Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 9, 1962 , PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ZONE VARIANCE Benson (V-62-9) . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION, ARC-AD lA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING October 9, 1962. The Plonning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 9, 1962, at 8:00 o'clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber, City Hall, with Chairman Forman presiding. Commissioner Ralph Norton led in the pledge of allegiance. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton and Parker ABSENT: Commissioner Michler OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilmon Jesse Bolser City Attorney James Nicklin Asst. City Engineer Frank Forbes City Planner Ernest Mayer, Jr. Planning Director William Phelps A public hearing on the variance application for a second dwelling in Zone R-I at 315 Le Roy Avenue by Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Bensen was considered once before. This application had been before the Planning Commission and recammen' ded far denial. Subsequently, this decision was appealed to the City Council. Mr. Victor R. Hansen, 453 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles 13, California, stated before the Council that there was new evidence to be presented to support the application. The City Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for further cOl1sideration. Notices of the hearing had been mailed to all property owners within 300 ft. in accordance with the Arcadia Municipal Code. The Planning Director gave a summary of the proceedings and additional facts which hove been brought to the Planning Department's attention and to ma:<e a recommendation os to the course of action the Department bel ieves the Planning Commission should take in light of these new facts: ADDITIONAL FACTS The original staff report informed the Commission that on the north side of Le Roy Avenue between Holly and Ewell Lane there are 13 lots. If one were to include the Holly Avenue School property as a lot having frontage on Le Roy this would be the case. However, it is believed when the original count was made the property at the northwest corner of Ewell Lane and Le Roy was counted as a lot facing Le Roy Avenue rather than the school property. However, an June 26, 1962 the conditions of approval permitting a lot split for the property at 245 Le Roy Avenue were completed. Two lots both having frontage on Ewell L...ne rather than on Le Roy Avenue were created, which was not the case prior to the lot split. Therefore, the property at 245 Le Roy Avenue should NOT be included October 9, /962 Page One . . in an accurate, count of the number of lots on the north side of Le Roy Avenue between Holly Ave. and Ewell Lane. (The front lot line in the case of a corner lot is identified as that portion of the lot having the narrowest street frontage). If the school property is considered as a lot then. 13 lots do exist. If the school property is not considered then only 12 lots exist. The number of lots become one of the factors in determining whether or not 25% of the lots within the bloc;i< alreQdy are developed with two or more dwellings. The staff report had stated that its land use survey of August, 1961, only re- vealed one lot as having a second dwelling, The map submitted by the applicant showed three lots with two dwellings. Whether or not one, two, or three lots had second dwellings became relatively unimportant because the staff by assuming 13 lots and any number of lots less than four would have produced the same resul t, i. e., less than 25% of the 13 lots do not have a second dwell ing. The next variation which has arisen is whether the second structure at 301 Le Roy Avenue is a second dwelling or a guest house. If the structure is considered as a second dwelling the result is that three lots do have two additional dwellings within the blocK. If 12 lots are counted (excluding the school site) and three of the 12 lots have second dwellings the result of course is 25% of the lots on the north side of Le .Roy Avenue olready have a second dwelling. The other properties, providing they can qualify under the other two provisions of lhe Code will also qualify for a second dwelling. In addition, the staff has been informed that the properties at 333, 325, 321 and 315 (the subject property) have not been resubdivided since June 2, 1949 as required by the Code. Under this provision the subject property does not qual ify automatically for a second dwelling regardless of the determination of the number of lots within the block or the number of lots ~hich have second dwellings. The last item to bring to the Commission's attention is that only recently tentative map No. 27508 was approved. This map proposed to subdivide the rear portion of the two lots on Duarte Road and the two lots at 347 and 343 Le Roy Avenue. When the final map is approved these two 'properties will hove complied with two of the three conditions necessary before a second dwelling is allowed, i.e., the remainins lot area would exceed 18,750 sq. ft. and the rear portion of the lot would have been resubdivided. If 25% of the lots on Le Roy Avenue have a second dwelling these properties would also be entitled to the same right. Therefore, the number of lots on Le Roy Avenue between Ewell Lane and Holly Avenue and the number of these lots which have a second dwell ing does become a :" key. consideration wh ich could change the character of the area from one of single-family residential district, to one of a two- family residential district. The properties at 305, 301 (if the existing structure is a guest house rather than a second dweiling) 275,271,261,251 Le Roy Avenue olso qualify for a second dwelling by meeting the two requirements, i.e., a portion of .these lots have been subdivided since 1949 and all hove in excess of the 18,750 sq. ft. required. The only condition which they cannot now comply with is the 25% clause. October 9, 1962 Page Two . . Again the determination as to the number of lots to be counted within the block and the number of those lots which already have a second dwelling becomes of prime import(Jnce. If the application is granted any doubt is removed as to whether there are three lots with a second dwelling. because the construction of a second dwelling on the subject property brings the third lot with a second dwelling into existence. If the school parcel is not counted as a lot then only 12 lots can be counted and three of the twelve with second dwell ings qual ifies all the lots on the north side of Le Roy Avenue for a second dwelling except the property at 321 Le Roy Avenue. In the case of this property, the Commission could hardly refuse it the same development rights enjoyed by the other properties similarly :si.tuoted iJ'it were:alsc:i to 'apply for,<;J' variance'~ ., ". The