Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 30, 1961 ROLL CALL: MINUTES ZONE CHANGE (S togsdill) r '.' r \,-----' M I NUT E S PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING October 30, 1961 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session pursuant to adjournment from October 24, 1961, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7: 30 P.M., October 30, 1961, with Chairman Gol1sch presiding. PRESENT: Commission.ers Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Rutherford and Gol1sch. ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Elton Phillil's, City Attorney James A. Nicklin, Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz, Planning Dir~ctor William Phelps, and Planning SecretaryL., M. Talley. The minutes of the meetings of October 10 and October 24, 1961 were approved as written and mailed. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing on the application instituted by the Planning Commission on the proposal to rezone the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Las Tunas Drive to Zone D and Zone C-2, or some more restrictive zone; and adjacent property to .Zone D and/or PC' This proceeding was instituted in connec- tion with the consideration of the application of Ralph Stogsdill for a zone change of property from Zone R-l to Zones C-2 and PR-3 on Las Tunas Drive, .east o.f Baldwin Avenue and of property on Baldwin Avenue north of Las Tunas Drive. The latter application had been held under submission pending the institution of proceedings to reclassify the corner properties, and for the consideration.of the D overlay which was not included in the'origi"alappl1cation. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing on the application instituted by the Planning Commi!,sion to rezone the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Las Tunas Drive to Zone D and Zone C-2 or some more 'restrictive zone, and adjacent propetty to Zone D and/or P. A communication had been received from Ralph 'D. and Lula P. StogsdUl to the ~ffectthat they were wt~Ung to accept the follOWing: i. .A resolution'in the same form as Resolution No. 3072 dated October 21, 1958, and by which property in the vicinity of the southeast corner of said intersection was rezoned, would be satisfactory. They still own the east 225 .feet of that property. 2. As to the request to have R-3 zoning for the east 25 feet of Lot 17 ,and the west 25 feet of Lot 1'6, they would be willing to have this designated specifically R-3 for parking with the reservation that if at some later date the property to the east is rezoned, the parking restriction as to the 50 feet would be removed. 3. In regard to Lot 2,fac1ng on Baldwin Avenue and on which they are asking C-2 zoning, they would be willing, to dedicate 25 feet off the front, west end, for the widening of' Baldwin Avenue;' said October 30, 1961 Page One '- said Avenue being a bottleneck at this point, particularly when it is considered that the widening of Baldwin Avenue in the block to the .sauth is now under consideration, and Baldwin Avenue has already been widened ,north of Las Tunas until it reaches said Lot 2. Also, directly across the street from this Lot 2, the development is commercial'with a service station (C-2 zoning). 4. They would be willing to accept the imposition of a restriction to the effect that there shall be no building on the north 5 feet of the east 80 feet of said Lot 2. This would insure that the building setback would be the same distance as the property to the north, thus putting 10 feet as a minimum between the two buildings,. The Zoning Committee presented same suggestions in connection with the D. Zone far Las Tunas and Baldwin Avenue which were read by the Plann- ing. Director Phelps as follows: "1. Every exterior sign shall per,tain only to a use conducted within the building. 2. All flood lighting shall be directed away from residential properties. ~. No ground signs on the property hereinbefore described shali exceed 35 feet in height above the ground nor contain any blinking lights or moving parts. 4. .Towers, chimneys, spires, gables, roof structures, flag poles, radio or television masts shall not exceed a height of 20 feet above the roof of the main portion of the building. 5. All parking areas shall be improved and walled .as required by the Arcadia Municipal Code, and shan be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 6. The plan for the disposal of all surface drainage water shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 7. The westerly 25 feet, measured at right angles to the westerly line of. lot 2, Tract No. 6641, shall be dedicated to the City of Arcadia for street purposes for the widening of Baldwin'Avenue, and concurrent with the construction of any commercial building on the lot sidewalks the full width of the parkway shall be con- structed at owner's expense within said portion of Baldwin Avenue. . - 8. Concurrent with the construction of any commercial buildingon lot 2, Tract No. 6641. a concrete block wall shall be constructed along the north line of said lot. The wall shall be 4 feet high fr9m the new front lot line easterly for a distance of 25 feet and 6 feet high .for the balance of its length. 9. Any commercial building on lot 2, Tract No. 6641, shall be setback 20 feet south of the north lot .line. 10. No sign shall be placed on the north wall of any commercial building except identification signs not to exceed 3 sq. ft. in area at. any rear doors of the shops. 11. All permanent and temporary storage of wares and merchandise, and crates, bottles, trash, garbage and refuse shall be within the buildings. October 30, 1961 Page Two it --- . . 