HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 23, 1988
.
.
.. \
Planning Commission proceedings are taped recorded and on file in the office of the Planning
Department.
MINUTES
ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGUlARMEETlNG
Tuesday, August 23, 1988
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, August 23,
1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of ~he Arcadia, City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive,
with Chairman Larry Papay presiding.
PlEDGE OF AlLEGW-ICE
RoLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
None
MINUTES
MOTlON
It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to approve the
Minutes of August 9, 1988 as published. The motion passed by voice vote with none
dissenting. .
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 resolutions. Themation
passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
OTHERS AlTENDlt>G:
Council Uaison Mary Young
Director of Planning William Woolard
Senior Planner Donna Buller
Assistant Planner James Kasama
Secretary Silva Vergel
.
.
1
CONTINUED PUBUC HEARING
MC 88-64
350 Laurel Ave,
Frederick Garside
Consideration of modifications for a new two.
story house and detached garage (referred
from the Modification Committee).
The staff report was presented.
Staff said that the original size of the house was 3965 sq. ft. and it has been reduced to 3913 sq.
ft.
The public hearing was opened.
Frederick Garside, 350 Laurel, the owner stated that he will build a 3' high masonry wall with a
3' wrought iron fence on top. He commented that their requested modification for a 36% rear
yard coverage vs. 25% is justified because they won't be able to build a two-car garage due to
narrow width of the lot. In order to meet Code's requiremel)ts for a 2,car garage within the rear
yard area the above modification i.s necessary. He remarked that they'd be willing to delete
requests "A" and "E" for the bay window and the 6' high block wall.
Margaret Courtney, the architect of the project concurred with Mr. Garside and said that In the
area 45% of the buildings are encroaching' into the alley and most of the building are built right
up to the property line. She noted that Mr. Garside Is proposing a 3' setback and indicated that the
size of the house complies with Code.
MOTJOII
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 noted that there were no real differences between the original proposal and
the revised one and was' against the proposal.
Chairman papay agreed and thought that the house and the garage are oversized and don't fit on the
lot.
Commissioner Clark said that his main objection was to the size of the house.
In response to CommlssionerSzany's question, staff said that the limitation on the amount of
coverage in the required rear yard Is to prevent an Impingement upon abutting rear neighbors. In
this case there is a 1.5' wide alley that'separates the properties to the rear. Also, the City desires
that there be adequate amount of open space provided ona property and in,the original design the
driveway did not adequately meet that Intention of open space even though it Is technically open
space.
Commissioner Szany said that the house is too large for the property and suggested moving the
garage closer which would delete some of the modifications. He commented that they should
comply with the intent of the Code in regard to open space.
Commissioner Hedlund stated that the area is a nice area with well kept homes and didn't think
that a house as large as the one proposed would fit in the area. He thought it would be hard to
approve the modifications when the house is too large for the lot.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 2
.
.
.,
MOTION
1\ was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to deny MC 88-
64 based on the findings that It will not secure appropriate improvement.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
1\a:S: None
There is a five working day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING CUP 88-021
916 S. Santa Anita
Shell Oil Co.
Consideration of a conditional use permit to
remodel the existing service station, add 264
sq. fl. addition for storage and convert an
existing bay into a drive, through car wash.
The staff report \/Ias presented.
Chairman Papay remarked that it would be tough to enter the car wash from Duarte Road which is
on the south side of the property.
Staff said 1hat the car wash will be for the customers and any changes to the exterior of the
building would have to go through the architectural design review procedure and explained the
location of the trash bin on the site.
The pLiblichearingwas opened.
Ken Sorgeto, the engineer for the project. 2750 S. Harbor, Santa Ana. said that they are In
agreement with all of the conditions In the staff report. All work on the cars will be done inside
the building and the proposal includes a mIni foodmart. The car wash will be for customers who
purchase..gas and will not bea commercial car wash. Access to the car wash will be from the
north east andncit from the south. There will be ample directional signs which will direct irafflc.
He explained that Shell is trying to keep up with the growing service stations and is upgrading
most stations.
MOTION
It was moved by Commlssloner Clark. seconded by Commisslonei Szany to close the
public hearing. The motion passed ~y voice vote with none dissenting.
Commissioner Clark was concerned with added traffic at the intersection. He'said that it is a nice
development and a good upgrade to the existing situation.
