Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 14, 1961 ROLL CALL MINUTES: ZONE CHANGE (West Arcadis) ".,...-\ 7' MINUTES PLANNING COOIISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 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., November 14, 1961, with Vice Chairman Norton presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton and Rutherford. ABSENT: Commissioners Ferguson and Golisch OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Elton Phillips, City Attorney James A. Nicklin Planning Director William Phelps, and Planning Secretary L. M..Talley The minutes of the meeting held October 30, 1961 were approved as written and mailed. The matter of the proposed rezoning on Duarte Road,Lovell Avenue, Naomi Avenue and Baldwin Avenue to Zones R-3-R, C-3 and D, and C-2 as contemplated by Resolution No. 419 which had been continued from the previous meeting was again considered. The Planning Director presented a map and reviewed the area under consider- ation. The report of the Zoning Committee was presented by Mr. Phelps, attempting to answer several questions, namely: (1) is there a need for additional land area for commercial development in the general area of Baldwin Ave. and Duarte Road; (2) if additional area were allocated for commercial use what type of development would occur; (3) how much additional traffic would be generated by additional commerical space, and (4) is R-3-R economically feasible in this general area? The Census Tract No. 4317, in which this property is located is bounded by Baldwin Ave. Duarte Road, Santa Anita and Longden Avenues. Considering the zoning in this area, there is only 1.7 acres of undeveloped land which is available commercially zoned which can be developed for commercial activity. According to the compilation of statistical facts there appears to be a need for additional commercially..zoned area. If this thesis is valid, the location of additional commercial zoning would be better placed at the Baldwin-Duarte Complex than elsewhere. It was felt that. if this p r.o>perty develops commercially it seems as if retail stores would be the type of business most likely to develop rather than offices. The matter of traffic generation was .discussed. lit is anticipated that if a junior department store is atracted to this area, an additional 4600 cars per 24 hour day would be attracted to this area. This additional traffic can be handled on a four lane urban street such as Baldwin and Duarte. At the present time the Average Daily Traffic on Duarte is about 14,000 vehicles; on Baldwin, the Average Daily Traffic is about 13,000 vehicles. Splitting this additional amount; Duarte Road would carry 16,300 vehicles and Baldwin Avenue would carry 15,300. Both of these streets can efficiently handle these volumes.. November 14, 1961 Page One r- ,-j With the investment required to develop property to R-3-R standards calculations indicate that monthly rental ransfng from $300 to $500 would be required. It is questionable as to whether a market exists in Arcadia at this time strong enough to induce the development of the properties on Lovell Avenue to those standards. The Zoning Committee and Planning Department suggests ~he following: 1. Approve the one R-2 lot on Baldwin Avenue for Zone C-2 thereby placing this lot in the same zoning classification as the other lots on Baldwin Avenue. 2. Deny the R-3-R zoning proposed for those lots on Lovell Avenue between Duarte Road and Naomi Avenue. This action would leave those properties in Zone R-l. 3. Approve the change from Zone R-l to Zone C-3 and D for those four lots on the north side of Naomi Avenue. 4. Approve the change from Zone R-l to Zone C-3 and D for those ten lots on the south side of Naomi Avenue. The Zone change to Zone C-3 and D recommended in items 3 and 4 above, should be contingent upon prior dedication for street widening and alley opening as follows: a. Dedicate 12 feet for Widening Naomi Avenue to a width of 42 feet from the present centerline.. b. Dedicate 30 feet for the opening of an alley along the easterly side of lot 14. c. Dedicate 30 feet for the opening of an alley along the easterly side of the ten lots on the south side of .Naomi Ave. (ThiS would include the east 21 feet of lot 18 and the west 9 feet of lot 17.) d. Dedicate 30 feet for the opening of an alley along the westerly side of lot 27. e. Dedicate 30 feet for the opening of an alley along the southerly Une of lots 18 to 21, inclusive. f. Where these alleys intersect, a 15 foot by 15 foot corner cut-off should be dedicated. g. Provide a ten foot wide drainage easement from the alley system to Lovell Avenue along the' south line of lot 11. The Ordinance approving the recommended rezoning should provide that dedications and development of the area may :be ,made in parcels., as follows.: Parcel 1. Parcel 2. Lots 11 to 14,inclusive, Tract No. 4611; Lots 18 to 27, inclusive,and the west 9 feet of Lot 11, Tract No. 4611. The restrictions to be made applicable to said property under Zone D should be as follows: A. Lots 11 to 14, inclusive,Tract No. 4611, shall be developed contemporaneously as a unit and as one building site. November.14, 1961 Page Two ( '--- B. Lots 18 to 27, inclusive. and the west 9 .feet of lot 17, Tract No. 4611, shall be developed contemporaneously as a unit and as one building site. C. Construct a concrete block wall along the east line of the alley east of each building site, and along the south line of the alley south of the ten lot building site. D. No building shall be erected or maintained on the front 15 feet of the property remaining after dedication for street widening. At least 9 feet of the aforesaid 15 feet shall be suitably landscaped and maintained. E. Prior to or concurrent with the erection of any commercial structures, the applicable dedications shall be improved for street, alley and drainage purposes in accordance with city standards. F. Signs shall be limited to one square foot of area for each foot of building frontage; all signs to be mounted flat against the building and no flashing or roof signs to be allowed. G. All lighting of the subject. property and the buildings thereof shall be directed away from adjacent residential property. H. All plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval as to plot plan, .architectural treatment, walls, landscaping and signs before issuance of a building permit. I. The Planning Commission or the City Council may modify any of the foregoing conditions if such modification will not adversly affect property or improvements in the vicinity and if such modification will equally accomplish substantially the same results as will the adherence to the foregoing conditions. The Vice Chairman announced that if there was anyone desiring to be heard in favor they may do so at this time. Mr. Clarence H. Skinner, 1229 Lovell Avenue, was in favor of the proposed C-3-D and the rejection of R-3-R. .Mr~A; L. Wilson, 626 Naomi Ave. thanked the Commission for the favorable consideration for the ten lots on Naomi Ave. T. W.Royer, 606 Naomi Ave. stated he. was in favor of the proposed zoning, but requested that the denial of the zoning for the R-3-R be without prejudice so that if at some future time development occur, rezoning may become necessary. . Those opposed were given the opportunity to be heard. Mr. Paul Hackstedde, 333 W... Camino Real, registered opposition. He stated that heavy traffic would generate as a rsult of the rezoning and that the entire West Arcadia area would feel the results. Mrs. Jeanette Van Crimpen, 610 Naomi, stated that she lived immediately to the east of the proposed rezoning and that there would commercial next to' her bedroom. She felt it would depreciate he.r property, but was in favor of the denial of ..the R-3-R, but it~hould be ''without prejudice". Mr. Considine, 329--NaOMi, felt there was no need for additional commercial. He stated that Arcadia should .not be developed withoutside influence. He was not in favor of Arcadia becoming a shopping center. This would bring traffic problems, etc. that they would not be wl1ling to have. November 14, 1961 Pag!! Three ZONE CHANGE (Live Oak) ,/\, Hr. Maurice Scanlon, 400 W. Norman Ave. stated that no mention had been made pertaining to the residents of Camino Real. His main objection to the rezoning was that there was no master plan of the area, There is no well-planned development presented. He had just returned from Palo Alto and was much in favor of that type of development. It had in no way affected the residential property as it blended right in with it. Discussion followed; Hoved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. Each of the Commissioners expressed himself as to the zoning and the determining factors involved in arriving at a decision. Moved by Commissioner Acker. seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that tbe'proposed rezoning on Duarte Road and Lovell Ave'nue to Zone R-3-R be disapproved without prejudice; that the lots on Naomi Avenue be rezoned to C-3 and D in accordance with the report of the Zoning Committee and subject to the recollllllended conditions; and that the lot on Baldwin Avenue be rezoned from Zone R-2 to Zone C-2. The Vice Chairman called a three minute recess. The meeting reconvened and the Vice Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing on the application of William R. Rowland and others, for a change of zone on Live Oak Ave., east and west from Louise Avenue, from Zone R-3 to Zones C-2 and D. The Planning Secretary presented a map and the staff report. All of the property included in the application is presenny developed as single- family residences, except Lot 8, at the northwest corner of Live Oak Ave. and Louise Ave. which is vacant. The property across Live Oak Ave. to the south is zoned C-2 and is developed with commercial uses. The north- east corner of Santa Anita Ave. and Live Oak Ave., west of the subject property, is zoned C-l and developed for commercial. The northwest corner of Greenfield Ave. and Live Oak Ave. east of subject property is zoned R-3 and is developed with a medical office by reason of a zone variance grant- ed in 1955, by Resolution No. 2640. An application for another variance to extend the use is now pending. The property to the north is zoned R-l and R-2 snd is develped with Single-family residences. Since 1955, the Commission and the City Council have followed a policy of considering commercial zonins alonS the north side of Live Oak Ave. provided that street widening and alley dedications are made to allow adequate access to the commercial uses. In ,the past the City bas required landscaping and a strip of parking on the north side of the alley. In some instances this has not proven practical because there are some businesses, such as a service station, that do not need tbe additional parking area. The South side of Live Oak Avenue is zoned and developed for commercial uses. The nortb side of Live Oak Avenue, east of the subject property is developed with a medical office, a miniature golf course and commercial uses. West of the subjec~property is zoned R-3. 'Tbe area north of the subject property is all developed for residential; all single-family except the apartment on lo~ 2. November 14, 1961 Page Four In order to provide the necessary area for a concrete block wall and two adequate traffic lanes, the staff recommends a 25 foot dedication for the alley. The two properties at 55 and 67 E. Live o.ak Avenue are 10.5 feet and 135 feet wide with a depth of approximately 459 feet. Af.ter dedication of the alley these properties combined will be approximately 240. feet by 30.0. feet and are a part of Zone R-3. Itts the opinion cjf the staff that a 60. foot dedicated street from Live o.ak Avenue should be provided for access to these properties. The transition of these properties from residential to commercial uses will require time. It is suggested that if the zone change is approved that it be made subject to the required dedications within a specified period of time, possibly five years. The area should be set up by sections so that certain properties can. be developed without waiting for all of the area to develop at one time. The city has a covenant, executed by the owners of lot 6, Tract No. 11438, dated December 17, 1957, agreeing to dedicate an alley through this property at such time as the City deems it necessary and at a lo- cation to be approved by the City. Normally, this Department loOuld be opposed to strip commercial development along arterial highways. However, due to past zone changes both by the City and the County, this portion of Live o.ak Avenue is now predominately commer- cial and it appears that some coumercial use of the subject property seemS proper. If this is to occur it should be done in an ord<!.rly manner, and so that residential property to the north will be least affected. It is recommended that this request be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate tbe east 12 .feet of lots 8 and 9 and the west 12 feet of lots 19 and 20., Tract No. 11438, including radii at the corners of Live o.ak Avenue, for street purposes for the widening of Louise Avenue. 