Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 13, 1961 ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE CHANGE 1020 S. Baldwin Ave. . M I N UT E S PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING June 13, 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., June 13, 1961, with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, NortOn and Acker. ABSENT: Commissioner Rutherford. OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Elton D. Phillips, City Attorney James A. Nicklin, Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz, and Planning Secretary L. M. Talley The Planning Commission approved the minutes of the regular meeting of May 23, 1961, as written and mailed. The Planning Commission COnsidered the application of G. M. Shumaker for a change of zone from Zone PR-3 to Zone C-2 on the rear portion of the property located at 1020 South Baldwin Avenue. The Planning Secretary exhibited a map of the area and outlined the area under consideration. The application stated this property is partially zoned C-2 and the need is to expand Bowling Square to fit the needs. The request is to zOne the entire lot Zone C.-2 to allow for the expansion. It is proposed to add 16 lanes to the east side of the building. Additional property has been acquired for parking. It is necessary that the lot be classified Zone C-2 to allow the addition to Bowling Square ard all parking requirements under the Zoning Ordinance will be met. This expansion could in no way be detrimental as it is an expansion to the present building. There is nothing in the original'deed restriction to prohibit the use of the property for Commercial uses. The Staff report was presented stating that the front 135 feet of the property is nOw in Zone C-2 and is fully improved with a 24 lane bowling alley. The rear portion of the property is ZOned PR-3 and is developed as a parking lot. The applicant is requesting that the full site be placed in Zone C-2, and proposes to add 16 more bowling lanes. The total area of the building, after the proposed addition, will be 39,768 square feet. This would require 80 parking spaces. The plot p~an submitted shows 48 spaces On the subject property. The applicant is the owner of a lot on Fairview Avenue, developed to parking by reason of a zOne variance; providing 39 spaces. There is also an agreement between the applicant and the owner of the property adjacent On the north as to mutual parking and access, providing 19 spaces. The available spaces total 106. The property at 1108 South Baldwin Avenue, just across Arcadia Avenue, south of the subject property, had similar residential and parking zoning on the rear portion, and was rezoned to Zone C-2 by Ordinance No. IllS, adopted January 3, 1961. June 13, 1961 Page One \,"-/' '-/ The Secretary read the statement that "there is also an agreement between the applicant and the owner of the property adjacent t.o the north as to mutual parking and access, providing 19 spaces. The available spaces total 106". After this report was written a close study of the agreement was made. It covers access only and not necessarily parking So that the 19 parking spaces should be eliminated. This leaves 48 on the subject property and 39 on the Fairview property, with a total of 87 where 80 are required by Ordinance. There were no communications. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for hearing On the application of G. M. Shumaker for a Zone Change at 1020 South Baldwi~ Avenue from PR-3 to Zone C-2 on the rear portion of the property located at 1020 South Baldwin Avenue. Those in favor of the application were requested to present their case. Mr. G. M.Shumaker, 650 W. Duarte Road, stated that the present bowling alley was opened in January,. 1961. It has been successful and it appears that additional lanes are necessary. There is ample room for parking and with the addition it would make the area much better. There are new leagues forming and it is necessary for additional lanes to accommodate the groups. The Chairman asked the normal parking for each lane. This is not a require- ment of the City Ordinance but would be useful to have. the information. The Chairman requested those opposed to the variance to present their objections. No one desired to be heard. Discussion followed. Even though the minimum requirements had been met there may be parking problem. It was brought out that mos~ of the leagues met at night after the shopping areas were closed, thereby providing other parking on the property owned by the owner. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Connnissioner Golisch, and carried that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Forman had requested information concerning the parking at the two Bowling alleys in this area. Las Tunas at El Monte (Santa Anita Courts) has 32 lanes with 127 parking spaces; (approximately 4 spaces per lane); Hastings Lanes, 32 lanes, has 278 parking spaces, approximately 8-1/2 per lane. The Planning Secretary had also checked the parking in the vicinity of Baldwin Avenue. Market Square has a total of 54,600 sq. ft. of floor area, including the market, the adjoining shops and the. smaller shops to the west of the parking Lot. There is a covenant that ties the parking together. That would require 110 parking spaces and a count showed 223 provided, and this does not include the ones that are now provided in what is dedicated for Arcadia Avenue,. 