Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 12, 1960 ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE CHANGE Annexation 14 6< 17-A , ., # J&.' ,..--. --, - "--.' MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 1960 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P.M., January 12, 1960 with Chairman Acker presiding.. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Norton and Wallin ABSENT: Commissioners MichWr and Stout OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney James A. Nicklin: Assistant City Engineer Frank F. Forbes: Planning Secretary L. M. Talley The minutes of the meeting held December' 22, 1959 were approved as written and mailed. The commission continued the public hearing on the proposed zoning of Annexation No. 14 and Annexation No. 17-A, north of Lemon Avenue as con- templated by Resolution No. 353, property located west of Baldwin Ave- nue and south of Duarte Road. The Planning Secretary reminded the commission that at the conclusion of the first public hearing on this rezoning, the property owners were asked to meet in an attempt to assist the commission in arriving at a decision. The Planning Secretary read communications outlined briefly as follows: Mr. Leon Valentine, 1116 W. Duarte Road, which requested an R-3 zone for his property; other residential property owners on West Duar.te Road almost unanimously asked for Zone R-3. H. N. Hudson, 710 W. Camino Real, who concurred in the staff's recom- mendation concerning his property as well considered and satisfactory to him. A letter signed by six persons, from 741 to 751 W. Lemon Avenue, request- ing that their property be zoned R-2. This zoning was recommended at the public hearing as Zone R-l. The reasons stated for this request were as follows:. 1. These lots are 315 feet deep and therefore, too large for single dwellings. 2. This area is also a rental area as part of the lots have rental units already. 3. Some of the dwellings are quite old and this would give property owners an incentive to have them torn down and new dwellings built. Page One January 12, 1960 . ,-- . / 4. It would also be an incentive to clean up the back of these lots, as some of them have chicken coops and rabbit hutches on them now. A letter from Bert F. and Myrta M. Hubbard, 1000 W. Duarte Road re- quested R-3. An additional communication was received from the owners of the busi- neSs property at each corner of Golden West, asking that the zoning be C-2, and that this zoning be continued two lots to the west, beyond where the County zoning had been and one lot to the east. The Planning Secretary read the staff report which stated a publiC hear- ing on this matter was held on December 8, .1959. Prior to the hearing certain tentative recommendations as to zoning were made and were trans- mitted to the owners in the form of a sketch. At the hearing there were numerous protests as to these tentative recom- mendations. The owners were requested to form groups in their own neighborhood to inform the commission of the desires of the majority in order to aid the commission in reaching a decision. This was done to some extent. The committee appreciates the cooperation of the owners, although it does not agree with the requested zoning in all cases. This committee recommendation will deal with the area by sections, as follows: 1. NORTHWEST CORNER OF BADLWIN AVENUE AND LEMON AVENUE A 'church, with its parsonage, now occupies this corner. We recommend Zone R-2. 2. NORTH OF LEMON AVENUE. WEST OF BALDWIN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF TRACT NO. 19681 This was Zone R-A-5000 under County regulations. East of Baldwin Avenue is Zone R-l. South of Lemon Avenue is be- ing reestablished in Zone R-1. We recommend Zone R-l. 3. ANNEXATION NO. 14. In April, 1956, Ordinance No. 954 determined that a portion of this area should be Zone C-l, upon fulfillment of cer- tain conditions. In almost four years no definite action has been taken to do this. Recently a large area east of Baldwin Avenue and north of Camino Real was given potential commercial zoning. The east side of Baldwin Avenue, south of Camino Real, consists of two parcels in Zone C-2, 3 par- cels in Zone R-3 and 2 large parcels of Zone R-l. In order to hold the line of commercial zoning at or near Camino Real we recommend zoning as follows: (a) The southwest corner of Callita Street and Baldwin Avenue, including lots 1 and 17 of Tract No. 19681, to be Zone R-l. (b) The northwest corner of Call ita Street and Baldwin Avenue; the east 450 feet of lot 4, Block G to be Zone R-3; including the east 234 feet of lot I. Page Two January 12, 1960 , .....-- "-~~ (c) The west 180 feet of lot 4, Block G, to be zone R-1. 4. CALL ITA STREET Lots 2 to 16, inclusive, Tract No. 1968l, to be Zone a-l. 5. CAMBURY AVENUE Lots 1 to 16, inclusive, Tract No. 19413, to be Zone R-1. 6 . CAMINO REAL (8) On the south side the west 396 feet of Lot 1 Block G, consists of 5 lots, of which 3 have 3 or more houses. We recommend Zone R-2. (b) On the north side, the east 264 feet of Lot 7, Block A, consists of 7 lots, of which 4 have 2 or more houses. We recommend Zone R-2. 