Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 14, 1989 . . ~, Planning Commission proceedings are taped 'recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Department. MINUTES ARCADIA CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION REGUlAR MEETlNG Tuesday, March 14, 1.989 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, March 14, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall. 240 West Huntington Drive, with .Chairman Pro Tem Tom Clark presiding. PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Hedlund, Szany. Clark Commissioners Amato, Papay MOTION If was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner.Hedlund to excuse Commissioners Amato and Papay fromtonlghfs meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seoonded by Commissioner Szany to approve the Minutes of February 28, 1989 as published. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MOTION Itwas moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to read the resolution by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. The motion passed by voice vote with none disseniing. OTHERS ATTENDING: Councilwoman Mary YOUlig City Attorney Michael Miller Planning Director William Woolard Senior Planner Donna Buller Secretary Silva Vergel ~.."'"'"' -- -'" --- --... -- --... --- -- -- --- -- --... . . , 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 (I) an applicant may request continuance anditis up to the Commission to decide whether or not they want to gral)t'it; (2) the matter could be heard and then deferred for final decision pending participation of the absent members as long as they review the records of this proceedings whjch would be made available to them or (3) the mailer could simply go forward to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING T.P.M. 89'004 331 N. Old'. Ranch Rd. .. The southwest corner of Old Ranch Rd. & San Simeon Rd. Romani Construction Consideration of a tentative parcel map to create two lots from one lot. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Jim Romani, 500 E. Lemon, was present and asked fora continuance so the absent Commissioners would be present. H'e stated that he was in agreement with all of the conditions set in the staff report. However, he asked lobe able to remove the elm tree along Old Ranch Rd. He said that he would replace it with .a 36" box tree. Mr. Woolard noted that at the next Commission meeting, (March 28th), both Commissioners Amato and Szany will be absent and therefore the full Commission will not be able to hear the item. He said that if the Commission continues the hearing, 'it should be continued to the April 11th meeting. Chairman Pro Tem Clark announced that if anybody anticipates not being present'at the 4/11 meeting they may wish to speak tonight. He.thought that It would be best if the full Commission would hear the testimony instead of reading the minutes. Mr. Romani was in agreement with the April 11th daie. Theres Curtis, 406 N. Old Ranch Rd. spoke against the lot split. She submitted an article from the March issue of the L.A. Magazine in regard to this type of a situation. , Joe Marsalek, 240Vacquero, was against the tentative parcel ,map. He coml)'lented thaI in some areas of the City properties were poorly designed. In .the southeast part of the City some properties .., are300'in depthHand were utilized as chicken ranches'and for ihe'keepingof'horsesbut in the Lower Rancho the lots were all designed in good taste. The streets curve nicely and the corner lots hav.e good setbacks from both streets and the lots are very lovely. He stated that even though the setbacks comply with Code the lot split should be denied. He thought that the ,new homes would probably be out of character with the neighborhood and felt that if this project was approved it would be a disseniiceto the property owners. Peter Jessen, 878 San Vicente, didn't think that the Commission should continue the hearing. He said thai there is no guarantee that at the Commission's April 11th meeting, all five members of the Commission would be present. Mr. Miller said that it would be best if all the Commissioners were present. The minutes will be relayed to the absent Commissioners but Ii would be besi if they hear the testimony live. Arcadia City Pianning Commission March 14, 1989 Page 2 . . , Chairman Pro Tem Clark remarked that anybody who anticipates being unable to attend the April 11th meeting is welcome to give testimony but hesi'rongly urged the audience to speak'at the next hearing when all members' will be present. ' James Graham, 320 Vacquero, said that even though he will attend the 4/11 meeting, he sJiII wants to voice his opposition. He felt that this would set a precedent and asked a clarification,on the Negative Declaration form. Staff explained that a Negative Declaration means that based upon an environmental review it has been determined thaI this would not have an adverse Impact on the environment. Mr. Graham read a definition from the.dictionary and disagreed that it would not have an impact on the neighborhOod. Chairman Pro Tem Clark noted that this application Is for the iot split only and not what will eventually be built. Mr.. Graham stated that based on the staff repon the two new lots will be the smallest in the area. Emil Steck, 831 San Simeon, said that the Commission should be concerned with what type of an affect this will have on the neighborhood. He said that the Commission should think of the aesthetics of the area and didn't think that the lot should be cut up as proposed. He remarked that Arcadia is known as a "fine. City of homes" and if this type of a development was permitted that wouldn't be true. Chairman Pro Tem Clark commented that the lots will be smaller than what is in the area but the two new lots comply with the Zoning Code and the General.Plan. Mr. Miller said that the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance grants the Commission its jurisdiction. The Commission may be personally concerned about the effects of the development and the aesthetics of the new buildings butthey don't