HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 13, 1960
M IN UTE S
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADlA
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 13, 1960
The Planning Conooission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session
in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o'clock P,M. Septem-
ber 13" 1960, with Chairman Acker presiding,
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: C01lDllissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler
and Rutherford
ABSENT:
Commissioner Norton
OTHERS
PRESENT:
City Councilman Edward L, Butterworth
City Attorney James A, Nicklin
Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz
Planning Secretary L, M. Talley
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of August 23, 1960 were approved as written
and mailed,
ZONE
VARIANCE
(Hinshaw's)
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application of
Elrovia COl'poration and, Hinshaw"s Department Stores for a zone variance
to permit a customer service building and annex at the rear of 1429
S. Baldwin Avenue,.
The Planning Secretary read from the application which stated that the
proposed building to be leased by Hinshaw's Department Stores to be
used as a customer service and annex to the main store', with 40% to
50% of 'the building area devoted to receiving and marking of merchan-
dise; merchandise storage 20% to 40%; office record filing space, 10%;
fixture storage, 10%, and selling space 10%.
The application continued that a building pleasing to the eye would
be an improvement to the area, and the activities carried on in the
building will not involve heavy or noisy machinery, and it will not
be in any detrimental,
The Planning Secretary presented some photographs to the conooission"
and then read the staff report which stated this is the ap'plication
of Ei-rovia Corporation and Hinshaw's Department S,tores for a zone
variance to permit a customer service building at the rear of the
property a~ 1431 S. Baldwin Avenue,
This lot is approximately 123 feet wide and 600 feet long. The front
portion is zoned C-2 and developed for commercial uses and parking.
The rear 263 feet is zoned R-3, but is paved and used for parking.
The proposed development cons;ists of a precast concrete building,;
100 feet square; one story in height. It is to be located 12 feet
from the west property line, and approximately 11.9 feet from the
Page One
September 13, 1960
nor~h and south property lines, The side yard areas are shown to be
landscaped. The plan shows no doors or windows in any side except the
east, facing the parking lot,
All of the adjacent property abutting the building site is zoned R-2.
Some of the lots are developed with residences within 10 or 20 feet
of the lot line.
The Planning Secretary read a communication from Mrs, Genevieve
Espinosa, which stated that the proposed building is to be erected
directly behind her proper,ty at 756 We~t Naomi; after careful examina-
tion of this proposal, she wished to go on record as favoring the
granting of this variance.
An additional communication was read which was addressed to Mr' E. U,
Caron, Manager of the Hinshaw Department Store. The communication out-
lined the proposals 'for the building to be construc,ted on the property
and stated that it is mutually agreed between Elrovia Company and
Hinshaw's Department Store that:
1, The structure to be built on the property described
above will not be used by either party for other than
C-2 zoning use;
2. That the structure will be and will remain a one-story
height limitation;
3, The landlord will agree to landscape and the tenant
agrees to maintain such landscaping as to "screen"
and make attractive the area immediately adjacent to
the structure to be built or along the north, west
and south property lines most immediately adjacent to
the structure now in planning; and
4, It is agreed by both parties that a fence and gates w11l
be erected in line with the east line of the structure
so that such fence will connect at right angles with
fencing that currently runs along.the north and along the
south lines of the building site. Gates to be included
in this program will be kept locked so that there will
be no casual use of, or access to, the "perimeter area"
of approximately 12 feet in width which will run along
the north, west and south sides of the building,
The communication was signed by M, T, Launius, Jr., Vice President
of the Elrovia Company.
The ~lanning Secretary stated that Mr" Gordon Lund, an Attorney re-
presenting Mrs. Douglas, 758 Naomi Avenue was at the meeting Of
August 23, and had called the Planning Secretary to inform him that
he would not be at the meeting tonight, but that Mrs. Douglas had
intended to protest, but would not protest based on the four stipula-
tions outlined in the communication from Elrovia Corporation to Mr,
Caron,
One other communication consisted of a telephone message from the
City Clerk's office which stated that Mr. Henry F. Cordelius, 747 W.
