Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 8, 1962 .. ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE CHANGE Duarte Road MOTION CODE CHANGE R-3 Parking . . M I NUT E S PLANNING C<H1ISSION OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1962 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular session on May 8, 1962, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, with Chairman Golisch presiding. PRESENT: Commissicners Acker, Ferguson ,Forman, Rutherford and Golisch, ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Jesse Balser City Attorney James A. 'Nicklin Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes Planning Director William Phelps and Planning Technician Robert W. Warrilow Acting Secretary. The minutes of April 24, 1962 were approved as written and mailed. The Planning Commission further 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 745 to 805 W.Duarte Road. The hearing was closed April 24, 1962, and a motion made to deny the application. This motion did not carry. The matter of the further development of Hinshaw's was discussed. It was understood that this was being programmed. The Commission felt that if this were done, some further study would need be made for the north side of Duarte Road, but that the application for a zone change at this time perhaps was premature. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he had read the minutes of the meeting of April 24, 1962 and had listened to the proceedings as taped and was informed of the past discussions. Commissioner Rutherford state he had read the minutes and had attended the zoning committee meeting so that he was informed of the discussions. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that the application for a zone change on property located at 745 to 805 W. Duarte Road from Zone R-3 to Zone C-2 be recommended for denial. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Rutherford and Golisch NOES: Commissioner Acker ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton This is a continued public hearing on the proposed change of parking requirements which was presented at the meeting of April 24. 1962, and referred to the Zoning Committee for f~rthet study. This being a very important subject the hear.ing had not been closed. A report from the Planning Director was presented. The Planning Director had attended the meeting of May 2, 1962 and it was May 8, 1962 Page One , . . the opinion of the Zoning Committee that the proposed off street parking requirements in the R-3 districts should be modified so that instead of two covered off street parking stalls per dwelling unit that only ~ of the two spaces be required to be covered. The Chairman stated that anyone in the audience desiring to be heard may do so at this time. Mr. Ralph Burston, 515 Fairview Avenue, land appraiser with a Los Angeles Title Company, was concerned with the type of survey that had been made to arrive at the figures of inadequate space. He had developed several units and had conformed to the 1-1/2 parking. spaces.. His apartment had never had difficulty, in fact, there were always spaces available. He was opposed to any developments being made in the future to make up the difference in the lack of off street parking that had developed because of the former parking requirements. If a change were necessary it would be more equitable to survey the areas where the ,inadequacies occur and correction should be made in that area: He had friends who had constructed under the 1-1/2 cars per unit and they, too, had had no difficulty with parking. He felt that personal observation is the only accurate check that should be made. Apartment owners are in favor of the two spaces, because of an indifference to the other people in the area. He inq~ired as to his property which would become non-conforming should he desire to make structural changes. He was advised that the modification committee had been set up for this. He felt that the people who had constructed buildings with the 1-1/2 car spaces should not b~ penalized for those with less. Some type of parking lot should be provided to handle the extra parking in the areas where off-street parking is needed but where the property does have less than the 1-1/2 spaces per dwelling unit. The City Attorney stated that the Commission should first determine that there is a need and then spell out- the requirements. Assuming that the off street requirements were increased so that all new constructions would have to provide additiona~ off street parking, it might be that they would have more spaces than they would need and possibly those places short of spaces might have to arrange on a fee basis to rent such spaces. The City as such could not compel a person with excess property or parking facilities to make it available to those that were short, except through condemnation proceedings, parking district proceedings, or some other means wherein the party would be compensated for such property. If the parking requirements are not going to be inreased, this type of discussion is not necessary. Mr. Burston felt that with the property owners who had now provided 1-1/2 spaces per dwelling unit, a penalty would be imposed upon them if the ordinance were adopted for all R-3 property. He felt it would tend' to lower the value of the property because the same number of units could not be constructed. Inferior type buildings would be constructed and the presently constructed ones would more or less deteriorate. It was felt that there were areas where the parking is sufficient, but also there were areas where the lack of facilities added to the problem of the off street parking. Mr. Don Bettsinger, 12 Yorkshire Drive, Arcadia, who had addressed the Commission at the previous meeting, stated he felt that the R-3 zone should not be treated as a whole, the smaller lot could well-be 1-1/2 spaces per dwelling unit, but that with the deluxe units it might be increased. The development of the small lot would tend to be with small units with the sverage being 750 sq. ft. in order to get the required parking space. The larger apartments are