Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 14, 1958 L- " ROLL CALL MINUTES: ZONE VARIANCE (Mortuary) I .. r I "' -.., ,.. ..~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIll! CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING January 14, 1958. The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in reguiar session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, at 8:00 o'clock P~M~, January 14. 1958. with Chairman Vachon presiding. PRESENT: Col!llll1ssioners Acker. Davison, Forman, Micbler., Pratt, Robertson and Vachon ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Cook, Carozza. Nicklin, Talley and Mrs. Andrews, The minutes of December 10. 1957 wers approved as written and JIl/1iled, Pursuant to notice given, s public hearing was held on the appli- cation of Johanna M. Wenz for a zone variance to allow apartDIent8 over a proposed mortuary and approval of final plans for the mortuary. Under the original pbn. tl:.e building was to have two chapelsl one in the front and one in tbe rear. The design now shows one chapel at the front with provision for a chapel at the rear to be constructed sometime in the future. Another change is 110 provide two apartDIents upstairs. One apartment for the owner and another apartment and a sleeping room for persona who are employees and are required to be on the premises, Fred M. Howser. attorney for the applicant, stated that he had nothing more to offer than had been indicated by Mr, Talley. and was trying to make provision intbis mo:c"tuary for Mrs. Wenz and tbe caretaker. The caretaker involves a 1Il3n who is on 24 hour duty, as he must be subject to call at all times. As far as the revised plans are concerned, the building will still conform substantially to the plans thet were originally submitted. Opponents were then esked to express themselves I W, H. Stevens. 620 W, Duarte Road, Arcadia. stated he represented Mr. Malcolm Davis, Franklin ll8'l'ry, C. S. Penney, and Mr. George Jelinek, all of whom are in the 500 foot radius of this proposed mortuary. He stated that he was opposed to the mortuary and the gTanting of the variance. It was sdd that people would not want to rent an apartment over the mortuary, and he said that people do not want to live across the street from it. It was his understanding that when the variance was granted in the beginning, the plans had to be carried through according to the way they were presented. Now they are asking for apartments over the mortuary and that is quite a change. The amount of money that the attorney represented as being bid for the erection of this building is not a great deal when you consider the amount of buildings they plan to put up. He still did not fElel that Duarte Road was a place for a mortuary. It is a otreet that is getting busier all of the time and resi- denta along the street realize that business is bound to come that l'1~y. The property next to him is now zoned C-3. He did not feel that a mortuary added anything to a location. Bueiness as well as rssidents do not 'like being next to a mortuary. There being 'no furtber discussion, the publiC hearing on the application of Johanna M. Wenz for a zone variance to allow apartments over a proposed mortuary was held over until the next meeting of January 28, 1958 for the purpose of receiving Staff reports. January 14, 1958 Page One l. VETBRIiWl,y HOSPITAL ----- Public hearing on the proposal to amend Sections 11 'and 17 of Ordinance No; 760, by removing veterinary hospital as a use permissible in Zone M-l snd making it a special use, as contem- plated by Resolution No. 269. This was advertised in the Arcadia Tribune as required by the ordinance and several communications were presented. COlIIIIIUnication from Mr. and Mrs. Howard W. Reese, U4 W~ Las Tunas: As owners of the property they were 100l in favor of changing the zoning for pet hospitals from M-l to Special Use zone. One from Alton W. HaU, 102 Las Tunas. He stated that he was in favor of taking small animal hospitals out of tbe M-I zone and placing them in the special usage' zone. This change would not be detrimental in any way to the Arcadia Zoning Code and it is a logical change due to the great improvement in pet hospitals during past years. From R. V. Senior, U9 W. Live Oak Avenue: A modern smaU animal hospital with sound control and air conditioning would be a suitable development in many locstions which are not zoned M-l. There are many such hospitals in Southern California presently located in C-2 zone by variance. Ardene BoUer: "We see no need for the present action, but as long as it is at the request of the City Council, we sincerely trust that you wiU be in a position to further the matter along as speedily as possible, so that whether or not a variance is granted, or a zoning change 18 ultimately made, Mr. and Mrs. Senior will have some relief." w. S. Spaulding: Wanted to request that the consideration of the property zoning for