HomeMy WebLinkAbout0951
r; ;
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTIon NO. 951
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING A CHANGE
IN THE GENERAL PLAN RELATING TO PROPERTY
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAS TUNAS DRIVE BETWEEN
EL MONTE AVENUE AND THE ARCADIA WASH.
WHEREAS, public hearin~were held on July 27 and August 10,
1976 for the purpose of considering changing the General Plan
on certain property located at the northeast corner of Las Tunas
Drive and El Monte Avenue and 151 and 159 Las Tunas Drive which is
shown on the General Plan as Commercial; and
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 RECOMMENDATION AND FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That said property shown in the General Plan
as Commercial should be reclassifed and shown as Single-Family
Residential 0-6 dwelling units per acre.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds that said properties
are not conducive to commercial development; that the existing
residences at 151 and 159 Las Tunas Drive are compatible with proper-
ties to the north and are consistent with the proposed designation;
that traffic counts and noise level studies indicate no significant
difference between the subject site and the residential area to the
west on Las Tunas; that the Arcadia Wash ~orms a natural boundary
between the subject site and the commercial properties to the east;
and that the public convenience, necessity and welfare justify the
proposed change.
-1-
951
r
.
.
.
.
.
SECTION 3. 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 24th day of August, 1976, by the
following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Hegg, Huddy, Kuyper, Perlis,
Reiter, Clark
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Coghlan
<~-~
Chairman
ATTEST: ,
~~//
-2-
951
.
.
.
.
.
August 10, 1976
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CHANGE G.P. 76-5
LAS TUNAS DRIVE BETWEEN
EL MONTE AVENUE AND THE ARCADIA WASH
The public hearing was continued from the July 13 meeting.
APPLICATION
An application was filed on June 24, 1976 by John Marshall
which requests a General Plan change from Commercial to Single
Family Residential 0-6 dwelling units per acre at the northeast
corner of El Monte Avenue and Las Tunas'Drive, The Planning
Department is including the properties at 151 and 159 Las Tunas
Drive with this request.
LAND USE AND ZONING
The subject site contains three lots zoned C-O (Professional
Office). Two of the lots are developed with single-family
dwellings and the third lot located on the corner is vacant,
Properties to the east are separated from the subject site by
the Arcadia Wash. These properties are zoned c-o and developed
with a preschool, office uses and residential dwellings.
Properties to the south across Las Tunas Drive are zoned c-l
and developed with a bowling alley and neighborhood shopping
center. Properties to the west and north are zoned R-l and
developed with single-family dwellings, (See attached Land
Use and Zoning Map.)
HISTORY
The subject site was zoned R-l in 1940, The houses at 151 and
159 Las Tunas were constructed in 1947. An addition was made to
the house at 159 Las Tunas in 1961, In 1949, the properties
were'rezoned to R-3. Ordinance 986 adopted in 1957 reclassified
the property to c-o & D, One of the conditions of the design
overlay was to restrict building height to l~ stories,
Ordinance 1307 adopted in 1965 reclassified the property to c-O.
No development has taken place on the subject site since the
construction of homes in 1947,
.
.
.
G.P. 76-5
2
On June 8, 1976, the Planning Commission denied Lot Split L-76-4
and Variance V-76-3 requesting four substandard lots on the
vacant corner property, At the same meeting, the Commission
tabled C.U.P. 76-11 requesting to construct a duplex on each of
the new lots. The Planning Commission in its denial noted that
"if the property was not suitable for Commercial then the General
Plan should be chl1nged."
TRAFFIC COUNTS AND NOISE STUDY
Las Tunas is designated on the General Plan as a major arterial.
The Planning Department reviewed traffic counts and noise
studies to ascertain if there were any significant differences
between the subject site which is across the street from
commercial uses and the residential area west of El Monte on Las
Tunas. The following are the results:
Traffic Counts (one 24-hour time period)
December 1959 Las Tunas, east of Baldwin 12,301
December 1962 Las Tunas, east of El Monte 13,661
December 1964- Las Tunas, east of Baldwin 14,407
January 1976 Las Tunas, east of Baldwin 13,374
. March 1976 Las Tunas, east of El Monte 13,982
Noise Study
The noise contour map prepared by Olson Laboratories for the
Noise Element indicated the average CNEL* level on Las Tunas
Drive as 65 dBA.
