Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 13, 1962 , \:1" ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES HARDING'S GARDENLAND INC. VARIANCE . . M I NUT E S PLANNING COMMISSION OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING March 13, 1962 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. March 13, 1962, with Chairman Golisch presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch. ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Elton Phillips, City Attorney James Nicklin, Assistant City Engineer Frank Forbes, Planning Director William Phelps, Planning Secretary L. M. Talley and Planning Technician Robert W. Warrilow The minutes of January 23, February 13, and 27, 1962 were approved as written and mailed. This matter was continued from the meeting of February 27, due to a tie vote as to whether the fence now constructed along the alley north of Live Oak Avenue, west of Second Ave, should be clarifie:d,modified or amended in accordance with the request made by Charles Harding present- ing Harding's Gardenland, Inc. Inasmuch as considerable discussion had previously occurred, the matter was brought up for decision. Mr. Henry Hege, Attorney representing Mr. Harding, stated that Mr. Harding wag not present at this meeting due to a previous business commitment. The Staff report was presented by the Planning Secretary as followsc: "On January 7, 1962, Mr. Harding requested a modification or clari- fication of the requirements of his variance near Second Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. There apparently was a misunderstanding as to the type of fencing required. The variance as granted by Resolution No. 3438 allows the storage of "material used in connection with the operations of Harding's Garden- land", excepting fertilizer. This might include concrete materials such as stepping stones and curbing, decorative rock, "cr~shed stone and pebbles, planter boxes, trellises, etc., as well as growing plants. This was "the type of material that the staff had in mind when a fence "to screen the stored material from view" was recommended. March 13, 1962 Page One .. \ MOTIOli TBACT'NO. 27186 . . At the Commission meeting of February 13, 1962, Mr. Harding stated that he was willing to execute an agreement limiting the type of ma terialto be stored. Section 9213 of the Municipal Code makes it the duty of the Commission, in certain cases of "ambiguity", to recommend to the City Council, and if approved by the Council, such interpretation shall govern. The Planning Department recommends that if a covenant is secured from Mr. Harding limiting the storage of material to live plant material that the present chain link fence be approved as meeting the requirements of the variance. If a majority vote cannot be obtained on this matter it might be well to submit it to the City Council without recommendation. This procedure is mandatory in the case of zone variances, as set out in Section 9291. 2.6 of the Code." Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Acker, that the report of the Planning Department be approved., insofar as the chain link fence now constructed be permitted to remain providing a covenant is filed limiting the storage of material to live plant material, and the City Attorney is instructed to prepare the proper resolution clar- ifying the variance and requiring the filing of a covenant as herein- above s ta ted . Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch. NOES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Norton ,ABSENT: None. It was proposed that it may be necessary in the future, in order to prevent such proceedings, that building permits should be required where a variance is granted so that regular inspections could be made and any ~sunderstandings could be alleviated at the time, rather than to require clarification or modification at a later date. The Planning Commission considered Tract No. 27186 located east of El Monte Avenue and south of Las Flores Avenue, containing four lots. The Planning Secretary exhibited a map of the area and presented the staff report as follows: "The Planning Department has instigated a slightly different procedure for technical subdivision review. On March 7, 1962 the first meeting was held to consider the subject tract. The group included representatives of the subdivider, his engineer, one of the land owners, the Department of Public Works, the Water Department and the Planning Department. This report is a compos,ite of the requirements and recommendations of the three departments. This tract is located east of El Monte Ave. and south of Las Flores Ave, and contains four lots. The northerly 97 feet of proposed lots 1, 2 and 3 is in Zone R-O. The balance of the tract is in Zone R-l. The lots are 96 and 98 feet w~de, which does not comply with Zone R-O requirements, but they are well above those of Zone R-l. March 13, 1962 Page Two . . The portion of the tract in Zone R-O is subject to deed restrictions covering Tract No. 13113. These restrictions require, among other things, one single-family dwelling on a building site containing 15,000 sq. ft., and expire on January 1, 1970. The street is shown as a standard 60 foot width. The Department recommends approval of this tract, subject to the following conditions: 1. The deed restrictions of Tract No. 13113 shall be released or modified that residences on lots 1, 2 and 3 will not be in violation. 2. The subdivider shall make every effort to secure 10 feet dedication for street purposes, including the corner cutoff, from the property at 2112 El Monte Avenue, south of "A" Street. 3. Dedicate a one foot strip along the south side of "A" Street in fee to the City, or in trust to a title company along with the establishment of a.;s'ubdivision trust. 