Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 23, 1960 ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE VARIANCE Service Station MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 1960 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 23, 1960. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Farman, Michler, Norton and Stout. ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: City Councilman Jess Balser: Director of Public Works C. E. L. M. Talley. City Attorney James A. Nicklin: Lortz: Planning Secretary The minutes of the meeting held February 9, 1960 were approved as written and mailed. The commission held a public hearing on the application of P. L. McNutt and others for a zone variance to allow the construction and operation of a service station at the southwest carner of Huntington Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard; he described the adjoining zoning which is all R-3, and pointed out the C-2 zoning across the street. The application stated that proposed apartments to the west and to the southwauld act as a buffer to surrounding residents. It stated that in view of the shopping center acroSS the street, it would be only fair to grant this variance request. The Planning Secretary read the staff report which stated this is the application of P. L. McNutt and John A. and Prudence M. Marshall for a zone variance to permit the construction and operation of an automobile service station at 1104 W. Huntington Boulevard at the southwest corner of Sunset Boulevard in Zone R-3. The south side of Huntington Boulevard has had an exceptional develop- ment of apartment houses during the last few years. Between Sunset Boulevard and the west city boundary there are two apartments with two more planned. In the block between Sunset Boulevard and Golden West Avenue, there are 6 apartments. Ju~sauth of this property there is an apartment facing Sunset Boulevard. The north side of Huntington Drive, east from Cortez Road is exclusively developed with apartments. From Cortez Road to Michillinda Avenue the north side of Huntington Drive is devoted to commercial uses. From Sunset Boulevard to Michi- llinda the buildings are set back to provide parking in front. Page One February 23, 1960 , , -j The very wide width of Huntington, with the landscaped strip in the cente~ seems to provide sufficient buffer so that the business. on the north side does not detract from the desirability of apartments on the south side. The a~ea is apparently not in any particular need of a service station. This service is provided at Huntington and Baldwin, Sunset and Michillinda, Huntington and Rosemead and .Duarte and Baldwin. In 1955 the commission instituted proceedings proposing to rezone the south side of Huntington Boulevard to Zone CoO or Col. There was only minor support from the property owners affected, and there was consid- erable protest. In the opinion of the staff there are no exceptional or extraordinary circ~tances or conditions applicable to the subject property. It may well be devo.ted to R-3 uses. The variance is not necessary fo~ the pre- servation of any property right of the applicants because the property was purchased as R-3 in September, 1959. The staff recommends the denial of the application. The Chairman declared the public hearing open, and asked for those in favor of the variance to come forward. Mr. P. L. McNutt, and Mr. John Marshall addressed the commission stating thst they purchased this property in September, 1959 with the idea of building a station on it. He felt that because of the commercial develop- ment on one side of the street commercial establishments could be allowed on the other. He stated that most of the business people in the El Rancho shopping area were in favor of a service station at thmcorner. Mr. B~uce Cravens, representing the Signal Oil Company, the prospective tenants for this property, wished to assure the commission that the sta- tion would be a first class installation, and something of which the City of Arcadia could be proud. He presented a plat plan of a typical sta- tion for the commission's revie~. In answer to Commissioner Norton's question, Mr. Cravens, stated that there is not presently a Signal Oil service station in the City of Arcadia. Mrs. Winans, 839 Sunset Boulevard, expressed concern about how a gas station would affect the value of her property. Mr. Lean, 1030 Huntington Boulevard, was oppo'sed to the granting of this variance. The entire development of the black is R-3, and this would not be in keeping with the overall plan. He felt that this is a beauti- ful apartment district, and to allow a service station to be constructed in the middle of this district would materially depreciate the value of this property. Mr. Lean added a gas station will not bring any additional convenience; there are many such facilities in the area already; however, it will bring dirt, noise, confusion, smog, gas fumes; all of the undesirable things that people in that area seek to avoid. The only thing that could be accomplished by granting this request would be to increase the value of the applicant's property at the expense of the entire neighborhood. He st~ongly urged the commission to recommend denial of this variance request. Mr. F~ed Hudkins, 812 Sunset Boulevard, wished to go on record as appos- ing this request, because it would be contrary to the original