HomeMy WebLinkAbout1432
RESOLUTION 1432
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
OTY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDmONAL
USE PERMIT 90-002 FOR A PROPOSED 46 LOT RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 702-822 NORTH FIRST
AVENUE AND 105-119 HAVEN AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on January 29, 1990 an application was filed by John E, Plount for
a proposed 46 lot residential planned development with related building setback and
parking modifications, Planning Department Case No. c.u.P. 90-002, on property
commonly known as 702-822 North First Avenue and 105-119 Haven Avenue,
more particularly described as follows:
Portions of Lots 6 and 9, in Block 89, of the Santa Anita Tract in the City
of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map
recorded in Book 41, page 42 of Miscellaneous Records, in the office of
said County Recorder
.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 27 , 1990, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
and
WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing the Planning Commission
reviewed and considered:
a, The staff report and related attachments.
b. Plans and pictures presented by the applicant.
c. All oral presentations and testimony made during the public hearing on
February 27, 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COM:MISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. This Commission finds:
1. That the location and configuration of the structures are not visually
harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and structures, and that the
structures dominate their surroundings to an extent inappropriate to their use,
because the proposed two-story structures have minimal building setbacks ( i.e.,
6'-0" side yards and 15'-0" rear yards) which intensifies the density of the buildings
on the smaller lots.
2, That the plans for the landscaping of open spaces do not conform to the
requirements set forth in the code, because of the deletion of the required
landscaped buffer between the private drive and the perimeter of the interior lot
which is not a part of the proposed development; and they do not provide visually
pleasing settings for structures on the site and on adjoining and nearby sites and
conflict with the natural landscape, because the narrow side yard areas negate
desirable landscaping between the perimeter units.
3. That the architectural design does not enhance the visual environment
of the City, preserve and protect property values and mitigate against ~egradation
and depreciation, because the majority of the units have inadequate side and rear
yard areas.
.
I
1432
.
4, That the proposal does not promote and protect the health, safety,
comfort and general welfare of the community and does not promote the standards
of appearance in the community or encourages the appropriate use of the land
within the City, because the project does not provide for adequate on-site parking;
incompliance with the access requirements of the Code and does not meet the intent
of the Code which is to provide a better environmental design than would be
possible under the underlying zone standards.
Section 2. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the
application for Conditional Use Permit 90-002.
Section 3. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this
Resolution reflect the Commission's action of February 27 1990 and the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Amato, Oark, Hedlund, Papay
None
Commissioner Szany
.
Section 4. 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 held on the 13th day of March, 1990 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay
None
Commissioner Szany
airman, Planning CommiSsi
City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
!&J!;I1Jl11lt~d ~
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
.
2
1432
"
-
.
.
PUBLIC HEARING CUP 90.002
702-822 N. First Ave. and
t 05-119 Haven Ave.
John E. Plount
Consideration of a conditional use permit for a proposed
46.lot residential planned development with related
parking and building setback modifications,
The staff report was presented.
Staff explained that in addition to the required parking the applicant is providing guest parking in
front of the individual garages, throughout the project. However, tandem parking is not permitted and
it is one of modifications that the applicant Is seeking. Planned Unit Development (PUD) requires 4
parking spaces with access for each individual unit. The Code is written in general terms, and doesn't
dictate the location of the parking. .
The public hearing was opened,
John Plount. Plount Co.. 464 S. Cataract. #A, San Dimas, He commented that after evaluating the
environmental issues they concluded that the single.family homes would be ideal. He felt that their
plan promotes the health, safety, general welfare of the community as well as it promotes the
surrounding property values, A homeowner's association (HOA) will be formed who will be
responsible for the maintenance of the neighborhood.
Neil Eskuri. 248 E. Ninth St., Alhambra, the designer of the project said that he has studied other
possibilities and due to the uniqu.eness of the lot, the proximity to the wash, the proposed design is
appropriate for the site. Most of the garages will have 3.car garages. The units will have a 25'
setbl\ck from First Avenue. There ate currently 41 dwellings on the site, excluding the American
Legion building, and the proposed development is for 46 units... .
AI DeRenzis. L & D Engineering, 111 N, Melrose, Monrovia. said that they feel that condition 23 from
Public Works Dept. creates hardship regarding the width of the private streets. He noted 'that the City
Engineer stated that if parking would be allowed on the street. that the street should be expanded to 32'
minimum. He thought that the standard has more stringent than the standards which are used for
public streets in the City.
Mr. Plount said that the property is underdeveloped as far as density, parking and open space. The
staff report stated that with several clustered homes more open space would be provided but that would
result in more units on the property and would reduce the actual open space. In his experience most
cities prefer detached type homes over attached units and he urged the Commission to approve the
proposal and remarked that it is most desirable living concept environmentally and would enhance the
surrounding neighborhood.
Carroll Haeske, 242 W, Duarte, spoke in favor of the proposal and said that he would like detached
homes on the site and was in opposition to attached homes.
Hazel Silcott. 711 N, First. said that she was in favor of detached homes on the site and strongly
against attached homes.
Morris Nelson, 150 E. Grandview.said that based on his experience in the Pasadena Police Dept.. he
had concerns over the sidewalks that runs from the recreation area to First Avenue and sidewalks that
will be between some of the homes exposing their side yards and backyards to a burglar's. The existing
. layout is ideal for security and would enable the Police Dept. to patrol the area.
In response to a question from Commissioner Amato, Mr. Nelson said that transients are not usually
burglars and he didn't think that the riding and hiking area would pose any hazards.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
2/27/90
Page 2
.
.
Paul Massier, 1000 N. First, said that he and his wife and in favor of the proposal and thought that it
would enhance the neighborhood tremendously. They preferred detached homes to attached homes on
the site and that 46 units as proposed would not have a significant impact on the traffic.
Bill Donahoo, 35 Christina St., said that he felt that the proposal would upgrade the neighborhood.
Bill Henry, 923 S. Alta Vista, said that it was nice to see single-family homes instead of
condominiums.
.
AI Corrigan. 517 Santa Rosa, said that the proposal gives the homeowner a rear yard.
Architecturally, these units are much more desirable and he noted that the Plount Co, built a similar
type of a development south of Uve Oak,
R.G. Leatherman, 56 E. Floral Ave,. said that the condominiums that have been constructed on east side
of First are a very good example of density and each home Is usually comprised of two working people
and the traffic on the first block of Floral Ave. is tremendous with people driving by to miss traffic
lights.
Wayne Stelnly, 208 Vista, said that he thought that the houses are very nice but he was concerned that
the buildings are too close together and commented that a fire would create a disaster due to the
proximity of the buildings to each other. He referred to the development on south Santa Anita and said
that the buildings are very close together.
Mr, Woolard said that asa condition of approval all of the units will have to be fully sprinkled and
noted that the distance between .building will be 12' from each other but in some cases fire places may
encrqach into the 12', .
