Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 9, 1960 ROLL CALL MINUTES COMMUNICATION Ralph Norton PUBLIC HEARING Huntington Drive ~-, MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 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., November 9, 1960. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-chairman, Mr. George Forman presided. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch and RuthedDrd ABSENT: Commissioners Acker, Michler and Norton OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney James A. Nicklin Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz Planning Secretary L. M. Talley The minutes .of the regular meeting of October 25, 1960 and the adjourned meeting of October 26, 1960 were approved as written and mailed. The Planning Secretary read a communication from Planning Commissioner Ralph W. Norton, which requested permission to be absent from this meeting of November 9, 1960 due to previous bus,iness commitments, in keeping with Section 705 of the City Charter. The Chairman stated that in the past' such re.quests have been honored, and ,he believed this one should be also. Moved ~y Commissioner Rutherford and seconded by Commissioner Golisch and carried unanimously to approve the request, of Commissioner Ralph Norton. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zone variance to allow additions and alterations to existing buildings on the north side of Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Avenue and First Avenue. The Planning Secretary explained that when this matter was first con- sidered by the Planning Commission it 'was planned to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance; however, it has been determined that a zone variance would be a better way in which to handle the problem. The original proceedings were abandoned, and this is the hearing on the proceedings to grant a zone variance to allow alterations and additions to these p~operties. The Planning Secre.tary read the staff report which stated for some months the Planning Commission has been considering the problem of granting some relief to allow certain additions and alterations ,to existing commercial buildings now deemed non-conforming principally Page One November 9, 1960 .~ '-._-~ by reason of not having the parking area required by the present Zoning Ordinance. In April, 1960, proceedings were instituted and numerous public hear- ings were held to accomplish this purpose by amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Because the problems under consideration are to a large extent localized to certain areas, and not prevailing generally through the various commercial zones, it was determined that the. problem areas could better be dealt with by the granting of variances for the respective areas rather than by amendment of the basic regulations. Consequently, Resolution No. 387 was adopted on October 11, 1960, instituting proceedings for the granting of such a variance for the area located on the north side of Huntington Drive between Santa Anita Avenue and First Avenue. This area had been intensively studied under the prior proceedings. After numerous conferences with the owners and tenants of this particu- lar area, the Zoning Committee had made a recommendation of the condi- tions that should apply. Those conditions, as set out below, should be considered in the present proceedings; 1. No new buildings to be ~onstructed and no existing building to be extended to a line nes,rer than 25 feet from the south line of the alley. 2. Buildings now existing and 'encroaching into this 25 foot 'area may not be fur.ther extended or enlarged into that area. 3. When buildings are censtructed, extended or altered, an 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed the full width of the lot and at the 25 foot line. 4. Concurrent with the building construction, a marquee 8 feet wide will be required. 5. The 17 foot strip of land between the sidewalk and the alley shall be used as a loading zone only. 6. One-story buildings may'be constructed, enlarged or altered as specified above without any further contribution for parking. 7. Any cons.truction or enlargement of a building more than one story will require a contribution to the parking fund for all the floor area in excess of the area of the first floor in compliance with the present requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Additions and alterations allowed by this variance are for the sole purpose of providing additional entrance and dis- play area for customers entering from the public parking lot. Such entrances shall provide continuous access for customers through the building to Huntington Drive. It is definitely not to provide area for a separate and independ- ent tenant unless such continuous customer access to the front portion of the building is provided. Page Two November 9, 1960 (" , '-- 9. Any addition or extension of the main building on lot 8 shall require the removal of the existing independent' building now located within th~ rear 25 feet of the lot. 10. Plans for all such additions and alterations shall be subject to the approval of the Planning C.ouunission. The Planning Secretary then read a couununication from Mr. Harry McMah.on, dated October 5, 1960, Which was accompanied by a first and second floor plan of a proposed improvement to his property at the rear of 33 E. Huntington Drive. On the plan there is nothing but open space on the first floor with offices occupied by Mr. McMahon on the second floor. This plan would