Staff remarked that the planters will have to be cleaned up as per condition 5 of the staff report.
MOT1ON
It was moved by Commissiorler Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve CUP
88-021 subject to the conditions In the staff report.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 3
.
.
.
ROll. CALI.:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
N:ES: None
There is a fIVe working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution.
-, - - ~ . . - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _.- - - - -.- .-.
PUBLIC HEARING T.P.M.8S-016
The block bounded by Michillinda
Ave. on the west, Sunset Blvd. on the
east, and Huntington Dr.on the south
(the Hughes EI RancholMay Co. and
Arcadia Regency sites)
Mailer" Brewing Co. c/o
S & P Company
The staff report was presented and the publiC hearing was opened.
Consideration of a tentative parcel map for
a lot split and consolidation to create two
new parcels from two existing parcels.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the lot split.
I.OllON
It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the
public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
The consensus of the Commission was favorable.
MJTlON
It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve TPM
88-016 subject to the conditions In the staff' report.
ROll. CAll.;
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
N:ES: None
There Is a ten day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING MP 88-24
54 Genoa
Robert Cheng
Consideration of modifications for a proposed
two-unit condominium project.
The staff report was presented.
Staff said that the alley In the rear is primarily an easemenUor utilities and Is not used as access
and parts o(il are unpaved. The Public WorKs Department has no Intentions of upgrading the
alley In the near future and noted 'that the alley is not wide enough for 2-way traffic.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 4
.
.
,
The public hearing was opened.
Greg Butler, thearchit/lct, 218 E. Longden, Irwilldale, said that the owner of the property
approached the City and tried to purchase the alley but he was informed that that woulc:l not be
possible. He remarked that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report.
Harry Kamp, 711 S. First, wondered how the project would fit in and staff showed him the
proposed plans. After reviewing the plans he had no objections to the proposal.
Harry Randolph, 45 Alice, asked about the alc unit at the rear of the property. He fell that the
setbacks should be met even though the units will improve the area and thought thallI was too
much development on the lot and said thatthe lot is too small to accommodate two units.
Staff explained that the alc unit is 8' from the property line and there is the 15' wide alley and
that'would set the unit far from the properties to the rear and didn't think that It would create a
noise problem.
Rachel Luxenburg, 45 Alice, said that she faces the alley and presently she has the vIew of a red
wood fence but after this project is completed she would be looking al'lhe alc unit.
In rebuttal, Mr. Butler explained that the alc unit will be at least 22' from the properties to the
rear and said that the reason for the location of the alc units were to reduce the noise level for the
property owner. He commented that if the Commission would like, he will place It closer to the
buildings. He stated that the cocIe would allow 3 units on the sile. but they decided to go with a 2-
unit condominium which would provide a better plan.
Mr. Woolard explained that modiflC3tions are required for the narrow lots. He said that the Code
is more restrictive now than 20 years ago and by doing so, modifications would be needed for
developments which would give the Commission tM opportunity to review the projects.
MOllON
It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the
publiC hearing. The motlon passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
Chairman Papay commented that the density is less than what it could be and there will be a 6'
high block wall on 3 sides of the property.
Commissioner Szany sa.id that the reason for the modifications is the narrow width of the lot and
remarked that the density If fairly low. He was not concerned about the location of the alc unit.
Commissioner Hedlund didn't think that the location of the alc unit was a major issue and It is an
attractive buildlng for a difficult 101. He was opposed. to the. 5' side yard and the 25' driveway
back out and the deletiOn of the driveway landscape area. He preferred seeing a single unit
development.
Commissioner Clark thought that It Is a nice development and Commissioner Amato agreed.
MOTlON
It was.moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to approve MP
88-64 subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 5
.
.
,
ROLL CALl.:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Szany, Papay
~ Commissioner Hedlund
There is a five working day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING MP 88-023
1035 Hampton Road
Mr. and Mrs. Rick Owen, owners
Rancho Santa Anita Property,
Owner's Association, appellants
Consideration of an appeal ofthe Rancho
Santa Anita Property Owner's
Association's approval of a two-story,
7.137 sq.ft home. Approval was the
result of the homeowner association's
iailure to make a decision on the proposed
project within 30 working days of the date
of the plans were submitted.
The staff report was presented.