Staff conducted sound readings at the subject site and at the
residentially developed area west of El Monte Avenue with the
following results:
Subject Site:
9:10 a.m. 7/30/76 range 55-80+ dBA
65-68 dBA normal traffic
maXImum 80+ dBA heavy trucks
and buses
4:00 p.m. 7/30/76 range 55-80+ dBA
65 dBA normal traffic
9:50 p.m. 8/2/76 range 51-80+ dBA
64-66 dBA normal traffic
Residential Area West of El Monte:
.
9:20 a.m. 7/30/76
(249 Las Tunas)
range 55-82+ dBA
63 dBA normal traffic
*Weighting factor placed on two time periods - evening 7-10, p.m.
and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
.
.
. G.P. 76-5 3
4:15 p.m. 7/30/76 range 55-80+ dBA
(243 Las Tunas) 60 dBA normal traffic
10:00 p.m, 8/2/76 range 51-80+ dBA
(229 Las Tunas) 65 dBA normal traffic
As the traffic counts
significant difference
levels for the subject
and sound readings indicate, there is no
between the traffic volumes and noise
site and the residential area to the west.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant, John Marshall, is requesting a General Plan
change from Commercial to Single Family Residential 0-6 dwelling
units per acre on 31,706 square feet of vacant property. The
Planning Department is including in the requested General Plan
change the properties at 151 and 159 Las Tunas which have an
approximate total area of 16,164 square feet and are developed
with single-family dwellings.
.
If the proposed General Plan change is approved and a subsequent
zone change initiated which is consistent with the area to the
north, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the vacant lot
into four parcels and construct single-family residences.
The requested change would be consistent with the General Plan
designation on the properties to the southwest, west and north
which is Single Family Residential 0-4 and 0-6 dwelling units
per acre. Properties to the east and south are shown on the
General Plan as Commercial.
The Arcadia Wash, which is adjacent to the property at lSl Las
Tunas, would serve as a natural boundary to the commercial
properties to the east.
.
The subject site as it exists could be developed with a three-
story office building constructed within 10 feet of the northerly
property line (see attachment "A").
The Planning Department believes that the requested General Plan
designation of Single Family Residential conforms with the
surrounding properties to the north and west and would permit
development of the vacant site which would be consistent with
adjoining properties, Studies show that traffic volume and noise
levels are not significantly greater at this location than
properties west of this site. Staff also believes that there
is adequate vacant commercial property in the City that is more
appropriate for commercial development than the subject site.
If the Planning Commission does not determine that a General
Plan designation of Single Family Residential is appropriate
.
.
.
.
.
G.P. 76-5
4
for this site and retains the Commercial designation, the
Commission should consider initiating proceedings for establish-
ing a design overlay on the property in order to minimize the
potential impact on adjoining residential properties to the; ,
north.
Staff does not recommend changing the General Plan on portions
of the subject area which would result in an incompatible
juxtaposition of land uses.
Pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the Planning Department reviewed the proposed
General Plan change and determined that the proposal would not
have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration has been prepared and filed for this application.
The City Council in its approval or denial of the proposed
General Plan change must make the determination that the proposed
change would or would not have a substantial adverse impact on
the environment,
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends approval of General Plan change
G.P. 76-5 from Commercial to Single Family Residential 0-4
dwelling units per acre.
DONNA L. BUTLER
ASSISTANT PLANNER
DLB/at
Attachments
.
