Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 12, 1994 r) , :, ,j . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, July12, 1994 7:15 P.M. in the Council Chambers Planning Co.mmission Proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Diliision. The Planning Commission of Ihe City of Arcadiamelin regular session on Tuesday,.July 12, 1994 at 7:15 p.m..lnthe Council Chambers ofthll Arcadia City Hall; 240 West Huntington Drive, with Chairman Pro Tem Harold Hedlund presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: MOTION Commissioners Daggett, Huang, Kovacic, Hedlund ChainnanCIaJk II was moved by Commissionsr Daggett, seconded by Commissioner. Kovacic to excuse Chairman .Clark from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote wtthnone dissenting. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION . None SUF'PLEMENTAL INFORMATION None QUESTIONS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION None MOTION REGARDING RESOLUTIONS It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Daggett to read all. resolutions bytiUe only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. . OTHERS ATTENDING: Mayor Mary Young Ctty Attomey Michael Miller Communtty Development Administrator, Donna Buller Planning Services Manager, Corkran Nicholson Associate Planner,James Kasama Assistant P.lanner, William Stokes Secretary, Silva Vergel .\ . MINUTES OF 6/14/94 . 1. Commissioner Daggett noted he voted against,item #5, on page 10 of the Minutes. Motion It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic. seconded by Commissioner Daggett to approve the Minutes as amended.. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. 2.. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION Chairman Pro Tem.Hedlund'asked ilthere were any nominations for Chairman. MOTION It was moved by Chairman Pro Tem Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Kovacic to nominate Commissioner Daggett as Chairman. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Daggett, Huang, Kovacic, Hedlund None Commissioner Clark Chairman Daggett took his seat. Chairman Dliggett asked it theJ:8 were any noniinations for Cha.irman Pro Tem. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Huang, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to nominate Commissioner Kovacic as Chai.rman Pro Tem. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CommiSSioners Daggett, Huang, Kovacic, Hedlund None Commissioner Clark PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PUBLIC. HEARING MP 94-003 AND ADR 94-004 468 W. Huntington Dr. Mardian & Assoc. Consideration of lnodifications for a proposed 8-uM residential condominium project. The staff report was prssented. Comm.issioner Kovacic was colJfused and explained that he was under the impression thatlhe City did not want subterranean projects and liked detached units vs. attached. Ms"Butler responded that although it is. not a policy,the Planning Division encourages on grade parking: This is not in the Code. This matter was diScussed a couple of years ago but it was determined notto.eliniinate subterranean because some properties can noiaccommodate on grade parking. She further explained that it is preferable to have on grade parking but a subterranean garage is not discouraged. In the R-2 zone there are more detached on grade Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/12/9.4 Page 2 type oldevelClpments. Becau.,the lesser density it is easier to constru&se type 01 units. The request is not \ an unusual request for the R-3 zone. Staff explained that depending on the lot size, developers are encourage!lto provide on grade parking butn the lot is s1]1all, that may I]Otbe.possible. lithe detached concspt was applied to th.is lot, the project would probably require modnications lor distance between buildings and the devsloper would only be able to build hall the numberof units as proposed. . In response to questions Irom the Commission, Ms. Butler explained that through the modification procedure, the numberolunits can be roundsd up. In this case the existing lot square footage yields.a density factor of 7.85 units, which the applicant is requesting to round up to 8 units. Staff did not believe that a modification was granted for ths east. property regarding the dsnsity. Ms. Butler explained that years ago ( approximately'1978). developers were allowed a density bonus.for total subterranean project. Staff said that both properties on either.side 01 the project required front yard setback modifications. In the past1S- 20 years, there have. been modifications granted for front yard setbacks. Both of. the adjacent properties havs subterranean parking and the photos show the types of units that have been built on the block with subterranean parking; Stall believed that the proposal mests the intent of ths design criteria set lor the architectural design review (ADR) regulations.. He indicated that the project is both harmonious and compatible with the othsr developments and is neither garish nor out 01 character, He believed that lhedevelopmsht will securs an appropriateimproliemenl. . The public hearing was opened. In FavDr. Vic Mardian, Mardian & Assoc., 416N. Glend,ale Blvd., Glendale, the architect 01 the projsct said lhat they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the stall report. In anSWer to questions from the Commission, he said it would not be economically feasible to build7 units, in order to have a fair prolif. In this economy, they will need to construct 8 units. With regard to why he lelt the project is harmonious, he pointed out'the Mediterranean/Spanish design, gabls roof, the building height are all design teatures similar and compatible with the surrounding properties. The driveway has.a 20% slope. Stall explained that.the site plan shows the driveway' transition. He explained thaI the slope is 4% for the first 10', 10% forthe.second 10' and a 20"10 slope transition with no length limit. The:20% slope is in full compliance with code. Staff responded .to a question, by saying that. trash trucks pull the trash bins, which is located in the rear of ths building, into the street for the unloading of the trash. In anSWer to a question by the Commission, Mr. Mardian feit that parking would not be a problem, In OlJDDsltlDn Dave PhippS, 800 La Cadena, explained the location of his unit as ~rEilatesto the proposed project. He occupies the end unit, facing Huntington Drive.on the condominium project located on La Cadena. He purchased this unit . because of its view, open feeling and light. No one will be more impacted by