Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 27, 1961 ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONING COMMITTEE REPORTS ZONE CHANGE 1020 S.Baldwin .- c, . '" _-4 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING June 27, 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 27, 1961, with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, GciJisch, Norton, Rutherford and Acker. ABSENT: Commissioner Michler. OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Elton D. Phillips, City Attorney James A. Nicklin, Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz, and Planning Secretary L. M. Talley. Because the minutes of June 13, 1961 were not mailed out with the regular agenda" they were not approved at this time. The staff report on the application of G. M. Shumaker, 1020S. Baldwin Avenue, for a zone change from Zone PR-3 to Zone C-2 which matter had been continued from the meeting of June 13, 1961, was considered. The Planning Secretary read the Staff report as follows: ''This is the request of G. M Shumaker for a change of zone from Zone PR-3 to Zone C-2 for the rear portion of the property at 1020 South Baldwin Avenue, 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. T~ere has been discussion that the parking available for the bowling alley use may not be sufficient to handle the maximum loads, but the report of the Planning Staff dated June 8, 1961 states that the re- quirements of the Zoning Ordinance will be complied wi.th. In addition, the applicant is the owner of Market Square which has more than 100 par,king spaces over the Ordinance requirements. Similar property on the south side of Arcadia Avenue was rezoned to Zone C-2 a few months ago. We see no logical reason for denial of this request and recommend that it be approved." In the absence of the Chairman of the Zoning Committee, Commissioner Golisch stated that so far as the Committee was concerned, the parking requirements meet the code, the zoning requirements are met and this seemed to be a reasonable request. The parking ratio is two to one, the same as commercial, 1 parking space for each 500 sq. ft. of floor area. June 27, 1961 Page One rt . . , " ANNEXATION (McBane) t \ ' "'-_/ Coannissioner Forman stated that he believed the Zoning Ordinance should be revie~ed so far as parking is concerned. Mr. Shumaker meets all of the requirements and it would be very difficult to deny approval. In checking the zoning and parking requirements in cities surrounding Arcadia, so far as bowling alleys are concerned, they do not require the parking ratio as to square feet, but to the number of alleys. Pasadena has 4 spaces per lane. It is too late to do anything along those lines at this time, and it is doubted that there will be too many more bowling alleys in this citYl in the .near future a review of parking requirements should be'made and based on ,the need rather than the square footage of the l>uilding. Discus.sion followed. There may be other business'es develop in the City where the parking requirements should be based on the use. Each of the Commissioners expressed himself. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford.. and carried, that the request of G. M. Shumaker, 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue, for a change of zone from Zone PR-3 to Zone C-2 be recommended for approval. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: C01IIIIlissioners Forman, Goltsch,Norton, Rutherford and Acker. Mr. Forman voted "yes" but qualified it with the remark the zoning ordinance should be reviewed. NOES: None ABSENT: C01IIIIlissioner Michler ABSTAINED:Coannissioner Ferguson. Annexation of the one lot at 1167 W. Duarte Road which had been referred to the Staff for its report was considered. The Planning Secretary read the report as follows: "The C01IIIIlittee considered the request of Dr. J.. Kendall McBane for annexation of his property at 1167 W. Duarte Road. Thts property consi'sts of one lot, approximately' 130 feet by 3S0 feet and adjoins the westerly Arcadia City boundary on tbe north side of Duarte Road. We understand that the' property is presently in Zone R-I-SOOD under County regulations, and that the applicant has stated he desires Zone R-3 classification. Adjacent property witbin Arcadia and with corresponding lot sizes is now classified in Zone R-3. We see no objection to the annexation and rec01lllllend that necessary proceedings, be taken to classify it as Zone R-3 concurrent with the annexat.ion. " The City Attorney stated that this annexation would occur under the Uninhabited Territory Act, which does not require the referral of the matter to the Planning Commission. Since the Act makes no requirements that it be referred to the Coannission, he would assume that the Council wanted the basic thinking on the annexation of one additional lot in that area and any coanneni:s. The primary purpose of the enabling June 27. 