Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 22, 1962 j~ . " ROLL CALL MINUTES CODE CHANGE R-3 Parking Requirements . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGUlAR MEETING May 22, 1962 The Planning Commission,of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regu- lar session on May 22, 1962, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., with Chairman Golisch presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Norton OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Jesse Balser City Attorney James A. Nicklin Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes Planning Director William Phelps and Planning Technician Robert W. Warrilow The minutes of the meeting of May 8, 1962 were approved as written and mailed. This is the continuation of the public hearing initiated by the Planning Commission and which had been referred to the staff for further study and report. Acting Secretary Robert Warrilow presented the summary of the report as follows: (See complete report filed with files) Nine point recommendations follow: 1. Rescind the all night parking ban "as provided for in Section 11.8 of the Uniform Traffic Ordinance" for at least one year. (Refer to City Attorney). 2. Restrict parking of commercial vehicles on any street between the hours of 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 &.m., except for pick ups and deliveries. (Refer to City Attorney). 3. Restrict parking of passenger vehicles in same location for more than 24 hours. (Refer to Ci~y Attorney). 4. Require two ~2) off-street parking spaces for every dwelling unit. (Refer to Planning Commission). 5. Require five (5) foot sidewalks to be installed in all R-2 and R-3 zones. (Refer to Engineering and Planning Commission). 6. Develop a program for sidewalk installation in front of existing, developed properties in R~3 zones. (Refer to staff). 7. Provide street lighting according to present standards in all R-3 zones. (Refer to staff). 8. Develop a program for the elimination of the existing off-street parking deficiencies in the R-3 areas. (Refer to staff). 9. Instruct the staff to report back to the Council in February of 1963 on the then status of the problem. May 22, 1962 Page One . . . The Planning Director exhibited an area map showing the locations of the violations of the all night parking as a result of the attempt of the Police Department to enforce off street parking. The Director stated that the report was made December 11, 1961, and from the dis- tribution of the off street parking violations it was evident that violations occurred throughout the city, but that there were certain areas where it was heaviest, especially betwep.n Huntington Drive, Duarte Road, Santa Anita Ave., and Second Ave; also west of Baldwin Ave. to Sunset, south of Huntington Dr. in the R-3 zone. At this time there were 1791 violations for one evening. In October 1961 the entire city was surveyed and there were but 1154 violations, in 1960 a survey was also made and there were but 700. The increase substantiates the fact that there is an on street-off street parking problem within the city. This problem is not static but is growing. The City Manager's office had attempted to' .keep a record of all calls from the public at the time the enforcement was considered. In general the 'reasons given were (1) Arcadia does not have an adequate transportation system, therefore there are more automobiles within the city; (2) Arcadia seems to have relaxed parking requirements in apartments building, therefore, a lot of people will park on the street; (3) there is insufficient public and private off street parking facilities within the city. The City Manager through this study suggested to the City Council a nine point program to resolve the entire problem, This program has been set forth in the staff' report. The most important item is the institut- ing of the procedure to change ,the parking requirements in the R-3 zone which will relieve the parking situation so far as new construction is concerned. Then perhaps additional study would need be made in areas not covered under these proceedings. There have been responses through the Department dealing with the property owners themselves in the exist- ing land w~ich is yet to be developed to the R-3 standards. Some R-3 property is now developed with but a single-family residence. These peo- ple seem to feel that by raising the number of spaces required, the number of units allowed on the lot would be difficult to design, and this with the fact that they would not be able to sell the lot for the price necessary. This seems to be a real problem. It is felt that in the long run these properties would be developed as units and would increase in value. It was the consensus that the past upgrading of the parking restrictions and other changes have kept the value of the property at its high value. Based on the above reasons the staff has recommended to the Commission that such changes be made to the Code and that the recommendation be forwarded to the City Council. Discussion followed. One point brought up was whether or not a check had been made at the time of the survey if the cars on the street had a place to be parked. In some cases there was adequate parking off street when the check was made. In some areas a deficiency was found if all of the cars were to be parked off street. In 1954 the ratio of cars was 1-1/4 per family, but the increase now was over 2 carS per family. CommIssioner'Forman stated that the area bounded by Alta St., Santa Anita and Second Avenues contain only 12% developed with multiple dwellings. This area is south. of Huntington Drive, the balance being developed with single-family residences. In this area where there are many houses with but a single garage and with the developed portion having I, 1-1/4, or 