12. All air conditioning equipment shall be within the' buildings. 13. The Planning Commission or City Council may modify any of the foregoing conditions if 'such modification willn~t adversely affect property or improvements in the vicinity and' if such modification will equal'ly accompHsh substantiillly the same results as will adherence to the foregoing conditions. The Chairman declared the hearing open to those who wished to speak in favor of the proposed-application. Attorney Henry W. Shatford, 410 Drake Road, represented Mr. and Mrs. Stogsdill, reviewed the suggested D Zone for Las TU9as and Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Shatford stated that Items, 1, 2;" 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were acceptable pursuant to lot 2 being zonedC-2 which they are requesting. He felt' that directly across the street there isa service station so that compatible zoning shoul~ occur. Item 8 is satisfactory; Item 9 refers to lot 2. As to this particular lot there is a recommended 20 foot setback south of the north lot line. He felt that this p~rticular case a modification had been approved on the lot immediately adjacent to allow a.5 foot ~ear setback which was no"t otherwise allowable. Mr. Stogsdill had signed the petition for modification so he felt that it should be a standoff in this regard that he is willing to set back any building 5 feet. As to lot 2, he would be willing to dedicate the 25 feet but that it should be zoned C-2. Items No. 10 and No. 11 were satisfactory. He would question No. 12 purely as a matter of construction. He fel:t the. intent was that all air conditioning equipment 'should be within a building as to pertaining to the outside wall, but certainly not as to the roof. Most of the standar.d equipment today is placed on the roof,. There should be an exclusion"except the ro()f". No. 13 is acceptable. He felt that the recommendations cover the terms of "Mr. Stogsdill j s letter, particularly in connection with ResoluHon No. 3072, with some additions. The only other major item, except as ,pointed out, is in regard to the parking. It was agreeable to let that be restricted, provided that if the zoning shoula be changed' on the next lot then that parking restriction should be removed. This' probably would follow with are-application for a zone change. The condition should be imposed that it be subject to the lot remaining zoned as it presently is; that upon the changing of that zone, there would be no prejudice to ,the applicant applying for a zone change to remove the parking rest~ictions. Mr. Robert E.Heale, 2604 S.- Baldwin Avenue stated that he had forwarded a letter to the Planning Commissionrequ8sting that his property at 2604 S. --Baldwin Avenue, which is ",at the southeast corner of Baldwin Avenue at Woodruff.Avenue be conSidered for a zone change from Zone R-l to Zone C-2. He was in favor of the present application. Mr. .Heale was advised that his lot could not be. considered under the present application; "that he would have to file a separate request. He presented ,a. c~llyof his lett~r whic~ was r.eadby the Planning Secretary. The Chairman statea that those opposed to the change of zone would be heard at this time. Mr. Keith Casman, 608 Woodruff Avenue stated that he was opposed to the original application and is opposed to the present plan. He is situated where he would back up to a commercial lot and he felt the area was R-l and should remain so to protect those purchasing property an October 30, 1961 Page Three SAN GABRIEL RIVER FREEWAY c: -\ ) Woodruff Avenue as a residential area. No one else desired to be,heard. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. Discussion followed, with each Commissioner expressing himself. The matter of placement of the air conditioning equipment was discussed. The suggestion was taken from the requirements on Foothill Boulevard for Ralph's store. There had been no difficulty because of the imposition of the same requirement on that zoning. The reason for this was mainly to avoid undue noise from affecting adjoining proper- ties. Moved by Commissioner Forman , seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Las Tunas Drive, being lots 21 and 22, Tract No. 66'41, be rezoned to Zone C-2 and Zone D, and that the suggested requirements for Zone D be imposed, except that item 7 be eliminated and under items 8 and 9, lot 2 be changed to read "lot 21". Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Rutherford and Goltsch NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Michler 'and Norton ~oved by Commissioner Forman, seconded. by Commissioner Ferguson that Lots 20, 19, 18, except the easterly 25 feet thereof be rezoned to C-2 and D; that the westerly 25 feet of lot 16, and the easterly 25 feet of lot 17 be rezoned to PR;l and D; that the Zone D regulations as suggested for Las Tunas and ~aldwin Avenues presented by the Zoning Committee be appl i,ell! with the 'exception of items 7, 8 and 9 which do not apply to this property; and that the requested zoning on Lot 2, Tract No. 6641 be denied. Said motion was carried on ,the following'roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Forman, Ferguson, Rutherford, and .Golisch. NOES: Commissioner ,Acker. ABSENT: CommisSioners Michler and Norton. The State Division of Highways had presented a map showing several studies for the proposed San Gabriel River 'Freeway which would connect S~n Bernard~no Freew~y to the ~ew Foothil~ ,Freeway. The Planning Director presented a report stating: October 30, 1961 Page Four c! o "The orange-dark green route divides residential areas