Mr. Steinly remarked that the renderings are beautiful and display very nice homes but it would be
impossible to have large trees as shown in the renderings in between the buildings due to !he distance
between them.
.
Gamil Foerous, 804 Wigwam, spoke against the development and expressed concern over the density,
parking and the distance between buildings.
Mr, Woolard pointed out that the on-street parking would be a problel'(l if somebody decided to park on
the other side of the street in which case the Police Dept. would not be able to issue a citation, The City
has no policing power to enforce maintaining the 22' that is shown, During gatherings the overflow of
cars would park on the streets which could create a parking problem. If the project is approved it
would have to go through the tentative map procedure which would divide up the ownership of the
project. He clarified that a condominium refers to the form of ownership and not necessarily the
type or configurations of the buildings that are Involved.
Mr. De Renzis said that each homeowner would own the lot that the house sits on and also an undivided
Interest in the common lot. Most of the homes will have a 3-car garage and 2 In the driveway which
exceeds the requirement of 4 parking spaces for each unit. During gatherings the above mentioned
parking would serve as potential parking and street parking would be an additional cushion. He didn't
think that there would be a problem with people parking on both sides of the street, since one side
would be designated as fire-lane and citations could be issued if somebody was in violation. In addition,
there will be signs at the main entrances clearly explaining that there is no parking In the private
driveways, except specifically designated spots.
Mr, Eskurl said that the homes would be 12' from each other with projections of l' for fireplaces
which is a greater distance between buildings than the development on south Santa Anita. The homes
will be 25'-26' high with nice landscaping,
Arcadia City Planning Commission
2/27/90
Page 3
'.
.
.
.
In answer to Councilmember Gilb's question, Mr, Plount said that the CC&Rs would prohibit the
parking of motor homes on the site. The body of the HOA will comprised of elected homeowners who
will monitor the maintenance and operation of the neighborhood and will enforce the regulations for
the benefit of the homeowners. The HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of the streets, the
private walkways as well as the front yard landscape and the recreation facility. He commented that he
is aware that the CC&Rs are subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Planning Department.
He anticipated that the homes will be available In 1991 and will be priced between $450,000,
$525,000.
There were no additional persons desiring to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item.
MOllON
It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
Commissioner Clark commented that the homes look very nice, He was concerned about the density ad
said that the average lot size Is about 4,000 sq, ft. with the average home of 2,500 sq. ft. and a 6'
setback from property lines the homes will be very close to each other. He didn't like tandem parking
and thought that it could cause problems. In regard to the setbacks, he said that he would be willing to
compromise between what Is being proposed here and what the regulations require.
Commissioner Amato agreed and said that the homes will be too close to each other. He felt that the
streets should be wider and remarked that during family gatherings parking could become a problem
.
Commissioner Hedlund thought that it is a very nice project and liked having detached units. He felt
that the setbacks were not adequate and would result in the homes being too close together. He
commented that after the developer is gone, the homeowners might vote to make the streets public
streets which would put the burden of maintenance on the City. He didn't think that the yards are
"largeO and said that these homes will each have 4,5 bedrooms and will have be 6' from the property
lines. He didn't think that there would be any privacy,
Chairman Papay said that the renderings show very nice homes with large trees but the rendering
fails to show the homes to the rear and on the sides and their proximity to each other. The back yards
In may of the homes would be 15' which is the size of a patio. Recently both the Planning Commission
and the City Council studied possible changes and the. Council adopted an ordinance which allows
maximums of 45% coverage for the first floor and a 35% lot coverage for second-stories and the
proposal offers 62% lot coverage, He felt that people would tend to store items in the garage or turn it
into a workshop, therefore. the garage would probably not be used as parking.
In response to comments from Commissioner Amato, Mr. Woolard said that the Commission can open
the public hearing and continue it to a certain date and he suggested that additional fees at the rate of
the design review fees be taken in from the applicant to cover costs incurred by staff for time that it
will take to review the revised plans,
Commissioner Hedlund didn't think that the plan can be altered much in view of the Commission's
objections. He felt that the Commission should vote on the project and give the applicant a chance to
appeal it to the City Council.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
2/27/90
Page 4
.
.
MOllON
It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Clark to re-open the public
hearing, The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting,
Mr, Plount had difficulty understanding the Commissions' comments and remarked that the intent of
the Code is to provide creativity. He asked for a recess to discuss the matter with his associates.
THERE WAS A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
Mr. Plount felt that the Commission did not listen or give much consideration to the opinion of the
people who attended the meeting and spoke in favor of the proposal, He remarked that the
Commission's attitude was fixed prior to attending the meeting and that the Commission had not
exercised any creativity with respect to the decisions and comments heard. He commented that he
would like to have the opportunity to let the people in the audience assist him in making the decision of
continuing the hearing or aSking for a vote and having the privilege of appealing the decision to the
City Council,
Chairman Papay stated that the public hearing was re-opened and that Mr. Plount should make the
decision.
Mr, Plount again asked permission for the audience's help in making the decision which will affect the
property values and their future lives as it relates to their living environment.
Mr, Miller said that Mr. Plount sound~d like he was implying that he was denied some kind of a right,
whictl in fact he was given through the public hearing process.
. Chairman Papay assumed that Mr. Plount wanted the hearing to be continued and asked if he would be
in favor of continUing it to the next regular Planning Commission meeting, .
After conferring with his associates, Mr. Plount asked the Commission to vote on the project.
MOTlON
It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Clark. seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to deny CUP 90-002
with Findings 0,1, 0,3, D,S and 0.6 and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
/IaS:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, , Papay
None
Commissioner Szany
Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution,
.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
2/27/90
Page 5
February 27, 1990
.
TO:
ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PLANNlNG DEPARTMENT
CORKRAN W, NICHOLSON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT 90-002
CASE NO,:
SUMMARY
This application was filed by John E. Plount for a proposed 46 lot residential planned
development at 702-822 North First Avenue and 105-119 Jiaven Avenue.
The Planning Department is recommending denial of the applicant's proposal.
GENERAL lNFORMAnON
APPLICANT: John E. Plount (developer)
LOCATION: 702-822 North First Avenue
105-119 Haven Avenue
.
REQUEST:
A Conditional Use Permit for a proposed 46 lot residential planned
development which requires the following modifications:
A. To permit the following building set!;lacks in lieu of the
requirement that no building shall be constructed within
25'-0" of the perimeter property line of the development
(Sec. 9277.14.):
1. 10'-0" to 15'-0" setbacks along the site's northerly and
easterly property lines; and
2. 6'-0" to 15'-0" setbacks along the perimeter sides
of an interior lot which is not a part of the proposed
development.
