Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 29, 1963 I .. '- , (.-J MINUTES ,eLA~NING COMMISSION, ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA ADJOURNED REGUlAR MEETING October 29, 1963. The Planning Commission met in an adjourned regular meeting in the Council Chamber, City Hall, at 8:00 P. M., October 29, 1963, with Vice Chairman N9rton presiding. . ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Golisch, Hanson, Norton ,and Parker Absent: Commissioners Forman, Kuyper and Ferguson Oth ers Present: Councilman Conra~ T. Reibold City Attorney James A. Nicklin Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes Planning Direc;tar William Phelps Sen ior Planner Ernest Mayer, Jr. Associate Planner L~wis C. Polla~d, Jr. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Norton led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of October 8, 1963 were approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING Centrfill Area Zoning The Public Hearing on this matter was continued from the previous meeting. Commissioner Parker presented a report of the Zoning Committee as follows: "The Zoning Committee decided at its last meeting, after a thorough review of the Central Area Plan that the Town Center Area should be placed in a new zone category. The commercial zone as recommended by the Consultants, Wilsey, Ham and Blair, appears ?ppropriate for this area. The area north of the extension of Huntington Drive and west of Santa Anita Avenue, as well as. the area on the south side of Huntington Drive, west of Fifth Avenue still require further study. The Commi,ttee also wants to determine if the area designa- ted as P. I. D. (Planned Industrial Development) should expa.nd to the north side of Huntington Drive between Second and Fifth Avenues as proposed in the. last report. It moy be appropriate to hold in abeyance a firm decision on this area until the exact uses permitted have been determined. With a few more meetings the entire Central Area will be classified into appropriate zoning c?tegories and the same may be recommended to the full Commission at that time." These areas wer~ pointed- out on the map by the Planning Director. COMMUNICA TIONS Tt,e,Arcadia Chamber of Commerce report adopted by the Board of Directors on October 23, 1963 was presented. A copy of the report is on file with the Planning Department. The Arcadia Business Association also submitted a report which is on file in the Planning Department. The Staff report was presented by the Planning Director. The recommendation of the Planning Department is that the expanded area in the west part of town is inconsistent with the development theme of the entire city; that the property on the north side of Huntington Drive should , be eliminated entirely from consideration. The property shown as Phase 2 and Phase 3 is also incon- sistent with the development of the City and should not be considered. Phase I may have some ,merit. However, the attention of the Commission should be called to the fact that the originally ~ delineated areas were thoroughly studied by the Zoning Committee and at that particular time the area designated as Phase 1 was not considered appropriate. A mistake made in the past should not , be repeated. Too much property was placed in R-3 at one time. As a result, the apartment develop- 10/29/63 page 1 . I , .r- c ment has not, in most instances, been.in a manner keeping with the development desires of Arcadia. The Central Area is planned around the fact that Arcadia is a City of Fine Residential l:iomes and that the future development, multiple family, commercial, or industrial development must complement this theme. If not, it would not be acceptable or suitable for Arcadia. No one in the audience desired to be heard. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Go/isch, seconded by Commissioner Hanson and unanimously carried that the publ ic hearing on the Central Area Zoning be continued to the next regular meeting of the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING H-Special Height Zone This Publ ic Hearing was scheduled for the purpose of considering the land area proposed for Zone H. The public hearing was divided into two ports. Part One was about the East Arcadia area, while Part Two was concerning'West Arcadia. The Chairman announced the hearing on East Arcadia first and requested those desi ring to be heard do so at th is time. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. A. L. Stephens, 741 West Camino Real Avenue, Edward G. Marshall, 372 Poplar St. Laguna Beach (property at 504 W. Huntington Drive) Hialeah Park Arms, Inc. K. H. Kozak, President Mary E. Macisaac, 920 S. Golden West Avenue Petition of property owners on the south ,side of Camino Real, signed by eight individual property owners. The main concern of the above property owners was that the boundaries of the new height zone stopped in the middle of the street. They were not opposed to the special height zone but felt the boundaries should be to the rear of the lots; that both sides of the street should be zoned uniformly. The West Arcadia Business and Professional Association presented a communication revising their former recommendation in that the H zoning should be in phases. PHASE ONE to include the area which waS originally proposed by the Planning Commission; and in addition thereto, the east and west sides of Baldwin Avenue to a depth of approximately 200 feet, from Duarte Rood to Huntington Drive, and the property on the south side of Huntington Drive, to the southerly rear lot I ines thereof, extending from Baldwin Avenue to Holly Avenue. This area is the same as that which the Chamber of Commerce recommends for immediate Zone H. PHASE TWO. The area extending on the north side of Duarte Road from that area which was originally proposed by the Planning Commission, to Holly Avenue; the south side of Duarte Rood to the rear lot lines, from Holly Avenue to Lovell; the west side of Lovell Avenue to a depth meeting with the original proposed area of the Planning Commission, south to Camino Real; the north side of the property on Camino Real to Baldwin Avenue; and the west side of Boldwin Avenue from Camino Real to a depth of approximately 200 feet to the area originally proposed by the Planning Commission. In addition to this area, it was believed that the orea on the south 'side of Huntington Drive from Baldwin Avenue to Hungate Lane should be included in Phase Two, due to the easy access from the alley on the south side of this property. The Boord of Directors of the Association feels that this area should be included in the H Zone in the very near future;' and, further, that any requests for H zoning in this area in the future should be given favorable consideration. PHASE THREE. To include the balance of the area originally proposed by the West Arcadia Business and Professional Association on October 8, 1963, with the exception of the north side 10/29/63 Page 2 . , ~ c of HunHngton Drive, as set forth above. It is believed that H Zone. ill:lprovements should ultimately be allowed in this areaj however, not necessarily at this time, or in the immediate future. The Civic Improvement and Land Use Committee report to the Board of Directors of the Arcadia Chamber of Commerc:e was also presented by David C. Barron, President of the Chamber of Commerce. The letter stated that copies of a report and recommendation had been, transmitted. as a unanimous recommendation of the Board as a result of the adoption .of the report at the rElguJar meeting of this body on October 24, 1963. They felt proper study of the subject had been made by this Committee and that the best interests of the City of Arcadia, over a 10J:lg ronge period, would be best served if th is recommendation wereadopte~. The report reads: "The Boord is urged to adopt the policy that there does exist a definite need for the establishment of Zone H areas in the City of Arcadia. That these areas should be controlled in basic accordance with the recommendations as proposed by the Planning D.eportment. Among these are: I. Site accessibility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic including streets of adequate width and availability of public transportation. 2. Adequate municipal facilities should be readily available to provide proper service of util ities and protection. 3. In accordance with general city improvements and continued upgrading. 4. Proper arch itectural controls should be developed and adhered to. 5. Maximum height limits should be set. It is suggested 8 stories or 100 feet be this maximum. 6. Additional technic:al requirements as suggested by the Planning Department Staff should be seriously considered for incorporation in the standards applicable to Zone H. The following oreas meet the criteria meniioned above and have many additional advantages. It is recommended these areas be zoned immediate,ly. I. Beginning at the intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and Duarte Road, thence northerly along Santa Anita Avenue to the Santa Fe Railroad tracksj thence southeasterly along the railroad tracks to Second Avenue; thence southerly along Second Avenue to Cal ifornia Street, thence westerly along California Street to First Avenuej thence southerly along First Ayenue to Duarte Roadj thence westerly along Duarte Rood to the point of beginning. 