HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 10, 1961
'7
.
.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
ZONE CHANGE
Duarte Road
r--.>
/---,
!.
"~
MINUTE,S
PLAlfflING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY lO, 1961
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session
in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 0 I clock P.M., Janus ry
10, 1961. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-chairman Mr.
George Forman presided over the meeting.
PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Goltsch, Norton and
Rutherford
ABSENT:
Commissioners Acker and Michler
OTHERS
PRESENT:
City Councilman Edward L. Butterworth
City Attorney James A. Nicklin
Director of Public Works C. E. L~rtz
Planning SecretaryL. M. Talley
The Planning Commission approved the minutes of, the regular meeting
of December 27, 1960 as written and mailed.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zone
change on Duarte Road, west of Holly Avenue as contemplated by
Resolution No. 396.
The Planning Secretary read the staff report which stated foilowing
the receipt of informal petitions, the commission on December 13,
1960, adopted Resolution No. 396 instituting proceedings to consider
the rezoning of property on each side of Duarte Road from Holly
Avenue to thecommerc'ial zone near Baldwin Avenue from Zone R-I to
Zone R-3 or some more restrictive zone. These proceedings also
cover certain lots facing Holly Avenue, La Cadena Avenue and
Lovell Avenue.
Substantially this same property was considered by proceedings in-
stituted by Resolution No. 282 adopted March 25, 1958. On July 8,
1958, by Resolution No. 299 the commission recommended rezoning to
Zone R-2 and R-3, subject to certain dedications for widening
Duarte Road; the opening of Arcadia Avenue north of Duarte Road
and the opening of a street through the deep properties south o'f
Duarte Road.
Since that time two parcels ,of property on the south side of Duarte
Road, adjacent to the Church of the Good Shepherd, have been Zoned
R-2.
A special attorney, appraiser and engineer were employed to pre-
pare plans for the opening of Arcadia Avenue. Because of the ex-
cessive cost of the project, it was abandoned by the City Council
on August 16, 1960.
Page One
January 10, 1961
rl
(--...
'_../
'..../
The area presently under consideration is all Zoned R-l, except
to churches ZonedR-2 and a mortuary operating under a zone
variance. The residential lots are ail developed with single
family residences., Five lots have two dwellings each and five
lots have three dWellings each. Many of the dwellings are 20
or more years old. Under the present R-l zoning and regulations
no more dwellings can be constructed.
The ar,ea under consideration includes 38 ownerships. Twenty-five
of these owners have requested that their property be Zoned R-3.
The Planning Secretary explained from the board the location of
the ,property under consideration and the surrounding area. He
explained that property to the north on Fairview is Zoned R-3;
property to the south is Zoned R-I. The Planning Secretary ex-
plained that he had no written communications. .
The Chairman daclaredthe public hearing opened and requested that
those who wished to speak in favor of the zone change please come
forward and give their names.
Mr, John Street, 515 W. Duarte Road, stated he was speaking for
himself and three neighbors" Mr. and Mrs. Kerr, at 523 W. Duarte
RdMr. and Mrs. Wendling at 531 W. Duarte Road; Mr. and Mrs. Miller
a~ 541 ~. Duarte Road. His property is located on the north side
:f Du, rtE Road; they have not signed the petition, which they under-
~tood ~as an informal document, but he was now speaking for the
four properties mentioned that they are in favor of rezoning the
property from Zone R-I to Zone R-3. He continued that he would
request that the' Planning Commission please give favorable con-
sideration to this request.
Mrs. Leroy Anderson, oWner 'of property at 474 W. Duarte Road, wished
to add her statement requesting the zone change from R-l to R-3.
She believed the area is a beautiful setting for this type of zoning.
Mr. Frank Jolly, 488 W. Duarte Road, stated that there have been
several petitions requesting R-3 in the past; he stated he did not
feel that the street is a residential street due to the traffic
and the age of the homes. He stated that R-3 is the least they
would consider; when asked if he were in favor of R-3R he stated
he did not believe the property would sell readily with an R-3R;
it is not an exclusive area which would justify that type of
zoning; Duarte Road is a truck route and a bus route" an.d he
thought the area would not be suitable for this' type of zoning.