2. Dedicate the north 25 feet of lot 9 and the north 25 feet of lot 19, Tract No. 11438, and a strip 25 feet wide across the east 240. feet of lot 65, Arcadia Acreage Tract, for alley purposes. The nortli line of said alley to coincide with the north line of lot 2, Tract No. 12915. ). Dedicate'a 60. foot street, including radii at Live o.ak Avenue and a turnaround. at the north end, through the east 240. feet of lot D5, Arcadia Acreage Tract, extending from Live o.ak Avenue to the abovementioned alley. 4. .The above dedications shall be made prior to the recommended zoning becoming effective, and in no case later than five years after the adoption of any or~inance approving such rezoning. 5. The ordinance approving the requested rezoning should provide that dedications and development of the area may be made in parcels, as follows: Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel 3, Lot.s 8 ana 9" Tract No. 11438; Lots 19-and 20., Tract No. 11438;' The east 240. 1eet of lot 65, Arcadia Acreage Tract. November 14, 1961 Page Five . The restrictions to be made applicable to said property under Zone D should be as follows: 1. Construct a concrete block wall along the north line of the alley to separate the alley and the commercial property from the residential property to the north. Also construct a concrete block wall to separate public parking areas from street frontages. The layout of all parking lots, including walls, landscaping and drainage uhall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 2. Prior to or concurrent with the erection of any commercial structures, the applicable dedications shall be improved for street and alley purposes in accordance with City standards. 3. All commercial buildings shall face Live Oak Avenue and shall be on building sites extending from Live Oak Avenue to the alley required to be dedicated. 4. No entrances to buildings from si4e streets shall be permitted more than 10 feet from the front building line.. 5. Vehicular access to all portions of the subject property shall be by means of the alley required to be dedicated and improved, as distinguished from access by means of curb cuts in Live Oak Avenue and the side streets. .6. All billboards shall be prohibited. 7. All floodlighting shall be directed away from residential properties. 8. The Planning Commission or City Council may modify any of tbe foregoing conditions if such modification will not adversely affect property or improvements in the vicinity and if such modi- fication will equally accomplish substantially the same results as will adherence to the foregoing conditions. The Se.cretary stated that the application sets out the legal .description;public necessity requires a change because of the saturation of population in the area that requires additional commerc1alzoning for ser.vices not generally qualified for strictly shopping center element and lacking in this area; also to stimulate the natural competitive need in the area; the entire street fronting rots 8 and 20, and adjacent to lot 8 is presently well established commercial, and to maintain the alley plan of commercial strip, 9 and 19 have been included as the alley way; also the lots are irregular and would make the present zone for multiple dwelling rather impractical; the uses will not be detrimental as these tots represent nearly the last parcels on Live Oak Avenue as all else is zoned commercial. There would be little change to the surrounding property; multiple use would pose an equal problem, considering the all-night street parking as a result of multiple dwellings and most commercial areas close early in the evening. November 14, 1961 Page Six There were no communications. The Vice Chairman invited those present in favor of the application to come forward. to speak; Mr. William H. Rowland, owner of property at the corner of Live Oak and Louise Avenues was in accord with the recommendations as presented. Residents having lived in the area for a number of years have :Seen the srea transformed from a residential street to the second busiest artery in the City at this time. He felt that in this case they already have the traffic problems and that the additional zoning would not create any additional problems. The 12 feet for widening was from his lot, and while it was not in the application it may be necessary. He could see the benefit of having the extra parking area. He was in favor of the recommendation to face all commercial buildings on'Live Oak Avenue for two reasons: on the two corner pieces of property there-are four owners. He is the owner of one lot fronting Live. Oak and the lot back would be the lot with the dedication for the alley. It is no more than right that the two inside lots should be protected in order that they should share in their rightful portion of anything that would be realized on the front property. He felt this was timely. There are good commercial developments in the area and they have done well. He felt this part of the city needed help; there are no street lights, no sidewalks .on the north side of the street, and he felt the rezoning would be of value to the community. Mr. Frank Rush, the owner of the property at 67 E. Live Oak Ave. stated he would like to see a nice business section there. He had hoped to see his own business in front, as Be had had to move elsewhere to have commercial zoning. He appreciated the situation, but felt that a well- planned business section is the only development that could be done there. Mr.. Divan, 2626 Louise Avenue, stated he purchased the property for a single-family home. He felt that since he had moved there conditions had changed and that he would not be a party to resisting a C-2 