pet hospitals be recommended to be a part of the special usage type zone, in pla~e of the present manufac- turing catagory. The City as a whole does not seem to lend itself to the M-l property, since any attempts to rezone for such usage, no matter how aptly restricted they have been, have been loudly opposed. He felt that the nuisance values of a pet hospital were no greater than many types of businesses. At that time, proponants were asked to be heard: Dr. Baxter, 416 B. Duarte Rd, spoke as a property owner as well as a practicing veterinarian. He stated that boe was greatly interested in civic sffairs and he felt that this proposal was a good change. There are small animal hospitals .now that are specializing in different ways, such as: completely indoor hospitals with no outdoor runs or working facilities. Be felt that this was s thing to be a credit to Arcadia in taking the lead in placing veterinary hospitels in special use zoning. therefore each spplication can be studied as to the area and type of practice in- tended and the type of building intended. Wit~ this type of zoning the City govermnent retains the control without mass restriction on eU veterinary hospitals. He felt that it would noc: be fair to designate a modern veterinary ua4jcal building.strictly to Il.U industrial: area if the standards are up to s C area type. This also can work the other way. There are other types of veter- inary practices that should not be permitted in C zones. Therefore, he felt that special use zoning of veterinary practice gives an opportunity to grant permits according to the usage and according to the buildings proposed. Be objected to having this type of facility .in an M zone because most M zones are indus:rial areas and an industrial area is not a good area in which to put a medical building. The investment is out of proportion to the area thet it would be placed in. Opponents were then asked to express themselves; January 14, 1958 Page TWo i -, Mr. GeJrg~Gaffeney, representing the South-Arcadie IlIIprovement Association, spoke in oppoaition of plac1ng veterinary hospitals fon a special zone for the reason that he felt it would lead to great wrong. As a special usage, it super-1mposes itself over all other forms of zoning. By 8 special usage, e dog 8nd cat hospital could be put in an R-O zone, 8n'R-l zone, an R-2 zone, or in any of the zones, He felt that this was a thing that should not be cons1dered because 1t may break down our enUre zoning by allowing obnoxious bus1nesses in high class zones. He had recently sent a letter to the City Council asking for the consideration of a meater zoning plan. They did that for the reason that they felt they should have those places allocated in areas that served the people best. and protect the interest of tho property owners. Mrs. JuUen Dolan, 211 Woodruff Avenue. Arcsdia. felt that it was a great injustice that was being done. She stated that the proposal to give If-l businesses a new name and permit them to operate in a- C-2 zone did not overcOlllS the originsl objection of the res1dents of South Arcadia arees. The opinions expressed in the last PlsnningCClIIIIII1ss1on meeting in which it was stated . by one of the members of the planning Commission that this proposed veterinary estabUshment was to be operated in much the same manner as the' ,v1vV section department located in ons of our leading univers1tias 18 not. the answer to our objection. The poor anlmals in the univers1ty are often in a coma or under sedation. They are no18eless. She could not understand how any veter1narian could expect to operate a successful hospital when his clients know that his anlmals are subjected to this noiseless restriction. Shouldn't there be outdoor runs for. an1mals c(uring their re- cuperation? Animal hosp1tals proparly belong in the M-l zone. as is attested by the present zoning restrictions in every neighboring co=munity that the Commissioners made a report on. The fact that the property is in escrow subject to the pro- posed change which 18 on record. really should have no bearing , on the answer of changing the name of the zoning from K-l to .special use. Commissioner Robertson stated that he felt that they had pretty well covered the reason for putting 1t into a special use. despite the objections brought up it does not permit the use .in any zone without again coming before the Planning Commission before a hearing. It is still within the province of the Planning Co=mission and the Council to deny the use, if, in their judgement, it is against the best interests of the City. The removing from If-l and putting it in a special use fives the Planning Commission and City Council complete control over the type of building and type of use for which the property is to be used. The Chairman could not see the difference between a special use and an M-J. He vas not particularly in favor of it. He felt that if you made a special use it is only opening it