HomeMy WebLinkAbout1105
.
.
.
.
~
RESOLUTION NO. 1105
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING DENIAL
OF A GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AT 536-554 LAS
TUNAS DRIVE
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1979, an application was filed by
Fairhaven Development Corporation, to consider changing the General
Plan on certain property located at 536-554 Las Tunas, which is
shown on the General Plan as Commercial and Single-Family
Residential 0-6 dulac, to Multiple-Family Residential 7+ dwelling
units per acre; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1979, a public hearing was held on
said matter at which time all interested persons were given full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Planning
Department in the attached staff report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds that a General
Plan change to Multiple-Family Residential would result in spot
zoning for the subject site; the possible rezoning to a R-2 or R-3
zone designation would be inconsistent with the surrounding land
use and zoning; and that said change would be detrimental to the
public health and welfare and injurious to the property or improve-
ments in such vicinity.
SECTION 3. For the foregoing reasons, this Commission
recommends to the City Council denial of this General Plan change.
-1-
.
.
.
..
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was
adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Arcadia on the 24th day of July, 1979, by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Fee, Hegg, SOldate, Hedlund
NOES:
None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brink, Sargis
ABSTAIN: None
~~~
Cha~rman
ATTEST:
~IL ~ t L
' t/;" 'hAt{ ';dtid;t y _____.~
Secretary
-2-
.
.
.
-
.
JULY 10, 1979
TO:
FROM:
CASE NO:
PREPARED BY:
ARCADIA CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
G.P. 79-1
DONNA L. BUTLER
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
FAIRHAVEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
ADDRESS:
REQUEST:
EXISTING LAND
&SE & ZONING:
AREA:
FRONTAGE:
LAND USE &
ZONING OF
SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES:
GENERAL PLAN:
536-554 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
GENERAL PLAN CHANGE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(0-6 DulAc) AND COMMERCIAL TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (7+ DulAc)
The subject site is comprised of two lots developed
with parking. The easterly lot (536 Las Tunas) is
zoned PR-3&D and the westerly lot (554 Las Tunas)
is zoned C-2 D.
41,400 sq. ft. (.95 acre)
150 feet on Las Tunas Drive
North: Developed with offices; zoned C-2 D and
R-l PD
South: Developed with single-family dwellings;
Zoned R-l
East: Developed with a nursery school and single-
family dwellings; Zoned R-l
West: Developed with a restaurant and parking;
Zoned C-2 D.
Subject site:
Commercial and single-family residential (0.6 DulAc)
North: Commercial & Single-Family Residential
(0-6 DulAc)
Single-Family Residential (0-6 DulAc)
Single-Family Residential (0-6 DulAc)
Commercial
South:
East
West :
-1-
. HISTORY
In 1949 the subject properties were zoned R-l. In October 1958
and October 1959 the City Council approved a zone change to rezone
the properties from R-l to C-2D (554 Las Tunas) and R-3 Pa~d D.
(536 Las Tunas)
PROPOSAL
If this General Plan Change is approved and the property rezoned to
R-3 the applicant is proposing to construct a l3-unit condominium
development. (See attached application). The applicant states in
his application that "the development of a condominium would provide
a buffer zone between existing commercial and residential properties."
ANALYSIS
It is staff's opinion that:
.
(1) A General Plan Change to Multiple-Family Residential would
result in spot zoning for the subject site;
(2) The possible rezoning to a R-2 or R-3 zone designation would
be inconsistent with the surrounding land use and zoning;
(3) The existing parking overlay acts as a buffer for the resi-
dential properties to the south and east; and
(4) That the construction of Multiple-Family Dwellings may, in
fact, create an overall increase in traffic circulation.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the
proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substan-
tial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the phy-
sical conditions within the area affected by the project including
land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects
of historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends denial of General Plan Change
GP 79-1.
