Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0462 . . ~ .' .. . . RESOLUTION NO. 462 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 315 LE ROY AVENUE IN SAID CITY. WHEREAS, there was filed with this Commission on the 9th day of July, 1962, the application of Elmer and Esther A. Benson, 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 Ordi- nance of said City, a public hearing was duly held on the matter by and before this Commission on the 24th day of JUly, 1962, at which time all interested persons were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, at the conclusion of which hearing this Commission adopted its certain Resolution No. 455 wherein and whereby it recommended the denial of the requested variance; and, WHEREAS, within ten (10) days thereafter a written appeal from said decision and recommendation was duly filed, pursuant to c which, aft~r notice duly given, a public hearing was held by and before the City Council of the City of Arcadia on September 4, 1962, . at which time all interested parties were again given full oppor- tunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, it was proposed to present evidence to the Coun- cil that had not been presented to this Commission and the matter was referred back to this Commission by said Council for further de- termination and recommendation; and, -1- 462 v . . .. . . WHEREAS, after due notice as required by the Zoning Ordi- nance of said City, a second public hearing was duly held on the matter by and before this Commission on the 9th day of October, 1962, , at which time applicants were given a full opportunity to present additional evidencej NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY DETER- MINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That subject property is 75 feet by 275 feet and has an area exceeding 20,000 square feet. 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 25% of the lots in the immediate vicinity do not have two or more dwellings. . SECTION 2. That it was not shown that there are excep- tional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to subject prop- erty or to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity. That it was not shown that a. variance is necessary for the preservation of any property right of the applicant possessed by other property in the same zone or vicinity since for the first nine (9) years that applicants owned the property, a variance would not have been re- quired for the construction of a second dwelling thereon. That the granting of such variance would be materially i~jurious to the prop- erty and improvements in the zone and vicnity 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 population and would constitute poor planning practice and would adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. -2- 462 . . ., , . . . 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 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 adjourned at a/regular meeting of the City Planning Commission held on the 30th day of Oc tober , 1962, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Kuyper, Norton, Parker and Forman . NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Michler ~- a rman ATTEST: ~~~ Secretary . -3- 462 CITY OF ARCADIA, CAUFORHIA I eE R - 0 F Fie E M E M 0 RAN D . TO T''1'::'nLli:1~ DGi)$i'tment DATE C'ctcber S, 19-3.._ FROM 'F'qildinr..: r. Safet '. ":>1" L31,'n . ',,1 T e'i.o . f\....7enlJe f""'41lildin,..... Di'li31:>n ReC'orus) SUBJECT 'l"e ',,: lCJ"'i,n~; ~1'jldJ.n'" '1ct"llits "rere i3';t'ed " ti~e A.rcl3c11~ D'iv:'.31cn 0" ]\\'i1d'i.11-: pnc1 Sr;:"et": ?CPl:: t 71") Tlete I, :;)!_ , )l' . - 1. _r_~ 1.01.r ~ 1.1_'. -"'~7 "_1 < _L:l '-2_L!':i n-2_Llf -1 -"0 11,,:,1.-.. . '; i COPIES TO: Dc &clOi'~t ion Dwellinr; Reroo: D':lellinc; . Feed Uouse ,a Add to D\'lelling Add ::;araF!,€ and breeZe~'!8::.' SIGNED ~ &~,,') 12~~~ - TITLE Supt. Buildinp; and Sa 2et,\i .. . October 9, 1962 . SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION - 315 LE ROY AVENUE I. Holly Avenue school property is 0 lot - 9220.33.2 2. Holly Avenue school property is a through lot - 9220.40 3. A through lot may be developed as two lots if depth is sufficient - 9283.7 4. Bensen property is a lot as far os - 9252.2.15 A. Has not been subdivided since 6/2/49 B. Has 18,750 sq. ft. required for second dwelling 5. Lot at northwest corner of Le Roy and Ewell Lone is two lots - 9220.33.2 6. If Holly Avenue school property is 0 lot in the block, less than 25% of lots have two dwellings. 7. If Holly Avenue school property is not a lot in the block, 25% do have second house. . 8. However, lot at 301 Le Roy - no City record for second dwell ing, therefore, not 0 valid non-conforming use as a dwelling - 9220.47 Likewise, but one-fumily as defined by Section 9220.25 occupies the lot. SUMMARY Variance application to allow construction of second dwelling at 315 Le Roy Avenue can be denied on basis of 25% condition not complied with and no resubdivision since 1949 and in so doing, we do not open the door to second dwell ings on the remainder of the lots on the block. I. " .,;..i:.- y'''' ~ \o?-- . . I. . I . October 4, 1962 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: V-62-9 VARIANCE APPLICATION - Second .)welling in Zone R-I ot 315 Le Roy Ave. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council thot this opplication not be approved on August 14, 1962, when it adopted Resolution No. 455. This decision of the Commission was appealed to the City Council by the applicant. The Council, therefore, set the application for a public hearing on September 4, 1962. At the Counci I hearing the attorney representing the appl icant informed the Council that he hod new evidence to present about this case which had not been presented to the Commission. At this point the Council decided that rather than to hear any new evidence which had not been given ta the Commission that the case be referred back to the Commission to permit them to reconsider their recommendation in light of the new evidence. The property owners within 300 feet of the subject property have been natified of this pub'ic hearing being held by the Commission. The Planning Department's report of July 19, 1962 recommended to the Commission that the application not be approved. A re-evaluation of the appl ication has not revealed to the Department any additional facts which justify changing