Camino Real requested that he go on record as being opposed to the
granting of the variance for this customer service building, for the
reason that his property would be within 12 feet of the proposed bull d-
ing.
Page Two
Septembe~ 13, 1960
,
'...j
The Chairman declared the 'public hearing open and asked for those
who wished to speak in favor of the variance to step forward and
give their names.
Mr. Paul S, Burkholder, owner of 748 Naomi Avenue, stated he owns a
72 foot frontage on Naomi Avenue on which is located 4 two bedroom
,houses in the form of a court, and he was very heartily in favor of
this variance, He would rather have a well designed building there
than a parking lot, due to the commotion sometimes experienced at
night with young people parking,
Mrs. Genevieve Espinosa, 756 W, Naomi Avenue" stated that she wished
to. go on record as being in favor of th,is variance..
Mr, Don Ehr, Business Manager of Hinshaw's Department Store, speaking
in favor of the variance explained that the proposed chain link fence
in preference to an ornamental blook wall because the building would
be of concrete masonry with no opening, and should be a sufficient
buffer to adjoining property,. They plan to pave the 12 foot area
and put planted a,reas in it, for easy maintenance..
The Planning Secretary displayed an architectural drawing showing a
preliminary plan for the structure.
Mr, Don Ehr stated that he, would prefer it not be called a warehouse,
because,the activities in the building would be activities which are
now handled in the present store location. In answer to questions,
Mr, Ehr stated that normally merchalldise is received not before 8: 00
A.M., or after 5:00 P,M,
The Chairman requested those opposed to the, granting of this variance
to please come forward.
Mr, A, H. Stephens, 7.41 W. Camino Real, presented to the Planning
Secretary a petition signed by 20 persons who live near the property
ooncerned in the application, opposed to the variance.
Mr. Stephens stated that the granting of the variance would reduc.e
the value of the property surrounding it, He stated that no matter
how a person refers to the use of this building it will be nothing
mor,e than a warehouse. In the future if he desired to sell his
property, a potential buyer would be discouraged by the presence of
a warehouse building to the rea,r of his dwelling,
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson to
continue this public hearing to the next regular meeting, pending a
r,eport and further study by the Zoning Committee and staff,
TRACT NO.
26077
The commission considered the final map of Tract No. 26077 located
on Greenfield Avenue south of La Sierra Drive, containing 17 lots.
The Planning Secretary read the report from the Planning Staff and
theSubdivision Committee which stated this is the final map of Tract
No. 26077 located on Greenfield Avenue sO,uth of La Sierra Drive,
containing 17 lots,
The tentative map was reconooended for approval on July 26, 1960.
The final map conforms with the approved tentative map and is recom-
mended for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Remove all buildings within the tract and all trees
within the street area.
Page Three
September 13, 1960
'j
2, Provide all necessary rear line utility easements.
3. Install all street improvements required by the sub-
division ordinance in accordance with plans and to
grades to be approved by the City Engineer.
4. Pay the following fees and deposits:
6 Steel street light poles @ $135.00 $810.00
42 Stree,t trees @ 8.5.0 357,,00
3 Street name signs @ 35,00 105,00
17 Lots recreation fee @ 25,00 425,00
$1697.00
5, ,The city shall dedicate for s~reet purposes lo~ 26,
Tract No, 19712, and Lot 15'", Tract No, 21618.
