Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 13, 1963 \ \~'. ROLL CALL MINUTES CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING R-3 Regulations . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION, ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING February 13, 1963 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, met in regular session on February 13, 1963, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chamber, City Hall, Arcadia, California. The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Ralph Norton PRE'SENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Norton, Parker and Forman ABSENT: Commissioner Michler (Note: Commissioners Kuyper and Golisch entered the meeting at 8:25 and 8:45 P. M. respectively) The minutes of January 8, 1963 were approved as written and mailed The minutes of January 22, 1963 were approved with the following correction: Roll call was omitted on the vote of the zone variance of the Foothill Jewish Temple CentS'. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Kuyper, Parker and Forman NOES: Commissioner Ferguson ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Norton Pursuant to publ ished notice the hearing on the proposed amendments to the Arcadia Municipal Code governing apartment house development was again before the Commission. The Planning Commission was presented a proposed draft of changes which resulted from meetings with the Zoning Committee, various builders and study of needed chonges within the City of Arcadio. The following is a summary of this draft: I. Permit only apartment buildings as a permitted use in Zone R-3 2. Adjust sign provisions 3. Provide for transitional parking whenR-3 property is next to commercial property 4. The Planning Department to review all apartment house plans before issuance of building permit. Plans shall include locations of all proposed building; the location and type of landscaping; the use and treatment of the land area around the proposed building, including off-street parking, trees, hydrants, telephone poles, flood lights, driveways, fences, signs, proposed drainage facilities, etc. The Planning Department shall have the authority to approve, disapprove or conditionally approve any plans submitted. The right to appeal the decision of the Planning Department to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council is pravided. February 13, 1963 Page One \. ( . '\.- /~-~ 5. The sites proposed for oportment buildings sholl be cleored of structures not associated with apartment districts. Standards were outl ined for the approval, conditional approval or denial of plans submitted. 6. The floor area of one bedroom dwelling units shall contain an average of 1000 sq. ft. of floor ore a and not less than 600 sq. ft. in anyone dwelling, exclusive of porches, garages, entries, patios and basements. Two bedroom dwelling units shall contain on average of 1200 sq. ft. Z. Building heights shall not exceed the height limitations established in the height district in which the bui.lding is proposed. 8. Parking requirements, garages and carports, and driveway requirements to remain as presently outlined in the Code. 9. Yard requirements provided for required yard areas to be landscaped and proper maintenance facilities shown. 10. Front yards to be a minimum of 15 ft. but may be greater under certain conditions. 11. Side yards on each side. not less than one-half the height of the building. One story bui Idings shall have side yqrds not less than ten feet. 12. Rear yards not less than ten feet except when garages or carports are located on the rear property line, except in cases where the R-3 district adjoins an R-l district, then ten feet distance must be maintained; parking garages completely underground may extend the property I ine but the apartment building must maintain ten feet of rear yard. 13. Trash and garbage areas to be enclosed on at least three sides by a five foot block wall. 14. Lot area per dwell ing unit to be not less than 2000 sq. ft. (In the case where taller buildings are permitted perhaps the density figures should be reduced.) 15. All off-street parking not under cover to be screened from the view of surrounding residents by shrubs. etc.. whose normal growth is not less thon four feet. 16. Provisions for proper maintenance of these areas to be provided. 17. Where side yard areas are proposed to be used for driveways, one landscaped area 5 ft. wide shall be located between the apartment building and the driveway and between the driveway and the property I ine. Where a difference of grade is created the slope bank shall be a minimum of 1 to 1. Where this occurs the two five foot planting strips may be reduced whenever it is found that such reduction will not material I be detrimental to the development or area. Proper maintenance of these areas to be provided. 18. Minimum of usable open space of 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit shall be provided. 19. Off-street parking may be permitted in front yard provided the adjoining developed property has front yard parking, and where a design feature with a fifteen foot orea between property I ine and a required six foot high sol id fence or wall is shown suitably landscaped and with provisions for proper maintenance. 