Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 12, 1961 " " .. ROLL CALL MINUTES ZONE VARIANCE 110-118 W. Duarte Rd. '" I -, ,--j .. M I NU T E S ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 12, 1961 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Decem- ber 12, 1961, at 8:00 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall, with Chairman Golisch presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch, ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Phillips, City Attorney James A. Nicklin, Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes, Planning Director William Phelps, and Planning Secretary L. M. Talley. The minutes of the adjourned regular meeting held December 4, 1961, were approved as written and mailed, The Chairman welcomed a large group of students from the Arcadia High School who were visiting the Commission meeting as. a class assignment. The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the hearing on the application of the.Amerlcan Lutheran Church for a zone variance to allow the construction of a church at 110-118 West Duarte Road, The Planning Secretary exhibited a map of the area, and a rendering of the proposed church. The pertinent matters were read from the application. as to exceptional circumstances in that the present zoning of this area is Zone R-l, In order to erect a church it must be rezoned to R-2, or a variance for church use. It will not be detrimental to the public health and welfare because i't is felt it will be advantageous to have a centrally located church. It will, in no way, be detrimental to the area. The present condition of this property is very run down due to the uncertainty of: what will happen in the area. The lots are too large for residential purposes, and public buildings will enhance the appearance and value of surrounding properties. The variance is necessary for the preservation 'of property rights for the reason that the property is located on Duarte Road, across .from the High School football field, and directly adjacent to the proposed auditorium site and,near the new library. In order to utilize the property to the best advantage rezoning should be made for the same general classification as these buildings. The zoning will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan, The character of this street is changing in such a way that public buildings are being erected in this area. The proposed plans will be directly and advantageously connected with this general plan and vicinity. There were no c~nications. The Staff report was presented as follows: "This is the application of the American Lutheran Church for a,-zone variance to allow the erection of a church, including Sunday School class rooms, December 12, 1961 Page One ~ - . kitchen facilities and automobile parking on the property at 110 and 118 West Duarte Road, in Zone R-1. On August 18, 1961, this same applicant applied for a variance for the same use at 130 West Duarte Road. After a public hearing on the matter, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No, 3434, denied the application. The primary reason for the Commission 'srecoUDllendation for denial was that the previous proposed site was located about the center of several deep residential lots; that a church use at that location might create problems for the development of adjacent property, and could be considered as spot zoning. The new sIte selected by the Church has a width of 230 feet with an average depth of about 319 feet, and contains about 1.68 acres. It adjoins property recently purchased by the City as a potential site for future auditorium, All of the property on the south side of Duarte Road be- tween the subject property and Santa Anita Avenue, including the new library site, ,is owned by the City, and will be put to some public use. All of the property on the north side of 'Duarte Road between E1 Monte Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue, excepting the corner at Santa' Anita Avenue, is owned by the Unified School District and devoted to school use, including an athletic field. On the 'south side of Duarte Road, west of the subject property, ther~ are five exceptionally large lots Zoned R-l. They contain, approximately 4.5 acres. The change of location of the church, at the site now selected, will be com- patible with the school and city use, which constitutes about 75% of the frontage. of this block of Duarte'Road. With proper site development, we do not believe that it will be harmful or detrimental to the residential property to the west or to the south. By scale, the height of the building will be about 42 feet, and the tower about 55 feet. Haight limits in residential zones are 35 feet. Because the 42 foot height applies only to the ridge of a comparatively steep roof, the Staff does not deem it objectionable. The height of the tower would not be in vio.lation of the code provided it is not used for the purpose of providing additional floor space. This request is recommended for approval, subject to the follOWing conditions: 1. Dedicate 12 feet for widening Duarte Road. 2. Remove all existing structures from, the site. 3. Pave the driveways and parking lot. Construct a 6 foot masonry wall separating the dr! veway and parking area from adjacent residential property. 