B, A 25'-0" building setback in lieu of a special setback of 35'-0"
along Haven Avenue (Sec. 9320.36.1,)
C Tandem parking for each dwelling unit in lieu of designing
each required parking space for use with unobstructed access
(Sec. 9277.16.).
.
.
.
.
LOT AREA: Approximately 293,935 square feet (6.75 acres)
FRONTAGE: 630 feet along First Avenue
309 feet along Haven Avenue
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The subject site is developed with an American Legion facility and 41
residential units (mixed building types); zoned R-1 and R-2, as per the
attached Land Use and Zoning Map
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North:
South:
East: ,
West:
Multiple-family units; zoned R-2
Single-family dwellings; zoned R-1 & R-2
Santa Anita Wash
A church and single-family dwellings; zoned R-2
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Approximately 49,566 square feet of the R-1 portion of the site is designated as Single
Family (0-6 du/ac), and the remaining area of the site is designated as Multiple
Family (7+du/ac),
SPECIAL INFORMAnON
Section 9277 of the Arcadia Municipal Code states the purpose and the intent of the
Residential Planned Development regulations, as follows:
"The purpose of these regulations is to provide for the establishment
and control of residential planned. developments, The intent is to
encourage well-planned developments by providing the means for
greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is
provided. under the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the
subdivision regulations of this Code, while at the same time promoting
and preserving the public interest, health, safety, welfare and property
values,"
Since the proposal is for a Residential Planned. Development, compliance with the
underlying zone standards and subdivision regulations of the Arcadia Municipal
Code ( i.e., front, side and rear yard setbacks, distance between buildings, private
yards, minimum lot characteristics, street standards, etc.) is nO,t required, However,
in order to carry out the general purpose and intent of the Residential Planned
C.u.P.9O-002
February 28,1997
Page 2
.
Development regulations, the project would be subject to all of the terms of a
conditional use permit.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
A Residential Planned Development is a permitted use in an R-1 and R-2 zone with
an approved conditional use permit, .
.
The applicant is proposing to develop the site with a 46 lot residential planned
development. The average lot size is approximately 4,300 square feet. Each lot
(excluding the common recreation/leisure areas) would be developed with a two-
story, four to five bedroom single-family dwelling, The orientation and
configuration of the proposed lots and buildings are illustrated on the attached site
plan.
The proposed floor plans (attached) range from 2,451 to 2,789 square feet (excluding a
two or three car garage area). Approximate building heights would be from 25'-0" to
28'-0" above the finished grade.
The dwelling unit density for this project would be one unit for every 6,390 square
feet of lot area, which is less than the combined maximum densities permitted
under the existing zoning for the site. The southerly portion of the site (62,233 sq.
ft.) is zoned R-1 which permits a maximum density of 7 units, and the northerly R-2
zoned portion of the site (231,702 sq, ft.) permits a maximum density of 61 units fora
maximum site density of 68 units.
Two common open space areas would be provide within the proposed
development. The largest common open space area would provide a 9,200.:t square
foot recreation/leisure area which includes a pool and recreation building, and the
other open area (approximately 900 sq, ft.) provides access to the existing riding and
hiking trail that runs along the Santa Anita Wash.
The applicant is seeking to modify the requirement to maintain a 25'-0" building
setback from the perimeter property line of the development (request "A") and to
build within a 35'-0" special setback along Haven Avenue ( request "B") in order to
accommodate the proposed orientation and configuration of the proposed lots and
buildings. Also, a modification for tandem parking ( request "C") is being requested
by the applicant to mitigate on-street parking. The Fire Department and the
Department of Public Works have reviewed this proposal and have no objection to
the requested modifications, provided that the proposal complies with all of their
conditions of approval, as set forth in this report.
.
At least 4 parking spaces are required for each unit within the development for a
total of 184 on-site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing two and three car
C,U,P. 90-002
February 28, 1997
Page 3
.
garages with tandem guest parking in front of the garages to comply with the
required on-site parking, Also, the site plan shows parking on one side of the
proposed 30'-0" wide private streets. The Public Works Department is requiring, as
a condition of approval, that no on-street parking be permitted on the new private
streets because they feel the street width is too narrow.
It is staff's opinion that although the proposed development is well related to
existing and planned use and circulation patterns on adjoining properties, it does
not meet the intent of the Code: to provide a better environmental design than
would be possible under the underlying zone standards, Staff feels that greater
creativity is needed to provide more desirable amenities within the project that are
deserving of a planned unit development, such as providing for mixed building
types (i.e" attached and detached units), and clustering the units to combine often
unusable yard space on individual lots into larger common open spaces, Additional
common open space areas would further enhance this project by providing the
outlying units with more direct access to the interior recreational/leisure area. Also,
such additional areas could provide adequate off-street guests parking spaces
throughout the project rather than relying on tandem parking in front of the
garages, as proposed by the applicant, to mitigate on-street parking,
Architectural Design Review
.
ConcUrrent with the consideration of this conditional use permit, the Planning
Commission may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the applicant's
design concept plans. The proposed plans are attached.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Planning Department 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 the project,
RECOMMENDAnON
The Planning Department recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit 90-002.
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-002, the
Planning Department recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. Conditions as outlined in the attached report from the Department of
Public Works shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works.
.
C.U,P, 90-002
February 28, 1997
Page 4
.
2, Conditions as outlined in the attached report from the Water Department
shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Water Manager,
3. Water requirements for fire protection shall be determined by the Arcadia
Fire Department,
4. That the following conditions shall be complied with to the satisfaction of
the Arcadia Fire Department:
a, All dwellings shall have automatic fire sprinkler systems per N.F,P,D.
13D.
b. All dwellings shall be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant with 1500 gpm
flow,
c. All streets are fire lanes and shall be so marked per C.V,C. 22500.
d. On street parking shall only be in approved marked spaces.
5. All perimeter/garden walls shall be of decorative block or finished with
stucco. subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department.
.
6. That a tree preservation plan identifying by size and type all trees with a
diameter in excess of 6" shall be presented to tile Planning Department for
its review and approval prior to the issuance ora ~ading permit.
7. That the following modifications be granted for this project:
a. To permit the following building setbacks in lieu of the requirement
that no building shall be constructed within 25'-0" of the perimeter
property line of the development (Sec, 9277.14:):
1, 10'-0" to 15'-0" setbacks along the site's northerly and easterly
property lines; and
2. 6'-0" to 15'-0" setbacks along the perimeter sides of an interior lot
which is not a part of the proposed development.
b. A 25!-o" building setback in lieu of a special setback of 35'-0" along
Haven,Avenue (See. 9320.36.1,)
.
c. Tandem parking for each dwelling unit in lieu of designing each
required parking space for use With unobstructed access (See, 9277.16.).t
C,U,P.90-002
February 28, 1997
Page 5
.
