Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 24, 1962 .. :\ ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE CHANGE Duarte Road . . MINUTES PLANNING CCRolMISSION OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING April 24, 1962 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California met in regular session on April 24, 1962, at 8: 00 0' clock P.M., in the Council Ch8lllber of the City Hall, with Chairman Golisch presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker., Forman, Norton and Golisch ABSENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Michler, and Rutherford OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Jesse Balser City Attorney James A. Nicklin Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes Planning Director William Phelps Planning Technician Robert W. Warrilow and Planning Secretary L. M. Talley Chairman Golisch welcomed Councilman Balser as the new council representative on the Planning Commission. The minutes of April 10, 1962 were approved as written and mailed. The Planning Commission considered the application of Elizabeth Revay and others, for a change of zone from Zone R-3 to Zone C-2 on property located at 145 to 805 West Duarte Road. The Secretary presented a plot plan and read the pertinent statements from the application as to the public necessity requiring the proposed change. The applicant states that while the property is zoned R-3 its development is hampered by surrounding conditions. The area was described as to its present zoning and many comments had been made as to its development for R-3 purposes as being unsuitable for the area, taxes might be such as to make low-rent housing economically unfeasible, and it was their opinion that the only development that could be made, because of abutting the type of commercial that exists, would be low-rent housing. The present condition of this area does very little for the community as a whole. That while most of the property WaS acquired by the owners for single-family dwellings, the entire area had become unsuitable for one-family residence. The zone is now R-3 but there are still uses of R-l and the same reasons would apply to the R-3 zoning. Many cars parked in front of Or. Caler's property have been damaged by cars coming from the Hinshaw parking lot across the street, the change of zone would not be detrimental to surrounding properties but would be extremely beneficial. On the east is C-2 property; on the west where no parking lot exists there are apartments being con- structed; the lots are deep enough so that property owners on the north would not be hurt. Business structures would create less of a commotion during quiet times of day and night than cars entering and leaving apart- ment houses. There were no deed restrictions on this property. Mr. Warrilow, Planning Technician, presented the Department recommendation outlining the past history of the property and the Departmental recommenda- tion which is as follows: "The Planning Department change from R-3 to C-2". Department Office. recommends denial of the application of zone A copy of the report is on file in the Planning April" 24, 1962 Page One ~~ . . One communication had been received from Roy A. Graham, 743 W. Arcadia Avenue, opposing any chrnge of zone at this time. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hear- ing on the application of Elizabeth Revay and others for a change of zone from Zone R-3 to Zone C-2 on property at 745 to 805 W. Duarte Road, and called for proponents to present their material. Mr. Thomas Sheppard, Attorney at law, 1225 Medford Road, Pasadena, representing the applicants, restated some of the facts included in the application. He also stated that he had been approached by some business concerns for the sale of the real estate, but on learning of the zone and the necessity for applying for a zone change, had located elsewhere. He felt that if the Commission were to recommend favorably a suitable tenant could be obtained that would utilize the entire property under consideration. The applicant has had difficulty in renting her apartments. The only people interested are those that prefer to walk to commercial enterprises, and as such the rents are lower and do not cover the expense of. maintaining them, along with the increase in property taxes. Many people using Hinshaw's parking lot use her driveway to turn, many cars have been bumped in so doing. He further stated that interested parties wanted the zoning obtained before any negotiations were perfected; they were not interested in locating subject to the zoning being changed. They felt. that a commercial development would ,be much better in this area, as each side of Duarte Road had this type of development and the vacant lot could be utilized in connection with this zoning. He stated the reason it had not been used was due to the size of the lot. Apartment use in the commercial area is subject to all of the noises and additional traffic, especially created during holidays and special shopping days, as well as evenings. With older people renting the present apartments they are opposed to this noise and confusion so it is difficult to rent the apartments. The commercial use would be more beneficial from a tax standpoint. If the commercial property could stop at the church it would be a good buffer. All of the property under consideration would not extend beyond this point. Many of the occupants are unable to finance the full development of the R-3, but the property could be combined and developed as a large structure rather than small shops. They would be willing to accept any type of conditional permit which might be conditioned upon their finding a tenant, or developing some type of prospective tenant with a plan that would be satisfactory to the Commission. He was asked if there were any vacancies at the present time and he stated there were none. Mr. Fred Karg, 825 W. Duarte Roa~ stated that the change would not adversely affect the neighborhood. The economy in development of a I C-2 use would be more compatible to the area and he was in favor of the change. He had three units and two were vacant. They do not rent high enough to pay for the upkeep and taxes, etc. No further proponents desired to be heard. The Chairman then called for those opposing the~to come forward. -..