Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 24, 1962 . . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE VARIANCE 315 Le Roy Ave. . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 1962 The planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California met in regular session on July 24, 1962, at 8:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, with Chairman Forman presiding. The audience and Commission pledged allegiance to the flag. PREseNT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton, Parker, and Rutherford. A,BSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Jesse Balser Planning Director William Phelps Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes The minutes of the meeting July 10, 1962 were approved with the following corrections: under Election of Chairman, Commissioner Ferguson nominated Commissioner Norton; Page 4, motion: "moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch." The chairman announced that this was the time and place fixed for the hearing on the application of Elmer Bensen to construct a second Single-family residence at 315 Le Roy Avenue in zone R-l. STAFF REPORT: The subject property is in zone R-l. A second house is permitted in zone R-l if three conditions are met: 1. The rear part of the lot has been subdivided since 1949. 2. The lot area exceeds 18,750 sq. ft. 3. 25% of the lots in the block on the same side of the street have two or more dwellings. In this case conditions one and two between Holly Avenue and Ewell Lane Therefore, a second house cannot be unless a variance is granted. are met. However, 25% of the lots do not have two or more dwellings. constructed on the subject property o The land use survey conducted last year indicates that only one lot on the north side of Le Roy Avenue between Holly Avenue and Ewell Lane have a second dwelling unit. A map submitted by the applicant indicates three of the thirteen lots or twenty-three percent have two dwellings. In both cases however, this lot would not qualify as meeting the code requirements. The subject property is 75 feet by 275 feet and has an area exceeding 20,000 square feet. Most all the property in that part of the city has lots the same size or larger. The Planning Department cannot justify recommending that the Commission approve this application because it cannot find any unusual extraordinary July 24, 1962 Pal!.e One PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION ZOOE VARIANCE 225 Colorado Place . . circumstances which make this lot different than others in the same area and zone. Therefore, the department recommends that the application not be approved. COMMUNICATIONS: No communications had been received by the department. PROPONENTS: Roland Townsend, 321 Le Roy Avenue Msry J. Lermer, 325 Le Roy Avenue R. J. Dobson, 333 Le Roy Avenue Each spoke in favor of the granting of the variance stating that the present two-story house is situated to the rear of the property. The front is planted with trees, and necessitates disking the weeds each year which creates considerable dus t . Many of the children in the , neighborhood play in the front yard creating more dust. A house built on the front of the lot would enhance the area and increase the value of the property as weli as add additional income for the owners. Some of the property in this area had been purchased with the idea of building a second house for income purposes. A subdivision had been developed at the rear of the property so that' further development could not be contem- plated. It was their opinion that so long as all the neighbors in the area were in favor of the construction of the second house, the application should be recommended for approval. OI'PONENTS: No one desired to be heard oppos~ng the application. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, that the public hearing be closed. Said motion was unani~ously carried. The Commissioners were of the opinion that to maintain this area as a single-family dwelling, or R-l, no additional construction should be permitted changing it to R-2 use with the one dwelling being used as a rental unit. It is the desire of the Commission to keep the R-I zone as a single-family. So long as the percentage is twenty-three percent, to allow construction of a house on the front of this lot, would then open the way for other lots in the area to build a second house without applying for a variance. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and unani- mously carried that the application of Elmer Bensen to construct a single- family residence at 315 Le Roy ~venue..~n zone R-l be recommended for denial. The public hearing on subject matter was closed July 10, 1962, and referred to the Zoning Committee for further consideration. . COMMUNICATIONS : Three communications had been received by the Planning Department. 