HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 9, 1961
,
I
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
ZONE VARIANCE
535 E. Camino
Real
--,
J
, .
~-
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
May 9, 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., May 9, 1961,
with Vice Chairman Forman presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton and Rutherford.
ABSENT:
Commissioners Acker and Golisch.
OTHERS
PRESENT:
City Attorney James M. Nicklin
Director of Public Works C. E. Lor'tz, and
Planning Secretary L. M. Talley
The Planning Commission approved the minutes of the regular meeting of
April 25, 1961, as written and mailed.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application of
Ralph G. Rose for a zone variance to allow a second house on the property
at 535 East Camino Real.
The Planning Secretary presented a map of the area and directed attention
to the properties having two single family dwellings.
The application states that a dwelling of approximately 1800 sq. ft. is
proposed to be built on the property; this would contain three bedrooms
and two and one-half haths, and requests permission to retain the siDell
house of 480 sq. ft. built in 1939 and located at the rear of the property.
The lot size is 96.92 feet by 216.25 and is considerably over twice the
size of any lot in the .immediate vicinity with only one residence. The
lot has an area of 20,959 sq. ft. The proposed single family residence
with attached garage, in addition to the 480 sq. ft. house and 360 sq. ft.
garage will total to approximately 3100 sq. ft. of improvements on the
lot with the total area of 20,959 sq. ft. The portion of the lot used
.for improvement will be considerably less than that portion used on
surrounding lots.
The property immediately to the west of this lot has two residences and
the lot size is approximately 80' x 216.25' and has an area of 17,200
sq. ft. The second lot west of this has two residences; the lot size
is 7l' x 156.25' and an area of 11,093 sq. ft. On the lot to the north
of suhject property there are three residences with a lot size of 108.12'
x 250.92' and an area of 27,129 sq. ft.
The small existing house does not conflict with the minimum lot size
required fo>> two residences.
A communication was read from the Building Inspector stating that the
existing house and garage at the rear of the lot at 535 E. Camino Real
was inspected by .tbe Planning Secretary and tbe Building Inspector on
May 2,-1961. These structures, although in fair shape for, the age, do
not comply with the present code. Minor wiring repairs, roofing, painting
and proper venting of the kitchen' range would put the house and garage
in average condition with other small structures built in Arcadia in 1939.
Page One
May 9" 1961
.
The applicant haa stated they intended to take care of the roof and paint;
and agreed that the minor wiring and the venting of the kitchen range
would be done.
A staff report was presented as follows:
"This is the application of Ralph G. and Virginia S. Rose for a zone
variance to allow a new dwelling at the front of the lot at 535 E. Camino
Real, and to retain the small dwelling at the rear of the property.
The property is located in Zone R-l.
feet, containing 20,959 square feet.
for two houses.
The lot is 96.92 feet by 216.25
This is more than the required area
There are only four lots facing Camino Real in this block between Fifth
Avenue and Sixth Avenue. Two of these lots now have two houses each.
The only requirement for two houses which this lot does not meet is that it
has not been resubdivided. The size, shape and location of the lot makes
resubdivision impracticable.
Owners of five surrounding properties to the east, north and west have
signed consent to the. granting of the variance.
Plans for the proposed new house have not been submitted but the appli-
cation states that it will be approximately 1800 square feet with three
bedrooms and two and one-half baths. The plot plan indicates that there
is ample room on the lot for it to meet all yard requirements..
The existing house at the rear of the lot is 19' by 24' 5", containing
approximately 480 square feet. It has two rooms with bath and service
porch. It was constructed in 1939. It does not meet present building
codes but is in fairly good structural condition. It is badly in need
of a new roof covering and paint, which the owners state they intend
to do. Some additional work should be done on the electrical Wiring to
eliminate some hazards."
The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing
on the application and requested those in favor to present their case.
Mr. Ralph G.Rose stated 'he was the applicant and now occupied the building.
All homes were single family residences, but there were in many instances
two on a lot. He was agreeable to improve the existing dwelling according
to the requirements imposed.
Discussion followed. The house is not up to code and it would be
impractic~ble to bring it up entirely as some of the walls are 2 by 3
studs which would mean tearing them out and rebuilding them entirely.
It is in as' good shape as most of the small houses built during that
period, with the minor repairs as outlined. Both houses would be used
as residences. If the lot could have been subdivided to the rear it would
not have been necessary to come before Planning Commission but could
have been handled by Staff. The' only difficulty is not being able to
subdivide the rear of the property.
