Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1272
-
.
.'
,'"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1272
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-20 TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1750 SQUARE FOOT COVERED STORAGE AND
WORKSHOP AREA FOR AN EXISTING EQUIPMENT RENTAL YARD AT 102
WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on Septanber 14, 1984, an appl ication was fil ed by Lonnie and
Nadene Ruth to request approval for the construction of a 1,750 square foot
covered storage and workshop area to an existing equipment rental yard, Planning
Department Case No. C.U.P. 84-20, on property commonly known as 102 West Las
Tunas Drive, more particularly described as follows:
Lot 68 of the Santa Anita Colony Tract, in the City of Arcadia,
County of Los Angeles, State of California as per Map recorded in
Book 42, Page 87 of Miscellaneous Records, in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 9, 1984, 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 report is true and correct.
Section 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Condi tional Use Permit will not be
detrimental to the publ ic health or welfare, or injurious to the property or
improvements in such zone or vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly
one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking,
loading, landscaping and other features required to adjust said use with the land
and uses in the neighborhood.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and
pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not
adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan.
,
.
.
,'""
6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse
impact on the environment.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a covered storage and
won-shop area to the equipment rental yard upon the following conditions:
1. That fire sa fety shall be provi ded to the sati s fact ion of the
Fire Chief.
2. That all on-site parking areas shall be restriped as per Code
requirements prior to the final building inspection of the site improvements.
3. That parkway trees shall be pl anted at locations determi ned by
the Director of Publ ic Works.
4. That all conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to
C.U.P. 84-20 becoming effective.
5. That the site shall be maintained as per the plans on file in
the Planning Department.
6. That a landscape and
Planning Department for its review and
Building Permit.
7. That 6'-0" high solid masonry walls be constructed along
,
portions of the site's westerly, easterly and southerly property lines, as
illustrated by attached Exhibi t "A".
8. That C.U.P. 84-20 shall not take effect until owner and
applicant have executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating
awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
Section 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this
Resolution reflect the Commission's action of October 9, 1984 and the following
vote:
irrigation plan shall
approval prior to the
be submi tted to the
issuance of a
AYES: Commissioners Dixon, Fee, Hedlund, Szany, Harbicht
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Jahnke, Wells
Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution
and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the Ci ty Counc il of the Ci ty of
Arcadia.
- 2 -
1272
-
.
.
. .;::.,...
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October, 1984 by the
fo 11 owi ng vote:
AYES Commissioners Fee, Hedlund, Szany, Wel Is, Harbicht
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dixon, Jahnke
/~d:c.L:/
Chairman, Planning Commission
Ci ty of Arcadi a
ATTEST:
/;d/;g;nJ~L
Secretary, Planning Commission
Ci ty of Arcadi a
- 3 -
1272
.
.
.
(
,
{
OCTOBER 9, 198'\
TO:
FR<JI:
CASE NO.:
PREPARED BY:
ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C.U.P. 84-20
CORKRAN W. NICHOLSON
AS~ISTANT PLANNER
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPL ICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Lonnie and Nadene Ruth
102 Wl!st Las TlII\as Drive
To grant a Condi tio,al Use Pel'Bli t for improvelllents to an
existing equipment 'ental yard.
LOT AREA:
. Approximately 14,037 sq\lllre feet (.32 acres)
l"RONTAGE: 60.00' on Las Tunas Drive
60.74' on Live Oak Avenue
EXISTING LAND
USE & ZONING: The Subject site is developed with an existing e'quipment rental
yard and a general office building; zoned C-M (Commercial- .
Manufacturing Zone)
SURROUNDING LAND
USE & ZONING: ~orth: Developed with a nursery school and a commercial office
building; zoned C-O
South: Developed with mixed commercial uses; zOled C-M
East: Developed with a vacated equipment rental yard; zoned C-M
West: Developed with an animal hospital; zoned C-M
GENERAl. PLAN
DESIGNATION: COGllIterc1 al
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant's previous business location was at 82 West Las Tunas L;'ive, and
the rear portio/: of the subject property (102 West Las TIII\45 Drive). Thei r
original equiplllent rental yard ell.isted at this location for approximately 34
C.U.P. 84-20
10/9/84
Page 1
<
(
\.
. years. The property at 82 West Las Tunas Dr1ve wasreceiitlj cipprovi!<ifor a new
10,080+ sqllilre foot auto repai T' garage (C.U.P. 84-13), resul t i ng in the
relocation of their business to its present location.
