HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 22, 1960
'"
-.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
ZONE VARIANCE
Rest Home
,..
-_....'
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 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., March
22, 1960.
PRESENT: Commissioners Davison, Forman, Go1isch, Norton and Stout
ABSENT:
Commissioners Acker and Michler
OTHERS
PRESENT:
City Councilman Elton Phillips: City Attorney James A.
Nicklin: Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz: Planning
Secretary L. M. Talley
In the absence of the regular CommiSSion Chairman, Vice-..chairman George
E. Forman presided.
The minutes of the meeting of March 8, 1960 were approved as written
and mailed.
The commission held a public hearing on the revised application of
Sophia P. Johnson and Orlando Clarizio for a zone variance to allow
a convalescent home at 1601 S. Baldwin Avenue
The Planning Secretary read from the application which outlined
briefly the request to build a convalescent home for elderly, ambula-
tory and slightly ambulatory people; to be restricted in that there
will be no narcotic, alcoholic .or mental cases permitted. The appli-
cant cited the location as ideal, because it is close to medical cen-
ters and hospitals..
The Planning Secretary read the staff report which stated this is the
revised application of Sophia P. Johnson and Orlando Clarizio for a
zone variance to 'allow a 57 bed convalescent ho.me at 1601 S. Baldwin
A\7~nue.
A similar request for a similar use of this same property was recom-
mended for denial by this commission on November 10, 1959 by Resol-
ution No. 350. On December 15, 1959, the application was denied by
the City Council by Resolution No. 3199.
This revised plan has been slightly altered. The entire proposed
building has been moved forward 21 feet toward BaldWin Avenue leaving
a setback of 107 feet. The rear 150 feet of the property is shown as
reserved for residential use. The wings of the building have been
shortened to provide a 9 foot wide paved driveway about 250 feet long
along the so~th side of the property leading to a parking lot for 16
cars at the rear of the building. This type of drive would definitely
Page One
March 22, 1960
.
.
, "
-
become very congested.
The plot plan does
of Baldwin Avenue.
spaces, leaving 16
not provide for the 20 foot contemplated widening
This widening would eliminate about 4 parking
in front and 16 in the rear, or a total of 32.
The present zoning of the property is R-l. The commission, by Reso-
lution No. 362, has recommended that the easterly 430 feet of the
property be rezoned to Zone R-3 and that the westerly 200 feet re-
main in Zone R-l.
However, by the same resolution the coDDilission recommended one more
year for the fui-fillment of the conditions necessary to place the
front portion of the property in Zone C-l as contemplated by Ordi-
nance No. 954 adopted April 3, 1956.
One of the conditions of the contemplated Zone C-l was the dedication
of an alley through this property. The granting of this request and
the erection of the proposedbuildirtg would completely prohibit the
alley dedication, and thus alter the proposed development of all the
property between Camino Real and Callita Street.
If the conditions are not fulfilled to allow the property to become
commercial and it becomes R-3 as .recommended, this proposed conval-
escent home would not be a compatible use.
In the opinion of the staff the granting of this variance would
~rsely affect the plan which has been recommended for the develop-
ment ofth1.s area.
The Chairman stated this is the time and place for public hearing and
asked for persons in favor of the request to please come forward.
Mr. James Helms, Attorney representing the applicants, referred to
and displayed an architectural rendering of the proposed convalescent
home, in addition to the pi-ans on the bulletin board. The commission
at the time of the original application indicated that the property
to the rear should be closed off and used as R-l, that parking should
be provided on the property and that access should be provided from
Baldwin Avenue.
These items have been accomplished in this new revised plan. The
depth for the residential use of the rear of the property would be
150 feet which would ,allow .two good sized residential lots. The front
setback would be 107 feet to the office and 174 feet to the convales-
cent home.
He believed this structure would be a definite asset and benefit to
the City of Arcadia; he wished to stress that people who use narcotics,
alcoholics, or those with communicable diseases legally would not be
permitted to use this facility. Mr. Helms then introduced to the
commission Mr. Charles S. Ashton, a fellow of the American College
of Hospital Administrators. He was a member of the commission which
made a hospital survey in the City of Los Angeles, known as the Hamil-
ton Survey.
