Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 11, 1960 ROLL CA.LL MINUTES ZONE CHANGE 1108 S. Baldwin MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 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., October 11, 1960. In the absence of the Chairman" the Vice-chairman, Mr. George Forman presided. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler and Rutherford ABSENT: 'Commissioners Acker, Golisch and Norton OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Edward L. Butterworth City Attorney James A. Nicklin Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz Planning Technician Merle G. Gardner The minutes of the meetings of September 13, 1960 and September 27, 1960 were approved as written and mailed. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the application of Arlintc Properties for a zone change from Zone PR-2 to Zone C-2 on property at the rear of 1104-1108 S. Baldwin Avenue. . The Planning Technician explained that the property concerned is the property on the east side of Baldwin Avenue, between Fairview Avenue and Duarte Road adjacent to proposed Arcadia Avenue. The Planning Technician then read the Zoning Committee and staff re- port which stated this is the application of Arlinic Properties for a zone change from Zone PR-2 to Zone C-2. The front portion of the property is now zoned C-2. Other adjacent property is zoned C-2 and C-3. The location is in the heart of the West Arcadia commercial area. We see no objection to granting the requested change provided certain requirements are met to make the property accessible and to conform with requirements of other commercial property. We feel that Arcadia Avenue should be opened along the north side of this property to allow access to and circulation among the various parking areas in the vicinity. We also feel that the parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance are the absolute minimum requirements, and that each commercial build- ing should provide at least its own minimum requirements and not rely on using area available on other properties. If this zone change .is allowed it should be subject to all of the fcil- lowing conditions: Page One October 11, 1960 . ZONE VARIANCE 1218 S. Second '---~' 1. Dedicate the north 3~ feet of the property for the opening of Arcadia Avenue. 2. Dedicate for Baldwin Avenue to provide the full stan- dard parkway. 3. Improve Arcadia Avenue as required by the Subdivision Ordinance including full width sidewalk. The improve- ments, including surface drainage disposal, to conform to plans and grades satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4. Remove' the old frame reSidence building exis,ting at the rear of the property, and also the frame residence existing on the front portion of Lot 38. 5. Provide at least the minimum required parking area, on the site, for all 'existing commercial buildiqgs and all proposed buildings. Mr. Henry Hege, 651 W. Duarte Road, asked about condition Nos 1 and 3 regarding Arcadia Avenue. Is the city asking Arlinic Properties to dedicate 30 fee~, do all the paving, all the curbs. and receive nothing for it other than the change of zone on the property affected? The Chairman answered that this was the way the recommendation was stated. No other persons desired to be heard. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried unanimously to close the public hearing on this application for zone change. Commissioner Michler, stated that it was his understanding that the c+ty is entirely within its rights in asking for the dedications and improvements, and he would move that the application for zone change of Arlinic Properties, 1108 S. Baldwin Avenue be recommended for ap- proval, subject to the conditions outlined in the Zoning Committee and staff report, dated October 6, 1960. The motion was seconded by Com- missioner Ferguson, and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler and Rutherford NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Acker, Gelisch and Norton. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the application of Albert H. Schoof for a zone variance to permit a second dwelling at 1218 S. Second Avenue. The Planning Technician read the Zoning Committee and staff report which stated this is the application of Albert H. Schoof for a zone variance to permit a second dwelling on the front portion of the lot at 1218 S. Second Avenue in Zone R-l. This lot complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for two houses on a lot, except that the lot is 1595 square feet short of the required area of 18,750 square feet. The Planning Commission has been consistent in attempting to follow Page Two October II, 1960 the ord~nance requirements. At least a part'of the committee feel that 1595 feet of area, amounting to about 8.5% of the required area, is too much at variance to be warranted. However, we feel that if the owner desires a new house, and is will- ing to convert the present'house to the status of a guest house, it would not be objectionable. We, therefore, see no objection to the granting of the variance sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. Remove the kitchen facilities in the existing dwelling and convert' it to a guest house. Record a covenant to guarantee that the guest'house will not be used as separate living quarters. 