always have the legal authority to deal with It directly. Mr. Steck felt that the Commission should discuss the matter tonight. He didn't think that a 15,000 sq. ft. lot would be in keeping with the neighborhood. He said that eventually two homes will.be built on the lots and remarked that the Commission .doesn't seem to be concemed 'about'the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Peter Jessen, 878 San Vicente asked how the Code can be changed? Mr. Miller explained the procedures on how to change the Code. Jane Clark, 324 N. Old Ranch Rd., said that It seems as if the Commission has decided to continue the hearing and to approve the lot split and asked what was the purpose of the hearing. Chairman Pro Tem Clark explained the purpose for the public hearing is to have input from the surrounding property owners. He said that the Commission has not decided on whether to continue the public hearing or not or whether to approve the lot split. Mr. Miller said that the Commission may deny the project based on the findings for denial iisted in the staff report. Arcadia City Planning Commission March 14, 1989 Page 3 . . Tom Phalvy, 844 San Simeon, asked if there Is a possibility thatthe Commission would continue the hearing again to a later date and asked how much time the applicant has to go through the procedure. Mr. Miller said that the Commission may again continue the hearing on 4/11 to a later date to give everybody the benefit of the full Commission. As a matter of practice, the Commission generally doesn't go for more than one continuance and the reason for this one is to allow the full participation oHhe Commission. Staff said the project must be acted on in 50 days after filling the application if no extensions have been granted. Patricia Alpaugh Kreyssler, 410 Vacquero, asked if the project required any modifications. She said thaI everybody in the neighborhood was under the assumption that the lots could not be split into smaller lots and asked when the change in the Code took place to allow that. Mr. Woolard said that the project doesn't need any modifications and didn't know of any changes and remarked that since he, has been with the City, no change has taken place In reducing the lot sizes. He cOmmented that in the 40s, some of the properties were zoned R-l and explained that the. R-O regulation! are more restrictive. Mr. Miller remarked that if there were any changes made through the legislative process, it would have been noticed to everybody In the area and public hearings would have been held. Staff can investigate that Ms. Alpaugh Kreyssler asked if staff can provide the information on when, if ever, any changes were madEl. .In answer to questions from Ms. Alpaugh Kreyssler, staff said that The Upper Rancho is zoned R~O 30,000, which means that the minimum lot square footage is 30,000 per lot. She explained that The Lower Rancho is zoned R-O 15,000, which means that the minimum square footage is 15,000 per lot. Staff remarked that Code requires a minimum of 100' frontage and 100' of depth. The proposed lots are 100'xI55'. Staff said that they will provide as much information as possible about the history of the property to the Commission's at the next hearing. Steven Lowe, 910 Monte Verde, said that he Is new to the Lower Rancho and commented that they used to reside on the east side of town and they noticed how developers would purchase 2-3 contiguous properties and then bulldoze them down and build very large homes. He asked the Commission to keep the area and Its beauty as it remains. Forest Heartline, 314 N. Old Ranch, was appalled at the idea that the developer asked to. remove the elm tree. He stated that the 34" elm tree is approximately 50'.60' high and any new tree that Mr. Romani may-,brlngln"could not-replace the elm tree. Unda Daggett, 536 Old Ranch asked staff to explain how they derived the lot square footages. Staff explained how the lot-was figured at 30,914 sq. ft. and said that the lots are 155'x200' (31,000 sq ft.), and commented that that number should be reduced by 85.71' which is the area within the radius. Richard Jamagin, 871 San Vicente. asked howthe project could be denied? Chairman Pro Tem Clark said that the Commission can deny the project based on the findings listed in the staff report. Per the request from the audience, he read the 1 0 findings for denial. Arcadia City Planning Commission March 14, 1989 Page 4 . . MOll~ It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Szany to close the public hearing. After the following discussion, Commissioner Hedlund withdrew his motion. Mr. Miller said that the Commission doesn't have te) close the public hearing in order to discuss the continuance of the hearing and can discuss the matter while the public hearing is still open. MOll~ It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to continue the public hearing to the Commission's April 11, 1989 meeting. ROLLCALL: AYES: ~: ABSENT: Commissioners Hedlund, Szany, Clark None Commissioners Amato, Papay AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None ... -.. -".""" -...... ..,- - - -,- _.-.......... .... _............... . - RESOLUTION 1403 A resolution granting Conditional Use Permit 89-001 to operate an eating establishment at 27 W. Las Tunas Drive. Mr. Woolard read the title of the resolution. MOllON It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund ~o adopt Resolution 1403 to formally affirm the decision of February 28, 1989, reflecting the findings of the Commission.and the votes thereon. -ROLLCALL:" AYES: I\OES:. ABSENT: CommissiOners Hedlund, Szany,Clark None Commissioners Amato, Papay There is a five working day appeal period. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None Arcadia City Planning Commission March- 14, 1989 Page 5 . . 1 MAlTERS FROM COMMISSION None MAlTERS FROM STAFF None . . - ... :. ... ... ... ... -,. - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... - ... - ... ADJOURNMENT 8:30 p.m. (. ,;OJ . 11 ;'.Ol..t;tkJ:~fJ'U /'/Yf;'f7"/Y/ A/. Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission March 14, 1989 Page 6