Planning Department has evaluated these new facts and recommends that the Commission not approve the variance application because such approval will either permit the other lots in the same area the same development opportunity or at least hasten the day when other properties could be similarly developed. In both instances the Planning Dep.artment feels that the present environmental qualities now enjoyed by the properties in the area will be greatly diminished to the point where the general character of the area will be basically changed from one of single-family residential development to two-family residential development. Such a change for this area does not seem wattanted nor in keeping with the development objective of Arcadia, i. e., a City of Distinctive Homes. One communication had been received from Joseph B. Schubert, submitting a petition signed by 31 signers, representing 16 parcels of land on Magna Vista Avenue, Lyndon Way and Ewell lane protesting the granting of per- mission sought by the Bensen family for permission to erect an additional dwelling on the front of their property on Le Roy Avenue. The petition states: "We believe that the granting of this petition WQuld greatly change the character of .the ne.igh.borhood and decrea.se our property values greatly. Many of the signers of this petition rotely' purchased homes on the south side of Magna Vista Avenue. The rear of these homes face the rear of the Bensen lot and lots adjacent to the Bensen property. Purchases of these costly homes were made by us with the definite knowledge that the separation between our homes and those on Le Roy Avenue would remain as when purchased. The granting of the Bensen p'etition would certainly establish a precedent for other such requests of residents of Le Roy Avenue. This would actually divide the separation of the homes in half, double the existing houses and occupancy - the resulting ch,al1ge in character and values would be most harmful to the undersigned and other nearby residents. We respectfully offer our individual a.nd collective protests with every emphasis at our command and petition the City Council to deny the Bensen pelition." This.,Betition was filed October 5,1962. PROPONENTS: Mr. Victor R. Hansen, 453 Spring Street, Suite.71J, L.o~ Angeles: 13, California, attorney at law, representing the applicants, r.equested that the affidavit onClPpea~' from City Planning Commission Resolution No. 455 be incorporated in the record: October 9, 1962 Page Three . . AFFIDAVIT ON APPEAL FROM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOL\:JTlON N.O. 455 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Esther A. Bensen, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is the wife of Elmer Bensen and that she and her husband !:Ire the owne~ in fee simple of that certilin real property described as: Lot 38, Tract No. 951, as shawn on map recorded in Book J7, Page 28 of Maps, records of said County; and commonly known as 315 Le Roy Avenue, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California. That on or abouf.the 9th day of July, 1962, your affiant and her said husband filed an application for a zone variance to build a second single family dwelling on the above described real property, with the City Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California. That said City Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 455, dated August 14, 1962, denied said application for the requested variance to allow a second house on the above descri~ed property. That pursuant thereto, and on or about August 21, 1962, within ten days of the date of said denial by the City Plannil'Jg Commission, your affial1f. and her husband appealed from said action of the said City Planning Commission and from said Resolution No. 455, doted August 14, 1962, heretofore referred to. That your offiance and her said husband purchased said described real property on or about the 19th day of May, 1948, at which time said real property was unimproved. That at said time said property was in a zone permitting two single dwellings. That, r",lying upon said zoning, your affiant and her husband erected o single dwell ing on the b(]ck po~tion of said lot, contemplating and interjding to construct a more attractive and usable dwelling upon the front part of said lot in conformity with the improve- ments located within the block inwhich said lot is located. That had it not been for the zoning which would permit the construction of said second single- family dwelling, your affiant and her husband would not have purchased said property. That the present improvements on said real property is less desirable to the overwhelming majority of the owners of real property in the block in which affiant's property is located, than a dwelling on the forward portion of the lot, and said property owners are desirous that the zone variance requested by your affiant and her husbond be granted. That your affiant has personally contacted the hereinafter l'Jamed property owners located within the block and they have indicated their approval of the granting of the zone variance and the construction of a second single dwelling upon the property of your affiant and her husband. October 9, 1962 Page Four . . NAME ADDRESS Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Newell Mr. and Mrs. W. J. Schm itt Mrs. Margaret Squires Mr. and Mrs. W. R. Crawford Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Mosely Mr. and Mrs. J. G. Klump Mr. and Mrs. R. J. Dobson Mr. and Mrs. J. H. Churchill Mr. and Mrs. A. F'. Lerner Mr. and Mrs. Robt. D. Townsend Mr. and Mrs. Danald D. Godber Mr. and Mrs. George E. Series Mr. and Mrs. E. .Sharbonda Mr. and Mrs. H. L. Kath Mr. and Mrs. H. R. Calkins Mr. and Mrs. Carroll W. Roth Mrs. B. C. Woods Mr. and Mrs. G. Gillispie Mr. and Mrs. R. H. Hall Mrs. J. M. Glyn Mr. and Mrs. RobertM. Ellis Mr. and Mrs. W. Joe Nichols Mr. and Mrs. F. E. Tidwell Mr. and Mrs. J. H. Sullivan Mr. and Mrs. George Gary Mr. and Mrs. Donald Witt 368 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 350 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 347 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 346 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 343 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 340 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 333 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 330 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 325 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 321 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 316 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 306 Le Roy Ave., Arcad i a 305 Le Roy ~ve., Arcadia 301 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 271 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 270 Le. Roy Ave., Arcadia 261 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 251 