4. Dedicate a 10 foot drainage easement along the south line of lot 3 and construtt the necessary drainage facilities to drain the street to the Arcadia Wash. 5. Dedicate all necessary rear line utility easements. 6. The front setback line on lots 1, 2 and 3 should be 25 feet. The side street setback for lot 1 should be 20 feet. 7. Remove all buildings from the tract. Remove all trees from the street right of way. 8. Install all street improvements, including drainage facilities, required by the subdivision ordinance and Public Works Department in accordance with plans and to grades satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 9. Pay the following fees an~'d~poBits: 2 steel street light poles 11 street trees 2 street name signs 4 lots recreation fee @ $115.00 @ 8.50 @ 35.00 @ 25.00 $230.00 93.50 70.00 100.00 TOTAL $493.50 The Chairman stated that .the.,procedure for having the various City Departments review subdivisions is to help expedite the proposals coming before the Commission and to assist the Commission in technical matters which could be cleared up before consideration by the Commission. Commissioner Acker req~~sted information as to the d~ed restrictions. The City Attorney advised that depending on the tract restrictions that are filed, usually they can be lifted by the consent of the required number specified in the tract restrictions. Some provide for a majority, some for three-fourths, and some for unanimous consent while they are still in effect. The second way of having them lifted is by a suit of declaratory relief, as has been done in another instance. March 13, 1962 Page Three . . Mr. Kenneth Williams, 156 E. Norman, the subdivider, answered several questions presented by the Commission. Lot 2, Tract No. 8528, has a house facing El Monte Ave. and this land could not be tncluded in the tract. The house would be three feet from the new street line. He stated there were 22 lots, two of which are flood control channel, and they had obtained 18 signatures releasing the restric- tions on lots in the R,O Zone. There is some doubt as to whether or not it is necessary to secure the other two. Mr. H. A. Koos, 166 W. Las Flores, a property owner in the area, had assisted in securing the signatures. The City Attorney stated that if a statement could be procured from a title officer of a recognized title company they would recognize a certain number of signatures to insure the title with respect to the covenants, it should be considered sufficient evidence to lift the convenants on the lots affeclted in this s.ubdivision. Private deed restrictions are not enforced as such by the City and are enforceable by the property owners, but if the Title Company will insure title it should satisfy the Commission. Mr. Koos.stated that this plan would eliminate an old house that is a problem to the neighborhood. This house was originally con- structed out of vegetable crates, etc. This improvement would greatly enhance the neighborhood and increase the value of the property . There were but two objections to the signing of the petition. He read from the restrictions that "any breach may be. enjoined, abated or remedied by said grantor". The grantor in this instance'is the Title Insurance and Trust Co. "or his successor in interest, or by the owner or owners, but by no other person". The owner or holder of an agreement of sale executed by the grantor,therefore the owner of this property, is the original developer. The only people that could stop this development would be the Title Insurance and Trust Co. and Emil Huffman, the original owner. He felt that while he had 18 signatures, it was not necessary for any other than the original owner and the Title Co. Another tract had been approved to the east of this tract. Chairman Golisch stated the problem.concerning him was the deed restrictions. He felt that s.ome consideration had been given in the past and that approving a subdivision contrary to the tract restrictions would open the way for further encroachment. These restrictions have been respected and'adhered to in the past and it was fel t thls.:.:procedure should be followed. Commissioner Forman felt that if the subdivider obtained the release ,Of the restrictions and had them lifted then that would be a different :thing. It was felt that the deed restrictions were the only ties people had to insure them of the type of developme~t they preferred when they purchased their property and they should so remain unless they were lifted and this should be done with caution. Discussion ensued. The City Attorney stated there was a basic distinction between the private covenants, as are deed restrictions, and the City regulations, be they zoning, subdivisions, lot splits, etc. Private deed restric- tions, covenants or agreements between property owners are made to accomp lish alms they.' ae~m':des_irable at .'least~at tne::l:ime:' they were March 13, 1962 Page~Four ., . . , imposed and continue to deem them advisable until at least a majority of the property owners feel they are undesirable and have them lifted. The City regulations, on the other hand, are adopted under the police power for the general protection for the public safety and welfare and the zoning to accomplish the overall plan for the development of the city. The problem before the Commission is more of policy that crystalized some years ago of not deliberately having the city take part in breaking down long-standing and still effective con- ditions. The City has done so on more than one occasion. If the zoning or other relief accorded property is in conflict with the restrictions, it is a factor that is strongly considered by a Court in determining whether or not they should uphold