Commissioner Forman stated that, the Subdivision Commit~ee met and
reviewed this tract, and it is ,the same as was originally approved
and he would move to recommend approval,
Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Michler to
recommend the approval of final map of Tract No, 26077 subject to
the conditions set out, in the report above, dated September 8, 1960.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Forman, Golisch, Michler and Acker
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioners Ferguson and Rutherford
ABSENT: Commissioner Norton
TRACT NO,
25253
The Planning Commission considered the final map of Tract No. 25253,
located on Fairview Avenue east of Holly Avenue, containing 8 lots,
and considered approval ,of the amount of a subdivision ~tust to be
es tabl ished,
The Planning Secretary read the Subdivis,ion Committee and staff report
which stated this is the final map of Tract No. 25253 located on Fai'r-
view Avenue east of Hol~y Avenue, containing 8 lots,
The final map cO,nforms substantially with the approved tentative map
and approved alterations and is recommended for approval.
The subdivider has requested the establishment of a subdivision trust
to prpvide that two parcels on the sou~h side of Fairview Avenue, not
included in the tract, shall pay their proportionate share of the cost
of the street at such time as they elect to use the street, The
amount of the trust, as determined by the engineering department, is
recommended to be $5,622.48,
The conditions of approval should be as follows:
1. The subdivider shall dedicate lot 9 in fee to the city,'
2. Provide all necessary rear line utility easements.
Page Four
September 13, 1960
,r~
<
'''---
3. Remove all trees from the,street area, and ~emove
all miscellaneous buildings within the tract.
4. Install all street improvements required by the
Subdivision ~dinance.
5, Pay the following fees and deposits:
7 Steel street light posts
2 Street name signs
42 St~eet trees
8 'Lots recreation fee
@
@
@
@
$135.00
35,00
8.50
25.00
$945.00
70,00
357,00
200.00
$1572,00
6, The dwelling at 924 Holly Avenue shall be relocated
to the satisfaction of the Holy Angels church and
at no expense to the church.
7. The subdivider shall establish a subdivision trust
on the 6 inch strip along the south side of Fairview
Avenue not included in the tract; the form of the
trust to be approved by the City Attorney,
The Planning Secretary then read communications signed by Ray Allen
Young, 357 W. Dua~te, Road and Thomas H, English, 351 W. Duarte Road,
the two property owners affected by the proposed subdivision trust.
'The letter registered protest 'to the proposed cost of $2811.24 to be
charged to each property owner.
There were 6 reasons submitted for opposing the costas follows:
1, The assessment is illegal.
2, The proposed assessment is being 'made for a private
and not a public purpose,
3, The hea~ing is being held without an opportunity for
all interested parties to be heard - notably the title
insurance company,
4. The Subdivision Conooittee and Staff, did not consult
with the interested parties and have disregarded t~ue
property values,
5. The proposed tract is a subterfuge designed solely to
benerit one private pe~son,
6, The manner in which this has been presented in the past
and is being presented in the present, isa clear-cut
case of "economic duress",
The Director of Public Works at the request of the Chairman
explained the method by which the Engineering Department arrived at
the reconooended amount of the proposed subdivision trust. He stated
that the basis for the figure was the construction cost of the street
and the cost of acquisition of property, and was based on actual bid
figures submitted by the subdivider,
He explained ,that these amounts were not actually an assessment but
rather a result of policy es,tablished some years ago in the city
whereby properties which may benefit from a street opening should pay
Page Five,
September 13, 1960
\-.,,/'
a portion of the cost of developing that street at the time that
the owner elects to use the street,
The Planning Secretary added that if after the 20 year period
established in the trust, the trust has not been paid and the
street not utilized, then that 6 inch strip on which the trust is
placed would automatically be deeded in fee to the city by the
trust company, so that the city would still have control over
whether or not there is access to the street. 0
The City Attorney explained the' background of the trust provisions
as developed some years ago, It was in anticipation of the fact
that Arcadia was running out of undeveloped land and that all future
subdivisions ,would necessarily be resubdlvision of older portions
of the town originally laid out in one, two or three acre lots,
Problems are presented in resubdivision of previously subdivided
areas that dO not exist in virgin territory; (1) The multiplicity
of ownership that occurs in an area to be resubdivided; whereas in
a virgin area, you invariably have one or at most two owners of lar~
tracts of land; (2) There are physical developments already in
existence which have to be reckoned with; the removal of them is
quite expensive.
