HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 11, 1961
...
. -
ROLL CALL
MINUTES:
ZONE
CHANGE
Naomi Ave.
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
April 11, 1961
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., April II,
1961, with Chairman Acker presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton,
Rutherford and Acker.
ABSENT:
Nene,.
OTHERS
PRESENT
Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz, and
Planning Secretary ,L, M. Talley.
The Planning Commission approved the minutes of the regular meeting
of March 28, 1961, as written and mailed.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application of Ellen
Miller and others, for a change of zone from Zones R-l and R-2 to Zones
C-3 and D on property located at 645 to 671, inclusive, Naomi Avenue.
The proposed area to be changed consists of six lots on the ,north side of
Naomi Avenue. The application stated there was a need for the type
zoning requested because the property to the north and to the west is
commercial and the east side is a public parking lot serving the Professional
Square. There is a demand for additional stores and commercial buildings
in this area, and this would be a means of completing the north-south
alley serving the block. All of the lots are occupied by small single
family residences. Occupants of surrounding lots are almost all, without
exception, agreeable to the change of zone and feel it would improve the
neighborhood.
The Planning Secretary read the staff report stating that the property
to the west is now zoned C-2" and, except for the small lot at 673 Naomi
Avenue, is now developed and used for C-2 purposes. The property to the
north is zoned C-2 and C-3 and is developed and used for those uses.
Lo.t 11, adjoining the subject property on the east is zoned R-l, but is
developed and used as a public parking lot by reason of a zone variance
granted December IS, 1959, by Resolution No. 3204.
The property across the street on the south side of Naomi Avenue is
zoned R-l and R-2 'and is being used for residential purposes.
The subject property is now developed and used for residential purposes.
All of the houses are old, the latest having been constructed in 1936.
This subject property is a part of the larger area that was rezoned to
Zones C-3 and D by Ordinance No. 1071, adopted January 5, 1960, which
was defeated by the referendum election in April, 1960.
If this requested rezoning is granted, it is the opinion of the staff
that the development of the area should follow the general plan purposed
for the larger area. This will insure that when the property is de-
veloped it will have adequate access, parking area and landscaping to
present a pleasing appearance.
Page One
April 11, 1961
.
.
J
/---,
The following requirements for the Zone D regulations are recommended.
These requirements are taken fr,om Ordinance No. 10.71 and Resolution
No. 3206 and are identical with the requirements imposed on the larger
area:
1. The southerly 12 feet of lots 5 to 10, inclusive,
Tract No. 4611, shall, be dedicated or offered for
dedication to the City of Arcadia for the widening
Naomi Avenue.
2. That either the easterly 15 feet of lots 1, 2, 3 and 4
and the westerly 15 feet of lot 5 of Tract No. 4611,
or the westerly 30 feet of said' lot 5 be dedicated or
offered for dedication to the City of Arcadia for
aliey purposes.
3. All properties required by items 1 and 2 hereinabove
to be offered or dedicated for street or alley purposes
be improved to City standards,or that a cash or surety
bond tn the estimated amount of the cost of such im-
provements, as determined by the City Engineer, be
deposited with the City of Arcadia.
4. No building shall be erected or maintained on the
southerly 27 feet of lots 5 to 10, inclusive. At least
9 feet of the northerly is feet of the southerly 27 feet
of said lots shall be suitably landscaped and maintained.
S. Signs shall be limited to one square foot of area for
each foot of building frontage. All signs to be mounted
flat against the building and no flashing or roof signs
to be allowed.
6. All lighting of the above described areas and the buildings
thereon shall be directed away from adjoining residential
property.
7. All plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval as to plot plan, architectural treatment,
wall, landscaping and signs before issuance of a building
permit.
8. The Planning Commission or City Council may modify any
of the foregoing conditions if such modification will not
adversely affect property or improvements in the vicinity
and if such modification will equally accomplish substan-
tially the same results as will the adherence to the fore-
going conditions.