Staff would further recommend that the Planning Commission initiate
proceedings to rezone the property at 536 Las Tunas to R-l with a P
(Parking) overlay. This would allow parking on the site and would
also be consistent with the General Plan designation of Single-Family
Residential (0-6 DulAc).
.
-2-
.
.
.
If the Planning Commission"wishes to approve G.P. 79-1, the Plann-
ing Department recommends that a subsequent Zone Change from C-2D
and PR-3D to R-2 be considered. The R-2 designation would provide
for a better transition from Commercial to Single-Family Residential
than an R-3 Density and would have less of a density impact on ad-
joining properties than the R-3 zone would have. (R-2 zone would
allow a maximum of 11 units on the lot; the R-3 zone would allow
a maximum of 20 units).
-3-
.
.
.
APPLICATION FOR A REOUEST
,TO AMEND '1'IIE GENERAL PLAN
OF '1'IIE CITY OP ARCADIA
Fee: ~v.o6~
&/~7~-1
r~"
G.P. t
Date
Application is hereby made to the Planninq Commission of the City of Arcadia, pursuant
to the provisions of City Council Resolution Number 4439, fcir a publichearinq to
consider the request for an Amendment to the General plan of the City of Arcadia ex-
plained below I
Applicant (property owner)
AuthoriaedAgent (f any)
~: Palrhaven'~v. Co~p.
\
Name:
Mailinq Address: 86<=;6 E. Huntiniton Dr, ,Mailing Address:
San Gabriel. California 91775
// ,.</./ " ' .
/ ~ .~. o-r-.......... .......; . '/~""l'Y~
(SiClpllture! ' / / /
7' ../ ;' v
t/ /
The property hereby requested for review and revision of its present General Plan Land
~/
(Signature)
v
Use Description is situated on the
south
side of Las TunAR Dt'1 VA
Street, between Baldwin A~nue
Street and Bradford Avenue
~~~
~ Las Tunas Drive
street. The street address is
The exact legal description (lot, block, tract, or metes and bounds) of the property illl
Lots 26 and 27, northerly 41 ft. Lot 38, .and northerly 101 ft.
~Lot 39, Tract No. 6641, Book 126, Page No. 67.
.La::9.1k.""'5r C#AV,0F -rn .."w//L,1/{J/F-rAU//;./ ~.o!:::;u-r,t4/
,Land Areal Square Miles
Acres approx1matel~ 1 acre - 41,500 sq. ft.
The above property is shown at the County of Los Angeles Assessor's maps as:
. Book 126 Page 67 Parcel Tract 6641
Book Page Parcel
Book Page Parcel
Book Page Parcel
The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the above property(ies) is:
C-2 commercial and PR-3 parking
r~H ~.IAL-
Submit your reasons for said request in the space provided below:
The subject property is bordered on the sO,uth and east by fully
developed residential properties. Our proposal for the development
of a two-story 13-unit condominium will create a natural buffer and
natural transition of development from the contiguous commercial
properties on the west, and the existing residential properties on
the east and south. It is our opinion that the acceptance of our
proposal for a change in zone from C-2 and PR-3 to accommodate 13
new two-story condominium units will provide better planning than
. exists with the present zoning.
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
(NOTE: When answering these questions please include references to all pertinent
data, statistical information, and studies used in statements and conclusions. An
environmental impact report may be required if the initial study reveals that the
project will have significant environmental effects.)
Does public necessity require the proposed change: Is there a real need in the
community for more of the types of uses permitted by the General Plan Designation
requested than can be accommodated in the areas already General Plan Designated for
such uses? (Fully explain your answers, considering the surrounding property as
'well as the property proposed to be reclassified.)
.
-2-
.
.
.
Is the property involved in the proposed reclassification more suitable for the
purposes permitted in the proposed General Plan Designation than for the purposes
permitted in the present classifications? (Answer cOmpletely; give reasons for
your answer.) ,
Exjsting zoning of the land in question is C-2 and PR~3, said property
having been used as a paved parking area for many years. It is our
opinion that the land will become more productive with a transition
into our proposed 13-unit condominium. The proposed project site will
be improved with open space and landscaping, and will generally improve
the appearance of the neighborhood and create an additional tax' base
for the City.
