Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 27, 1962 " , i ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES ZONE VARIANCE 931 W. Eighth Ave. . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING March 27, 1962. The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., March 27, 1962, with Chairman Golisch presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch. ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney James Nicklin, Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes, Planning Director William Phelps, Planning Secretary L. M. Talley and Planning Technician Robert W. Warrilow. The minutes of March 13, 1962 were approved as written and mailed. A public hearing was held on the application of Saeed E. Murad for a zone variance to allow a second dwelling on the property at 931 S. Eighth Avenue. A map of the area was exhibited. The Planning Secretary presented the information from the application to the effect that the applicants desired to build a new home on the front of the property. The existing house on the property is very small and old and is toward the rear of the lot. This will not be detrimental to the public health and welfare for the reason that the improvements to be made will add to the value and beauty of the area. Tliis parcel of land complies with all of the requirements for a second house with the exception that the lot has not been resubdivided and there is no opportunity to resubdivide it. This request is only for the same rights that other property ownerS on the street enjoy. The building of a new house will follow a pattern that has been followed on other lots. A communication in the form of a protest petition, signed by 17 people, representing 14 parcels of land within the 300 foot radius was read by the Planning Secretary. The Planning Secretary read the staff report as follows: 'This is the application of Saeed E. and Gloria H.B.Murad for a zone variance to allow a second dwelling on the lot at 931 S. Eighth Avenue. The property is now improved with a single-family dwelling built in 1945 and located approximately 119 feet from the front lot line. According to the plot plan submitted it contains 916 square feet. There is a new garage located at the northwest corner of the property. The applicant proposes the erection of a new house at the front of the lot. The plan submitted is for a four bedroom, two bath dwelling containing 1318 sq. ft., with a two-car attached garage. Msrch 27, 1962 Page One r/ " . . The property is a part of Zone R-l, which allows more than one dwelling sutject to three specified conditions. This lot complies with two of the conditions. The lot contains 19,250 sq. ft. which is more than the minimum 18,750 sq. ft. requirement for two houses. In this block there are 18 lots, 7 of which have two or more bouses. This amounts to 39%, exceeding tbe minimum of 25%. The property does not comply with tbe requirement of having been re- subdivided since 1949. Enclno Avenue has been opened creating new lots to the rear. But because this property was only 220 feet deep it was not included in the new tract, and tbere is no practical way for it to be resubdivided now. Other lots to the south of tbe subject property, which were 440 ft. deep and bave been resubdivided, are automatically entitled to a second dwelling. It appears that unless tbis variance is granted tbis property would be denied a right possessed by otber properties to the soutb. The Planning Department recommends that this application be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove the existing carport attached to the present house and located on the south lot line. 2. Close the present curb opening and construct a new driveway. Tbe Cbairman announced tbat this was tbe time and place for bearing the application of Saeed E. Murad for a zone variance to allow a second dwelling on the property at 931 S. Eightb Ave. Tbose in favor of the application were requested to present supporting information. Mr. Saeed E. Murad, owner of tbe property, stated that the present house was small and very inadequate for their needs. There is ample room in the front for a modern, four bedroom home. In addition to the present garage there would be an attached garage on tbe new house. This would still leave room for a swimming pool and a garden. He felt that other properties in the neighborbood enjoyed the property rigbt of constructing a second house without the variance procedure. His lot met all require- ments with tbe exception of the rear of the lot being subdivided since 1949. Encino Ave. is developed witb new homes and wbile the rear of his property was not included in tbis development, it would be difficult, if even possible, to subdivide his property. No others desired to be beard in favor of the application. Tbe Chairman requested tbos opposed to be heard at this time. Mr. Peer Claussen, 925 South 8th Avenue, stated that he owned the property adjacent to that under consideration. Tbe protest as filed stated the reasons for which he opposed the granting of the variance. He presented a number of pbotographs of the neighboring properties and stated tbat the neighborhood is gradually being upgraded by the construction of new, expensive residences and the entire area should remain and R-l area; placing a second house would create an R-2 use. He discussed briefly the use of various parcels of land surrounding the lot under discussion. Part of his property is in Arcadia and part is within tbe boundaries of Monrovia. He stated tbat the property under consideration was up for sale, So that the use would not be for the present owners. March 27, 1962 Page Two rl HEARING CLOSED . . There would be no objection if the present house were to be removed as it was rather old and'located to the rear of the property. Other properties had remodeled their homes to bring them up to the standards of the new homes in the area. He felt that with the amount of taxes being paid on the property in that area, consideration should be given to keeping the property R-l, single-family zone. Mr. Charles Ryan, 719 Encino Drive, which is directly to the rear of that under consideration stated he had not objected to the hammering late at night and on Sundays when the garage was built. He stated he felt the garage was not being used for that purpose. He did not want approval of anything that would devalue the property in the area. He had come to Arcadia after surveying the surrounding areas, but felt that Arcadia through all evaluation was the best place to live. They had purchased the best house they could find within their means. He did not object to a new house being placed ,on the lot. He felt that two houses would lessen the value of his property. Mrs. Brocksteddt stated that she lived across the street from that being discussed. She had an old home, but the lot is 150 ft. by 170 ft. She had only the one small house. She would not sell to anyone who would not build a nice home on it. She would not object to a new house being built on Mr. Murad's property, but objected to two houses. ClarenceA. Mead stated he had lived at 1019 S. 8th Ave. most of his life. His father had built the house. He believed that houses in the $30,000 class should not be located in a neighborhood where there are two houses on a lot. No other person desired to be heard. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried that the hearing on the application of Saeed E. Murad for a zone variance to allow a second dwelling on the property at 931 S. Eighth Ave. be closed. Mrs. Murad asked to explain a few of the remarks made by some in the audience. She was granted this privilege. The garage is used for a new Oldsmobile. They were intending to build a new home. They have small rooms and with the possibility of relatives coming to live with them, it is necessary to increase living space. The present house is not so constructed to do this. They offered the property for sale in the event they could not get a variance for the second house they would have to sell and move elsewhere. She said that some of the prople protesting had two houses on their lots. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Forman stated it was his understanding that there were 18 lots in this area, 7 of which had two or more houses. This lot meets the code with the exception of the rear being subdivided. The lot acroSS the street has a single-family residence but is large enough for a lot split thereby permitting a second dwelling. The general area was considered in accordance with the prevailing ordinance governing the construction of a second dwelling. Some of the lots in the area have three houses. There were fourteen properties represented on the protest petition out I of seventeen signatures. This is within the City of City Arcadia. There were approximately fifteen within the 300 foot radius within the City of March 27, 1962 Page Three rl MOTION MOTION LOT SPLIT No. 360 (Stocksick) . . Monrovia, only one of whom had protested. There are 24 lots in Arcadia within 300 feet of the subject property. Commissioner Rutherford stated that inasmuch as there is a great deal of opposition, he felt the application should be denied. Chairman Golisch stated there were two points: The indication that in this particular area there have been allowed two homes on a lot. The Commission and the City have been continually trying to upgrade areas. In going over this area there seems to be a resurgent in this improvement and the property is on the upgrade. He felt that the addition of more houses or the possibility of a rental would not tend to upgrade an area. There are some very fine and expensive homes coming into this area. The City should try to keep the trend for upgrading. Commissioner Michler stated there were some new homes and there were some very old homes. He was very well aware of the trend in Arcadia, but was likewise aware of the ordinance allowing the number of houses on the property. He would suggest that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee for a further study and recommendation. Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Forman that the application of Saeed E. Murad for a zone variance to allow a second dwelling on the property at 931 S. Eighth Ave. be denied. Roll call vote disclosed the following: AYES: Commissioners Forman, Rutherford, Golisch NOES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Michler, Norton ABSENT: None The motion failed by a four-three vote. Thereupon Commissioner Michler moved that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee for further study. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Norton. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Michler, Norton, and Golisch NOES: Commissioners Forman and Rutherford. The City Attorney advised that a motion to deny that fails to carry .is not a motion to grant, so that the motion that passed is to refer the matter to the Zoning Committee for study and to report at the next meeting. At that time a motion will be in .ofder to grant or deny the application. The Planning CommiSSion c~nsidered Lot Split No. 360 - Catherine E. Stocksick, 113-115 California St. which had been referred to Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Michler. The staff report was read by the Planning Secretary to the effect that if the split is granted the following should be required: 1. Final map to be filed 2. Remove all buildings from the lot. 3. Remove present pavement and repave the lot. Construct driveway to California St . and wall along east line. 4. Provide a covenant. specifying that Parcels 1 and 2 shall be maintained as parking lots and that Parcel 1 shall be held in common ownership with lot 3 and that Parcel 2 shall be held in common ownership with lot 1. March 27, 1962 Page Four , MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. 361 (Norton) MOTION TRACT NO. 27186 . . There was an addendum to the application that before the close of the sale escrow and after the approval of the division of said Lot 4, Seller is to improve the entire lot as s parking lot as follows: Survey and set pipe markers at each corner of each parcel; construct a concrete apron for ingress and egress to California St.; construct a masonry block wall along the east property line 4 feet high along the south 25 feet and the north 15 feet and 6 feet high along the remaining 120 feet; clear the lot, grade and pave with asphalt paving; install concrete bumpers for each parking space and mark the parking spaces. Commissioner Forman had not viewed the area, but knew the vicinity and felt the requested split would improve the appearance. Any move to get additional parking should be considered favorably. Commissioner Ferguson had viewed the property and arrangements were under way to remove the house and shrubbery and it would be well to have additional parking. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Michler, that Lot Split No. 360, Catherine E. Stocksick, 113-115 California Street be tentatively approved, subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 361 - Elizabeth M. Norton, 1542 S. Tenth Ave. which had been referred to Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Michler. A map was exhibited and the staff report read by the Planning Secretary. If the lot split were granted, the following conditions should be imposed: 1. File a final map. 2. Water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code. 3. Pave driveway approach at 1546 S. Tenth Ave. 4. Construct a garage or carport at 1546 S. Tenth Ave. Commissioner Ferguson had viewed this property. Both of the lots were rather narrow, but in the area involved there is very little they can do. They are selling ten feet from the wider lot along with the narrower lot, which will equalize them. Commissioner Michler concurred. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that Lot Split No. 361, Elizabeth M. Norton - 1542 S. Tenth Ave. be tentatively approved, subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report. The Planning Commission reconsidered Tract No. 27186 - located east of El Monte Ave, and south of Las Flores Avenue, containing 4 lots. This matter was continued from the last meeting so that the developer and the staff could work out an agreement on the corner cutoff. The Planning Secretary presented a supplemental report as follows: 'The staff has been doing considerable work within the past two weeks, with the subdivider and the engineer for the subdivider. This tract is located east of El Monte Ave, and south of Las Flores Ave. and contains 4 lots. The matter was considered by the Commission on March 13, 1962 and returned to the staff to work out some of the details pertaining to the curb return and the tract restrictions. March 27, 1962 Page Five MOTION QUARRY AREA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORTS (Off -S treet parking) . . It appears that it is not possible to get the voluntary dedication for the curb return at this time. The Planning Department again recommends approval of the tract subject to the conditions set out in its report dated March 8, 1962, with the following exception: Approve Item 2 as stated in the report and add the following statement: If the dedication is not received the subdivider shall remove that portion of 'the unused private driveway within the dedicated street and shall install an appropriate radius curb return to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. If, in the future, the property at 2112 El Monte Ave. is divided, the necessary dedication shall be required and the short radius curb return shall be removed and a standard radius curb return shall be constructed at the expense of the applicant for the division of the lot." The Department feels that no change is needed in the original recommenda- tion in Item 1 regarding the deed restrictions. Mr. Dominic owner of the property at 2112 El Monte Ave. still felt that the driveway should remain. The subdivider now had the signatures of all of the property owners affected by the tract restrictions, previously two had withheld. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried that Tract No. 27186 - located east of El Monte Ave. and south of Las Flores Ave. containing 4 lots be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report of March 8, 1962 and the supplemental report as hereinabove set forth. This item was removed from the agenda. No one in the audience desired to be heard. The Planning Director stated that upon the request of the Planning Commission the staff had made a study of the off-st~eet parking and it was the recommendation of the Department that upgrading in Zone R-3 should be done by requiring a ratio of 2 spaces per unit, instead of the present 1-1/2. He read into the record the report from the Planning Department, as fonews: "The recent study from the Manager's office has indicated an off-street parking deficiency particularly in the R-3 or apartment areas of the city. The land use report prepared by the Planning Department indicates there will be approximately 5000 more apartment dwelling units likely' to be built within the City. Based on these facts, the Planning Depart- ment recommends to the Commission that the number of off-street parking spaces in the apartment dwelling areas be increased from one and one- half spaces to two spaces per unit. In addition to requiring the two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit, the Department also recommends that the two spaces be covered. The Department also recommends that the two spaces be covered. At the present time the regulations require but one to be covered. The Department also recommends to the Planning Commission that sidewalks be required in the R-2, R-3-R and R-3 zoning districts. These sidewalks to be constructed concurrently with the building of any new apartment building". March 27, 1962 Page Six MOTION LIVE OAR STUDY RESOLUTION NO. 443 MOTION MOTION . . If the Commission feels that these recommendations are in order to meet the present conditions, a public hearing should be scheduled and the attorney authorized to prepare a resolution instituting such proceedings. The required sidewalks would not necessitate a public hearing, as it is a part of the Municipal Code, Section 7212, which is not a part of the zoning ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by CommiSSioner Ferguson, that the City Attorney be authorized to prepare a resolution instituting pro- ceedings for the public hearing on changing the required parking in Zones R-2, R-3-R and R-3 from one and one-half spaces per dwelling unit to two covered spaces. Said motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: None CommiSSioner Norton stated there were several steps that should be taken in connelltion with the R-3 zoning, one of which is the area per unit to provide more spaciousness, and also the amount of floor space per unit, and compatible uses in the commercial zones should be studied. The Planning Director advised that meetings were being held with the Live Oak property owners and business men's association relative to the study which has been made and which were included with the agenda items for this meeting. After the meetings are held a summary will be re- ported to the Commission. The Downtown study is progressing and a group will visit Pomona to view their downtown area; see the type of problems they had encountered and what the solution had been. This will be reported at the next Planning Commission meeting. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 443 entitled: "A RETOLUION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIty OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND MARING RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9255.2.8 AND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY IN- CREASING THE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ZONE R-3. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Form that Resolution No. 443 be adopted. March 27, 1962 Page Seven . . ADJOURNMENT . . Said motion was carried on the following roll llall vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch NOES: None ABSENT: None There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. ~ ,. M~_~~ Planning Secretary