Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0821 . . . . . RESOLUTION NO. 821 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING A DENI.AL OF A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT ll30- 1150 COLORADO STREET. WHEREAS, on June 26, 1973, at the request of Resnick Company, a public hearing was held on the proposal to amend the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential relating to the property known as the Eaton Property which consists of all of the R-l zoned property in the block bounded by Michillinda Avenue, Colorado Street, Altura Road and Volante Drive, at which public hearing all I interested persons were given full opportunity to be hea~d and to present evidence; N<M, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That there is no justification at this time for amending the General Plan to change the classification of the subject property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential'. SECTION 2. 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 of the City of Arcadia held on the day of , 1973, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Chairman Secretary 821 / J , . . . .,.- -~.. . . June 26, 1973 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CHANGE G.P. 73-2 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COLORADO STREET AND MICHILLINDA AVENUE (EATON PROPERTY) The Resnick Company, applicant of zone change Z-73-3, Conditional Use Permit C.U.P. 73-7, and Tentative Tract 31668, has requested that the City reconsider the General Plan classification for the property at 1130-1150 Colorado Street, the Eat.on Restaurant and motel site. The current General Plan designation of the site is that of Low Density Residential (3-4 dwelling units per acre), which is the same designation as the adjoining resi- dential property within the City of Arcadia. The applicant is requesting that the General Plan be amended to indicate this area as Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). '',. The requested General Plan change to medium density residential is clearly not consistent with the existing General Plan designation. ThereJore, the Planning Depart- ment under the provisions established by City Council Reso- lution No. 4326 adopting guidelines pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, contracted with BRT Environmental ' Consultants for the preparation of an environmental impact r~port for the proposed development. This report has been included for your consideration along with th~ staff report and any public testimony on this item and related applica- tions. The environmental impact report did notlL~he of the Planning Department, disclose any~ub~tantia1 environmental impacts he 'r men opin~on advers' "~ - v i i./J./ ^ " .J """f''-' ~ .' / "'1"\ ,.. r;, , r.) / / . . . G. P. 7 3 - 2 z LAND USE AND ZONING The subject property is developed with a,restaurant and bungalow type motel and presently zoned R-1. The uses on the site have not been actively used for the past three and one-half years. The Foothill Freeway is located directly north of the subject property. Properties to the east and south are developed with single family residential us.es and zoned R-O & D 15,000. The property to the west outside the City is located in unincorporated county territory and is developed with a service station and City of Monrovia Water Department facilities and is zoned C-Z, R-2 and R-l. (See the attached Land Use and Zoning Map.) SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site contains 8.03 acres and has the characteristics a's indicated' on the "Land Use A more detailed site description is'contained mental impact report. dimensional and Zoning Map." in the environ-' I . ANALYSIS The existing z,oning of the'subject s,ite and the'sur- rounding residential properties within ,Arcadia are consistent with the current General Plan insofar' as they are both low density residential zone classifications. In order to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the zoning ordinance, a'change'i-n the--General Plan classification to medium density-residential should logically' be followed by a change. in the z'oning to R-'2 zone-class,ification. The applicant has' applied forthis':-zone. change '(Z-73-3) in order to permi t>'aspecific residential ".piaaaed'tdevelopment (C.U.P. 73-7) which is proposed ~o be~a~.a dens'ty-of 10.5 dwell ing uni ts per' acre. '- ECONOMIC .' , '. The following attempts to analyze the costs and-benefits to the city of the more intensive use' of the' subject site through an examination of property tax revenues. It should be noted that the indicated'dol1ar amounts of costs and benefits are relative values and not absolute, as only pro- perty taxes are used in this comparison. . / . . . G.P. 73-2 3 A more intensive development of the property would result in an increased assessment of the property hence increased revenues to the City. The Planning Department has estimated the annual revenues to the City from the increased assess- ment to be approximately $13,002. Currently the City derives $2,539. Likewise the Arcadia School District could antici- J:lateapproximately $64,210 annually, versus the current $12,539. The ave,rage per person revenue derived ,by the City from property taxes is $31.21 (based on the 1972-73 budget and a population of 46,100), The proposed project anticipates a population of 185 people. . Assuming the same above per person rate of $31.21 were to apply to this population increase, the City would have to derive a minimum of $S,774 from property taxes within the project to provide the project inhabitants with municipal I services. Costs to the Cify would be less with a Residential: Planned Development due to the on-site streets and utilities being under private ownership with the costs of maintenance of these systems being borne by the project property owners. As previously no~ed, the City could anticipate to derive approximately $13,002 in property taxes from the proposed project which is in excess of the anticipated costs. Because the design of the proposed project (C.U.P. 73-7) is oriented towards an adult community, the number oJ school age children per dwelling unit is anticipated to be less than' is characteristic of dwelling units' of the same assessed value in the' adjoining reSidential area.' 