The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0510 ~.~ . . . RESOLUTION NO. 510 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE LOT AT 311 LE ROY AVENUE IN SAID CITY. WHEREAS, there was filed with this Commission on the 14th day of February, 1964, the application of Elmer and Esther A. Bensen, as owners, for a zone variance to build a second single family dwelling on property located at 315 Le Roy Avenue in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows: Lot 38, Tract No. 951, as shown on map recorded in Book 17, Page 28, of Maps, records of said County; . and, WHEREAS, after due notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of said City, a pUblic hearing was duly held on the matter by and before this Commission on the lOth day of March, 1964, at which time all interested persons were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY DETERMINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That subject property is 75 feet by 275 feet and has an area exceeding 20,000 square feet. That most of the property in the immediate vicinity and elsewhere in the City are lots the same size or larger. That the lot is zoned R-l. That less than 25% of the lots in the immediate vicinity have two or more dwellings. . SECTION 2. That it has not been shown that there are excep- tional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to subject property or to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity, or that the granting of the,t~i~ested variance is necessary for the preservation of any property -1- 510 v ..:~ . . . ~ right of the applicant possessed by other property in the same zone or vicinity. That the granting of such variance would be materially injurious to the property and improvements in the zone and vicinity in which the property is located, particularly because it would make difficult if not impossible the denial of other similar requests, thereby effectively changing the area from R-l to R-2 type development. That such an R-2 use in an R-l zone would mean greater density of popu- lation and would constitute poor planning practice and would adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons, this Commission recommends to the City Council that the requested variance to allow a second house on the above-described property located at 315 Le Roy 4It Avenue be denied. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a copy of the same 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 City Planning Commission held on the 2l,th day of March , 1964, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Golisch, Kuyper, Norton, Parker, Forman and Ferguson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hanson . <~;f~-~-c~~~17<~ ,-, ATTEST: Secretary -2- 510 .- ... 0.. (~ . TO: PLANNING COMMISSION . . March 10, 1964 FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLlCA TlON: BACKGROUND: 1. . 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. SUBJECT: ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION V-64-5 315 LE ROY AVENUE This is the application of Elmer and Esther Bensen, requesting a Zone Variance on R-l property located at 315 le Roy Avenue to permit construction of 0 second house. The <:Ommission will recoil that a similar application was submitted an this property in July of 1962. Summary of Actions on Previous Application: Application filed July 9, 1962. Planning Commission - denial, July 24, 1962. Planning Commission Resolution No. 455 recammending denial adopted August 14, 1962. Planning Commission decision appealed. Planning Commission new Public Hearing to hear new evidence on October 9, 1962. Planning Commission Resolution No. 462 recommending denial adopted October 30, 1962. City Council denial, November 24, 1962. City Council Resolution of Denial adopted December 4, 1962. NOTE: One of the foremost reasons for denial was an the basis of a Cammission and Council unwillingness to allow a precedent to be set whereby the balance of the properties in the subject block would have similar development rights. Recent zoning ordinance changes have eliminated this possibility. SUBJECT SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: . The following outline represents the major site and development characteristics: Site Dimensions Site Area Existing Improvements 75 ft. wide by 275 ft. deep 20,625 sq. ft. One two-story building, 900 sq. ft. each floor - one garage. - 1 - , ' . . . . . . Zone Variance V-64-5 March 10, 1964 Page 2 . Proposed Development One-story residence, 1800 sq. ft. floor area + including single carport. NOTE: See attached plot plan and floor plans. ANALYSIS: The subject appl ication seeking permission to allow construction of a second house seems somewhat more justified than it ~id two years ago, because of recent changes to the R-l zoning ordinance. These changes preclude the automatic allowance of second houses on the balance of the lots in this block, whereas, prior to the R-l ordinance changes, 'approval of the subject site for a second house would have allowed all other lots on the block simi lar development rights, However, this does not mean to imply that no other considerations are necessary at this point in time. This application represents the first request for a breakdown of the present Zone R-l ordinance. If approved, it will set the guidel ines for recommendations on such future applications. These could be numerous since there are many lots in Arcadia upon which houses have been improperly located to the rear. Such a condition exists on the property just west of the subject property. Another consideration concerns the decision as ta whether this lot is large enough in area to justify two houses. It would certainly appear to be when its 20,625 sq. ft. are compared to the present R-l requirement of 7500 sq. ft. of lot area per house. On the other hand, there are dozens of lots throughout the south' part of the city with lot areas much greater than even that of the subject property. Appraval of the subject application could set a precedent, whereby such lots would have to be approved for second houses . A solution to the problem of allowing two houses on the subject property may lie in the placement of an equitable abatement period on the improvements at the rear of the site after which time they would have to be removed. ' The Planning Department is in favor of the upgrading of properties such as the one being considered in this application, and suggests that approval is in order provided that firm commitments, in a form meeting with the approval of the City Attorney, can be obtained to abate the use of the second house on the rear portion of the property as a dwelling unit. WP:EM:mo PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM PHELPS, Planning~irector By E~~~~ Senior City Planner - 2- . . Vi III F '" Y MA F 01' ., J\ b " U I:l!: 01' ~ < m n := n~ <it ::: '" = ~ " <( ~ ~ .P ~ Z . ~ ,,: . w ~ ~ .- . .. V) a . Z ~ :'; i w ~ " a:::l > ~ lU 0 e::: ~ ~ lJ " W :;; 2 0 ::: - ," " ::::> ~ [) $' e::: ~ ::: 1Il ~. - UJ ~~ (Y~ " , \ !; PA T I 0 ------.. FA'MILY ROOM ~~'~~J I . . - .. BEDROOM . L :: B#\~H 8ATH L,,-J PANT CARPOR,T .EDROOU ~NTRY I LIVING El. I 1 lJ RQGY I I-~ .J , ~ 1]]\ .~ t:J. --.--.., r~-~ I I -, . -- -! , -t ". +- . , J~ -' - . FLOOR P LAN ""'-1 ~ II' .,,',. "". .... ~:.I.~: , ''''f'''] "1'; ~ ., '\ HU:'.' r' tO~. I ..l .. ~U:;~f ::: ,: . ;; ~ ,t;_t. r :0 i ~~: 01 J) :;' ~ ~ . . ., ,. !II \~, . " t;!'it/ i .,; ~ u_ti' " a : i'. : ~; ~ , ~ a .. I ~';.' - ". 'I ~ ~ il!;:,! ~ .r :",-;: FRONT ELEVATION . . . , . r , L ---_0" '~,-- ~ [~ ,~~ .., "" :I' " 5 ---:"~ ~.~ . ~'~~ I 1 -:f ~- ..~ ;:tes :;le.,.~_", '.~ eUl~C_ .. . '" , ~: .....::..,~ ;:lO' , ._-,~ ~'I\.. I:. in -. ~ ~ 'l ';,:.::J~""~:~~. ',.1 ". Cl,....~.,. -~,.".,j ll~[~ \:?.~i,::t . I : 1 ' -\ .-. " ..., 0" ~~.. .,= ::"":0 ~~.-':::O~: ~':.~~f-_~:;:}~?:,~:':;;, ',';;. '.~ ", . . .... - - . : : ~ ", " VI ..... u ,., .... x u '" ~ " '" W .' ,~ ", .. i " I >- 0 Ill' 'w ,...I ~ :. ~ - z~ w, <I): z~ w d) 0:::: w ()~ ::>- T ""- :..:" 'I -, ,,' I"" I.., ',j, , ';:;', H, i ~ :,: I).,. , , "'I, I ,J ~ ~ ' I nDI 11 " - .