HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 23, 1961
"\
-
.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES:
ZONE VARIANCE
535 E. Camino
Real (Rose)
~,
.)
j
M I NUT E S
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
May 23, 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., May 23,
1961, with Vice Chairman Forman presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton
and Rutherford.
ABSENT:
Commissioner Acker.
Councilman Elton D. Phillips,
City Attorney James A, Nicklin,
Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz, and
Pla,:,ning Secret~ry L. M. Talley.
The Planning Commission approved the minutes of the regular meeting of
May 9, 1961, as. written and mailed.
otHERS
PRESENT:
The Planning Commission considered the. application of Ralph G. Rose for
a zone variance to allow a second house on the property at 535 East
Camino Real. This hear,ing was held on May 9, after which the hearing was
closed. No determination was made due to a split vote.
The Planning Secretary exhibited a map of the area and explained to the
Commission pertinent issues brought out at the hearing so that each would
be fully informed.
Commis~ioner Golisch stated that he had reviewed the minutes of May 9, 1961,
and had also inspected the property and was aware of what actions had
transpired relative to this variance.
Commissioner Michler stated the minutes' would reflect that he had voted for
the zone variance and to further justify his vote he had visited the
property. It is true that the particular type of the existing dwelling would
not be allowed under the present code. The owners will improve the rear
house to the satisfaction of the Staff.
Commissioner Ferguson stated he was not opposed to the second dwelling but
was opposed to the size of the existing house; 480 square feet is inadequate
for a second dwelling. Any new house on the front of the lot would be a
benefit to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Norton stated the present building does not meet nor could it
be brought up to code without major construction. Even with the new roof
and the safety factors improved the square footage is way below standard.
This entire area reflects R-l type of homes. He felt the area is destined
for change and is not certain but that this particular piece of property
could be well served under the R-l zone. He desired to stand on his
previous decision.
Commissioner Rutherford was in favor of granting the variance.
Commissioner Golisch stated he had viewed the property and had familiarized
himself with the information brought out at the public hearing and was
Page One
May 23, 1961
'P'
.,
J
...
..
aware of what had transpired. There are certain facts already in existence;
there is a house on the rear of the lot; there is adequate land space in
comparison with other lots and other residences in the neighborhood. He
concurred with Commissioners Ferguson and Norton; the less that is done
in allowing non-conforming uses and variances the better the city will be;
but on the other 'hand, the fact r~mains that the neighborhood will be
improved by the construction of a house in the front. He was in favor
of the variance provided the rear house is llrought up ,to standards that
would satisfy the Staff. If this were done, he would feel that the area
had been improved and would clear up a situation advantageous to the City.
of
Commissioner Forman stated he had been in favor/the approval for two reasons;
it would increase the appearance and the desirability of the property. The
reason the zone variance was requested in the beginning was that this piece
of property had not been subdivided in the rear. Otherwise, it is legal for
a second dwelling. There is no possible way to subdivide the rear portion.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, that the
application of Ralph G. Rose for a zone variance to allow a second house
on the property located at 535 East Camino Real be recommended for approval,
subject to the improvements as outlined in the Staff report being completed
to the satisfaction of the Staff. .
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vo~e:
AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Michler, Rutherford and Forman
NOES: Commissioners Ferguson and Norton.
ABSENT.: Commissioner Acker.
LOT SPLIT
NO. 334
( Beeson)
The application of J. E, Beeson, 260 W. Norman 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. File a final map.
2. Tender a deed for street and an irrevocable offer of
dedication for street purposes covering the
south 30 feet of the lot, and an agreement to
pay for its improvement as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Reserve an easement for utilities covering the south
6 feet of Parcell.
4. Record a covenant stipulating that the south 180 feet of
the lot will not be used as a building site until
the area, including this lot, is subdivided, or
Parcel 2 has street frontage on a dedicated
s.treet, improved as required by the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Commissioner Forman stated that the firm for which he works was handling
the sale of'the property and therefore would abstain f~consideration and
voting.
The Planning Secretary presented maps and a sketch showing the tentative
Tract No. 24140, as filed by Mr. Knutsen, and approved for this area
Page Two
May 23, 1961
~'::
.
