Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 22, 1958 - . (' ~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CJI THE CITY CJI ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING APRlL 22, 1958 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Ball at 8:00 o'clock P.M.. April 22. 1958, with Chairman Vachon presiding. ROLL PRESENT: Commlssioners Acker, Forman. Pratt, Robertson, and Vachon. CALL ABSENT: Commiasioners Davison and Michler. OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmen Reibold. Nicklin, Carozza, Cook. Talley, and Mrs. Andrews. MINUTES The minutes of April 8, 1958, were approved as wz:itten and mailed. '. HEARING Ambs Pursusnt to notice given. the public hearing, continued from March 25. 1958, on the application of Herbert W. Ambs, and others, for a change of BOne from Zone R-l to Zone R-3 on Woodruff Avenue. Las Tunas Drive, Workman Avenue end Baldwin Avenue wss held. A letter from Shatford 60 Shatford. Attorneys, wss presented. Enclosed with the letter were requests by certain property owners that their property be withdrawn. These residents on Workman and Woodruff Avenue had aigned a petition stating that they had agreed to, and were requesting that their respective properties be removed from the properties requested to be reBOned on the petition filed by Herbert W. Ambs. However, they felt justified in their request and hoped that at some future date their request could be given due consideration. Their TP-thdrawal at this time, was without prejudice to a further request, and they had no objection to the remaining owners of property on South Balclwin Avenue end on Las Tunas Drive proceeding with their request as to their properties. A map was presented showing the properties that were involved. The original request for Zone R-3 included four lots on the south side of Woodruff Avenue; six lots on the north side of Las Tunas Drive; three lots on the south side of Las Tunas Drive; five lota on the north side of Workman Avenue, and three lots on BalMn Avenue. The lots requested to be removed were the four lots on the south side of Woodruff Avenue, one lot on the south side of Las Tunas Drive and the five.. lots on the nor.th side of Workman Avanue. A letter from P. B. Young, 541 Workman Avenue" stated he wes originally against the reBOning of said property, but when he was lead to believe that it was the wish of the property owners along Workman Avenue. even beyong the limits covered by said petition, he reluctantly signed said petition, feeling that if it was myone's wish he did not want to stand in the way. However, since the petiit.al was filed there have been protests circulated. He understood the Original ci',rcula- tODS of this petition were filing a substitute petition, and with- drawing the properties along the north side of Workman Avenue, and the south side of Woodruff Avenue, but asking for the rezoning of the property along Las Tunas Drive and BalMn Avenue as per the original petition. This petition he was alIked to sign bet refused, as he was unalterably opposed to same, since it does not benefit tha whole district. Be personally believed that the whole territory covered by the original petition, and exte:u1Dg the complete north aide of Workman Avenue, the south side of Workman Avenue and the north side of Live Oak Avenue tiOuld be ideal for R-3 or multiple housing. '1'he lots are long and wide and each parcel tiOuld have ample offstreet parking. This territory would be tha nearest to the freeway of any April 22, 1958 Page One \ /--" ~-- '- _-/~ property in Arcadia. and nice single-story apartment buildings would be an asset to Arcadia. In this way the whole district would be ~eneflted. Unless multiple dwellings are added to this whole section. ha could see no reason for additional half-empty co~rcial zoning in this eection. The Secretary presented several protests that were filed before the March 25th meeting. Commissioner Robertson reco~nded that they clarify the matter by stating exactly what the public hearing was to be on. as some of the property owners had withdrawn from the petition. The Secretary stated that tha portion applied for was on Woodruff Avenue, on each dde of Las TUnas Driva, the north side of Workman Avenue. and the east side of Balclw1n Avenue. He showed on the map the portion that had requested to be withdrawn; on the south side of Woodruff Avenue. one lot on Las Tunas Drive. and on the north stde of Workman Avenue. A letter of protest was read from William R. Warden. at 601 Woodruff Avenue. He understood that the hearing would affeef:; his property and wanted to know why he had not been legally notified. as had been his neighbors. with an official notice. He had sent a letter to Mr. Nicklin protesting this meeting on the ground that he had not been properly and legally notified. Letter from Arthur 'M. crutchfield, 6ll Woodruff Avenue was read, registering his protest on the proposed rezoning. Xf the request for rezoning by Mr. Herbert W. Ambs is granted. it would