4. Provide drainage from the parking area to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 5, Provide a suitable 'landscaped strip and tree planting along the south property line." A study had been made by the Planning Department entitled, "Special Report No. 1 - Duarte Road Study - Santa Anita Avenue to El Monte Avenue". A copy had been presented to each COUDllissioner and also forwarded to the City Council. This report was sUllll1l8rized by the Planning Director, The Chairman requested those in favor of the application to come forward at this time. December 12, 1961 Page Two l /--, ( ~~ /~-~ I, - W. F" Donnaman, Pastor of the American Lutheran Church, stated he had presented the viewpoint of the church at former hearings and there was little that could be added at this time. They had obtained another parcel of land. The parking facilities were more than that 'required by code. They had gone to considerable time and expe~se in trying to acquire a suitable parcel of land for their church. He feU that the application had fairly well stated their position. A question was asked by Commissioner Norton, as to whether or not there was a time period set for improving the property, Pastor Donnaman stated there was none on an actual date schedule. They anticipate that by next fall they could be breaking ground, All that remai~s is to employ an architect, and solidify the plans. The financial situation is as good and perhaps better than most churches at this time, No one else desired to be heard. The Chairman requested those opposed to the variance to present their views. Mr. Ronald H, Suess, 107 W. Magna Vista Avenue stated he was very interested in the zoning. He desired to see a rendering of the building. He asked if the entire structure were to be two stories, He was concerned with the height of the building. His property was located on Magna Vista Avenue at the rear of the subject property, He felt the application should be denied on the same basis as the former application. The ground should be for a city use, such as a park, or something of that type and keep it to a similar use as further down the street. He questioned as to what the balance of the land would be used for. He was opposed to spot zoning. Mr, Suess was .informed that the technical staff had proposed the entire ,area be used for public or semi-public uses, He was told that the balance of the land was not before the Commission. at this time. Mr. Suess asked if the church proposed to have a s~hool in connection with the church. Pastor Donnaman stated nothing except the Sunday School was planned. There were no 'plans in the future for a school, Mr. F. Duncan Eader, 111 Magna Vista Ave. stated most of the questions he had raised had been answered. He was directly concerned with the drainage. He had been informed at the time a developer had approached him for an option that the drainage was a problem, The contour of the land in that area is low 'and his property isclirectly behind the area. He had experienced run-off in this area, At the present time this is unused land, but at such time- as a parking lot is paved and a building erected, he was' concerned as to what would be proposed for drainage. He did not want the ,run-off on pis property. He felt this was a real problem, He was also concerned with the ,height of the building. MrS.Eilene Goldman, .101 W, Magna Vista, stated she was not opposed to the church going there but was opposed as variance of-zoning. They had watched the area change, going. from a residential zoning to something that is all civic. They had not objected to the noise of the school, this is seasonal. The library had added to the area. But she could not see where a variance for a church in this area would add advantageously to the area. Apartments were aU over, and there were twenty churches now. Taxes had risen. She was. opposed to a variance of the property before the other property had been planned. ThiS would tend to have the area like a "cross-word puzzle, She felt Iter property would be devaluated because of the noise ,lights, etc.. Mr. Barnett Goldman stated that the report advocated a use of the property to be public or semi-public which would not be a detriment to the adjacent pro- perties. Where the use is for something other than that which is quiet, noises can be heard quite extensively. He felt there was property available for this type of use other than in his back yard. Care should be given as to what does go on this property to protect the homes in the rear, . ' Mr, R, K. Ilishop, 159,W. Magna Vista Ave, stated he felt the high school would have to be expanded and urged the property to be used as parking. in the event the school uses the present parking lot for additional class roC'ms. December 12, 1961 Page Three j . /~ HEARING CLOSED Pastor Donnsman requested the opportunity to state that a church on the pro- posed property is perhaps the quietest and least objectionable use by way of traffic and usage during most of the week. . The use is .pTimsTily on Sundays and some evening meetings, which are for the most part attended by perhaps a dozen people and there is no apparent noise. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried that the pUblic hearing be closed, Discussion followed, Commissioner Acker stated that the former application had been denied so that sufficient time could be had for both the school and the city to deter- mine the proper use of the property. The school had determined they had no particular need at this time, and the church had filed on another lot which is in a better location" lesving the balance of the property open for better development. He favored the request before the Commission, but felt that the height of the building should be determined and tied down; also that the plans should be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a build- ing permit. The parking ratio ~as requested by Commissioner Forman. It ~as pointed out that the plans show a seating capacity of 320, which by ordinance would require 40 spaces. There are 60 spaces provided along the east side of the building and along the south pIOperty line. This is providing more than one spsce for each eight seats, A discusssion was had pertaining to the height of the building. The tower is 55 feet. The zoning ordinance does not limit the height of a tower, providing it is not used for additional floor area. The overall height of other churches in the City is as high or highet than, that proposed by the present applicant. The parish hall and classrooms are at the rear and the entire building would be one story. MOTION Indication had been. given at the former hearing that the Commission would look favorably on the variance for a church were it in another location, It was determined that the usual D overlay regulations could be imposed by the var- iance so that the church would not extend higher than desired. Any reasonable conSideration could be imposed. The effect of such an imposition would be that the applicant and the architect would have little to guide them in the preparation of plans unless such detai~s were stipulated at this time. It was moved by Commissioner Ruther ford, seconded by CommiSSioner Michler and unanimously carried, 'that the app~ication of the Ameri.can Lutheran Chu~ch for a zone variance to allow a church at 110-118 W. Duarte Road be recommended for approval, subject to the recommendation of the S~aff, and to the further recommendation that the plans should be submitted to and approved by the Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit, and shall be substan- tially in compliance with the plans and elevationssub1liitted with the appli- cation. The Chairman announced to the audience that the Commission had given very careful consideration and study to this area and it was after a long deliber- ation that the recollllll8ndations had been 1Il8de.. They were very much interested in maintaining Arcadia as a "City of H01IIes", but there are problems of develop- ing and maintaining certain facilities, such as churches and schools for the use of the residents of the city. Recess was called for three minutes. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 P.M. December 12, 1961 Page Four ~ ZONECIlANGE (Live Oak near Louise) . .~ , The Planning Commission considered the application of William H, Rowland, and others, for a change of zone on Live Oak Avenue, east and west from Louise Ave., from Zone R-3 to Zones C-2 and D, which had been referred to the Zoning Committee and Staff at the last meeting of the Commission. Commissioner Norton presented the report of the Zoning Committee to the effect that a public hearing was held on this matter on December 4, 1961; at that meeting the Commission became aware that the four lots on Louise Avenue were a part of a subdivision which is restricted to single-family residences by deed. It was because of this that the Planning Commission referred the matter to the Zoning Committee for further study. As a result of its study, a recommendation was made that the Planning Commission approve the zoning request in accordance with the conditions of approval set forth in the original Staff report. A further condition of approval should be as follows: "The change of zone, shall not become effective until such time as the deed res.trictions on the property have been removed and evidence of this removal submitted to the Planning Commission," Commissioner Acker stated that he would like to have read into the record the original recommendations, He was informed that this had been done at the December 4th meeting. A summary of the recommendations were presented by the Planning Secretary. The Chairman stated that he appreciated the work that had gone into this matter by the Staff and Zoning Committee, but felt strongly that zoning should not be contrary to or less restrictive than that set up by deed restrictions. He felt that in instances zoning had been changed by Court order, but that was a