Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 4, 1961 . ROLL CALL: MINUTES: ZONE CHANGE (Live Oak and Lenor.e Avenues) . /----, -- MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING, December .4, 1961 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met pursuant to adjournment on Monday, December 4, 196L, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chamber, Arcadia City Hall, with Chairman Golisch presiding. , PRESENT: Commissioil!!rs Acker, Fargu.son, Forman, Norton, Rutherford , . and G01:l:sch. ABSENT: Commissioner Michler, OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Phillips, Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz, Planning Director William Phelps" Planning Secretary L. M: Talley. The minutes of the meeting beld November 14, 1961 .were approved as written and mailed. Tbe Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing on tbe zoning to be applicable to Southeast Arcadia Annexation No. 28, located on Lenore Avenue south of Live Oak Avenue and zone change from Zone C-2 to Zone R-3 at the southeast corner of Live Oak Avenue and Lenore Avenue; as contemplated by Resolution No. 43L. The Planning Secretary read the Staff report .ss follows: "The City has received a request to annex certain property on the east side of Lenore Avenue south of Live Oak Avenue and to change the zone on property at the southeast corner of the above streets. Tbe corner property, now in the city, is owned by Robert G. Harris. It is 100 feet by 170 feet and is ~n Zone C-2.. Mr. Harris also owns adjacent property outside of the City which he is requesting be annexed. '1lhis additional property has a frontage of 24.66 feet on Lenore Avenue, with a depth of 100 feet. He has requested that the zoning on tbe corner property be changed from Zone C-2 to Zone R-3, and that the 24.66 foot strip be placed in Zone.R-3 concurrently with the annexation. The property being considered for annexation is in Zone R-3 under present County regulations. The north 116 feet of the church property is developed as a parking lot for the church. It has an ornamental concrete block wall along the north, east and south sides. The lot is paved, and is provided with landscaping and ligbting. A concrete sidewalk has been installed. The south 67 feet of the parcel is vacant, and we are informed that the church intends to build a parsonage ,for the minister. December 4, 1961 Page One (" '--- There is a dedicated alley south of Live Oak Avenue, extending east and west from Hempstead Avenue and terminating at the east line of the Harris property. To provide circulation of traffic through the area this alley should be opened and improved to connect with Lenore Avenue, or to the north to connect with Live Oak Avenue.. The Live Oak Avenue connection probably would not be good because this block is unusually short. If the alley is extended to Lenore Avenue it will divide the Harris property. creating a lot with 24.66 feet of frontage. Regardless of tbe zoning placed on this parcel, it will not be a desirable building site and a covenant should be required to guarantee its ownership be continued with the corner lot snd restricting its use to open or covered parking only. All of the south side of Live Oak Avenue from Lenore Avenue to the east city boundary is zoned C-2. The north side of Live Oak Avenue from Sixth Avenue to the east city boundary is zoned C-2, except the corner occupied by a church. which is zoned R-2. The nortbweat corner of Live Oak Avenue and Sixth Avenue is Zoned C-2. with R-3 to the west. .The southwest corner of Live .Oak Avenue and Lenore Avenue is Zoned R-3 and developed with an apartment house. West of the apartment is Zone C-M. Tbe northwest corner of Lenore Avenue and Lynrose Street is Zoned R-2 and used for a church and parking lot. All of the surrounding County area to the east, soutb and southwest is Zoned R-1-5000 and developed with single-family residences. Tbe Planning Department recommends tbat the zone change from Zone C-2 to Zone R-3 for the corner .parcel be approved, subject to extending and improving the alley to connect with Lenore Avenue. The Department also recommends that tbe area proposed to be annexed by Zoned PR-2 and that a covenant on tbe nortb 24.66 be required to guarantee its ownel."ship be.ing continued with the corner lot and restricting its use to open or covered parking only. A map was presented and the area under consideration was explained by the Planning Secretary. There were no communications. The Chairman requested those in favor to come forward. No one desired to be heard. He then requested those in opposition to state tbeir views. There was no opposition. It was moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Norton. and unanimously carried. tbat the public bearing be closed. Discussion ensued. Tbe Planning Director stated that Mr. Harris. tbe owner of the property, had stated that he was not in favor of. the alley extension, but it was the consensus of opinion of the Zoning Committee and Staff that if tbe requested zoning were December 4. 