Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-90Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Dept. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, November 13, 1990 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, November 13, 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 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. 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 October 23, 1990 as published. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING: City Attorney Michael Miller Planning Director William Woolard Assistant Planning Director Donna Butler Assistant Planner James Kasama Secretary Silva Vergel PUBLIC HEARING MP 90-013 717 Cortez Rd. Robert Ho, architect on behalf of David Jiann -Shiun Wu Consideration of an appeal of the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association's denial of a proposed two -story dwelling with an attached garage. The staff report was presented. Staff said that the project complies with Code before the new changes went into effect in October. The Council felt that the previous proposed house on a 65' wide lot was too big. Mike Miller, the City Attorney, stated that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) is an agency of delegated authority and when they go beyond that authority it is beyond their jurisdiction. The only pertinent issue that is before the Commission is the issue of compatibility in terms of size. The public hearing was opened. Robert Ho, P.O. Box 2006, Upland, the architect of the project said that are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. He said that his letter dated September 25th justifies the reasons for their appeal. He said that they tried to address the Commission's comments from the previous appeal in designing this new proposal. Craig Lucas, 853 Balboa, representing the ARB said that there has been less than 2% change to the plans that came before the Commission from the previous design. The house has been reduced by 1.5% and said that the proposed house is garrish and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. After the completion of this new house, the residence to the south will resemble a doll house. He did not think that the applicant has attempted to make any serious adjustments to the plans that were previously reviewed. The proposed development is excessive and the homes in the Village are all compatible in character and size. He requested that the Commission sustain the ARB's denial of the house. Robert Bash, 723 Cortez, said that his house would be the doll house referred to by Mr. Lucas. He said that the proposed house would be like a Taj Mahal and noted that the house has only been reduced by 56 sq. ft. and he felt that this is preposterous and an affront to the Commission to have this matter before them. The house is not compatible with the Village. The average square footage of any house within two blocks of the proposed house is 2,000 sq. ft. and the proposal is for a 4,000 sq. ft. house. The height of the house is out of character and with the exception of the house across the street that has a small two -story addition all the homes are single -story. This house is garrish and is not compatible with the neighborhood. He remarked that the entrance is much too large and felt that there should be only a single driveway. He commented that the property owners presently have 2 cars in the garage and five cars parked on the driveway and said that he did not want that many cars parked within 5' of his house. He thought that this large house with 5 bedrooms could accommodate 12 persons. The average number of people residing in the Village are 2 adults and 2 children which in his opinion is compatible. He did not want a 6' high wall between their properties and noted that there is currently a 2' fence. He said that they should not be allowed to raise the grade. He thought that the setbacks should not be less than the average home in the area. He said that this two -story house will invade his privacy and extend to the rear and occupy half of his back yard. He said that this plan is a repetition of what was before the Commission before with the exception that it has been reduced by 56 sq. ft. In rebuttal, Mr. Ho said that at the ARB's hearing, two out of four members were not advised of Mr. Miller's interpretation as to what is the ARB's proper responsibility and limitation on authority in his letter of July 24th. He remarked that based on Mr. Lucas's comments it is evident that some of the ARB members are not aware of the limitation on sizes of houses and in Mr. Miller's letter he says that; "concerning your statement as to setback and the board's determination precluding houses over 3,500 sq. ft., we have advised the board that these are improper findings. The board has not been delegated any authority to make rules or in fact legislate in regards to setback requirements or house size." He explained that the reason they did not reduce the square footage was that they understood that it was the appearance of the house in terms of size but not the actual physical size of the house. The house meets all of the regulations. He said that they have reduced the visual effect and a drawing included in the packet shows the reduction in appearance in terms of bulk and mass which was a major concern of the ARB. The front setback was increased from 45' to 48' and the 45' setback would be in line with Mr. Bush's property. The size of the portico has been substantially reduced and compared to the porticos in the area it is probably an average size. The block wall will be on the subject site to provide for privacy. He remarked that the height is measured on existing grade. The setbacks comply and the driveway can be flared to have a single -curb driveway. He submitted some pictures of homes in the area with porticos and explained that most of the homes are approximately 3,000 sq. ft. 