9. All of the dedications or offers of dedication required
in items 1 and 2 above, and the improvement of such
dedications or the deposit of the bond required by item
3 above shall be complied with prior.'to the rezoning
becoming effective and operative.
One communication had been received by the Planning Secretary from'
Maurice Scanlon, ,President of the West Arcadia Home Owner I s Association,
wherein they stated that after careful consideration they were not '
inclined at this time to object to the proposal ofa change of zone;
provided, however, it was not the first of a series of steps anticipated
wherein a massive land use change would result. The organization, a year
Page Two
April 11, 1961
,
o
ago, was opposed co che huge commercialization of .che WesC Arcadia
area and Che. major purpose of che organization is Co oppose Chis
Crend. Any major rezoning in chis area, if such is in mind, should
be carefully prepared by Che Planning COlIDDission, Chus enabling all
incerested property owners to review the entire picture.
'The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for hearing
the application.for the zone change and requested those in favor
to present their case.
Mrs, Ellen Miller, 630 Naomi Avenue, stated Chat her property was
not within the area being considered, but she was in favor of the
change. She stated there were seven pieces of property buC one had
already been rezoned. Originally these properties were cbicken ranches-
as bUSinesses - and people lived tbere until they desired more up to
date homes, etc. As a result, most of the houses have been rented and
sbe felt most of the homes were substandard. While there is business
to che north and ,to tbe west, a parking lot to the east. it seems
necessary for some assistance to improve the property. Only two of
the residences are occupied by owners, the others are rentals. Many
of tbem have evidences of baving been chicken ranches witb feed houses
still remaining.
Mrs. Genevieve Espinoza. owner of 665 E. Naomi Avenue, was very much
in favor of the change.
Mrs. Mary Leupold of 663 Naomi Avenue, stated that she was not in
favor of zoning that would benefit a few. but this would be far-
reacbing and would increase tbe value of the neighborhood as well.
Mr. Michael Blake, ofl245 Lovell Avenue. stated be was witbin the
300 feet and had no objections to the rezoning.
Mrs. Howard Mallougb, of 653 Naomi Avenue. stated sbe was very com~
fortable in her bome, but was not opposed to the rezoning. She
requested further information as to the dedication of the alley and
whether or not this bad to be done prior to the actual rezoning.
She was informed tbat this would be a part of the rezoning and might
be required prior to its becoming effective and operative,
Mr. James O. warner, of 1225 Lovell Avenue requested information as
to the D overlay. He stated when the referendum was voted on the
zoning was considered as a unit. The D overlay was appropriate
for the entire neighborhood at the time of the referendum. He was
concerned about the alley. One property owner Should not have to stand
the expense of the improvement nor of the dedication. It should be
handled as a unit. The property owners are in general agreement but
it is 'a matter to be determined.
The last requirement of the report. if adopted. would almost require
the property owners to join and dedicate the alley and make the
improvements befOre the rezoning became effective.
Mr. Nicklin. City Attorney, felt it was well for the public to raise
these problems before a final report and decision is to be,made.
Chairmen Acker requested those who desired to oppose the request
to so state. No one responded.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by COlIDDissiorier Forman, and
carried, that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee and
the Subdivision Committee for a review and report on April 25, 1961.
The City Attorney advised that he felt i,t would be helpful to the
Page Three
April 11, 1961
VARIANCE
918 w.
Huntington
Drive
,,--
()
Committee 'before the adjourning of the meeting to have a discussion
on this matter as he had a few suggestions to make that each of the
Commissioners might find helpful and would assist in the Committees'
making their report. He suggested that the balance of the agenda be
completed before the discussion. The Commissioners concurred in
this rec~endation.
The Pl~nning C~ission held a public hearing on the application of
J. Ray Risser for a zone variance to erect additional apartment units
and to continue the use, without modification, of existing driveway
and covered carports at 918 West Huntington Drive.
