Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HEARING <br />(ZONING) <br />West Arcadia <br />area <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />illll & <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />16:6580 <br /> <br />The ~lanning Director explained the contents of Planning Commission <br />Resolution No. 552. He displayed photographs which depicted existing <br />zoning and surrounding improvements in connection with 1) the <br />application filed by the Elrovia Company, as conditional purchaser, <br />and the First Church of Christ Scientist, as owner, for a change of <br />zone from R-2 to C-2 on property at 812 W. Duarte Road, and 2) the <br />proceedings initiated by the Planning Commission for reclassification <br />to Some less restrictive zone and including zone D on all property in <br />the City bounded by Baldwin Avenue, Naomi Avenue, Golden West Avenue <br />and Duarte Road. <br /> <br />In answer to a question propounded by Councilman Turner, the Planning <br />Director stated in part that the only opposition expressed before the <br />Commission emanated from the owner of an apartment building at 834 W. <br />Duarte Road and in answer to Councilman Considine he stated in part <br />that the Planning Department was of the opinion that it would be more <br />advantageous to the area to allow a more intensive use of the <br />property, i, e., C-2 rather than C-l zoning. <br /> <br />NOTE: COMPLETE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS ON FILE IN THE <br />OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. THE FOLLOWING IS SET FORTH IN <br />SUMMARY. <br /> <br />Mayo~ Reibold declared the hearing open. <br /> <br />August Goebel,'3935 E, Huntington Drive, Pasadena, California, <br />atto~ney for George Glassoff, owner of the apartment building at 834 <br />W, Duarte Road, addressed the City Council at considerable length. <br />Included in his presentation were two photographs of property <br />improvements at said location and a photostatic copy of escro~ <br />inst~uctions which had been furnished him by the City Manager. He <br />advised that he had placed certain marks on the instructions ~hich <br />had not been thereon previously. He ascertained that the City <br />Council did not have a copy of the instructions and proceeded as <br />follows, IN PART: <br /> <br />He p~otested on behalf of his client the recommended rezoning of <br />property at 834 W, Duarte Road, 1) that it is arbitrary, unreasonable <br />and discriminatory as it effects his client's property; that the <br />granting of such zoning would amount to a taking of the property <br />withQut compensation so as to enable the City to profit on a proposed <br />sale of a parcel of land, 2) that the proposed zoning is spot zoning <br />which, if enacted, cannot provide for the proper protection of his <br />client's property in that it has no relation to public welfare. <br /> <br />He stated that on May 17, 1960 the subject property and that to the <br />east and west was zoned R-3; that his client developed his property <br />in good faith about 4 years ago in accordance with that zoning; that <br />it was built adjacent to a church; that one could not expect rezoning <br />to take place in 4~ years; that the apartments were rented with a <br />five per cent vacancy factor up until the time of the rezoning of <br />property to the west to make way for the so-called Pantry Market <br />development, but that since that property has been cleared the <br />vacancy factor has increased to 35 per cent; that the investment has <br />been approximately $350,000 and that with the proposed new zoning the <br />apartment will become isolated and also non-conforming in use. <br /> <br />He then referred to the application of the Elrovia Company; that its <br />plans had not been submitted and that it was loathe to disclose any <br />details concerning what was intended for the property during the <br />Planning Commission hearings; that its representative had stated at <br />the hearings that if there were any restrictions placed they would <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />7-6-65 <br /> <br />..I <br />