Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 8, 1963 .__. ~J~::, , PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROll CAll MINUTES Z-62-4 PUBLIC HEARING (Duarte Rd.) ~\ . .- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION, ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING January 8, 1963 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califarnia, Califarnia, met in regular session an January 8, 1963, at 8:00 a'clack P. M., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, Arcadia, California. The Chairman led in the pledge of allegiance. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton, Parker and Forman. ABSENT: Commissioner Michler OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Jess Balser City Attorney James A. Nicklin Asst. City Engineer Frank Forbes Planning Director William Phelps Planning Technician Ernest Mayer, Jr. The minutes of the previous meeting held December", 1962 will be considered at the next meeting. Publ ic hearing was held on, the application of Henry Grobmeier for a change of ZOne reclassifying the property at 433 East Duarte Rd. from Zone R-2 to Zone C-2 and D. STAFF REPORT: APPLICATION This application of Ethlyn Grobmeier, requests the rezoning of approximately the south two-thirds of lots I and 2, Tract No. 3522, located on the northwest corner of Duarte Road and Fifth Avenue to Zone C-2 and D. The two lots are commonly known as 423, 425, 433 and 435 E. Duarte Road and lot No. I abuts the eastern Arcadia City Boundary. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, I. Both lots are in Zone R-2 2. Lot I is improved with two houses in fair condition 3. Lot 2 is improved with one house in fair condition and one duplex in fair condition. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA I. The subject properties are located in a block which is zone R-2 and used exclusively for residential purposes. 2. The properties on the south side of Duarte Road from Fifth Avenue to a point west of Third Avenue are ,in Zone R-I and used exclusively for that purpose. January 8, 1963 Page One , ~ .. . - 3. There is no commerciol zoning or lond use on the north and south sides af Duorte Rood from Fifth Avenue to a point west of Third Avenue. 4. The property directly eost of Fifth Avenue on the north side of Duarte Road within Monrovia's City limits is zoned for commercial development ond 0 portion of it is improved with a neighborhood shopping center. 5. The property east of Fifth Avenue on the south side of Duarte Road within Monrovia's City limits is in Zone R-2 and is mostly single- family use at present. 6. It is quite likely that Monravia will rezone all of the praperty front- ing on Duarte Road from the Arcadia City Boundary on the west to the Santa Anita.wClSh on the east to R-4 (Hi-Density Multiple Dwellings) within the next month. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS There appears to be I ittle or no justification for the spot rezoning of these lots for commercial purposes at this time. The surrounding Arcadia zoning and land use is almost exclusively devoted to residential and a piecemeal rezoning of the subject property would constitute objectionable spot zoning and is not justified by good zoning practice. However, the Planning Department does recognize the existence of a deteriorating condition a same properties in, the area and realizing that rezoning could constitute a force for their el imination and/or revitalization does recommend that it be direc- ted to undertake a zoning study that would not only include the subject property but an area encompassed by Diamond Street on the north, Santa Anita Avenue on the west, Duarte Road on the south and Fifth Avenue on the east. Such a stuch would supplement the Downtown Consultants' study which terminates at Diamond Street and would provide a complete and camprehensive bosis for sound planning judgment. The Planning Commission, has three ,alternatives regarding this application: I. To deny it 2. bhold it in obeyance by continuing the public hearing until a zoning study af the entire area can be completed. 3. To approve it. NOTE: If the Commission decides to approve the appli~ation the, Staff should be instructed to develop specific conditions of approval to be incorpo'rated in the Commission's Resolution." PROPONENTS Mr. Henry W. Sha,tford, attorney representing the applicants, of 410 Drake Road, presented a petition signed by seventeen people representing eight property owners in the 300 ft. radius which recommended a change of zone as specified. January 8, 1963 Page Two \0,0' .. . Mr. Shatfard reviewed the area adjaining the subject property and exhibited photographs. He also presented on areal map showing the present candition of the entire area fram Secand Avenue to the boundary line of Monrovia. Traffic generating on Duarte Road with in the past year ar so due largely to the shopping center just east of the property made this area impractical for R-2 uses which it presently is zaned; any residential use would be impractical as the area is located between C-2 and C-l properties. Mast of the improvements on this block are being permitted to stand awaiting some action for development. This is a matter of free enterprise and necessitates good business judgment as to what zone it should be, but he felt it was crystal clear as to what should be done. Within this area during the past two years the traffic count on this street has gane up 3000 automobiles per day. The entire area has changed. Monrovia has rezoned the area east of the boundary and more is anticipated from the residential to a R-4 and many units are being develaped. ,Dr. Lintan Baxter spoke in favor of some change of Duarte Road. He stated that while he lived on Duarte Road the entire area was deteriorating and' a change of zane was indicated. Many of the homes were being held pending a change and a~ a result some were in a bad state of repair. He felt the entire area should be studied. He would go along with any suggestions of the Planning Commission but did feel that some rehabil itation is necessary. Mr. R. W. Carver, 3840, Cartwright Ave.. Pasadena, representing the Richfield Oil Co. stated the proposed change was being requested for the purpose of con- struction of a gas station on th is corner. He stated that the size of this property was 250 ft. deep and has a frontage of approximately 200 feet after dedication of the street with curbs, gutters and corner cutoff etc. There is approximately 170 foot frontage on Duarte Road and some 212 feet deep back. The proposal of the sellers is to apply for a lot split on the two lots. This parti cular piece would be purchased in conjunction with the property adjoining. The back part would remain R-2 and the frant 110 ft. is the change of zone to C-2. This would not be a group of stores, or strip zoning, but would be but one use. This would tie into the shopping center adjoining the boundary in Monrovia. The size of the property and the condition of the area in general would lend itself to this development even though the zoning were studied ~nd eventually changed. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, that the public hearing on the zone change application on the northwest corner of Duarte Road and Fifth Avenue be continued until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission of January 22, 1963, and that a further study of the entire area be made from Diamond St. to Duarte Road, and from Santa Anita Ave. to the east boundary line. This study would tie into the one being made by Wilsey, Ham and Blair of the Downtown area. No vote was taken on the motion at this time. The City Attorney advised there were two avenues to pursue; 1st, that the public hearing be continued and that it should be for a reasonable time; and, 2ndly, if the hearing were closed a decision must be reached within 35 days. Commissioner Norton stated then his motion should, be to deny the zone change appl ication on the bdsis that the study would take four or five months to complete and should mesh with the study being prepared by the Consultants for the Downtown Area. January 8, 1963 Page Three I. . . . .' Mr. Shatfor.d stated the applicant was not desirous of a decision at this time, but that aFter a cursory study of the area based on his appl ication and the Facts brought out at this hearing, then 0 decision could be made. It may be thot the Commission could, aFter a study, recommend the denial of the application on the premise that a study should be made of a larger area ond this jwould be without prejudice so that at a Future time when the study is completed the zoning would be determined. MOTION . The Following motion was substituted for the abave. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, th at the public hearing be continued to the next regular meeting of the Commission on January 22, 1963. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Fergu~on, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton, Parker and Forman. NOES: None ABSENT:. CO!)'1missioner Michler V-62-13 PUBLIC HEARING (Jewish Center) A public hearing was held on the application of the Foothill Jewish Temple Center to use the Zone R-I, PR-I and C-2 property at Foothill Boulevard, Second and Sycamore Avenues For church purp,oses. STAFF REPORT: This report is abaut the variance application submitted by the Foothill Jewish Temple Center. The application states that the proposed use aF the property between Sycamore Avenue and Foothill Blvd. on the west side of Second Avenue is For Temple and religious school purposes. However, the plot plan submitted with the application also shows a substantial portion of the building to be used for a gymnasium. SITE: The property is rectangularly shaped with 286 feet of Frontage on Foothill Boulevard and Sycamore Ave. and 580 feet of frontage on Second Avenue. It has an area of 3.8 acres. ZONING The Foothill frontage to a depth of 135 feet is in Zone C-2 {which permits churches} Followe~ by a 75 foot strip in Zone PR, I. The remaining 370 feet up to Sycamore Ave. is in Zone R-I. HISTORY On January 6, 1959, Resolution No. 3092 granted a variance for a temple and religious school on the southerly portion of the subject praperty with the Sycamore Avenue frantage to a depth of 170 feet remaining for R-I uses. Two time extensions each for six months were also granted. On July 6, 1960, the variance expired. On August 17, 1961, the Temple representatives submitted another variance appli- cation for the subject property proposing a similar use of the land but with the buildings in different locations. The Temple was proposed to face Sycamore Ave. and the Foothill property was to be reserved for commercial purposes. This appli- cation was denied. January 8, 1963 Page Four . . LAND ,USE ANALYSIS The Planning Department report of September 20, 1961, in part stated "since this property was originolly considered by the Commission the Foothill Junior High School has been placed in operation ond Ralph's Grocery has opened on Foothill Blvd. east of Second Ave. A bridge has been constructed on Sycamore Ave. over the Santa Anita Wash and Sycamore Avenue and ~econd Avenue have been curbed ond the povement widened to give better access to the area. On the east side of Second Avenue, opposite the proposed use, are three single- family dwellings. Along Sycamore Avenue, east of Second Avenue, are eight more single-family dwellings. All of these structures appear to be in good condition and have considerable economic life remaining as single-famiiy structures. Of these dwellings, the three on Second Avenue would be more likely to have their environ- mental qual ities affected by the construction of not only the proposed use, but by the 'construction of Cllmost any structure other than single-family. Immediately to the west of the subject prClperty are three lots. These lots are 375 feet deep. On the front portion are constructed single-family dwellings. Again, these dwellings oppear to be in good structural condiHon and hove considerable economic life remaining. The bock end of these lots could best be developed by e:Uending a street westerly from Second Averu e across the subject property. The development of the subject property as proposed by the applicants will preclude this possible develop'11en t of the rear parts of the lots described above. Sycamore Avenue and Second Avenue are both local streets. They were designed to principally provide access to residential properties and to provide local traffic service. Evan though these streets can and in some cases do carry other than local traffic movements should be discouraged. If this community type structure were constructed, more traffic would be attracted to the area and thereby reduce the residential qualities of the area. Directly opposite the subject property is the new Junior High School. There is little doubt that this proposed use would be compatible with the school, as well as with the new supermarket," Essentially, there has been little change in the area since that last