Staff referred to some maps that were prepared by both the Planning Department and Mr. and
Mrs. Owen illustrating the properties in favor and in opposition te:! the house and also homes with
second-story additions. It was noted that this house complies with the new regulations that have
recently gone Into affect
The public hearing was opened.
Chris Brown, 980 Singingwood, President of the association explained the reasons why the HOA
wasn't able to actin time. He explained the reasons for the interference with the ARB's decision
and said that many of the board members take their vacations during this time of the year due to
their children's summer vacations and in addition Ed Daniels, former Chairman of the ARB, was
ill and was admitted Into the hospital which delayed their process and compilcaied matters. He
commented that propert[es are very valuable in the area and improving them increases property
values. He said that 80% of the property owners are against the development He felt that the
proper procedures were not followed and they didn't have a chance to dlscuss.the matter and asked
the Commission to uphold the appeal. He remarked that the building pad is 10' above grade which
gives the house a massiVe appearance and would make it seem as if It is setting on a pedestal. He
didn't object to the square foOtage of the house but was opposed to the height .of the dwelling. He
said that the building would stand out because none of the. surrounding homes were that high. He
didn't think that the house wouk:l-flt.
Randy Stoke, 1040 Hampton, spoke against the proposed house. He said that the architecture of
the building is In poor taste due to its height which is 45' above the curb. In his opinion, the
house is not compatible with the surrounding homes. He noted that they hired a private surveyor
whosurveyed.the Immediate a.reaal1d found that the' average height of the homes in the area ranges
from 21'.37' and remarked that the proposed house will be 8' higher than the surrounding
homes. The view of the mountains from the homes on the south side of the street will be blocked.
The height of the existing house on the site Is 24; and there will be a drastic difference between
the heights of the two homes. He thought that the house Is too large for the property and referred
to the house on 754 Singingwood which resembles this one arid remarked thalthat house doesn't fit
and neither will this one. He noted that the proposed height is outrageous and urged the
Commission to uphold tile appeal.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 6
.
.
Tom Viola, an ARB member, commented that the ARB was expecting revised plans from the
applicant but they never received any.
Dr. Costarella, 1034 Singingwood, remarked that not all two-story homes are attractive and
referred to 754 Singingwood which he thought is a beautifui house but doesn't belong in their
area. The proposed house is not compatible w~h the homes In their neighborhood.
Ear Kluft, 1045 Hampton. said that they recently purchased their home and liked the area. He
said that the house is not in harmony with the homes on the street and said that it will stick out
like a sore thumb on their street.
Bob Hinkel, 1065 Singingwood, ARB membe.r, explained that their decision was delayed due to Mr.
Daniels's illness. He remarked that the height of the building is not compatible and due to the
setbacks it will seem like a big wall on the sides of the house similar to the house on 754
Singingwood. He didn't think that the proposed house has a good design. and said that most of the
houses in the area are low key and are compatible with each other but this house would not be
either of the two. He stated that the property owners to the south will lose their view of the
mountains due to the mass of the house.
Mack Turner; 1130 Fallen Lea:!, V.P. of the HOA, asked the Commission to consider Mr. Daniels's
illness in their decision making and urged the Commission to uphold the appeal. He remarked that
the HOA and the applicants met prior to the Commission's meeting and they were trying to reach a
compromise but the applicants decided against it and preferred to go before the Commission fora
decision.
Richard Ashworth, 1112 Fair Oaks, S. Pasadena, the attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Owen,
spoke in favor of the 'proposed house and asked what is ,the reason forhavirig the zoning code' when
the HOAs. the Commission and the Council can second guess ~ and he remarked that it seemed as if
there were two sets of zoning codes. He said that they complied with all the regulations and went
before the ARB for approval and according to the Resolution set forth by the Council the ARB failed
to make a decision in the time limit set and therefore their application ~as automatically
approved. He didn't think that they should be penalized because of the ARBs failure to make a
decision in time. He said that they filed their plans with the ARB In May and the ARB held a
hearing in June and they received a letter from the ARB which was dated 7110. In that letter the
ARB stated that the house was not compatible or in harmony and was inconclusive. They didn't
receive any other correspondence until a letter which was dated on 8/5 but was unsigned and this
ietter contained incorrect information and was very vague. He questioned the envelope process
which was mentioned in the letter and said that that letter refers to the house as a 3-story house
which is incorrect because the house is a 2-story home.
