Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-14-90Planning Commission proceedings are taped recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Dept. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, August 14,1990 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, August 14, 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, Szany, Papay ABSENT: None MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve the Minutes of July 24, 1990 as published. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING: Councilman Joseph Ciraulo Planning Director William Woolard Assistant Planning Director Donna Butler Associate Planner Wilfred Wong Secretary Silva Vergel CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING MP 90 -007 Consideration of modifications for a 3 -unit residential 143 Genoa condominium project. David Hsu The staff report was presented. Staff explained that three bay windows were added to the west elevation and two of the units which originally had four bedrooms were reduced to three bedrooms each. The trash enclosure encroaches into the 10' -0" rear yard setback and it was noted that, in the past, trash enclosures have been allowed to be closer to the alley. Commissioner Szany was concerned that the the trash enclosure would block the view from the alley. The public hearing was opened. Alex Chang, 8730 Huntington Drive, San Gabriel, said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Staff commented that the Commission can require that the trash enclosure be out of of the 10' -0" setback area and the applicant can achieve that by redesigning the kitchen further into the unit. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Clark was concerned with a 5' -0" easterly side yard setback for the garages and storage room in lieu of 10' -0 ". He felt that the Commission should be looking at the cumulative impact over time from such projects as buildings are demolished and new projects are built on 50' wide lots. Commissioner Amato agreed. Commissioner Hedlund was concerned with the width of the driveway and the lack of landscaping. Commissioner Szany was concerned about the trash enclosure and the total size of the project which he felt is too big for the property. He thought that the applicant is maximizing the use of the property and the development is too intense for a 50' wide lot. Chairman Papay agreed and was concerned with the unobstructed driveway width of 13' -0" in lieu of 20' -0" from the pavement upward. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to deny MP 90 -007 with Finding D.1. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period. Mr. Woolard explained that the Commission should consider the tentative parcel map because it only deals with the form of ownership and not the design and if it is approved the applicant could redesign the project. If the tentative parcel map is approved, any design would have to go through the architectural design review procedure. PUBLIC HEARING TPM 90-007 143 Genoa Tritech Assoc., Inc. Consideration of tentative parcel map for a 3 -unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Alex Chang, 8730 Huntington Dr., San Gabriel, requested that this item be continued to the Commission's September llth meeting. No one else spoke m favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to continue the hearing to the Commission's September llth meeting. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 2 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None PUBLIC HEARING TM 49345 Consideration of tentative map for conversion of an 1223 S. Golden West Ave. existing 8 -unit apartment building into an 8 -unit residential Margaret Yang condominium. The staff report was presented. Staff explained that the only change in the R -3 zone has been the maximum density requirement which was added back into the Code. In 1985, this project did require modifications and design review was not required at that time. Mr. Woolard said that this only deals with the form of ownership and not the design of the project. The Commission can not require them to go through the ADR procedures, since there is no construction permit required for this project. An ADR is required only when there will be a construction permit and would not be a requirement for subdivisions. Commissioner Amato felt that this project should be treated as a new and separate project. Commissioner Clark remarked that this is only an ownership change and should not be subject to the ADR requirements. The public hearing was opened. Engles Shen, 600 W. Main, Alhambra, was present and said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Since the building was built in 1985, the owner has had many tenant turn overs and he feels that if it is converted to condominiums, the residents would take better care of the property due to pride of ownership. He noted that they will comply with all State requirements. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Mr. Woolard said the City must find that all the requirements are met prior to the acceptance of the Final Map. Both Commissioners Clark and Szany said that this is only a change of ownership and felt that it would be an improvement. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve TM 49345 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Chairman Papay noted there is a ten day appeal period. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING MC 90-045 1021 Jeffries Ave. Hakop Keshishyan Consideration of an appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of modifications requested for an 800 sq. ft. recreation room and two bathrooms addition. The staff report was presented. Staff noted that the modifications are for the addition which is attached to the garage. The public hearing was opened. Hakop Keshishyan, 1021 Jeffries, said that they would like to obtain permits for the addition which was built prior to their purchase of the house. Jerry Jalbert, 1015 Jeffries, explained that there are two dwellings on his property. His mother -in -law resides in the back unit which is the nearest to the subject addition. From her living room she has a view of the wall. Increasing the wall height would block most of her view. He said that he would like the situation to remain as is because if it was to be brought up to Code it would have an impact on his property. He remarked that at one time a business was being conducted from the garage, which is adjacent to his property and heavy and noisy machinery were being operated. He noted that the business has been moved to another location but would like assurances that no more business would be conducted on the site. Mesrop Keshishyan, 1021 Jeffries, said that they would like to comply with the new regulations and make the building safe. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Szany remarked that they might be able to bring the unit into compliance with Code without the addition of the parapet to meet the 1 -hour wall requirement. Mr. Woolard said that if they cannot comply with the Building Code, they may ask for a building code variance which will be determined by the City Council but it probably would be very difficult to get since it is a fire and safety issue. Commissioner Szany remarked that there are some provisions in the Building Code for slight variations. Mr. Woolard stated that Building Department would have to look at the existing construction. He felt that they should not be able to alter the building. Chairman Papay said that they should not be able to have an addition on the property. Commissioner Amato said that he would be in favor of the appeal if they would comply. Staff said that the chimney has to be extended to comply with the Building Code and the fireplace would need a thorough inspection. A covenant can be required to hold this unit as an accessory unit and that it have no windows on the property line. The Commission felt that they would be in favor of the appeal if the following conditions are met: 1. That no parapet wall be built. 2. A covenant be recorded holding the addition to an accessory use only. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 4 3. No business be conducted on the site. 4. That the addition meet all Fire Codes. 5. That the chimney may be extended to meet Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve MC 90-045 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the addition of the above mentioned conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Chairman Papay Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay None noted there is a five working day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING MP 90-008 721 W. Huntington Dr. John Bartlett Assoc. Consideration of modifications for a proposed 9,736 single -story office building and bank. The staff report was presented. Mr. Woolard said that the driveway which will be on Huntington is 20' wide and the other facing Old Ranch Rd. will be 25' in width. Presently there is no on- street parking on Huntington Drive, since there is a big driveway facing the street, but after construction some parking would probably be made available on Huntington. Staff noted that the C-0 zone prohibits food establishments. The public hearing was opened. Raymond Floyd, 1300 Quail, #205, Newport Beach, said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Tom Crosby, chairman of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for the Village Association, 601 S. Old ranch, spoke against this development. He was very concerned about the increased traffic that this new building would bring on Old Ranch Road. He thought that most people who would want to get to Baldwin would go up Old Ranch Road and turn right on Hugo Reid to get to Baldwin, instead of going west on Huntington and making a U -turn at a stop light. He asked if a traffic study was conducted? Staff replied that a traffic study was not done. Mr. Crosby stated that he did not want a driveway on Old Ranch Rd. and thought that approval should be subject to a traffic study. He thought that they should comply with the parking requirements. Staff remarked that Resolution 3770, adopted in 1965, required 1 parking space for every 180 sq. ft.. Current code requires 250 sq. ft. for offices and one space for every 166.66 feet for banks. Under current code requirements the building would need only 45 parking spaces. It is staffs opinion that the City's commercial parking standards are more than adequate and meet or exceed the requirements for most cities. It was noted that there would be no eating establishments on the site and it would be for general office use only such as an insurance company, an accountant's office, an attorney's office. John Saunders, 841 San Simeon, the property owner for the property directly to the north of the subject site, said that although he is not against the proposed building, he didn't think that an 2' -8" encroachment into the setback Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 5 is necessary. He remarked that the signs which will be fronting on Huntington Drive should be