There was no opposition.
Page Two
May 9, 1961
.
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and
carried that the hearing on the application of Ralph G. Rose for a zone
variance be closed.
COmmissioner Norton stated that the area was predominat;ely R-I and
the rear house is non-conforming and does not meet the code. He did not
feel the request was compatible to the area.
Commissioner Rutherford stated because of the land-locked property, he
felt the improvement with the new dwelling would enhance and increase
the value of the area. There were numerous properties that could only be
developed in this manner as a subdivision to the rear is impossible.
Commissioner Ferguson felt from the, safety standpoint the existing house
should be brought up to the best safety standards. There are lots in
the area haVing more than one dwelling and if a new dwelling were constructed
it would upgrade the area.
Commissioner Michler concurred with Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Ferguson, and
further stated that this part;icularlot has ample footage and a new dwelling
on the front would increase the value of t~e property and upgrade the area.
The suggfilStion was made that close supervision should be made by the
Building Department so that any hazards are removed, through the minor
repairs above indicated.
COmmissioner Forman also concurred with the Commissioners that if the safety
factor of the house is taken care of and the new roof cond~~ed, with the
exterior completely painted, it could remain. Some of the subdivisions that
were created prior to the restrictive measures taken have created problems
such as th1:s and while the ,house on this lot is small it would not be
detrimental to the area with the erection of the new dwelling as proposed.
. ..
Moved by Commissioner Michler and aeconded by Commissioner Rutherford,
that the application of Ralph G. Rose for a zone variance to allow a. second
dwelling on the property at: 535 East Camino Real be approved, subject to
the staff report and the Building Inspector's recommendations.
Roll call followed:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Michler, Rutherford and Forman,
Commissioners Ferguson and Norton.
Commissioners. Acker and Golisch
With a lack of 'a majority vote, the matter was continued until the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission. If additional members of the
Commission are to vote, it will be necessary for them to review the proceed-
ings in order to be eligible to vote.
ThePlanniqg Secretary advised that if any of the Commission were to view
the residence at this time it would appear very "rough" but that the
Building InSpector and he had tried to visuali.ze it after the improvements
had been made.
Mr. Rose was informed that the matter would be continued until May 23, 1961
because of the split vote.
Page Three
May 9, 196.1
'-
.
LOT SPLlr
NO. 334
(Russell)
The application of James N. Russell, 234 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard,
which had been .referred to Commissioners Forman and Ferguson was considered.
The report
the effect
required:
of the City Engineer was .read by the Planning Secretary to
that if this split were approved the following should be
1.
2.
FUe a final map, .
File a covenant stipulating that Parcel B will not be
used as a building site until it is further subdivided
and street access provided, .and that Parcel B will
remain in common ownership with lot 10, Tract No. 8765,
until it is subdivided.
C~issioner Ferguson had studied the area and felt that this was a fine
effort to tie two lots together with good street access until a future
subdivision is submitted. rhis had been attempted at one. time but one
of the owners was reluctant to sell. This split will not interfere with
the development of the property. It had beert proposed to enter from
Rodeo Road adjacent to Parcel 10, and subdivide the area and probably
the deep lots facing on Sierra Madre Boulevard. There are residences
on the three lots so that the 200 feet in depth could establish a rear
line for future development.
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Mic~ler, and
carried that Lot Split No. 334, James N. Russell, 1611 Rodeo Road, be
approved, subject t~ the conditions outlined in the r~port of the
Director of Public Works.
LOT SPLIT
NO. 335
Arcadia-
Monrovia
Realty Co.
The application of Arcadia-Monrovia Realty Co. to divide the lot at
476 Fairview Ave, which was referred to Commissioner~ Golisch and Norton,
was considered.
The report of the Director of Public Works was read by the Planning
Secretary to the effect that if this split were approved the following
should be required:
1. File a final map,
2. Provide a sewer lateral for parcel~ and for
parcel 2, unless now existing,
3. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00
4. Remove all buildings from the lot,
5. Water service to be prOVided to comply
with the Uniform Plumbing Code.
A tentative plot plan was submitted by the applicant for the development
of the lot. The present lot area provides for a maximum of 14 units in
Zone R-3. On the east 60 foot portion he proposes to place 4 units and
on the 85 foot portion 6 units, making a total of 10 units instead of the
14, but with the common use of the driveway 10 feet off each portion.