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 250 Le Roy Ave. , Arcadia 238 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 232 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 226 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 225 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 221 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia .220 Le Roy Ave., Arcadia 326 Le Roy Ave. That your affiant respectfully submits that a denial of the zone variance in this matter would result in great hardship and financial loss to your affiant and her husband and would not be in the interests of justice nor in accordance withgooc! planning. (Sgnd) ESTHER A. BENSEN Subscribed and sworn to before.m.e this 31st day of August, 1962. (Seal) EDITH J. FRANKLIN, Notary Public in and for the State of California, Principal place of business, Los Angeles Co. My commission expires Moy 19, 1,9(>4." The attorney for the proponent requested that the following petition be made a part of the record: "PETITION IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF ELMER BENSEN AND ESTHER A.BENSEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY QF ARCADIA, PERTAINING TO THE CITY PLANNING CQMMIS~ION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RESOLUTION NO. 455, DATED AUGUST 14, 1962. We, the undersigned, being property owners within the black where the real property owned by Elmer Bensen and Esther A. Bensen, described as 315 Le Roy Ave. in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, October 9, 1962 Page Five . . being Lot 38, Tract No. 951, as shown on map recorded in Book 17, page 28 of Maps, records of said County, is located, hereby petition the Honorable City Council of the City of Arcadia to grant the appeal of Elmer Bensen and Esther A. Bensen, husband and wife, from.Resolution No. 455 of the City Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, dated August 14, 1962, and that the appl ication for zone variance of Elmer Bensen and Esther A. Bensen, heretofore filed with the said City Planning Camm ission be granted. Said petition was signed by 48 persons living in the immediote neighborhood representing approximately 2.6 s~p'.arate parcels of land. Mr. Hansen stated that the application concerns the north side of Le Roy Ave. and as has been indicated by the Planning Director this is the area of particular concern. It was his understanding that a determination has been made that included in that block - a block being designated as from one street. to another - excludes the corner on Ewell Lane and Le Roy Avenue. The petition disclosed that all of the people along Le Roy Ave. that are affected by this variance have petitioned for it as well as many across the street; the reason they are far it affects them and does not affect others is that this is the only piece of property on Le Roy Ave. that does not have a dwell ing in the front. In order that there might be a definite improvement along Le 'Roy Ave. a group of pictures were submitted showil1g the properties along Le Roy on both sides of the street. These are the people who have petitioned that this body grant the variance. These were introduced as part of the hearing as a single exhibit. There was previously introduced a picture of the subject property and this was also included with those presented. He called attention to the unsightly appearance of the subject property by virtue of the fact it was not improved. Mr. Hansen stated that before a decision cou Id be reached there should be an agreement of facts; such as, does the Planning Director find that there are three second dwellings in this block? Specifically, the issue raised is whether or not the property located at 301 Le Roy Ave. which has a s~cond dwelling is considered as a dwelling. He desired to know what findings had been made with reference to this particular second dwelling at 301 Le Roy Ave. The Planning Director stated that the property had been checked and the characteristics of the structure indicated that, 1st, It does have kitchen facilities; 2nd, that it is understood that it is occupied by relatives of the persons acc.upying the front house; and 3rd, that the building permits issued for that particular piece of property were ched<ed. and revealed the following: Permit No. 4043 6104 6814 10196 14387 Dated Nov. 18, 1937 Sept. 16, 1941 Aug. 2, 1943 Sept. 2, 1947 Aug. 18, 1950 Dwelling Reroof Dwelling Feed House Add to Dwelling AM garage and breezeway It would seem based on this information there is no indication a building permit was ever issued for a second dwell ing on that particular prop~rty, ond from the Planning Department's viewpoint it would not be considered as a second dwell ing. Mr. Hansen also directed a question as to whether or not school property would be considered.a lot. The Planning Director stated that the property w'here the school is located is a lot that has fron.tage on Holly Ave., Duarte Road amj Le Roy Avenue, it is in fact, by the definition of the zoning ordinance a "through lot'; and as such is 'considered as' a lot on Le Roy Ave. October 9, 1962 Page Six . . It is considered a lot in determinatjng the number of lots an Le Roy Ave. Including this lot there would 13 lots, excluding the lot fronting on Ewell Lane. The lot on Ewell Lane was approved as a lot spl it in June 26, 1962 and as such instead of having one single lot there are two lots; on each of those lots there is now one single-family dwelling having frontage on Ewell Lane. The dwelling on the lot closest to Le Roy Ave. faces on Le Roy but the lot itself faces on Ewell Lane, and there is no question that this lot is excluded in the consideration of the number of lots on Le Roy Ave. Mr. Hansen then stated that in the opinion of the Planning Director there were but two lots on Le Roy Ave. having a second dwelling on the lot, and there are 13 lots to be counted. It was agreed that the rear portion of the lot had not been resubdivided since June, 1949. Mr. Hansen contended in determining a zoning problem it should be recognized that there are hardship problems; that there are extenuating circumstances and as a result of that, variances have been allowed. This provided in the code for variances. This case clearly indicates that the persons vitally affected are the ones who desire' the improvement on the front of the lot. This property owner bought the prolE rty with the intent of placing a second dwelling on the property and constructed a dweU ing to the rear and wishes now to improve the front in conformity with those others on the block. If there ever was an instance where the variance should be granted Mr. Hansen felt this was this case. Mr. Hansen reviewed Resolution No. 455 to the effect that subject property is 75' x 27g and has an area exceeding 20,000 sq. ft. which has sufficient square footage for the improvements; Mast of the property in the immediate