Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 13, 1958 ,-, \"--__J MINUTE S -PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR. MEETING MAY 13, 1958 The Plann:l.ng CllIIIIIlissf.on of the C:l.ty of Arcad:l.a lII8t :l.n regular sess:l.on :l.n the Counc:l.l Chamber of the C~tyHall at 8:00 o'clock P.~, Kay 13, 1958, w:l.th Cha:l.rman Vachon pres:l.d:l.ng. ROLL CALL PRESBtIT: Comm:l.ss:l.on4lrs Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Robertson and Vachon ABSENT: Ccmm:I.ssioner Pratt 0'lIIBRS PRESENT: Counc:l.lman Re:l.bold, Nicklin, Carozza, Talley and Mrs. Andrews. MINUTES The m:l.nutes of Apdl 22, 1958, were approved as witten and mailed. HBAlUNG Duarte Road Pursuant to not:l.ce g:l.ven, a pub1:l.c hear:l.ng was held on the proposed zone change on Duarte Road west of Holly Avenue from zone R-l andR-Z to zone R-3 as contemplated by Resolution No. 282. This act:l.on origin- eted by a petition from property ownera on Duarte Road from Holly Avenue to La Cadena Avenue, on both sides of the street, and by Reso1ut:l.on No. 282, the Planning CllIIIIIliss:l.on included the north and south s:l.des of Duarte Road from La Cadena Avenue on lIP to the co=l8r- c:l.al zone near Ba1clw:1.n Avenue, and also two lots on Holly Avenue, south of the Methodist Church, fac:l.ng :l.nto tha Holly Avenue school yard. A communicat:l.on signed by B. Franklin Berry, of 604 West Duarte Road, Charles S. Penney, 612 West Duarte Road, and W. H. Stevens, 620 W. Duarte Road objected to the zone change as they felt that there would be no particular advantage for their properties to be included in this zone change. They felt that Lovell Avenue could become a natural buffer between commercial properties and residential propert:l.es. That w:l.th the except:l.on of these propert:l.es the ent:l.re block is zoned for commerc:l.al purposes. They felt that eventually th:l.s property should be zoned for C-2. That the presence of the mortuary, if and when deve~oped, would have certain detrimental effects for further development of residential property. Thay requested that the:l.r propert:l.es be excluded from consideration at thb time. Another communication from R. N. MCMaster, 1215 Holly Avenue stated that clue to the use of the lots adjacent and to the rear for parldng for the church, h:l.s property had ceased to be resident:l.al in character. He requested that if be zoned for mult:l.ple dwellings. Th:l.s would be in line with the formal applicat:l.on f:l.led, and that, :l.n h:l.s opinion. would be justified by the fact that the use of the large area for church purpose would permit the salvage of some of the value lost by the proximity of the church. 0 The Cha:l.rman announced that th:l.s was the time and place to hear from the opponents and proponents of the zone change. No one desiring to be heard, the matter was cont:l.nued until the next regular meet:l.ng for Staff reports and a dec:l.sion by the CllIIIIIlissf.on. PUBLIC IlEARING (Johnson) Pursuant to not:l.ce given, publf.c hearing on the appUcat:l.on of LeRoy Johnson for a zone var:l.ance to allow a rest hem at S18 West Longden Avenue :l.n zone R-1 was held. The property under consideration is located between Holly Avenue and Ba1clw:1.n Avenue, on the south sf.de of the street. There was a lot split allowed on this property, but it was retained under one ownership and was never pbys:l.cally spl:l.t. The present owner purcha8ed the property under one deed. There are two houses on the front. a pool in the center, and three bouses to the rear, maldng five houses on the one parcel. The large house at the front of the property is proposed to be used to conduct the rest home operation. PUBLIC REARING (Senior) I.' ... "~ '-_/ The Chairman stated that those desiring to be heard in favor of the zone variance may proceed. There was no one des1rlng to be heerd. Those opposing the variance were then given the opportunity of ex- pressf.ng themselves. Mr. C. W. Honaa. 612 West Longden Avenue felt that it was not proper that an old peoples home should be in a res- Idential area; that it would depreciate the property values; that it would be detrimental to the area; Mrs. Robert McCormick. 