C~issioner Norton had not visited the property.
C~issioner Forman stated the matter to be considered was the community
driveway. The ordinance requires two ten foot driveways on each lot. parcel
No. 1 would have one driveway, with Parcel No. 2 providing the second. The
applicant is attempting to develop the land to the best plan for the community
rather than creating the maximum units. This portion of Fairview Avenue
is just commencing with the development of apartments.
Page Four
May 9, 1961
LOT SPLIT
NO. 336
(La Douceur)
'-
.
The Director of Public Works stated that this plan would ordinarily be
handled by the Staff, but because of the two-ten foot driveways,
maintenance would have to be considered. This split is entirely
satisfactorily so far as the City is concerned, but the joint driveway
is a little unusual.
Mr. Marks, of the Arcadia-Monrovia Realty Co., was asked if it was the
intention to devalop the property as two separate units. This was the
inteqtion but each individual owner would be required to maintain his
own portion of the driveway. There would be a redwood marker in the
pavement.
C01IIIIIissioner Norton asked if it would be better to develop the area as
a unit with the two parcels using the joint driveway, rather than develop-
ing each individually. Mr. Marks felt that the type of development as
proposed could not be obtained in dividual lots. I~ would be a better
layout if the twenty foot driveway is designed in the manner proposed.
The one lot could be provided with an additional driveway from La Cadena.
The apartments would have an avarage of 1000 sq. feet.
The reason for not dividing into two 70 foot parcels is that the one lot
would require the greater set back because of being on the corner. The
loan problem wo~ld be greater developed in this manner.
The. City Attorney advised that the owners could build exactly what they
want to build without a lot split if one owner were doing it. If the lot
split is granted a condition should be imposed to reserve tbe 20 foot
driveway and to maintain it and to comply with all regulations applicable
thereto. This should be assumed by both owners, covered by a covenant
against the property.
Moved by C01IIIIIissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and
unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 335, Arcadia Monrovia Realty Co.,
a partnership, for property located at 476 Fairview Avenue, be approved,
subject to tbe conditions set forth in the report by the Director of
Public Works, and subject to a covenant being filed that the 20 foot
driveway be reserved for the two parcels and, the owner of eacb parcel
should be required to maintain it and comply with all regulations
applicable thereto.
The application of Donna La Douceur, 910 E. Camino Real, which had been
referred to C01IIIIIissioners Rutherford and Michler was considered.
The Planning Secretary read the report of the Director of Public Works
to the effect that if the lot split is granted the following requirements
should be imposed:
1. File a final map,
2. Provide a sewer lateral to parcel Zand sewer main
extension;
3. Pay s.$25.00 recreation fee;
4. Remove all buildings from the property;
5. Obtain release of ,a':'porttbn of 'bhe"Flood,'.Cotltrol.:easement;
6. Provide water services to comply witb tbe Uniform
Plumbing Code.
Commissioner Rutherford stated he had viewed the area and it was his
impression that the lots would be rather small; however, there is a house
on the property and the owner, if the split is approved, would remove
.this structure and build two new homes. This would enhance the property
very materially, and would be in keeping with. tbe size of some of the lots
in the area. The square footage would be sufficient and if the require-
ments as set forth in the report of the Engineer were imposed, and the
present house removed, together with the release of the easement from
Page Five
May 9, 1961
,
'-j
.
the Los Angeles County Flood Control, he would be favor of 'granting
the lot split.
Commissioner Michler concurred with Commissioner Rutherford. The property
abuts the flood control. The improvement~ now on the lot are very old
and in poor condition. The. two new homes would improve the area materially.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, and
unanimously carried, that Lot Split No. 336, Donna La Douceur, for property
located at 910 East Camino Real, be approved subject to the conditions
as outlined in the report of the Director of Public Works.
LOT SPLIT
NO. 333
( Cecka)
The application, of James J. Cecka, 32 E. Santa Anita Terrace, for a lot
split for three lots on Santa Anita Terrace extension, which is a revision
of an application' previously considered by the Planning Commission, and
which was referred to Commissioners Forma'n and Ferguson, was, consider.ed.
The Proposal now is to extend, Santa Anita Terrace on a slight angle to the
west line of the property involved, ending at the property line of the
lots facing Santa Anita Avenue, so that if and when the elme comes to
redevelop the property on Santa Anita Avenue the street can continue
through to Santa Anita Avenue in an acceptable manner. The original
application was a cul de sac with shallow lots fanning around ie. Two
of the lots do not meet the code so far as size is concerned, parcel 1
would be 69 feet wide, but would have an area of 7700 sq. ft. Parcel 3
is shallow, 82 ft. deep on the east side and 60 feet on the west, but
has an area of 7530 sq. ft.
