HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 27, 1962
-
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
ZONE VARIANCE
734-738 W.
Lon8den Ave.
.
.
MINUTES
ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 27, 1962,
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., February
27, 1962, with Chairman Golisch presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton
and Golisch,
ABSENT:
Commissioner Rutherford.
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Phillips,
City Attorney Nicklin,
Assistant City Engineer Forbes,
Planning Director William Phelps,
Planning Secretary L. M. Talley
The minutes of January 23 and February l3, 1962 were held until the
next regular meeting for approval,
The Planning Commission considered the application of John T. and
Nadine O. Waterhouse for a zone variance to allow a third dwelling
on a lot at 734-738 West Longden Avenue in Zone R-l.
A map of the area was presented.
The application stated that they desired permission to build a third
house on the property for the producing of rental income. The house
would be approximately lOOO sq. ft. This property was recently annexed
from the county and under zoning restriction of the County it would
have been possible to have built this house, based upon 5000 sq. ft. of
land per unit, The addition of the proposed house would leave an
excess of 7000 sq. ft. of property, such spacing is in no way detrimental
to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or im-
provements in this area. A majority of lots in this area have less
than this amount of space per house. The right to make such an addition
would materially enhance the income producing revenue for the property.
Other property owners in the vicinity have similarly profited by such
construction. The Pepperglen area has six lots with less than 6000
sq. ftj t~e property directly across the street has four rental units
behind the front residence; there' are three rental units on lot No. 8575,
immediately to the east. Such rental units give a substantial property
right which by current zoning restrictions .are denied to the applicant,
This will not affect the comprehensive plan as there are several rental
properties in the immediate neighborhood, including four' units
directly across the street, also the prevailing lot is less than
7000 sq. ft. per unit, There are ten properties in the immediate
area with less than 6000 sq. ft. per house,
The Planning Secretary read the staff report as follows:
February 27, 1962
Pag, One
,
.
.
.-:~,This is the application of John T. and Nadine O. Waterhouse for a
,zone variance to allow a third house on the lot at 734-738 West
Longden Avenue.
The lot is zoned R-l, It has a frontage of 70 feet and a depth of
300 feet, with an area of 21,000 square feet.
This area is a part of Annexation No, l7-A, and was originally
developed under County standards, There are several small lots
ranging from 5000 square feet upward.
Across
feet.
square
the street at
At number 719
feet.
number 749 there are 5 houses on 39,600 square
there are 4 houses on a total area of 28,600
The subject property is developed with a residence and two car garage
at the front. Another residence and garage, with a separate driveway
is located about midway back on the lot,
It is proposed to build the third dwelling 25 feet from the rear
line; remove the rear garage and build a new three car garage to
serve the two rear houses.
While it would appear that a variance is warranted to allow this
property to have uses similar to the ones noted above, there are
other large properties in the immediate area, and elsewhere throughout
the city, that do not enjoy the extra dwelling privileges.
Nextdoor east, at 730 W. Longden Avenue, the lot is 60 feet by 300
feet and has only one dwelling. Across the street, at 737 W, Longden
Avenue, the lot is ll8 feet by 300 feet with only one dwelling.
In order to be consistent in the application of the R-l regulstions,
the Planning Department recommends that this request be denied.
If it is approved it should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The improvement shall comply substantially with the
plot plan submitted.
2. The new dwelling shall contain not less than lOOO
square feet floor area.
3. Construct concrete curb and gutter in Longden Avenue
in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory
to the Director of Public Works.
Discussion followed. If this variance is granted there will be others
in the area that would apply at a later date as there are similar
conditions. The street of Pepperglen is a private street and only
40 feet wide, and as such could not be extended to develop the rear
of the lots facing on Longden Ave.
The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the
hearing on the application and requested those in favor to make their
presentation.
Mr. John Waterhouse, owner of the property involved, stated that
other property in the area had been developed more than theirs, and
under county regulations they could have constructed the desired
rental. They had expected Pepperglen to go through, but that did
not, and before the annexation they were financially unable to
construct the dwelling even though they were permitted to do so.
Now they were in a situation where they would like to get the full
benefit of the land and .had thus filed their application.
February 27, 1962
Page Two.
.
.
No further proponents desired to be heard.
The Chairman requested those opposed to come forward.