560 West Longden. stated that she did s1gn the petition in favor; that she 0WIl8 quite a bit of property and has only one residence on it. She was unable to understand why this property was allowed the number of res1dences on it; othellS were not permitted IIIOre than one. She was desirous of keeping the area strictly residential. The Chairman ad- . . .yised;.that' tHe aa.U~ional: QweUings':bad..been perlllltted_du~"'to, the, lot split, ,but had".been kept under one 'ownership. I>ny'otie could. apply for a lot apUt if thay had the area. Mr. Baxter. of 618 West Longden. was opposed to the variance. He said they had two people on the 88me size lot, and the property under consideration had twenty- five. Moat the people in the area are against thh type of variance. He realized that elderly people had to have some place to go, but that Longden Avenue was not the proper location fo such a home. Mrs. Baxter also voicad her opposition to the variance. There being no further discussion, the Chairman declared the hearing continued until the next regular meeting for Staff reports and a decision by the Commission. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing of tha application of Reuben V. Senior for a special use permit to allow a pet hospital at lOB West Las Tunas Drive in Zone C-2. A rendering was submitted by the applicant. showing a revision of the one formerly submitted. It was pointed out that the special use for a pet hospital was a use permissible in a c-2 zone. This will conform in every way to the accepted standard in a C-2 develop- ment as to the type and quality of construction. The building would be sound controlled. air conditioned, with landscaping and parking area. The applicant felt that the granting of this special use would up-grade the property in tbis area. The triangle property has been a problem over a long period of ttme. and at present thejapplicant felt that it would be discriminatory to deny them the use of the property for the type of development proposed. The Secretary advised that he had a petition bearing 11 s1gnatures advising that they were in favor of the special use permit for the pet hospital as designed by Neptune and Thomas and asking that the petition receive favorable approval. Also a communication from Herbert Kalliwoda favoring the request. Ardeen Boller. SO North First Avenue, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Senior in this application. stated that this was going on tbe fourth year for this subject matter. The signers of the petition above mentioned. were in favor of the granting of this appUcation. and represent almoat 100 percent of the interested parties within 300 feet. He felt this building would tend to upgrade the area. He said that the Commission would have more control with the special use than with a variance or some other type of procedure. He hed obtained a list of areas where small animal hospitals had been granted, such as 'in Montebello. Pacific ,Palisades. Altadena. West Los Angeles. Santa Monica and MaUbu Beach. These were in R-l. C-2 and eM zones and were being conducted with'no protests from the reddents or people in the area. Dr. Baxter. at 416 East Duarte Road, Arcad1a,stated that since he had appeared the last ttme. he had made a trip to San Francisco and had ascertained that there were a number of animal hospitals built along the lines of the one proposed, eir conditioned, sound controlled, no outside runs. etc. one is in a second residential district, which is the same as our 1-2 zone. This was loceted on Lombard Street and Webster, in a nice part of San Francisco. There were two otber places built along the same Unes. both in C-2 zones. Dr. Minski and Mr. Thomas, Architect. vis1ted a hospital i L::'" ~.~x~\~~ ., ~ /~, in Tanana. Mr. Robertson asked if the entire plot plan ha4 been explained to the COIIIIIIiS81o" and if it was as rapTesantad, includill8 the required parking. Substantially, the plan a& presented will be followed. includill8 landacsping. The intent of the apartment shown on tbe plans is for the attendant, as the hospital would be opan 24 hours ~ily. Dr. Minskl, of 6526 North Muscatel, San Gabriel, desired to recall that the approach to this spplication to build a hospital at this loeation has been done actually along the linas as suggested by the City Council and the change in the orcl1n811C:8. Be stated that they had tried to comply with the requested chanses, and felt that it was perhaps better to handle it this way. This way the governing body had a little better control. They could see the . advantsges and that they could see no logical reason why this should not be grsnted. Opponents were then asked to be heard. There was D01le appearing to protest. Chairman Vschon ststed that they had studied this before with the exception that now it was under the special use instead of the variance procedure. J , LOT SPLIT No. 202 William Paul Mr. Robertson lIIOved that the application of R. V. Senior, for special use permit to allow the construction of a pet hospital at 108 West Las TUnas Drive in a Zone C-2 be recommended for approval subject to the S81118 conditions that were approved by the Planning COlIIIII1ssion at the previous hearing for a zone variance. Said motion was seconded by