The Planning Secretary presented the report of the Director of ,Public Works
to the effeot that if the lot split is granted the following conditions
should be imposed:'
1. File a final map:
2. Provide a sewer lateral main extension and 3 house
connections;
3. File deed of dedication for Santa Anita Terrace extension:
4. Pay a $75.00 recreation fee:
5. Remove all buildings from the area;
6. Dedicate 1 foot strip at end of the street to the City in fee;
7. Dedicate 5'planting and sidewalk easement along each side;
8. Construct curb, gutter and pavement;
9. Extend water main and appurtenances as required;
10. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code;
11.. Deposit $135.00 for 1 street light and $59.50 for 7 street trees:
12. City shall dedicate lots 10, 11 and 12, Tract No. 21741, for
street purposes;
13. Provide necessary utility easements.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that this was the property under consideration
at the previous meeting,and 'while there are two lots not up to the standards
of the code, they do have the required area, and he felt that the present
plan is the best possible use of the land. This also provides for the future
development of the other deep lots in the area.
Commissioner Forman was also assigned to this lot split and stated that he
concurred with Commissioner Ferguson. He did not' like the shallow lots,
but occasio~ally there are some conditions that exist that make it impossible
to design it differently. In this case there is a structure that prevents
the lots from bei~g larger. He felt this was a vast improvement over the
plan submitted at the last meeting as it was now possible to extend the
street at a future time.
Page Six
May 9, 1961
.
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Formsn, that Lot
Split No. 333, James J. Cecka, 32 E. Santa Anita Terrace, be approved,
subject to the conditions outlined in the Director of Pub~ic Works' report,
and subject further that item No. 8 be restated to construct curb, gutter
and pavement in accordance with the subdivision ordinance and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Michler, Rutherford and Forman,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Golisch and Acker
\ Norton
CommisSioner/abstained because of. being a neighbor.
TRACT NO.
26295
Tentative map of'Tract No. 26295, located south of Foothill Boulevard
and west of San Carlos Road, consisting of 34 lots, being in the location
of the Foothill freeway, continued from December 27, 1960, was considered.
The property owners had requested a continuance until this meeting. Two
weeks ago a communication had been received from the State Division of
Highways stating they are so near the time when they may acquire all
rights of way for the freeway, including the ramps, etc. that they would
prefer another extension of .time rather than to acquire the property
"piece mealtl.
The original letter pad no specific time, but Mr. George Hl11, Engineer
in charge of planning, by telephone had requested four months. Letters
were mailed to the property owners asking for an extension from May 9, 1961,
to September 12, 1961. Consent had been received from Mr. Brinker, one
of the owners, and later a communication had been received from all owners
requesting assurance that further extensions beyond September U, 1961
would not be requested.
Since the receipt of this letter Director of Public Works, Mr. Lortz,
wrote to the DiviSion of Highways Bsking for a reply by this meeting. A
telephone reply was received to the effect that by September they would
be in a position to negotiate for the property.
Mr. Clyde Simpson, one of the owners, stated the owners were not opposed to
the extension provided there were going to be no long delays. Many of the
property owners were anxious to do something with the property as conditions
have changed since the residences were built, families have grown and left
the area, and the people are faced with large lots and expensive upkeep.
He felt he could speak for the property owners filing the tract, that they
would be willing for the September extension, if something, could be done
by that time; but they were opposed if it would be another three or four
years.
Commissioner Forman thanked the committee for the considaration given and
was hopeful that the date fixed would 'be the final date for commencing the
negotiations. This would also benefit all property owners along the path
of the freeway.
Director of Public Works, Mr. Lortz, stated that he had been informed that
the plans are rapidly' nearing cOmpletion and the interchanges are being
formulated; that after the freeway agreement is executed the State will
then be in a I,osition to commence tlegotiations. When this occurs they
will know where the freeway will be and they can then purchase the property.
The Chairman stated a letter should be received from the group agreeing
to the extension of time' until September l~, 1961.
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, and
unanimouSly carried that the matter of the decision on Tract No.. 26295
be continued until September 12, 1961.