Thi s Condi tional Use Permi t has been fil ed in order to construct a 1,750 square
foot covered storage and workshop area that would be attached to the existing 750
sqllilre foot office building, which will be used for the applicant's general
office business.
The equipment rental yard is a permitted use in the C-M zone with an approved
conditional use pernrit. The outside storage area has been paved and the
applicant is proposing to stripe the parking area in order to provide 14 on-site
parking spaces, as indicated on the submitted site plan. Thirteen parking spaces
are required by Code for this particular use.
The site is proposed to be enclosed by 6'-0" high chain linle fencing with
landscaping (ivy) for screening purposes. It is staff's opinion that the
proposed fenci ng woul d not be adequate to provi de permanent screeni ng of the
outside storage yard, and therefore staff would recommend that 6'-0" high solid
masonry walls be constructed along portions of the site's westerly, easterly and
southerly property lines, as illustrated by attached Exhibit "A".
The proposed landscaping exceeds the 3% Code requirement.
Pursuant to the ,provisions of the California Envirol1llental Quality Act, the
Planning Departlrent has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. 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 for this project.
.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends approval of C.U.P. 84-20 subject to the
foll owi ng conditions:
. ". ,'"
r. That the conditions set forth in the attach~d memorandum from the
Department of Public Works be completed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
2. That fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire
Chi ef.
. ..
3. That all on-site pai'ki ng areas shall be restriped as per Code
requirements prior to the final building inspection of the site
improvements.
.
C.U.P. 84-20
10/9/84
Page .2
.
.
.
(
~
That all conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to
C.U.P. 84-21 becoming effective.
5. That the site shall be maintained as per the plans on file in the
Planning Department.
4.
6. That a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the
Planni ng DepartJoont for its revi ew and approval prior to the issuance
of a Buil di ng Permi t.
7. That 6'-0" high solid masonry walls be constructed along portions of
the site's westerly, easterly and southerly property lines, as
illustrated by attached Exhibit "A".
8. That C.U.P. 84-20 shall not take effect until owner and applicant have
executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating
awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve this project, the
Commission shoul,d move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and find that
the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct
staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the specific findings
and conditions of approval set forth in the staff report lor as modified by the
Commission).
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny this project, the
Commission should move to deny and direct staff to prepare an appropriate
resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of
that decision.
Attached for your consideration is a copy of the proposed plan.
. C.U,P. 84-20
10/9/84
Page 3
.
.
.
<
~.
September 27, 1984
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTfo1ENT
FRDt'1: DEPARTio1ENT OF PUBLIC ~'IORKS
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-20
102 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE
This department has no objection to the subject modification subject to
compliance with the following items:
1. The parkway widths of Live Oak and Las Tunas are both fifteen (15) feet at
this location.
2. The subject property is served by a sewer 1 ine that has the capacity to
transport sewage flows generated in accordance with land use reflected in
the City's current general plan to the CSD's system.
3. P I ant parkway trees at locat ions to be determi ned by the Director of
Public 'larks.
. ,
Cb:.ut, liP:/. :-;;-'7/'
CHESTER N. HO\IARD
Director of Public Works
CNH:CAH:rk
PA'~i:::_:.: '-'f =: . . '"
- ~ ,.'1, "
r /') " p r. '.<:" : l ~. -.:...,
c :y . ~. 1 .. -'" l- 'J,
FifON ,~2 w: .:../!:, 'TU.::':','
TO /02 hi. LAS TUNA:::
A/?CA/:l/A c.AL.
4-1&-.5"2R7
- -.-..--"
..
IOIV'F::;/j:
. ga ~
--,f'
r
;' "
.' ,
E...~s7J;,?, .
. ,
CV/'1 ~ /
1/
OPEN
N'
OPElI
o~~..t'
O':~~N
EarT ELEV.
/ ". /0'
\~I L\ ~;A E~.~~:> ""-''<'-7'''' or' Jo'~.o'A.-
~ 23B.,:;.,y"
\~.~ .'0' E_,.z::..,r;;-J'~"~ L,~A' r'~<.I"
J ,-,"'
LIVE
OAK
.
'.
/''''F-''''''':'' C,,~~r~d A>u: ,-.,'..,,-:e:;
ov.....,-- L-'~ .s.n~t?/ r,;.,.~.\'.h' ..y /'1r-Te/ ~.:.....~ . . ..
/'\r:-...//,,'l Tr L.-' /"(.I...." 'J ;',: i
82 h/.. LdlS I':'''''' ~
.
