Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 14, 1962 ,- ' PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ;;/ ZONE VARIANCE 225 Colorado Place Motel 6 , . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION, ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 1962 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, regular session on August 14, 1962, in the Council Chamber City Hall, with Vice Chairman Ferguson presiding. met in of the Pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Ferguson. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Parker ABSENT: Commissioner Forman OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Jesse Balser City Attorney James Nicklin Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz Planning Director William Phelps The zone variance on the property located at 225 Colorado Place to allow the construction of a motel was again before the Commission for final decision. Commissioners Forman and Norton had visited the completed structures in Santa Barbara referred to in previous meetings. A communication was forwarded to each Commissioner by Chairman Forman which was summarized as follows: The reputation of the two men - Mr. Green and Mr. Becker, was good in the building profession. They had built many fine homes in the Santa Barbara area ranging from $30,000 to $75,000 and had done some successful tract work in the Lompoc area. The concept in hotel con- struction was different. Each would have no kitchen nor restaurant facilities. Also there would be no bar. All rooms were adapted for family type occupancy and would be $6,.00 per night. The physical inspection brought many areas of economy in both construction and in maintenance. The rooms were small but not overly so. Equipment was sparse but all that was needed for a touring family or couple. The deSign of the building was simple and would lend itself to the area under consideration. The economic future of this type of motel or any other due to the impact of the freeway is an unknown factor, but from a planning position, this motel could fit into the area and if the proposed plan is carried out the anticipated hardship on other owners in the area may not materialize. A communication from the Chamber of Commerce was presented advising the Commission of the results of a study made by a committee of the Chamber. The following recommendations were made: 1. The granting of a variance for this type of land use appears to be in order as it will be similar to the use of other properties in the immediate area. August 14, 1962 Page One . . 2. The type of improvement proposed, however, does not appear to be compatible with those in the immediate area, i.e., a) The size and appearance of the rooms, currently in use by this chain, are below thELstandards that have already been established in this area. b) Existing installations provide for la!ldscaping and gardens to provide a "Garden Type" motel. (This requires the use of a substantial portion of the land to plantings; such as lawns, trees, shrubs, and flowers-.) This "Garden Type" appearance is compatible with Arcadia's beautification standards. The proposed use of almost the entire parcel for structure and macadam surfaced parking eliminates the possibility of the "Garden Type" concept. 3. It is felt the installation of the improvement, as proposed, would not be to the best interest of the City of Arcadia as it does not meet the standards of the adjacent properties nor does it meet the standards the City of Arcadia continually strives for. RECOMMENDATION : The Chamber of Commerce urges the Planning Commission and City Council to deny the application 'as presented; further that firm position be taken that any hotel or motel improvement constructed thereon be of the "Garden Type" with ample plantings and garden areas to assist in the continued upgrading of the City of Arcadia. Also that any plan that might be favorably considered include a ratio of number of units to square footage of land involved comparable with other motels or hotels in the area, and that a ratio of landscaped area to the total land area involved also be comparable with these same existing installations. Commissioner'Michler was concerned-about the type of motel. He did not want to see Arcadia become conjested with something not comparable to the type of development that is being upheld for the City. He was concerned as to the effects this would have on the area in time to come. Commissioner Norton stated, in his opinion this would be a type of development that would encourage tourists. The place would be well run with high type employees. The Santa Barbara motel was of contempo- rary design and was spotless. The construction materials were not inferior and the type of people dealt with are of the finest. This is a new concept of motels for Arcadia and that there were many travelers who would just desire rooms,. The surrounding facilities would provide meals, etc. This could bring considerable money into the area. Commissioner Parker felt a tourist would rather occupy a motel with eating facilities. Commissioner Ferguson felt the property was zoned for such use. The only question in his mind was the type to be constructed. He was concerned with whether or not it would affec~ the appearance of the general area. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch that the zone variance application to allow the construction of a motel at 225 Colorado Place be recommended for approval. August 14, 1962 Page Two TRACT NO. 27508 TRACT NO. 27186 FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 24140 FINAL MAP MOTION . . Roll Call: AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Norton, Ferguson NOES: Commissioners Michler, Parker , The motion failed because of a lack of a majority vote. Therefore, the matter will be forwarded to the City Council without recommendation. The Planning Commission considered tentative tract No. 27508" located south of Duarte Road, and west of Lyndon Way and provides for the extension of Lyndon Way, terminating in a cul-de-sac, c~eating four lots. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the tract be approved subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report of August 14, 1962. This matter was referred to the Subdivision Committee. The Planning Director stated that the developer had requested a continuation of this matter so that a trust can be set up and a public hearing held. The Commission deferred action until the amount of a trust is determined. The Planning Commission again considered Tract No. 24140 which was continued from the previous meeting in order to allow further negoti- ations be.tween property owners not in the tract to provide a full street rather than the half street as proposed. The question of the amount of money of the trust was further considered. Mr. Alfred Allen, the developer, advised that progress was being made with the property owners to include the four properties on the west end of the tract in this subdivision, or to include enough property to construct 'a full width street instead of the half street as approved. He was much concerned over the amount of the trust proposed for the lot abutting El Monte Avenue. He stated that a lot split would not be granted allowing a new house to front on EI Monte. He is required to provide sewers, water, etc. from Sharon Road and had to purchase property from the owner to the south to construct the full width street. This property owner should pay his full share of the trust taking into consideration benefit accruing due to fronting on the new street. It was agreed that entrance to a newly created lot no doubt would be on El Monte Avenue, but the lo~ would benefit fronting on Sharon Road. The Director of Public Works stated that much precedence had been established for the approach given this trust. One is On the extension of Magna Vista on Le Roy Avenue. He felt that'the property owner on El Monte did not have to have Sharon Road to provide egress or ingress to his property. Therefore, even though Sharon Road would be of some benefit such benefit should not be assessed to the property. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and unanimously carried, that the final map of Tract No. 24140 be recom- mended for approval, subject to the staff recommendations and the trust set forth against Lot 42, with the ~xception that the developer to recap the continued expense of the trust; and that the developer recap the cost of the sewer lateral provided for this lot on Sharon Road. August 14, 1962 Page Three LOT SPLIT NO. 374 MOTION LOT ~ PLIT NO. 375 MOTION OFF STREET PARKING ZONER-); . . The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 374 located at 2328 and 2334 South Second Avenue for property belonging to Donald.A Brown of 1715 Lee Avenue. This propert.y was subdivided as Lots 10 and 11 of Tract No. 12693. When the improvements were constructed the \louse was placed in such a manner that each lot could not be developed separately; therefore, the applicant is requesting 10 feet to be taken from lot 10 and made a part of Lot 11. The Planning Department recommended the split be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map. 2. Provide a sewer lateral to parcel two. 3. Dedicate 12 feet of lot 10 and 11 for the widening of Second Avenue. 4. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00. 5. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 374 - Donald A. Brown - for property located at 2328 - 2334 South Second Avenue be approved sub- ject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 375, Lillian B. Hawkins, 1203 South Second Avenue. If the split is approved the follow1.ng conditions should be i~posed: 1. File a final map. 2. Provide a sewer lateral to parcel two. 3. Dedicate 12 feet for the widening of Second Avenue. 4. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00. 5. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code. 6. Remove the chicken house from both parcels. The Planning Director stated this lot split showed the effect that improper distribution of cul-de-sac streets have on the future development of large lots. - - Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 375 be approved subject to the conditions outlined the the staff report. The Planning Director advised that at the present time required off- street ,parking is not permitted in front yards in Zone R-3. However, an R-3 development may uSe the front yard for additional parking, Le. parking ,spaces which are in excess of those required by ordinance. This matter should be reviewed at the same time the Zoning Committee August 14, 1962 Page Four EXTENSION OF TIME AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH MOTION NURSERY SCHOOL . . is evaluating apartment unit size and permitted lot coverage in Zone R-3. At this point Commissioner Michler was excused from the meeting - 10: 25 P.M. This matter was referred to the Zoning Committee to be studied along with the other requirements in the R-3 zone. The Commission reiter- ated its position of expediting this study as quickly as possible. A communication was received from Anderson, Adams and Bacon, attorneys representing the American Church, requesting an extension of time of six months on the variance for a church to be located at 110-118 West Duarte Road. Reverend W. F. Danneman stated that plans were well under way and it was their intantion to break ground sometime in January. He stated construction would be completed within six months after ground-breaking. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried, that the American Lutheran Church be granted an extension of time of sIx months from August 20, 1962, on the variance for a church at 110-118 West Duarte Road. The Planning Director requested the Commission to determine whether a nursery school is a commercial school and thereby permitted in Zone C-2 or whether it is not a lis'ted use in any zoning district and therefore, can only be permitted by a variance. A nursery school in this case being an establishment for pre-school age children. Mr. and Mrs. Ba1abanoff who want to establish another nursery school in Arcadia and have purchased property at Huntington Drive and Baldwin which is in Zone C-2 for this purpose. From a planning viewpoint a nursery school is similar in function to an elementary school and the locational criteria of elementary school should prevail. On the other hand, a nursery school is a commercial operation and, therefore, a commercial school. Commercial schools are permitted in Zone C-2. RE~OMME,NDATION : The Planning Department recommends that a nursery school not be interpreted.in the strict legal sense as one could logicaUy do by referring to the code but rather that it be an unlisted use and subject to a variance. In this manner these facilities' which the community needs could be located with more control to insure that their function does not unduly interfere with the adjoining properties wh:ther they be residential or commercial. Mr. and Mrs. Balabanoff owners of the Moore School on Second Avenue, stated an interpretati~n was needed inasmuch as they had purchased property on Huntington Drive for th: purpose of o~en~ng a new school. The City Attorney stated that if the school were to be in a special use more control could be exercised as an investigation would be made and requirements imposed. This type of control would act as a "safety valve". The Commission was unanimous in its decision that a nursery school should be classified as a special use, rather than as a commercial school. August 14, 1962 Page Five . . . MOTION RESOLUTION NO. 455 MOTION MOTION ROLL CALL RESOLUTION NO. 456 MOTION MOTION ROLL CALL ADJOURNMENT . . Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried that the City Attorney be instructed to institute proceedings to amend the Municipal Code to clarify and define specifi- cally nursery schools as a special use. The City Attorney presented resolution No. 455 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNIN:; COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE LOT AT 315 LE ROY AVENUE. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of said reso- lution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton that Resolution No. 455 be adopted. AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Norton, Parker and Ferguson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Forman and Michler The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 456 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE FRONT YARD SET- BACK REQUIREMENTS AND DRIVEWAY RE- QUIREMENTS FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 936 WEST DUARTE ROAD. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 456 be waived. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton, that Resolution No. 456 be adopted. AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Norton, Parker and Ferguson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Forman and Michler The Secretary was instructed to forward a letter to Commissioner Rutherford expressing the Commission's appreciation for his service to _ the City. There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. ~~~ Secretary Augiist 14, 1962 Page Six