intent of Page Two February 23, 1960 use for the property. Mr. John Vidican, 219 California Street, stated it is his intent to construct a beautiful apartment house at 1122-1124 Huntington Boule- vard; consequently he would oppose anything like a gas station adjac- ent to this structure. He suggested that the owner of the property involved in this variance request could receive $1,000.00 a month in- come if he were to construct a fine apartment house. Mr. Henry Boone, 1116 W. Huntington Drive, stated his property dir- ectly adjoins this carner; he has rental property there, and he felt that there is no need whatsoever far a service station in that area. Mr. Andrew Tichava, 1.119-1/2 Okobaji, opposed the granting of this variance because there is no need far additional gas stations in Arcadia. Louise Perry and Mr. Folsom, who are ca-o~rs of the property 819 Sun- set Boulevard, did not want a gas station adjoining their building. Mr. Clarence Meade, 822 Sunset Boulevard, wished to go on record as being opposed to the granting of this variance. Mr. Roy Pound, 820 Sunset Boulevard, opposed this request for a varia- nce because it would tend to result in spat zoning. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconed by Commissioner Stout and carried to close the public hearing on this request for zone variance. Commissioner Farman stated he has ~atched the development of the apart- ment houses on this street; generally the appearance is goad, and com- ing into the city with the new sign and beautification of the median strip gives a very nice entry into the City of Arcadia; with the con- struction of a service station on this corner, if one were allowed, then the commission would have to allow several. He would go on record as apposed to a gas station at this particular location. Commissioner Norton stated he would go on record as being opposed to this variance in keeping with the planning staff report. Commissioner Stout stated this situation constitutes spot zoning to which the commission has been opposed. This area is well zoned for R-3, and the applicant has shown no extraordinary circumstances that are applicable to this piece of property. He thought it would~ersely effect the comprehensive plan of the R-3 zoning,and would recommend denial of this application. Commissioner Michler concurred with the other commissioners. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Stout to recom- mend the denial of this variance. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton and Stout. NOES: None ABSENT: None Page Three February 23, 1960 ZONE VARIANCE Trampoline r--, The commission held a public hearing on the application of Charles Baca and Robert Mahaney for a zone variance to allow the construction and operation of a trampoline center an Santa Anita Avenue, north of Duarte Road. The Planning Secretary displayed to the commission the plot plan of the proposed layout of the trampoline center, and then read from the applica- tion. Among other things, the application stated that the operators intend to install trampolines at ground level. The Planning Secretary then read the staff report which stated this is the application of Charles L. Baca and Robert Mahaney far a zone variance to allow the establishment and operation of a trampoline center at 910- 912 S. Santa Anita Avenue in Zone C-2. The lot is 50 feet by 150 feet. The United Parcel's building is to the north. A service station is on the carner of Duarte. Across Santa Anita Avenue is a service station, swim school and the newspaper building. The plot plan shows 14 trampolines to be installed. An area 43 feet by 50 feet at the rear of the lot is designated for parking. This would normally provide far about 9 cars, but due to the shape of this lot, it will only accomodate about 6 cars. Because of the distances involved in Arcadia most of the users of the installation would probably come by car, and we feel that not less than one parking space per unit should be provided to eliminate parking con- gestion in the street. Although the use of trampolines is a fast growing fad in this area, we feel that it does not add much to economy of the city. In this particu- lar location it may not be objectionable. There are serious hazards involved as indicated by reports of accidents in the Bakersfield area. Conversations with experienced recreation in- structors conform the opinion that the use of the trampoline is a des- irable recreation, but that it is highly dangerous without proper and adequate supervision. If this variance is allowed, it is recommended that the fallowing condi- tions apply: 1. Construct curb. gutter and sidewalk along the frontage of the site. 2. Provide offstreet each trampoline. paved. parking at the rate of one space for Such parking space and driveways to be 3. The use of the trampolines shall not be permitted be- tween the hours of 12:00 o'clock midnight and 8:00 o'clock A.M. of any day. 4. The owner or operator of the installation shall prohibit and prevent both the possession and consumption of beer, wine and alcoholic liquor an the subject property sa long as the trampoline installation is maintained. It is recommended that no action be taken on this application until fur- ther information is available as to proper supervision and safety regula- tions. Page Four February 23. 