attractive, similar to the Great Western Bank signs. He said that the location of the monument sign should be specified and he thought that it would be outrageous to locate it at the corner of Huntington and Old Ranch Rd. He felt that it seems that the Planning Department is encouraging modifications and in some cases even suggesting it to the potential developers. Mr. Crosby said that most banks have 24 -hour automated tellers (ATM), and asked if the proposed bank would have an ATM and where it would be located? If this bank will have an ATM, there would be increased traffic 24- hours a day. He noted that Old Ranch Rd. is utilized as a main thoroughfare and felt that the ATM would increase the traffic substantially. In regard to the sign, Mr. Crosby stated that he would prefer a low profile sign similar to the Great Western sign, which is made out of a hedge, instead internally illuminated plastic sign. He suggested a concrete and brass sign which he thought would be more elegant and attractive. Mr. Woolard noted that this is not an internally illuminated sign. In rebuttal, Mr. Floyd explained that the signs will be smaller and less visible than the Great Western Bank sign and the Home Savings sign at the corner of Huntington and Baldwin. All the tenants at the site will be required to have blue signs with similar designs. There will be no more than 5 tenants at the site. He noted that he anticipated that the bank would like to have the opportunity to have an ATM, since ATMs are widely used. He commented that they would like to have the option of being able to have an ATM if they chose to do so at a later date. The ATM unit will be as unobtrusive as possible. He would not be in agreement to a covenant prohibiting the ATM. John Bartlett, 215 W. Colorado, said that the project is well designed and they have proposed the best use for the property which will have the least impact for the properties to the north. The encroachment of 2' -8" is reasonable and the project will be landscaped nicely. The monument sign will be located at the southeast corner of the site, away from Old Ranch Rd. and all of the wall signs will be uniform and attractive. If the bank chooses to have an ATM, it will be located at the southeast corner of the site, farthest from Old Ranch Rd., to minimize the impact. The main entrance of the bank will be on the east side of the property. Mr. Crosby remarked that both Great Western Bank and Home Savings are at a major intersection and their signs and ATMs have minimal impact on the residents of the City. He was opposed to an ATM at the proposed bank and feared that it would increase traffic on Old Ranch Rd., especially at night, and have a negative impact on the Village. Mr. Saunders was distressed with the proposal of a possible ATM at the site and explained that most of the bedrooms in the adjacent apartment unit face the proposed parking lot and would be subject to the noise created from the ATM. Mr. Floyd said that the ATM would be a service to customers and both the sign and the ATM will be located at the southeast corner of the property to minimize the effect on the neighbors to the north. Commissioner Amato asked if the applicant would object to restricting or blocking off the east portion of the parking lot after business hours of the bank so that no more than five parking spaces will be available for use from the Huntington Drive driveway. In response, Mr. Floyd said that he would not want to chain off both driveways but would be agreeable to blocking off most of the parking lot. Mr. Crosby wondered who would police the placement of the chain every night and he thought that it would cause a problem. Mr. Floyd said that the bank would be responsible for the placement of the chain every night. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 6 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 Amato remarked that he would be in favor of the modification if some sort of a barrier would be placed. Commissioner Clark agreed and said that he would like the sign to be on the southeast corner of the lot. Commissioner Hedlund said that this is a good location for an office building which would enhance the neighborhood and Huntington Drive. He thought that the placement of little shops might be nice on other parts of the City but not on Huntington Drive and thought that it would resemble the little shops in the downtown area. He didn't like the signs and felt that they are not warranted in this neighborhood. He thought that this is a good piece of property with good location and felt that the site would justify a much nicer building. Commissioner Szany agreed with Commissioner Hedlund and said that it is a nice building but thought that instead of asking for a 2' -8" setback modification they should reduce the building by that much and provide more landscaping. He felt that the both the sign and the modifications are acceptable but noted that the building should be reduced in size. He thought that the project should provide as much landscaping as possible. Chairman Papay was opposed to Request "A" for a 12'-4" setback in lieu of 15' -0" from Huntington Drive for building architectural projections and thought that the 2'-6" should have come out of the building rather than encroach into the setback. He thought that monument sign could have been a nicer design. He felt that the architecture of the building could have been improved. He was pleased that it was a single -story building and had ample parking. He said that a bank is a very good use in the C-0 zone