Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 13, 1962 PLEDGE OF ALLEG lANCE ROLL CALL MINUTES CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAR- ING NURSERY SCHOOL STANDARDS . . { , \ " MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION, ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING NQvember 13, 1962 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Cal ifornia, met in regular session on November 13, 1962, at 8:00 P.M., in the Cauncil Chamber, City Hall, Arcadia, California, with Chairman Forman presiding. Chairman Forman led in the pledge af allegiance. PRESENT: Cammissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton and Porker ABSENT: Commissianer Michler OTHERS PRESENT: City Cauncilman Jess Balser City Attarney James Nicklin Asst. City Engineer Fronk Forbes Planning Director William Phelps Planning Technician Ernest Mayer, Jr. The minutes of the meeting of October 30, 1962 were approved os written ond mailed. A continued hearing from October 26, 1962 was apened to discuss the standards for nursery schools. STAFF REPORT GENERAL RE'QUIREMENTS A. The applicant shall submit written proof from the Department of Social Welfare verifying: I. Approval of the site and use of structures on the site 2. The maximum number of children for which the license will be issued. B. This evidence shall be submitted at the time the applicant files an application for the original special use permit. C. The original conditions of approval shall be established from an "an site" inspection of the nursery by the Building and Sofety Division, the Fire Department, the Health Department and the evaluation of the plot plan by the Planning Department. D. Similar inspections of the nursery school shall be made annually. In the event that an unfavorable report is received from the above de- partments the special use permit shall be revoked. E. The nursery school shall submit to the Building and Sofety Division a copy of its State License and all subsequent annual renewals. F. All the activity areas on the site and on the adjacent abutting property shall be accurately del ineated on the plot plan. G. Recreation and play areas shall be confined to the rear yard o(the site. November 13, 1962 Page One . . H. Front yard setbacks shall be maintained as required by the Zoning Ordinance regulations applicable to the district where the nursery school is locoted. I. All buildings and .structures shall comply with the Arcadia Building Code. J. Nursery schools shall not be permitted in any industrially zoned orea. / "ON SITE" REQUIREMENTS A. Density - one child per 75 square feet of outdoor play area and 35 square feet of indoor play area. These areas shall be accurately delineated on the plot plan. B. Fence - whenever a site is adjacent and abutting developed property the rear portion of the site shall be enclosed with a six foot solid fence. In the case where the adjacent abutting property is substantiolly undeveloped or in agricultural or pasture use a six foot chain link fence may be permitted until the property becomes developed. After deva/opment af the adiacent property a six foot sol id fence shall be installed. C. Buffer - a buffer strip from three (3) feet to five (5) feet in depth parallel to the fence shall be maintained. The amount of buffer area shall be determined by the type of fence. I. Concrete block wall - 3 ft. buffer 2. Wood - 5 ft. buffer Play yard equipment in excess of 5 feet in height shall not be located within these designated buffer areas. D. Off Street Parking - one off street porking space shall be provided for each employee,.., If the structure is also used for residential purposes, two additional off street parking spaces shall be provided. I. Additional off street parking may be required whenever circum- stances indicate more is needed. 2. All driveway and parking areas shall be improved with pavement in accordance with the Arcadia Municipal Code. E. Loading Areas - adequate facilities shall be provided to permit children to be safely loaded and unloaded. These facil ities shall be either of the following: I. A circular driveway 2. A driveway terminating in the area designated for off street parking. F. Signs - Not more than one unlighted sign four square feet in area shall - be permitted. G. Landscaping - the landscape development of the nursery school front yards shall be developed and maintained in a manner similar ta and compatible with existing properties in the immediate neighborhood. The Planning Director stated that this was the third draft outlining standards wepared by the staff, the first study contained a complete commentary as to why some of the conditions were necessary to properly regulate nursery schools; Draft No.2 contained some revisions which came about as a result of discussions with the nursery school people, the administrative staff of the City, as well as with the State Department of Welfare. The above standards are a result of these meetings which are applicable to the City of Arcadia and are recommended by the Planning Department as the minimum requirements necessary for nursery schools if permitted as a special use. The Chairman announced that those desiring to be heard should do so at this time. Mrs. Jack Schmitz, Chairman of the Committee for Housing and Legislation, November 13, 1962 Page Two . . Arcadia Parent Participation Nursery School, of 5639 