be adding to What would but with open space underneath; Whether story building is a question. There is underneath; a part of .it has a room for stairway le~ding up to an upper story. is an arcade type office building. be considered a second floor, it \.0 uld be considered a one- one exception to the open space mechanical equipment, and a He explained that this building The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for public hear- ing, and asked for those people interested to come forward. Mr, Harry McMahon, the owner of property at 33 E. Huntington Drive, stated he would like to proceed with the improvement as submitted. Couunissioner Golisch stated he thought it would be wiser to consider the zone variance in general as contained in the staff report, and discuss Mr. McMahon's individual situation at a later time. The Planning Secretary explained that, Mr. McMahon's building is pre- sently one story, and the lots on the north side of Huntington Drive slope up from Huntington, so that the rear of the stores are excavated approximately 2 or 3 feet, and this plap would be adding to what would be considered a second floor. Mr. Warren Panz, 5252 Village Green, Los Angeles, stated that he had read in ,the Los Angeles Times that the city government and City Manager of the City of Arcadia operated the city at a savings of $35(},OOO.00. He wished to compliment the City Manager and members of the governing bodies of the city for their succes. He spoke at great length and recommended that the Planning Commission encourage these merchants to build up and improve this area by the granting of this zone vari- ance. Mr. Victor E. Scalora, owner of preperty at 59-61 E. Huntington Drive, wished to go on record as being in favor of this zone variance. Mr. Tom Horton, 430 Fairview, representing Earl Brothers, who .own the property at 41-45 E. Hun'tington Drive, stated he was in favor of the variance. He felt that the commissien should review the apparent limit- ing factor on two story buildings; he could not quite understand why the restrictions were pointed towards a two story building; the deter- ming factor should be the square footage whether it be basement, first or second floor. He believed the ratio should be from floor area to parking area; he also expressed c.oncern about the reference to a mar- quee, which he considered a vague description in the condition; it is not well enough defined, and could mean a great deal of different things to a great many people. The Chairman stated that the marquee was ment ioned as a result of the preaentati6n of an artist's sketch which had been presented to the staff and commission. The City Attorney'wished to state for the record he did not think it WllS the intent of the report t.o. discourage two story construction where anyone wants to proceed with it; but the reference .is to the Page Three November 9, 1960 ,r , '--- fact that no additional contribution to offwstreet parking shall be required for single story construction; the reason being that all of that block was in an off-street parking district, and has been assessed to pay the cost of the district; the cost was pedicated in large measure on the assessed evualation of the improvements existing in the area. He was sure it was the thought of the framers of the report that if no consideration was given to the addition of a story to an existing building, that without an additional contribu- tion to the off-street parking fund those people would be getting a rather unfair advantage, over those who \ere assessed and have but the one floor area usage of it. The question came up as to whether a basement could be considered a story, the Planning Secretary read the definition of a basement from the Zoning Ordinance, and it speci- fied that if a basement is used, designed for or occupied by dwell~ ings, business or manufacturing it shall be considered a story. You would get the same value from a basement if it were usable floor space asH it were on the firs~, second or third floor. Considerable discussion ensued. Commissioner Golisch stated that he thought it was the practical and reasonable solution to this problem to recommend the approvai of the zone variance, subject to the condi- tions of the Zoning Committee and staf:t: report. With the minor changes which may result from the discussion tonight, he felt that the solu- tion was a sound one. Commissioner Rutherford stated that outside of a change in terminology, he would like to see the zone variance recommended for approval, so that these people can commence making improvements as soon aa possible. The City Attorney stated that in reference to paragraph 6 and 7, he would suggest that they be changed to read as follows: "buildings may be constructed, enlarged, or altered as specified above without any further contribution to the parking fund, so long as the total floor area within such building does not exceed the area of that portion of the lot upon which a building may be constructed when complying with all applicable regulations." No. 7 would .be changed in the saDIe way: "any construction or enlarge- ment of a building to provide more floor area than the area of that portion of the lot upon which a building may be co.nstructed when complying with all applicable regulations will be required to contri- bute to the parking fund." The City Attorney would insert the rather usual clause for No. 10 "the commission reserves the right to, without necessity of notice for further hearing, to make minor .modifications of any of the