Mr. Charles Ashton stated statistics indicate that there are 15,000,000
people over 65 years of age in the United States, and that this fig-
ure is increasing at the rate of 1000 a day. It has been estimated
that 10% of these people live in the State of California. He mentioned
that he is also a Director of Medical Services at the City of Hope;
he referred to some of the homes which come under his jurisdiction.
Page Two
March 22, 1960
..
'---",
,
'-~'
o
A convalescent home is licensed by the Bureau of Hospitals as a
specific type with definite restrictions, defined under Title 1.7,
Paragraph 235, and he read the section which stressed that narcotic
addicts, alcoholics, mentally diseased ceses and persons with co~
municable diseases, including contagious tuberculosis, shall not
be admitted or cared for in nursing or convalescent homes licensed
by the Bureau of Hospitals under these requirements.
Mr. Ashton brought out the belief that older people and convales-
cents seem to like to be surrounded by activity, such as automobile
traffic on a, busy street; they are no longer active themselves, but
they like to Bee and hear activity. The old idea that a home of
this type should be in the quiet country atmosphere, doesn I t seem
to be true any longer.
If a patient becomes senile, a wanderer and a menace to himself or
others; under the rules of the Bureau of Hospitals, he must be trans-
ferred elsewhere.
He explained in answer to questions that it is estimated there should
be three beds per o,ne thousand population in each cODDDunity.
Mr. Helms ,in answer to Commissioner Stout's question regardIng the
60 foot strip of property to the south of the' proposed convalescent
home, stated that this 60 foot strip is now controlled by the same
group which is applying for the zone var,iance'.
The Planning Secretary pointed out on the plan, answering questions
about parking, that there were 20 spaces provided in the front; there
is a 9 foot wide paved driveway running down the side of the pro-
posed building, and plans in the rear for 16 more cars.
The Chairman requested those opposed to the variance to come forward
and give their names.
Ella Hilfert, 721 W. Call ita Street, objected to having a convales-
cent home near her property; she did not feel this is the right place
for s,uch an establishment. She mentioned the inadequate parking pro-
vided on the plan, which would result in people parking on the street.
Everyone on the block is proud of his home, and this development
would depreciate the value of their homes. It is very well for
those who will not have to live near such an establishment to tell
the residents what they need.
Mr. Kelly, 725 W. Callita Street, concurred with the statements of
Mrs. Hi1fert. He wished to know that if the 60 foot strip to the
south were to be used for this improvement, what the setback would
be from the property lines; how close to the south line could they
come with a structure.
The Planning Secretary expleined that this matter is controlled by
the Building Code.
Mr. Charles Field, 717 W. Callita Street, expressed concern about
the parking, particularly in reference to the employees. If the
home contemplates having 57 beds, then they are going to have nurses
and other employees, which will make ,the parking situation very tight.
Georgette Bewick, 724 W. Call ita Street expressed her objection to, a
convalescent home being constructed on this property, and was con-
cerned about the parking as well; she added a convalescent home in
the area would tend to depreciate the value of the homes.
Page Three
March 22, 1960
;
Mr. Orlando Clarizio, 3725 Arboleda Street, Pasadena, explained to
Mr. Kelly and the commission that the auxiliary buildings would be
contained in the structure as displayed to the commission, that the
60 foot strip to the south would not be used for any additional con-
struction, except for increased parking area.
Mr. carter H. Homrich, 1527 Cambury Avenue, wished to know if there
were plans to put a fence ar~und the property, and was shown by Mr.
Clarizio the intended fencing around the property.
Mr. Homrich wished to know about the type of and location of incin-
erators, which was explained by Mr. Ashton that any incinerator must
comply with the requirements of the Air Pollution and Smog Control
agency.
Mr. Humrich continued that he wondered what real benefit this'conval-
escent home would be to the residents of Arcadia; will the people of
Arcadia actually use the facility, or would surrounding towns benefit?
He stated that he had an appreisal made on his home recently, and he
plans to have another one if .this- convalescent home is allowed to be
built; if his home! has depreciated too much, he will personally see
that he will get his money out of it, and that he had means of doing
this.
