32 E. Santa Anita Terrace, which
had been referred to Commissioners Forman and Ferguson was considered.
The Planning Secretary read the report of the Engineer to the effect
that if the lot split were granted the following should be required:
1. A final map to be filed;
2. Provide a sewer lateral to parcels 1, 2, and 3;
3. Provide dedication' for the cul de sac;
4. Recreation fee of $75.00
5. Remove existing curb and gutter as necessary to
construct the cul de sac, and all buildings from
the area;
6. Dedicate for the cul de sac, and 5 foot planting and
sidewalk easement;
7. Construct new curb, gutter and pavement;
8. Extend water main and appurtenances as required;
9. Water services to comply with the Plumbing Code;
10. City to dedicate lots 10, 11 and 12, Tract No. 21741,
for street purposes;
None of the lots will have the required minimum depth, but comply with
area regulations.
While the lots in this proposed lot split meet area requirements,
they all have a shallow depth, and, in this respect'; are similar
to the tract recently denied at Santa Anita Avenue and Palm Drive.
The length of the cul de sac from Camino Real would be slightly over
500 feet.
It is recommended that before this plit is approved, the Commission
should seriously consider the feasibility of extending Santa Anita
Terrace to Santa Anita Avenue as contemplated when Tract No. 21741
was originally approved,
Page Ten
April 25, 1961
.
.
Commissioner Forman stated that he had visited the area and
considered that the development should be kept as closely as
possible to the original plan at the time Tract No. 21741 was approved;
and hoped that within the near future this extension to Santa Anita
Avenue would develop so that better circulation of traffic' could be
established in this location. It would be amiss to approve this plan
when others were denied because of shallow lots'.
Commissioner' Ferguson concurred with Mr. Forman's suggestions that the
dead end street with two cul de sacs was not good circulation and
'if the lot split were approved it would prevent a future subdivision
with possibilities of deeper lots.
Mr. Cecka, the applicant, stated he owned only a small portion of
the property. The original plan was' to cut the street through to
Santa Anita Avenue; however, when Tract No. 21741 was considered,
the City Engineer at that time set up a certain amount of lots by
extending Santa.Anita Terrace to Santa Anita Avenue. The owners to
the west do not desire to sell any of the property and the present
plan would make a better street so that traffic can turn in the
cul de sac 'rather than turn in a private driveway. There are also
animals in the area which would be removed with this improvement.
He also stated the street sweeper could not properly service the
dead end street.
If the street did go through it would be a question as to the design,
whether straight or whether it would curve to the south.
The City Attorney stated that the length of the cuI de sac should
be considered; also that a minor street opening onto a major street
is not always desirable, from the standpoint of basic planning.
Discussion followed. Commissioner Norton stated there were unusual
circumstances and Pamela Road had almost the exact, circumstances
and consideration should be given to not opening on to Santa Anita
Avenue because of the freeway. He is a neighbor and abstained from
further comments.
Mr. Frank Viscio o.f 21 E. Camino Real, the owner of the property in
question spoke in favor of the lot split.
Commissioner Forman moved that lot split No. 333 be recommended for
denial based on the report of the City Engineer. Said motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and denied on the ~ollowing roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONER FERGUSON, FORMAN, GOLISCH,
MICHLER and ACKER:
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER RUTHERFORD
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONER NORTON
It was suggested that the Subdivision Committee work with the applicant
for a plan that probably could be developed.
Page Eleven
Apri'l 25, 1961'
o
TRACT NO.
26055
The Planning Commission considered the final map of Tract No. 26055,
located on the northerly extension of Greenfield Avenue, south of
Duarte Road, containing 9 lots, and also the approval of a subdivision
trust covering the improvements in this subdivision.
Communication from the Director of Public Works set out in detail
the method used in computing the amount of the proposed subdivision
trust and recommended that the amount be fixed as $535.00.
The Planning Secretary read the staff report as follows;
"This is the final map of Tract No. 26055, being the northerly
extension of Greenfield Avenue, south of Duarte Road.
This map conforms with the approved tentative map and alterations
approved by lot split No. 313, and is recommended for approval, subject
to the following conditions;
1. Deed the one foot strip at the east end of Greenfield
Place, in trust to a trust company and establish a
subdivision trust in the amount of $535.00 and
in a form approved by the City Attorney;
2. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements;
3. Install all street improvements required by the
Municipal Code, according to plans and to grades
to be approved by the City Engineer;
4. Pay the: following fees and deposits:
2 steel street light poles
20 street trees
2 street nsme signs
9 .lots recreation fee
@ $135.00
@ 8.50
@ 35.00
@ 25.00
$270.00
170.00
70.00
225.00
$ 735.00
5. The City shall dedicate lots 24 and 25, Tract No.
19712, and the one foot strip along Greenfield Avenue,
formerly held in trust, for street purposes.