7 . NAOMI AVENUE (a) Lots 22 and 23, Tract No. 6925, are com- pletely surrounded by Zone C-2. We recom- mend these to be Zone C-2. (b) The balance of Annexation No. 17-A on each side of Naomi Avenue, consists of 15 lots. Eight (8) of these now have 2 or more houses. The east lot on the south side is now paved and used for parking. The owners of these lots are practically unanimous in requesting Zone C-3. The committee cannot at this time see any need or probability of commercial uses extending west, for some time, and Zone C-3 with the accompanying No. 1 Fire Zone would prohibit any further residential development. In order to allow the ownrs some further development and income from these lots near a commercial center, but to forestall the investment of any substantial amount until it is determined whether there is a need for further commercial area, we recommend Zone R-2 with Zone P (parking overlay) on the east lot on the south side. 8. DUARTE ROAD All of this area had County zoning of R-A-5000 except for some commercial at each corner of Golden West Avenue and a variance for a church at the southwest corner of Temple City Boulevard. The owners of the residential lots were prac- tically unanimous in requesting Zone R-3. The owners of the commercial property requested Zone C-2 with some extens'ion of the zone both east and west. The committee is recommending the denial of the petition for commercial zoning on the north side of Duarte Road. We cannot see the advisability of e'stabHshing a new commercial corner at Golden West Avenue, or further developing the present Page Three January 12, 1960 ," ..,' uses. Even if a C-Z were granted the corners on the south side, the present buildings would all be non-conforming unqer Arcadia ordinances. We recommend that all of Annexation No. 17-A facing Duarte Road, including the lots facing Golden West Avenue and Temple City Boulevard be Zoned R-3 to correspond with the lots on the north side or the street. In making this recommendation we realize that the present commercial uses at Golden West Avenue will assume the status of non-conforming uses, and may remain, but they cannot be further expanded. It is further recommended that the rezoning to Zone R-3 on the south side of Duarte Road be subject to ,the prior dedication of" 20 feet for the future wid- ening of Baldwin Avenue, except where such dedication has been made. The development of the west 180 feet of Lot 4, Block G, should be subject to the prior dedication and improve- ment of Cambury Avenue to provide access to the area. All of the dedication requirements should be on a lot by lot basis, so that no one owner may hold up the development of other property. Commissioner Acker referred to the property on the soutqwest corner of Callita Street and Baldwin Avenue, recommended to be zoned R-I. The developer of this property made a prior dedic:ation to the County of foot- age for the widening of Baldwi.n Avenue, and felt this property should be zone R-3. Mr. Harry Robinson, the developer of this prope rty, stated the County assured him that he would have R-3 in granting this dedication for the widening of Baldwin Avenue. He stated there had been no written assur- ance to him that this property would be zoned R-3, but that i~ was only a verbal agreement. Mr. Forbes suggested that perhaps the minutes of the Regional Planning Commission might reflect such information, but it might be difficult to find the pertinent parts. Mr. Bernard, who owns the southwest corner of Baldwin and Camino Real, stated he felt that there is a very serious city committment on the Annexa- tion l4 property. It is true that no definite action has been taken to develop this property to C-Z, but there was no time limitation placed on the conditional zoning. The recommendation contained in the map which was forwarded to all inter- ested property owners showed a recommended CO and D zone, and he did not hear any protests to this possible zone at the meeting of December 8,.. 1960; nor did the gentlemen of the commission utter any opposition to the CO and D Zone. Mr. Bernard went on to say that the effected property owners were de- lighted with this recommendation, considering it a forward step to relieve the property from the "cloud" it had been under. He did not feel that the present recommendation contained in the report of the Zoning Committee of R-l and R-3 waS realistic zoning, with proper Page Four January IZ, 1960 ultimate use of the property in mind. This property was C zone in the County when they were annexed to the city, and the people effected would not have considered being anneKed under any other circumstances. He would like to go on record that they do not agree with the recommendation. Mr. Walter Shatford, representative of Sophia Johnston, wished to express his complete concurrence with Mr. Bernard's statements, ~trs. Johnston also agreed that the recommendation of CO and D zoning was a good zone, and one desirable for the property. Mr. Hudson, 710 W. Camino Real, wished to go on record as being in complete compliance with Mr. Bernard's remarks on Annexation No. l4-A Mr. Beachamp, owner of the southeast corner of Golden West and Duarte Road, eKpressed concern about the committee's recommendation of R-3 zone for his property. As he stated at the hearing of December 8, 1959 this property had been zoned C-2 in the County, and he could see no reason to change it simply because of annexation to the city. lie did not feel that this lot would be suitable for R-3 development because of its size. After setback requirements and parking, etc., there would be very little land