1-1/2 spaces per dwelling unit there was a deficiency. May 22, 1962 Page Two lII"'" .. . . .' The Chairman requested any persons having any further statements to make for or against the change of parking spaces to so state. Mr, Ralph Burston, 515 Fairview Ave., Arcadia, who had previously expressed his views, stated in his opinion the ordinance should not be changed until the all night parking ordinance had been enforced. Be felt that there were still many people who would park on the street rather than go to the rear of the apartment to park in a garage or carport. They had a feeling of safety in so doing, as well as eliminat- ing the walking. Each Commissioner expressed himself. The Planning Director stated that some of the areas were just now in the period of development and the high stan~ard would be superior to a lower type and that any action to increase the type of development should be made at this time. It was mentioned that Los Angeles County was considering changing the parking requirements in the residential areas as well as in the apartment zones. They are moving forward in their planning stages at the'present time. Hr. Burston stated that since the last meeting he had talked with several property owners along Baldwin Ave. One owner had nine spaces which was sufficient for her apartment. Ber neighbors did not have ample parking and therefore used the street in front of her property, thereby depriv- ing guests coming to her property from parking. She is also deprived of the municipal services because of the cars being parked in the street when the sweeper is in the area. Be felt that the City was reluctant to enforce the law that would prohibit such parking. If the city were to require two spaces for every apartment it should also be tied with an ordinance prohibiting all night parking thereby equalizing the spaces provided in the street for the use of the property abutting ,it. _ __ J __ ._. .. ,. ." _ . HEARING CLOSED Moved by Commissioner 'Rutherford; seconded 'by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried that the public hearing be closed. The chairman stated that in his opinion this was a move forward in the field of planning. Commissioner Michler was not opposed to the two parking spaces, but felt that the opinions stated as to the enforcement of the all night street parking was good. He would be reluctant to go along with the additional parking space if the off street parking were not enforced, and they should be tied together. There should be a prohibition of 24 hour parking. The chairman stated that there was only a temporary suspension of the ordinance pending the study, and then other steps would be taken to relieve the situation. The City Attorney advised there was not an all night parking ban on record. The ordinance is for continued parking. This was not systemma- tically enforced while it was in effect, but when attempts were made a cry was that there was no place to park. This then was studied and the proceedings now'before the Commission is a result of this survey. He felt that the City could require six parking spaces and there would still be cars in the street unless there is an all night parking ban enforced. Commissioner Rutherford felt this request for study had come from the City Council and that they had in mind an all night parking ban when the action by the Commission had been completed. Commissioner Forman stated that several comments had been made' about the area of California, Bonita, Santa Anita Avenue, etc. with the small lots. He felt that with the report as given it presented a somewhat different picture, that with the small lots it was going to create a problem for the developer unless several lots were combined. He had been opposed to a blanket requirement for all R-3 property, but he now felt' there were ways to solve the small lot problem. With Pasadena and Alhambra having similar problems and working toward a solution this too could be done in Arcadia. May 22, 1962 Page Three ~ .. .. M~I~ ZONE CHANGE Live Oak - Louise Ave. . . Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Michler that the parking requirements 'for' all R-3 (multIple dwelling) properties be increased to two spaces per dwelling unit instead of the one and one-half as now existing, and that one of the two spaces should be covered with a garage or carport. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Norton The Planning Commission held a public hearing on proceedings instituted under Resolution No. 445. These proceedings were to consider the re- classification from Zones R-3 and R-2 to some more restrictive zone (R) or (R-l) or some less restrictive zone - C, C-l, C-2, C-3, CM, or M-l on properties located at 2637, 2633, 2627, 2734, 2626, 2620 Louise Ave., and 55, 67, Ill, 115, 131 and 137 Live Oak Avenue. The Acting Secretary summarized the staff report as follows: The entire area was reviewed as to the application and the public hearings held, together with the meetings of the zoning committee and the times these matters were before the Planning Commission and the City Council. In order to permit the transition from residential use to commercial use it is recommended that the following conditions of approval be approved: 1. The change of zone from R-3--to CO-D on the lots on Louise Ave, subject to deed restrictions shall not become effective until such time as the deed restrictions have been removed and evidence of this removal submitted to the Planning Commission. These lots are 8, 9, 19 and 20 of Tract No. 11438. 