Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 8, 1959 ~ , ''--~"' MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEET ING DECEMBER 8, 1959 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., December 8, 1959 with Chairman Acker presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton and Stout ABSENT: Commissioners Davison and Wallin OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Jess Balser, Nicklin, Forbes and Talley MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held November 24, 1959 were approved as written and mailed. ZONE CHANGE Annexation ll-A & 14 The commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning of Annexa- tion No. 14 and Annexation No. 17-A, north of Lemon Avenue as contem- plated by Resolution No. 353, property located west of Baldwin Avenue and south of Duarte Road. The Secretary pointed out to the commission the map of Annexation No. ll-A along the west side of Baldwin Avenue, north of Lemon Avenue and along the south side of Duarte Road; also Annexation No. 14, which was annexed to the city about 4 years ago on Which a potential zone was established, but has not become effective, because the conditions imposed were not fulfilled. The zoning suggested by the Zoning Committee is as follows: on the northwest corner of Lemon Avenue and Baldwin Avenuetbere is a church, recommended to be zoned R-2; other property along Baldwin Ave- nue and west of the church to be zoned R-l; the corner lots both south and north of Call ita, as well as the deep properties north of Call ita Street to be zoned C-O with a D overlay; on Call ita Street, immediately west of the corner lots, the first lot on each side of the street with- in the subdivision to be zoned R-I' with a P (parking) overlay; the balance of Callita, with small lots all developed with residential to remain R-l; the very west end of the 2 deep parcels of property north of Callita to remain R-l, with a street to be extended from Callita to serve that area. The southwest corner of Camino Real and Baldwin, three parcels of pro- perty that face Camino Real, to be zoned C-3 with a D overlay, which might require the recutting of those properties to face Baldwin Avenue. West on Camino Real, each side to be zoned R-2 and the first property west of the proposed commercial zone to have the P (parking) overlay. Cambury Avenue on each side, fully developed as R-l, to remain R-l. On Naomi Avenue, west of the present business section, to be zoned R-2, and the first lot on the south side also to carry a P (parking) Page One December 8, 1959 ~r---_ On the north side of Naomi, surrounded by parking lots now, there are 2 lots recommended to be Zoned C-2 The south side of.Duarte Road, starting at the Christian Science Church and going west to Golden West Avenue to be Zoned R-2, and the balance of Duarte Road from Golden West to the west city limits to be Zoned R-l, with the exception of the church at the southwest corner of Temp~e City Boulevard and Duarte Road to be Zoned R-2. The few lots facing Temple City Boulevard and Golden Wes~ Avenue to be zoned R-.1. The southeast ,corner of Golden West and Duarte presently developed as commercial to be zoned R-2 and the southwest corner, also commercially developed to be zoned R-l. The Secretary read communications, briefly outlined as follows: The first petition, containing 10 signatures, requested C-2 zoning for property located on the south side of Duarte Road at the corner of Golden West, as it has been under County zoning for some time. The second communication contained 5 signatures requesting that certain property on the south. side of Duarte, east of Golden West Avenue, be re- zoned R-3, because of large lots, and to conform with the zoning across the street. Tbe third communication was from Mr. Oscar P. Sohnius, 1533 E. Hunting- ton Drive, requested that his property at 834 W. Duarte Road be rezoned R-3, and the fourth communication from Genevieve M. Espinoza, requested property at 756 W. Naomi to be rezoned C-2. The Chairman announced it was the time and place for public hearing, in- viting the comments and views of the audience. William J. Rowan, 1018 W. Duarte Road, stated he was a captain of the group, which canvassed the area during the attempt to annex. He added that it was the northern area which carried the annexation to the city., He expressed a desire for R-3 in view of the 300 to 400 foot deep lots; he referred to the properties across the street wbicb are already zoned R-3, and in his opinion to zone the south side R-l wouid certainly not seem fair or logical. Mr. Nicklin discussed the background of the annexation and the purpose of the hearing as well as the staff and Zoning Committee recommendations. He referred to the automatic establishment of R-l zoning applied to all properties included in Annexation l7-A and how the city on its own motion instituted proceedings for the purpose of placing other zoning on the land to be determined as a result of the hearings. The main fac- tors to be considered in zoning the effected properties would be the de- sire.s of the people, the present use and development of the property and the .relationship of one property to another. Mr. A. H. Stevens, 741 W. Camino Real, expressed the desire to have his property remain R-l. Mrs. James Greer, 901 W. Duarte Road, stated this portion of Duarte Road lying between Baldwin Avenue and Temple City Boulevard, two streets con- nected with the freeway; and Duarte Road, itself, receives