HomeMy WebLinkAbout0640
"
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 640
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
RECOMMENDING THE RECLASSIFICATION
OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM ZONE R-l
TO ZONE R-0-12,500-D, AND RECOMMENDING
REGULATIONS TO BE APPLiCABLE UNDER
ZONE D.
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Division 3 of Part 9 of
Chapter 2 of Artie Ie IX of the Arc.adia Municipal Code, the City
Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia on February 27, 1968
adopted Resolution No. 630 whereby on its own motion it instituted
.
proceedings for the purpose of considering and making recommenda-
tions concerning the reclassification to some more appropriate zone
clasSification of that portion of the City of Arcadia described as
follows:
I
Area #1 - Beginning at a point on the easterly
line of M1chillinda Avenue, said point being
the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No,
15928; thence easterly along the southerly
boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No,
14428 to a point which is the northwesterly
corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence
southerly along the westerly line of said Lot
12 and its prolongation thereof to its inter-
section with the center line of D.e Anza Place;
thence southerly and easterly along said center
line to its intersection with the center line of
Altura Road; thence southerly along said center
line to its intersection with the center line of
Hugo Reid Drive; thence eas,terly along said
center line to its 1:nterse.c,tioh with the center
line of Golden West Avenue; thence northwesterly
along said center line to its intersection with
the center line of Tallac Drive'; thence easterly
along said center line to its intersection with
the easterly line of Tract No. 13312; thence
northerly and easterly along the easterly and
southerly boundary of said tract to the south-
easterly corner of ,Lot NO, 1 of said tract; thence
northerly along the easterly line of said Lot
No. 1 to its intersection with the easterly line
of Golden West Avenue; thence northerly along
-1-
640
.
.
.
.
.
said easterly line to its intersection with the
southerly line of vaquero Road; thence easterly
along said southerly line to its intersection
with the easterly terminus line of said Vaquero
Road; thence northerly along said easterly line
to its intersection with the southerly line of
Lot 17 of Tract No. 11215; thence easterly along
said southerly line to its intersectio~ with the
easterly line of aforementioned Tract No, 11215;
thence northerly along said easterly lihe and its
prolongat,ion thereof to its intersection with the
center Ilne of Colorado Street; thence westerly
along saj.d center line to its intersection with
the center line of Altura Road; thence southerly
along said center line to its intersection with
the easterly prolongation of the northerly line
of Tract No. 17430:; thence westerly along said
northerly line to its interseption with the
easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence
southerly along said easterly line to the point
of beginning, said point being the southwesterly
corner of Lot 36 of Tract No. 15928;
Area #2 - Beginning at the northwesterly corner
of Lot No. 62, Tract No. 12786; thence southerly
along the westerly line of said Lot and its pro-
longation thereof to its :1:ntersection with the
center line~ Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly
along said center line to its intersection with
the southerly prolongation of the easterly line
of Tract No. 14460; thence northerly along said
easterly line to ij;s intersection with the northerly
line of said tract; thence westerly along said
northerl:r line to its intersection with the westerly
line of said Tract No. 14460; thence southwesterly
a10ng said westerly line, and its southwesterly
prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the
northeasterly corner of Lot No, 61 of Tract No.
12786; thence westerly along the northerly l:Lne of
said tract to the point of beginning, said point
being the northwesterly corner of Lot 62, Tract
No. 12786;
Area #3 .- All properties within that area bounded
on the w,~st by Baldwin Avenue, on the north and
east by Colorado Street and on the south by the
southerly tract boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940
and 15318;
.
Pursuant to said resolution notice was duly published and given and a
publiC hearing duly held on 26 March 1968, duly continued to 9 April
1968, and again duly continued to 23 April 1968, at which times all
interested persons were given a full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence. Evidence was submitted by interested persons and
the Commission staff.
-2-
640
. .
SECTION 2, The Planning Commission finds and determines,
.
as more particularly hereinafter set forth, that public necessity,
convenience, general welfare, health and good zoning practice jus-
tify and require that this Commission re.commend to the City Council
the reclassification from Zone R-I, Second One-Family Zone, to Zone
R-0-12,500-D, First One-Family Zone 12,500 Square Feet - Architec-
tural Design Zone, of all property designated in Section 1, above,
and that concurrently with said reclassification the following
architectural design zone conditions should be imposed:
1. Floor Area. No residence building shall be erected
or permitted on said premises, which contains less than 1400 sq.ft.
of ground floor area in the case of a one-story residence, and not
less than 1000 sq. ft. of ground floor area in the case of a one and
one-half or two-story residence. The space contained within an open
. porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral
part of the residence, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be con-
sidered in computing the square footage contained in any such build-
ing. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the
total area of the residence building measured from the outer faces of
exterior walls.