up and they'll make appUcations for 1t in any zone. You can apply for a special use in any zone. Commissioner Davison did not feel the need for setting up a special use for a single operation of this type. He felt it was opening a door to the requests for any number of possibly other types of operation. There was a survey made of surrounding cOIIlIIIUnities and where they placed operations of this type. None of them had a special use zone or a special use operation for this type of thing. It was felt thet when the originslzoning of this operation was put in an M-l zone they were thought of as the open run type of operation. A special use zone d08S give a control: such is shown in the case of the now existing hospital in Arcadia and those that hsve been proposed. If handled properly there could be 'no reason for objections. CommiSSioner Acker stated that veterinary hospitals had always been a problem. but progress has been made in medicine, and air conditioning and a special use zone does give control. He was strongly in favor of. this special use. ,; ,,"~'.\~:~"t, ,',. 1<>'., :~_~~ ;jn ~::) .,....~ .~.' ."ni'Y. .\,\';.\:\1.,.) '. , The Chairman stated that we can quaUfy the classification of veterinary 'hospital in the special use eliminating the ontside runs and controlling the sound-proofing and air conditioning. If you continue in K-l, you can have open runs and everything else without any objections at all. You can put it in special use . and we get an application even though it be in M-l, we still have control over it so you don't have your outside runs; Mr. Nicklin explained that some zoning ordinances classify certain uses as a special use in particular zones. Soma ordinances will allow a use to be a absolute right in a given zone and a right under special use in certain lower zones. BasiC zoning permits certain uses within certain specified zones and specifies a mintmum of conditions applicable thereto. The special use permit varies from the variance in. that the variance is a safety valve provided in the ordinance to protect its constitutionality, and the attacks that would be made upon the ordinance, if the strict application of the letter of the ordinanca resulted in the legal hardships of the ownar of the property. You must have the medium to grant reUef by means of a variance to those properties and persons to whom the strict application of the ordinanca would be unjust and unfair because of physical fectors, primarily relating to the property itself and the intended use and not to the individual who might possibly be the owner of it at the time. A spacial use permit gOBS to the special nature of the use itself and only inciden- tally to any characteristics of the land upon which it may be proposed to conduct that special use. If a special use could be set up so that it would be only applicable in C-2, C-M, amd M-l there would be no opposition. Mr. Nicklin then brought up that some ordinances will specify a given use as permissible for a given zone and then permissible under special use permits in certain lower zones. You cannot judge the propriety of locating a given use in a given zone under the Arcadia Ordinance by what zone the same use may be permitted in soma other City because you must analyze the entire ordinance each time to see what else they have in those zones too. When you are speaking of a highly professional clinic, then it becomes less and less desirable to relegate that further down on the industrial scale, for it actuall; belongs up pretty close to the commercial and even professional office zone, provided that you have the right restrictions to make sure that it is going to ba operated on a highly professional basis with all that goes with it. The special use permit provisions give the opportunity to analyse the situation Bnd to exercise the privilege of continuing control over the situation to see that it continues to live up to the requirements that the Commission have felt necessary in order to warrant it going into a certain eoue. There is no objection legally to eliminate a certain zone in a special use portion of an ordinance. It was proposed that the necessary recommendation be made to the City Council removing veterinary hospitals as such from the use permissible in Zone M-l .and'_placed in a special use zoning, limiting special use permits to zones Cl, C-2, C-3, O-M, M-l and M-2, Hoved by Mr. Robertson, second by Mr. Pratt, and carried, that veterinary hospitals be removed as a permissible use in Zone H-l and placed under a special use permit, without outside runs, 1n Zones C-l" C-2, C-3, C-K, M-l and M-2. lOLL CALL: Commissioners in favor: Acker Davison Forman Michler Pratt RobertSon Vac mn January 14, 1958 Page Four < VARIANCE FOR SIGN Carl Sugar LOT SPLIT' No. 187 , ,,- The Commission considered a decision on the application of Carl Sugar for a vadatice to allow and 8' x 14' neon roof algn at 600 W. Las Tunas Ddve,in Zone C-1, Report of the Zoning Committee stated that the property is located in Zone C-1 which does not allow any roof algns. 