8, Any garage opening directly upon a street shall be located not less than
twenty (20) feet from the front or side street lot line.
9. That after the issuance of a building permit a Rough Grading Certificate
will be required prior to the placing of any concrete on the site; and a
Final Grading Certificate shall be required prior to the final building
inspection, Said certificates will certify that all finished grading
operations have been completed in substantial compliance with the final
grading plan approved by the City Engineer, and shall be filed with, and
approved by, the Planning Department.
10. That covenants, conditions and restrictions containing provisions for
property maintenance shall be submitted for review and must be
approved in writing by the Planning Department and the City Attorney,
prior to the final building inspection,
11. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional
Use Permit shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or
revocation of said permit.
.
12 That C.U,P,90-o02 shall not take effect until the 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
U the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve this project, the
Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and find
that the project will not have "a significant effect on the environment and find that
the design concept plans are in compliance with the ADR criteria and direct staff to
prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the specific findings and
conditions of approval set forth in the staff report (or as modified by the
Commission).
Denial
.
U 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, The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following findings
in regard to architectural design which must be expanded upon with specific reasons
C.U,P, 90-002
February 28, 1997
Page 6
for denial:
.
D.l. Find that the location and configuration of the structures are not
visually harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and
structures, and that the structures dominate their surroundings to an
extent inappropriate to their use.
D,2. Find that the architectural design of the structures and their materials
and colors are not visually harmonious with surrounding
development.
0.3, Find that the plans for the landscaping of open spaces do not conform
to the requirements set forth in the code, and that they do not provide
visually pleasing settings for structures on the site and on adjoining
and nearby sites and conflict with the natura1landscape,
0,4. Find that the design and location of signs and their materials and
colors are not consistent with the character and scale of the buildings to
which they are attached or which are located on the same site, and that
the signs are not visually harmonious with surrounding development.
.
D.S, Find that the architectural design does not enhance the visual
environment of the city, preserve and protect property values and
mitigate against degradation and depreciation.
0.6. Find that the proposal does not promote and protect the health, safety,
comfort and general welfare of the community and does not promote
the standards of appearance in the community or encourages the
appropriate use of land within the City.
0.7.
Find that the proposed expanses of flat building walls exceed 2S feet in
width without providing architectural indentations and/or projections
so as to provide opportunity for shade, shadow, and visual relief.
Find that long straight driveways and walkways are not mitigated
through curvalinear approaches, landscaping and changes in texture
and/ or colors,
D.S,
D,9,
Find that the walkways have not been designed to minimize visual
intrusion into adjoining properties,
.
c.U.P. 90-002
February 28, 1997
Page 7
.
.
.
February 20, 1990
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CUP 90-002 - 46 Detached Planned Unit Development at
702-822 N. First Avenue
In response to your memorandum, the items which this department has concern or
special knowledge of are listed below:
1, The existing parkway width is twelve (12) feet on both First and Haven
Avenues,
2. The map submitted for CUP 90-002 depicts a street design that does not
comply with city code. Public streets shall have a sixty (60) foot right-
of-way or a fifty (50) foot right-of-way and a five, (5) foot planting and
sidewalk easement on each side and a minimum of thirty-six (36) feet from
curb to curb.
3, The subject property is served by a sewer line that has the capacity to
transport sewage flows generated in accordance with land use reflected in
the City's current general plan to CSO's system.
4, Traffic volume will be increased, but there will be no major impact.
This department has reviewed the subject CUP and recommends the following
conditions of approval:
1, Submit grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer
subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works, Provide
calculations for gravity drainage system. Computations should show
hydrology, hydraulics and elevations,
2, The Declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations
as well as the Final Tract Map shall have a clause stating the owners or
an association representing the owners of the development will own and
maintain streets within the said development,
NOTE: Show all existing and proposed parkway trees, pull boxes, meters,
power poles, street lights, driveways, sidewalks and handicap ramps on
grading/drainage plan.
3, All private streets shall have a forty (40) foot wide utility easement
dedicated to the City.
.
Memo to Planning - CUP 90-002
February 20, 1990
Page 2
4. Construct curb, gutter, paving and sidewalk necessary to complete a
knuckle-type curve northeast of Lorena Avenue and Haven Avenue
intersection. Dedicate sufficient land for a continuous twelve (12) foot
parkway adjoining said curve.
5. Construct a twenty-five (25) foot curb return and dedicate a fifteen (15)
foot corner cut-off for street purposes at the northeast corner of First
Avenue and Haven Avenue,
6, Plant twenty-one (21) parkway trees along Fi rst and Haven Avenues at
locations determined by the Director of Public Works per Arcadia City
Standard Drawing 5-13-1.
7. Close existin9 driveways not to be used and reconstruct curb, gutter and
sidewalk to match existing,
8. Design and construct minimum 8 inches sewer main on private streets
subject to approval of the Director of Public Works.
9, Construct five (5) foot P,C.C. sidewalk along First and Haven Avenues, as
per Arcadia City Standard S-17.
.
10, Remove and replace deficient or damaged curb, 9utter, sidewalk or
pavement.
11, Obtain approval from the Department of Public Works prior to removal of
the portion of the existing gutter on First and Haven Avenues.
12, Construct P.C.C. residential driveway aprons along first and Haven Avenues
as per City of Arcadia Standard Drawing No. S-11.
13. Construct handicapped ramps at on driveway entrances along First and Haven
Avenues and at the northeast corner of First and Haven Avenues per Arcadia
City Standard.
14. Obtain connection permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works
Department (LACFC Division) to drain storm runoff into Santa Anita Wash,
A copy of the permit must be submitted to the Arcadia Publ ic Works
Department prior to construction.
15. Arrange for underground utility service and dedicate easements to utility
companies.
.
16. Construct all curb returns on the private streets with a minimum of a
twenty-five (25) foot radius.
17, Private streets shall have a minimum four (4) foot ,wide P. C. C, sidewalk
adjacent to the curb.
.
.
.
Memo to Planning - CUP 90-002
February 20, 1990
Page 3
18. Private streets shall have full (vertical) height P.C,C, curb with
eighteen (18) inch P.C,C, gutter per City Standard S-II,
19, Parkway shall be unobstructed by any utilities.
20. Paint house numbers on curb face per Arcadia City Standards,
21, Arrange with the Edison Company to install two (2) street lights on Haven
Avenue and nine (9) street 1 ights on private streets with underground
circuits. Location is subject to approval of the Director of Public Works,
Also, arrange for the removal of street light on wood pole at southwest
corner of Lorena and Haven Avenues, Contractor shall obtain an approved
plan from the City's Engineering Division.
22, Submit street, sewer, storm drain, and street 1 ight improvement plans
prepared by a registered civil engineer subject to for approval of the
Public Works Director,
23. No on-street parking shall be allowed at the proposed private .streets of
thirty (30) feet wide. If parking is to be allowed on one side of the
private street, the private street shall have a minimum width of thirty-
two (32) feet and a dedicated forty. two (42) foot wide utility easement.