report. However, it should be emphasized that the variance applicatian should be evaluated on its effect on the overall area despite the compatibiliry with the School and Supermarket. PLOT PLAN REVIEW The plot plan submitted with the application is not detailed enough for specific analysis, i.e., in terms of.scale dimensions, etc. However, it is sufficient for the identification of the concepts involved in the proposed development, i. e., the location of all the buildings and the various activities proposed on the site. This building appears to be divided providing space for a sanctuary with 325 seats; a social hall and gymnasium with lockers and showers, a youth lounge, classrooms, 0 day nursery, a kindergarten room, kitchens, a stage, 12 additional classrooms, a chapel with 50 seats; and quarters for a custodian. Other portions of the site show spoce allocated far play areas, service yards, parking area, landscaped buffer areas, ond a swimming pool. January 8, 1963 Page Five ,\/ '. , . . PARKING The plan shows 153 off street parking spaces. The zoning ordinance requi res for churches, I parking space for each eight seats. In this case for the church activities alane 43 parking spaces would meet the code requirements. A more realistic parking ratio (number of seats to parking spaces) from a planning viewpoint for Arcadia shw I d be Ito 3 or 4 bosed on the average family size of 3 to 4 which prevails in Arcadia. Using this standard for the church activities (sanctuary and chapel areas only) 93 to 125 parking spaces would be a more accept- able standard. Because of the complexity of the site development and the number of activities proposed it is conceivable that even this standard would not provide ade- quate off street parking. OTHER SITE CHARACTERISTIC,S The periphery of the site on three sides indicates buffer areas wide enough to provide planting areas which could help to screen these activities on the site from the neighboring properties. A block wall is proposed on the west bound9ry of the site. Additional buFFer area should be provided adjacent to the proposed wall on the west property Ii n e. RECOMMENDA TI ONS The Planning Department recommends that the variance application not be approved because the activities proposed on the site being unlike those customarily associated with 0 church makes the use of this property too intensive in relation to'the surround- ing R-I area in terms of traffic, affstreet parking and noise From the proposed activities which may well be scheduled For weekends, evenings, etc. However, if the Planning Commission decides to approve this application the following con- ditions cif approval should apply: 1. The final plans which shall include complete working drawings, and specifications, including landscaping, irrigation, drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. These plans shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan. 2. A Five foot strip of land parallel to the proposed block wall on the west property line shall be shown on the final plans as a landscaped area from a distance of 135 feet north of Foothill Boulevard. 3. The drainage of the property including the parking lot shall be to the satisfaction of the Department of Publ ic Works. 4. The north five (5) feet of the property with a 20 Foot corner radius at Second Avenue, be dedicated for Sycamore Avenue and a 20 Foot corner radius be dedicated at Foothill Boulevard and Second Avenue. 5. All walls, landscaping and porkingareas be installed concurrently with the construction of the first phase of the development of the property. 6. All parking lot lights shall be indirect hooded, and directed away From the residential areas. January 8, 1963 Page Six ,) '. . . 7. The variance not to be operative until complete plot plans, building plans and elevations have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission which shall be within one year from the date of the tentative approval of the project by the City Council. Site work shall not commence until a building permit has been issued. COMMUNICA TIONS: A communication had been received from the Foothill Jewish Temple in regard to the plot plan submitted to the office. They desired to advise that it was their intention to have a fI) foot front elevation. The uses in the proposed structure on Foothill Boulevard would materially benefit the activities for all groups regard- less of race, color or creed. The gymnasium and auditorium would be made avail- able to other groups. This was signed by Frank Ackerman, President of the Foothill Jew ish Center. Mr. August Goebel, 3935 E. Huntington Drive, Pasadena, Cal if. residing at 520 Campesina Road, Arcadia, represented the appl.icant. Mr. Goebel stated that the remarks as contained in the Planning Department's report as to the development of the property to the west having access only over the subject property inferred that this was one of the reasons this application should be denied. These peqple have no right of access over the property now and with the property being owned by the applicant it did not seem that provision should be made to use this property to develop other property. No attempt has been made to develop any of the property, so faras the applicant knows. , The south 135 ft. currently is zoned C-2 which would permit the use sought. The next 75 feet is PR 1 and this no doubt could be used for parking. The amount of parking provided would far exceed the requirements for this particular type of development. This property has been held since 1957, so it is not a matter of purchasing property and then coming in and asking for a change of use. Conditions have changed in the area since the land was purchased. To the east, Ralphs Market has developed; to the north is the Foothill Junior High School. Sycamore Ave. is opened through to First Ave. by a bridge over the Santa Anita Wash. None of the residents in the area are opposing and it is understood they are in favor of this development. Any development of this nature needs a large parcel of land. The Church owns the property and it would be most difficult to find other large property situated such as this in a complete parcel that cauld be used for this purpose. The orea now is undeveloped, dusty and at times covered with debris. The parking facilities on this lot would be made available to those using the adjoining property for school meetings, etc. He felt this area did not particularly need more business but more cultural types of development. The facilities wouJd be