,
which showed the lot split to be in conformity with the approved tentative
map.
The purpose of this split is to permit Mr. Beeson to sell the front property
and retain the rear lot for future development when it has street frontage.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that it conforms witb what had already
transpired; that the 30 feet retained at tbe back lined up with that
proposed for the tract. He considered this to be entirely within the
realm of anticipated pla~s. and would recommend that it be accepted.
Commissioner Golisch had looked at the property and asked the City Attorney
what would be the position of the City in granting such a lot split if the
new street did not go through. This is an, area that would provide an
adequate subdivision under the new code. He did not feel that any split
should forstall a good development for the future.
The City Attorney stated there were two or three problems; tbe first being
that this split is near the center of the long blockiit would probably
be better were it nearer the end so that the stree't could progress towards
the center. A person acquiring a series of back halves of property for
the purpose of getting a street through may very well run into the pro-
visions of the Subdivision Map Act if he attempts to acquire or sell
more than four pieces of property next to each other within a year's time.
If the proposed tract is not developed within a year, it could be a very
long time before the street is available, He could run into some problems
with the State Real Estate Commission. From the standpoint of the person
who may purchase tbe rear portion, sooner or later it may end up in
someone's hands who ,is not a party to the present proceedings and lie may
apply for a building permit and be turned down. His only remedy then
would be to seek a Writ of Mandate to compel the issuance of a permit.
It could not be anticipated what the decision might be.
Mr. Beeson was present and stated that he desired to sell the frant lot
and retain the rear portion. He or his daughter would develop it and
would pay a fair portion of the street improvement costs; that his
neighbor to the west had agreed that he might use his driveway to maintain
the lot and keep it free from weeds and rubbish, etc. He stated he under-
stood there were six to ten lots that would be a part of the subdivision
but would remain the property of the individual owners.
Discussion followed as to the maintenance of the property and the effect
upon the remaining properties should the split be granted and the sub-
division not completed.
Mr. J. T. Ashton, residing at 272 West Norman, stated 'his dr.iveway is
constructed along the entire east side of his property; Mr. Beeson could
use this in order to maintain the rear lot, should he sell the front portion.
Mr. J. Stoebe, 265 W.Lemon Avenue, immediately to the rear of the subject
lot, gave permission to Mr. Beeson to come into the rear lot through his
premises in order to keep it free from weeds and debris, etc., if necessary.
The City Attorney stated he perhaps was unduly concerning himself with some
of the forseeable consequences of allowing this to occur, because if
northing happens withinthe next five years in that area how long would
that person keep the weeds cleared and pay taxes with no forseeable
prospects of a return on the money being expended. If it is not cleared
Page Three
May 23, 1961
"t.
,.-
STREET
VACATION
PLANNING
LIAISON
COUNCIL
LIAISON
ADJOURNMENT
---j
.
then it becomes a neighborhood problem; and the weed abatement program would
clear the weeds and assess the charges against the property and collect
them with the general taxes. These things were mentioned because it could
create problems that would have to be dealt with.
Mr. Beeson stated he realized the property was entirely landlocked and
could not be used at the present time; but he had a lot of faith in the
City of Arcadia that the development of this land would not sit still
forever, and if he did not utilize it his daughter could.
Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton, that Lot
Split No. 337, J. E. Beeson, 260 W. Norman Avenue, be approved subject
to the condit1onsas outlined in the Director of Public Work's report.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Michler, Norton and
Rutherford;
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Acker
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Forman
The request of Max 'Goldring that certain streets in Annexation No; 20,
east of Peck Road,be vacated was referred to the Staff for a study and
report.
Commissioner Forman extended a welcome to the new Planning' Liaison,
Councilman Phillips, who was attending the meeting for the firs,t time
since his new appointment.
Councilman Phillips accepted the greetings and stated this was not a new
experience for him as he had acted in this capacity before,and was Illad
to be back.
Commissioner Golisch stated he had been unable, because of business
commitments, to attend City Council for the last two sessions, but would
attend the next regular meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
'R "Vvv .
L. M. TALLEY,
Planning Secretary
Page Four
May 23, 1961