Mr. Glen Marshall, 734 Callita Street, stated he is one of the new
residents of Arcadia; he moved to Arcadia because he thought it was
a city where real estate values would be maintained. He will not im-
prove his property in any way until this matter is settled. He felt
that regardless of the beauty of the structure and the purpose of
this proposed convalescent home, it- would definitely detract from
the reSidential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
COllllllissioner Davison stated he would like to preface his remarks; he
did not believe that intimidations have any part in this commission's
decision; it never has ,in the past, and he did not believe it would
have in this instance; anything he might say from this point on has
definitely no relation to any intimidations which may have been voiced
at the meeting tonight.
COllllllissioner Davison added that he thought the drawings presented were
very commendable from anaesthetic standpoint; he would concede the
need for such homes in the community, however, he felt that the big
problem was the location rather than the facility itself. He felt
the commission would be remiss in its responsibilities in the actions
that have taken place in the last six weeks, namely the zoning up
and down the entire s.treet. The commission after having gone on record
proposing decisions for certain things to occur, would not be consis-
tent to do something else now, before giving this plan an opportunity
to develop.
Commissioner Norton stated that he didn't feel the commission would have
to go back too far wherein a resolution was adopted relative to the
one year extension for the property development of this area; he did
.not see the justification for altering a previous decision, although
he hoped that the commission would always be flexible in the light of
being able to change its position when such a change is required for
the betterment the majority.
Commissioner Stout stated he felt that Commissioner Davison's remarks
were very pertinent. Since May of 1959 the commission has been con-
cerned with the zoning of AnneXation 14. Last December the commission
Page Four
March 22, 1960
;
---"\
had a very thorough hearing about the advan~ges of rest homes, and
at that time felt it necessary to deny the construction of such a
facility; this revised application simply seems to be a review of the
same matter. He did not feel he could find any exceptional or extra-
ordinary circumstances which could cause the commission to al.ter its
decision.
The master plan of the area would not be conducive to a rest home,
in Commissioner Stout's opinion.
Commissioner Golisth sta~ed the establishment of this proposed building
would disrupt the orderly development of the general area; also. there
are a number of homes on Callita Street which would back up to this
property against the 60 root strip, which would presumably be a further
addition to the contemplated rest home.
Commissioner Forman stated that his feelings on this matter are very
much as they were before; the need for a rest home is riot an item the
commission should debate necessarily, but should consider the location
of such establ iShments.
Mr. Helms stated that he was in possession of certain undisclosable
information which could. possibly have some affect on the commission's
decision of this matter, and he would therefore request a continuance
of the request until more definite information is available.
Commissioner Norton stated he thought that
founded if it were substantiated by facts.
prerogative of the commission to hold this
in more detail.
the request
He did not
if they are
would be further
feel it is the
not enlightened
Mr. Helms stated that he only had hearsay evidence of possible contrac-
tural developments, which he did.not feel would be wise to divulge with-
out more factual data.
The City Attorney suggested that the matter be continued; based on the
statements expressed thus far, at least a skeleton resolution could be
prepared for adoption at the next meeting, so that no time would be
lost in any event. It may well be that ,in two weeks time the gentle-
men before the commission can present evidence that the commissioners
might wish to hear. If the comm.ission closes' the hearing, it may be
faced with either a petition to reopen or anew application.
Commissioner Stout. .stated that the commission is now in the process of
a public hearing, and all the evidence has been put to the commission
requiring a decision. Simply on the basis of unsubstantiated evidence
he did not feel the commission should be compelled to continue the
hear ing.
Commissioner Golisch stated that he felt the consideration before the
commission was not the desirability of a rest home, but rather the loc-
ation of it. Whether or not new developments come in does not appear
to be pertinent in relationship to the residential part of the area.
Commissioner Forman stated that of course the commission is conceriled
with the development of all the lots, rather than the development of
anyone single lot.
In answer to the reference of a recommendation for denial without pre-
judice, the City Attorney stated the commission must make its deciSion
based on the evidence presented to them after the closing of the pub-
lic hearing. He believed the "denial without prejudice" bit has been
Page Five
March 22, 1960
,.