Notice of the proposed trust had been mailed to Mr. Roger Moore, 152
E. Duarte Road, who is the only property owner involved.
Discussion followed. The subdivider is aware of the trust and the
final map conforms to the tentative previously filed.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by CommiSSioner Ferguson and
unanimously carried, that the final map of .Tract '_ No. 26055,- located
on the northerly extension of Greenfield Avenue, south of Duarte Road,
containing 9 lots, be approved, subject to the conditions set out
,in the Staff report and subject to the establishment of a subdivision
trust in the amount of $535.00.
MASTER PLAN
OF HIGHWAYS
The Commission consiaered the proposed amendment No. 451 to the Master
Plan of Highways submitted by the Regional Planning Counnission. A
large number of people were in the audience protesting the portion
of Sixth Avenue as proposed as a major city street with a width of
80 feet.
Page Twelve
April 25, 1961
.
This matter has been referred to the Planning Commission and the
City Council. The City Council referred it to the Planning Commission
for study. There are extensive changes in the Master Plan. Time
has not permitted the staff to prepare a report. The request has
been made to take no action at this meeting but. to refer it to the
staff for study and a report.
Four communications had been received from residents on Sixth Avenue,
protesting its estabUshment as a major street.
A briefing of the proposed plan was given by the A ssistant City
Engineer, who stated that the City of Monrovia has adopted a Master
Plan of Highways. About a year ago under Senate Concurrent Resolution
62, a complete study was made to determine deficiencies on local city
stree~s through 1980. It was necessary to designate certain streets
as major streets for uniformity of design. In coordinating this
with Los Angeles County, a great number of short comings appeared in
the County plan of highways. This plan was basically adopted in 1929
and some amendments have occurred since then. Arcadia's last plan
of highways was adopted, in 1929.
The Planning Secretary read the communication from the Regional
Planning Commission advising that a public hearing would be held
by this Commission in the near future.
It was suggested that the matter be referred to the entire Commission
to work with the staff and that when the report is prepared sufficient
publicity will be given the public so they will be informed and be
prepared when the public hearing is held.
ll.ECESS
A short recess was called at lQ:40 P.M. Commissioner Michler
was excused.
ANNEXATION
The request of J. Kendall. McBane to annex property at 1167 West Duarte
Road. This item was before the City Council at their last meeting.
The request is for one lot. This was referred to the Planning Commissio~
to determine the zoning rather than the annexation primarily.
City Attorney stated there were two questions involved; 1) the
question as to whether or not the staff should contact one or two
owners to the west to probably round out the boundary and, 2) it
was inadvertently referred to the Commission, because, for inhabited
annexations, before the Council may consent to the circulation of
a petition. it must be referred to the Planning Commission for a
report. This does not occur in the uninbabited act, as this would
be. There is the question whether or not zoning would be recommended
at this time to be made applicable simultaneously with the annexation.
EXTENSION OF
VARIANCE
(Margolin)
Moved by CommisSioner Norton, seconded by Commisstoner Golisch, and
unanimously carried, that the annexation of property located at 1167
W. Duarte Road be referred to the Zoning Committee and staff with
instructions that the one or two other lots to the west be studied
in connection with this particular lot for proposed zoning.
Request of M. I. T. Development Corporation for an extension of
time under a variance for completing the snopping center at Santa
Anita Avenue and Las Tunas Drive was considered.
The Planning Secretary had received a communication from the
Corporation stating that various problems had arisen making
necessary changes in the building plans requested by prospective
tenants. Although visible work at the site consisted only of the
removal of trees and the erection of a perimeter block wall,
Page Thirteen
April 2S, 1961
..,..
')
they cited items either expended qr contracted for amounting to
over $900,000.00. The letter set out a time schedule as follows:
Completion of revised drawings
Foundation permit
Completion of Construction
April 24, 1961
May 1, 1961
February 15, 1962
The Planning Secretary stated the variance was granted June 17, 1958
by Resolution No. 3025. One of the conditions was that all of the
buildings as shoWQ on the plot plan at that time should be completed
within three years; which would be June 17, 1961.
This matter was discussed at the meeting previously held whereby
the Zoning and Subdivision Committees had been advised that a similar
development had been commenced in Upland. The Chief Building
Inspectqr in Upland has been contacted and had stated M.I.T. Development
Corp. had been given a zone change for a shopping center at Foothill
and Euclid Avenue about two or three years ago. M. I. T. Corporation
had done some clearing, grading and wall construction; building plans
had been cheeked and the permit issued. The permit expired 'because
the building was not started. New plans have been submitted and
checked and they are now out for correction. Apparently, there were
two different architects. The City of Upland has a signed agreement
with M. I. T. Corporation concerning the developme~t of the property.