more desirable and add more to the value of the property. He was in favor of such a study to work out the areas for the increased parking rather than making it a general requirement. He further stated that the enforcement of the all night parking, or the restriction of a two hour parking zone would determine just how much is required, as people May 8, 1962 Page Two . . will find parking spaces if they are required to be off the street. One communication had been received from John DeGragon, 320 E. Diamond St. recommending that the size of the parking spaces be reduced, and that one be a garage and not a carport. Many people feel that their cars are safer on the streets than in a carport in the rear of the building or on an alley. He would favor'the two spaces as outlined were one a 9 ft. garage and one an open space. The open space would provide a play area for the children while the cars were away in the daytime. The Planning Director stated that'the apartment in which he resides had 18 units. 1 apartment has 3 cars; 3 apartments have 1 car; 12 apartments have 2; 2 apartments are not occupied at the present. The occupants would normally have two automobiles. This has been built under the required 1-1/2 spaces per dwelling unit. There are 27 off street parking spaces, with 34 vehicles to park. It is already pre~enting a problem to the owner. Commissioner Forman stated that there were several items that had not been explcred. One was the possibility of'a commercial parking zone type situation where a lot or a group of lots in a specific area would create a parking lot on a rental basis. The off street parking ban could then be enforced. It may be that the two spaces for future developments may not be needed if the present R-3 areas having less are rectified by creating additional parking areas. The property owners building in the future should not be penalized for those who do not have the required parking. Mr. Burston again spoke stating that in South Pasadena where the apartment had 750 sq. ft. they wouid require 1 parking space; if the apartment were 1000 Sq. ft. they would require two parking spaces. Larger apart- ments would necessarily require more spaces and were set up accordingly. Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that the public hear,ing be closed. Motion was withheld because it was felt that there were several lines of study not pursued. It was determined that in setting up requirements for the future some of the inadequacies of the past should be rectified. The Chairman stated that with the development as it now exists there is need for a revision of the parking, because with the larger apartments more than 1-1/2 spaces seem to be required. The problem of correcting a protLem that had been created was more or less an administrative matter. The longer the delay in solving the present pborlem, the more critical it will become. He felt that the hearing had indicated to him that there was need for the larger units to have more space provided. But that a penalty should not be placed on those now constructing buildings to provide parking for the area where inadequacies occur. The City Attorney stated he had had considerable experience in off street parking and the future had to be considered. It is slmost impossible to correct the mistakes of the past, and they are real expensive to correct. The parking situation has not improved and the tendency is for more cars per dwelling unit. The suggestion had been made indicating the quantity of parking as related to the size of the apartment. It might tend to work against the desire the city has expressed to obtain more of the so-called"luxury" apartments. If they provide larger living quarters and then have to provide more parking spaces this type of development will not be obtained. This will cause them to cut down the size of the rooms. If there enough incentive and burden on the part of the developers to cut down on the number of units and put more money into each cne and provide more parking also, for the ultimate returns they might make? This has to be taken step by step. May 8, 1962 Page Three '. !'\otION !'\ODIFICATlON APPEAL . . The question still remains, are all areas of R-3 the same in their parking requirements? Should all R-3 lots be incorporated under the same require- ments? Changes have occurred in this respect often within the last few years. The future must be anticipated. The level of income is higher in Arcadia than in many communities so that more cars per dwelling unit occurs. In 1939 and 1954 when 975 units were constructed they probably required by one parking space; it probably was sufficient. But since that time the income level has risen, along wiehit the car ownership and the result is that more off street parking spaces are required. The Chairman stated he felt the matter of trying to outline the various sections as to whether or not it should have 1-1/2 or two would prove difficult, but that certainly additional parking places are going to be needed. Commissioner Ferguson stated that it was not a problem as to the present, but that what is to happen in the future. If there is a tendency to to have a problem now, there would be a greater one in the future. Commissioner Forman concurred and the study to correct a past error so to speak, but felt that the area bounded by Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Avenue and Third Avenue where there are smaller lots in the R-3 area should be considered. They would be under the same classification as the larger lots. ' An exhaustive survey under the present conditions would be impossible to make. Lack of public transportation in this part of California necessi- tates more privately-owned vehicles. Commissioner Rutherford stated that the inability of the Commissioners to ascertain personally the off street parking, the recommendation of the Planning Department is usually a guide, but if there is too much differ- ence in opinion, the hearing should be kept open until the next regular meeting. This should be studied by all of the members. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker, that the public hearing be kept open for another two weeks, until the meeting of May 22, 1962. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Rutherford, NOES: Commissioners Ferguson and Golisch ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton Therefore, the matter was continued until May 22, 1962. The Planning Commission considered the hearing on 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, 1933 El Vista Circle. This matter was on the agenda for the meeting of April 24, 1962, but failed to gat a majority vote. The subject was thoroughly reviewed and Commissioners Rutherford and Ferguson stated the had read the minutes and/or lis.tened to the recorded tape of the matter and were fully aware of the evidence presented, so that they were qualified to vote. May 8, 1962 Page Four MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. 364 MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. 366 . . Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried that the action of the Modification Committee relative to the rear yard requirements requested in the application of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert D. Anderson, 1833 El Vista Circle be sustained. The Planning Commission considered the application for a lot split of Robert P. Brown, 1527 S. Santa Anita Ave. which had been referred to Commissioners Michler, Norton and Acker, and continued from the meeting of April 24, 1962. This matter also failed to be approved by lack of a majority vote. The conditions were reviewed, and the Commissioners absent from the Msy 8th meeting ststed they had read the minutes of that meeting and were quali- fied to vote. Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman that Lot Split No. 364, Robert P. Brown, 1527 S. Santa Anita Ave. be tentatively approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map 2. Provide sewer lateral for parcel 2 3. Dedicate 15' radius at corner 4. Pay a $25.00 recreation fee 5. Provide water services to comply with the ' Uniform Plumbing Code 6. Remove all buildings from Parcel 2 7. Build new garage for parcell 8. Close up all unused curb cuts and pave used driveways Said motion carried on the following roll call 'vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Rutherford NOES: Commissioner Golisch ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton The Planning Commission con'sidered Lot Split No.. 364" Edward H. Baltutat, 475 W. Longden Avenue, referred to Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Michler. The Staff. report was presented. If the lot split were approved the following conditions should be imposed: 1. File a final map 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcels 1 and 2 3. Pay a recreation fee of $50.00 4. Provide water services to comply' with the Uniform Plumbing Code 5. Remove all buildings from the property and all shrubs from. the parkway' 6. Close up any unused curb cuts. Mr. Baltutat stated they desired to purchase the property. That the one lot had an old house on it that would be removed if three lots could be obtained, otherwise the cost would be too high. Commissioner Ferguson stated he bad reviewed the matter, and while the lots were large enough they were not compatible with the lots in the area. Three lots would not conform with the other lots. If the split were revised for two he would favor it. This was concurred in by Commissioners Forman and Ruther- ford. May 8, 1962 Page Five . . MOTION Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 366, Edward H. Baltutat, 475 W. Longden Avenue be denied for the three lots. tRACT NO. 27240 The final map of Tract No. 27240 - located north of Woodruff Avenue - west of Santa Anita Ave, and containing 11 lots was considered. The report of the Planning Department and Subdivision Committee was read by the Planning Director: The report sets up the, past action of the Commission and Council and shows that there is excess land to be disposed of along each side of the street for the first 124 foot depth from Woodruff Avenue which would provide for a 60 foot street at this location if desired. The subdivider has also made an offer of dedication of a 5 foot planting easement along each side of the balance of the street. Except for these additional dedications, the final map conforms sub- stantially with the approved tentative map and is recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove ,all buildings within the tract, or relocate those meeting the building code to conform with yard requirements of the new lots. 2. Remove all trees from the street right of way 3. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements 4. Dispose of the excess land in lot 16, Tract No. 13186 to the adjacent owners, or dedicate it in fee to the City. 5. Install all street improvements as required by the subdivision ordinance in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 6. Pay the following fees and depos its: 4 steel pole street lights @ $115.00 $460.00 24 street trees @ 8.50 204.00 4 street name signs @ 35.00 140.00 11 lots recreation fee @ 25.00 275.00 TOTAL $1079.00 7. The City holds a covenant restricting building on a portion of the land in this tract. It is file No. 0-879, dated May 21, 1956, signed by Samuel L. and Pearl H. Alexander, recorded May 31, 1956, as Instrument No. 4614 in Book 51333, page 130 of Official Records. If this tract is approved the covenant should be released so that it will not appear in title policies on the lots in the new tract. In many cases the City has had complaints about the placing of new dwellings on lots such as 3, 5 and 9 of thistract, due to the definition of the "rear llit line" as set out in Section 9220.44 of the Code. This had allowed new dwellings to be placed within 3 feet of the rear line of the lot backing up to the new tract. May 8, 1962 Page Six . . . While this matter was not discussed and made a part of the tentative approval of this tract, the Planning Department recommends that consideration be given to requiring that no part of the living area of any building be permitted nearer than 25 feet from the exterior boundary line of the tract, except along the south