Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-24-91Planning Commission proceedings are taped recorded and on file in the office of the Planning De t. p MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, September 24, 1991 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, September 24, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, with Chairman Tom Clark presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany, Clark ABSENT: None MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve the Minutes of September 10, 1991. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. OTHERS ATTENDING: Councilman George Fasching City Attorney Mike Miller Planning Director William Woolard Assistant Planning Director Donna Butler Assistant Planner William Stokes Secretary Silva Vergel PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91 -014 Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a 411 E. Huntington Dr., #122 1,620 sq. ft. fast food restaurant and related parking Ronnie Lam modifications. The staff report was presented. Staff remarked that Mr. Lam has stated that this would be the last time that they would ask for seatin g for an eating establishment in the center. It was noted that the yogurt shop at one time had wanted seats and staff suggested to the applicant that it might be a good idea to file for seating for both of the eating establishments at the same time. The public hearing was opened. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 1 Harry Sfan, 411 E. Huntington Drive, said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Patsy Ma, 1905 Holly Ave., clarified that the yogurt shop would probably file for seating and that this would not be the last CUP for an eating establishment in the center. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Daggett to to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Staff explained that if the yogurt shop would like to have chairs and tables then they would have to file for a CUP. The yogurt shop presently has benches but according to Code, once tables are placed the use and the parking requirements change. Mike Miller, the City Attorney, stated that the Commission may consider what may happen in the future but placing chairs in the yogurt shop is speculation and each project should be reviewed case by case. What takes place in the future is not relevant to this proceeding. Commissioner Szany said that there is ample parking at the site especially within the proximity of the parking structure adjacent to the proposed location of this eating establishment. He was concerned that the parking structure may not be utilized at night. Commissioner Hedlund remarked that he does not have any problems with the center as long as it does not impact the residents. Chairman Clark said that the City should approve uses carefully as the center begins to fill up. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Daggett to approve CUP 91- 012, subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany, Clark None Chairman Clark noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91 -014 411 E. Huntington Dr. Units 312 -314 (third floor) FLS Language Centres Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a language center which: A Provides translation and interpretation of all languages. B. Tutoring instructions for up to 60 persons (in 4 to 5 classrooms- maximum 10 students per class), and C. Tutoring small groups for Scholastic Aptitude tests Classes are conducted in sessions from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 2 The staff report was presented. Staff said that one way to control any possible traffic problems would be to limit hours of operation, however, staff did not recommend any specific hours. Staff also noted that there is a discrepancy in the plans where the plans show seating for 75 students but the applicant has stated that there will be no more than 60 students at any one time. The public hearing was opened. Dal Swain, FLS Language Institute, 6 N. First Ave., said that the maximum number of students at any one time will be 60 and stated that they just drew in desks on the plan. There will be no more than 5 classes at any one time with a maximum of 10 students per class. The classes are mostly conversational classes and it would not be a good idea to have more than 10 students. There are 4 levels of English taught in the school. They are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. They will advise all the students and their parents to park in the rear so that there will not be any traffic problems, but initially they might park in the front to sign up for classes. Carol Marshall, 1001 Paloma Dr., said that this would be a good idea especially with the changes that are taking place and noted that it would be a worthwhile school. It would also be bring more business to the center. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Amato was in favor of the use especially if the rear entrance would be utilized. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to approve CUP 91- 014 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany, Clark None Chairman Clark noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91 -013 Lots 2046 -2055 along Randolph St. Magno A. Areire Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a truck driving school with 2 hours sessions with a maximum of ten students per session. There will be a maximum of 12 trucks /trailers utilized for the school and parked on the premises. The staff report was presented. Staff said that they would have to pave the entire lot and would have to comply with Public Works requirements. The portion of the lot fronting on Goldring Avenue is not part of this application. The students would utilize the same lot to park their cars. Because of the narrow street width, Randolph Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 3 St. should not be utilized for driving lessons and it will be for access to and from the property. There will be no access off of Goldring Road. Commissioner Daggett wondered if they will have any lights for the training of evening students and wondered if they might be offensive and have a negative impact on the area. Staff remarked that the applicant would have to answer that question. The public hearing was opened. Sergio White, 4101 7th St., Riverside, representing the applicant, said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions of the staff report. He asked for a 3 -month period before