Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 26, 1963 J . ROLL CALL MINUTES CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING R-3 Zone -, MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION, ARCADIA, CALI FORN IA REGULAR MEETING Morch 26, 1963 The Plonning Commission of the City of Arcadio, California, met in regular session on March 26, 1963/ ot 8:00 P.M. in the Cauncil Chamber of the City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, with Choirmon Forman presiding. The pledge of ollegionce was led by Choi~man Forman PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton, Porker and Forman ABSENT: Commissioner Michler OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Jess Bolser City Attorney James A. Nicklin Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes Planning Director William Phelps Planning Technician Ernest Mayer, Jr. The minutes of the meeting held March 12, 1963 were approved with the following addition: "The Plonning D.irector was instructed to prepare a height district mop and present the some to the Commission ot the eorliest possible time." The puhl ic heoring on the proposed amendments to Arcadia Municipal Code, covering apartmen t , house development was again before the Commission. Each of the Commissioners hod received a copy of a tentative resolution prepared by the City Attorney outlining the changes as pre- sented in the publ ic heorings ond as recommended after many discussions. Some items were inodvertently omitted but were not/included in the resolution. Changes made in the resolution consisted of the following: I. Side yard to be ten feet; 2. Distance between buildings fifteen feet; 3. Landscoping strip next to property line deleted Some consideration should be given to the building height paragraph 9255.2.165 token from the present code which might present 0 problem. The basement used for the required porking space shall notconsti,tute a story if no portion of the service of the floor next above such bosement etc. This is measured point of floor two feet obove the curb. In a v,ery deep lot which should have either 0 slope or a rise of five ta ten feet from curb line it would creote a problem os the building goes back to the depth of the lot it would be ten feet obove ground at the bock end of the lot. Some consideration should be given t.o step this to the slope of the land or some rei ief. The Assistant City Engineer ond the City Attorney hod discussed this and a suggestion was made the height limit should l:emaintained for a distance of perhaps 100 feet from the front line and then allow two feet above noturol grode beyond this point. Some of this hod been taken core of through modificotion but it could be alleviated through modification but it could be aileviated through consideration in this resolution. Morch 26, 19 63 . Poge One '. HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION NO. 474 MOTION The City Attorney stated in answer to questions relative to including height of buildings in th is resolution thot if this is established at this time every chapter of~the Code would have to be amended which deals with the height limitation. The assumption is made that this height limiotion is going to be higher, yet the discussions at previous meetings were that this would be lowered rother than ro ised. Commissioner Golisch recomme)'lded thot in order to expedite the matter that the section pertoining to height limitation be stricken. In the el imination of the five foot planting strip between the driveway and the property line thot the clouse "any change in grode five feet of a property, sidewalk or driveway, in exces~ of one foot be protected by either 0 two or four foot barricade of some sort." The Plonning Director stoted that if the plans came in and the sugges'tion were made that the driveway be placed neor the property line and the retaining wall placed there this could be taken care in the planning stage of the building. The Chairman announced that the public hearing had not been closed, If there were remarks to be made os to' the R-3 changes that would be informative and or}' information not hoving been presented previously could be presented at this time. Mr. Wendell Chapman, 930 Coronado Drive, Arcadio, a property owner since 1947 asked tlia question if apartments of more than two stories in height hod been dropped. The Chairman odvised that the Commission had deleted the clause thot referred 'to other thon two stories. Mr. Chapman fel t that the trend should be toward less opartments rather than to increase the number, but to increose the quolity is 9Jod. Mr. Don Betsinger, 12 Yorkshire Drive, requested further information as to the required sideyard. He fel t mony of the suggestions were not feasible. Lilly Sanders, 1024 Arcodia Avenue Lee Walker, 270 W.:llnut; Charles McNabe and S. C. Evans al,so spoke. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and unanimously carried thut the publ ic hearing be closed. The City Attorney presented Resolutian No. 474 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 2, OF ARTICLE IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING DIVISION 5 OF PART 5 AND DIVISION 5 OF PART 7 THEREOF. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper that the reoding of the full body of the resolution be waived. Morch 26, 1963 Page Two "~-_./ MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Norton that Resolution No. 474 be odopted with the changes as indicated. I. Signs 2. Deletion of 9255.2.11 3. Chonge on side yards 4. length of buildings 5. Omit the 5 foot planting eosement between drivewoy and property I ine and the establishment of the grade from curb. ROll CAll AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Gol isch, Kuyper, Norton, Parker and Forman NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler TRACT NO. 27992 Tentative map of twenty lot subdivision proposed between Tenth Avenue and the Flood Control channel wos ogoin presented to the Commission. This tract had been considered at the last meeting and becouse of a lack of a majority vote was referred back for reconsiderotion. Commissioner Golisch stated that he was obsent at the time of the vote but thot he had read the minutes ond had familiarized himself with the proceedings and wos in 0 position to vote on th is motter. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Go/is h, seconded by Commissioner Parker that Tentative Tract No. 27992 be recommended for approvol, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff report. The Planning Department had received 21 letters opposed to the subdivision within the district; 3 in favor of it; 11 people within the City or interested in equestrian activities opposed. Commissianer Norton stated it was not his intention to prolong the hearing but odditionol facts should be considered. It was also not his ariginal intention to create dissention with the property owners nor between them, or the subdividers. His position on this matter dates back some four years when major chonges were being proposed in the city, i. e., Sonto Anita Ave. Much discussion occurred pertaining to the recreational phase' of the equestrian and that on a motion of the City Council a request was made for consider-at ion for 0 facility from the County of los Angeles, the Board of Supervisors and the Federal Government and in these communications it was implied thot the Ci'ty of Arcadio felt the need for this porticular form df recreation. He felt this need had not been diminshed during this short period of time. He quoted from on article written by Mr. DeMuth of the Arcodia Tribune quoting a stotement made by Councilman Cumphouse as follows: "\ am trying to think of the City for the benefit of 011 people who live here todoy. If you divide what you now hove you water down your stock." This is a part of planning and a part of 0 balonced community. He felt thot the proper planning hod not been given this area. Mrs. Edward A.Gobber concurred with Commissioner Norton and stated she liked her property the woy it is and would like to keep it that woy. If 99% of the property owners ore to be pleased the ImoP would be denied. ROll CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Porker and Forman NOES: Commissioners Kuyper and Norton ABSENT: Commissioner Michler. March 26, 1963 Poge Three -. RECESS: LOT SPLIT NO. L-63-7 MOTION MODIFI- CA TI ON APPEAL '~-_/ A three minute recess was declared. The meeting reconvened at 9:54 P. M. The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. L-63-7, 423 W"lnut Avenue. This lot split proposes to divide the property at 423 Walnut into two 59 foot parcels of lond. The Planning Department recommendation is for approvol, subject to the following conditions: I. FiI e a inal map 2. Provide a sewer laterol to the new porcel 3. Pay a recreotion fee of $25.00 4. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code 5. Remove existing carport, sheds, garage and aportment structure from the proposed new lot and construct new garage or carport. 6. Remove existing concrete slobs from rear of both properties 7. Both houses to be made conforming to building code. Mrs, Mary Ha~es, representing h,er Father, stated that to remove the guest house wou Id eliminote finoncial support for her parents. The building was according to building code. She was asked if they would be willing to remove the kitchen and file a covenant that the building would not be used os 0 rentol. The conditions of opprovol would have, one year to be completed. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by CommissionerGolisch, and unonimously corrie~, that Lot Split No. L-6-3-7 ber~p'proved., subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff report, and that a further con'ilHion be that the kitchen be removed and a covenant executed to the effect that the building would have no kitchen and would not be used as 0 rental. This would modify the condition of removing the structure. The oppeol from the modificotion committee M.63-11 relative to 0 setbock sideyard on Sunset Boulevard at 1102 Fairview Avenue was considered. Mr. Mayer of the Planning Deportment reviewed the modification proceedings. The Planning Director stated the decision to be made is whether ar not the setback lines as fixed an Sunset Boulevard ore apprapriate for the area, with the time and place and circum- stances, and particularly in terms of whot the future moy develop in this porticular areo. One thing the Commission should keep in mind is that,ll most of the properties abutting on Sunset are not keep properties, in foct they are relatively shallow in comparison with properties throughout the Ci,ty of Arcodia. If this is the cose, the real property would have 0 tendency to be more basically affected than if they were deeper lots; 2) Temple City is programming(.Sunset Boulevard widened to 84 feet. This same street is Sho'M'l/jnthe County Master Plan of Streets ond Highwoys, 1929 vintage, that it be increased to 84 feet. He strong1n,uggested to the Commission that in considering this modification that they look a linle jealously at the needs of the people within the City rather thon those who reside outside of the City. It would be fine if this street were eventually widened so thot traffic could be moved more easily, and there is no doubt that this would provide a high level of travel for people who would want to use this focility. If this were done, it would seem that it would be working a disadvontoge to those h properties which are shallow.sand^the city. Because of these reasons ond because there have been recent constructions on Sunset Boulevard with a ten foot setback the Plonning Commission should opprove the modification of this applicant. Morch26, 1963 Page Four '-_/ Commissioner Forman, as Choirman of the Modification Committee, stoted thot he was instru- mental in some of the thinking that went into this 25 ft. setback rather thon the 40 ft. which is required, and