- . There was no opposition. April 24, 1962 Page Two MOTION HEARING CLOSED MOTION CODE CHANGE (R-3 Parking) . . Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing on the application of Elizabeth Revay, et. al., for a change of zone from Zone R-3 to Zone C-2 on property at 745-805 W. Duarte Road be closed. The Chairman stated that the report and recommendation as presented by the department is very factual and complete and the Staff should be complimented on presenting the facts for the Commission's review. Commissioner Acker stated he had understood that Hinshaw's were planning to enlarge their facilities and if such were the case the zoning on the other side of the street should be considered in the light of the new improvements. Each of the Commissioners expressed himself. The amount of the already zoned C-2 property which is still unused was given as one reason why the C zoning should not be extended further. Strip zoning has been looked upon with disfavor. R-3 development in the area is not incompatible with the area. If this zoning were approved, no doubt, there would be other requests in the immediate vicinity. The entire strip of Duarte Road would have to be considered. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton, that the application of Elcizabeth Revay and others for a zone change from Zone R-3 to Zone C-2 on property located at 745 to 805 West Duarte Road be recommended to the City Council for denial. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Forman, Nor.ton and Golisch, NOES: Commissioner Acker, ABSENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Michler and Rutherford. The motion did not carry; therefore, consideration and decision will be made at the next Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 1962. The Planning Commission, on its own motion, instituted proceedings for the public hearing on the proposed change of parking requirements in the R-3 zone. The Planning Secretary stated that notice of the public hearing had been published in the local newspaper for the required time period. No communications had been received. A recent study by the City Manager's office had indicated that there was an off-street parking deficiency, particularly in the R-3 area. With the anticipated increase of construction in multiple dwellings to be constructed within the next 15 to 20 years the required space now provided should be increased from the 1-1/2 spaces per unit to two spaces. The department had recommended that these two spaces be covered. Consideration was also given for the construction of side- walks in the R-3 area. This condition or requirement would not be considered at the public hearing but could be handled otherwise. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing on the proposed change of required parking in the R-3 Zone. April 24, 1962 Page Three , . . The Chairman stated that anyone in the audience desiring to be heard either in favor of or opposing the recommended change would be given the opportunity. Mr. Fred Karg, 825 W. Duarte Road, stated that he had property on Duarte Road, and also in Burbank. The ~tter had been handled in Burbank by imposing a restrictive two-hour parking limit. To have additional garages would not have been a suitable answer as in his case there was one space for each unit and there were three empty garages. He felt that with more units there would be more empty garages, as tenants park in the street rather than in the space provided for them. Mr. John Blake, 419 E.Live Oak Ave. felt that if the additional garages were required some consideration should be given to the large front yard setback that exists. With property as valuable as it is in the City of Arcadia, the required front setback is used for landscaping and it was his contention that~o'much space is provided for this. He was in favor of beautifying R-3 areas, as his apartments on Live Oak would disclose, but with the large area required and the additional space recommended for parking, it ~kes the property too expensive to build units economically. Further consideration should be given to smaller parking spaces as well as additional. Many compact cars do not require the full 10' x 20' as now required. Some compromise should be made. Better use should be given to the front set back. With the 20 foot driveway now required too much valuable land is sacrificed. Frank Jolley, 488 W. Duarte Road, concurred with the statements made by Mr. Blake. The particular area on Duarte Road was changed a year ago and there is a 45 foot setback at the rear for open parking, as well as the front setback and the restriction of a one story back 65 feet. If the present recommendation is adopted some relief should be made for these properties so that the 45 feet could be used, or partially used. This makes considerable property left open for setback and parking. Mr. Don Bettsinger, 12 YorKshire Drive, Arcadia, stated he had built numerous apartments in Arcadia. The statement had been made that there were no spaces for cars to palkso the street was used. He felt that a better check should be made. There are cars on the street, but there are likewise vacant carports and garages and spaces. There are more spaces provided than are actually used as people have the tendency of parking in the street rather than go to the back of an apartment to an appointed place. He felt that if the required parking needed to be revised lthoughtshould be given to the area and the size of the lot. In the older part of the city the lots are but 50 feet wide which prohibits much development, so that speculators purchase several of the lots and combine them for a large apartment. If consideration could be given to the smaller income lots much of this could be eliminated and people who desired to live on the property and have two or three units for income,could develop the property accordingly. On the smaller