20. The minimum distance between swimming pools and other structures which have openings (doors or windows) shall be 15 feet. 21. Parking structures shall not be higher than one story. No one indiv,idual building shall exceed a I ength of one hundred sixty feet. 22. Fifty cubic feet of enclosed storage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 23. Elevators shall be required in all buildings which hove subterranean parking and are two or more s tori es in he igh t . 24. Space shall be provided within the building for storage of building maintenance tools, laundry facilities, etc. February 13, 1963 Page Two \ , /. . The Planning Director presented a sl ide showing the entire city of Arcadia, with overlays depicting the areas suggested as suitable for one-stary buildings, two, four, and eight story areas. The Chairman requested any person in the audience desiring to be heard to present his material at this time. . COMMUNICATIONS A communication was received from Howser, Coughlin & Schmitt, representing Mrs. Elizabeth C. Willis, owner of property at 1115 HollyAve. Mrs. Will.is advised that her property now has 0 setback on Holly Ave. of 35 feet and a setback on Duarte Road of 66 feet. With these setbacks it is economically unfeasible to consider any other apartment development than high rise. Wishing to attract the highest quality of property improvement and to erect desirable apartments on her property, it will be. necessary to go high rise in order to attract investors for such a project. She therefore wishes to add her voice to those property owners who are in favor of such use. Mr. Lionel Leon, 1515 N. Hayward St., Los Angeles, stated that he had constructed several buildings in Arcadia; that at the present time he owned two lots one of which was 90' x 420' or 37,500 sq. ft; and the other 140' x 270' with 37,800 sq. feet. Under the present ordinances he would be able to construct 18 units on each of the lots. He felt that the lots he owned were the exceptional lot rather than the standard and under the present proposed changes he could get but 12 apartment dwell ings on his property for the 36,000 sq. ft. of land using 3000 sq. ft. per unit for density; he would hove a landscaped area sufficient to construct 6 units on parcel I and 8 on the other. The largest part of the land would have to be used for driveway, setbacks and sideyards. He felt the proposed side yard could not be met. Under the present proposals it would toke a 30 ft. driveway a 12 ft. sideyard and, a 40 ft. setback; that plus two cars for every unit would make it impossible for him to develop more than 6 units on one parcel and 8 on the other. He hod studied it very carefully; he had engaged a draftsman and they had spent many hours working on the proposal. The Chairman stated thot the proposed requirements would hove to be made flexible and that the economics v.ould have to be taken somewhat into consideration. Mr. Leon stated that he felt that the 20 ft. driveway was sufficient and' that the pro- posed side yards is the portion thot cre.ates the problem. Mr. Mike Vallone, 1028 Park Ave., Arcadia, stated that with a lot 140' x 270' under the present ordinance a 20 ft. driveway and just applying the new requirements of 2000 sq. ft. of lot area per unit and the 400 sq. ft. open area per unit; and two for one parking - 730 sq. ft. per double stql,l - that would give an approximate area of 37,770 sq. ft. that this would cover; the lot area in this lot is 37,800 sq. ft. this means that there is no land available for more than approximately six units. He felt the area on the side yard isa little too difficult to meet. If the building were 45 ft. it would require it would require 22-1/2 ft. on each side, plus the landscaped area, plus the driveway. A building could not be properly designed this way. He stated thot the land is so costly. the lot under consideration under todoy's market would bring $85,000. When this is restricted to six to eight units this brings the land value to $10,000 per unit. A subterranean garage would cost $8.00 per sq. ft. but if the concrete is required this would run to $18.00 per sq. ft. He felt that many of the proposals were going in the right direction and the units would have to be designed to meet as many of the require- ments as possible without too much detriment to the builder or to the project itself. February 13, 1963 Page Th ree \ . \~'. MOTION PUBLIC HEARING American Lutheran Church Plot Plan Revision V-61-14 .~ -', ~. He felt that if "high rise" were considered it takes very little area for the building, allawing more open area; then the requirements could be reduced for the density factor from 1000 to probably 1500 sq. ft. per unit. He stated inferior type buildings would not be constructed with the proposed changes but that they should not be so restrictive as to prohibit good building. The economics must enter into the picture. He would not I ike to see the changes be a detriment to the community and some of the proposals are too severe. It would not be a good thing for builders to assume the attitude that they just could not build in Arcadia because of high land values and high building costs. He felt that different rules would have to be made for individual pieces of property. Commissioner Ferguson stated