area on which to build units. In the event of a fire, if 75 per cent of his commercial establishment were destroyed, he would be out the use of his property. Chairman Acker explained to Mr. Beauchamp that the business would con- tinue to operate, as a non-conforming use; that it is not conducive to good planning to foster spot zoning. Mr. Roach, 1609 S. Baldwin Avenue, stated he concurred also with Mr. Bernard in relation to Annexation No. l4-A. He added that it was stated they would have a C zoning at the time they were annexed into the City of Arcadia. Even though no progress had been made in the development of this property, it was the intention of the property owners to improve it in such a manner. The property is quite a large piece of property, and would take some time to develop, especially when so many different owners are concerned. He believed it should remain as C zoni,ng. The Planning Secretary clarified reference to remarks made by some of the audience that the report stated "no action" had been taken. The staff report states "no definite action" has been taken to develop this particular parcel. Mr. Michael Blake, who owns property on the west side of Golden West Ave- nue and the south side of Duarte Road, stated that he purchased the pro- perty approximately 4 years ago, at a C-Z price, and anticipated' develop- ing it,but has not been successful. He felt that R~3 zoning on his pro- perty would 'cause him to take a heavy loss. lie could not see that this property would ,esult in good R-3 land after setbacks, parking require- ments, etc. He thought'the corner of Golden West Avenue and Duarte Road is a very poor corner for the development of apartments, and concurred with Mr. Beauchamp in the matter. Mr. Agostino, owner of property at 860 W. Duarte Road asked the commis- sion what they would do with a piece of land like his, which would be too small for any possible R-3 use. He would like to have C-Z zoning. Mr. Rheinsmuth, 1731 S. Baldwin Avenue, next to the Arcadia Christian Reformed Church on the corner of Lemon Avenue wants R-2 zoning. The Page Five January l2, 1960 ~, '''-- church is recommended for R-2 same zoning. There are plans the church on his lot. zoning, and he would like to have the to extend parking facilities adjacent to The City Attorney stated he would recommend that the hearing be con- tinued. It would be alright for the commission to pass on whatever items of the report it desired, but he would like to have the hearing continued so that certain statements could be made for the record. The City Attorney continued that at the time of Annexation No. 14, steps were taken to classify the property largely towards the commer- cial side. Hearings were held, and preliminary determinations made, among which were that certain zonings would be made effective when certain conditions were fulfilled; and to 'his knowledge none of those conditions have been fulfilled. There were certain agreements executed by and between the parties that owned the property, leading up to the fulfillment of those conditions, but amon them were required dedica- tions for alleys and streets, reversal of lots and things of that kind. He would not say that none of them have been accomplished, but certainly all of them have no,t been accomplished. He added that most of his dealings were conducted with the attorney for the parties; the agree- ments were not agreements between the city and parties, but findings of fact that certain things should occur; then without the necessity of further hearings and proceedings, the property would be so classified. In ~egard to Annexation l7-A, city officials spoke to property owners as a group on only one occasion, and these officials were the Mayor and the City Attorney, himself. The discussions were tape recorded, if any- one has any doubt as to the ,statements outlined at the proceedings. There were no promises made; there were certain basic principles enun- ciated which would guide the commission and the council in the ultimate zoning, (l) the desires of the people (though not necessarily conclusive or controlling) (2) the present development, use and zoning of the property would be persuasive (but not controlling) and (3) the relation- ship of the properties to other properties; no one nor any combination of these basic principles would necessarily be controlling. The City Attorney assured the commission that there were no promises or agreements made to or with the property owners of the annexed territor- ies. He specifically referred to the Beauchamp property; in case of a fire, and the property were zoned less than its present usage, they could not then res tote, the buildings or usage, if they were destroyed to more than 75 per cent. It would take almost total destruction of the property for the owner not to be able to rebuild. If the improvements are damaged to more than 50 per cent, then the balance of the structure must be made to conform to the Building Code. The City Attorney went on to say that he believed some of these factors should be checked accurately from the record, and a report be made to the commission by the staff, and placed in the record to offset some of the statements made tonight at this meeting (to which the City Attorney did not mean to infer he attributed any false motives). He concluded that it would not be out of order for the commission to indicate