Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 10, 1961 ROLL CALL MINUTES: ZONE CHANGE WEST ARCADIA '\ '--' MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING October 10, 1961 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 0 I clock P.M., OC,tober 10, 1961, with Chairman Golisch presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch. ABSENT: Commissioners Acker and Ferguson OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Elton Phillips; City Attorney James A. Nicklin; Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz; Planning Director William Phelps; and Planning Secretary L. M. Talley The minutesaf the meetings of September 12 and September 26 were approved as written and mailed. Commissioner Ferguson entered the meeting at 8:20 P.M. A public hearing was held on the proposed rezoning of property on Duarte Road, Lovell Avenue, Naomi Avenue and Baldwin Avenue in West Arcadia to Zones R-3-R, C-3, D and C-2 as contemplated by Resolution No. 419. Mr. Phelps presented and explained three'maps showing the present classification of the property and Plan A and Plan B for rezoning. ' Both plans caned for rezoning the four lots on the north side of Naomi, adjacent to those recently zoned C-J, to C-3 and D; rezoning the lots on the south side of Naomi to C-3and D; and rezoning the lots on the west side of Lovell to R-3-R. Plan A and Plan B showed two different methods of improving the lots with the proposed rezoning by street and alley dedications, access to the deep lots and landscaping and planting requirements. The Chairman declared the hearing open to those who wished to speak in favor of the proposed zoned changes. Attorney Henry Hage, 651 West Duarte Road, representing Mr. and Mrs. Harold Neff, 1301 Lovell; Mr. and Mrs. Thurber Royer, 606 Naomi, and others. stated that his clients were in favor of the proposed rezoning for commercial uses, Dut were opposed to the R-3-R zoning on Lovell Avenue. He referred back to Ordinance No. 1071, stating that one of the objections to that ordinance had been the possible increase of traffic on Camino Real because of the size of the territory to be zoned for commercial purposes; that even if all the property presently under consideration Were zoned commercially it would not increase the traffic on Camino Real; that anyone coming to the'shopp- ing ,district from any distance would be using either Duarte Road or one of the main streets south of Camino Real:' The four lots facing on Duarte Road on the west side of Loveil Avenue .are directly across the street from cOmmercial property and the owners 'of these lots are entitled to have equivalent zoning. He suggested that if the property onthli! west side of Lovell Avenue were needed as a buffer between residential and commercial zoning, as set forth in Plans A and B, that a commercial zoning with restrictions as to setback and landscaping, such as were set up in Ordinance No. 1071, would be preferable to apartment houses and cited the Sears shopping area on Michillinda as an example. He felt that the present shortage of parking for commercial buildings on the south side of Duart~ October 10, 1961 Page One ;--. and the ,increased parking if the west side of Lovell were developed to R-3-R, without widening the street, would be offset by commercial zoning of all the property under consideration, thereby providing a complete circulation of parking. He also called attention to, the fact that both the Planning Commission and the City Council have stated that there is sufficient R-3 zoning already in the City of Arcadia. He stated that the property owners he represented were definitely opposed to the R-3-R zoning and would not be willing to make the required dedications for any such development. Upon questioning by the Chairman, he stated that he did not represent any of the property owners on the east side of Lovell. , Mrs. A. L. Wilson, 626 Naomi, was interested only in the ten lots on the south side of Naomi being rezoned to C-3 and D, and requested the Commission to consider the rezoning of those lots separately. James O. Warner, 1225 Lovell, stated that he had no objection to the granting of Mrs. Wilson's request, but he was opposed to any R-3-R zoning on Lovell Avenue. He felt that all the property under consider- ation should be zoned commercially; that the owners were entitled to whatever relief they could get. He called attention to the fact that the present plans called for four alleys between Baldwin and Lovell, going in and out of Duarte Road; that by the time the dedications were made the apartments would back up to parking lots rather than a landscaped area. He felt that since the commercial zoning had been allowed to go as far as it has, it should be continued to include the whole block. He wanted his own property either zoned commercially or left in an R-l zone pending later developments. Charles S. Penny, 612 West Duarte Road, said that he represented Mrs. Barry at 604 West Duarte and Mr. and Mrs. Stevens at 620 West Duarte, 8S well as himself. He stated that he agreed with'Mr. Hage and Mr. Warner; was in favor of the commercial zoning but. not the R-3-R. He only wanted to add that he considered