rather than the 10 ft which was requested. His concern was not with the troffic flow per se which came into the picture as 0 result of studies that the Engineer had mode, but his main concern wos that os traffic increoses, whether or not the street is widened, a problem might be creoted and this is where the 25 ft. ,if allowed it will help take care of increased traffic whether or not the street is widened, The I iving quarters of the proposed building ore on the street and if the street is widened it places them very close to the street and the noise from the traffic. As a result of this being 0 ten foot sideyord there is onother modification pending along side of this property requesting a 25 foot setback in front. This would stagger the front I ines from the corner to the 40 feet which is the stondard frontyord setback. There are people in the audience who have built on the 40 ft. front setback and noturolly ore opposed to giving Sunset the lesser setback lines. In the new resolution adopted it is proposed that a possible stepping of the front yards in order to make the area aestheticolly designed where there is 0 divergence of front yards and side yards on corners. In this cose where the normol setback is 40 feet, if 25 ft. were allowed, then the odjoining property would or could be 30 or 35 feet or between 25 ft. and 40 ft. These were the consider- ations beside the width of the street and the patterns, etc. There is a pattern of setbocks along Sunset Boulevard and he felt the 25 ft. would be appropriate and votes for this in the Modificotion Committee. The Planning Director stateQin answer to 0 question if the street were w,idened would additional property be taken. The volume of traffic in this area can be handles with a lower level of troffic service with the facili.ties we now have rather than even thinking of taking odditionol p"roperty from the abutting properties. Some thought was given to the fact thot if Temple City were to widell the street ond it terminates in California to Rosemead, it would oct'os 0 funnel if 'two side streets were to be narrowed down through Arcadia. The though also was that if there was a congestion here it would discourage people from coming this way, They would then use the facilities that were designed to carry thot type of traffic. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the street were widened would they hove to toke some of th is properly. This would be necessary as the street is now (fJ ft. wide and it would be increased to 84 ft. The Planning Director stated at this particulor time it is not known thot it is necessory to widen this particulor street, to carry the omount of traffic that may be planned, and also tli's Department is taking the position it may be thot more volumes of traffic may be projected for this areo which may not be to the advantage of the City. If he were working for the County he would take the opposite viewpoint. Mr. Forbes stated thot the people of Arcadia had to travel through Arcadia to their destination and as traffic engineers they had the responsibility of providing adequate streets to carry the --",alume of traffic, Traffic counts have been mode and this street was carried in the Deficiency Study; that it is anticipoted that this street will carry 11,000 vehicles. He felt this is essential to their pattern for development for projected traffic. The Police Deportment hove reported they are having problems at the present time. If the ten root setback is gronted and if it is decided at a later dote thotthe 84 feet should be developed t~~re would be a strip rernlining~ but with bedrooms frbnting on a busy street which would create problems. North of Huntington Dr. there is restricted parking on one side of the street. This is in Zone R-3 and the Commission has adopted a resolution trying to bring obaut development of the lots in this areo ond the type of development desired, in some cases it has been determined 0 modification of the side, front or rear yard, which would have to be made for desirability of development. This would be an example of this type ~f modification and this seems to be desiroble. If this action is taken this would create a precedence for the development of all the lots in the area and the people opposing this should be informed that it sets a pattern on Sunset. There is presently constructed on the southeast corner of Huntington and Sunset 0 new building with underground parking, set within ten feet; just across the street on the southwest corner there is a building which is Morch 26, 1963 Page Five LOT SPLIT NO. L-63-8 about a year old that is within or'about ten feet; on the northeast corner of Sunset and Duorte Road there is a building which is about 1-1/2 years old that has a ten faot setback. The fu,ture connat be looked at on a lot by lot basis, it must be, on an orea basis, Commissianer Norton asked if he understood fram Mr. Forbes that due north of Huntington Drive in the R-3 area would not be included ,in the widening. This is a port that connects with Californio Street. This street is now 66 feet from curb to curb. It is a substandord street but certain steps could be taken to prohibit parking so that four lanes of troffic would be provided. When this troffic gets to Californio it is narrowed down again. There ore center islands in Colifornia Street but it is onticipated these would be improved or removed. The traffic now is coming straight through, some of it turning on Huntington Drive and some travelling eastword. With the construction of the freeway it would probobly carry ;more traffic. On the master plan of Highways os proposed by the County, the Engineer felt Baldwin, Sunset, Holly (secondary) EI Monte (secondory) Santa Anita and Second Ave, (secondory) In future Plonning three and possibly four major highways - north and south - would be considered through the City. Arcadio will be between two freeways, with Boldwin Ave., Santo Anita Ave., as through streets to eoch freeway. Does