1961 Page Two. ZONE CHANGE (Live Oak near Louise) (~ \----- recommended that the alley sbould be one of the conditions. Through an error in the description the small portion of this property was not included in the former annexation. The property to be annexed is now Zoned R-3 in the County. Some of the property in the area on Live Oak Avenue is C-2 but that immediately across the street is R~3 development and that good planning would be to have the two corners of the same zoning. This would be more compatible to the area than a commercial zoning. Tbere would be an alley separating the 24 foot strip, and that a covenant should be required to retain the same under one ownership. There would be a dead-end alley if it were not continued througb frQm Hempstead to Lenore. This area is practically tbe same as in otber areas of tbe City where it has been very desriable to require an alley and this should be a prerequisite of the zoning. Some of the property under consideration is now in the City, and the requested annexation would include the property now used as a churcb parking lot and that which is proposed for a parsonage for tbe cburch togetber w~tb the 24 foot strip which was omitted from the former annexation. The annexation has been before tbe City Council and is being held under consider- ation of the zoning by the Planning Commission has been completed. The area is bounded on the south and east by R-l, immediately across the street is R-3 and a church. Moved by Commissioner Forman, and seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that the zoning to be applicable to southeast Arcadia Annexation No. 28, located on Lenore Avenue, south of Live Oak Avenue and the Zone Change from Zone C-2 to Zone R-3 at the southeast corner of Live Oak Avenue and Lenore Avenue, as contemplated by Resolution No. 431 be recommended for approval, as outlined in the Staff report. Said motion waa carried on the following roll call vote; AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Norton, Rutherford and Go11sch .NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler. The Chairman announced that this w.as a continued hearing on the application of William H. Rowland and others, for a change of zone on Live Oak Avenue, east and west from Louise Avenue from Zone R-3 to Zones C-2 and D. This matter was con~idered at the November 14th meeting and was referred to the Zoning Committee and Staff for-a report. Since tbat time, however, it had been determined that there exists on all of tbe property on Louise Avenue a deed restriction for single-family use place at tbe time of the development of the Tract. Because .of these'deed restrictions, it would seem in order that the Staff. recognize the restrictions even tbough they had felt that the change of zone should be approved witb conditions which would make the transi- tion of this property from residential to commercial in such a manner as to have the least effect on the surrounding properties. But, because of these deed restrictions it seems to the Department that the recommendation should be to deny the application until such time as the deed restrictions are either lifted or court action has be.en instituted to relieve the property under conSideration. The deed restrictions are in effect until 1967 and there is .an automatic renewal clause. This affects aU of the property facing Santa Anita Avenue and on each side of Louise Avenue but not the two deep lots. These are in another tract. December 4, 1961 Page Three .. Some years ago on the corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Live Oak Avenue ~here was a court action that set aside tbe deed restrictions for the service station and restaurant. It is possible that this could occur on these otb,er lots. The Cbairman stated that there had been a cbange of thinking of Fhe Staff and Zoning Committee due to tbe deed restrictions. That .any person in the audience desiring to be heard in favor of tbe application could be heard at this time. Mr. W. H.llowland, owner of the prop.er.ty on tbe corner of Live Oak and Louise Avenues stated that he could not understand why the deed restrictions should enter into this matter at tbis time. The property had been restricted but in 1948 or 49 they had been given an R-3 zoning without requesting it and had been paying taxes on this type of use ev.en though he had a 1200 square foot house on the property. His taxes were $654.76 tbis year. He had had the property for sale for over a year and could not get a buyer. It is logical that they would