1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
/ 8
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