Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 26, 1988 .~ . . PI anni ng Commiss ion Minutes are tape recorded and on fil e in the office of the Planning Department. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETI NG Tuesday, January 26, 1988 The P1aoning Commission of the City of Arqdia met in regular session on Tuesday, January 26, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Hunt,ington Drive, with Chainnan Dave Szany presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Clark, Papay, Szany ABSENT: None MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Papay to approve the Minutes of January 12, 1988 as published. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Papay to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. OTHERS ATTENDING: Councilman Dennis LOjeski City Attorney Michael Miller Director of Planning William Woolard Senior Planner Donna Butler Associ ate Planner Wi I fred Wong Associate Planner Corkran Nicholson Assistant Planner James Kasama Secretary Silva Vergel . . Commissioner Hedlund abstained from this item. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING C.U.P. 87-23 758 W. Anoakia Lane Anoakia School Consideration of a conditional use permit for the expansion of school enrollment to 400 students (Anoaki a School). The staff report was presented. Staff explained the conditions in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. David Pi nkerton, 701 W. Foothill Blvd., was there to represent the applicant. He stated that they woul d 1 i ke to conti nue the publ i c heari ng to the next Pl anni n9 Commission to allow sufficient time to review all the conditions in the staff report. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to conti nue the publ ic heari n9 to 2/9/88. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Papay, Szany None Commissioner Hedlund PUBLIC HEARING T.P.M. 88-001 2739 El Monte Ave. Owen Development Co. Consideration of a tentative parcel map to create two lots from one lot. 'The staff report Wci's-'pre sent ed . Staff said that all lots comply wtth Code. The public hearing was opened. Mike Mangana, 2035 S. Myrtle, Monrovia, was present. He indicated that he is representing Owen Development. He said that their lot split will create two lots that exceed Code and Woul d not be substandard in any way and noted that they would not need to seek any modifications and explained characteristics of each lot. The lot contains 18,208 sq. ft., Lot 1 will be 9,060 sq . ft. and an average dimensions of 75'x120', Lot 2, the corner lot, contains 9.,148 sq. ft. and has an average dimension of 85'x110'. He commented that there was a petition Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 2 . . that was submitted to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of their proposal and noted that another developer was contemplating to subdivide the lot and keepi ng the existi ng house. He felt that the above petit ion was not intended for their proposal, since their plan will remove all the existing dwellings and they pklan to build two new homes which will increase property values in the area. These new homes will not increase traffic. He anticipated that the homes would be approximately 2800-3000 sq. ft. and would probably be two-story. In conclusion, he said that they are in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. Rick Shrodes, 2610 California, the architect of the project was in favor of the development. He concurred with Mr. Mangana and said that the development meets or .exceeds Code and is consistent with the General Plan and asked for approval. He commented that some of the trees that are in the setback area will be saved. Betty Grover, 2740 Gilpin Way, and Janet Mayor, 2736 Gilpin Way spoke against the project. They commented that the petit ion st i 11 app 1 i es for this development. They didn't want a lot split and felt that the density would increase. Alan Patterson, 10644 E. Live Oak, spOke in opposition. He stated that the living rooms would have the view of the Edison Company which is across the street. He felt that these would not be good parcels and commented that he would not like to have the view ,that these two homes will have. He noted that ingress and egress would be difficult especially in the afternoon when there is a lot of traffic on Live Oak. Earl Roberts, 2723 El MOnte, was not in favor of the development. He stated that there are many large homes that are being built on small lots allover the City. These homes seem to cover the lot and leave no room fo.r back yards. He didn't like the idea that the new homes might be two-story and said that he would lose hi s pri vacy. He asked if thi s is what the City wants and wondered how thi s would improve his property? .Mike Miller, .the City Attorney, remarked that this body has the legal obligation to hear requests for tentative maps and lots splits and to exercise their discretion based o.n the facts that they hear. The applicant has the legal right to ask for a lot split and it is the Commission's duty to hear the request. Harry Jakeway, 2715 ElMonte, objected to the proposal. He felt that there seems d to be overdevelopment in the City. He said that it is a shame that there seems to be less and less of back yards and landscaping. John Gillis, 2420 Fourth, was present.. He said that the City should adopt an ordinance similar to the one that Palos Verdes has which limits the total square footages of all buildings on the lot not to exceed 3.0% of the lot area. In rebuttal, Mr. Mangana commented that the Planning Commission should only vote on the lot split and not on what will be built on the lots. He said that they will develop nice homes. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 3 . . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Papay to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none di ssent i ng. Commissioner Clark felt that he couldn't vote against the lot split because the new lots meet Code requirements. Commissioner Papay said that the area is zoned R-1 7500 and noted that the new lots are approximately 9000 sq. ft. each which exceeds the minimum. He also felt that the Commi ssion shoul d vote for the lot split only and not for what may be built there. He commented that the size of the new homes are not part of this heari ng. Commissioner Hedlund commented that he believes in property rights and as long as the new lots meet Code the lot split should be approved. Chairman Szany said that the lots meet all Code requirements and are well over the minimum requi rements. Staff explained the setback requirements for first and second story dwellings in the area. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commtssioner Hedlund to approve T.P.M. 88-001 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay, Szany NOES: None There is a ten day appeal period. Commissioner Hedlund abstained-from this ftem. PUBLIC HEARING MP 88-001 South Side of Huntington Drive between Second Avenue and Fifth Avenue Arcadia Gateway Centre Assoc. Consideration of a modification requesting five monument signs to be located along Huntington Orive and one monument sign on Fifth Avenue (total six monument signs) for the proposed Arcadia Gateway Centre in lieu of two signs allowed. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 4 . . The staff report was presented and the pUblic hearing was opened. George Grosso, Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates, Ltd., 18401 Von Karman, #130, Irvine, the developer of the project, explained the, uses for the monument s1gns and said the signs will be for two restaurants, three office buildings and a retail building. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none di ssent ing. ' Commissioner Papay commented that the total square footage of the signs are less than the maximum r.equired by Code. He liked the designs of the monument signs. Commissioner Clark said that with the configuration of the lot and the access to some of the buildings, this is a very tasteful way of utilizing signs. Chairman Szany said that he liked the designs of the monument signs. MOTION It was moved by Commi ssi oner Papay, seconded by Commi ss.i oner Cla rk to approve MP 88-001 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAI N: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Papay, Szany None Commissioner Hedlund There is a five working day appeal period. Commissioner Hedlund abstained from this item. PUBUCHEARiNG T. P .M; 88-002 Southside of Huntington Orive between Second Avenue and Fifth Avenue Stanley W. Gribble and Assoc. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Consideration of a tentative parcel map to create a seven lot subdivision. George Grosso, Stanley W. Gribble & Associates, 18401 Von Karmen, Irvine, stated that they have read all the conditions in the staff report and are in agreement with them. He explained that Lot 7 is a common lot and the parking lot will be placed there. He stated that the lot split is for tax purposes of the individual uses that will be on the site. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26i88 Page 5 . . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none di ssent i ng. The consensus of the Commission was favorable. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve T.P.M. 88-002 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAI N: Commiss.ioners Amato, Clark, Papay, Szany None Commissioner Hedlund -----------~-------------------------- PUBLIC HEARI.NG MP 88-003 40 W. Orange Grove Ave. James and Valerie Hickey Consideration of an appeal of Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board's denial of a 5'-0" high chain link fence within the front yard along the east property line. Also, a modification for said fence to be 5'-0" in height in lieu of 4'-0" (9283.8.7). The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. James Hickey, 40 W. Orange Grove, was present. He commented that the fence was buill: by the consent of hi s nei ghbor to the east who has no object ion to the height of the fence. He said that he was unaware of the height limitations and assured the Commission that the fence would be covered by ivy and shrubbery to 1 esseni ts impact. James Mellon; 50 W. O'range Grove, sp6kefo-rthe appeal. -He said that 'he 'is the neighbor to the east and noted that he has no objection to the height of the fence. He felt that with adequate landscaping the fence will look good. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the publiC hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none di.Ssent i.ng. , Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 6 . . Commissioner Papay said he would vote against the appeal because he felt that the proper approach would be for Mr. HiCkey to have gone through the ARB's long form instead of appealing it to the Commission. He commented that he didn't like to see that process eliminated. Commissioner Hedlund agreed with Commissioner Papay but he didn't feel that the appeal sho.uld be dragged any longer. Chairman Szany agreed. The Commission felt that as long as the Planning Oepartment will have the policing power over the landscaping on the fence they would be in favor of the appeal. The Commission asked if the fence could be approved on the condition that the landscaping on the fence be maintained. Staff indicated that they will make sure that there is adequate landscaping on the fence and if in a few months the 1 andscapi n,g on the fence seems to be dyi ng or deteriorating a letter will be sent to Mr. Hickey reminding him of the conditonal approval of the fence. MOT! ON It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve MP 88-003 and to approve the appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Revi ew Board's deni al of the fence subject 'to the condition that the 1 andscapi ng on the fence shoul d be mai ntai ned. I f the 1 and scapi ng doesn't meet .the standards required by staff this application can be revoked. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany NOES: Commi ssioner Papay There is a five worki ng day appeal period. --.----------------------------------- Since items number 10, 11 and 12 on the agenda were .similar and were by the same _<j~vell!P'~r and in ord!!r to_save tJme, th~C9ffimissiol) c_om~in~ ~he public h~arings for the above items. These three tentative maps are all on the same street in the same block and each are for a 10-unit residential condominium. No one objected to the proposal. PUBLIC HEARING T.M. 46097 11-17 Californi a Street L ipi ng Wong Cpnsideration of a tentative map for a 10-unit residential condominium project. Arcadia City Planning Commiss.ion 1/26/88 Page 7 . . PUBLIC HEARING T.M. 46098 21-25 Cal iforni a street Li ping Wong Consideration of. a tentative map for a 10-unit residential condominium project. PUBLIC HEARING T.M. 46099 29-31 Cali fornia Street Lipi ng Wong Consideration of a tentative map for a 10-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Jeff Phillips, Loren Phillips & Associates, 1740 E. Huntington Drive, Duarte, wa! there to represent the owner. He commented that they have read the conditions il the staff report and are in agreement with them. MOTION It wa.s moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Papay to close the publ ic hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Staff commented that these projects were approved before the City's Architectura' Design Review procedures and therefore didn't have to go through that. The consensus of the Commission was favorable. MOTION It was moved by Commi ssioner Papay, seconded by Commi ssioner Hedl und to approve T.M. 46097, TM 46098, TM 46099 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commi,ssioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay, Szany NOES: None There is a_ ten _day appe~l peri od. -, -------------------------------------- Arcadi a City Planni ng Commi ssiol 1/26/81 Page 1 . . PUBLIC HEARING T.M. 46100 138 Alta Street Li pi ng Wong Consideration of a tentative map for an 8-unit residential condominium project. 'The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Jeff Phillips, Loren Phillips & Associates, 1740 E. Huntington Drive, Duarte, was there to represent the owner. He commented that they have read the conditions in the staff report and are in agreement with them. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the publ ic hearing. The mot ion passed by voice v.ot.e with none di ssent i ng. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Papay to approve TM 46100 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commi.ssioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay, Szany NOES: None There is a ten day appeal period. There was a 5 minute recess. Cha.irman Szany explained the following to the audience and said that the text amendment has nothing to do with the architecture of homes, the addition or deletion of 'any guidelYnes from a-ny of the hOm~owners associ ations. The'text amendment is for setback regulations, building regulations and lot coverage in the single-family zones. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING T.A.87-17 Consideration of a text amendment to amend the setback regulations, building height regulations and lot coverage regulations in the R-O , R-1 and R-M zones. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 9 . . The staff report was presented. Staff exp 1 a i ned that the proposed setbacks in the R-l zone woul d be 5 '-0" for the first story and a minimum of 10'-0" for the second story or 5' plus 10% of the width of the lot, which~ver is greater, not to exceed 15'. If the angle concept is used the setback would be 5'-0" for the first story and no portion of any structure shall encroach through a plane projected from an angle of 450 as measured from a poi nt 6' above the property line. In the R-M and R-O zone the setbacks woul d be a mi nUmUll1 of 10 '-0" and the setbacks woul d be a mi nimum of 10'-0" and the second story would be a minimum of 10'-0" or 5' plus 10% of the width of the lot, whichever is greater, not to exceed 15'-0". Ther 450 angle concept is the same as it is for the R-l zone. Staff explained examples of the setbacks noting an 80'-0" wide lot would have a second story setback of 13'-0". In regard to building height, the revised proposal regulates building heights based upon the lot width at the building setback line. The buildi~g height may change from 25' on narrower lots up to a maximum of 35' for lots 100' -0" and . greater in width. The current code allows 35'-0" high dwellings, The November proposal allowed a building height limit Of 30' except on lots 100' in width or greater which could then be 35'-0". Single-story gable roofs would be allowed to be 20' -0" in hei ght. Staff presented renderings illustrating the proposed t.ext changes. The public hearing was opened. Gordon Maddock, gOO S. First, was present.. 'He was there to represent the architects/realtors/developers. All of them are in agreement with all of the changes in the text amendment with the exception of the new heightrequi rements. They felt that the 25' maximum for lots with 71' in wtdth or under are very restrictive and might create an architectural problem. He asked the Commission not to change the height and remarked that it would limit creativity. He felt that the freedom of design should be maint~ined for the above group and thought that over portions of the text amendment may just do that. Jack Saelid, 821 Balboa, was present. He felt that this text amendment is a step toward the right direction. He commented that someone suggested that the City should adopt an ordinance limiting any development on a lot to 30% of the whole buildi ng site, -and he thougnt ttiat maybe the Commission and the Council should consider that. He felt that the density in the City has been increasing and commented that the Ci ty shoul d gi ve major consi derat ion in attempti ng to contro.l deve 1 opment. Mike Mangana, 2035 S. Myrtle, Monrovia, spoke for the text amendment. He felt that there has been positive development in the City. Byron Dickson, 225 W. Lemon was concerned that things are being done for only a small special interest group (architects/builders/developers/realtors). He commE:lnted that he has helped to secure s,jgnatures of citizens who are in favor of the November's text amendment but are shy about s peaki ng out. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 10 . . Both Mr. Woolard and Ms. Butler presented more renderings illustrating the proposed text changes. Bob Kladifko, 348 W. Las Flores, was present. He was concerned about what is happening to the City as far as the different architecture in the City. He commented that no one is against development and beautifying the City but people want these developments to blend in with the community. He thought that the City should adopt ordinances protecting thecitizens of the City from developers. He remarked that height of buildings should definitely be considered as well as the architecture of the building. He was in favor of the text amendment as it was ori gi na'lly proposed. Commi ssioner Hed 1 und commented that there is nothi ng t hat the C.ity can do regarding to architecture of new buildings and felt that it is the property owner's ri ght to do as he wi shes on hi s property as long as it doesn't i nfri nge upon his neighbor. Commissioner Papay indicated that the present process works and both the Council and the Commission hear the public's concerns. William Woolard sta~ed that the HOAs were formed as a response to the request of the people within the area, they initiated it and wanted the additional control. HOAs don't dictate designs in an area, they review different proposals and are looki ng for compatability. Milt Bade, 909 S. Santa Anita, said that when the CC & Rs were adopted in special areas, it was intended for buil ders not to underbuil d and it never ment ioned anything about a house being too large for a lot. There is a demand for larger homes and said that the guidelines are acceptable. Griffin Blake, 871 Coronado, was concerned about two-story homes and the effect that it might have if the house to the north of his property was to be demolished and a new house built. If this was to happen, he would lose view of the mountains. He said that Arcadia is known as "Community of Homes" and remar.ked that he was afraid that the Ci ty woul d soon be known as the "Community of Highrises". Bill Wyman, 507 Monte Vi sta, read two letter he had presented to the Commi ssion and comme-nted that th'esetbacks est'ablished by the HOAs are generally greater - than the ones from the City. The setbaCKS in the proposed text amendments will now be greater than the ones set by HOAs, he was confused and asked how the HOAs woul d have to deal wi th the .setbacks. Mr. Wool ard expl a i ned that the ex.i sti ng HOAs requi'res a setback greater than the City's Code, therefore, they can grant mod.ifications from thei r own setback requirements, but they cannot go less than the one that the City allows. The HOAs cannot grant modifications that are less than what the City allows. Charles Limmer, 1130 El Monte, was concerned with size of homes and said that it seems as if wall to wall construct.ion is being allowed. He commented that maybe 45% lot coverage is too much and should be reduced. Arcadi a City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 11 . . Steven Phillipi, 804 Balboa, was