the east side of Lovell and Lovell Avenue itself sufficient buffer between commercial zoning and R-l. Michael J. Blake, 1245 Lovell, agreed with the previous speakers but wanted to register his objection to the proposed R-3~R zoning. C. H. Skinner, 1229 Lovell, also agreed with the previous speakers. He stated that under the proposed rezoning by the time the required dedica- tions for alleys, streets, etc. were made, there wouldn't be enough property left with which to do much of anything. He did not oppose the commercial zoning, but he did oppose the R-3-R propoaed zoning. Robert Considine, 329 Naomi, was opposed to the property zoning. He felt that Arcadia already has too much R-3 zoning and that the vote on Ordinance No. 1071 was an instruction by the people of Arcadia that the commercial area in West Arcadia should not be increased; that any rezoning such as is proposed would be in direct opposition to the will of those people. Mrs. Arthur Jason, living at 269 W. Norman, but owning property at 644 Naomi, asked that consideration be given to granting the commercial zoning on Naomi. Tracy Phelps, I,"epresenting his mother, Mrs. Luella Phelps who owns the property at 1243 Lovell, registered opposition to the proposed R-3-R zoning. October 10, 1961 Page ~wo ',' ',--~ '---/' Ralph Kavasch, owner of property at the rear of 612 Naomi Avenue, inquired if the property owners would be reimbursed for alley and street dedications. Upon being informed that they would not be reimbursed he stated that he would be opposed to the proposed zoning in that his lot lay at the intersection of two alleys and that his property would almost disappear after such dedication. Paul Hackstedde, 333 West Camino Real, stated that he wanted to register a protest to the proposed zoning, particularly the R-3-R. He would not be so violently opposed to commercial zoning on Naomi. Del Johnson, 250 West Camino Real, did not oppose the commercial zoning with the D overlay.for the property on Naomi, but he felt that if R-3-R zoning were granted the property on the west side of Lovell, there would be continued requests for further R-3 zoning. He suggested that the property on the west side of Lovell be maintained R-l for the depth necessary for single family residences and that the, portion adjoining the present commercial property on the west be given a commercial zoning. Maurice Scanlon, 400 West Norman, agreed with the objections presented, particularly with the extension of both commercial and multiple family zoning, and with the increase in traffic such zoning would bring. Harold Sumner, 375 West Camino Real, objected to the increase in commercial zoning because of the increased traffic, and to multiple family zoning because of the increase in school attendance. Witli fiv~ children of his own and no sidewalks, he felt that the traffic on Holly and Camino Real was already a problem. Lee Baxter, 618 West Longden, stated that while he would not be directly affected by the zone changes,he would be indirectly affected; that he felt those favoring any change intended to sell their property and leave Arcadia and that he intended to live here; that he was against Ordinance No. 1071 and he is against this proposal. R. C. Hatter, 315 West L"s Flores, stated that he felt the City of Arcadia was approaching the saturation point for R-3 zoning and recommended that this whole rezoning matter be dropped and that the City go back to Ordinance No. 1071 that was defeated by the people of Arcadia. No one else desiring to be heard, the Chairman asked that the Secretary read any communications. Communications from Frank Distel, 1312 Lovell Avenue, Harold E. and Marjorie S. McGowan of 647 West Camino Real, felt that the west side of Lovell Avenue should be Zone C-3-D and that the north side of Camino Real should be eligible for reconsideration of its zoning at some future date. Fern Staley, 651 West Camino Real, stated that she favored the commercial rezoning, but she did not want any rezoning that would stop at any definite point. She was against any R-3-R zoning but hoped that eventually the commercial zoning would be extended to Camino Real. Motion was made by CommiSSioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried, that in view of the testimony presented and the suggestions made,that the matter be referred to the. Zoning Committee and the Staff to consolidate the ideas presented for their recommendation and report at the next regular meeting. october 10, 1961. Page Three ZONE VARIANCE HARDING'S GARDEN- LAND -, ) ',j The Chairman continued the public hearing to the first regular November meeting of the Commission on the second Tuesday in that month, November 14, 1961, as there might not be a quorum at the next regular meeting. The Chairman called a recess of three minutes'. The meeting was called to order at 9: 30 P.M. The application of Harding's Gardenland, Inc., for a zone variance to allow the storage of nursery materials on a 20-foot strip between Sandra Avenue and the alley south, and west of Second Avenue, was considered. The Planning Secretary read the application and the report from the P~anning Staff, dated October 5, stating as follows: "This is the