Loading...
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