the conditions are imposed so they will have ample time to pave the lot and submit plans to the City and they will comply with all the requirements. During this period they will not be conducting classes. They are not proposing any lights at the present time because most of the evening classes will be done in the classroom and occasionally they might have driving classes. Most of the maneuvering will be done on the lot. John Shaw, 5816 Temple City Blvd., Temple City, representing Mr. Elmore who owns the property at 11860-11900 Goldring Rd., spoke against the proposed use. He stated that there are already two driving school in the area and another one is not needed and will add to the problem. He remarked that students from Dootson Driving school drive on Goldring Road and due to their inexperience sometimes they park diagonally on the street when they try to back up. He anticipated that this school would probably do the same. These trucks obstruct driveways onto Mr. Elmore's site. He objected to the use of Goldring Rd. and said that when Mr. Elmore wanted to build his complex, the City required him to go through Architectural Design Review and required landscaping and a nice wall but with the trucks parking on Goldring Rd., all these features are blocked and not visible. Staff reiterated that there will be no direct access onto Goldring Rd. In rebuttal, Mr. White said that it would be unfair to deny this request because somebody else operating in the area is being abusive. There are many trucks in the area which deliver goods and not all the traffic is created by the schools. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Szany to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Hedlund did not think that this would be a good use of the area, especially when property owners are encouraged to build nice buildings with architectural features. Staff said that Dootson Driving School has buildings on its lot, whereas this lot does not have any buildings. This property is also less visible than Dootson, which is on Clark Street, due to its location. Commissioner Szany said that while this might be a good use now, it might not make sense to use the lot as a parking lot with the rising of property values. He did not want trucks to obstruct landscaping in front of buildings. Commissioner Amato said that this would be a good use in the area and is out of the way. Chairman Clark said that he was satisfied with the conditions set forth and would be in favor of the use. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 4 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve CUP 91- 013 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Szany, Clark Commissioner Hedlund Chairman Clark noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING TPM 91 -007 339 Diamond Ave. Tritech Assoc. Consideration of a tentative parcel map for a 3 -unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Tom Cao, Tritech Assoc., 735 W. Emerson, Monterey Park, the engineer of the project representing the applicant said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. There were no other persons desiring to speak 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. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve TPM 91 -007 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany, Clark None Chairman Clark remarked that there is a ten day appeal period after. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a text amendment adding tree TA 91 -005 preservation regulations to the Arcadia Municipal Code. The staff report was presented. Mr. Miller said that for legal reasons, some wording will be added to pages 10 and 11 of the report prior to forwarding it to the City Council. The wording will be for further support to the enforcement Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 5 section and remedies. One such wording will give the City Attorney authority to file the appropriate civil action in the courts with regard to enforcement of the restitution provisions. Chairman Clark commented the way he understood the staff report was that the trees that would be protected are any Englemann Oaks, any Live Oak and other Oaks with 38" circumference which is approximately 1' in diameter, sycamores that are 24" in circumference which is approximately 7 1/2" in diameter and any other tree that 38" in circumference or about one foot in diameter. He suggested to have the diameter of the trees included in the ordinance and said that he has a hard time visualizing circumference. Mr. Woolard said that the Chairman's comments with regard to the trees involved are correct with the exception that on Englemann and Coast Live Oaks, language pertaining to trunk diameter should be added to those two sections so that these oaks with a trunk circumference larger than 24" are protected. He remarked that the diameter can be inserted in parenteses with approximate dimensions. Commissioner Hedlund said that experts on trees measure the tree diameter at a certain distance above grade. Mr. Woolard said that codes seem to vary from three to five feet in measuring the diameter and staff is suggesting that it be measured at 4.5'. Commissioner Amato thought that the City should initially tag every tree in the City and mark every tree where it is and who owns it and know its location since aerials would not be as accurate. In response to questions from Commissioner Amato, Mr. Woolard said that tagging is only required when a tree report is prepared and at that time there would be an inventory of what is on the property and is being removed and saved. The purpose of tagging is to insure that the trees that are to remia are not removed. He said that there have been instances where trees were removed where they should not have been removed. One such case was the planned unit development on north First Avenue where some trees were taken out that should not have been removed. The developer will be planting many additional trees to make up for that but generally it is the homeowner who removes the trees and not as a result of the developer's mistake. Commissioner Hedlund said that although he is for saving trees he does not think that this is the way to go and he thought that the City Attorney would have a very difficult time defending this ordinance. He said that the removal of oak trees in the north part of town was unfortunate but wondered if this is a serious enough problem to justify this ordinance. In response to questions from Commissioner Daggett, Mr. Woolard said that the associations felt that both Class I and II trees within the rear and interior side yards should be protected which basically means all large trees should be saved, however, staff does not feel that was appropriate. All Class I trees are protected in all locations, whereas, Class II trees are only protected within the front yard or the street side yard of a corner lot and are not protected when they are in the rear yard or interior side yards. The public hearing was opened. Jim Rostron, 422 Monte Vista, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for the Lower Rancho, thought that this new ordinance is a great improvement over the first one proposed. He remarked that all of the associations seem to be in favor of the proposed changes. He said that presently the resolution for their area does not include the preservation of trees and with 800 lots in the Lower Rancho, the ARB does not have the expertise nor the time to review matters regarding trees. He thought that the majority of their board feels that the ARB should be taken out of the loop and that it should be the Planning Department's responsibility to review these matters. The ARB is concerned Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 6 with the architectural aspects of the development of a property but it does not include the trimming or removal of trees. Although sometimes the removal of a tree or trimming is required in order to accommodate an addition or a new house, but this aspect should be done by staff and the ARB should not be required to submit a recommendation for a permit to remove a tree. Mr. Woolard said that with the exception of the Lower Rancho, all other associations in the City have provisions for obtaining approval of removing trees. The Lower Ranch is not required to submit approval for the removal of trees. He said that it might be possible to word the ordinance such that the Lower Rancho would be excluded from having to review requests for removal of trees. In response to comments from Mr. Woolard, Mr. Miller said that since this is a city wide ordinance, it has to be applied in a uniform manner and suggested that those associations that have the jurisdiction under the existing rules would still have this power but since the Lower Rancho does not have that power in their resolution, they would be able to continue in the same manner. Mr. Woolard said that the other associations do have the authority to review and approve the removal of any trees. This should be taken out of their jurisdiction, because some people would have to go to the associations for approval and then come to the City for the same review, in essence this would be obtaining two permits with different standards which could be a potential problem. The associations review in removal of trees could be too stringent. Mr. Miller suggested that if the City feels that the associations should not have jurisdiction over tree matters then the Council should amend the resolution to reflect that change. There were no other persons desiring to speak 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 thought that this would be a good ordinance. Commissioner Daggett agreed and commended Mr. Woolard for the staff report and the well written ordinance. Commissioner Hedlund didn't think that this kind of an ordinance is necessary and wondered how it could be accomplished. He remarked that it would be very difficult to implement. He didn't think that an ordinance should be enacted that could not be implemented. Commissioner Szany thought that the diameter dimension should be included in the ordinance. He did not want to discourage people from pruning their trees just because they have to get a permit and was afraid that this ordinance might do that since it is very expensive to have an oak tree pruned and a permit would even make it more expensive. Chairman Clark thought that this is a big improvement over the previous ordinance. He also did not want people to be paranoid on pruning their trees. Commissioner Amato said that the intent of this ordinance is so that people won't mutilate a tree. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to recommend approval of TA 91 -005 to the City Council. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 7 ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Szany, Clark Commissioner Hedlund AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Albert Ip, 410 Sharon, said that he was supposed to have a public hearing scheduled for today. Staff said that the public hearing for his property was before the Modification Committee which meets at 8:15 a.m. and was informed of the Committee's decision. RESOLUTION 1469 Mr. Woolard read the title of the resolution. A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting CUP 91 -007 to construct two three -story office buildings in excess of 20,000 square feet and within 100 feet of residential properties located at the southwest corner of Huntington Drive and Second Avenue. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to adopt Resolution 1469, and to formally affirm the decision of September 10, 1991, and the votes thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany, Clark None Chairman Clark noted that there is a five working day appeal period. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Hedlund remarked that he has worked in some cities that require that the dirt in a construction site be watered down so that no dirt is brought out onto the street and there is a security guard to make sure that that is accomplished. He was concerned with the manner in which the yard looked at the northeast corner of Duarte and Holly. He said that weeds and vegetation are very high and he said that the yard should be maintained even if there is construction. Staff said that the owner of the subject property has been notified that unless the property is cleaned up and maintained no inspections or permits will be granted. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 8 Commissioner Amato asked if a limit can be placed on how long a property owner has to complete a project. He said that the property at the southwest corner of Santa Anita and Wistaria has been under construction for over 2 1/2 years. Staff said there are no time limits on when construction has to be completed but an inspection is required every six months to keep the permit valid. MATTERS FROM STAFF None ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 9/24/91 Page 9