(/{.:5)
A./, 7
. WooORUFF A VENtlE
118~ ,3 ,$8
(lOo) (172./ (/{.{.}f.J C/6C.J
0 0 0 0 I
~, 0 01 0
"-
: ':JII.J (zO/) I
80 I
/i'-I
79,ZS 7',25 7'.Z5 79,33 8z.041
(;..tt>) aoaJ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
) (77)
,
, SANORA AVENt/L'
,
lOXI
(14.9)
68,6"1
9!\.,
( "lB
)>
'J\) 0
()
)>
"
)>
0"
,~ (145)
809
lISf) 118M '3 63,01 0 109,4'8 85.5;
0: 07~) I (/70) 1 (/(,8) t (;/,I,/) (/68) ("<..,g
010 10 10 0 0"
I ' I ' "
L I . I-
I /(J/ I
. I I I
I
~ I
@ 0 ~ ~-
~ ~
(j4l)
~
LAS Tr....NK3 <( DRNE
,]0.0/ (Zoo) ~
'2/~) I ~
0 I ~
I
I ~
8-/L FIN
--- &-
317
(/88)
----
c-/
I
I HM/(Er lZJWN
I
llANO USE IWD
IZON,wG
I
I GP 16-5
I' ' -
I JI/#/()O' &P/1~
tI/J '
I
I
(/~)
.BOWL./NcJ ALLEY
o
o
~
~
- -1
--
_-1"- 125 I
'-71/. 88 !
1,\ 1-5'
.
;>"0;>-7 ,.....
s.r. "65/PeN{:E
J
s. r. RESIPE/'KE
.
.
/59 JAS TUNAS
OF,/C4. ~.
/1}.
/'fAX/HUH 8fI/J.O/NG. SGi~()}./
/d~ ~STPAlA$
CO/'{HEIi::IAL
OFFICE
/JLOG,
,
III
PI
I~
l'ft>A4r.;. /_
HINIIf{/H SJAW/NS %I"AlitA710N
L oolV'!f' NOW i'mI'! i4s Mvs-,
J%I"''?!J /lI7e
'A"
.
.
.
.
.
(
~
.'
APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST
TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
Fee: $300.00
G.P. II
'7 t;> - )'
~/r.>LI// 7h
Date
Application is hereby made to the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, pursuant
to the provisions of City Council Resolution Number 4439, for a public hearing to
consider the request for an Amendment to the General Plan of the City of Arcadia ex.,
plained below:
Applicant (property owner)
AuthorizedAgent(f any)
Name!
John Marshall
Bud Heck
Name:
Mailing Address: 5926 N. Temple City. ,Mailing Address: 6841 N. Lotus
Blvd.. Temple City, Calif. 91780 San Gabriel, Calif. 91775
y~
;..... (Signature)'
(Signature) ,
The property hereby requested for review and revision of its present General Plan Land
Dse' Description is situated on the,
side of LaB TunAs
N
, Street, between East Corner
~"&OO-aAQ. at El Monte Ave.
Street, ,The street address is
Vacant ~arcel
The exact legal description (lot, block, tract, or metes and bounds) of the property is
The south 150 feet of that portion of Lot 67. Santa Anita Colony.
in the City of Arcadia, as per map recorded in Book 42 P~e 87
of Miscellaneous Recorda, in the office of the County ~ecorder of
said C~unty, lying West of the West line of land conveyed to Reuben.
V.Senior, DY deed recorded in Book 4854 P~e 152. of Deeds, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County.
/i1 ..5I'"q~~ _rA-~ /?-L.. d,,/dC
Land Areal Square ,Miles
Acres
.
.
The above property is shown at the County of. Los Angeles Assessor's maps as.
. Book Page Parcel
,
Book Page Parcel
Book Page Parcel
Book Page Parcel
The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the above property(iee) iSI
c.o. for Professional Offioe
Submit your reasons f~r said request in the space provided below: '
The subject property is basically located in a residential
district. At the present time, the north, east and west sides
are aU being used as single famllyresidences,.
.
.
'.
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
(NOTE: When answering these questions please include references to all pertinent
,data, $tatistical inrorrnation, and studies used in statements and conclusions. An
environmental impact report may be required if the initial study reveals that,the
project will have significant environmental effects.) .
