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