(nregard to Mr. Turner's comment, Mr. Ashworth said that they did meet with Mr. Daniels on
8/19 but the purpose of the meeting was riot for a compromise but to merely review the
documents. He also stated that they were unaware that Mr, Daniels was ill. He said that the
proposed house meets all code requirements. It has 18.9% lot.coverage in lieu of the 45"10 allowed
by Code, He showed a scaled drawing ofthe proposed house vs. the house on 754 Singingwood and
commented thaHhe difference in the height is approximately 3'.. He noted that the proposed house
isn't much different than the homes that are existing in the neighborhood. He said that they would
be willing to a compromise with the ARB but Would like to keep the project moving. He noted that
they attended the meeting which was held before the ARB and the meeting was conducted in a very
poor manner and criticized the applicants for asserting their rights. He noted that they didn't
follow up with the ARB after the 7/10 letter because Mr. Owen was told by Mr. Hinkel that the
ARB would get back with more Information and comments.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 7
.
.
Mike Mal1gana, 1025 Hampton, said that his property is adjacent to the subject site and he is in
favor of the new home.
David Quay, 218 E. Longden, said that he worked for the company that was involved in drawing
the plans for 754 Singingwood and noted that they had to lower the pitch of the roof to make It
compatible. He stated that there are no guidelines.in the code for pad coverage. He thought that the
proposed house will be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. In response to a question from
the Commission, he staled that house on 754 Singingwood has a high roof and the plan submitled
by Mr. Ashtworth is comparing the two homes is true and is to scale. The Owen home at one peak
is 34'-9" and the house .on Slngingwood at one point is:35' high.
Martin Wright, 1434 Santa Margarita, remarked that he was at the ARB meeting and he referred
to it asa "terrible turmoil". He said that it was his understanding that the Owens will reside on
the property and the house will not be built for speculation. He thought that the house is
compatible in the area and said that he didn't think that the ARB is capable of making such
decisions. He said that Mr. D!lniels's illness is a poor excuse in the ARB not being able to make its
decision In a timely manner. He stated that he dldn1 think that 80% of the neighborhood was
against the proposed house but possibly 80% of the people who were polled which is not the entire
area. He remarked that some of the people who signed the petition against.theproposed house were
forced or misguided in signing the petition.
Guy Alexander, 1028 Fallen Leaf. said that the ARB meeting was a total chaos and one-sided. The
proposed house is nice and meets code. He remarked that he didn't think that the ARB took the
right approach in getting the neighbors to sign the petition and said that they were asked at a
"Neighborhood Watch" meeting to sign the petition.
Milton Miller; 1060 Hampton, said that his house is on the south side of the street and noted that
he doesn't have a view of the' mountains and the proposed, house would not Iilake a difference as far
as the view for the homes on his side of the street. He said that his neighbor, Mr. Chang, across
the street built a house and he didn~ think that he had the right to tell him what he could or could
not build. He thought that this was the owner's property rightS and didn't think that the ARB
should Interfere. He said that a new generati,on is moving into the area and their taste differs
from the older generation and he thought that they should be able to exercise their rights. He
didn't think that the project should be talked down upon and said that it meets code.
James Lee. 965 Fallen Leaf. said that not many of the homes east of Dexter have a view of the
mountains and going west on Fallen Leaf from Dexter the view of most of the homes Is blocked by
large trees. He said that.he has seen larger homes on smaller lots and commented' that it seems' as
if the ARB choses selective code enforcement.
Bart Payne, 1020 Singlngwood. remarked that everyone has a different opinion about what Is nice
and what isn1 and said that ihere are many homes in the area which resemble the proposed
architecture. He hated to see the choice and freedom of architecture being taken away from the
people. He also said that some people were pressured in signing the petition.
In rebuttal, Mr. Stoke said that some people did sign the petition under wrong pretense but.they
withdrew, their signatures and said that in getting a petition that is a common problem. He
referred to the house that Mr. Miller spoke about and said that Mr. Chang's house is only 34' high
whereas the proposed house Is 45'. The house will definitely block view of the mountains; He
noted that a letter was'delivered to Mrs. Cooper's home on 8/17 by the attorney of the applicant.
He said that the house is not compatible and the only way to achieve compatibility would be for the
Commission to grant the appeal.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23. 1988
Page 8
.
.
