Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 1, 1949 . . Gouncil Chamber, Oity Hall, Aroadia. California, September 1, 1949. 8:00 P. M. The City Planning Commission met in regular meeting with Chairman Pippin presiding. PRESENT: Mr. Anderson, Ingstad, Pipp111 , Shaw, Stoner, Sullivan, Cornyn, Klomp and Talley. A13SBlVT: Yr. Watson. Motion by JIr. And.erson, seoonded by Yr. Sullivan and oarried that the minutes of the meeting of .A.ugu.st 18th be apprC)ved as written and mailed. Pursuant to notioe given, a publio hear1J:1g WtS held on the applioation of Bernard R. and Margaret F. Nolan for a zone varianoe to allow the opera- tion of a riding aoademy at 704 E. LOngden Avenue. Mr. Nolan presented his oase. stating that he is operating a riding school for ohildrenj that he in- tends to purohase the property, remove the old house and build a new One. Communioation from Dolly R. Alward stated her approval of the varianoe. Mr. Anderson verbally objeoted, stating that horses ran over his property at Sixth Avenue and Lollgden Avenue. Petition of protest from five owners ob- jeoted to the varianoe. The Chairman announoed that a deoision would be given in this matter at the next meeting. Pursuant to notice given, a pnblic hearing was held on the proposed open- ing of Seventh Avenue trom Duarte Road to Oamino Real. Property owners speak- ing in faVor of..the opening werl1: L. T. Frisbey, A. B. Rees, H. F. Sawyer, J. Rosenfield, G. T. Brooke and Mrs. H. T. Moody. Those opposed were: R. A. Cook, J. A. Baker. L. H. Spafford and W. H. MoCauley. The Chairman annou.n&ed that a decision would be given at the next meeting. Communioation from Glenn M. Dysart requested a two weeks delay 111 any action on his petition for a ohange of zone. Motion by Mr. Sullivan, seoonded by Mr. Ingstad and carried that the request be granted. Oommunioation from Feed Dailey Assooiates requested pel'1llission to ereot an alumin1llll building at 701 S. First Avenue for demonstration purposes. The matter was referred to Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Stoner to investigate. IIn the matter of the request of Willard 1ft!ite for pel'1llission to make mattresses in Zone C-2, Yr. Anderson reported that Mr. White was not deoided on a looation. and reoommended that the matter be tabled waiting further information from Mr. White. The Seoretary was instruoted to so advise the applioant. In the matter of the request of John W. Marshall to remodel a guest house at 924 S. Sixth Avenue, Mr. Shaw reported that Mr. Marshall had verbally re- quested that the applioation be withdrawn. The Seoretary was instruoted to notify Mr. Marshall that in view of the above information. the matter had been eet aside without aotion. The request of Paul S. Burkholder for a pe1'll1i t to add to the building at Baldwin Avenue and Duarte Road was disoussed. Motion by Mr. Shaw. seconded by Mr. Stoner and oarried that a deoision be withheld pending fnrther information at the next meeting. Appuoation of Ross Himes for a zone varianoe at the corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas Drive was set for hearing on September 15th. Applioation , of A.. Jean Lyman for a zone varianoe at 1016 S. Baldwin Avenue 1II8S set for hearing on Ootober 6th. Mr. Shaw S1lggested that this COIIIIIission oontaot the Monrovl~ and Pasadena Commissions to discuss freeways. The Chairman appointed Mr. Shaw and Mr. Sullivan as a oommittee for this purpose. Motion by Mr. Sullivan, seoonded by Mr. Ingstad and oarried that any re- quests made by reputed representatives be oonfirmed by the owner of the prop- erty. ~ . . Motion by Mr. !ngstad, seoonded by Mr. Anderson and oarried that ~he meeting ll.dJ ourn. t~~.~ry ~ . . Comments by H.M.W. Shaw, at Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 1949, pr~ceding motion to adopt Resolution denying application for Variance ~s submitted by Mr. Joe Earll: (To be added to the minutes of Se~~ember 15, 1949). "Follow:\'ng denial, by the Planning Commission, of Mr. Earll's application for Variance . . . it became evident that a number of people belie~ed that an unduly severe hardship was being L~posed on the petitioner which would, in effect, force him out of business over night. In the various discussions of this matter . . . on the part of the Planning Commission in committee meetings (as is known to the membership of the Commission but not, perhaps, to the petitioner or the public) . . . it was very evident that the majority of the Commission favored any action that would result in removal of the commercial slaughter house and other businesses from the residential zone within a reasonable len!th of time and without undue hardship to the operator. However. Mr. Earll had ~,asked for temporary relief but perman- ent leBallizlne of an enterprise operatin~ contrary to the zoninb laws of Arcadia. Therefore, there seemed to be no point in tbe Planning Commtssion Offering half a loaf to a petitloner who was demanding a whole loaf. After denial, by the Planning Commission, of Mr. Earll's petition, I was a party to suggesting to a member of the City Council, who favored the granting of Mr. Earll's request, that Mr. Earll take the iniative in modifying his request and voluntarily set a tL~e limit under Which he would discontinue tbe ille0al operation of business in a residential zone. I stated to this Councilman that I, personally, would have no reservation or suffer any embarrasment in giving Mr. Earll one year in which to terminate the slaughterinf activity on his property and three years in which to terminate the other commercial activities. This seemed like a reasonable 9rOpasal in view of the existance now and in the past of these co~nerciel activities. . . but with the specific understandin~ that Mr. Earll is in no manner a victim of any adverse action by the Oity of Arcadia but simply the victim of poor business judgment in making a substantial investment in a )Jusiness operating contrary to law. I offer these comments at this time because I believe that I may be subjected to criticism by a CounqiL~an for failing to keep my word that I would favor a compromise that would not make Mr. Earll's business subject to immediate closing. I point out that Mr. Earll's amended request for permission to continue the slaughtering of poultry commercially for a five-year period in the future and, to continue the other phases of his business permanently in a residential zone are completely different than the compromise that I stated to the Councilman thatI would favor. Therefol'e, I offer no apology for favoring complete denial of hiI'. Earll's amended request. Further, the manner of presentation of Mr. Earll's amended request . . . at a recent meeting of the City Council . . . which took the form of placin~ the responsibility on the City of Arcadia for the illegal aspects of h1s business and which implied a threat of suit against the Oity of Arcadia in the event Mr. Earll is 'lot permitted to continue these illegal operations . . . creates a situation in my opinion, that makes it impossible for either the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve the petition without conceding: (1) That if a person can operate a business illegally in Arcadia for an ~~specified time without beine stopped by the authorities. . . then that business automatiCally becomes legal. -1... . . (2) That the City of Arcadia recoe~izes that its negligencA in enforcing its laws in the past denies it the right to enforce those laws in the future. (Comments of parallel case of car driver who excuses his failure to stop at a marked intersection with explanation that he has never been accustomed to observe such stop.) ~ . 11.-~: ~\'crw... Arcadia is intimidated '@y lilt! '--';"-i j'L 1 by the petitioner in the event his request (3) That the City of by the implication of suit is not O'anted. Under the conditions, I . . . for one . . . favor the matter being settled in a Court of Law if the petitioner desires. -2-