available for all groups. This application was substantially granted previously. A few changes have been made. There will be a buffer zone to the west with adequate planting. Mr. Goebel questioned the request for sidewalks around the property. The applicant would go along with whatever is reasonable. Tho~9h not exactly knowing how to proceed the zone variance previously granted was allowed to elapse. They now have the pledges in the amount of $250,000.00. These are based on the premise that ground would be broken within four months. They would pursue the construction January 8, 1963 Page Seven 'I. r >, MOTION Publ ic Hearing Closed . . diligently. It would be in two phases. It may be many years before the gymnasium and pool activities would be developed, but the Temple ond classrooms, together with the parking and landscaping would be developed as soon as possible. Mr. Frank Ackerman, 629 W. WoJlnut St. Arcadia, President of the Foothill Jewish Temple Center verified the foct that pledges had been made in the amount of" . $250,000.00 provided ground is broken within four months. They hove been trying to complete all necessary requirements and have worked diligently since 1957. The first thing that is stressed is the service to the community. This center now serves about 200 families. The only other facility near by is Altadena which is about ten miles away. They were olso unable to care for the members during the Holy days because of lack of space. This area serves 200 people, 70% of which reside in Arcadia. With the p[Oposed use they estimate they could serve approxima- tely 400 famil ies. Most of the people in the area feel that the present areo is un- sightly and the type of development proposed would be of benefit to the neighborhood. The use of the gymnasium and facilities would be made available to youth regardless of race or creed. This would be a supervised play area to keep the youth off the streets and would aid to prevent juvenile delinquency, There would be two closs rooms used during the week with about eight students. It was again stated that this was needed in the City, and the organization had checked every available piece of property within the City for 0 parcel large enough to accommodate these facilities. The only property found, as pointed out on the map, was about the same size as the property they now have and the owner asked $175,000 in addition to taking over this land. The land must be in a location to serve the area and not too close to the Pasadena Center. Mr. John Webster, 151 E. laurel St, which is within the 300 ft, radius felt that this was a very good use of the property. He felt that the sidewalks as mentioned as a condition of approval would be imperative. That there might be a possibility in changing the parking setup near the school. A church use in the neighborhood is far superior to a commercial use but the only question is the safety of the children attending the school and the problem at the intersection of Second Ave. and Foothill Boulevard. OPPONENTS. No one desired to be heard. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, that the public hearing be closed. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Galis~h, Kuyper, Norton Parker and Farman NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler Commissioner Golisch stated that his opposition in 1961 was that the Temple was facing Sycamore Ave. and the area facing Foothill Boulevard was beirs developed with commercial uses. He felt this would be a disturbing element to the area. The character of the neighborhood has changed since 1957. There is a somewhat different atmosphere now. Churches have been before the Comm ission and it has been a prob- lem as to where they would be best s,uited. He felt this was a most desirable usage January 8, 1963 Page Eight '. . . for this property. It acts as a buffer and with restricting traffic on to Sycamore it has considerable advantages. The parking on Sycamore might be a better use than residential facing this street. With these changes he would favor it. Commissioner Parker stated that inasmuch as the residents on Sycamore have not appeared he would assume from this and fram what has been said they are in favar of it. He wauld be favor of it also. If detailed plans are submitted and approved, no further action would be needed on the stages of construction. The City Attorney stated if this were to be phase construction and if the variance is approved, the resolution should state specifically the phases and the time of completion. This is covered under the condition that final detailed plans must first be approved before the variance becomes operative. Commissioner Norton stated that sidewalks should be made a consideration for the variance. These to be on all three sides of the property. A height control factor should be maintained. The height is 45 feet, not including the steeple, spires, etc. Also that some reasonable ,period of . time should be stated necessary to complete the stages of construction. If the plans as outlined are designated in such a manner that there ore definite phases, then specific times should be placed on each of the phases for the construction. Mr. Ackermon advised that the construction would be completed during 1963 if construction could get started soon. Mr. George Seidner, 20 W. Orange Grove Ave., Arcadia, stated that Phase 1 and 2 would be followed right through to completion. The permits will be taken ot the same time. The City Attorney advised that the recommendation of staff states that the variance shall not become operative until detailed plans shall have been approved, and this must be within one year; and construction must commence within six months after the aperating date of the variance. It could be 18 months before they would have to commence the progralT!. Phase three is a separate development ond the President of the Temple stated they had na intention of commencing it at this time. Commissioner Ferguson stated his main concern was basically with the traffic situation. There is a tremendous traffic problem there now, The property owners in the area apparently are not protesting. He felt the use of the property for church purposes was alright but he did not know how much activity the church had during the week. His other concern was the height of the building which exceeds the limit and would not come under the provisions of the code for steeples, etc. The Chairman stated that a variance is usually tied to a particular plot plan as submitted and he desired