2. The change of zone from R-3 to R-l shall be' for the entire property known as 55 and 67 Live Oak Ave. At such time as a subdivision map is submitted and approved for the division of these lots into single- family homesites the frontage of these two properties to a depth of about 150 feet shall be zoned CO-D without further hearings and the D regulations, set forth in this report shall apply to the subject properties. The restrictions to be made applicable to the subject properties under Zone D shall be as follows: 1. Construct a concrete block wall along the north line of lots 9 and 19 of Tract No. 11438 and along the zoning district line, dividing Zone CO-D from R-l on the subject property described as the east 240 feet of lot 65 (55 and 67 Live Oak Avenue),. The same type wall shall be constructed on the north property line of the lot at the northeast corner of Greenfield and Live Oak Avenues, and on the north line of Lot 2, Tract No. 12915 at the northwest corner of Greenfield Ave, and Live Oak Ave. The height of said walls shall be reduced to 4 feet as they , extend into the required front yard of the pro~rties on Greenfield, Louise and the new street to be constructed. , 2. All commercial buildings shall face Live Oak Avenue and shall be on building sites oriented from Live Oak Avenue northerly to the concrete block wall. May 22, 1962 Page Four .. . . 3. No entrances to buildings from side streets sh~ll be permitted more than ten feet from the front building line. 4. Vehicular access to the subject properties shall be from the side streets rather than from Live Oak Avenue. 5. All billboards shall be prohibited on the subject properties. 6. All floodlighting shall be directed away from residential properties. 7. The height of all buildings constructed on the subject property shall be limited to one-story not to exceed 16 feet. 8. The use of all property to be Zone CO shall be limited to office use. 9. A plot plan showing the proposed development of the subject proper- ties shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Couunission prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. The Planning Commission or City Council may modify any of the fore- going conditions if such modification will not adversely affect property or improvements in the vicinity and if such modification will equally accomplish substantially the same results as will adherence to the foregoing conditions. The Planning Director exhibited a map of the area showing the present zoning and the proposed zoning. He explained the existing land use and the proposed land use. Most of the property to the north of Live Oak and on the corner of Greenfield Ave. and Live Oak and the area to the east with the golf course, nursery and service station. The plans had been presented to the Planning Couunission. City Council and had been before neighborhood groups of the area. There is a substantial difference in the type -of commercial now in 'existence on the south side of ~ive Oak and those which the staff believes should come into existence on the north side. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for hearing on said change of zone and requested those in favor to present their views. One couununication had been received from W. H. Rowland, 2634 Louise Ave. opposing CO zoning. He had previously requested C-2 which was denied. Dr. A. J. Andreoli, 2600 Louise Ave. was speaking for himself and on benalf of'the people who are most concerned who live on Louise Ave. He stated that these people had expressed confidence and had complimented the Planning Staff and were willing to give their support to the present plans. He would like to emphasize the fact that because of the unique character of the plots of land and the lack of uniformity with the two rather deep lots which back up to the residential area these lots have not been considered as thoroughly in any other study. The present plans would prevent land locking property. It has all the attributes of good planning, and would solve most of the problems in the area. He felt that it would require no further deli'beration, because if was the group's opinion that a better plan could not be devised. They would cooperate with the staff or whosoever would develop the property to obtain the additional land needed for the subdivision, and to assist in the lifting of the deed restrictions. He felt that one of the best factors in the plan is that there would be a stablization of the area and would represent a well planned part of the community. He was speaking for approximately 25 families. May 22, 1962 Page Five ,.. " . . " Hr. R. H. Hamilton, a relative of F. A. Champagn, owner of the property at 55 E. Live Oak stated that the residential aspects of the City of Arcadia must be protected but he felt that with the development of the subdivision, it would create another street opening on to Live Oak Ave. He felt that too many streets came into Live Oak now as Live Oak is a major street. The street would have to cut through CO-D property to get to the R-l proposed to the rear. He felt that the cul de sac should be approached from a street part way north on Louise Ave. so that there will be no more left-hand turns off Live Oak Ave. This street would serve not more than six or seven lots to the rear of the CO-D property. In development of any business property there will be parking required and until such time as the parking needs are determined a wall at 150 ft. distance back from Live Oak Ave. would be difficult and still have sufficient parking for the development of the commercial office buildings. After the street is allowed there would be a lot 80 I x 150 I and a doctor's office could not front on this property with proper parking. He was not talking about legal parking, but proper parking. He brought up the present use of Live Oak Ave. It had been determined that a buffer was needed between residential and business property. The already developed R-l along Live Oak Ave. does 'not have the proper buffer for property that is used for business. He felt that it was unusual that a gas station on each of the corners of Second Ave, and Santa Anita Ave, the