be detr1mental to his property interest and welfare lilt.the following reasons: Proposed commer6ial use will reduce his property value; create noise and parkf.Dg problems in a quiet R-l residential zone; create an R-l island on the corner bounded by 88lclw1n Avenue on the west. Woodruff Avenue on the north. and Las Tunas Drive on the south; creating this condition would be but a prelude for a legitimate request to reduce the zoning restriction on this corner; it is common knowle4ge that this rezoning proposal is for the purpose of building ~partment houses snd it is the intent of the parties concerned to request lot spUts that will result in sub-standard lots fecing on Woodruff. Avenue. The Secretary than read thet portion of Mr. CrUtchfield'a letter pertaining to the next item on the agenda. Mr. Crutc!1field reminded the Planning Commission of the rezoning action taken on the property located at the southeast corner of Las Tunas Drive and Baldwin Avenue in the D8IDll of Mr. Stogsdill approximately two years ago. He saw the familiar pattern in this additional request to reduce the , zoning restrictions in this viCinity. Commercial property in choice residantial sections is the desired aim of many speculators. ODe of the basic purposes of the Planning Commission is to prevent encroachment of ill-conceived plans by commercial interests at the expense of home owners in restricted residential areas. Therefore. he urged that thay pro- tect his interests as well as the valuable reputetion of ~~e City of Arcadia as being one of the Unest residential areas by denying both these requests for rezoning. The Secretary then presented a series of letters that were m1meographed registering a protest against both the raquest of Mr. Ambs and Mr. Stogsdill. They stated that certain property owners were opposed to the proposed rezoning and considered 1t against their interest and welfare. It was signed by Lois F. Zaffires. 525 Woodruff Avenue; Kenneth Jarvis. 518 Woodruff Avenue; Arno Sbrgia. 482 Woodruff Avenue; Brnest Anthony, 510 W. Las Tunas Drive; Walter J. Glass. 505 Las Tunas Drive; Mrs. Esther Mosser. 459 Las Tunas Drive; ~ga F. Allison. 2711 Bradford Avenue; Francis P. Gorey, 2718 Bradford Avenue; Elizabeth Karcher. 2815 Bradford; F. E. Kinney. 2825 Bradford. and W. L. Logsdon. 2810 Bradford Avenue. April 22, 1958 Page Two c PropOBaDte were then asked to be heard; Henry W. Shlltford. attorney. 410 Drake Road. Arcadia, spoke in representation of the applicant. Mr. Ambs. He bel1eved that any ob- jections that had been reUsd to this request for rezoning had been answered substantially by the request now to withdraw certain ,propert1es. 'l'be principal objections seemed to come from the people on Woodruff Avenue and that property Mr. Ambs has requested to be withdrawn. althoush he understood. that Mr. Wooten, the OWDer of Lot 3. and Mr. Hutchins. owner of Lot 4. desired that their property be left in and conSidered ~or th1s R-3 zone change. He had a sound basis for that. tn that his Pfoperty does back up to property which should be rezoned, as Baldwin Avenue 18 gotng to be widened before long. He felt that tha property should deftnately be zoned R-3 and thought that the people in the ~ea would be glad to have some apartment houses along Las Tunas Drive. He felt that tbey would prefer them to gas stations and the commercial enterpr1ses across the wey. That is definately not R-l property any longer and a-3 1s a very desirable use. Eats 41. 42. and 43 on Baldwin Avenue were plainly beet suited for a-3 purposes. ' The people who have objected dOWl:l on Worklllan Avanue to any apartment houses requested to withdraw 'rom the petition so they no longer have any valid objection, because it in no wey increases the traffic or anything else as far as they are concerned. With the reduction in the request. he thought they now have a clear cut case where the proper planning and zon11\3 requires that this property be rezoned into R-3. Berny Bernbaum, 601 Las runes Drive, on Lot 18. was very much in favor of having the property changed to zone a-3. In fact. he would like to see it changed to C-l or C-2. He felt that tbe street had outlived its use for residential purposes. rba street i8 heaviiy traveled, and he thought it definetely should be rezoned. Mr. Erickson, S2S Las Tunas Drive. wes in favor of seeing thb changed to 1t-3 because the lots are so deep that he would like to see some- thtng done with" the back of these lots. Mrs. Schermerhorn. 2636 S. Baldwin Avenue. stated that she also was 1n favor of rezoning to R-3. Opponents were then asked to be heard: Bverett Weir, 480 Workman. stated that he had spent a great deal of time along with his neigbbors., obtaining names opposing this change. He read the petition for the consideration of the Coll1lllission snd to be filed. on the petition there were 182 names oppos:lng the rezoning. and he proceeded to ask the people who had signed the p~tition, and "0 were at the meettng to stand. \, Philip Weary. 