strongly urged the Commission to staff for a job well done. in favor of the text amendment proposed and limit the height requirements. He commended David Quay, 218 E'. he i ght limi tat i on. restrictive. Longden, agreed with all the changes with the exception of the He thought that the height limitation might be too Larry Hallsbrook, 2721 Caroline Way, was in favor of the changes proposed. He also felt that the height should be limited and noted that the density is increasing in the community. He said that he would be interested in starting a homeowners association in his area. Alvin Albe, 515 W. Norman, believed that limiting the height requirements is a step toward the right direction. He said that individual's privacy is much more important than architecture freedom. He said that he is one of the unfortunate persons in the City that has had a very large home built right next to his house. Richard Ruiz, President of Mur-Sol, Inc., 125 Wheeler, thought that the new regulations are a, good compromise and said that although he would like to see no limitation on the height he understands that that is what the public wants. K!lthy Tyson, 310 W. Norman, was in favor of the text amendment. She said that she was in favor of the height limitation as proposed in November. She felt that limiting the height would contribute to more privacy and leave more trees. J.ohn Gillis, 2420 Fourth, said that the City should adopt an ordinance similar to the one. that Palos Verdes has whi ch 1 imits the total square footages of all bui 1 di ngs on the lot to 30% of the lot ar.ea. Allan Whiteman, 225 Hacienda, was in favor of the proposed text amendment. Wallace Qua., 1605 Hyland, felt that these new large homes compromise the privacy of the neighbors. He commented that not too long ago they went away for the weekend and when they returned one house and the trees on the lot were demo 1 ished. He sai d that it is a shame because somet imes the community doesn't understand what is goi ng on. Charles thevetta, 106 E. Longden, commented that maybe both the Zoning and the Building Codes should be revi.sed to try and control over development in the community in the future. Al Little, 77 Las Tunas, remarked that some of the builders/realtors/architects are citizens of the City and are concerned with what is taking place in the City. He didn't think that 30% lot coverage is logical as proposed by one citizen. Gordon Maddock, 900 S. First, remarked that limiting the architecture of a house could cause problems. If lot coverage was reduced, then people would be forced to build upwards, thereby creating a block image. He asked again to consider the height limitation and not to restrict it to 25'which could be too restrictive. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 12 . . David Olson, 802 Camino Real, spoke in regard to the height limitation. He said that they don't have any problem,S with the height requi rements for lots rangi ng from 75' to lots in excess of 100' in width. However, 'for lots less than 75' in width it seems like much would be lost on the height of the dwelling, if the lot was 71'in width then the dwelling could not be over 25' in height. He suggested continuing the scale down that starts from 35' for 100' wide lots and above, for lots 95'-100' in width the height limitation be 34' and down. USing the above method, the height limitation for lots 70'-75' in width would be 29', and commented that this would bea good solution for the height problem. He said that limitng the height could have a drastic effect on the architecture of homes and would effect the way a house looks from the street. He also commented that . . . . the 40 angle from the front property line, would also help in reducing the buil di ng height. Griffin Blake, 871 Coronado, was present. He said that the majority of Arcadia would like to keep the City as is and not to drastically change it. Al Corrigan, 517 Santa Rosa, asked the Commission not to make many heavy restrictions. Freedom is very important. Chris Bade, 909 S. Santa Anita, was in favor of the text amendment. He agreed with Mr. Olson in r-egard to the height limitation. He said that he is a builder in the City and he also lives in the City.. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voi~e vote with none di ssenting. Chai rrn'an Szany noted that it is very hard to control architecture of dwellings and can be arbi trary. He was concerned with some of the smaller lots in the City, where homes may be developed right to the setback lines. He thought that if lot coverage was limited then people would be forced to build second-stories. He said that there are some single-story houses with gable roof that are over 20' in height, appear to be a two-story home. He suggested reductng the gable from 20' if it coul d be encouraged to pull it away 5' from the property 1 i ne. He didn't thinktha,t th_e heig!1t should be limited to 30'_ forlot~_100' or greater~ Staff explained that a dwelling with a 20' high gable roof can be bunt within 5' of the property line. The height of the building would be on a sliding scale, for lots 75'-95' in width. For each additional 5' increment ill the width of the lot, 1 more foot of building height would be allowed. On a 95'-100' wide lot, the height would be 34', 90'-95' wide lOt, 33' of building height and so forth. Commissioner Hedlund commented that he didn't believe in dictating architecture. Ttle Commission can only deal wit~ the height limitation and not the way that a house looks. He said that the 30' height should apply to lots up to 100' in width. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 13 . . Mr. Woolard sa.id that in lqoking at the fi,rst proposal some type of an exception would have to given to gable roofs. Commissioner Clark remarked that the City is in transition and change is both needed and necessary. Standards are needed to determine what can be built and what cannot which may involve some compromise. He felt that height is a very critical issue and commented that the s.liding scale below 75' is appropriate. He recommended limiting the height to 30' for lots ranging from 75'-100' in width and from thereon increase it to 35'. He remarked that on some narrow lots it is aesthetically pleasing to have a one-story house. He recommended deleting the scale on lots between 75'-100'. Commtssioner Amato said that the problem seems to be with narrow lots and felt that the text amendment would be beneficial to the community. Commissioner Papay stated that he didn't want to stifle creativity but thought that Commissioner Clark's suggestion was appealing. He said that the front yard setback and angle are quite important and would reduce the silhouette of the buildtng. He said he would be in favor of reducing the gable from 20' as suggested by Chai.rmanSzany. It was suggested to make no exceptions for gables. C()fl1missioner Hedlund felt that the building height should be limited. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cl~rk, seconded by Co~missioner Amato to recommend apRroval of T.A. 87-17 to the City Council with the amendment as far as building height that the sliding scale continue for lots up to 74' in width and make the change that for lots 75'-99' in width the height be limited to 30', and for lots 100' or greater in width, the height be limited to 35' and to not make any exceptions for gable roofs and direct staff to convey Commission's comments to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, ~edlund, Papay, Szany None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None -------------------------------------- Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 14 . . PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION That the proposed sale of Flood Con~rol property adjacent to 1722 Tulip Lane is consi stent wi th the General Plan. The staff report was presented. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Papay, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve th,e sale of the property and determine that it would be consistent wi th the Genreal Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissione,rs Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay, Szany NOES: None Commissioner Hedlund abstained from this item. TIME EXTENSION T .M. 42936 Cons'ideration of a one-year time extension for Whispering Pines Estat.e subdivision. The staff report was present,ed. St'aff commented that if the Counci 1 adopts the proposed text amendment regarding building setbacks, the new homes in this tentative map would have to comply with the new changes. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Papay, seconded by CommiSSioner Clark to grant the one-year time extension. , - ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAI N: Commissioners Clark, Papay, Szany Commi ssioner Amato Commissioner Hedlund -------------------------------------- Arcadi a City Pl anni ng Commi ssion 1/26/88 Page 15 . . RESOLUTION 1354 A resolutton granting C.U.P. 88-002 to construct a 132-room hotel at 311 E. Huntington Drive. RESOLUTION 1355 A resolution granting C.U.P. 88-001 to construct a 120-sui~e hotel at 321 E. Huntington Drive. RESOLUTION 1356 A resolution granting C.U.P. 88-,003 to construct a restaurant at 301 E. Huntington Drive. RESOLUTION 1357 A resolution granting C.U.P. 87-24 to expand the total seating of an extsting eating establishment at 845 S. Ba 1 dwi n Avenue. RESOLUTION 1358 A resolution granting C.U.P. 87-25 for a di et center with group counsel i ng at 921 S. Baldwin, Units F & G. RESOLUTION 1359 A resolution granting C.U.P. 87-26 for a martial arts instruction studio at 32 E. Live Oak Ave. RESOLUTION 1360 A resolution granting C.U.P. 87-23 for the expansion of the school enrollment from 200 to 400 students at 758 W. Anoakia Lane. Mr. Woolard read the title of the resolutions. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Papay, seconded by Commissioner Clark to adopt Resolutions 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358 and 1359 and to formally affi rm the decisions of January 12, reflecting the findings of the Commission and the votes thereon. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1/26/88 Page 16 . . Resolution 1360 was continued to 2/9/88 due to continuance of C.U.P. 87-23. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay, Szany None MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None --------------------------------~----- MATTERS FROM COMMISSION None MATTERS FROM STAFF None ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ;' :/:' , ). ". 1/ .... , :. "'. I J'.,~;.,,J.. _,," ,x.f(. .,lW6JLJ U ':' ,,,,-,/.'_-:v' _ Secretary, Arcadia Pl anni ng Commtss ion Arcadia City Planning C.ommission 1/26/88 Page 17