Mr. J. M. Campbell, 746 W. Longden Ave. stated his property is a
small lot to the right of this proposed variance. His reasonS were
more or less personal, but felt this type of development would not
improve the area. Longden Avenue in this area had no curbs, Rentals
cause people to park in the street, there are no sidewalks and it
always presents a problem.
No further comments were made in opposition,
HEARING
CLOSED
Moved by CommiSSioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson,
and unanimously carried that the public hearing be closed.
Considerable discussion ensued. The first house was built in 1925,
and the second house was built in two sections, part in 1949 and
part in 1954.
Commissioner Michler stated that this particular piece of property
had been annexed to the City and had certain peculiarities because
of the fact that the building restrictions in the county were
different than that within the City of Arcadia. He felt that this
property should enjoy the same privilege as the surrounding proper-
ties which had the county permits. He would prefer to view the
property before making a decision. He knew what was being done in
Arcadia, there was .a pattern set in this area under county regula-
tions and it should be studied.
Commissioner Acker felt that perhaps the timing was premature, and
was not in favor.
Each of the other Commissioners expressed himself,
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson,
that the zone variance of John T, and Nadine O. Waterhouse for
a zone variance to allow a third dwelling on a lot at 734-738 West
Longden Ave. in Zone R-l be .recommended for denial.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
,Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Norton and
Gol1sch.
NOES:
CommiSSioner Michler.
ABSENT:
Commissioner Rutherford.
LOT SPLIT
NO. 353
The Planning Commission reconsidered Lot Split No, 353 - 15 West
Duarte Road, which had been continued from February 13, 1962,
MOTION
Mr. Li Causi was present and stated that a lease arrangement would
not be satisfactory to Mr. Lyndon who proposed to purchase the
property. He felt it would be beneficial to the safety of the
people using the property fronting on Santa Anita Ave, Discussion
followed and on motion of Commissioner Acker, seconded by CommiSSioner
Norton, and unanimously carried the lot split was denied inasmuch
as it was felt the land would better be held as one lot fora
better development of the area in the future.
February 27, 1962
page Three
.
.
LOT SPLIT
NO. 354
The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 354 - William
Kusik, 1424 S, First Avenue which had been referred to Commissioners
Ferguson, Forman and Rutherford.
The Staff report was presented as follows:
l. File a final map.
2. Execute a covenant req'1iring Parcel 2 and lot 5, Tract No.
2l6l8 to be maintained under common ownership.
3. Swimming pool location to be approved by Edison Co. before
1ss.uance of a building permit.
4. Water service to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code.
A map was presented and a rendering of the building, pool, lanai,
badminton court, etc. proposed for the lot. A similar split had
been granted in this area sometime ago, but was never used.
Mr. Ferguson had viewed the property and while the lot line would
be irregular there were other irregular lines on the block and the
utilities had already been procured, and if an easement for the
utilities would not present a hazard insofar as the pool was con-
cerned he would be in favor of it. Commiasioner Forman concurred
in this,
Commissioner Golisch stated he had viewed the property and it would
be sometime before any further development would take place in this
area, and he would not oppose this.
The amount proposed to be added to the lot would be 97 feet. There
would be a 20' by 60' swimming pool; a 20' by 40' badminton court,
playhouse, fire-ring, pool-house, wherein they would utilize the
entire large lot. The house would contain in excess of 2700 sq. ft,
plus a large size basement and playroom.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson,
that Lot Split No. 354 be given tentative approval, subject to the
conditions set forth in the Staff report.
Said motion was, carried on the following foll call vote:
AYES: COmmissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Michler,
and Golisch.
NOES: Commissioner Nort~n
ABSENT: Commissioner Rutherford.
LOT SPLIT
NO. 356
The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 356 - Celeste
Construction Co - 142 E, Foothill Blvd, which had been referred to
Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Rutherford.
The Staff report was presented as follows:
1, File a final map.
2. Execute a covenant agreeing that lots 8, 9 and the east
11.83 feet 'of Lot lO, Block G, Tract No. 7723,
be maintained under common ownership and as one
building site.
3. Water service to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code.
February 27, 1962
Page Four
.
.
Commissioner Forman had viewed the property and stated that the
report fully covered the area. This split would create a better
area, The building will occupy Lot 8 and a portion of Lot 9, the
balance of Lot 9 and Lot 10 will be the parking lot.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Michler, and
unanimously carried that Lot Split No. 356 be given tentative
approval subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff report,
LOT SPLIT
NO, 357
The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 357 - James H.
