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