vicinity and elsewhere in the city are lots the same size or larger. He invited the Commission's attention to the foct that they are not in the immediate vicinity and the very persons who are objecting to this variance are persons who have lots substantially smaller than any of the properties along Le Roy Ave. The granting of the requested variance from the zone requirements would constitute.poor .planriiris.practiceand wo\!ld adversely affect the, camprehenslye.general plan. Mr. Hansen inquired as to wh.ether or not it is.good.planning.tp have one vacant lot, one "sore thumb" in a block of v.ery .bighly developed .property; also how.did this affect the general plan? It does not in any way affect the general comprehmsive plan. The properties here are distinctive and the_purpose of th is ordinance was to prevent the deep lots from building. so that theY,.Il1.ight not be developed irregularly; in other words, devised for the orderly development of large lots. To say that" it is..good planning to deny the investors along Le Roy Ave. of hoving that streetdeveloped 'in accordance with the balance of the street, _particularly where it is not opening up the right for others to build in the area, is not ,good .planning. . The Bensens were not asking to build in the rear, they were asking to. build in the front. By admission of the findings there is a situation where the granting of this variance does not open it up and does not provide 25% in the block, because half of the block does not meet the other requirements of h'oving had the rear portion of the lot subdivided. He felt that in fairness and in equity and in good planning the variance should be recommended for approval. The City Attorney stated that certain conclusions that have been arrived at during this hearing and at the staff level and certain opinions that have been requested with respect to some of the facts should be outlined: October 9, 1962 Page Seven . . It is considered a lot in determinating the number of lots on Le Roy Ave. Including this lot there would 13 lots, excluding the lot fronting on Ewell Lane. The lot on Ewell Lane was approved as a lot split in June 26, 1962 and as such instead of having one single lot there are two lots; on each of those lots tnere is now one single-family dwelling having frontage on Ewell Lane. The dwelling on the lot closest to Le Roy Ave. faces on Le Roy but the lot itself faces on Ewell Lane, and there is no question that this lot is excluded in the consideration of the number of lots on Le Roy Ave. Mr. Hansen then stated that in the opinion of the Planning Director there were but two lots on Le Roy Ave. having a second dwelling on the lot, and there are 13 lots to be counted. It was agreed that the rear portion of the lot had not been resubdivided since June, 1949. Mr. Hansen contended in determining a zoning problem it should be recognized that there are hardship problems; that there are extenuating circumstances and as a result 'of that, variances have been allowed. This provided in the code for voriances. This case clearly indicates that the persons vitally affected are the ones who desire the improvement on the front of the lot. This property owner bought the prof!! rty with the intent of placing a second dwelling on the property and constructed a dwelling to the rear and wishes now to improve the front in conformity with those others on the block. If there ever was on instance where the variance should be granted Mr. Hansen felt this was this case. Mr. Hansen reviewed Resolution No. 455 to the effect that subject property is 75' x 27f3 ond has an area exceeding 20,000 sq. ft. which has sufficient square footage for the improvements, Most of the property in the immediate vicinity and elsewhere in the city are lots the same size or larger. He invited the Commission's attention to the fact that they are not in the immediate vicinity and the very persons who are objecting to this variance are persons who have lots substantially smaller than any of the properties alcmg Le Roy Ave. The granting of the requested variance from the zone requirements would constitut.e.poar .planriiOslpractice and wo\.!ld adversely affect the,.comprehensfye.general plan. Mr.. Hansen inquired as to whether or not it is..good..plgnning tp have one vacant lot, one "sore thumb" in a block of veJ.)' highly developed.property; a,lso how did this affect the generol plan? It does not in any way affect the general compre~nsive plan. The properties here are dis'tinctive and the_purpose of this ordinance was to prevent the deep lots from building so that they .might not be developed irregularly; in other words, devised for the orderly development of large lots. To say that it is.good planning to deny the investors along Le Roy Ave. of having thot street developed 'in accordance wi,th the balance of the street, .particularly where it is not opening up the right for others to build in the area, is not..good.planning. The Bensens were not asking to build in the rear, they were asking to build in the front. By admission of the findings there is a situatian w.here the granting of this. variance does not open it up and does not provide 25% in the block, because half of the block does not meet the other requirements of having had the rear portion of the lot subdivided. He felt that in fairness and in .equity and in good planning the variance should be recommended for qpproval. The City Attorney stated that certain conclusions that have been arrived at during this hearing and at ,the staff level and certain opinions that hove been requested w.ith respect to some of the facts should be outlined: October 9, 1962 Page Seven . . I. It was his opinion that the Holly Ave. school property is a lot, so far as the lots on Le Roy Ave. is concerned, by virtue of Section 9220.33.2 of the Municipal Code which provides that a lot is an area or parcel of land used or capable of being used for building, provided such lot or area contains not less than the prescribed number of square feet required in the zone in which the property is located. Obviously, this property faces Le Roy, abuts Le Roy and it has more than enough orea to qualify asalot. 2. The Holly Avenue property is a through lot as defined by Section 9220.7 which defines a through lot as a lot having frontage on two parallel or or approximately parallel streets and that is the situation here. Under Section 9283.7 a through lot may be developed as two separate lots fronting future streets if it has enough area., and this lot conforms, so that there is enough area to consider it a lot fronting Le Roy Ave. 3. The Bensen property is a lot under Section 9252.2.15 and has not been subdivided since June 2, 1949 and it has the required frontage for a second dwelling if a second qwelling is permissible. . 