application of Harding's Gardenland, Inc., for a zone variance to allow storage of material used in connection with the nursery business on a 20 foot wide strip of land between Sandra Avenue and the alley to the s ClIth, west of Second Avenue. This strip is zoned P-R-3 and was intended for a parking area for the business fronting on Live Oak Avenue. There is a filling station on the corner and a doughnut shop west of the station. To date neither of these businesses have had need of additional parking area. Consequently the subject property has not been graded or paved. If this variance is recommended for approval, consideration should be given to requiring the area to be graded and fenced with a concrete block wall, grape stake fence or some type of fence to screen the stored materials from view. The fence near Second Avenue should be kept low enough so as not to obstruct vision for traffic in the intersection. Any variance for the requested use should be limited in time so that it can be reconsidered if the use of the frontage property changes and requires additional parking space. Possibly five years should be the maximum time allowed." There were no other c'ommunications. Mr. Phelps presented a map and showed the location of subject property and the present landscaping. The Chairman inquired if there were anyone in the audience who wished to speak. Vincent Walt of 2530 Greenfield Avenue, who owns property adjacent to subject property, but also represented other property owners in the area; stated that they did not necessarily object to the proposed use of the vacant property but they were interested in the type of fence or wall that might b,e used and to the type of materials to be stored in the yard. They wanted to protect themselves. Charles Harding, owner of Harding's Gardenland, Inc. stated that they intended to use subject property for the storage of slow moving materials, such as plants, tubbed trees, small firewood and other similar material sold; that the only stored material tliat would be visible above the wall would be the boxed trees. In answer to inquiries, he stated that it would not be used 'for spraying trees and that no fertilizer would be stored there. He further stated that their rather extensive Christmas tree business requires more room; that this was a landlocked piece of property on which the owner had not paid taxes recently. October 10, 1961 Page Four -~ ZONE CHANGE RALPH STOGSDILL ~ ( There was a discussion of the tax delinquency, parking and a possible time limit for the variance, also the fact that when the property facing Live Oak Avenue was zoned C-2, this strip was set up for parking. Upon Mr. Walt's questioning, it was brought out that the variance would allow only the use specified in the variance. Motion by Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Forman, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. Motion by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Michler that a variance be granted Harding's Gardenland, Inc. for a five-year period for the storage of material on the 20-foot strip of land" between Sandra Avenue and the alley to the south, west of Second Avenue, subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff report. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Acker. The Chairman announced that this was a continuation .of the public hearing held to consider a decision on the application of Ralph Stogsdill for a zone change of property from Zone R-l to Zones C-2 and PR-3 on Las Tunas Drive, east of Baldwin Avenue and of property on Baldwin Avenue north of. Las "Tunas Drive. At the close of the hearing held two weeks ago the matter was referred to the Zoning Committee for a report. Commissioner Norton read the following report: "At its public meeting on Monday, October 2, 1961, the Zoning Committee of the Arcadia Planning Commission studied the zoning change application which requested zone C-2 and PR-3 for the property generaly located at the intersection of Baldwin Avenue .and Las Tunas Drive. The Committee was informed of the Planning Department's viewpoint on this zoning matter as follows: 1. The property in question is at the intersection of two arterial routes. Properties at intersections like this are generally considered to be best developed as commercial properties rather than residential. 2. The property at the other three corners of the intersection are in Zone 'C-2. Asa matter of equity the subject properties similarly situated as ~hose across the street should be similarly zoned. 3. Any commercial zoning on the subject property should also include a ''D'' architectural control overlay. These controls could contain the commercial development only to the subject properties in such a manner as to not infringe on the residential amenities of the abutt- ing properties. 4. The service station, real estate office, and escrow office also be placed in Zone C-2-D. 5. The Commission recommend to the City Council to issue a policy statement that it will not grant approval of any change of zoning on the remaining residential properties on both sides of Las ""Tunas Drive., on Woodruff Avenue or Baldwin Avenue until such time as a October 10, 1961 pege Five. '\.