481 Workman Avenue understood that the letter he rece1ved pertained to the petition for the first hearing. and wanted to know, if the change that was made was not recaived in time for the meetl1\3 that night. were they decid:lng on the first pet1tion or the amendment. Chairman Vachon clar1fied the matter by saying that they were dec1ding on th~ original petition. Mr. Shatford requested that a continuance be granted for that evening which was a month from the time of the last meeting. 'l'bey did not fUe an lIIIlendment for the petit10n in time for the Commission to circulate a notice for the people so they went ahead and rec,ireulated the notice on the original petition. Mr. Weary said that this being the case. the first pe~1tion requested that the 1t-3 zontng be stopped in the middle of the block on Worklllan Avenue between Baldwin Avenue and Bradford Avenue on the north side only. He was very much opposed to that type of zoning; to stop an &-3 :1.11 the middle of a block in an It-l zone. rbat was his only objection 011 that. If it is going to be &-3. why not take in all the area? "r',.:. April 22. 1958 Page Three BIWlING Stogsdill /~~\ The Chairman deeJ.ared that the public hearill8 on ,,;lIe application of Herbert W. Ambs. and others. held over untll the next regular meeting for Staff reports and a decision of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to notice given the public hearing on tha application of Ralph D. Stogsdill for a change of zone from Zones R-l and C-l to Zones C-2 and PR-3 oft Las Tunas Drive. continued from March 25. 1958. was held. Mr. Stogsdiil requested that Lots 23. 24. 25. and 26 be zoned C-2. and that Lot 27 be zoned PR-3. Lots 23. 24. and 25 are presently zoned C-l. to be changed to C-2; Lot 26 is presently zoned R-l. to be changed to C-2. and Lot 27. presently zoned R-l. to be changed to Pll-3. The Secretary read a letter from Mr. Crutchfield protestill8 the rezoning. The Chairman confirmed again that the hearingwa8 on tha original pe- tition. Mr. Nicklin clarified some questions that had arisen earlier in the hearings. The law requires that everyone Within a certain radius of property With respect to wich an applic:ation for a change of zone or a variance has been filed. be given notice specifically of the petition and of the time and place of the hearing. However , they are not the only people who are entitled to be heard on the lIl8tter. Every property owner and every resident of the City of Arcadis should have an interest in whatever occurs in the way of changes. in any property in the City of Arcadia. Because every change to a greater or lesser degree affects every property and every property owner in town. It is only a matter of relative weight that is to be given to the support or protest to a change that differs between those that live or own property within a 300 foot radius and those that live beyond the 300 foot radius. so that everyone has a right to be heard. and state their preferences or opposition to any matter that eomes before the Planning Commission or the City Counell. With respect to the JuDbs application; the zoning ord'inance makes no pro- visions whatsoever for the withdrawal of a petition in whole or in part. Two possibilities were in existence. One. that the the originel application tolOuld be superceded by an amended application, in which event. had it been filed. and filed in time. amended notices tolOuld have been sent to all the people and given in thepres8 and hearing would then have proceeded on an amended applic:ation.A second passibility is that the propoaants, or some of them. file a state- ment of their intention or desire to have their portion of the application Withdrawa. Had that been filed in UIII8 to have sent notices to the people. such notice would have been given and the sole affect of such an application and notice would have been to notify the people that a portion of the application wuld not be pressed. In redueill8 it to the practicalities of the situation, if a person wo has asked to have his property rezoned COIll8S in and says thet he is dropping his sppUcation. and he is not going to press it. the chances are pretty high that the Commission is not going to go out of its way to grant a change to someone who does aot vant it. Now they wre confronted With a situation where some of the owne;,s asked to have their portion of the A1Db's application Withdrawn. The effect of that. under the circumstances. is to c:an:, the Planning Collllllission that w. the undersigned, have changed our minds end do not Wish to press. for e change of zone of our particular property. Againreducing it to the practicalities the chanqes are that if the owners don't want thair properties changed,the Planning Collllll!ssion probably WOQ I t do so. However. they do have the plllRlr to change it. They are hearing the matter on the original application, With the statement of some of the owers that they do not wish to have their property changed. It is possible for tile Commission to rec:ommend a change of all of it. a change of noae of it. or a change of, a part of it. It is oaly a matter of determination on their part!' they hava Juris- diction to grant or deny any portion of therel ef thet has been abked for. but in the usual course of events. if a person does ask that bis application or bis pottion of an application be not con- sidered then experience indicates that normally they do not 80 ahead and force their own wishes upon an unwilling owner unless the area is..such, that wether they bad asked for it or not. it is 80 com- pelling that a change be mads that they wuld then -recommend such e change. Jo.l>;:U 22, 1958 i!s,..