ZONE VARIANCE
Apartment
-",
worked to death; all it means, technically, is that the commission is
indicating its decision, reserving the right to review it, without
being bound irrevocab~y by conclusions arrived at on the basis of what
has been before them. A similar application was presented to the com-
mission which was denied in the last few months; the commission has
also reaffirmed a decision of some years standing, as to how they think
this property should be developed. If the c~ommission presently feels
that regardless of what use might be planned for the lots on both
sides of this property, its decision would be the same, then he would
see no reason to continue the hearing. If on the other hand the com-
mission is concerned with th~ development of the whole area, and think
it's worth while continuing the matter to have a f~rther look at what
the overall development may be, then the proper motion would be to con-
tinue the hearing.
Moved by Commissioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Norton and
carried to close the public hearing on thia zone variance.
Commissioner Davison stated that the commission has taken action on
this particular area; He appreciates the applicant's interest in
seeking the variance, and can sympathize with his desires in the
matter, but he would move to recommend the denial of the revised
application of Sophia P. Johnson and Orlando Clarizio for a zone vari-
ance to allow a convalescent home at 1601 S. Baldwin Avenue.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Golisch.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Davison, Forman, Golisch, Norton and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Michler
The commission held a public hearing on the app~ication of David M.
Turner and others for a zone variance to allow a two story apartment
house at 633-637 S. Baldwin Avenue.
The Planning Secretary explained to the commission the location of
the property which is immediately north of the northeast corner of
Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive, next to the service station.
This and the other lots to the north have a basic R-l zoning; there
is now a variance in effect permitting one-story apartments with
certain restrictions. This request is for a two story apartment.
There is a two-story apartment just to the rear of this property on
Old Ranch Road.
The Planning Secretary read from a petition representing 18 property
owners, 13 on Baldwin Avenue,S on Old Ranch Road, opposing the grant-
ing of this zone variance request.
The Planning Secretary read. the staff report which stated this is
the application of David M. Turner and others for a zone variance to
allow the property at 633-637 S. Beldwin Avenue to be used for the
construction of a 16 unit, two-story apartment house.
The property is Zone R-l. One June 16, 1953, by Resolution No. 2388,
the City Council granted a zone vari81ce to permit this and other pro-
perty on the west side of Baldwin Avenue to be used for the construc-
tion of one story apartment houses. The two story apartment at 722 S.
Old Ranch Road and the service station at 701 W. Huntington Drive,
referred to in the application, were both in existence at the time
the variance was granted, and the conditions have not changed.
Page Six
March 22, 1960
The lot is 108. 06 feet by 220 feet, containing 23,773 square feet.
Zone R-3 as amended requires 1500 square feet of lot area per family.
This lot area divided by 1500 equals 15.8. The proposed plan shows
16 apartments. The revised zone requires 1-1/2 parking spaces per
unit, each 10 feet wide. Instead of the 24 spaces required for 16
units the plan shows 21 spaces, each 8 feet wide.
The property was acquired by the applicant on January 19, 1959,
long after the present variance was granted.
In the opinion of the staff the applicant has not shown any exceptional
circumstances sufficient to warrant any further relief from the basic
R-l zoning than has previously been granted. Neither has lie shown
that a variance is necessary for the preservation of any property right
because the proximity of the lot to a commercial zone has not changed
since he acquired the property.
The staff recommends that the application be genied.
The Chairman announced the time and place for the public hearing and
asked for those speaking in favor of the request to come forward and
give their names.
Mr. David M. Turner, one of the owners of the property, expressed sur-
prise at the number of petitioners opposing this variance request; he
thought he had contacted most of the people in the neighborhood. He
stated that he had been turned down by several loaning agencies for
plans to build a one story multiple structure; based on these refusals
he was requesting the exception to the one story restriction.
The Chairman asked those who wished to speak in opposition to the
application for zone variance to come forward and give their names.
Mr. Gordon Anderson, 503 S. .Baldwin Avenue, stated he felt that the
staff report presented the facts very well. He described the improve-
ments of the surrounding properties, stating that he did not believe
the developments which have gone in would substantiate Mr. Turner's
statement that a one story apartment was not a sound investment.
He referred to the fire station across the street which had been re-
quired to limit its hose tower to a height of one story in order to
conform with the one story dwellings surrounding it.
Mr. Wendell Nelson, 618 S. Old Ranch Road, Vice President of the
Santa Anita Village Property Owner's Association,stated he had dis-
cussed this request with the officers of this organization and others.
This group sees no reason or any major set of circumstances which would
change their original recollllllendation that. the area be limited to. one
story multiple dwellings. It is their recommendation to the cOllllllission
that the request be denied.