their thinking on all or any part of the annexation; many of the people directly effected are anxious to have the matter of zoning of their property settled, so that they may not have to attend future meetings. Mr. Bernard stated he agreed with Mr. Nicklin in everything he said, Page Six January 12, 1960 /" but the thing that puzzles the property owurs concerned about Annexa, tion No. 14 is they felt the findings at the time of the annexation were findings of fact, also. On the commission's own motion on November 24, 1959, contained in the map sent to the property owners, CO and D zoning was recommended;without any protest from anyone that recommenda- tion was changed. The City Attorney answered that such a change could be a change of circumstances in the area, or a change of policy or thinking in zoning matters. There certainly has been a change in the circumstances, since recently a much larger area has been annexed to the city, which entirely surrounds annexation 14. The City Attorney explained that the mere fact that the recommendation and even the determination by the Council be made at this time that cer- tain areas be classified a little more restrictively than some of the owners might desire, does not preclude a reconsideration of any of the area again in the future. After considerable discussion, the commission agreed to accept Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Item 3, Annexation No. 14 was held pending a report on past City Council action. The commission agreed on R-3 for Duarte Road, which is Item No. 8 in the report, with the ~xception of Commissioner Wallin who would recom- mend C-2 zone for property at the corner of Duarte Road and Golden West. Commissioner Wallin explained his reasons for taking exception to the R-3 zone on the south side of Duarte Road. He did not feel that this could be considered spot zoning, because the C-2 ,zone already exists on these certain properties. His sympathies were with property o~vners who have lived here for 25 years enjoying a certain zoning, and then because of annexation to the city are subjected to, change simply because the commission considers it spot zoning; he did not feel this is right. There are only four lots that are of residential character between Golden West and Baldwin, and he did not believe this Situation consti- tues spot zoning. Mr. Agostino addressed the commission once more and asked them to re- consider the property seeking C-2 zoning carefully before making any decision. He did not feel the commission had answered his question as to what they recommend he do with the small piece of land he owns; it is not suitable for R-3. He added that he had plans for a building, but was told that he could not be issued a permit until the commission con- sidered the zoning of annexation 17-A. He bought this land with the intention of establishing a business. The Planning secretary asked Mr. Agostino if he owned the lot next to the property now under discussion, so that possibly the two lots could be used,as one improvement. Mr. Agostino answered that this property is a separate consideration; he did not wish to have it effect the commission's decision on the zoning of his parcel. Mr. Michael Blake stated that his property would be very unsuitable for R-3; no one would want to live in an apartment on such a corner; not only that he stated he did not have sufficient land for R-3 development. The Planning Secretary pointed out to Mr. Blake that his property would be suitable for R-3 development if the old, non-conforming buildings were removed. Mr. Blake's lot is no different than the lot across the street. By facing the apartments on Golden West, there would be about 113' x 240' of land for R-3 development. Page Seven January 12, 1960 ZONE CHANGE Duarte Road Mr. Agostino spoke once more, and stated that he would plan to build a small building on his pJ;'operty, which would allow him to meet the commercial parking requirements, but he could not. develop it with anything but C-2. The Chairman declared that the'hearing on proposed zoning of Annexation No. 14 and Annexation No. l7-A, north of Lemon Avenue be continued until the next regular meeting for an additional report on the history of Annexation No. 14. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the application of Paul B. Caler and others for a change of zone from Zone R-3 to Zone C-3 on property on the north side of Duarte Road, east and west of Gold- en West Avenue. 1)1r. Walter Shatford, Attorney, explained to the commission that he was substituting for Mr. Henry Shatford who was in the East, and felt some- what unprepared to properly represent the petitioners. He requested the commission to continue this public hearing on the grounds that they would like to have the matter considered at the same time the decision is rendered on Annexation No. l7-a, effecting property on the south s~de of Duarte Road. He also stated the applicants would like to have time in which to submit a plan of proposed commercial development for the north side of Duarte Road. The City Attorney advised that is perfectly proper to continue; however, there might be some people present who would find it more convenient to speak tonight, and it would be only fair to give them this opportunity if they so desire. The Planning Secretary read the recommendations of treZoning Commitee and Staff, which stated