separate matter, He was opposed to the Planning Commission recommending a lessor zone than that set up by deed restrictions which people do rely upon. This is establishing a precedent that he was not in favor of. Commissioner Porman concurred in these rematks.. He felt that this was a violation of deed restrictions even though' the report of the Zoning Committee stated that the zone change shquld not be effective until the restrictions are lifted. This lesves the. door open, for other changes to take place, Commissioner Acker stated that it.may have been an oversight but had been changed to an R-3 without any application from owners. ation would not take effect until the restrictions are lifted, the area This recommend- Commissioner Norton stated that the thinking of the Zoning Committee members was that the first review of the matter, prior to the knowledge of the deed restrictions, was based on the fact that the area is bounded by commercial development, and that if and when the deed restrictions were removed that the proper zoning should take place, They felt they were in no way establishing a precedent. Commissioner Forman. stated the remarks of Mr. Norton were well taken and that the development will come alollg the lines set ou.t in the report; 'however, it should be pointed out the land use map shows the Baldwin .Stocker area which will eventually promote some backyard subdivisions. The Subdivision Commit,tee and Staff, if pre'sented with a subdivision map at this time.; would' not e~en consider the development until such time as the deed restrictions had run out or some other manner taken to remove them prior to action, At this point the City Attorney clarified certain legal phases. He stated the Planning Commission is primarily devoted to the proper planning of an area. It does not deal directly with deed restrictions nor does the City attempt to enforce the restrictions. At the time the restrictions were recorded they were probably applicable to all of the lots' in the subdivision. Since the time they were recorded they have been broken, and extensive develop- December 12, 1961 Page Five /~ MOTION ZONE VARIANCE 111 E. Live Oak Ave. . , '- ment has occurred on the south side of Live oak which was not there at the time the restrictions were imposed. He would like to point out that that there are present uses of the property allowed that the lot next door cannot do. This is not good planning, If the recommendations of the Zoning Committee are followed, the Commission has not violated the deed restrictions, and has not said the property may be used for other purposes than that set up in the restrictions, It is only indicated that the ultimate development of the property should be a certain zone if and when the deed restrictions are removed or expire, To deny the application is to put the CommiSSion in the same posi- tion at some future date when the deed restrictions may be removed, or ~hen they expire by their own terms. This would not do anyone an injustice by signifying the safeguards to the remaining residential areas so that knowledge is given as to the use in the future when there are no deed restrictions. Commissioner Ferguson stated his views were perhaps different. He felt that deed restrictions and zoning were two separate items that may apply to a piece of property. Planning as such is for an entire area, but deed restrictions could encompass only a portion, The Commission's concern should be to establish certain zoning in definite areas, but deed restrictions another requirement on some of the property. This should not necessarily follow that it should be a requirement of the Commissi~n in recommending zoning for the area. Commissioner Michler stated that he had had a different view, prior to the explanation of the City Attorney, and would have no objections at this time. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford that the application of William H. Rowland, and others, for a change of zone on Live Oak Avenue, east and west from Louise Avenue, from Zone R-3 to Zones C-2 and D be recommended for approval, subject to the recommendations of the Zon- ing Committee and also the recommendations of the Staff as previously set out at the hearing on December 4, 1961. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: fil.<4!,,(' AYES: Commissioners Acker,~~~, F~rguson,~Rutherford and Norton NOES: Commissioners Forman and Golisch ABSENT: None The Planning .Commission again considered the application of Live Oak Medical Building Bo. for a zone variance to allow expansion of the present medical building at 111 E, Live Oak Ave. This matter had been considered at the December 4th meeting, and was referred to the Zoning Committee inasmuch as this variance and the variance preceed1:ng this at Louise and Live Oak Avenues were closely related. The Planning Secretary summarized the recommendations as outlined by the Staff and Zoning Committee in its report of December 4, 1961. Commissioner Forman felt this was a good development for this corner and that the alley should be a requirement inasmuch as the property