Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 25, 1959 ROLL CALL MINUTES ANNIVERSARY ZONE CHANGE , , MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 1959 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the Ci ty Hall' at 8: 00 0 I clock P. M"., Augus t 25, 1959, with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin. ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: NickI in, Forbes, Talley and Mrs. Matoshek. The minutes of the meeting held August 11, 1959, were approved as written and mailed. Chairman Acker announced that as of August 25, 1959, Mr. Leslie M. Talley was celebrating 35 years of continuous service with the City of Arcadia. The Commission considered a decision on the proposal to change the zone on the area bounded by Duarte Road, Lovell Avenue, Camino Real and Baldwin Avenue from Zones R-l and R-2 to Zones C-2, C-3 and D as contemplated by Resolution.No, 335. The Secretary read a report. from the Zoning Committee which stated: On July 14, 1959, by Resolution No. 335, the Commission instituted proceedings to consider a change of zone from Zones R-l and R-2 to Zones C-2, C-3 and D on the area bounded by Duarte Road, Lovell Ave, Camino Real: and Baldwin Av~nue. A public hearing on the matter was held on August 11, 1959. Practically all of the residents on the south side of Camino Real protested against making the street the dividing line between zones, and none of the Camino Real owners expressed any particular desire for commercial zoning. There was no protest from residents on Naomi Avenue and no protest from residents on the east side of Lovell Avenue. While the Commission had in mind the rezoning ofa large enough area to meet the commercial needs for a period of years, the Committee thinks that possibly the projected area is too large for the present time. If the Naomi Avenue property is rezoned and developed, and need of further ex- pansion is indicated, additional area can be considered at a future time. Furthermore, the Commission has tentatively discussed the creation of a restricted multiple residence zone. Possibly this new zoning could be applied to the Camino Real property. The Committee is, strongly of the opinion that if aqy of the area is to be rezoned for commercial use, that area should be properly redesigned and restricte'd .to such' extent that an attractive and desirable shopping area will be developed. It is suggested that the Commission consider the following rezoning: 1. Rezone the lot at 1424 S. Baldwin Avenue, now occupied by a church,from Zone R-2 to Zone C-2. Page One August 25, 1959 , --,/ J 2. Rezone the property on the west side of Lovell Avenue from Duarte. Road to Naomi Avenue and both sides of Naomi Avenue from. Lovell Avenue to the commercial zone'at Baldwin Avenue from Zones R-l and R-2 to Zones C-3 and D, subject to the following conditions: a. 'Dedicate 12 feet for the widening of Duarte Road. b. Dedicate the extension of the 30 foot alley south of Duarte Road into Lovell Avenue. c. Dedicate 12 feet on each side of Naomi Avenue for s,treet widening. d. Dedicate 24 feet on the west side of .Lovell Avenue for street widening. e. Dedicate a 30 foot alley at the rear of the property on the south side of Naomi Avenue. f. The cost of the improvement of all of the above dedi- cations; except the paving of Duarte Road, to be borne by the property owners. It is further suggested that the requirements to be made applicable under Zone D, include the following: 1. Screen the business development on Lovell Avenue from the street and the residential property to the east as follows: a. Landscape and mairitain the first 10 feet west of ~he new property line. b. Construct a 5 foot high ornamental masonry wall 10 feet west of Lovell Avenue. c. The next 60 feet west of the wall to be devoted to public parking with no buildings to be constructed. 2. Landscape and beautify the front of the lots facing Naomi Avenue as follows: a. No building to be constructed nearer than 15 feet from the new property line on Naomi Avenue. b. At least 9 feet of the above 15 foot setback to be landscaped. c. No buildings to be erected on the rear one-half of the Naomi Avenue lots. 3. No vehicular access to be allowed to the C-3 area from Lovell Ave- nue, except at the dedicated alleys. 4. The southwest cor~er of Duarte Road and Lovell Avenue to have special spectacular landscape treatment. 5. Signs to be limited to 1 square foot of area for each ten feet of building frontage. All signs to be mounted flat against the building and no flashing or roof signs to be allowed. 