Pie King and the doughnut shop, nursery, golf course, two medical buildings should all get some type of variance of zoning against the R-l and R-2, which did not protect the residential property to the rear and a few lots selected on Live Oak that could not develop as C-l as the others had done, without the buffer as above stated. He felt there was inconsistency. The present zoning was not right,but also the proposed use was not right. Further study should be made towsrd the proposed R-l and the street proposed. Mr. Frank Rush, 67 E. Live Oak Ave. concurred with Mr. Hamilton, and that a business district should be allowed from one gas station to the other. Dr: Andreoli requested permission to clarify a matter brought up by Hr. Hamilton. The two medicalb\!Udings on Live Oak were tJ./o examples of the parking needs and how well they had been handled. The parking was more than adequate and this had been accomplished on a very shallow property. Tne people on the northwest corner of Greenfield Ave. and Live Oak Ave. have submitted a plan and it was approved to enlarge their offices and, the parking was adequate. One of the neighbors working in an archi- tect's office had devised some plot plans to see if the requested zoning would work to make the land financially worth the type of development proposed. He felt that the most feasible layout and the combined devel- opment with the R-I to C-O frontage would ultimately yield dollar value a great deal more than simply having a CO, C-l, or C-2 frontage with a plot of landlocked land to the rear with the problem of accessibility. No one else desired to speak in favor of the proposed zoning. The Chairman then requested those..opposed to state their findings. Hr. E. Divon, 2626 Louise Ave. read from the Harch 19th report as to the land use and with the recommendation of a subdivision with access to Live Oak Ave. It seemed to him that the 'report had some inconsistencies in so far as acce~s to lotS_from Live Oak Ave. was concerned. Mr. Harry Simon, l6l8-N.Las Palmas, Los 'Angeles, representing Dr. Herrman of 115 E. Live Oak'Ave. stated there was no doubt that the zoning on Live Oak Ave. should be changed. The only questLon was what should the nature of the change be, Two points of view could be sustained: (1) tne present need, and (2) what will the need be in 5 to 10 years. The staff has objected to-C-2 on the north side of Live Oak Ave. so that there would not be too much competition, and also that under C-2 it could being in some uses not compatible to the uses on the south side of the May 22, 1962 Page Six , PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION ZONE VARiANCE 53(j'W. tas- Tunas Drive . . street. He felt that the most beneficial use of this property from the west side of Second Ave. to the east side of Greenfield Ave. would be to keep the present C-2 zoning with the existing R-3 at the west end of the area, and then change the balance of the area to C-l with the alley all the way through to Greenfield Ave. Traffic then would not have to use Live Oak to make a left turn and would also provide the buffer under dis- cussion. The required block wall would buffer off the commercial area. Then proceeding west on Live Oak it would seem that the use there could be either the C-l or the CoO as proposed, all with the "0" overlay. He also felt that the requirement for a one-story building should not be recommended. Even though a developer would bu(ld a single-story at this time, the foundation and structural work should be such tbat in the future a second story could be added. The footings would allow the additional story. Moved by Commissioner Forman, 'seconded' by Comm(ssioner Rutherford and unanimously carried that the public hearing be closed. The Commissioners requested Mr. Forbes, Assistant City Engineer, to brief them on any improvements to be made to Live Oak in the future. He stated that restriping was to be made and left-turn bays painted at the various streets leading off to the north. This should help with the traffic problem. No additional signals were proposed at this time. Discussion ensued.. It was the general consensus that the plans as out- lined would be very compatible and would tie in with the residential property to the'north. This would also solve the problem'of the land- locked property. The suggestion was made that the subdivision be con- sidered before the C-O zoning on Live Oak so that the improvements would be in before any consideration was made for construction of buildings on the two lots facing the new street and Live Oak Ave. The Planning Director'stated that the type of development proposed is one that would be desired; that if such development did not occur witb~n a teasonable length of time it may then show that, the plan may have been at fault, because of some .inadequate plsns. Should this occur a re-evalua- tion should be made. The new street does not have to come off Live Oak Ave. if another access can be procured. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by'Commissioner Forman, that the zone change from R-3 and R-2 to some more restrictive zone, or to same less restrictive zone, as outlined in the staff report on properties located on the north side of Live Oak Ave, from Louise Ave. to about 400 feet west of Second Avenue, be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report hereinabove set forth. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Norton. publlc hearing was held' on the application of Mrs. Dorothy Stevens for a zone variance to permit 'the continued use of the property at 530 West LaS Tunas Drive as a children I s day nursery. the Planning Director presented an area map and designated the property May 22, 1962 Page Seven PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MarrON . . under consideration. The Acting Secretary read the staff report summarized as follows: The applicant has applied four different times for a variance and each time has received approval. In all of the previous actions the City Council sustained the Planning Commission's recommendations. Due to the locati on of the proposed use, on the periphery of a residential area and next to a neighborhood shopping center, the Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance application as submitted. A time period is not recommended because the facility appears to be located in the proper place for the present and foresee- able future. It is also the staff's understanding that the State law provides a limitation as to the maximum number of children permitted. However, no limitation is suggested. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for hearing of said application and called for those in favor to present their views. No one in the audience desired to be heard either in favor of or against said application. The Planning Director stated that this was a good location for such operation as it would act as a buffer from the commercial on the west to the residential properties on the east and south. The City Attorney stated to his knowledge there had been no complaints in the neighborhood and while a time limit has not been imposed it would be well perhaps to extend the time for an additional five year period so that if changes occurred in the area further consideration could be given at that time, also the state controls th'e number of children to be cared ~or so that the pres~nt regulation could be imposed. No one else desiring to be heard, it was moved by COmmissioner Michler seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried that the public hearing be closed. Discussion followed. This is the same property formerly operated by Mrs. 10 Guidice; that Mrs. Lo Guidice and Mrs, Stevens are one and the same person. If this operation were to become a nuisance the Commission could review this if the time limit were imposed rather than making it a permanent variance. ,~oved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that tne application of Mrs. Dorothy M. Stevens for a zone variance to permit the continued use of the property at 530 West Las Tunas Drive as a children's day nursery be recommended for approval with a five year limitation and a further limitation of twenty children, and subject to the staff report. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Norton May 22, 1962 Page Eight ZONE VARIANCE 410-418 West Huntington Dr. . . The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application of Robert Stevens for a zone variance and/or special use permit to allow the construction and operation of a convalescent home at 410-418 West Huntington Drive. The Planning Director exhibited a map and outlined the area under conSideration. The Acting Secretary presented the staff report setting forth much of the information contained in the application with the land use of surround- ing areas. A comparative table showing the characteristics of the three facilities now approved within the city was given showing thst it is apparent that this facility proposes to exceed the minimum off street parking requirements set up in the code but would provide less than the amount required by the other two. From the planning viewpoint this location seems to be appropriate for this type of use. It is near the hospital and church and also in the same area as the existing convalescent home. If' the Planning Commission approves this request the following conditions of approval are suggested: 1. That the use of the building be so restricted that no mental patients, alcholics or contagious disease cases be admitted and kept. 2. That the applicants record an irrevocable offer of dedication for 30 feet across the rear of the property for an easement for alley purposes. 3. That final plans be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. That grading and drainage plans be submitted and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. That water services shall meet with the standards set up in the Uniform Plumbing Code. 6. That all parking lot illumination shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing on said application and requested those in favor to present their case, There were no communications received. The elevations and plans of the building were exhibited and examined. Mr. Robert Stevens, 539 Cloverly Drive, with offices at 2304 Huntington Drive, San Marino, advised that he was the applicant and that he had with him his architect who was familiar with the project and would be in a position to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Stevens stated that the sole purpose of the construction was for pa- tients from hospitals, such as the -Methodist, etc.. who needed post oper- ative care but could not get the same in a residence. There would be nursing service, a doctor on call, 'and all facilities necessary for their care. This license for this type of construction had to come through the State Department .of Health and Welfare. He also stated that this was a c-o zone andthis type of use was not permitted in any zone. The property under consideration has considerable landscaping which they would try to save if possible, especially the large trees. They had provided May 22, 1962 Page Nine . . more than required parking and this is in an area near the hospital and also near the convalescent hotlle established some time ago. In his opinion, this was a better use for the property than to construct R-3 units. There would be no additional parking problem such as R-3 areas present and it would hsve a quiet, refined atmosphere. He felt the use was very compatible to the area. It was brought out that the convalescent home being constructed on Baldwin Ave. was for elderly people and