2. Dedicate 12 feet for the widening of Second Avenue. The Planning Technician pointed out for the benefit of the commission the location of the property concerned, which is on Second Avenue opposite the entrance of La Sierra Drive to Second Avenue. The pro- posal is to place a second dwelling on the front portion of the lot; there is a dwelling already existing on the rear section of the lot. The plan submitted showed the proposed building at somewhat less than 1000 square feet, which is below city minimum requirements, and he felt the Planning Commission might well wish to place a condition requir- ing this minimwn square footage of floor area.. Mr. Albert Schoof, the applicant, stated that the plan submitted is in error; that he fully intends to build a house well in excess of 1000 square feet. He stated that if the requirement of redu,cing the status of the present dwelling to that of a guest house by removing the kitchen facilities were imposed it would add very little to the value of the property to construct a new dwelling; it would be very difficult to sell the property to anyone, if thiS condition prevailed. Commissioner Michler statedthat while it's true that the Planning Commission is attempting to follow the ordinance, he felt that from time to time there could be an exception to the requirement of the ordinance. He believed that this is one of those cases where the exception should be made, because it was his opinion that the addi- tion of this new dwelling would be a definite asset to the area. There are a number of small hOuses on surrounding properties adjacent to the properth in question. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would be rather concerned about what type of a precedent granting this request might set when the square footage of the lot area is short such as in this case. Commissioner Rutherford stated he concurred with the feelings of Com- missioner Michler in this matter; he felt that the 1595 feet short of the required area was not too much, and he would not agree with the conditions as contained in the report. Commissioner Forman stated that he agreed with both Commissioner Michler and Commissioner Rutherford that a new home constructed on the front of the property would be a fine improvement and would en- hance the beauty of the neighborhood; nowever, he also concurred with Commissioner Ferguson that since this application was one of the first to come before the Planning Commission since the adoption of Ordinance No. 1060 which requires 18,750 square feet to permit the erection of a second dwelling; serious thought should be given before a decision was reached. The ordinance has only been effective for a short time, and he felt that if the commission starts giving way, the next one may be' 2000 square feet less, etc., and they may end up exactly where they were before the ordinance was passed. Page Three October 11, 1960 ~ ' , Michler Commissioner/pointed out that in his opinion the granting of a zone variance doesn't necessarily set a pattern as far as he was concerned; there would be many areas in which he would never agree to such a variance, but in this particular case located in this area, he felt consideration should be given to making an exception. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford to continue the public hearing, and carried on the' following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Rutherford NOES: Commissioner Michler ABSENT: Commissioners Acker, Golisch and Norton LOT SPLtTS No. 306 - William C. Jahn, 321 Eldorado Street The Pla~ing Technician' read the engineer's report which stated this ~ot is 108.90'x 170'containing 18.513 square feet in Zone R-2. It is improved with 4 single family dwellings and the request is to divide into lots each 54.45 feet wide and sell one parcel. Commissioner Rutherford stated that in viewing this property he nor- mally would not recommend such a lot split, but in this particular vicinity he found that many of the lots have been split to the 54 foot width, which he would judge in conformity with the balance of the are, and he would recommend that this application for lot split be granted. Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 306, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel No.2. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 4. Separate the sewer connections so each lot has its own sewer line. No. 307 - Louise W. Headley, 329 E1dorado Street This request is to divide a 108.90'x 170' lot containing 18,513 square feet in Zone R-2, and it is proposed to divide the lot into two parcels of 54.45 feet each. Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 307, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel No.2. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 'Page Four October 11, 1960 4. Separate the sewer connection so each lot has its own sewer line. No. 312 - Ralph H. Madden, 431 Genoa Street The Planning Technician read a letter from the applicant which stated that there are financial reasons for requesting the lot split. He then read the engineer's report which stated the pro- perty is in Zone R-2 and is improved with two single family dwell- ings. The request is to divide the lots for the purpose of selling one house. Parcel 2 is only 5064 square feet, and zone R-2 requires 7500 square feet. Commissioner Rutherford stated that the size of this property was too far below requirement as to square footage. He would prefer that other members of the commission have an opportunity to take a look at the affected property. Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried to continue this matter to the next regular Planning Commission meeting for additional review by other members of the com. mission. No. 308 - Park Investment Company, 2301 S. Second Avenue The Planning Technician read from a communication which stated there is an old spanish home wnich is not in the best of repair. He then read the engineer 'sreport which stated this lot is 117.71' x 151.40' and contains 17,821 square feet. It is improved with an old house and a garage which has been converted into ,living quarters. The applicant proposes to remove all buildings, divide into two lots each 58.85 feet wide, and build two houses. Commissioner Michler stated that he viewed this property, and he would recommend the approval of this lot split. Moved by Commissioner Michler, s,econded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 308, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel No.1. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. No. 310 - Max Leinfelder, 2331 S. Second Avenue The Planning Technician read the engineer's report which stated the applicant owns lots 3 and 4, each 100 feet wide, and requests per- mission to divide 20 feet of lot 4 to be used with lot 3, which is improved, leaving an 80 foot vacant lot. Commissioner Michler stated that on parcel 2 there is a very lovely home, he found no one there; he only had one question, and that would be about the gate which exists on the rear of parcell. After con- siderable discussion it was suggested by the Chairman that a condition requiring a covenant that parcell. as indicated, be kept as a single dwelling site. Page Five October II, 1~60 Moved by Commission~r Michler, seconded 'by Commissioner Rutherford and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 310, subject to the conditions as outlined in the engineer's report with the additional condition of a covenant on parcel 1 which is composed of a 30 and 50 foot lot be held as a single building site: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Record a covenant guaranteeing that the 30' and 50' parcels contained in the 80' lot (parcell) will be combined and used as one building site. No. 309 - John M. Conover, 1110 S. Tenth Avenue The Planning Technician read from the engineer's report which stated this same parcel was approved March 12, 1956 by lot split No. 88, but was never completed to the final stage. While it proposes two lots each 57 feet wide, they conform with other lots to the north. Commissioner Michler stated that this lot split would conform with other lots in the area. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried to recommend the approval of lot split No. 309, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. No. 311 - Van Harris, 300 W. Lemon Avenue The Planning Technician read the engineer"s report which stated that this property is developed with a large house across lots 32 and 33; it was proposed to move the house on lot 32. The size of the house requires a 105 foot width making a lot split necessary. The remain- ing portion o.f lot 33 is 95 feet wide for a d!!pth of 204 feet and a hundred feet wide for the balance of the lot. The request is for a five foot strip 204 feet deep; the proposal is to move the, house on lot 32, but the house is too large, so they are requesting to provide the necessary side yards by having a five foot split taken off of lot 33 and Joined with lot 32, but only for a depth of 204 feet, wherein the split comes back into the original lot line. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he sees no objection to the proposed split; his only concern was the creation of a lot line which is not ' straight all the way through. The Planning Technician explained that he believed the reason for this was to maintain the 100 foot widths in the event of future subdivision to the rear. Commissioner Forman stated while looking at the map of the general area, there all 100 foot wide lots, and, true, 5 feet won't be seen, but again coming back to setting a precedent, he was concerned. He did not believe, however, that it would be necessarily harmful to the area in general, so that he would consider this lot split accep- table. Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried for the approval of lot split No. 311, subject to the foliowing conditions: Page Six October II, 1960 1. File a final map with the City Engine~r. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel No.1. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. No. 313 - Alfred H. Allen, 1021 S. Second Avenue The Planning Technician read the engineer's report which stated par- cels 1 and 2' are less than 75 feet wide b!lt conform with two lots to the south. Parcel 3 wi.'l1 be included iIi Tract No. 26055 as two lots 81 feet wide. A one foot strip in fee to the city exists around ~the ,24.11 strip ,marked "Robinson". A subdivision trust exists adjacent ,to parcel 3. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he saw nothing detrimental in allowing this lot split. Moved by .Commissioner 'Ferguson, .seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to recommend the approval of Lot' Split No. 313, subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parce12. 3. Deed 12' for the widening of Second Avenue. 4. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 5. Remove all buildings from the property except the house and garage. No. 314 - Thomas H. English, 351 W. Duarte Road The Planning Technician read the engineer's report which stated this lot extends from .Duarte Road to Fairview Avenue now under con- struction in Tract No. 25253. The proposed lot would be 80' wide by app roximate1y 188' deep along the easterly property line. Commissioner Ferguson s!=ated that he viewed this lot split; he thought it was a good one, and would recommend it for approval. The City Attorney asked what would preclude lot 7 from having access to Fairview Avenue across the present end of lot 8.. Mr. Alfred Allen stated that there is a much more serious problem than is now underdiscusston. He did not want a traffic hazard to develop, which would result unless certain provisions were made. He would go along with the dedication, but not with the requirement of the improvement. If the dedication is made, as it would be for the prope rstreet, with one foot in fee left to the city along the west side of lot 8., and if the improvement remains exactly as it is approved with the curve, then 'this property would have access to the street. He did not believe the additional improvement in front of lot 8 at this time would result. in an orderly street. The Director of Public Works stated that he did not see where there would be any problem at all, it would just be a matter of putting the curb iI)., because it would be a temporary curb line. He did not see where it would be more detrimental to vehicular traffic than it Page Seven October 11, 1960 would if the additional improvements were not installed; the vehicular traffic would be following the centerline marked on the pavement; the matter of drainage would not present any problem; the matter of maintenance, insofar as street sweeping is concerned, may not be the most desirable, but ,it could possibly be worked out. The City Attorney stated that one way this matter could be solved would be to record an offer of dedication, and deliver the deed for acceptance at a future date, and deposit the amount which would be determined for future stree,t improvements. He wondered if the city would install a temporary curb there. ,The Director of Public Works stated he would put concrete curb in because it costs almost as much to construct A.C. as it does con- crete curb. The City Attorney stated that insofar as the. future purchaser is concerned the recordation of an irrevocable offer of dedication would constitute technical and actual notice to any future purchaser because it would show up in his title report and policy at the time he purchased. That doesn't preclude them from being shaken up a bit, however, When they actually see the bulldozer come in and start working on their lawn. Lot 7 cannot get out to Fairview across the one foot strip of lot 8. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 314, subject to the conditions outlined in the engineer's report, except the amend- ments concerning dedications and improvement costs, as follows: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer,. 2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcell. 3. Dedicate 12' for the widening of Duarte Road. 4. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 5. The applicant shall record an irrevocable offer of dedication for Fa:lrview Avenue, such dedicated align" - ment to be approved by the City Engineer for street purposes across the frontage of parcel No. I, and to tender a duly executed deed therefore for acceptance by the city at a future date. 6. Deposit the necessary fees for all street improvements in Fairview Avenue, the amount of fees to be determined by the City Engineer. The Direc.tor of Public Works explained to Mr, Thomas Englisq the applicant, the estimated cost which the Department of Public Works would figure would be based on the improvements immediately abut- ting his property. Under the terms of the 1911 Act, curb and gutter would be paid for on the basis of the benefits derived to Mr. EngliSh's property. TRACT No. 24144 - Las Flores Avenue west of Santa Anita, containing 6 10,ts. The Planning Technician read the Subdivision Committee and staff report, Which stated this is the tentative map of Tract No. 24144 Page Eight October 