have to be changed because the property had changed. A precedent had already been established by the court action on tbe corner. He submitted his copy of the court action, dated Msrch 20, 1953, for study. Anyone familiar with the City of 'Arcadia knows that this section should be changed. It is surrounded by commercial properties. If apartments were built it would be contrary to the deed restr,ictions. This is no't a residential lot and no one would purchase it fronting on Live Oak Avenue and build a home. He felt that the Commission should go back to the original recommendations so tbat the property could be set up as C-2 because of the precedent baving already been set. Tbere were no further proponents at this time. The Cbairman called for those opposed to tbe Zone Change to be heard at this time. Dr. A.. J. Andrioli, 2600 Louise Avenue, representing 25 property OWners in the area, preSented a copy of tbe deed restrictions for study. The Planning Secretary read a few of tbe pertinent sections relative to the restrictions imposed. These sections stated that all of the lots in the tract shall be known and described as residential lots. No structures shall be erected, altered, or placed or permitted to remain on any residential building lot other than one detached single~family dwelling, not to exceed two stories in beight and a private garage for not more than three cars, and the customary outbuildings. Usual restrictions'as to size, setbacks, etc. The covenants to run with the land a~d sh~ll be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under tbem until January 1, 1967, at wbich time said covenants sball be automatically extended for successive periods of ten years unless by a vote of the majority of the then owners of the lots it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part. Dr. Andrioli stated that the report as pr'eViously given called attention to the fact that tbis was a single-family area, except the vacant lot. There has been notbing sbown to the effect thst-there is a need for further commercial development. There is a serious doubt that there is a need for commercial property in tbis area. A survey bad been made of tbe area and there seems to be a good deal of commercial property available. From people who are considere~ expert in tbeir field it was felt that tbere is rio big demand for commercial pro- perty. One of tbe things that should be considered is the absence of any real plan for the development of the property were it to be rezoned. There are a variety of things that could be proposed for the development of the land that would be more consistent. He presented a sketch of a proposed development showing a 50 foot street through the properties at 55 and 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, extending north from Live Oak, ending in a cui de sac. Where it to be developed in this manner, the residents on Louise Avenue would convey 10 feet from the December 4, 1961 Page Four rear of their properties in order to give each of the R-l lots the required square footage and deptb. If a developer were interested in tbis area, such a plan could be worked out. Dr. Andrioli was asked if the two lots on Live Oak Avenue would be developed as R-l. He stated tbat tbey were large lots and could well be developed as such. Reference was made earlier to the fact that a court action was in the record. He bad been advised by an employee of a Title Company, wbo had made available the copies of the deed restrictions, tbere is no official recordation of the judgment. The City had accepted a covenant December 17, 1957 on some of the property. The restrictions were filed November 4., 1940. He felt tbat it would be consistent to deny tbe application because of the foregoing facts. Tbere would be no financial loss if the two deep lots were allowed to be developed according to tbe plan submitted. He also questioned tbe legality of the covenant and whetber. or not it could be recognized. Dr .And cio11 stated tbat be felt it would be less attractive to a developer were tbe two front lots developed for commercial uses. Tbere were no further opponents. Discussion followed as to wbether or not tbe court order was issued prior to tbe zoning. In 1949 wben Ordinance No. 760 was adopted, tbe present zoning of R-3 on Live Oak Avenue was adopted. Later On there was a zone variance for a service station and tben a zone cbange to Zone C-l on tbe corner. Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried tbat the public bearing be closed. Tbere was no knowledge of the deed restrictions at the time tbe property was Zoned R-3. The new zoning ordinance adopted in 1949 was an upgrading of all of the zoning in the City. .Pub11c hearings wer.e held on the new ordinance and ne~ maps of this area was set up as R-3. Commissioner Forman stated tbat deed restrictions had been very beneficial in the City and felt that the Commission would be remiss if they were overlooked at this time.. Much of the R-3 is due to the deed restrictions having expired, allowing different types of deveiopment. Deed restrictions should be honored. Chairman Golis.ch stated that from tbe presentation'SQ far it appears that it was the court order that changed the zoning on the ~orner of Live Oak and Santa Anita Avenues. Planning Director Phelps stated tbat there was a similarity between zoning and deed restrictions in one r~spect. They both govern and restrict the use of land and it is a good idea at all times to keep the things together rather than to have one permitting one thing and the other denying it. It was probably not proper to zone R-3 wher~ tbe deed restrictions set up Single-family dwellings. Commissioner Ferguson statedhe had missed the last meeting but he was interested in the proposal of the layout for the two deep lots. This development would take care of tbe excess land. Whereas, witb'the cbange of zone tbe front would be developed C-2 and tbe rear would be landlocked. C01JIII1issioner Rutberford stated tbat be felt tbe deed restrictions for single- family dwellings Should be bonored. Commissioner Norton had no comment at tbis time. Cbairman Golisch stateitbat once tbe public hearing bad been closed, it was not a good tbing to reopen it. December 4, 1961 Page Five Conunissioner Norton stated that if Mr. H. A. Valentine, wbo had requested audience after the motion for closing the hearing had been made and unanimously carried, bad pertinent information he should be allowed to be heard. H. A. Valentine, owner of the northeast corner of Second Avenue and'Live Oak Avenue stated he had developed that entire area in 1945 and 46 and put the deed restrictions on tbe property. Since this time in their efforts to get the conunercial zoning, even though tbe restrictions were on the entire area of Second, Third and Fourth Avenues, an R-3 use was given, without tbeir asking for it, knowing the restr.ictions were on tbe property as he bad recorded them himself. Eventually,. they were given acommereial zoning and R-3 on the property inunediately to the north. There is a precedent establisbed where the restrictions bad been ignored and a change of zone 'granted without honoring the restrictions. This occurred approximately in 1953 or 54, and the conunercial zoning in 1955 or 56. The corner wss not placed in tbe deed restrictions but the lot to the north and the one to the.' east were ineIuded in the restrictions. Commissioner Norton asked if the deed restrictions placed at that time are still in effect. Mr. Valentine stated tbey. had been broken, but they are still in effect for the otber property. The Church located on Third Avenue was originally under the restrictions for R-l and the other 'lots fronting on 'Live Oak Avenue from Third and Fourth Avenues were all R-I. These were made R-3 without the request of the property owners. They were desirous of a conunercial zoning. The Chairman stated tbat one of the major safeguards in the City of Arcadia were the deed restrictions. Insofar as tbe Conunission is concerned were they to ignore the restrictions, it would be. throwing a c1o.ud upon the bulk of the people who reside in the City. It is another matter that if a particular piece 01 property is taken to court and tbere is a court order or ruling on that particular matter, but for the Planning Conunission to give recognition to some- thing other than that in the restrictions would be doing an injustice to many people. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he felt they should have more information as to the legality for the change when there are restrictions. Whicb should come first, the zoning or the court procedure? Regardless of the deed restrictions, there would still be the same development problems in tbe area. Planning Director Phelps stated that a glance at tbe land use map showed that the area under consideration was more or less a residential island. Commissioner Norton did not know the legality but would like to point out that most of the Staff as well as-tbe Zoning Conunittee had met without the prior knowledge of the deed restrictions. In its findings it was felt that perhaps this area was more suited to conunercial uses rather than to residential; there- fore, there was the benefit of the two studies - from tbe Planning Department, as well as the Conunittee. When there is a legal question, it migbt be well to review the matter based or. the factors presented at this meeting. Tbe matter of the proper zoning had been determined, and the deed restrictions state wbat can or cannot be done, but it does not change the fact that the area is better suited for commercial uses