Garypark, Arcadia, California, stated that for' the first time nursery school operators would hove information os to what is expected of them. She appreciated the cooperation between the City and the nursery school owners. She hod spent considerable time in assisting in the formulation of the standards and she felt they meet the needs of the owners of the nursery schools. The schools ore controlled by the California Department of Social Welfare. Much thought has gone into the standards set up for nursery schools by this agency. These are set forth in 0 book entitled: "Manual of Policy and Procedures - Day Nurseries". There is 0 social worker assigned to each area, specifically to check on and help the nursery school. She con come in at any unexpected time. Her recommendations for improvements ore required to be token core of immediately. A time limitation on nursery school use is one of the concerns of the operators of nursery schools. They feel they cannot do their best for the community if "their days are numbered". Alona Crone, 0 licensed C.P.A. served voluntarily for two years os treasurer of the Arcadia Counci I Participation Nursery School. She is the present treasurer of the Son Gabriel Volley Council of Parent Participation Nursery Schools and has professional knowledge of finance problems especially those deal ing with and due to the amortization limited life of nursery schools. She has used the Arcadia nursery school os on example from the revenue viewpoint only. Bldg. Cost Depreciation 10 Year Variance $4,000 (40) 2,000 (20) Natural life New Used $40,000 20,000 $1,000 1,000 Average Gross Revenue 60-61 Payroll Non payroll Non Bldg. depreciation Left over for Bldg. Depreciation $6,000 3,000 $ 3,000 1,700 1,3001 Land values ore not considered, From the above, it con be seen that the nursery school con handle 0 building with 0 life of fortyot.twenty years very easily but if this schedule is reduced to ten years the revenues ore not sufficient. She stated that the present nursery school building would not be adequate for any other purpose, and if they were not permitted to operate the amount thus for expended would be Jost. Thus, os the remaining years on 0 variance narrows they ore faced with this dil.emma. If they were to lose the varian<:e the buildings would hove no value. If they were not to hove their variance renewed and allowed the buildings to deteriorate they still would hove no value. If it were assured that o renewal would be mode there would be hope and expenditures could be mode to further improve the area and surroundings. In this case, many would get fh,e best building they could. The nursery school owners must hove on incentive to make improvements. Some security is needed. Mrs. Dorothy M. Stevens, Playtime Pre School on 530 W. Los Tunas Drive, asked what would determine whether or not the school could continue? In reply it was stated that the original approval would be mode through the Building and Safety Division, Fire Deportment, and Health Department, and on evaluation of the Planning Deportment of the plot plan. After 0 nursery school operator appl ies for 0 special use perm it and these inspections were mode the standards set forth in the report and the ones pecul ior to the nursery school under consideration would hove to be done on on individual basis. If November 13, 1962 Page Three PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION . . these provisions were not kept up the license or permit could be revoked. The City Attorney stated the Commission is attempting to attain something rather than on 0 complaint basis which has been the practice in the post. In the revocation of a special use permit it would not be automatic but that proceed- ings be instituted such as an order to show cause as to why they should not be permit.ted to continue with the use. In some cases there may be explanations which should be heard before 0 license or use is revoked. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, and unan- imously approved byat the publ ic hearing be closed. Commissioner Golisch requested information os to what protection people in 0 neighborhood would hove if in the future problems arise in connection with on established school. The City Attorney stated that he felt sure the annual inspection was not intended os the only inspection, and procedurally every complaint made through the City through proper channels which would appear to hove any basis would be investi- gated and reported upon and these would not be ignored if an investigation showed non-compliance with the standards. The State officials inspect frequently not from just the license aspect, but from the core of the children, etc. Any devia- tion from state standards would be picked up by the State. This would not necessarily be on on annual basis. The contention of the nursery school people is that they must hove some type of security and i.f they comply with the city and state standards they feel they should be allowed to continue in business. A change in attitude on the port of the neigh bors shou Id not be the I everage to remove the operation from the neighbarhaod. An elementary school in an R-I zone would hove more of a nuisance value and cannot os such be removed. If the people in the area ore adequately protected for 0 period of time, there- may be 0 transition period where one ownership or one directorship to another is not os favorable. Commissioner Golisch felt that the matter of restricting nursery schools in a specific zone, such as industrial, should not be considered inasmuch os this is 0 special use and therefore the location would be 0 consideration. The matter of fencing was considered. It should be spelled out that when 0 pro: perty is developed a solid masonry wall sholl be constructed. Otherwise when the surrounding properties is 0 fjeld, etc. 0 chain link fence would be sufficient. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Norton, that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare a resolution embodying the standards set forth in the report submitted by the Planning Department with the further consideration that procedures be set up whereby through due process the special use could be revoked or discontinued through an order to show couse, or any other legal proceeding deemed necessary. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton and Porker NOES: None ABSENT: Commhsioner Michler November 13, 1962 Page Four ZONE VARIANCE V-62-11 PACIFIC TELEPHONE COMPANY . . Public hearing was held on the application of the Pacific Telephone ond Telegroph Co. for 0 vorionce to construct on oddition to the existing office building ot 15 Alice Street, ond use the odjoining R-3 lot (lot 9) for porking. STAFF REPORT: The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, owners of the R-3 property known os lots 7, 8, Block I, Tract 101 (15 AI ice Street) and the optionees on the property known as lot 9, Block I, Tract 101 (15 AI ice Street) request o zone variance to permit: A. Second story exponsion of an existing building originally constructed under a variance. B. Building height to exceed two story 35 ft. height limit by two feet. C. Development and use of parking spaces required by such expansion C1~ lot 9. Pacific Telephone has provided service from their facility at 15 Alice Street since 1945 and there has been no neighborhood objection to the use of the subject property for telephone service purposes. Pacific Telephone'6olN finds it necessary to augment this facility with additional space and equip- ment in order to meet demands of the publ i!= for additional telephone service in Arcadia. The Planning Department considers this variance request to permit expansion of existing telephone focilities at 15 Alice Street to be in the best interests of residents of the City of Arcadio and recommends that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: J. The voriance not to be operative and no building permits be issued until complete plot plans, building plans and landscape plans have been submitted and approved by all interested Arcadia City Departments. 2. That grading and drainage plans for the parking areas be submitted and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance af abuilding permit. 3. That all parking lot and building illumination be directed away from adjoining properties and shall meet with the approval of the Deportment of ,Publ ic Works. 4. That a 5 faot high solid wall be constructed concurrently with the building addition along the entire east property line of lot 9 to separate the parking areo from the adjacent residen- . tially zoned and developed property. 5. That all existing structures be removed from Lot 9 prior to the issuance of any building permits. PROPONENTS Mr. W. H. Watts, 1475 Sixth Ave. San Diego I, California, representing the Pacific Telephone Co. stoted that the building had been in use for many years and with thegrowth in this area it was necessary to increase the facilities in order to give the best possible service to the citizens of Arcadia. They had an option to purchase the adjoining lot and this would give .the required parking for the addition. November 13, 1962 Page Five ; . .. ~ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION MODIFICATION APPEAL M-62-60 (Thomason) . . OPPONENTS: None The Planning Director stated that from an aesthetic viewpoint the fence should be of masonry construction and should be 5 ft. to the front so that the view of the automobiles would be hidden from the adjaining R-3 property. The parking lot would not be used from the front but would use the adjoining alley. The Asst. City Engineer pointed out that the wall should be reduced in height 15 ft. back from the a/ley to permit sight clearance. A chain link fence across the alley would permit clear vision for cars using the alley. The alley should also be improved. It was felt that from consistency and continuity the concrete block or mosonry wall should be continued across the rear but reduce the height so that sight clearance would be obtained in this manner. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried that the public hearing be closed. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried that the zone variance of the PaciFic Telephone and Telegraph Co. for construction of an addition to their present office building at 15 Alice Street, and the use of the R-3 adjoining lot as parking, be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, and the fur!her condition that the parking lot be fenced with a masonry wall 5 feet in height to within 15 feet of the alley to the rear and that the remaining portion be reduced in height to 3 feet; that the olley adjoining said parking lot be improved to the. satisFaction of the Department of Public Works; and the further provision that a covenant be filed to the effect that Lot 9 would be used in connection with lots 7 and 8 for the required parking. The decision of the Modification Committee was appealed by the applicants for yard requirements in connection with an apartment eave overhand at 41 AI ta Street. STAFF REPORT The application seeks a modification of the driveway requirements to permit the pr':'jection of an eave 24" into the driveway at a height of 8 feet. This application was considered by the Modification Committee of the Planning Commission on October 2, 1962, and was denied by unanimous action. The basis for denial was two-fold. The Arcadia Municipal Code clearly states that driveways shall be totally unobstructed from the driveway upward with the following exception: If the eave is more than 13 feet above the driveway it may overhand the driveway a distance of not mare than 3 feet. The violation was first detected by the Building Department while the building was in the framing stage. At that time and subsequently the controctor was n 0 I,jfied to remove the eave or apply immediately for a modification. The eave was not removed and the modification was not applied for unti I the November 13, 1962 Page Six . . the building was completed. The Planning Department believing that the removal of that portion of the eove in violation wi II not materially affect the aesthetic looks of the building, therefore, recommends that the decision of the Modification Committee of the Planning Commission be upheld. PROPONENTS: Mr. William Bowie, 201 S. Baldwin Ave. representing Mr. Thomason, stated that there was a lack of communication between the contractor and his client. If the eave had been required to be removed it did not come to his attention until the construction was nearing completion and a final inspection was requested. He had understood that the slight overhang would not hamper trucks, etc. from entering thed~iveway. There was ample parking and raom except in this respect of the 13 ft. verticle clearance. Mr. A. S. Patterman, representing Doll Homes, Inc. 7946 E. Garvey, South San Gabriel, stated no time element had been stated when he was told he . . would have to have a modification for the eave overhand; therefore, he had no applied for it until he wos neoring completion. OPPONENTS Mr. Chastain, Chief Building Inspector, .stated he had the records of the permits and the dates of inspection. The contractor had been notified of the infringing eave overhond and stated it could be cut back any time. They had placed a red tag on the job and required the contractor to file an application for modification or cut the eave back to the required limit. Pi ctures of the building were exhibited. Mr. Bowie stated he had obtained signatures of the neighbors to the effect that the eave would not be objectian- able to them. He felt the appearance of the building would be affected if the cut has to be made. There were other buildings in the area with over- . hangs simi lar. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Galisch, end unanimously carried, that the decision of the Modification Committee with respect to the application of Carl E. Thomason, 41 Alta Street be sustained. TRACT NO. 22335 The Commission considered the final map of Tract No. 22335, located obout 100 ft. south of Beverly Drive on the east side of Sixth Avenue. Six single family lots are proposed on the properties known as 2320 and 2322 South Sixth Avenue. STAFF REPORT This tract is located on the east side of Sixth Avenue 100 feet south of Beverly Drive. It consists of twa properties known as 2320 and 2322 S. Sixth Avenue and proposes six new lots. The tract is in substantial compl ionce with the approved Tentative Map and is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: November 13, 1962 Page Seven . . I. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements 2. Remove all buildings and structures within or across the tract boundaries prior to the sign ing of the final map 3. Remove all trees from the street right of way 4. Install all standard street impravements required by the subdivision ordinance.. Improvements, grading, grades and drainage shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Publ ic Works. Minimum grade of 0.4% will be required. 5. Pay the following fees: Installation of street trees Installation of street name signs Installation of steel street I ight posts 6 lots recreation fee @ $25.00 $76.50 70.00 230.00 150. 00 TOTAL $ 526.50 6. A covenant in a.form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded agreeing that for the purpose of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code the exterior boundary line of said tract shall constitute the rear lot line of lots 3 to 6 inclusive. Some concern was given toward the small frontages, but at the time the tentative map had been filed and presented to the Commission no policy had been determined. Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, were substandard, but inasmuch as other subdivisions had been approved similarly designed this tentC?tive tract was approved subject to certain conditions. These conditions have now been met and the final map conforms substantially with the tentative map and should be recommended for approval. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that the final map of Tract No. 22335, located south of Beverly Drive on the east side of Sixth Avenue, be reccmmended for approval, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch and Parker NOES: Commissioner Norton ABSTAINED: Commissioner Kuyper ABSENT: Commissioner Michler TRACT NO. 27444 The Planning Commission considered the final map of Tract No. 27444 located north of Longden Avenue, and west of Second Avenue, containing 36 lots. STAFF REPORT This tract is located north of l:ongden Avenue and.wed oHSecond:Ave'nue and contains 36 lots. The tract is in substantial compliance with the approved tentative map. The Planning Depoitment recommends approval, subject to the following condi tions: November 13, 1962 Page Eight . . I. The City shall accept the offer of "future street" dedication for First Avenue between Las Flores Avenue and the north line of the tract. Th is street to be opened and improved by the subdiv ider. 2. Dedicate a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement along each side of Arthur Avenue and Louise Avenue 3. Dedicate Arthur Avenue 49 feet wide and dedicate one foot in fee to the City between lots 32 and 33. 4. Rearrange the lines of lots 25 and 26 to clear the swimming pool on lot 24. The pool shall be covered or otherwise protected until completion of a new house on the lot. 5. Relocate or remodel the dwellings at 2113 S. Second Ave. and 51 E. Longden Ave. and the garage at 2111 S. Second Ave. to conform to new lot lines. 6. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 7. Remove all other buildings and structures within the tract except the dwellings at 2111 S. Second Ave., 25 E. Longden Ave., and 33 E. Longden Ave. 8. Remove all trees from the street right of way. 9. Install all standard street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance. Improvements, grad~ng, grades and drainage shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The minimum grade shall be 0.4% or a minimum storm drain to Second Ave. will be required. 10. Construct a 6 ft. high solid grape stake fence, or other approved equal fence along the property between lots 32 and 33. II. Pay the following fees: Street tree installation Street light installation Street name sign installation 36 lots recreotion fee @ $L5.00 $ 654.50 1610.00 280.00 900.00 TOTAL $ 3444.50 12. A covenant in 0 form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded agreeing that for the purposes of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code the exterior boundary line of said tract shall constitute the rear lot line of lot 18. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried that final map of Tract No. 27444, located north of Longden Avenue, and west of Second Avenue, containing 36 lots be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REPORT The matter of cul-de-sacs and subdivision had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and a report submitted as follows: REPORT: The Subdivision Committee (Messrs. Norton, Golisch, and Kuyper) held a meeting on Thursday, November I, 1962. At this meeting subdivision design practices were discussed with particular reference to cul-de-sac streets and the development of corner lots. November 13, 1962 Page Nine . . In this connection the committee reviewed the problem generally created by the distribution (or proposed locotion) of cul-de-soc streets; by the frontoge of lots on cul-de-sacs; by the radius requirement for cul-de-sacs; and by the location of structures (houses and gorages) and improvements (driveways) on corner properties. Proposes Location of Cul-de-sacs The Committee agreed thot if a cul-de-sac street were permitted to be built in the wrong location that the proper development of the remaining land could be adversely affected. An example of this fact was brought to light several months ago when the Planning Commission approved 0 lot split ot the northwest corner of La Sierra Drive and Second Avenue. Several years ago Magna Vista Avenue a small cul-de-sac street on the west side of Second Avenue north of La Sierra Drive was constructed. The remaining property between La Sierra Drive and Magna Vista though 300 feet deep did not have sufficient length to permit proper development with another cul-de-sac. Now that the property at the corner has been split one lot 300 by 92 feet in an area remains where the average six lot is only eobout 7500 sq. ft. This large lot with about 27,600 sq. ft: is in Zone R-I and unless developed with a large house or with other single family accessory improvements has missed its development potential. To preclude this same possibility from occurring again the Committee recommends that as a matter of policy that whenever a developer proposes a cul-de-sac street that a map be required showing the existing lots between the streets on both sides of the propbsed cul-de-sac. With this informotion the staff can properly evaluate whether or not approval of the cul-de-sac would or would not adversely affect the orderly development of the remain ing property. Frontage of Lots on Cul-de-Sacs. The minimum lot size is set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code as 15,000 sq. ft. in Zone R-O north of Huntington Drive with a minimum lot width of 100 feet at the front building line ond a minimum depth of 150 feet; in Zones R-I, R-2 and R-3, 7500 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 75 ft. at the front building line and a minimum depth of 100 ft. Lately several tracts