1. Motel 6, Santa Barbara requesting to meet'with the Zoning Committee at their convenience within the next two weeks prior to the meeting of July 24" 1962, and secondly to thank the Commission for the courtesy extended them. July 24, 1962 Page Two . . II. Communication from the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce signed by S. R. Tanner, President. The letter was being forwarded at the request of several members of the Chamber of Commerce who were concerned over the application of Motel 6 to have a zone change on Colorado Place. This letter requested a deferral on a decision until after the Community Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce had had an opportunity to make a study of the situation and submit its recommendation for action to the Board of Directors. The next Board meeting is scheduled for August 16, 1962. Specifically, the concern of the chamber members seem to be centered on the following points: 1. Whether this type of development is suitable for Arcadia. It is reported that the Motel 6 constructed in Santa Barbara. is of an inexpensive type and not in keeping with the high standards associated with those in Arcadia. 2. Whether there is a need for additional motel units particularly at this location. 3. Whether there might'be other uses for the property which would be more desirable in the long range plans of this community. The committee would be willing to develop any informationnec- essary_, '01': advisable to give proper consideration to all parties involved. The letter was signed by S. R. Tanner, President, Arcadia Chamber of COmmerce, with a copy having been forwarded to Mr. Arnold Sundali, Chair- man, Community Development Committee. III. A communication from Santa Anita Church of Religious Science signed by the Chairman of the Building Committee and the Vice President, Board of Trustees stating their continued interest in the acquisition of the approximate two acres of land adjoining the southern boundary of their present church property. Mr. E. L. Phillips advised the City Council at ,tile July 17 meeting of the church interest in the described property. Tlie action of the Board of Trustees meeting July 22 the Santa Anita Church of Religious Science was autnorized to negotiate with regard to the acquisition of said property provided it would be available. Commissioner Ferguson orally reportea on the meeting of the Zoning Committee and stated that they were concerned about two matters' basically: (1) the land itself in the planning stage and; (2) the application made for the use of this land, from a planning standpoint. The location of this property is a compatible use as it is surrounded on two sides bY similar occupancy. It could not be denied that this was not a use-,compatible with the area. Tne concern of the Committee 'was the type of operation or type of plan to be developed for'the property. Tne'Coaimittee was recotn1l1end1ng a "reluctant" approval of the zone variance application.' They'were 'hopeful of getting a little better usage from a planning standpoint but they could'see no reason why it should not-be approved. Whether or not the concern could be that there are too many similar businesses in Arcadia is not of itself a planning matter. CommiSSioner Michler expresseu concern over the type of motel to be designed for the area inasmuch as he had attenaed public meetings in Los Angeles in connection with the proposed Bed 'Tax Ordinance. He also' stated that the cOllDDunication had been received that tne Churcn of Religious Science still wanted to obtain the property for church purposes. He felt that the Commission should defer action on this matter until the next regular meeting So that they could determine'a'll factors' and be sure that the action taken be the best for the community as a whole. July 24, 1962 Page Three . . MOTION Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and un~nimouslycarried that the decision on the zone variance for a motel at 2?5 Colorado Place be deferred until the next regular meeting of August 14. This date will be within the time limit prescribed by the code allowing thirty-five days after the closing of the public hearing. During this time information could be obtained from the Committee from the Chamber of Commerce together with any additional information from the applicant and other interested parties. Mr. Roger DeYoung, owner of the property, upon being questioned by the Commission, stated that he had had knowledge of the interest of the church for the past year or so. Mr. DeYoung stated that no formal proposal had been submitted by the church. The chairman stated that in all public hearings it was the intent to obtain all in~ormation possible. That shQuld a matter go to Council and new information or new evidence was needed or was brought up it had been a practice to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further study. In this case it would be advisable to get all facts before the Commission so that when a decision is rendered a complete study would have been made and submitted to the City Council along with the recommendation. Mr. Arthur Hansel, 112 Victoria, Santa Barbara, stated in answer to the type of development that is proposed for this property, that he would refer the Commission to one unit in this chain of motels that has already been con- structed in Santa Barbara. The company proposed to keep high