that the Committee had discussed this phase but felt that . some reaction as to the height zones should be considered before firming of the require- ments. They felt the need to consider parcels of property on an individual basis. Commissioner Norton stated that to allocate certain areas for "high rise" prior to the acceptance of the Downtown plan is premature. The Planning Director stated this is true in the central area, but not in the Hub area. Everything cannot be hinged on the Downtown area, Rules and regulations can and should be devised for other areas. Commercial zones are now allowed four stories and some criteria should be studied ) relative to the multiple zones depending .on the area in which they are located. Height in all zones should be considered so that there will be vertical compatibility as well as use compatibility. The plan as outlined by the Planning Staff embodies a concept and should be considered by the Commission. Additional study must be made and a more precise plan developed prior to fonnal action on the hight district map. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Gc.lisch, and unanimously carried that the public hearing on the change of requirements for the R-3 and R-3-R multiple zones be continued to the next regular meeting of February 26, 1963 and that the matter be referred to the Staff and Zoning Committee for further study in connection with the uses in the two and four story height zones. A public hearing was held on the revised plot plans presented by the American Lutheran Church for the construction of a church at 110-118 West Duarte Road. The church had obtained a six months extension of time and presented a rendering and plot plans to be approved by the Commission under the terms of the resolution'. The plans and renderings submitted at the meeting of January 22 were presented but it was decided that the latter was not in substantial conformance with the approved plans. The Commission ordered notices to be forwarded to all property owners within a 300 ft. radius advising them of the new plot plans and setting the date for hearing any protests. STAFF REPORT: The original variance was granted the American Lutheran Church on February 20, 1962 to allow construction of a church at 110-118 W. Duarte Road. In August of 1962 the applicants were granted a six months variance extension. February 13, 1963 Page Four . . ( .. '-. ,~--,) , In January of 1963 the applicants were granted anather six months variance extension at which time a public hearing was scheduled for February 13, 1963 in order to review ond act upon new plot plans representing a substantial change from those upon which the original variance was granted. ANALYSIS The new plot plans and elevations differ from the previously approved plans in the following general ways: A. Architectural theme of originally proposed development was Gothic whereas the new submission proposes a development of contemporary architecture. B. Sixty-one parking spaces were shown on the original site plan whereas the new proposal indicates a development of contemporary architecture. C. New proposal indicates a building height of 50 ft; whereas original proposal indicates a maximum building height of 42 ft..:!" with a tower of 55 ft. :t (Tower , '. height ;-) -. PROPONENTS Mr. John Galbraith, Pasadena, Architect for the applicant, stated an attempt had been made to fallaw all of the requirements imposed under the variance, but the type building had been changed from Gothic to Contemporary architecture. The area to the south has been plotted for landscaping to buffer the parking from the residential area to the south. Some changes had been made in the ingress and egress but the required parking was adequate and more than the code requires. The planting area is better located in the plan now before the Commission and the general theme is more compatible with the area and does provide adequate screening and buffering for aesthetic purposes. The Department had requested that the rear 30 ft. be dedicated for alley purpases. If the entire area as it is developed provides a secondary access it would add considerably t.O) the general plan of the area in terms of vehicular circulation. As the area develops the need for this secondary access will be important. The Architect was asked as to a time schedule for the project. He stated as soon as the plans were approved they would commence immediately on the working drawings and the entire project would commence and be followed through to completion. OPPOSITION A question about the 50 foot height of the building was raised by Mr. Sid Platford, 152 W. Duarte Road. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Comm issioner Kuyper, that the revised plot plans and elevations of the American Lutheran Church for the construction of church facilities at 110 and 118 West Duarte Road be approved. ROll CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton, Parker and Forman NOES: None ABSENT, Commissioner Michler February 13, 1963 Page Five , . .. PUBLIC HEARING (John P. Vidicon V-62-14) , : /------, :A Publ ic Hearing was held on the appl ication of John P. Vidican for a variance to cover a parking stall located at 1122 West Huntington Drive. STAFF REPORT This is the application of John P. Vidican and Violet Vidican, developers and partial owners of the property known as 1122 Huntington Drive, seeking a variance to allow a carport constructed without benefit of a permit having been taken out for its construction to remain intact. SUBJECT PROPERTY A building permit was issued for the construction of the apartment building and carports on March 30, 1960. The permit was issued on the basis of twelve carports and three open parking spaces which conformed to the parking space requirement of 1-1/4 spaces for each unit at the time. On April 4, 1960 the parking space requirement was changed to 1-1/2 spoces per unit, making the aportment building non-conforming. A subsequent investigation by the Superintendent of Building ond Sofety mode on November 28, 1962 dis- closed an additional newly constructed carport. Such construction having been made without benefit of permit and to a non-conforming building is in violation of Arcadia Municipal Code which prohibits expansion of non-conforming buildings. ANAL YS IS From a Planning viewpoint, which in this case must concern itself with the physical characteristics of the site, in relation to the subject carport, it appeors thot this carport does not in any way materially affect the circulation or parking patterns of the site nor does it appear to injure the public health, safety and welfare. On the basis of this viewpoint the Planning Staff is incl ined to recommend that the variance be; approved subject to condition that the applicant be required to pay all required penalties for said violation. But, on the other hand, the Planning Staff realizes that as a result of this violation there may exist some legalistic implications as the site development consists of co-operative apartments in individual ownerships. The Planning Staff, therefore, recommends that the City Attorney be directed to elaborate on any possible implications prior to the Planning Commission making its decision. PROPONENTS John P. Vidican, 763 Arcadia Avenue, stated that he had constructed the condominium apartments at 1122West Huntington Drive and had provided the necessary garages and parking spaces under the code at the time the buildings were erected. Since that time each owner of the individual apartments hod the one covered garage sold to them with the apartment. One purchaser had desired two garages and inasmuch as he was in need of cash and severol of the apartments were not sold, he entered into an agreement with the purchaser for the two garages, thus leaving one apartment'with no garage. It has since become necessary for the developer to provide the additional llarage and he covered one of the spaces which remained. He stated that he did this without the necessary permit and was willing to be penalized for his act. February 13, 1963 Page Six : PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED He said that he was not in the habit of working this way but he found himself behind the proverbial "eight-ball". He had consulted the City and the zoning had changed for the required parking so that he was unable to do onything about it. Whatever the Commission decides he will abide by it. He had not sold the parking spaces with the apartments. OPPONENTS Mr. Don Travers, representing the ten members of the Board of Governors of this aportment filed a petition signed by nineteen residents, representing 15 apartments out of the 24. These signers opposed the request of Mr. Vidicon to allow the carport to remain on their premises. He stated that with this covered carport it takes one parking space away from their apartment. The apartments were represen- ted as having 1-1/2 spaces per unit. He stated that there were two parking spaces at the rear of the apartment that were unusable. They were told that the apartment with three bedrooms would have an e><tra parking space. There is no mention of this parking space in the deed. It is very difficult to park at the rear. MIS_ Mary Hughes, 1124 W. Huntington Drive, Apartment 4, stated that she signed the petition and concurred with the statements of Mr. Traverse at this time. Moved by Commissioner Narton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that the public hearing be closed. ROll CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Gol isch, Kuyper, Norton Parker and Forman NOES: None AB SENT: Commissioner Michler The City Attorney gave the legal aspect of this application to the Commission. When this particular violation was discovered 0 red tag was ploced on it. The party cannot sell this os a legal garage without running the risk of getting into trouble with future buyers. Originally, the owner offered to tear it down but t~en he ran into another ordinance which has been adopted since th is particular part was built, i.e. , it takes a demolition permit to tear it down, with a bond and 0 number of other conditions. The policy in the city has been to secure compl iance with the regulations in preference to prosecution for violation and when this matter was brought to a head the party came in immediotely ond commenced the only steps that he would take to legitimate the situotion. At the time the apartment was built he could have covered all r:i the rest of the stalls if he had so desired because it was a conforming building and conforming use and the spaces would be