lots the size of the parking spaces should be considered also. He stated that Glendale had 3/4 space per unit and there was va;,. cant spaces now. In the center of the city where walking to business is possible the need for the additional parking is lessened. Where the lots are large, such as on Arcadia and Fairview Avenues the two spaces may be required. He did not favor the covered space. He felt the amount of space would be violated as one tenant had a space and he occupied his space and half of the adjoining space. Mr. Bettsinger was asked relative to the requirements of Pasadena. He stated that the plans were submitted to the Street Department and the spaces could be longer or narrower than required, depending upon space and the turning areas. They have an R-4 which would be adjacent land April 24, 1962 Page Four . . for parking for the R-3 areas. He stated that some of these have lower vacancy factors than Arcadia. He felt that subterranean parking would develop in the smaller areas if the restriction is a general condition. There were many instances where 8 feet to 8 feet 6 inch parking stalls were very adequate. He felt this recommendation should have flexibility. Mr. John Vidican, 763 Arcadia Avenue, spoke in favor of sidewalks but felt there would be a drawback to a designer in separating the garages from the main building. There is a distance of 15 feet between the main building.and the garages which would be lost and with land being between $4.00 to $5.00 per square foot makes development impracti- cle from an economic standpoint. He felt that if there were sidewalks there would not be so much need for garages. He had one spartment with 16 tenants. Out of these, four have two cars, two have no cars at all. This property is located at 1122 Huntington Drive. He also fel.t that a house to house survey should be made as he felt the need is not as much of an emergency as suggested. He intimated that a tenant would not walk back 270 feet if he could park in the street. Commissioner Norton advised that this matter had been before the City Councilanda survey had been made, and it was determined that there was the need for additional off-street parking. Mr. Vidican further stated that a two hour restricted parking would help materially. The City Attorney stated that invariably the need for off-street park- ing had come about as a result of the all night parking ban. It was his hope that at Some time in the future the two would be considered simultaneously. In enforcing the all night parking ban the peop~e stated they had no place to park, and when the City commences proceed- ings to provide the additional parking the people then say there is more than is needed. He felt the need to consider the two at the same time. Mr. Freeman Campbell, 840 Arcadia Avenue, designer, stated that 50% of his business is designing apartment. If the parking space .is increased the tendency will be to create a more intense use, primarily due to the land cost. He was certain there would be less open space. There could be an instance where a twenty unit deluxe apartment would be reduced to near minimum of 750 sq. ft. per unit. He had designed apartments in Pasadena, they required 8" 6" x 19' and at a wall 9 '6" x 19'. It may be that a solution would be to go to three stories with subterranean parking. 10 ft. is excessive width, less would be adequate. In one unit he had designed there were 28 apartments. 1/3 of the second cars were compact or foreign cars. If more parking space is required he feels that where deluxe apartments are now designed with balconies and patios for each unit, this might be eliminated and it would cut down on the exclusive features of the units. He felt the new design would tend to be more like motels. Mr. George Marks, of the Arcadia-Monrovia Realty Co. stated that he had investigated the ,parking facilities at the new developments on Lake Street. Both Magnins and Bullocks parking stalls were 8 feet wide and seemed quite adeQuate. It was practically impossible to develop the smaller lots tha~ are presently zoned R-3 if this requirement is imposed. Some consideration should be given for the lot that is 50 ft. wide by 160 ft. in depth, especially in the downtown area. He felt either some provision should be made for the small lot or the plans should be approved individually. Apr"il 24, 1962 Page Five MOTION ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING MODIFICATION APPEAL . . Moved by Commissioner Acker, that the public hearing should be continued and that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee for further study. Chairman Golisch stated he was well aware of the fact that there were many potential plans nearing completion and contractors were anxious to know what the action of the Commission would be. He did think that in the absence of the three Commissioners the delay is necessary. Planning Director William Phelps felt that while the matter is held in abeyance there are a number of people and considerable money being held up pending a decision. He felt it would be more appropriate to pass it on to the Council, who in turn must hold a public hearing. LastNovember the City Manager's office had a complete survey made of the off street parking situation, and it was found that there was a deficiency of off street parking in the R-3 zones, in relationship to the number of cars there. The Planning Department is aware of the situation of the variance that was granted on both sides of Duarte Road from Holly to Lovell Avenue~. There no doubt would be someprob'lems associated with that particular variance. This, no doubt, could De worked out with the two parking space requirements. A plan had been ,worked out where the 50 foot lot could be developed probably with .the same number of units as are now being developed., In the present off street parking requirements consideration has only been given to the parking of the occupants of the units. No consider- ation has been given to guest parking. Visitors and guests even have difficulty in finding curb parking. The size of the 'stall should depend upon the size of the