The Planning Secretary read from the application which stated that
the property was purchased in 1938. There are, including the four
units under consideration, more than ample parking spaces for cars,
covered and uncovered, and more ample driveway facilities than any
apartment on Huntington Drive. No cars of tenants or guests are
parked in the street at any time, day or night. Guests are invited
to park on the property. Cars and trucks, including garbage and
United Parcel can drive to the rear of the lot to make deliveries
and service. The driveway is open on both sides.
The added four units would not be detrimental and would add to the
appearance of the general planning as it was anticipated at the
time of building the present units to increase the number of apart-
ments. The sewer and water have been constructed to the rear anticipating
this construction. Carports and spaces are more than adequate for the
present buildings and more convenient than anyone Huntington Drive.
The driveway width is from 16.2 feet to over 45 feet with an average
width of over 3D feet. Carports average 10-1/2 feet in width. The
present carports could be respaced and room made for eight more cars
spaced 7-1/2 feet per car. As to car spaces, there are seven regular
and eight more special parking,
This area has been reserved for the building of this four unit building,
so it would be a great loss to the owner to maintain this lot and pay
taxes and continue to have vacant and uncovered parking spaces for
this apartment. The sewer and water were constructed at the time the
building was constructed in 1954. The building of these units would
be the finishing of the original plan for the improvement of this lot.
This would be an asset to the surrounding areas.
The Planning Secretary read the staff report which recited that this
is the application 'of J. Ray Risser for a zone variance to permit the
erection of four additional apartment units at the rear of the property
and to COntinue the use, without modification, of the existing driveway
and covered carports.
In 1954, this property was developed with 16 apartment units. At that
time 1-1/4 parking spaces were required, which would be a total of 20
spaces. 21 carports were provided. In addition, there are 6 open
spaces, 5 of which are in the front yard and cannot be counted as
required spaces,
The driveway is 16 feet wide, There is open space on each side of the
drive which would allow for its widening except at three places where
turns are made between the apartments and the carports. These spots
vary slightly, but are approximately 18 feet wide.
At the rear of the property there is approximately 72 feet' by 78 feet
vacant except for a small storage shed which is proposed to be removed.
Page Four
April n, 1961
,/---\
If the four additional units were constructed according to the plan
submitted, it would make a total of 20 units on the property, with 21
covered carports and 4 legal open parking spaces, plus 5 others now
in the front yard.
If the entire property were to conform with present requirements, the
20 units would require 30 parking spaces. If the original improvement
continues as a non-conforming use and the new addition meets the present
code, a total of 26 spaces will be required.
In addition to the shortage of parking spaces, the driveway does not
conform with present requirements.
The Planning Secretary pointed out the property under discussion and
showed the driveway and parking spaces, together with the area provided
for the new units.
Commissioner Norton asked if the variance were granted what effect
it would have for the fire equipment to handle a fire should one occur
at the rear of the lot. There is a distance of 16.2 feet between the
carports and the apartment buildings where in two places the truck
would have to make a jog. The applicant felt this could be done with
no handicap as the City Refuse Co. picks up trash from the rear of the
lot, using large trucks.
A communication was received supporting the application from Mr. Risser,
requesting permission to continue to use the present driveways, parking
areas and carports to accommodate the four additional units to complete
the development of the 'architectural plan designed in 1954. There was
also other information to support the' application,
The Chairman announced that this was the time and place 'for hearing
the appl'ication for the zone change and requested those in favor to
present supporting data.
Mr. J, Ray Risser, 918 West Huntirigton Drive, stated that in planning
his apartments ample room had been allowed both for living and for con-
venience in service. United Parcel and delivery trucks could easily
reach each apartment; also lIIoving vans are able to discharga loads to
individual apartments rather than service from the streets.