Michler, and was unanimously carried. William Paul, 1810 South Santa Anita Avenue, referred to Mr. Acker and Mr. Porman. The Secretary read the Bngineer's report. This requsst was denied on May 14, 1957, as Lot Split No. 153 because of the lsck of adequate building site. The Owner has submitted a plan of the proposed dwelling to be erected on the site. The new dwelling shows 1721 sq. ft. The S8lll8 lot still exists, but an architect bad beer. employed to design a house to fit the lot and it makes ideal use of land that otherwise would be very difficult to make use of in that area. There is a garage that would have to be moved and a guest house on the rear of the property. The guest house is used as a bedroom only. Motion by Mr. Acker, second by Mr. Porman, and carried thet Lot Split' No. 202, William Paul, 1810 South Santa Anita Avenue be recOlllllleDded for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Pile a final map with the City Engineer 2. Provide a sewer lateral for Parcal 2. Retain an easement for the existing sewer lateral for Parcell. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. LOT SPLIT NO. 203 (C. P. Howard) Mr. and Mrs.c. F. Boward, 1850 South Second Avenua, referred to Mr. Acker and Mr. Michler. The Bngineer's report was read. This is an ''L'' shaped lot on Second Avenue. This lot split is applied for so that Parcel 2 may be sold to and used with the lot at 1827 South Third Avenue. Motion by Mr. Michler, second by Mr. Acker, and carried that Lot Split No. 203, Mr. and Mrs. C. F. Boward, 1850 SOuth Second Avenue, be recOllllllended for approval, subject to tha following conditions: 1. PUe a finsl map with the City Bngineer 2. Dedicate 12 feet along the front of Parcel 1 for future widening of Second Avenue 3. Record a covenant to guarantee the use of Parcel 2 with Lot 21, Tract No. 19974, at 1827 Third Avenue. May 13, 1958 Pase Three ,~~ \ ,~-- LOT SPLIT .1. A. Brodhead, 2124 Highland Oaks Drive, referred to Mr. Robertson NO. 204 and Mr. Acker. This is a small area on one lot which is to be (.1.A.Brodhead) transferred to the owner of the lot adjoining and a small area given in return. This is being done to correct an error in locating the new house which has just been built on this lot which is one foot too close to the line to maet tract te8trictions. The owners of two lots have sgreed on an exchange of two small triangular parcels, slightly over one foot wide. Motion by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Davison and carried, that Lot Split No. 204, .1. A. Brodhead, 2124 Highland Oaks Drive, be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditionS: LOT SPLIT NO. 205 (C and E Investment) LOT, SPLIT NO. 206 (Rexfurd Williams) TRACT NO. 23145 1. File a ftnsl map with the City Engineer C. and E. Investment Company, 63 West Camino Real, referred to Mr. Michler and Mr. Forman. These lots would have areas of 10,750 sq. ft. and existing improvements would not prevent the split. Other lots in the area are, in general. of greater width tban this, but are not uniform and have older homes. Motion by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Michler, and carried, that Lot Split No. 205, C. and B. Investment Company. 63 West Camino Real Avenue, be recommended for approval, aubject to the following condi- tiona: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer 2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee Rexford Williams, 1827 Encino Avenue, Monrovia, affecting property loeated at 922 South Sixth Avenue,. referred to Mr. Michler and Mr. Forman. This property wss purchased by Mr. WUliams on February 17, 1956, and the division has not yet been approved by the City. On August 7, 1956, the City COUDcil denied a request to give consent for its annexation to Monrovia. The City of Monrovia had also requested such consent. The purchaser now desires to construct a swtmming ppol on a portion of the property. The C~ssion felt that there was no objection to the parcel being split, but tbat it should be in one city or the other. It should either be annexed to Arcadia, or deannexed 8lld added to Monrovia. Motion by Mr. Michler, second by Mr. Forman, and carried, that Lot Split No. 206, Rexford Williams, 922 South Sixth Avenue, be recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Bngineer. 