line of Lots 1 and 11. Considerable discussion ensued. Some of the lots had five sides and the determination of the rear lot line would be satisfactory for the new house to be constructed but may prove a problem should an addition be made in the future. MarION Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that final map of Tract No. 27240, be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report, and that a further condition be imposed as follows: 8. That a covenant in the form approved by the City Attorney be recorded agreeing that for the purposes of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code the exterior boundary of said tract shall constitute the rear line of lots three ~3) through ten (10). WISTARIA AVENUE The extension of Wistaria Avenue was considered as a result of the limit of the street having been reached. This was referred to the Subdivision Committee from the previous meeting. The report of the Committee was presented: "On April 24, 1962, the Commission requested the Subdivision C01lllllittee to study and report on the possible future extension of Wistaria Avenue from its terminus near Terra Lane toward Baldwin Avenue. In 1956, Everett Mansur, then Planning Consultant for the City, reported and on August 14, 1956, the Commission adopted his report on this same 'matter. At that time it was agreed that lot splits and street extensions would be permitted up to the center of lot nwnber 71. Applications to that point have now been approved. At that time the present 500 foot limitation on dead end streets had not been adopted. Splits to that point would have created a dead end street approximately 1350 feet long. However, with the opening of Terra Lane the present approved dead end is approximately 287 feet. The Committee has reviewed the original Mansur plan and feels that it is still practical. While the present dead end street has not reached the maximum 500 foot length, the Committee feels that any future extensions, by lot split or otherwise, should help bear the expense of providing another access into the area. This access should be to Lemon Avenue as suggested by Mr. Mansur,; to Baldwin Avenue or to Estrella Avenue'. It is recommended that the Commission adopt the policy of requiring cash deposits from any future applicants for extension of the street. It is also recommended that if and when future applications are filed that they be referred to the Department of Public Works to study and report on the amount of the deposit to be required. May 8, 1962 Page Seven MOTION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION \ REPORTS DOWNTOWN AREA TEMPLE CITY PLANNING RESOLUTION NO. 445 . . Discussion followed. In order to avoid further lot splits occurring in the area which would extend the present street without the benefit of access to another street, it was the consensus of opinion that a trust should be set up for any additional lot splits in the area, in accordance with the recommendation of the Subdivision. Committee. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried that the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee that the policy of requiring cash deposits from any future applicants for extension of the street be adopted. The :City Engineer to determine such costs. The City Engineer would work out the proposed trust deposits at the time of the application for a further lot split. Mr. John Barker, requested permission to verify the decision on the lot split Previously considered of Marie L. Myler, 1004 El Sur Ave. This matter had been before the Commission on two previous occasions and the request was denied. Mr. Barker was so informed that the lot split would remain. as originally approved. The Planning Director advised the Commission on the progress of the Downtown Study. After the meeting withthe Central Area Landowners Associa~ion of April 26, and the City Council the Council requested that outside consultants be invited to submit proposals for the study of the downtown area. These invitations had been extended to Consulting firms having experience in this type of work. The consultant selected would work closely with the Planning Department. The City Manager was preparing a communication to be submitted to the City Council advising them of the list of con- sultant firms invited to submit proposals for services. He was recommend- ing that a committee of two councilmen with two members of the Planning Commission be selected to screen the applicants, along with the City Manager and Planning Director. The Chairman should be giving some thought to ~he appointment of the commissioners who would work on this project. A member of the Temple City Planning Department had advised the Planning Director that their Planning Department was preparing a land use plan for Temple City. Zoning in accordance with the land use is to be proposed in the near future. He felt it in order that the two Commissions meet jointly to review the proposed plans to explore further any particular areas where the zoning would affect the areas abutting Arcadia. The Planning Director was requested to arrange such a meeting. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 445, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE 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 FROM ZONES R-3 AND R-2 AND FIXING THE DATE, HOUR AND PLACE FOR THE PUllLIC HEARING FOR SUCH PURPOSE." May 8, 1962 Page Eight MOTION MOTION MODIFICATION COMMlnEB ADJOURNMENT . . The date of hearing fixed by the Commission was May 22, 1962, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution be waived. Motion by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman that Resolution No. 44S"beadopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Rutherford and GoUsch NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton The City Attorney reviewed the Code relative to the functions of the Modificiation Committee with the thought that any matter deemed necessary could be referred to the Planning C~ission without recommendation. There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. ~tJ. CU~ ROBERT w.wARRILOW ~ Acting Secretary