the restrictions or set them aside. This was one factor taken into consideration on the property on Live Oak Avenue. Mr. Dominico, 2ll2E. Monte Ave., owner of the property abutting this subdivision to the south, questioned the requirement of the curb return, which in his opinion would prevent the use of the driveway he now had. The use of the driveway was questioned inasmuch as he had another coming out on El Monte Ave. He preferred that the radius requested by the Public Works Department be reconsidered. The Assis~ant City Engineer stated that the dedication requested would provide a 30 foot curb return. In the report a dedication of some other property is also requested. This subdivision has nothing to do with hIs: land, except for the requested dedication for the curb return. Mr. Dominico stated he wanted it understood that he was in favor of the subdivision, but he felt that further consideration should be given to this part that affects him. It was the consensus of opinion that this was a technical question to be determined by the City Engineer and others. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, snd unanimously carried, that Tract No. 27186 be referred back to the Staff to work out some of the details pertaining to the curb return and restrictions as above set for.th. Noel Tamietti, Engineer for the developer, sta.ted that this matter had been before the technical staff and it was agreed that this property was not a part of the subdivision and, therefore, the developer agreed to try to get the necessary easement for the curb return. They had agreed with the City Engineer and Planning Director that this would be worked out. This could be worked out with the Engineering Depart- ment. The Chairman stated that the motion had been made and carried and the matter would come before the Commission at the regular meeting of March 27, 1962. VARIANCE EXTENSION The request for the extension of time for the variance granted September 19, 1961, for a hotel residence for retired persons at 720-728 W. Camino Real was considered. A communication was read by the Planning Secretary from Milton Hadley, to the effect that the plans had been presented to the Building and Safety Division of the City and had been checked. They were now back to their architects for correction. It was their intention to commence construction within thirty to sixty days. March 13, 1962 Page Five MOTION RESOLUTION NO. 441 MOTION MOTION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORTS RESOLUTION NO. 442 . . Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Acker, and unanimously carried that the variance granted for the construction :f the resident hotel for retired persons at 720-728 West Camino Real which expires April 15, 1962 be extended for a six months period. The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 441, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOM/1END- ING THE DENIAL OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THIRD HOUSE ON THE LOT AT 734-738 WEST LONGDEN AVENUE IN SAID CITY." Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Forman and carried that the reading of the full body of the resolution be waived. Moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson that Resolution No.' 441 be adopted. Said motion was carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Norton, Rutherford and Golisch, NOES: Commissioner Michler ABSENT: None No one in the audience desired to be heard. The Planning Director advised that several reports had been com- pleted and another was i~ the final stages. He called attention to the Land Use .report which had been forwarded to each Commissigne1; and to the Downtown Study group. He further stated that a sub- committee had been appointed by the Central Area Landowners Associa- tion to work out details for study and that the Committee would meet at the,City Hall to further the plans. The Planning Director stated that a report-on Live Oak Avenue had been made and a copy would be forwarded to the' Commission. The studies were made and brought before the Commission not to have the Commission act upon this par- ticular case, but rather to bring to the attention of the Commission in',general terms the line of study made. Mr. Robert Warrilow, of the Planning Department, who had prepared the ,study, made a few statements in connection with the boundaries and the type of infor- mation Which would be incorporated in the report. A copy would be included with the next agenda. In this connection with the Downtown study it was decided that the Commission would meet as a study group on Thursday, March 22, 1962, at 7:30 P,M. to go over the material as submitted by the Planning Director. The City Attorney presented and read in full Resolution No. 442 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO!l OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL OFA CHAIN LINK FENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SANDRA AND SECOND AVENUES AS FULFILLING THE PURPOSE, INXENT.AND SPIRIT OF AND COMPLYING WITH THE FENCING coNi:linOml.SPECIFIED IN A VARIANCE HERETOFORE GRANTED." March 13, 1962 Page Six MOTION LAND USE REPORT ADJOURNMENT . . Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Acker, that Resolution No. 442 be adopted, Said motion ca~ried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Acker, Michler, Rutherford and Golisch NOES: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman and Norton ABSENT: None The Commission complimented the, Planning Department on the Land Use Report and felt that the information would be exceedingly useful in the future. ~ere being no further business to come. before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P,M. ~1vv. L. M. TALLEY, Planning Secretary