6. All lighting of the area and. the buildings to be directed away . from adjoining r~sidentia1 property. Page Two August 25, 1959 \. ) 7. All plans to be submitted to the Planning Commission for ap- proval as to plot plan, architectural treatment, walls, land- scaping and signs before issuance of abuilding permit. The Chairman advised that there will be other reports forthcoming after discussions with Architectural firms for aid in developing better zoning and planning in an area of this size. Mr. Davison stated that after some investigation relative to complaints which were made at the last meeting, namely., the proposed cOllllllercial zone across the streetfromR-l property, that these complaints were legitimate. He thought that perhaps the original plan to rezone could be altered to cut back to the center line of' the intervening block, which would be less objectionable to the people on the south side of Camino Real. He also felt that the proposed restrictions contained in the report would be desirable to insure proper development of the cOllllllercial so that it would be an asset to Arcadia. Mr. .Forman wished to know what type of screening other than the pro- posed alley would be required for the property on the north side of Camino Real. He believed that a wall should be planned along the alley to provide a buffer from the residential property on the south side. Mr. Norton stated that it had been the committee I S intention to inc.or- porate this requirement in the report. A wall should definitely be constructed to act as a buffer at the alley. Mr. Forman also mentioned that some provision should be made for main- tenance of landscaping and plant.ing as outlined in the report. Mr. Nicklin answered that the question is one of supervision and en- forcement; technccally, if the cOllllllission imposes a continuing con- dition under the D overlay failure to fulfill the condition constitutes a violation of the zoning ordinance. He didn't think that you could take away thei.r zoning because they don't fulfill all the requirements, because zoning is' predicated upon physical facts. Mr. Davison introduced the subject of. the restricted R-3, to which the cOllllllission has been giving consi.derable study. This proposed highly restricted R~3 would serve as a buffer between cOllllllercial and R-l, and would be a greater asset to the City of Arcadia than has some of the R-3 which has been constructed in the city in the past. The Chairman advised that such a study could be put on the agenda in the very near future. Mr. Michler stated that he agreed with the report from the zoning com- mittee, but he didn't think it was the intention of the Commission to make a decision. tonight, and his recollllllendation would be for additional study before any final action is taken. The Chairman agreed with Mr. Michler on. the continuation of this matter, particularly in iight of the consultation with various architectural firms for the purpose of assuring better planning. . The Chairman requested anyone in the audience who wished to express their views to please come forward. Mr. Michael Blake, 1245 Lovell Avenue, came forward and was chiefly concerned about the details outlined in the Zoning COllllllittee report. He stated that Ilone of the property owners had been informed of the contents of, this report with all its new proposals. Page Three August 25, 19~9 ZONE CHA~GE Stogsdill '"--_/ '~\ ) -_/ Chairman Acker advised Mr.. Blake that copies. of the report are avail- able for public convenience. Mr. Blake also wished to be acquainted with the property owners finan- cial obligat~on when such improvements and changes are contemplated. Mr. Davison declared that at this t~me no one knows who the developer may be for any improvements, and any estimate of what the cost would be to tl\e .individualproperty owners could not be ascertained until the time for actUal development pccurs. Mr. Nicklin referred to the report subsection f.., "The cost of the improvement' of all of the above dedications, except the paving of Duarte Road, to be borne by the property owner." He explained the widening of the street, involving the ins.tallation of curb and gutter, paving of intervening area and probably the resurfacing of the street can be financed in a number of ways. Many developments are handled under the "1911 Act", but this is the .first time that a major section of streets have been required to be widened, solely at the abutting , owners eXpense, as a condition for the change of zone. Ordinarily, such improvements are paid for either by the city, or by the abutting owner or, sometimes, concurrently with the owner putting in the curbs and gutters and the city putting in money for the cost of traveled portion of the st.reet. Mr. NickUn added he thought that the par/!-graph dealing with the expense of the dedications to be borne by the property owner could require more extensive study so that if the properties remain in IIIOre .or less divided ownership, the transition can still occur in orderly fashion. If the'majorityof the owners so desire, the work can proceed under the special district proceedings with the cost spread on the adjacent properties to be paid in cas~ or go to bond to be paid over a period of years. When it is determined in what manner the improvement will be financed, then the experts in the field can calculate the cost to each property owner. Mr. Stout eXplained to Mr. Blake that this report was made as a result of the previous public hearing in an effort to arrive at a solution with good planning in mind. This is the first time anyone has had an opportunity to look at the recoDDDendations made in the report. The Secretary explained that the details specified are part of the Zone D overlay; also, he stated that there are sketches available showing the effect of the proposed improvement on each lot, and that he would be glad to meet with anyone or any group to go over the details and explain graphically what this actually amounts to. Mr. Nicklin advised that this proceeding was initia~ed on the Planning CODDDtssion's motion; he would predict one or two more hearings before an ultimate decision will be realized, which would be the best one for the greater majority. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried to continue the public hearing on the zone change in West Arcadia to the next regular meeting of September 8, 1959. The Commission considered a decision on the request of Bernard Berk and Ralph D. Stogsdill for a change of zone from Zone R-l to Zones C-2, FR-3 and D on property near the southeast corner of Las Tunas Drive and Baldwin Avenue. The Secretary read a cODDDunication from Mrs. J. Reynolds, 2804 South Baldwin Avenue which stated she is against the rezoning of this area to construct a super market; she enclosed a card from a Mrs. White, Page Four August 25, 1959 owner of property at 600 Workman. The card also expressed opposition to the proposed change. The Secretary read the Zoning Committee report which pointed out: In the opinion of this Committee the applicant has not satisfactorily answered the required questions on the application, as follows: 1. "Does public necessity require the proposed change? Is there a real need in .the community 'for more of the types of uses permitted by the Zone requested than can be accomodated in the areas already zoned for such uses?" The applicant has not shown a public necessity for the change, but only stated that such a change would complete the 'zoning in the block, with the exception of one lot, and refers to the widening of Baldwin Avenue to improve traffic flow. The widen- ing of the full length of Baldwin Avenue is con~emplated but not necessarily its rezoning to commercial for its entire length. 2. "Is the property involved in the proposed reclassification more suitable for the purposes permitted in the proposed zone than for the purposes permitted in the present classification?" The applicant states that the property is more suited for com- mercial, 'because Baldwin Avenue is a commercial type of street. This .s'ame argument. might be used for commercial on the full l~ngth of both Baldwin Kvenue and Las Tunas Drive. 3. "I%uld the uses permitted by the proposed zone be detrimental in any way to the surrounding property?" The applicant states this rezoning would eliminate the "break" in the present zoning, but actually :it would only move the "Break" further south. There is no proof that such rezoning would not be detrimental to residential property, and numer- ous owners l.n t.hl.s vicinity state that in thel.r opl.nl.on it would be detrimental. The present C-2 zoning on the east side of Baldwin Avenue l.s almos.t exactly opposite the present commercial use on the recently annexed west side. The request- ed extension of the zone would create 165 feet more commerc- ial zone directly across the street 'from residential proper- ty. The Committee is of the opinion that the city should not jeopardize the property values of this good residential area for the benefit of one pro- perty owner. We further believe that there is now sufficient commercial zoning on this corner to act as a buffer between the commercial develop- ment west of Baldwin Avenue and the residential development to the east, and that any extension of the commercial zoning either south or east will only tend to increase the problem that always exists where commercial and residence zones abut. Mr. Wallin stated that he completely concurs with the zoning committee recommendation.. He stated that to him the area is completely residential in character and he didn" t believe it was a good idea to start extending commercial zoning into that property. Mr. Norton brought up some facts concerning supermarket statistics in the Arcadia area. He mentioned all the various markets already con- structed, under construction and proposed to be constructed which added up to a total of 12 stores. Each store can normally handle 3,000 persons daily with an overload factor of 1,000 persons. This means Page Five August 25, 1959 that 36,000 persons could shop daily in the market of their choice. Even with a +opulat~on increase of 50% we would then have a total of 60,000 people, and with the 12 markets referred to it is reasonable to assume that they could handle the load if everyone decided to complete their shopping in two days. Mr. Davison concurred with Mr. Norton's facts. He added the residential aspects of the neighborhood are good. There did not appear any logical reason to increase small spots of cOlllllercial to the detriment of the residential property. Mr. Michler concurred with Mr. Davison's remarks. He believed that changing the zone in that area now is