open or. could be covered. The problem arose because the ordinance was amended to require more parking. Had this been done at the beginning there would have been no legal problem whatsoever. The concern of the apartment owners is the legal effect the construction would have on their ownership and the eventual situation that would arsie when they came to selling the last apartment. The property has not been subdivided but the units ore being sold as undivided interest in the entire parcel. Each person will o~n an undivided 1/24 interest in the property. The deed also conveys the right of exclusive use of a given garage and a given apartment which does not violate the. lot split ordinance and does not violate the subdivision map act. Perhaps some legislation should be imposed which would require that any sole of an interest in the property corry with it thot proportion of the facility that is required for the whole, i.e., February 13, 1963 P age Seven .' /---, \_- ' r-, in this case it wauld have been that they sell one garage only with each apartment usage and the right ta use in common with onother apartment one of the uncovered parking stalls. Under the present Code the number of spaces to be sold would be increased. It is a matter of judgment os to what should be done in this case. Whether the applicant should be required to bring the whole place up to code; pel'- mit him to keep what he has already developed; or make him tear it down. It is true that by allowing him to toke this one garage illegally constructed and sell it with a future apartment unit there will be less uncovered stalls for the use of the tenants generally, it will not reduce the amount of parking space available to tlie entire unit, whether it is covered or uncovered 0 car still can be parked there. The attempt to "bootleg" this garage definitely is not to be condoned. There are penal ties 'imposed by the Code that will be exacted in any event, that is 0 different matter. It is largely o matter of judgment os to whether or not the covering of another carport is on improvement to 0 situation in which it is now recognized as being bod but was not deemed so at the time of the construction of the building; .0 n' whether he should be,required to tear it down and leave the open stall. The amount of-space would remain the same, but with a covered carport, people would feel it belonged to someone and would not use it os he would an open space. It is not possible to bring the parking up to the present code at this time. If 0 person does something that is contrary to the ordinance, sometimes what the end is to be has to be determined. Is it better to hove one apartment with no covered stoll at 011, and particularly if this person were to apply to the Commission for o variance to cover the space allocated to him. The argument that to cover the stall would cut down the space for the others would not hold os when the lost unit is sold that person is going to pork ;n the avo; lable space whether it ;s covered or not. This 'could be for the reason that the extra parking was not included in the deed. The City Attorney advised that either decision the Commission would make would not involve the City. Any litigation would be between the 23 owners and Mr. Vidicon. The case should be decided on the factual merits rather than the applicant had erred and should not hove any consideration. The ultimate burden is going to be on some future buyer and no doubt he will be bock in with on application at some fu.ture dote. The Commission stated the person purchasing the lost apartment would hove to come in with the distinct agreement that he does not have 0 covered stall. The situation would be changed if the new owner were to come in requesting 0 variance and hod the signatures of 011 23 other owners. With the Boord of Governors elected from the owners their opinion should be given weight. If they were to come in and request the space to be covered it would be 0 different situation. It is more desirable t.o have the covered carport but the other exten- uating circumstances outweighs this particular point. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton, that the zone variance of John P. Vidicon to permit the covered parking stoll to remain at 1122 West Huntington Drive be denied. ROll CAll: AYES: Comm issioners Ferguson, Gal isch, Kuyper, Norton Porker and Forman. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler February 13, 1963 Page Eight : : " \.~-- TEN T A TlVE TRACT NO. 27992 This subdivision proposes 22 new single-family lots from the rear of the properties on Tenth Avenue, north of Camino Real, immediately east of the Flood Control channel. STAFF REPORT: Ninteen of the lots have widths of 75 feet or better" with the twentieth having a width of71.25 feet. All of the twenty lots exceed the required 7500 square feet of lot area, The new street is shown entering the subdivision off Tenth Avenue, north of Camino Real, between the properties known as No. 1407 and 1409 Tenth Avenue and after running 225 feet in a westerly direction turns north to run 525 feet and south to run approximately 170 feet. The map also proposed as part of this subdivision to develop twa additional lots fronting on Tenth Avenue. Each of these two lots is shown to have 0 width of 62.5 feet, a