Keith, 50l Woodruff Ave, referred to Commissioners Ferguson, Forman
and Rutherford.
The report of the staff was presented as follows:
1. File a final map.
2, Provide a sewer lateral and sewer main extension for
parcel 2.
3. Dedicate for Los Altos Avenue.
4, Pay a recreation fee of $25.00,
5. Dedicate the north l' and the west l' of north 39.91'
in fee to the City.
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. Deposit necessary funds for street trees and street lights.
8. Remove the existing ~hicken house.
9, Water service to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code.
This split will add 9l' to Los Altos Ave. which is now l074' long
to a dead end.
This is a lot on Woodruff Ave. backing up to the west end of Los
Alto~ which is now over l074 feet long. The subdivision ordinance
limits dead-end streets to 500 feet. For this reason the Planning
Department had recommended denial of the split. Further planning
of the area should be made before any splits are granted. Access
should be provided through to Florence, Palm or Woodruff Avenue"
and this lot should pay its proportional share for the access.
MOTION
There is considerable land in this area but a plan should be
prepared showing'access to a street before, further lot splits are
granted,
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson,seconded by Commissioner Forman,
and unanimously carried that Lot' Split No. 357, James H, Keith, SOl
Woodruff Ave, be denied for the above-mentioned reasons.
LOT SPLIT
NO. 358
The p,lanninl Commission considered Lot Split No. 358 - Ralphs Grocery
Co. 211 E. Foothill Boulevard, which had been referred to CommiSSioners
Ferguson, Forman and Rutherford.
The report of the Staff was given as follows:
February 27, 1962
Page Five
.
.
1. File a final map.
2, Provide sewer lateral for Parcel B.
3. Pay a recreation fee of $50,00.
4. Drainage plans to be satisfactory to the Director of
Public Works.
5. City to release covenant now on record,
6. Furnish a new covenant requiring all of Parcel A to
remain in common ownership and that the south 45.5' of lot
lO, Tract No. l2834 shall not be used as a separate building
site,
7. Furnish a c.ovenant agreeing. that Parcel C shall not be used as
a building site until the balance of lot 4, Tract No. 12834
is acquired and zoned for commercial use,
8. Furnish the City with a recorded copy of the "Indenture" submitted.
The Planning Secretary displayed a map of the area and explained in
detail the conditions at the present time. Parcel A is in the name
of Vermont Properties which is a subsidary of RalphS and Parcel B
would be sold. Parcel C on the right ~d remain in the name of
Ralphs Grocery. A copy of an option to acquire the balance of Lot
4 was submitted. The indenture mentioned in the report is a ten
page agreement between the Vermont Properties, Ralphs and Leifer-
Racusin, providing among other things that the front 99 feet of all
of the property would be kept open for parking for all three of the
owners; also that access coming in from Second Ave. across the 20 ft,
at the rear of the store and through to the back of the new store to
be constructed will be kept open as mutual access for all of the
occupants.
Discussion followed as to the type of business to occupy the new
building, the access, etc. The plan now submitted is pract~ally the
same as the plan submitted at tbe time Ralphs obtained their variance.
There is ample parking facilities,
Mr. Richard Roe, Attorney for Ralphs 'Market, 650 W, Duarte Road,
when asked, stated that the City had no assurance that the terms of
the indenture would be carried out. It was between the buyer and
the owner of the property, They would be willing to give the city
such assurance through a covenant.
The City Attorney stated that the common clause that is usually
required in covenants similar to this is the statement that the
covenant shall inure to the benefit and be enforceable by and may,be
released only by the City of Arcadia, It would remove all doubts
if the applicant would consent to the inclUSion of this clause.
Mr. Roe stated that one of the main concerns when preparing the
indenture was that no garrish signs should be placed on the property
and the architectural use of the property could be controlled, They
were anxious not to have anything that would detract from their
proper. ty .
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker,
and unanimously carried, that Lot Spiit No, 358 - RalphS Grocery Co.
211 E, Foothill Blvd. be given tentative approval, subject to the '
conditions outlined in the Staff report.
February 27, 1962
Page Six
.
.
TRACT NO.
27219
A tentative map of Tract No. 27219 was presented for consideration.
This tract is located between Las Flores Ave. and Longden Ave, west
of Santa Anita Ave. containing 33 lots.
The Staff report was submitted as follows:
'~ttached find tentative map of Tract No. 27219 located between
Las Flores Avenue and Longden Avenue and west of Santa Anita Ave.
containing 34 lots.