MOllON
It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the
public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
Chairman Papay remarked that the pad is 10'-6" above the curb on Hampton. He outlined'the
Commission's alternatiVes which would be to grant the appeal which would deny the proposed
house, deny the appeal and approve the house or to continue the'meeting to allow both sides to meet
and to t/)lto reach a compromise. He noted that even though the house meets Code it Is subject to
HOA's approval.
Commissioner Clark noted that the issue is the right of the property owner vs. what the area
thinks is compatible. He commented that the new ordinance didn't take into consideration the
height of the buildings from the curb. He suggested continuing the hearing to allow both parties
the chance to reach a compromise.
Commissioner Amato agreed and said that they should try to resolve the problem.
Commissioner Hedlund said that the ARB's inability to reach a decision may have been ,the result of
the project being out of scope with the talent that the ARB had available and wondered if this type
of a situation is too much of a responsibility lor the ARB to deal with. He noted that he is a firm
believer of property rights but by the same token he didn't want to infringe on neighbors'
property rights. He stated that due to the topography and the vegetation it would be difficult to see
the house and noted that he wasn't concemed with the size of the house. He said that there are
many different styles of architecture in the area and commented that he would like to see the view
preserved and that there be a limit on the height.
Commissioner Szany said that the developer tried to reach a compromise. and hoped that they could
resolve. the problem. He remarked thanhe house Is ve/)l affluent and Is In a ve/)l affluent area.
Commissioner Papay stated that due to the grade the house seems large. He,asked if the
Commission would be in favor of continuing the hearing.
The Commission was in favor of continuing the hearing.
Commissioner papay asked both Mr. Brown and Mr. Ashworth if they would both be willing to
continue ihe hearing to the Commission's meeting of September 13. 1988. Both parties replied
that ihey were In agreement with the continuance. Mr. Brown asked If the hearlng,couldbe
delayed to the second meeting in September and Mr. Ashworth said that his client would like to
keep the project moving. and would agree to the first meeting In September.
M01lON
It was moved by Commissioner Clark. seconded by Commissioner Amato to re-open the
public hearing and to continue the public hearing to September 13, 1988.
ROLL CAll.:
AVES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szsny, Papay
ra:s: None
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23. 1988
Page 9
.
.
PUBUC HEARING CUP 88-023
180 W. Huntington Dr.
Spencer Recovery Centers
Consideration of a conditional use permit to
operate a residential care facility for women
with alcohol dependency problems.
The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened.
Mike Ralke, Ex. Director of Spencer Recovery Centers, 345 W. Foothill, Monrovia, said that they
did a survey and the response was extremely overwhelming. He noted that the project as designed
will be very successful and due to its location it will be near major hospitals who have expressed
the need for this type of a facility. The stay for the patients will be from 30-90 days and this
will be an extended care type facility after these women have been through the hospital. He said
that they are.required to get a certificate from the State and they will forwar.d a copy to the City.
There are 5 bedrooms in the house and they will have no more than 14 women at anyone time who
will share the bedrooms and explained that they don't want them isolated at any time.
Chris Spencer, 1249 Oakhaven, the president of the company was present and said that they are
in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report.
Michael Bond, 300 W. Huntington, Chemical Abuse Program for the Methodist Hospital, indicated
that this type of a facility will be beneficial to the community. He remarked that there is always a
need for extensive care facility for women with chemical dependency and. said that the stay for
women at the hospital hasn't exceeded 35 days.
Denis Gerhard. 1019 S. Fourth, spoke highly of this type of a care ' center and said that one of his
family members attended a similar type facility and noted that their care was fantastic.
Pam (Last name unknown), 763 LanderCircle, commended the City for being open rrilndedand
allowing this type of a care facility.
Danny Perkins, 1403 Loganrlta, said that the resources are needed in the City and said that it
would be plus for the City.
Trixie Lewis, 149 Sycamore, said that she is a psychiatric nurse practitioner and thought that
this facility is in need In the San Gabriel Valley for women that need help.
MOTION
It was moved by CommlssionerClark. seconded by Commissioner Sz;my to close the
public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
Commissioner Amato remarked that it seems to be the perfect site for the project.
Commissioner Clark indicated that it is an ideal use of the property.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Szany. seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve CUP
88-023 subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 10
.
.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
NCJ:.S: None
There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution.