24, All publiC works improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of
Director of Public Works prior to final acceptance by Building and Safety
Department and prior to occupancy.
25. New centerline ties set as part of this subdivision must be submitted
before final acceptance of project.
26, All survey monuments, centerline ties and survey reference points shall
be protected in place or re.established where disturbed. This work will
be the responsibility of the permittee and shall be at the permittee's
expense.
27. The above items are to be compl ied with to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works in accordance with the applicable provisions of
the Arcadia Municipal Code.
If any required public improvements have not been completed by the developer and
accepted by the City prior to the approval of the final map, the developer shall
enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate
security.
JRL:TK:mo
.
.
DATE:
9 February 1990
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SU5JECT: CUP 90-002
702-822 N. First Avenue
Waeer Division Requiremenes:
1.
cue and plug all waeer lines crossipg tract and lot lipes.
(Existing mains and services to be aoaIlClOned by ,Vater Ulvision at developer I s expense.)
Install water main and appunenances as per Water Division specifications;
sizes, ~nds and locations to be de;ennined by Water Divisi~nL.., 1Tdd'"
lI{e#me ~ &"A:V~ /'7 /J"4.s ,a ill e.,c-J'e4fb{ ,u~l7",.;n~ fD qtUt) .
Install fire hydrants as per Waeer Division specifications at locat,ions deeennined
by Fi re Ceps r eml'M, (Existing hydrants . on-site. to be abandoned by AWD at develop-
er's expense.)
'rwo copies of trace map to be furnished Water Division for locatio,ns of proposed
wacer faciHeiesj one marked copy to be returned to subdivider for his use.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Copy of sewer, drainage and sereet improvement plans to be furnished Water
Divis~on,
6.
Wpter plans to be dralm to Water Division standards, to be approved by Water
Manager. Six sets of approved plan prints and original water plan to be
returtled to Water Division,
7.
Construction of wster facilities to be done to Water Division specifications
at subdivider's expense by licensed waeer pipeline contractor engaged by
subdivider after cons~ruction of curb and gutter, but prior eo construceion
of pavement, Inspeceion will be furnished by the Water Division at developer's
expense,
Water service laterals, water meter assembly and pipe under sidewalk area
to be insealled at subdivider's expense by Water DivisIon forces prior to
pavement and sidewalk installaeion, ~umber of water laterals and water meeers
eo be deeennined by Water Division. This is the requiremene where the sidewalk
will be adjacent to curb. In the event chat there will be a planted parkway
between the curb and the sidewalk, waeer laterals and water meters assembly
only will be required. c'
-----
8.
9. Water meter boxea are installed by Water Division forces to top of curb grade,.
Maintenance of meter box grade will be ehe responsibility of subdivider until
tract ~s accepted by Ciey.
10. Water valve sleeves end covers wIll be adjusted to finished pavement ,grade
during paving operation by subdivider's contractor.
t/l. E~~ ~fd~~~.?W~~.
Eldon Davidson,
~ Water Hanager
; , .~. Sf 21(. " 'e..-
. .r-:a/ I , 23 r @
" .I'~
l~
- - '@-- - -,
,
,
';3 .1',
.,~
~
" - so
','
;,
-
, e
e ~
V
e l,fl
-;t.
~ ~:
. I~
~
.
..,
i
o
"
-;
M.,g. 29- '8--
5 Q:1
3 j J 2--
~e .:
><Iv,;- " .
8.'J-Y ~ "
. .p If ~
", i'i'~ 4(';..1,.
. i',J J J,
80
7=
~
(/)
cr
-
L..
~
.
~
s
.
J..r...
.~ &,.
...-: ~
~
."
-~
...
l~!M~ lY~[E ~!M[D) ZCQ)!M ~!MI
.
C.U. P. '10 - 002.
~1..: 1-.. 100'
I PARK ~ I'RO.E:TLOCA. -
~ -----. ~~.
- ----1 ~ r--~' II '
~-:.-:-\: -,~ 0
"'......~ ~..~~h.S . II."~I oJ _ . _....__
~... ~ ~ ~\.J\\::-\O . : _,;~-S ,~ - : =-
~.,~..." '.. ...,., ""~1t" VICINITYMAP~,
,_., ~....' . __ ~ I Ir.. .
.....V - .b. I_~ ..
.... ,~'. :;;,,::1l'$"~ \~ . I ^'(
...Wr' -' - r:- ~\\\ .r ''-''1
~ ~ "'" \to\. ~~..... ~ Q ..J..\r\,'''' "
~u ~ ;"'\.2fP r~ "'\L:!. ~ \\y "oJl i
_-; ~ ;- )~00/;:"" . _.-. .......-! ....Al" ~ ~"'..s:-4t, J 1 ~/ ..
-~" ~p~~~(~ ;~',~,~~rl~{! bl ~l'~
~(Y" . ~ I~ - "l~ ~~.. ~ / ~...:.I
HI i'i . ,--"-:' - ~r':: u :~ _ ' . I: "t,
:''l ': _ I..,=c '1 l . --, l:::: ~1 II .J
" _~ I h ~tT. J , 0:
~., ,.'. ~0:~ ~ C J~ ~ .) (}:.:' ;'1";: 'foli, ':". , ____ -I",-, a ~
lr .~r. 1 D.... .d1fD.
I '- I:.---r:'--e:-.._-.-.......~~-_."-....,
-. r--:r.-- .-_.... "PAft -... _......
I-:,f - 'IU (lil'jIL: 'llUt1~ I ~ U ,4It : y ~ C ~ --.... ..':':"....-
"\ _ \:"'j-J ~lS ]( J~ --8 ~ E- f- - r- Lo< '~
I " ~ t ~
.~.; _ ( \ 'It. ." ..t:'I 1! -1_ II ~1I __ 1. .'u 11 ~ . II 0 .. ~
'I /\ C. '.. ':..1 I' · · ..)' . I. J " :z:
.I~ k j l"\ · -Ini r 1 L -InrI. .- f- ~I ~
':l "I') .. o~.,. ~ ~."'I... Lle-::') ~.' :'-::IAh..6' I
.
.
.~.......
_.~-.a...... .
- ----. -- ,. -_..-.-
~o FOOTHILL BL YD. I .
FIRST AVE.
N~
PLAN
SITE
.
~~- '":
- '-f-:
: ;l::
,
NOTES ~ SIn DATA
~
.--. lit: II =--=-
----. -.....
--
--..~.- .
1!III!I1JIiIII.~''''''.~-
_--=r. ,....L....-.IlIlGI_
"'2.'___~
---
__-,_",~'''IL
lI!IIl.liBI'et""qa,n..