1961 Page Two. ~ ~ ~. ) legislation is to prevent the possibility of property being annexed to the City and coming in unzoned. The City has taken this into consider.. ation and .required that all property comes in as Zone R-l; however, under proper circumstances, interim zoning concurrent to the annexation can be made. It would be proper to recommend. what zoning should be. As a matter of procedure, it is not required to hold a public hearing in order to recommend zoning concurrent with annexation. It is a better practice though to hold the public hearing because then the reg~lar provisions are complied with. Commissioner Ferguson was in favor of the R-3 zoning being concurrent with the annexation. Commissioner Norton favored the annexation coming in as R~l. Commissioner' Rutherford felt that thro'~gh the discussions the zoning appropriate in this area is R-3, but that he felt it would be better to hold a public hearing. The City Attorney stated. that there is still ample time to make a recommendation after a hearing and the zoning to be placed upon the property concurrent with the annexation if there .are present misgivings as to what that should be. The Council has to decide whether they will annex just one parcel; have the boundary description approved by the Boundary Commission, which is a twenty day process, and the hearing cannot be held on the annexation in less than forty days after the forwarding of the approval of the Boundary Commission, which is a total of 60 days. This gives ample time to recommend the annexation and then make a recommendation later on as to the zoning. The City Attorney further stated that if the Commission wished it would be proper to recommend what zoning should be. There is the possibility of recommending the desirability or undesirability of the annexation per se, reporting on the area generally and the area under consideration in particular and the nature of the improvements thereon, and whe.ther or not zoning should be imposed other than the automatic R-l. He felt it was a better practice to hold a public hearing, although such was not required if the zoning is concurrent with the annexation. If this is done compliance is with the regular Act as well as the emergency provision. It was suggested that the Commission limit its recommendation as to whether or not the lot is to be annexed and res.erve a decidon on the zoning to be placed upon it until a hearing is held after notice is given. T~ere is a bill pending before the Legislature providing that any zoning adopted pursuant to that section would become null and void at the end of one year after its adoption. That is why if the property is to be placed in the R-3 zone, the City Atto~ney recommended that Council accept the recommendatione tentatively, but during the time that it takes to get the boundary description approved, institute the proceedings for a hearing which could not ba held less than forty days after the Council had indicated ite willingness to go ahead. The Planning Commission was unartimoue in ite decision that the only proper zoning on this particular lot would be R-3, but on recommendation of the City Attorney the annexation would be forwarded to the City Council recommending the annexation and a public hearing would be Bet up after the Council had made its decision as to whether or not the lot was to be annexed. The recommendation of the Planning Commission could also be fOrwarded to the Council but the matter fully determined at the public hearing. June 27. 1961 Page Three CLASSIFICATION OF BUSINESS ( Lynch) LOT SPLIT 339 (Tony Ortiz) ~ . ) '-- " Mo~ed by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, and unanimously carried that the request of J. Kendall McBane, 1167 W. Duarte Road. for annexation be recommended for approval, and that the recommended zoning be R-3.. but would be determined at a. public hearing to be set by the Planning Commission. The request of Thomas A. Lynch, for a clsssifics.tion of business of distribution of electronic components was considered. This matter had been discussed at length at the last Planning Commission meeting, and Mr. Lynch could not determine whether the business was wholesale or retail. The matter was referred to the Zoning Committee and its report was read by the Planning Secretary as follows: ''The Committee considered the request of Thomas A. Lynch that the business of distribution of electronic components be considered a retail business permissible in Zone C-2. The applicant has stated he estimates that between 25% and 33% of his business would be subject to sales tax. While there are no doubt other methods of differentiating between retail and wholesale businesses. from information available to the Committee. we do not feel that the business of this particular applicant can be classed as a retail business. If it is primarily a wholesale business. it would properly fall in the C-M classification." Discussion. followed. This business could be allowed by a variance and at this time it might well be considered a C-2 use. but with the growth as anticipated by Mr. Lynch. a wholesale use may well develop and the variance already granted would place the City in an awkward position. This is no doubt a business that could well develop into a wholesale business and should be. located in that zone. The City Attorney stated that this was made clear to Mr. Lynch both at the Staff level and at the hearing that if he was positive it was a retail business substantially. all he need do was to file an application to that effect; but he has not seen fit so to do. FrOto the discussions at the outset it would probably of necessity be primarily a retail business, but the likelihood was in time it would develop into a larger scale business and at least in the future it may drift into the wholesale scale. His only answer to that possibility was that when the customer started buying large quantities they would go direct to the manufacturer and would get a better rate. This may be so, but nothing was said that a sale would not be made if possible. This decision has to be determined by the information submitted. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and carried. that the request of Thomas A. Lynch, for the classification of the business of distribution of electronic components be recommended as a use permissible in the C-M zone. The application of Tony Ortiz, 526 E. Longden Avenue; which had been referred to Commissioners kutherford and Norton was considered. The Planning Secretary read the report of the Director .of Public Works to the effect that if the lot split were granted, the following should be required: June 27. 1961 Page Four TRACT NO. 26743 '--~/ . 1. 2. 3. File a final map. Provide a sewer lateral for Parcels 1 and 3. Dedicate a 15 ft radius at the corner of Longden and Sixth Avenues. Pay a $25.00 recreation fee. Remove all buildings on the property. Water services must comply to the Uniform Plumbing Code. 4. 5. 6. Commissioner Rutherford stated that he had investigated the area and in accordance with the balance of the property in the area, even though there are a few narrow lots - 68 feet wide - he would recommend this split be approved. Commissioner Norton had also viewed the property. There are. two existing buildings on the property very old and also a barn on the rear portion of the property. Both of these are unoccupied. Although the frontage on Longden Aven,ue is less than the desired width, it is conforming in the square footage and it would be an acceptable division. Thiswould enhance the area with the old building removed and new homes constructed. Moved by Commissioner Ruther ford, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried, that Lo.t Split No. 339, Tony Ortiz, 526 E. Longden Avenue be given tentative approval, subject to the recommendations in the report of the Director of Public Works. Tract No. 26743, located on the north side of Longden Avenue, between El Sereno Drive and. Bella Vista Drive, containing 18 lots was considered. The Planning Secretary exhibited a map of the tract showing that this tract will extend north to Wistaria Avenue. The report of the Subdivision Committee was read by the Planning Secretary, as follows: ''This tract is located on the north side of Longden Avenue between il Sereno Drive and Bella Vista Drive and extends north to connect with Wistaria Avenue. It consis ts of 18 lots, each being 77.25 feet wide by 120 feet deep, containing 9270 square feet, Lot splits number 267 and 268 on the north side of Wistaria Avenue to the north of this tract were approved October 22, 1959, but are not yet completed. The street improvements have been installed but the street is not yet dedicated. A one-foot strip at the north end of the street should be deeded in fee to the City until such time as Wistaria Avenue is dedicated. The Tract is recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove all buildif\gs from the tract. 2. Remove all trees from the street right of way except any approved by the Director of Public Works to remain. Remove the high hedge along the north and south lines of the property. . 3. Close up the existing driveways on Longden Avenuf, unless approved by the Director of Public Works to remain. June 27, 1961 Page Five VARIANCE EXTENSION (Margolin) 4. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 5. Install all street improvements required by the Subdivision Ordinance in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the Direc.tor of Public Works. 6. Pay the following fees and deposits: 6 steel street light posts @ 40 street trees @ 4 street name signs @ 18 lots recreation fee @ $135.00 8.50 35.00 t5..00 $810.00 340.00 140.00 450.00 $1740.00 7. All water services shall conform with t he Uniform Plumbing Code. 8. Dedicate a one-foot strip at the north eI!d of the street in fee to the City. The Chairman asked if it would not be necessary to ~equest a deed for the one foot strip on Wistaria. The extension of Wistaria has been improved through 10tspl1ts, but the street has not as yet been dedicated. The Planning Secretary pointed out this would be in order to require the .one foot in fee unless the improvements were accepted and the street dedicated prior to the filing of the final tract map. Mr. Bauman, the subdivider, was complimented on the tract. It was so perfect that no changes were required. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried, that tentative Tract No. 26743 be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the Subdivision Committee's report as amended by the dedication of one foot in fee at the north end of the street. 