foregoing provisions so long as tlleystill accomplish essentially the purpose of the variance~' However, the City Attorney had a question to ask on condition No.8; which he believed needed clarification. The Planning Secretary explained that it was the thought of the committee at the time this was written up that it was very desirable to have access completely through the store; for example, in the Music Mart there is one tenant with access completely through the store; in Mr. McMahon's building there is access completely through by way of an arcade, although he may have two, three or more indivi- dual tenants. . Page Four November 9', 1960 ZONING Peck Road ~ '-~. After considerable discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Ferguson and seconded by Commissioner Golisch and unanimously carried to recoDmlend the approval of the zone variance as outlined with the changes which were suggested by the City Attorney for con- ditions No. 6 and 7' and the changing of condition 10 and renumbering the present No. 10 to Number 11. The Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the pro- posed zoning of Annexations No. 15, 20 and 21, adjacent to Peck Road. The Planning Secretary stated that since the last meeting, he had re- ceived one communication which objected particularly to the special use request to allow stock, such as sheep or cattle in this annexed area. The letter made reference to the odors after a rain and the flies Which contaminate the area. The signer did not object to the zoning of light manufacturing, how- ever, and was signed by Dr. F. E. Sparks, President, Norwood Village Improvement Association. The Planning Secretary then read the report of the Zoning and Subdivi- sion CODmlittees and staff which stated a public hearing on the zoning to be made applicable to a portion of Annexation No. 15, and to pro- posed Annexations 20 and 21 was held on October 26, 1960. Since that time, at the request of the owners, the City Council has terminated the proceedings on Annexation 21. Therefore, this report deals only with Annexation No. 15 and proposed Annexation No,.20. The area is located on the east side of Peck Road in the vicinity of the Rio Hondo Wash. It is almost completely surrounded by existing . and proposed manufacturing, rock quarrying, and similar uses. A portion of the south side of Annexation 20 is bounded by residential uses. Part of this residential area faces and the balance backs up to the proposed annexation. We recommend that all of the area be given a basic M-l zone. So that it will be compatible with the propo~ed development on the west side of Peck Road, and to insure a desirable development in the area we also recommend that it be placed in Zone D with the following require- ments: 1. Dedicate 20 feet ,for widening Peck Road except where the dedication has now been made. 2. Dedicate 5 feet on each side of Clark Street. 3. All buildings to be set back 10 feet from the front property lines after ,street dedication. 4. Along the Peck Road frontage this setback area shall be suitably landscaped and maintained. 5. All buildings to be of tilt-up concrete, concrete block or equivalent masonry construction and shall comply with the requirements of Fire Zone No.1. 6. Doors and windows on the street side of a building, except doors and windows used exclusively for light and ventilation, and opening directly into rooms used exclusively for business offices, shall not comprise Page Five November 9, 1960 /~, more than ten per cent (10%) of the area of the street side of the building. No rooms on the street side of any building shall be used for storage, display or manufacturing purposes if more than 10 per cent of the area of the street side of the building con- sists of doors and windows'. No door for transporting materials or equipment into or out of the building may face Peck Road unless set back from the front pre- perty line 40' or more. . 7. Along the Peck Road frontage all parking areas for com- mercial and industrial vehicles and equipment shall be paved and shall be located to the rear or side of build- ings. All materials and equipment stored outside a building shall be stored at the side Or rear of the main building and shall 'be enclosed by at least a six-foot high masonry wall, and no materialS stored outside shall project above the enclosed masonry wall. 8. Parking of employee and customer vehicles will be per- mitted in front of said building. 9. Any work areas ,outside the building shall be lo~ated in the rear of said building, or at the side, and shall be enclosed with at least a six-foot masonry wall. We recommend tha.t a special use permit be granted to allow a riding academy or boarding stable for a period of not to exceed 10 years on the property bounded by Peck Road, Clark Street, Myrtle Avenue and Dearborn Street. This stable use should have adequate enforcement of sanitation and health regulations. We also recommend that a special use permit be granted for the quarry- ing of rock and sand for a period of 10 ye,:-rs on property located north o~ the following descr.ibed boundary line: Beginning at a point in the southerly line of State Street located 400 feet easterly from Peck Road; thence southerly parallel with Peck Road to the northerly line of Dearborn Street; thence easterly along the northerly line of Dearborn Street to the easterly line of Myrtle Avenue; thence southerly thereon to the northerly line of Clark Street, thence easterly thereon to the present easterly Arcadia City boundary line. We recol!Jlllend that the special use permit for quarrying purposes be subject to the following conditions: 1. That all operations conducted on the above-described property be conducted in compliance with all valid requirements of the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. 