'the P1alining Commission has had a stmi1ar request from other property in Zone C-1, which vas denied. 'the Zoning COlIIIDittee recOlll\\\Btl.ds t!1at the requested vadancebe recommended for denial. If, in the opinion of the Commission, the sign regulations in Zone C-1 are too rigid to allow the successful operation of a business, the Committee recOlllll\8nds that the problem be approached by a restudy of the ordinance rather then.by variance for individual parcels of property. Mr. Michler stated that since the ordinance was draWD they had not been confronted with this problem with the exception of one other case. Since the ordinance is three years old, perhaps at this time they begin to have requests for this type of signs. It might warrant taking another look at what might be desired. There is little property zoned C-1 and there has been practically no development in that property except filling stations. 'the Chairman :felt that the basis of C-1 zoning ia the real neighborhood type of thing and the sign restrietions in Zone C-1 were absolutely correct. A person should not build a type of business in a C-1 zone that requires the display of Bigns and if anything, the zoning would be wrong, Commissioner Robertson felt that anybody building in a given zone is fully cognizant of the sign ordinance as much as the building requirementa, and regardless of the circumstances 10 conjunction with the said application he would recommend that the application be denied. Moved by Mr, Michler, seconded by Mr. Robertson and carded that the application of Carl Sugar for a variance to allow an 8'x!4' neon roof sign on 600 W. Las Tunas Drive in zone C-1 be recommended for denial. E1izaheth M. Eakin, 823-825 Fairview Avenue This lot split was referred to Mr. Vachon and Mr. Forman. Lot 31 is now held as 85' and 55' and the request is to redivide that into 2 equal 70 foot lots and remove all the buildings from the lots. In addition, it embodies the extending of the alley south of Southview Road, parcel 3 being dedicated and tmproved for an alley; parcels 4 and 5 on the north+side to be deeded to the property owners on Huntington Drive so that they will have frontage on the alley. The City Engineer's report was read. Mr. Forman felt that it would he a better arrangement and the lots would be of more uniform size, and felt the alley matter was satisfactory and recommended tbat it be accepted. Movedby Mr. Forman and seconded by Mr. Vachon and carried that Lot Split No. 187 be recommended for approval subject to the follOWing conditions: ~anuary' 14, 1958 Page live , LOT SPLIT No. 188 LOT SPLIT . . NO. 189 . " (-----, \_- 1. rUe a final map with tbe City Bngbeer. 2. Dedicate parcel 3 for alley purposes aad parcel 6 in fee to the City. 3. Deed parcels 4 and 5 to the Huntington Drive preperty. 4. Improve the alley in accordance with City standards. 5. city to dedicate lot 15, Tract No. 19503, now owned in fee at the present dead end of the alley, for alley purposes. 6. Remove all .bulldinga frlllll lot 31, Tract No. 2731. Rancho !lanta Anita, 251 Colorado Place Thia lot split waa referred to Mr. Daviaon and Mr. Pratt. ThiB ia the parcel on which the Rancho submitted a tentative aubcl1vis1on map aomB tf.me ago and them withdrew the map. It is proposed. to cut it in two and make two parcels: one 'facing COlorado Boulevard and one facing Colorado Place. The Bngineer I a report was read. Mr. Pratt requeated some eapreasion from wealey Davies, who represented this property, as to what will become of parcel one. Mr. Davies then referred' to' his letter of trell8llllss1on. of December 16, 1957, and stated thet be was aaking for notbing otherthan a lot split. This property will be sold under the. City of Arcadia zoning requirements and tbe propoaed lmPro1/BlDB!lta will qualify under: ita present zoning which iB R-3.By tbis split the City still bas control over tbe property. . COIIIIIIlasioner Pratt -brougbt up .tbe. question of whether'or'not parcel one would be sold as one parcel or would a plan for a new subdivision be submitted in tbe future. Mr. Davies gave the Commisaion hie aasurance-that thertn,ould. be no problema concerning thie.' Mr. D.avison felt. that tbere was no.objBCtlon to the lot spUt. a8d based on what had been 'present-ecl.to date t.he lot .split wag in line. Moved by Hr. Pratt, secooded by"Hr. Davlson, and carried thlit.-- .- Lot Split No. 188 be reCQlllllllilIicled for..approval, subject toil the following conditions: 1, FUe a finel map with the City Bnaineer . 2. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 3. Construct a concreta curb and gutter -810113' the frontage on both COlorado Place and Colorado Boulevard. Anthony Piscitelli, 330 W.. Foothill ~evard, referred to Hr. Davison and Hr. Pratt. The Engineer's report was read. Hr. Davison had no objection to the split and added that it would be better if it could be made 80 and 100 feet rather than 75 and 105 feet because all of the other lots are 80 feet in width. Hr. Pratt stated they should qualify tbe reCOllllll8ndation that parcel one would bave the house front on San Carlos Road and the driveway- wuld be on San Carlos and no dri~y, eccsBor curb would be permitted on Foothill Boulevard. Moved by Hr. Davison, seconded by Hr. Pratt, and carried, that Lot Split No. 189 be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: . 1. 2. 3. 4. File a final map with the City Engineer . Provide a sewer lateral for Parcel No.1. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00 The house to be bullt on parCel No. 1 shall face San carlos Road with no drlv_ay.accellS""on Foothill Boulevard. JanuarY 14, 1958 Page Six '\ . LOT SPLIT NO. 190 LOT SPLIT NO, 191 LOT SPLIT NO. 192 E. J. Bi rds, 1046 Fairvlew Avenue, refl ld to Mr. Vachon and Mr. lrorman. The Englneer's report wall read. Mr. Forman viewed the property and felt that it was a 10glcal lot spllt provlded the condltlons of the Engineerlng Staff are followed to meet the zonlng regulations. He added that the section of . the guest house that was to be removed is just tha south s1de. Chairman Vachon aloo vlewed the property and felt they should accept the recOlllll1Sndations of the City Engineer. Mr. Robertson felt that some consideration should beglven to the inslde of some of these areas fronting on Falrview Avenue, and the poasi- bility of future streets. Mr. Talley cleared up the point by stating that the houses are located in the rear as near the property line as they could go, with no oPPoBtunity or need for a street in the rear. Moved by Mr. Forman. seconded by Mr, Vachon, and carried, that Lot Split No. 190 be recommended for approval. subject to the followtng conditione: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcell, independent of parcel 2, 3. Pay a recreation fee of $50.00. 4. Remove a portion of the existing gUBSt house on Parcel 2 to provide required yards, 5. Move and remodel ex18ting garage on parcel 3 to provide required yards. 6. All plUlllbing pipes on the property to be revised to serve each parcel independently. A. V. Powers, 500 W. Walnut, referred to Mr. Acker and Mr. Michler, CClIIIII1unication from applicant reque!lting that the Planning Compdasion give this application favorable consideration for the reason that the lot area 18 11,714 sCl. ft. which is well over the 7500 sq. ft. minimum and tbere are s1ol1lar lots in the vicinity under the 75 foot width. The Engineer's report was read. It stated that the western parcel io substandard in widtb and that at the time of the granting of tbe split creating 526 Walnut Avenue, it was stated that no split was contemplated for this property. Mr. Acker had viewed tbe property and stated that a tenn18 COU1:t and a small .sUllllller house exist on the.lot. and it 1s the smallest lot on that street except for three others. The s\lllllll8r houa8 is shown to be removed. Mr. Talley stated that the houae to the east is four feet from tbe division line so that no more land can be taken that way, and there is a house near the property line on the parcel to the west. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Acker, tbat Lot Split No. 191 be recommended for approval, subject to the removal of the s\lllllll8r house and the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for Parcell. 3. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00. The motion was carried by the following Roll Call vote:' AYES: Acker, Davison, Michler, Pratt and Robertson. NOES: Forman and Vachon ABSENT: ftone Bdna M. Perkinson, 1301 Mayflower, reapplication. Request to divide 102.75 feet into two 51 foot lots. It was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, and was resubmitted with no additional information. Mr. McLaughlin, representing Mrs. Perkinoon, made a survey of the area and made an appraisal of every piece of property that faces Mayflower Avenue in Arcadia. Thb is a piece of property that is 102.75 feet wide and the request .is that it be split into 51 and 51.75 foot parcels. There are 26 late between SO and 60 feet; there are 9 more thet rua between 60 and 70 feet; which is a ,~"\nU.~.ry ]4, 1958 '~!:.."'~' "'~1!".