than for residential. Discussion followed as to the large deep lots. In the Staff report it was reconunended that public access be developed from Live Oak Ave. to the alley, so that the rear portion of the lots could be developed, either the R-3 which they now presently are zoned or to some other zoning. December 4, 1961 Page Six ZONE VARIANCE (HI E. Live Oak Ave.) LOT SPLIT NO. 350 Tidwell LOT SPLIT NO. 348 . \,j Moved by Commissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Norton, and unanimously carried, that the matter be referred back to the Zoning Committee and Staff to conf~r witb the City Atto,rney to straighten out some of the legal technical- ities that had arisen. A meeti~g of the Zoning Committee was called for Friday, December 8, 1961, at 7:30 P.M., to consider the application of W. H. Rowland for a zone change on Live Oak Avenue, east and west from Louise Ave~ue from Zone R-3 to Zones C-2 and D. Tbe Cbairman called a three minute recess. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, who announced that the next item was the further conSideration. of the application of Live Oak Medical Building Company for a zone variance to allow expansion of the present medical building. Inasmuch as this zoning is in the same area and has been considered along wttb the rezoning of W. H. Rowland's property, it vas decided tbat tbe matter &hould be continued. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that the continued public hearing on the application of Live Oak Medical Building Co. for a zone variance to allow expansion of the present medical building be referred to the Zoning Committee and Staff to be considered along wtthtbe W. H. Rowland application at a meeting to be held Friday, December 8, 1961, at 7: 30 P.M. at the Arcadia City Hall. Tbe planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 350 - F. E. Tidwell - 225 LeRoy Avenue, wbich had been referred to C01llll1is.sioners Acker, Micbler and Rutherford. The Planning Secretary presented the report of the Director of Public Works, that if the lot split were approved the following requirements should be imposed: 1. Filed a final map, 2. Provide a sewer lateral for Parcel 2, 3. Pay a $25.00 recreation fee, 4. Provide wa~er services to conform witb the Uniform Plumbing Code, CommiSSioner Acker stated that he had inspected. tbe property under consideration and felt this would be a good lot split. It faces on LeRoy and Ewell Avenues, next to the new subdivision. One of the requirements is to move the shed if the split were approved. It was brought out tbat there was a fence on tbe nortb property line which would detract from the development and that a requirement should be that the present fence 'should be removed and not be replaced. Another type of fence in keeping witb the present type of bomes could be co~struc:ted. Moved by C01llll1issioner Rutherford, seconded by C01llll1iss1oner Acker and"unanimously carried tbat Lot Split No. 350 - F.E. Tidwell, 225 LeRoy Avenue be approved, subject to the conditions outlined..in tbe Director of Public Works report and further that the shed and fence now located on the property be removed. The application of Carl E. Fix, 2325 South Secona Avenue for a lot split had been r . considered at the meeting of November 14, 1961 and approved, subject to the newly created lot being 100 feet in depth instead of the 90 aa proposed. Mr. Fix had requested that the matter be reconsidered. Tbis had been referred to Commissioners Forman and Ferguson, who bad originally checked the property. December 4, 1961 Page Seven .~ '''---"'/ Commissioner Forman stated tbat be had again viewed tbe property and found that the rear lot lines were very irregular, one was to avoid some swimming pool equipment. There were two irreguiar lots down the street, snd looking at the utility poles as presently located indicate a very irregular rear line. He had previously recommended the 100 feet in deptb. One tbing occurred to him on this visit that if this is establisbed at 100 feet, tbe utility poles would then cross over the cabana near the swimming poo1.. What effect this would have on tbe health and welfare be did not know. If the split were still the 100 feet no doubt another pole would bave to be installed to offset the present line. The safety factor might bave a bearing on his decision. He would prefer having tbe lot 100 feet deep. Commissioner Ferguson had also viewed the property and felt the 100 feet in depth should be maintained. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Collllllissioner Forman, and carried, that Lot Split No. 348, Carl E. Fix - 2325 Soutb Second Avenue, originally approved for a 100 foot depth be reaffirmed. Commissioner Ferguson abstained inasmuch as he was absent at the November 14, meeting. TRACT NO. 26938 The Planning Commission considered Tract No. 26938, located on Third Avenue at Duarte Road, and containing 25 lots, which bad been referred to the Sub- division Committee. Tne Planning Secretary presented maps of tbe subdivision and the Staff report as follows: "This tract is located on Third Avenue, soutb of Duarte Road, and contains 25 lots. Tbe opening and improvement of tliis street will eliminate the present dead-end of Third Avenue, which is now about 1200 feet. All of the lots are above the minimum size and all streets are 60 feet wid~. The south 20 feet of lot. 25 sbould be dedt.cated for alley purposes. Any future development of the property at 220 ~: Duarte Road should also provide alley dedication to complete the alley between Second Avenue and Third Avenue. - . On June 2, 1958, the developers of Tract No. 19823 to the south deposited $3250.00 with the City for their proportionate sbare of extending Third Avenue to Duarte Road. This amount should be paid to the subdivider of this tract. The tract is recommended for approval, subject to tbe following conditions: 1. Remove'all.buildings and structures within tbis tract or across the tract boundary. 2. Provide rear line utility easements. 3. Dedicate the south 20 feet of lot 25 for alley purposes. 4. Dedicate the north 12 feet of the property at 220 E. Duarte Road . for street purposes. 5. Dedicate one foot in-fee to the City along the north side of "A" Street west of lot .24. 6. Install all street improvements required by the Subdivision Ordinance in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the Director of Public 'Works. 7. Pay the following fees and deppsits: December 4, 1961 Page Eight J 58 street trees @ $8.50 $493.00 9 steel street lights @ 115.00 1035.00 & street na~e signs @ 35.00 210.00 25 lots recreation .fee @ 25.00 &25.00 Total $ 23&3.00 8. The City should dedicate lot 14, Tract No. 19823 for street purposes. ~here was anotber item which had been overlooked and that was requiring a 12 foot dedication on the lots facing Second. Avenue for the widening of Second Avenue. In considering the tract, attention should be given to the fact that the property fronting on Duarte Road may be considered for rezoning in the future and that the alley should be taken into account when studying the area. The alley should eitber be taken from Lot 25 at the present time, Or it could be made a condition of the zoning when the property to the north is developed. Mr. M.W.Lippman, 22&0 Roanoke Avenue, San Marino,the developer of the tract, stated that he was very anxious to have consideration of the tract as he had options that were about to expire. Discussion ensued as to the flat cui de sac and the one foot strip that would be dedicated in fee to the city to control the use of the property abutting. it. Also as to the possibility of including land' west of lots 23 and giving it frontage on the street. Mr.. Lippman stated that he had conferred with the owners of the property and sbould have an answer within a day or two' as it maybe that t~e property can be considered along with the tract. He wo.uld be willing to dedicate the property on the end of the cui de sac to the. City reserving only enough to give Lot 23 enougb frontage. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that tentative map of Tract No. 2&938 be recommended for spproval, subject to tbe conditions outlined in tbe Staff report, ,and subject further to the dedication of 12 feet on tbe four lots .fronting Second Ave. for street widening. If the developer is unable to obtain the property at the end of the cui ae sac as above stated, the conditions can be corrected at the Council level. If the land is obtained this condition would correct itself. TRACT NO. 17508 Tbe Planning Commission considered Tract No. 17508, located between Longden Avenue and Las Flo~es Avenue, west of Second Avenue and containing 33 lots. Tbe Planning. Secretary exhibited a map of the area, and the Subdivision and Staff report as follows: This tract as submitted did not have information to cbeck possible street grades. It is in an area that is unu~y flat and tbe grades become critical. Information has since been received but too late to make a report at tbis time. At present, the rear lot lines are very irregular, wbich might preclude the possibility of obtaining the utility poles in the rear. Some of the lots are less tban the minimum required deptb. A portion of the street wes.t of First Avenue is sbown as 5.0 feet wide. It is requested that the developer continue his efforts to secure additional land to secure a &0 foot street and minimum 100 foot depth lots and to straighten the rear lot line. It was recommended oecember.4, 19&1 Page Nine J that action on this tract be continued until December 12, 1961. TRACT NO,. 