Consideration of an appeal of the Modification
Committee's conditions of approval for
construction of a new detached two-car garage
for the main dwelling on a lot which has two
single-family dwellings.
The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened.
PUBUC HEARING MC 88-060
1030 and 1032 S. Sixth Ave.
Cletus Verlalo
Cletus Venato, 1509 Highland Oaks, said that presently the two units on the site are rented. He
would like to upgrade the homes. The second house on the lot has a one-car garage which is very
small and noted that .he would like to build it toa 2-car garages, and also locate the laundry
facilitieS in the second garage, The laundry area is in the kitchen area and the washer has leaked
and alter relocating the washer/dryer he will be putting new cabinets in the kitchen. He also
indicated that he would like to put a bathroom facility in the garage and explained,lhat when he
visits the site to do some work around the property he has no plaCe to store his tools and said that
part of the enlargement of the garage would be. to accommodate that need. He said that"the lot is
290' deep and mo.st of the area in the rear is overgrown with weeds. He submitted a pho!o of the
site and said that' he is trying to upgrade the property. The proposed garage will be 30' from the
rear property line. He commented that the trash truck drives to the rear of the lot to pick up the
trash and since there'is no place to turn the truck around he has to back the trucj( out and on
several occasions he has hit the side of the house due to the narrow driveway. He thoughtthatit
would bean appropriate improvement and said that he needs the storage on the lot. He remarked
ihat he used to have a metal shed where he kept his tools but the wind blew it clown and the garage
will serve as a garage, laundry facility and an area to store tools.
Ruth Strampe, 1033 Encino, was opposed to the location of the garage.
MOl'IO'l
It was moved by Commissloner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the
publlcheanng. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
Chairman Papay said that this is a non-conforming use. He thought'that the new 2-car garage
which will.be 60' alNay from the second house was too far and he was against having a restroom,
storage and laundry facilities in the garage.
Commissioner Amato thought thaUt Is too far for laundry facilities and said that it should be
located closer to the home.
Commissioner Clark agreed. and said that the Modification Committee approved the 2.car garage
and remarked .that he didn't think ihai a restroom belonged in a garage.
Commissioner Hedlund said that the garage Is too far from the second house.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 11
.
.
MOTlOO
It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to deny the appeal
and uphold the Modification Committee's approval of MC 88-60.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
1'lE):
Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
None
There is a five working day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING CUP 88-024
325 N. Santa Anita Ave.
Richard Susie, A.L. Willinger Co.
Consideration of a conditional use permit to
conduct financial training seminars two
nights a week and occasionally on Saturdays.
The staff report was presented and the public hearing was,opened.
Richard Susie, 1030 Winding Oaks Lane, Monrovia, explained their operation which would be to
offer fil!ancial training seminars to businesses. He said that they have plenty of parking, ,since
most of the meetings will be held on weeknights and on Saturdays. Most of the businesses on site
are not open during the nights and the parking will not be a problem, since most of the attendants
carpool 2c3 to.a car. He anticipated approximately 30 cars in the evening. He said that they do
have Manager's meeting's on Monday mornings' approximately 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and that
would be the only meeting being held in the morning on weekdays. He commented that they were
unaware that ac.u.p. was needed and when they were told to obtain one they tried to comply. He
said that they are in agree/Tlent with all of ~he conditions in the staff report. He noted that the Fire
Department allows up to 180 persons in the building.
Julie Susie, 1030 Winding Oaks Lane, Monrovia. was in favor of the c.u.p.
Yvonne Pertell, 848 ,W. Huntington, said that ,she was there representing her colleagues and said
that all the persons attending the seminars are business men and women from the area.
Bruce Adams. 425 E. Huntington, Monrovia, representing Bowden Deveiopment. said that they are
in the process of correcting the problems that the Fire Department has addressed. In reply to
Commissioner Amato's question, he said that emergency lighting will comply with Fire
Department. standards.
John Stonecipher, President of Ortho Care. 325 N. Santa Anita, Unit A, remarked that on
ocCasions meetings have been held in the morning and the parking was a problem. He said that
they should try and comply with the regulations and the Fire Department recommendations.
Kenneth Mullen, 410 Corto Lane. San Clemente. said that he occupies Unit B of the building and he
also had problems with the parking on some days when they have been conducting the meetings. He
noted that at night people park In the fire lanes and in an emergency it would be very difficult for
the emergency vehicles to get in because the cars block the passage way. He remarked that on the
days of the meetings he won't leave his office because he will lose his parking space.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 12
.