information as to whether or not the plan presented were accurate enough to.tie the variance submitted to the Commission. It was felt they were adequate enough to tie to the final plans. Inasmuch as there were several phases to be determined, i.e., a review by the traffic engineer, and elevations showing correct measurements of the height of the buildings in all three phases and tying this to the plot plan. When this is determined it may be that a variance would be needed for the height limitation. This could be final ized at the next meeting. January 8, 1963 Page Nine . , '. MOTION TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 27647 . . Moved by Commissioner Kuyper, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried that the decision on the variance application of the Foothill Jewish Temple Center be continued until the next regular meeting at which time the applicant is to furnish elevations to scale of the proposed buildings and a traffic report from the Public Works Department. The Planning Commission considered Tract No. 27647, located between Palm Drive and Woodruff Avenue on the east side of EI Monte Avenue, consisting of five single- family lots. STAFF REPORT This subject tract is located east of EI Monte Avenue between Palm Drive and Woodruff Avenue. It is in an R-l zone and proposed to develop five (5) lots on a short SO ft. wide cul-de-sac street. This map has been revised as suggested by the Commission and provides for the future development of the property to the south which would have been landlocked if the other plan had been approved. The lots in this plan range from 7fJJO sq. ft. to 9400 sq. ft. and have approximately 75 feet of frontage at the building line. The Planning Department believes this tract to represent an efficient use of the available land and does provide for the future development of the rear of the deep lots located at 2506 and 2508 EI Monte Avenue in an acceptable manner, and therefore recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: I. Ins tall all standard street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance with improvements, grades and drainage to the satisfaction of the Director of Publ ic Works. 2. Provide all easements required for rear line utilities and locate all overhead utility services, except street lights, at the rear property lines or underground in the street right of way. 3. Remove all trees and structures from the street righ t of way. 4. Remove all structures and buildings within or across the tract boundary. These removals or relocations shall comply to all City Ordinances, Codes and Regulations, and be done to the satisfaction of the Depart- ment of Public Works. 5. Dedication of street shall be fJJ feet wide, or 50 feet wide with 5 foot planting and sidewalk easements, including a 20 ft. corner cutoff at EI Monte Avenue to the satisfaction of the Department of P.ublic Works. 6. Dedicate lot 6 to the City of Arcadia in fee. 7. A covenant in the form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded agreeing that for the purposes of Article IX of the Arcodia Municipal Code the exterior boundary of said tract shall constitute the rear lot I ine of lots 2 and 3. 8. Fees and depos i ts requ ired: Street light installation Street sign installation Street tree installation Recreation fee $ 345.00 140.00 136.00 125.00 TOTAL $ 746.00 Mr. Vernon Jones, of the Hillcrest Engineering Co. stated this map was 0 revised plan from one originally proposed. The people in the area were informed of the subdivision and more property was added which made improvements to the proposal. January 8, 1963 Page Ten ". . . MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and unanimously carried that the map of Tentative Tract No. 27647 be approved, subject to the con- di.tions as outl ined in the staff report, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25965 The Planning Commission considered Tentative Tract No. 25965, located north of Elkins Avenue, between Santa Anita Canyon Drive and Canyon Drive, into 28 lots. This area is partially in Sierra Madre and Arcadia. STAFF REPORT The subject tract is located between Santa Anita Canyon Road and Canyon Road, north of Elkins Avenue. The area is in Zone R-I and is partially in the City of Sierra Madre and partly in Arcadia. In Sierra Madre 11 lots are proposed with the balance of 17 in Arcadia. If this map were approved as submitted three of the proposed lots (No's 1, 2 and 3) in Arcadia could not be serviced, i.e., fire and police protection and street cleaning, by the City of Arcadia, without first passing through Sierra Madre. On the other hand, if this tract is to be developed it must receive all of its water services from the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the Planning Department recommends that if the Commission approves this tract that it be annexed in its entirety to the City of Arcadia. To accomplish this, Sierra Madre would have to detach the portion now in its corpor- ate I imits. If such detachment is not possible then lots 1, 2 and 3 should be detached from the City of Arcadia. The Planning Department recommends approval of the map, subject to the following conditions: 1. The owners of the subject property should petition the City of Sierra Madre to detach that portion of the proposed subdivision in Sierra Madre; and having obtained consent to :this action petition the City of Arcadia to annex the area. 2. If condition one cannot be accomplished, petition the City of Arcadia to detach lots 1, 2 and 3, and request they be annexed to the City of Sierra Madre. 3. Install all standard street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance. Improvements, grades and drainage shall be to the satis- faction of the Director of Public Works. Grades shall not exceed 15% and a grading plan submitted that shall be acceptable to the Director of Public Works. 4. Provide all easements ,required for utilities'. All utilities shall be installed underground. 5. Remove all trees and structures from the street right of way. 6. Remove all structures and buildings within or across the tract boundary. These removals or relocotions shall comply to all City Ordinances, Codes and regulations, and be done to the satisfaction of the Depart- ment of Public Works. 7. Provide any necessary sewer easements, a minimum of ten feet in width to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 8. A drainage and grading plan shall be prepared and submitted, meeting 'the approval of the Department of Public Works. 