and thought that the use of an ATM was not contemplated in that zone. He said that the ATM should be located at the southeast corner of the property and suggested limiting its hours from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. as an alternative to chainging off the parking lot. He remarked that the ADR procedure would allow the Planning Department to review both the ATM and the signs. Commissioner Clark suggested the hours of the ATM to be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Woolard said that the Planning Department will look for consistency with the material board which has been submitted for the ADR procedure before giving its final approval. Staff said that the sign would be reviewed and the Commission can require a masonry wall to match the building. Commissioner Clark said that he would make a motion to approve the modification with the following additions: 1. That the monument sign shall consist of masonry material. Color shall match the building. Final design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 2. Maximum number of tenants for the building shall be five (5). 3. Walkways and landscaped areas shall be maintained per the plans on file in the Planning Department. 4. If the bank has an ATM, the following restrictions shall apply: A. Location of the ATM shall be restricted to either the south elevation of the building (facing Huntington Drive) or along the east elevation no more than twenty-four (24) feet ffrom the southeast corner of the building. B . The ATM shall be turned off from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Patrons should not be able to use the ATM during these hours. An alternative to this time restriction would be the blocking off (example chain or Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 7 gate) of the east portion of the parking lot after business hours of the bank so that no more than five (5) parking spaces will be available for use. This shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Dept. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve MP 90 -008 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the stated conditions above. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Szany NOES: Commissioners Hedlund, Papay Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING MP 90 -009 717 Cortez Rd. David Jiann -Shiun Wu Consideration of an appeal of the Santa Anita Village's Homeowners Association's denial of a proposed two- story, 4,133 square foot dwelling with an 800 square foot garage. The staff report was presented. Staff said that the house does not meet the lot coverage requirements and noted that the original proposal had a bay window on the second floor. The public hearing was opened. Robert Ho, the architect for the applicant was present. He explained the reasons for the appeal and said that he felt there were many procedural violations and the ARB tried to dictate design. He said that they filed the plans with the ARB on 5/31 and the public hearing was held on 7/3. He said that the ARB should review plans within 30 days of submission and if they do not, the plans are deemed approved. He remarked that when the ARB reviewed the plans on 7/3, the findings were written on 7/10, postmarked on 7/13 and they received it on 7/17, which did not allow them enough time to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission, since appeals are permitted 7- working days after the date of the decision. He commented that Section 3 of Resolution 5286 sets forth regulations in regard to proper noticing, which the ARB has failed to comply with. In regard to the design of the house, Mr. Ho said that at the hearing 3 board members were present and all 3 expressed concerns with the size of the house and the size of the portico but in their findings several other reasons were stated which were not discussed at the hearing. The written denial was substantially expanded and the setbacks were stated to be one point of concern which were not even discussed at the hearing. He stated that they would be willing to reduce the lot coverage to meet Code requirements and remarked that they were made aware of that requirement yesterday and had not had ample time to comply. He said that the lot coverage as proposed is 35.2% and Code allows a maximum of 35% coverage and said that by reducing 6" from the home they would reduce it by 25 sq. ft. and would comply with the lot coverage requirements. There was a 5 minute recess to allow the applicant to set up the video equipment. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to continue the hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 8 Mr. Ho commented that the ARB seemed to be opposed to the portico and he showed a video of several homes within few blocks of the subject property that he thought had porticos similar to the one he has proposed. He remarked that for the above stated reasons they are asking that the appeal fee be refunded. Tom Crosby, chairman of the Village Homeowner's Assoc. Architectural Review Board (ARB), 601 S., Old Ranch Rd. explained the public hearing procedure. He said that they received the plan at the end of May. He scheduled a hearing for 6/14, but a typographical error on the notice said that the hearing would be on 7/14. Upon discovering the error and verification of the availability of 3 ARB members, they met on June 14th and continued the hearing to July 3rd. He noted that Mr. Wu was present at the hearing and agreed on the continuation but he failed to notice him in writing. He said that the