A small portion of this area had tentative approval on October l8,
1960, as Tract No. 24l44. This approval has expired.
The subdivider and the owner of the property at 37 West Longden Ave.
have requested that Lot 5 be eliminated from the tract. The owner
of 55 W. Longden Ave. has requested that lot 8 be made lOO feet deep
instkad of l12.5 as shown.
The Planning CommiSSion feels that the reduction in depth is not
justified and that 1tshould be approved as shown on the map to
provide a straight line for utility poles,
"A," street is shown as 53 feet wide. The west side adjoins the
Arcadia Wash and a parkway of 5 feet is proposed. The east parkway
and the paved area are standard width.
"B" Street is standard width throughout. "C" Street is shown as
50 feet wide with a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement along
most of its length.
All lots except Lot l, are 75 feet or more in width. All lots
except lots 11, 12, 13 and 2l, are 100 feet or more in depth. All
lots contain more than 7500 sq. ft. area.
This tract is recommended for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Dedicate a 5 ft. planting and sidewalk easement along
the west side of "c" Street north of lot 34.
2. Dedicate lot 35 in fee to the City.
3. Dedicate a 1 foot strip along the north line of lot 5 in
fee to the City.
4. Dedicate the drainage and sewer easement shown leading
to Longden Avenue, and any other required easements,
5, Remove all buildings within the tract. Remove all
portions of buildings within 3 feet of the tract line or
remodel to conform with the Uniform Building Code,
6. Remove all trees from the street right of way,
7. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements.
8, Install all street improvements, including a concrete
sidewalk in the west parkway of "A" Street, drainage
facilities and drainage structures required by the
subdiviSion. ordinance and Public Works Department in
accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the
Director 'of Public Works:
9. Pay the following fees and deposits:
l7 steel pole ~treet lights @ $115.00 $l955.00
91 street trees @ 8.50 773,50
8 street name signs @ 35.00 280,00
33 lots recreation fee @ 25.00 825.00
Total
$3833,50
February 27, 1962
Page Seven
.
.
A separate report was submitted
which was in substance the same
ing exceptions:
from the Department of Public Works
as the Staff report with the follow-
"Standard Street and Drainage improvements as required by the
Department of Public Works. This department has reservations regard-
ing the discharge of drainage directly into Longden Avenue and
recommends that no tentative approval be given until a satisfactory
solution to drainage and sanitary facilities has been presented
and approved.
Standard improvements in the westerly street ("A") will be as
directed by this department and shall include a decorative concrete
block wall along west right of way line southerly from Lot 2l,
,with minimum height of 4 feet and concrete between wall and curb.
All structures adjacent to the outside boundaries shall be
remodeled to meet building code requirements.
There was a small portion of this tract approved in October, 19&O.
which included the same entrance. The tract was approved with the
50 foot street which has been requested at this time.
A question was raised as to the condition of construction of an
ornamental block wall along the wash, Mr. Forbes stated that the
Flood Control had a chain link fence with barbed wire along the
top and it does not screen their ri~ht of way. The access roads
on each side of the channel are kept free from weeds by spraying
but outside of this there is practically no maintenance or beauti-
fication. They felt that it might be a desirability to enhance the
area by the construction of such a wall,
The sidewalk requested is to provide better maintenance.
Mr. Arthur C. Baumann, the developer was present. He could not
understand the condition of the ornamental wall. This had never
been required in the past, and is an expensive item because of the
distance. He felt that the subdivider should not be required to
see that the Flood Control District mentained its channel so that
its appearance is favorable, They were willing to construct the
sidewalk. He further stated that the 50 foot street could not be
made wider because it did not leave enough property to the adjoining
properties allowing them sufficient frontage. The southern portion
of the street could be 60 feet. The paved area in either event would
be 36 feet.
Considerable discussion followed as to Some of the irregular lot lines
and it was determined that with the improvements on the adjacent lots
these could not be improved. Utility easements could be procured and
the setup is good. The drainage must be solved and can be to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. There is much that can
be done while some of the problems are being worked out if the ten~
tative map is approved.
The Assistant City Engineer stated that if the tract is approved, a
statement should be made that all necessary easements for drainage
would be furnished. It now calls for one, but it may be necessary
to have more than one.
February 27, 1962
Page Eight
.
.
The Planning Director stated that he felt the street should be
50 feet the entire distance rather than breaking it partially
50 feet and partially 60 feet.
