Loading...
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