Little or no foot traffic is noticeable in the adjacent commercially-
developed area due principally to its isolation. Fully developed com-
mercial areas in both the City of Temple City and the City of Arcadia
appear to drain most of the shopping traffic as they are more readily
accessible and offer more diversified office and shopping facilities.
Thus, we can conclude that development of additional commercial ,properties
at this location would be superfluous. This location, if rezoned for
condominium use, provides ~ natural buffer zone and our proposed
(SEE ATTACHED)
WOuld the uses permitted by the proposed General Plan Designation be detrimental in
any way to the surrounding property? (Explain reasons supporting your answer.)
The development of a condominium would provide a buffer zone between
existing commercial and residential prope~~ies. No appreciable amount
of traffic or additional noise will be added to the area. The develop-
ment of this proposed project will undoubtedly enhance the value of
adjacent properties.
What were the original deed restrictions, if any, concerning the type and class of
uses permitted on the property involved? Give the expiration date of these restric-
tions. '(You may attach a copy of these restrictions, after properly underscoring
the portions that are in answer to this question.)
Deed restrictions in essence stipulate the property is to be used
for residential purposes with a minimum of 1200 sq. ft. of floor space
valued at not less than $3500.00. No fences higher than five feet to
be erected within 100 feet of the front yard. No stables or out-
buildings to be erected within 100 feet of any residence.
Restrictions expired on March I, 1961.
-3-
.
.
.
Continuation of answer to first question on page 3:
residential development will provide much needed housing for this
area.
It is the applicant's belief that an R-3 zone will offer an opportunity
for a good residential development.
.
.
.
What are the reasons for initiation of this proposal?
The applicant requests permission to erect a l3-unit condominium.
A portion of the property has zoning commensurate with zoning
required for a condominium; however, one-half of the land must
by necessity be zoned to accommodate our proposed condominium
development.
What are the alternative courses of action?
None
Describe in detail the topography.
The project site 1s relatively flat, sloping gently to the south
approximately 1-1/2 feet.
-4-
.
.
.
Describe the drainage basins, major highways, streets and flood control channels,
etc.
Two secondary arterials are located adjacent to the subject land, Las
Tunas Drive and Duarte Road. There are no drainage basins or flood
control channels wi thin the ,influence of the proposed projec t. The
closest major drainage basin is located approximately two miles easterly
which empties into the Rio Hondo Flood Control Channel.
Estimated POPulation increase in subject area within the next 10 years.
The area has been developed to capacity except for a few isolated
undeveloped lots. Population should remain stable with no appreciable
increase under present zoning.
Estimated increase in dwelling units in the subject area within the next 10 years.
The applicant has located only one vacant lot available for development
within the area of the proposed project.
Estimated increase in commercial activities in the subject area within the next 10
years.
None
-5-
.
.
.
Estimated increase in industrial activities in the subject area within the next
10 years.
None
Describe how your proposal meets the needs of the subject area, including comments
on proposed new services and increases in the level of specific servies (governmen-
tal or non-governmental).
The demand for medium densi.ty housing in this and other "close-in"
areas is rapidly increasing. Diminishing availability of land suitable
for development dictates that to meet these demands for housing, higher
yields must be obtained from property still available for deveJ.C:I'I:lent.
Our proposed project will not create additional drainage problems.
Fire and pOlice protection is already existent and more than capable
of servicing these additional 13 units.
--
Addition~ effluent will be added to the sewage system; however,
advanced planning has already provided for this additional discharge.
Covenants, conditions and restrictions will restrict the occupancy
of any unit to adults with children over 12 years of age; thus, schools
should not be materially affected.
Additional trash pickup will be obtained by private contract.