standards and occupy good areas. Both men have enjoyed high reputations for the type work that they have done.in home building and also in apartment type houses. He felt that the problem that had arisen was because Mr. Green and Mr. Becker had attempted to do something a little different from the usual type in the motel business in the past years. Their plan is to build a very attractive building which they have developed after long years of study and planning. The community of Santa Barbara is just as anxious to maintain high standards as is this area. The type of development there is a credit to the community. He had looked over the code of the City of Arcadia and stated all require- ments would be met that his clients would have a high-class motel. He felt that it was unfair to the prospective buyer and to the applicant to consider an offer of sale by some other person; that this should not be a matter of consideration in this hearing. They have an option on the property at this time and fully intend to exercise that option. Mr. Walter Mueller of the Westerner requested permission to present a summary of a newspaper clipping of July 13 from the Santa Barbara area wherein the matter of the motel development there showed that all rooms would be $6.00. The type of motel, according to the newspaper article, would be a sub- standard development here. Mr. Mueller had made a trip to Santa Barbara to look at the motel in operation and to his way of thinking did not find it as represented at this hearing. Quoting from the newspaper, he said, "the motel is being designed of modest size with one or two double beds in each unit and private bath with stall shower;. a clothes rack instead of a closet and little furniture. There will be no telephones, or televisions; that some of the motels will. have swimming pools. They felt that this is the ty~e of accomodatipns needed by most families in traveling. So that a family of four may rent a room for $6.00. They felt that this may cause a revolution in the west but anticipated it would have a great future." A request was made by the 'applicant to attend the meeting of the Committee. inasmuch as so much testimony'had been taken and new evidence may come before the Committee it was decided that a full meeting of the Planning Commission should be held to study the matter prior to the meeting of August 14. July 24, 1962 Page Four APPEAL OF MODIFICATION DECISION 936 W. Duarte Road MonON TRACT NO. 24140 . . Decision on the appeal from the modification committee decision was witheld on this matter pending the report from the Zoning Committee. This matter had been heard July 10 and the public hearing closed. COMMUNICATION: A communication was received from B. M. McKinney of the Alert Construction Company of Baldwin Park to the effect that the request for a revised plot plan was being submitted showing the removal of the present garage permitting a full width driveway. They were still requesting the mod~fication from the building code for the 28 feet front setback and one and a half car spaces per dwelling unit. The communication stated that the garage had been removed providing a driveway of more that 20 feet. They also advised that they were agreeable to a provision which require them to remove or remodel the existing house to conform to the setback requiremtns at the time of the widening of Duarte Road on the south side and the use of the one and a half parking spaces instead of two per unit. The original application for building permit was submitted several days prior to the deadline of Tuesday, June 19 and that they had originally been given the date of June 26 as a deadline. At that time their plans conformed to all requirements then existing. But due to-the work load of the City Hall, they were unable to obtain a permit. They further requested that the appeal be granted On the basis that the existing situation is relatively new, and that they will move or remodel the house upon widening of Duarte Road on the south side. The planning Director reviewed briefly the pertinent facts brought out in the public hearing, and also presented the' revised plot plan showing the removal of the garage and the conforming driveway. He felt however, that the correction in the plans had in no way affected the determining factor of off-street parking for which an emergency ordinance had been adopted. It was his opinion the decision of the Modification Committee should be sus- tained. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton and unani- mously carried that the decision of the Modification Committee pertaining to the application of B. M. McKinney for property at 936 West Duarte Road be sustained. The Plann~ng Commission considered the final map of the tract No. 24140 located betweeI} Hol~y,. E~ Monte, Norman and Lemon Avenues. One of the conditions of the approval is concerned with the establishment of a trust. Notice of the public hearing had been sent to each of the parties involved. STAFF REPORT, The tract is located" on Sharon Road between El Monte Avenue and Holly Avenue and contains 36 lots. The map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map approved by the Commission, January 23, 1962. One of the ,conditions of approval stipulated by tqe Planning Connnission and the City 90uncll, was that the sub~ivider establish a trust adjacent to the property west of lot 21 and east of.lot 361 or deed the one foot strips to the city in fee. The subdivider has elected to establish a trust: The purpose of the trust is to spread the cost of improvements among those properties which are not. ii' part of the subdivision but woul.d receive some benefit" from the improvements. A notice of public hearing has been sent to each of' the properties' affected by the trust. A report of the Department of Public Works shows the applicable costs ror each of the properties. The Planning Depart- ment recommends that the tract be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide all necessary .rear line utility.easements. 2. Remove all buildings within the tract and all trees from July 24, 1962 Page Five . . the street right of way prior to signing the final map or post a bond to insure compliance. 3. Install all street improvements including drainage facilities required by the Subidivision Ordinance and Public Works Department in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 4. Pay the following fees and deposits: 15 steel street light posts @ $135.00 76 street trees @ $8.50 3 street name signs @ $35.00 36 lots recreation fee @ $25.00 $2,025.00 646.00 105.00 900.00 Total $3,676.00 5. Authorize the subdivider to establish a trust in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 2512. 6. Tentative approval by City Council of this subdivision included a condition that the subdivider deposit suffi- cient funds to reconstruct the curb and parkway of the westerly end of this subdivision at such time as the north one half of the street is dedicated and improved. It is recommended that this condition be modified and that the Planning Commission go on record that the expense of reconstructing curb and parkway on the south side of Sharon Road, be made a condition of the opening and improving the north half of the street. The Assistant City Engineer explained the benefit of the trust and why provisions had been made that such trust may .be set up for the future benefit of those properties fronting a new street. He explained the costs as submitted by the developer, which had been analyzed by the Public Works' Department relative to the establishment of a trust adjacent to Sharon Road at Holly Avenue and El Monte Avenue. The method used to compute an equitable of subdivision expenses which will be a they receive access to the new street. be placed in trust is as follows: amount was to pro rate those items benefit to adjacent property when The compliations for each parcel to Parcel A rear of lot #22, Tract No. 10928 $ 55.79 Parcel B rear of lot #23, Tract No. 10928 678.63 Parcel C rear of lot #24. Tract No. 10928 678.63 Parcel D rear of lot #25, Tract No. 10928 678.63 Parcel E rear of lot #42! Tract No. 10928 149.34 A computation of the trust fund' for Tract No. 24140, had been submitted to each of the commissioners and had been mailed to each of the parties interested which disclosed the various items to be considered in computing the amount sllocated ag.ainst each property'.- tl\.is inCluaea street lights, street name signs; water main line and hydrants, sewer main.line and manholes, street trees, administration overhead, engineering etc. Some of the lots would not \ July 24, 1962 Page Six . . be affected by Some of the items which would account for the difference in amount. Amount for street trees had been assessed against some lots and not against others because in the future when lot splits are created on the lots not now paying for street trees, one of the conditions of the lot split would be that street trees be provided. It was particularly brought out that this trust is placed against the properties in the event the owners of the adjoin- ing properties desire to create new lots in ,the future that they pay their proportionate share of the expenses for the construction of the new street. If such an election is not made, the costs are assessed bearing interest at the rate of 6%. This trust is placed with a title company and remains there for twenty years. If at that time the people haVe not seen fit to take advantage cif such a trust., a one foot in fee is then dedicated to the city to control access to the new street. Mr. Alfred Allen, 1045 West Huntington Drive, was concerned with the amount of the trust in respect to Parcel E. It was his contention that at no time would the Commission allow a lot split to be created on a lot fronting El Monte Avenue. That if Parcel E should desire at some future time to create an additional lot on the rear of the property, such frontage would be on the new street and as a result of this the cost should be proportionate. Mr. Allen felt diat there was a basic difference on philospphy. If a lot fronting on El Monte were created, it would not be a usable lot and therefore, street .frontage is provided on the new street and the ground provided for it, would