HomeMy WebLinkAbout0970
, ,
~ .",
.., '. ...
~,
i
~
.
.
RESOLUTIOll NO. 970
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A
VARIANCE FOR TWO SUBST~IDARD LOTS AT 1220
HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on October 8, 1976, William C. Cracknell filed an
application for division of an existing residential lot, Planning
Department Case No. V-76-5, on property located at 1220 Highland
Oaks Drive, more particularly described as follows:
Part of Lot 9, Block 94, Santa Anita Tract in the City of
Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as
recorded in Book 34, page 41 and 42, ".R., in the office
of the Recorder of said County.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said matter on
.
December 28, 1976, 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. This Commission finds:
1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to
the intended use of the property, that do not apply generally to
the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity.
2. That the granting of such variance could be
materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious
,
to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which
-1-
970
,~
r-
.
.
.
the property is located.
3. That such variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant
possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive general plan.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons, this Commission
denied Variance V-76-5 for a division of one existing residential
lot into two residentialillts which would be substandard in depth.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines, an initial study has
been prepared for the proposed project. The initial study did not
disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse effect on
... the environment. Hence, a Negative Declaration has been approved
and filed.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City
Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was
adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Arcadia held on the 11th day of January, 1977, by the following
yote:
AYES:
Commissioners Huddy, Kuyper, Clark
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
None
Commissioners Hegg, Perlis
Commissioners Coghlan, er
.
A~
~-
Secretary
-2-
970
.
.
.
.
.
December 28, 1976
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROH:
. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: LOT SPLIT L-76-19, ZONE VARIANCE V-76-5
AND MODIFICATION M-76-154
1220 HIGHLN~D OAKS DRIVE
APPLICATION
This application was filed by William C. Cracknell and proposes
to create two lots from one lot at 1220 Highland Oaks Drive.
The applicant is also requesting a zone variance to allow for a
new lot with a depth of 55 feet in lieu of 100 feet required and
a modification in the setback requirement for a proposed two-
story single-family dwelling.
LAND USE AND ZONING
The subject site is zoned R-I and developed with a single-family
dwelling. The adjacent property to the south, east and west is
developed with single-family dwellings and zoned R-I and R-I
12,500. The property to the north is vacant and zoned R-I.
(See attached Land Use and Zoning Map.)
HISTORY
The subject property was divided from the lot to the south
(L-60-16) on June 26, 1960. The existing single-family residence
was constructed in 1968 after Modification M-68-61 was approved.
The aforementioned modification permitted the residence to be
constructed IS feet from the front property line in lieu of
25 feet required in the R-I zone.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to create two lots from one existing
lot with an area of 20,839 square feet. The two new lots would
have the following approximate characteristics:
.
.
L-76-19, V-76-5, ~I- 76 - IS 4 2
.
Average Total
Lot Width Depth Total Area Usable Area
I 14~ ' 78.71' 12,539 sq, ft. 6,112,02 sq. ft.
2 140' 59.29' 8,300 sq. ft. 9,047.53 sq. ft.
.
.
Lots 1 and 2 meet Code requirements in respect to lot width and
area but do not meet the minimum lot depth requirements in the R-I
zone. The proposed lots would have a density of 4.18 dwelling
units per acre which is consistent with the General Plan designa-
tion of 0-6 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant proposes to construct a two-story single-family
residence with 2,172 square feet on proposed Lot 2 (northerly
lot) which would require the following modifications:
I. A modification of the required rear yard setback to 28 feet
in lieu of 35 feet required. The net usable area in the rear
yard is further reduced by a 25-foot wide Flood Control
easement which is fenced and used as an access road by the
Flood Control District, thus resulting in only a 3-foot set-
back for a two-story dwelling. However, the proposed floor
plan is designed to orient the living room toward the
northern side yard which has a setback of 37 feet and, in
effect, becomes a rear yard or private area. The existing
Flood Control wash and right-of-way measures 75 feet in
width (east to west) and constitutes a substantial
separation between the proposed new dwelling and the other
existing homes to the east on Oakglen Avenue.
2, The second modification is for a front yard setback of 11
feet in lieu of 25 feet required for the proposed new
dwelling.
3. The third modification is for a 5-foot high fence in the
front yard in lieu of a 4-foot high fence permitted by Code.