2. If necessity requires the installation of rock and sand processing equipment, an additional special use permit with suitable regulation shall be required. 3. That a chain link wire !=ence of a minimum height of six feet, topped with three strands of' barbed wire or a masonry type wall of a minimum height of six feet, be installed completely around the property, except that along the n~herly side of Clark Street from Cogswell Road to Durfee Road, said'masonry type wall shall be installed. Page Six, November 9, 1960 ',- 4. All private roads ,connecting quarry, processing 'plant and stock pile shall be paved or be kept wetted down while being used, and shall be serviced and main- tained so as to eliminate all dust so far as is pos- sible. 5. All excavations from an open pit shall result in a finished slope no steeper than one foot horizontal to one foot vertical. 6. All excavating operations shall be conducted only between the hours of 6:00 A.M. Bnd 7:00 P.M., except in CBse of a public emergency or whenever reasonable and necessary repairs of equipment are required. Any variation of the above.mentioned hours shall have the approval of the City of Arcadia. 7. That there be a 25 foot buffer strip along the northerly side of Clark Street and that a row of trees be planted and maintained along this buffer strip. One of the owners of a portion of the property has also requested a zone variance' to allow the raising of sheep for a period of five years. We feel that such a use would not be in the best interests of the City of Arcadia or the surrounding property, and recommend that this variance not be granted. The Chairman announced that this is a continued public hearing on this zoning, and asked for anyone who has some new information to add to please come forward and give their names. Mr. M. E. Nickerson, 12039 Conference, heard' about the man\Jfacturing zone, and wished to be certain that the recommendation was for M-l and not M-2. The Chairman assured him that the Planning Commission recommendation was for M-l Zone. Mr. Bill Burge, owner of property at 11927, 11923 Rio Hondo Parkway and also 5240 Cogswell Road, stated the most important censideration regarding the proposed sheep operation is the health factor. He pre- sented a copy of a letter directed to the Los Angeles County Health Department, dated July 15, 1960, signed by Supervisor Frank Benelli which stated that after receiving a petition of many residents adjacent to the area under consideration which brought to his atten- tion the deplorable situation existing and the health factor which was evident as a result of livestock being housed in close proximity to homes, he requested that this matter be given immediate attention by the Health Department. Mr. Burge continued that since this letter the residents had brought suit with District Attorney Hopltins in Santa Anita Court for abatement of nuisance and a violation of local zoning ordinances. The same party (referring to Mr. Goldring) has a recent Orange County court decision against him for raising. cattle in a non-conforming zone. Mr. Tom Hamblin, 10538 E. Rio Hondo Parkway, wished to know if a slaughterhouse could be permitted in the recommended M-l zone1 The Chairman answered that no, it may not. Mr. Hamblin commended the Planning Commission on its excellent recom- mendations. Page Seven November 9, 1960 \ , '-- Mrs. Virgil O. Kipp, 809 S. Roosevelt Avenue, Fullerton, speaking also for Mrs. Shandrich,228 Main Street, Huntington Beach, owners of lots 14, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 were highly in favor of Zone M-l, but repeated their objection to the bringiqgin of any livestock. She wished to know how someone else could occupy their lots, as well as pay the taxes on their property. The City Attorney stated that at the last meeting certain property owners in the area asked where their, particular lots were located; that it would be possible to show them on a map, but not possible to point them out on the site. He advised that if there are a sufficient number of people in the same predicament that it would be to their advantage to cOllectively have a surveyor set monuments at rather strategic locations and then the individuals can determine their lots ,from those specific locations. The City Attorney added, that as to the payment of taxes by those other than the owners, there are as many as three different people paying taxes on the same property in that area in some instances for the obvious purpose of attempting to attain title by adverse possession. Adverse possession is open and notorious possession of the property, plus the payment of taxes for a period of five years. If those two things occur, it does not defeat their title solely because the owner of record, has likewise paid the taxes during the same period of time. Any owner of property must see to it that he does not permit open and notorious possession of his property to occur for a period of five years, which is the only thing he can prevent. He can't prevent anyone else from paying his taxes on the property. Mr. W. J. Hight, 5421 N. Cogswell Road, El Monte, asked about the riding academy. Will there be landscaping and will the building ~ode be carried out as to M-l zoning, referring to the D overlay. The Planning Secretary expiained that the only actual landscaping required is for those buildings facing Peck Road; they propose to use the present buildings whi~h are already in existence. The applicant for the riding academy proposed to clean up the buildings and paint them, making ,it a very desirable and attractive place of business. Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried to close the public hearing on the zoning of Annexations 15 an.d 20. Commissioner Golisch stated that in item No.6, page 3 of the report, he felt the wording should be changed to "any variation of the above- mentioned hours will be ,subject to the approval of the City of Arcadia. Commissioner Golisch stated that the Planning Commission has reviewed these annexations carefully, and that the ideas expressed in the report were sound, and that they seem to be in concurrence with the wishes of the surrounding residents in the area. Commissioner Rutherford concurred with Commissioner Golisch and felt that these improvements would upgrade the area considerably. The Chairman stated that th,is does open up an area which has been lacking !n development for a good many years; it should bring additional revenue to the city, which is a basic need of our city, as well as provide a means of added employment to the community. He also referred to the competition with another city to the south for the annexation of this territory. Page Eight November 9, 1960 ZONE VARIANCE Schoof (~-" "- "'W/ The City Attorney explained that in relation to the competition of another community for this territoiy; it is true that a proposal to annex territory included in both annexations 20 and 21 was filed with the City of El Monte, and the City Council consented to circulation of petitions to annex the property to the City of El Monte, along with their proposed annexation No. 244. The proposal to include 20 and 21 in that annexation was not made by the owners but by owners considerably to the south of this. Prior to the filing of such pro- posal, however, the owners of all of annexation 21 and at least 85% of annexation 20 filed a petition with the City of Arcadia to annex under the uninhabited annexation Act; and under that act, jurisdiction to annex attaches with the filing of a valid petition; whereas under the filing in El Monte the 1913 Act or the Inhabited Territory Act applied, jurisdictions not attached until after the proponents have publisqed, notice of intention to circulate a petition of the anne~ tion and filed the affidavit of publication with the City Council, and acknowledge the receipt of the resolution. None of those things can be done until the boundary description has been approved by the Los Angeles 'County Boundary Commission, so that jurisdiction never did attach as to ~nnexations 20 and 21; and when the description was submitted to the Boundary Commission by El Monte, they excludfli the territory included in 20 and 21, and their proceedings are continuing on the revised description with these exclusions; however, since that time the owners of property within annexation 21 have requested that their petition be withdrawn, and at the last council meeting the City Council terminated procee'dings with respect to annexation 21. That particular territory is not presently subject to annexation proceedings to either city. Motion by Commissioner Goliseh, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carr.ied unanimously to recommend the approval of the zoning and special use permi:tsas outlined in the Zoning, Subdivision Com- mittees and staff report, relative to Annexation 15 and 20, with the amendment to ltem No. 6as outlined above., The Planning Commission reconsidered a decision on the application of Albert H. Schoof for a zone variance' to allow a second dwelling at 1218 S. Second Avenue. The Planning Secretary informed the commission that if a 4 vote was not obtained tonight, the matter would go to City Council with/'t~ttom- mendation. The Chairman stated that this matter, has been delayed for a while, and he fel.t the commissioners were adequately familiar with the details concerning the request, and were prepared to vote. Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried unanimously to recommend the approval of this zone var- iance, subject to the conditions of the Zoning Committee and staff report as follows: 1. Remove the kitchen facilities in the existing dwell. ing and convert it to a guest house,. Record a cov- enant to guarantee that the guest house will not be used as separate living quarters. 2. Dedicate 12 feet for the widening of Second Avenue. Page Nine November 9, 1960 MODIFICATION APPEAL ("\ LOT SPLIT The Planning Commission considered the appeal of W. D. Jones from a decision of the Modification Committee regarding a carport at 202 W. Camino Real. The Planning Secretary explained to the commission that the Modifi- cation Committee had denied this request, hence the appeal to the Planning Commission. The Chairman explained that as Chairman of the Modification Committee he revie,wed this request, and this is a case where a carport was built without a permit, and it was built without regard to the code requiring side yards, in this case lO feet. The members of the Mod- ification Committee did not feel that to be in good faith to the rest of the people in the city who abide by these requirements, they could grant this request. Mr. W. D. Jones, the applicant, addressed the commission requesting their assistance in solving his unique problem of not havil'g suffi- cient space