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