Mr.. M. J. Muehle, 523
neighbor Mr. Nelson.
quickly, and he could
if necessary.
S. Baldwin Avenue, concurred entirely with his
The petition which was presentad was drawn rather
obtain many more signatures opposing this request,
Mr. P. C.
request.
dwelling.
Perry, 710 S. Old Ranch Road, stated he was opposed to the
He would not like to have his view obstructed by a two story
Mr. Frank Adams, 711 S. Old Ranch Road, stated he lives right next door
to a two story apartment; there were some noises from the apartment,
and they could look over into his yard whenever they wished.
Page Seven
March 22, 1960
:
ZONE VARIANCE
Trampoline
He had not been able to sign the petition, but was opposed to the
reques t.
The City Attorney suggested that if one or more members of the com~
mission are presently inclined to deny this variance, that they request
the staff to augment the record by furnishing for the record a list of
all improvements that have been accomplished since the initial variance
was granted on this street. He would want that to be included in the
record, because it would certainly answer the statements that it is' not
feasible to develop the property in that manner.
Commissioner Forman stated he would like to include this request of the
City Attorney in the record, namely that the entire block of improve-
ments had been developed with one story apartments since the initial
variance was granted.
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by COllllllissioner Davison and
carried to close the public hearing on this zone variance request.
Commissioner Norton moved to recollllllend the denial of this zone variance
request, based on the fact that it would not conform with the previously
established pattern of uniformity in development. The plan'as dis-
played does not conform with the new R-3 ordinance which requires 1'-1/2
parking spaces p~r unit; that parking space should be 10 feet wide and
not 8 fee.t wide as shown on the plan.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davison; stating that he did
not feel any commission is necessarily bound by the decisions of any
previous commission, but he felt that the pleasing and desirable
development of the area should be maintained.
The City Attorney wished to clarify that in the remarks that Commis-
sioner Norton made, he did not mean to exclude any other reasons for
denying the variance which might have been made.
Commissioner Stout stated he feels that the present zoning is very
good; ~e would be happy to go on record as reaffirming the planning
of 10 years ago for this area.
Commissioner Golisch recalled the problems. which arose when this par-
ticular variance was passed 10 years ago, and if all the compromises
the commission could possibly make in the future turn out as success-
fully between reSidential property owners and the people in an apart-
ment development, the commission would be very fortunate.
Commissioner Forman believed the apartments on Baldwin are very beauti-
ful, and provide a nice entrance to the City of Arcadia, along Baldwin
Avenue.
ROLL cALl..
AYES: commissfoners Davison, Forman, Golisch, Norton and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and MiChler
The commission considered a decision on the application of Charles Baca
and Robert Mahoney for a zone variance to allow a trampoline center at
910-912 S. Santa Anita Avenue (continued from March 8, 1960). This
matter was referred to the cOllllllittee for investigation. The cOllllllittee
Page Eight
March 22, 1960
did meet and' considered the matter very carefully. All the re-
ports the staff can obtain from other surrounding cOllllllunities is
that all towns and counties seem to be very much concerned about the
safety of the installations.
The Planning Secretary informed the commission of the receipt of
another letter from the legal counsel of Kern County, Bakersfield,
which indicated that it is their intention to amend their very
recently adopted ordinance to require that every center be equipped
with a telephone adjacent to which is posted a list of telephone
numbers of hospitals, ambulances and doctors available for emergency
caJ 1. The opinion of the committee was that. this facility should not
be allowed at this time at least; they felt it Would be wise to wait
and see what the experience in other communities is with them.
Mr. Charles Baca, the applicant, felt that the Planning COllllllission is
certainly looking to the betterment of the City of Arcadia, and he
would be happy to abide by the decisim. He wished it to be noted,
however, in the reco.rd that there had been no objections' from property
owners. He hoped the commission realized that the facility is good
from the health and recreational stan4point, but there main concern is
with the accident ratio. He cited the high rate of accident involved
in the game of football, and yet one would not eliminate the game from
the curriculum. His experience with the accident situation in tram-
poline operation at his La Crescenta location is that he has approxim-
ately 400 children a week using the facility, and to date they have had
three accidents filed since the inception of the installation. Two
of them were sprained ankles, and one of them was a sprained wrist.