Page Seven
May 9, 1961
RESOLITrION
NO. 407
(Greer)
RESOLITrION
NO. 408
(918 W. Hunting-
ton Drive,
Risser)
RESOLITrION
NO: 409
(Naomi Ave.)
I
'-j
.
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 407, entitled:
"A RESOLITrION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING CCllMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL
OF A ZONE VARIANCE FOR TIlE ERECTION AND OPERATION OF
A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION AT TIlE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
DUARTE ROAD. AND GOLDEN WEST AVENUE."
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and
unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body of the reaolution
be waived.
Moved by CommisSioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that
Resolution No. 407 be adopted.
Said motion was carried on the follOWing roll call vote:
AYES: CommiSSioners Ferguson, Michler, Norton, Rutherford
and FOl'1ll8n.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Golisch.
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 408, entitled:
"A RESOLITrION OF THE CITY PLANNING CQolKISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING'TIIE GRANTING
OF A ZONE VARIANCE FOR THE ERECTION OF FouR ADDITIONAL
APARTMENT UNITS AND TO USE THB EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND
CARPORTS AT 918 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE."
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and
unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution
be waived.
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Michler,
that Resolution No. 408 be adopted.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commission~rsFerguson, Michler, Rutherford and Forman
Commissioner Norton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Golisch.
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 409, entitled:
"A RESOLITrION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNiA, RECOMMENDING TIlE DENIAL
OF AN APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ZONES R-l AND R-2
TO ZONES C-3 AND D OF PROPERTY AT 645 THROUGH 671 NAOMI
AVENUE IN SAID CITY.
~oVed 'by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and
unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution
be waived.
Page Eigbt
May 9, 1961
.
RESOLUTION
NO. 410
(Driveways)
REPORT
VARIANCE
EXTENSION
(Baldwin 6-
CallitaAves.)
"------/
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that
Resolution No. 409 be adopted.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Michler, Norton, Rutherford
and Forman.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissio~ers Acker and Golisch.
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 410, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECQoIMENDING THE AMENDMENT OF
SECTIONS 9254.2.9, 9255.2.10 AND 9292.1.5 OF THE ARCADIA
MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW SECTION
9253.2.10.
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, and
unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution
be waived.
Moved by Commissioner Norton,. seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that
Resolution No. 410 be adopted.
Said motion was carried on tbe following rollcall vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Michler, Norton, Rutherford
and Rorman',
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and,Golisch
Commissioner Golisch, Council liaison, being absent, no report was given.
Tbe Chairman announced that if anyone in tbe audience desired to be heard,
this was tbe time and place.
Harry Robinson, 'representing Robinson Brothers, had requested an extension
of time for the variance for office buildings on Baldwin and CallUa Avenues;
Mr. Robinson stated they had been engaged in bui~ding dwellings on Green-
- field Ave. Tbey desired an' extension so' tbat they could proceed with the
Baldwin Avenue project. The tim~ for starting work will elapse May 15, 1961.
They bad been requested to present a more definite program on their plans
for iniprovement. They were now pr,epared to tear, tbe old house down and
commence work. Originally they bad requested aC-l zone and had plans
for buildings, but this was denied and a variance for professional build-
ings was given.
Commissioner Norton seated that six months had been given and no attempt
had been made to exercise this variance; also that in the letter request-
ing the extension it was stated that 'tbey were awaiting the action of
Mr. Clarido for the convalescent hospital. '
Mr. Robinson stated that at the time the zoning was considered it was denied;
then when it came before the City Council they denied the variance for R-3
Page Nine
May 9, 1961
.
i
''-----./
and granted a variance for C-l and CoO use. They had been trying for
five years to build on the property. The Council gave them C-l zoning
five years ago provided they would dedicate an,' alley for street widening
on Callita Ave. This all had to be done as a group. It could not be
developed separately. They had attempted many times to do this, then
it was changed to a C-l and C-O 'use. They were building on Greenfield
at the time and felt they should complete that project before starting
another.
At the time the property was purchased there were animals - cows, goats,
chickens, together with corrals, sheds and two old houses. Some of
the property was sold and one old house was torn down. The other was
bringing a monthly rental of $65.00. All had sgreed that Baldwin Avenue
was not residential property. Mr. Clarizio and Mr. Bernard had not cleaned
their lots and physically his lots were in as good condition as the Clarido
and Bernard properties. He had contacted numerous doctors and had not yet
come up with the right type of building.
