Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 11, 1989 , . . . \ Planning Commission proceedings are taped recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Department. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, April f1, 1989 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia metin regular session on Tuesday, April 11, 1989 at 7:30 p;m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall. 240 West Hun1ington Drive, with Chairman Larry Papay presiding. PLEDGE OF All.EGIJiNCE ROLLCALL: PRESENT: A8SENT: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund,Szany, Papay None MINUTES MOllON It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Szanyto approve the Minutes of March 28,1989 as published. The motion passed~by voice vote with none dissenting. MOllON 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 resolution. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING: Councilman Charles Gilb City Attorney Michael Miller Planning Director William Woolard Associate Planner Wilfred" Wong' Associate Planner Corkran Nicholson Secretary Silva Vergel ~ w ... ... ... ... .. ... _.... _ .. ... ... .. ".. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... _._ ... ... ... ... ... . . CONTINUED PUBUC HEARING CUP 89-002 292 E. Foothill Blvd. Mia Kim Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a school (math classes) with a maximum of ten students and one teacher. The staff report .was presented In response to Commissioner Hedlund's question, staff said that the conditions are the same with the exception of an additional condition. This conditions. states that"the parking will be monitored for the next twelve months and if there are any circulation or parking problem(s) a hearing will be scheduled for the purpose of determining the extent of the problem(s) and for the consideration of modltylng the original conditions of approval, or imposing additional conditions so as to mitigate the Identified problem(s). The public hearing was opened. Mia Kim, 245 W. Colorado, explained that the school will be open form 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Fridays. She said that she has read and is in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. There were no additional persons desiring to speak in favor or in opposition. M0110N It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Szany to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with at dissention. Commissioner Clark commented that the concern over the traffic circulation is a valid one but felt that the condition would remedy any possible problem(s). The consensus of the Commission was favorable. MallON It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato to approve CUP 89-002 subject to conditions in the staff report. ROLL CAll.; A\'ES: t-aS: Commissioners Amato, Clark Hedlund,.Szany, Papay___ " None Chairman Papay noted that there is a fIVe working period after'the adoption of the resolution. ~'. .............................. -,................................... _.- Arcadia City Planning Commission April 11, 1989 Page 2 . . " CQMlNUED PUBUC HEARING TPM 89-004 331 N. Old Ranch ,Rd. The southwest comer of Old Ranch Rd. and San Simeon Rd. Romani Construction Consideration of a tentative parcel map to create two lots from one lot Chairman Papay announced that the Commission will grant or deny the tentative parcel map. He explained that the applicant has the right to file the application and all interested parties, including the applicant and the neighbors, have the right to a fair hearing. The City's final decisiol! can be appealed to the Council and the courts, therefore, the City's hearing should be conducted in a fairand orderly manner. Ths Commission will be looking for facts. He asked that anybody who would like to present his position should do so with courtesy. Mr, Woolard made some corrections on the dates that were outlined In the staff report. The staff report was presented and the public hearing 'was opened. Maryann Petrovich, co-applicant, 1505 S. Baldwin. said that. the two new lots will meet and exceed code and no variances are required. Each will be 1 00'x155' and neither of the new lots will require any modifications. She didn't think that there would be a significant impact on the area and remarked that presently there is a house and a guest.house on the property. The status of the homes would change from part-time residence to permanent. She asked Commission to approve the lot split and said that staff has recommended approval. She asked that the Commission to look at the technical merit of the project. ' Bill lewis, 901 Volante, president of the Homeowner's Association (HOA) said that he had received many calls were received from concerned citizens who were against the lot split, He noted that if the lot split was approved. the new lots would be the two smallest lots in the area. He felt that the character of the area would change dramatically. I;le remarked that the petition shows that 99% of the area homeowners are against the split. The HOA is vehemently opposed to the lot split. Both the homeowners and the HOA feel that it would be injurious to the neighborhood. He explained that when one stands on Colorado Blvd. and looks down on Old Ranch Rd."he will see a wide, beautiful, historical street with all houses with the same setback that backs into the arboretum. This is the