Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 28, 1989 'I I. . . "1 '; Planning Commission proceedings are taped recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Department. MINUTES ARCADIA CnYPLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, March 28, 1989 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, March 28, 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: MOTION Commissioners Clark, Hedlund, Papay CommlsslonersAmato, Szany It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to excuse Commissioners Amato and Szany from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. . MINUTES Commissioner Hedlund commented that on page 4 of the Minutes the following sentence .should be added: "Staff said that they will provide as much information as possible al:lout the history of the property to the COlI)mission at the next hearing," Councilwoman Young stated that the name "Unda Jaggett' should be changed to 'UndaDagger. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to approve the Minutes of March 14, 1989.as amended. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS A"fTB\IDlNG: CounCIlwoman Mary Young City Attorney Michael Miller Planning Director William Woolard Senior Planner Donna Butler .Associate Planner Wilfred Wong Assistant Planner James Kasama Secretary Silva Vergel ~'_. - - - _._ - - - - - - - W'W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/28/89 Page 1 . . " The City Attorney announced that the City Charter requires that for any action to be adopted or approved a majority of the entire membership must vote in favor of the particular motion. If the required three votes are not obtained the motion would fail. If the required three votes are not obtained (1) an applicant may request continuance and it is up to the Commission to decide whether or not they want to grant it; (2) the matter could be heard and then deferred for final decision pending participation of the absent members as long as they revjew the records of this proceedings which would be made available to them or (3) the matter could simply go forward to the City Council. - - - ~ - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - .-. - - PUBLIC HEARING Z-89-001 721 Huntington Dr. Northeast comer of Huntington Drive and Old Ranch Rd. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. The staff report was presented and the public hearing Was opened. Consideration of a zone change from CoO & 0 (Professional office. with a design overlay) to C-1 (Limited Commercial). Gary Fischer, Pier 1 Imports, Inc., 301 Commerce. Fort Worth. Texas. was representing Pier 1 Imports. Inc. He said that the zone change would be appropriate and would be consistent with the other retail uses on adjacent, property. He said that they conducted a study 'on the market and found that Arcadia would be an excellent location for their store. He commented that Pier 1 Imports isa nationally known retailer of quality home furnishings. In the past their stores have been in malls but they are trying to get away from that and would like to have stand alone storeS because'they can offer better service and access for the customers. The typical site for free standing store is 40,000 sq. ft. but it varies. John Saunders, 841 San Simeon Road, spoke against the zone change. He commented that he owns the apartment building to the north of the subject lot. . He said that the ;one change would not be consistent and explained that the retail uses on the adjacent properties have been there for many years and are "grandfathered" and they would not be allowed there under the present Code. He felt thal'an office use would be much more compatible and explained that the office hours are usuallY from 8-5 on weekdays and the neighbors in the residential area are working those hours but the store hours would be much longer and the store would be open on weekends. He stated that some ofthe allowable uses In the C-1 zone can be.operated without a conditional 'use'permit up:t016'hours a day; He'thought that there would be a radical'difference in usage'to go from CoO & 0 to C-1. He commented that Pier 1 Imports doesn't have much furniture and has clothing and said that it is a store very similar to Pic 'N Sav. He thought that there would be additional traffic,and feared .that there would be a parking problem and the overflow would park Old Ranch Road. He referred 10 the Environmental Checklist, Item 13 which was checked off In the "no" column. This item deals with whether the proposal would result in substantial additional vehicular movement and he thought thatJtshould have been checked "yes" because the proposal would Increase the vehicLilar movement substantially. He commented that the employees of the store would probably be Instructed to park on the street to allow for customer parking and Ulustrated that Old Ranch Road is already congested and on weekends the parklng for the guests of the residents and the apartment building will be taken by Arcadia City Planning Comll1ission 3/28/89 Page 2 . . " the store employees. II was his opinion that'intense parking severely depreciates the value of property. He remarked that guesis of iIle apartl!1ent tiuilding and residents will not even be able to park on Saturdays because the employees of the store will be parking on Old Ranch. When he has an apartment for rent a possible prospect might drive on by once they see the parking situation on the street which will be congested. He commented that he and several others tried to purchase the vacant lot from the owner but they were always unsuccessful and explained that the owner wanted an outrageous amount of money for the property, He remarked that the proposal would drastically change the character of Old Ranch Road and said