9. Slope banks should not exceed 1-1/2 to 1 for cuts or fills; the exact limit of the slope should be established in consultation with a soils engineer and a geologist acceptable to the City Engineer. January 8, 1963 Page Eleven ~ ". . . 10. Lot lines should be placed at the top of slopes wherev~r possible. 11. All slopes should be benched and the benches graded and drained at a grade sufficient to prevent silting. There should be bench accesS (acceptable to the City Engineer) for mointenance purposes. Soil erosion protection sholl be installed and maintained by the developer until the property is sold to a single property owner, unless approved alternatives are provided for maintaining the slopes. 12. The top of all cuts against virgin slope which shall remain after construction should be protected from erosion by a drainage interceptor. 13. Minimum pad area for each lot should be 7500 square feet. 14. Soils recommendations, engineering and testing shall be made by a capable soils engineer or firm agreeable to both the City and the developer; a geologist will also be required. Continuous inspection will be required during grading operations. 15. The City of Arcadia would reserve the right to review the design of 011 grading and street improvements and drains, which are tributary to the property within the City of Arcadia. 16. All streets should have a minimum 45 foot right of way with 5 foot sidewalk and planting easements. Minimum curb to curb width of 36 feet, and all standard improvements including sewers, water, storm drains, curb and gutter an~ pavement. A 4 foot concrete sidewalk shall be required to control parkway erosion. 17. Driveways to each pad should be provided and paved with asphalt or concrete from the street curb I ine to the paid for erosion control. 18. The ,basis of design for all storm drains should be on appropriate Los Angeles County Flood Control hydrology methods. 19. The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the subdivision ordinance and excavation ordinance. 20. Fees and deposits required: Street light installation (Underground as part of Improvement of Tract) Street sign installation $ 70.00 Street tree installation 51 0.00 Recreation fee 350.00 TOTAL $ 930.00 21. A water service study and plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Water Department of the City of Arcadia. This study and pion sholl include the area north of this tract up to an elevation of 1,275 feet. The study and plans shall meet with the approval of the Water Department of the City of Arcadia. 22. Prior to the submission of a final map a revised tentative map incor:porating the above conditions of approvol shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Norton stated that this subdivision creates several problems. One of these is the water problem. Another is street maintenance. He stated that some of the lots were less than the 75 foot frontage, although containing more than 7500 sq. ft. This tract would require either the annexation of detachment of certain property and would pose no probl.em if the property were owned by one person. Commissioner Kuyper stoted that from experiences on hillside developments it should be a consideration that a geologist make a study as to the water carrying formation to prevent any slipping conditions. Adequate soil testing is usuolly done but this is usually in the top strata. He felt that deep borings should be mode. January 8, 1963 Page Twelve 1 , MOTION TENTATIVE TRACTS NO. 27903 and 27927 . . Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unan- imously carried, that tentative map of Tract No. 25965, be recommended for appro- val subject to the conditions as outl ined in the Staff report. Mr. Mat Hunt, representative of the Elkins Co. opposed se...eral of the conditions stating that other tracts in the area had not been required to construct undergraund util ities and that the five foot sidewalks on both sides of the banks seemed unneces- sary. He felt this would not prevent ground slipping, as water would still undermine the sidewalk and break through to the street. He would rather see that amount of expenditure placed in landscaping and ground covers to prevent erosion. The side- walks would not be used because people in the area travel in automobiles. This had not been required in other hillside tracts and he felt them unnecessary and an added expenditure. The Chairman, at this point, recognized Mr. William luethke, 2430 EI Monte Ave., who desired information on Tract No. 27647. She opposed the tract because it would make her property a key lot with the back yards of the new lots backing up ta her front yard. This was taken into consideration, and development af the large lots could not be acCD mplished without having some lots becoming key. The tract has been tentatively approved at this time. The Planning Commission considered tentative maps af Tracts No. 27903 and No. 27927, located between lemon, las Flores, Hally and El Monte Avenues, consisting of 42 lots. This property is R-O zoned and tentative maps were filed by two separate subdividers. Property owners within the area had been notified by the Department that the two maps had been fj led. STAFF REPORT The property proposed to be subdivided by these mops is located between Holly, El Monte, lemon and las Flores Avenues. It is in Zone ~-O which required a minimum lot area of 12,500 sq. ft. (100 feet by 125 feet). Farty two (42) lots are shown on both maps. The general layout on both maps complies with the basic requirements of the ordin- ance gov!irning subdivision. All the lots meet the code requirements and the street is sixty (60) feet wide. The question raised by these maps does not deal with the manner the property is proposed to be subdivided but rather with the question of whether the Commission shauld approve both maps subject to certain conditions or disapprove both maps pending proof of consent of the property owners whose property is shown on the maps that they authorize the filing of plans affecting this property. In the past proof of consent from the property owners whose property was be ing subdivided has not been required. However, as a matter of practice most all property shown on subdivision maps approved by the Commission was owned either in fee or by option by the developer submitted the map. In the matter before the Commission it appears that the subdividers do not have consent, or purchose agree- ments with the property owners whose properties are proposed to be developed. It is my