2. The applicant shall take the necessary procedure to anuex the property so that his lot on Bncino Avenue and the divided portion are both in either the City of Arcadia or the City of Monrovia. Final map of Tract No. 23145, located in Santa Anita Highlands, on the extension of canyon Road, consisting of 57 lots, was considered. This map has been checked against the tentative and conforms in general to the approved map. Construction has proceeded with the installation of storm drains, sewers, water mains, curbs and gutters and lot grading. A small corner of the City Reservoir site has been included in the tract, as recommended in the tentative map. A parcel of land between the reservoir site and the access easement is to be deeded to the City. The tract conforms substantially with the approved tentatiVe map and is recommended for approval, subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The City shall deed to the subdivider the small parcel of the reservoir site inclnded in the tract. 2. The subdivider shall deed to the City the parcel between the reservoir site and the access easement. 3. Lot 5 shall be deeded to the City. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate to the City the debris basin adjacent to lots 4S and 46 with an easement for access ovsr a 15 foot paved roa~, which will also serve asa driveway to lots t.5 and 46. May 13, 1958 rage Four (~--- ,~~- \ ".) '--' - 5. The subdivider shall install all street improve:nents required by the subdivision ordinance or post a satisfactory surety bond to guarantee such installation. 6. The subdivider shall pay all required fees aDd deposits as follows: 245 street trees, at $5.00 each 2 street name signs at $2S.pO 57 lots, recreation fee at $25.00 25 street light poles at $150.00 $1225.00 50.00 1425.00 3750.00 7. The City shall dedicate lot 50, tract No. 23144, at the end of Canyon Road, for street purposes. The City is en owner of an easement within the tract, aDd it Will be necessary for the City to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the map es partial owners. ZONE CHANGE The Commtuaion considered a decision on the application of Herbert Herbert W.Ambs W. Ambs, and others, for zone R-3 on Las Tunas Drive and Baldwin Avenue. The Secretary read the report of tha Zoning C~ttee advising that thf.s zone chauge was frCllD zona R-l to zone R-3 on certain property on Woodruff Avenue, Las Tunas Drive, Workman Avenue and Baldwin Avenue. The pubUc bearing was continued frCllD March 25, 1955 to April 22, 1958 at the request of the appUcants for the purpose of filing an IIlIJllnded application. No amendment was fHed in tilne for notices to be circulated. A petition was filed requestiug that a portion of the original area be excluded from the' application. Protests to such rezoning were fHed by the owners of more tban one hundred parcela in the general neighborhood. The C01IIIIIittee felt that the request was premature and not in the interests of good planning. As originally filed, it included rezoning on one side only of Woodruff Avenue aDd Workman Avenue. It would have left R-l zoning at the southwest corner of Woodruff Avenue and Baldwin Avenue whichwonld have led toappUcatlons for some zoning reUef. As constituted after the requested exclusion of some area, it proposed R-3 on the north side of Las Tunas Drive across the street frCllD zone C-1 end R-l and would create an island of R-3 on Baldwin Avenue Without regard to other properties. The c01lllllittee felt that no change in zoning in this area should be made at this tilne and recommeDded that the application be denied. Motion by Mr. Michler, second by Mr. Forman, and carried, that the application of Herbert W. Ambs, and others, for a change of zone frCllD zone R-l to zone R-3 on certain property on Woodruff Avenue, Las Tunas Drive, Workman Avenue and Baldwin Avenue be recOllllll8nded for denial, and that the City Attorney prepare the necessary resolution. ZONE VARIANCE (Canzoneri) The C01IIIIIission considered a decision on the application of Richard M. Canzoneri for an addltional dwelling at 535 West Lemon Avenue, in zone R-l. The Secretary read the report of the Zoning C01IIIIIittee, advising as follows: 35 lots facing the north side of Lemon Avenue between Baldwin Avenue and Holly Avenue of which 13 or 37.14 percent are now developed With two or more dwellings. Referring to the work '~icinity" used in the Zoning Ordinance, the Committee has used the distance of 300 feet each way from the property on the particular street and on each side of. the street. The 300 foot distance has been established by ordinance as the aree in which notice of a requested zone change or variance must be given, and it is assumed that this distance covers the property most vitally affected by a change. In this case there are 20 lota, other than that of the owner, of which 11 or 55 percent are now developed with two or more dwellings. Therefore, this applicant has seemingly qualified as to the extra- ordinary circumstances and rights possessed by other property in this same vicinity end zone. Plsns of the proposed dwelling and plot plan showing the location in reference to lot lines and other buildings on the lot have been submitted and comply witb all the requirements for zone R-l except that the house is slightly under 1,000 square feet, but the applicant bas indicated his w111inguesB to make it comply with the 1,000 square foot requirement. Applicant intends to buUd as soon as a variance is granted. The Zoning May 13, 1958 t~,!