!!!!B!S...."....J!I..I!II..~. .~tQ.""
....... --- .. -Y
::-,., == :::::r :.::=.-:. ..
.......... ...-rr"-r'~~" ~ -
,...,......I..............-~
~I _..._~ .-__
.,..._---.- ...,...-
---.a. _____ ...,.,.t.,.
~---..-.........
. - ...-.
-.-....-!
-.,.......- ..':t::;
~--.... .,..-..:.......
-..-
~-r-""'''_.- -..I..,.
..,. .......-.....-..-p .
-
.~.
.~.~-
1OMIr-'..........
COUNTRY OAKS ESTATES
THE PLOUNT CO. INC.
,-_.-
--
"
i I I
I!III! :
fll -
=11 :i
ib~l
iljlh
HIHi
~ i
i. I
. II
I ,I
I I
,--
1" .-_"<"
.
.
.
File No,
CliP 90-002
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACf
NEGATIVE DECLARA nON
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
A. Description of project: A conditional use permit for a residential planned
develooment consisting of 46 detached units with community recreation
facilities.
B, Location of project: 702-822 N. First Ave. & 105-119 Haven Ave.
c
Name of applicant or sponsor:
The Plaunt Co., Inc.
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 Stud)'.
E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially
significant effects:
Date:
1/29/90
:: "I~J!'L UJ, 1'\ uJj~1J,\C
Signature
Date Posted:
~~Rn~iAte PlAnner
Title
.
.
.
File No.
CUP 90-002
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
A. BACKGROUND
1.
Name of Proponent
The Plount Co. Inc.
2.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent
b.Fob. q
IIA
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
t. !!ll!l. 'III~U t.M pCQlilOUL ~..u.Lt. lM
a. llnu.o;l. ..n.."! cond.J.uon. 01' 11'\
Cha"q.. in 0;.-011)91.0:: IllbttrJetu.rl"
b. Ql'l'~ti.o1'\'. duph.c:.lMntl, COlIl-
p'lctlon .of o",.caovldnq oe tlUl 101'11
c. <::n,ng. 1,11 t.OPCli9rapby 01' <Jround
'\Id..~ 'roU_t t.aturel1
d. Tl'la d..truerJ.o". eoverUl9 or
:lIochUc4lt.t.ol\ lit ~n)' llJIlq\ll ~1I01oqlc:
orphy.lcd tutur."
:;o.:~ -;;C:~:~~.'~:l~~:~ :: ::t:,t
tne.lt.,
t. l;l\ar.q'l.ln.ultluon, dlltflS1UOl'l
or IIlrOllLon",lIicn_yIIIOdtfy tn.
Ilhlnnll of" 1'1.,.1' or n.'....
~, li19olur. of peaI'll .or propertv t.o
~Qolo'llC Ilu,udl, IUc:l'I .u 'Irtftq<Ulk...
l.-n\iIUd... i!lud.Ude.. 1r<llll'lcl t..Ulan_
.or .Wlu ".utd.?
1. lli. ..,in t"'. propoul 1'''\11: 11101
" SUl!liUI\'r.hl loLl' 1t",1"",0"1 .or
"ll11:OU'UU'''UGI'I of 4Illbient IiI' 'fUIIIUtyl
b. i'~. Ct'tl&tiCn lilt IIltl1C1CtlOIl.u.1Cl
O<lQUl
c. Alteredon o~ dr lIlO....ClIl~t,
~l.tllrl or tCl::rpee.ltlolu. or Illl'
chlll'_ III o=!llUoU. ut,~et l~c.l1\V
::at n,J.cr...U1l
]. !!!.ill. ,tilt tr.... l'rl1pDul rotJlu.1t J.1I1
~. 'hlllt/U Ln O=llttlJllUl 01' th' ~ne
o! .Unction o! "It.t _....._u Ul.
(t.en ...t.ni'
b. ~4n<J.s ill alJa<l'rptiO:n r.us.
:!rdnlqe ,.tun.. or Ua r.ta &lid
~J;\QWll: Of avth.c. "'.U'I' nuwtU
e. ~1tu.Utll" to the eou.n. or
:1ow or tI~ ",.un~
. 4. Ch&n,. 111 tn. 4IlIl;llUlt of iI~f_
..n.t u..lnv".tertlOdv?
.. \a.el'la.q. U\tCl .....e(.~. .....t..,., <n
ill MY ..It.I'I1:10n otsllrr_'lIu..r
qulUtV. lnc1.lId1nq _bllt not l1aJ.tMl to
t~"ltlU'.. .u..olvecl C"Y4'an or
tllrbldlt;yt
f._ "lteutl.tllIl ot t-IM. dinction or
rete of tiCN or qroWld ...ten'
9. Ch4In,,1 i'" U\fI qulntlty of 9ro\lAd
"uen, .itl\61 th~\llilh dl~ I4dJ,UOM
Clt Ollthdu..el.. Q1' thr0\l9b lnure'pd_
ot MY llqVUU' by ClJU or u.c...nl.o/l'~
-1-
r..::lIt'::lI'I"'::II"t' Aup
~.An OimAQ
r..A
Q177'\
(714) ~qq-6110
l\. S\l,t1.I;.."tU.L A'1u.~!,.01l. Ln t.he
alltOlUlt of ..atar oen.nu... a..eilabl.
fOol' pUbUc ".UI' .vppU.et
to E.ltpoeu.nr Oof peopl. or Pl'OpfI-I't)'
to ",.t.r- ral.tt<! hlu,rd. aou:r...
Hoodin,'-l
.. 'hnt Uf.. WilL the pnrPolel t..~lt lrll
A. Ch&nge 1n tn. dJ.nnit)' of .~J....
131: !luanaI' of .1IY ap.cJ... ot pllnt.
Ilncl~LlIq t.fflI', Ihrubl. 9'~"'"' c~e.
~tcr-oUor. and .aquatic: plu.ta}?
b. ..duc:UClfl vf the n~l'I vf oIn1
UnIque. ur. 01' erlll.lr\9.nd apd..
vr planut
e. Intt'Ol:lllCt1on of n... .9'fId.. of
pl.nt. lnto '&II .1'.1. '13.. Nlult. 1n I
~",laf' to Ilhl nOrlll.ll npltlnh:Ulent
of .xuu.ftg .I~eue~
$. ~l Ltfa. IfUI th.,pl'OpOll.1 nevi"
In.
.. CblA9a in tll. c!.l.91Ir-elty o~ Iplel...
or nwabfln of &ny "OIein of In1a&1a
Ibi.nts. 1.en4 IAiluh lneh.dlnq 1'.pt.I.1...
tUh ll-IId .h.ll.filll. banthic vA.nt....