Commissioner Norton stated he felt that when an applicant applies for
a variance they should have specific plans for the use of the property
at the time of the request; that the zone change or variance is not
being given on a hypothetical attempt that something is going to be
developed.
Discussion followed. Nothing would be gained by having the property
revert toR-I. it was the concensus that the Robinson Brothers should
be granted some reasonable extension. But it was agreed that whep applying
for a variance of zone change a plan should be presented for the develop.
ment.
The City Attorney stated that an extension of a variance may be granted by
the Planning Commission upon the written request filed before the expiration
of the six months period. The request shall set forth facts supported by
factual data as to why the variance has been unused. No extension of the
variance shall be granted unless the Commission finds the facts to be sub-
stantially as set forth and there is justif~able cause for the extension.
The fact that no definite plans' were submitted at the outset is not the
fault of the party requesting the extension because of the past history
of the property. It was included in Annexation 14, originally; all
was zoned commercial, the zoning to become effective, hoWever, upon the
dedication of certain street widening and an alley the full length of
the property and by the terms of the zoning compliance by any single lot
owner or group of lot owners was not sufficient to meet the condition of
the ordinance. It would have to be done the entire length. The actual
"stumbling block" was the lot on which the convalescent homeis to be
built. This was the deep lot and the alley would have cut the lot in two
sections. It did not fit in under the conditions imposed. On the
Commission's ~wn,:motion, proceedings were instituted to reclassify the
property at the same time that Annexation No. 17 was considered. The
proceedings at that time were basically for zoning rather than for variance
with the ultimate decision of professional office uses. So that it was
reasonable that no definite plans were submitted.
Mr. Nicklin felt there were fa~tors in th~s situation that warranted
consideration. The Robinsons were not a party to the fact that they
did not have proposed plans for this type of zoning. There is some
merit to their contention that a variance for professional office is to
some degree geared to an establishment of a nature that is proposed on
the adjoining property. The situation is not the usual one and from
a review of the recotds'tio,appl1cation for an extension of a variance has
been denied the first time.
Page Ten
May 9, 1961.
VARIANCE
EXTENSION
(Live Oak at
Santa Anita
Ave.)
~
The Planning Secretary stated that the Robinson. Brothers did not request
a variance but during the process they did submit plans for' a building
on each corner. One was for a two story building which was reduced to
one story.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that
the request of Robinson Brothers for an extension of the zone variance
for office buildings to be erected on Baldwin and Callita Avenues be
extended for a period of six months.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Michler , Norton, Rutherford,
Forman;
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Gotisch.
Mr. Nate Margolin also desired to be heard on his request for an extension
of time for the completion of his buildings on Santa Anita Avenue and Live
Oak Avenue, the expiration date being June 17, 1961.,
The request had been made that additional information a~ to the ability
of the applicant to complete the project as outlined b~ submitted at this
meeting. He stated that application had been made this day for a grading
and foundation permit; also there was a physical delay because of a loan com-
mittment through a construction loan which requires that construction cannot
be commenced until the loan is approved and recorded. It probably will take
ten days to two weeks for the completion of the final appraisal and approval
of the construction loan. However, if need be they could start the grading
and foundation immediately, except that it would be prior to the recordation
of the trust 'deed and it would require an indemnification agreement or
bond agreement to the title company in order to insure construction lia-
bility with respect to the construction loan.
Mr. Margolin stated he is prepared to do this if required; however, it
would be a great help if the recordation of the trust deed could be
obtained first.
The City Attorney asked what the construction schedule would be. Mr.
Margolin stated it would meet approximately the schedule set up in his
former letter to the Planning Commission. The completion date given
in this letter was February 15" 1962.
Commissioner Norton stated that this had been the most flagrant abuse
of zoning requests in the City of Arcadia. The problem that evolves
around this type of development should never again be permitted, so far
as a developer is concerned. Out of sheer respect to the 'business men
toward the City of Arcadia this has been a very flagrant 'abuse. No
evidence of responsibility has been shown and it has plagued the City
througb various extensions and requests above and beyond'sny reasonable
request. This is a very good example to the City of Arcadia to take
steps to eliminate further transactions of this nature.
Commissioner Michler stated the land has been lying vacant and he would
not be willing for an extension of time to continue in the manner which
has been prevalent the past year or two.
The City Attorney stated that the code does not reter to the length of
the extension tbat may be granted, but it does specify the request
for extension must be filed within the six months before the time
elapses. The six months referred'to in the code refers. -to the normal
length of time provided .for the variance. This does not mean that
Page Eleven
May 9, 1961
1-
c
only a' six months extension can be granted.
Commissioner Forman stated that insofar as the statement made. by Mr.
Margolin as to the recordation of the. trust deed, it was a well known
fact that where work is done on the property before the recording of
the trust deed, there is a possibility of a mechanic"s lien, etc.,
which is avoided if the trust deed is recorded before the commencement
of any work.
Bert Greynald, of Greynald Construction Co. was also present and stated
that he was prepared to commence work as soon as the trust deed was
is recorded. He is now under a signed contract to proceed.
Mr. MargoUn stated he had in no way considered that he had flagrantly
violated the variance granted some three years ago. He did not know of
anything he had willfully or intentionally done to take advantage of this
situation. He had spent considerable ttme and a large amount of money to
formulate the plans. He was not a speculator in any sense. He has had
many reverses.
The City Attorney stated that the City is interested in the development of
this property. The information of the signed contract with the Greynald
Construction Co. was one of the items that had been requested.
Each of the Commissioners expressed himself. It was the concensus of
opinion that something tangible should have been commenced within the
three year period other than the block wall.
The City Attorney also stated that the Commission might want to place
themselves on record as being willing to grant the extension of the
variance for the completion of the project by February, 1962, the date
fixed in the communication, upon condition that prior to the next meeting
construction has commenced, which should give time to get the construction
loan recorded.
Commissioner Forman stated that the granting of an extension could be
completed within a short period. There is still over a month for Mr.
Margolin to get under way. If, by the time of June 13, 1961 meeting,
the construction is under way, the permit obtai~the recording of
the construction loan, etc.,. should be accomplished, then the Planning
Commission would grant an extension of time based on the outlined schedule
of construction.
Commissioner Norton requested opinion as to the legal aspects of the
Commission relative to the obligation of the applicant to complete
the construction, whether or not a bond or some other condidDn could
be imposed to guarantee the completion.
The City Attorney advised that as such there is no protection but the
Commission has learned much from the severai variances granted in the
past, so that some remedial measure possibly should be taken to insure
future variances 'and zone changes.
Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford,
that the Planning Commission indicate its intention to grant an extension
of the variance to complete, the construction of the shopping center
at Live Oak and Santa Anita Avenues in accordance with the building
schedule presented, which variance expires June 17, 1961, upon condition
that construction on the site be actually commenced by the meeting of
the Commission on June 13, 1961. The construction to be evidenced by
Page Twelve
May 9 , 1961
. .
COUNTY ISLAND
FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD
ADJOURNMENT
c
grading in process and excavation for foundations and basements be well
in progre'ss.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Ferguson, Michler, Norton, Rutherford
and Forman,
NOES:
None:
ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Golisch.
Several months ago a call came from Milton Breivogel, of the Regional
Planni~ Commission to the effect that the property on Foothill Boulevard
at Baldwin Avenue was in a rather unrestrictive zone, and inquiring as
to Arcadia zoning adjacent to this county island.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on January 17, 1961 adopted
Ordinance No. 7937 which. classified the unincorporated island north
of Foothill Boulevard and west of Baldwin Avenue in an urgency
R-1-15,OOO, single famUy residence, 15,000 sq.. ft. minimum lot area zone.
The Regional Planning Commission is further conducting studies which will
lead to precise zoning.. One of the larger properties is the Anoskia School.
The owner of this land has described his plans for developing a portion to
a private club or hotel with apartment units on the remainder. They wouid
appreciate the opinion of the City of Arcadia relative to this type of
development, or their thoughts as to tne most suitable use of the property.
The Planning Secretary had called the Regional Planning Commission to
ascertain the time schedule. It will probably be about two months, at
least, before there would be any hearing on this zoning.
With the appo~ntment of a Planning Director, probably one of the first
projects would be a study of Foothill Boulevard.
It had been suggested that the'R-l-lS,OOO would
the time being, pending a study in the future.
R-O which surrounds the area.
be a suitable zone for
This compares with the
The Secretary was .instructed to advise the Regional 'Planning Commission
that the present R-l-lS,OOO zoning would be suitable for the present
time, and any change would be dependent upon a study to be made by the
City of Arcadia.
There being ilC;lfurther bus.iness to come before the COllBDission, the meeting
adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
t:YvvJ~~/
L. M. TALLEY {
Planning Secretary
Page Thirteen
May 9, 1961