would be a hotlle for them. It was the intent of the applicant to maintain this stru- cture on a post-operative care basis for all ages. He was agreeable to all the conditions imposed in the staff report. Mr. Jerry Hansen, Architect and Designer, stated he had worked closely with the government agencies in meeting their standards. He felt that in this area there was a need for such services. San Marino had none, and there were but four or five in the surrounding aress. Commissioner Forman asked the number of beds recommended for this type of facility. The State recommended three to every 1000 persons, snd about 4 or 5 months sgo the State took an exact count .or survey and the rstio was 3 to each 1000. No one else desired to be heard. Commissioner Forman ststed that from what he had heard, from an economic standpoint he questioned the advisibility of permitting more to cotlle into Arcadia. He had heard that a designer of convalescent homes had gone east in an effort, to build there as there was an over amount in California. He felt that people promoting such developments were doing it to make money and the Commission should take a further study to determine whether the growth of the City would determine the need for another such develop- ment. He felt some attempt should be made to d~termine what the ideal is for this type of community. Mr. Hansen stated that there is a booklet published by the State setting forth the number of such institutions and and the number of persons that could be accommodated. There were 34,000 beds in 1961 and there was a need of another 14,000. Of the existing facUities 21% were over 40 beds, which is needed to operate such a facility on a paying basis. . He claimed it was impractical today to build such a building with less than 50 beds. He felt that the majority of existing facilities were on their way out because of their size and number of persons that could be accommodated. There were a number in Los Angeles listed in the State report that were actually condemned, so that a need'did exist. There will be many people who have no place to go. So far as the proximity to the local hospital this would ,be on a 50-50 basis. There would be doctors who would find it convenient to visit their patients - long term patients - if they were locate.d near any place they visit daily. So far as disturbance to a neighborhood, there would be less than with an R-3 development with swimm- ing pool, etc. One could not find a more desirable buffer than this type of use. Usually patients desire a little activity around such a home, so that the activity of the race track would not hinder, but would not be so deSirable for R-3 use. The effect of the condemned places in Los Angeles do not affect this area. The chief concern of this Planning Commission isU there is a need for such inUthis locality. The figures presented were of a town more the size of Arcadia and hospital facilities maintained mere would be the basis for determining the deciSion. It was upon those factors that the first one was allowed. Many of the builders that went into this type of con- May 22, 1962 Page Ten " . . construction are now moving out of this area- this is not a business of building and selling convalescent homes ,for a profit or building for someone else. This is a private venture. Soem have ceased to exist in several cases because the business from their viewpoint is not as lucrative as it was. The Bureau of Hospitals practically makes it impossible for some of these people to continue on the basis that they have been. Regulations now govern convalescent hospitals as well as general hospitals. It will take some time even after the variance is granted to get the approval through the state departments. Sometimes it takes dozens of approvals before it is final. Mr. Stevens did make a survey of the facilities in this area that were available. San Marino has none. Monrovia had 1, Duarte has 1; South Pasadena has 1; In the area through which Huntington Drive passes this would be justified and Mr. Hansen has the whole area of San Gabriel spotted so that the facilities can be shown. This area is located within the least serviced in the valley. Commissioner Ferguson thought it important to consider the definition of the convalescent home being post operative rather than for senior citizens actually living there permanently. Commissioner Forman felt that there should not be a use allowed in this vicinity that would create a problem for the two that exist or for themselves in the future, depending upon what. the circumstances would be. This should be checked into prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. The Cliairman stated that he personally felt that it was up to the applicant to recognize in their own way the economic factor and that he would look upon it as a matter of zoning - something that is desir~ able in this particular location or not desirable. He felt the Commi- ssion should not judge the economic factor. HEARING CLOSED Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that the public hearing be closed. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: Commissioner Forman ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Norton The Chairman stated that he felt that a very fine explanation of the variance had been presented. From the appearance of the plot plan it would be a fine building. but there is some question as to whether this is an area ~o be developed ~nto this type of ~se. The Planning Director stated that one of the developers had made a study of the area. His economic analysis along this street - Huntington Drive - showed it was not desirable for offices, and not particularly desirable for apartments, being so close to the heavy traffic from the race track., From the size of the lot it could be cut into single-family lots, or included with the apartments to the rear. This is a very desirable type of unit for the property. May 22. 