Mrs. Bullington, owner of property at 1107 Holly Avenue, stated
that she spoke to Mr. Nicklin about three years ago, and he told
her that he felt certain the property would be rezoned. She ex-
plained that she bought another home and moved there last March,
1960, and it has been costing them $100.00 a month to keep the pro-
perty on Holly Avenue. Her property on Holly is in escrow at the
present time, and the prospective buyer is contemplating building
nice units; if the property is Zoned R-3R, the buyer does not want
it.
Mrs. Elizabeth Willis, owner at HIS Holly Avenue, stated that
she pays $1500.00 a year in taxes, and she was in favor of the
zone change from R-l to R_3.
Mr. George Jelinek, 615 W.Duarte Road, stated he is the owner of
the ,property between the commercial property and the mortuary; he
Page Two
January lO,l96l
r/
/'--
'---'
wondered if this zone change would allow him C-2 or R-3.
The ,Planning Secretary explained that under these proceedings
Zone R-3 or some more restrictive zone is all that the commission
has jurisdiction to grant.
The Chairman explained that the commission was only concerned with
R-3 zoning in thiS' hearing.
Mr. Jelinek asked if he should yield to R-3 would this hamper his
chances of obtaining commercial zoning in the future?
Councilman Butterworth asked the Chairman if it would not be pos-
sible for Mr. Jelinek to reapply at a later date for rezone to a
commercial Zone? He fen that this party's position was somewhat
different from the others.
The City Attorney stated that he was under the impression that Mr.
Jelinek was not opposed to R-3, but he wanted something less re-
strictive than R-3. There is no need' for him to ask to have ~his
parcel withdrawn; these proceedings were instituted by the Planning
Commission on its own motion based on informal proposals, to con-
sider nothing less restrictive than R-3. There is nothing to pre-
clude him from asking for still less restrictive zoning in an
application filed by himself and processed through this commission.
Mr. Jack Tillotson, 437 W. Duarte Road, ,wished to go on record as
being ,in favor of a Zone R-3 change for these properties.
Mr. Sorg, 455 W. Duarte Road, was the name on the original applica-
tion for the rezoning of this property 3 years ago; he was in
favor of the R-3 zoning. In answer to the Chairman's question
about his feelings about a street being put through behind his
property, Mr. Sorg answered that because of the money factor in-
volved, he believed the feeling was definitely against the exten-
sion of Arcadia Avenue.
Mr. Lawrence Beckstrom, 445 W~ DUarte Road, stated that he built
his place in 1933, but today it is no longer desirable for R-I
living, and he was in favor of the R-3 zone.
Mr. LeRoy Miller, 541 W. Duarte Road, stated that even if the City
of Arcadia were to pay for all the costs involved in the opening
of Arcadia Avenue, he didn't believe anyone would be in favor of
the street going through. The property has other values than to
be used to put a street through.
Mr. Thurman Elliott, 451 W. Duarte Road, would like to go on
record as favoring the R-3 zone.
Mr. Carl Pearson, 427 W. Duarte Road, went on record as being in
,
favor of R-3; in regards to the R-3R he was opposed to it. He
felt that the opening of Arcadia Avenue" however, would be an
advantage to everyone, if it were possible to extend it at a reas-
onable cost.
Mr. Charles S. Penney, ~l2 W. Duarte Road, speaking for himself and
for his neighbors Mrs. Berry, and Mr. 6< Mrs. Stevens; stated they
were not in opposition to the rezoning of R-3 for the other proper-
ties concerned; even though the Planning Commission should ,recommend
and the City Council grant R-3 zoning to the properties, this would
Page Three
January 10, 1961
rl
-"
,
/
\_~~
not mean that property owners could not apply for a less restric-
tive zone at a later date. They are the only property witl1 zoning
other than commercial zoning between Lovell and Baldwin on the
south side. He believed that it was a bit out of order to include
the property adjacent to the commercial zoning in the same resolu-
tion covered here tonight. He felt that the properties he was re-
presenting were a separate and distinct case from the properties
east of them. He wondered if there were not a possibility of with-
drawing the three' properties west of Lovell Avenue from this pro-
ceeding.