.
In rebuttal. Mr. Susie said that the only meetings which are held in the mornings are the
manager's meetings and that is only on Monday mornings for about 1 hour. He noted that their
meetings attract between 80-120 persons per night and he didn't want to be restricted to 100
persons because he can't tell the people to leave if the number exceeds that which is allowed by the
Planning Department. He asked that they'd be able to comply with 180 persons recommended by
the ~ire Department.
Staff remarked that the Fire Department recommends seating for 180 but the number
recommended by the Planning Department is 84 persons'when seated,at tables or 100 persons
when seated in chairs and that number was reached by taking the parking into consideration and
the figures given to the Planning Dept. by the applicant.
Mr. Susiestated'that it would be impossible to manage the number of people that attend and it
woulcf be difficult to turn people away after they've reached the 100 limit. He said that this would
restrict the growth of the business and he would' be forced to look for another location.
MQl1()fo..I
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 Szany agreed with staff's recommendations.
Staff remarked that the only way to know whether there are problems with the parking would be
to receive complaints from the surrounding businesses and property owners.
M01lON
It was moved by Commissioner Szany. seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve CUP
88-024 subject to the conditions in the staff report.
ROLL CAll.:
AYES: Commissioners Amato. Clark. Hedlund. Szany, Papay
fas: None .
There Is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the rEisolution.
.".. -"................ .'-.......... -,-"" -.- -'.... ~...... -,.........
AUDIE/IlCE PARllCIPATION -
None
TREE REMOVAL. T.M. 45791
1435-1511 S. EIghth Ave.
Michael Barthelemy
Consideration of a request, for the removal of
two Chinese Elm trees.
The staff report was presented.
Staff said that even though a developer may be required to preserve some trees. the new owner
after purchasing the tot can cut the trees and. explained that landscaping Is not required.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
Augusi 23. 1988
Page 13
.
.
~TlON
It was moved by Commissioner Clarl<" seconded by Commissioner Szany to approve~the
'removal 01 the two Chinese Elm trees.
ROLL CAU.:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clarl<, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
I'aS: None
- .. .. .. - - .. .. .. ;. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. ..
Report to the Ptanning Commission regarding maximum building coverage on a lot and fireplace
encroachments into side yard setbacks.
The stall report, was presented.
Commissioner Papay asked il the Commission would like to interpret the height of buildings lrom
finish grade to below or above grade and referred to the house on 754 Singingwood and the
proposed house at 1035 Hampton.
Mr. Woolard remarl<ed that the person on the south side olthe house on Singingwood is looking up
at the house which Is the same as looking across to the house,on Hampton.
Commissioner Hedlund said that nothing up In theSingingwood area has been graded which
explains the height problem.
~TlON
It was moved by Commissioner Clarl<, seconded by Commissioner Amato to direct stall to
prepare the appropriate text amendments.
ROLLCAU.:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clarl<, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
I'aS: None
RESOLUTION 1384
A resolution granting C.U.P.88-019 to
operate a restaurant at 536.600 W. Las
Tunas Drive.
RESOLUTION 1385
A resolution granting C.U.P. 88-020 to
expand an existing automobile garage at 333
N. First Avenue.
A resolution granting C.U.P. 88-022 lor a
commercial building containing more than
20,000 sq. It. within 100 leet 01
residentially zoned properly at 211 E.
Foothill Boulevard.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 14
RESOLUTION 1386
.
.
'.
Mr. Woolard read the titles of the resolutions.
MellON
It was lTIOved by Commissioner Szany. seconded by Commissioner Amato to adopt
Resolutions 1384, 1385 and 1386 and to formally affirm the decision of August 9. 1988,
reflecting the findings of the Commission and the votes thereon.
ROll. CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark. Hedlund, Szany, Papay
1'0:5: None
There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the,resolution.
MATTERS FROM COUNCIL
None
MATTERS'FROM COMMISSION
None
MAlTERS FROM STAFF
None
ADJOURNMENT
11 :45 p;m.
tt.Jl.e.~:'.f/),1. I /lrrM7'1:t//y _
Secretary. Arcadia Planning Commission
Arcadia City Planning Commission
August 23, 1988
Page 15