and provides the industrial areas to the south and east with minimum traffic service. On the other hand, the other routes located more to the east would not' adversely affect the residential areas and would more adequately provide traffic service to the industrial area. From a planning viewpoint, based on these two reasons alone, the Planning Department recommends that, the Planning Commission go on record as being opposed to the orange-dark green route. If the COmmission desires to express their preference for any of the other alternative routes, the most preferable one from a planning viewpoint would be either of the two most easterly alternates which are the orange ,and orange-brown routes, The data supplied by the-State, particularly the benefit ratio for each alternate route, also indicates that the orange-dark green route is one of the least preferable. For the Commission's information the benefit cost ratio represents the savings in time, plus the s~vings in highway user operation cost for a twenty (20) year period, divided by the total cost of the proposed route. Fram the benefit-coat ratio viewpoint the highest ratio would be the best route. However, because th:l.s ratio only considers direct highway user benefits and, costs, the selection of a final route must consider other elements like traffic service to the area and, of course, the City planning viewpoint." Each of the proposed studies were explained with information given as to the length in miles., the construction cost, the number of properties required to be obtained, and the number of families to be removed for each route. After considerable discussion, it was.moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Commission recomme~d to the City Council that the route depicted as the orange-brown line, terminating in Duarte .near Bradbourne Avenue be recommended for approval. This recommendation is based on the difference in construction costs; the number of families to be removed and the number of parcels of land to be acquired, as well as the benefit ratio being consistent with that ,of. the other J:outes studied. . FALLOUT SHELTERS Numerous people were in the audience who were interested in the presentation of this subject. Mr. Ben MeekeJ:', 2802 Halsey, stated that he represented a number of residents in the aJ:ea of the proposed green study. A,petitio~ is being prepared which would be signed by some 2500 adults in the area. This petition is ,directed to the State Dlvision of Highways and will bepJ:esented at the Novembu 17, 1961 meet- i~g..w~ic~ i~ to be held .in the Duarte City Hall at 1: 30 i.M.. Because of the increased interest in fallout shelters in'the area, consideration was given to the location of such shelters. This matter had been referred to the Commission by the City Council, October 30, 1961 Page Five . . - o ;--~'\ , ,J The Planning Director presented a report stating that a review of the Arcadia Zoning Ordinance indicates that fallout shelters could ~e permitted in front yards without any change in the existing ordinance. Section. 9213 which deals with omission and ambiguities permits the Planning Commission to render official interpretations of the ordinance by resolution. It is suggested that such a resolution be passed by the Commission clarifying this issue. The Zoning Committee has also ~uggested that the problems likely to arise by accidental or mischievous access to fallout shelters be referred to the 'newly created Civil Defense Commission which could prepare some, suggested safety standards that might prevent fallout shelters from becoming safety hazards. The matter was discussed at length. At the present time there are no restrictions to having mounds, not exceeding four feet in height, in the front yard,as well as fences, etc. Discussion foliowed as to tbe beight of the entrance, whether it sbould be 12 inches or allowed to be 4 feet ab~ground, It was suggested that much of the construction could be bandIed in an administrative manner througb the 'guilding and Safety Division. Tbe location of the air vent was also discussed. The general opinion was that any structure so designed should not detract from the appearance of the neighborbood; that in many instances it was necessary to build a shelter in the front yard due to the fact that heavy machinery could not get to the rear yards. II: would also cut down on costs. Maga~ine articles were presented sbowing front yard loc~tions. The matter of drainage was a cons.ideration. The airiritakes and exhausts would extend. considerably above ground. Inasmuch as architectural features are allowed as much as'four feet above ground these could be handled with proper landscaping. It was further suggested that 'the newly created Civil Defense Commission ,should be. conta'cted in reference to the construction of sheiters Sa that a.general plan could be outlined wherein suggested exteriors to shield the exposed portion of the shelter could be studied. . Counc~lmanPhinips stated that any individual desiring to build a shelter could do so. It had not been determined as yet as to whetber or not tbis would be carried on in any other manner, such as a community, neighborhood, or civic project. By taking action at this time on wbether or 'not 'the sbelters would be allowed in tbe front yards, it would make it possible for many to have shelter.s who otherwise could not have. one, at least from the financial standpoint. This is due to tbe difficulty of getting heavy equipment into the back yard. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried, that fallout shelters be permitted in the front setback within the City of Arcadia; that the maximUlD height of four feet; as presently outlined in the Code, be maintained; that design and construction details be worked out from an administrative standpoint so that .proper.landscaping will cover any unsigbtly construction. The shelter itself"must be totally underground, with only the access and vent pipes all'QWl!'d above tbe level ground. October 30, 1961 Page Six HOUSEMOVING RESOLUTION NO. 427 (Harding's Gardenland, Inc.) < . - . /--', '-" The Planning Director presented a report in connect10n with the copy of proposed Ordinance No. 1150 which had been submitted by the City Attorney with recommendations from the concepts previously before the pranning Commission. The two major utilities had been contacted, with the view of discussing this subject insofar ~s they were concerned. They had a few minor' suggestions. This did not affect the general concept as outlined by the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. The ideas embodied in. the tentative ordinance cover the suggestions outlined by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Acker inquired as to the matter' of cleanup. The City Attorney stated there wou~d be a bond 'required and .this will require all foundations and like structures to be removed 'and excavations be filled and the property left in a clean state and level all within thirty days. He stated that most of the comments he had received were mostly within the category of detail which .are more pertinent to the Building and Safety Division of the Department of Public Works, the Public Works Department, and the Police Department. This was a tough draft without too much guidance. This calls for the moving ofa house, providing it is conforming, upon the same lot or 'adjacent contiguous lot. It had been suggested that the word "contiguous" lot be stricken. He felt that in some cases of subdivision of. property where the house would not fit existing lot lines, there had been occasions where it was necessary to remove an existing structure onto an adjacent lot. The City Attorney felt that .the provision for moving a house onto the "adjacent contiguous" lot would allow a developer to present a better plan of a subdivision than .if they have to plan around the structure. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconc!ed by Commissioner Forman, and unanimouslycartied, that proposed Ordinance No. 1150, as presented be recommended .to the City Council as the pertinent facts to be embodied in an ordinance restricting housemoving; that the City Attorney and Director of Public Works formulate the details for the administration and enforcement of the ordinance. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 427, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A ZONE VAR~CE TO PERMIT THE USE OF PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SANDRA AND SECOND AVENUES FOR THE STORAGE OF SPECIFIED MATERIAL USED IN CONNECTION WITH HARDING'S GARDEN- _LAND, INC." The planning Secretary stated that a communication had been received from Mr. Harding requesting that the provision of construction of a concrete ,wall, or solid fence be amended to approve a chain link fence so that the merchandise behind the fence could be seen from the alley and wouid a.llow for; easier supervision of this area. ( , ( ) I Discussion followed and .it was the concensus of opinion that the restrictions as originally imposed should remain. 'Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution be waived. October. 30, 1961 Page Seven MASTER PLAN OF HIG.HWAYS, BROWN ACT SUBDIVISION MEETING AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ADJOURNMENT " . . ~ .- j .y- Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, that Resolution No. 427 be adopted, Said motion was carried on the following roil call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Rutherford and Gol1sch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton ABSTAINED: Commissioner Acker. The Planning Secretary presented a communication from the Regional Planning Commission which was an amendment to the MasterPlan of Highways, advising that a revised plan had been forwarded indicating that Fifth and Sixth Avenues were removed from Proposed Amendment No. 451, since concurrence in these proposals could not be obtained at this time. A public hearing on the subject amendment, as revised, is to be held by the Regional Planning Commission on November 14, 1961. This matter had been before the Planning Commission and considerable discussion .held. The amendment would eliminate Fifth and Sixth Avenues fram the Master Plan of Highways. No action was necessary on this matter. The City Attorney statea that he 'had prepared a paper on the "Brown Act" which he-had presented at the League of California Cities meeting in San Francisco. Copies would be made 'available to the Commission for their use. This Act now applies, to ail permanent boards and commissions. Discussion sessions were permitted under the Act. Information sessions were allowed. The principal effect of the 1961 legislation was to specifically include Planning Commissions, Recr.eation Commissions, Library Boards, and other permanent boards and commission. The Act defines action taken as not only a formal vote but a collective commitment or promise to take or not to take any particular kind of action. The members of the Subdivision fixed TueSday, November 7, 1961, at 7:30 P.M., as the time for consideration of Tract No. 26655, and other related matters. No one in the audience desired to be heard. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. ~, L.-.M. TALLEY, Planning Secretary October 30, 1961 Page Eight