4. That the lot at the northwest corner of Le Roy Ave. and Ewell Lane is to .'ots as defined by Section 9220.33.2 ,the same having been divided in accordance with Part 2, Chapter I of Article IX which is the lot division ordinance, and the resultant parcels face on Ewell Lane rather than an Le Roy Ave. The conclusions that hove been drawn have been announced by both the staff and Mr. Hansen. These points should be made unequivocally clear. If anything so stated is different than advised or interpreted by the staff or deemed different it should be cleared. Mr. Hansen apporently made his presentation based on those assumptions. OPPONENTS: Mr. Bert M. Pearson, 258 W. Magna Vista, stated that the petition presented against the zone variance with approximately 16 families would speak for itself. If Mr. Bensen is going to build a house on the front part of his lot what happens to the house on the back of the lot? Does this become a residence and used as a dwelling or rental property? Mr. Nicklin stated it would depend upon two things. If it automatically qualifies for a second dwelling then the first dwelling may remain; if there is a variance for a second dwelling and the variance does not require the removal ofthe existing dwelling then it may remain. Mr. Bensen may build a main dwelling at the front of the lot at this time if he removes the :dtchen facilities from the existing dwelling on the rear. A guest house is permitted; the second dWf!!lIing is the probl em now. One or two other determinations that were made based upon the information at hand that all of the people living at 301 Le Roy Ave. are related by blood or marriage and if there be the case then there is but one family living in that dwelling under our definition of a family. Secondly, if our records are correct then there is but one dwelling at 301 Le Roy Ave. No person may October 9, /962 Page Eight PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED . . "bootleg" in a second dwelling and thereby thwart our ordinance. Unless evidence' is presented that they had a valid right to construct the second dwelling then there is but one dwelling on the lot. A nan-conforming use is not considered unless it was a lawful use when it became non-conform- ing and in the definition of non-conforming it is held that it must have been a lawful use at the time the ordinance was changed making it a non-canform- inguse. If it was not lawful at one time then it becomes an illegal use. It was understood that the building permit first was for the main dwelling; the second p.ermit was for the re-roofing of it; and the third permit was for a feed hause for the feeding of animals and the fourth was for an addi tion to the main dwelling. The last was for the addition of a garage and breeze- way. Our records discloses no permit for a second dwelling. Mr. Pearson again spoke for the 32 people signing the petition to the effect that the zone variance should not be granted. Mr. Hansen asked to be permitted to state that the 32 people signing the petition would not be affected in the slightest. The Benson house is there now. If the variance is granted this house will still be there whether the ;dtchen is removed or not; and being less than 25% I and 'adding the other requirement that this had not been partitioned, he felt that the Commission would have to grant a variance to others if one was requested and none in the block can request a variance in, the front because the fronts are built up and it would only be a request for a dwelling in the rear, and they could not qualify by virtue of not being 25% with two houses, and some of the lots not qualifying on the provision that the rear portion had not been subdivided so that the people on Magna Vista Ave. would not be affected in the least. He felt the opposition of the people on Magna Vista was misguided, plus the fact of reading in the papers and have heard thot if this variance were granted then the whole block would automatically have the right to build a second dwelling. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. The time element of when the non-conforming use of the second house was considered; and whether or not there were other properties in the area situated with the same problem as the Bensens. Commissioner Norton stated from the time of the purchase of the subject property to the present time, 14 years had elapsed. Of the /4 years there have been nine in which the former ordinance would have applied wherein permission would not have been required. Of the remaining five years the area has developed inta a predominately R-I orea. He felt the right to develop on this property is one that should be enjoyed by the property owner and the desirability of the residence on the front portion of the property is also a desirable characteristic for the completion of the continuity of the R-I type of development. He felt that the mere fact the area was predomin- ately R-I wou Id in fact invoke the interest of future requests for R-2 type of development and these homes would be to the rear as the front portions are already developed. This threat has to be evaluated. The R-2 type of development has been outmoded and was used as a measure during the early development of Arcadia. H,e felt that this was a serious consideration as to the validity of developing two homes on this property. October 9, 1962 Page Nine MOTION MODIFICATION APPEAL (Carney) . . Commissioner Golisch felt that this was predominately an R-I zone with the new.developmentalong Magno Vista Ave. He was concerned that if another house were permitted the effect on future requests should be considered. The strong consensus of opinion now is that the City should be restricted as to greater density and greater usage of property. He felt that the fears of the people on Magna Vista Ave. are the same as that of the people throughout the City where a firm residential area is built up and this type of development is threatened by constant enc~oaching .of two houses on a lot. The information on the map as presented disclosed that there was another property next to the Bensen's that had the building located in approximately the same position as the Bensen's. It was conceivable that within a short time a request would be made to construct a second dwelling also. If this present application were granted then the other property would be denied a right enjoyed by his neighbors and it would be difficult to deny such an application. The lots to the west would qualify as the owners have filed a tentative tract map which was recently approved and which would qualify the owners fronting on Le Roy to one of the three basic requirements for a second dwelling. With the remaining area they would have the right to apply for the same type of variance. This could start the entire block on the north side of the street to develop two houses on a lot in an R-I area. The general tendency of past comm issions has been to upgrade the zones and this .would be the beginning of R-2 development