The Planning Commission made a recommendation and a statement of
policy which was forwarded to the City Council and adopted as an
official statement of policy; whereby the City of Arcadia would
assist the orderly development of areas by imposing a subdivision
trust where to do otherwise would result in unjust enrichment to one,
two or three owners; who would refuse to enter into a subdivision of
an area knowin'g full 'well that the subdivision was ,going to occur
sooner or later, but, by refusing to join in, could s it by until all
the improvements were completed at someone ellie's expense and then
proceed to divide his property without any cost to him,
This policy was not adopted just in order to assist the subdivider;
the city's interest'is in the orderly development of property. Ex-
perience showed at that time that orderly development of property
was frequently precluded because certain key properties refused to
join in the subdivision, Threr have been many subdivisions in the
pallt few years which other,wise would have been a complete impossibil-
ity,
This is not an assessment, it is merely for the purpose of preventing
an injustice.
Dr. Joseph Sternbaugh, a Certified Public Accountant, (the Doctor"
applies to a PhD) spoke on behalf of Thomas English and Dr. Ray Allen
Young, He believed that the City of Arcadia should plan for the
future; it should provide for orderly development of property, and
it should not' permit persons to take a free ride at someone else's
expense, Both of the property owners he represented objected to the
,method of computation of the trust, which appeared not to be allocated
property. These men are reasonable men; they wish to pay for any
benefits derived; but felt that each parcel should pay its own fair
share of the benefit, and he felt that this had been absolutely dis-
regarded by the City Engineer, The actual measurement of the new
street is about 900 feet long. There are 800 feet.of frontage to
benefit; why should each parcel fronting on that road not bear its
fair share of the cost and be part of the subdivision trust,
Dr, Sternbaugh continued there are a number of lots which will be
Page, S'ix
September 13, 1960
benefited; it is utterly'unfair to take two property owners and
say, take it or leave it, you have to submit approximately $3,000.00
before coming to the Planning Commission and say we are going to
subdivide.
The property referred to by Dr. Sternbaugh was ~50 Fatrview Avenue,
360 Fairview Avenue and the parking lots of the Holy Angels church.
The Director of Public Works stated that the property to which the
doctor referred already had access to the street, and therefore they
did not need this subdivision.
Dr. Sternbaugh stated that'he felt it waS not a question of access,
but of orderly development.
The Director of Public Works stated that there were two ways of
arriving at this flgure, If the total cost of the subdivision had
been divid~d equally between 10 parcels of property, the Engineering
Department would come up with a figure somewhere around $3,500.00 per
lot. We did not feel this was quite the fair approach, By consider-
ing only the cost of the parccls outlined in red on the map we were
able to arrive at a more equitable distribution of cost.
The Director of Public Works continued that these figures were not
based on front footage such as is sometimes the practice in a 1911
or 1903 Assessment Act, If this was Dr. Sternbaugh's method of
arriving at a figure then he could not agree, because it is not a
true measUre of benefits receiv~d.
Dr. Sternbaugh asked how it was possible to sustain parcels not sub~
ject to the trust; those who had the access but who are going to
derive, exactly the same improvements, why wouldn' t they pay par,t of
the share of costs.
The City Attorney stated that the letter submitted by the protestants
stated that the recommended figure for the subdivision trust had been
determined witl10ut notice to them; the initial report is based upon
figures submitted by the subdivider and, reviewed by the staff and
he would aSsure the commission that they are not accepted at face
val ue-.