zone. He had. a disadvantage because of the two deep lots backing him. A C-2 zoning would be better than R-3. The Vice Chairman requested those opposed to state their opinions. Dr. A. G. Andrioli, 2600 Louise Avenue, representing himself as well as 25 other residents, stated that there were questions the people in the area would like to have answered. Was there a need for additional commercial zoning in the area? They would like to know the type of development proposed. They would not argue against progress. There were no objections to any development if the need were there and if the type of business would not depreciate the value-of the residences in the area. There is a good deal of commercial land both to the east and to the west of this area which has not been developed. He felt the report lacked conviction of the necessity for rezoning. He would like to know what additional traffic would be generated if the l~nd were rezoned. He felt there was a dearth of real planning as to what is to be located on the property. There were in excess of some thirty families that would be affected by this zoning. They felt that change was not progress. Commissioner Forman stated that the Doctor had brought up some pertinent facts. He hoped that this zoii:ing would not be an involved matter such as that of Naomi Avenue. The Staff report had not disclosed the same facts as the one on Naomi with the number of acres and the generation of traffic if rezoned to C-2. He felt this zoning should be accorded the same type November 14; 1961 Page Seven' ZONE VARIANCE (Ill E. Live Oak Ave. ) /-~, '-~ of study to assist the Commission in makin8 a determination. . Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried that the publichearlng be continued and that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee and Staff for a further report. Dr. Andrio11 further desired to state that he was concerned with the two deep lots facing on Live Oak. There would be landlocked property and all of the residents were vitally concerned about it. A three minute recess was called. Immediately upon reconvening, the Vice Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing on the application of Live Oak Medical Building Co. for a zone variance to allow expansion of the present medical building. This is for an addition to the present building and to use the sddition for medical purposes. The Planning Secretary read from the application that the use requested is for the addition to the building for the same purpose as is being used at the present time. Professional use in an otherwise commercial area will not be detrimental to the property nor will not affect public health or injure the rights of others. The variance is necessary for the use of the substantial property rights. The application was filed at the suggestion of the City Attorney. The applicant feels that the previous variance covers the proposed addition to the existing building and that this application is legally unnecessary, and they do not waive their existing legal rights by the filing of t6is variance application. The general comprehensive plan will not be adversely affected. The plan treats this property as commercial and it follows that a lessor or professional use will not affect the plans. A map was exhibited showing the area involved, together with a plot plan of the proposed addition, The Planning Secretary presented the Staff report which stated: "This is the application of the Live, Oak Medical Building Co., (wholly owned by H. N. and Frances C. Berger) for a zone variance to allow the construction of an additlon to the existing building now on the property and to use the addition for medical offices. The property is a part of Zone R-3. In 1955 this applicant appli~d for a. zone variance on lots 2 and 3 for a zone variance for medical offices and' parking. By Resolution No. 191 the Planning Commission recommended, and by Resolution No. 2640 the City Council granted the requested zone variance as to lot 2 but denied the application as to lot 3, unless and until an alley 20 feet in width was dedicated across lot 3 at a location approved by the Planning Commission and. the City Engineer. Subsequently, lot 3 was sold and an apartment house was constructed. The present medical building was constructed on lot 2. In 1955 and slnce that time, zone changes to commercial zones have been granted for other properties on the north ,side of Live Oak Avenue, .following a policy of the Commission and Council that alleys and street widening shall be required to provide adequate access to the rear of the commercial_uses. The South side of Live Oak Avenue is zoned and developed for commercial November 14, 1961 Page Eight \-J uses. The north side of Live Oak Avenue, east of the subject property, is developed with a medical office, a miniature golf course and commercial uses. West of the subject property is zoned R-3, but an application for commercial zoning is now pending. The area north of the subject property is all developed for residential; all single family except the apartment on Lot 2. Due to the present developments along this portion of Live Oak Avenue this request is recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate the east 12 feet of the lot, including the corner radius, for street purposes for widening Greenfield Avenue. 2. Dedicate the north 25 feet of the property for alley pu~poses. 3. Construct a concrete block wall on the north property line. Said wall to be four feet high from the west line of Greenfield Avenue for a distance of 25 feet and six feet high for the balance of the length. 4. The property dedicated for the alley and the widening of Greenfield Avenue should be improved in accordance with City standards prior to or concurrent with the construction of any building upon the property. 5. The new portion of the building should comply with :the requirements of Fire Zone No.2, and conform substantially with the building plans su~itted with the application. 