firstallemptto,split on this road and the split would create a reverse corner lot. The new home's side setback would encroach into the front setback of the homes on Old Ranch Rd. He asked the Commission to deny it based on Finding 8 in the staff report. He suggested revising the R-O zone to reflect the present minimum size lot existing in the tract. RQbert, ErlksoJl, 400 Vaqu.e!C), commented that mostofJhe 10tsJn the area exceed 20,OOQ sq. ft. ,and_ the two new lots would be substantially less at 15,000 sq. ft. Althougl1 the architectural style are diverse. the orderly layout of the subdivision and the existing and consistent setbacks provide continuity and harmony. He thought that the new homes would be out of harmony with the neighborhood. He commented that all of the homes'ln the area are setback at least 50 feet One of the new homes would be a reverse corner lot which would reduce the side yard setback and the new structure would encroach into the front setback of the homes on the street. William Wyman. Chairman of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), 507 Monte Vista, said that the lot split would change the character of the neighborhood. The houseJaces Old Ranch Road but the new homes will face San Simeon. What is aJront yard for the present home,will become the side yard of the new home and have a 20' setback. The two lots will be the two smallest lots in the area. At the present time the smallest lot in the area is 18.000 sq. ft. He was concerned about this lot Arcadia City Planning Commission April 11, 1989 P!lQe 3 . . split setting a precedent. He commented thallhe fence or wall'that would probably be built would look awkward and remarXed that driVing down on Oid Ranch all the homes have large setbacks and this particular home would not, and felt that aesthetically it would be displeasing and an eye sore. He didn't think that the site Is physically suitable for this type of a development. He asked the Commission to deny the request based on Finding 8 In the staff report which states that the lot split injuriously affects the neighborhood. Emil Steck, 831 San Simeon, spoke against the lot split. He said that this property has been for speculation while others have purchased their homes to raise their family and noted that developers come and go but the area residents will have to live what the developer leave behind. He thought that the new setback created by one of the homes would be injurious to the neighborhood. The development would seta precedent since there are so many lots that would be eligible for this type of a development. The ARB was empowered by the City to'enforce and insure uniformity in the area and commented that the ARB is opposed to the project. If the project is approved, then the ARB is meaningless. He thought that the Commission should deny the request unanimously and send a message to developers whose interest are only monetary that Arcadia's fine homes are for preservation and not exploitation. If the project is approved, it would affect the neighbors much more severely than it wouldaffect;the developer. He was against two large homes crowded on what is now one lot with a, frontage not uniform to anything around It. He thought that this project complies with zoning requirements by the skin of its teeth. Jack Stumpf, 821 San Simeon, said that he wasn't against change but spoke againstlhe project and talked about the beautiful landscaping on Old Ranch Rd. and he feared that the character of the neighborhood would change. James Rostron. 422 Monte Vista, felt thaHhe quality of the neighborhood would change. He thought that lot split would not be compatible or harmonious and that it would have a detrimental affect on the property owners. He thought that the lot split would be Injurious and remarXed that the back yards of the two new lots would back up to the front and side yard of the house to the south. Ben Garrett, 512 Vaquero, said that Findings 1, 2 and 8 would be appropriate. He remarXed that they would like to preserve the character and the high quality of the neighborhood. The General Plan states that the goal of the plan is to preserve and to enhance high quality areas throughout the City. An analysis of the square footage of 20 surrounding lots demonstrates that well over 90% of those lots exceed the lot area designation and are In excess of 20,000 sq. ft. and the two new lots would be 5,000 sq. ft. less and he thought that ihat would not be to the welfare of a1i the residents in the area. He remarXed that even though two lots are worth much more than one lot, the other property owners In the area should not have to pay the price. He remarXed that the Lower Rancho does have s tree preservation plan in its adoption of the ordinance in 1968 and was appalled at the idea of the developer wanting to removing one tree on the lot. The two lots would have the smallest - -loUrontageand said-that the,average is 100~. -He noted that the property values wouldbeJmpacted by the split and felt that the developers proposal shows a lack of regard. The project Is not compatible with the area, doesn't conform with the majority of the lot sizes in the area, both with square footage and frontage, property values are in question as to the value of impact on down sizing and the project is injurious to the neighborhood. He was cri,tical of the recommendations by staff, especially the Public Works