somewhat premature. Perhaps in five or ten years from now, the whole situation could change. Mr'. Ralph D. Stogsdill, 2710 S. Baldwin Avenue, addressed the Commission, and stated that he accepted the Commission's report, although he did not agree with it. He stated that all the protest signatures on Workman Ave. were on the south side. There are 17 homes and only 7 properties signed the petition. On Las Tunas Drive from Baldwin Ave. to Bradford there are' 23 homes, and only 3 properties registered a protest. On Baldwin Ave. there were 22 signers, 13 homes and 29 lots. Over half of the com- plainers are on Bradford, which is 1060 feet away. Mr. Stogsdill could not understand why consideration to construct a supermarket at this location could not be realized, when two markets will be allowed at Live Oak Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue and Baldwin and Duarte Road. Moved by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Davison to recommend denial of the zone change at Las Tunas and Baldwin. ROLL CALL: AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin NOES: None ABSENT: None. Mr. Stogsdill requested that Mr. Nicklin draw the resolution tonight so that he could appeal for.a public hearing at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Nicklin consented and stated he would have the resolution ready for action 'by the close of the meeting. LOT SPLITS Lot Split No. 262 - Bernard Berk, 541 and 547 Workman Avenue, referred to Mr. Forman and Mr. Stout, continued from last meeting. The application for this lot split was contingent upon the granting of the zone change at Las Tunas Drive and Baldwin Avenue. Moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Forman, and carried, to recommend denial of Lot Split No. 262. Lot Split No. 263 - Mrs. Lora R. McCormick, 560 W. 'Longden Avenue, referred to Mr. Wallin and Mr. Stout. This split was to divide a parcel 120' wide, which for some time was carried on the tax roll as two lots, but now as one. There is an old garage on the rear portion, which was to be demolished and rebuilt. A 52' lot does not meet the ordinance requirements nor does it conform to the lot widths existing in this vicinity. Mr. Wallin stated that in checking the surrounding community that even with a 60' lot. this would be out of balance with the other properties. Page Six August 25, 1959 Mr. Stout concurred with Mr. Wallin's observations stating that a 52' iot would certainly be substandard, and would not be in the interest of good planning to reduce the lots to the size of 52' in this area. Discussion followed. Moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Wallin, and carried to recotmDend denial of Lot Split No. 263. Lot Split No. 264 - George W. Williams, 35 E. Camino Real - to be assigned. The Chairman referred this lot spl.it to Mr. Stout and Mr. Michler for investigation. TRACT NO. 22862 No. 2286t,- located on the south side of Orange Grove Avenue, between Baldwin Avenue and San Carlos Road, consisting of 7 lots, continued from the last meeting~ The Secretary displayed a map which showed new proposal for subdivision. It depicted available building area of proposed residences on the various sites. Mr. Dexter Jones, Attorney,. 38 E. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, came forward and spcke of Mr. Clarizio, the prospective developer. Mr. Clarizio was educated in Italy arriving in the United States in 1950, studied architecture, and has been a builder in Italy as well as in the United States. He has built not less than 50 homes, which have sold for not less than $50,000.00. Mr. Jones stated that it is Mr. Clarizio's intention to build homes of not less than 2400 square feet in the proposed tract, the homes should be priced between $60,000.00 and $70,000.00, which is in excess of the value of homes in that area. He described Ln detail ,the possibility of building homes with ample land area, allowing for required rear, front, and side setbacks. A floor plan was filed with the Secretary which depicted a possible plan to be built on this property. Mr. Jones explained that the 2400 square feet was strictly living area, and did no.t include porches, garage.,etc. The new plan allows for a 60 foot street, with the required 12 foot parkway. Mr. Ford Cowing, 1457 Oaklawn Road, read from a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Planning CotmDission, with 26 signatures. The letter, briefly, stated that the northerly lots in Tract No. 948 by deed restriction have an 18,000 foot minimum lot restriction with a requirement of a minimum 2,000 square foot living area; in actuality the minimum lot area in this tract averages approximately 22,000 square feet. The southerly lots in Tract No. 13544 have a 17,000 minimum square foot lot area, with the majority being about 20,000 square feet. Most of the owners who signed the letter have lived in their homes at least 7 years; people are happy living here, there is no mobility in this neighborhood. He did not believe that the 7 lot proposed subdivision of this property conformed with the size and quality