Mr. Robert Bronte, 44 W. Las Flores Ave" owner of Lot 17, stated
that he was very much in favor of the 50 ft, street so that the
adjoining lot will be 68 feet. The other lots on Las Flores are
lOO ft, and a~ything less than 68 feet would be a detriment not
only to him but to the surrounding lots as well.
Each Commissioner expressed himself as to the street widths, the
wall at the flood control channel and the depth of lot 8.
The City Attorney stated that there were certain preliminary measures
a subdivider had to perform that required an approval of the tenta-
tive layout of a tract. These take time and money and he cannot do
either until he knows that the tentative map has the approval of
the City for the general layout. From the standpoint. of solving
the drainage problem, the city has the control over the situation
as long as safe guarding language is tJecited in the tentative
approval,
,
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton,
and unanimously carried that Tract No. 272l9, located between
Las Flores Ave. and Longden Ave., west of Santa Anita Ave.,
containing 33 lots be recommended for approval subject to the
conditions set forth in the Staff report; the further condition
that sidewalks be constructed along the right of way adjacent to the
Wash; that drainage plans be submitted and approved by the Director
of Public Works, and that Lot 8 remain as shown at 112 feet in depth.
TRACT NO.
27240
Tentative map of Tract No. 27240" located north of Woodruff Ave. and
West of Santa Anita Ave., containing II lots was submitted.
The Staff report was presented as follows:
''This tract consists primarily of more or less landlocked property
surrounded on three sides by lots facing narrow private streets.
Plan "A" shows the tract as originally submitted. The proposed
street is shown as 50 feet wide. Six of the II lots have less than 75
feet width at the building line, All of the lots contain more than
7500 square feet. The proposed cul de sac is slightly less than
500 feet long.
The Subdivision Committee objected to the 50 foot street dedication
and the narrow widths of the six lots.
At the Commission meeting tte subdivider submitted a revised layout,
which is identified as Plan "B", Under this plan the street is
shown as a full 60 feet dedication. All lots have 75 feet or more
width at the building line and all are 7500 square feet or more in
area. Lot 7 is 98 feet maximum depth.
The Commission recommends approval of Plan liB", subject to the
following conditions:
February 27, 1962
Page Nine
.
.
l. All lots shall contain a minimum of 7500 square feet.
2. Remove all buildings within the tract, or relocate those
meeting the building code to conform with yard require-
ments of the new lots.
3. Remove all trees from the street right of way.
4. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements.
5. Dispose of the excess land in lot l6, Tract No. l3l86,
to the adjacent owners, or dedicate it in fee to the City,
6. Install all street improvements as required by the subdivision
ordinance in accordance with plans and to grades satis-
factory to the Director of Public Works.
7, Pay the following fees and deposits:
4 s.teel pole street lights @ $115.00 $460.00
24 street trees @ 8.50 204.00
4 street name signs @ 35.00 l40.00
11 lots recreation fee @ 25.00 275.00
Total $1079,00
8. The City holds a covenant restricting building on a portion of
~ the land in this tract. It is file Number 0-879, dated
May 2l, 1956, signed by Samuel L. and Pearl H. Alexander,
recorded May 31, 1956, as Instrument No. 4614 in Book
5l333, page 130 of Official Records. If this tract is
approved the covenant should be released so that it will
not appear in title policies on the lots in the new tract.
If Plan "A" is approved, consideration should be given to requiring
a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement on each side of the 50 foot
street.
This tract has included a great deal of landlocked property located
to the rear of three private streets. Some discussion occurred
as to whether or not these private streets could be opened up.
A study had been made wherein it was found that the private streets
are narrow in width and it was impractical to widen or connect them.
It was pointed out that the street as proposed was 50 feet; Mr.
Alfred Allen, the subdivider, presented another plan showing the
street 60 feet. He felt that the plan indicated as Plan "A" was
better in that it would increase the depth of the lots by 5 feet which
is very desirable. He had had .this plan prepared to show that a 60
foot' street was possible. He had made a study of ten lots, but the
prices asked for the land would not justify his proceeding. He,
therefore, tried to develop where he could realize a gain, and it
would have to be on an 11 lot basis. The Plan "B" as presented is
feasible. . Plan ''B'' meets the requirements of the ordinance with
one 'minor exception that one lot is 98 feet in depth. There are
instances where a 50 foot street makes a better development. The
tract could be deed restricted for setback lines so that the 75
feet at building line could be maintained. This 'would make for an
orderly development.