depth of 123 feet, and a lot area of 7,687 square feet. The Planning Staff is aware that these lots are substandard in terms of width but believes that they should be permitted to develop in the manner outlined because of the existence of many 50 foot wide lots, both north and sauth of the two subject lots and because this development will i1liminate an old hause representing a blighting influence on the neighborhood. The Subdivider has submitted an aerial map which shows his intention at some future date, to extend the subdivision both in a northerly and southerly direction with the street returning to Tenth Avenue at both ends. The Planning Department recommends that this map be approved, subject to the following conditions: I. Install 011 standard street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance. Improvements, grades and drainage shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Provide all easements required for rear line utilities. 3. Remove all trees and structures from the street right of way. No driveway sholl be in curb returns. 4. Remove 011 structures and buildings within or across the tract bounq ary. These removals or relocations shall comply to all City Ordinances, Codes and regulations, and be done to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. The house will be removed from 1323 S. Tehtn Avenue. 5. Dedication of street (:IJ feet wide, or 5 foot planting and sidewalk easements will be required. 6. A study plan should be prepared to show the ultimate limits of "B" Street and possible future outlets. 7. The 18. 75ft. wide strip of land southerly ,of proposed Lot 21 shall be included as part of Lot 21 and the 12.5 ft. wide lot southerly of proposed lot 19 sholl be included os a part of lot 19. 8. Fees and deposits required: Street light installation Street sign installation Street tree installation Recreation fee -,20 lots @ $25.00 $ 805.00 140.00 391.00 500.00 TOTAL $ 1,836.00 February 13, 1963 Page Nine COMMUNICATIONS James Wilson and Associotes, 9100 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeies 69, California advised that they had accepted offers to purchase, with deposit receipts, all of the land that is privately owned within the tentative Tract No. 27992, with the exception that on the rear of 1335 South Tenth Ave., the own ers have signed an agreement to dedicate as, ,much of their land that is needed for street purposes. the remaining land within the tentative tract is owned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. This land has been declared surplus. Mr. Conley, of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District has advised that the adjacent property owners have the first right to purchase the surplus land. Since Wilson and Associates will be the owners, they will have the first right to purchase all of the surplus land of the Flood Control District. Jack M. Tallon, 1020 EI Norte Avenue advised that he had purchased the property at 1207 Tenth Ave. a short time ago with one purpose in mind. That his family could have horses for enjoyment. There are very few locations in Arcadia where this is still possible. Te:nth Avenue between Duarte Road and Camino Real offers the largest source of this kind of property and Eighth Avenue the next. The reason why these two streets are so desirable for the purpose of keeping horses is that they provide access to the State equestrian trail which is' west of the flood control basin. The only access from Tenth Avenue to this trail is currently across the properties of Tenth Ave. down to Camino Real, across the bridge to the west side of the flood control basin to the tro; I. The proposed tract would close off this access to all the horse owners on Tenth Ave. This unfortunately would mean that in order to get access to the trail they would have to gO out on the street with the horses for a distance of up to one-half mile. This would be a hazard they would prefer not to subject their children to. However, there seems to be three possible solutions to the problem. I. If the tract would leave access for the horses between the most easterly fence of the flood control basin access road and the starting of the tract proper. This would .allow the horses the same approach to the trail that they have enjoyed. 2. If the City could arrange for use of the access' road between Duarte and Camino Real as a means to getting to and from the trail and install necessary gates. 3. Provide a bridge across the basin from the east side to the trail on the west side. Mr. Tallon stated he realized that it is not the benefit of any individual or group to curtail the progress of a community; that on individual or a group of individuals has a right to purchase property and develop it as long as they maintain the best interest of the community. He did feel that it should not be done in a manner which is detrimental or limits the use of existing properties in this area. If special thought is not given to this particular situation it will create not only a hazard to the children who then use the street as a horse trail bunn addition will have made the property undesirable for its intended use on the part of the horse owners. Mr. Bruce Kitchen, one of the developers, stated that the property considered access land by the County Flood Control