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. A communication had been received by the Planning Secretary, from Mr. Margolin addressed to Mr. Nicklin, the City Attorney, and was read into the record as follows: "Pursuant to our conversl!tion yesterday, held in accordance with the Planning Commissions' instructions, between the undersigned, my attorney Mr. Newman and yourself, I hereby confirm my willingness to enter into an indemnity agreement with the City as a consideration for City Council granting an extension of the variance on the subject property, based upon completion of construction as follows: Completion of Phase I Completion of Phase II Aug. 31, 1962, Jan. 31, 1963. Said agreement to be in a form prepared and satisfactory to you, and to include as liquidated damages the sum of $100.00 per day for each working day beyond the above specified dates. Performance dates to be extended for delays caused by war, strikes, Act of God, in the usual meaning. In order to guarantee the indemnification I would make an assignment of my interests in the leases of the three major tenants secured on the premises. June 27, 1961 Page Six Trusting this covers the points of discussion, may 1 take this opportunity to thank you for your s.incere efforts to bring about an amicable conclusion to our past problems. Copy: Mr. Philip Newman, Esq. 1 remain, (sgd) Nate MargoHn NATE MARGOLIN" The City Attorney stated that the letter was a result of the meeting held with Mr. Margo~in and Mr. Newman with himself. The problem was discussed and the possible solution considered. Mr. Nicklin suggested the $100.00 per day as damages because there is precedent for this. All public works contracts carry this penalty clause. He had suggested also to Mr. Margolin that a re-evaluation of the completion dates be made. If such an agreement were executed by him he would be held to it and that these dates should be as accurate as possible. The City is inter.ested in having the project completed rather than to exact any penalties for not completing it. It was on this basis that he had stated the completion dates as stated in his letter. The question of securing the payments was discussed. Mr. Margolin preferred to give his word and let his word be his bond. He had been told that at least one or more Commissioners would not care to accept this. They would want some type of security. The surety bond poses a problem in obtaining the same and does not necessarily mean money in the City's pocket without further action, quite often action has to be brought against the bonding company in order to recover on it. The type of security mentioned has certain advantages. The details would have to be worked out under the existing leases and assignments on the first trust deed. The big problem is the fact that the surety is no good at ali unless they build the building. The City Attorney felt that the attitude of the Commission was, first, to have the "building started immediately and completed in short order and occupied. The second choice would be t~at nothing happened on the property; and the third choice would be to have the building commenced but to take forever to finish. If nothing happens, Mr . Margolin I s word would be his bond.. If, on the other hand, the building is commenced and ~ltimately finished, the overriding assignment would provide the security .for the payment of sums due. There are advantages and also handicaps in the surety bond type of security. Discussion followed as to the work now being done on the site. There is a difference of opinion between the prime and the subcontractor as to whether the rough grading is completed. Mr. Margolin stated that nothing more had been heard from the commitment for the construction loan in the East, except that he has been assured that he will receive word in a few days. Since the meeting with the City Attorney two problems had arisen. This was with respect to parking. The State Mutual Life Insurance Co. preferred that the ratio be 4-1/2 to 1, instead of the 3 to 1 as outlined. In order to comply with this it would require that the lease with Newberrys be abandoned in order to get the required parking. This would not be for the moment, but forever. If he would accept this, he could go ahead immediately, but would have to negate the Newberry lease. These are problems that have to be surmounted. The City Attorney stated that in fairness to the applicant it would have been humanly impossible to have presented a formal agreement at this meeting inasmuch as the commitments are not firmed up yet and probably would not be prior to this meeting, so he had suggested that this" letter be submitted to show the intent. If the Commission approve basically what is, suggested then the agreemant could be drawn and "be June 27, 1961 page Seven presented at the next meeting. He would recommend that the matter be continued under advisement until it is presented. The matter is under continuation now and could be acted on at the next meeting depending on the reaction to the letter submitted. Each of the leases is for twenty years and carry completion dates, but these have been extended and could be if necessary. The construction completion is predicated on the start of construction. Commissioner Goiisch requested information as to who would determine the completion of the stages as outlined in the communication. The City Attorney stated Mr. Margolin had set the date so as to allow some leeway for the unexpected which is bound occur. He had suggested a later date, but he was urged to reconsider as. the earliest date he could complete would be more acceptable to the Commission. Considerable discussion ensued. The City Attorney stated.thst a tendency to lean toward getting the project completSdhad two