~ 'J.-;.j\lc!. " The City Attorney then clarified the matter that the discussion, both for and againSt the application, was on the original application, and not the amended one. Lois Zaffiras, 525 Woodruff Avenue, bought the property about three years ago and built her house there a year ago under an R-l resi- dence zoning, and she wanted to keep it that way. Fred Hart asked the question tbat if three-fourths of the people present arose in opposition to the original petition, how could a precedent be set. Mr. Nicklin answered by saying that all the protests that ere made are entered in the record, and they will all be considered by the COlllDlissl.onin arriving at their decision. 'DIe preClldent that the Chairman hed referred to is rather a rule of procedure established by the Planning Commission and the Commission sets its ggn rules of procedure. 'DIey have found it advisable to hear from all persons that are interested. Any facts that they may care to develop and present or any reasons that they may care to put forth; it is all recorded. At the completion of that, then members of the staff review that testimony, make field inspections, relate the testimony presented to the conditions as they find to exist in the field, and then make their recommendation to the Planning ColllDlission which th~h weighs the testimony as presented, and in relation to the staff reputts thet are made in connection with that testimony and the9. based on the entire record, makes its recollllll8ndatl.on to the City .Council. There will be DO further testimony at the next hearing. It will be merely the review o,f the testimony and the announcement of their decision. Mr. Brooks, 547 Workman Avenue, referring to the Ambs application, did not understand that it was possible for the ColllDlission to rezone for R-3 only the Baldwin AVBBue frontage. If such happened, he will be severely damaged, because his property will back up to two of the lots that Would be so zoned. A. M. Crutchfield, 611 Woodruff Avenue, in regard to the names on the petition, against the Ambs rezoning, thought that if the ColllDlission would run them in the staff work agl\inst the map of the area, they will find that they are practically 100'& surrounding the requested rezoning. William L. Reddington, 526 Woodruff Avenue, came up to represent the whole petition as it was put in. He stated that if the zoning goes through on the other situation that was discussed, then he would bS2 facing apartments right in the back of his property. Within a short period of time. in turn Woodruff Avenue on the south side will be going all to R-3. He thought that it was a piece-meal situation, and should be handled on the entire matter and decided on either all or nothing. 'DIen if they decide to file a new application, then they can go around and get their new petitions up in protest. Proponants on the application of Ralph Stogsdill ware then asked to be heard: A. W. Shetford, 410 Drake Road, Arcedia, representing Mr. Stogsdill in this application, brought up the fact that on three of the corners of Las Tunas Drive and Balllwin Avenue there is presently commercial businesses; two of them in the County, and the Real Sstate office on the northeast corner. This leaves the ona corner lot; actually two lots, 23 and 24, for which they are requesting that they be rezoned from C-l to C-2. He thought that the area that Mr. Stogsdill vaa asking to be rezoned was just to tie it all in together for proper zoning. By Jut taking the four lots there, and making it all C-2, would be logical as well as good planning. Mr. Stogsdill is requesting in his application that lot 27 be made into a parking zone which is PR-3. Thd.s, provides an adequate buffer zone between that and the adjacent property on Lot 28, and certainly that property on Lot 28 eventually should be zone R-3, and then you have a proper transition. Also, this property south from Laa Tunas Drive to Workman Avenue April 22, 1958 Page Five I -, .,. : on Baldwin l._ aue will then be COIIipletely anl coperty zoned. All that is being requested by Mr. Stogsdill in this particular applica- tion is to clear it ali uP 1nto what they deemed to be completely propel' zoning. Be pointed out that there was on fUe, a letter of approval of this requested cbange, request*d by Mr. Stogsdill, which is signed by the owers of Lots 28 and 38. Tbose lots are tbe