to take care of his transportation. He wished at least a temporary solution. He did not wish to go to the expense of build- ing a permanent structure on the rear of his prQperty at this time. The City Attorney stated that he did nQt belive the objection was to the type of construction, so much as the location of it, and he would suggest that since the Director of Public Works has indicated a desire to investigate the situation in the field, and it is possible that some very helpful suggestions could result, thi& could well be the solution to the problem. The Director of Public Works concurred, and the Chairman stated that the matter would be held untllsuch field investigation was completed. No. 315 -Arcadia Parking, Incorporated, 1113 S. Baldwin Avenue, referred to Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Forman. The Planning Secretary read the engineer's report; he explained that the heavy line shown is the way the property is carried on the tax roll at the present time. Parcel 1 is to be used as a sep- arate building site with frontage on Baldwin Avenue and a 12 foot easement leading south to Duarte Road. He continued that from exam- ination of the property that cars are being parked in to the service station fence through the easement, and the parcel shown as parcel 2. The driveway, of course, is a little bit west of the easement, The applicants are expecting parcel 1 to use the present driveway and not use the exact location of the easement, but if it does' become necessary to utilize the exact location of the easement, then the 11 foot strip between the easement and the service station wilf be used for parallel parking along the service station's fence. Commissioner Ferguson stated that his only concern was the shape of this lot, but he thought that as long as it was under one ownership it might be acceptable. The Director of Public Works brought to the attention of the Plan- ning Commission the usual procedure of requiring dedications in granting lot splits, and he asked about the strip abutting Duarte Road which should require a 12 foot dedication. The City Attorney wondered if it would not be advisable to tie parcel 2 into 715 Duarte by covenant that it would not be used as Page Ten 'November 9, 1960 a separate building site. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried unanimously to recommend the approval of lot split No. 315, subject to the following conditions, and the addition of Con- dition.\No",.;4, as well as an amendment to condition No.2. 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Dedicate 20 feet for widening Baldwin Avenue and 12 feet for widening Duarte Road. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 4. File a covenant stipulating that parcel 2 will not be used as a building site. STREET NAME CHANGE The Planning Commission considered the proposal for changing the name of Huntington Place, referred to Commissioners Ferguson and Golisch. Commissioner Golisch informed the commission that after much thought they felt that because of the location of the high school on this street they would suggest that the street name. be changed to "Campus Drive". Commissioner Ferguson indicated his concurrence with Mr. Golisch's statement. Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously to recommend that the street name of Huntington Place be changed to the name of "Campus Drive". DWELLING APPROVAL The Planning Commission considered the reapproval of a proposed dwell- ing at 1740 Holly Avenue, in connection with Lot Split No. 232, which was granted in 1959, at which time a dwelling was approved for the lot; however, that plan was hastily drawn, and the owner has come up with a different plan, which he believed was an improvement on the original one. The Planning Secretary described the plan from the drawings, and after consideration and discussion motion was made by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and unanimously carried for the approval of the revised plan in connection with Lot Split No. 232, 1740 Holly Avenue. SUPERIOR CONCRETE BLOCK The Planning Secretary brought to the commission's attention a matter concerning Superior Concrete Block, owner's of property invelved in Annexation No. 19. There are two lots they own which were not included in annexation No. 19. These two lots have been incorporated into Temple City, and Superior Concrete Block has in- formed the Planning Secretary that Temple City has given its con- sent for them to be annexed to the City of Arcadia. The Planning Secretary presented a communication from the Superior Concrete, Block Company asking that they be granted the zoning which already exists on the other property in the city, which is zoned M-l. The City Attorney advised that the Planning Secretary should be in~ structed to publish notice of intention to consider the zoning to be Page Eleven November 9, 1960 c to be placed on the property concurrent with the annexation. TIle Planning Secretary suggested the date of December 13, 1960 as the date of hearing to give sufficient time to publish the notice. Notion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried unanimously to instruct the Planning Secretary to publish notice to zone this property concurrent with its annexation to the City of Arcadia, and to set date for such hearing on December 13, 1960. RESOLUTIONS No. 391 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 391, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR TIlE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING EVIDENCE, CONSIDERING AND MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING TIlE CLASSIFICATION TO ZONE Mcl AND ZONE D ( ARCHITEC- TURAL DESIGN ZONE) OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LYING WEST OF PECK ROAD." Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resol~tion No. 391. Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Golisch and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 391. No. 392 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 392, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING COMHISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TIlE GRANT- ING OF A ZONE VAR'IANCE TO PERMIT STRUCTURAL ALTERA- TIONS AND ADDITIONS TO PROPERTIES ABUTTING THE NORTII SIDE OF HUNTINGTON DRIVE BETWEEN SANTA ANITA AND FIRST AVENUES IN SAID CITY UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS." Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 392. Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried to adopt Resolution No. 392. Nos. 393 and 394 ~ The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 393, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING INTERIM EMERGENCY ZONING OF M-l AND D (ARCHITECTURAL OVER- LAY) CONCURRENT WITII ITS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA OF CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS ANNEXATION NO. 20, SOUTIlEAST ARCADIA (UNINHABITED) AND RECOMMENDING REGULATIONS TO BE MADE APPLICABLE UNDER TIlE D-ZONING AND MAKING DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING SPECIAL USES ON SAID 'PROPERTY." Motion by Commissioner Rutherford. seconded by Commissioner Golisch and carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 393. Page Twelve November 9, 1960 . ' " ' c Motion by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner , . Go1isch and carried unanimously to adopt Resolutl.on No. 392. The City Attorney then presented Resolution No. 394, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANT- ING OF A ZONE RECLASSIFICATION FROM ZONE R-l TO ZONES M-l AND D (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY) OF PROPERTY LYING EAST OF PECK ROAD IN SAID CITY AND THE GRANT- ING OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIr FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES." MOtion by Commissioner Golis~h, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 394. Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No., -394. No. 395 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 395, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANT- ING OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING UNIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1218 SOUTH SECOND AVE- NUT IN SAID CITY UPON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS." ~fution by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Golischand carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolu- tion No. 3.95. Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and carried unanimously' to adopt Resolution No. 395. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Commissioner Golisch, the Planning Commission's liaison to City Council, addressed the commission on matters which come before the City Council. There was considerable discussion at the City Council level about the proposed three story apartment house !tear Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive; it was interesting to him that this only required City Council action rather than Planning Commission action; because the property concerned is zoned C-O it is permissible to build units of the own your own type; the developers desired to build apartments of three stories, and it was necessary to pass an emergency measure to limit the buildings to 2 stories, because there was some question as to whether they might be allowed to build 3 stories with the provisions of the present Zoning Ordinan~e relating to Zone C-O. Commissioner Golisch also brought up the matter of the Hinshaw's zone variance ,for a warehouse and customers service building, stating that they have ,asked for an exception to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. They wished to eliminate the landscaping along the proposed structure if a concrete block wall :l!srequired, because very little of the landscaping would be seen behind a solid wall of this type. Hinshaw's also felt that the restriction in connection with hours of ,delivery should be changed. They wish it Page Thirteen November 9, 1960 .. .. '. c: .. to be changed from 8: 00 A.M. until 1/2 hour after closing time. If this time limit were in effect during night hours of closing, of course, it Would make s~ch activities occur quite late, thereby po~sibly creating a noise nuisance to the surrounding residents. The commission felt that the landscaping elimination, except in the case of the construction of a cha,in link fence, would be alright, but they took some exception to the altering 9f the recommended re- st,ictions as to delivery activity beyond a certain hour. The City Attorney explained in some detail to the commission the question of the three story problem in the C-O zone. He had recom- mended that the City Council adopt the emergency or.dinance because of the question of the Zoning Ordinance providing for the limita- ti9n to a two story apartment as applied to the C-O zone. ADJOURN There being no further business to be presented to the Planning Com- mission the meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary ~,J?-~ By M. G. GARDNER Planning Technician Page Fourteen November 9, 1960