4. The fourth modification is for a new garage which would open
onto the street and have a 12-foot setback in lieu of 20 feet
required by Code.
The existing lot is unique due to the proximity of the Flood
Control Channel. However, staff feels that because of the
proposed lot configuration and setback requirements, there
would be inadequate room for a dwelling which would be consistent
in design with other residential developments in the area. In
the opinion of staff, there is insufficient justification for
a zone variance and/or modification as the property owner has
not been deprived or a substantial property right enjoyed by
other property owners in the same zone or vicinity, nor has it
.
.
L-76-l9, V-76-S, M-76-lS4
3
.
been established that the aforementioned modifications are
needed to secure an appropriate improvement of an existing lot.
Pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial
study for the proposed project (L-76-l9, V-76-S and M-76-lS4).
Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially
substantial adverse change in any of the physical 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 and filed for this project.
Before the City Council takes action on this project, the Council
should "move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and
find that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment."
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends denial of Lot Split L-76-19,
Variance V-76-S and ModificationM-76-IS4.
.
However, should the Planning Commission wish to approve the
aforesaid lot split, variance and modification, staff recommends
the following conditions:
1. Conditions as outlined in the attached report from the
Department of Public Works shall be complied with to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. That this lot split and variance be approved by the City
Counci 1.
3. That Variance V-76-S be granted and that the Commission make
the following findings:
a. That there are exceptipnal or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions applicable to the property
involved, or to the intended use of the property,
that do not apply generally to the property or class
of use in the same zone or vicinity.
b. That the granting of such variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public health or wel-
fare or injurious to the property or improvements
in such zone or vicinity in which the property is
located.
.
c. That such variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant possessed by other property in the same
zone and vicinity.
.
.
.
L-76-19, V-76-5, M-76-I54
4
d. That the granting of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive general plan.
4. That a modification is granted for the following:
a. A modification of the front yard setback to permit a new
two-story dwelling to be constructed 11 feet from the
front property line in lieu of 25 feet required.
b. A modification to permit a 28-foot rear yard for a new
two-story dwelling in lieu of 35 feet required by
Code.
c. A modification to permit a 5-foot high fence in the
front yard in lieu of 4 feet permitted by Code.
d. A modification to permit a new garage to be located
12 feet from the property line in lieu of 20 feet
required by Code.
5. That all plot plans, elevations and floor plans submitted
for building permits substantially comply with the plans
approved as a part of this application.
. 6. That any additional enlargement or either the proposed or
existing dwelling be subject to Planning Commission approval.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,Jh~'W~
JEFFREY F. WITTE
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
JFW/at
Attachments
.
.
.
.
October 20, 1976
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: LOT SPLIT 76-19
1220 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE
The following items should be made conditions of approval of the subject lot split:
1. The preparation and recordation of a parcel map in accordance with the
requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act under the Government Code.
The map shall be submitted to the County Engineer for checking, and after
checking, the County Engineer's letter recommending approval and map
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for map certification. Concurrent
with the map being submitted to the County Engineer for checking, the
applicant should submit a copy of the City's conditional requirements to
enable the County Engineer to check for applicable conditions.
2. Provide the necessary easements for utility lines serving house on
Parcell and crossing Parcel 2.
3. Install 6 inch sewer lateral to property line to serve Parcel 2.
. 4. Address of Parcel 2 to be 1230 Highland Oaks Drive.
5. Fees required:
Final approval fee
Map fee
$25.00
$10.00
$35.00
The above items are to be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works in accordance with applicable provisions of the Arcadia Mumcipal
Code before the final map is recorded.
f'd;tll~
CHESTER N. HOWARD
Director of Public Works
CNH:JD:ms
.
I
!
je
'. :
0'
, ,
~
!
I
!
j
,
,
.
a
I 0
o
3
~
o
.
ci.
o
r (4G) "\
W 0 It 0
..
p g
,-.. 0 0 ~
~ l{j
.;:;,
Co
~ 0 0 l'
'-"
p
~ 0 R-I 0 'i=
~
12,500
c:7
/' 0 0 ~
~ N
v
v
(J' 0 0 0
;:,J
N 0
.:::-
0 185.&\
165.&4
'"'" 0 0 r,;;-
~ ~ 2
0
p ~ ./
"
SYCNv<ORE.