..
E~/~Ti"9
o,r....-'...e
7S-o ,f
. .lP" .oN,t* YA"~...,)" c;..;>n
~.. ...-v...?""J CA...........,. L,..,...y
\.oo.y.....~V'" .v....?T .ol?lve THRI.J . HOPK" UP
:. b'~ S'oo (:..., P>"I".n'! nnK J /I'"
Z.~: ',-w',,:-sr.,,-,.,I" -OPJn;'c..Jt!-~- ; Trc'--
....... ."" I I I I I I I , j YA A-?Gls./ CoY"" 0'
jI/~ 0 I I ; /0 r- F"I'i<"...,. ~bl /t ~C'~A')Pf"w:Il/; ..
~~. I I I I I I I '>" t;V"L- ...,.,~
i ~ . r"6~h G1c/..'vrl I : I I ~ i ;~ /7r J
I : I I : : : I 1 I i Y'j t ,.
, I' I I. I
. . ~ J~ - ...........-: 1 W.r..... .
\
.2Z~/Z.'
\
.-r ~.I- 1"1."n~,
/' C' ~.- ' ... ~ ~,,~.
'" /'v", :'''''' '.rn~~ - - ~
, ., .
.'
~.', . .
: ,: ~: ~ ." ,.
,'," .
I
?LAN I': 20 '
/,r!D-
w~/ A'
2-/2'
'W',T
~
,...~
C;aTt!s-Chdm L
\-VC',)D .r/~7s
1'/ r
LAS'-/"""
. ,
TUNAS
(
,
(r
(
. '" ~, ~.
r:: ,- ....
~'1 er: 5':
ClO gO ~c
OWk:';e.
('h'9./ t'///')
ClO 90
~ !3\ g)
. - r\.(yr11 - s
f';J'75r
~'"'! 1 100<' ! 10
90 I --- 'l10
I
I
Q~ U~
\ (.qqr.
1,,; ;:
I-lo&
~L-,'-
I
PAIlT OF l..OT '2
oFFIces
C-O I
('/d~.J I /0,(.1 (1'0//
.:)(,.) 13-.4 44
L;\6 -ru tJ....6
OR.
.
. 103,9(,
(llM)
.J 19 OF'Ace ~I i%! ~~ ~u1 '{;,~' ) ",'"
j S I :\.,,6NlUAL . /' /..J;{!; ~ ~~t . ~ ยท
~ ,.r- -!9r- -1~PI1l.\..;.90-:' \iI~ ~~ = ~
~ -:J ~\ ~I \ C.M/ . _~tl j'7 cf. p" . 7
~~'-i1~ ~ 0 ~:~ .~. ~~~~8~~~
. ~ ~ I ( . '/' /i ~~.N<t~ ,"b:l~
::I;: I D /~ '0''-1.
oct: < .,...r. l ..
I (//.9) ,
()23) 10124
,4" f
g ,1A
~~
Wj6H
,~,93
""",01
147.52
\.- ," E..
D/*~
f'Ve:.. .
F
,?ITEMPLE
ARCADIA
ClrY--
4' ,
;...~I ~J7I (7t)
,,0 \\, (80i',at,'" 1,0
..."' .!.,l}_:! r&C,;' ,.' ".~ ,
.~' (90/ i' I.." ;,~ \\,~_ f'el<.\
3D' . \ \ tt.rrrJ-
f"'~O ~ \ \ KJ:.[d'
~ ~ ~i\ \ AA. ~\"t-~
~~\ \ ..9
","0 :i~
GI<91
90
LD'-1VAL~eNl ~_A
1-I~f'I-(AL ,"'...,.
~
~
'2G1,GtJ
I" = \00'
SCALE
-
.
C..U,f. M.20 LAND USE 8 ZON I NG
.
\
\ A '
........,.-~.EJy/s/7",.?
-~:::\
I':)
~
~
~
.
t"'l
><
::I:
,...,
t;d
H
...,
~
?LAN
/ =
"
20'
c:..
--
.
2 -/2'
-\
c::
E:
~
'vV,/;-j.
-
--
;:
,~
-
(-
((
.
File No.
~.ll.f'. e>4-1o
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
A. Description of project: ~,azo.Uc:,\ TO u...'U\Ji A UN'OmCWAL
U~ ?fJL\A\1' ~ \M9\'W'1~M'C.."i\6 -ro t..~ 8l..\~\o..\b... 'a.G.U\9Ue.~
tte.m.\. -I/J.rlf).