'Thos;' the costs in- curred by the school district would be correspondingly less. The environmental impact teport has noted that the pro- posed development could adequately be served, by existing ci ty, county, school and special dis,trict agencies. It is estimated that city and school district revenues generated by the proposed development would be greater t~an any anticipated revenues should the property be developed in compliance with the existing zoning'requirements. i Additional revenues in the form of increased sales taxes, paid within the City by new residents would also be realized. . ) / . . . , . . . G.P. 73- 2 4 The Planning Depar'tment believes that a more intensive use as would be permitted by the General Plan reclassifica- tion would be in the economic interest of the 'City. However, the changing of the General Plan and subsequently the zoning of almos t any area of the City to permit'more"intensive use of the land is of greater economic benefit-to the"City than the maintenance of a more res.trictive classification. There- fore, economic considerations by themselves should not be the sole determinant of land use decisions. POPULATION The General Plan is essentia[ly a, limited, g~owth plan which seeks to maintain community ,quality and to limit future, residential, commercial and industrial growth,to certain areas of the City. With future residential growth limited to' certain areas, the population potential of the' Oi ty is correspondingly limited to the maximum capaci ty of these areas under the-exis ting I development regulations. The subject property could physically be developed'with approximate,ly twenty (20) home sites with' characteristics similar to those in the adjoining residential area. Development of the subject property with twenty (20) conven tiona1 single family dwe !ling units' would"result in a population increase of approximately 52 residents (based upon a dwelling unit density of 2.6' persons per' hous.ehold as re- ported for this area in the 1970 census). The proposed 18S residents represents a 356% increase over conventional deve10~- ment. TRAFFIC The Planning Department ..believes .tha,t_.deve1opment of areas subject to the adverse' effects' o~~ehicu1ar traffic should be of as low a ,density-as ~ossib~e ~e~as.to minimize the number of residents'exposed-to the adverse'effects; Also the location, design and' construction of'residentia1 dwelling units in such locations should seek to minimize the adverse effect. Exiting from the site onto Colorado Street either in an easterly or westerly direction is hazardous due to the curvature of Colorado' Street 'in this area, reduced vis.ibili ty and the relatively high speed of traffic on' Colorado Street. . . . G.P. 73-2 5 Increasing the allowable :density of.,this site would expose more res idents to the' adverse effects of"vehicu1ar traffic on Michillinda Avenue' and EOTor'ado Street and also increase the number of vehicles which would encounter the hazards of exiting onto Colorado' Street. RELATI.ONSHIP TO OTHER MEDIUM DENSITY"AREAS There are no parcels of the size of, the',subject site as available for development in any- of the other areas for medium or high density development. However,there are a substantial number of smaller undeveloped or underdeveloped medium and high density parcels in the east central and West Arcadia portions of the City. The ,City has in the past genera'lly',sought "to' encourage the development of property consistent 'with it.s present General Plan and zone classifications, and not encouraged changes in order to accommodate specific'projects. . The General Plan hearings were extensive and this pro- perty was singled out for special 'consideration due to the conflict between its use, zoning;"and-r-e1ationship to the adj oining residential area. Following cons iderab1e public test~mony with strong'opposition v6iced'by~neighborhood resi-, dents to the more intensive use'of the site, it'was'determined by the then City Council that the current.,designation be placed on the property. Recent zoning actions by the Planning Commission and the City Council have been'primari-ly"in ,the' form of zoning roll backs to lesser' intensive"uses',',consistent"wi th the City's adopted General'P1an. . The Planning' ,Dep artment', does-Jnet ,.:cens'ider.,- &,ny" ac t ion taken on this'particular Froperty-asrsetting.a-precedent for subsequent"actions"o.n' any' other' property. The Planning Depa'rtment believes that the, determination of the General ,Plan. classification of, this.,property'is"basically a policy' deci sion. "'There are, as has been. pointed out, certain economic 'benefi ts to' be derived .fr,om' the"more inten- sive use of this property.' These benefits are what must be weighed against the'previous1y,voiced~neighborhood concern and desire for development compatible ,with the existing resi- dential development pattern, the' adverse effects'of increased, population and traffic in this particular lO.cation, and the fact that there are other medium and 'high' density areas' within the City which are not fully developed. . . . G.P. 73-2 6 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department does not believe that this City's land use'po1ic~ shou1d'be unduly'inf1uenced by economic pressures for development, and the-economic bene- fits which would accrue to the City through the-more' inten- sive use of the subject property. The Planning Department believes that the development of this pro.perty wi th a residential'density'.consistent with the density in the adjoining residential area would result in the most compatible development with the least adverse effects upon both the existing' area' residents and -future project residents. The Planning Department, therefore, ,ecommends that the existing General Plan designation' of'Low,Density' Resi- dential (3-4 dwelling units per acre)'not be changed. PLANNING DEPARTMENT . WILLIAM WOOLARD DIRECTOR OF PLANNING WW:db Attachments . . . . 2/0 FWY I. ,_I (1107- 1128. ~II"" CATALPA ROM 15.0 R-l I. VACANT 1 . -,{ SE A~D ZO~ LA ND3U Z 73- CUP-73-7 N J.S.H. 5-17-73