Ln"CQ or II-1cl'Of.l,IMI1
t1~ hCluctJ.Oft of thl n'llllllln o_r .lA1
lUIl.quI. rue or .ndanqered .paoi..
of en1ru.u?
e. %ntrodlKt.iOA of _ apeel.. of
.1l.....1a Into .IA .n.. Ot. Nlult in
. bardar to till algr.tiOCl or IlOW-
lDfIni of a.nill!"b~
d. DfIt.ri.o.r&uan to l!Iallt1ng "ild1J.f.
hab.\,uU
5. !lotaa. WUI W propo.fI1 r..ult UlI
a. tIlGn.... 1n lai.Un, 1I0he hViltst
b. !:JCPOIIUI'. oC ""cple to ._n
noLI. le.,.ts?
Li~t Ind Ob.... "Ul the 511'0'0..1
p uc. new u:9ht IIJ:' o;1&nt
I. =-:~~::;'t1:t1;1~:.:f:O::1 ~Slllt ill
;or....nt '01: ;ilen.1llld. 1&n4 ..... of _ tIC..&?
r,
t. "UI.ul,".oute... W111 tn propo"l
r..wv. I.IlI
I. tner.... 111. the ntl of WI. Gf any
n&tv&! r..OIIrC:IQt
b. Sl&b.unt1f11 4~1.t:.4on of &Il.Y
nonrlnawule n.t~.l l'fI:eOlll'C>l~
!!!
/-
..,/
~ .!!!!.
L
L,"
L
.L'
/
L
./
../
./'
v
,/'
L
.c...'
.J/
.
.
.
10.
~~::l:: ~P~!:k Or: ;;:1:~~~':~
1;1\1 r.l.... of n....tOOu. lul:ln.nl;a'
(uc1I1.d!:llt. but 1101: ilaite<l to',oU,
penield,... ch__c&l, O~ udl.uon)
I" the I...ent..ot 4tI .~C:ld.,.t Or'
\Ill..t I;Ondlt1G1l.1
Ll. poouhdan. WlLl tM PtO'pOul dur
:1l1 lQc.tlCn. dlur'1tI\l.UOn, 4oIn.lty.
Or' q~1\ tu. at thl hUQl'l pOpvh-
tJol\ol.nll''''
u. ::~:~~~9 ~~tfl~ o~~::-'~ :ftlC1;
ol.lJI...d for 14,Ur.Lon.l 11_1"'1'
Il,
I~:n:~~:;~o~~;ti~~:~~lOf1. wlU
I. C.""UU,OfI Of 1oIl.!I>.u.n.Ual ~1-
tlQn.l,v.ll1cul...~y._ntl
a. Et1'.~u on ululnq plIrtl.nq
!.uhuu ordnl.;tnd fllrti_p..rk1.n'lll
::. 1l',LllIUlltJ.d t"'l'lctuPOl'ilx1f;tJnq
tt.n.port.t1on.y.t....'
d. AlunU,~ tel pt...nt pnU~
~t ,arc-.ll..ucm or __"t of p~pll
4nd/ot'llIlOcbl
e. Aluuuonl to ....t.rbO~. t.u
lit ...ir turtle1
to :nct....ln,trAtt1.c hu.m to
lCOtOr v'"iel... t1icyclUU or
p,d"l:r1.".,
14. PIlbUc ServicI,. "111 t!ll ptopoa.l
ft." l.1letuct Llpon.,01' re.lllt in.
neell lor now or .deer,,1I 'IJ""~nul
.'-"le.. In OIly or t1Il1 rol1C1W1ncJ
'1'.'"
t. 1'tn.prot'ct.ton'l
b. 'oUn p&"0t;.ct~on1
C/. SChooLII?
d. Pull. al' oth-.r t'llCI~Ua~l
f.('i11t.1II.?
.. IIUnUtUIM. of pW)llC::'facI.U-
ti,.. Includlllll roal!a"
r. Otner.qoyu'n..nUll .,.."le..'
IS. En..nv, Wl11 tho pI'ClfO...1I'''lI.1t 1111
.. ga, of ,.unti,l ~unt.l of
tlld or '''.m'?
b, SlIbnanthl lncn.... in 4P.an4
upon .lC1.Un; 'Oll!'C" of .n.rvy. ~
"quir. tho clovolDfll"-l'lt of new
aclllt;..af.nel''JY7
~:1~l~;::. fo~l~ t~ .~~:~ ",olllt
.U!lot&l'lt1al t.1tlCotiotlll to dlo 'o11ow-
in911UUtUllt
...
a. '_I'arnatlll'lli.,."
b. Co=unle.tlON1 'VjlttUlIlI1
e. W'tor?
4. ;9......, '01' ..puo: tjlnJl.,
o. Stonl\ol.&tudra1n,lcro1
L SaUd ",aato and d1o,,,...11
17. ?llltillln lioatth. Will 0111 propoul
u:..Ut 1nl
.. l:1'.at1llft of /lny "oiHlltll h.nrd or
poteMUI hulu tln.u:d C"olll4.lnq
IIlllf'lul n..lth)~
b. t:l<pOIl"'l't1 at peop1* to VOUndu
h.deh /lOu.r""
Date
1/29/90
!!!.~~
./
./
...,/
L
,L"
L
L
..,/
.1/
./
~
~
,,/
./
L'
.:/
.L
./
~
~
../
./
.1/
U. ......th.ele.. Will Ul.pn;lpa.d ~.",1t !!2. ~ ;!2.
Ut tno OO.t~c:t1an of .ny ,canle
vhta 01' '11... open to 1;Jt. pQblLc:. or
"'Lll the prttpOoal r"lllt lnu..
er.atlon Of u a..tII.dul1y Oef.M1". L-
Ute Opetl to pubUCl Y1_1
,", ~:o:~:a:;::~t ~~~~ ~: :~:~:;l a~"\llt
ql,lanC1t.y of 1:11Ut11111 r.ol'...tla....l ,
opport>mid.., ::::
... "'I'Ch.OliiC:.lIlIllht.Oric:d. Mill_en.
pl'oP:OO.a I'.'UU l",an Utol'..uon of
. SignU lClIt\t. udl.olog1C:d or
IIUto...lc..l .It., .truct.un. <>b,.et L'
arbulldln;'
". !4allduarvrliltI11l0Iafhqnihc:enc..
;If. 0Qa1 t.ne proJect n..... tA. patent1.1
'to ~u...w u-,. qu.r.ll.t'l o-t th. emlr_n't.