which would not fit into the area. An attempt of the principles of upgrading the zones should be upheld, particularly i<eeping the R-I zones R-I. There are hardship cases and that is the reason for the variance but whether or not the approval of this application would be doing the city a service is questionable. Moved by Commissioner Go/isch, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried, that the zone variance of Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Bensen for the construction of a second dwelling on the property located at 315 Le Roy Avenue be recommended for denial. The City Attorney advised that the final action would be by resolution and it will be prepared and presented at the next meeting and will then go to the City Council for final action without the necessity of a public hearing unless an appeal is filed. A public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Modification Committee by Mr. and Mrs. Ernest T. Carney, 331 Monte Vista Road was held. A review of the proceedings in the Modification Committee was made by Ernest Mayer, showing a cabana constructed 6 ft. 10 In. from the main residence and approximately 30 in. from the property line. STAFF REPORT: A poolside cabana has been construct 1-1/2 ft. from the south property line instead of the required 3 feet. In addition the cabana is located approximately 7 feet from the residence rather than the required 15 feet. October 9, 1962 Page Ten . . The Modification Committee held a public hearing_on this application on August 28, 1962. Two adjacent property owners were present at the hearing and objected to the location of the cabana. The Committee denied the application by unanimous action. On September 6, 1962, the applicant filed a letter appealing the decision of the Commission. Notices of a public hearing by the Commission on this request hove been sent to the adjacent property owners. The Planning Department recommends that the decision of the Modification Committee be upheld. No communications were filed. PROPONENTS Mrs. Doris Carney, 331 Monte Vista Road, stated it was her understanding at the' committee meeting that the matter was denied because of two protests in the 65 ft. radius. She stated she and her husband had constructed the cabana and had spent a large sum of money to beautify and landscape the yard. She felt it was an impossibility for the cabana to be moved as it was on a concrete slab with a water connection to an outdoor sink; together with trees and ferns which are well established. The cabana has a grill and a place for drinks, so tnat it is not necessary to use the residence so much when guests are present. The cabana was constructed withouta permit. The Chairman stated the denial of the modification was not because there were any protests at the time of the meeting, but rather because of two violations - both in relation to the distance to a main building - 15 feet being required - and the clearance to the side yard which was not suffi.cient. The Committee investigating the matter felt the cabana could be moved to come within the code. OPPONENTS Tom Ellison, 1000 Monte Verde Drive, which is next door to the subject property, stated that he had no objection to the cabana. The Carney's had attempted to upgrade the area and wanted it understood they had not objected at the time it was before the Modification Committee, :buf, jf there were rules ta go by they should be considered. He wanted it made clear that the matter was being considered on its merits and not on the fact that he had protested to it. The Chairman again stated tnis was based on the two violations and not on the protestants whatsoever. It was also felt that the cabana could bemoved and brought within the code. Mr. W. J. Betz, 325 Monte Vista Road, desired to be heard and permission was grantecl. He stated his objection was based on the fact it was located in such a manner that blocked his view from his breakfast bar and that the cabana is less than 20 feet from his bedroom window. He complained about the noise from the use of the cabana and the lateness of the hour in breaking up. He had no objection to the cabana being located within the regulated distance and he had gone along with the construction but with the way it is working out he feels that it could work out if handled properly but some measures of control should be made for the consideration of others in the area. October 9, 1962 Page Eleven PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TRACT NO. 22838 . . Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried, that the publ ic hearing on the modification appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Ernest 1. Carney of 331 Monte Vista Road be closed. Moved by Commissioner NPrt91seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and unanimously carried, that the decision of the Modificotion Committee in respect to the cabana located at 331 Monte Vista Road be upheld and that the request of Mr. and Mrs. Ernest 1. Carney be denied. Tentative map of Tract No. 22838, extension of Los Altos to Florence Avenue, was presented for consideration. STAFF REPORT The area proposed to be subdivided is located between Florence Avenue and the west.ern end of Los Altos Avenue. The subject property is in ZoneR-1 which permits minimum lot sizes of 7500 sq.. ft. This map represents the third application within this area in the post year. On February 27, 1962 the Commission denied a lot. split of James Keit.h which proposed to divide the property at SOl Woodruff Ave. creating a new lot on Los Altos Avenue. The application was not approved because the Commission wanted to have the entire area developed under one plan with extending Los Altos Ave. to Florence Avenue. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to,:the City Council who in turn referred the matter to the staff to investigate the feasibil ity and the amount of deposit that might be postea to guarantee that this lot pay its fair share of the cost of extending Los AI tos Avenue to Florence Avenue. The Planning Department and the Department of Publ ic Works studied the possibility of extending Los Altos Avenue to Florence Avenue and of connect- ing Los.Altos southerly to Woodruff Avenue. The connection to Woodruff Ave. did not prove to be as practical as the Florence Ave. connection. In its report to the City Council the Department stated that the entire project should be undertaken at one time rather than by a lot by lot basis. However, if the Council were to approve the application the street should be improved and a deposit required for the pro rata share of the expense in extending Los Altos to Florence Avenue. The Council sustained the Commission's findings and denied t.he application. In June of 1962 a tentative map No. 22278 was denied by the Commission and the Council. This map proposed to extend Los Altos Avenue about 293 feet and terminate it as a cul-de-sac. This additional length would have increased Los Altos Ave. from 1074 feet to 1367 feet which is far in excess ~{the Code provision limiting cul-de-sac streets to 500 feet. The present. map has one feature which the Commission by their past actions hove requested, i. e., Los Altos Avenue does extend to Florence Avenue, thereby eliminating the unusually long cul-de-sac. The question arises as to. whether or not t.he extension of Los Altos Avenue is of suffici.ent importance to vary some of the, other Code regulations, October 9, 1962 Page Twelve . . thereby permitting I. A fifty foot street right of way rather than sixty feet. 2. A depth of 85 feet rather than 100 ft. far Lot 6. 