this application requests the rezoning of pro- perty on the north side of Duarte Road from the commercial zone near Baldwin Avenue westerly to include two lots west of Golden West Avenue from Zone R-3 to Zone C-3. There are l5 lots included in the application. The area has been in Zone R-3 for many years, but has not been developed. Two lots are vacant, six have one single family dwelling, four have two single dwellings, one has three single dwellings, one has two single dwellings and two duplexes, and one has two single dwellings and two duplexes, and one has two single dwellings and an office building. Immediately east of the subject area the west one-half of lot l24 has had commercial zoning since 1952, and is still undeveloped. At the first public hearing held on December 8, 1959, there was some protest registered from outside the subject area. Within the area, it was stated that the owner of Lot 13l, located at 853 W. Duarte Road, intended to build an apartment house. Since that time the plans fo;: a 32 unit apartment have been approved for zoning and are being checked in the Building Department. The owner at 833 W. Duarte Road also stated that he intended to build an apartment. The property across the street on the south side of Duarte Road is developed as follows: a public parking lot, a church, four lots devel- oped with single family residences, and commercial developments on each side of Golden West Avenue, consisting of a small nursery stock, T.V. repair, insurance office, barber shop, plumbing supplies, bicycle shop, electric shop, aluminum screen doors, garden supply shop and a small grocery. Page Eight January 12, 1960 ~. While most of the businesses at Golden West Avenue are in an area that was Zoned C-2 under County regulations, the buildings are small; one of them is very old, and none of them would comply with the No. I Fire Zone restrictions that apply under the C-2 zone in Arcadia. We are strongly opposed to strip business zoning. It has long been recognized that strip zoning does not develop into a desirable commer- cial dis tr ic t. Upon recommendation of the commission, the City Council has recently 'granted commercial zoning to a large area east of Baldwin Avenue and south of Duarte Road in an effort to square up the West Arcadia business area, and make it a consolidated area. We strongly recommend that the commission recommend denial of this pre- sent request on the grounds that: l. The public necessity does not require the change. 2. The property, being a shoe string strip, is ,not suited to commercial use. 3. Commercial use of this property would be detrimental to the residential property on the south side of Duarte Road. Mr. C. R. JOhnston,~w. Duarte Road, stated he concurred absolutely with the recommendations of the Zoning Committee and the Planning Staff; he did not consider this property good property for business, particular- ly in view of the inadequate parking 'facilities which would result from the shallow lots. Mr. Johnston stated he has plans filed for a 12 unit apartment which he felt would be an asset to the community. The Chairman declared the public hearing opened. 'i?.3f2. Mrs. Runter,~W. Duarte Road, stated she lives immediately next to the property on which Mr. Johnston intends to build his units. She felt that if the 12 unit apartment were built, she was concerned about the effect it would have on her property. This proposed apartment will close off all the light from the east; she thought that l2 units on a half acre were too many. Mrs. Davis, who lives on the corner of Golden West and Duarte, stated the Building Department has just issued a permit for a 32 unit apart- ment,. She felt the construction of these units would tend to devalu- ate her property; because when multiple dwellings could be built on her land the new restrictions would be in effect, not allowing her to build as many units. Mr. Johnston, came forward and stated there are units recently completed on Rosemeed Boulevard which are renting well, in spite of the heavy traf- fic on Rosemead Boulevard. There is nothing to be alarmed at in seeing a vacancy sign in front of apartment units. Every apartment owner ex- pects a 10% vacancy factor; the investor is still getting a good return on his money. His proposed apartment represents a matter of a $100,000.00 investment, and will not be anything of which the neighbors need be ashamed. Mrs. Carmack, 805 W. Duarte Road, has been there for 14 years. She could not understand why the property on the north side of Duarte Road Page Nine January 12, 1960 . , could not be zoned for business. She didn't feel that second class apartment houses were the answer to the proper use of this valuable land. Mr. Walter Shatford stated that if the commission intends to close the public hearing, he would like to have those in favor of this var- iance be allowed to be heard tonight. Mrs. Greer, 1122 Golden West Avenue, would like to know why the com- mission is trying to square up a hub. A hub has spokes, and a Wheel without every spoke firm is not a good wheel. The original hub of Arcadia is Duarte Road and Baldwin Avenue. Duarte Road is the most important street in Arcadia; it brings in the choicest patronage from the choicest territory into Arcadia. She wants her property zoned C-3, and she claimed she was speaking for everyone in the block, from Baldwin Avenue to two lots west of Golden West. Mr. Walter Shatford, substituting Attorney for the applicants, stated he was in complete sympathy with the property owners on the south side of Duarte Road seeking C-2 zoning. He felt that since there were only two or three residential properties between the church and the commer- cial property on both ends of the area concerned, commercial zoning should be allowed. Mr. Shatford displayed for the commission's review several pictures de- picting types of 'commercial development which have been very successful. If commercial development were permitted on the north side to Golden Wes,t as well as the south side the results would be orderly development; perhaps along the lines of the type depited in the photographs. Mr. George Gaffney, 935 W. Duarte Road, spoke in opposition to allowing this zone change. Since June, 1957, there has been $6,000.000.00 worth of multiple units completed in the City of Arcadia. There are $500,000.00 worth of apartments proposed to be built on Duarte Road this year. There has been not one single bit of commercial development in the area under conSideration for rezone since 1943, compared with $1,000,000.00 worth of apartment houses on Duarte Road. Mr. Gaffney added that the people in favor of come in with any plans for the purpose of off strongly opposed to the granting of this zone this zone change street parking. change. have not He was Moved by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Norton and carried to close the public hearing on the application of Paul B. Caler and others for a change of zone from ZoreR-3 to C-3 on property on the north side of Duarte Road, east and west of Golden West Avenue. Moved by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Norton to recommend the denial of this application for zone change, in, accordance with the reasons outlined in the Zonning Committee report. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman and Norton NOES: Commissioner Wallin ABSENT: Commissioners Michler and Stout LOT SPLIT No. 275 - Clara C. Smith, 1122 W. Huntington Drive referred to Mr. Stout and Mr,. Wallin. This is presently a part of two lots facing Huntington Drive west of Sunset Boulevard; one portion is 97-1/2 feet and the other portion is 40 feet; it is proposed to divide this into two equal lots 68.75 feet, to remove all of the present buildings from the lot and build two new Page Ten January 12, 1960 .' , . .. RESOLUTIONS - apartments. Commissioner Wallin stated he viewed the property in question, an,d could see no reason why it should not be recommended for approval. Moved by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 275, subject to the fol- lowing conditions: l. F.ile a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel No.2. 3. Pay $25.~0 recreation fee. 4. Remove all existing buildings from ea~h lot., No. 358 - Recommending the granting of a zone variance to Holy Angels church, 910 and 924 S. Holly Avenue. Before the City Attorney pre- sented this resolution, the Planning Secretary presented a report brought about by details of this variance which needed clarification and modification; the report ,as read, stated the Holy Angels church has applied for a variance to use property south of their present facil,ities for school playground, church parking and some other uses. At the hearing held on December 8, 1959, complaint was registered by the property owners to the south of the subject property. At the meeting of December 22, 1959, the City Attorney was instructed to prepare a resolution recommending the granting of the application. The resolution, as drawn, and as reflected in the minutes of the com- mission, recommends the granting of the variance to allow the pro- perty to be used for "parochial school playground and related facil- ities and for church parking and related activities." This is the exact wording used in the application. There has been considerable diScussion as to 'the exact meaning of "related facilities" and "related activities". In order to be more specific in t.heuse to be allowed on this property it is recommended that the words "related facilities" and "related activities" be deleted from the first paragraph of Section 6 of the resolution. We recommend that the words "church activities" be deleted from con- dition No. 2 of Section 6 and that the number of persons permitted to use the building at anyone time be limited to comply with the regulations of the Building and Fire Codes of the city; also, that no additions or major alterations to be made to the present house. To clarify and further regulate the improvement of the parking lot it is recommended that the present condition No. 4 be renumbered as condition No. 5 and that condition Number 4 be renumbered as condi- tion No. 5 and that condition No. 4 read as follows: 4. That the subject property, other than that upon which the residence structure at 924 Holly Avenue is located, shall be improved as a parking lot meeting the following requirements. . Page Eleven January 12, 1960 . . . , - a. Be paved with asphaltic surfacing to eliminate dust. b. Provide storm drainage meeting the approval of the City Engineer. c. Where such parking area abuts property classified for "R" uses, it shall be separ- ated therefrom by a solid masonry wall six (6) feet in height, maintained in good con- dition, provided said wall; from the front property