6. The present setback of 50 feet from Live Oak Avenue should be rescinded. If this variance is granted as recommended, it will eliminate the possi- bility of future building expansion as ,noted on the plans.." At the present time, there is a 50 foot setback on Live Oak Ave. This plan shows the building to extend out beyond that line. This building could not be built without a variance to the setbac~ line. The City is asking for a 12 foot dedication for the widening of Greenfield Ave., thereby providing more traffic area back through the entrance to the rear of the commercial lot. This will require the revamping of the parking lot. There would still be more than the required parking. There is also a request for the deciation of 25 feet for the alley as requested in the previous hearing. There were no communications. The Vice Chairman requested those in favor to state their views. . - Mr. T. R. -Suttner, 50 North First Ave., attorney at law, represented the applicant. He assumed he was speaking in favor of the zoning, but they took a point of'departure from the recommendation of the Staff. The property is being used as a medical building. Their request is being made to enlarge the building. The building is used by two p~ricians who have large practices, with the parking lot many times almost filled and they need additional office space. When the original variance-was granted, it pertained to both lots 2 and 3. Since that time lot 3 has been developed with an apartment house. The question is the request for the alley. The alley was not recommended for lot 2, but for lot 3, which at that time the variance as to lot 3 would be denied unless the alley were dedicated. November 14, 1961 Page Nine ~ RESOLUTION NO. 428 r~. '~---../ When the variance was granted, the applicants had the impression that they had a variance which would permit future use for medical purposes of the rest of Lot? Recently, they were told by the Building Department and Planning that theycould not have a building permit.; that they would have to apply for a variance. The only difference is they are taking a lessor amount of the additional building and placing it as part of the existing building. He was speaking in favor of the variance but objecting to the Staff report. The 12 feet on Greenfield has never been requested before; and also the alley is requested. He felt with the type of development an alley was not necessary and even detrimental where the business is primarily for small children. This would be public access to what. is now the parking lot. He requested that the Commission reject the staff report for the alley and that the 12 feet on Greenfield be not required. So far as the other Staff recommendations were concerned, there are cer~ain recommendations they do not object to; the block wall is agreeable; the change in setback is immaterial to them; the new building will not encroach within the set- back; no objectf.on to the construction type cf building under the No. 2 Fire Zone;, they do object to giving ,to the City at this time a substantial portion of the lot without any compensation for a use that is not only deleterious to the tenant but in the case of the 12 feet would be useless for anything. c.Were they asking for C-2 or C-3 they would take a different position. Alleys behind C properties is reasonable, but this is not a commercial property. So long as they continue with the present use they ,felt they should mpermitted to enlarge the building and not take away any part of their parking. The property is not for sale. . No one desired to be heard in opposition to 'the variance. Commissioner Acker stated that this variance was in the immediate vicinity of the hearing preceeding this one and that it should be studied in connection this that application. Moved by Coumiiss~oper Acker, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, and unanimously carried, that the application of Live Oak Medical Building Co. for a zone variance to allow expansion of the present Medical building be referred to the Zoning and Staff to be considered at the next regular meeting. The Vice Chairman stated that the regular order of the agenda would be changed to consider the matters from the, City Attorney at this time. The City Attorney presented Resolution, No. 428, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, REC~DING TIlE, ESTABLISHMENT OF _ CERTAIN REgtlIRllMENTS _ FOR ~ISASTER SHELTERS." Moved by CommiSSioner-Michler, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that the reading of' the fUll body of the resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner, Micnler, seconded by Commissioner Forman, that Resolution No. 428 be adopted. November 14, 1961 Page Ten RESOLUTION No. 429 RESOLUTION No. 430 ~ L ./-, \__/ Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissipners Acker., Forman, Michler, Norton and Rutherford. NOES: None ABSENT.: Commissioners Ferguson and Golisch The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 429, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING C.OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECCMlENDINGTHE RECLASSIFICATION UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS FROM ZONE R-l TO ZONES C-2, AND D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY) OF PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAS TUNAS DRIVE AND BALDWIN AVENUE IN SAID CITY." Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Formsn, that Resolution No. 429 be adopted. Said motion was carried by the following roll call vote; AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton, and. Rutherford. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ferguson and Gollsch The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 430, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION AND RECLASSIFICATION TO ZONES C-2, D AND P OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 525, 529, 601, 603 AND 615 LAS TUNAS DRIVE, RECOMMENDING THE REGULATIONS TO BE IMPOSED UNDER THE ZONE D CLASSIFICATION, AND RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF REQUESTED RECLASSIFICATION TO ZONE C-2 OF PROPERTY AT 2612 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE AND TO ZONE B.-3 OF PROPERTY AT 525 LAS TUNAS DRIVE IN SAID CITY." Moved-by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously' carried that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 430 be waived. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, that Resolution No. 430 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commi!sion~r F~rman, Michler, Norton and Rutherford, NOES: Commissioner Acker - .