The City Attorney explained that the Planning Commission included
the properties which in their opinion warranted consideration and
put a ceiling on the particular zoning they would consider in this
matter. They have the discretion of recommending anything from
R-3 on down to R-O for. that matter. in this proceeding, and they
likewise have, the discretion of eliminating any recommended change
of any portion of the property they feel ,does not warrant cons id-
eration for re~lassification. It would be proper for the commission
to insert a clause that their recommendation as to certain porti01s
of the area under consideration are not intended to preclude any
further consideration for even less restrictive zone upon proper
application; it points up the weakness in the zoning structure to
single a couple of lots and leave them in an even worse situation
than they would be if you gave them some relief at this time. He
would see no reason to eliminate certain portions.
Mr. Penney answered that the properties he represented would be
satisfied to remain in an R-I zone, unchanged. They differ to some
degree to what Mr. Jelinek's problem is. They were not asking for
any change of Zone now; what he desires now is to have these three .
properties excluded from the resolution.
The Planning Secretary explained that these properties were included
in the area which was zoned C-3 by ordinance and defeated by refer-
endum last year.
Mr. Penney stated that if these properties were zoned R-3, and one
of the three parcels were to change hands, and subsequently the
development of apartments was realized, that this would preclude
from here on out any possibility of that area ever developing
into the commercial development such as was contemplated last year.
Consequently he once more asked the commission ,to consider with-
drawing these properties from the resolution and these proceedings.
The City Attorney explained that a further alternative is that the
commission could recommend that certain parcels be left in its
present zoning at the request of the owners.
Mr. Joe Warner, neighbor to the south of the Penneys, 612 'W. Duarte
Road, wished to go on record as being in agreement with Mr. Penney's
statement. He ,added his request thai the Penney, Berry and Steven's
properties remain the same to see what further developments, if any,
might be made. He was not opposed to the R-3 from Holly Avenue
to Lovell Avenue.
No other persons desired to be heard.
Motion by Commissioner Norton., seconded by Commissioner Golisch and
carried unanimously to close the public hearing on this application
for zone change.
Commissioner Norton stated that in such matters as this the commis-
sion finds itself with a multiplicity of problems. He referred to
the peculiar conditions effecting problems west of Lovell to the
commercial area and the one lot on the north side which was between
Page Four
January IO,l96l
r
the mortuary and the commercial 'Zone. Consideration should
also be given to property owners Who are not directly involved
in this rezoning.
Thecollllllissioners generally agreed that the properties adjacent
to the commercial zon~ng should be permitted to withdraw from the
proceedings.
,Commissioner Norton wished to go on record as being opposed to
the continuation of'R-3 in th'e city on, its present basis; there
seems to be an overabundance of apartments in the city. The co~-
mission and staff should be in a position to know how many apart-
ments are now existing, the total residents occupying the apart-
ments and further potential R-3 land which is undeveloped; with-
out this information he felt the commission would be reaching a
decision without the necessary data to assist in arriving at the
bests~lution. He wondered, if this area is good for R-3, why
would it not also ,be good fqr R-3R development.
R-3Rappears to be an ideal situation to brinR a buffer from a
commercial to a residential area, Mr. Norton continued.
The Chairman declared that he believed the general consensus of
the commission WaS that the properties which had been mentioned
for deletion from the properties considered for this rezoning should
be excluded, and that a statement in the resolution when it is
drawn could indicate this.
Commissioner Ferguson brought to the attention of the commission
the different set of circumstances affecting each side of Duarte
Road at this location. On the ,north side R-3 extends to the
rear of the, properties, but on the south side the properties tq
the south are zoned R-I; he believed that this factor should be
taken into consideration when, reaching a deciSion.