understanding that any approval by the Planning Commission on any tentative map is given to the land and the manner in which it is proposed to be subdivided and not to the subdivider or engineer. Whot the Commission is approving is a Tentative plan which mayor may not be developed but if it is developed (regardless of who d<ae5 the developing) it shall be substantially in compliance with the approved tentative plan. Protection to the property owners is given at the finol map:"s,tage January 8, 1963 Page Th i rteen t. " . . when the property owners must sign the final mop before it wi II be approved by the Commission, and the City Council, and be accep.table for recordation. If the Commission desires to have proof of consent from property owners prior to giving approval to these te ntative maps the Department recommends that a condition of approval be "that prior to filing the final mapa revised Tentative Map sholl be submilt ed for Commission approval. At this time the developer shall also submit bona fide evidence that he either owns or has the consent of the property owners to carry out the plan. The reason this Department feels that the property owners should be informed is because of the city polic)! of prorating the cost of improvements to beneFited properties at the subdivider's request whenever such property would materially benefit by the use of the improvements ins tolled at the subdivider's expense (Subdivision Trust). This policy as the Commission will recall does not force the benefited property to participate in the cost of any improvements iF these improve- ments are not used by the property over a twenty year period. The subdividers are fully aware of the mechanics and principles of this policy but the same is not true of the property owners. Often they are told the City will condemn their property for street p\,rpose and assess the cost of improvements :'. !P:them.: Jo;,pr~tec:t tile Pfoperty.own.e~s frol)' t1ie possibility of misunderstanding city pol icy and assuming the Commission does not deem it advisable to require th.aLtfie Cl.eVel.oper .e.i.th",r ov/O' or, hcive consenUo file a"inap.from the 'property bw"n~rs,::it,should ~e:r.iously :con~id",rr~ql.Jiriog, th is Depar:tment:toi1otif.y, all :: . property owners within the Tract and those abutting the Tract of the plans on file. This has been done in this case. The Planning Department recommends that the Commission approve both maps, subject to the fallowing concjitions: I. A revised Tentative Mop shall be submitted prior to the filing of 0 final map For action by the Commission. 2. On the revised Tentative Map the location and identity and proposed status of all existing structures in the entire area bounded by Las Flores, Lemon, Holly and EI Monte Avenues shall be accurately del ineated and shown. 3. Provide and delineate all necessary rear line utility easements and locate all overhead utilities, except street lights in these easements or provide for the underground installation of all public utilities and street I ights in the street right of way. 4. Remove all structures within or across the tract boundary in compliance with all city ordinances, codes and regulations and meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. 5. Install all stondard street improvements required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Improvements, grades and drainage shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. Pay the following fees and deposits: January 8, 1963 Page Fourteen , ~. . . Street light installation Street sign install atian Street tree installation Recreation fee 1,840.00 175.00 901. 00 1,050.00 TOTAL $ 3,966.00 Communications had been received from J. E. Ronstad and Associates requesting that an attached letter which had been sent to each property owner be made a p<:lrt of the record. They stated that the proposed method of subdividing as out- lined in this letter presents something new and unique in subdivision procedure since they made it clear that they were not necessarily interested in purchasing land but are willing "to cooperate in every way with each property owner" in the development of his land. They further stated that although it is too early to state unequivocally, they believed a large number of owners wish to cooperate in p<:lying a fair share of development costs and retain their lot as a future building site or as a fully improved lot for sale. They also advised that currently four differ- ent developers own back portions of a number of lots in this proposed tentative tract. The, I etter they requested Tead into the record is as follows: "Deor Property Owner: Some years ago it was my pleasure to be associated with A. N. Mul ter, Sub- divider and Agent for Baldwin-Stocker Acres. Historically you may be interested to know the first lots went on the morket in the fall of 1936 (depression years) with some of the 100 foot frontages sell.ing for less than $1,000.00. I acquired ownership of this business upon the death of Mr. Multer in 1946 and at that time assumed the obi igation of enforcing the tract restrictions in Baldwin- Stocker Acres, including the approval of building plans on all new construction. Property values have always been high in Baldwin-Stacker largely due to the diligence of this affice in enforcing tract restrictions. Until only a few years ago th is praperty was unprotected by City Ordinance as to the number of houses that could be built on each lot. This protection ta the owner was in the tract (deed) restr,ictions establ ished by this office. In the past year or more I have received several telephone calls from property owners relative to selling the back portion of their lots. My reply was that they were at liberty to do so since the restrictions where they lived (Norman and lemon) had expired in Morch, 1961. In a large part of Baldwin-Stock Acres restrictions ,d~ not expire until 1970. I have also had inquiries as to why we did not do further sub-dividing of this property and my purpose in writing at this time is to advise you we are prepared to do just this. We are prepared to cooperate in every way with each property owner. Some owners may wish to retain their new lot as a future building site, or as an improved lot to sell. Others may wish to sell unimproved land. A large number of property owners seem interested in doing something at this time. Will you kindly indicate your interest on the enclosed card and return to us. January 8, 1963 Page Fifteen "1 '" . . Very truly yours, J. E. RONSTAD N.B. This letter