Mr. Risser produced a projector and slides showing the various eleva-
tions and also in detail the driveways and parking areas of adjoining
apartments. Be requested permission to present these to the Commission
as they would more accurately show the spaciousness of the driveway
and the parking spaces and easy accessibility to each of the apart-
ments. He stated that the plan was filed with the Building Department
at the time the original units were built; but due to finances the
entire project could, not be completed, He stated that he has since
retired and now needs to supplement his income. He felt the pictures
were more grephic than any other presentation he could make. The
first picture showed the front of the lot, showing the parking spaces
provided in the front of the building. This can be used not only for
five cars but when necessity arises, it can accommodate five additional
cars. Pictures of an adjoining apartment showed a "nine foot" drive
with an overhang which would prevent high trucks from entering. He
pointed out that en angle iron had been placed on the building because
of cars hitting it. He also showed pictures of another new apartment
with an extremely long driveway, Another was viewed on Duarte Road
where water hydrants were on the building next to the driveway and
projected out so that a wide car could eaaily hit them.
Page Five
April 11, 1961
)
Another picture showed a long driveway to an apartment that is just being
completed on Huntington Drive. He then showed his driveway w~th an
Oldsmobile and a Chevrolet parked side by side in the front ,driveway
with ample room for each. He stated that the barbage truck had come
in and a car was parked in the driveway, but there was ample room for
both. Several other pictures were viewed showing each aparbnent with
a patio and easy access to garages and, parking spaces. HI!. Risser
felt he had more than lived up to the code with his buildings and he should
be allowed to build the additional units. Each of the present apartments
average more than the required 750 square feet. The plans for the new
units would average over 1000 square feet'.
Mr. 'Caldwell, a tenant of Mr. Risser for over five years, stated that
he concurred with the statements made by Mr. Risser. He has never
had difficulty because of parking" even though a car had been parked
in the driveway. It was of great value to the tenants to have ~il
service and garhage service to the rear of the property, and he ~eartily
approved of Mr. Risser's plan.
Mr. Hugh Connelly, 913 Fairview Avenue, stated his property backed up
to Mr. Risser's property. He felt the property was an asset to the
neighborhood and a thing of beauty. He was in favor of the granting
of the application. He has been a resident at this, address for 38
years and he hoped that when he sold his place units would be erected
as beautiful and lend the aesthetic value to the area as Mr. Risser's
property,
Discussion followed. The width of the parking stalls was satisfactory.
The question was the number of stalls, not counting the spaces provided
in the front yard, and the width of the driveway, The driveway is not
20 feet wide; there are wider turning areas between the carports, but
the paved driveway is. 16 feet wide and the area between the apartments
and the carports iS,approximately 18 feet.
CommiSSioner Norton asked if there would be any problem with fire
equipment being able to enter in case of fire.
Commissi'oner Fol'tllSn stated an attempt had been made by the Planning
Commission to assist in bringing non-conforming buildings and yard
requirements, etc. up to code. The Planning Secretary stated that
according to hhe report, if these four units are added there will be
a total of 20 units on the property with 21 covered carports and 4
open spaces, not counting the front yard spaces, because the ordinance
does not allow these to be counted as part of the required parking.
Also, this does not include the tandem parking shown on the pictures
which is not allowed under the present Ordinance, The 20 units to
conform with present requirements, would require 30 spaces and would
have 25; therefore, would be short 5 spaces.tClIf<llllie/:'original improve-
ment is considered as non-conforming and the new addition meets the
present code, a total of 26 spaces would be required with 25 provided,
not counting the spaces in the front yard.
Commissioner Michler complimented Mr. Risser on his development and
stated if all buildings had been constructed with this long range
planning, probably restrictive ordinances would not have had to be
made,
Commissioner Forman was in favor of leaving the front apartments as
they are presently developed, provided the rear buildings and parking
is made to conf9rm to the. present code.
Page Six
April 11, 1961
CODE CHANGE
Driveways
/~~,
,
\~-~/'
.
Commissioner Norton stated this should be considered in the light of
the ordinances that have been adopted; but at the same time there must
be a- realistic approach to the existent property,. and wher,e an individual
has acted in good faith and developed his property with the maximum
requirements, and more land is 'available for further development,
even though it does not meet all of the necessary requirements, parti-
cularly with the code changes, there should be a flexibility in the
ordinances to permit certain variances.
Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Norton
and carried, that the hearing on the application fora zone variance
at 918 West Huntington Drive be continued, and that the. matter be
referred to the Zoning Committee and Fire Department for a report.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal to alter
the present driveway regulations. A report was read by the Planning
Secretary from the Zoning Committee and the staff., dated March 9, 1961,
before the proceedings were commenced which related to Zones R-3-R and
R-3. At the time the proceedings were commenced Zone R-2 was also
included. The report refers to Zones R-3-R and R-3 only.
'The Zoning Committee and staff ,have studied the matter of driveway
widths in relation to the recommendation of the Fire Chief for
sufficient clearance to allow the placement of apparatus at fires.
The Fire Chief has stated that the Fire Department equipment requires
a minimum of 12 feet horizontal clearance and 13 feet vertical clearance.
In order to afford the best fire protection to the occupants of the
buildings, the committee recommends that the Municipal Code be amended
to require that driveways in Zones R-3-R andR-3 be 12 feet 6 inches
wide, with a minimum of 12 feet horizontal clearance and 13 feet
verncal clearance.
If the driveway serves more than 12 required parking spaces or is more
than 125 feet in length, then two such driveways should be required.
In lieu of the two driveways, one 20 foot driveway in accordance
with present requirements should be allowed.
The committee also recommends that the code, be amended to authorize
the Modification Committee to make minor modifications in driveway
requirements.
They also recommend that the commission consider the advisability
of requiring that signs be posted to prohibit automobile parking
in required driveways."
The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for hearing
the proposed code change and requested that those deSiring to comment
on the proposed change should do so at this time.
No one desired to be heard,
Inasmuch as the proceedings were instituted by the Commission itself.,
and the driveways in Zone 'R-2 have never been considered, it was
moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and
carried, that the public hearing on the proposed code change for
driveways be continued and that the matter be referred to the Zoning
Committee ,fora report to be submitted at the next regular meeting
of the Planning Commission of April 25, 1961.
Page Seven
April 11, 1961
LOT SPLIT
No. 330
.
The application of Albert O. Knutsen, 2519 Holly Avenue, which had
been referred to Commissioners Forman and Ferguson was considered.
The report of
to the effect
be required:
the City Engineer was read by the Planning Secretary
that if this' split were granted the following should
1.
2.
3.
4.
A f~nal map should be filed,
Provide a sewer lateral, for Parcel No.3,
Recreation fee of $25.00,
Disconnect the water from Woodruff Avenue lot
and install a new water service when the
lot is improved, this to meet the Uniform
Plumbing Code,
The applicant should furnish ev'ide'nce that, the
proposed split was not made, contrary to any
existing Tract restrictions.
5.
The Planning Secretary advised that the rearportton of the lot is
only 62 feet wide. The tract restrictions were produced showing that
one of the conditions "1s that no residential structure shall be erected
or constructed on any building Rlot which plot has an area of less than
10,800 square feet, or a width of less than 60 feet at the front build-
ing line. The restrictions run until January 1, 1967.
The lot, as proposed, would have an area of 10,004 square feet. The
remaining portions of" the old .lots would have an area of 8223 square
feet and 9835 square feet. All three lots would have an area of less
than 10,800 square feet as required by deed restriction. If this
split is approved, the owners propose to get all of the residents
to lift the restrictions.
Commissioner Forman advised that be had checked the area and that
the lot is considered to be a reasonable building site; there are
a number of lot splits on Holly Avenue and this is a type very
similar to that which already exists. There are within two blocks
other houses facing Holly Avenue so that this would not establish
a precedent. The lot area exceeds that of R-l zones as developed
in new subdivisions.
Commissioner Ferguson also viewed the lot and objected to the
irregular side lot line; He could understand a lot split where
the intention was to'straighten a property line, but this would
create an. irregular line. The rear yard of Lot 41 would be cut.
The area could not possibly be subdivided.