Dept. for not requiring sidewalks, lights and relocations of fire hydrants and improvements by the subdivision. Ron Howard, 401 N. Old Ranch Rd., said that he is a real estate developer and is not against profit but thought that this is taking it too far. He remsrXed that the size of the homes would probably be twice the size of the existing. He said that this would be injurious to the property values. The density will detract from the neighborhood. Arcadia City Planning Commission April 11, 1989 Page 4 . . ~verett Clark, 324 N. Old Ranch Rd., questioned the integrity of the development. He remarked that there are fiv~comer lots on Old Ranch Rd. and all face Old Ranch, the new lot would be the only lot which would face on San Simeon and would look awkward. He remarked that there would be 100% increase'in the density if this was to be approved. He commsnted that they purchaSed their home as a home and not for investment purposes and illustrated that the developer is only doing it to make profit. He thought that Findings D4 and DB would be appropriate. John Saunders. 841 San Simeon, was concemed and felt that it would be a,shame to change the character of the area in this harmful manner. Forrest Hartline, 314 Old Ranch. commented that DB would apply. The neighborhood consists of large setbacks and large and lush green belt area and if this lot was to spill. those characteristics which are synonymous with the neighborhood would not be possible. Therese Curtis. 406 Old Ranch Rd.. thought that this would definitely impact the area and remarked that the sole motivation for the developer is monetary, whereas, the area residents are concerned with their neighborhood. Lot 2 will come out on Old Ranch Rd. and will be incompatible and unacceptable in the neighborhood. She said that D2, D3 and DB would apply as reasons lor denial. She said that the two new lots would be the two smallest lots In the Lower Rancho and noted that the new homes would probably not be compatible with the lot. Tracy Wheeler, 400 Old Ranch, talked about the elm tree that the developer has proposed to cut. He said that we are somewhat in the midst of a drought, and aske,d the Commission to consider the cl1ances of the elm tree using more water than the extra house. He thought that the Commission should think about that before approving the iot split. Forrest Besocke, 416 Old Ranch, said thatall the homes on the street have 50'+ setback from the street which creates a pleasing perspective but the new house wouid encroach Into that 50' and would be an eye sore and be very displeasing aeslhetically and would destroy the beauty of historic Old Ranch Rd. Chuck Hickman. 1025 Catalpa. remarked that this development would be very wrong and spoke against the lot split. Jim Considine, 1027 Encanto, said that the developer is in It just lor profit at the expense of the property owners. Louis Pollard. 531 Old Ranch Rd.. suggested increasing the lot sizes to eliminate the possibility of similar request. George_Scon,836 SanSimeon,_recommended.tuming the house so thai it would face Old Ranch Rd. _ n, _ and remarked that after it met the 50' and 35', front and rear setbacks. respectively, there would be 15' available for the house. He tried to illustrate how ridiculous the house would be and how small the lot Is for a new house. Emil Steck. spoke on behalf of the whole group and asked the Commission to deny the lot split and said that tile number of residents in the audience should Indicate to the Commission of the volume of opposition towards the request. In rebuttal, Ms. Petrovich, remarked that the Commission should not be affected by the audience clapping and the petition. She said that the lot split would increase property values and complimented the Romani homes. She said that people may not agree with the style but that is just a matter of opinion. She said that the Commission should consider the merits of the project and not Arcadia City Planning Commission April 11, 1989 Page 5 . . that people don't want change. She said that due to the controversy of this item. they sent outlellers to the area property owners and only two called. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the public hearing. Commissioner Clark said that although both proposed lots meet minimum lot size requirements for, the R-O 15,000, the reconfiguration of the existing lot facing Old Ranch Road into two north facing lots on San Simeon creates a setback problem. A 20' side yard setback on Old Ranch Rd. on proposed Lot 1 is totally Incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Virtually all existing homes on Old Ranch are setback at least 50' from the street. The homes to the south are setback closer to 100'. He further stated that If a developer'were allowed to build a home projecting 30' beyond the established setbacks for other homes along Old Ranch, it would create visual discontinuity . and aesthetic aberration. A 20' side yard setback on Old ranch is inappropriate and the open space exhibited in the area should be retained. He thought that the lot split would,injuriously affect the neighborhood and was against the proposed Iot.split. III response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Woolard remarked tha,tthe maximum wall height along Old Ranch could be 4' between the 20' side yard setback and the City parkway and from the 20' setback the wall could go as high