have been approved by the Commission in Zone R-I with less than 75 feet at the front building line. In most of these approvals cul-de- sac streets were proposed. The reason the Commission approved lots with less than the required width in the case of cul-de-sacs was due to the lotting layout usually proposed would have created key lots, i.e., the side yard Iirie would have been common to the rear yard of another lot. The creation of key lots was not deemed desirable or wanted by the Commission They, therefore, required the cul-de-sac streets to be shortned with lots created at the end of the street which wou ld have a common rear lot line with the adjoining property. In making this requirement only 50 feet could be maintained at the front yard line and still permit the same number of lots which could have been legally created under the old lotting practice. The Subdivision Committee has tentatively agreed that the 50 feet ot the building line is not adequote and feels that more frontage would be desir- able for lots on a cu I-de-sac. November 13, 1962 Page Ten . . The Committee recommends to provide this additionol frontage ond still not create key lots that the radius of the cul-de-sac be increased from 40 feet as presently required by Section 9114.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to 50 feet. This would increase the length of the circle and pravide more frontage to be divided. In addition the requ ired frontage for lots on the cul-de-sac streets be held at 75 feet the same as lots on a straight street. These two requirements would work together to provide greater frontage for cul-de-sac lots. location of Houses 'and Garages - on Corner lots The municipal code calls for a side yard setback of 10 feet on the street side of a corner lot for main buildings and 15 feet for accessory structures (garages) . The Committee recommends that the Commission consider changing this setback to at least 25 feet for accessory buildings and 20 feet for main buildings. The problem caused by the ten foot side yard setback is illustrated by the house at the southwest corner of Santa Anita Terrace and Santa Anita Avenue. It is obviously too close to Santa Anita' Avenue especially in relation to the setbacks of the houses fronting on Sonta Anita Avenue. An illustration of a 20 foot setback can be seen at Palm Drive on the east side of Santa Anita Avenue. The Committee feels that perhaps the 20 faot setback would have been adequate if the drive approaches to the two corner lots .had been off Palm Drive rather than Santa Anita Avenue. To provide for a more orderly arrangement of houses to the newly created lots the Committee suggests that in the case of cul-de-sac streets that the drive approaches to taken from the interior side of the corner lot. A condition of approval requesting the dedication of vehicular access rights to the street which the corner lots side on waudl preclude future curb cuts on the primary street. Another condition of opproval would specify driveway location os stated above, i. e., on the interior side of 0 corner lot. In making these recommendations to the Commission the Committee suggests that the developers, and engineers, who subdivide land in the Ci:ity be given an opportunity to speak to the points contained in this report. To this end the Committee through the staff has informed those developers and engineers who have filed tentative map WI th the City In tne pas" iw" years of this report. (Subdivision Committee) Nqvember 13, 1962 Page Eleven . . The Chairman stated that letters had been sent ta all subdividers and engineers in tne area who had submitted tracts within the past five years to the effect that this subject would be dIscussed at this meeting. The following were hears: Arthur Boumann - Westment Development Co. 650 W. Duarte Rd. Vernon Jones, Hillcrest Engineering Co. 30 Santa Clara St. Alfred Allen, 1045 W. Huntington Drive Harry Robinson, 1114 Lyndon Way O. A. Knutsen - 2636 S. Baldwin Avenue Robert Price, 2753 Temple City Baulevard, Temple City, Bruce Kitchen - 1516 ., 8th Avenue Three separate developments of the cul-de-sac had been prepared by the Department. Each developer was in favor of Plan "C" and expressed reasons for this development from the subdivider's viewpoint. The econom- ics of subdividing had to be considered. Mast people desire more rear yards because of outdoor I iving in Cal iforn ia. The objection of the garage being on the one side of a corner lot with the house fronting on the other had been a well received and accepted design, preferred by most people as it provided almost complete privacy. Most of the driveways did provide for cars to bock out on the street. This had been el iminated where the street had traffic of a major quantity. This had not been a serious factor. The houses so designed had been desired by people, and the subdividers felt it was their business to design houses for the purchasers otherwise they would remain unsold. No objection was raised to many of the other features of the report. It was felt that each cul-de-sac had to be considered on its own merits and that a strict and fast rule could not be laid aut for al,. The Chairman of the Subdivision Committee stated that an attempt was being made to'provide a set of circumstances that will represent the desires cif the public. One of these standards has been to maintain a high standard of