113 parking spaces over the required minimum. Commissioner Forman stated that through certain statements made recently there may be problems if the Commission held exactly to code requirements. Sometimes the parking needed is indicated more by the type of use than by the number of square feet. Several of the businesses on Baldwin Avenue and Duarte Road have stated that some of their customers had complained that they could not find parking within a "reasonable walking distance". June 13, 1961 Page Two ,. LOT SPLIT NO, 338 (Jackson) c All have the required parking insofar as the code is concerned, but his thought is that perhaps this particular type of use requires more space. The other bowling alleys apparently feel that thia is required in that each of them have more than the required space. Commissioner Michler asked as to the time when the lanes were mostly in use. Mr. Shumaker stated that there were a few women who used the lanes in the morning; the afternoons were very seldom used to full capacity. The main use came at night time after the stores in the vicinity were closed. Some people-, naturally do have to walk a distance but it could still be con- sidered "a reasonable distance". The trend is to feel that a person must park in front of the building he proposes to enter to consider it a "reasonable distance". Commissioner Michler felt that if the area were not conjested during the day tIme he would feel that the request was not unreasonable. Commissioner Golisch stated that the Commission should look over carefully the area involved so that the City would not get into the same position as Downtown Arcadia. The City Attorney stated at the time of the development of the Downtown Area there was no parking requirements whatsoever, and the parking that was done through the. Vehicle parking District has no doubt provided all the parking that is needed, except for holidays or certain celebrations, etc.; secondly, the condition that has occurred south of Duarte Road m the older development and was put in at a time when no parking requirements were in existence; thirdly.as long as there is parking on one level the more parking that is provided .is of necessity farther away from the business it serves. This is an internal problem that would have to be solved because the business people will use the closest spaces and leave the customers to do the walking. About the only answer is strict internal controls. Everyone recognizes that our code requirements are an abso~ute minimum and any modern day developer, such as Mr. Shumaker, will provide more than the code itself requires, because H is known that busines depends on this. Yet when increasing parking requirements are presented it is always met with opposition. If the code requirements are insufficient thenl."thj!,"code .should l;Je.-,chal).geq., ."" ,', I . 1 :1; \I:~:~; .. .1- ":1'1 ':.1 Commissioner Forman stated that there may be such a situation at this time. Re stated many references had been made to the Palo Alto area which had done much rehabilitation and brought the older section up to newer day thinking. Moved.'py; C01llIiltsstoner'..Michler.;. aeconded.,:by Comm~s'sioner .Fol!lllan',' ,and carried that the matter be. referred to the Zoning Committee. and staff for study. The application of Robert G. Jackson, 1111 South Tenth Avenue, which had been referred to Commissioners Rutherford andMichle~ was. considered. The Planning Secretary the effect that if the required: read the report of the Director of Public Works to lot split were granted, the following should be 1. 2. 3. File a final map. Pay a recreation fee of $25.00. File a covenant stipulating that Parcel 2 will become a part of and be used with the property at 1107 S. Tenth Avenue and will not be used as a separate building aite. June 13, 1961 Page Three . This is a case where the owner desires to divide the rear portion of his property and sell it to the neighbor next to him. The rear of the lot backs up to the Santa Anita Wash. The property to the north desires to have the additional property for pasturage for horses. It would not be used in any way as a building site. The question arose as to whether or not this area was in the process of being subdivided. The Planning Secretary stated that he had had no inquiries about this area. Farther to the south some subdividers had' been working in the area near Camino Real on the east side of the Wash. This might be developed in the future, but there are a lot of owners involved and several people have horses, so that the possibility of ob- taining the required property would be problematical. Commissioner Michler stated that he had inspected the property and saw no particular reason why this split could not be approved. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Acker, that Lot Split No. 338 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the Director of Public Works report. Said motion was ca'rried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT : Commissioners Ferguson, Forman , Golisch and Michler, Commissioners Norton and Acker. Commissioner. Rutherford. TRACT NO. 26537 The revised tentative map of .Tract No. 265"37, located on the easterly extension of Magna Vista Avenue into LeRoy Avenue, and containing 8 lots was considered. The Planning Secretary exhibited a map of the area, showing that this is a proposal to extend Magna Vista Avenue east toward the Wash and out to LeRoy Avenue. The report of the Planning Staff was presented as follows: This tract received tentative approval by the Planning Commission on February 14, 1961, and by the City Council on February 21, 1961. Since that time the City Manager's office has negotiated with the owners at 260 and 242 W. Duarte Road and has secured deeds for 30 feet of land for Magna Vista Avenue, subject to certain work to be done by the subdivider. Because of the dedication received, i:t was necessary to make a change in the design of. the intersection of Magna Vista Avenue and the north-south street. A small change in the size of lot 3 has been made. All the lots are well over the required .area. All lots except 3 and 4 will be 75 feet wide at the building line. The subdivider should attempt. to secure the northerly triangular portion of the property at 221 Le Roy Avenue and include it in lots 6, 7 and 8. If this revised plan. is recommended for approval, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedicate 30 feet of the property at 250 W. Duarte Road for Magna Vista Ave. 2. Fulfill the conditions of tender of deeds for the property at 260 and 242 W. Duarte Road. 3. Pay the trust presently existing along the,north line of Magna Vista Avenue. June 13, 1961 Page Four ANNEXATION ANNEXATION Duarte Rd. ) 4. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 5. The City shall dedicate the present barriers at the end of Magna Vista Avenue. 6. The City shall quitclaim the present sewer and drainage easement to LeRoy Avenue. The subdivider shall do all necessary reconstruction of sewers and drainage facilities to make them continuous in the new street. . 