of the surrounding area. He stated that the privacy afforded the residents by the largeness of the lots was of extreme value to the property owners. He did not believe that the proposed 2400 square foot of living area would offset the small lots as planned. He did not feel that houses built on small lots may be readily saleable, and could be left on the market for a sustained period, thuS affecting the value of their homes. He suggested that the cotmDission approve the attached plan submitted which proposed five lots instead of the seven proposed by Mr. Clarizio. He recommended that architectural approval be required for these houses, as has been required of all others in this portion of Arcadia. He asked also that the CotmDission give serious consideration to maintaining the Page Seven August 25, 1959 three rows of citrus trees around the perimeter of the property. He requested that cOlmllission. requirements be made a part of the escrow or deed restrictions to protect the surrounding property owners. Mr. Orlando Clarido, 372~ Arboleda, pasadena, stated that the developers of the surrounding tracts had no pr.oblem in establish- ing large lot areas, because there was an abundance of land with which to work; but the parcel he proposes to subdivide is ex- tremely limited on account of the size of the remnant. He dis- played the typical floor plan in relation to the lot, stating that with a 30 foot front setback, there is ample room in the rear of the house to allow for proper landscaping and a swimm- ing pool if desired. He believed that there were many people. who would prefer less property to maintain, and yet with the possible rear yard there would be ample opportunity for outdoor living, He felt. that if he had an opportunity to talk to more of the people living in the area he could change their opinions. If he could show them the type and size of the house he intends to build, they would withdraw their objections. Mr.. Cowing stepped forward and stated he did not feel that Mr. Clarizio's financial gain or loss should be the concern of the residents. He believed the Planning Commission's responsibility is to plan the developments in Arcadia so that the values are protected. He also mentioned that Mrs. Tudor's property which is next to the proposed tract will occupy the key; it was suggest- ed that in any plan Mr. Clarizio should take the key, not the person who has resided there for ten years. Mr. Dexter Jones discussed the prices for which surrounding houses have been sel~ing for in recent months. 1. March IS, 1957, 1454 Oaklawn, $57 ,500.00. This is the highest price house that has been sold in that area for quite a few years. 2. March 28, 1957, 1311 Oaklawn, $34,000.00. 3.. February 11, 1959, 1230 Oaklawn, $40,000.00. 4. March, 1959, 1320 Oaklawn, $37,500.00. Mr. Cowing stated that the houses Mr. Jones mentioned do not pertain and are not effected by the proposed tract. Mr. Carl Johnson, 1451 Oaklawn, was interested in the proposed size of the largest lot, 130 x 120 feet or less; he wished to ask the men on the commission if they wou~d consider purchasing a house for $55,000.00 or $60,000.00 'situated on a property that size. He did not believe they would. Mrs. Tudor, 530 W. Orange Grove, stated that she is the one who W9uld really,suffer from the development of subject property. There would be two lots baCKing up to her front yard making a key lot of her home. Mrs. May Schultz, Hitchcock Realty, state.d she could assure the commission, based on her experience selling property in that area, that there would not be one house left for sale after one year. She frequently has requests from people for homes at this price level with shallower lots than prevail in the area. She added that she had tried to sell this property to potential builders, and all of them have given up on it;' she believed that a beautiful street of lovely homes could not help but be an improvement over vacant property with an old home, which is also a fire hazard. Page Eight August 25, 1959 Mr. Norton wanted to know if either side had tried to sit down together to cOllleto sOllle sort .of agre ement" Mr. Clarizio stated that if he had the opportunity to present the plan showing 'the proposed house plan, he might be able to sway some of the signers of the petition to his side. Mr. Clarizio was asked if much thought had been given to 6 lots instead of 7. He explained that the only thing to be gained by such a proposal would be extremely wide lots, 'which would not lend themselves to any better home than is planned. Mr. Cowing came forward and stated that the first time he had seen the proposal was last Sunday when Mr.. Clarizio came to see him. He explained that the objection is not to the size of the house but the conformity to the neighborhood; the living area was not in line with what other comparable properties are in the area. Mrs. Schultz suggested that pe~haps as a compromise the trees be left all along the bottom of the property and all along the west of the property. This might screen the present neighbor.s from the proposed development. Mr. Wallin