2. Beginning at the southeast corner of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue; hence easterly along the south side of Huntington Dri)le to Holly Avenue; thence southerly along the west line of Holly Avenue approximately 254 feet to a point; thence westerly along the rear property lines of the property facing Fairview Avenue to o point at the northwest corner of Lot 2 Tract No. 3430, per the recorded map thereof, thence southerly along the westerly I ine of said lot across Fairview Avenue and continuing along the westerly I ine of Lot 34 of said Tract prolongated to the point of intersection with the south line of Arcadia Avenae;.: thence easterly along the south line of Arcadia Avenue to a point 72.59 feet east of the west lot I ine of Lot 43 of said Tractj thence southerly and parallel with said west line of said Lot ~.to a point on the north line of Duarte Road; thence southerly across Duarte Road to the northeast 10/29/63 Page 3. , --. . corner of lot 4, Tract No. 4090; thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 4 and continuing southerly along the east line of Lot 14 Tract No. 4611 to and crossing Naomi Avenue and continuing southerly to the southeast corner of Lot 18 Tract No. 4611; thence westerly along the south line of said Tract to the east side of Baldwin Avenue; thence northerly along the west line of Baldwin Avenue prolongated to Naomi Avenue; thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 19 to the southeast corner of Lot 20 of said Tract; thence northerly along the east I ipe of said Lot 20 to the southwest corner of Lot II of said Tract and contin_uing northerly in a direct line along the westerly boundary of said_ Tract No. 6925 to Duarte Road; thence northeasterly across Duarte Road to a point on the north I ine of Duarte Road 75 feet easterly of the southeast corner of Lot 124 Tract No. 2731; thence in a northerly direction jogging westerly to follow property lines to a point on the south I ineof Arcadia Avenue, 7;0 feet east of the northeast corner of Lot 121 of said Tract No. 2731; thence northerly across Arcadi a Avenue to the southwest corner of Lot 6 Tract No. 5220 and continuing northerly along the west line of said Lot 6 and Lot 8 of said Tract to the south line of'Fairview Avenue; thence along the south line of Fairview to a point where the southerly prolongation of a line 100 feet east of and parallel to the east line of Lot 25 of said Tract No. 2731 would intersect; thence:' no'rtherly along this described I ine and the continued prolongation thereof to the southeast carner of Lot I Tract No. 24499; thence northerly along the east line of said Lot I of said Tract and continuing northerly therefrom to a point on the south line of Huntington Drive to the said point of beginning. A further communication was received from the Rancho Santa Anito Residents ~sociation. This Association during the 1962-63 season comprised of 460 families paying dues. Further increases in membership during the 1963-64 year are anticipated. This Association has consistently and actively supported many programs and particularly those that tended to develop the fine character- istics the cityl')Ow enjoys - "City of Fine Homes". This Association feels that high rise apartments will destroy that character and in addition through the increase of population density, place physical burdens on the civic facil ities, especially on the already over-burdened schools. They urged the members of the Commission and City Council to: I. recommend denial of any ordinances for high rise apartments anywhere in the city; 2. Maintain existing codes limiting apartl)1ents to two stories. This action was taken at a meeting held October 14, 1963. A letter from the West ~rcadia Home Owners Association, signed by Mr. Considine, as President, was received. A copy was mailed to each Commissioner. It stated that the Association is opposed , i to Zone H as recommended by the West Arcadia Business and Professional Association. PROPONENTS: Frank Myers, owner of property on. southwest corner of Baldwin Ave. and Huntington Drive; Elizabeth Willis, 1115 South Holly Avenue; Loraine Hagar, representing Grace Williams, southeast corner of Huntington Drive and Golden West Avenue; Michael Blake, 1245 Lovell Avenue; Robert Stevens, Attorney, representing Mike Vallone; Fred Carr, 825 West Duarte Road; David Smith, 743 Fairview Avenue 10/29/63 Page 4. PROPONENTS: OPPONENTS , c Mr. Robert Stevens stated thot he was yery much in favor of the Special Height Zone for the Downtown Area. Mr. Kerm it Hartzler, representing the DowntolWn ~usiness Association desired togo,publicly on record that they were in favor ofthe plan and theouiline on the map under consideration. Mrs. George Stice, 119 Bonita A.venue ct-.""LYA I> '0, Mr. Robert Arth, 1017 again stated the position of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association regarding high rise buildings within the City. They were opposed to any b,uildings in the R-3 zone being higher than two stories. The areas in the Downtown area h~ve definite boundaries and it could likely go with some high rise buildings but he felt that some would say that if it were to go in one port of t,o:-vn it would be necessary to go to the other part of town. . He felt a stop would have to be made someplace and in an orderly developed community it should be stopped in the beginning. It will have to be all high rise or none. Mr. .. Reuben Caatsworth, 1031 Monte Verde Drive stated Arcadia is .. \.