Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 25, 1962 . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION, ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING September 25, 1962 The Planning Commission ,af the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular session on September 25, 1962, at 8:00 o'c1oc;, P.M., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, with Chairman Forman presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton and Parker. ABSENT: Commissioner Michler OTHERS PRESENT: Cauncilman Jesse Balser City Attorney James A. Nicklin Planning Director Williom Phelps City Planner Ernest Mayer, Jr., and Assistont City Engineer Frank Forbes MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held September II, 1962 were opproved as written and mailed. PU8L1C The Chairman opened the public heoring and coiled for the staff report. HEARING INTRODUCTION: NURSERY SCHOOLS On August 14, 1962 the Commission determined that the item "Commercial Schools" listed as 0 permitted use in Zone C-2 did not include nursery schools. This some determination was olso made by the City Council several weei<s later. By these actions it wos officially decided that nursery schools are not a listed permissible use in any zoning district in the City of Arcadia. At the time the Commission considered this question they also decided to hold public hearings ta determine if nursery schools should be classified in the Zoning Ordinance as a "Special Use". If this action were taken nursery schools VI:) uld be permitted in the City provided the appl ication for a special use permit was approved by the Commission. The procedures for filing and processing a special use permit opplication ore identical to those for a varionce, i.e., fee of $2~.00, public hearing by the Commission, appeal rights to the Council, etc. Conditions of approval may be imposed on a special use permit in the same monner as they are placed on a variance. This report reviews the general characteristics of the existing nursery schools presently in the city, and the extent of the control exercised by the State. From September 25, 1962 Page One e. . this data and other still to be received some bosic stondards can be identified which could be incorporated os a part of the ordinance of approved as a policy which the Commission would apply in considering future nursery school applications. In either case the development of minimum standards would not preclude adding further con- ditions of approval as specific special use applications are considered by the Commission. GENERAL CHARACTE RISTICS There ore four nursery schools now in operotion in the City. They are locoted at 1625 South Second Ave; 530 Las Tunas Drive, 1111 Okobojii and 1511 South Tenth Avenue. The nursery sch'ool at 1111 Okoboj ii is in Zone R-3. The others are in Zone R-I. Two are non-conforming uses and two are permitted by variances. The lot size of the existing facilities range from 69{)0 sq. ft. to 26,700 sq. ft. with the average being about 17,000 sq. ft. All have been in operation for ten yeors or more. The Arcadio Cooperative Nursery is the only non-profit organizotion. The ages of the children are from two to six years. STATE CONTROL Nursery schools are controlled by the State of California Department of Social Wel-, fare administers a more definitive set of regulations to regulate nursery school operations. These regulotions ore concerned with the management of the facility, the heolth and sofety of the children and prescribe minimum space standords for the indoor and outdoor a4tiv i ties of the ch i Idren. Minimum Space Stondords State Regulations 75 sq. ft. of outdoor play area per child 35 sq. ft. of indoor play space per child The space standards do not spec ify where these areas shou Id be located on the lot but rather specify standards ta be applied once the areas are selected. For exomple, it is possible to have front yard spoce qualify for play area provided it is adequately fenced, etc. From a review of the general characteristics of nursery schools and the state regu- lations regulating their activities it seems apparent that some local controls ore necessary to insure: I. The proper location of these facilities in rel~tion to the area in which they may propose to locate 2. The proper location of the activity areas in the site, such as play areas, parking areas, etc. 3. The proper relationship of the intensity of the land proposed to be used to the intensity permitted in the same area. If the Commission agrees with these objectives it may either continue the public hearing thereby permitting the stoff more time to develop specific standards, or it may choose to close the publ ic hearing and render a decision. If the latter course of action is selected the Commission may still desire the staff to continue the study ond to prepare some standards for nursery schools which could be approved later as a policy of the Commission. September 25, 1962 Page Two . . In either event the staff proposes to work closely with the present nursery school operators to become more familiar with the operational characteristics of nursery schools. COMMUNICA TI ONS A communication was received from Mrs. Elizabeth Schmitz, Choirman, Variance Committee, Arcadia Porent Participation Nursery School, 5639 Garypark, Arcadio, California: "The variance committee of this nursery school has been following with interest the actions of the planning department and commission concerning nursery school locations. We hope that when a decision is made about special use permits and variances, you will choose the course that gives the city the greatest control over the location of nursery schools. It is essential, we feel, that the control exercised must not only be over the ini~jal location of 0 school, but must be a continued looking at and working with the school throughout the years. We say this because it is our bel ief that had we had more control over our school (say several five year variances rather than a fifteen), we would not have been in the spot we were in last summer. Financially speoking, it is hard to continue operation with the knowledge thot in a short time (five years) a nursery school must relocate. This is