to.. the west may develop and the alley then would be necessary., Plan~ing Director Phelps stated that the two lots to the west of the medical building were not included in the lots under the deed restriction and could be developed sooner than-the others. Mr. Thomas R. Suttner, Attorney for the applicant, stated that he was opposed to the zoning committee recommendations. All they were asking for is for .authority to eniarge a building for two doct.ors who. are already using the building. The alley was discussed when the original variance was granted December 12, 1961 Page Six ,/~ HEARING CLOSED MOTION . '-' but. was not made a condition. -He could not see why the alley and dedication for widening Greenfield Ave. should be required so long as the building is used for the present purposes. They felt it would be a detriment to the type of business carried on at this location and requested that the Commission not make it a condition of the variance. He felt it was unreasonable and particular- ly in the light of the previous action that it may be a. period of five years before the deed restrictions were. lifted. The improvement of the alley would be a detriment and would be dead-end and go "no where". The suggestion was msde that perhaps t~e variance might be granted with the provision that a covenant be required for the future dedication of the alley. The i~provement of the alley could be accomplished by several ways, such as 'the 1911 Improvement Act, or assessment, or done by the City and charged back against the property owners. The Chairman requested those in opposition to state their views. No one desired to be heard. Moved by COmmissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed. Considerable discussion followed, The Assistant City Engineer stated that improvements made at the time of the offer of dedication had proven much more satisfactory and less expensive to those concerned. The City Attorney stated that although the applicant proposes to use this area as a medical building, the Planning Commission could take this area under consideration with other property and this type of use may totally disrupt the use of the entire area, This area is substantially devoted entirely to commercial use; even this is a lesser commercial use. The Chairman stated that the particular problem was that the C01lllllission had to look to the future development of the area, and that is the intent of the Commission with respect to the alley under question, Mr. 'Suttner stated that he would have to consider the nature of the requirements in the offer of dedication, but as the CIty Attorney had explained it, that if the property to the west were opened up an.d the alley constructed there, it would perhaps require the dedication. He did think that the alley should go all of the way to Louise before being considered at this point. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by C01lllllissioner Forman, _,:. ',' , - that the application of Live. Oak Medical Building Co. for a zone variance to allow expansion of the present medical building be approved, subject to the conditions rec01lllllended by the Zoning Committee and Staff as follows: 1. Dedicate the east 12 feet of the lot, including the corner radius, for street purposes for widening Greenfield Avenue. 2. Dedicate the north 25 feet of the property for alley purposes. 3. Construct a concrete block' wall on the north property line. Said wall to 'be four feet high from the ~est line'of Greenfield Avenue for a distance of 25 feet and six feet high for the balance of the length. 4, The property dedicated for the alley and the widening of Green- field Avenue should be improved in accordance with City standards prior to or concurrent with the construction of any building upon the property. December 12, 1961 Page Seven . /--~ '-. 5, The new portion of the building should comply with the require- ments of Fire Zone No.2, and conform substantially with the building plans submitted with the application. 6, The present setback of 50 feet from Live Oak Avenue should be rescinded. Said motion was carried on the follo~ing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Nortoq, Rutherford and Golisch, NOES: Commissioner Michler, ABSENT: None. Lar SPLIT NO. 35.1 The Planning Commission considered Lot Split No. 351 - John T. Waterhouse, 734-738 W. Longden Avenue which had been referred to Mr.. Ferguson, Mr, Forman and Mr, Norton. The report of the Director of Public Works was read: .co 1. Provide final map, 2. Provide separate sewer lateral for each parcel, 3, Recreation fee of $25.00. 