~... attempting to attract families to the city. He p'urchasecf his home two years ago because of the schools and ,the homes. He did not purchase on a speculative basis. He felt this could best be preserved by proh ib,iting high rise apartments. Mr. Murfett, 616 West Camino Real objected to the zoning going to' the middle of the street. However, the zoning shoula be considered to the rear lot lines, or else both sides of the street should be the same. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, and unanimously carried that the publ ic hearing on the secilbn termed the "Downtown - East Arcadia" be closed. The publ ic hearing on the bolance of the special height zones be continued until the next regular meeting of November 12, 1963. . MOTION November 12, 1963. Moved by Commissioner Gol isch, seconded by Commissianer Hanson, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing on the balance of the land scheduled for this meeting be continued to the next regular meeting of The Chairman declared a five minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 P. M. Mr. Golisch stated that he felt the decisions reached in connection with this zoning would be one that would have a lasting influence upon the community; that the Commission and members of the City Council had spent a great deal of effort and time in.reviewing the material that has been made available to them. Arcadia is basicaUy a residential city. There is a particular place in Southern Cal ifornia for a city that is uniquely residential, such as Arcadia and San Marino. So long as it appears to be the desirs of the bulk of the people every effort should be taken to continue this. At the same time everything has to be done that is necessary to activate and revitalize the business district. They are vital to the fine homes and schools. He would go along with all the concepts i~ the report of Wilsey, Ham and Blair. When there is an area as large as this and as many changes required there will be many people and many issues involved and all people cannot be satisfied. He felt all that the Commission could do is to do what they feel, in their own minds, is the best thing for the area. He stated the Consultants have stated that the II I 10/29/63 Page 5. , .~ (, City of Arcadia has more than sufficient purchasing power to support d business and shopping center as propos'ed. Adequatil and' also: sufficient to sustain the area without the medium high ri~e in the area. He felt it was a matter of not bringing more purchasing power to the city but rather of recapturing the purchasing power that is already here. The CommIssion shoulll approve the high .rise for the Town Center area and this would also encompass the section from Huntington Drive that is indicated as C-l and D. Once the character of the city is changed from two-story apartments up to eight it cannot be stopped. He could see no justification for approving the powntown Section and then saying to the other parts of the town that it was not possible there. He felt that it was not in..the best interests .of the City of Arcadia to include in the Special Height Zone any residential properties; that compactness of the zoning' is necessary, not to spreCld out the area. High rise commercial buildings should be concentrated in the ar.ea where they are needeq. Commissioner Hanson felt that he has been with the Commission in support of spec;i91 height zone, and would still be if the area along Santa Anita Avenue to Duarte Road, was omitted. He did not feel that a narrow strip is appropriate and it would also bring up the point that the zaning would . go to the middle of the street. He felt thot to include the area In the commercial. Downtown area would be good .for the time being. He was pleased with the material submitted by the Committee and the Staff. This was the best work he had seen since being on the Commission, Commissioner Parker stated this had been a difficult year on this study. Hewanted to go on record as favoring high rise in the city, both commercial and residential for the reason that perhaps problems had been brought upon the City because early in the years of development large areas had been opened up for residential or R-3 construction. Perhaps the Commission could learn from this mistake. This is the time now to plan ahead. He felt that progress would change the complexion of Arcadia whether it is liked or not. He would like to keep it residential but he did not feel it was possible. Therefore, if this is true, then the Commission should do what they could to plan a systemmatic development and apply good planning principles. He too had children in school and pays taxes and from the reports given and from other sources investigated, plus the fact that the school load had already been increased. from the many new subdivisions developed this had all been taken into consideration in the high rise study. He favored the plan as