7. Dispose of excess land along the north~south street in a manner satisfactory to the City. 8. The City shall pay to the subdivider the amounts held in trust as a share of. the cost of opening the street to LeRoy Ave. 9. The subdivider shall install continuous, full width street improvements in Magna Vista Avenue and its connection to LeRoy Avenue as required by the City Code. Improvement plans and grades to be satisfactory to the City Engineer. 10. Pay the following fees and deposits; $675.00 272.00 105.00 200.00 $1252.00 Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and unanimously carried that the revised tentative map of Tract No. 26537 be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set forth in the Planning Staff report dated June 8, 1961. posts @ @ @ @ $135.00 8.50 35..00 25,00 5 steel street light 32 street. trees 3 street name signs 8 lots recreation fee The City Council had referred back to the Planning Commission Annexation No. 23, South Arcadia Inhabited (Revised) for the reason that a portion of the property. is being considered under another annexation so that it makes a slight change in the boundaries of this particular Annexation 23. The southerly end of the property is being changed near the Rio Hondo. The City. Attorney pointed out that. this is being referred on a technicality. Annexation 23 Inhabited (Revised) is the same as Annexation 23 Inhabited with the exclusion of the southerly tip of the property, including the recently purchased property by. .the City and a small piece of contiguous County-owned property sufficient to make it contiguous to the City of Arcadia. The Government Code requires in a normal annexation to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for its report or recommendation. It.is suggested that inasmuch as weeks were spent on the hearing at the time it was before the Commission or.iginally that it would be proper to readopt the report that .was made on December 10, 1960, with respect to Annexation No. 23, South Arcadia Inhabited, to apply to Annexation No. 23. South Arcadia Inhabited (Revised). Questions were asked of the City Attorney relative to the portion being deleted and its effect on the boundary in that area, A map was exhibited and the boundaries explained by the Planning Secretary. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and unanimously carried, that the report made by the Planning Commission on December 10, 1960, with respect to Annexation No. 23, South Arcadia, Inhabited, be adopted as the report of the Commission with respect to Annexation .No. 23, South Arcadia Inhabited (Revised). This is the request of Dr. J. Kendall McBane for the annexation of one lot iocated at 1167 West Duarte Road. The City Attorney stated this request did not need to be referred to the Planning Commiss.ion under the provisions of the Government Code, but there June 13, 1961 Page Five CLASSIFICATION OF BUSINESS ~i was the suggestion that perhaps in considering the annexation one or two other lots in the area may desire to come at this time. The City Manager has contacted the other a.> ners .in the area whom he felt might be interested in the annexation and had received word they were not interested at this time. The Planning Secretary read the communication from Dr. McBane to the effect that he was desirous of annexation of the lot at 1167 West Duarte Road. The property is adjacent to the City of Arcadia on its westerly boundary. This annexation hone lot on. the west side of the City boundary. It is presently zoned R-1-5~OO in County area. It is adjacent to Zone R-3 in Arcadia. It is developed with one single family dwelling. Both sides of Duarte Road within Arcadia. are R-3 zone. There is not request insofar as zoning is concerned. If annexed it will come in as R-l, unless rezoned concur.rently. The City Attorney pointed out that under the zoning ordinance property not otherwise zoned and property annexed to the City and not otherwise zoned concurrent with its annexation takes on R-1 classification. There is a provision in the Goyernment Code for an interim emergency zoning applicable concurrently with the annexation of property. There have been instances where the zoning was concurrent with the annexation. If an area is not obviously R-l it would be expeditious to fix the zoning concurrent with the annexation. The City Attorney stated that the Commission could recommend the annexation and indicate only that R-3 zoning would be proper. Commissioner Golisch stated he was opposed to any more R-3 zoning but this one lot would clearly indicate the necessity forR-3. zoning. Each of the Commissioners expressed himself on this matter, The opinion was that the long proceedings necessary to change a zone from the R-l which the lot would be if annexed should be eliminated if possible. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried that the Planning Commission instruct the Planning Secretary to publish legal notice that the annexation of thiS one lot is to b~ considered and the type of zoning that should be placed on it, if it is annexedj that this matter will be considered at the next regular meeting of the Commission. In the meantime the zoning can be considered and a recommendation made by a staff report. The request of Thomas A. Lynch for a classification of the business of distribution of electronic components was considered. A communication had been received from Mr.. Lynch to the effect that he desired to open a business at 220 South First Avenue. The purpose of this business is to distribute electronic components. The nature of a business such as this is to supply material to the electronic industry in the general immediate area. In order for companies and engineers to carry out their various projects they require components such as tubes, switches, capacitators., transformers arid resistors and semi- conductor devices, including transistors. to be incorporated in the programs in which they are working. There is another area supply replacement com- ponents for the maintenance of electronic equipment. When customers purchase material wherein they are the consumer they are subject to sales tax. A fairly high percentage of this business falls into this category. This type of business is not noisy, nor obnoxious and should not at all be uncomplimentary to the immediate community. June 13, 1961 Page Six EXTENSION OF VARIANCE (Margolin) /---, . "--- The Planning Secretary stated that the reason this matter was brought to the CommissioI! is that C-2 is primarUy a retaU cOllUllercial zone. The building under consideration is the old post office building in zone C-2. The City Attorney stated that Section 9213 of the Municipal Code provides that if any use is Omitted from the list of those permitted to occupy certain zones, or if a question arises pertaining to the appropriate classification of a particular use, the Planning Commission should determine the facts and this is then referred to the City CouncU and its determination shall prevail. This is a case where the applicant applied for a business license and it wss referred to the Planning Secretary who, in turn, discussed it with the City Attorney and the suggested applicstion was requested so that a determination could be made Mr. Lynch addressed the Planning COlIUIlission and explained the nature of his operation. Many questions were askea of him, but it was difficult to determine whether the uses should be classified as C-2 or CM. The City Attorney stated this was a variance type of use, it doesn't clearly come within the retaU business, yet .it is not obviously a wholesale operation. It was estimated that approximately 2otor 30% was subject to sales tax; there were a number of items and types of sales that would be tax exempt so that this would not necessarily be a formula to use in the determination. Mr. Lynch had arranged for the buUding, and would take an option to buy if his business. were allowed in the area.. Time was of tlle essence. Moved by COlIUIlissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and carried, that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee for a study and deter- mination. The City Attorney stated that if the report made by the Zoning Committee is sufficiently positive, he would attempt to have the resolution drawn so that it could be adopted and presented to the City CouncU, and if there was no controversy it could be adopted- at their next meeting, so that an approximate time could be given of three weeks. It is very possible that this could be done. The request of Nate Margolin for an extension of time of the variance at the northwest corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Live Oak Avenue was considered. Mr. Phillip M. Newman, represented the interests of Nate Margolin. He expiained the reason for his appearance. He had contacted the City Attorney and it was felt that a presentation by an attorney and the contractor might clear up a number of questions that had been presented, and would eliminate some of the problems that have been facing the COmmission. He did not wish to have it appear that his appearance on the behalf of Mr. Margolin would indicate any litigation, etc. He was interested in co-operation and to comply with the request of the City. He stated that a complete review of the property and its various changes had been brought down to date. Mr. Newman requested that the variance be. extended; that his client had complied with the requirements previously given. He stated that there were leases signed with Lucky stores, Thrifty and Newberry. In addition there are leases now being negotiated with seven other minor tenants, including Mode 0 Day, and others, which -includes a laundry, dry cleaning, barber shop, beauty shop, and shoe store. In respect to the leases, certain changes in the engineering had been necessitated through the change of leassees. A project of this magnitude had required many hours of work in the drafting of the plans. The mechanical and structural plans have been completed. The plans have been submitted to the Building Department of the City and the permit should be ready for issuance. He stated the permit should have been issued today but for some reason it was held until after this meeting. So far as the physical work that has been accomplished on the job, he believed that the Greynald Construction Co., genetal contractor, has a contract with Mr. Margolin, the developer, and would answer questions as to grading, excavation, etc. June 13. 1961 Page Seven. .~-., \.. ./ Commissioner Norton asked about the signed leases. There were three signed ones and negotiations were being made for eight minor leases. This would not encompass tbe entire building. Mr. Margolin stated there were about twenty-two leases, but he would prefer stating the percentage of the occupancy o~ the building. With the three leases seventy-one percent of the building would be occupied. Commissioner Michler stated that this property was in his back yard and he had observed that quite a bit of grading had been done within the last week or two. He was interes.ted in whether or not the entire grading was complete. It was. understood that approximately 65% had been completed. Mr. Van Harris is the grading contractor who is doing the heavy grading. There still remains the fine grading which will be accomplished after the heavy equipment moves ou Commissioner Michler stated that the question of finances had been discussed at the last meeting and he felt it was still a question that the Commission would like to have determined. He said that the initial grading was only a small part of the work. Mr. Newman presented a ietter from Mr. William H. Carter, 9418 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, dated June 13, i961, addressed to Mr. Nate Margolin, which stated in substance: This will confirm that you have an application wit!! Frank and Co. Inc. 39 Broadway,. New York City, N. Y.. Mortgage brokers, for a permanent mortgage on the South Arcadia Shopping Center; the lender is now processing the application and has indicated that they are finding no unusual circumStances surrounding this property and as soon as the completion of the processing they will be in a position to issue a commitment in the amount stated by the applicant. The firm was working closely with the United California Bank to coordinate the permanent and interim financing so that funds will be available at the earliest possible time, . CommisSi.oner Michler continued t~at the matter had been hanging fire for a long time and he was interested in a definite time element, whether thirty, sixty or ninety days, or six months. He was not for a long drawn out ex- tension of the variance. Mr. Newman stated that he did not feel that the question of an extension of time is an issue any longer., the issue is whether there ha,s been commencement according to the conditions of the variance. That the issue b.efore. the Planning Commi'ssion is on the fact whether there has been a substantial compliance with the conditions preceding the commence- ment according to the. conditions of the variance. He did not believe that at this time they had to be b.ound by any particular number of days. The Director of Public Works stated an inspection had been made and the excavation was not complete, at least insofar as is visible from a car. There was no compaction. The Commission.l.s point of view is a relative term. It is s question when grading becomes excavation. It was the understanding. of the Commission that the grading was to have commenced immediately after the last me.eting and would have been completed by this meeting. Commissioner Norton asked if the excavation work had been completed. Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Margolin and Mr. Greynald, the Contractor, had awarded a contract to Mr. Van Harris for the excavation. The City Attorney stated that he had gone. over the background of this particular property with Mr. Newman and had the feeling that a person coming into this rdcently, and two years is considered relatively recent in this case, may get the fi.rst impression that the Commission is rather "stuffy" J\lne 13, 1961 Page Eight when. it comes to try to hold to dates. There had been eleven applications then, and others since, and other things which would indicate that the Com- mission does have more than a casual concern of delays that would occur on this particular property. Questions. were directed to Mr. Van Harris, the excavation contractor. He stated he did not have any foundation work; the contract called for grading and excavation, demolition. and structural excavation, including only the two basements. He stated he had completed 90% of the site excavation, but none of the structural excavation had been done. This was not in his contract He would say that 75t to 80t of the grading had been completed. Lumping it all together, his. entire contract was estimated to be a little less than 60'7. completed. C01IIIIlissioner Norton asked how long it would take to complete his portion of the contract. The reply was ten working days. Mr. Harris has a subcontract with the Greynald Construction Co. He is usually paid on the progress payment manner; however, on a job of short duration, this is not the case. Sometimes 10'7. is withheld. He stated he preferred to read from his contract, the typed section of the contract furnished by Greynald Co. to him, and inserted by them: "Furnish all labor and equipment necessary to do all demolition, rough grade, and compaction of the entire site, fine grade. Building site within one-half inch with motor patrol graders. You agree to stop work after $9000.00 worth of work has been completed, if the additional money has not been deposited in the grading account at that time. No engineering, backfill, or testing, no compaction tests on A.C.A". The question was asked why the point of stoppage was inserted. It was stated in the contract" when more money has been deposited". At this time, it was Mr. Harris' understanding there is $10,000.00 in that account. Mr. Newman stated that any information pertaining to financing should be directed to Mr. Margolin or Mr. Greynald. Commissioner Norton stated this was a matter of trying to determine the nature of the contract. The Commission is eoncerned primarily not regarding the financing entirely, but the success~ul completion of the project. Anattempt is being made to determine when this will be done. If there are conditions when it is to be s topped at a cer,tain point, this. obviously has a bearing on the successful completion of the contract. Mr, Harris was asked if he had completed his contract up to this particular point. He stated up to this .point he had. He was asked what his intentions were for the future. Mr.. Harris stated he intended to complete the contract as soon as possible if the balance as stated in the contract has been de- posited in the grading account, It if has not been, he felt he should follow through as he had been instructed to do; Commissioner Norton stated that the stipulated conditions by the Planning Commission relative to this particular extension was on the basis that the grading would be in progress and that excavations for foundations and base- ments would also be in progress. It would seem apparent that there is something here that does not lend itself to the progression of this job. There is deep concern as to whether or not there will be further delay on the job. This is the basis on which an evaluation of an extension of the variance can be made. Time does become a very serious part of the program. Time has arrived where someone has to make a decision and the information is needed as to the completion date for the excavation and grading. Mr. Newman stated that the position could be taken that the contract that Mr. Harris had is between Mr. Harris and Mr. Greynald. Mr. Harris can look to Mr. Greynald for responsibility with respect to the financial position. June 13., 1961 Page Nine Mr. William Ensley, attorney at law, was present on behalf on Mr. Harris. Mr. Bert Greynald, general contractor, stated that Mr. Harris and he were at a very serious disagreement as to how much completion has been done. at this point. This is an internal problem. The disagreement is on the percentage of the work done. He anticipated when the grading was commenced that it would be finished under the construction loan, that is why a limitation was placed in the contract, or stop order. At that time the grading was to be stopped and a transfer made to the construction loan. This is not. an unusual agreement. Many times the grading is done in advance of the actual con- struction loan. They had even gone as far in some projects as having the piling put in. These