Commissioner Goliscb stated thst be could see no advantage to the
future development of Arcadia as a whole. Most lots face side
streets from Holly Avenue. Tbis is a major s.treet and there are
no bouses within two blocks tbat face Holly Avenue. One reason
a fine city has been developed is due to the fact that the
restrictions have been kept up; the more the lots are cut up for
this type of development the mor.e the long range I'lanning and
development will be hurt. If this is allowed there will be more
requests of a simiar nature. He felt that this did not make for
good planning,
Commissioner Norton concurred with Commissioner Ferguson, and in
keeping with the evaluation heretofore made, moved that Lot Split
No. 330 be denied. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner
Golisch and carried by tbe following vote:
Page Eight
April 11, 19&1
COUNCIL
LIAISON
ZONE CHANGE
Naomi Avenue
Continued
.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS FERGUSON, GOLISCH, MICHLER, NORTON, RUTHERFORD
AND ACKER,
NOES: COMMISSIONER FORMAN.
ABSENT: NONE
Commissioner G01isch, Council liaison, reported that the only matter
under consideration at the present time was the zone variance of Mr.
Henry Cordelius for an R-3 zoning on property on West Camino Real
that had been considered at the last Planning C01IIIIIission meeting.
This request had been denied and Mr. Cordelius had appealed this
decision to the City Council,
City Attorney Nicklin pointed out that the rec01lllllendation of this
Commission and the decision of the Council at the time Ordinance
No. 1071 was adopted was that this area, included in the original
application, should be developed area by area, and be a joint venture.
It has not been too successful where a restriction was imposed upon
all properties in a given area before the zoning became effective.
Cases were cited where such a restriction was placed against certain
areas and the property still remains undeveloped. He did not feel
that the same restrictions should not apply to the entire area, but
that .it is a problem for the Committee to handle such a development,
other than with a joint venture. To require one lot to be dedicated for
the full 30 feet would place the entire burden on one owner. The lots
facing Baldwin Avenue, to which the alternative is granted to deed 15
feet from the rear and IS feet from the lot adjoining on Naomi Avenue.
are not a part of these particular proceedings so as such could not
be considered at this time. But, from the standpoint of the benefit
to be derived from the construction of the alley, the lots on Baldwin
Avenue would receive equal benefits.
With respect to the requirement that an amount be deposited or a
bond be submitted to insure the completion of the alley.. t'he City
Attorney suggested that the alley in this location could be improved
under the 1911 Improvement Act proceedings and the costs spread
equally over the properties benefitted. Other properties then would
share in the cost of the improvement and would share in the benefits.
The entire area would be benefitted by the construction of such an
alley.
The requirement should be that the alley be improved by any appropriate
proceeding rather than by requiring cash or bond deposit. This would
tend to foster the development of the area, possibly more quickly
than if improvements were assessed against certain lots; whereas,
other lots would also benefit.
The requirement of the dedication alone will have an effect on
a joint venture becoming effective. From the practicality of the
situation one lot will not dedicate the entire 30 feet; therefore,
it must be handled as a joint venture.
Mr. 'Nicklin pointed out that where a measure is adopted and then
submit~ed to referendum and the referendum is successful to defeat
the measure, the same measure cannot be again adopted for a period
of one year. The date starts from the canvass of the votes on the
referendum. This particular portion could have been considered
and an ordinance adopted any time within the one year period because
it is not substantially the same measure that was voted on. The
area under consideration represents approximately one-tenth of the
area'formerly considered. This poses no problem on the present case
for the reason the year will have expired before this variance would
reach the ordinance stage.
Page Nine
April Ii, 1961
TRACT NO.
26295.
.
It was the concensus of opinion that the area should be developed as
a unit and not individual stores so that the same condition that now
exists on South. First Avenue would not prevail. If the six lots could
be developed as a unit it would probably be advantageous.
Conuniss,ioner Norton' stated'the,'same principle should be adhered to
in this case as in previous cases where the Commission worked closely
with the property owners, with the Home Owners Association and the
Business Men's Association to re-evaluate the area from a business
approach.