1960 The Planning Secretary stated that around the schools where trampol- ines are used, they are not permitted to use them unless spotters are around. Not less than 2 members of the class must stand by the tram- poline while it is being used for safety purposes. Far beginners there are four spatters required. He referred to an article in the Los Angeles Times which described two accidents to youths using trampolines in Bakersfield. The injuries were described as critical, and Bakersfield is in the process of drawing up an ordinance to regulate the safety of their use. Mr. Charles Baca and Mr. Mahoney, coaches at the San Marino High School, and prospective operators of the center, stated that there is a little bit of a hazard in trampolining, as there is in all sports, if it is not supervised correctly. They stated that they have a trampoline cen- ter in operaUon in La Crescenta, and it is highly supervised at all times. There are rules and regulations stating clearly what the par- ticipants can and can't do. Mr. Baca stated that the insurance agent who insured the trampoline center in Bakersfield said that there was not proper padding around the trampolines. He described in detail the construcUon of the trampoline, and told of their plan to place padding all around the springs to prevent any accident. Their experience has been that most of the children who come to the trampolines are on bicycles, consequently there is not so much need far parking space, as might be expected. He felt that the owner of the property would probably assure additional parking an his adjacent property if the commission required it. In answer to questions about insurance, Mr. Baca explained that the American Companies have not yet been willing to insure this type of operation. They have liability insurance with Lloyds of London for $50,000.00 and $100,000.00. Mr. Baca stated there are usually two people supervising at all times. The Chairman asked the applicant. to give the name of the insurance agent from Bakersfield to the Planning Secretary, which he did. Mr. Edgar Mounsey, the owner of the property in question stated he will guarantee parking for 14 more cars on his property adjacent to the traDr poline center. He also promised access over his property from the rear of the trampoline property. Mr. John Vidican, 219 California Street, voiced objection to such a facility stating that he would not allow his children to use such a form of recreation. The Chairman announced that in view of the recommendation made by the Planning Staff, he would declare the public hearing continued to the next regular meeting pending a report from the Zoning Committee and additional information on the control of safety features of this faci- lity. LOT SPLITS No. 279 - P. L. McNutt - 1104 Huntington Boulevard, referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Norton. The Planning Secretary explained to the commission that Mr. McNutt did not want this lot split unless the commission recommended the granting of his zone variance to allow a service station at tb is address. Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried to recommend the denial of Lot Split No. 279. Page Five February 23, 1960 No. 281 ~ Joseph Muscolino - 1400 Highland Oaks Drive, referred to Mr. Forman and Mr. Davison. The Planning Secretary explained to the commission that this lot has an entire frontage of 230 feet, and it is proposed to divide the south portion which has a frontage of approximately 99 feet; the rear portion is only 50 feet wide. Commissioner Forman stated that he had viewed this parcel several times, and with the submission of a plat plan showing the proposed development and the house to the south and the house to the north, with more than the minimum clearance; he believed that i. ould not be very detrimental to the area to grant this lot split. Commissioner Davison stated that admittedly this is a large piece of land, but he could not see allowing this split when it would result in a par- cel not compatible with the rest of the area. The houses on Highland Oaks are good houses, and they all face Highland Oaks Drive; this pro- posed house could not possibly face the street and still be desirable. Mr. Fred Greisinger, 70 E. Foothill Boulevard, called to the commis- sion's attention that all the lots to the south are either 95 or 90 foot lots. The home to be constructed would be 1800 square feet, and he believed that if the commission would grant this lot split the re- sulting dwelling would be a fin addition to the area. After considerable discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Farman, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to recommend the approval of this lot split, subject to the fallowing conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral far parcel 2. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Farman, Michler and Stout. NOES: Commissioners Davison and Norton ABSENT: None No. 282 - C. D. Anderson - 145 E. Live Oak Avenue, referred to Mr. Stout and Mr. Norton The Planning Secretary stated that a lot split has been allowed on the northwest carner of Second Avenue and Live Oak~ Just west of that a 70 foot lot split has been .given tentative approval by the Council. The proposal is to divide the west 100 feet. Harding's Nursery is under construction at that site; they are buying the 100 feet and leasing parcel 2, the 83 feet. He read the engineer's report. North of that is a 25 foot strip of proper~y, which is zoned PR-3; if this lot split is allowed, he believed that parcel No. 1 pro- bably should include I-A on the north side of the alley, and parcel No. 2 should include 2-A an the north side of the alley. It was decided that the condition of making I-A a part of parcell .and 2-A a part of parcel 2 should be added to the conditions for this lot split. Page Six February 23, 1960 RESOLUTIONS \----- Commissioner Stout stated this lot split seems to be in keeping with good planning, and he would recommend its approval, subject to the conditions of the engineer's report with the added condition regarding parcels I-A and 2-A. Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried to recommend the approval of Lot Split No. 282, subject to the fallowing conditions: 1. File a final map with the City Engineer. 2. Provide a sewer lateral far parcel 2. 3. Pay $25.00 recreation fee. 4. Parcel 1 to include parcel I-A, and Parcel 2 to include parcel 2-A across the alley. The City Attorney arrived at the meeting at 9;20 P.M. The Planning Secretary reviewed the discussions involving Annexation No. 14 of the previous Planning Commission meeting. No. 362 - The City Attorney preaented Resolution No. 362, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORN'IA, RECOMMENDING THE REESTABLISHING IN ZONE R-l, THE RECLASSIFICATION TO ZONE R-3 AND THE CONDITIONAL RECLASSIFICATION TO ZONES C-l AND PR-3 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN "WEST ARCADIA ANNEXATION NO. 14" PRESENTLY ZONED R-l BY REASON OF ITS ANNEXATION TO SAID CITY." Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 362. Commissioner Stout questioned the contents of this resolution, and the City Attorney explained to him the recommendations contained in it; that the property involved in Annexation No. 14 is R-l and R-3 basically, unless the conditions imposed three years ago when the area was annexed to the City of Arcadia are complied with within one year, at which time the property would automatically be rezoned C-l without any further hearings.. In addition, the commission recommended in this resolution that anyone given parcel which complies with these conditions (with the exception of the three lots facing Camino Real, .mich would have to comply simultaneously) would get the increase in zoning. Commissioner Stout expressed concern about allowing one.lot to become C-l after meeting the conditions. After considerable discussion it was moved by Commissioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Norton for the adoption of Resolution No. 362. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton NOES: Commis~ioner Stout ABSENT: None Page Seven February 23, 1960 . No. 363 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 363 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE RECLASSIEICATION TO ZONE R-3 AND ZONE C-2 OF ALL THAT PROPERTY IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF ANNEXATION NO. 17-A, SOUTHWEST ARCADIA INHABITED, FRONTING ON DUARTE ROAD, AND PRESENTLY ZONED R-l BY REASON OF ITS ANNEXATION TO SAID CITY." Commissioner Davison restated his position an the matter of zoning the southwest and southeast corners of Golden West and Duarte Road; that although granting C-2 to these people might be considered spot zoning, he felt that in view of the fact that they had enjoyed t~is same zoning for several years when the property was a part of the County, the commission was almost compelled to grant this same zone to them. He did not feel that the commission would have to grant adjacent properties C-2 simply because these corners had received commercial zoning. Commissioner Stout fel t that this might effect adversely the overall plan; he suggested that the commission establish this zone as a C-2, thereby giving the commission adequate control over what uaea might be placed in this area. The Chairman stated that to change the thinking of the cODllDission would necessitate the holding of more public hearings. Commissioner Davison stated that the reason this property is coming into the city as C-2 is because of its long history as such, giving the property owners the right to continue with the work in which they bave been engaged. It would be a subsequent commission's full right to take a stand of not allowing this commercial zoning to continue on adjacent properties. Commissioner Norton stated that being very logical, on the basis of the fact that the caDDllission zones this property commercial, does automatically open the door far further expansion of cODDllercial zoning. At the same time, these people are not being denied any privileges in the present capacity that they have known in the past. Commissioner Acker believed that the owners would be denied to a certain extent; they are allowed to continue in a nan-conforming use, but they are limited in the future to what improvements they already have. Commissioner Michler restated his position desiring to go on record as being in favor of granting C-2 to those properties on the southeast and southwest corners of Golden West and Duarte, which already had C-2 while under County jurisdiction. The City Attorney stated there is no question that in granting C-2 to' these properties the commission's position is weakened. The City Attorney presented Resolution No.. 363, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE RECLASSIFICATION TO ZONE R-3 AND ZONE C-2 OF ALL THAT PROPERTY IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF ANNEXATION NO. 17-A, SOUTHWEST ARCADIA INHABITEp, FRONTING ON DUARTE ROAD, AND PRESENTLY ZONED R -1 BY REASON OF ITS ANNEXATION to SAID CITY." Page Eight February 23, 1960 It was moved by Commissioner Davison, seconded by Commissioner Forman and' carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 363. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Davison for the adoption of Resolution No. 363. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Daviaon, Michler and Stout NOES: Commissioners Farman and Norton ABSENT: None Originally Commissioner Stout stated he would refrain from voting, but a three vote in favor did not adopt the resolution, consequently Com- missioner Stout added his vote in the affirmative. The City Attorney stated that Commissioner Stout asked him to explain far the record his reasons for his hesitancy in voting; he is acquainted with and is distantly related by marriage to some of the parties on Duarte Road, but there is no legal reason why he cannot vote, and he wished his reasons stated in the record. No. 364 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 364, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE REESTABLISHMENT IN ZONE R-l AND THE RECLASSIFICATION TO ZONES R-2, P AND C-2 OP THAT PORTION OF ANNEXATION NO. 17-A, SOUTHWEST ARCADIA INHABITED, LYING NORTH OF LEMON AVENUE BUT NOT FRONTING ON DUARTE ROAD, AND PRESENTLY ZONED R-l, BY REASON OF ITS ANNEXATION TO SAID CITY." Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 364. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Davison for the adoption of Resolution No. 364. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Farman, Michler, Norton and Stout. NOES: None ABSENT: None No. 361 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No.. 361, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A CHURCH AND FOR CHURCH PARKING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD." Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Davison and carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution No. 361. Page Nine February 23, 1960 , . Moved by Commissioner Davison; seconded by Commissioner Norton for the adoption of Resolution No. 361. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Acker, Davison, Forman, Michler, Norton and Stout. NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney requested to be and was excused from the meeting at 10:10 P.M. TRACTS No. 25340 - Final map of Tract No. 25340 located an Encino Avenue and Camino Grave Avenue, containing 20 lots. The Planning Secretary displayed to the commission the changes from the tentative map. and then read the report from the Subdivision Committee and Staff, which stated this is the final map of Tract No. 25340 located on Encina Avenue and Camino Grove Avenue, containing 20 lots. The final map conforms substantially with the approved tentative map. Points where it varies from the tentative map are as follows: 1. Lot 15 has been lengthened 20 feet and the front portion of lot 20 has been widened 9 feet at the request of the commission, 2. Lots 4 and 17 have been included in the tract. 3. The west end of Camino Grave Avenue has been straightened. It was curved on the tentative map to clear a house on lot 4, The building is now to be removed. Realign- ing the street will create a jog of about 25 feet at the center lines of Camino Grave Avenue and Leda Lane. This tract is recommended for approval subject to the following condi- tions: 1. Remove all buildings within the tract and across outer bound- ary lines, except the dwelling on lot 2 and lot 17, and except the chicken equipment on lots II, 12 and 13, which shall be removed after January I, 1961. 2. Dedicate a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement along Camino Grove Avenue. 3. DedicatE a carner cut off at the northeast corner of Encina Avenue and Camino Grove Avenue. 4. Install all street improvements as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. 5. Pay the following fees and deposits: vO-{s-lots recreation fee 9 steel street light posts 53 street trees 6 street name signs @ @ @ @ $ 25.00 135.00 8.50 35.00 $ .450.00' 1,215.00 450.50 210.00 .$2,.32.5,-50 " ;'I ~ (" .-.) it" .: I........ ~ ..,,'" Page Ten February 23, 1960 . - 6. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 7. The city shall dedicate the barrier at the end of Encino Avenue for street purposes. 8. The city shall pay to the subdivider the appropriate amounts previously deposited with the city to apply an the opening of Camino Grove Avenue into Sixth Avenue. Commissioner Stout stated that this tract provides an opening to a landlocked area, and he is very enthusiastic about this proposed tract, and he would move that the commission recommend the approval of the final map of this tract. Moved by Commissioner Stout, seconded by Cammissionr Forman and carried for the approval of Tract No. 25340, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove all buildings within the tract and across the outer boundary lines, except the dwelling on lot 2 and lot 17, and except the chicken equipment on lots 11, 12 and 13, which shall be removed after January 1, 1961. 2. Dedicate a 5 foot planting and sidewalk easement along Camino Grove Avenue. 3. Dedicate a carner cut off at the northeast carner of Encino Avenue and Camino Grave Avenue. 