arrangements have to be made between the contractor and the subcontractor. They.had the money to proceed with this portion of the contract. Mr. Harris and he had had no agreement as to what percentage of progress had been made or what he was entltled to. This will have to be settled between them. Mr. Harris has done a good job to this point. There is no quarrel with him on the quality of the work but there is disagreement on another point. Mr. Greynald stated that Mr. Harris would be out there grading tomorrow unless he wishes to remove his equipment and cancel his subcontract. In that event they will proceed with another grading contractor. That will be Mr. Harris' decision. He feels that Mr. Harris does want to complete his contract. The Commission asked if the construction loan at this time was a reality. Mr. Newman stated that the interim financing is being handled by the United California Bank, and the construction loan is being negotiated and is in progress of completion. Commissioner Norton asked if it were correct that regardless of the ability of the present subcontractor to fulfill his obligation to the prime con- tractor that work will progress immediately. Mr. Greynald stated that this was a true statement and work would be in progress early tomorrow. This has no bearing on the construction loan. Assurance is given the Commission that whether the present subcontractor is involved, work will be. continued. Mr. Greynald stated there were three people on the job, with a Superintendent, and assistant Superintendent, and a Carpenter Forman. They are doing the stake work in advance of the grading operation. The question was then asked as to when Mr. Greynald would be finished with the grading of the entire project for the foundation and basements. Mr. Newman stated that was not the question according to the minutes of May 8, 1961 which he referred to. Commissioner Norton then requested information as to when it was expected excavation would be completed. Mr. Greynald stated the ten day:estimate was proper. Normally the rough grading is done by heavy equipment, then the general contractor comes in with smaller equipment, and excavate the footings. They cannot mix the two on the jobs. The City Attorney stated that the hearing being conducted by the Commission is to attempt to secure information to enlighten the Commission so that a solution can be reached. June 13, 1961 Page Ten ~ Commissioner Michler stated that there were many questions yet that he should like to ask, but the one that he was interested in is 'Vhen is the job to be done"? He felt the Commission should have at least a te'nta.tive time specified Mr. Newman then ststed that the motion of May 9th, and he quoted, '~otion made by Mr. Michler that the Commission indicate its intention to grant the extension of the variance 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 grading in process. and excavation for founda- tion and basements be well in progress". He submitted that any questions to the status of the financing are not before the Commission, the only question is:'~as the construction been commenced as evidenced by grading in progress and. excavation for foundation and base- ments", He stated they had complied with this request. The City Attorney pointed out that the terms of the variance are significant in this particular case because it is speiled out as stege development in this area. The start was construction of the walls separating this property from adjacent residential property. The key of the thing is that all con- struction shown on the plot plan approved by the Commission was to be com- pleted, not started, by that particular date. It is from that completion date that the reque~t is being made. This is not the usual situation where a variance expires by operation of the code, where if the construction is not commenced within a period of six months the variance expires. The situation of that kind means a substantial commencement of the use and the substantial compliance with the conditions of the variance. He stated this is not the case at hand. This requires that all c~nstruction shown on the plot plan approved by the Commission shall be completed by that time. Not just in progress. The expiration date is Saturday, June 17, 1961. The time this was done was two and one-half years ago. That was the thing that caused this Commission to not extend the variance sometime ago. It is natural that they would want to know now when the completion is to be. It must be ~pt in mind that previous to the meeting prior to the last one, at the time. the application for an extension was received, that the motion was spread on the minutes that the Commission would indicate their willing- ness to grant a reasonable extension for completion of the project based upon things happening in the meantime. The state.ment cannot be ignored, because so far as substantial work evidenced by grading and excavation, including foundations and basements, no evidence has been presented showing that basement work has been done. Commissioner Golisch asked if the building permit had been issued. It was stated that the excavation and grading permit had been issued and that all necessary plans have bllen submitted for the building permit but that actual permit has not. been issued as previously stated. Further questions were asked relative to other projects of this type that Mr. Margolin and his associates were. considering. The project at Upland was again questioned and the Planning Secretary reviewed the conversation with the Building Inspector relative to the project there. Objection was taken to this type of questioning by the Counsel for Mr. Margolin. The Director of Public Works was asked if the plans were in such a shape that they could get a permit in a relatively short time. He stated that the plans could be corrected in relatively a few hours .and a permit issued. At. this time there is just the grading and foundation permit. The Depart- ment is in a position to issue it immediately. Commissioner Golisch stated he had questions as to the financing. Even though it may be considered not the time but he felt it was the crux of the matter. The costly part of the construction is nearing. The letter from June 13, 1961 