1962 Page Eleven MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. 367 MOTION RESOLUTION NO. 446 MOTION MOTION . . Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee and referred back to the Commission at the regular meeting of June 12. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler and Rutherford NOES: Commissioner Golisch ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Norton The Planning Commission considered ~ot Split No. 367 - Jacob Zook, et.al. 1011 South Fourth Ave. The rear part of this lot is proposed to be sold to the property at 315 Leland Way. This matter had been referred to Commissioners Ferguson, Michler and Forman. ,. The Acting Secretary read the staff report that if the split is approved a final map should be required; a covenant tha~ no structures will be constructed within the utility easement right of way. The Planning Department stated that there is no doubt that the newly created lot on Leland Way could use the additional five feet, but if this lot split were granted there would be little sense of having future subdivisions maintain a straight or even rear lot line boundary. The Department recommended that the lot split be denied. CommisSioner Ferguson stated that he had viewed of the property owners along' Fourth Avenue were to the rear lot lines on Leland Way it would be present conditions he would recommend denial of the property and if all to convey the five feet desirable but under the the reques t. Moved by CommiSSioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 367 - Jacob Zook, et.al. 1011 South Fourth Avenue be denied. The City Attorney requested permission to present his matters at this time due to the fact he had to leave the meeting because of the death of his mother-in-law. The Commission extended sympathy' and condolances to Mr. and Mrs. Nicklin in their bereavement. The City Attorney presented resolution No. 446 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9255.2.8 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE; CON- CERNING REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IN ZONE R-3. Moved by Commissioner Freguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman and unanimously csrried that the reading of the full body of the resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Michler" seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that resolution No. 446 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Rutherford May 22, 1962 Page Twelve .' RESOLUTION NO. 447 MOTION MOTION RESOLUTION NO. 448 MOTION MOTION RESOLUTION NO. 449 MOTION MOTION . . The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 447, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE REAR YARD SET!lACKREQUIREMENTS FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1833 EL VISTA CIRCLE IN SAID CITY. Moved by. Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 447 be waived. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that Resolution No. 447 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Norton The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 448, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE GITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ZONE R-3 TO ZONE C-2 ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DUARTE ROAD WEST OF BALDWIN AVENUE IN SAID CITY. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 448 be waived, Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that Resolution No. 448 'be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Gol1sch NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Norton The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 449, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A ZONE VARIANCE FOR A DAY NURSERY AT 530 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE IN SAID CITY. - . - ~ ..- Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of said resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that Resolution No. 449 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: May 22, 1962 Page Thirteen " LOT SPLIT NO. 368 MOTION TRACT NO. 22199 . . AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner.s Acker and Norton The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 368 ~ George M. Gilbert 51 Palm Drive, which had been referred to Commissioners Ferguson, Michler and Forman. The Acting Secretary presented the staff report. If the lot split were approved the following requirements should be imposed: 1. File a final map 2. Provide a sewer lateral to parcel 2 or deposit made to assure connection 3. Recreation fee of $25.00 4. Water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code 5. File a coyenant restricting the use of the land as a building site until access to a public street is obtained 6. Remove all structures from Parcel 2 7. Dedicate the northerly 1 ft. of parcel 2 to the City in fee to control access to a possible new street The Planning Department ,recommended that the lot split be denied. Commissioner Michler had checked the area and if this split were approved it would create a landlocked parcel of land. If there was a possibility of starting a subdivision he might be in favor but until a tentative tract was filed showing the division of the other lots, he was not in favor of this split. Discussion ensued. Two or three attempts have been made to subdivide the property without too much success. Mr. Gilbert has a buyer for the front parcel with the residence and he wants to retain the rear p()rtion. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried that lot split No. 368 be denied. The Planning CommiSSion considered Tentative map of Tract No. 22199, located approximately 884 feet north of Camino Real on the east side of First Avenue (1332 and 1406 S. First Avenue) creating 8 lots. The Acting Secretary presented the staff report to the effect that all of the lots appear t~ meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and exceed the 7500 sq. ft, area. All proposed lots are 75 ft. wide except lots 4 and 5 which meet this requirement at the 25 ft. front yard line. Lots 4 and 5 become key lots, and this type of arrangment usually causes the back yard with pools. etc. to be located within 3 feet of the house or living area of the adjoining lot. This is generally not beneficial to eitner property, The Department feels that this type of arrangement should be discouraged. It is suggested that the Commission adopt a-poliCY to guide developers in their lot arrangement, Such a policy statement could be as follows: "Any proposed subdivision with a cuI de sac street shall terminate with' a lot having a common rear line with the existing lot on the ~eveloped existing street or have sufficient area to permit open space of at least 25 feet from the location of the structure to the rear line of the lot adjoining. May 22, 1962 Page Fourteen .. . . " If the Commission approves this subdivision, the following conditions should be imposed: 1. A revised tentative may be submitted showing a lot arrangement complying with the Commission's policy with regards to key lots. 2. Dedicate the proposed street at 60 ft. instead of the 50 ft. plus 5 ft. planting easement as shown. 3. Remove all buildings or relocate those meeting the building code to comply with the yard requirements of the new lots. 4. Remove all trees from the street right of way 5. Provide all necessary utility easements at the rear property lines 6. Install all street improvements as required by the subdivision ordinance in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the Department of Public Works 7. Pay the following fees and deposits: " 2 steel pole street lights @ $115.00 $230.00 12 street trees @ 8.50 102.00 2 street name signs @ 35.00 70.00 8 lots recreation fee @ 25.00 200 . 00 Total $602.00 The Planning Director exhibited the map and outlined the boundaries showing the proposed location of structures to be erected. It was felt that some of the lots should be realigned so that the rear yards of Some of the lots on Greenfield Ave. would back up to the rear yards on the new street. He felt that a policy statement should be considered as outlined in the report. Discussion followed. It was the consenSuS that the map should be presented to the subdivision committee and the developer to see if the lot lines on several of the lots could be realigned to make a better plan. The developer, Mr. James Cecka, was present and stated that he had not seen the proposed realignment of the lots and that one of the problems was that some of the lots on Greenfield were permitted through lot splits rather than a subdiviSion. This created Some of the jogs appearing on the map. This prevented a uniform line. He was in favor of resubmitting it to the subdivision committee, and if this did develop it might be necessary to have the commission consider allowing a deviation of the setback line. This would be necessary if the lots were rearranged as the front would be rather narrow. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and unanimously carried that Tract No. 22199 be referred back to the subdivision committee and developer to work out a realignment of the lots and to report back to the Planning Commission at its meeting of June l~ 1962. The Planning Commission considered the final map of Tract No. 27027 located at the' southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Burnell Oaks continaing 9 lots, The staff report was presented, together with a map of the tract. This map substantially conforms with the approved tentative map and is recommended for approval. TRACT No. 27037 May 22, 1962 Page Fifteen ." .' MOTION PUBLIC PARTI- CIPATION REPORTS R-3 PARKING ADJOURNMENT . . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried that final map of Tract No. 27037 be recommended for final approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Rear line easements to be granted for overhead utilities 2. All street dediauions shall be improved as required by the subdivision ordinance according to plans and to grades satisfactory to the Director of Public Works 3. Pay the following fees and deposits: 3 steel street light poles 2 street name signs 16 street trees 9 lots recreation fee @ @ @ @ $115.00 35.00 8.50 25.00 $345.00 70.00 136.00 225.00 $ 776.00 4. Dedicate 1 foot lot at the east end of Sierra Oaks Drive to the City in fee. No one in the audience desired to be heard. The Planning Director stated the only report was on the Downtown area. Invitations had been sent out to eight planning consultant firms with a request that they submit proposals. The matter had been presented to the City Council and they were to appoint two members of the Council, together with the City Manager, Planning Director and two members from the Planning Commission as a committee to consider the proposals. He felt it was in order to make the appointments at this meeting so thst the names could be forwarded to the City Manager. The Chairman then appointed Commissioners Forman and Norton to be the representatives of the Planning Commission on the said committee. The Commission approved the 'recommendation-that when the resolution increasing the parking spaces in the R-3 areas is forwarded to the City Council that a request be made to adopt an emergency ordinance so that any contractors considering building units will know immediately of the increase in parking space. It was felt that this would be a beneficial move and remove many uncertainties now existing. There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 11:17 P.M. ~~~~ ACTING SECRETARY May 22, 1962 Page Sixteen