vehicle. The width should be considered with the car door open as this is a necessity. The doors sometimes are 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 feet in width. Therefore, the 10 ft. width is required. The Chairman appreciated the interest in hastening action but with only four members present a further study should be made by the Zoning Committee. A question was made by the Commission as to whether or not the second space should be covered. Commissioner Forman seconded Mr . Acker I S motion, and on roll call vote was unanimously passed. Commissioner Norton, Chairman of the Zoning Committee set Wednesday, May 2, at 7: 30 P.M. as the time for consideration of this matter be~or~.!he Zoni~g Commit~ee. The Planning Commission considered the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. John Mac L. Hunt, from the decision of the Modification Committee on the-application of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert D. Anderson, 1833 EI Vista Circle. This matter was before the Modification Committee on application of Mr. and Mrs. Anderson to construct a bedroom, bath and dressing room extending into the rear yard. At the present time the code would permit them to extend 11 feet to the rear yard line. They are asking for 13 feet additional at the south side of the lot. This would leave ample rear yard. They have a two bedroom home and have two children and are expecting a third child. Aprn 24, 1962 Page Six MOTION LOT SPLIT No. 347 (Myler) MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. 362 (Wieland) . . Mr. Herbert Anderson was present and stated the purpose of the modifi- cation and the reasons why this method of construction was needed rather than to extend to the north. If extended to the north it would entirely shut off the family room which exists. The additional space is needed. Mr. John Mac L. Hunt stated they had purchased their home after looking for a year and did so because of the location, the view, and because it 'was a corner lot. They felt this addition would be detrimental to their property because there is now an eight or ten foot slope between their lot and the Anderson's. With the building wall extending above that it would be approximately a23 foot height before them from their rear yard. They felt they would be boxed in and it would shut off their view of the mountains. They felt also that their privacy for using the patio, etc. would be hampered. Commissioner Forman restated the facts as outlined and that he and the Director of Public Works and the Building Inspector had visited both the properties and had viewed the property from the Hunt's yard. They had approved the modification. The matter was thoroughly con- sidered and discussed. Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman, that the decision of the modification committee be upheld. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman and Golisch NOES: Commissioner Norton ABSENT: Commissioners Michler, Fergason-and Rutherford. For lack, of a majority the matter will be considered again at the meeting of May 8. 19.62. The Planning Commission considered lot split No. 347 - Marie L. Myler 1004 S. Tenth Ave. which had been appealed from a decision on November 14, 1961, and again considered January 9, 1962, wherein the applicant desired to change the plan of the house to be constructed on the newly created lot, in order to retain the guest house. The removal of the guest house was one of the conditions for the approval. After consideration it was felt that the orderly development of the area required the removal of this structure, as it is equipped with a kitchen and is a separate dwelling unit. Commissioner Forman had again visited the property and moved that the appeal be denied' and that the conditions as originally imposed be retained. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Norton and unanimous- ly carried. The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 362 - O. Wieland, 528 Lemon Ave - referred to Commissioners Forman, Ferguson and Rutherford. The Planning Secretary read the Department report and recommendation for approval If the lot split is approved the following conditions should be imposed: April 24, 1962 Page Seven . MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. 363 ( Dick) . . 1. File a final map 2. Provide a sewer late~al, and main extension for Parcel 2. 3. Dedicate Wistaria Ave. with fee dedications 4. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 5. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code 6. Install street improvements in Wistaria Ave. as required by the Subdivision Ordinance to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works 7. Remove all buildings on parcel 2 or extending over the division line, including the wood fence along each lot line. This lot split was approved March 8, 1960 as Lot Split No. 286 but was not completed. The lot conforms to others in the same area. The matter was brought to the attention of the Commission that some years ago the Commission established the limit to which lot splits would be allowed without access to another street. This split reaches that limit. The Commission should consider establishing a policy on future extensions of this street. Commissioner Forman had viewed the property and felt that the lot split had merit. Consideration of the limit to access to another street could be considered at another time as this property was within the limits formerly fixed. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried, that Lot Split No. 362 - O. Wieland - 528 temon Ave. be tentatively approved, subject to the conditions as outlined in the report. The Subdivision committee was requested to study the limits of future lot split requests and report at next Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 363 - Robert C. Dick - 1245 Oakhaven Road, which had been referred to Commissioners Forman, Ferguson and Rutherford. The Department report and recommendation for approval was submitted. If the lot splft is granted the following requirements should be imposed: 1. File a final map 2. Provide a swere lateral for each parcel to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 3. Pay a $25.00 ,recreation fee 4. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code to serve each parcel and be to the satisfaction of the Water Superintendent 5. Remove the existing building on Parcel 1 or remodel it to , conform with the Uniform Building Code 6. Final approval shall not be given until Oakhaven Road is dedicated Commissioner Forman had viewed the property and while the lot had 18,875 sq. ft. in the 'entire parcel, with 8900 sq. ft. in Parcell and 9,975 sq. ft. in parcel 2, the terrain is such that additional land is necessary in order to construct any type of house compatible with those in the area. April 24, 1962 Page Eight MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. 364 ( Brown) . . Mr. Bob Orchard, the proposed purchaser of the lot with the improvements stated that he had worked out a design wherein the house could be brought up to code and would be of the same type construction as those constructed nearby. Mr. Louis Deris, owner of the property at 1240 Oakhaven Lane was opposed to this lot split as none of the lots in the area were as small as' this would be when divided. In further reference to the sewer line, he stated that there was no main in the newly created Oakhaven Road and the utilities would have to come through an easement to the west and down to the private road of Oakhaven Lane to which he now holds title. To provide access would require his approval. Mr. W. T. Beckwith stated that he has purchased the property north of this and would develop a new subdivision and all of the lots would be above average. He felt that this split would be detrimental to the area and should not be approved. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried, that Lot Split No. 363 be denied because it is not in keeping with the general area and would be injurious to surround- ing property. The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 364, Robert P. Brown, 1527 S. Santa Anita Ave. which had been referred to Commissioners Michler, Norton and Acker. The Department report and recommendation for approval was presented by the Planning Secretary as follows: If the lot split is approved, the following requirements should be imposed: 1. File a final map 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel 2 3.. Dedicate 15 ft. radius at corner 4. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 5. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code 6. Remove all buildings from Parcel 2 7. Build a new garage for Parcell 8. Close up all unused curb cuts and pave used driveways The Department recommends the approval of this lot split. This was approved December 22, 1959 !S Lot Split No. 274, with the lot sizes 80 ft. for Parcel 1 and 76 ft. for Parcel 2. The lot split was not com- plete~. Considerable discussion followed relative to the structures on the property. The applicant desires to retain the existing'dwelling on Parcell which is facing on Santa Anita Ave. If the split is approved the l~t would fllce Camino Real as being the narrow front. Some concern was registered as to the house to the north which faces Santa Anita Terrace and had no side yard nor rear yard comparable.to other homes on Santa Anita Avenue. This should not be repeated as it is not good planning. Considerable discussion followed. ApriL 24, 1962 Page Nine MOTION LOT SPLIT No. 365 (Merrick) MOTION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORTS . . Moved by CommissiQner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman. that Lot Split No. 364 be recommended for approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the Department report. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Acker and Forman NOES.: Commissioners Norton and Golisch AllSENT: Commissioners Michler, Ferguson and Rutherford The motion was not carried. the meeting of May 8, 1962. The matter will be on the agenda for The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 365 - Hazel Merrick McLean, 2508 S. Santa Anita Avenue which had been referred to Commissioners Michler, Norton and Acker. The Planning Secretary presented the Department report and reco~ndation as follows: If the split is granted the following should be required: 1. File a final map 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel 2 3. Dedications for Louise Avenue 4. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 5. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and to serve each parcel 6. Install street improvements in Louise Avenue as required by the Subdivision Ordinance to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works 7. Remove all buildings from parcel 2 and within 3 ft. of division line and within 25 ft. of Louise Ave. as extended. The Department recommended approval. Commissioner Acker had viewed the property and felt that this split would be in compliance with good planning. Discussion fOllowed as to whether the line fixed on the cul-de-sac should be relocated in view of a further split. Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman and unanimously carried that Lot Splrt No. 365. Hazel Merrick McLean, 2508 S. Santa Anita Ave. be tentatively approved. subject to the conditions as set forth in the Department report. .' No one in the audience desired to be heard. Planning Director Phelps stated that the only report was the off street parking which had been distributed to the Commission for study. He stated that he would now meet with interested parties such as the Land Use Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, ,ltc. and results of such meetings would be reported to the Commission. April 24, 1962. Page Ten ADJOURNMENT . . Chairman Golisch requested the Department commence studies on the R-3 restrictions with the view of upgrading and revising them. He felt this was an important action and should be considered along with the off street parking requirements. There being no further matters to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. 'RYvv, ! L. .M. TALLEY Planning Secretary Apr'il 24, -1962 Page Eleven