the City of Arcadia intend to control this north-south, east-west, flow of troffic and if so can this be predetermined in the routes of the fre,,!ways? Would it be to the advontoge af the city to determine this and then motivate the traffic flow in the designated areas~ This should not be diverted into other residential oreas. of the city. Commissioner Golisch stated that this problem seldom faced the Commission but there was a divergence of opinion of the divisions within !he City. He felt that 0 city policy should be established on whether or not Sunset Blvd; is to be a major street and he felt that it should be referred back to the City administration to make this determinoJtion - not on a single apartment basis. It would be somewhat out of line on a short notice as to whether this will be widened or not. Onc,e this is eSJabl ished then decisions can be made. Commissioner Norton stated that definitely o.,Major City Stree,t plan should be decided and it would be'an'asset in determining future subdivisions, etc. It was determined that there should be a set policy on the flaw of traffic in the City and there should be a reason justifying it. The three buildings now on Sunset which have been con- structed were constructed - two through approval of the Modificotion Committee, and the other by the issuance of a building permit. It is difficult for the property owner to delay because of a decision, but this is a question thot would hove to be determined before a decision could be rendered. The matter wos continued to the next regular meeting pending a decision from the City Monager as to the pol icy to be determined on Sunset Boulevard. The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. L-63-8, for 1422, 1424, 1426 Tenth Avenue, Roy C. Hale. The application proposes to split this property into two parcels, one fronting on Loganri ta Ave, the other on Tenth Avenue. The Planning Deportment recommends deniol of this lot split. If the split is gronted, the following conditions should be imposed: 1. File a final map 2. Provide 'sewer lateral for the new parcel 3. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 4. Prov,ide water services to comply to the Uniform Plumbing Code 5. Remove the rear house on Parcel A and real ign to a location equal distonce from reorhouse to the east. 6. Remodel house on Parcel B to have a front entrance on Loganrita Ave. Morch 26, /963 Page Six " . MOTION LOT SPLIT NO. L-63-9 MOTION \..__/' If all of the conditions were met it might be considered on appropriate one. There would be two lots fairly close to the standard requirements. Mr. Worren Thompson, 4421 Fair Oaks, Rosemead, Col ifornia, stated he was part owner of the property. He felt it was not economicolly sound to remove the middle house. He felt the house on Logonrr.~a ;s a de~r;men~ to ~he s~ree~ and would be much improvement were it to be remodeled to face the s~reet ond split the lot. The Commission stoted Loganrita would be benfited, but that the remaining lot is too small to hove two houses and the second house have norec:ir yard and wou Id not meet the code. Moved by Comm issioner Gol isch, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, ond unanimously corried, that Lot Split No. L-63-8 be,denied. The Plonning Commission considered Lot Split No, L-63-9, ;383 Naomi Avenue, John W. Ell iott. This application proposes to split the property at 383 W. Naomi into two lots. The Planning Department recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: I. File a final map 2. Provide a sewer loteral to the newly creoted lot 3. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 4. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code 5. Reomove the shed, auto and trash from the reor of the lot 6. Reomove the existing garoge, (;md construct a new goroge Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried that Lot Split No. L-63-9 be approve.d subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. RESOLUTION The City Attorney presented Resoluti.on No. 473 entitled: MOTION MOTION "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AI'lD MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY IN SAID CITY DESIGNATED' AS ANNEXATION NO. 30, SOUTHEAST ARCADIA (UNINHABITED) AND FIXING THE DATE, HOUR AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH PURPOSE!' Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body of the res,olution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Kuyper, thot Resolu~ion No. 473 be adopted: ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton, Parker ond Forman NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler March 26, 1963 Page Seven . ' REPORTS MORA TOR- IUM PUBLIC PARTICI- PATION ADJOURN- MENT ". ~ The Plonning Director odvised the Commission that the City Council had ploced a moratorium on building structures and use in the Downtown Study Area. Certain activities would be permitted provided they were in complionce with the pion ond received a 4/5 vote of the City Counci I. Informotion had been forwarded to each Commissioner pertaining to Hospitals and Convalescent Homes howing the relotionship between these two types of facilities. Should further applicotions be processed it would be well to consider some of the facts outlined in this report. The Commission requested the Secretary to advise the City Council that the Planning Commission would recommend 0 moratorium be placed on construction in the R-3 Zone until such time as the public hearings are held before the Council and a determination has been made of the changes in the present Code. This action was ta~en on motion of Commissioner Kuyper, seconded by Commissioner Norton and unanimously carried. No one in the audience desired to be he~rd. Councilman Balser was complimented on his part in the Downtown presentation before the City Council. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. U/~~ WILLIAM PHELPS, Planning Secretary f'N>-.l<cr-l 2C.,,6'c:.3 If-.-/:OS E:lt:;HT