He added that the newly formed Trampoline Association had met with a
member of the National Safety Council in an effort to establish set
rules by which all trampoline centers will abide.
Hoved by COllllllissioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Stout and
carr ied to close the publ fc hearing on this zone variance reques t.
Commissioner Norton stated that public welfare and safety played the
biggest factor in this consideration, particularly from the standpoint
of adequate supervision in such recreational pastimes. This type of
business is probably in its infancy, and the applicant seems to be
taking some basic steps to assure a bonafide, well knit organization
with good rules of safety.
Commissioner Stout felt that Commissioner Norton's remarks pretty well
outline the commission's thinking. He felt that the area where the pro-
posed trampoline would be installed is acroSS the street from what is
hoped to be the library site; the area then sould be protected as an
attractive development. Thp. atmosphere created by the trampoline is
one that tends more toward that of an amusement center.
Commissioner Golisch agreed with Commissioner Stout that with the
planned civic buildings the commission should attempt to upgrade the
general area.
Commissioner Davison stated that the application was not being turned
down necessarily because of its location, but rather because of the
concern about safety factors. He would rather have it go in the record
that they are recommending denial because of the safety factor, rather
than the location of the proposed center.
Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Golisch to
recommend the denial. of the application of Charles Baca and Robert
Mahoney for a zone variance to allow a trampoline center at 910-912
S. Santa Anita Avenue (continued from March 8, 1960).
Page Nine
March 22, 1960
".
LOT SPLITS
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Davison, Forman, Golisch, Norton and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Michler
No. 285 - Irene MacKinnon, 601 Estrella Avenue (continued from March 8,
1960)
Commissioner Forman stated that the street should not be continued as
a dead end street until it could be extended out to Lemon; if the com-
mission were to allow this split, then it would open up the possibility
oJ havtng to grant other splits adjacent to this property, thus caus-
ing the dead end to extend even further.
Commissioner Stout stated that the Subdivision Committee would be glad
to mee~ with anyone to attempt to complete this street.
Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried
to recommend the denial of Lot Split No. 285, because of extending be-
.yond the limit formerly established by the commission and because of
not having full street frontage.
No. 288 - Ray DuShane, 42 W. Grandview Avenue, referred to Commissioner
Davison and Commissioner Forman
No. 289 - Ethel Ziegler, 34 W. Grandview Avenue, referred to Mr. Davison
and Mr. Forman
The Planning Secretary stated that these are comEanion lot splits.
Commissioner Davison stated that parcel 2 of split No. 289 would only
have a usable area of about 7600 square feet. Another lO or 15 feet ob-
tained from parcel No. 1 and 'added to parcel No. 2 would make a good
split. On that basis he would recommend this for approval..
The Planning Secretary stated that he believed the two splits should be
contingent each on the other.
Commissioner Forman stated that with the cuI de sac the building area is
going ~o be very small.
Moved by Commissioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Norton and car-
ried to recommend the app:ooval of Lot Splits No. 288 6< 289. subject to
the following condition s:
1. File a final map for each lot split with the City
Engineer.
2. Provide a sewer lateral for each lot split.
3. Dedicate 5 feet for widening of Grandview Avenue along
each lot.
4. Dedicate a standard 40 foot radius cul de sac for the
extension of El Vista Circie.
5. The cuI de sac at El Vista Circle shall be improved with
standard curb, gutter, pavement, water service and sewer
service.
Page Ten
March 22, 1960
.
. ,
~
6. Pay $25.00 recreation fee for each lot split.
7. Parcel 2 of lot split No. 289 shall be made not
less than 100 feet wide on the north-south dim-
ension.
8. The city shall accept the offer of "future street"
at the present end ofEl Vista Circle.
The additional conditions 'that 'both lots be developed concurrently
and that the depth of parcel No. 2 be required to be not less than 100
feet were determined by the commission.
No. 290 - Rudolf R. Roesies, 2525 S. Second Avenue, referred to Mr.
Michler and Mr. Norton
After considerable discussion it was recollllllendedto 'hold this lot
split to give the Planning Secretary the opportunity to meet with the
owner and work out a more 'satisfactory lot split.
TRACT NO.