4. Water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code. Provide separate service and meter for each house. This would create one lot with 50 ft, frontage and a rear lot with only 20 foot frontage, There are many small lots and a private street in this area. A similar lot split exists next door west. However, these developed under County regulations, prior to annexation. This request does not meet City requirements and is recommended for denial." There is a house constructed on the rear of this property which would be within 3 feet of the rear line of the front 'parcel, and access would be gained only through a long 20 foot driveway fronting on Longden Avenue. MOTION Moved by CommiSSioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unani- mously carried that Lot Split No. 351 - John T. Waterhouse - 734-738 West Longden Avenue be denied. TRACT NO, 17508 The Planning Commission again considered Tract No. 17508, located between Longden Avenue and Las Flores Avenue, west of Second Avenue, containing 33 lots which had been continued from the meeting of December 4, 1961. The Planning Secretary read the staff report which was not submitted at the previous meeting as follows: "A revised map of this proposed tract was submitted on 1 to 24 are proposed to be developed by a subdivider. owners are attempting to develop lots 25 to 32. December 7, 1961. Concurrently, four Lots Rear lot tines are very irregular. Some of the lots are less than required minimum depth. The west portion, of the street is only 50 feet wide. Both the subdivider and the individual owners have assured the Sta'ff that efforts to purchase more property from the owners facing Las Flores Avenue have been unsuccessful. A proposed subdivision of this same area was approved March 19, 1957, as Tract No. 18568, and the approval was extended twice for pe~iods of one year each. This tract proposed lots 80 feet deep and part of the street was 50 December 12, 1961 Page Eight MOTION RESOLUTION No. 433 MOTION: MOTION: . '"",::-" feet wide. That was prior to the adoption of minimum lot depth requirements in 1960. If the tract is approved, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove all the buildings within the tract except as follows: a. The dwellings on lots 11, 19, 26 and 30 to remain, b. The dwelling at Second Ave, and the new street to be moved on to lot 12, c. The guest house on lot 31 to remain with a covenant to prO!li'bit any further building on the lot until the guest house is removed. 2. Water,sewer, electric and gas services to be disconnected from other lot. Water services to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code. 3. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements. 4. Dedicate 12 feet for widening Second Avenue, 5, All streets should be dedicated 60 feet wide, or include sidewalk and planting easements to equal 60 feet, 6. Install all street improvements required by the subdivision ordinance in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 7. Pay the following fees and deposits: 86 street trees 13 steel street light posts 6 street name signs 32 lots recreation fee @ $8.50 @ 115.00 @ 35,00 @ 25,00 $731.00 l495,OO 210.00 800.00 Total <j, 3236.00 8, The City shall accept the future street dedication offered on lot 8, Tract No, 13932 and lot 11, Tract No, 14036, Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Norton and unanimously carried that Tentative Tract No. .17508 be recommended for denial. Commissioner Acker stated that if the developers were to meet with the subdivision committee perhaps something might be worked out to assist in obtaining a better layout wherein the rear 'lot lines could be more regular and where the 50 foot street could be eUminated; also where the lots are substandard ~hey could be made the 100 foot 'in depth. The time for the meeting was set for December 28, 1961, at 7:30 P.M, The City Attorney requested permission to present his matters at this time as he had a commitment which necessitated his leaving the meeting. His request was granted and thereupon he presented Resolution No. 433, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANN,ING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING INTERIM EMERGENCY ZONING OF PR-2 UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS CONCURRENT WITH ITS ANN.EXATION TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS "ANNEXATION NO. 28, SOUTHEAST ARCADIA UNINHABITED." Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and unanimously carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution be waived. Moved by CommiSSioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, that Resolution No. 433 be adopted: Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker,Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and GoUsch, Decamber 12, 1961 Page Nine . RESOLUTION ,NO. 434 MOTION MOTION PUBLIC PARTICI PATION . ~ NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 434, entitled: " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING THE RECLASSIFICATION UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS FROM ZONE C-2 TO ZONE R-3 OF PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LIVE OAK AVENUE AND LENORE AVENUE IN SAID CI,TY," Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, 'seconded by Comm1s.sione,r Acker, and unanimously carried, that the reading of the full body of the Resolution be waived. Moved by COmmissioner Acker, seconded by Commissioner Norton that Resolution No. 434 be adopted, Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherfor~ and Golisch. NOES: None ABSENT: None At this point the City