~J ::!;'T'3 , "-_/ Committee felt that all conditions required for the granting of a variance had been fulfilled, and recommended to the Commisaion tliat the variance be 'granted. Considerable discussion followed, after which Mr. Nicklin, City Attorney, clarified several points, as follows: A number of terms have been kicked around rather loosely and I think we should tie some of them down. First of aU, Ordinance 990 itself set a norm, and recognizes in itself the need for relief under certain circumstances, without the necessity of going through processes to get it, namely that if 60% of a block is developed with more than ona dwelling then the rest can have the same treat- ment without the necessity of even applying for a variance. That refers to an artifical block between streets. There can be property a lot closer to lots that are developed with two houses and more adversely affected by such lots even though they are not in the same block. They could be right across the street and still be subject to the same effect. The use of the variance has been abused and yet if you make the proper findings as has been indi- cated by the report here, then the variance comes into its own as it too seldom does, as the true safety valve for the protection of the ordinance as a whole. The purpose of the variance is to provide relief in those cases where it is genuinely proper to give it, where the people are entitled as a matter of legal right to get it, and not as a favor. From the standpoint of "hardship", if you use the term in its right worth, the term "hardehip" might be all right, but the average person 18 going to construe the term ''hardship'' as personal hardship because of some family relationship. A man suffers from heart trouble and so he can't clean a big lot of weeds and so therefore he ought to be entitled to build houses allover it so somebody else can keep it clean. That isn't the type of hardship that we are talking about, not the personal hardship resulting from some personal situation within a family. It is more related to the nature of the property and the surroundings of the property that constitutes some legal hardship as distinguished from some personal hardship. When the Zoning Ordinance uses the term "vicinity" it does not define the term but obviously it doss not mean the entire block; obviously it does not mean the same as an es an entire zone; I think the derivation of the word probably gives you the best clue. It comes from the Latin "vicinus" which means neighbor. Now, you don't normally consider your neighbor as somebody ten blocks down the street or even two blocks down the street, except in the very broad sense that everybody in the San Gabriel Valley might be neighbors the same as everybody in this room is a descendant of relatives of Adam and Eve. But you don't generally think of yourself in those terms. Your neighbor is ususlly those within a couple of doors of yourself. From the standpoint of setting a precedent, if you spell out in your determinations if you decide to grant this for example, the determinative factors upon which you base your decision, then another person who fits that same identl~8l picture, is, as a matter of right, entitled to the aame type of reUef, and if he does not fit the samB identieal picture then he is not entitled to relief solely because you granted it in a given case. It is more than possible that on too frequent occasions you have granted relief, or recommended relief" without spelling out the determinative factor, upon which you have thllqlbt it should be granted. Then, the next person who comes along will pick out anyone factor that did happen to exist and then will say that 18 the basis on which you granted one before and therefore you are going to give me the same treatment whereas, as a matter of fact you might have considered that factor but have DOt considered it determinative. I think that if you will spell out a number of the factors, and if, for exampla, the fact that this person was not permitted to become psrt of a subdivision, and, therefore, ended up with a lot of property, that he cannot otherwise deal with; if that be the case, then if all these other things, then if he happens to be next door to a duplex already, if that be the case, if you will spell out the factors which in your opinion were determinative of the fact that relief be granted, I think you will help preserve yourselves from being imp08ed upon with too many applications that are not worthy and by the same token it will spell out rsther clearly to others that are in the \ May 13, 1958 Page Six ZONE CHANGE (StogsdUl) ZONE VARIANCE Meade and Cain the id~nt~~~l situatio~tl1a ~act that: theY, .ll>:e entitled to the same rel~ ~ Motion by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman, and carried that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare a resolution recommend- ing to the City Council that the application of Richard Canzoneri for a zone variance to allow the construction of ,a second dwelling at 535 W. Lemon Avenue be granted, specifying the various points upon which the decillion is based, as findings to be made by the COIlIIII1.ssion. The Commissial'considered a decision on the application of Ralph D. StogsdUl for zone change for lots 2~, 24, and 25, Tract No. 6641, from zone C-l to zone C-2, Lot 26 from zone R-l to zone C-2 and Lot 27 from zone R-l to zone PR-3, all in the vicinity of Las Tunas Drive and Baldwin Avenue. Las Tunas Drive west of Baldwin Avenue is in county territory and is zoned C-3 through the central part of Temple City, tapering to C-2 for the laot half block west of Baldwin Avenue. The northeast corner of Las Tunas Drive and Baldwin Avenue, is &Oned R-l but C-l uses are allowed on lots 21 and 22 by variances. On the southeast corner of Las Tunas Drive and Baldwin Avenue, on the west portion of Lot 23, a variance for a portion of the C-2 uses was granted by Resolution No. 2319 in 1952. On the eest portion of Lot 23, a variance for a portion of the C-2 uses was granted by Resolution No. 2550 in 1954. Both of these variances have expired because of n~t being used. In 1~55, Lots Z3~ 23 and;i~ were rezoned to zone C-l. To date me only C-l use constructed has been a restaurant on Lot 25. In the opinion of the committee, this clearly indicates that there is no need for C-2 use on this corner. The ap{)licant is not only asking for addi- tional uses on the portion now zoned C-l, but also to extend the C-2 uses into area now zoned and used as residential. Protests to such rezoning were fUed by the ownen of approximately 100 parcels in the general naighborhood. It was felt that the zoning of thill area should be considered without regerd to City boundary lines. Las Tunas Drive in Temple City is zoned C-3, grading down to C-2, west of .Baldwin Avenue, C-l east of Baldwin Avenue and then into resi- dential. If the C-2 uses are granted east of BelMn Avenue. it is reasonable to expect further requests for either additional commercial or for some transition zone further into the existing residsntial zone. It was moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman, that the application of Ralph D. Stogsdill for a zone change to zone C-2 and PR-3, on Lss Tunas Drive be recommended for denial. Said motion carried by roll call vote as follows: AYES: Commissioners Forman, Davison, Michler, Robertson and Vachon. NOES: Nona ABSENT: Commissionar Pratt T~ Commission considered a dscision on the application of Giles G. Mesde, 1234 South Second Avenue, and Philip C. Cain, 1320 South Second Avenue, for zone variances to allow the erection of additional houses of 900 square feet floor area at any time within a period of ten years. These two hearings were held as ana matter. The report wes written that way, but both Hr. Meade and Mr. Cain bad presented communications requesting that the decision be made on an individual basis. There were also some requests for changes in their application. Both commanications were read stating that that they were amending the time period from ten years to two years, and Mr. Caln stated he would abide by the Commission's decision as to the si8e of the house. These letters were both received after the report of the zoning Committee had been written. The property of Mr. Meade at 1234 South Second Avenue is 138.75 feet by 300.92 feet, containing 41,752 sq. ft. The lot of Hr. Cain's at 1320 South Second Avenue is 90 feet by 220 feet, containing 19,800 sq. ft. There are 31 lots facing the east side of Second Avenue between Duarte Road snd Camino Real, of which 8, or 25.91 percent ar:e now developed with two or more dwell1D,8s. Within 300 feet of the propercy at 1234 South Second llv~nue, on both sides of 5~J:oCG AV'::l1:.t1, f;b".r~ f.l:t;e l~ 1-:-:' "... :.;.f: HE.:' .~~ 611 l':o~~. 37 ..,.~0 p:'l'{.'.~~.r.t": he-ve , ,. ,:1,<..;;: .1..), '=l'~:i:') :' 1938 " OSE CLASSI- '" FICArION '" (W1se) '" ' "\ ~. _'S I .