be applicable to this trust. In filing tentative map some properties were impossible to obtain to face on a new street. And where the probable amount of land to be developed was purchased or an option taken for 180 feet it was necessary on the lot facing EI Monte to purchase 200 feet so that this .1 0 t might have a satIsfactory access. Because of this Lot 42 would not be disturbed. As a result 18 feet was actually added to this property. The street improvements will be con- structed in front of Lot 42 and Mr. Allen contended that the cost should be pro rated for the construction of such improvements, and should be born equally. Further that if a lot split were considered on this particular parcel it would be substandard'in that it would be only 118 feet in depth in R-O tone. Having given this property 18 feet it woUld follow that it ~hou~d pay its share of the improvements.' He felt' it was not equitable for the subdividers to' create a standard lot and the owner of that lot not pay hi~ ~rop<;,rtionate share of the costs for the -construction' or the improvements. Mr. ,Allen was asked, '~ow long it would be before the remaining properties would cleve lop, so ,that the half street would. become a full 36 feet paved area?" He stated that at the present time that there was one stumbling block. One lot, had a barn to the extreme rear and the owner of the property raised horses,'and'was'not willing to sell' off his portion at this time. Dr. James QuIsenberry, Jr:. 340 West. Norman, stated that it was on his property that hOlOses" ~ere b~~ng raised. He.' stated thai: no negotiations had been had with ~~mrela~ive ~o ~he sal~ 9( his property. "Dr. Quisenberry was concerned ~~th havi~gjust built his ~arn last 'year within 75 feet of the rear or his property. What would happen"to tne'privilege he has of having the horses at .t~is, location when the new street is constructed? .. . - . ... .. . - ~ ~~e ~1~6nin$,Director stated that were Dr. Quisenberry not to have horses on the pr<;,perty for a period of ninety days, he'would not be permitted to have horses, except to keep them 100 feet from any inhabited area. . f - - - . ~ Mr. charles L. Guinn~ 370 West Norman, Lot 23,"s~ated that he was repre- senting,~im~e~f, Frank H~yneS and Louis 'H. McCarren. Mr. Guinn stated this Wl!~ ,th!, , fiJ;:st k~owledge he and one or two others had of the development of thehProperty and the trust. to be placed against it. They had been in touch wit Mr, Allen to determine the fUll,costs and to determine just how the street will be built. He was in favor of a deferral of the trust so that the three parties and possibly Dr. Quisenberry could get together to July 24, 1962 Page Seven . . MOTION LOT SPLITS . . determine if some arrangement could not be made whereby a full street could be cons.tructed. The half street would be a hardship on any of the three lots even if they were to sell their lots. It waa concluded that the matter could be continued until the next regular Planning Commission meeting. In the meantime the developer and the property owners could get together' and a meeting could be held with the Subdivision Committee to work out any details-that were required. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by CommiSSioner Golisch that the public hearing be closed and that the matter be referred to the Subdivision Committee. Said motion was carried, on the following roll call: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Norton, parker and Rutherford. NOES: Commissioner Michler ABSENT: None A meeting was scheduled for Thursday night, July 26, at 7;30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at which time the Subdivision Committee together with the interested property owners., the developer and the Planning Director would meet to further consider this matter. The Planning Commission considered lot split No. 373, Edna M. Perkinson, 1301 Mayflower Avenue. STAFF REPORT: If this lot split is approved, the following conditions should be imposed: 1. File a final map 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel NO.,l 3. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 4. provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing code. This split proposes lots 51 feet and 51.75 feet wide. This same split request has'been before i:he Commission on three occasions. Namely, November 26, 1957;'January 28, 1958, and January 21, 1961. The Commission had denied the request each time'because of the narrow width of the lots. The conditions have not changed at this time. And because of the narrow width of the lots, the Planning Department again recommends denial of the application. Alfred Allen, the ageni:' for "the property owner stated that this lot nad been on the market for"several years' at a reasonalile"price;'that in his'opinion that when property was offered ata"reasonable price and no one would pur- chase it, some development or some assistance should be given the area in order to develop'it. He proposed"to construct two very fine homes in the price range of $25,000 each:' lie personally liad made an inspection of the entire area and had talked with