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 Amato said that the house is too large and commented that the size of houses in the pictures that have been submitted are 3,500 sq., ft. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 2 Commissioner Clark agreed and said that the house complies with Code. The portico has been reduced substantially but the size of the house has not changed much. He said that the size of the house is not harmonious or compatible. Commissioner Hedlund agreed and said that the ARB addressed the size of the house and even though it has been toned down a bit it is still very massive and out of proportion. Commissioner Szany agreed and said that the Commission should consider the issue of compatibility before considering the size. He said that one can build a big two -story house but it may appear like a single -story. The proposed house is not compatible with the area. There are some large homes in the Village but not on the subject street. This is a nice house but not in this area because it looks bigger and higher than the surrounding houses. If it wasn't for the word "compatible ", he would be in favor of the house and vote for approval. Chairman Papay said that the house is not in proportion and noted that the lot is too narrow to accommodate it. There is a considerable improvement in the design of the house due to the reduction of the portico but the house is still not compatible with the neighborhood and it does not fit in. He said that based on the comments by the Commission, the reason for denial is that the house is not compatible. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to deny MP 90-013. 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 TPM 90-012 403 W. Palm Missy Humphrey. Consideration of tentative parcel map to create two lots from one. The staff report was presented. Staff said that lot 1 is 15,000 sq. ft. and would meet the requirements without the rear portion of the lot fronting on Holly Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Al DeRenzis, 111 W. Melrose, Monrovia, the engineer of the project said that they are in agreement with most of the conditions with the exception of condition 2 in the Public Works Dept. in regard to submitting a grading and a drainage plan and he said that the applicant would like to subdivide the lot but is not intending to build on the lots. He didn't think that it would be appropriate to prepare a grading and a drainage plan because whoever purchases the lots would probably have to prepare a new one. He asked that this condition be removed from the parcel map and be maintained as a requirement prior to building. He was concerned with items 9,10 and 12 in regard to reconstruction of curb and sidewalks and said that there are presently no sidewalks on this property or the adjacent properties. Staff said that the reconstruction of sidewalks may be a standard condition and if there are no sidewalks at this time then they would not have to worry about it but at the time that development takes place, sidewalks would have to be required. Sidewalks are generally required on new construction but it should be discussed with the Public Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 3 Works Dept., since it is their condition. The condition in regard to the grading and drainage plan is a reasonable request because it is required that a grading and drainage plan should be submitted prior to obtaining building permits. There is no reason to submit a grading and drainage plan since there are no plans to build. The Planning Dept. reviews grading plans for developments where there are no streets and Public Works reviews ones with cul- de -sacs and streets. In response to a comment by the Commission, Mr. DeRenzis said that they are aware of the large oak tree and they are required to submit a tree preservation plan prior to submitting a grading plan. The structures and the improvements will be removed in order to record the final map and natural grass will take over and keep it from being just plain dirt. Staff suggested an additional condition that the property shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner prior to building. R.H. Lindberg, 400 Rosemarie, was against the lot split because it changes the nature of the neighborhood. He did not think that lot 1 would be able to accommodate a house. He said that the fence on Holly has a ivy on it which has not been maintained. He thought that the lot split rewards a previous lot split that should have not happened. The back portion of the lot fronting on Holly is not large enough to build a house and would probably be utilized as a recreation area which would infringe on the neighbors to the north, south and west. He said that the new lots would be larger than the minimum requirement of 7,500 sq. ft. but would be smaller than any lots in the neighborhood. Staff noted that the new lot fronting on Holly without the rear portion would be 11,466 and Mr. Lindberg's lot is 10,664 sq. ft. In rebuttal, Mr. DeRenzis said that the resulting lots will be larger than almost all of the properties within that block. Mr. Woolard suggested a condition that existing trees with a diameter of 6" or greater shall not be removed without the approval of Planning Dept. and that the lots shall be maintained in compliance with the City's Code Enforcement regulations. 