HomeMy WebLinkAbout0952
..
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 952
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING DENIAL
OF A PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN
FOR THE "ANOAKIA PROPERTY."
WHEREAS, on August 24, 1976, at the request of Lowry B.
McCaslin, a public hearing was held on the proposal to amend the
General Plan designation of Single Family Residential 0-2 dwelling
units per acre to Single Family Residential 0-4 dwelling units per
acre relating to the Anoakia Property, more particularly described
as follows:
, .\
Beginning at the intersection of the West Line of
Baldwin Avenue (80 feet wide) with the North Line
of Foothill Boulevard (80 feet wide); thence
westerly along said North Line 1,049.26 feet;
thence N. 1017'40" W. 770.56 feet; thence
N. 88041' E. to said West Line; thence southerly
thereon to point of beginning (19.13 acres).
WHEREAS, all interested persons were given full opportunity
to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
makes the following findings and recommendation:
SECTION 1. This Commission finds that there has been no
substantial change in this area since the General Plan's adoption
in 1972; that the applicant has not shown that the property could
not be developed under the existing General Plan designation; and
that the applicant has presented no evidence to warrant the proposed
"
change. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends to the
City Coupcil that said General Plan-not be amended.
SECTION 2. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption
-1-
952
e
e
. 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 14th day of September, 1976, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Coghlan, Hegg, Huddy, Kuyper,
perlis, Reiter, Clark '
NOES: NOne
ABSENT: None
~Z/d ~~
~ /S-'
/ ~'?".~
/ Chairman
ATTEST:
jdIM~/__
Secretary
-2-
952
.
.
.
.
.
August 24, 1976
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT G,P. 75-4
ANOAKIA PROPERTY
APPLICATION
This application was filed on June 23, 1975 by Mr. Lowry B.
McCaslin, the owner of the Anoakia property.
The applicant is requesting that the existing General Plan
designation of Single-Family Residential 0-2 dwelling units
per acre be changed to Single-Family Residential 0-4 dwelling
units per acre, _
The ~lanning Department did not initiate a zone change to
amend the existing R-l zone classification to an R-O 30,000
zone classification (which would be consistent with the
existing General Plan designation of the subject property)
,because of the filing of this application.
If the decision is made to change the General Plan designation
to that requested by the applicant, a subsequent zone change
would be required to provide for consistency between the
General Plan and the zoning of the subject site.
If the decision is made to change the General Plan designation
to a designation other than that requested by the applicant,
or if the decision is made to leave the existing General Plan
designation as is, then the Planning Department would subse-
quently initiate a zone change to change the existing R-l zone
classification to a zone classification which would p~ovide
for consistency between the General Plan and the zoning.
The approval or denial of the requested change would not
directly affect the use of the existing school or the use of
the existing house as a private club. Both of these uses are
permitted on a conditional use permit basis in any residential
zone. In addition the private school is an existing legal
, . ,.
. : ., ~
.
.
.
.
.
G.P. 75-4
2
nonconforming use, which is allowed to remain. (Expansion with-
out a conditional use permit is not permitted.)
The approval or denial of the requested General Plan change
would not necessarily result in the retention of the existing
house, other structures, walls or vegetation.
No specific plan is under consideration at this time. Any
future development need only comply with the applicable General
Plan, zoning and subdivision regulations.
The primary issue which should be addressed is whether the
maximum unit density of the subject site should be four dwell-
ing units per acre, or should remain at two dwelling units
per acre.
HISTORY OF APPLICATION
The original application for a General Plan change on the
Anoakia property was filed on June 23, 1975 by Mr. McCaslin.
This application was for a change in the existing Arcadia General
Plan from Single-Family Residential 0-2 dwelling units per
acre t~ Single-Family Residential 0-6 dwelling units per acre.
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this application
by Westec Services, Inc., and a public hearing was scheduled
by the Planning Commission for January 13, 1976. However, due
to the unforeseen problems with the published legal notice, the
Planning Commission's public hearing was rescheduled for
February 10, 1976.
Mr. McCaslin subsequently informed the Planning Department, in
his letter of January 27, 1976, that he in tended to amend, his
General Plan application and requested a time extension of
three months. The Planning Commission at its regular meeting
of January 27, 1976 approved a 45-day time extension to
March 23, 1976.