that there should be a buffer between residential and commercial properties. He noted that he purchased his property based on the zoning of the .surroundlng properties and was concerned thanhe zone change would depreciate property values. He felt that there Is no compelling reasOn to approve the zone change. C-1 zoning instantly makes the lot more valuable, allows more intensive uses, and generates more income and the only compelling reason to change the zone would be to increase the owner's property value at the expense of the adjoining properties. The. value' of the owner's property will be enhanced by changing zoning while the adjoining properties would depreciate in value because of the long hours of usage. He commented that if Pier 1 Imports was not successful at this location and moved after a few years, then this property would be open to other type of stores which could create problems. He urged the Commission to deny the zone change and said that the zone change Would be aUhe cost of the property owners in the neighborhood and the tenants who reside In his apartment building unit Gary Kovacic, 947 Coronado, Chairman of the ARB spoke against the proposed zone change. He commented thathe could not see a compelling reason for the change and said thalazone change is a very serious procedure and the Commission should be very careful in granting it He asked abOullhe project. and wondered about the Ingress and egress from the property, the architecture of the building, the perking and the traffic circulation. He remarked that most people \VOuld either go west on HiJntington or go north on Old Ranch Road which would Increase the traffic In the Village dramatically. He. asked what would happen if the store moved in sfew years and feared thatthe center would be converted into a "mini-mall". He thought that the property should remain as C,Q & 0 and said that that zoning would bean asset to the neighborhood. He commented that there are plenty of C-1 zoned properties In the City which the store could go into and said that thissiore would not improve the area. Frank~Lee, 710 S. Old Ranch; was in opPosition to the zone change and said that his' property Is to the north of Mr. Saunder's apartment building. He was concemed about the increase In ,the traffic'and the possible'parkingproblems~due to the store. James GlliSS. 706 S. Old Ranch, agreed with his neighbors. He also thought that parking and traffic could become a serious problem. He commented that several years ago he tried to obtain a home occupation permit and had to get signatures of all adjoining properties, and had to guarante that he would have no delivery trucks or increased foot traffic to his property. He said that the store would hlllieto have its merchandise delivered by a truck and was concerned about the truck's access to the property and also the hours that t~ey would deliver. They would probably try and avoid the shopping hours so not to disturb the customers which In turn would become a nuisance for the residents. He thought that the zone change would mean a higher movement of people in the Immediate area, would decrease property values and the quality of life. He asked the Commission to deny the projec\'and keep the Integrity of the neighborhood. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/28/89 Page 3 . . , I Bev Adams, 431 S. Old Ranch, spoke against the zone change. She commented that there would be an increase In the traffic which in turn would mean an increase In the trash in the neighborhood on people's lawns. She said thaI. she always finds'trash on her . lawn and has to clean it up and said by approving the zone change there would be a,potentiaJ for more of the same problem. Steve Gilbert, 830 Victoria, spoke about the possible traffic problems. He said that there are many families In the area who have small children and he was concerned about their safety. He explained that people speed on Old Ranch Road and was concerned aboul.lhe type of people that the store would bring into the neighborhood. In rebuttal, Mr. Fischer, said that they will provide architecturally well designed building which would be compatible with the neighborhood. He thought the store would be compatible and said that the parking for retail is slightly higher than for an office building. He explained that the store hours would only be a few hours longer than office hours, which he said is intense over an 8-hour period, and he didn't think that that would cause a problem. He commented that usually they don', have any more than 5-6 employees at anyone time and said thatthe parking Is based on the maximum use which Is usually during the holidays. He explained that Ingress and egress to the property would be from Huntington and remarked that the delivery of goods would usually be once a week for a couple of hours during the morning hours and said that they would screen the delivery area well so that it wouldn't be visible to the residential properties to the north. He noted that the apartment building is the buffer between the commercial property and the residential properties. Although he could not anticipate the longevity of the store or its existence on the property, he didn't think that after the zone change the property could be converted'lnto a "mini-mall" due to the size of the lot. He said that their store which would be approximately 8,700 sq. ft., could not be compared to a Pic 'N Sav which Is at least 25,000- 30,000 sq. ft. and also the quality of the merchandise that they carry is much more higher than Pic 'NSav. He remarked that the subject property is a very visible corner property which has not been maintained for the past 20 years and felt that the development on the property would be an improvement. Raymond Floyd, representing