- ABSENT: Commissioners Ferguson and Golisch November 14, '1961 Page Eleven ZONING ANNEXATION LIVE OAK RESOLUTION NO. 431 Lot SPLIT NO. 341- (Needham) ,'/~~, /"'. \ ., ,--j The City Attorney stated that sometime ago when the City of Arcadia annexed the property on the south side of Live 'Oak Ave. through a misunderstanding of its exact boundaries, certain ownerships were not annexed in that proceeding. Proceedings are underway to annex this property' and through inadvertence the matter was not referred to the Planning Commiasion for its recommended zoning on those properties. The matter bas been referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. Concurrently with this, Mr. Harris, owner of the property, has requested that the property on the southeast corner of Live Oak and Lenore Avenues, which is presently zoned C-2 be re- classified to R-3. His original request was for a C~M Zone but this was placed In theC-2 zone. Accordingly, Resolution No. 431 was prepared setting up the time and place for hearing on the proposed zoning. Said date being November 28, 1961. The City Attorney presented aesolutionNo. 431, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OFnm CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LIVE OAK AVENUE AND LENORE AVENUE IN SAID CITY FROM ZONE C-2 TO ZONE a-3, AI'ID lFtXING THE DATE, HOUR AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH PURPOSE." Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 431 be waived. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler, tbat Resolution No. 431 be adopted. Said motion was carried on tbefollowing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton and Rutherford. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissio,ners Ferguson and Golisch. Moved by Commissioner Forman,seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried tbat Tuesday, November 28, 1961, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. be fixed as tbe date for tbe hearing on tbe zoning to be made applicable to property on'tbe east side of Lenore Avenue wbicb is proposed to be annexed to the City. Tbe City Attorney was excused at this time. Tbe Planning'Commission considered the application No. 341 of George Needbam, 453 W. Walnut Ave, for a lot split of property at this address, which had been referred to Commissioners 'Ferguson and Forman. This property was con- Sidered on August 8, 1961 for a lot split and the application granted for two 64 foo,t lots. To provide clearance at the garage the owner requests approval of 66 and 62 feet, respectively. Tpe lot is l28'feet wide. The revised application requests that the property he divided on the west 66 ft. and the east 62 ft, which would allow ample room So that the garage would not need to be relocated. There are other lot splits on tbe street tbat 'are similar', The conditions were tbe same as tbe original appHcation as follows: November 14, 1961 Page Twelve LOT SPLIT NO. 347 LOT SPLIT NO. 348 i~ ',,-,' ,--\ 1. File a final map, 2. Provide a sewer lateral for Parcel 2, 3. Recreation fee of $25.00 to be paid, 4. Provide wate.r service to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code; 5. Remove all structures from the property except the dwelling, garage and patio on Parcell. Commissioner Forman had reviewed the request and there was no material change, as there are lots from 52 ft, to 100 ft, in this area, so that the change is reasonable. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No.341 be approved subject to the conditions set forth above. The Commission, . considered Lot' ,Split No. 347. Marie L. Myler, for property located at 1004 South Tenth Ave. which had been referred to Commissioners Ferguson and Forman. The Director of Public Work's report stated that if the application receives favorable action, the following should be. required: 1. Final map to be filed. 2. Sewer lateral to be provided for parcell, Disconnect existing house from present lateral and reconnect. 3. Pay a recreation fee of $50.00 4. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code. 5. Construct concrete curb and gutter along El Norte Ave. 6. Remove guest house from Parcel 2. 7. Remove 5 fot chain link fence and shrubbery from Tenth Ave. and El Norte Ave. frontages or reduce them to legal height. The lot is 120 ft. onEl Norte Ave. and 207.7 ft. on Tenth Ave. The division would create two lots 68.35 ft. in width and one at 71 ft. There are comparable lots in the area. Commissioner Forman stated that he had reviewed this lot split and felt that it would be a better use of the land., there are comparable lot sizes in the area.. Moved by Commissioner Forman, .seconded by Commissioner Ack~r, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 347, Marie L. Myler. 1004 S. Tenth Ave. be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report of the Director of Public Works. Tne Planning Commission considered Lot Split. No. 348 - Carl E. Fix, 2325 S. Second Ave - referred to Mr. Ferguson and Mr. .Forman. This property is 100 feet wide and tuns continuously through from Second Ave. to Lee Avenue and the request is for a lot to be created off the west end facing Lee Ave. There is a lot owned in fee by the City on Lee Ave., so that the lot does not have frontage at the present time. While the request is for a 90 ft. depth lot, from appearances, the additional 10 feet could be procured, making it the required 100 feet. The Director of Public Works' report stated that if the lot split is approved, November 14, 1961 Page Thirteen I. , f ~'. '. the following should be required: 1. File a final map, 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel 2, 3. Dedicate 12 feet for the widening of Second Ave. 4. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 5. Provide water services to comply with Uniform Plumbing Code, 6. The City shall dedicate lot, 22, Tract No. 19065 for street purposes, 7. Remove the sbed along north line, 8. Remove 6 ft. chain link fence and 6 ft. block wall 25 ft. from Lee Ave. or reduce them to 'legal height. 9. Make the new lot 100 ft. deep instead of 90 ft. Commissioner Forman had reviewed the property and agreed with the Engineer's report. The cabana and pool as shown on parcel 1 would not be materially affected H 10 feet were included in .the depth of the lot on Lee Ave. It would be a much more desirable lot with the 100 ft. depth. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by COmmissioner'Michler, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 348, Carl E. Fix, 2325 S. Second Ave. be approved, Subject to all of the conditions contained in the Engineer's report hereinabove set forth. . LOT SPLIT NO. 349 The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 349, N. E. Stocker ~ 163 E. Longden Avenue - referred to Commissioners Ferguson and Forman. This split would be a parcel of land 44 ft. by 60 ft. out of the rear corner of the property facing Longden Ave. and sell to the owner on Second Ave. The lot on Second Avenue has a depth of 80.92 feet and the house comes back within 3 feet of the rear line. They were asking permission to get this additional 40 feet for an additional rear yard. This leaves a jog in the rear line at 163 E. Longden. The Planning Secretary advised that there is a tentative subdivision map which will be filed soon to bring a street th~ough north of this property between the two lots north of 2121 S. Second Ave. In this subdivision they :are including of the property at 163 E. Longden a depth of 25 feet, just west of parcel 2. The report of the Director of Public Works was presented to the effect that if the lot split is approved, the following conditions ehould be imposed. 1. File a final map 2. Dedicate 12 feet off the property at 2121 S. Second Ave. for street widening. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by COmmissioner Rutherford. and unanimously carried, that Lot Split No. 349 be denied. Mr. W. HOf;editz, Engineer for Mr. Stocker, stated that he would like to have the lot split approved so that the tentative subdivision he is working on could be filed. TRACT NO. 26655 Commissioner Forman stated that the way this lot split is presented, the filing of a s~~division map would not correct the present lot lines. The 'Planning Commission considered Tract No. 26655, located on Wistaria Ave. west of Holly Avenue, containing 14 lots. November 14, 1961 Page Fourteen '-/ This tract was continued from a previous meeting, and through the consent of the subdivider it was postponed so that the owners on Bella Vista would have an opportunity to work out a plan to include same of their property. They have not presented anything to came before the Commission. The Planning Secretary presented the Staff report, as follows; "This tract is located on Wistaria Avenue, west of' Holly Ave, approximately midway between ,Lemon Avenue and Longden ,Ave, and consists of 14 lots. It has been under consideration for several months. Action has been delayed to give an opportunity for the owners on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue to atte~ to include the rear portion of their properties in the tract. To date they have not submitted any plan for the development. Some of the lots do not meet the full requirements of the subdivision ordinance. The tract as submitted would create a cuI de sac in excess of 600 feet in length, where the :ordinance requires 500 feet maximum. However, there is a good possi- bility for the future extension of the street to Bella Vista Avenue. Lots 8 and 13 are less than the required 100 foot depth. Lot 14 has less than the required 75 foot width. Al1lots are 7500 sq. ft. or more in area. The nor,th tract line is very irregular for placing utility pole lines. Further west, in Wistari~ Avenue, the utilities are in the street. The Subdivision Committee feels that the subdivider has met all the requirements to the best of his ability with the land available. The tract is recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions; 1. Remove all the existing structures from the tract, except the houses and garages on lots 1 and 14. 2. Dedicate a one foot wide lot at the west end of Wistaria Avenue in fee to the City for control of future development. 3. Revise thedrivewliy on lot 14 to provide access only from Wistaria Avenue to the garage at the rear. 4. Install all street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance according to plans and to grades satisfactory to the Department of Public Works. 5. Remove all trees and shrubs from the street right of way. 6. Pay the following fees and deposits: 6 steel street light poles 4 street name signs 28 street trees 14 lots recreation fee @ $115.00 @ 35.00 @ 8.50 @ 25.00 $690.00 140.00 238.00 350.00 $ 1418.00 Total This plan has incorporated all of the possible means at this time. Commissioner Forman stated that at the last subdivision meeting he was inclined to deny the tract map, b~t it was pointed out that the utilities on Wistaria were located in the street, so that the irregular lot lines would not have the same effect as it would in some other areas. The subdivider has done everything thit has been recommended. The 600 ft. cul de sac street is in this instance, not so much of a problem as it would b,e in souie other areas, as within a short time the street will probably be opened and there will be a good traffic flow. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler that the Tentative Map of Tract No. 26655 be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions November 14, 1961 Page Fifteen ..~ outlined by the Subdivision Committee and Staff. Roll call showed the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Forman and Michler, NOBS: commissioners Acker, Rutherford and Norton. ABSENT: Commissioners Ferguson and Golisch Said motion having failed for lack of a majority vote, the matter was continued until the next regular meeting of the COmmission. TRACT NO. 27037 The Planning Commission considered the Tentative Tract No. 27037, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Burnell Oaks Lane, consisting of 9 lots. The Planning Secretary presented a map and outlined the lines of the subdivision and presented the Subdivision Committee and Staff report as follows.: "This tract is located at the southeast corner. of Foothill Boulevard and Burnell Oaks Lsneand consists of 9 lots. The subdivider proposes a private ser.vice road. along Foothill Boulevard to avoid driveways opening into the bouelvard. Lot sizes are above the minimum requirement of Zone R-I... An..extenBion of the .street and the private service road have