3. A future lot from the property at 518 Palm Drive 69 feet wide rather than 75 feet. 4. A lot about 60 feet wide from the property east of Lot 8. 5. The relocation of the dwelling Lot 2 to the remaining property at 511 Wodruff Ave. which already has two existing dwellings. In addition to these variations there appears to be other problems associated with this tract. I. The owner of the property east of Lot 8 has in the past indicatedtin unwillingness to participate in providing land for the extension of Los Altos. If this attitude still prevails condemnation proceedings by the City would be needed to acquire the land for public street pu rposes. 2. The owner of the property at 518 Palm Drive has indicated his unwillingness to participate in this development which further complicates the proposal. From a planning viewpoint the Department cannot justify recommending that the Commission approve this map; primarily because of the poor lotting arrangement on the north side of Los Altos Avenue. However, the Commission may want to approve the map with the following conditions of approval in order to permit Los Altos Avenue to be extended providing for at least the partial development of the area. I. The excess Iflnd at 2434 Florence Avenue shall be disposed of to the adjacent property owners so as not to become separate parcels. 2. The balance of street right of way opposite lots I and 2 should be acquired and improved with the development of this tract. 3. All structures and buildings within or across the tract boundary shall be removed or relocated complying to all City Ordinance, Codes and regulations, and be done to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 4. Authorize the subdivider to establ ish a trust in accordance with Re&olution No. 2512 on the property at 518 Palm Drive. 5. Fees and depos i ts requ ired: Street lights $ 460.00 Street signs 70.00 Street trees 204.00 Recreation fee 200.00 Total $ 934.00 October 9, 1962 Page, Th i rteen . . 6. Provide YJ foot right of way for Los Altos Avenue. 7. Remove all trees from the street right of way. 8. Provide all easements required for rear I ine utilities. 9. Install all standard street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance. Improvements, grades and drainage shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Comm issioner Norton stated that th is matter had been presented to the Subdivision Committee and a report had been prepared. SUBDIVISION REPORT The Subdivision Committee has thoroughly reviewed the subject map and recommends its approval. The Committee noted the variations from the strict interpretation of the Sub- division Ordinance proposed by this map but agreed that because of the exist- ing division of the property, the desire of several property owners not to be a part of the tract, and the need for the extension of Los AI tos Avenue to Florence Avenue, that these variations should be permitted with the exception that the dwelling u!1it on lot No.2 not be allowed to be moved to the pro- perty at 509-511 Woodruff Avenue as proposed but rather that it be demolished. The Committee also suggests that the Commission recommend to the City Coun- cil that proceedings satisfactory to the City and to the developer be instituted to'acquire and improve the portion of the property at 505 Los AI tos Avenue that is needed for the orderly extension of the street. The CommHtee further suggests that the subdivider be authorized to establish a trust against the property at 518 Palm Drive and the property at 505 Los Altos Avenue to insure that these properties pay the pro rata share of the subdivision improvements which will benefit these properties. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the subdivision be approved subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report, plus the three conditions ,mentioned in this report. Mr. George H. Mason, 505 Los Altos Ave, desired to be heard. He had purchased his property after much deliberation and did so because it was a quiet, cul-de-sac street. Many p:!ople had been contacting him to enter into the extension of the street. He felt that consideration for other people was not given in the desire to open the street to benefit others. His property had been vacant for a long time ard all of the builders and subdividers had had an opportunity of purchasing the property. He was very much opposed to the opening of the street. They would lose their privacy. Mr. Mat Quint, owner of Lot 69, protested the design and also the amount of trust to be set up against his property if the tract were approved. He felt that a YJ ft. street should be developed that would coincide with the rest of Los Altos Ave. He felt this :would downgrade the area. October 9, 1962 Page Fourteen . . Mr. Eugene Bozell, 471 Los Altos Ave. representing informally the majority of the property owners on Los Altos Ave. east of the proposed tract presented a petition opposing the tentative map and the opening of Los Altos. The petition was signed by approximately 18 property owners. This represents almost all of the people in the area. He felt no consideration was being given to the street east of the subdivision. Most of the people in the area purchased their homes, 1st, because of the lots, all of which are of greater size than are planned for the subdivision; 2nd, many purchased because Los Altos did dead-end. This had been a dead-end street for well over II years. The extension of a street is normally done in the public interest. Here public interes t is questionable. The people in the area are satisfiied with the area and prefer it to a through street. There must be up to 50 children on the street. The normal traffic is that which belongs on the street. The main interest is that of the subdivider and it would seem that the tract is subs tandard. Mrs. George Mason, 505 Los Altos Ave. stated they were opposed to through traffic which would be increased during the racing season. They were nearly unanimously opposed to the extension as proposed. Mr. George Stevenson, 459 Los Altos Street, concurred with those who had previouslyspo ken. Commissioner Norton stated that the basic recommendation of the committee