its recommendation. A copy of the original staff report is attached. tf/~~ WILLIAM PHELPS Planning Director WP:ma . . . .. , . October 9, 1962 , TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICATION V-62-9 - 315 Le Roy Avenue The purpose of this report Is to bring before the E:ommlsslon some additional foeti which have been brought to the Planning Department's attention and to recommend the c:oune of action the department bellevllS the PlaMing Commission should talce In light of these new foe ts . ADDITIONAL FACTS The original staff report Informed the Commlulon that O!' the n<<th side of Le Roy ,.,..,. between Holly and Ewell Lane there were 13 lots. If one were to Include the Hally ItJ~, 1" School property as a lot having frontage on Le Roy this would be Ifte COle. Howev.r, It Is believed when the original count was made the property at tne northw..t comer of Ewell Lane and Le Roy was counted 01 0 lot facing Le Roy Avenue rather than the ect.t #,..rty. t-b wever, on June 26, 1962 the conditions of approval permitting 0 lot Ipllt tOr .... .j' ., at 245 Le Roy Avenue were completed. Two lots both havlnt fron~ Oft &well ~"""- than on Le Roy Avenue were created, which was not the c:aM prior to .... lot. "It. '~Jht., the property at 245 La Roy Avenue should NOT be Included In an occurot. COUIIt of.. ~~{ , of lots on the north side of Le. Roy Avenue between Holly and Ewell ~one. (The frant lot ttn," in the case of a comer lot Is Identified as that portion of the lot having .... _.w..est '*'-' . '.,;'~, frontage.) If the Ichool property il consldenlld CIS a lot then 13 lots do exist. If the scRooJ I -:-;-..-t. ,. 1.) property is not considered then only 12 lots exist. The number of lots become one of the facton in detennlnlng ~ or not 25% of ... lots within the block already ore develcped with two or more dwelll'9. . The staff report hod stated that Its land use survey of Au~lt, 1961, only ,..,ecd~ one lot as having a second dwelling. The map submitted by the applicant showed thr.. Iota with two dwellings. Whether or not one, two, or three lob had aecond dwelllnp became rolatlvely . . , . unimportant because the staff by assuming 13 lots and any number of ~ lots less than four would hove produced t~'e same resolt, i.e., less than 25% of the 13 lots do not hove 0 second dwelling. The next variation wh ich has arisen is whether the second structure at 301 Le Roy Avenue is 0 second dwelling or 0 guest house, If the structure is considered os 0 second dwelling the result is thot three lots do have two additionol dwellings within the block. If 12 lots ore counted (excluding the school site) cmd th.e of the 12 lots hove second dwell ings the resul t of course is 25% of the lots on the north side of Le Roy Avenue already have a second dwell ing, The other properties, providing thoy CCBl t., "I .J:- ~.~ -;r:;:, a; "'- qualify under the other two provisions of the Code otIl'\1"lso per"'llt II '. second dwellings. In addition, the stoff hos been informed that the properties ot 333, 325, 32\ ""., , . ~ . (the subject property) have not been resubdivided since June 2, 1949 os required by...."..... Wnder this provision the subject property does not qualify automatically for. f:llMJ dwelling regardless of the determination of the number of lots within the block or the IIUIlIhr of lots wh ich hove second dwell ings. The last item to bring to the Commission's attention is that only recently tentative map No.)" 7'::'-0 'l was approved. This map proposed to subdivide the rear portion of the two lots on Il:lua, Duarte Road and the two lots at 347 and 343 Le Roy Avenue. 'Mlen the finol map is awroved these two properties will hove complied with two of the three conditions nocessary before a second dwelling \s allowed, i.e., the remaining lot area would exceed 18,750 sq. ft. and Itle rear portion of the lot would hav" been resubdivided. If 25% of the lots on Le Roy Avenue have a second dwelling these properties would also be entitled to the same right. Therefore, the number of lots on Le Roy Avenue between E.,ell Lene andlHdllr Holly Avenue and Itle number of these lots which hove a second dwelling does become a key consideration which could change the character of the area from one of single-family residential district, to one of a two-family . " , . , . i. '. . :) residential district. , The properties ut ;105, . :lOl (if the existing structure is 0 guest house ~~ r. ,- -,II,:,:'; rather thun a <econd dwelling) 275,271, 261, 251 Le Roy Avenue also qualify for 0 second.; :,.,..' dwelling by meeting the two re'lu ;'ements, i. e., a pm> portion of these lots hove been~' since /949 and 011 hove in excess of the 18,750 sq, ft, reqc.ired. The only condition wMe they cannot now compl1 with is the 25% clouse. Again the determination os to the number of lots to be counted within the 1:lIcltk'.. the number of those lots which already hove 0 second dwelling becomes of prime Importance. If the application is granted any doubt is removed os to whether there ore three lots with a second dwelling because the construction fsf 0 second dwelling on the subject property brings the third lot with 0 second dwelling into existence. If the school parcel is not counted os 0 lot then only 12 lots can be counted and three of the twelve with second dwell iogs qual i fies all the lots on the north side of Le Roy Avenue for 0 second dwell ing except the property at 321 Le Roy Ave. In the case of this property, the Commission could hardly refuse it the some development rights enjoyed by the other properties similarly situated if it too were to apply for 0 variance, The Planning Deportment has evaluated these new facts and recommends that the Commission not approve the variance application because such approval will either permit the other lots in the some area the same development opportunity or at least hasten the day when other properties could be similarly developed. In both instances the Planning Department feels that the present environmental qualities now enjoyed by the properties in the area will be greatly diminished to the point where the general character of the area will be basically changed from one of single-family residential development to two-family residential development. Such a change for this area does not seem warranted nor in keeping with the development objective of Arcadia, i. e., 0 City of Distinctive Houses. WILLIAM PHELPS, Planning Director