~~:t:~c:~ti~rl~:I5~=C~:. !t::~:t.. 4~1:h
al' wil4lif. pGpb-Iuion eo dr-Qp "lOW
'1:U-,ulturd.nq leY1:1l, thee.e.n to
.t111111n,t-e .. pleAt ar ..nul'" CCll:lllWl1ty.
radu.a tll. "umb.r III' ro'UUt't t.h. r.nq.
ot . 1"1'1I or an4.n'1.r" pl.n't__or 1U\1lNl
Dr lIiLm.l....ee UlpoI'U!lt. u6lIIplu of dlo
....lo...p.ri.od. of Ca11ton'll. hbuary 0/
al'prehbeory1
D. ElIM' tJltl_ proJl:et II.". tll. potentul
to .chU"1: .hal't-t.l'Ill. ta tJl. .u.a4v.ntil.,.
or 10n9-Untl<lllVLrCN:lllntal 40.101 1...
Short-tom lap.ect on tlla 1:nvl'1'OftlMnt
1.1 one~hlC:l'lo=...l.n. 'I'.lau"'l.,.
bnof. d.hn1.uv. petiod .of ttlM "'Aile
lonq-Utwl"".C:U",Ut "nd"'r....U into ../
"'. Cueura.1
0:. Ooc. th'_IU'OJOc:t na"" imp.cU
~IUCI\ U" ,_ndiVldlJilUy hlltl.tK. tIIIe.
clIllIlIhtivety,CClIlaid....il&Dl.J I" proJ.ClC
may l...r:t an t",g ..... 11I01'. .op.rat.
r"OlUeh ~h.l'. Uta 11!1Pac:e on oac:ll
r..crutc. h ",luh.1y ....11, but IIn..r1
d'1: .ft.ee. o_f, c.h. total of tho.. l.Jllpocu ./
an thl:e.nY1r_nti,.i;niHe.nt.1
:ff.~:' W:~:b p~ii:e~::~,::t:::~t:d
lldlieu1: .UlIieu OR RUIIWI bein'IJ.. d-tII.r ,/
i:l1r.ctll' 01' lndiroct1y1
C. OraCUS&IQlII O.P nvtltONlItllTAL IlVlU.OA'I'lCN
.0. ottUMlN"tlON
lto be.complot.d by tho Lead "9""cyl
On 'h.~b of till. lMU.l .vol~tlQIU
Q"f.Und tllo propa..<t pro!.c::t: COULD 'fO'r h.v. . .1<inlt1e.llt
otfllGt Ofl the .Ilvl~nt. .hll. " lrItt.A'I'1V1 t1.KlJ',RA'I'ION
"U.l b<t preparecl.
01 Und ,tn.t .1tho""h tI'l. p<<IpOI.c1 p<<tJ.c:t cCllItd h.yo.
,,,,,,,,-UUlI-t Athet Ofl tho """l...-.-nt. tho.... ..~U not
be . l1;nifie.nc effect 1ft cttil cu. 'b~la. the tIlulqadol\
.....1".. 4'-.crlb.,s 011 &II .ttached ahH't /'i..... .b..n ..dd.d to
the projoct.. ''If!QA'tlvt Dret.AltA'I'ICItl "1l.L Ja 'Uf'"UD.
o t find tho p"pe'.d proj'Ct MY 1\1"" . .1.qnlHr:ilnt .ff.;t
an the .n.,.honNnt, and .n t:lfV1R01l1U1lTAL HIPACt' UPOJl'l' at
reqllll'.d.
Q~ tl),1\'JjJlYVL--'
(Signature)
-2-
.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST FORM
c.u.p, 90-002
Ic, Will the proposal result in a change in topography qr ground relief
features?
There will be a minor change in the topography, as a result of grading the site
for the proposed development. However, based upon the Public Works
standards these changes will not be significant,
3b. Will the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
The proposed development of a 46 lot residential planned development on
the site may change the existing absorption rates and will change the existing
drainage patterns. The project will be designed to direct the new surface
runoff onto the streets in accordance with the City's Code requirements, and
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
. 6a. Will the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels?
There will be a short term increase in noise levels due to new construction on
the site. Once construction is completed, it is anticipated that although the.
noise factor may increase with the net gain of 5 dwelling units on the site, this
noise will be the type of noise associated with residential neighborhoods and
should not adversely impact any of the neighboring properties,
7, Will the proposal produce new light or glare?
13a.
The proposed development will produce new light in the area by providing
on-site exterior lighting for the common and private areas. However, this
residential lighting will be in accordance with the light standards set forth in
the Arcadia Municipal Code, and therefore should not significantly impact
the adjoining properties,
Will the proposal result in a generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
.
The Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal and has
determined that although traffic volume will be increased, there will be no
major impact on the existing traffic circulation.
.
FILE NO. c.ufqD-OO~
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMA "(ION ,FORM
A,
Applicant's Name: The Plount company, Inc.
Address: 464 South Cataract Ave. HA, San Dimas, Calif. 91773
B,
Property Address (Location): 702-822 North First Ave. and
105-119 Haven Avenue
C
D.
General Plan Designation:
Zone Classification: R - ,
I
5~ ~ /17/
.
and R-2
E. Proposed Use (State exactly what use is intended for the property,
i.e" type, activities, employment):
Residential Planned Development consisting of 46 detached
.units, two story construction with community recreation
.
facilities.
F. Square Footage of Site: 293,935 s.f. 6.74 acres
G Square Footage of Existing Buildings:
1. To Remain: 0
2. To Be Removed: 30,000 +
H. Square Footage of New Buildings: ' 1 5,000' +
I. Square Footage of Buildings to be Used for:
1. Commercial Activities: 0
2. Industrial Activities: 0
3. Residential Activities: 1 , 5, 000 +
Number of Units: 46
.
Environmental Information Form
- 1 -
.
.
.
I.
Describe the following:
\, The environmental setting of the project site as it exists.
Mix of sinqle and multi-familv residential use
(28 dwellinq unitsl and one commercial use (Ameri~~n
Leqion Postl
2, The proposed alterations to the project site,
-Removal of all existinq structures.
-Grading of the site to provide 46 building pads.
-Construction of 30' wide paves driveways.
3, The use and development of the surrounding properties.
Mix of single and multi-family residential uses.
Environmental Information Form
-2-
K Check the appropriate answers to the following questions:
.
.
L.
M.
Date:
.
Yes .tfu
1.
Will the proposed project result in a substantial
alteration of ground cQntours and/or alteration
of exiting drainage pattern? x
2,
Will the proposed project result in a change in
groundwater quality and/or quantity? .lL-
3.
Will the proposed project result in an increase in
noise, vibration, dust, dirt, smoke, fumes, odor or
solid waste? x
4.
Will the proposed project result in the use or
disposal of potentially hazardous materials? x
5.
Will the proposed project result in a substantial
increase in demand for municipal services
and/or energy consumption? x
Explain in detail any "YES" answers to the above questions on
additional sheets.
Provide any additional information which would elaborate on the
potential environmental consequences resultant from the proposed
project.
Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above
and in the attached exhibits present the data and information
required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that
the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I-~")' ')p
)<
r.
of Applicant
Information Form
-3-