a terrific amount of traffic from east and west sources. She wished to go on record as desiring business zoning on both sides of Duarte Road. Page Two December 8, 1959 Mr. Les Beauchamp, southeast corner of Duarte Road and Golden West, stated that this property was zoned C-2 under County zoning, and added that the building has been located on this corner for about 25 years, and he desired to have the same zoning in the City of Arcadia. Mr. Oscar Sobnius, 834 W. Duarte Road, stated that everything across the street from his property is Zoned R-3, and he has tbe intention of building an apartment house, so would prefer to have his property zoned R-3. Mr. Stout asked if the city has intentions of widening Duarte Road. Mr. Forbes answered in the affirmative that the city is seeking to ob- tain dedications of 12 feet on each side of Duarte for purposes of widening. Mr. Vincent Agostino, 856-860 W. Duarte Road, stated his property was zoned C-2 under the County, but is shown as being recommended for R-2 on the map he received. He would like to see the property remain C-2. He plans to establish a nursery on the property and purchased it with this idea in mind. Mr. Walter Routery, 716 W. Callita Street, expressed concern of how the proposed surrounding zoning will effect his property. He referred par- ticularly to the commercial piece on the corner next to his property proposed to be zoned CO and D. He wished to have the zone explained. The Secretary explained that the C-O zone will permit any professional offices, such as doctor's attorneys, architects, engineers, accountants., etc; the D overlay is the architectural design zone, which controls whetber a building can be one or two stories, what tbe setbacks migbt be, location of buildings on the lot, etc. Mr. Routery believed the commission should consider whatever goes in on that piece of property be limited to one story, because the con- struction ofa two story structure overlooking residential property has a very depressing effect on values, etc. ~. Routery referred to the hearing held a few weeks earlier which was a request to allow the construction of a convalescent home on property to the north. He wished to reemphasize the adjacent residents objec- tions to any further consideration of allowing such a facility. The Secretary explained that there is no zone which automatically allows a rest home it would still be necessary to obtain a special use permit., requiring another application. Mr. Max Schaeffer, 1164 W. Duarte Road, stated he desired to have his property Zoned R-3. Mrs. Lucile Bateman, 759 W. Naomi, stated that she has lived at this address since 1921, and her husband operates the A & C Transfer Company , from this property. The map she received indicated that the property should be recommended to be R-2; she wished to know if they would still be able to operate their business from that address. Mr. Nicklin explai~ed that regardless of the zoning placed on any given parcel, any legitimate busimess lawfully conducted continues under our ordinance asa non-conforming use. There are certain restrictions placed on non_conforming uses, such as they cannot be expanded, but they may continue to operate. Page Three December 8, 1959 Mr. M. J. Bla~e, southwest corner of Golden West and Duarte, expressed the desire to have his property Zoned C-2. Mr. Clarence Kling, 744 W. Naomi. stated he had the same zoning on his property when he purchased it 25 years ago as the Planning Commission is recommending at the present time. He expressed the desire for the com- mission to establish R-3 zoning on his property. Mr. Gay Arnold, 1156 W. Duarte, stated he preferred R-3 zoning for his large lot, as do most of the property owners adjacent to his property. Mr. Frank Kelly, 725 Callita was concerned chiefly with the property on the west side of Baldwin Avenue, wbich is recommended for Zones c-o and D. He would like to see these properties zoned R.l, because of their close proximity to the residences to the rear. Mrs. Viola Grego, 729 W. Naomi, stated she is surrounded by parking lots; that she was zoned C-2 under the County, and wished to remain C-2. She stated sbe bas owned this property since 1924. The Chairman pointed out this is the recommendation of the committee that her property be Zoned C-2. Mr. Everett Holmes, 1731 S. Baldwin, stated his property is right next door to the church, the first par.cel north of the church; he added that the church would eventually buy this parcel anyway, and he should have the same zoning as tbe church, which is recommended R-2. Mr. Michler recommended that in view of tbe many ideas which had been expressed this matter be held for additional review and the continued hear- ing be set not before January 12, 1960. Mr. Nicklin stated that as long as the commission continues the bearing it would be proper to set the next one for the Planning Commission meet- ing of January 12, 1960. Mr. Norton suggested tbat the commission consider the possibility of reviewing this rezoning by sections in order to assure proper time and thought to the entire annexed parcels. Mr. Nicklin stated that doubtless the segments Mr. Norton refers to have more actively interested property owners than the total ownership would be, and that if they will get together among themselves; and that one or more in the area contact the staff. A meeting can be arranged with staff members and representatives of the commission rather than the entire commission to explore and explain, so