Based on that analysis of the figures submitted a recommended figure
is arrived at andno,ticegiven to the people who will be subject to
the trust if they care to avail themselves of it, so that they can
attend the hearing to point out variations or changes that would be
in order,
The question of method of arriving ,at 'a figure is benefits conferred
rather than improvements abutting a given property. Lots at 350 and
360 Fairview, by reason of private covenants available only to those
two owners, had access across each others property, but which was
not available to property owners west of that, so from the standpoint
of benefit as distinguished from abutting improvements, those people
had all the access that they needed for their property, It would
have been simple for the subdivider to have acquired by purchase the
northerly portions of those properties, and then, had them assume their
proportion of frontage cost of the improvement; the net to the owners
would have been about the same" but he believed it would have added
to the figure of the trusi:rather than detract from it, It would of
course depend entirely on what the purchase price of the property was.
Dr, Sternbaugh stated that it was their calculation that the trust
Page Seven
September 13, 1960
. . . .
figure should vary between $1,000,00 and' $1,200.00 for each of
the taXpayers involved, and he wished that estimate placed in the
record, This he believed was a far cry from taking a free ride
and again he would like the record to show that they insist on the
distinction between access that the property owners have on 350
and 360 Fairview and the benefits which you describe as the paved
road, sewers and lighting; he asked the commission whether these
property owners are not taking a free ride,
Commissioner Forman asked Dr, Sternbaugh how he arrived at his
figures in relation to the method explained as used by the Director
of Public Works.
Dr, Sternbaugh explained that he took the length of the road which
is approximately 900 feet, multiplied by two and divided the cost
of the 10 lots into it, using the figure of approximately $28,000.00
as the cost of improvements.
Mr, Alfred Allen, the s,jbdivider of this tract, stated that it is
common practice for C.P.A, 's in internal revenue work to take the
total cost of improvements in a subdivision and allocate them equally
to lots regardless of what the frontage of the lot is on the street.
Commissioner Forman stated that the Subdivision Committee met regard-
ing this tract; this tract has been before the commission for many
months, Some months ago the tentative map was approved, and the final
map as submitted is substantially the same, and he would move that
the final map of Tract No. 25253 be recommended for approval; subject
to the conditions as outlined in the report dated September 8, 1960.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Golisch and carried by the
following vote: '
AYES: Commissioners FormaI\ Golisch, ,Michler and Acker
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Commissioners Ferguson and Rutherford
ABSENT: Commissioner Norton
TRACT NO.
24140
The Planning Commiss,ionconsidered tentative tract map No. 24140
located on Sharon Road between Holly Avenue and El Monte Avenue,
containing 42 lots,
The Planning Secretary read the Subdivision Committee and Staff
report which stated this is the tentative map of Tract No. 24140
located on Sharon Road between Holly Avenue and ElMonte Avenue,
containing 42 .lots,
This is the first resubdivision of property in Zone R-O. All
lots meet the minimum area requirements, Lot 1 is slightly below
the minimum depth. Lot 2 is 5 feet short on one side but averages
125 ,feet in depth. All the other lots are well, above the required
minimum depth and area,
The tract is recommended for approval, subject to the following con-
ditions:
1, Provide all necessary rear line utility easements.
Page Eight
September 13, 1960
~- '-
2. Remove all buildings within the tract and all
trees from the street right of way,
3. Install all street improvements required by the subdiv-
ision ordinance according to plans and to grades
approved by the City Engineer,
4. Pay the following fees and deposits:
15 Steel street 11gh t posts @ $135,00 $2025,00
84 Street trees @ 8.50 714.00
3 Street name signs @. 35,00 105.00
42 Lots recreation fee @ 25.00 1050.00
$3894.00
Commissioner Forman stated"that this is a very fine subdivision,
because it is 10'0% up to code. R-O requirements of, 12,500 square
feet per lot, and with the exception of four lots all of them are
15,000 square feet so the subdivider has gone beyond what is basic-
ally r(\quired, and is to be commended for a' fine 'subdivision,
Moved by Commissioner Forman,seconded by Connnissioner Michler to
recommend approval for the tentative Tract map No. 24140, subject
to the conditions outlined in the report above, dated September 8,
1960.