-~-----. ZONE D I more than one house. In the case of the property at 1320 South Second Avenue there are 17 lots of which 5. or 29.41 percent have mOre thlin one house. No building ~lans or plot plans were flled with either applic~tion. and the ownets.have stated that they have no intention of bu~ldin8 in the fores~eable future. Each applicant asked for the pr:l.~lege of bullding at any t1Dle within the next ten ,ears~ Also' 4l4ch< applicant proposed only 9000 square feet floor area, which does not meet R-l Tequirements. It was,c0ti8:ld8!1!ed by the Zoning COllIIIIf.ttee that any variance for an add1tionai residence Should be accompanied by plans and speCifications when making application for such a variance. The COllIIIIf.sBion found that it would be two years before Mr. Cain would be able to utilize the property aa he so wishes. He should make application at the time be is ready to commence building. Mr. Forman stated that he felt that the resolutions for recommendation should spell out all the factors that were considered and the reasons and what factors had been considered in this variance request. Each case should be taken on an individuei basis. It was moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman that the request for zone change of Giles G. Meade, at 1234 South Second Avenue, be recOlllll1ended for denial. The motion carriad by the following roll call vote: AYES: COllIIII1.sBionera Acker. Forman,Davieon, Michler Robertson and Vachon. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Pratt. It was moved by Mr. Forman, secondad by Mr. Acker, that the application for a zone variance of Philip E. Cain for an additional dwelling at 1320 South Second Avenue be recOlllll1ended for denial. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COllIIII1.ssioners Acker. Forman. Davison, Michler, Robertson and Vachon NOES: None -;::-F ABSENT: COIIIIIIissione,r Pratt f~r Request of Sherwood E. Wise for proposed club for recreationEll altek educational purposes to be classified as a private club for zoning purposes on property at 17 South Fourth Avenue. a portion of which ie zone C-2. with the only access from Fourth Avenue over R-3 property. Mr. Wise was present and presented the overall pattern of the proposal. Groups would be permitted to use the facilities. He was doing tbis for his Doctorate, and felt tbat it wes not a commercial venture. In the absence of any formal request, nO action could be taken. Mr. Nicklin suggested that Mr. Wise submit the activity that he proposes to carryon in a detailed form and that from tbe fact submitted an opinion could be given. The i Chairman requested Mr. Wise to submt such a detailed report to ' the Secretary and he will confer with the City Attorney and the Zoning Committee at a Joint meeting and will make a recommendation at tbe meeting following the receipt of the report from the Zoning COllIIII1.ttee, A proposal was made to consider the establishment of Zone D, Architectural design, on property on Louiee and Le Roy Avenue, whfc himprovement was being constructed under a 1911 Improvement Act, the land having been acquired through condemnation. Most of tbe property is owned by property that extenda from First Avenue through to Louise Avenue, or from Santa Anita Avenue through to Louise Avenue. It seems very probable that IIlUch of it will be developed by lot splits. with no tract restdctious other than the normal R-l zone of 1000 square feet of house. Mr. Marks had re- quested that some consideration be given for a Zone D in this area, with a mintmum floor area and something that would make the house on the individual lots come up to somewhere near the standards that are being established in present day subdiv1sious. Mr. Marks spoke in favor of such a Zone D, stating that Mr. Allen had cOlllll1enced a subdivision on tbe south end of Louise Avenue and was building very fine houses; that it would not be good plenn1nn for the intervening ~. ~l.I..:-.' '!.,~:, 195B '~" ....;.: "~:':'!.1!a' . , CITY ATl'ORNBY lots to put up houses of infedor size and del!lgn. Mr. Allen had told the Secretary thet the Company building the one subdivision would tie wiil1.ng to be put into a Zone D. Mr. MarkS was aleo willing to have his properey included in the Zone D. Be felt that so long as the street had been put in by the City and the land was acquired throUgh condemnation the requirements should come from the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Secretary advised that if the Commission decided to go ahead with this it would take a public hearing and all interested parties would be notified. There probably would be many suggestions for and against and many of which could be used as a basis for the restric- tions. Mr. Nicklin aaked what type of ordinance would be required, provided one would be to the effect