Page Eleven --~~ the Mortgage Company was dated this date, but when the application for the loan was made was not determined. It was stated the application was made approximately one month ago, Mr. Margolin stated that a lot of erroneous facts and statements had been given about the Upland project. He wanted to have the record show that the statements about the zone variance, building permits, lot splits and diffi- culties in Upland are inaccurate and untrue. He was questioned and stated that there were.problems anywhere and the Upland .project had its problems, but they were the normal problems of construction. The question was raised if a time limitation could be placed on this permit. Mr. Talley stated there was no time limit specified on the .building permit itself. The Building Code specifies if work is not started within 90 days the permit expires, and in. any case the permit is only good for one year, subject to renewal. The original letter that Mr. Margolin submitted on April 11, 1961, set a time schedule as follows: Revised drawings completed, Foundation only permit Completion of phase construction April 24, 1961. May 1. 1961 February 15, 1962. Commissioner Golisch stated that perhaps it would be better to carryon until the expiration of the variance which is June 17 and then appoint a committee by the Commission to go over the terms of the leases with the applicant, and with the idea of determiniqgif a definite time can be es- tablished for the completion of the project. The matter of finance would be determined at that. time. C.ommtssioner Norton concurred with Comm.. issioner GoHsch but asked tfsome . . type of completion bond could. .be required. Inasmuch a.s there is concern on behalf of the Commission he asked if the applicant would be willing to furnish a performance bond, in consideration for the extension of this variance. The performance bond shouHcontain a completion date. He asked if Mr. Newman would consider meeting with the City Attorney to negotiate this type of bond. Mr. Newman stated he had never heard of this type of bond, except by the contractor and subcontractor for the completion according to specifications etc., but the idea might be explored. The City Attorney stated the interest of the Commission and the City as a whole is in seeing the completion of a project that has been displayed to it on numerous occasions. He would doubt that the Commission is particularly interested in the particular date if they had assurance that on some date it was to be finished and in operation. So far as any piece meal bonding operation is concerned he would not waste time in discussing it. If a bond were to be considered it should be considered on the basis of the full com- pletion of the project. If a certain date were given and then that date guaranteed by a bond running in favor of the City in some penal sum that would give some practical assurance that they were going ahead. He had told Mr. Newman that he was certain there was no one on the Council or the Planning Commission that would be happy to see the property lay idle for another ten years. Everything that they have done has been done with the theory of getting the project completed. Many fancy presentations have been made concern~ng this property even before Mr. Margolin acquired the property. Appreciation should be given to the work that has been going on June 13, 1961 Page Twelve 'J over the years and not evaluate it in the light of the past few months. It would be well to discuss with Mr. Newman. the feasibility and availability of a completion bond extended beyond a date discussed thus far because if such a bond were set up it would be "a shot in the arm" that would get the job completed. .Along the lines of Mr. Golisch's discussion about calling it quits and then referring it to a Committee, he would point out that if this were done in so many wordS it would be exactly back where it was ten years ago and everything would have to be processed allover again. The application for an extension has been made and the Commission can continue the action on the application rather than to terminate the proceedings; that would be turmoil and he would not recommend it. Commissioner. Golisch stated what he meant would be to continue it on to a reasonable completion date; however, there is no assurance when this. will be. The longer it goes on the harder it is going to be to .process. The City Attorney asked at what period of time, two weeks, four weeks, or otherwise, did the applicants feel they would be in a position to state that this project will be financed and on the way. Mr. Margolin stated that he was negotiating with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co in 1960 and had leases signed but there were conditions imposed so that it became difficult for the construction lender to make the loan. Consequently, the request was made with Frank & Co. in order to get a more favorable commitment. Shopping centers are different from other types of developments. There are very stringent leasing conditions set forth in dollars and cents and the type of tenancy. Conunissioner Michler asked what would be the next move.. Would the matter be continued for thirty days in order to be sure the loan had been completed or what was the procedure. The. City Attorney stated that the excavation permit has already been issued. They can proceed under that until its completion. No permit has yet been issued for the cons.truction of the building. He thought the Commission should defer .action on granting an extension to ascertain sometime when it is determined that a specific time has been determined for the completion of the project. The Commission should be able to state the extension has been granted and the entire project s~all be completed, say, by June 30, 1962, and that all arrangements and commitments have been made and they are assured of the. successful completion and then if it develops that a bond guaranteeing the work is agreed upon, so much the better, or that the status is about the same as it was two and one-half years ago and "call it quits" as was suggested. Mr. Newman stated that by the very conditions of the building permit which has been stated is ready to be issued, the conditions of the parmit