that ultimately a recommen- dation can come to the commission. Mr. Stout did not believe it was in tbe best interests of progress to chop ,this area into sections; he felt that by January 12, the commission should be able to make some concrete proposals. He believed that to cut up the area into portions would cause considerable delay to the decis iori. After considerable discussion it was moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Stout and to continue the hearing on this rezoning until January 12, 1960, giving the property owners, the commission and staff ample time to review all aspects of the matter. Page Four December 8, 1959 ZONE CHANGE Duarte Rd. the commission held a publ.ic hearing on the application of Paul Il. Caler and others for a change .of zone from Zone R-3 tc Zone C-3 on' property on the north side of Duarte Road, east and west of Golden West Avenue. the Secretary pointed out the area. to be considered on the map, and read the statements outLined on the application. The request is to extend the proposed C-3 zone from the post office to 2 lots on the west side of Golden West. there were pet~tions filed in favor of this rezoning, $ome from Duarte Road and some from Fairview Avenue. There have not been any petitions filed in opposition to this request. Mr. Henry Shatford, Attorney for the applicant, stated it was noteworthy that no protests had been received. Mr. Shatford pointed out the par- ticular residents involved in this request emphasizing the fact that most of them had been long time property owners in this area. This pro- perty has been zoned for apartment house use, but .most of these people l:ecognize the need to change this zoning to C-3; he referred to the close proximity of this area to the hub, the increased traffic on Duarte and the plans for widening this very vital thoroughfare. There is a great <leal of noise in the 'area; there are parking lots which do not encourage residential use. Mr. John B. Swan, 4153 N. Baldwin, is interested in buying property in this area, and wished to have the proposed C-3 zone extended to include a full block. Mr. George Gaffney, 935 W. Duarte Road, acquired his property in 1943, and described the general uses on Duarte in this vicinity. He believed the trend in modern planning is towards centralized shopping. lie referred as a fine example of this type of shopping district to the hub area on South Baldwin Avenue. He felt the logical decision of the commission would be to allow this property to remain R-3 in view of the fine commercial area nearby. tf this proposed area should be rezoned C-3 and not be a successful commercisl development, it would work quite a hardship on the property owner whose assessed evaluation would be increased resulting in higher taxes. Mr. Gaffney went on to say if he knew that some large department store were going to come in and a high grade commercial development were to be realized, he would not be opposed to the requested C-3 zone. There is already an abundance of commercial development in the City of Arcadia, and that the community cannot do justice to another commercial area such as is proposed in this request. Mr. August Gsble, Attorney, 3935 E. Huntington Drive, ststed he is not here to protest the rezoning of this srea so much as to acquaint the commission with the facts concerning Lot 131. This property is in ~scrow at the present time, and the buyers acquired the property with the understanding that the property is zoned R-3. They plan to build as soon as they complete plans and obtain a permit to construct an apart- ment house. He thought the commission should have these facts in mind in passing on this matter. Mr. C. R. Johnston, 833 W. Duarte, stated he bought his property with the understanding that it was R-3 zoning, and intends to build a very nice apartment house. He met with a group of people, whose only purpose was to make money. He stated he is sreal estate broker, and to change the zone does not necessarily mean that property values will increase. Page Five December 8, 1959 ZONE VARIANCE Holy Angels ~e has seen many areas go down instead o.f up in value. He did not believe that these lots were deep enough .for proper commercial zoning because insufficient depth would not allow enough parking, and he wished to go on record as desiring the property to remain R-3. Mrs. Greer, 901 W. Duarte Road, stated she did not feel a newcomer should be able to influence the commission, and who should know better than a real estate man that people wish to make money and increase the value of their property. Mr. Shatford wished to speak in rebuttal, and stated that at the time Hinshaw's came into. the city, there was a great deal of protestation; that it was going to ruin Arcadia, and yet almost everyone in Arcadia points with pride to that fine shopping area. He added that just because there are other commercial properties in Arcadia ~ich are not renting well, has nothing to do with this particular area. Mr. Michl.: said be would like to look into the situation in a little more detail before rendering a decisi~n. The Chairman declared that this hearing will be continued until January 12, 1960 pending a report from the Zoning Committee. The commission held a public hearing on the application of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles for a zone variance to allow tbe property at 910 and 924 Holly Avenue to be used for parochial school playground, church parking and related facilities. The residence