why we feel that whatever means of control you adopt, there must be a provision for close working together at all times between nursery schools ond city. If we schools are always aware of what specific standards are expected of us by the city, and always live up to them, there will be small danger of frequent moves. I hope to communicote with you on this matter further. Either I or another representotil'e will ottend this Tuesday's meeting, should you desire to question us ot that time. " PROPONENTS Mrs. Elizabeth Schmitz, 5639 Garypark, Arcadia, California, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. OPPONENTS None The members of the Commission and the stoff discussed the following items which appeared to be appropriate standards for nursery schools. September 25, 1962 Page Three . . I. Play areas shauld be delineated an the plot plan. 2. Proof of opproval from the Department of Sociol Welfare, including the number of children permitted shall be submitted with the application. 3. Play areas shall be confined to the rear portion of the lot. 4. The site shall be fenced with a solid fence. 5. A buffer area of some sort shall be del ineated on the map, for planting to :Sicreen the noise from surrounding properties. 6. Adequate loading and off street parking focilities should be provided. 7. Buildings shall comply with fire zone regulations that apply to the area. a. Buildings shall comply with the Arcadia Building Code. 9. Front y,ords to comply with the regulations of the district in which the school is located. 10. Approval from the Department of Social Welfare verifying the qualifications of the personnel operating the school shall be submitted. 11. Length of the special use permits should be limited to 0 stoted number of years. 12. The installation of sidewalks may be required. 13. The size and type of sign for advertising the school should be determ ined. 14. The number of children enrolled should be limited. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried, that the publ ic hearing on the nursery schools be continued until the regular meeting of November 13, and that the Planning Deportment present specific standards to be worked oUtin conjunction with representatives of the nursery school people ond the other related departments af the City. TRACT NO. 27591 This tract is located on the northerly end of Greenfield Ave. about ISO ft. south of Longden Ave. containing 6 lots. COMMUNICATIONS A communication was received from the Greenfield Al(enue property owners association to the effect that some years ago all but two of the property owners of Greenfield Avenue, narth of Live Oak Ave to the circle at 2225 and 2226 Greenfield Ave. orgonized to have Greenfield Ave. extend to Longden Ave. At that time the property owners bought their property because of and hoped to maintain a quiet, secluded atmosphere on this street. Many property owners had been contocted by several residents who had been asked to sign 0 petition in favor of the subdivision using the back part of lots facing on Longden Avenue. Many people on Greenfield Avenue were in favor of this proposal. The ossociotion had made a spot canvass of property owners and each c,ase they were opposed to this proposal. They requested that this letter be made a part of the meeting and if the matter were continued they would be present at the next meeting and would present a statement signed by approximately 90% of the property owners of this street opposing such a development. The purpose of the letter was to offset some of the statements made by the canvassers in the area. September 25, 1962 Page Four . . STAFF REPORT The subject ,tract is located at the north end of Greenfield Avenue, 0 street approximately 1900 feet in length which now terminates in a cul-de-sac. The subject':tract is in Zone R-l and proposes to develop six single-family lots. Four of the six lots exceed the 7500 sq. ft. minimum but the remaining two appear to be below the R-l minimum by approximately 300 sq. ft. each. The proposed tract would create an awkward double cul-de-soc at the end of a street which already exceeds the recommended maximum cul-de-sac length by 1400 feet. Excessively long dead end streets are costly in the sense that they create problems in providing such services necessory to the area as water, maintenance, police protection, fire protection and rubbish collection. The Planning Departmeni, in order to provide for an efficient use of the subject land, would like to see it developed in a manner which would eliminate a portion of the rear of the 300 feet deep lots fronting on Longden Avenue. The submit.ted , tract, however, does not represent an occeptable solution from a planning standpoint and the staff recommends that the tract map not be approved. The following alternate solutions are recommended as more suitable developments. The first and most appropriate solution would extend Greenfield Avenue through to Lee Avenue. This solution would allow egress from the excessively long dead end street now existing and chonnel traffic into 0 similar local residential street. The second solution recommended, would carry Greenfield Avenue through to Longden, a solution less desirable but still acceptable. 'If, however, approval of the tract as submitted is considered, the stoff recom- mends thot the following conditions be made a part of that approvol: 1. All lots shall have a minimum oreo of 7500 sq. ft. 2. Remove all structures and building within or across the tract boundary. 3. Install all standard street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance. Improvements, grades, grading and drainage shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, Curbs and paving on Greenfield turn-oround sholl be reol igned and the parkways regraded and landscaped. 4. All necessary easements shall be provided to provide rear line utilities. 5. The City shall accept the future street offer on Lots 3 ond 4, Tract No. 16947 at the time of approval of the final map. 6. Planting and sidwalk easements shall be provided an any portion of the street having less than 12 feet of parkway. 7. The water line shall be ,extended to, ond connected with, the water line in Longden Avenue at ,the expense of the Subdivider, and a 10 foot easement dedicated to the City. The location and construction shall be to the sotisfaction of the Water Superintendent. 8. Remove all trees from street right of way. 9. After completion of 011 improvements, portions of existing cul.-de-sac on Greenfield shall be vacated. 10. A covenont in an appraved form to designate exterior boundary as rear lot line. September 25, 1962 Page Five . . 11. The following fees are required: Street tree installation Street sign installotion Street light installation Recreatian fee $-1-36.00 70.00 230.00 lSO_OO Total $586.00 The Planning Director stated that this matter had been before the Commission in some form or another for the post several months. The lot spl it of Pat B. Brown was the first, the decision of the Commission was appeoled to the Council. Subsequently, the Porks Realty requested a division of the lots facing on Lee Ave. This was denied to provide for the opening of Greenfield. This wos also appealed and subsequently approved by the City Council. The possibility of getting an outlet for Greenfield Avenue is made practically impossible, or at least more expensive. The Greenfield Residents Association are protesting the opening of the street and if there is not other solution' this troct could be opproved as submitted. Greenfield Avenue has existed for many years ond the few lots added would not increase the difficulties of services of fire and police fac iI i ti es. Commissioner Norton stated some of the lots shown are substandard and the residents involved hove a legitimate set af circumstances ond if was unfortunate that the recommendation of the Commission applied to the lot split were not upheld and as Chairman of the Subdivision Committee this tract is totally unacceptable in its present layout. Mr. O. Knutsen, the developer, spoke to the Commission stating that since the approval of the lot split made it economically unfeasible to go out to Lee Avenue. If this were the manner of development then the lot split 'should not have been granted. He could see no other way of developing the rear of the lots facing on Longden as many attempts had been made and financially unsound to go out through Longden with but six lots. The lots fronting on Lee Avenue are now much more expensive than they were before the lot split was granted. Mr. Knutsen felt that the only other development for the deep lots would be to permit additional dwellings on the rear. He had talked with the Parks Investment Co. and the lots were for sole but not for the purpose of extending the street. Mr. Dale Castleton, 116 Longden Avenue, stated that developers had appraached the property owners by,the Park Investment Co. but their offer wos much lower than the fair, market value of the property. The present subdivider offered the six property owners a fair market value for the land and each were convinced that to sell the rear portion of their lots wos to the best interest of Arcadia. He felt that the tentative map should b~: approved as it is the anly way this property can be developed and would 'be a desirable asset for the City of Arcadia. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and unanimously carried that, tentative Tract Map No. 27591 consisting of 6 lots on the northerly end of Greenfield Avenue be recommended for denial. September 25, 1962 Pag~ Six . .' Mr. Joseph Rognstad, builder and real estate broker, 2636 South Baldwin Ave. requested permission to be heard. There was quite 0 delimena on this matter he felt, to allow Greenfield Ave. to extend to its present length ond it seems that the property owners on Greenfield Ave. unanimously I ike dead-end streets. He sensed 0 contradiction os to the desires of the people on Greenfield and the ordinance os it is now written ond the Commission's attitude on dead-end streets. He quoted on instance where 0 graduating closs of University of Colifornia developed 0 subdivision and the entire tract was cui, -de-sac streets, with streets os long os Greenfield Ave. He felt that some development should be mode os in his experience he hod found thot people liked dead-end streets. He knew these streets could become too long, but he felt the attitude of the property owners supported th is development. LOT SPLIT NO. 62-24 Lot Split No. L-62-24, Rowe B. St. Clair, 1304 South Santo Anita Avenue was considered by the Planning Commission. The Stoff report was presented. If approved the following conditions should, be imposed: I. FiI e 0 final mop 2. Provide sewer lateral to Porcel 2 3. Pay 0 recreation fee of $25.00 4. Provide woter services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code 5. Remove existing drivewoy and replace curb of Santo Anito Ave; new access to be provided from LeRoy Avenue on the eost side of new lot; permit 0 10 ft. side yard on Sonta Anita Ave. The representotive of the appl icant presented 0 revised plot plan showing 0 tentative location of 0 house to be constructed on the new lot if opproved, which would allow 0 25 ft. setback on Santo Anita Ave. instead of the 10 ft. os shown on the original mop. The Planning Deportment recommended that the application be denied. The split would create 0 key lot to the north and would make the existing residence non- conforming. Wl,i1e the revised plot plan wos on improvement over the original plan, it was the consensus of opinion that no decision should be mode on any lot splits on the east side of Santo Anita Avenue until such time os 0 study could be mode of the area from Christina Street south to Le Roy Avenue os to the proper development of the area. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 62-24 be denied. REPORTS The Planning Director presented 0 work schedule for the Planning Department for the purpose of oscertaining the projects now under study and any additional matters to be programmed. September 25, 1962 Page Seven . . . .' LEAVE OF ABSENCE ADJOURNMENT . . The Commission directed a letter of good wishes to Commissioner Michler wha is to underga surgery. Commissioner Michler was granted a sixt)-<lay leave of absence by unanimous consent of the Commission. No further business to,come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 9.40 P.M. d/~~ September 25, 1962 Page Eight