AYES: Connnissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Rutherford
and Acker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Norton
TRACT NO.
24144
The Planning Connnission was to have considered tentative tract No.
24144, located south of Las Flores Avenue and west of Santa Anita
Avenue, containing 6 lots; ,there were some problems concerned with
it, and the subdivider requested that the tract be taken off of the
agenda for resubmit tal at a later date.
MATTERS FROM
THE AUDIENCE
The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience desired to address the
commission,
TRACT NO,
24140
Mr. J. E. Beeson, 260 W, Norman Avenue stated he was interested in
this proposed development as it involved one of his properties. There
were three others also with him. He asked the question as to what
wouid happen if one of the 42 lot owners did not wish to go along
with the development.
Much discussion has taken place over the past few years as to the
development of Sharon Road, but there have always been objections.
He hoped that there would be nothing to interfere this time with
the proposed subdivision.
The Chairman stated that the subdivision was a voluntary improvement
and if, the owners of the property are not willing to enter into the
plan there would be no ,subdivision, A subdivision trust would not
be the answer in a subdivision of this type. If the owners concerned
did not enter into an agreement there co'uld be no development,
except in one instance wherein the majority of the property Owners
wished to subdivide, and with the cooperation of the city, the balance
Page Nine
September 13, 1960
". . \
(~,
I
'--
r',
.
of the property could be condemned under the 1903 ~treet Acquisi-
tion Act, and with the 1911 or 1913 Act for "the improvenent thereon.
The properties would still not become part of' the subdivision, but
it would permit the properties desirous of dividing their land to
subdivide. This owner would not be subject to a subdivision trust
because he would already have' been assessed for his portion of
the street improvement,
Ralph D, Waters, 324 W, Norman Avenue, stated he had a small lot,
being only 85 feet wide by 397 feet deep, but is considered a small
lot, He is very anxious to have the back 30 feet taken for street.
He asked if he would have to remove his garage in order to get the
required lot area. The Chairman stated the tentative map has been
approved and the requirements are the responsibility of the sub-
divider. He desired to keep his property, It would be between him-
self and the subdivider to bring the lot to standard size in an R-O
area.
Mr, George Peterson, 339 W, Lemon, stated a majority of the people
he had talked to wanted to subdivide but wanted to retain the lots.
Discussion followed as to the procedure for retaining lots in a
subdivided area. He felt that there would be an association of pro-
perty owners formed to retain their own property.
The question was asked as to the periqd of time before it would be
commenced, The City Attorney advised upon the approval of the ten-
,tative map there was a one year period in which, the improvements must
be made.
SUBDIVISION
TRUST
Commissioner Golisch desired to thank the Director of Public Works and
the City Attorney for the explanation on Tract No. 25253 on the method
of costs. He had had a question as to the apportioIl1Jlent, but he felt
it was proper to offer this to the people now that it had been dis-
cussed.
MASTER PLAN
Commissioner Golisch stated that at the last City Council meeting a
suggested pol:l:cy statement was read by the Nayor and in substance
the council is interested in the orderly development and planning
of the city and the council and Planning Commission have adequate
planning tools for the development of the city that will be affected
by the freeway" and as a result they want to go forward in that par-
ticular area as soon as possible. Also, the City Council is to have
the staff arrange for subs~quent meetings with private Planning Con-
sultants so that the City Council and the Planning,Commission can
learn more about it. The meetings are to be open to the public and
various civic organizations that have expressed interest in the Mas-
ter Plan. This will make them as aware as possible for the election
on the Master Plan.
It was brought out that at the League of California Cities' meeting to
be held' in Los Angeles i~ October, considerable information can be '
obtained on Master Planning. !
ADJOURN
There being no further business to come before the conunission the
meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M,
:f-vvv .
L, M, TALLEY
Planning Secretary
Page Ten
September 13, 1960