\:.:. TRACT NO. 24350 TRACT NO. 2046.3 total ot ,lots out of 50 lots tli!it are _,s than 75 feet 1II1de. Commissioner R6bertson brought up ~he fact-that it is a fringe erea and this oort of tbing would be extending this fringe area fa ither. Due to controversy over this matter, the Chairmsn assigned it to Commiadoners Davison and Pratt for further study. Revised tentative map of Tract No. 24350, located on Leuioe Avenue north of Camino Real Avenue between Santa Antta Avenue and First Avenue, containing 11 lote. This was previously denied in a different form which had a cul-de-sac at the north end, and the street did not extend to the west. At that time the Committee recommended that the street be extended to the west. The Subdivision Committee report stated that it conforms sub- stantielly with the recommendation of the Committee on December 10, 1957, when the original map was recommended for denial. The street bas been extended west to allow accesa to futuro develop- manto This extendon is only SO feet wide but the area to be served ie small and the width is satisfactory to the Committee. Planting will be provided on each dde of the street. The Committee recommends that the lot line between Lot 7 and8 be made straight to the Jog in the tract line. This will make lot 8 slightly less than 75 feet at the building line but it is s better division Una. The tract was recOllllllSnded for epproval subject to conditions;. Commiodoner Robsrtson felt that in view of the 4 or 5 lots possible to be picked up to the west, it would be permissible to develope a turn with a 50 .foot road with a planting easement, with 36 foot paved area. Mr. Vachon stated there was one alternative. They could deny the two 72 foot Iota at Camino Real and make the area into one lot which would be an extra wide lot of approx:l.mately 144 feet. In view of the develop- ment in the whole tract, it was their recommendation that they approve lots 1 and 2, even at the 72 foot Une because of picking up the one extra lot for development. Moved by Mr, Robertson, seconded by Mr. Davison, and carried, that the revised tentative map of Tract No. 24350, located on Louise Avenue, north of Camino Real between Santa Anita Avenue and First Avenue. containing 11 lots be recommended for approval. subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate Louise Avenue 59 feet wide from Camino Real Avenue north 187.8 feet. 2. For the next 244.7 feet. dedicate one foot in fee to the City along the west side of the street, or deed in trust to a title company end establish a trust to recover a portion of the street cost. 3. Ded1.cate 5 foot planting and ddewalk easements along the east-west portion of the street. 4. Deed lot 12 to the City in fee. 5. Remove all buUdings within the tract except the dwelling on lot 3. 6. Provide rear line easements for utilities. 7. Install all street improvements required by the subdivision committee. 8. Pay all fees and deposits required by the subdivision ordinance. including the recreation fee. Tentative map of Tract No. 20463, located on the extension of Louise Avenue, soutb of Longden Avenue. Lot 1 is only 86 feet deep and provides very limited buUding space and is apparently sUghtly less than the required area. Additional land of approximately 2500 sq. ft. is available to the west and should be added to the lot. This would also clear up tbe bad situation on the lot to tbe west. The shed on the rear of the property at 36 W. Longden appears too close to the property. The tract conforms substantially January 14, 1958 Page E:1$t. , TRACT NO. 20806 ZONE C-O RllNTINGTON DRIVE ZONE CLASSI- FICATION ORDINANCE 990 with tt - levelopment acJjacent on 11 Cap' --, Avenue. The subdivider stated ~~,at there was no objection to br..ging the 25 foot strip adjacent to lot 1 into elis tract. The OWDer had given a price on it and if the Planning COIIIII1I.88ion prefers that thay bring it in he would purchase it. The one objection the Sub- division Committeo had was that a land locked area was being created. There is a possibility, through negotiations and work, to pick up sema additional property and tie it into the subdivision whereas there would never be a chance to subdivide it in the future. Mr. Wl1 UIID1S, the broker, contacted the lady immediately to the west and she indicated willingness to sell 24 feet by 100 feet and in his opinion he did not see how they could open up any additional land without sacrtficing one of the Iota that is presently being created. It i~ the recommendation of the Subdiviaion Comqdttee that the staff make a further study of thia area with the subdiVider and see 1f there isn't a possibility of picking up the balance of that property. Mr. W11li_, the broker representing the subdiVider, agreed to waive any time Umitationon acting on the proposed sub- diVision, to allow further study. Moved by C~ssioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner DaVison and cllTrted that, because of the waiVing It the time 11.m1t by the subdivider, the matter be held for s~dy by the staff and the subdivider in an att~t to include additional land to the west. Tentative map of Tract No. 20806, located be~eu Ildorado Street and Genoa Street, east of Fifth Avenue, in the City of Monrovia, was presented for information and recommendation. Lote were shown to be generally 60 feet by 100 feet and the streets .ere genarally less than 60 feet wide. The tract in no way met City of Arcadia standards, and the matter waB order.ed filed. The matter of rezoning a portion of Huntington Drive to Zone C-o as contemplated by Resolution No. 246 dated Msrch 26, 1957, and held for a