Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 29, 1992r A G E N D A ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 1992 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Harbicht, Lojeski, Margett and Fasching ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WORK SESSION ITEMS: 1. JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION a. Architectural Design Review - Single - Family Zones b. Development standards for 50' -0" wide R -3 zoned lots c. Tuck under /subterranean parking - Single- Family and Multiple - Family Zones 2. Soundwall Financing Alternatives 3. Presentation on Library Expansion Project 4. Legislative Report S. ADJOURN to 6:30 p.m., October 6, 1992 5 !�. ' ►,r Fill FROM: SUBJECT: D i." - c) /'-� ►mac .� c ,� '"' emo�an`?�um Date ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL GERALD R. GARDNER, FIRE CHIEF 9 -29 -92 REQUEST FROM ARCADIA HIGH SCHOOL TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY Pursuant to Municipal Code, Section 3115.2.6, Arcadia High School is requesting that the City Council approve the issuance of a permit to conduct a public fireworks display. The fireworks display is proposed as part of the annual half -time festivities at the Homecoming football game on October 16, 1992. The high school has conducted a similar fireworks display over the past several years without incident. Fire Department Staff has reviewed the application and recommends that a permit may be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Display to be conducted by licensed pyrotechnic operator. 2. Site plan of firing area to be approved by the Fire Department. 3. Insurance certificate on file. 4. Aerial shells and pyrotechnics be delivered to the site on October 16, 1992, 5. All pyrotechnics be removed immediately following the display. 6. A City Fire Inspector be present at the site during the display; personnel cost to be reimbursed by the pyrotechnic operator. Recommendation It is recommended that the Council approve the issuance of a permit for a public fireworks display at Arcadia High School subject to the conditions listed in the staff Donald R. Duckworth, City Manager Arcadia High School CITY OF ARCADIA SEP 2 8 199 2 Arcadia Unified School District CITY MANAGER Principal (821 -6611) Assistant Principal Student Activities (821 -6659) Assistant Principal Facilities & Athletics (821 -6657) Assistant Principal Instructional Services (821 -6678) 180 Campus Drive • Arcadia • California • 91007* Phone (818) 446- 013CITY OF ARCADIA SEP 2 8 1992 CITY MANAGER September 21, 1992 Mr. Donald Duckworth City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, Ca. 91007 Dear Mr. Duckworth: On Friday evening, October 16, 1992, Arcadia High School will hold its Homecoming football game. As a part of the half -time festivities, we will have a fireworks display located on the baseball diamond. I am requesting a variance of Section 3115, 2.6, of the Municipal Code for permission to have a public display of fireworks at this time. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, ADIA HIGH SCHOOL Thomas W. Payne Assistant Principal Activities and Attendance TWP:sm "IN PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE" 44 d s —`/d 3 /YI a/1-i `Irm zz September 29, 1992 • TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF 50'-0" WIDE R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY LOTS The Planning Commission has, on several occasions, expressed concern regarding the development of three multiple-family units on 50' x 160' lots. Recently, on August 25, 1992, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to deny modifications (MP 92-004) for a proposed 3 unit apartment building to be located at 21-23 El Dorado Street. The Commission in its review commented that the: "Council has informed the Commission to approve these type of modifications for projects on 50' wide lots. They [Council] felt that it is better to have less units with modifications, than having more units and increasing the density. However, because there are new Council members, it is possible that they may not feel that way. He thought that each individual project may be nice and aesthetically pleasing, but they should take a look at the cumulative effect on a given street." The Commission suggested that this be a topic of discussion at tonight's meeting. MODIFICATIONS The following are typical modifications which are required for the development of 3 units on a 50'-0" wide lot with an alley: 1. A 5'-0" side yard setback in lieu of 10'-0" required for the garage areas (and sometimes a storage room). (Section 9255.2.4) 2. A garage depth of 19'-0" in lieu of 20'-0". (Section 9255.2.9.D) 3. A 25'-0" back out distance for the parking spaces in lieu of 30'-0" required. (Section 9255.2.9.E). R-3 LOTS September 29, 1992 Page 1 ✓U LASER IMAGED 4. A width of 14'-6" unobstructed from the pavement up in lieu of the minimum width of 20'-0" unobstructed when driveway areas are adjacent to garage/parking areas. (Section 9255.2.10.D) 5. To delete the requirement that whenever a driveway is located within a required side yard area, a 5'-0" wide landscaped area shall be maintained between the property line and the building. (Section 9255.2.10.J) The following outlines the history of development of the typical 50'-0" wide lots. BACKGROUND In September, 1986 the Planning Commission and City Council held a joint study session; one of the topics of discussion was development of 50'-0" wide lots in the R-3 zone. At that time it was the consensus of the Council members present (Young, Gilb, Harbicht and Chandler) that three units on 50 foot wide lots was appropriate and that the Planning Commission should consider the necessary modifications for these projects. On October 16, 1990, a joint meeting was held with the Planning Commission and City Council. Once more the topic of multiple-family developments on 50'-0" wide R-3 lots was a discussion item. Again it was the consensus of the Council that development of the 50'-0" wide R-3 lots with 3 units was appropriate and the modifications for these projects should be considered by the Planning Commission. In February, 1992, the Planning Commission denied MP 92-001, modifications for a proposed 3 unit apartment project at 15 Genoa Street.. It was the consensus of the Commission that the granting of the request for modifications would not secure an appropriate improvement because the plans did not conform to the R-3 zone side yard setbacks, landscaping and driveway requirements. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial to the City Council. The City Council (Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb) at its March 3, 1992 meeting voted 5 to 0 to approve the requested modification. The Council noted the following: . "If modifications are not granted for the 50 foot wide lots, the only way these areas can be developed with either two or three units, would be by combining two adjoining lots. Also, if two such lots are combined, the developer may construct eight units. Therefore, granting modifications for construction of the three units actually cuts down the density in the area. Also, in the R-3 zone, the City says there must be at least 2,000 sq. ft. of lot area per unit; in fact, in this case there are 2,800 square feet per lot area per unit. The only thing R-3 LOTS September 29, 1992 Page 2 LASER IMAGED being given up in this case is some landscaping on the side yard and allowing use of the side yard on one side for driveway space for backing up. The reason the code has not been changed is because it has been determined _ that going through the modification procedure gives the City some special kinds of controls; therefore, the City is able to get desirable development and have the modification procedure as an opportunity to ensure that. It is the policy of he Council to encourage single lot development with three units, rather than discourage that and get paired lot development with eight units....This practice results in more landscaping in the front and eliminates the double concrete driveway down the middle to a subterranean parking area." The Council further reiterated to the'Planning Commission that "Council feels the type of development under discussion here is more desirable development that the alternative". HISTORY OF 50'-0 WIDE LOTS IN EAST ARCADIA The majority of the fifty foot wide R-3 zoned lots are located in the area bounded by Huntington Drive on the north, Duarte Road on the south, Santa Anita Avenue on the west and Second Avenue on the east. The fifty foot wide lots were mapped out prior to 1911. Most of the lots were 160 feet in depth and contained 8,000 square feet of lot area. The residential properties within the area between Santa Anita and Second Avenues have been zoned R-3 since at least 1949. The City's General Plan was adopted in 1972 with the land use designation for this area shown as Multiple- Family, 7+ dwelling units per acre. The 1949 zoning regulations permitted a maximum density of one unit for each 750 square feet of lot area (i.e. 10 units on a typical 8,000 square foot lot), and required one parking space for each unit. The side yard set back for a two story building was three feet. Within the area there are several 8,000 square foot lots developed under the above regulations and have a dwelling unit density that is substantially greater than currently allowed. In the early 1970's the R-3 regulations permitted, with some modifications, projects with four units to be developed on the typical 8,000 square.foot lot. The regulations R-3 LOTS September 29, 1992 Page 3 LASER IMAGED , permitted a maximum density of one unit for each 2,000 square feet of lot area (i.e.-4 units on a typical 8,000 square foot lot), and required 2 parking spaces for each unit. In the late 1970's the R-3 regulations were amended to require 2.2 parking spaces for each unit and providing for a density bonus. If a project provided total subterranean parking, the dwelling unit density could be increased up to 20%. However, at that time there was little development which utilized subterranean parking. When the R-3 regulations were changed in March 1980, the maximum density limitation was deleted, but the requirements for open space, driveway backout, and parking were increased. Density became determinant upon the project's design. The driveway backout was increased from 25 feet to 30 feet, and the parking was increased from 2.20 to 2.50 per unit. The effect on the development of the typical 50 foot wide, 8,000 square foot lot, with alley access, was to reduce the maximum number of units which could be developed from four to three with some modifications. On a 100 foot wide lot it was possible, with some minor modifications, to develop up to 10 units. Thus, it was generally in the developer's interest to attempt to acquire adjacent properties, whenever possible, for what amounted to a significant density bonus. In January of 1988, the maximum density limitation of one unit per each 2,000 square feet of lot area was readopted. This limited the maximum number of units on a 100'-0" by 160'-0" size lot to eight. The change did not permit more units on single lots since the other code requirements effectively limit the 30' x 160' lots to a maximum of three units. IMPACT If it is determined that the typical modifications (identified on page 1 of this report) for a 50' by 160' lot are not appropriate, the following impacts will result: 1. Most single-lot development (unless land-locked) will stop. Development will become more difficult because persons will be required to consolidate lots which historically has not been easy because adjoining property owners are not always ready to sell at the same time. 2. Encourage lot consolidation and subsequent development with higher density projects 3. Not necessarily result in more attractive developments, only larger projects with increased density. R-3 LOTS September 29, 1992 Page 4 LASER IMAGE 4. Result in more projects with below grade parking. Below grade parking has not been possible on 50 foot wide lots, but is common on larger projects. This results in increased project densities, the use of sump pumps for drainage, and higher overall building heights, as part of the parking is above the existing natural grade of the property. Modifications are required for any parking arrangement on a 50'-0" wide lot unless the garage door is facing directly onto the street and/or onto the alley (if one exists). If the garage faces the street and there is no alley access, the primary elevation of the project is that of the garage door and guest parking. Only about 5'-0" remains for the building front entry (see attached elevation). Most R-3 developments during the last 16 years have required some modifications. Up until 1980, these modifications were handled by the Modification Committee. Since 1980, the multiple-family modification applications have been sent to the Planning Commission. This was done at the request of the Commission which felt that they should be the body to review and approve such applications. The modification process provides the mechanism to determine the appropriateness of each project to its specific site. The process also provides the flexibility to work out reasonable compliance with the general intent of the Code. Because of the range in sizes and configurations of R-3 lots, generally speaking, not all of the R-3 regulations can be met by proposed projects. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends that the City continue to grant reasonable modifications for the development of the existing 50 foot wide lots. R-3 LOTS September 29, 1992 Page 5 LASER I'M"LI)