Attorney left the meeting. Mr. Bruce Kitchen, developer of Tract No. 17508, desired to state that he had done everything possible to correct the lines but that people in the' area would not sell more property. They had met with considerable difficulty. When the tract was approved the first time they could not proceed because a piece of property was sold and the new owner did not desire to sell the back end of the lot, This has been true in many instances and the proposed, tract is the best that can be done, He wanted specific instructions as to how to proceed and why the Tract had been disapproved. Maps of the area were Ilgain distributed and many references were made as to the irregularities of the lot lines and wherein the requirements of the ordinances were not met'. Mr, Kitchen was advised that the Subdivision Committee would meet on ThurSday, December 28, and would go over this tract map with him to see if any assistance could be given to straighten out some of the irregularities. Mr. Elmore, 26 E, Las Flores Avenue who had appeared at the previous meeting in connection with Tract No. 17508, wanted information as to the portion of the subdivision that the owners were going to retain L~ . lots. He was also instructed to meet with the Subdivision Committee to see if any assistance could be given in this matter, It was felt that considerable improvement had been made over the previous tentative tract map, and in this particular area every effor,t should be made to assist in a proper development, Many of the lots were of standard size and have the required depth and frontage. Mr. Lazonski, 61 E. Longden Ave. stated he was Chairman of the property December 12, 1961 Page Ten r RIlPORTS: TRACT NO, 26655 MOTION ZONING COMMITTIlE REPORT ALL NIGHT PARKING NEXT REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNMENT. . ... owners committee who developed the tract in the first instance. The plans now submitted were materially better than the ones that had been approved and for the reasons above stated had never been completed. He requested that the Commission carefully look into this matter and any assis,tance that could be given toward straightening out some of the difficulties would materially improve the entire area. He was assur,ed that when Mr, Kitchen and Mr,Elmore meet with the Subdivision Committee every effort will be made toward recommendations that would eliminate some, of the irregularities no~ encountered. The Planning Director stated that the only matters to be brought the Commission were the dinner meeting of the Central Area Landowner's Association to be held at the Flamingo Hotel, December 13, 1961, at which time Mr, Russell Priebe, Director of the Santa Monica Redevelop- ment Agency, would be the principal speaker; 2nd, he was to attend the meeting of the Recreation Commission on December 20th with infor- mation on the land use study with the intent of de terming areas in the southern part of the city where a part and recreation facilities could be developed; and 3rd, the ~ianning Commission would have before it a study of a draft ordinance pertaining to the keeping of animals, other than horses, within the boundaries of the City. There are provisions now in the Zoning Ordinance which permit livestock to be kept, and because it is tied in' with the zoning regulations the Council would like to have the recommendation of the Commission. He stated that the status of the housemoving ordinance was now in a final draft stage for presentation to the City Council. The Chairman announced that this subdivision was before the Commission on December 4, 1961, and there was a motion to approve this tract. There were three "Yes" votes and four "No" votes. It would be proper that on this particular matter another motion should be, made to recommend the denial of the tract. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Acker, that T~act No. 26655 be recommended for denial. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYIlS: Commissioners Acker, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Michler, Commissioner Norton brought up the matter that the Committee had dis- cussed the various types of businesses that were permitted in the C-l zone. He mentioned several. It was generally thought that this subject might be reviewed and some of the objectionable uses eliminated or assigned to another zone. Councilman Phillips stated that the enforcement of the all night park- ing ordinance had been eased. There were certain critical areas that were creating problems. It might be advantageous to review the require- ments in the various zones where parking is a requirement, especially in the R zones. The Commissioners were poled as to the next meeting which would occur Tuesday, December 26th, This being the day after Christmas, a qourum would not be present; therefore, WedneSday, December 27, 1961, at 8:00 o',clock P.M. was set as the .next regular meeting of the CommisSion. There being no further meeting adjourned, matters to come before the Commission, the ~1%. L. M. TALLEY, Plan ng Secretary December 12, 1961 Page Eleven