The Corporation~s now making an attempt to split the property into
smaller pieces. He stated that in his opinion this would not be
pe'rmitted and did not knqw what the final qutcome qf this matter
would be.
A suggestion had been made relative to the Arcadia matter that so long
as the expiration date is June 17, 1961, and they propose to be under
conSideration by May 1, 1961, that possibly it would be advisable
to await the developments. .
Commissioner Norton asked as to the legality of the arrangements.
He understood there was a new contractor involved.
The Planning Secretary advised originally the plans were started
by a man in Mr. Margolin's office who was an unlicensed architect,
although there was a registered civil engineer on the design, which
is required by law. About two weeks ago a contractor called and
advised he was taking over the entire project, including the re-
vising of the plans. He advised that he intends to get started
at once. There is nothing in writing with the City.
Commissioner Norton also stated there were two situations; 1)
that this applicant has failed to perform in an adjacent city,
and 2) that he hss failed to perform in the City of Arcadia. In
Order to insure the suc~essful completion of this project, the
financial status of the propose8fnew contractor should be filed
to the satisfaction qf the City Arcadia. He felt every privilege
given by the variance had been abused and M. I. T. Corporation
has not acted in good faith, snd it is an apparent situation of
lack of financing.
Mr. Nicklin stated that by the terms of the variance it expires some
nine weeks from now and the Commission is under no obligation to
extend it, and if an extension is granted it would seem obvious that
any reasonable condition could be attached to the extension. When
the variance expires the property reverts to its basic zoning, and
if anyone is thereafter going to develop it, it would be necessary
to start another sequence of applications that in the past zoning took
about two years.
Page Fourteen
April 25, 1961
VARIANCE EXTENSION
(Rqbinson)
f
.~
It is not unreasonable to attach a condition to insure the
performance of the work. The Commission could consider the
granting of an extension based on a definite erogram of stage
development. There was a broad stage development tied into the
present variance, but the periods were rather extensive. If
the Commission were so inclined, it could grant the extension
upon the submission of a firm program and the extension might be
conditioned upon the completion, period by period, of each of the
elements set forth in such listed program. This, no doubt, is
the opinion of ail of the Commissioners, that this variance has
been allowed to drag, or has dragged, only because there is no
provision to state. when work must start. ' Irrespective of whether
it starts May 1 or not, it cannot be completed within nine weeks
and the Commission is entitled to know that a program is determined,
and the ability of the parties to go ahead with it. The City and
the property owners have some interest in knowing whether they are
really going to have a shopping center or another corn field.
There was discussion as to whether or not a completion bond or a
performance bond could be required.
The City Attorney advised that perhaps the first expression would
be that the Commission is not inclined to grant any extension unless
a definite schedule is set up and the City knows exactly where it
stands and that there is definite assurance of the completion of
the project.
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and
unanimously carried that, based on the past performance and information
available to the CommiSSion, the CommiSSion is not presently inclined
to grant an extension; that the Secretary be instructed to so notify
the applicant and advise him that the Commission will consider such
an extension at its next meeting, but that a definite program must
be presented with evidence of ability to complete the same.
A communication. from Robinson Bros. requested an extension of time
for using the variance at the northwest and southwest corners of
Baldwin Avenue and Callita Street.
The variance was granted ,by Resolution 3314, November 15, 1960, and
if it is not used within six months it will expire. This date would
be May 15, 1961.
They stated that they had tentative plans for the development of both
corners but are holding back in execution of them for three reasons:
1) they wish .to see first the development of Mr. Clarido and Mr.
Bernard for parcels to the. north whose plans they understand are
nearing completion: this development will have a great bearing on
their plans; 2) For the past months they have been working on a
project of building 15 new houses on Greenfield Avenue; these homes are
nearly completed and their next efforts will be concentrated on Baldwin
and Callita Avenues; 3) They want to further negotiate with those in
the professional field in order to build to suit their specifications.
There was considerable discussion as to any relationship between
the variances granted for commercial uses at the corner of Camino
Real and Baldwin Avenue; the convalescent home on Baldwin Avenue,
and the office buildings at Callita Street.
The Commission was informed that a building permit had been issued
for a service station at the corner of Camino Real and that work
was proceeding on plans for the convalescent home.
Page Fifteen
April 25, 1961
-'-
,
VARIANCE EXTENSION
( Clarido)
VARIANCE PROCEDURE
.