line to a depth equal to the required front yard on the abutting "R" classified property shall be three and one-half (3-1/2) feet in height; and providing a fence may be erected along the front property line to a height of three and one-half (3-l/2) feet and provided Where no fence is erected along the boundary of the parking area abutting upon Holly Avenue a suitable concrete curb or tim- ber barrier not less than six (6) inches in height shall be securely installed and main- tained. If any portion of the subject property is proposed to be used exclus- ively for playground purposes it shall be fenced or suitably separ- ated from the parking lot to insure that it will not be used for over- flow parking. It is further recommended that the commission again consider the possibility of a plan to extend Fairview Avenue into Holly Avenue. One 'possible scheme ofa trade of properties has been suggested to the subdivider. The Planning Secretary menLioned that at the last regular meeting, it had been stated that Mr. Erickson',s tract was not before the commission. It is being refiled in approximately its original form, and will be before the commission at the next regular meeting. The City Attorney stated that he believed a good many of the points brought out in the staff report were well taken. Mr. Erickson; the developer of the subdivision immediately south of the property involved in this request for variance" stated he had not made any attempt to reach an agreement with the applicant since 2 weeks ago, at which time Monsignor was not interested. Mr. Castle- ton, Mr. Erickson's Attorney, made three attempts to contact Mr. Schmitt, the applicant's legal representative with no success. The last time he contacted Monsignor O'Keefe, he had said he would contact the Cardinal and see if something could be worked out. The Chairman suggested that possibly the subdivider, Monsignor O'Keefe, and a representative of the commission could arrange a meeting and possibly arrive at some equitable solution for all concerned. He felt that every move should be made to aSsure the development of this sub- division, and avoid the long cui de sac. The Planning Secretary was directed to attempt to arrange the sug- gested meeting. The City Attorney explained that the commission can justify its findings because schools are normally part of a residential area and are logic- ally located in them. Due to the growth that has occured, they must meet the demand that, such growth requires. In making the concession, Page Twelve January 12, 1960 .. ." LETTER Trampoline Center STATEMENT for publ icat ion ADJOURN '. l.., however, the commission must consider what problems might develop, and reasonably guard against them. The Planning Secretary explained to the commission in reference to the limited amount of persons permitted to be in the proposed meeting struc- ture at one time, the Building Code states thalO in any assembly area at least 7 square feet of floor area per person shall be allowed. There are certain exits required also. . The City Attorney advised that a further motion would be in order to instruct the City Attorney to redraft the resolution to include the recommendations of the staff. The commission will either have to adopt a resolution by next meeting, or the matter automatically goes to the City Council without a recommendation. The staff recommendations can include that full consideration shall be given to providing a sec- ondary exit from the parking lot, in conjunction with the landlocked area to the southeast. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Davison and carried to instruct the City Attorney to redraft Resolution No. 358 to include the recommendations of the staff report of January 12, 1960. The Planning Secretary was instructed to arrange the previously discus- sed meeting of interested parties to include the Chairman of the Zon- ing Committee" and the Chairman of the Planning Commission. The Planning Secretary read a letter signed by Mr. Herbert M. Burton which states briefly that the signer and Mr. Paul Garfinkle are the owners of Lot 3l, Tract 4611, on which there is at present a hand car wash. They are interested in installing a trampoline center, and wished to know if this type of business is permissible in a C-2 zone. After considerable discussion it was moved by Mr. Fo~man, seconded by Mr. Norton and carried to instruct the City Attorney to draw up a res- olution for the classification of a trampoline center as a special use. The Planning Secretary explained to the commission the desires of the City Manager for the Planning Commission and the City Council to pub- lish a combined statement in the newspaper as to why action was taken for C-3 zoning in West Arcadia to explain some of the questions that may arise in the minds of the interested public. The Planning Secretary read the proposed statement. The City Attorney suggested that the first paragraph on Page Two be reworded to indicate that the required street widening was only with- in or abutting the area. Mr. Norton thought that the number of hear- ings and informal meetings held should be mentioned. Mr. Acker re- quested that the article reflect that the commission had conferred with well known architectural firms for their views. There being no further business before the commission the meeting, was adjourned at Il,l5 P.M. ~.~~3~ Planning Secretary