Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-13-91Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Dept. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, August 13, 1991 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, August 13, 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, Hedlund, Szany, Clark ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to excuse Commissioner Daggett from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to approve the Minutes of July 9, and 23, 1991 as published. 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. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING: City Attorney Michael Miller Assistant Planning Director Donna Butler Associate Planner Corkran Nicholson Assistant Planner James Kasama Assistant Planner William Stokes Secretary Silva Vergel CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91 -007 The southwest corner of Huntington Dr. and Second Avenue WLA Arcon, Inc. and Schaefer Brothers Consideration of a conditional use permit to construct two three -story office buildings with modifications. One office building will contain 16,667 sq. ft. and be located 93' -0" from the residential property to the south; the other building will contain 25,000 sq. ft. and be located 50' from the residential properties to the south. Staff remarked that neither structural plans nor a floor plan have been submitted. In response to a question from the Commission, staff commented that an eating establishment in this location would be permitted only with an approved conditional use permit. The stairs will be located near the compact spaces and they will have to comply with the visibility standards. They are proposing a 10' setback off of Huntington Drive. Code does not require any setback. The public hearing was opened. Warren Lortie, President of WLA Arcon, Inc., 18652 Florida, Suite 200, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the CUP and said that his partner Howard Schaefer, Schaefer Brothers is also in the audience. He said that with the exception of Condition 4, dealing with the driveway ramp location, they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. They do not have a problem with staff's comments in regard to openings and planters. He said that the parking was designed with the ramp exiting and entering to the alley and remarked that this has been a method of design for traffic control for their projects. Two previous plans, designed for this project, one of which was a restaurant, had the ramp in the same location. They were very surprised when the traffic study came in recommending internalized circulation. He explained that when you internalize circulation, you are requiring additional circulation area to be brought onto the site and are no longer utilizing the alley for its main purpose of allowing access to the site from many locations. When the alley is used, it frees up those areas on the site for immediate access to trash and delivery vehicles. By having a single opening into the site, all of the circulation from the parking lot is being forced into one area and this would create some very difficult maneuvers with the ramp internalized. This would be especially difficult if one came into the first driveway and then had to do a full 180° turn to come back into the underground parking structure. This would be an almost impossible maneuver and in some cases might create real traffic conflicts. Staff felt it would be important to encourage people to exit from the underground parking and go immediately onto Huntington Drive. He felt that it would be a lot more logical to exit the traffic onto to the alley and then they would leave onto Second Avenue to make a right turn on Huntington, especially if the traffic wants to go north. In his opinion, if the alley is used, it will be safer than using the easterly driveway on Huntington Drive which is close to the intersection of Huntington and Second. In regard to comments from the Commission, Mr. Lortie stated that they have 2 extra parking places in the original plan, because after the plans are finalized, it is inevitable that they will lose a couple of parking places due to columns in the parking structure. In order to gain extra planters, a lot of the compact spaces are located in the upper level. After redesigning to come up with an acceptable and internalized ramp, the optional compact spaces were eliminated. The internalized ramp will force the addition of 10 more compact spaces over the original plan. In the lower level parking, the ramp has be to 25' wide and in order to make a 25' ramp, 5' was taken out of all of the adjacent car stalls, so there is entire row of parking adjacent to the ramp which will become compact, which is not shown on the plan. No one 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. In response to comments from Commissioner Hedlund, staff said that although she has not seen the revised street plan for the street, Second Ave., the left hand turn lane will remain. Staff noted that there probably would be some containerized trees in the upper level of parking, because it would be the easiest way of providing trees. There will not be any landscaping or the lower level parking; this is not required. After this plan is approved by the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Agency will review the design and the Planning Dept. would again have the opportunity to comment on the final plans. Based upon Mr. Lortie's testimony, staff was concerned with the number of compact parking spaces which seems to be more than originally anticipated. Staff went on to say that usuaIIy plans are more finalized but Mr. Lortie wanted to get an idea if the buildings would be approved prior to investing a lot of money in the project. Normally, plans that are submitted at this stage are final plans and then after approval they would just to the Redevelopment Agency for confirmation and design review. Staff was concerned about approving plans without knowing the total Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 2 number of spaces and the percentage of compact spaces. She was concerned that if they were granted a 23% compact space and needed 30% to make the project work, the City might not have the ability to modify it once it is granted. Mike Miller, the City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission can approve the CUP, as submitted, with the condition that the Redevelopment Agency have the authority to require certain items when final plans are submitted. The Commission has the right under the CUP, which is land use, to express concerns and make decisions subject to certain parameters. Per Mr. Lortie's request, Chairman Clark asked if the Commission would like to reopen the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Amato to reopen the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Mr. Lortie noted that there are lots of planters on the upper level on the preliminary plans, which they would have to reconsider if the compact parking spaces were limited. However, he felt that they could comply with whatever limitation is put on the compact spaces. He remarked that there would have to be enough compact spaces to provide wide ramp upstairs to fit the configuration of the street. There are compact spaces in front of all the tree provide adequate area for the planters. The length of the stalls have been shortened to allow for the concrete containers but they have maintained the width. If they were to try to comply with the compact ordinance then they would have a problem complying with all of the tree locations. In response to questions from staff, Mr. Lortie stated that he thought that there were 51 compact spaces. If acceptable, he said that they did not intend to exceed 25% compact parking space. 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 have any objections to the compact spaces or the setbacks. He was concerned with the traffic flow problem and referred to a similar office building at the corner of Huntington and First and the traffic problems at that corner created by this building. He said that it is difficult to visualize how one could come out of this property and go east on Huntington Drive. He thought that there might be future traffic problems with people trying to make a left turn on Second from west bound Huntington to go onto the site. Commissioner Szany agreed with Commissioner Hedlund. He thought that the elevations of the building are nice but was concerned about the parking and the ramp off of the alley. He did think that the ramp adjacent to the building would also have some problems. However, it is centrally located and a person would not have to go out of the parking lot to go down the ramp or to the other parking area. The original design proposed by the applicant requires a person to use the alley for exiting /entering all lots and the underground parking. Although he did not want them to go through the expense of working drawings, he thought that more complete preliminary drawings are necessary. He felt that there should be input from a structural engineer in regard to the location of the columns. He said that the east parking lot should be for employees only and thought that it would be easy to police. He was concerned about the traffic during the racing season. He remarked that this is an important corner and what is built will have a great impact on traffic. Commissioner Amato agreed. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 3 Chairman Clark stated that it is going to be tight around the corner no matter what is done (ingress and egress from the alley) at Second and Huntington. He agreed with comments made and said that he would like to avoid a situation similar to the one at Huntington and First. Commissioner Hedlund remarked that it seems that the consensus is that the modifications are acceptable but the Commission shares the concern with traffic flow. Chairman Clark asked if the Commission would like to reopen the public hearing one more time to allow for more input from Mr. Lortie? MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to reopen the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Mr. Lortie said that he was confused with the Commission's role. He thought that the Commission was concerned more with the design of the project, materials, height setbacks and landscaping coverage. He was discouraged that the Commission needed more detailed drawings and did not want to spend more money on detailed plans only to find out that the CUP is denied. He said that they have a group of medical tenants who are anxious to occupy the building, once it is built, and if they might lose them if the projects drags on. Mr. Miller said that even though there might be a need for the expenditure of additional funds by Mr. Lortie, it is within the Commission's jurisdiction on a CUP, to consider how the project is going to affect he neighborhood, community, streets including factors that have to deal with whether the adjacent area is adequate for the traffic patterns. Mr. Lortie said that they became aware of the report after their plans were finalized. He remarked that unless they submitted new plans, continuance would be meaningless. He said that their objective was to put the best use on the property. Originally, they had proposed a restaurant which would generate more opportunities for problems in and out of the driveways than an office building. So, in their opinion an office building would not be an intensification or expansion of the problem. The configuration of the site has been provided by Public Works which clearly indicates that they have had the time to review the project and traffic. Also, a lot of money has been spent on the civil engineer because of the very involved legal description, the reconfiguration of the street itself, for the dedication back and forth between public and private entities, and it was very complicated. In response to comments by Mr. Lortie, staff said that it is the responsibility of the Public Works Dept. to review the street plan. Staff said that in 1989, Redevelopment requested Bartman and Aschman (BA) to do a traffic study of this area to determine the maximum development would be on this particular site. Based upon traffic analysis study and working they felt that a 40,000 sq. ft. office building or equivalent amount of development would be appropriate for the site. The proposed development is consistent with what BA initially recommended. They felt that this project would generate approximately 87 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hours and 117 during p.m. They did not