declared that if Mr. Clarido cut down on the size of the houses he would be able to cut the division of lots from 7 to five without realizing financial loss. He didn't believe that the proposed division allowed for a big enough back yard. Mr. Stout stated that he thought there were two problems here; one is to maintain values in the area, and the other is to maintain an adequate living space. However, there are facts to 'consider; down on Oaklawn the minimum' size lot is about 17,000 square feet; the prices of these properties are about $55,000.00, $60,000.00 a't tops. This seems to be the last large piece of undeveloped land in the Oaks, or in the R-O zone of the city, subject to sub- division; the land in question does not allow 1 acre lots, which would be more desirable for the people who live the.re. He' said that on reliable information there is a demand for this type of proposed home; he believed that the values truly lie in the type and size of the home; maybe allowing this development would solve a very press- ing problem, arid would wlilcome a type of resident like the ones sur- rounding it, which would be an asset to the City of Arcadia. Two years ago the Planning' Commission were presented with a proposal on this proper.ty and approved a design with 6 'lots, and some of the lots were actually only 80 feet deep. Mr. Nicklin believed that with a little more concentration a very desirable 6 lot subdivision could be reaiized which would probably meet the reasonable demands of all those concerned. He added that our subdivision ordinance sets up standards which could require the commission to approve the tract. Mr. Davison wished to know if the financial loss would be insurmountable if the development were limited to 6 lots instead of 7. Mr. Clarizio stated that the subdivision could not go through with less than 7 lots. He would lose about $16,000.00 or $17,000.00. This would stop him from going ahead with the sub- division. Mr. Davison asked Mr. Clarizio if he developed only 6 lots, would the additional cost he. would have to add to the price of the house prohibit the buyer from being interested? If he can buy a $65,000.00 house would he hesitate if there were an additional $2~000.00 or $3,000.00 ? Mr. Clarizio stated he has found that people are fully aware of what they are buying, and they can tell if something has been padded and would hesitate to buy. Page Nine August 25, 1959 Mrs. May Schultz added that she believed people would balk at an additional $2,000.00 or $3,000.00. Each man figures he is in a certain bracket, and as soon as you show him a house over what he considers is his limit, he will not display any 'interest. She stated that most of the homes in the area range from $39,000.00 to $57,000.00, 'and she felt that $70,000.00 should be top for this 'pro- posed development; she ~aid they have already received many inquiries on this'p~oposed tract. Mr. Davison declared that he will always prefer and encourage the large lot, but he. 'felt, after extensive conversation wfth Mr. Clarizio, that due to the remnant property presenting a problem, and in'view of the subdivision ordinance compliance of the proposed tract, and deed restrictions, some agreement should be made between the interested parties to resolve this situation. Mr.. Cowing came forward and' stated there could be no compromise from the opposing residents; that in view of Mr. Clarizio's plan of 7 lots, and their compromise of 5, in making any negotiation he would go back to his original compromise of 3 lots and start from there. Mr. Herbert Winslow, 1418 Oaklawn Road, stated that this whole problem boiled doWn to a question of economics; that because of the high cost of the land, Mr. Clarizio must develop 7 lots in order to come out on top. He felt .that there would be a matter of overbuilding; with the adding of garages, porches and other structures the liveable,area of the lot would be cut down even more. Packing in the area, with the conditions prevailing in surrounding properties would be a detriment to the value of their property. Mr. Stout asked if the property owners protesting would compromise at 6 lots; the answer was they would start at 3. Mr. Cowing stated that he had talked with Mr. Raymond Dorn; that Mr. Darn .had expressed his doubt that a development of. this. kind would sell in this a;rea. Mr. Treadwell., the engineer for Mr. Clarizio, declared that his firm had' spent considerable time. and effort to reach the most advantageous solution to the subdivision of this property. If there were a com- promise of 6 lots the result would not materially improve the live- ability of the land area, because it would result in an excess .of side yard. No other plan could be submitted which would increase the depth of the lots, which seemed to be the main .objection.. He added, as been pointed out, this property is a remnant of land, and the tract immediately to the east of the land there are a great many lots which are excessive in depth. If the overall picture had been taken into consideration many years ago, no doubt a more equitable