2. Side Yard. A lot with a building, or any part thereof,
occupying the front one hundred feet, or any part thereof, of such
lot shall have a s:1de yard of not less than ten feet.
3. Front Yard. If a house with a larger front yard than
the minimum required by the R-O regulations exists on a lot on
either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the'Architectural
.
Review Board, hereinafter established, and hereafter referred to as
the "Board," shall have the power to require an appropriate front
yard} including one up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard.
4. Walls. All walls, fences, and hedges shall be main-
tained in good condition and shall not exceed three feet in height
in the front yard.
5. Exterior Building .Materials. Materials used on the
of any structure, wall or fence, or the materials of any
cture, wall or fence, which remains exposed, shall be compatible
-3- 640
.
.
.
.
.
with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other'
structures in the neighborhood.
6. External Building Appearance. The appearance of any
structure, wall, or fence shall be compatible with existing struc-
tures, walls, or fences in the neighborhood..
7. Animals. Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, beehives,
cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or
maintained on any property governed by these conditions.
8. Prohibition. Approval of Board Required. No structure,
wall, or fence shall be erected unless working drawings and specifi-
cations for erection of the structure, showing the precise location
on the lot of the structure, wall, or fence, have been submitted to
and approved by the Board. No structure, wall, or fence shall be
erected except in exact conformance with the drawings and specifica-
tions approved by the Board,
9. Applicability of Certain Conditions. Conditions num-
ber 3, 6 and 8 shall not apply if the Board does not qualify as here-
inafter provided.
SECTION 3. There exists in the area described in Section
1 hereof a board ki10wn as the Architectural Review Board. The Board
shall be qualified, at any time, to transact business and exercise
any powers herein conferred only if the following requirements exist:
1. A formally organized property owners organization
exists in said area controlled by the owners of a majority of the
property, by lot, in said area.
2. The organization has by-laws adopted and subject to
amendment by the affirmative vote of said majority.
3. Said by-laws provide for appointment of such owners,
only, to the Board.
Rev. 4-23-68
-4-
640
.
.
.
.
.
4. Owners have been appointed to the Board in accordance
with the by-laws,
5. A cop;>, of the by-la~Ts and any amendments thereto, upon
adoption, shall be filed with the City Clerk and the Planning Direc-
tor, together with a list of the lots and owners thereof which con-
stitute said majority; said organization shall comply with any rea-
sonable order of the Planning Director drawn for the sole purpose
of keeping said lis,t current without expense to the City.
6. Permanent written records of the meetings, action,
findings, and decisions of the Board are maintained and are open at
reasonable times to the inspection of the public. Each. matter re-
ferred to the Board shall be assigned an identifying number. Any
denial of approval shall be accompanied by detailed findings of the
reasons of the Board for its disapproval.
7. The organization and the Board comply with the provi-
si,ons of The RalphM. Brown Act, Section 54950, et seq. of the
California Government Code.
8. Notice of any action taken by the Board in denying
or approving working drawings and specifications shall be, within
24 hours of such action, filed with the Planning Director, posted
at a place designated in the by-laws, and delivered to the owners
immediately affected by addressing a registered letter to said
owner at an address supp;ied by such owner.
SECTION 4. The Board shall have the power to:
1. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard under
the conditions set forth 1n Section 2, above.
2. Determine whether materials and appearance are com-
patible in accordance withtlle above conditions and based upon such
determination deny or approve the working plans.
Rev, 4-23-68
-5-
640
.
;.
.
..
.
3. If a grading plan is required for a building permit
for a structure, the Board may require such plan to be submitted
work the working drawings and specifications.
4. Any .of the above conditions specified in Section 2,
above, may be made less restrictive by the Board if the Board
determines that such action will foster the development of a lot
and will not adversely affect the amenities of, the adjacent lots
and the general neighborhood; provided (1) the owner or owners of
abutting lots and (2) in the case of decisions affecting front yards
and corner side yards, owners of property within sixty-five feet of
the property line of said lot shall be notified by the Board in
writing 24 hours before any hearing where the Board acts under ...~.
subdivision,
5. The Board shall not have the power to waive any
regUlations in the Code pertaining to the basic ~one of said property.
SECTION 5, Any property owner in said area may appeal the
the decision of the Architectural Review Board by following the
procedures for a Modification as prescribed by the Arcadia Municipal
Code, provided a letter of appeal is filed wlth the Planning Depart-
ment within ten da;rs after the .ciecisipn of the Archi tec.tural Review
Board is posted in accordance with Section 3, subdivision 8, above.