11, 1960 RESOLUTIONS located south of Las Flores Avenue and west of Santa Anita Avenue, containing 6 lots. It is proposed to construct an access street from Las Flores Avenue, which will require moving an existing dwelling at 60 W. Las Flores. Th~s dwe11ing relocation will necessitate a change in the easterly lot line of the lot known as. 60 W. Las. Flores Avenue. This lot," then, should be included in the tract or a lot s~lit should be processed. The access street is shown as 50' wide at Las Flores Avenue and wid- ens to 55' at the intersection of "B"street east and West. All lots are at least minimum width and more than the required area. One parcel of excess land is not included in the tract. The tract is recommended for approval, subject to the following condi- tions: 1. Remove all buildings from the tract and all trees from the street right of way. 2. Move the building at 60 W. Las Flores Avenue to provide a minimum of 10 feet from the street line. 3. Add the lot at 60 W. Las Flores to the subdivision or process a lot split for the relocation of the, easterly property line. 4. Dedicate a 5 foot planting and sidewak easement along each side of "A" street adjacent to lots 14 and 15, Tract No. 9860, and 1~t1, Tract No. 24144. 5. Dedicate lots 7 and 8 in fee to the city. 6. Install all street improvements required by the Subdivi- sion Ordinance including drain~g e. facilities ,accord- ing to plans and grades approved by the City Engineer. 7. Dedicate the drainage and seWer easements to the city. 8. Pay the following fees and deposits: 4 Steel street lights @ $135.00 $540.00 24 Street trees @ 8.50 204.00 4 Street name signs @ 35.00 140.00 6 Lots recreation fee @ 25.00 150.00 $1034.00 9. File a covenant to prohibit the excess land east of lot 4 being used as a building site until it is included in an approved lot. The cODUDission deleted the words "to be" from Item No.6. No. 386 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 386, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TIlE GRANT- ING OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTR1JCTION OF A CUSTOMER SERVICE"BUILDING AND ANNEX AT THE REAR OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1429 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE." Page Nine October 11, 1960 Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried to waive the reading, of the full body of Resolution No. 386. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson for the adoption,of Resolution No. 386, and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler and Rutherford NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Acker, Golisch and Nor,ton No. 387 - The'City Attorney explained to the Planning Commission that Resolution No. 387. was predicated upon an .action at the last Planning Commission meeting, which he "as unable to attend; a technical problem had arisen. The proceedings which were instituted .in Resolution No. 372 were to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to accomplish certain purposes. The report of the committee recommends that a variance be granted to lots 1 to .17, Block 74, as set forth in its report. Accord- ingly, the commission instituted proceedings on its own motion to grant the variance, and to terminate the proceedings which were instituted en Resolution No. 372. A public hearing will be required in the case of granting a variance. The City Attorney continued that he had one resolution which would re- commendto the council termination of the proceedings instituted by Resolution No. 372 and then another resolution that would institute pro- ceedings for the purpose of considering and making recommendations con- cerning the granting of, a zone variance to the properties involved in the report. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 387 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND MAKING RECOMMENDA- TIONS CONCERNING THE GRANTING OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS ON LOTS 1 TO 17, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 74, SANTA ANITA TRACT, SITUATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF iIuNTINGTON DRIVE BETWEEN SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND FIRST AVENUE." After discussion it was decided to set the date of hearing on November 9, 1960. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Connnissioner Michler and cari,ied to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No'. 387. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried for the adoption of ,Resolution No. 387. No. 389 - The Cit) Attorney presented Resolution No. 389 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TEIUIINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY AND PURSUANT TO RESOL- UTION NO. 372." Page Ten October II, 1960 Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 389. Moved by Commissioner Michler" seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously for the adoption of Resolution No. 389. ANNEXATIONS The City Attorney addressed the Planning Commission stating that the city is in the process of annexing two large areas east of Peck Road; they run, .from the properties abutting the south side of McBean northerly to our present city limits from Peck Road east to the San Gabriel River. Some years ago the city annexed territory known as Annexation No. 15 which consisted o'fthe one block of lots running from Peck Road along Dearborn Street east to approximately to .the .San Gabriel River. That property'was annexed without any zone classification being made at the time. The owner of the larger segment of that property'subsequent- ly applied for and was granted industrial zoning and a special use permit for a quarry operation, which, left that long string of lots from Peck Road over to the San Gabriel River still R--1. The City Attorney continued; now the property south of that is in the process of annexation and the owners have indicated a rather specific desire for industrial type of zoning in that area. It complements plans that have been in process for some time for the industrial development of the city-owned property on the west side of Peck Road. In order that they may be given proper legal assurances of what they may expect in the way of the development of their property it is the council's desire that hearings be held before the Planning Commission and recommendations made to the City Council concerning the appropriate zoning of that area so that it may be done concurrently with this annexation rather than later on. Inasmuch as common ownerships exist between that long strip which was previously annexed and left R-l, and the property now being annexed; it is thought advisable that the commission institute proceedings to consider it along with the annexation. The purpose of Resolution No. 388 is to institute proceedings for that portion of the Annexation 15 which was not reclassified subsequently to its annexation, and is still, R-l. The City Attorney then presented Resolution No. 388 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECP.IVING EVIDENCE, CONSIDERING AND MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CON- CERNING THE RECLASSIF.ICATION FROM ZONE R-l TO ZONE M-2 OR TO SOME MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE OF THE PROPERTY WITIIIN THE CITY OF ARCADIA LYING EAST OF PECK ROAD, AND TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE, CONSIDER AND MAKE DETER- MINATIONS AND RECOMMENDArIONSCONCERNING THE GRANT- ING OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR A RIDING ACADEMY, THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER USES EXISTING OR PROPOSED THEREON." The Planning Commission set the date for the public hearing on th~ matter for October 26, 1960. Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 388. Page Eleven October 11, 1960 .. .. Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 388. ANNEXATIONS 20 cSt 21 Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that the Planning Commission set a public hearing for October 26, 1960 at 8:00 o'clock P.M. to consider and recommend the zoning to be made applicable to the territory in Annexations 20 and 21 and that the, Planning Secretary be instructed to give proper notices thereof concerning the classification to be imposed upon the territories des- ignated as Annexations No. 20 and 21 if they are annexed to the city. The mO,tion was carried unanimously. COUNTY ZONE MATTER The Planning Technician presented a zone case from the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission. There is a contemplated zone change on Arcadia Avenue immediately east of Rosemead Boulevard and a second parcel located on the south side of Arcadia Avenue located 110 feet east of Rosemead Boulevard. The zone change is contemplated to be R-l to R-3. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried thatthe communication .be, filed. LOT SPLIT No. 299 Mr. William Green, 1608 S. Sixth Avenue stated that recently ,the Planning Commission granted a lot split at this address. One of the conditions of the lot split was the moving of the house existing on the property, and he found that this would be quite expensive. He would like to have a variance or an !-2 zoning ~ather than the lot split. The Planning Technician explained that at 1608 S. Sixth Avenue the Planning Commission granted lot split No. 299 on a parcel. of land which was over 140 feet wide. In tbe interim the Greens have found a very nice change to obtain a house and move it on to tbe southerly parcel of the lot split. The Planning Technician added that in his opinion this cO,uld not be allowed until a lot split has been final bed through the City Council. In essence no lot split has been realized until this action is complete. The Chairman explained to Mr. and Mrs. Green that the Planning Commis- .sion could not grant' a zone change or variance at this time without proper application and public hearing. After considerable discussion the Chairman expressed regrets on be- half'of the Planning Commission that they would be unable to help them obtain permission to move the house on their property at this time. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 P.M. f YiIv. L. M. TALLEY :Plann,ing Secretary Page Twelve October 11, 1960