would be purchased by them. It was impossible to run the street through to Camino Reol; however, a one foot in fee was being retained in the event such could be done in the future; this was also true to the north. If the dead-end street is continued another access would February 13, 1963 Page Ten : be made to Tenth Avenue. The Commission were of the opinion that access should be mode to Camino Real and that the present egress and ingress could probably better be located so that the existing house on the comer lot would conform to Code. The present location of the horse trail and access to it was discussed. The flood control does not have any excess property on the west side of the channel except to the north ofthis tract. Mr. Vernon Jones, of the Hillcrest Engineering Co. stated the map was drawn and revised according to request. That it met the standards so far as lot sizes; the two lots fronting on Tenth Avenue originally were not in the tract, but the Staff felt they should be included. They were not 75 ft. frontages but were existing lots. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and unanimous- ly carried that the matter be referred to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further study. The Chairman of the Subdivision Commi ttee fixed Monday, February 25, 1963 at 7:30 P. M. as a meeting time to consider this matter. LOT SPLIT L-63-1 (Brown) The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. L-63-1 for property in the name of Lucille Horn Brown, located at 1255 North Santa Anita Avenue and 65 Woodland Lane. STAFF REPORT If the lot sp.lit were approved the following conditions should be imposed: I. File a final map 2. Provide sewer laterals to both lots 3. Provide Water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code RECOMMENDA TION The Planning Department recommends that the above lot be approved, subject to the above conditions. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Kuyper, seconded by Commissioner Parker, thot Lot Split No.. L-63-1 be approved, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferg:ClScm Kuyper, and Parker NOES: Commissioners Gol isch, and Norton ABSTAINED: Commissioner Forman ABSENT: Commissioner Michler For lack of a majority vote the matter will be presented at the meeting of the Commission to be held February 26, 1963 February 13, 1963 Page Eleven. . . /~-, , "- LOT SPLIT L-63-2 (Knutsen) The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. L-63-2, Albert Knutsen, 2636 South Baldwin Ave. for property locoted at 136 and 144 Camino Real and 135 and 145 Norman Avenue, creating two new lots on the extension of Winnie Way. STAFF REPORT If approved, the following conditions should be imposed: 1. File a final map 2. Provide main I ine sewer lateral and laterals to each lot 3. Dedication of street right-of-way 4. Pay a recreation fee of $50.00 5. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code 6. Remove all existing structures from proposed new lots 7. File a covenant stating that the north and west property lines of parcel No. I shall constitute the rear lot I ines and that the-westerly and southerly lot I ines of Parcel No.2 shall constitute the reor lot lines. 8. Instoll 011 standord street improvements required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Improvements, grades and drainage shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Publ ic Works 9. Street tree installation $34.00 MOTION Moved by Commissioner Kuyper, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried, that Lot Split No. L-63-2 be opproved, subject to the conditions os outlined in the Staff Report. LOT SPLIT L-63-3 Mouser The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. L-63-3, Gerald D. Mouser, 2520 South Sonta Anita Ave. STAFF REPORT If approved, the following conditions should be imposed: I. File 0 finol map 2. Provide a sewer lateral to the new lot 3. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 4. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code 5. Remove the existing building from the rear 6. Prior to any construction on the newly created lot, the existing combination garage and shed shall be removed; that .concurrent with th is removal a new garage or carport shall be provided for the existing house in accordance with Code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the above listed conditions MOTION Moved by Commissioner Kuyper, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. L-63-3 be denied. ,February 13, 1963 . Page Twelve .. PLOT PLAN REVIEW Forno & Lynrase Avenues Under the terms of the zoning imposed on the property located south of Live Oak Ave. all plans for the area are to be submitted to and be approved by the Planning Commission. The proper_ty is located in the C-M and D zone located on the northeast corner of Forno and Lynrose Avenues. STAFF REPORT The Security First National Bank has appl ied for permission to construct a computer center in compl iance with the D-overlay conditions imposed on the above property. The Pacific Southwest Realty Co. a subsidiary of the Security First National Bank proposes to develop the property on the northead corner of Lynrose and Forno St. for the purpose of a computer center. Pions ond elevotions must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the development of this property and finds them in compliance with the conditions of approval and applicable at this time. The Planning Department recommends that the plans be approved, subject to the conditions of approval I isted in the City Counci I Resolution No. 3180. The site plan and landscaping were presented and the elevations, together with a rendering of the particular installation. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unonimously corried thot the plans os submitted by the Security First National Bank for a computer center to be 'located on the northeast corner of Lynrose and Forno Avenues be approved, subject to the conditions as outlined in City Council Resolution No. 3180. RESOLUTION NO. 470 The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 470, entitled: itA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ZONE R-2 TO ZONE C-2 and D. ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DUARTE ROAD ANA FIFTH AVENUE IN SAID CITY." MOTION Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, and unanimously carried thQt the' reading of the full body of Resolution No. 470 be waived. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that Resolution No. 470 be adapted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton Parker and Forman NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler February 13, 1963 Page Th i rteen : (' .,,- RESOLUTION NO. 471 The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 471, entitled~: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCAPIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE REVISED PLOT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CHURCH AT 110-118 WEST DUARTE ROAD. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, and unanimously carried, thot the reading of the full body of soid resolution be': ' waived. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, that Resolution No. 471 be adopted: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton Parker and Forman NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler PLOT PLAN Convalescent Home V-62-6 Final drawings and plot pion for the convalescent home to be constructed at 410-4;8 West Huntington Drive were submitted for review and approval. STAFF REPORT This variance was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 454 on June 26, 1962 and was approved by the City Council July 17, 1963. The above plans are submitted to conform with the working drawings and that the same are in substantial compliance with the plans sub- mitted with the variance and as outlined in Resolution No. 3505. Substantial compliance has been made with 0 few exceptions: No portion of the original building had a second story; in the Staff's opinion this half story improves the appearance and in addition provides additional storage space. With a few minor exceptions the plans conform substantially with the original plans and propaseS::lllore parking for the convalescent home than originally planned and is in excess of Code requirements. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and unanimously carried, that the final plans and working dr.awings be approved subject to the finol compliance with the requirements set forth in Resolution No. 3503. SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS CHURCH (Foothill Blvd. Wall) The Planning Director stated that in the variance for the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Churchl a requirement at that time was thot the existing wall olong the north end of the property - 4-1/2 ft. in height - be raised to 6 feet. Since that time the Church and Mr. Alfred Vogel, the property to the rear hove come to some agreement to hove. the wall remain uriti I such time as the Church corrp letes final construction. The Building and Safety Division required some February 13, 1963 Page Fourteen . . . /---" < \ ~. action if this is to be allowed. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, and unanimously carried, that all the requirements of the variance be compl ied with including thot the wall be raised to six feet. REPORTS The Planning Director stated a joint meeting with the Recreation Commission would be held February 20, at 8:00 o'clock P. M. in the Council Chomber. This meeting is called to discuss the parks need in the City of Arcadia. The Southern California Planning Congress will be held February 14, 1963, at Pomona. MEETING TIMES Commissioner Parker stated that sometime ago consideration had been given to having one meeting a month for planning problems and changesl and the second meeting would be to act on the items on the agenda. With the many items on the agl!naa for the past meetings it had been necessary to hold meetings in the regular order. Some items being filed have a definite time limit and these have to be considered. This is set by the Planning Department and it may require one long meeting to complete an afFnda, but the feel ing is that such a program should be considered. . AUDIENCE PARTlCIPA TION No one desired to be heard. COUNCIL LIAISON Councilman Balser stated that all Boards and Commission, ,were to meet at Eatons, February 14, 1963 at a dinner meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:50 P. M. d/~t74- WILLIAM PHELPS, Planning Secretary February 13, 1963 Page Fifteen