change of relIT yard regulations in Zone a-o was conaidered. Referred to the Zoning C~ttee for further study and report. Classification of the business of automobile engine rebuilding was conaidered. Commisaioner Forman checked into it and found that many of the garages will do engine rebuilding and they will have certain machinery to facilitate this. It was 4ifficult to draw the Une on whether it is manufacturing as such or if it is just extended use of garage operaUons. It seems that it is commonly accepted that if they are not grinding crank shafts and cam shafts that they are otill not actually in a manufacturing phase of it as far as the mechanics go. If they are building engines in any way, shape, or manner, and held in stock for wholesale selling to other garages, then that puts them in the class of manufacturing and an excise tax can be collected. It was brought up that conaideration should be given between wholesale and retail rebuilding. Moved by Mr, Robertson and seconded by Hr. Forman and carried that the classification of wholesale automobile engine rebuilding be classified in Zone M-l. At this point Councilman Reibold entered the meeting. Moved by Mr, . Robertson, seconded by 1iIr. Forman and carried that the classification of wholesale automobile engine rebuilding be classified in Zone M-l/ Councilman Reibold entered the meeting. A committee from South Second Avenue had requested a reconsider- ationof zoning requirements in Zone R-l as established by Ordinance No. 990, The Council had appointed Mr. Reibold to meet with the applicants and a c~ttee from the Planning Commission. The Chairman requested the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission to meet with Mr. Reibold and the applicants and the time was fixed for Wednesday, January 29, 1958, at 7:30 P~M~ in the Council Chamber. 'f"'I~'..-~~\:"':Y ~!.\ J.:~:,6 ~'.-..t: -;~ f-b:.~'<j; . . RESOLUTION NO. 271 TRACT NO. 19823 FREEWAY - -" The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 271 recommending ths granting of a B~ varience to'permit. the erection of apartment houses on a portion of the property at the northwest corner of Las Tunas Drive and Santa Anita Avsnue. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Acker snd canied that the reading of the body of Resolution No, 271 be waived, MOved by Mr~ Forman, aeconded by Mr. Davison snd carried that Reso1utf.on No; 271 be adopted. This tract on Third Avenue was approvad some time ago. Ithad two large lots on the south side dfthe easterly cu1 de sac leaving s deep lot on Fourth Avenue and it was recommended at "that time to try to secure additional land snd divide these large lots into lots more uniform in size. The subdivider hes secured that lend end now has presented an amended map. It is the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee thst revised tentative map of Tract No. 19823 be approved as submitted and subject to the same conditf.oulJ ae 1n the original spproval. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Pratt and carded that the revised tentative map of Tract No. 19823 be approved, subject to the same conditf.ons that were imposed in the original approval. Mr. carozza then brought up the fact that a commnn1cat10n from the DiviSion of HighWays had been sent to the City Connell at their last regular Council meeting indicating the probable route of a freeway through the City of Arcadia. Thili cODllllUDication indicated that the D1vision of HighWays had a tentative approval and that during the month of February they expected to have what they term an .informational type hearing Some place in the vicinity, at wbichtime all the people from the area would be called in to .view their plana and diagrams and to raise any:commenta that they wished. Their feeling was that if all went well dudng this informational type hearing, that in all probabiUty that maybe sometime in the course of the latter part of July or thereabouts the freeway route through Arcadia and the areas east of us could result in being adopted by the HighWay Commission. The area under discussion starts from a point approximately 1500 feet easterly of Michlllinda and the purpose in the consideration of this point is that with the possible interchange that would occur at Rosemaad Boulevard they felt that there was a need of leaving an area of transition. The freeway proposed is contemplated to be 8 lanes, and contemplated that by 1970-75 it would be canying something like 98,000 cars a day. The pJ;oposed route had been changed somewhat from the previous plan, but was located in the same general locatf.on north of the Santa Fe Railway. The review of this plan was for the information of the Planning Commission as to the progress of the project. It was pointed out that the area near the proposed freeway will need special .study as to land use and zoning. The stsff was instructed to proceed with'such a study. . i') J: . VVI.., January 14, 1958 ' Page Ten