division of the land could have been made. He believed that any ser- ious study on the problem would verify his opinion. Mr. William Reeder, 1444 Oaklawn Road, stated that he has a lot which is 170' wide, and he makes very good use of this excess on the sides of his dwelling. He uses his backyard for a badminton court, a shuffleboard court, 'horseshoes', and there is plenty of room left for a swimming p'ool, b.ecause he :utilizes his side yards for storage and utility purposes. The Chairman requested Mr. Nicklin .to establish what the Commission should do in relation to the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Stout declared that he did not feel the Commission was under any pressure to make a decision tonight. He would like to see the matter held over in the \lope that some compromise might be reached. Page Ten August 25, 1959 The Secretary advised that if the tract is to be held over, it must be at the c~nsent of the developer. Mr. Clarizio gave his' verbal consent to the continuance of the matter. Mr. Forman agreed with'Mr. Stout; he is in sympathy to some degree with the people who live in the area, and he would like to see some amicable solution to the problem, so that the property will be pro- tected, and that the privacy of the people- around it will be protected. Mr. Davison stated that he has seen'a lot of 300 foot and 350 foot lots in this town, some in the Oaks area, where the back 60 and 70 feet is useless except for weeds to gather. He didn't believe, even though he himself agreed that liveable lots shOUld b.e encouraged, that the Commission should hold to a premise to the detriment of a particular development which presented a special problem. He added that he knew of properties in PacificPali sades, Bel Air and other communities 'where homes of this type on lots of this size were selling for $80,000.00 and $85,000.00. Moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by .Mr. Forman and carried to continue the consideration of decision on Tract No. 22862 at the next regular com- mission meeting. TRACT NO. 25253 Located on the westerly extension of Fairview Avenue, west of Park Ave., consisting of 8 lots. The Secretary read the Subdivision Committee report which indicated; The property is zoned R-l, although the balance of Fairview Avenue to the east is in Zone R-O. Fairview Avenue is now 625 feet long. feet, making a total of 1135 feet to a ordinance prohibits more than 500 feet The proposed extension is 510 cuI de sac. The subdivision length without special approval. The lots are shown as only slightly over 74 sqUare feet in area; 75 feet wide on the slope measurement, and are feet wide at right angles. Lot 8 is about 7400 "A" Street is shown as 50 feet wide, '!he property to the north is owned by the Catholic Church, and will un- doubtedly be used in the future as yard purposes for their school. Lots 5 and 6 will side on this potential school yard. Lot 5 is also keyed by two lots. It is recommended that the subdivider re-study the area, and consider eliminating t!te north-south portion of the street, shown all "A" Street, and make all lots face on Fairview Avenue. If this tract is approved, the following conditions should apply: 1. Make all lots a minimum. of 75 feet wide, measured at right angles and 7500 square feet area. 2. Make "A" Street full 60 feet dedication. 3. Use 25 foot radius instead of 20 feet on the corner of Lot 4. 4. .Dedicate 1 .foot in fee to the city along lots 7 and 8, Tract . No. 10726. Page Eleven August 25, 1959 RESOLUTION No. 343 RESOLUTION No. 342 5. Dedicate 12 feet for widening Duarte Road along the south line of lots 7 and 8, Tract No. 10726. . 6. Provide. all necessary rear line utility easements. 7. Provide all street improvements required by the Subdivision Ordinance. 8. Pay the following fees and deposits. 4 Steel Street light posts @ $135.00 $540.00 2 Street name signs @ 35,00 70.00 28 Street trees @ 8:50 238:00 8 Lots recreation fee @ 25.00 200.00 The Secretary added that Mr. Erickson, the developer, planned to investigate the property ,to the west to see if he could get more land to reach the full 75 feet width for a lot. Mr. Erickson stated that Mr. Neison, the owner of the property to the west, was on vaca- tion, 'and he was unable to contact him. Mr. 'Stout stated that the COIlDDbsion would prefer to see the lots facing Fairview Avenue, on .account of the arrangement of proposed Lot -5. Mr. Erickson said he attempted to sell some of the ground which was excess to his subdivision to the church, but' they wouldn I t buy the additional ground, so he found it necessary to try to use it resulting in the plan for a cuI de sac street. After a general discussion, the subdivider agreed to continue any decision on the proposed subdivision for 30 days. Motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried to continue the consideration of a decision on Tract No. 25253 for 30 'days,. The Chairman excused Mr. Stout for ten minutes in order to place a phone call. The City Attorney presented Res()lution No. 343, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, cALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REQUESTED ZONE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 141 WEST COLORADO BLVD. II Moved by Mr. Wallin, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 343. Moved by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Wallin and carried that Resolution No. 343 be adopted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Acker., Davison., Forman, Norton and Wallin. NOES: None ABSENT: Stout Prior to submitting Resolution No. 342, the City Attorney asked for clar lfication as to the intent of the proposed change in underground parking restrictions. PageTwe 1 ve A~gust 25, 1959 RESOLUTION No. 344 The Commission felt that under the present definition of a base- ment it was possible to erect a 2 1/2 story apartment in Zone R-3, the 1/2 story being the required underground parking with the re- maining 2 stories in living area above. The Commission"s intent is to preclude such a 2 1/2 story development by amendiug the , definition of a basement, story or building height. The Attorney then advised that the desired results could be ob- tained by amending Section, 1-B of Ordinance No. 760 which regu- lates the building hefght fn Zone R-3. 'The change could be made by adding that any basement used for required off street parking be classified as a story. .This then would restrict apartment constructfon to a maxfmum of two storfes, regardless of under- ground parkfng. Mr. Nicklin then presented Resolution No. 342 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INSTI- TUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 760 BY AMENDING SECTION 7-B THEREOF AND ANY OTHER PERTI- NENT SECTION BY DECLARING REQUlRED UNDERGROUND PARKING TO CONSTITUTE A STORY AS DEFINED BY SAID ORDINANCE." Motion by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forma'n. and carried to' wafve the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 342. Motion by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Davison to adopt Resolution No. 342. ROLL CALL: AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman; Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin. NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 344, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FROM .ZONE R-l TO ZONES C-2,D, ON PROPERTY AT 2714 AND 2720 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE AND ON THE REAR OF PORTION OF PROP- ERTIES AT 541 AND 547 WORKMAN AVENUE AND FROM ZONE R-l TO ZONES PR-3 AND DON THE REAR PORTION OF PROPERTIES AT 535 WORKMAN AVENUE IN SAID CITY." Motfon by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Wallin and carrfed to wafve the readfng of the full body of Resolutfon No. 344. Motfon by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. WalUn to adopt Reso1utfon No. 344. ROLL CALL: AYES: Acker, Davbon, Forman, Mfch1er, Norton, Stout and Wallfn. NOES: None ABSE~T:. No~e. Page Thfrteen August 25, 1959 .. . . .. COUNTY TRACT No. 25211 RESOLUTION No. 345 ADJOURN The Secretary presented Tract No. 25211 located in the County on the south side of Live Oak Avenue between Warren Way and Longley Way. The tract meets the minimum 5,000 square feet lot area as imposed by county restriction and the four dwellings on the par- cel would be served by a 14 foot private drive. The Chairman advised the Secretary to file a letter with the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission stating that the lot and street plan do not meet Arcadia. minimum requirements. The'Commission discussed the area involved in Annexation l7-A as to possible rezoning. It was agreed that it would be very cumber- some and confusing to institute proceedings to rezone all of the territory invoived in Annexation l~. The City Attorney advised the Commission of the existing land use along Baldwin Avenue and Duarte Road. Recent hearings on proposed zone changes 'in the Baldwin Avenue - Las Tunas Drive area have shown an intense desire of the citizens of that area to commence proceedings for reclassification. Because of this request, the Commission felt that the area south of Lemon Avenue to Live Oak Avenue should be studied and conside~ed first. The City Attorney then present~d Resolutio~ No. 345, entitled: '~A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND MAKING RECOMMENDA- TIONS CONCERN'ING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPllRTYIN ANNEXATION17-A, SOUTHWEST ARCADIA INHAB- ITED, LYING SOUTH OF LEMON .AVENUE IN SAID CITY, AND F.IXING THE DATE, HOUR AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH PURPOSE.,.. Motion by Mr. Forman;. seconded by Mr. Davison and carried to waive the reading of the full body cjf Resolution No. 345. ' Motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by ,Mr. Davison to adopt Resolution No. 345. ROLL CALL: AYES: Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton, Stout and Wallin. NOES: None ABSENT: None. There being no further business before the Commission, the Chair- man adjourned the meeting. ~V10, L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary Page Fourteen August 25, 1959