Our investigation reveals that water and other utilities are available
and have the capability of serving this project with no appreciable
drain on existing facilities.
-6-
. Is the subject site in the collUllunity redevelopment project area?
No
Use this space to make any comments you believe would be pertinent.
.
.
..{../..
./ '7':;
, -'
/
~c,,' "/
/('.t. ~'.' ;e"
l...-'" . . ~
4/8/75
db
-7-
.
- 'I"'I:-c.,
" .' '- I
;; ~1.~AS~1
~."5rATION ": ':'?
~ a-j
80'87
1_ I IJ'
I I
00 I
J. FFICE: I
.r,
-:,,:,
,{:it
l...-l...;" O.
,-.V _, ,
r S~-~~I
~2D
(od,])
is
LAS
o TUNAS
o
237.20 -;S
%.:) (O', 0) (~~)
"'~ ~~
p.~ C' ii
Q
;:)
~ ~
:74 Be' J,
~N () In
..... (' 0:::
"'- ':4 C"'
vO
~ C -2D() '25
?I::' 4C
"'"
. ~.~ P'C-N-SAVE'J I ~ 'f5
..'"
1999q ,
9) ~
'" - .10
,...).)
. ~ J'::
4 ..., V
v, <fJ
,
~ --~
, -
-,
>2:.
157,:;q
o 43 c,~O
( 5' I) () ($47)
1I~,4 B -;S
o.
\al
.4
0
YO
'Z
~
~'
.c(
cO
ej.
- n~,4-1
1"'1. bl
WORKMAN
1I':>,ol!o
" '7~,e,1
<,)'::>-
'cS' ~
II~ -"I
(';t"")
I
~
44
'"
~
0>::2
..0""
",<:0
.."",,
.
PR-IO'
OF ICE'
(';Ol) (.n$)
-;s -;"
(s~ ;0
(E)-I
"7S
"0$41)
,S
e:--: =-J
(S40)
8"7 SO
(5.34)
c'
d)
I
()U)
r-- c.,"
~::- _10.
-;S
(S30)
':8
I U'
I
R-Ij
(.il!!) I (oS;'
so ~S i~
,5
(fI4)
.0
o
,~
o
~o
RI
o
3-:' 3:':-
o
(S2/)
,S
8,,50
rsu)
8-
r:
II~ I ~ R-/
I 10..\ 01 <j
I ~
~J 4S t)
<l!, <)
'"
~O~
("su)
"7S
03
..,
C'
GP7Q-1 LAND U5E ~ ZONING
1':"100/6
SCALE NORTH
.. , ...
, ,
. ;
1':>.00
//
,
.
-8
~
~. <J
, 1,
~ ,1l~ v
I;
~
"
.""-'
lC;,~'
--
()~E, ~.
1)q,~
1..01 38
,
!
____.l_
Loi 3'::>
Ii
/
.I
.. ,
I
9
~ ~~ ~O
'"
'q' ~9- t (,
. N trf .. 1.~
, !) LOT '2. (.,
, LOT '2'1
--
150.00'
~oOlZe -;~ :
, 153 '"
L,&.s TU~) ~S
I" I
-40
I
,
"-
~
I
Stm
'~
,
8
~
r()
J
>
~
,/1'
S'(ISi. LAN'';: USE =
bUTOMOI~I(,.t. PAl2\ClN(i..
~N Tl rzii ~OT
~,C. ~"'I>oJG,
1
],
o
...J
-4
fl),
I
~.;~
Dr2I\/~
.----_. -."--- _.-."
--- -
. - - ,----~--. ~-_.--::-:...- .
- --~
.'~~,_._--- --------, .'.- - ~-_.-.::~'...:....:.;.:.--==-- -
.
OWUE R : r~1 QI-lh.\IE~ DE.v, cO~p.
, e,',"C;~ E .I4U~TIt.JG TO", Df!IVE.
<:.AI>.J GAIa12\1il.. C/H. '11115