Mr. Orsi, who 'is the executor of the lot explained that the owner never had any reasons to.sell the property.. He commented that this use would create a fair retum for the owner. He remarked that they are very sensitive to the homeowners in the area and would not allow uses such as a fasHood establishment or a mini-mall. He asked if 'a condition could be placed on the zone change that if Pier 1 was unable to stay on the property that the zoning wOiJld revert back to C'O & D. He reassured the Commission and the neighbors that .their project would be a quality development. MOTION . - It was moved by Commissioner Clark; seconded by'Commissloner'Hedlund to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote. with none dissenting. Chairman Papay explained that the Commission doesn'approve the zone change butafter hearing the testimony recommends approval to the City Council. Commissioner Hedlund said that the zone change would Introduce an increase In the traffic and noted thaI. Pier 1 would not be serving the neighborhood, whereas, the adjacent retail uses serve the immediate area and probably don' generate .traffic from outside the area. The Commission should show a need for additional commercial properties in the City and there Is adequate underutllized commercial properties in the City. He thought that the property should either be utilized for an office or be rezoned as R-3 for multiple-family use. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/28/89 Page 4 . . . Coinmissioner ClarK was not in favor of the zone change and felt that the zones should be consistent with the General Plan. He said that he was concerned for the future and didn't want to see some of the uses allowed in the C-1 zone on' this property such as a meat marKet, grocery store and self-service laundries. Chairman Papay commented that he could not see a compelling reason to change the zone and said that there is ample C-1 zoned properties in ihe City. He remarKed that the zone change is an irreversible process and once it has been changed to C-11t cannot be changed to CoO & D. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to recommend to the City Council denial ofZ-89-001. ROll CAll: Avr:s: ~ ABSENT: Commissioners Clark, Hedlund, Papay None Commissioners Amato, Szany .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. -.- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. ".- .. --- _.- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ' Consideration of a text amendment to add home. furnishings and decorating accessory stores as Permitted uses In the C-1 zone. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING TA 89,004 Gary' Kovacic, 947 Coronado. spoke against the text amendment. He thought that. a home furnishings retail.store would be'an intense use but it wouldn't be any more intense than a sporting good store or a self-service laundry for the C-1 use. MOTION It was inoved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner ClarK to close the public hearing. The moiion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Clark thought that It would be an appropriate use for the C-1 zone and Commissioner Hedlund agreed. Mc:moN It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to recommend approval of TA 89-001 to the City Council. ROllCALl: Avr:s: ro:s: ABSENT: Commissioners Clark, Hedlund, Papay None Commissioners Amato. Szany .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .'.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ,- .. .. .. .. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/28/89 PageS . . PUBLIC HEARING TPM 89-005 214-220 California SI. subdivision. Anne Lal Consideration of a tentative parcel map for a 4-unit residential condominium The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Steve Lau, 2130 Huntington, #300. S, Pasadena, was present and said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by.Commissioner to close Clark the public hearlng. The motion passed by voice vote, with none dissenting, Commissioner Clark was very pleased to see that 4-units were being proposed instead ofthe 7- units allowed by Code. He .remarked that the rendering Is very attractive. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to approve TPM 89-005 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CAll.: .A~. lIaS: ABSENT: Commissioners Clark, Hedlund, Papay None Commissioners Amato, Szany There is ten day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING TM 47071 609-619 Fairvlew Ave. Raouf Sedky The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Consideration of a tentative .map for a 20- unit condominium complex. Emad Ashamala, 511 E. Harvard, #4, Glendale, the architect of the project was present and said that they ~e _in agreement wlth ~I of' the conditions in t~~ ~ta.!f, report._ _ ,__ . _ ,_ Irene Goddard, 628 Huntington, #18. referred to the Environlllental Checklist and said that both items 18 and 21 0 were checked off In the "no" column. Item 18 deals with the aesthetics and she thought the aesthetics of the area would be affected. She said that they live in the back unit of the condominiums on Huntington Drive and commented that there would be a unit built where now they have a beautiful view of trees. She was concerned that the new units would have windows which would look into their bedroom and asked if they consider the privacy of the adjacent property. She asked how close they could build to the property line. Staff replied by saying that there Is a 10' setback and remarked that there would be a unit built in the back of the lot. It was noted that R-3 is high density and there are no provisions for complete privacy in the Code. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/28/89 Page 6 . . Chairman Papay said that the project meets Code requirements and doesn't need any modifications. The R-3 zone allows a building to be more than one-story. Frank Goddard, 620 Huntington, #20, asked how many stories would the building be and commented thal.based on the plans it looks like it would be 3-stories high. Staff said that based on the definition of story, the proposed building Is 2-stories and a portion of the first-floor which is the garage Is below grade. Tony Ngal, 1833 S. Victory, Glendale, the architect of the project said that the project is set back 10' from the property line, is 2 1/2 stories high and the garage is 3' below grade. The overall-building height meets Code. The new building would be approximately 6' higher than the existing building arid would be approximately 6'-7' below the Goddard's unit. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to close the pUblic hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Clark said that it is a very attractive building. Chairman Papay remarked that when the Commissionreviewed'the modification, the applicant was asked to try and break up the long look ofthebuildlng and he has been able to achieve that by the Ins and outs of the building. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner'Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Clark to approve TM 47071 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: I\tm ABSENT:' Commissioners Clark, Hedlund, Papay None Commissioners Amato, Szany There is ten day appeal period. PUBUC HEARING CUP 89-002 292 E. Foothill blvd. Mia Kim Consideration:of'a conditional use permit to operate a school (math classes) ~ith a maximum of ten students and one teacher. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Mia Kim, 245 W. Colorado, the applicant stated that the hours would be from 2:30.6:00 p.m., Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Fridays - a total of 14 hours a week. Th.e children are between kindergarten and 16 years of age. The classes are 15-~0 minutes long. She said that she has read and is In agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Martin Downer, Japan Kumon Education Center, Torrance, said that the system Is be,sedon home education and self learning. The children work. individually Instead of in groups. "The parents Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/28/89 Page 7 . . usually wait and after the children are done with their worK they usually play games. The system does not operate like a school. John Wong, .292 E. Foothill, the owner of the building was present. He said thatthe school is the first tenant and said that the children will be dropped off and picked up by their parents. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner ClarK, seconded by Commissioner to close Hedlund the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Hedlund was concerned about the traffic problem that may arise due to the high number of students that may attend. Staff said that he was unaware of the high turnover of children. He thought that the parents would drop the children off and then pick them up later which would eliminate any possible parKing problems. Based on the explanation given by the applicant there could be a potential for a parKing problem and traffic congestion especially with children in the classes and some waiting for their classes to begin. Mike Miller, the City Attorney, said that the Commission doesn't have to act on the project and can continue it to allow for more staff review and/or for conditions of approval to be seUn the staff report. Chairman Papay agreed and said that the flow of people can create a problem as far as both the parKing and the trafflc. He asked how many classes would be held and. what would be .thetime in between each class? Mr, Woolard said that conditions should not be made'.on the spur of the:moment and.furthef'Study is needed by staff. .MOT1ON It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Comm!SSioner ClarK to re-open and continue the hearing to the Commission's April 11, 1989 meeting. ROLL CALl.; AYES: NE3: ABSENT: Commissioners ClarK, Hedlund, Papay None -CommiSSioners-Amato, Szany .. -,-.... -,_............... -.- -,_.................................... PUBLIC HEARING TM 47557 414 S. Santa Anita Ave. Chun Chuen So. Consideration of a tentative map for an 8- unit condominium complex. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Jeff Phillips, 1740 E. Huntington, #206, Duarte, was present and said that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/28/89 Page 8 . . . MOT1ClN It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Hedlundto close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Clark remarked that this is similar to the project that the Commission just approved. . Mr. Woolard remarked that the slope of the driveway Is checked before it Is signed off. MOT1ClN It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to approve TM 47557 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CAlL: AYES: Na:S: A8SENr: Commissioners Clark, Hedlund, Papay None Commissioners Amato, Szany There is ten day appeal period. .. ..,.. -,-................. -.................................... -.-........... AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None .. .. ... ... - .. .. .. -.- -,.- .. .. -'- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM COMMISSION The Commission thanked Councilwoman Young for being the liaison. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .'. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .-- -- - MATTERS FROM STAFF None ... ... .. '- .. '.; .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 p.m. f. IfJ... i, II .' rW..t;(I;l4tU t./)rf7'!'72J:;d ~ Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/28/89 Page 9