The applicant requested a second time extension on March 3, 1976
to allow for adequate time for the applicant to meet with the
local homeowners' associations. The Planning Commission
considered this request and granted a time extension to May 25,
1976.
On May 11, 1976, Mr. McCaslin submitted a revised proposal for
a General Plan designation of Single-Family Residential 0-4
dwelling units per acre in lieu of his previous application for
Single-Family Residential 0-6 dwelling units per acre. The
City Council on June 15, 1976 set September 21, 1976 as a dead"
line for a Planning Commission hearing.
.
.
.,
.
.
G.P. 75-4
3
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
The subject site and properties to the north and west were
designated as Single-Family Residential 0-2 dwelling units per
acre in the City's General Plan which was adopted in March 1972.
At the time (February 3, 1971) the General Plan was under
consideration by the Planning Commission, the Commission
specifically studied the Anoakia area and concluded that uses
within said area should be compatible with the adjacent
residential areas.
The properties to the east, south and southwest of the
subject site are designated as Single-Family Residential
0-4 dwelling units per acre in the City's General Plan.
The properties southeast of the subject site are designated as
Single-Family Residential 0-6 dwelling units per acre in the
City's General Plan,
DIMENSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TIlE SUBJECT SITE
The subject site is located within the City of Arcadia at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Baldwin Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard and contains a total of 19,13 acres,
The subject site
(north-south) of
of 1,075 feet.
The subject site has approximately 754 feet of street frontage
along Baldwin Avenue and 1,051 feet of street frontage along
Foothill Boulevard,
is nearly rectangular with an average width
770 feet, and an average depth (east-west)
Anoakia Lane (a cul-de-sac street extending westerly from
Baldwin Avenue) runs along most of the northerly property line
of the subject site. The subject site has approximately 950
feet of street frontage along Anoakia Lane,
An open flood control channel, 10 feet in width, extends in a
north-south direction through the westerly portion of the
subject site.
.
.
.
.
.
G.P. 75-4
4
LAND USE AND ZONING OF SUBJECT SITE
The subject site is zoned R-l and developed with a private
primary school and a single-family residence with several
separate additional living quarters for caretakers, etc.
The subject site was automatically placed in the R-l zone
classification upon its annexation to the City of Arcadia in
August 1975.
LAND USE AND ZONING OF ADJOINING AREAS
The properties directly north and west of the subject site
are zoned R-l and developed with single-family homes. These
properties were also automatically placed in the R-l zone
classification along with their annexation to the City of
Arcadia in August 1975. '
The Planning Department has withheld a consideration of the
rezoning of these properties (to bring them into consistency
with the General Plan) pending the outcome of this application.
With the exception of the aforementioned R-l properties, the
remainder of the properties to the north and west are zoned
R-O D 30,000 or R-O 15,000 (single-family residential with a
minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet,
respectively). '
The properties to the east of the subject site are zoned R-O
15,000 and are developed with single-family homes.
The properties southeast of the subject site are zoned R-l and
developed with single-family homes or are vacant.
The properties south and southwest of the subject site are
zoned R-l 10,000 (single-family residential with a minimum lot
size of 10,000 square feet) and are developed with single-
family homes.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Environmental Impact Report prepared by Westec indicated
both the positive and negative effects of the proposed General
Plan change and subsequent planned development. None of the
negative effects are considered by the Planning Department to
constitute a substantial adverse impact upon the environment.
.
.
G.P. 75-4
5
.
The impacts of any single-family residential development would
be essentially the same.
No specific development plan is under consideration as a part
of the requested General Plan change,
ANALYSIS
The following table lists the existing zoncclassifications
which would be consistent with a General Plan designation of
Single-Family Residential 0-4 dwelling units per acre, the
approximate maximum number of dwelling units per acre possible
under each zoning classification through both a conventional
subdivision and a residential planned development.
Conventional Residential Planned
Subdivision Development
Maximum Dwelling Maximum Dwelling
Zone Units Units/Acre Units Units/Acre
R-l 10,.000 62 3.2 70,8 3.7
. R-l 12,500 54 2.8 56.7 3.0
R-O 12,500 51 2.7 56.7 3.0
R-O 15,000 43 2.3 47.2 2.5
R-O 30,000 24 1.3 23.6 1.2
.