as 6'. Commissioner Szany agreed with Commissioner, Clark's comments. He stated'that all the homes on the street have large yards and beautifullandscaplllg. He commented that Romani Construction builds quality homes but to encroach into the setback would be going against the original concept. He was concerned about the possible wall that would be buiU along the south property line. The size of the lot is irrelevant but the important issue is that the house on lot 1 will encroach onto the setback on Old Ranch Rd. Commissioner Amato agreed with both Commissioners Clark and Szany said that it would be too much of an impact on the area; Commissioner Hedlund remarked that he believes in property rights for new and old owners. Zoning and land use protects the neighbors and said that lot size not meeting the Code is not an issue before the Commission. He was not concemed whether this would set a precedent and said that each case is evaluated on its own. The most appropriate reason for denial of this lot split is Flndillg 8 which does not deal with the dollar issue. In looking at what presently exists, all homes on corner lots facing Old Ranch and have done so for many years. He was concemecl with the new setback for ihe new_home.andthe.frontage which would not be In keeping with the existing front and,slde setbacks on Old Ranch Rd. If this was approved it would,be creaiing a situation that'doesn't presently exist. He thought that if this was approved it Would interfere with how people have lived for many years in the area and would be an invasion of their property rights. Chairman P~pay said that the character of the neighborhood would be affected. The reverse comer lot would substantially change the character of the street and there would be a potential for a domino affect on the other 5 comers in the area. Mike Miller, the City Attorney, remarked that if the Commission denies the project by selecting one or more of the findings listed In the staff report then a resolution should be adopted at the Commission's next meeting setting forth the reasons for denial. Arcadia City Planning Commission April 11, 1989 Page 6 . . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to deny TPM 89- 004 finding that the lot split would injuriously affect the neighborhood (Finding DB) and directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolution setting forth the Commission's findings. The resolution will be adopted at the Commission's next meeting. ROLL CAlL: AYeS: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay tQ;S: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP 1001 N. Santa Anita and 4 W. Foothill Blvd. Ace CiVil Eng. The staff report was presented. Qonslderation of a request for waiver of Final Parcel Map. RESOLUTION 1404 A resolution waiving the requirements of a final parcel map for the property at 1001 N. Santa Anita and 4 W. Foothill Blvd. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Clark to adopt Resolution 1404 to formally affirm the decision of April 11, 1989, reflecting the findings of the Commission and the votes thereon. ROLL cALL: AVES:_Commissioners Amato, Clark,-Hedlund, Szany, Papay fI(ES: None ' . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - _.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Commissioner Szany abstained from this item, since he was the architect of the project. DETERMINATION OFCOMPUANCE 748-756 Naomi Michael Pashaie Consideration of determination of compliance with CUP 88-017 regarding a revised proposal for a 14-unit condominium project. The staff report was presented. Arcadia City Planning Commission April 11, 19B9 Page 7 . . The Commissioners felt that 14-units were much better than 18-units. M01lON It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Amato approve the revised plans for CUP 88'017 and determining that a new conditional use permit is not required and that the design concept plans are in compliance with the ADR criteria. ROLL CAll: A'VES: IIO:S: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay None Commissioner Szany . . .;. . - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -,- .. .. .. .. .. ,- .. .. .. .-. ..'.. .. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL Councilman Gilb said that at the last council meeting, a rendering was presented to Council for the senior citizen center. , , .. .. .. ".w .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. MATTERS FROM COMMISSION Chaihnan Papay remarked that staff is working on topics to discuss with Council like encroachment cif buildings on St. Joseph, and setbacks. He also discussed architectural design review for tracts. Commissioner Hedlund commented "that on several occasions he has attended meetings where the Commission's decision has been appealed and he ~aid thaUt is just a different ball game, different presentations are made and different people attend the meeting. Councilman Glib said that sometimes one-sided cul-,de-sacs are better than existing conditions. MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Woolard remarked thats!atf Js. w~rkil'!g ,on. ,a. texcamendrnent for_building's architecturaL__ -teaturesnot"encroaChirig-lnto the setback areas. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 p.m. /', if j I ".,,,",'-t./',v , . ' ,;(J/..t./)/fl1"'() f..I Ji II.' ip.. /V - Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission April 11, 1989 Page 8