25253
No. 25253 - located on Fairview Avenue west of Park Avenue, containing
10 lots (continued from March 8, 1960).
The Planning Secretary read the committee report which stated the com-
mittee met on March 15, 1960 and again considered this tract and the
objections raised by surrounding property ownerS were considered.
One objection was to small size lots adjacent to Zone R~O. The plan
shows the first two lots as 75 feet by approximately 200 feet deep, or
almos't double the minimum requirement of Zone R-l. All other lots are
above the minimum requiran ent.
The other chief objection was to the two right angle turns in the street.
In the opinion of the committee, after considering the location of exist-
ing houses, this is the only practical way the property c,an be subdi-
vided. Due to the fact that Fairview Avenue dead ends at Park Avenue and
does not invite through traffic, the committee feels that t~e is no
serious safety problem.
The tract is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined
in the report of the Subdivision Committee and Staff, dated March 2,
1960.
Moved by Commissioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Norton and car-
ried to recommend the approval of tentative tract map No. 25253, sub-
ject to the following conditions:
1. Dedicate a five foot planting and sidewalk easement along
the west side of lot 4, the front of lots 5, 6, 7 and 8,
along the north.side of lot 6 and along the north side of
the property at 1000 Holly Avenue.
2. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements.
3. Dedicate 12 feet for widening Duarte Road along the south
line of lots 7 and 8, Tract No. 107.20.
4. Remove all trees' from the street area, and remove all mis-
cellaneous buildings within the tract.
5. Install all street improvements required by the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Page Eleven
March 22, 1960
. .
.'
RESOLUTIONS
MODEL HOME
,-,
\,-~)
6. Pay the following fees and deposits:
7 Steel street light posts @ $135.00 $ 945.00
2 Street name signs @ 35.00 70.00
42 Street trees @ 8.50 357.00
10 Lots recreation fee @ 25.00 250.00
$1,622.00
7. The dwelling at 924 Holly Avenue shall be relocated to
the satisfaction of the Holy Angels church and at no
expense to the church.
8. This recommendation for approval is, based on the sub-
'divider installing full width standard street improve-
ments from the present dead end of Fairview Aven\le to
Holly Avenue.
ROLL CAl..L
AYES: Commissioners Davison, Forman, Golisch, Norton and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Michler
No. 367 -The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 367, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT OF
ORDINANCE NO. 760 BY THE RECLASSIFICATION FROM ZONE R-l
TO ZONES C-3 AND D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY) OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 623 WEST DUARTE ROAD IN SAID CITY."
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Stout and
carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resoiution No. 367.
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Stout to
recommend the adoption of Resolution No. 367.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Davison, Forman, Golisch, Norton and Stout
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Michler
The Planning Sec~etary brought before the commission the request of
Miller-Myer~ building contraetors, who have had a model home at the
southeast corner of WeIland and Live Oak Avenue, CoM Zone, located in
the area newly annexed to the city as Annexation No. 19. This home is
used as a demonstration home from which to sell the construction of
homes; it is not used for an office, but only as a model. The house
is on piers; they do have electric and gas service, so that they can
have lights, and can warm the customers; there is no water connected
and no sewer. They would like permission to take the house off and
put up a new demonstration home for selling purposes. This would not
be allowed under the CoM zone, that is, to construct dwellings as such.
It is No. 1 Fire Zone, which doesn't allow a wood frame type building.
In discussing the matter with the City Attorney, there are two methods,
one by zone variance, another possible one might be the same as
some of the new uses, or uses that have not been specified in the
~oning Ordinance, where the commission can make a recommendation that
Page Twelve
March 22, 1960
.. .
-
SWIMMING POOL
Ordinance
ADJOURN
J
a certain use be classified in a certain zone, and when that is
approved by the City Council, becomes a part of the' ordinance.
After considerable discussion the City Attorney was instructed to
draw up a resolution recommending that the construction of a demon-
stration home be a permissible use under the CoM zone.
The Planning Secretary stated he had a request from the City Manager
for the commission to make a recommendation on the possible amendment
of the ordinance which applies to swimming pool fencing in the city.
The City Attorney advised that this is not a zoning matter, and the
matter was referred back to the City Manager.
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission
the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M."
, 't11v.
L. M. TALLEY
Planning Secretary
Page Thirteen
March 22, 1960