\ 01- We~T LA~ "\U\-U.~ OI2.\Ve.
A~A'OIA. ~A ~\ ooL,
B. Location of project:
. C. Name of applicant or sponsor: lo..}l-HE. ANO NAO'eNE:. t2.I.n"\4
D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the
environment within the meaning of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached
Initial Study.
E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects:
Date: 0ef'T. U ~ \I1JM
(1k W.11uJJl1M-
S~gnature
.
A{n'\~-tA~\ fuN~E.12..
Title
Date Posted:
.,-
.
.
.
I,
c
(
DECEMBER 4, 1984
TO:
ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OORKRAN W. NICHOLSON
ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT
AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 84-20 (102 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE)
The Planning Commission at its October 23, 1984 meeting voted 5 to 0
with two members absent to adopt Resolution No. 1272, granting
Condi tional Use Permi t 84-20 to allow the cons truction of a 1750
square foot covered storage and workshop area for an existing
equipment rental yard at 102 West Las Tunas Drive, subject to
condi tions of approval.
On October 30, 1984 the applicant, Mr. Lonnie Ruth, filed an appeal
to the Planning Commission's conditions of approval on C.U.P. 84-20.
Specifically, this appeal is in regard to Section 3, No.7 of the
attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 1272. Said Section reads
as follows:
7. Tha t 6' -0" high solid masonry walls be cons tructed along
portions of the site's westerly, easterly and southerly
property lines, as illustrated by attached Exhibit "A".
The above-mentioned condition of approval was recommended by the
Planning Department for the purpose of ensuring that permanent
screening of the si te' s outside storage yard would be provided.
The applicant is requesting that 6'-0"+ high chain link fencing with
inserted screening slats of either wood, vinyl or metal be permitted
in lieu of the masonry walls. The applicant has stated several
reasons for his preference of the chain link fencing in his letter of
appeal (copy attached).
Attached for your consideration are copies of the applicant's letter
of appeal, Resolution No. 1272, the Minutes of the october 9, 1984
planning Commission meeting, and the staff report.
;
(
(
.
CITY COUNCIL MOTIONS
A. Denial of Appeal/Sustaining Commission Action:
If the City council intends to take action to deny the
applicant's appeal and affirm the Commission's action, the
Council should move to deny said appeal.
B. Approval of the Appeal/Modifying the Commission's Action:
If the city Council intends to take action to approve the
applicant's appeal and modify the Commission's action, the
Council should move to approve the applicant's appeal and
direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for adoption
by the Council at its next regular meeting. The Council may
add, delete or modify any condition of approval.
Attachments
.
.
.
C.U.P. 84-20
12/4/85
Page 2
.
.
.
(
(
COP Y
102 W. Las Tunas Drive
Arcadia, California
P. O. Box 896
HIllcrest 6-5287
EQU I P RENT
Contractors & Home Owners Equipment
October 30, 1984
Arcadia City Council:
I am writing this letter to appeal C.U.P. 84-20, Section 3, No.7
"So 1 i d Masonry Wall".
The Planning Commission's objection to my proposed chain link
fence with wood slats, was that wood slats would deteriorate too fast. After
checking with several fence companies, I find that there are Vinyl slats and also
Metal slats, either of which have a long life. My main objection is that it would
cost between $11,000.00 and $12,000.00 to install a block wall on leased property.
We have an 8 year lease. The chain link fence is already in, except for the East
Side, which is partly in. Installing slats would be far cheaper in cost. Another
objection to a solid wall is security. Police patrolling the area can not see
anyone in the yard! According to Crown Fence Co, in Pasadena, several companies
put up block walls but had to take them down and install chain link fence with
slats because of security, Chain link with slats make a very effective screen.
~hen you drive, by, you can't see through the fence on an angle but when you look
straight in, you have a screened view. We have a hay barn straight across the
street on the Live Oak side, on the West side we have an Animal Hospital, and on
the East side there is a proposed 10,000 sq. ft. garage building to be built. On
the Las Tunas side, there is a Day Nursery School across the street. Our frontage
on Las Tunas is 60 ft. of \~hich 30 ft. is an office building. ,Ie have two 12 ft.
gates that are chain link with redwood slats and a small panel on either side of
chain link with wood slats. We feel that the redwood slats treated with oil would
last a long time, but if not, they can be replaced as needed. They also have
a very nice appearance, Of course, if you prefer, we can go with Vinyl or Metal
Slats.
Thank you.
EQUIP RENT CO.
/s/ Lonnie M. Ruth