definite benefits; 1st, from the revenue standpoint; and 2nd, from the quieting effect on the neighborhood. It is determined now what is to be built on the property and people know this. If the matter is to be again re-opened it would be a long drawn out affair and would stir up the surrounding area. The matter now pending before the Commission is the basic structure of an indemnity agreement as was instructed by the Commission to work out with Mr. Margolin and his attorney. Each of the items would have to be worked out and a decision made, first of which would be the amount of the liquidated damages; this is not possible to determine in full. There would be the ad valorem revenue on the completed project. There would be damage to the City the amount of the loss of revenue the City could anticipate and would have the right to expect. A more intangible loss to the City would be the depressing effect that construction under way but not completed would have on the surrounding properties. Since these cannot be figured, an arbitrary figure. must be agreed on. The Commissioners each felt that the $100.00 per day liquidated damages would be adequate. The next issue to be discussed was the completion dates of Phase I and Phase II. Time had passed since the statements were originally made and a new date had to be fixed. It would be better to have the date extended to a time when the project would be completed than to fix a tentative date and be back with more problems. The exact date is not nearly as important as that Mr. Margolin gem under way and gets the project completed. If an agreement is prepared and executed there will be a sizeable penalty. The concern of the Commission in analyzing the completion da.te is the starting date. No doubt, Mr. Margolin would not sign an indemnity agreement until he was reasonably sure he would start in a short time. Mr. Margolin fixed the dates, based on his information that he would commence construction. This, of course, takes into con- sideration the usual delays caused by Acts of God, or beyond Mr. Margolin's control. The Commission agreed that the dates set in the letter of Mr. Margolin to the City Attorney were reasonable and could be considered the basis for an agreement. The next matter to be discussed was the type of security. June 27, 1961 Page Eight ANNEXATION . A perfo~nce bond given by the Contractor in favor of the City is one type of security. A rental assignment could present problems such as no building - no rentals; also it is not known what portion of the rental c01lDDitments are assigned on the loan. Usually that -is all assigned for a time, and the recovery would either be delayed or taken against Mr. Margolin personally. ~his type of agreement is very unusual. A bonding company no doubt would hesitate with the third party agreement. It was not feasible to sign an indemnity agreement until the financing is in order. There is one unanswered question: What percentage of the anticipated rentals will be required to meet the loan payments? Mr. Margolin stated all insurance companies require that there be an assignment of the major leases and the loan is predicated upon that. In the event they fore- closed they would come into the same position~ the oWner. They would then take out of the gross income to retire the debt service, and operating expenses, and the balance would then be residual to the owner. Normally, on another project, it is broken down as 1/3 operating, 1/3 debt service, and 1/3 accrual. In an investment of this type it is considerably less. The City Attorney asked if it would be practical to assign the rentals from some of the lessor tenants rather than the large ones. The Insurance Company requires the assignment of all of the leases, but the safeguard is the national credit type of lease. The residual would remain excepting in case of foreclosure, then the Insurance Company would take over the entire amount. This residual should be able to feed the agreement if these .buildings were completed. If the City were the prime obligee there would be no problem. So it would be necessary to arrange something other than that which would become a lien either on the property or the fir~t assignment of the leases. It would have to be a secondary lien Or the problem would be to go back to the beginning. C01IDDissioner Golisch stated that the financial situation is still the major point. That if the CommiSSion would set the matter ahead one month, and that if at that time the complell!f1nancing were arranged then the variance could be extended under the terms above stated. If he has not completed his financing by that time, then the C01IDDission could deny the extension. . Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by C01IDDtssioner Rutherford, and unanimously carried, that the matter of the extension of time of the variance at the northwest corner of Santa Anita Ave. and Live Oak Ave. be continued until the next regular meeting so that the Attorney for Mr. Margolin and .the City Attorney could work out the terms of the agreement which may be required if the variance is extended; that the liquidated damages in the. amount of $100.00 per day for non- completion of the project, and the completion dates as hereinabove set forth are agreed upon to be th~ basis of the agreement. The request of owners for annexation of territory north of Camino Real and west of Mayflower Avenue was considered. The Planning Secretary presented a map of the area, and outlined the area desiring annexation. This was the same area that the subdivider obtained deannexation of a small portion from the City of Arcadia in order to create more lots in the tract. 