AYE.
rf 0
I
o~
o
o
o
o
\"\G..,.'5
o
R-I 0
o
o ]
O~
o ~
5-'"
11
~
N
v
ao
.
W
~
z
W.
...l
~,
LAND USE It.Z.ON\NG 0
Y-l<D-6 ~
1":100' ~
.,
.
.
".
~
;
,...".,.
/Yf_"",",,"
OL..MlJ6~.
\.U..-mst ~~
I~"'i
1;'~Ll" ';'
--~D ~.
~oeQ.rr.
.
1-
,
,
~
I
-~
ooooo~
~
~ ~
~.f~ 10.1
"!_IO. ...
lollol6f1t,.
-. U'IlJ
'2001:.....---
,
t
,
,
~~.
L_
+
~T r-I /":Y"P I";U. ..I"r
FI 'V.fI,'f:~~d
. 1"'1J>I.. '217t ..,"'
.
.
.
.
.
.
'If' '.',') ',)
I I ..' c..
Cl TY OF ARCAD1A
APPL1CATION FOR ZONE VARll\NCE
TO THE CIT~ PLANN1NG COMMISS10N:
File No.
\ 1- rlt." r-;
1. APPLICANT
NAME C,e""ckNE'~L.. . bV/~LIAH C.
,
ADDRESS /.2~ ~ A//pAL~"'f<;/ O..kJ.
TELEPHONE NUMBER +"y&, - ~?.y.s-
..0"...
.
INTEREST IN PROPERTY
C p;.;VE'tf!!
2 . PROPERT~ OWNER
NAME
SA-h ,.
Q
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED
3.
SA-".., J!!..
PROPERTY ADDRESS
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION .S"~.....,~.... "'~u,??A 7W'Acr h.R. 3"1" ~ ~/ - Y'z
ZJ.Q cA:: ,,?A
(
~pr
c::.::~)L.. .I
=-~,J.:.' ( / '
/, {. ..... ,I
5. DEED RESTRICTIONS
A/b..AI/.:"
,
6. REQUEST:
(Use this space ONLY to state exactly what is intended tor the property
which does not conform with zoning regulations.)
~" .
}IIIB .,~ .L)6~ /N ~N' OP- /~t1 ~ ~.PP7:N
- 1 -
'.
.
.
.
.
7. PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS:
(The LAW REQUIRES that the conditions set forth below
be clearly established before a var~ance ~ be granted.)
EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHEPXIN YOUR CASE CONFORMS TO THESE
FOUR CONDITIONS:
A. That there are except~onal or extraord~nary c~rcumstances or conditions applicable
to the property, involved, or ,to the intended use of the property, that do not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity.
/VA.e~t1W
-
~ el/
B. That,the granting of such variance will not be mater~ally detrimental to the
public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
zone or vicinity.
. .
~~O"Pel't<.7'Y
~/V7;4./1V3
SV~/4'~ r- A-I€.GA
/'d
,t)ee,-~L." pe
.$./ N &J.. e:....
~~/'Y ~/~,8,.v~.t!!!:...
- 2 -
.
.
.
c.
That
rial
zone
.
.
such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
property right of the applicant possessed by other property 1n the
and vicinity.
subs lan-
same
"P',.eo P.P~ 7' ,y c..AM oM p .,
8s.. .pG""'J5Lt:1"PS'~
.
W/;r,;t.I pe- r
Y'Ap:./ANC.~
-
D. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive
general plan. ,
A
~'rN
/i!.P5/'.P$,NT/A ~
O.eV~#P/l?E'Nr
./ S c:;,e,""':S~:$r"", "'r-
e"'''''''~AI~SI''''.s..
G:.s.v.e"'~ L
PLAN
.
- 3 -
.
.
.
.
8.
APPL1CANT'S VER1FICAT10N
Executed in the City of
.
County of
State of California, this
day of
, 19
1 HEREBY CERTIFY (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
information is true and correct.
TELEPHONE NO. ~~~ 3-7YJ
TELEPHONE NO.
RECEIVED BY
'~~ C (J. A 4'~-tl~~~
'.,Signature of Applicant
ADDRESS,
Signature of Property OWner
ADDRESS,
RECEIPT NUMBER
DATE
- 4 -