property owners obtaining their opinions as to whether or not the p~operty should be divided'into 50 foot lots. They were 'all in favor of such' a'split, feeling it would enhance the area because ,this,lot had been vacantJ()r ye!,:rs. It was the opinion of the Commisaion that this property was in' an area of July 24, 1962 Page Eight MOTION PUBLIC PAaTICIPATION LUTHERAN CHURCH VAaIANCE ~ EXTENSION OF TIME MOTION PI.AN,NING CONSULTANTS DOWNTOWN AREA . . wider lots and the widths proposed do not conform to the requirements set out in the subdivision ordinance. It is realized that there are many substandard or non-conforming lots within the city. But the Commission did not feel that new substandard lots should be created. The Commission agreed t~at the arguments proposed in favor of creating these lots, were well taken. But the same arguments could be applied to many other lots within the city. The Chairman stated that in the past decisions the general area of the ,neighborhood had been used more or less to determine whether or not a lot smaller than that proposed by the subdivision ordinance could be created. In this particular area most of the lots adjoining are wide lots. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and unani- mously carried that Lot Split No. 373, Edna M. Perkinson of 1301 Mayflower Avenue, be denied. Mrs. Elmer Bensen, whose variance for a second house, at 315 Le Roy Avenue was considered and recommended for denial, requested permission of the Commission to determine why the variance was denied, inasmuch as the entire neighborhood was in favor of construction of the house in the front which would enhance the beauty of the area and increase the values. She was informed by the Commission that to allow a second house in this area would open up the entire block for consideration of R-2 uses in an R-l zone. Previous Commissions as well as the present Commission have attempted to prevent mixed zones. With twp houses on a lot, invariably one ends up as a rental. This particular area. is prepondantly an R-l area. COMMUNICATION: A communication had been received from the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church relative to the zone variance approved for the northwest corner of Santa Anita and Foothill Blvd. .'The variance will expire on August 20. The communication stated that they will'be ready to break ground this 'fall, and did not desire their variance to expire. They were therefore, requesting that the Commission grant an extension of 6 months in which to complete the construction of the church on this property. The basis for the request was that it had taken longer to complete the plans and arrange their financing than anticipated. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and unani- mously carried that the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church be granted an extension of their variance which will expire August 20, 1962 for an additional 6 months period. The Planning Director advised that a contract had been executed with Wilsey, Ham and Blair to commence studies for the downtown area. Correspondence had been received fr.om them whi'ch expressed a 'suggestion that the Commission may wish to consider the desirability or feasibility of designating a holding classification on the' properties Within the area under study. A period of twelve months was suggested. It might be appropriate now to consider the classification of the area as a planned development area wherein ~ll construction is subject to the approval of the Planning Commission or othertolise conditionally approved. The Planning Director' stated that the affect of this was to exercise greater control than the present code permits. Mr. Phelps further stated that if it were the desire of the Commission a meeting could be called with'the City Attorney and the consultants to see what legal steps would be required. Councilman Balser ~tated that the city has expressed a desire to withold any development in this area until such time as the consultants have completed their plan. July 24, 1962 Page Nine .... . MEaTING WITH TEMPLE CITY PLANNING CCJtolMISSION ADJOURNMENT . . \ The Commission was unanimous in its opinion, that the procedure necessary to further the request of the planning consultants. should be worked out. The Chairman reported a very satisfactory meeting had been held with the Temple City Planning Commission on Thursday, July 19, at the Embers in . Arcadia. This type of meeting proved very successful. It had been brought out that some years ago a similar meeting had been held with Monrovia and it was the concensus such a meeting should again be held particularly since the present study area of Downtown abuts the Monrovia City line, and should the plan extend into the Monrovia area they should be aware of the fact. The Planning Director was advised that such a meeting would be advantageous and suggested that he arrange such a meeting and notify the Commissioners. There being no further business to come before the Commission, .the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ?Y~~ WILLIAM PHELPS Secretary July 24, 1962 Page Ten