21 parcels are involved in the. annexation. No improvements have been built on the recently subdivided property as yet. There are a few substandard lots. The subdivision was built according to County standards. The area under the County zoning is R-1-7500. The lots all have the 7500 sq. ft. but not the required width of Arcadia. June 27,.1961 Page Nine PUBLIC PARTICIPA- TION COUNCIL LIAISON LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES HOUSE MOVING ORDINANCE ZONING ORDINANCE DlPIBMENTATION The Commission discussed fully the merits and objections of the subdivision. The matter will be before the City Council at which time they will take action as to whether. or not the property mayor may not be considered for annexation. The purpose of this review is to study the physical features of the land, the lot sizes, the street widths, sewers, improvements, etc. and the report will theri go to the City Council for consideration. Inasmuch as the property had not been viewed by the Commissioners and no study made, the matter was referred to the Zo~ing and Subdivision Committees for a report to be considered at the next meeting. No one in the audience desired to be heard. Commissioner Golisch reported that the Resolution recommending an anendment to driveway requirements that had been considered by the Planning Commission was approved. The discussion on the annexation of South Arcadia, south of Live Oak, had taken place at the last meeting of the City Council. Councilman Phillips was complimented on his manner in conducting the hearing. Much discussion occurred at the meeting as to the annexation fee if the area were to be annexed. There were quite a few people who approved of coming in to the City with the charge, others felt it was too high, and still others felt it should go to the people to determine what the entire area desired to do. The matter was held over until the first meeting in August so that it may be considered when the entire Council is present. The Planning Secretary stated that the City Manager had requested him to ascertain the number of the members on the Commission who desired to attend the meeting to be held in San FranciSCO, October 22-25, 1961. All attending the meeting must be cleared through' the City Manager. Commissioners Forman, Acker, Norton, Rutherford and Ferguson each stated it was his desire to attend. Councilman Phillips stated before any major house moving is to occur in connection with the freeway that the City Ordinance should be reviewed so that all facets should be covered. Ordinances of other cities had been checked~ Monterey Park apparently had one of the best, and an attempt is being made at this time to make a rough draft to be presented for consideratIon. CommiSSioner Norton stated that at a former meeting he had been requested to meet with the City Attorney to study the zoning with reference to variances and changes. He wished to report that he had conferred with the City Attorney and he .then presented' his report as follows: I~lthough provisions of our zoning ordinance could be amended to provide certain safe-guards against speculative applications for variances, not only will such ameridments be time consuming, requiring approximately five months to accomplish, but I beHeve that many safe-guards can be immediately provided within the present framework of our variance pro- cedure. Presently Section 9291.2.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires each variance application to be accompanied by a plot plan, plans and des- criptions of the proposed use of the property, and ground plans'and elevations for all proposed buildings. Strict adherence to these requirements at the administrative level will tend to solve some of the difficulties we have encountered 'in tbe past. This Section can be June 27, 1961 Page Ten further strengthened at the Planning Commission level by 'requiring even more detailed plans such as floor plans, specific designation of the proposed use .of each portion of the building' to be constructed, and the like. Until any such reque'st of the Planning Commission is satisfied in every respect, the hearing should be continued from time to time rather than closing the hearing too soon and thereby running into the requirement of making a decision ~ithin 35 days after close of the heating. If a performance bond, li~uidateddamage agreement or other safe-guard is' deemed desirable, a provision to this effect could be contained in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council could refuse to grant the variance until such details have been satisfactorily worked out. Another device that ~ould discourage speculation ~ould be a clause in the Planning Commission's resolution recommending that final detailed construction plans be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the granting of the variance by the Council. The Council could indicate 'its intention to grant the variance upon compliance ~,ith the Planning COllllllission I s recollllllendations. The