It was the concensus of the Commission~t when applying for
a variance constructive evidence should be given that the property
will be used for a definite purpose and then place measures to
insure the completion.
The original request was made for a professional building and an
office building and is not similar in any way to the, Clarizio request.
Commissioner Norton felt that the Robinson Bros. request had no
valid reasons for an extension of the variance.
The inclination of the Commission was to deny the extension,
subject to the submission of further information as to the proposed
use of the property.
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golfsch, and
unanimously carried, that the request of Robinson Bros. for an extension
of time for completing the variance for the development of the north-
west and southwest corners of Baldwin Avenue and Callita Street be
held for submission of a definite building program; that the applicants
be.,notUied that it is the inclination of the Planning Commission to
deny the extension unless a more definite program is presented and
suppc;>rting plans filed.
Communication from Orlando Clarizio requested a six month extension
of time for starting construotion of a convalescent home at 1601
South Baldwin Avenue authorized by variance granted November 15,
1960, by Resolution No. 3316.
The request stated that approval of the plans had not been received
from the Department of Health, but was expected within the next two
months.
Mr. Nicklin stated with the Clarizio variance there was a definite
plan presented initially and that has not been a speculative matter
but a planned program. In respect to his variance there are a number
of agencies whose approval are required, almost to the extent that
hospitals are supervised. Consideration is in order.
T.he Commission was of the opinion the request for an extension was
appropriate and that good cause had been shown in that the delay
was caused through no fault of Mr. Clarizio.
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and
unanimously carried, that the request for an extension of time for
building a convalescent home at 1601 South Baldwin Avenue be granted
for a six months period from May 15, 1961, based on the information
that the delay is caused through the necessity of awaiting the
approval by the State Health Department.
Discussion was held as to the amending of the Code to strengthen
the zone variance procedure and to insure that the purpose for which
the application is made is carried to completion.
The Attorney stated that with respect to variance generally, too often
a person applies for a variance with absolutely nothing in mind but
what might happen in the future.
The same thing occurred formerly in lot splits, but the problem has
now been solved with a tentative approval, then if the party desires
to complete the split, certain conditions must be met and a final
Page Sixteen
April 25, 1961
REPORT
'!!ract No.
26295
REPORT
FOOTHILL FREEWAY
COUNCIL
LIAISON
ADJOURNMENT
.r-,\
,
"-j
approval is then given when completed. He felt the Commission might
give consideration to a similar program where the Commission would give
their inclination of a zone variance for certain purposes. The party
would then give a program of development and the Commission would then
approve.
Commissioner Norton was appointed by the Chairman to work with the
City Attorney .to deter~ine what methods should be instituted to insure
this in the future.
At the last Planning Commission meeting a letter had been received
from the State Division of Highways requesting an extension of time
to negotiate for the property lying west of San Carlos Road and south
of Foothill Boulevard in the path of the Foothill Freeway.
The Planning Secretary advised that letters had been mailed to the
property owners involved asking that they permit the extension until
September 12, 1961. At this time only one owner, Mr. Brinker, had
returned his consent. There still remaina two weeks in which to
receive replies.
Information was related by the Assistant City Engineer, Frank Forbes,
that on April 20, 1961, the State Division of Highways had met with
certain officials of the City of Arcadia and presented a film showing
the various interchanges on freeways that would be related or similar
to the two that would occur in Arcadia. This was ramp interchanges.
The State felt they would have films with s cund track added with
certain diagrams and comments that would be ready and available for
showing to the Commission. One point brought out. in the films was
what can occur with traffic on a local. city street in connection with
the ramps. The freeway was operating satisfactorily, but the city
street was very congested. All ramps exhibited were very similar
to the volumes involved in Arcadia at Santa Anita Avenue. The volume
at the present time on Santa Anita Avenue is 12,000 or 13,000 cars
per hour, but with the 1980 volumes anticipated by the Division of
Highways in their design is 32,000 cars. Approximately 8,000 more
than on Foothill Boulevard. The best that can be.handled on an
average city street is 1400 cars per lane per hour. The question
was raised whether the City of .Arcadia would have any control over
trucks and busses being allowed on the freeway. This cannot be done
because this would be an interstate freeway.
one
Pasadena Freeway is the only/on which trucks are restricted.
Commissioner Golisch, Council Liaison, stated there were no problems
with respect to the Commission. He felt that after the lengthy
meeting there would be discussions later to report.
There being no further ~usine:ys t come bi5\re the Commission,
meeting adjourned at 11:45 P. . ~/J
,1%., ~
the
L.' M. TALLEY,
Planning Secretary
Page Seventeen
April 25, 1961