is being mailed to owners between Holly and EI Monte, sO!'th side of Lemon and north side of Las Flores. Another communication was received from Westman Development Corporation, to the effect that they had been advised that it is permissible to file a map even though they did not own or even control any of the property included in the proposed sub- division. Also, that two, three or a dozen other people could file tentative maps on the same property at this time, or any other time without the necessity of owning or controlling any of the property or without having the consent of the owners. ( They felt that to use someone else!s property without their consent for any reason whatsoever, if not illegal now, should be made so. They say this while filing a mop for 42 lots without control of a single one. With 0 single Jot exception, they have never asked a municipality to approve any of the 25 tracts they have developed, and completed, if they did not control wholly either in fee or by option, all of the parcels described. While they did not own any property now they did hope to own most or all of it in the future. They have filed their map for the good reason to bring to the attention of the Depart- ment and the Planning Commission and City Council the need for corrective legislation. They state they seek no protection far themselves for whatever ambitions they might have to develop the tract, they do bel ieve that Arcadia property owners should be given the benefit of control over their own land through such changes. Commissioner Norton stated that the Subdivision Committee could go on record as to the fQct that in an RO zoning the proposed maps are compatible and would comply. This has establ ished a precedence in fil ing two maps on the same property. In the past the residents have not been notified that the property was being subdivided beca\Jse the subdividers had either had the property in fee or had had op:tions on it. As a matter or practice, he felt that all property shown on subdivision maps should show that the property owners are in accord with the subdivision or that the developers own the property or have options on it. While this has not been mandatory, it has been a matter of practice. The subdivider comes before the Planning Commission with the consent of the property owners. There were many property owners in the audience vitally concerned with this wb- division. Mr. Alfred Hicks, 255 W. Las Flores Ave. was concerned with the taxation of the lots if the tract were approved and then not developed. If the land is subdivided it it obvio\Jsly becomes a separate parcel and would increase in value. This was the opinion of the City Attorney. The property owners were very concerned that developers did not have their consent to file the subdivision. The City Attorney advised them that no property could be subdivided witho\Jt the signature of the owner of the property on the subdivision map itself. The subject before the Commission at this time is the filing of tentative maps only prior to getting the consent from the property owners. Jan4ary a, 1963 Page Sixteen '\ ~ MOTION RESOLUTION NO. 466 MOTION MOTION . . Mr. Vern Michler, 263 W. Las Flores, representing himself and two neighbors, Mr. William Kendall, 326 W. Lemon, and Mr. Ray Hatter, 315 W. Las Flores These residents were opposed to the development of the property at this time. The Chairman called for a.show of hands vote of those in favor of the subdivision (Two) Those opposed to the subdivision at this time (Twelve). Commissioner Ferguson suggested that a requirement be that all property owners in the proposed tract be notified of the pending development of the property prior to the fiI ing of a tentotive map. The City Attorney advised that it is not always feasible to have the title in fee, or an optian; that the same can be accomplished with a power of attorney, a non- exclusive agency, or autharity to include the property inthe subdivision. Sometimes requiring a title in fee basis or option placed undue hardship on both the property owner and the developer. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, and unanimously carried that the tentative tract map of Tract No. 27903 and Tract No. 27927 be recommended for denial without prejudice. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 466, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY P~NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CAU(FORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A ZONE VARIANCE AND/OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO DRILL TWO WATER WELLS, CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS AND WATER TANK AND INS TALL APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CLARK STREET 400 FEET EAST OF PECK ROAD IN SAID CITY." Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, that Resolu- tion No. 466 be adopted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton, Parker and Forman NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler January 8, 1963 Page Seventeen 1. '. \.. RESOLUTION NO. 467 MOTION MOTION REPORTS: CUL-DE-SAC STANDARDS PUBLIC PARTICI- PA TION ADJOURNMENT . . The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 467, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL FROM AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MODIFICATION COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF LOT REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND DWELLING AND A GUEST HQUSE AT 1I2B SOUTH SIXTH AVENUE IN SAID CITY." Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, and unanimausly carried that the reading of the full body of said resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, that Resolution No. 4Ii7 be adopted: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton Parker and Forman NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler The Planning Director advised that the Southern California Planning Congress, would be held :January lOth. The San Gabriel V"lIey Planning Council will meet at Woody and Eddy's on Friday, January 11, at noon. The report of the Subdivision Committee was presented by Commissioner Narton but due to the lateness of the hour and the fact the motter hod not been thoroughly considered and discussed with the Commission, it was suggested that the matter be placed first on the agenda for the next meeting. No one in the audience desired to be heard. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 A. M. R~~ WILLIAM PHELPS Secretary January 8, 1963 Poge Eighteen