Commissioner Golisch stated that pos6ibly the commission might
give consideration to a special ordinance granting multiple dwell-
ings with a one-story limit, but keeping the zone as R-l. He
referred to such a development on the west side of Baldwin Avenue,
which he believed is one of the finest multiple dwelling examples
in the city. He felt that it would be a suitable compromise be-
casue it would permit the petitiqners seeking rezoning to have
multiple units, and at the same time would overcome the problem
the commission faces in overdevelopment of R-3.
Discussion folloWed. The Cha'irlDan declar,ed that in view of the
new discussion which had resulted from this hearing he would like
to see this matter refer,red back to the Zoning Committee for
additional review and a report.
Commissioner Golisch stated he would prefer to reach a decision
tonight rather than delay the decision further.
Considerable discussion followed in an attempt to arrive at con-
clusions involving such factors as average square footage of the
units allowed, height limit, etc.
Councilman Butterworth addressed the chair, stating that the pur-
pose of the hearing is to assist. the City Council in render,ing an
ultimate decision. He would recommend that the matter be taken
Page Five
January 10, 1961
r
ZONE CHANGE
Sycamore Avenue
, ,
"_J
under advisement for further study rather than to arrive at
a hasty compromise at this time.
The City Attorney stated that it might be helpful for the Zoning
committee to meet with members of the staff to formulate proposals
that embody various phases of the discussion Which have been held
tonight. This would assist him considerably in the drawing up
of the resolut!on.
Commissioner Golisch stated that he would then withdraw his motion
so that the matter could be referred back to the Zoning Committee
and staff.
The Chairman declared that this matter would be carried over to the
next regular meeting for a report from the Zoning and Subdivision
Committees and staff for a decision at that time.
The Planning Commission considered a decision on the application
ofD. C. Wheeler, Jr., and others for a change of zone from Zone
R-l to Zone R-3 on the south side of Sycamore Avenue" east' of Second
Avenue.
The Planning Secretary read a communication Which asked that their
signature on the original petition for rezone be cancelled. After
investigation, they decided that it was nO,t in the best interest
of themselves nor the surrounding owners. The letter was signed
by Grace L. and A. J. Horn, 314 E. Sycamore Avenue.
The Planning Secretary then ~ead the staff report which stated this
is the application of D. C Wheeler, Jr., and others for a change
of zone from Zone R-l to Zone R-3 on prope'rty on the south side
of Sycamore Avenue east of Second Avenue. Four additional lots
were added by the commission by Resolution No. 39.7.
At the public hearing there was support for the zone change as well
as considerable protest. Six property owners within the area pro-
tested. Two of them had signed the original petition. Fourteen
(14) owners in adjacent areas protested R-3 zoning in this location.
Five (5) lots facing d~dicated Sycamore Avenue have been divided
with only driveway access to the rear portion. Two lots face on an
undedicated extension of Sycamore Avenue. Three (3) lots face on
a narrow private roadway extending north from Foothill Boule~ard.
All of the building sites except four are now developed with
single family homes. None of these homes can be considered as having
outlived their usefullness, and many are of quite recent construc-
tion. All have been attractively maintained. The building sites
available are all at the rear of lots, with no street frontage.
We feel that at this time there is no need for R-3 zoning in this
area, and that it would ,not be in the best interest of the area.
We, therefore, recommend that the request for rezoning be denied.
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford
and unanimously carried to close the public heaing on this matter.,
Commissioner Norton stated that he would, desire to support the
report
Page Six
January 10, 1961
of the Zoning Committee in this zone change request; he felt
that the city has an overabundance of R-3, and therefore he
would be in ,favor of recommending denial of this application.
Commissioner Norton presented this in the form of a motion, and
it was seconded by Commissioner Golisch and unanimously carried
to instruct 'the City Attorney to draw up a resolution accordingly.