26655 Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried, that tb~ consideration of Tract No. 17508 be continued until the next regular Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 1961. Tbis matter was continued from the meeting of November 14, for the reason tbat it failed,to receive a majority vote recommending its approval. This tract is located on Wistaria Avenue, west of Holly Avenue, containing 14 lots. There is no new report on this Tract. Tbe Subdivision Committee made its report a~ the November l4tb meeting and felt that tbe subdivider had done all possible in connection witb opening Wistaria Avenue. At. this point 9:40 P.M. Commissioner Michler entered the meeting. Cb~irman Golisch stated that tbere were certain irregularities in the tract that, in bis opinion, should not be approved. If a tract such as this is 'approved, it would exist permanently, and now is the time "to get some of the conditions worked out. He felt that with a little. more time and persistence a good workable subdivision could ~e constructed in this area which would be more advantageous to the City. There were too many items tbat needed revision. Commissioner Michler stated tbat as he had stated at the previous meeting, possibly the subdivider had done all possible to make tbis a workable tract. Tbere were certain things about it that be would like to see improved, but he felt about all had been done that could be. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that Tract No. 26655 be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as outlined by the Subdivision Committee and Staff. Tbe motion lost on the following roll call vote: AYES: COIIIDIissioners Ferguson, Forman, and Michler NOES: Commissioners Acker, Norton, Rutberford and Golisch. TRACT NO. 26537 The Planning Commission considered the final map of Tract No. 26537, located on Magna Vista Avenue,soutb of Duarte Road, and west of El Monte Avenue, containing 9 lots. The Planning Secretary presented a map of the area and read the Staff. Report as follows: "Tbis tract is located on the easte.rly extension of Magna Vista Avenue and its connection to LeRoy Avenue, west of El Monte Avenue, and consists of 9 lots. The final map' conforms with the tentative .map and is recommended for final approval, subject to all of the conditions set out in the approval of the tentative map by t~e Ci~y Council on February 21, 1961." The Planning Secretary stated that there were a number of conditions in connection with the acquisition of street right of.way ~nd other conditions, as specifically set out in the approval of the Tentative map. ,Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, Seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried tbat the final map of Tract ,No. 26537, be recommended for approval, subject to all of tbe conditions imposed on tbe Tentative Map as approved by the City Council on February 21, 1961. December 4, 1961 Page Ten TRACT NO. 26912 Tbe Regional Planning Commission had forwarded for consideration a map of Tract No. 26912, located on Welland Avenue, south of Live Oak Avenue, contain- ing lots. This area is all in TemplecCity. This tract is designed to County standards which do not conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Arcadia. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried that the planning, Commission go on record as opposing TraFt No. 26912, for the reason that it does not conform to the Arcadia City Standards. PUBLIC PARTlCI - PATION The Chairman requested that anyone in the audience desiring to be heard may do so at this time. Mr. Bruce Kitchen, 1516 South 8tb Avenue, one of the developers of Tract No. 17508, which bad been continued to the next meeting, desir.ed to present informa- tion relative to this tract. He stated the Iots west of First Avenue had been shown separately as the owners had desired keeping tbe newly created lots. If tbe CommisSion so desired tbey would file 'a separate tract. He felt a respon- sibility to all of tbe people ,in the eastern section of the tract. He had started with the previous tract map which had been approved, and then renewed twice, expiring tn,Marcb of this year. Tbis Tract was No. 18568. All of tbe lots on, the nor.th side of tbe street were 80 foot lots. There was a cui de sac allowed; because they were not going out Second Avenue, but would go to Longden on a street to be called Greenfield Avenue. Tbere was also a 50 foot street approved. He had made diligent efforts to improve the tract, contacting the owners of some of the lots many times. He was anxious to not let &is option expire becsuse he felt that his presentation was a reasonable subdivision. Many questions were asked Mr. Kitchen. He stated that the two subdivisions could progress togetber. There was an agreement that the 6wners of the,four lots construct