applicant, if not a speculator, could then afford to spend the money to prepare precise final plans for his proposed construction, with the realization that his variance will be forthcoming if his plans are within reason. The Planning Commission's recommend.ations in such a case should contain a provision that such plans be submitted within a specified time, depending upon the extent of the work necessary to prepare them. Inasmuch ss many of these features will vary from case to case, it may well be that they could better be handled in each instance under such a procedure rather than freezing the requirements into the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission's recommendation and the City Council's action can be better tailored to .fit each individual situation than could be accomplished by the necessarily broad language that would be required if the zoning ordinance were to be amended to handle such details." The matter should be reviewed by the Zoning and Subdivision Committees at a time when Commissioner Norton can present his findings. RESOLUTION NO. 412 The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 412, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDI.NG THE CLASSIFICATI.ON OF THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS AS A WHOLESALE BUSINESS, A USE PERMISSIBLE IN ZONE CoM UNDER CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL COOl!:. II Moved by COllllllissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 412 be wat ved. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by COllllllisstoner Ferguson, that Resolution No. 412 be adopted. Said Resolution was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Norton, Rutherford and Acker. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler. June 27, -1961 Page Eleven . . ---) RESOLUTION NO. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 413, entitled: 413 ANNEXATION (Sierra Madre) SENIOR CITIZENS "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AT THE REAR OF 1020 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE IN SAID CITY FR<If ZONE PR-3 TO ZONE C-2." Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the Resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that Resolution No. 413 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Forman, Golisch, Norton, Rutherford and Acker. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler ABSTAINED: Commissioner Ferguson The Planning Secretary stated that a request had been made by a resident in Arcadia whose property at 2051 Vista Ave. backs up to Sierra Madre to annex a small portion on the rear of his lot. A triangular piece- of property in Sierra Madre has been purchased which would make a total lot depth on the south side of 169 feet instead of 93 feet. They have requested Arcadia to annex this portion. They are also requesting Sierra Madre to accept the deannexation. The building site would be entirely within the City of Arcadia. Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that the request for annexation of the small portion of property within the City Hmits of Sierra Madre be recommended for annexation to the City of Arcadia. The Planning Secretary stated he had received a communication from Charles M. !lhodes of Sierra Madre, (Glen Haven Lodge) requesting consideration for the use of property on Christina Street as a boarding house or home for the aged. The letter was read in its. entirety by the Planning Secretary and discussion occurred. The zoning ordinance does make certain provisions for rooming. boarding house. etc. in Zone R-3. The. Fire Department and the State Fire Marshall had checked the property and some alterations would have to be made if used for this purpose. The apartment building under consideration has eight units. It was the intent to convert the present garage into a kitchen and dining room. The present. kitchens in the aparbnents would be converted to bedrooms. The apartments would be used for bedrooms and living rooms, with no kitchens. The Planning Secretary had discussed the matter with the City Attorney and felt that the question to be determined was whether this type of use is permissible use in Zone R-3. If it is the Staft can proceed. If not, it would take a Zone Variance to use R-3 properfj}this purpose. There is a question that this use is not taken care of in the Zoning Ordinance. June 27. 1961 Page Twelve ADJOURNMENT . . . . -' This is not specified in the special use section. The City Attorney stated that this type of use would come more closely to being, a hotel. Much consIderation is being given to this type of housing. Many people are attaining an age where they are not desirous of living alone but are not subject to hospitals, or the usual rest home type of care. Many are going into co-op apartments. There is another application pending in the form of is called a resident hotel, but for elderly people. a new building for this use. This will come before on July 11. a zone variance which They are building the C01IIIIIission It was the consansus of opinion that the above use is not a use permissible in Zone R-3 and the Secretary was instructed to so notify Mr. Rhodes. There being no further busines to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. t~. L. M. TALLEY, Planning Secretary . June 27, 1961 Page Thirteen