Loading...
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