Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1022 , ; . RESOLUTION NO. l022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AT 250 WEST COLORADO BLVD. WHEREAS, on September 30, 1977, an application was filed by Sta-Jo, Inc., to consider changing the General Plan on certain property located at 250 West Colorado Blvd., which is shown on the General Plan as Commercial, to M~ltiple Family Residential 7+ dwelling units per acre: and ~AS, on October 25, 1977 and November 8, 1977, public hearings were 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 l. 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 this is a unique piece of property, not suitable for a residential development; that it has an irregular configuration and is bordered by a major and a secondary arterial; that there has not been a significant change in the surrounding land use which would justify said request; and that said change would be detrimental to the public health and welfare and injurious to th~ property or improvements in such vicinity. SECTION 3. For the foregoing reasons, this Commission recommends to the City Council denial of this General Plan change. -1- l022 . . . " 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 22nd day of November, 1977, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Brink, Clark, Hegg, Huddy, Kuyper, Sargis None Commissioner Perlis ABSENT: None ATTEST: Secretary Wvf~ Chaiman ~ -2- 1022 . :-lovember 8, 1977 TO: FROM: CASE NO.: PREPARED BY: CITY OF ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERAL PLAN CHANGE G.P. 77-4 DONNA L. BUTLER ASSISTANT PLN~NER GENERAL INFORMATION . APPLI CANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: 51 ZE: FRONTAGE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: . Sta-Jo, Inc. 250 West Colorado Boulevard To change the General Plan from a Commercial General Plan designation to Multiple Family Residential 7+ dwelling units per acre. The site is vacant and zoned R-3. 34,526 square feet 255.12 feet on Colorado Blvd. 345.26 feet on Colorado Place North: A planned unit development, apartments zoned R-l and R-3 South: Race track parking -- zoned R-l East: Santa Anita Church Village and Santa Anita Church -- zoned R-3 West: Race track parking lot -- zoned R-l G.P. 77-4 2 . GENERAL PLAN: Subject North: South: East: West: Site: Commercial Single Family Residential 0-6 du/ac Horse racing Commercial Horse racing HISTORY In 194~ a variance was granted for a drive-in restaurant on the subject site which was zoned R-3. In 1954, Variance V-54-ll was granted to allow an addition to the building. In 1955, Variance V-55-5 was granted permitting the construction and operation of a service station on the site. In February 1966, the service station was demolished. This site has been zoned R-3 since 1948. SPECIAL INFORMATION . During the City Council's considerations of the General Plan in November 1971, it was the consensus of the Council that there be "no change in the underlying zoning. Area to remain R-3 with thrust toward a conditionally planned commercial development with hotel/motel complex and professional offices in mind." . In 1974, a Planning Commission study of the area recommended to "retain Planned Commercial designation on General Plan -- develop a Planned Commercial zone, change R-3 zoning to Planned Commercial zone." In June 1977, the Redevelopment Concept Plan prepared by Lew Pollard recommended that "the properties generally bounded by Colorado Blvd. on the north, Arcadia Wash on the east, San Juan Drive on the south and Colorado Place on the west which are currently designated as Commercial have been placed in the Multiple Family designation (on the Concept Plan). The general character of this area which is contiguous to a quality residential area seems more compatible with the proposed Multiple Family designation." MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION . Setbacks: There is a 35-foot special setback along Colorado Place and Colorado Blvd. This would result in a 13,225 square G.P. 77-4 3 . foot building envelope. If the property were developed with R-3 uses, the building envelope would be approximately 11,025 square feet (including 10-foot rear yard setback}. According to the Arcadia Municipal Code, no building, wall, billboard, signboard, fence or other structure may be located in the special setback without a modification. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Colorado Place is designated on the General Plan as a major arterial and Colorado Blvd. is designated a secondary arterial. Traffic counts on these streets are as follows: Colorado Place, Eastbound Westbound -- south of "wye" 2,485 2,450 (6-1-77)* Colorado Blvd., Eas tbound Wes tbound -- east of "wye" (5-25-77)* 1,950 2,010 . *Neither count was taken during the racing season. ANALYSIS If the General Plan were changed to a Multiple Family designa- tion, consistent with the R-3 zoning, 17 units would be the allowable density (based on formula of 1 unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area). The 11,025 square foot R-3 building envelope would accommodate 5 units only. Any resulting apartment or condominium development would require numerous modifications, because of the irregular lot configuration. It is staff's opinion that a Multiple Family designation is not appropriate for this site. The property is abutted by a major and secondary arterial, both heavily trafficked, especially during racing season. The Planning Department believes that the site is best suited for a low intensity commercial use, such as offices. A commercial development could be built to comply with the setback requirements, with parking located around the building. . Pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not G.P. 77-4 4 . 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 pre- pared 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 signifi- cant effect on the environment." RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends denial of G.P. 77-4. DLB/ at Attachments . . . 0 ~ ~ !:" R-I In I.; 14o.1~ '- ., '" ., .. 0 !> ~. 0 .; " "" .. ..~ a ., ~ ~ 'H.71 a: N . R-I 0 ;- ~ ~ ~ ~ .. 14&.H cr @ "';0 0 ~ ~ o ~. ~ .n .. U ,! ~ 14-1.'6 ~ In 0 ~~ '" z ,.; ~ ,.: ,. c{ '-' ll') 1"1.42- 5'5' COLORADO BLVD (. .'z. ~so l/. _:J <Q ~C,<J^,I I 100 ~&2,.8Z. . I CHURCH I ( 2,40) I ('0 , I , , SCHOOL I ;;p , I I ,,~ 10 1> I I ",) ~ R13 I 0 ~ I I I I I l' I I I I >0 I I ~ I I RACE TRACK I I PARK ING I I I I I I I I I I I I I (JP 77-1./ LAND USE ~ ZONING I": 100' . SCALE NORTH .- .....-- -". ~ .",,~ ,.' ,. J . - ... .;; /40. rr. '- ~ a ..~ '4\.71 ~ a: 2 ~ V\ ~ cr ''lId' ~ - ~ .8,'! '- lP ~ Sl GLE FAMILY RES/PENT7AL 0-6 oV/a: ~ \,; ., ... " .. ~. " ~ N M ~ .. ..: ~ In ;a o ~. .,; ~ l! '47.16 ~ '" z _UI ~ " v'" <{ II) co / 100 5&2..81- . SUBJscr / I ?'O SIrE / I ( 2.40) ~ / I ..../ 10 .,. I ..;/ ~ I 0 "'/ C'tJl'1/'1Ef?C/AL / HORSE / CHtJt:(C.H I SCHOOL. 1- / I RACING / I >c / I I&V;s ~ ~ I I I I I I I I In .., ,.; " '1>1.42. COLORA DO BLVD. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (//: 77-7" GENERAL PLAN DES/GNAT/ON r::/oo' XALE . NO~TH . APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA Fee'. $300.00 G.P. # ~)~~11 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) Authorized Agent (f any) Name: -::rtA - Jo l~c... Name: Mailing Address: ~--.~ t2.t>WLANO AVe eL.. ~e>tJ,-e Ci. C\ \ 1~ l ~ Mailing (:d~ (Signature) . . The property hereby requested for review and revision of its present General Plan Land Use Description is situated on the ,~ ~ side of (r'}l~fZAQO Street, between - Street and Street. The street address is f) ~ 'J. ~~O" .:VL. The exact legal description (lot, block, tract, or metes and bounds) of the property is. ~. ~Tl2A&'T ~ CI.CL7E?g,~ . ,. Land Area: Square Miles Acres .1<7 . . The above property is shown at the County of Los Angeles Assessor's maps as: Book ~ Page --1L- Parcel Book Parcel Page Book Parcel Page Book Parcel Page The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the above property(ies) is: ~.n~ -/'.)es\Cf!!. Submit your reasons for said request in the space provided below: 5~\SiINCl 20Ne \'5 \2-3 ~INT~.oe:p '::'LlTU~. u~e. \S ~.~ 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.) y~s i\-\e A'l~A \S' le)(ce~ ~ ~L-\... -es~~t....TiI' \.... .. S~ /It.,t-J ~m J Would the uses permitted by the proposed General plan Designation be detrimental in any way to the surrounding property? (Explain reasons supporting your answer.) ND. . CO~~iY'llt-J G 1't.:> 1"~~ IT wcul.-P (3p '$u~~,,\),J" ,~C\ ~~ Y 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.) \-lDNe; ~vA\(..A.U:: -3- What are the reasons for initiation of this proposal? . ~rZT '(' i ~ 'it::>B e! ?t'<DPoS'el? ~rZ.. (It.. "TOvJ~~~ . ~~"o S\ iC . What are the alternative courses of action? a..J,ta..N'if!. '"1=.o~e. TO CcMJVi~~l- \C 'P'T ~~~"- f'?l.A~ . Describe in detail the topography. A ~ l'o..m1 'O~s CF 4 ./1:) ~ f-Ji!!A~ If ~ey8-. PL.,t.t.Je:: . . -4- . . . Describe the drainage basins, major highways, streets and flood control channels, etc.' . p~~, -1 IS "SVf3jZ.Ol.)~" S;"( fV~ .tc 'I?OArt's ~ u...1.( I ~pac.jF,;(:' . Estimated population increase in subject area within the next 10 years. 1,J:> P8Cf'~ Estimated increase in dwelling units in the subject area within the next 10 years. Tl!JtJ Estimated increase in commercial activities in the subject area within the next 10 years. ~o~e -5- . Estimated increase in industrial activities in the subject area within the next 10 years. ' No~e 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). ~ ~~ S"~vlc.e.s. C40AL.. \ (. ~ I .-.J, F-,4Io.MIL..'( , ~ E!!-U_It.J~ sITe It-J UE'V ct= ~ A$f\4ALoT U)"~~ \.OT. . . -6- . '. It Is the subject site in the community redevelopment project area? YiSS. Use this space to make any comments you believe would be pertinent. 4/8/75 db -7-