LOT SPLIT
No. 320 - The commission considered the request of Henry L. .Harris
and others ,824-840 Arcadia Avenue, which was continued from December
27, 1960.
The Planning Secretary read a communication signed by the applicants
requesting withdrawal of the application. The letter was signed
by 'Mary and Henry Harris, Ann and William Cesario and Mike T.
Vallone.
The City Attorney a,dvised the ,commission to continue this matter
for two weeks, giving the staff an opportunity to contact the
applicants. There was a question of correcting the violations n~
existing on the property.
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson
and carried unanimously to continue the matter until January 24,
1961.
TRACT
24144
The commission considered the revised condition of Tract No. 24144
located south of Las Flores Avenue and west of Santa Anita Avenue.
The Planning Secretary stated that he spoke with Mrs. Sutton,
and she said that she is willing to remove the rumpus room thereby
complying with all the yard requirements after the building is
moved.
Commissioner Forman .stated that he viewed the property and the
feasibility of IDOving the house was acceptable providing that all
of ,the code requirements were met; that the Subdivision Committee
would recommend approval of the requested change in condition.
Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Norton
and carried unanimously t9 recommend approval of the altered con-
dition, for Tract No. 24144, with the stipulation that the rumpus
room be removed and the moved building comply with all the build-
ing code requirements.
MODIFICATION
APPEAL
Jones
The Planning Commission considered the appeal of W. D,Jones, 202
W. Camino Real from decision of Modification Committee, continued
from November 22, 1960.
The Planning Secretary explained that Mr. Jones could not be at
the meeting tonight, but that he had asked that this matter be
continued still further. He desires to submit a plan of what
he intends to do within 60 days; he hopes to have his remodeling
completed by May l, 1961, but he is asking that he be given until
October l, 1961 to complete it. He believed it will take about
$5,000.00 to complete it as suggested by the Director of Public
Works.
Page Seven
January lO, 1961
The Director of Public Works explain~d that he had recommended
alterations to thepresellt garage, but, of course, the improve-
ments would be costly.
The Planning Secretary advised that if the commission desired,
the proper action would be to sustain the action of the Modifica-
t~on Committee.
Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson
and carried unanimously to sustain the action of the Modification
Committee conce~ning 'the application of W. D. Jones, 202 W. Camino
Real, and to deny his appeal.
BUILDING
APPROVAL
The Planning Commission considered approval of a plan for a build-
ing addition for Harry McMahon, 33 E. Huntington Drive.
-The Planning Secretary explained that the existing building has
an arcade through the center with offices on each side, he proposes
to add to the building at the back to within 25 feet of the alley
line as provided in the recent ~ariance granted. The alley behind
the building is higher than Huntington Drive; at the present time
there are steps out from the arcade to get out to ground level. He
proposes to change the steps to a ramp, and the building would be
raised to about 7 foot 6 inches above the sidewalk to the rear; it
would be open underneath and landscaped, except for an area along
the west side Which would be a mechanical room.
Commissioner Golisch asked if the staff had reviewed these plans
and agreed that they conform with the requirements of the variance.
The Planning Secretary answered in the affirmative, except that
the variance would require the marquee to run eight feet wide the
full width of the building.
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson,
to grant tentative aRproval of the bu!lding plan at 33 E. Huntington
Drive, subject to th~ marquee being eight feet wide the full width
of the buildillg, and that the plans be resubmitted for approval
after correction.
ANNEXATION
South of
Live Oak
The Planning Secretary presented the report of the Subdivision and
Zoning Committees which stated the above committees have inspected
the area, talked with several of the residents, and thoroughly dis-
cussed the matter between themselves.
While the area generally is developed as a desirable residential
district, the committees found many points where it does not con-
form with standards enforced by the present Arcadia Code.
Several of the streets are 50 feet and 54 feet wide, with a corres-
ponding reduction in improved width. Florinda Avenue from Lynrose
to Daines is only a half width street. In several instances the
rear portion of lots is developed on what appear to be private
streets, Some of the streets do not have curb, and gutter, but only
narrow pavement.