have a problem with the traffic generated on the site, although there was some concerns with the movement and with regard to access from the alley, they felt that an alternative proposal might be a little better. Their comment on either project was that the projects would not create real traffic hazard on the alley ", but there are some concerns and precautions that people will have to take when entering or exiting the alley. BA did not feel that the size of this project was an issue. Howard Schaefer, Schaefer Brothers, 225 S. Lake, Pasadena, spoke for the project. He said that apparently this parking issue was raised with Redevelopment over a year ago, but they were never made aware of it and consequently they have been consistent with the original plan, having the access on the alley way which they thought would be the best approach to parking in this particular structure. He remarked that the City's concern is a legitimate concern and they are prepared to deal with it but this project has been delayed for an extended period of time and it has created a problem as far as the interested tenants for the building Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 4 because at some point in time they will make arrangements at other locations. He noted that the nature of the site does not lend itself to a great solution to the problem and asked for guidance to solve the problem. He said that the access problem is a constraint that they have to deal with and asked that the Commission render a decision instead of continuing the hearing. He said that if the Commission approved this, then they would work with Redevelopment and submit more detailed plans and move forward with the project. Even though there are some problems with access on the alley way, certain factors have been taken into consideration that make access from the alley preferable not only during the race track traffic but also the island on Huntington which restricts left hand movement into the building. The general uncertainty in what is going to happen with this whole corner was taken into consideration when designing this project. The northside development at the corner of Huntington and Second will undoubtedly create additional traffic and they felt that their building would have less of an impact if the alley was utilized. Mr. Lortie stated that they do not wish to continue the hearing and would like the Commission to vote on the matter. 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 Szany felt uncomfortable voting for this project without knowing what the requested modifications would be for the parking. He remarked that this is a very important corner and was very concerned about any development there. He thought that they should obtain general input from a structural engineer so they know where columns will be located and how many. Commissioner Amato agreed and stated that he too is concerned about the flow of the traffic. Mr. Miller explained that the Commission does not have to vote on the project if they feel uneasy with what is proposed or need more detailed information. He did not think that the applicant would like a denial and said that the Commission may continue the hearing to a date certain. Commissioner Hedlund felt uncomfortable with the flow of traffic. He thought that the traffic study done in '89 is outdated. He stated that he drives here at all times of the day and the traffic is bad, especially when trying to make left hand turns. Chairman Clark said that the consensus seems to be that the Commission is concerned about the ramp location, the use of the alley and traffic. He also felt uneasy about voting on the project as submitted. Conversation ensued about what meeting this should be continued to and Mr. Miller remarked that Commissioner Daggett will receive transcript of tonight's meeting and will be able to vote on the project. It was noted that Chairman Clark would not be at the September 10th meeting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to continue the public hearing to September 10, 1991. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 5 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TM 50780 319 California Fred Lin Application withdrawn by applicant CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91 -010 125 W. Live Oak Ave. and 120 -124 W. Las Tunas Dr. Dietrich & Assoc. for Tony's Auto Body & Restoration MOTION Consideration of a tentative map for a 10 -unit residential condominium project. Consideration of a conditional use permit and parking modifications for a 3,956 sq. ft. commercial building addition at 120 -124 W. Las Tunas Drive. The addition will alter the layout and operations of the previously permitted automotive repair garage at 125 W. Live Oak Ave. It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Amato to continue the hearing to October 15, 1991. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett PUBLIC HEARING TPM 91 -006 469 Palm Dr. I. Tsai Hsueh Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Ed Eckert, 3820 E. Colorado, #109, Pasadena, representing the applicant, remarked that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Alvin Albe Jr., 458 W. Palm Dr., spoke against the lot split and asked if this would be consistent with the recently adopted General Plan. He did not think that this lot split would be in accordance with the General Plan. He anticipated that two monstrosities would be built and remarked that they would block his view of the mountains. He said that the area is overbuilt and more homes are not necessary. Staff explained that the purpose of updating the General Plan was not to prohibit lot splits, it was to preserve large lot neighborhoods and this will do that because both of the new lots created meet and exceed Code requirements and will be compatible with the existing lots in the immediate area. The new lots are not out of character with any of the lots in the existing neighborhood. This lot split does comply with the intent and the recommendations of the General Plan. Chairman Clark said that the tentative parcel map is a subdivision only and this proceeding does not deal with building of new homes. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 6 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 Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Szany to approve TPM 91 -006 with the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Hedlund, Szany, Clark NOES: Commissioner Amato ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett Chairman Clark noted that there is a ten day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91-011 Consideration of a conditional use permit, with parking and 113 E. Huntington Dr. landscaping modifications for a martial arts instruction Chong (Jonathan) Park studio. The staff report was presented. Staff said that the opening to the rear parking area has always been and staff's observation has been that owners and employees utilize that area. Most of the customers use the parking district on the north side of the alley. Landscaping was not a requirement because the amount that could be provided would be minimal and in this section of the alley none of the other properties, with the exception of the parking district, have provided any landscaping. The public hearing was opened. Tommy Han, 113 E. Huntington Dr., representing the applicant spoke in favor of the request. He said that the tenant from 115 E. Huntington has withdrawn his opposition to this request. He was in agreement with opening after 5:30 p.m. to mitigate the parking problems. There will be no more than 15 students at any one time and most of them will be dropped off at the rear entrance. The studio will be a great addition to Huntington Dr. rather than a hindrance or a problem. He commented that he would rather see the building occupied than vacant. He said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Lofti Kakish, 600 N. Michillinda, Sierra Madre, owner of 113 E. Huntington Dr., also spoke in favor of the request. He stated that there is plenty of parking and noted that they have to do something to bring in business to the corner. The Building Inspector sited 105 -111 E. Huntington Dr. for earthquake damage and the subject building was not included. He said that his engineer has completed the plans and has to resubmit. Michael Ludecke, 610 N. Santa Anita, President of the Downtown Arcadia Business Association, spoke in favor of this request and commented that this immediate area needs more businesses and would prefer to see this shop occupied rather than vacant. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 7 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 Szany didn't think there would be parking problems due to their business hours. The consensus of the Commission was favorable. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to approve CUP 91 -011 with the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett Chairman Clark noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. PUBLIC HEAPING MP 91 -005 321 Hillcrest Blvd. Margie Kierstein Consideration of a 5' -0" westerly side setback in lieu of the 10' -0" required for the second story portion of a new residence on a 50' wide lot. The westerly side of this property is adjacent to the athletic field of Foothills Jr. High School. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Margie and Walter Kierstein, 321 Hillcrest, said that they designed this house with the hillside in mind and wanted to work with nature rather than against it. They felt that their proposal is aesthetically pleasing and all the neighbors are in favor of it. On the easterly side ,,t the addition, there is one small bathroom window and stated that they tried to be very considerate of their neighbors so that they would not infringe on their privacy. 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. The consensus of the Commission was favorable. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to approve MP 91-005 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 8 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett Chairman Clark noted that there is a five working day appeal period. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TA 91 -005 Consideration of a text amendment adding tree preservation regulations to the Arcadia Municipal Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to continue the public hearing to September 24, 1991. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None PLANNING COMMISSION That the proposed sale of Flood Control property adjacent DETERMINATION to 2559 Doolittle is consistent with the General Plan. The staff report was presented. Staff explained that this is excess property adjacent to the wash and usually the adjacent property owners contact the County to purchase the property. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Amato to recommend approval of the sale of the Flood Control property adjacent to 2559 Doolittle and determine that the sale is consistent with the General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 9 RESOLUTION 1466 establishment RESOLUTION 1467 Ms. Butler read the title of the resolutions. A resolution granting CUP 91 -009 for an eating with seating for 12 persons at 600 E. Live Oak Ave. A resolution denying MP 91 -003 for a 7,202 sq. ft. house at 308 Campus Drive. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to adopt Resolutions 1466 and 1467 and to formally affirm the decision of July 23, 1991 and the votes thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark None Commissioner Daggett Chairman Clark noted that there is a five working day appeal period. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Szany wondered if they were being unduly hard on WLA Arcon in requiring them to submit a more detailed plan which might mean the expenditure of additional funds? Mr. Miller said that a letter was sent on August 5th by Mr. Kinnahan, to Mr. Lortie was informed that he would have to obtain the Commission's approval and if they were unable to get approval, they could get an extension from Redevelopment to an exclusive right to negotiate. Their financial problem is not a land use problem and as a developer it can be brought up but is irrelevant. The Commission could have denied this and they would be able to appeal to Council but the Commission does not have to give up its jurisdiction. Commissioner Hedlund did not think that the Commission should discuss this and thought that the conversation should be in general terms. MATTERS FROM STAFF None ADJOURNMENT 9:05 p.m. r Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 10