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. Chairman papay noted that the new lots would be larger than all the other lots in the area. Commissioner Szany thought that this would be an improvement and would provide additional setback on Holly. It was felt that condition 4 should be amended to read: 4. Existing trees with a diameter of 6" or greater shall not be removed without approval of the Planning Dept. A tree preservation plan identifying by size an type all trees with a diameter in excess of 6" shall be presented to Planning Dept. for its review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. And an additional condition be added to read: 9. The lots shall be maintained in compliance with the City's Code Enforcement regulations. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 4 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve TPM 90-012 with the above mentioned conditions. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Chairman Papay noted that there is a ten day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 90-016 42 W. Live Oak William Skibsted dba: Bill's Auto Body Consideration of a conditional use permit to expand an existing auto body shop. The staff report was presented. Staff said that the trash enclosure is shown as 8' -1 "x16' and it is recommended that it be enlarged to 8'x1 " -32'. A lot of material that is being stored there is scrap metal which is picked up but is unsightly and outside storage is prohibited by Code and should be enclosed within a 6' high trash enclosure with gate. Mr. Woolard suggested that an alternative would be if the trash area is located where the covered metal awning is at the end of the building and gates are constructed across that area. However, it may be difficult for a trash truck to get there and pick up the bins but the other excess auto parts, scrap metal, could probably go in that location. The public hearing was opened. Bill Skibsted, 1035 S. Fourth, said that the project began over 3 years ago and approximately one year into the project, the contractors broke -up and since then he has been the general contractor and has subcontracted each project. He has been at a disadvantage with the contractors and several of the contractors started jobs and were not able to finish them and he was forced to look for new contractors. He explained that he has had many problems with the sprinkler contractors and the price has been a stumbling block. Wesley Fieldhouse, 1035 S. Fourth, said that they have tried to comply. He said that they have had a very difficult time with the fire sprinkler contractors and they are on their fifth contractor. The plans have been revised and will be picked up tomorrow from the City. He said that the metal canopy will be taken down this week. In response to the temporary canvas canopies, 2 of them have been taken down, 2 are still up. Mr. Skibsted said that they are using the canopies for priming and preparing cars for painting; painting takes place in the booth, preparation takes place outside of the booth. In the summer the metal has to be kept in the shade to keep it cool or the primer will blister and bubble. He said that for the above mentioned reason the 2 canopies are still up and noted that it is a matter of necessity. The situation was explained to Capt. Brown and he were in agreement with keeping them up. In building the new addition, the old working area had to be demolished. Mr. Fieldhouse said that the 3,700 sq. ft. garage, which is a block building now, was at the time of obtaining permits covered canopy area which is where some of the operations were place. The razor wire was put up to reduce crime and has deterred crime and vandalism. In inspecting Mr. Skibsted's needs he feels that increasing the size of the trash enclosure from 16' to 20' would be enough area for the storage of scrap metal and trash. All the on- site improvements will be finished in 45 days. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 5 In regard to condition 12, Mr. Fieldhouse said that Mr. Sldbsted has had to cut down on space and would like to extend the 3 month to 6 months to allow him to move into the building and generate more income to be able to complete the off -site improvements. Mr. Fieldhouse said that the street lights on the south side of Live Oak are hung on existing power poles and requested that they be able to hang the lights on the light poles. Mr. Skibsted said that the lights on Las Tunas are underground but on Live Oak where the center went in where Burger Palace and Herbert Hawkins is they were allowed to keep the light poles there and he asked for the same consideration. This request is a substantial cost and said that he is anxious to finish and proceed with his business. He thought that the light poles are out of line and would not conform with the rest of the area. The old building is being utilized but the 3,000 sq. ft. addition is vacant. They are not allowed to occupy the building and that i the reason why they have the canopies set up outside to perform some of the work which will be taken down as soon as he able to move into the building. In lieu of putting a new fire hydrant, the Fire Department felt that if the building was sprinklered then the requirement for the fire hydrant could be waived. In regard to putting up a bond, Mr. Skibsted said that if he had the money to put up the bond he would just complete the project. Mr. Fieldhouse asked if they could have 45 days before taking down the canopy which would allow them sufficient time to move into the building. He asked for 6 months time from the date of occupancy to allow them to complete all the off -site improvements. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Skibsted said that the canopy could be moved towards the rear of the lot. Staff said that the canopies are a major concern and relocating them will not solve the problem. John Clark, Arcadia Fire Dept., said that the canopy raises a fire issue. The Fire Dept. is not against the metal canopy but would like to see the canvas canopies removed. The canvas canopies are a fire hazard and don't meet the fire codes and if they were allowed to keep the canopy for 30 days that could easily be extended to 60, 90 and so forth. He explained that the fire hydrant was expensive due to insufficient water supply and they would be permitted to occupy the building after it has been sprinklered. His major concern was the building and the fire sprinklers. Mr. Skibsted did occupy the buildings and he was informed of the violation at which time the operations were moved out of the building. Mr. Woolard said that he is concerned with the use of the metal canopy area and no plans were submitted for it and we don't know if it complies with Building Code requirements. The Commission should not be in the position of sanctioning the use of either. There may be some litigation problems if an accident takes place. He said that other alternatives could be considered such as renting a van to park the cars in, park them down the street, cover them or move them to another location. Maybe there is a vacant building that he could lease. Mr. Miller said that to leave the canopies up would create semi- dangerous conditions and it would be a violation of Code and in case of injuries it would create a liability exposure to the City. If the Commission granted a 45 day period, the City would be covered with immunity for liability because it would be a reasonable condition recommended by staff which takes into consideration all of the factors including the exposure. Staff clarified that the 45 days were not recommended for the canopies and that it was suggested that they would be taken down immediately. When the building was being utilized illegally, the canopy areas were also being used. Staff was concerned about the safety issue. Mr. Miller said that he was looking at the 45 days as far as the on -site improvements and not the canopies. Staff and inspectors are saying that to leave the canopies it would be a safety hazard and violates the Code. He said that there is no justification to do business if you are endangering the public. Commissioner Clark said that if he was required to take down the canopies then he would not be able to do his business. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 6 Mr. Skibsted said that the canopies have been up for 4 years and are fire resistant. He did not think that an additional 45 days would hurt anything to leave the canopies up but to remove them would hurt his business since he would not be able to do painting. He did not think there were any alternatives open to him and to require him to take down the canopies would cause hardship. Mr. Miller said that the Fire Dept. has determined that it would be a fire hazard and referred to page 4 of the staff report which outlines the Fire Dept. violations. Mr. Woolard said that the other alternative would be to leave condition 3 as is but add language to the effect that the canvas type canopies may remain with the Fire Dept. approval. Mr. Skibsted said that he parks the cars underneath the canopies and no welding or cutting in takes place under the canopies. It is just to keep the cars cool so the primer will adhere. Mr. Miller concurred with Mr. Woolard and it should be subject to approval by the Fire Dept. and whatever additional conditions are imposed. 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. Commissioner Clark said that it is an unfortunate situation. He said that he would be inclined to be a little more lenient and give him 45 days, with the Fire Dept. approval, to keep the business going and Commissioner Amato agreed. Mr. Miller said that a bond could be posted to assure completion of work. Mr. Woolard said that the metal canopy has not been inspected and is unaware of how it is supported. Commissioner Szany thought that the chances of the metal canopy falling are far less than the canvas canopies catching on fire. The Commission was in favor of razor wire to remain on the south side of the property. Chairman Papay said that the trash enclosure should be subject to Planning Dept. approval. Commissioner Hedlund thought that it would be appropriate to give him 6 months from the date of occupancy to complete the off -site improvements with a bond to guarantee completion of the work. Discussion ensued about putting up a bond or a certificate to complete the project and staff said that the amount of bond is usually determined by Public Works and deposited in the City's name and the interest is kept by the applicant. Staff said that Public Works is definitely against allowing him to hang the lights on wooden poles, old ones or existing, because it does not comply with city standards or Southern California Edison Co. standards. The consensus of the Commission was to allow him 6 months from the date of occupancy for all off -site improvements. The following conditions be amended to read: Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 7 3. That the canvas -type canopies, if approved by the Fire Department with any additional conditions they may have, and the metal awning shall be allowed to remain for a maximum of 45 days from the date of the adoption of the resolution, or until the final building inspection has been approved, whichever comes first. 5. That the size and location of the trash enclosure shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 12. All off -site improvements, including installation of street lights, landscaping, landscape sprinkler systems, curbs and gutters shall be completed within six (6) months from the date the final building inspection has been approved. Condition 18 be added to read: 18. That prior to the final building inspection being made, the applicant shall be required to post a bond or other security approved by the City Attorney, to guarantee that the off -site improvements shall be e done within six (6) months from the date the final building inspection has been approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve CUP 90-016 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the above mentioned conditions. 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 There was a 5 minute recess. PUBLIC HEARING V -90 -002 515 S. First Ave. Mr. and Mrs. Chuang Consideration of a variance to construct an attached enclosed patio, and a detached spa enclosure on a legal non - conforming residence on a commercially zoned lot. The staff report was presented and 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 close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve V- 90-002 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 8 Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 90-017 206 E. Live Oak Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. The staff report was presented. Consideration of a conditional use permit for an unmanned cellular telephone facility consisting of electronic equipment housed within an existing commercial building. Staff said that the C -2 zone permits the height of a pole to be a maximum of 40' with provisions to ask for an additional 10' to accommodate accessory structural items. A modification may be granted to permit the monopole to have a maximum height of 50'. The applicant is requesting the height of the monopole to be 60' and a variance has been filed which will be before the Commission at the next meeting. The public hearing was opened. Ierome Buckmelter, representing L.A. Cellular Telephone Co., 6045 Slauson, Commerce, , said that L.A. Cellular is ,i public utility, licensed by the FCC and the California Public Utilities Commission and has the responsibility of providing service to the greater L.A. area and this is achieved by building cell sites such as the one proposed. 'There are approximately 200 of these built and PacTel has built almost as many. The typical project is a utility building, approximately 12'x 30'x10' and a monopole which ranges from 30' to 150' but 45'and 60' are the average. The proposal tonight is to put the unmanned facility inside an existing building and put a monopole on the outside. The only thing that would be visible in this project would be the monopole. He explained that cellular technology is unique, because there are stringent locational and elevation requirements. The cheapest and easiest way to do this would be to put a transmitter on top of Mt. Wilson, but that is not the nature of cellular technology. He went on to say that the cell sites have very stringent location requirements and noted that they have to be near a center of a cell. The proposed location is close to the grid point and the company's real estate coordinators who try to find available property within that search ring have suggested the subject site. The proposed location is away from residential uses. There is a real need to provide cellular service in this part of the City. The pole will be painted light blue, will be visible but not intrusive, will be environmentaly safe and not interfere with TV or radio. He remarked that they provide free 911 service which was very reliable during the recent San Francisco earthquake. He remarked that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. He said that they will take the responsibility to maintain the landscaping around the monopole. No one else spoke 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. The consensus of the Commission was favorable. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to approve CUP 90-017 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 9 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. Commissioner Hedlund abstained from this item. PUBLIC HEARING MP 90-015 800 w. Santa Anita Ave. H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation Consideration of a modification to utilize smoked transparent windows to replace existing fixed smoked non transparent windows on the east side of the second and third floors of an existing office building which abuts residentially zoned property. The staff report was presented. Staff said that at the time that the building was constructed there was a modification to install louvers in place of the translucent glass. During construction they installed the translucent glass. The applicant has indicated that the reason for the change is that it will enhance the interior space and lighting. The public hearing was opened. Chris McGuire, 1729 Wilson, said that the reason for the change is to provide more lighting. The entire building has dual glaze insulated windows and along the east side there is obscure glass on the inner layer, similar to ones used in showers or restrooms. This change will be environmentally more conducive for the people working there and noted that there is very little residential use to the east. No one else spoke 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 said that he would have been concerned if the residents to the east objected but since the Planning Dept. received no inquires and nobody is present at the hearing, then he would be in favor of the change. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve MP 90-015 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hedlund Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING MP 90-014 920 Fallen Leaf Rd. Greg & Janis Avedesian Consideration of an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Architectural Review Board's denial of a detached backyard gazebo and an arbor attached to the east side of the main dwelling. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Gary Sewel, 4030 Live Oak, representing Dean Pools, said that the gazebo has a 10' easterly setback and it was discovered during inspection that a modification was needed. It ties in architecturally with the existing architecture of the residence. Upon obtaining the required signatures, they heard nothing but favorable comments from the neighbors. The gazebo is not visible to the neighbors on either side and improves the residence. The arbor is not visible from the street and they were not aware that the homeowners association approval was required at the time of construction. It has a 5' setback and is open and adds to the property. The modification is required to obtain a final approval. The arbor is on the east side of the house off of the living room. The surface is planting area with sidewalk down the middle, it is planting area on the property line side. There is a wall at the front of the residence with a gate and the arbor is inside the gate and hidden by a large tree in the front yard. It is proposed to be like a fern garden, it is a 3' walk that goes from the front gate to the pool area and is not an entertaining area but a transition for guests that would walk through the backyard rather than go through the house. It is mainly like a grape arbor, very open. The report states that it is 384 sq. ft. and 90% of that is air with open beams, 4' on center with 2 posts and the rest of the arbor is attached to the house. Tom Wall, 930 Fallen Leaf, the neighbor immediately to the west, commented that the gazebo is not visible unless he is at the rear 20' of his lot. The arbor is not visible from the street. It is a tremendous improvement to the property and it would be a gross injustice to make him move his gazebo 2' or do anything to an arbor that can't be seen by anyone. Bob Henkel, 1065 Singingwood, Chairman of the ARB, said that this is a nice addition to the home. The ARB is not objecting to how it was done or the quality of work but are concerned about the setback. The ARB tries to maintain the 15' setback which is the requirement for the Upper Rancho. In his experience as the chairman for the past year and a half, the minimum setback requirement which has been approved has been 10' which is the minimum allowed by the City. He cited a couple of homes that are constructing walls or fences higher than what has been approved by the ARB and noted that one home took down several large oak trees without the ARB's approval and he said that it seems that people are doing things without approvals. He said that they are not against the arbor and have approved gazebos with 10' setbacks. He said that their major concern is the arbor being 5' from the property line. Greg Avedesian, 920 Fallen Leaf, said that the ARB does not approve anything with less than a 10' setback. The arbor should be approved by the City and not the ARB because the ARB has a limit and this goes beyond their limits. Mr. Woolard suggested that if this is approved the arbor should remain open and remain as a walkway as opposed to becoming a patio which would change the whole nature of the use of the area between the house and the property line. Mr. Miller said that the problem that Mr. Henkel described is a policing problem and enforcement. Each project should be based on its own merit and grant modifications if necessary. The problem of people constructing without ARB approval will have to be dealt with via education, notice and through this process. 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. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 11 Commissioner Szany was in favor of the appeal with the suggested condition by Mr. Woolard. Commissioner Amato agreed. Commissioner Hedlund thought that the ARB's decision should be upheld especially since it is a violation of the side yard setback. He thought that people are violating them because they think they can get away with it. Both the arbor and the gazebo are attractive additions but he thought that there should be a limit. Chairman Papay said that the arbor is on the border line of being a structure and as long as it remains open and used as a walkway and not used for any other purpose, he does not have a problem. Commissioner Hedlund moved to deny the appeal and the motion died due to a lack of a second. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve MP 90 -014 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following modification to be added: 1. The arbor remain of open post and bean construction and that the area beneath it remain only a walkway and not be expanded into a patio area. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Szany, Papay NOES: Commissioner Hedlund Chairman Papay noted there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None RESOLUTION 1446 RESOLUTION 1447 Mr. Woolard read the title of the resolutions. MOTION A resolution granting CUP 90-015 for a delicatessen at 411 E. Huntington Drive. A resolution recommending approval of the Revised General Plan to the City Council. It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Clark to adopt Resolution 1446 and 1447 and to formally affirm the decisions of October 23, 1990, reflecting the findings of the Commission and the votes thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Chairman Papay noted that there is a five working day appeal period. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 12 MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM COMMISSION None MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Woolard noted that there will not be a second meeting in December due to the Christmas Holiday. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 p.m. 1••� , g ,r. lam, � , / Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 11/13/90 Page 13