Two open storm drains are unimproved at their outlets. One extends
southerly ,from Farna Avenue and the other from Lenore Avenue.
Page Eight
January 10, 1961
The majority of the lots are below our 75 foot standard, ranging
from 50 feet upward. Some are 80 to 90 feet.
While no measurements were taken, many of the houses appear to be
below or barely the minimum 1000 square feet of floor area. Quite
a number of them have attached one car garages. In some instances
the garages have' been converted in,to a part of the house, leaving
no covered parking facility.
The report of the Water Superintendent states that a considerable
amount of the water system is undersized and that fire hydrant spac-
ing is poor. If the area is annexed and toe fire protection facil-
ities, including larger water mains are not upgraded, it seems logi-
cal that the rating of the entire city might be lowered.
The reports of the various department heads estimating the cost of
servicing the area, and the estimate of anticipated revenues as
set out in the report of the Community Development Committee indi-
cate that the revenue from the area will be considerably less than
the cost to the city.
The area is included in the El Monte School District. The Rio Hondo
Scho,ol ,is situated at Daines Drive and Lenore Avenue, in the easterly
portion of the area. The report of the Assistant Chief of Police
indicates that this school serves kindergarten to and including the
Eighth Grade and has an enrollment of 841 children.
While there is no plan at the present time to attempt to make a
change in the school district, it is very possible that if the area
is annexed that a request to be annexed to the Arcadia School District
might be made in the future.
At this time the commission has no information on the method nor
the cost of annexing the ares to the Arcadia School District and
acquiring the school plant.
Members of the committee, while inspecting, the area, stopped at
random, and talked with owners ,living in the area. They found no
evidence of a majority of the residents having a real desire to
become a part of the city.
From information available to this committee, we see no particular
l!dvantage, either to the owners or the city, in this proposed
annexation. We therefore, recommend that it not be encouraged.
However, if the annexation is to be attempted, we feel that all four
areas should be considered as a unit. In our opinion this would
result in a more re~ular city boundary.
The commissioners agreed generally that the report encompassed their
views on this area under consideration for annexation.
The City Attorney in answer to questions about the school problem,
stated that it is not an easy matter to annex a school district
from one jurisdiction to another. It is handled through the Sup-
erintendent of Instruction for the county in cooperation with the
administrative heads of the respective school districts.
Adjustment of school boundaries under those proceedings are made
only after a careful study of all of the factors involved, the im-
pact on each distript, the desires of the people. Transfers of
Page Nine
January 10, 1961
~
school boundaries ~re not made except upon the balancing of the
equity so to speak; it is not simple, nor is it done in haste.
He did not believe that the effect of the proposed annexation on
the al teration of s,chool boundaries should be of sufficient impor-
tance to influence the commission's recommendation.
Commissioner Norton stated that any annexation to be considered has
to be considered on both sides of the fence. In evalua~ing this
annexation it would appear ~hat the related costs are, not in balance.
The Chairman asked those who were interested in addressing the com
mission on this annexation to please step forward.
Mrs. Charles Phillips, 5548 Double Drive, stated that she felt
that the residents of this area had supported Arcadia in their
stores, churches and every phase of its activitY~inThe City of
Arcadia has annexed the one area which their/~af~f1t. Their
selling point was this business property; they have always felt
morally tha~ they are a part of Arcadia, and felt that they should
be in the ci~y legally.
A woman from the au~ience, 5534 Double Drive, stated she concurred
with everytning that Mrs. Phillips said; she felt that the people
in this area have been a part of the family of Arcadia; not legally;
they are foster children. The city has taken the top off of the
ice cream cone, Live Oak business district; they don't choose to go
to El Monte, and have just recently defeated Temple City. She
asked the Planning Commission what their recommendation would be
that they do?
