Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 25, 1989 , I; !' ~ . . Planning Commission proceedings are taped recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Department. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PlANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, July 25, 1989 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, July 25, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive. with Chairman Larry Papay presiding. PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE ROLL CAll..: PRESENT: ABSENT: MINUTES Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund. Szany, Papay None Commissioner Papay commented that on Page 3, the comment made by Mr. Woolard is unclear. The comment was changed to read as follows: "Mr. Woolard remarked that the Planning Department will review the plans and determine whether iUs structurally okay. The property owner may do more engineering to make the cut outs". Commissioner Clark said that both he and Commissioner Amato voted no on the continuance and remarked that it was Commissioner Szany who made the motion which was seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to continue the hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clail< to approve the Minutes of July 11, 1989 as amended. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissentin\1. OTHERS ATTENDING: Councilman Charles Gilb Planning Director William Woolard Senior Planner Donna Butler Associate Planner Wilfred Wong Assistant Planner James Kasama Secretary Silva Vergel Arcadia City Planning Commisston 7/25/89 Page 1 . . , .; CONTINUED PUBUC HEARING MC 89-041 1440 San Carlos Mur-sol, Inc. Consideration of an appeal of the Modification Committee's conditional approval of the 10'-0. height from the lowest adjacent grade in lieu of 6'-0. for a masonry wall along the southerly property line (9283.8.7 & 9283.8.8). Staff remarked that no additional information had been presented to the Planning Department. Mr. Woolard noted that a,42. barrier is required on the driveway side for protection. Chris Carr, 1440 San Carlos, said that he would reduce the height of the wall and use rod iron fence but noted that Mr. Claril, his neighbor to the south, would lose his privacy and the glare of head lights would shine onto his property. He noted that because of the footings of the wall and it~ dePth. they could only plant shallow rooted trees without any problems but for any other type of tree they would have to move It in closer to the driveway which would cause a turn around problem. The existing barrier was an old wood fence which'was in very bad condi!ionand aesthetically displeasing and he noted that when they purchased this property and decided to build a new home he decided to replace the lence with a wall. He further stated that all the properties adjoining his have pools and it would be unsafe if there were no barriers between the properties. He remariled that the reinforced concrete extends to the Clarks' wall's footings and wall. This reinforced concrete Is parallel to the wall and Is perpendicular underneath the driveway. He noted that the Building Official. Rudy Franta, was present when they were dOing the..reinforcement and he concurred with the way that it was poured. He commented that the wall was not on the plans which were approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Jim Claril, 1434 San Carlos, said that at the ARB meeting the plans didn't show the elevation of the house and said thatthe house is incompatible with the neighborhood there are no two-story homes in the Immediate area. He was in agreement with the Modification Committee's decision and said that it would be acceptable to him and remariled that he would be in opposition to a rod iron fence or anything similar and noted that the wall is already 10' in helght'with a length 0180'. Even though he would prefer a wood fence he felt that there should be some kind of a barrier and commented that he would not like the wall to be torn down. He was concerned with the extension of the driveway where it was extended beyond the original plan. Mr. Clark said that the contractor proceeded with the wall even after, he was aware of the violation and remariled that when this item was on the Modification Committee's agenda they continued to pour the retaining wall. Mr. Franta, the Buidling Official. saw possible problems with the existing wall and recommended putting pilasters in to reinforce the wall. He noted that he contacted a landscape architect who told him that there should be no problems with planting tre~lI w!1iCh would soften up the wall and said that wlthounhlnrees'there would be no privacy 'for the Clarils. He felt that the placementof trees are very important. He commented that the house is for sale and remarked that the present property owner will not have to live with the consequences of his actions. He thought that this project had inadequate planning and felt that the three required trees should be planted. In rebuttal. Mr. Carr sald that they could plant trees by the wall but was worried about the slab. There were no additional persons desiring to speak In favor or in opposition of the appeal. MOTlONv It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/25/89 Page 2 . . . 'i Commissioner Amato said that the trees wOlild soften the wall. Mr, Woolard remarked that the height 01 the wall could be a bit reduced. II the modification had been applied for before construction they probably would not have encountered any of the problems. Commissioner Clark agreed with the Modilication Commlttlile's decision and was not in lavor of tearing it down. Commissioner Szany said .that he didn't want to cut the slab and noted that there is a 25' back out area from the garage. He didn't think that there is any remedy to camouflage the house. He remarked that this project was designed to meet the minimum requirements and thought they should soften the wall. Commissioner Hedlund agreed with Commissioner Szany and he said that the wall doesn't comply and should be reduced to 2' high and could be softened up by landscaping, or a wrought iron lence on top of i1. He remarked that the concrete is forever and was concerned if the wall was not maintained by the owner then there would be additional problems. Chairman Papay said that the wall has to be a minimum of 42'. high. He was disappointed with the design and said that there was a lack of sensitivity by the desigl16r to place the driveway on the south side of the property and infringe on the Clarks' privacy. If they placed it on the north side there would