at 910 will .be removed, the residence at 924 will not be removed; it is not cOntemplated that any construction will be undertaken at this time. The Secretary read the staff report which stated this application of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles requests a zone variance to' permit the property at 910 and 924 Holly Avenue to be used for parochial school playground and related facilities and for church parking and related activities. The property is presently occupied by two dwellings. It is proposed to remove the dwelling at 910 Holly Avenue. It is the understanding of the staff that the dwelling at 924 Holly Avem.,.wJ.ll remain and be used as a meeting place for various groups related to the church and school. The Chairman announced that this is the time for the public hearing, and asked those speaking in favor of the zone variance to come forward. Mr. Wilfred J. Schmitt, 49 E. Foothill Boulevard, Attorney for the appli- cant stated the property immediately adjacent to 910 and 924 Holly has been in use as church and school facilities for the last 15 years; and the property on which the church is located has been owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for approximately 25 years. As the church bas expanded, it has become increasingly difficult to park. The cars parked on the street particularly during church services, consti- tute a traffic hazard, and have been a constant source of grief to the traffic officers of the city. The property at 910 is proposed (after removal of the existing residence) to be used for additional playground area, and after school houm to be Page Six December 8, 1959 used as additional parking for church participants. The house located at 924 is intended to remain, and be used for certain groups to meet; it is not contemplated that any children's groups will meet at this address, as they already have a children's youth center. Mr. Stout stated that the property directly south of the church has been in once or twice before the commission for subdivision, and has been denied, because it provides an extremely long cui de sac, which is contrary to tbe subdivision ordinance. The property involved in this request for zone variance could be"vital in allowing the proposed street to come through to Holly Avenue, thus eliminating the problem of the long cul de sac. The Chairman asked those opposed to the variance to come forward. Mr. Dale Castleton, Attorney, 608 S. First, represented Mr. Nelson, 1012 Holly Avenue and Mr. Houghton, lOOO( Holly Avenue, immediately south of the 924 Holly Avenue property. It is rumored that the residence at 924 Holly Avenue would be turned into. a club activity shelter, which would certainly effect the two people he represents. It will deUni tely a.. ter the comprehensive plan of the area which is predominately residential. There should be a plot plan showing the proposed par .ing lot its size and abutments; and also the signatures of the adjoining landowners should be attached to the application, and they have not listed one adjoining lot owner. Mr. Ericson, the developer of the proposed subdivision on Fairview Avenue to the south of the church property, spoke against the granting of this variance because it would hinder the posSibility of his subdivision by not allowing the street to come through to Holly Avenue. Mr.. Michler stated that while he is sympathetic with the request for the zone variance at this location, he would move that the commission continue this matter for two weeks in the sincere hope some agreement can be reached which will be satisfactory to both parties. The Cbairman announced that this public hearing would be continued for two weeks until the next regular Planning Commission meeting on December 22, 1959, pending report from the Planning Staff and the Zoning Committee. NEW ZONE R-3-R The commission held a public hearing on the propoo.al to amend the zoning ordinance by adding a new Section 6.5 entitled '~-3-R Restricted Multiple Family Zone" as contemplated by Resolution No.. 352. The Secretary stated this is the creation of a new zone, and doesn't refer to an particular property at the moment, and is one of those matters of amending the text of the ordinance for which notice is given by publica- tion in the newspaper. The Sacretary read a report which stated. the cOlIDDittee has studied the proposal to create a restricted R-3 zone and feel there isa definite need of such a zone to be applied in various. locations to act as a buffer between Zone R-l and other less restricted zones. It has been approached with the idea of allowing .only smaller buildings with less units per bUilding, greater floor area in each unit, and more open spaces on the lot than is presently allowed in Zone R-3. It is recomlDended tha t the cOlIDDission consider the establishment of a restricted R-3 zone to include the following regulations: Page Seven December 8, 1959 1. All construction or establishment of multiple units shall be new construction only. 2. No more than six dwelltng ~nits shall be located in anyone building. 3. No building shall exceed two stories in height. No portion of any building within 100 feet of the front line shall exceed one story in height. 4. There shall be not less than 3000 square feet of lot area for each dwelling un{t. 5. The gross buildt,ng area shall not exceed 35% of the total area of the lot. 6. Every structure used for living quarters shall contain an average of not less than 1000 square feet of floor area per dwelling unit, exclusive of porches, garages, entries., patios and basements. 