itself as set out in the Code should make sure those ends are met. The City Attorney stated the wrong emphasis is placed on the proceedings. The permit expires at the end of 90 days if work is not commenced. This permit is good for one year, but there is nothing to S<lY you can't take out a new permit. There are plenty of controls. Whether the present variance is to be extended is the main issue and is the controlling factor. It is not the permit factor. If a bond is required it should be under the damage provision of the code. Where the damage is impOSSible to ascertain the parties agree on a theoretical figure. Commissioner Norton stated that his point in asking this question was to determine so far as the applicant is concerned that there is sincerity in completing the project. It would seem that in between there is an avenue of getting together. The City of Arcadia should not be placed in a position June 13, 1961 Page Thirteen . of expenditure for litigation. The applicant should be willing to accept some sort of financial responsibility for the completion of the project which would not entail additional sums of money to the taxpayers because of any legal action taken. The City Attorney stated that that was the very function of liquidated damages He was sure that both he and Mr. Newman understood the problem and that there are provisions for liquidated damages. You cannot ascertain dollar by dollar what the damage woul.d be in a situation of this. kind. Mr. Newman stated that he th.)ught that his client would be wHHng to enter into an agreement along th.. line outHned by the City Attorney that if. the project is not totally completed by June, 1962 that a certain amount of liquidated damages would. inure to the City of Arcadia. The General contractor who had a contract for the work could be expected to deliver a completion bond. So that in effect the City would become the beneficiary under this completion bond. COmmissioner Norton moved that the matter of the extension of the variance be continued to the next regular scheduled meeting of June 27. 1961 for the express purpose of having the Counsel for Mr. Margoli~7~th the City Attorney to determine some applicable agreement for the completion of the project, and the working out of an indemnity agreement with reimbursement to the City of Arcadia for liquidated damages in the event that the completion date is extended and the work has not progressed diligently .and completed by the new date. ~- This motion was seconded by COI1lI1Iissioner Michler and unanimously carried. RESOLUTION NO. 411 The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 411, entitled: '~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING ON TIlE FRONT PORTION OF TIlE LOT AND TO RETAIN THE EXISTING DWELLING ON TIlE REAR PORTION OF THE LOT AT 535 EAS.T CAMINO REAL IN SAID CITY." Moved by Commissioner Michler, .seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 411 be waived. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, that Resolution No. 41-1 be adopted. The following roll call vote was taken: AYES: Commissioners Forman, Golisch and Michler, NOES: Commissioners Ferguson and Norton ABSTAINED: COI1lI1Iissioner Acker, ABSENT: Commissioner Rutherford. CLASSIFICATION OF BUSINESS (Lynch) The Resolution was not carried. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was in favor .of the two houses but did not approve of the size of the second house. He would change his vote so that the resolution could be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation. Mr. Lynch reappeared at this .time to state that he had given thoughtto the previous action of the Commis.sion and that the time element would handicap his negotiations on this matter. He again was asked to classify in his own mind whether it was retail or wholesale. He was unable to give more information than previously stated. The Chairman informed him that if he considered his business retail he need only reapply to. the License Department for a business license. June 13. 1961 Page Fourteen REPORT. ANNEXATION (Monrovia) AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION '------' , Council liaison, Commissioner Golisch, stated that the matters pending before the Council were the change of zone on Camino Real from R-2 to R-3. If this particular change of zone occurred that it would open up a series of changes on the street. The R-2 abutting the Hinshaw's warehouse was not a proper zoning according to the request and an R-3 was requested. If this buffer zoning is changed i.t would open up others throughout the City. The second item was the request for at Duarte Road and Golden West Ave. be continued until November, 1961. a zone variance for the service station The applicant asked that the matter With respect to the change from R-l and R-2 to C 3 on the north side of Naomi, he felt Councilman Phillips could better answer the question. Councilman Phillips stated that all of the criteria established in the original ordinance No. 1071 was involved in this application. The people in this area have suffered long enough and that a complete study should be made after the new Planning Director arrives to solve the problems in this area.. The Cordelius matter was considered by the Council and the application denied. The Planning Secretary had been presented a request through the City Manager from citizens now residing in Monrovia on Fifth Avenue, for consideration of annexation to Arcadia. The property at 428 E. Duarte Road has 72 foot frontage with 64 feet in Arcadia and 8 feet in Monrovia; also the property at 1848 S. Jll'ifth Ave. Monrovia. This is the only house on the block that is in Monrovia. There are houses numbered in the 900's across the street. They are requesting annexation to the City of ~rcadia. The City of Monrovia is willing to release to the City of Arcadia. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried, that the request for annexation be recommended for approval. Commissioner Norton abstained from voting. No one in the audience desired to be heard. There being no further business to come before the C01IIl1lission, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 ~.M. 't~. CJJ~ L. M. TALLEY, Planning Secretary Jurie. 13, 1961 Page Fifteen