Conunissioner Golisch stated that one of the problems the Conunission faced
when Ordinance No. 1071 was adopted was the largeness of the particular
program that defeated it in the minds of the voters. On the other hand,
he felt that to start down one side of a side st,reet with conunercial
buildings was not condusive to good planning. The problem here is to
properly develop this area, not on a small scale, but with the thought
that not just one side of the street would be developed. There must
be some type of compromise between the small single development and
the large program originally considered.
Commissioner Michler stated that if the north side of Naomi Avenue
were to be considered at this time, it was very evident that the other
side of the street would apply for a variance. He felt that the matter
should be referred to the Zoning Committee.
Mr. Norton stated the whole area should be considered in the light of
the construction of the freeway and its effect upon the property
abutting it; also the entire length of Baldwin Avenue should be
studied, taking into consideration the development of the freeway
and its effect upon this area.
Discussion followed. The City Attorney advised that the only consider-
ation is that a decision must be made within 35 days after the close
of the hearing. So long as the hearing is not closed there is no
particular dead line involved.
Moved by CommisSioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Golisch,
and unanimously carried, that the hearing on the proposed zone change
on Naomi Avenue be continued: that a meeting be scheduled by the Plann-
ing Secretary with the Zoning and Subdivision committees for the purpose
of studying the proposal and rendering a report to the Commission at
its next meeting.
The Planning Secretary advised that a conununication had been received
from Mr. George A. Hill of the State Division of Highways, addressed
to Mr. Lortz, advising that on November 9, 1960, the owners of certain
property lying in the path of the Foothill Freeway through Arcadia,
filed a tentative map for Tract No. 26295 with the City of Arcadia.
A copy of' this map was forwarded to the State with a request for a
decision as to the effect of the tract map and what properties would
be required for freeway purposes. On November 22, 1960, the City of
Arcadia Planning Conunission consdered the Tentative Tract map and
continued the hearing until November 27, 1960. At this time the
City Planning. Commission in open hearing discussed this tract and
with full knowledge of the owners of the tract continued the hearing
until May 9, 1961. At this time the Division of Highways further
indicated that' an appraisal wOuld be made and an offer made to the
owners by May 9, 1961.
Page Ten
April 11, 1961
.. . ' ..
LIBRARY
DEDICATION
ADJOURNMENT
c
Since the receipt of the first correspondence fro~ the City of Arcadia,
th~ District has been ~ade every effort to prepare proper certification,
maps, and to proceed with the appraisal of the properties in connection
with the Foothill Freeway. Since the design had not and haa not been
finalized for the Baldwin Avenue undercrossing and certain rampa, the
District has been unable to start an appraisal at this time. It is
the feeling of the District that complete certification of all of the
maximum amount of the freeway to be acquired, including the Baldwin
Avenue undercrossing and other ramps is now just a matter of a few
months. It is the desire of the Diatrict that an appraisal be with-
held until such time as all of the right of way can be appraised
rather than limiting the appraisal to just the area involved in the
subdivision. The District solicits the cooperation of the City of
Arcadia to the end that final approval of the said map be withheld
pending final certification of the freeway agreement. It is felt that
this action would have considerable benefit, not only to the City of
Arcadia, but in the long run to the proper.ty owner themselves, since
it is generally understood ~hat the right of way will be appraised
and will be acquired just as expedidously as will be consistent with
proper planning.
By reason of the above statements, the Division of Highways requests
the City contact the affected owners to advise them that the State
anticipates appraising and purchasing all of the necessary rights of
way from them, depending on the acquisition of the freeway 'agreement.
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and
carried, that the Secretary be instructed to inform the property
owners involved in Tract No. 26295, of tbe action of the State Division
of Highways and request an extention of time so that the' Division of
Highways can properly appraise the property in question.
The Secretary called attention to the dedication of the new library
which wil,l be held Sunday, April- 16, at 2:00 o'clock P.M, Invitations
had been mailed to the public and to all city personnel.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:,10 o'clock P.M.
Page Eleven
April 11, 1961