__J -->, -j comprehensive land use plan can be prepared for this entire area. However, the members of the Zoning Committee did not concur with the staff viewpoints but rather each took a particular stand. One member suggested that only the property now developed as commercial (the service station, the real estate office, the escrow office) be placed in zone C-2 with a D overlay. The remaining property staying in its present R-lzone classification. Another member also agreed to place the already commercially developed property in a C-2-D zone but thought the subject property ahould be placed in a modified R-3 zone. ' The third member also agreed with the C-2-D classification for the service station, real estate and escrow office but suggested,that the lot facing Baldwin Avenue remain R-l. Th!l balance of the applicantls request (those lots on Las Tunas) be placed in a C-2-D except the lot which the applicant requested PR-3 should be placed in a PR-l zone. Because of the different opinions of the three members of the Committee and their not being able to submit a majority report, the matter is returned to the Commission without recommendation." The Chairman declared the meeting open to anyone in the audience who cared to speak for or against the requested rezoning. Attorney Henry Shatford, representing Mr. Stogsdill stated that he felt the Staff recommendations were sound but that ne could not agree with the Zoning Committee that any of the property should remain in Zone R-l. No one else in the audience desired to speak in favor of tbe zone change. Keith Casman, 608 Woodruff, stated tbat he was mostly opposed to the zone change on Baldwin Ave. as subject property' there actually abutted the back of his property. He stated that even with the proposed five-foot setback it wo~ld bring a commercial building within ten fee,t of his house. Evelyn Malkin; 2836 South Baldwin, said that she was opposed to the con- tinual encroaching of the business area into the residential and asked that any further commercial zoning be deferred until a more comprehensive plan for the whole area could be made. Lillian Heron, 521 Woodruff Avenue, opposed the rezoning on the same grounds and further stated that Arcadia needed no further R-3 or commercial zoning in that area. Mrs. Crutchfield, 611 Woodru,ff Avenue, speaking in opposition, asked if every year or so, they were going to have to come in and protest the re- zoning. Mary Ann Casman, 608 South .Baldwin, speaking for, her aunt, Mrs. L. E. Adams at 617 Woodruff, stated that if this request were granted there would be more. Mrs. William Worden, 601 Woodruff, merely wanted to go on record as being opposed to the grantin~ of the rezoning. After some discussion as to the lot on the corner, it was moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Forman stated that he felt the main opposition to the zone 'change was the extension of the commercial zoning on Baldwin Ave. He felt that Mr. Sh8tford's thought that comme1;'cial zoning should be extended all the way October 10, 1961 Page Six to Camino Real was looking a little too far into the future. However, he felt that with. the commercial zoning on the south side of Las Tunas Dr. they should consider commercial zoning for the north side, and the requested parking, but'should include the lot on the corner where the gas station, real estate and escrow offices are located. Commissioner Norton expressed himself as being definitely opposed to the rezoning of the lot on Baldwin Avenue. He felt that the Commission had inherited a complex problem and that they sho~ld protect the rights of the residential property owners. He felt that any commercial zoning granted on Las Tunas Drive should extend only to 'the rear line of the lots fronting on Las Tunas Drive. Mr. Rutherford wanted to indentify himself as the member of the Zoning Committee who advocated that the Baldwin Avenue lot stay in R-l classifi- cation and that the service station, real estate office and escrow office be placed in C-2 with a D overlay. Since listening to the remarks he felt that property abutting Las Tunas Dr. should be in a C-2 Zo.ne with a D over- lay, and that the parking should bePR-l, all with the stipulation to the Council made in item 5 of the r!lport, that it will not grant approval of any change of zoning on the remaining residential properties on beth sides of Las Tunas Drive, on Woodruff Avenue or Baldwin Avenue, until such time as a comprehensive land use plan can be prepared for this entire area. Commissioner Ferguson felt that each application should be censidered in the light ef its compatibility with the area; that if the corner were to be rezened it should be something more compatible' with R-l; and that he would prefer some mere restrictive type of zening. He felt the lot on Baldwin Avenue should remain as it is. Commissioner Michler stated that he concurred with what Commissioners Forman and Norton had said. His concern was the creeping of commercial zoning down Las Tunas Dr. He would not recommend any change on the Baldwin Avenue property. Commissioner Forman asked to add to his remarks that he would agree to Item No.. 5 of the report; that