lots most immediately adjacent to tbis property upon which tbe zone change to fa-3 is requested. The immediate people along dde of this property are in accord that this zone change should be granted, and it cIoes not seemlikllly that people further away could object to it. Opponents were then asked to be heard: R. F. Oldfield, 2803 Bradford, presented and read a petition containing 161 names of the people in the area protesting the Stogsdill application. ' Brnest Antbony, 510 W. Las Tunas Drive, spoke in opposition to the granting of the rezoning, 11.18 reasons being that he felt that the already existing business was aDDOytpg and detrimental to his welfare. Kenneth K. Jarvis, 518 Woodruff Avenue, spoke in behalf of tbe residents on Las Tunas Drive. Be stated that it hed been mentioned that the property on Las '!unas Drive should be changed to a business district. There are some very nice homes on Las Tunas Drive, and there has bees a lot of money put into '1Ihese homes. They were originally bought in an R-l zone. If this area is rezoned. it is going to hurt these people that live right along Las Tunas Dr1ve and he aeked the Commission to aake into consideration the values that are set forth therein. If a person buys a lot in an R-l zone, with the idea of making it his home, he does not expect to have the property surrounding that area changed into a busiB8lls zone\ Mr. Besinque, 541 W. Live 0a1 Avenue, steted that he was partially I rllllllllVed from the proposed change. Be said that he was a resident of Arcadia for a good reason. and was very much concerened with' the ,", possibility of this pieca-meal change. If this change takes place it will change his ideas as well as otbers of the advantages of living in Arcadia. Gerard Winters, 606 Woodruff Avenue, said that he was backing into the proposed change of zone. Be was told by Mr. Stogsdill that the Commission would conaider h:lm a l1ttle strange for signing the petition and than standing up and opposing hiS request. Be bought his property in 1953, and a year or two later he 1I8S approached by Mr. Stogsdill and was asked to approve a request he was making on the south side of Las Tunas Drive for a change of zone from R-l to C. Without giving too much consideration, he approved this request. He later learned that Mr. Stogsdill had acquired the property within the past few years. Be thought that the Commission should keep in mind thet this is a miniature golf course which was annoying .to him. Mr. Winters felt if the north and south sides of Las Tunas Drive required rezoning to R-3 and C cones, then the adjoining property owners on Workman Avenue and Woodruff Avenue deserve consideration, and thought that the Commission sbould keep in mind that at least tb,e people on the south side of Workman Avenue and the north side of Woodruff Avenue have a wide street separating them from the probleme of adjoining C and R-3 property. They won I t be living with the problema in their back yard. If this area bas progressed far enough to require C and a-3' zoning, be felt that adjoining property on Workman Avenue and Woodruff Avenue be rezoned also. If they were going to rezone part, he wanted it all rezoned; in other words. all or nothing. April 22, 1958 Page 'Siz f", , . '\.... /"-~, , \ ---) Prank Sbuter, 520 Workman Avenue, the owner of lot 50, bought this lot in 1941 becauSe he found the surrounding territory wae what he wanted as a pelllll40ent home. He felt that once you cater to commer- cial and inclustr1al interests you just spoil the rest of the property for the residents who have bought in that locality to have a quiet home. ' Mrs. Crutcbfield, 611 Woodruff Avenue. disagreed with the gentle- man who said that if the people who immediately are adjacent to the subject property have no objections, then the people a little further away should not care. Across the street, you are just as badly off as immediately adjacent. Prands Oldfield, 2803 Bradford Avenue, spoke as a IDOther. In her Deighborbood there are countless children, and with no siclewalks it. is DecessBry for the children to play in the street. She was much aga.fmst the rezoning because of the additional traffic hazard that wuld necessarily follow. the Chairman declared that the public headng on the application of Ralph D. Stogsdill for a change of zone from ZODesR-l and C-l to Zones C-2 and PR-3 on LaB Tunas Drive, continued to the next regular meeting on the 13th of Hay for staff. repotts and the dedsion of the Planning Commiasion. HEARING Pursuant to notice given, the public hearing was held on Resolution Valentine No. 280, proposing a change of ZODe from Zone C-l to Zone R-3 on certain property al: 2610 S. Second Avenue. This ,concerns the northeast ,corner of second Avenue aDd Live Oak Avenue. There is a little triangle of land on Second Avenue about 19 feet wide at the hack that Mr. ValenUDe aaked to be addad to Lot 13 to the north. It is presently zoned C-l, while Lot 13 is ZODed &-3. There ware no opponents or proponents to thia