above was done after discussing the error with Mike Miller, the City Attorney. He stated that there was lack of cooperation from the applicants. The ARB expressed concerns on several issues and the only change the applicant made was the reduction of the garage. The proposed home is too massive and most the homes that Mr. Ho showed in the video had different roof lines and many which sloped back. Most of the homes in the Village are single -story homes and when new plans are submitted to the ARB, a great deal of time is taken to discuss changes to give the building a softer image. He noted that the plans that are before the Commission are the same as the ones presented to the ARB. In rebuttal, Mr. Ho said that they have made some compromises such as the reduction of the garage and have altered the roof line on the first floor. He said that the ARB has said that the house is massive and has remarked that the homes in the Village should not be larger than 3500 sq. ft. and asked that the ARB share their formula so the public will be aware of the laws. Mr. Crosby said that they don't have a formula for a maximum size on a home, but square footage translates into massiveness and bulk and is usually not compatible or harmonious. He suggested the removal of the portico and a vaulted ceiling in the living room which would give a softer look to the house. Mr. Ho said that at the public hearing there were no oppositions to the proposed home and felt that the ARB should not dictate the square footage of homes. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Chairman Papay said that the Commission should not address the procedural requirements, because those were addressed by the City Attorney in his letter of 7/24. There is a slight discrepency in regard to the lot coverage but the Commission should be concerned with whether the external building materials and design are compatible the structures on the same lot and in the neighborhood. Commissioner Hedlund said that in driving around the area and seeing the homes he feels that the proposed home is neither in character with the neighborhood nor is it compatible or harmonious with other home. Commissioner Clark agreed and said that he did not think this structure was compatible, harmonious or in proportion. He thought that the portico is definitely out of place and makes the house look massive. Commissioner Szany said that the portico is out of proportion and does not belong on the house. He felt that it is a grand entry for a narrow lot. He thought that the homes in the video cannot be compared to the what has been proposed. Commissioner Amato said that the width of the lot is too narrow to accommodate this house and agreed with the comments regarding the portico. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 9 Chairnan Papay agreed with all the comments. He also noted that in addition, the second story sits right out at the front of the house. Mr. Woolard explained the Commission's options. He said that the Commission should render a decision and if the Commission feels that there has been improper procedural decisions made then they should remand it back tot he ARB. If the Commission denies the application, the applicant will have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the City Council. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to deny MP 90 -009 and recommend that the City Council refund the applicant's $257 fee. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN Consideration and review of the Revised General Plan, which contains the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space and Conservation, Narks and Recreation, Safety and Noise Elements and Spheres of Influence. The staff report was presented. Staff suggested continuing this to the Commission's next meeting. It was noted that there have been no major changes and remarked that the State has made some comments which the City will have to respond to. This item has been tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on 9/18. Mr. Woolard explained that annexations are up to the City and the City can determine whether it would be appropriate or not. Staff said that some time ago the City received a request to annex the area in the southwest part of the City and the City was concerned with the water and commented that many issues are taken into consideration when annexing an area. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to continue the hearing to the Commission's August 28th meeting. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 10 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Tom Crosby, 601 S. Old Ranch, suggested a joint meeting with City to discuss size of homes and said that the proposed changes which the City Council just approved don't go far enough. Jerry Jalbert, 1015 Jeffries, asked if something could be done or if there are any regulations in regard to vapor lights. He remarked that 3 of the properties around him have these and they are very bright and encroach on his privacy and noted that there is tremendous spillage of light onto his property. Mr. Woolard said that this has been the first complaint that the City has received. The light may be mounted a maximum 15' and should be directed away from adjacent properties. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL Councilman Ciraulo remarked that the Council is looking forward to joint meeting. MATTERS FROM COMMISSION None MA 1 ERS FROM STAFF None ADJOURNMENT 10:30 p.m. Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/14/90 Page 11