4. Install all street improvements as required by the Sub- division Ordinance. 5. Pay the following fees and deposits: ""yO ~llt" lots recreation fee 9 steel street light posts 53 street trees 6 street name signs @ @ @ @ .$ 25.00 135.00 8.50 35.00 .$ . 450.00 S< 1,215.00 450.50 210.00 -$2-,32-5.50. yt,('f"o 6. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 7. The city shall dedicate the barrier at the end of Encino Avenue for street purposes,. 8. The city shall pay to the subdivider the appropriate amounts previously deposited with the city to apply on the opening of Camino Grove Avenue. into Sixth Avenue. No. 25253 - Revised tentative .map of Tract No. 25253, located on Fair- view Avenue, west of Park Avenue, containing 10 lots. The Planning Secretary read a communication from Mr. Erickson, which stated, briefly, that Tentative Tract 25253 has been submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council several times since last August. The letter made reference to the proposed trade between Holy Angels church and himself; that to date nothing had come of it. The conclusion stated that the writer Mr. Erickson felt that the only decision on Tract 25253 should be one of approval. Page Eleven February 23, 1960 . The Planning Secretary read the staff report which stated this tract is located on the westerly extension of Fairview Avenue, west of Park Avenue, and contains 10 lots. The original map was considered by the commission on August 25, 1959. At that time some of the lots were below the required width. The sub- dtvider was attempting to secure more land sa, by agreement, the matter was continued for 30 days. On September 22, the matter was again continued, by agreement with the s~bdivider, to be restudied by the Subdivision Committee and Planning Secretary. On October 13, two owners on the south side of the street objected to the plan of the tract, and the subdivider had not yet obtained addi- ttonal land to make the lots meet the minimum width requirement. The tract was recommended for denial, without prejudice, because of the c~l de sac being more than 500 feet long." Stnce that time the opening of Fairview Avenue has been discussed sev- eral times in connection with the requested zone variance for the Holy Angels church. We understand that there are now negotiations under way be.tween the subdivider and the church. on February 16, 1960, the subdivider filed a revised tentative map. TWo new lots have been added, and all lots meet minimum width and area requirements. The north-south portion of the street is shown as 50 feet wide with a 5 foot planting easement. Nothing has been shown to eliminate the lona cuI de sac. The first 245 feet of Fairview Avenue i$ shawn as 30 feet wide. On February 16, 1960, the City Council delayed action for two weeks on the Ho~y Angels church variance, pending the results of the negotia- ttons between this subdivider and the church. It is recommended that action on this revised tentative map be delayed until March 8, 1960, for the same reason. Commissioner Stout, the Chairman of the Subdivtsion Committee, stated that the Subdivision Committee has not had an opportunity to investi- gate this latest tentative map; he would recommend to delay considera- tton of the tract to give the committee another opportunity to look at it. He wished to go on record as stating that the subdivider has been most cooperative, and he hoped for a goad solution. Mr. Erickson, the subdivider, addressed the commission explaining that he had not been able to secure any decision from Monsignor O'Keefe an the proposed trade to allow the extension of Fairview Avenue. He s~ggested that someone on the commission or from city hall call and make an appointment with Monsignor O'Keefe to see if something couldn't be done to expedite the action an this tract. The Chairman directed the Planning Secretary to contact Monsignor O'Keefe, and attempt to get an answer an this matter. Mr. Vogel, stated that the proposed tract extends diagonally along the front of his property; his house would be 12 feet out of line with the street. He felt that this would do a great deal of harm to his property. Page TWelve February 23, 1960 ~ MONROVIA TRACT MATTERS FROM AUDIENCE ADJOURN The Planning Secretary painted out to the commission and Mr. Vogel that if the present plan were approved, there would only be a half a street in front of his property, but there is an angle in the property line. Mr. Vogel stated that if this tract were developed many of his trees would have to come down; he wished that some members of the commission would came down and view his property in relati~n to this tentative tract map. The Chairman ordered the matter continued until the next regular meeting. No. 25700 - "located in Monrovia, adjacent to Arcadia. This tract will require a great deal of study; it contains 190 lots, and will lie to the east of Highland Oaks in the vicinity of Grandview; north and east of the Oberly Estates. The owner's name is given as Michael D. Flynn of La Canada. The matter was ordered held for study. The Chairman asked if there were anyone in the audience who wished to address the commission, and no one responded. There being no further business to came before the Planning Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. :t Y>v 9\( L. M. TALLEY Planning Secretary Page Thirteen February 23, 1960