Commissioner Forman stated that he. had gone over this personally
and at the Subdivision Committee meeting felt that the simple
solution was to develop ten lots which would give the additional
footage needed to bring the lots up to standard. 'Plan "B" had not
been presented to the Committee. This now seems to meet the Code
and the r~port covers some of the conditions raised by the Sub-
division Committee. He felt'this wa.s the best use that could be
developed out of this landlocked property,
February 27, 1962
Page Ten
. .
MOTION
HARDINGS '
GARDEN LAND
VARIANCE
MOTION
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
.
.
Commissioner Golisch stated he felt the principal problem was
whether the tract should be approved with the eleven lots or with
the ten lots.
Commissioner Ferguson stated Plan lOB" had answered several of
his questions. He felt if the II lots met the requirements of
the subdivision ordinance it could not be denied.
It was felt that where a 60 foot street can be obtained it should be.
CommiSSioner Norton felt the lO lot subdivision was more desirable.
Commissioner Michler was in favor of Plan "A".
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler,
.that Plan "B" of Tract-No. 27240, located north of Woodruff Ave.
and west of Santa Anita Ave., containing II lots, be recommended
for approval, subject to the report of the subdivision committee
and Planning Staff,making an exception of Lot No. 7 which is
approved as indicated on Plan "B". Item 1 in the report is covered
with Plan "B" of beihg a 60 foot street. Item 2 could be amended
to read that all lots meet the requirements of 7500 sq. ft.
Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Forman, Michler, Norton, and Golisch.
NOES: Commissioner Acker, Ferguson
ABSENT: Commissioner Rutherford
This matter was continued from the meeting of February l3, 1962,
for the reason that a majority vote was not obtained. Considerable
discussion again ensued,
Motion.by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Acker,
that the chain link fence as now constructed by Hardings' Gardenland
Inc. on property along the alley north of Live Oak Avenue, west of
Second Ave. be accepted in lieu of a concrete masonry, grape stake,
or similar fence to screen the plant material stored behind said
fence, with a covenant that only plants in cans be stored in this
area.
Roll call vote showed the fo~lowing:
AYES:
Commissioners Acker, Michler, and Golisch
NOES:
Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Norton
ABSENT:. Comm~ssioner Rutherford.
Inasmuch as the vote was tied, the matter must of necessity be
continued until the next meetin8 until a full commission is present.
Mr. J. W. Campbell, 746 W. Longden asked about the livestock
ordinance. He stated that' conditions at his .property were next
to impossible. He was requested to meet with the City Manager
and make his report as some type of enforcement could be obtained.
He also requested information as to how he could proceed with
construction of sidewalks on his street. The City Attorney outlined
the various methods by which this improvement could be made and he
was referred to the Director of Public Works to direct him in any
February 27, 1962
Page Eleven
. .
.
.
. .
procedure desired by the property owners in the area.
REPORTS
The Planning Director stated that items had recently been adopted
by the City Council; one, was the ordinance regulating housemoving;
second, the adoption on the , oriinance changing the zone on Naomi
Avenue and Baldwin Avenues which had previously been considered
and recommended by the Planning Commission. The variance for
the service stat.ion at Duarte Road and Golden West Ave. was denied;
the variance for the electronic plant on Foothill Boulevard was
denied; the variance for the church on the northwest corner of Foot-
hill Boulevard was granted; the variance for the addition of a
building at III E. Live Oak Ave. was granted; also a resolution
was adopted approving the construction of a church on Duarte Road
by the American Lutheran Church.
The interesting fact is that in all of these instances the City
Council followed the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
The City Attorney also stated that the City Council had adopted an
ordinance changing the building code setJ;i"g"up"a.Jdefiliition of
unsafe buildings which includes more thin just what the basic term
would indicate, It 'included buildings that are unsafe, delapidated,
obsolete, non-conforming, and other qualifications. This also sets
up a procedure to have them declared a nuisance, requiring their
repair, or demolition and making it a misdemeanor not to do so.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Director had presented each of the Commissioners with
a copy of the report on Land Use, Zoning and Population which had
just been completed by the Planning Department, He explained a
few of the items covered in the report. He stated that it was his
hope that_this report would prove beneficial in the future.
There being no .further business to come before the Commission, tl;le
meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M~
~ 'YYv.
L.. M. TALLEY.
Planning Secretary