that no houses could be moved in. Square footage should be considered. Mr. Carozza stated he felt economics would take care of the problem. This property developed with 80 or 90 foot lots, with thepresent market value with $100 to $110 per front foot under the normal conditions a house on such a lot would be about three times the value of the land. If a man pays $7500.00 for a lot, he builds a house around $22,000.00 This is' substantiated by the building permits, etc. at the present time. With this land not being improved through a regular sub- division and under the subdivision ordinances, a person would build a house under ordinances now in effect for an R-l area. Architect- ural overlay could control the square footage better than in an R-l zone. He brought up .the matter of the new area of Saata Anita Terrace, in this neighborhood wherein each house has approximately 2200 square feet and it is located in an area wherein the square foot areas range from 800 to 1000 square feet. This is a new street and would be an area of new houses. Some regulations should be made 88 to the size of the house. The Secretary advised thst it was necessary for the Attorney to prepare a resolution to order a public hearing to determine just what restributions should be placed on this new street. Moved by Mr. Davison, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried that the City Attorney prepare a Resolution calling for a public hearing to consider the establishment of a Zone D architectural design for property located on Louise and Le Roy Avenues, opened by condemnation. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 284, recommending the reclaasification of certain real property on the east side of Second Avenue near Live Oak Avenue from. Zone C-l to Zone R-3. Moved by Mr. Acker, seconded by Mr. Robertson, and carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 284 be waived. Moved by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Forman that Resolution No. 284 be adopted. Said motion was unanimously carried. Resolution No. 285 was presented by the City Attorney, recommending the denial, without prejudice, for a zone variance to permit the rear portion of property at 140 B. Duarte Road to be used for automobile parking purposes. This is the applicstion of the Masonic Temple. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Davison, and carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 285 be waived. Moved by Mr. Acker. seconded by Mr. Forman, and carried, that Resolution No. 285 be adopted. <l,. May 13, 1958 Page Nine '. . . ~ MORTUARY VARIANCE BXTENSION (-, I '''----- ) Resolution No. 286 was introduced by the city Attorney, instituting proceedings for the consideration and making recommendation concerning the zone classification of certain city-owned real property which is the piece abutting Live Oak Avenue and west of the Santa Anita wasb which the City propescs to sell. One of the conditions of tbe escrow is that tbe property be zoned C-2. Moved by Mr. Davison, .seconded by Mr. Forman and carried, that the reading of the full body of the resolution be weived. Moved by Mr. Micbler, seconded by Mr. Devisdn, and carried, that Resolution No. 286 be adopted. Resolution No. 287 was presented by the City Attorney, instituting proceedings for the purpose of considering and making a recommenda- tion concerning tbe appropriate classification of the business of roller skating rink, under Ordinance No. 760. Moved by Mr. Acker, seconded by Mr. Forman, and carried that the reading of tbe full body of Resolution No. 287 be waived. Moved by Mr. Robertson, secondad by Mr. Micbler, and carried tbat Resolution No. 287 be adopted. The Secretary advised that in May of 1957, a variance for the mortuary at 611 West Duarte, Road was granted. In November, 1957, at the end of the six months period, a request was made and granted for an extension of six months. At that time Mr. Howser, Attorney for Mrs. Wentz, stated they contemplated building sbortly after tbe first of tbe year. After tbe 21st of May, tbis aix month period will have elapsed, and they are now requesting an extension of 90 days. The contractor has been engaged but they have not as yet completed tbe loan and there has been illness in tbe femUy which has prevented complying with tbe variance. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman, a.nd, carried, that a 90 day extension be granted Johanna M. wentz for a yariance for a mortuary at 611 West Duarte Road,for reasons sbown in the communication received from Fred M. Howser, Attorney for Mrs. Wentz. There being no further business, the meeting adjcrurned. i.?'n\,. (\nUt L. M. TALLEY I' Planning Secretary" May 13, 1958 Page Ten.