matter. Moved by Mr. Acker,eecondedby Mr. Porman, and aarried that the City Attorney draw a resolution reCOllllllending the change of zone fzom C-l to Zone R-3 on certain property at 2610 S. Second Avenue. HEARING Pursuant to notice given, :the public hearing on the application of Canzoneri Richard M. Canzoneri for a zone variaDce to allow the erection of an additional dwelling at S35 W. Lemon Avenue. in Zone R-l was held. The Secratary pointed out on the maps the applica11t submitted that the lot was 71 x 234. The two lots to the west have signed in favor, and omitting one lot, the next two lots to the em t were in favor, aDd the four lota across the street signed in favor. Out of 35 lots on the street, 13 of them have more then one ~~lling on them. The plot plan was presented and explained. The application was to construct an additional two bedroom dwelling with garage on the raat' of the subject property. Proponants were then asked to be beard: Mr. High, speaking for Mrs. Elder who lives at 609 W. Lemon Avenue, stated that her bouse is the third house to the west and it too is one of the few remaining in that area which does not have a second dwelling, and she is very wch in favor of such a proposition. Be asked if such an application had to be applied for each individual lot along that street. He was answered that as the ordinance now stands thay had to be applied for individually. April 22, 1958 Page Snen HEARING CAIN MEADE . /'\ ) Mr. Richard M. Canzoneri, pointed, out that they bought in May, 1957, with the purpose of building ahd at that time they were allowed to do this. They were told by the real estate people that they would be permitted to do this. In October, Ordinance No. 990 was passed, and he was not aware of this. or they would have tried to build before this. He felt that this was putting a financial hardship on b!m. The Planning Comm18sion and the City Council both had sAid thet if the hardship cases exist, they would consider them, and he felt that he was one of these. W. H. McElroy, living directly west of there, said that Mr. Canzoneri had already made a good change in the place. He painted the house, and is tearing down the old garage and the old chicken coops which were a detriment to the neighborhood. Be was in favor of granting this variance. Opponents were then asked to be heard: Since there were non@,t~ Chairman st~e~ that the request of Mr. Canzoneri for a zone variance to allow the erection of, an additional dwelling at 535 West Lemon Avenue be held over until their meeting of the 13th of May for staff reports end the dec18ion of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to notice given, a public hearing was held on the application of Philip C. Cain and Giles G. Meade for a zone variance to allow the erection of an additional dwelling at 1320 S. Second Avenue, and 1234 S. Second Avenue. Because the two applications were similar and in the same vicinity. it was decided to hold the hearings for Mr. Cain and Mr. Neade concurrently. The applicants both agreed with this procedure. The Secretary presented the maps that both Mr. Cain and Mr. Meade had submitted. Mr. Cain's application was for a variance for a period of ten years for the right to construct one house with full kitchen facilities of standard construction with a minimum area of 900 square feet on each 7,500 sq. ft. of land area. Th18 18 a variance for the right to build witli1n said period of time. The size of Mr. Cain's lot would allow only one additional house. Mr. Maade 'sapplication was for a zone variance to allow the erection of two additional dwellings of 900 square feet at 1234 S. Second Avenue within a period of ten years. Proponants were then asked to be heard: Philip C. Cain. 1320 S. Second Avenue, applied for the variance for land use only; the reason being the financial conditions that were existing. Giles Meade, 1234 S" Second Avenue, stated that when he bought the property in 1914, they had to buy 5 acres. The lot is now 139 feet by 300. 9.2 feet so he has ample space for two additional units. When he boUbht there, there were no restrictions at ell. He felt that all that vacant property should be put to some use. He was hoping to sell the land eventually but knew people would not be interested unless they could develop it. Opponents were then asked to be heard: Richard D. Fenner. 1328 S. Second Avenue, lives immediately next door to Mr. Cain. He does have a long driveway which extends to the rear of his property. but Mr. Fenner felt, that with the driveway there, and an added house in back would take away quite a bit of his privacy that he llnjoys in his back yard at the moment. It would be tenants that would be living there, and there might be children. The three houses south of Mr. Fenner, including himsel f, April 22, 1958 Page Eight ZONE VARIANCE Masonic Temple . represent ~7~,OOO. He bought his property knowing that it' would be single residential district. He had a letter from his neighbor. Donald L. Morgan, at 1404 S. Second Avenue which he read. rhe letter stated that due to the conditions of his employment he was unable to appear before the Planning Commission to present his views on the proposed variance of the property at 1320 S. Second Avenue. He moved into the neighborhood with the idea of preserving and maintaining single family status of his property and also to hold the line on anything that would tend to lower the livability of his home and other homes in the area generally, If the proposed variance is granted, it would open the door to allow other variances requested. Mr. Campbell. 12ll S. Third Avenue, bought his propet'.t~"about 'six months ago. thinking at the time that there would be no variations. ie felt that if he was going to have a home, without the disturbance of renters adjacent to him, he did not favor a variation in 'the zoning ordinance because if granted in this area. you will have other locations equally as important. Mr. Vartanian, 1215 Third Avenue. bought his home three years ago with the underetanding that it was a single house area. He fel t that if houses were built near the rear of his property, the children would disturb him with noises. etc. Mr. Cain asked whether the neighbor to the south bought his property before or after Ordinance No. 990 was in effect. He stated that he got along well with his neighbors and what they said made DO difference as he still regarded them as just neighbors. He questioned the ides of any more noise from a house than from a party around a swimming pool, which may be put in his neighbors back yard. Mr. Mead stated that as far as he and Mr. Cain were concerned, it would be all right to require a 6 1/2 foot wall acroBs the rear of their property. The Chairman declared that the public hear1.ng on the application of Philip C. Cain, and GilesG. Meade for eone variances to allow the erection of additional dwellings at 1320 S. Second Avenae, and 1234 S. Second Avenue be held over for reports from the staff and a decision at the May lS meeting. The Commission considered a decision on the application of the Arcadia Masonic Temple Association for a zone variance to allow automobile parking on the rear portion of their property at 140 E. Duarte Road. The Secretary read the report from the Zoning Committee. The Committee recommended that this application be denied without prejudice to a reapplication. and that the applicant work with the staff and establish a suitable buffer between the parking area and the residential area. Moved by Mr. Forman. seconded by Mr. Vachon. and carried that the application of the Arcadia Masonic Temple Association for a zone variance to allow automobile parking on the rear portion of property at 140 E. Duarte Road be reo_nded for denial without prejudice. TRACT NO. Final map of Tract No. .24122 'located on the southerly extension of 24122 Eighth Avenue consisting of 13 lots, was considered. The City is to include 25 feet of land into the tract, the deed to which is being prepared and is ready to go to the City (founcll. The The subdivider is to deposit money with the City to improve one half of the 25 feet left for future alley. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Pratt. and carried that final map of Tract No. 24122. located on the southerly extension of Eighth Avenue consisting of 13 lots be recommended for approval subject to the conditions as outlined. April 22, 1958 Page Nine . , r CITY , ATlORNEY REFUND GIRL SCOUTS . , . '0"1 The City 'Attorney presented Resolution No. 283 entitled "A Resolution of the City Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending the granting of a zone variance' to permit the construc- tion and maintenance of new Girl Scout headquarters at 590 S. Third Avenue". Moved by Mr. Acker, seconded by Mr. Forman, and cerried that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 283 be waived. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Pratt, and carried that Resolution No. 283 be adopted. Moved by Mr. Acker, seconded by Mr. Robertson, and carried that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the filing fee of the Arcadia Local Council of Girl Scouts be waived and the fee paid be refunded. LOT SPLITS The Secretary presented two lot splits to be assigned for investi- 202 and gation: 203 COMMENT Mrs. William Paul, 1810 S. Santa Anita Avenue, denied a year ago, and reapplied. Assigned to Mr. Acker and Mr. Forman. Mrs. C. F. Howard, 1850 S. Second Avenue. Referred to Mr. Michler and Mr. Asker. Herbert Miller, 1025 E. Sur stated he had attended many meetings of the Planning Commission as well as the City Council and wondered if it were possible at all thst some attempt be made to let those in the rear of the audience hear a little better. Many people C8DU0t hear and they miss some of the matters brought up. He was told the matter would be considered. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. v~' .1 ,- I ,., J 1rJ..J):JJr L. M. ~LEY ~' Planning Secretary \ /1 ,....i../ ',. J" nAJ, April 22, 1958 Page Ten