the Commission recommend to. the City Council that it will not grant any change of zone on both sides of Las Tunas Drive, on Woodruff Avenue or on Baldwin Avenue until a comprehensive land use plan. can be made for this area. There was a discussion on the length of time a land use plan would cover. Planning Director Phelps explained that for a city the size ef Arcadia it should be for a period of 15 to 20 years and should tske into con- sideration the type of shopping area involved. Chairman Golisch felt that the residential integrity of the City of Arcadia should be' recognized and maintained. He felt that a commercial zoning with a D overlay should be granted with the' lot at the east end being zoned for parking, but that it was too early for the lot on Baldwin Avenue to be considered for any c?mmercial uses. There was a discu~sion as to the imposition of the D zoning en all the property zoned for commercial purposes. The Secretary called attention to the fact t~at the request for the zone change and the notice of the hearing did not include a "D" zoning. Although Attorney Shatford, represent- ing Mr. Stegsdi 11 , stated that his client wou~d be glad to accept the commercial zoning with the "D" overlay, the CIty Attorney ruled that it would be necessary to set a new date for 'discussion of the "D" zoning. Inasmuch as time,was an element, it was decided to refer the matter back to the Zoning Committee for consideration of the "D" Zoning and the re- zening of the corner lots and to fix a date for a hearing on such zoning. October 10, 1961 Page Seven LOT SPLIT NO. 346 Elmayan TRACT NO. 26655 PLAN APPROVAL 1601 SOUTH BALDWIN AVE. Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried, that the pending matter be held under submission; that proceedings be instituted to place the property now under con- sideration in Zone D and that proceedings be. instituted to reclassify the corner propert~es; that pending such hearing the matter be referred back to the Zoning Committee for consideration of both the "D" overlay and the rezoning o~ the corner lots not previously considered. Motion by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Forman, that an adjourned meeting be held on Monday" October 30, 1961, at 7:30 P.M. fer a public hearing on the zoning of the subject preperty and the cerner lots under discussion. " Mr. Rutherford reported that there were no problems on this lot split, and no reason why it should not be granted as the width conformed with other surrounding lots. Motion by Mr. Rutherferd, seconded by Mr. Forman, and unanimously carried, that Lot Split No. 346 at 1816 South Sixth Avenue be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. File a final map, 2. Provide a sewer lateral for Parcel No.1, 3. Pay a $25.00 recreation fee$ 4. Provide water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code, 5. Remove all buildings from both parcels, 6. Close all curb cuts not used for new driveways. "~' . This was a hearing on the revised tentative map of Tract No. 26655, consisting of l4'lots located west ef Holly Avenue between Longden Avenue ,and Lemon Avenue. Secretary Talley explained that this had been before the Commission at a previous meeting, and at Commissioner"Forman's request read the conditions that had been recommended at that time. John Quayle, 2019 Bella Vista, said that o~ers on the east side of that street. subdivision but felt that the subdivider up six more additional lots. he represented two-thirds of the He was not so much opposed to the should come farther west and pick Joe Adacheck, the subdivider, stated that he would like to point out that such requests were easily said but not so easy to carry out, particularly when they presented drainage probl~ms. Noel Tamietti, Engineer for Mr. Adacheck, felt they had pretty well sketched in the requirements. Since the Commission were not entirely satisfied with the subdivision as presented,and Mr. Adacheck was willing for an extension of time, it was decided to refer the matter back to tbe Subdivision Committee. Motion by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Norton, and unanimously carried, that the revised tentative map of Tract No. 26655 be referred to the Subdivision Committee for them to report back at the regular meeting on November 14, 1961, and that Mr. Quayle and the others be so advised. Final plans-for the "proposed convalescent home at 1601 South Baldwin Avenue were presented for approval. The Se'crce,tary explained the plans, showing that they were almost with tbe tentative plans but th~t one wing had been,moved so that could look out into a landscaped area rather than a parking lot. bed ward was to. be converted to storage space to conform with the' placed in the variance. identical the patients On,e four- 66-bed limit October 10, 1961 Page Eight AUDIENCE PARTICI- PATION SAN. GABRIEL FREEWAY LOCATION OF FALLOUT SHELTERS HOUSE MOVING ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 422 Orlando Clarizio, the builder, spoke regarding the wall, stating that he wouid like to wait development of the lots on both the north and south before extending the wall from the building to the street. Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferman, and unan~mously carried, that the plan for the proposed convalescent home at 1601 South Baldwin Avenue be approved as submitted, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works as to drainage. No ene in the audience desired to be heard. Planning Director Phelps spoke regarding the proposed routes for the San Gabriel Freeway and mentioned that some-recommendation should be made to the City Council before Mr. Lortz represents the city at the state meeting en November 17, 1961. Motion by Commissiener Forman,seconded by Mr. Ferguson, and carried, that the matter be held ever to the adjourned meeting of October 30th in order to give the Staff time to prepare a recommendation that can be considered by the Commission and passed on to. the City Council. Planning Directer Phelps brought up the matter of allowing falleut shelters in front yards since it would be impossible in, many instances to get into rear yards to construct them. It was felt that this was a matter that needed further consideration, not only as to what might be possible, but as to how neighboring cities were handling it. Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commiasioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried, that the matter of allowing fallout shelters to be constructed in front yards be referred to the Zoning Committee. City Attorney Nicklin passed out copies of a proposed ordinance regulating house moving and wrecking to be studied and discussed at the next meeting. If a decision could be made at the adjourned meeting of October 30th, the ordinance could be presented to the Council for their first meeting in November. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 422 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 210-212 EAST DUARTE ROAD IN SAID CITY." Motion by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 422 be waived. Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton, that Resolution No. 422 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Acker. Octotier 10, 1961 Page Nine 'j \ ' -.-I RESOLUTION The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 423, entitled: NO. 423 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA" CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ERECTION OF A CHURCH AND RELATED FACILITIES AT 130 WEST DUARTE ROAD IN SAID CITY." Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 423 be waived. Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, that Resolution No. 423 be adopted. Said motion wail carried on the following roll call vote:, AYES: Commissioners Forman, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: Commissieners Ferguson and Michler ABSENT: Commissioner Acker RESOLUTION The City Atterney presented Resolution No. 424, entitled: NO. 424 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ERECTION OF A COVERED PATIO ON PROPERTY AT 590 SOUTH THIRD AVENUE IN SAID CITY OWNED BY THE SANTA ANITA GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL AND THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY AS A MEETING PLACE FOR GIRL SCOUTS." Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 424 be waived. Motion ,by Commissioner Norton, seconded. by Commissioner Forman, that Resolution No. 424 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Acker. RESOLUTION The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 425, entitled: NO. 425 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE NORTH PORTION OF PROPERTY AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF SYCAMORE AVENpE AND SECOND AVENUE IN SAID CITY TO BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF A TEMPLE AND 'RELIGIOUS SCHOOL." , . , Motion by 'Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 425 be waived. (.0 October ~, 1961 Page Ten . Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that Resolution No. 425 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll, call vote: AYES:Commissioner Fergusen, Forman, Michle~, Norton, Rutherford, and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Acker. RESOLUTION The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 426, entitled: NO. 426 "A ,RESOLUTION OF THE' CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS CON- CERNING THE RECLASSIFICATION TO ZONE D AND ZONE C-2 OR SOME MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE OR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAS TUNAS DRIVE AND BALDWIN AVENUE IN SAID CITY, AND TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2612 BALDWIN AVENUE AND 525, 529, 601, 603 and 615 LAs TUNAS DRIVE TO ZONE D AND/OR P IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC ZONE APPLICABLE OR TO BECCJoIE APPLICABLE THERETO." Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the ,full body of Resolution No. 426 be waived. Motion by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, that Resolution No.. 426 be adopted. Said met ion was carried on the following roll call vote: c AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Ferman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Acker. ADJOURN- MENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. ~~~ Planning Secretary