Any officer of the City, member of the City Councilor Planning
Commission may institute such an appeal by filing a request with the
Modification Committee.
SECTION 6. The Board and any body hearing an appeal from
the Board's decision shall be guided by the following principles:
1. Control of architectural appearance and use of mater-
ials shall not be so enforced that individual initiati~e is stifled
in creating the appearance of external features of any particular
structure, building, or fence, except to the extent necessary to,
establish contemporarily accepted standards of harmony and compati-
-6-
640
-~
.
.
.
2. Good l3.rchitectural character is based upon the princi-
ples of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as
well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures,
and other structures in the neighborhood,
3. A good relationship between adjacent front yards in-
creases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties
more enjoyable.
4. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure
can be detrimental to the amenities and value of adjacent property
and neighborhood.
SECTION 7. The Board shall hear any request for a review
of working drawings, and specifications within thirty days from the
. date such request is filed With the Board and shall render a deci-
sion in writing in accordance with this resolution within ten days
of such hearing; failure to take action in said time shall, at the
end of said ten-da:y period, be deemed a disapproval of the drawings
Rroperty owner
and specifications, A~in said area may appeal the action of
the Board by following the procedure set forth in Section 5, hereof.
SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds and determines:
1, The a.rea referred to herein is presently substantially
fully developed with single family residences on lots containing
12,500 feet or more; that all of said residences were constructed
at approximately the same time and have been maintained in a first
class condition since that time.
.
2, That the residences in said area were constructed in
an orderly, harmonious manner and at the present time the appearance
of each residenc~ including walls, fences, and landscaping, in said
area is harmonious and compatible in all respects with all other
residences in the area.
-7-
640
,
.~
.
.
3. That the conditions found to exist in findings number
1, 2., and 3, above,. have substantially contributed to making this
area adequate for family purposes.
4. That the purpose of the provisions of this resolution
are to secure and maintain the condi.tions found to exist in findings
number 2 and 3, above; that said provisions will maintain said con-
ditions.
.
5, That the continued maintenance of said cqnditions will
benefit said area and the City of Arcadia, generally, by maintaining
the economic Viability of said area,
6. That the health, safety, and general welfare of the
people of Arcadia and good zoning practice require the adoption of
this resolution.
S~CTION 9. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption
of this resolution and shall cause a copy hereof 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
2jrd
day of AI,rll
, 1968, by the following vote:
AYES:
Co:mn1os1on(Jra Cubl1l. Ocdtrey. Kuy~e!'. Ptlrlter.
S~G~art and Lauber
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Comm1aU1oner L1v1Diston
181 Fl.,ORA:.TTA LAUBER
Chairman
.
ATTEST:
lal ~IIWAM I'HELl~.s
Secretary
-8-
.
.
..
.
.
May' 19~8
HONORABLE'MAYOR AND
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ARCADIA CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS
" ,
Gentlemen:
The Planning Commission adopted several ,resolutions at the meeting held on April 23, 1968,
The Council is required to hold public hearings on these items, Therefore this report will
only briefly summarize the'subject of the resolutions. A more detailed report on each
subject will be distributed prior to the date of the public hearing.
1. RESOLUTION NO, 631. Waiverof Inappropriate Regulations.
The present zoning ordinance appears to have a contradiction, One section declares
that some land uses are unique. and because of their uniqueness it'is necessary to adjust
the standards ta make sure that ,a harmonious relationship between uses exists, Another
section limits the adjustment of only the standards in the conditional use section of the
code. It is often necessary and indeed desirable'to adjust the stondards in the zoning
district where the proposed use is located,
This resolution will provide the legal authority for the. Council to make these adjustments
whenever a favorable' recommendation is made by the Planning Commission.
A public hearing on th,a'subject must be held prior to considering the proposed amendment.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 639 - 640 - Zone "D" Regulations for the Properties within the Santa
Anita Village Community Homeowners Association and the Proposed Reclassification of the
Property within the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association from R-l to R-O Supplemented
with Zone "D" Regulal'ions,
These two resolutions ore the end product of a study of the two oreas which had been
requested by the property owners and authorized by the City Council. The basic problem
of the'area is that the deed restrictions will expire in a majority of cases in 1970.. These
deed restrictions are more restrictive than the zoning regulations. They also provide for
architectural control. The Zone "D" regulations suggested in the two resolutions are as
similar as possible to the deed restrictions and also provide the authority for continued
architectural control exercised by an Architectural Review Board creoted by the Homeowners
Association.
This approach is a new innovation in zoning and should go a long way to provide the means
by which the property owners can more closely regulate any changes in the area to insure
that the amenities created by all will not be destroyed by haphazard additions or new
buildings that may be constructed by a few when the deed restrictions expire.
.
.
.-)
,
.
t
Planning Commission Resolutions
May 7, 1968
Page 2
tp
This same approach, if l'he Council concurs on its merits, may also be used in other
parts of the city when the residents have the same motivation,
3. RESOLUTION NO. 644 - Zone Change Request Denied - Northwest Comer 'of
Live Oak and Greenfield Avenues.
The subject property is in Zone C-O and D. The applicant has req~ested a C-1
classification. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the'request, A public
hearing on this subject is required only in the event an appeal is filed with the City
Clerk within 10 days from the Commission action. Such an appedl has been filed.
Therefore the City Council must hold a, public hearing.... "
In addition to the above the Planning Commission adopted the following additional
resolutions, The only action requ ired by the City Council is to receive,and file them"unless
a majority of the Council decides to appeal the decisions rendered by the Commission.
1, RESo'LUTION NO, 642, This action of the Commission approved the ,site development
plans of the' Arcadia Methodist Hospital.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 643, This resolution grants a conditional use permit to continue,the-
operation of the existing, nursery school at716 West Huntington Drive.
3, RESOLUTION NO, 645. Approval of the Revised Preliminary Plans for the Arcadia
Convalescent Hospitol at the corner of Baldwin and Camino Real Avenues.
?V~~~A-
WILLIAM PHELPS
Planning Director
WP:ec
,
.~
.
.
June 27, 1968
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Ci ty Council
FROM: City Attcirney
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Resolutions 639 and 640
A meeting has been held between the officers and certain
members of Santa Anita Village Association and the Rancho Santa
Anita Residents Association for the purpose of making recommenda-
tions for the ordinance to be drafted pursuant to the Planning
Commission resolutions.
The recommendations, with three exceptions, are not of
... a substantial nature.
In summary, the proposals are as follows:
1. That Section 3, subdivision 7, relating to the Brown
Act, be deleted. (Legally this may be done because the City is
not contributing any money to the Architectural Review Board.)
2. That Section 3, subdivision 8, be changed to read
.
as follows:
"Notice of any action taken by the Board in
denying or approving working drawings and
- specifications shall be, within 24 hours of
such action, by posting at the City Hall.
Any objections to the action of the Board by
the affected property owners shall be filed
in writing with the Planning Department within
24 hours of said posting."
(I believe that a notice should also be given to the Planning
Department. )
')y~ ~.~~
~~~f8
1f~
.
.
.
\
..
.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - Page 2
3. That Section 4, subdivision 4, be modified by
changing the recomrr~ndation of 24 hours notice to 72 hours of
notice, (This notice, is required where the Board acts to make
less res,tricti ve the conditions of the D Overlay.)
The remalnder of the proposals are more or less tech-
nical and are as fc,llows:
1. In Section 2 the phrase "...public necessity,
convenience, general welfare, health and good zoning practice,.."
should include. the word "safety."
2. The ~lord "prohibition" in Section 3, subdivision
12, of Resolution 639 and in Section 3, paragraph 8, of Resolu-
tion 640 should be delet.ed.
3. That wherever in Section 4 reference is made to the
conditions in Section 2, that the following phrase be" used: "the
conditions set forth in Section 2, above."
4. That wherever reference is made to plans or speci-
fications, that the terminology be made uniform by using the
phrase, "working drawings and specifications."
5. In Section 8 the order of the last four sections
is rearranged and it is suggested that a paragraph as follows be
used:
"That the purpose of the provisions of this
resolution are to secure and maintain the con-
ditions found to exist. in findings numbers 1,
2, 3, and 4 above; that said provisions will
maintain said conditions."
The proposal to change Section 3, subdivision 8, must
be considered in relation to Section 5. The committee which
'.
.
.
.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City'Courtcil - Page 3
drafted the recommendations felt that an owner who proposed to
improve his property should not be unduly delayed in starting
construction and that if anybody is going to appeal, he should
file a notice of his intention to appeal within 24 hour.s and
then have up to 10 days to specify the basis for his appeal.
Some of the members felt quite strongly on this point, however,
there is a recognition on the part of other members that where
the Architectural Review Board acts under the prqvisions of
Section 4, subdivision 4, to make less restrictive the D Overlay
.
conditions that a longer period for filing an appeal is probably
appropriate. (I recommend that the provisions for the appeal,
if they relate to the time within which to file an appeal, be
left as they are except to add a provision reducing the time
to 24 hours for any case which involves interior alterations
,
which do not affect the outside appearance'of the property.
Respectfully submitted,
RDO : jh
ROBERT D, OGLE
City Attorney
.