.
.
.
G.P. 75-4
6
The following map illustrates the number of dwelling units
per net (not including streets) acre for areas adjacent to the
subject site.
ORANGE GROVE
AREA I ~ AREA 2
~ ~
Cl
z 1.28 du lac. ...J 2.06 du/ac.
::; <f
..J CD
i:
u
. ~ FOOTHILL
2.94 du/ac. I
AREA 3 3.28 dulac, ,
FOOTHILL FRWY.
As illustrated on the map, the subject site is bordered on all
sides by developed areas which are substantially less dense than
that which would be consistent with the maximum development of
the subject site under the proposed General Plan designation.
.
.
.
.
G.P. 75-4
7
The following map illustrates the average net lot areas for the
areas adjacent to the subject site.
ORANGE GROVE
AREAl 6 ABEA2
;3 33,925 P ~ 21,168"
z i
-l
-l
:f
u
~ FOOTHILL
AREA 3 I 3,299 PI 14,798cf1 I
I
,
.
(
FOOTHILL FRWY.
As illustrated on the map, the subject site is bordered on all
sides by developed lots which are substantially larger than
than which would be consistent with the maximum development
of the subject site under the proposed General Plan designation.
In the Upper Rancho area (0-2 dwelling units per acre), the
assessed land value is approximately $.27 per square foot. In
the Santa Anita Oaks area (0-4 dwelling units per acre), the
assessed land value is approximately $.36 per square foot. In
the Village area (0-6 dwelling units per acre), the assessed
land value is approximately $.43 per square foot. '
.
However, because larger lots are generally developed with more
improvements and amenities (i.e., larger houses, pools, etc.),
the total land and improvement values per square foot tend to
become equalized. In the Upper Rancho area, the assessed land
and improvement value is approximately $,72 per square foot.
In the Santa Anita Oaks area, the assessed land and improvement
value is approximately $.76 per,square foot. In the Village
area, the assessed land and improvement value is approximately
$.74 per square foot.
.
.
.
.
.
G.P. 75-4
8
Therefore, the amount of property taxes which may be derived
by the City are nearly equal on a square foot basis from each
of the aforementioned areas.
The Planning DepRrtment does not believe that the eventual
development of the subject site at a density of 0-2, 0-4 or 0-6
dwelling units per acre would result in any significant differences
in property tax revenues.
Attached are examples of conventional subdivisions of the
subject site which illustrate its potential development under
both the existing General Plan designation (Plan A) and the
proposed General Plan designation (Plans B-E).
The portion of Arcadia north of Foothill Boulevard and west of
Santa Anita Avenue has historically been an area of large lots.
These large lots have generally been developed with large
single-family homes.
This area has an identifiabla character created by the visual
image of the area: the street lighting, oak trees, absence
of sidewalks, large front yards and large homes contribute to
this character.
If the General Plan designation were changed to Single-Family
Residential 0-4 dwelling units per acre said designation would
be the same as the residential areas east and south of the
subject site. However, the subsequent development of the
subject site at a density of four dwelling units would be
substantailly greater than the existing dwelling unit density
of said adjoining areas.
Becasue of the existing pattern of development and the quality
of said development in the adjoining areas, no resubdivision
or redevelopment which might result in an increase in dwelling
unit density is foreseeable.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends that the existing General
Plan designation of Single-Family Residential o-z dwelling units
per acre not be changed.
The retention of the existing General Plan designation would
provide for a maximum dwelling unit density which would be the
.
.
'.
~"
.
.
G. P. 75- 4
most compatible and consistent with the existing adjoining
residential area.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WI LLIAM WOOLARD
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
WW/at
Attachments
9
.
\ \ '
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
.
.
HAMPTON
RD.
w
~
.
.
.
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
RD.
HAMPTON
\ \
\ \
\\
--
\\
. . \\ ('
.)
. ANOAKIA LANE
r-- \ .
I ' \
! \ I
Y
I \'
I ,
I \
\\
;
I \\
I \ \
I \ \ z
i ~
0
i \ -l
I \ ~
I
I 1 ~
1 ,
I I I
! \ \
.
FOOTHILL
BLVD.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
SINGLE FAMILY RES.
O~4 DU's/ACRE
62 LOTS -11,G2.41lf AVG. LOT SIZE
I": 200' ~ PLAN B
. N
\ \
\~
, "
,
.
w
~
. .;"':-~
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
SINGLE FAMILY RES.
. 0-4 DU's/ACRE
. 5"-1 LOTS-I2..1'1SIdAVG. LOT SIZE
I": 200' ~ PLAN C
N
.
.
!{e.
. \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
HAMPTON
RD.
ANOAKIA
LANE
\
,
,
\\
\.
\\
\ \ I
1\ -~
I 1
\ \
.
FOOTHILL
BLVD.
\ \
~
, '
,
.
w
~
.;:"'
z
~
o
-l
~
.
.
.
\ \ .
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
I
I
I
I
I
FOOTHILL
.
.
HAMPTON
RD.
ANOAKIA
LANE
\ I.
\'~, I
\ .
\\
\\.
\\
\ \ .
\ I
\ \ ~
\ , \
I I \
BLVD.
\ \
'~,
, ,
,
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
SINGLE FAMILY RES.
. 0-4 DU's/ACRE
51 LOTS-\~05GI5AVG. LOT SIZE
1"=200' ~ PLAN D'
N
z
~
o
-l
~
w
~
.;:",.
~
.
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
.
FOOTHILL
.
.
HAMPTON
\ \
'~
, '
,
.
RD.
ANOAKIA
LANE
BLVD.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
SINGLE FAMILY RES.
0-4 DU'sl ACRE
. 4~ LOTS-l"5,BI2stAVG.LOT SIZE
1"=200' ~ PLAN E
N
w
~
}
.;,:..
z
~
9
~
.
.
.
.
.
, ....."".,FT~.l'"\I
.~~. .... .
AlIG 0 n7b
(I i Y OV AF:c.;..\q'^
: ' "Mt<1!t-1G DEPr.
MrS. Florence Knerr
291 west Foothill
Arcadia, california 9~006
August 9, 1976
Planning commission In re:
Ci ty of Arcadia
california 91006
Request for General
plan change of the
Anoakia Area.
Dear Commissioners,
During the thoughtful study period of the diligent preparation of Arcadia's
excellent General plan, which was adopted in 1972, the city'.s Planning Comm-
ission did give consideration to the Anoakia area, the planning commission
felt it should be developed in a consistant manner with the area, and so
specified 0-2 du ac.
In 1975, when LAFCO granted annexation of the Anoakia area to the city of
Arcadia, one factor in determining this consent was the consistancy of the
said area to that portion of the city surrounding it. This request for a
change does not seem to be a rational progression for the city of Arcadia to
to first accept the annexation and then change the consistancy of the manner
of developement in this area.
our excellent General plan has withstood a test of time, in as much as the
actual exercise of this instrument has proven it to be most significantly
s ucces s ful.
Any change in our excellent Genralplan must not be undertaken lightly. In
acknowledgewent, this Commission has exhibited a sincere deliberation in
this regard, as per planning commission Meeting of February 24, 1976, in it's
recommendation for denial of a General plan change request in the same area.
Most of us who have chosen to live in this distinguished city have done so
for many reasons. One of which is the fact of the consistacy and stability
of the residential integrity of Arcadia. Most of us have been Arcadia res-
idents for many years. The applicant does not choose to live in Arcadia,
however the applicant. by his requestfor a General plan change, would wish
to change the consistancy and stability of our residential integrity.
Additionally, it is my genuine belief, the applicant has failed to demonstrate
any need for a change in that area or any need for a change in our Excellent
General Plan. In the applicant's failure to produce evidence of any fundamen~
tal change in this area, there is only one lawful act10n available.
.
.
.
.
.
'!\ "'" /> ,.. I ,. -_
;'" r.. I,. !~'.., " l' 0
AlJG DIe/If!
;-n i ()f" ^f~( ",AU'A
~'.. ~""N1~G DEPT.
Hence, it is with exigency that I most courteously petition the Planning
Commission to dutifully recommend denial of this request for a General plan
change for the Anoakia area to.the city Council.
Further, I beseech the city of Arcadia to safeguard the preservation of our
excellent General plan, and to be ever mindful of the essentials upon which
it was founded.
Most solemnly,
~it~av