proposed in the area shown on the maps including the residential to Duarte Road. ' : ' Commissioner Norton said there was a potentiol problem in the City of Arcadia of over expansion. Onll thing the City is trying to develop is a Downtown Complex. The work put in is basically fine. On page 12 of the Consul tant's report, it stated that it could be expected that three quarters of expected income will be spent in vorious retail outlets and of this omount approximately 2% will be spent on shopping goods, convenience goods, and other retail items. It seemed to him this plan had developed a complex in order to relieve the problem confornting the City. The area of the high rise - he was in favor of additional height in the commercial zone. This is 0 part of the plan and bosically is necessary in order to develop the plan as time goes one. He would have to support the attitude of Mr. Hanson and Mr. Golisch relative to high rise as far as aportmenttype of living is concerned in the City of Arcadia. It became clear to him through the publ ic hearing and evidence taken that the door was about to swing open, and in some instances perhaps rightfully so, but to change the entire complexion of the city from what originally set out to be done is not in the best interests of the community. He felt the chief objective of these business men had been achieved. He felt there was no conflict. He did not condone the thought of bringing in additional height for apartment type of living in the City of Arcadia. It is necessary in commercial but this does riot necessarily mean the apartment type special height zone' has to be embraced. The survey had been taken and th is an exhaustive one. If it can be rei ied upon os a guide post, he would then concur with the survey that there is the buying power from the residents. The growth of the city has experienced from 1940 to 1950 is indicated os 52.9% 77% gain from 1950 to 1960. The 1962 population is almost five times that of the 1940 population. Arcadia is reaching a populatIon saturation point under existing use patterns. One aspect that has not been discussed and is not a part of these proceedings is another change in the City of Arcadia. That is the desirabil ity of the residents and developer to use the cul-de-sacs in the City to develop R-l residences. There will be a continued growth factor from this standpoint. He felt that it was not necessary to rely upon height in order to develop the Center Complex. From the opinions expressed it would seem that the Commissioners were irl favor of the H Zone for the Downtown area insofar. as the commercial area was concerned. There waS a divergence of opinion as to whether or not the R-3 portion of the Downtown H Zone should go. The City Attorney suggested two motions: First, that that portion of the City bounded by the railroad tracks to the northeast, Santa Anita Avenue on the west; Second Avenue on the east; Alto Street to the south and both sides of First Avenue to California Street be included in Zone H. 10/29/63-6 , / . . I' - The R-3 portions south of the alleys would be contingent upon its being classified to C-l and D. Second, the balance of the area in the Downtown area. This, no doubt, would be a split vote and would have to carryover until the next regular meeting,. <:ommissioner Parker stated he had two reasons for his decision. One was his favoring the D<;>wntown plan, and also his feelings towards residential. He was concerned that if he were .to vote on the one portion it could not be reopened. It was felt that the one portion should . be re$olved. Commissioner Parker stated he would not be opposed to making Cl,determinatio~ ' on the. commerciaL.por.tion ,of the H20ne but that he desired to .go on record that,he would oppose the balance of the hearing. terminating at this time. ... '0 , I '1 , MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, that the portion of the city bounded by the railroad tracks to the , northeast, Sonia Anita Avenue on the west; Second,Avenue on the east, Alto Street to the south and both sides of First Avenue to California Street be included in Zone H; that those portions now zoned R-3 and M-l within this area should be contingent upon their being reclassified to C-l and D, in accordance with the proposed plan for the Central Area. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Norton, Parker and Hanson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Forman, Kuyper and Ferguson MOTION Moved by Commissioner Pqrker, seconded by Commissioner Golisch that a decision an the balance of the eastern section comprising the Central Area proposed for Zone H be continued until the next regular meeting. ROLL CAW' AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Norton, Parker and Hanson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Forman, Kuyper and Ferguson TRACT NO. 29178 This is a tentotive map of Tract No. 29,178 for property located at,;250 West Foothill Boulevard, (Foothill Boulevard, east of Merry Oaks Lane) The Staff report was presented by Ernest Mayer, Senior Planner. A copy of said report is on file with the Planning Department. This report recommended denial of the tract. Commissioner Hanson stated that the State Division of Highways had already purchased. property east of this and he felt that the tract should not be denied on the basis of the fact that a portion would be taken for the Foothill Freeway.. He felt that the,tract could be rejected for other reaSOns, but he w,?uld be opposed to denial because of its lying in the path of the freeway. The State had had ampl~ time to lIIe"otiate with the owners of the property so that if the maps were filed to expedite the proceedings, he felt the developers had sufficient reasons to submit the map. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, and unanimously carried, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 29178 be recom- mended for denial on the grounds that it is not a desirable subdivision and does not come up to the standards of the City of Arcadia. TRACT NO. 29011 The Planning Commission considered Tentative Tract No. 29011, for property located at 730 Old Ranch Road (Footh ill Boulevard), east of Old Ranch Road). The Staff report was presented by Ernest Mayer, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Deportment. The Planning Department recommended denial of said tract. 10/29/63 Page 7. , (, -~/ denial of said tract. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Parker, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, that Tentative Map of Tract No. 2,9011 be recommended for denial. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Norton and Parker NOES: Commissioner Hanson ABSENT: Commissioners Forman, Kuyper and Ferguson This matter will be brought before the Commission on November 12 because of lack of majority vote. TRACT NO. 29221 The Planning Commission considered Tentative Tract Map. No. 29221 for property located at 2500, 2508 EI Monte Avenue (EI Monte Avenue north of Woodruff Avenue). , The Staff report was given by Ernest Mayer, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Depart- ment. The Planning Department recommended apprqyal of the tract. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried that Tentative Tract No. 29221 be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff report. TRACT NO. 27647 A public hearing had been scheduled to consider the placing of a trust against the property fronting on the new street - Longley Way. The _ final map of Tract No. 27647 had previously been approved. A new subdivision will be developed to the south. The City Engineer had prepared an estimate of the costs for said trust, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department. The Staff report was presented by Ernest Mayer, a copy of th is report is also on fi Ie with the Plann ing Department. Mr. George Meeker spoke in favor of the trust. Mr. Arthur C. Bouman was opposed. Communications had been received from two fo the three property owners, Dorothy Alford and Virginia Humphrey, protesting the amount of the trust. It was felt that if the property to the south were developed concurrently with the approved tract that there would be no necessity for a trust. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried that the hearing on the trust proposed against TraCt No. 28647 _b,e ,continued until the next regular meeting, in order for the two developers to meet with the City Engineer to go over the amount of the Trust. Commissioner Golisch asked that he be notified of such meeting and of the results thereof. RESOLUTION \ NO. 500 The City Attorney introduced Resolution No. 500, recommending the classification of specified properties into Zone H. (Special Height Zone) in addition to the bosic zone applicable. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of said resolution be wa ived . 10/29/63 Page 8 .. . -!.. , -" MOTION Moved by Commissioner Gol isch, seconded by Commissioner Hanson that Resolution No. ,5QO b~ adoJlted. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissionelli Golisch, Hanson, Norton and Parker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Forman, Kuyper and Ferguson Mr. Kermit Hartzler and Mr. Thomas Sullivan e,ach spoke in favor of the Town Center. They appreciated the action taken in connection with the Zone H, but urged immediate consideration for the resider,tial . arec;s surroulJding the c.ommercial area. The Central Area Business pepple and the~rcadia Business .Association, as well as the Charril>er_of Commerce had recommended the Zone H in the area as proposed by the Zoning Committee in a former report. They urged consideration of the Special H Zone in the areas designated on the map and formerly, considered by the Commission. AUDIENCE PARTICIPA TlON ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:25 P. M. i/~# WILLIAM PHELPS, Secretary 10/29/63 Page 9