the street at the same time as construction would be made at the eastern portion. His principal would work on the streets concurrently with theirs. He was asking that the matter 'be considered in two sections. Mr. Kitcben stated that his engineer had taken grades in the area and bad found that it was better than Longden and also Las Flores Avenues, and that the findings would be submitted to the City Engineer, who has the final word on drainage. Dis.cussion followed pertaining to several parts of the tract, wherein it was felt tbat improvement should be made to straighten out tbe rear lines. Mr. Kitchen explained bis progress in this matter. Some of the property owners would not relinquish any of their. property. He was instructed to submit all of the information to Mr. Pbelps and Mr. Talley so that tbe same could be incorporated in a report, .and could be considered at tbe next meeting. Mr. .Kenneth C. Elmore, 26 E. Las Flores, owner of some of tbe property under consideration in this Tract, stated they bad talked with Mr. Kitchen and bave agreed to work this agreeably. They bad tried to purcbase on ~s Flores - and cannot procure any more property. This was one of tbe reasons for re- questing tbe .50 foot' street, so that. tbe lots could be 90 feet in deptb. Tbese lots are 100 feet and 94 feet wide. Tbey bad been waiting for the development to the east, so that they could develop tbeir property. REPORTS Tbe Planning Director stated tbat be would like to remind tbe members of the dinner meeting on December 13, 1961, at 7:30 P~M~ at tbe Flamingo, wherein Mr. ~ussell Priebe, Executive Director of tbe .Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica would be the principal speaker. Tbe me~ting (s being sponsored by the Central Area Landowner's Association to discuss tbe practical application of area revitalization. Those desiring to attend should notify Mrs. Andrews. December 4, 1961 Page Eleven PLANNING TECHNICIAN RESOLUTION No. 432 DECEMBER 26th MEETING REFERRAL OF WI SPLITS COUNCIL LIAISON (- \...... The Planning Director introduced Mr. Rober,t W. Warri.1ow ,who bad commenced his wOl"k with the City on December 1,. 1961, as a Planning Technician in the Planning Department. Mr. Warri.1ow was welcomed to the organization. In the absence of the City Attorney, the Planning Secretary introduced Resolution No. 432, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TIlE RECLASSIFICATION UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, OF PROPERTY ON BALDWIN AVENUE AND NAOMI AVENUEF~OM ZONES R-l AND R-2TO ZONES C-3 AND D, AND C-2 AND RECOMMENDING THE DISAPPROVAL OF TIlE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION TO R-3-R OF PROPERTY ON DUARTE ROAD AND LOVELL AVENUE IN SAID CITY. Moved by Commissioner .Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body .of Resolution No. 432 be waived. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton, that Resolution No. 432 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll c:aU vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Micbler, Norton and Rutherford. NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioners Ferguson and Golisch. Discussion followed as to the meeting on December 26, 1961, inasmuch as some of the memb.....s would be away. This is a .regularly scheduled meeting. A regulal"mee~ing will be held on December l2tb at whicb time tbis matter can be determined to ascertain if a quorum would be present at the December 26th meeting. The request bad been made during the absence of t~e. Chairman that lot splits be referred to tbree Commissioners to re.view the matter. It was agreed tbat in .tbe future this should be done. Planning DirectorPbelps stated that be notbing to report from the City Council but that two variance applications bad been fUed in the Planning Department whicb would involve considerable study. One is the American Lutheran Church for a variance for a church on the property abutting the city property on Duarte Road. The second is the Electro-Dynamics Corporation for a variance on Foothill Boulevard, on property located between Colorado Boulevard and Fo~tb1il Boulevard, ,east of Michi~linda Avenue.. CommiSSioners Norton and Acker were very desirous of baving information at band of a Study of the property abutting the freeway so tbat they would be apprised of the most beneficial use of tbe property in the future. December 4, 1961 Page Twelve . . . OFF STREET PARKING ADJOURNMENT . ;,., Tbe Chairman stated that there was one matter tbat should have some study and that was the off street parking inasmuch as enforcement of all night parking is to be made. This is being undertaken on a Staff level at tbts time. There being no furtber business to come before the COIIlIIIission, the meeting adjourned. t-vvv. L. M. TALLEY Planning Secreta