virtually be no problems because the property to the north Is at a higher grade. He thought that trees ITIlght take a long time to grow and suggested shrubbery as an alternative which would provide a fuller coverage. Commissioner Clark said that both of the property owners would like to keep the wall and said that they should try to soften the wall. Commissioner Szany leltthat the wall is not as big of an issue as the house and remarked that the wall Is lor privacy and planters or hedges would just provide more privacy. He thought that hedgesmight:be a very good Idea and suggested Carolina Cherry which can grow to 15' In height. Commissioner Amato was against reducing the height of the wall and said that by doing so everybody would lose their privacy. Chairman Papay said that If Carolina Cherry shrubs are not trimmed they could, become trees. and thought that it would be an excellent alternative to trees. He suggested building planter boxes so when the cars back .out of the garage they woni hit the rear property wall. Mr, Clark'lndicated tharhe wisned to aCldress the COmmission again. MOTlON It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to re-open the public hearing. The motion passed by Voice \lote with none dissenting. In response to Commissioner Szany's comments, Mr. Clarl! said that there is a 25' back out and noted that if trees were planted towards the back wall and the cars were to back out of the garage there would ampie space but if the cars ware parked in the driveway he didn't think that there would be enough space to back out of there. He said that he didn't want the height of the wail reduced and asked ,the Commission to approve it as presented subject to landscaping being planted by the owner. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/25/89 Page 3 , . . 'j Mr. Carr said that it would be costly to reduce the height of the wall. MOTION It was moved by CommlssionerSzany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Mr. Woolard said that there should be some sort of a barrier such as a wall, wrought Iron or a wood fence for safety reasons. If the existing slab remains, the existing 10' high wall would have to be extended beyond its present length in older to provide the safety barriers. Chairman Papay commented that a wrought iron fence would not provide privacy and would show lack ofregard'for the neighbor. The neighbors don't want the height of the wall to be reduced even though the wall would comply with Code. He noted ihat Code requires a 42" barrier for safety reasons and remarked that the barrier would also soften up the house. He remarked that 24" box trees are acceptable. He commented that if the wall was to be reduced In height, it would meet Code but neither of the neighbors would be satisfied. . Commissioner Hedlund said that there is really no final solution and noted that there Is no guarantee that the neighbors will be happy several months from now with the shrUbbery which might be planted. . In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Woolard said that the house was finaled by the Building Department but the Wall was not finaled. He remarked that the landscaping would have to be maintained and the Commission can make a motion to the regarding the minimum and maximum height of the landscaping. Commissioner Amato was not in favor of reducing the wall height. A motion was made by CommisslonerClark but failed due.lo Iackofasecond. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Szany to deny the appeal of MC 89-041 and uphold the Modification Committee's decision subjeClto their conditions with the amendment that planters could be used in lieu of cut-outs, and with the additional condition that,the Planning Department review and approval the landscaping plan and that the landscaping grow a minimum of 10' above the driveway. ROLL CALL: AYES. Commissioners Amato, Clark, Szany, Papay !lIE): Commissioner Hedlund Chairman Papay noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING MP 89"008 1117 Sunset Mr. and Mrs. Sun The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened~ . Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/25/89 Page 4 Consideration of a modification for a 2-unit ccmdominlum project. . . , . John Abel. 140 W. Orange, Covina, the designer of the projeclwas present representing the applicant and said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. There were no additional persons desiring to speak In favor'or In opposition of the proposal. MCmoN It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Szanyto close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Szany was pleased with the project. Commissioner Hedlund agreed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Szany to approve MP 89-008 subject to the conditions in the .staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: . lIKEs: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay None Chairman Papay noted that there is a five working day appeal. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Tom Crosby, 601 S. Old Ranch, asked if the Homeowners Association (HOAl could charge a processing fee for applications to cover the cost of the HOA's cost 01 copying and mailing notices and findings. Mr. Woolard remarked that there could be a possible problem and noted that on occasions the City has made copies for the,HOAs. In. regard to the next item, staff said that this is only for the Commission's comments which wiil:be conveyed to the Council who may cJloose to amendtheJ.esolutions.at which time public hearings wilroe tiela. . ..' - 'w _,_ _ _ _ ~ .-. w"_ _,_ _ ~ .'W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..w _ __ PlANNING COMMISSION. DISCUSSION Review of Homeowner's AsSociation's comments regarding architectural design review procedures. The staff report was presented. Councilmember Gilb remarked thalhe thought that In his HOA they sent notices to everybody within 300' and noted that most lots In the Upper Rancho area are over 1 00' in width which would only require the notification of only a few neighbors. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/25/89 Page 5 . . " " Staff said that the new minimum would be 150' which would require the notification of 2-3 neighbors to either side and across the street. The HOA could required more than 150' but not less. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM COMMISSION None MATTERS FROM STAFF None ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m. I. ,f I .' ,. "-'-,~, .I ;'.tl.JZe)',.(.~JA~.) U l1Nn';'j.l'/y. ~ Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/25/89 Page 6