Councilman Butterworth stated that ,this is certainly a decision
Which ultimately will have to be made; the area has to go someplace;
the area isa ,problem and the problem will not' be solved by the
city turning its back on it. The city cannot totally justify the
fact that it took the area I s sales tax revenue source, but will not
take the petitioner's area; there is considerable sales volume in
the area generated from people living south of Live Oak.
The property owner at 5534 Double Drive continued that people h~ve
supported the City of Arcadia; people have gotten rid of their live-
stock, their chickens as the people ,in Arcadia have.
Mr. Harry L. Conover, 5545 Clarinda, stated that people in the area
had always wished to be annexed to the City of Arcadia, and when they
got' the news that Arcadia was annexing the south side of Live Oak
business section, felt that maybe the city would take them. They
were not aware at that time they had to in~te the move before they
would be considered by the City Council for annexation. He discussed
some of the steps lea'ding up to the COlmnunity Development Committee's
study of the area. This committee, after reviewing the various r~
ports from Fire, Police, Public Works, Water, etc., came up with
the recommendation that this area be considered for annexation
favorably.
He continued discussing the costs; the estimated sales tax return
from the business area is $40,800.00; add the $34,066.00 from real
estate taX; plus $26,700.00, State Gas Tax and Motor Vehicle license
apportionment comes to a sum total of $101,566.00 which the city
would be getting. This should offset the $75,000.00 which has been
claimed the city would not be able to derive from the area.
Mr,. Conover added in regards to the schools, that he has talked with
residents in the area, and they are quite happy with the schools
they now use.
Page Ten
January 10, 1961
I' . .
~
He made reference to the water deficiencies in the area; and sug-
gested that there are also areas in the City of Arcadia that
have so-called substandard pipes, etc., which only time can correct.
He stated that ,they do not wish to be annexed to EI Monte, because
the El Monte address does affect the property values adversely.
The residents living south of Live Oak are interested in improving
the value of their property which could be realized if they were
a part of the City of Arcadia.
Mr" Conover, concluded, stating that ,he earnestly requested a favor-
able report from the Planning Commission to the City Council, be-
cause he felt that an unfavorable recommendation could damage their
cause..
Mr. Romano. 11158 E. Primrose Street. stated that a good' percentage
of the residents send the*r children to the parochial school Which
would alleviate some of the concern over schools. He explained that
people have added rooms to their homes and generally maintained
their homes in a decent manner.
The City Attorney stated that due to the many annexations and incor-
porations in the area the result has been that there are only rem-
nants of the larger areas, which now find themselves orphans, be-
cause frllkJy he didn I t believe even the county wants them because
they pose problems due to their isolation. He believed tht day,
will come When these small remnants will be absorbed one way or
another into existing cities, or by a revamping of our whole system
of"local government. The people involved in this area have indicated
that they do not desire to go to Temple City, and he believed the
majority would not like to go to EI Monte.
The City Attorney continued that although it is not improper for the
Planning Commission to consider the physical aspects of an annexa-
,tion, that the report required by the Government, Code deals with
the nature of the subdivision and the improvements in the area with
an eye to the compliance or non-compliance of them in the light of
the ordinances which would become applicable in the case of annexa-
tion. 'He CXluld not predict what the attitude of the City Council
would be; he did not feel that a favorable report would mean much,
but an unfavorable one would probably defeat the petition to be
annexed.
Commissioner Norton commended the people who presented ,their case
for annexation fora fine job. It was not a case of dollars and
cents specifically, nor did it reveal a more realistic cost in
ratio of the $lOO,OOO.OO figure mentioned as compared to the
$75,,000.00 figure. He did not believe in adding additional pro-
blems to what is already existing. He was sympathetic to their
problem,
Mr. Conover addressed the commission once more asking what would
be involved in the case of annexation should the area be come a
part of the Arcadia Water district1
The Director of Public Wor~answered that in order to buyout the
system at the price the present private company feels it is worth
and What the City of Arcadia feels it is worth, usually ends up in
legal entanglements of trying to arrive at What the actual worth
of the system is; then it isnecessar,y to find dollars' to purchase
that system, and subsequently to bring the system to the standards
of the City of Arcadia takes many more dollars.