development within the City; 2ndly, to diminsh to a certain degree the donsity factor. The desire has been 10 come with an answer 10 a problem factor. There are pros and cans to the advisability of the cul-de-sac streets. Some of the cul-de-sacs are desirable locations. These must not get completely out of hand. The desirabil ity of maintain- ing 75 ft. at the building line is a good considerotion. This does not represent a hardship on the property. The Commission has desired basic standards. The law of economics does playa great part in developing property, but in many cases where something has been brought to the Commission and there were factors not to the best interest of the City, if has been denied and a more desirable set of circumstances have been developed. November 13, 1962 Page Twelve . . . . The Chairman stated that letters had been sent to all subdividers and engineers in the area who had submitted tracts within the past five years to the effect that this subject would be dIscussed at this meeting. The following were hears: Arthur Boumann - Westment Development Co. 650 W. Duarte Rd. Vernon Jones, Hillcrest Engineering Co. 30 Santa Clara St. Alfred Allen, 1045 W. Huntington Drive Harry Robinson, 1114 Lynaon Way O. A. Knutsen - 2636 S. Baldwin Avenue Robert Price, 2753 Temple City Boulevard, Temple City, Bruce Kitchen - 1516 - 8th Avenue Three separate developments of the cul-de-sac had been prepared by the Department. Each developer was in favor of Plan "C" and expressed reasons for this development from the subdivider's viewpoint. The econom- ics of subdividing had to be considered. Most people desire mare rear yards because of outdoor living in California. The objection of the garage being on the one side of a corner lot with the house fronting on the other had been a well received and accepted design, preferred by most people as it provided almost complete privacy. Most of the driveways did provide for cars to back out on the street. This had been eliminated where the street had traffic of a major quantity. This had not been a serious foctor. The houses so designed had been desired by people, and the subdividers felt it was their business ,to design houses for the purchasers otherwise they would remain unsold. No objection was raised to many of the .other features of the report. It was felt that each cul-de-sac had to be considered on its own merits and that a strict and fast rule could not be laid out for all. The Chairman of the Subdivision Committee stated that an attempt was being made to provide a set of circumstances that will represent the desires of the public. One of these standards has been to maintain a high standard of development within the City; 2ndly, to diminsh to a certain degree the density factor. The desire has been to come with an answer to a problem factor. There are pros and cons to the advisabi Iity of the cul-de-sac streets. Some of the cul-de-sacs are desirable locations. These must not get completely out of hand. The desirability of maintain- ing 75 ft. at the building line is a good consideration. This does not represent a hardship on the property. The Commission has desired basic standards. The law of economics does playa great port in developing property, but in many cases where something has been brought to the Commission and there were factors not to the best interest of the City, if has been denied and a more desirable set of circumstances have been developed. November 13, 1962 Poge Twelve . . R-3 DEVELOPMENTS PUBLIC PARTI- CIPA TlON ADJOURNMENT . . Extreme situatians shauld nat be cansidered. It was agreed that an attempt shauld be made ta develop lots that are desired by the people. It might be necessary to take another viewpaint, even though people might prefer, or something appeals to their particular desires, on a longer ranae viewpoint and from the standpoint af police and fire protection it may be necessary to consider different angles other than those that the average citizen might look at. This study is made with a long range viewpoint in mind and with the desire af impraving situations. The developers suggested that perhaps a number of places could be selected showing the proper development from their viewpoint and a visit be made by members of the Commission so that in studying future tentative maps concrete vision would be available. This subject has been pursued mainly to develop lots that will provide suitable lats. land is now at a point where study has to be made and where the standards cannot be lowered. It is the long range planning that is to be desired. The matter was continued for further study. Further consideration of the standards for the R-3 area was given. It was the consensus cif opinion that immediote action need be taken in order to prevent a rush of appl ications for permits for what wi II or may become sutstandard buildings. The Technical Committee is studying the construction and it si imperotive that some action be taken by the Planning Commission to upgrade this area, to control the density factor and to prevent some of these buildings from becoming substandord. The question of a'moratorium of "freeze" was discussed. The Zoning Committee will meet immediately and make ar.eport to the Commission with recommendations. No one in the audience desired to be heard. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. ~~~ WilliAM PHELPS PI ann ing Secretary