that the lot width and sizes that are now existing on Palm Drive would be similar to those planned for this area. The opposition has a point that could well be taken in that the development of the easterly end of the street was not shown on the existing plan. It is only that portion which is being subdivided. It was shown that most of the lots on Los Altos are at least 71 ft. up to 100 ft. wide and nearly 210 feet deep. Commissioner Golisch stated that many people would prefer a cul-de-sac street, but with respect to the City it is beneficial from the safety factor to have a through street. Cul-de-sac streets are not the best type of development from either the City's or the resident's standpoint. The question that the street had not been developed during the II years it had existed was not ~e to the City but rather that the developers could not get access to the property to get egress and ingress to another street. This is the third instance this area has been under consideration. The first being the Keith lot split, requesting frontage on Los Altos; the second was a cul-de-sac extension and the third being the tentative map under con- sideration. The area is zoned R-I and os such require lots with a minimum of 7500 sq. ft. and this plan is the first that has been presented to accomplish the desires of the City for .conforming lots .and a reasonable street outlet. The Planning Director pointed out to the Commission that there is not a conflict between the staff report and the subdivision committee report because the staff report was prepared prior to the subdivision committee meeting. As a resu'lt of that meeting the staff supports the recommendation of the~bdivision committee. October 9, 1962 Page Fi fteen MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. L-62-25 MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. L-62-26 (Knutsen and Adashek) . . Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, that inasmuch as this matter has been studied by the staff and the subdivision committee and a determination made, that tentative map of Tract No. 22838 be approved, subject to the conditions outUned in the staff report, and the further conditions outlined in the subdivision committee report. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Comm issioners Ferguson, Forman, Gol isch, Kuyper I Norton and Parker. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler. Lot Split No. L-62-25, located at 220 Le Roy Avenue - George Fary, was presented and the staff report read. If the lot split were approved .the following conditions should be imposed: I. File a final map 2. Provide water services to comply with the uniform plumbing code 3. New property I ine shall run the complete depth of the property from the north property line to south property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval is indicated in order to make existing structure on lot No. 18 conform to yard requirements. The Planning Director stated that there were actually two legal lots involved. The garage on lot No. 18 overlap on lot No. 19. The purpose of this appli- cation is to relocate the lot I ine so that the improvements on lot No. 18 would be 3 ft. from the lot line, thereby making it a conforming lot. The property is under one ownership. The one lot has a narrow frontage, and was the result of the flood control obtaining right of way far the channel. The lot would have more than the required area. The property owner is paying assessments for two lots. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Parker that Lot Split No. L-62-25, George Fary, located at 220 Le Roy Ave. be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as outl ined in the staff report. Lot Split No. L-62-26, located at 475 W. Longden Avenue ~ A. O. Knutsen and Joe Adashek. This split has been before the Commission on other occasions and the Commission had denied the lot split was presented but were receptive to splitting the property in two separate lots removing the present structure. The Staff report was present. If the lot split is approved the following con- ditions should be imposed. I. File a final map 2. Provide sewer laterals 3. Pay a recreation fee of $50.00 4. Provide water services to comply with the uniform plumbing code. 5. Remove all buildings from the property and all shrubs from the parkway. 6. Reconstruct any unused curb cuts. October 9, 1962 Page Sixteen - , MOTION PUBLIC PARTlCIPA TION (Bensen Variance) REPORTS ADJOURNMENT . . Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried, that inasmuch as no new evidence had been presented since this lot split was denied, the application of A. O. Knutsen and Jce Adashek, No. L-62-26, for a split of the property at 475 West Longden be denied. Mr. Joe Adashek desired to be heard. He stated that all three lots had more than the required square footage in the R-I zone but lacked a few feet in width. There were many lots in this neighborhood that have lot widths less than 70 ft. He pointed out that Wistaria Ave nue with new homes had lots 60 to 65 feet in width. Mr. Robert Townsend, 321 Le Roy Ave., stated that he was immediately west of the property at 315 Le Ray. Ave under consideration for a variance for a second dwelling. He stated that he is the only other property owner on Le Roy with a residence to the rear of the property such as the Bensens. If some type of action could be devised wherein these two properties could be improved on the front in conformity with the rest of the neighbilrhood he would be interested. He stated that the people on Magna Vista Ave. had purchased their lots under the present zoning ordinance. He and the Bensens had purchased their property under zoning ordinances which would have permitted them to use the front portion of their lots for additional dwellings. He was very interested in the outcome of .this variance. Commissioner Norton stated that Mr. Townsend's approach to the situation was well taken and the Commission expressed appreciation for the thought expressed and perhaps some study could be given to the area to rei ieve the present con- dition. The Planning Director stated that the Chairman, George Forman, had been invited to attend a meeting co-sponsored by the Arcadia-Monrovia League of California Women on Thursday, October.11. The standards for nursery schools had been included in the package to each Commissioner. These should be reviewed prior to the November meeting at which time this matter wi.ll be considered. The League of California Cities will be meeting in Los Angeles and if the Commissioners desire to attend any of the meetings they should so advise the Planning Department. so that registration and reservations may be made. There being no further business ,the meeting adjourned at 11:05 P. M. on October 30, 1962. ~~~ WILLIAM PHELPS, Planning Secretary ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 1962 Page Seventeen