Mr. Conover expressed on behalf of the residents a willingness to
help raise money necessary to finance such an undertaking, but of
course they could not do so if they are not given the opportunity
to become a part of the City of Arcadia.
Page Eleven
January 10, 1961
.. . .
---,
The City Attorney stated that generally in the City of EI Monte
the report from the Planning Commission ,consistS of such infor-
mation as the entire area is sUbdividec;l, the lots average such a width
and area, the streets are pave.d ',:11.: uupav~t.l, cUl~L~.... \JL' l....cur'bed, etc.
There has been very little discussion of the primary items that
are envisaged in a report from the Planning Commission under the 19l3
Act. The field that is more akin, 'to the precise field of planning,
what is the zoning of the area, how does it compare with that of
the City of Arcadia, etc.
The Director of Public Works at this point advised the City Attorney
and the commission that very detailed reports h~d been submitted
by each department head to the Plan~ing Commission before the writing
of the report ~ead tonight.
Commissioner Norton suggested that these detailed reports referred
to by ,the Director of 'Public Works be made a part of the report
which was submitted tonight when for,wardedto the City CounciL
He stated for the record that each specific finding brought ,out
in this report was evaluated item by item in the commission's final
conclusion from the report of the Community Development Committee
dated December, 15, 1960.
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch
and carried unanimously to:transmit to the City Council the report
of the Planning Commission accompanied by copies of the detailed
reports from each of the departments of the city government.
BUILDING
APPROVAL
The Planning Secretary explained to th~ commission that two weeks
ago the plans for the medical building at 623 W. Duarte Road were
approved by the commission, subject to the owners filing an ease-
ment over the driveway on the market' square property. The appli-
cants wished to address the commis'sion on th, is matter.
. - , .
Dr. Emil Ritter, lOOl Paloma Drive, felt that with Arcadia Avenue
now being extended part way; does the dedication of the rear of their
property create a right of way across the deeded portion to the rear
lot of their property thereby making it unnecessary for them to
obtain the easement to the West.
The City Attorney ruled that the dedicated portion of the lot does
not provide proper access to the lot, on the rear of the proposed
improvement.
The Director of Public Works answered the second question regarding
the improvement of Arcadia Avenue being completed since they have
dedicated their property; he stated that when certain undedicated
portions have been secured, and when the necessary funds approved
by the City Council are forthcoming then the improvement would be
realized.
After considerable discussion it was determined that the builders
should go ahead and obtain the easement to the west to enable them
to obtain a building permit.
TRACT
26345
The Director of Public Works presented the tentative map, of Tract
No'. 26345, consLsting of 25 lots on the west side of Peck Road.
These lots are approximately 300 feet deep and 80 fooLinwidth;
there is an easement planned for storm dralnage purposes between
Pa.ge Twelve
January 10, 1961
... ..
,~
.-.
'-_/
lots 2l, and 22 and possible future sanitary sewerage. He ex-
plained the sewerage plans and the water source.
The City Attor~ey explained for the information of the commission
that this entire area with the exception of the water site, is the
subject, of a contract for purchase by Arcadia Industries, and the
agreement provides for them to bu~ld two 22,000 square foot steel
and concrete buildings on the, first two parcels they buy; then
they must buy a parcel a year at least; they must buy it all in five
years; they must bU,ild'a' building on each, parcel within 6 months
after they acquire title, and in accordance with the overlay condi-
tions imposed by the Planning Commission recommendation; they also
.agree ,to put in the sewers, the water, street, curb and the rest.
Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by CoDlDlissioner Norton
and carried unanimously to recommend th~ approval of tentative
Tract Map No. 26345 as outlined by the Director of Public Works.
ADJOURN
There being no further business presented to the Planning Commission
the meeting adjourned at ll:45 P.M.
f-vvv,
L. M. TALLEY
Planning Secretary
Page Thirteen
January 10, 1961