been agreed to by the subdivider and the Committee and are incorporated in the map. The tract I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. is recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: Rear line easements to be granted ior overhead utilities. All buildings to be removed from. the tract and all trees to be removed from the street right of way. All. street dedications shall be improved as required by the subdivision ordinance according to plans and to grades satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. "A" Street should be dedicated 60 feet width or 50 feet with 5 foot planting and sidewalk easements on both sides. the improvement plans for the private service road shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. particular attention should be given to the design of the intersection at Burnell Oaks. Pay the following fees and deposits: 3 steel street light poles @ $115.00 $345.00 2 street name signs @ 35.00 70.00 16 street trees @ 8.50 136.00 9 lots recreation fee @ 25.00 225.00 Total $ 776.00 7. Dedicate 1 foot lot at east end of street to the City in fee. All of the land is utilized at this corner. The extension of the private service road and street was .requested so that it would not prevent the development of land to the east. Commissioner Forman felt that it would be an improvement to the area and met the conditions of the Subdivision Ordinance. - . - Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried that Tentative Tract No. 27037, located on Foothill Boulevard and Burnell Oaks Lane. and consisting of 9 lots be recommended for approval. November 14, 1961 Page Sixteen /~, .'-..J VARIANCE EXTENSION (Robinson Bros) The request of the Robinson Brothers for &n;axtension of time for the variance affecting. the northwest and southwest corners of Baldwin Ave. and Callita Street was considered. A communication had been received from Harry and LaMar Robinson to the effect that they were again requesting an. extension of time on their variance, because they had not been able to fiQi. suitable tenari~ through the conditions imposed on this property. They had been unsuccessful so far in their efforts to obtain qualified leases. T\1ey felt that further time was necessary. They felt that with the convalescent home plans having been approved, more interest would be created in this area. They had shown good faith by putting in and paying for the curb and gutter along Baldwin Ave. at an approximate cost of $1000.00. A communication had been received from Walter Routery in which he wanted called to the attention of the Commission that this had been delayed too long. The old buildings should have been removed. He still does not object to the proposed improvement as outlined in the variance but does object to unreasonable delay. One extension has already bee" granted.. Mr. Harry Robinson, 1114 Lyndon Way, had of the City Council of October 18, 1960, property CMO with specified conditions. majority. the Secretary .read from the minutes wherein a motion was made zoning the This motion failed for lack of a A motion was then made that the northwest corner of Callita St. and Baldwin Ave. be zoned C-l and the southwest corner of Callita St. and Baldwin Ave. be zoned C-O. This motio" was seconded and carried. Mr. Robinson stated this had been going on since 1954, and at one time they were promised. a C-l on both corners if the annexation were completed. This was later changed. They had just received their tax notice from the County and he liadbeen to the office to clarify the matter. He found that on the tax roll the .property was listed as C-l and C-O and his taxes had jumped from $473.00 to $1346.00 on less than one acre of unimproved land. The one old house on the northwest corner had been removed. I They were anxious to move the house on the southwest corner but it does help pay the taxes. They get $1100.00 in rentals per year and have to pay for water and taxes which amount to over $1300.00. They are very anxious to find something to develop the property. They have not offered it for sale as it is good property. Through more effort they may come up with something. The street was widened on Baldwin within the last six months. On. Callita Ave. at their expense, curbs and gutters were constructed at the time of the subdivision and within the last six months had had the radii removed and paid for the curbs along Baldwin Avenue adjacent to their property to show ggod faith that they were trying to have the improvements made. During the past six months a two story apartment house has been built across the street, and. a rest h01ll! permited on Camino Real which will be two stories. They were in the middle of all of this. Discussion followed. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commiss1.oner Acker, and unanimously carried, that the variance on the property located on the northwest and south- 'west corners of Baldwin Ave. and call ita Street be extended for a period of six months. PUBLIC PARTI- CIPATION No one in the audience desired to be heard. LOT SPLIT ASSIGNMENTS Commissioner Acker brought up .the matter of the referrals of the lot splits. Many times it falls on 'one individual to do the reviewing because of one member of the Commission being away or ill. He would recommend that three members check the matters. The Vice Chairman suggested that the matter be considered at the November 14, 1961 Page Seventeen . ..... the next meeting or when the Chairman is present. Planning Director Phelps stated that since July I, there was a technical staff and a Planning Department that could do much of the leg work. The Department does not desire to usurp any duties of the Commission but may be of help on the details of some of these mattere. If the Staff does not come up with what the Commission feels should be done, they are' not obligated to accept the reports. Commissioner Forman felt that the personal aspects of talking with the people when the matters are assigned helps with the public relations. It may take five minutes or ten minutes but it does help. The Vice Chairman announced action would be reserved until the Chairman returns. ADJOURNMENT Tljere being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. t~. L. M. TALLEY, Planning Secretary November 14, 1961 Page Eighteen