Does public necessity require the proposed change: Is there a real need in the
cownunity for more of the types of uses permitted by the General Plan Designation
requested than can be accommodated in the areas already General Plan Designated for
euch'u$es? (Fully explain your answers, considering the surrounding property as
well a$ the property proposed to be reclassified.)
',I feel that public necessity does require the proposed change.
(4) s1ngle family residenoes or duplexes would detinitelybe less
impact on the area than a (3) story offioe building. The trend
in professional offioe sites is not moving in this partioular
, direotion. :
:.
-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.)
The subject property is basically in an R-l zone. I cannot
imagine a 3-story office building setting 10' from the north
property line. The property owners on 'Sandra adjacent to the
s1te should be proteoted from any suoh ooouranoe.
:1 .
Would the uses permitted by the proposed General Plan Designation be detrimental in '
any way to the surrounding propertr? (Explain reasons supporting your answer.)
The uses proposed would ,have less impaot on the area. The only
two propert1esthat would be affeoted would be d1reotly to the
east. Neither of these properties have been oonverted to office
usage. The wash seems to have created a natural barrier. These
'two part1cular properties are definitely more valuable as houses
than offioe sites.
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 Uhderscorinq
the portions that are in answer to this question.) ,
The Preliminary Title Report does not disclose any ,deed restriot1ons.
-3-
..
.
.,
~
'----..
. What are the reasons for initiation of this proposal?
.
.
The reasons are to change the zoning to a more suitable usage
that is homogeno?s with the adjacent properties.
What are the alternative courses of action?
,This particular,piece of property could be sub-divided into three
10,000 square foot foot C.O. zone lots. This would 'create legally
three office sites. At this time, we do nbt recommend any alter-
nate courses of action unless the planning commission would
oonsider a oonditional use permit for the sites. '
.
Describe in detail the topography.
The topography is flat.
"
.
.
.
"
.
.
Describe the drainage basins, major highways, streets and flood control channels,
etc.
, The property is located on the northeast corner of Las Tunas and
El Monte Ave. It has 317' on Las Tunas and 100' on El Monte Ave.
It is three properties west ,of the Aroad1a wash.
"
Estimated population increase in subject area within the next 10 years.
If four duplexes aregranted.e1ght families. If four single
family residenoes are ~ranted. it would only be four families~
The area is almost 100~ developed.
'.
Estimated increase in dwelling units in the subject area within the' next 10 years.
Very few vaoant sites are available for new dwelling units.
, Estimated increase in commercial activities in the subject a~ea within the next 10
years.
The basio commercial
and on Live Oak Ave.
present 'time.
activity is on the south side of Las Tunas
Most of the sites are being used at the
"'5-
.
.
.
" ,
e-
e
Estimated increase in industrial activities in the subject area within the next
10 years. '
,
None.
Pescribe how your proposal meets the needs, of the subject area; including comments
on proposed new services and increases in the level of,specific-servies (govarnmen-
tat 'or non-governmental).
Arcadia is mainly a residential community. I believe that this
particular site was zoned for commercial office to act as a buffer
zone for the residents on Sandra. Most of the north side of Las
Tunas for the length of Sandra is zoned professional office.
The houses east of the wash have not been torn down and new offioe
buildings erected, but have been oonverted to office usage. They
are still I-story single family structures used as offices with
no direot affeot on the environment or the residents on Sandra.
We believe that our proposal would eliminate forever the possibility
of any high risastruotures being built in this are~.
.
-6-
. '
.
.
. ' ,Is the subject site in the commWlityredevelopment project area?
No.
,Use this space to make any comments you believe would be pertinent.
.
The question is not "why the general plan change", but,
why not? R-l or R-2 usage is definitely a better buffer
zone for the area than professionaloffioe. The demand
for professional office sites in Arcadia does not seem to
be in this partioular area or direction. This .particular
site has been available to the public for a number of years.
The people that Build offioe buildings liDo Notll ereot, them .
in a residential community. '
.
, ,
,
4/13/75
db
-7-