7. The ~ront yard shall be 25% of the lot depth, but need not exceed 25 feet. 8. The side yard adjacent to an interior lot line shall be not less than 10' feet. On corner lots the side yard on the street side shall be 10% of the width of the lot, but not less tban 10 feet. 9. The rear yard shall be not less than 20 feet. 10. .' The distance between separate buildings shall be not less than 25 feet. 11. There shall be 2 automobile parkin. spaces provided for each dwelling ~nit. At least one space for each dwell- ing unit shall be in a roofed garage or carport. Each required parking space shall be located back of the building Une. 12. Minimum driveway width shall be 10 feet. If the drive serves more than 12 required parking spaces, or is more thsn 125 feet long, it shall be 20 feet wide, or two 10 foot driveways shall be provided (Paving and obstruc- tions same as Resolution No. 341). 13. The. Planning Commission shall require such walls, fences" paved areas, planting areas, setbacks and other conditions as it may deem necessary for the protection of adjacent property or in the interests of the public welfare.. The Chairman announced tbat this is the time and place for public hear- ing on this proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create a new zone called R-3-R. He asked tbose opposed to the staff recommendation to please step forward. Mr. George Rude, owner of property at 29 La Porte, stated that sometime ago he paid over $300.00 for a se~ of plans; in order to comply with the parking.req~irements, he would have had to put four car units under the building, with tbe restriction of a 25 foot turning radius and the addi- tional parking, which cut him down on what he could put on the lot. He Page Eight December 8, 1959 ,,-' . . wanted to know what kind of units could you put on a lot if you need half of it for turning radius. The Secretary stated that Mr. Rude was restricted by the present Zone R-3, not the zone that is being considered now. Mr. Marks, Arcadia Monrovia Realty, believed this new zone has merit, but he wondered where it would be applied. He didn't know where one could find property in Arcadia that could be developed into such a zone. He thought that it would be wise to determine where such zoning could occur before setting up rules and regulations. He believed that with a 3000 square foot land area restriction the property owner is going to have a bigger landscaping bill than most of the units can stand. Mr. Don Betsinger, 12 Yorkshire Drive, Arcadia, felt that there are very few lots to which this zoning could be applied. ,Mr. Stout asked why did Mr. Betsinger think that 2000 square feet per dwelling unit is good. Suppose a person could build to the 3000 square feet and produce a structure which was of .the type to cater to a group which could pay $300.00 per month rent; wo.uld there be any objection to this type of development? Mr. Stout added that this is the kind of improvement the commission envisions in this R-3-R, and he felt that Arcadia can support such units. He emphasized that tbe commission does not contemplate such a zone for present R-3, but for newly created zones of R-3. When the areas exist as a result of a large development in the offing, the commission will have to. rezone cert.ain very fine residential properties, and when this is accomplished will issue this protective type of Zone R-3. Mr. Betsinger asked if the proposed 35% of the lot area referred to covered area or only to liv'able. area. ' ' The Secretary explained that the way it is set up it would refer to the gross area, which would include liv~ble~ area, porcbes, garages, etc. Mr. Michler stated that the commission' has been researcbing this matter for several months and he would move that the commission recommend this new zone R-3-R in compliance with the Zoning Committee report. Mr. Stout agreed with Mr. Michler, and stated in the interest of better development for the City of Arcadia, he would recommend the adoption of this new zone. Mr. Norton stated that one of the purposes behind this restricted R-3 was to provide a buffer zone, to break from a commercial area into a-I. He fel t that this zone might well be the solution to future protection for R-l from commercial. Mr. Forman stated he was sure that there are IDOrethan two builders in the city who might be interested in this type of zone, and yet the commission has had on!y two men voice a dissenting opinion on this proposed plan. This indicated to him that some of the other builders engaged. in apartment development may feel that this proposal is not too much out of line. The Chairman stated that he is a strong supporter of this highly restric- ted a-3, and he believed that if this zone is adopted there will no longer be any R-3 which we have known in the past; that most future development will be on tbis restricted basis. He thought that there may Page Nine December 8, 1959 . . . . be a future necessity of modifying the very high restrictions in order to assure the development of this type of structure, he wasn't certain. Moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Forman to recommend the approval of the formation of new Zone R-3-R in accord with the staff and zoning report. Mr. Nicklin stated that there would be minor changes in the wording in preparing the J!esolution, e..g., on Item No. 13 in the report there should be some reference to the submission of plans to the Plan- ning Commission, so that they may pass on the various architectural features. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton and Stout NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Davison, and Wallin RESOLUTION No. 356 No. 356 - The City Attorney, Mr. Nicklin, presented Resolution No. 356, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TIlE DENIAL OF A RE- QUESTED ZONE RECLASSIFICATION FROM ZONE PR-l TO ZONES'C~2 AND D OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST COR~ NER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SECOND AVENUE IN SAID CITY." The Chairman stated that since this is a recommendation for denial, in all cases of denial the applicant has a right to know the basis of the denial, and also just how he can make changes in plans to obtain the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Norton stated he certainly felt that the commission would like to welcome Ralph's Market into the city. His main concern for recommend- ing denial was safety. He offered an alternate suggestion to.move the building forward, and there shouLd be some consideration given to a' buffer area. The Secretary displayed possible alternate building locations, which might be acceptable to the Planning Commission. He also stated that the size and shape of the building might be changed. Mr. Norton suggested that by setting the building forward, the customer service aspect would be more convenient, inasmuchas the amount of area traveled with packages, etc. would be shortened, and if ingress and egress were possible at the rear extremities of the property, it would solve to a great extent the traffic problems. Mr. Forman stated that the circulation of traffic around tha~ building permitted by moving the building forward is desirable, and would pro- vide the buffer zone which the commission is seeking. Also, it would eliminate the air circulation problem for the properties to the north. Mr. Stout wondered if it wouldn't be advisable as one of the suggestions to Ralph's to suggest they pick an area which would be more compatible with the type of design for shopping districts in the city. Mr. Michler stated that many people would welcome Ralph's Market in Page Ten December 8, 1959 , \: . .. TRACT NO. 22862 TRACT NO. 19065 FLOOD CONtROL Letter from D.P.W. ADJOURN this location. He believed .that the market developer would be reas- onable about any suggested alternatives to the original plan in the request. Mr. Suttner, the Attorney for the applicant, stated he was certain that Mr. Ralph would be interested in any good suggestions which would be acceptable to' the commission, and he Would be happy to refer any such recommendations to him for consideration. Mr. Nicklin recommended that the commission table Resolution No. 356 tonight for action at the next regular meeting, and if Mr. Suttner will meet wHh his cHent to determine if any alternate suggestion would be acceptable, if there are any minor variations in the application, Mr. Nicklin could include them in the resolution and have it ready for the commiSSion at the next meeting. Moved by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Forman and carried to table Resolution No. 356. The Secretary brought up the matter of the final map of Tract No. 22862. The final map was submitted about three weeks ago, but has been held for the receipt and check of street plans and drainage and sewage plans. Due to some difficulty, a revised final map was submitted today, December 8, 1959 with twb small revisions. The Subdivision Committee had not had an opportunity to go over the map and the Secretary wondered. if the commission would like to go over the map without a recommendation of the Subdivision Committee. There is always some variation in the dimensions of a tract as submitted on a tentative map, and those submitted on a final map, due to the fact that the tentative map is not calculated, but only figured by scale. The largest variation in this tract occurs on Lot 3, at the southeast corner, which was .shown as 38 feet width across the rear line on the tentative map, but on the final it is shown as 23 feet. Lot I was submitted as 134 feet in depth, but results finally in 131.73 feet. Lot 4 around the cuI de sac had a frontage of about 55 feet, but now has 53.28 feet. After considerable discussion it was moved by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Forman that final map of Tract 22862, as amended, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff and subdivision com- mittee report. ROLL CALL AYES: Connnissioners Acker, Forman, Michler, Norton and Stout NOES: None ABSENT: CommiSSioners Davison and Wallin The Secretary announced that he had received a letter from Mrs. Park requesting that her tract No. 19065 be removed from the agenda until the meeting of January 12, 1960. The Secretary read a letter from the Director of Public Works, recommend- ing approval of the acquisition of certain property by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for temporary detour, slope easements and street right of way in connection with the relocation of Lower Azusa Road at the San Gabriel River. Moved by Mr. Forman, seconded by Mr. Norton and carried to reconnnend approval of the request from tbe Flood Control District. There being no further business before the Planning Connnission, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. f~.~ L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary