Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-27-90Planning Commission proceedings are taped recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Dept. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, February 27, 1990 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, February 27, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, with Chairman Larry Papay presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay ABSENT: Commissioner Szany MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to excuse Commissioner Szany from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to approve the Minutes of January 23, 1990 as published. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING: Councilman Charles Gilb City Attorney Michael Miller Planning Director William Woolard Associate Planner Corkran Nicholson Secretary Silva Vergel The City Attorney announced that the City Charter requires that for any action to be adopted or approved a majority of the entire membership must vote in favor of the particular motion. If the required three votes are not obtained the motion would fail. If the required three votes are not obtained (1) an applicant may request continuance and it would be up to the Commission to decide whether or not they want to grant the continuance; (2) the matter could be heard and then deferred for final decision pending participation by the absent members as long as they review the records of these proceedings which would be made available to them or (3) the matter could simply go forward to the City Council. Arcadia City Planning Commission 2/27/90 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING CUP 90 -002 702 -822 N. First Ave. and 105 -119 Haven Ave. John E. Plount The staff report was presented. Consideration of a conditional use permit for a proposed 46 -lot residential planned development with related parking and building setback modifications. 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 unique ness 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' setback from First Avenue. There ate currently 41 dwellings on the site, excluding the American Legion building, and the proposed development is for 46 units. Al 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 lay out 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 Messier, 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. Al 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 Live 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 Steinly, 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 as a 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 encroach 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 the 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 problem 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. Eskuri said that the homes would be 12' from each other with projections of 1' 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. MOTION 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 "large" 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 MOTION 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 sounded like he was implying that he was denied some kind of a right, which 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. MOTION 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 D.1, D.3, D.5 and D.6 and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, , Papay NOES: None ABSENT: 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 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Hedlund was pleased the lumber was removed from the northside project on Huntington. MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Woolard said that construction has started on the senior citizen center and anticipated that it would be completed in approximately 14 months. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 p.m. "Pi, f Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 2/27/90 Page 6