this. development than his lamily. Hs explained that when the units are constructed, they will lose the light because this project will extend toward Huntington Dr., thereby obstructing the light. He saidanolher major impact on them would be the loss of privacy from both their bedroom and livi!'lg room. Their windows will open directly into the windows of this building. Thisbuilding would be a visual intrusion .for them. With regard to noise, he remarked that the noise created from this project will be substantially more than the existing house. There is only one. house on this property now; but after this project is completed, there will be 8units, each with 3 bedrooms. They have called the.police several"times for excessive noise and he hated to see what kind of Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/12/94 Page 3 noise would be created by ths .ftlOn of 8 unfts. He indicated that they woL calling the pOliCe all the lime due , to excessive noise. He did notfeel that the setback request should be approved and thought the balconies should not encroach into the setback and must comply. He went on to say that another reason the project should not be approved is becauss of the raquestto increase the number of uilfts. He felt that thsy are squeezing another unit in for their profit. The proposedunfts range from 1700 1900 sq.. fl., each consisting of 3 bedr.ooms. In his opinion, the square footage for each unit is very tight. Although the rendering is beautiful, hs does not want to live next door to ft. He thought that the 20% grade is stsep. Commissioner Kovacic pointed out that Mr. Phipps' units needed the saine lront yard setback modification. If he can snjoy this bensfit, why shouldnlthe applicant? Mr. Phipps answered by saying that his units are currently existing but ths proposal has not been constructed ye\. He did not want a 6' high wall to beiocated in thE! front yard in front of the balcony/porch. Hs did. not want any part of the structure including the balcony to encroach Inlo ths setback. Vince Hames, 804 La Cadena, resides atlhe building to the west of the proposal. He Indicated that his unit is located in the middle of thE!lr building afld anhough he will not be as affected as Mr. Phipps, he would be greatly impacted. He wanted to save the trees and the existing hedgeS/shrubs and fen they offer privacy and a buffer between the properties, as well as reduce noise from the race track, Huntington Or. and eventually from the new building proposed. Without the existing landscaping, the noise would bounce off the wall and would be ampmied. The landscaping is a barrier to the s~e. I'le inquired about the drainage and said that at the present time, this'property is 2'-3' below theirs. He sympathized with Mr. Phipps and concurred with his comments. He said that their building also has a setback modification and realized that they cannot deny this applicant, but it was difficun for him to accept the increased density which will mean more revenues for the City. In response to comments by Mr. Hames, staff said condition 5 in the staff rsport addresses the concems of the trees. This condftion requires that a tree preservation plan identifying each tree with a diameter in excess of six inchss and type 01 all trees shall be presented to the Planning Division tor its review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. He also noted.that oak trees are protected by the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Hamss responded.to the above. and asked if the Commission wants to save the trees? Mr. Miller replied that Arcadia is one oHew cities in .the state that encourages the saving, preserving and restoring of trees. There Is legislation in the City Codes regarding trees and their preserVation. Mr. Hamesremar1<ed that this deve'loper cutdown large trees on another project on Falrview Avenue. He fell the presence of these large and mature trees would help in the sale of the units. Sheryl Phipps, 800 La Cadena,.remarked that she has seenthecrendering. She asked,the Commission 10 drive by and see the'existing landscaping. Huntington Dr. is a main thoroughfare through the City and the trees and landscaping serve as a barrier.. The hedges along the wall can be easily maintained and should remain. She added that quality of airin Arcadia is befferdue to the number of trees and that provide cleaner air. She remarked that a few palm trees.. as depicted in the rendering will not be enough. She.indicated that there are no units in this area with balconies on Huntington Or. encroaching into the lront yard setback. She did not want a6' high wall to be located in the front to enclose the porch/balcony. She thought the increaseddsnsity would affect the quality of life and would be squeezing units on this. lot, when by Code, it cannot aCcommodate i\.She did not think more than 6 units should be constructed on this lot. Reducing the number of urirts would help the Parking and not affect the qualify of life as much as 8 units. In answer to a question from Commissioner Kovacic, staff explained the location of the wall in the front yard. No part of the property line wall will extend beyond the building. Ms. Butler indicated that a 4' high patio wall will be constructed at the building sstback line and the 6' high wall will begin at the building setback. Arcadia Cily Planning Commission 7/12/94 Page 4 \ Staff explained thaI the balcon!r\d open space requirements are amenitilesul\ing trom ADR. The subterranean parking is separate from the patio areas. Leo Goates, 458 W. Huntington Dr.,.boardmember from the condominium located to the east of the project, wanted to save ~ many trees as.possible and explained that this would provide shade. The trees slated to be removed are largs and established. He asked about the setback of the building from the side property line. He irJdicated that their building is 14' from the side property line but the proposal only has a 10' setback. Mr. Goates expressed concem over the water 110'011 and proper drainage. He also indicated that they recently washed down their building and the trees, which was very costly, and was concerned thaI the construction would creale dusl, thus dirtying their building. Stall explained thallhe side setback will be a minimum of1 0' and n the applicant wants to provide more ,that would be acceptable. The proposed setback complies withccide. Staff explained thallhe trash bin area to the rear is not exposed. In response to a question, Ms. Buller said that the side property line for the balconies for the two middle units is T which complies wnh code. . In rebuttal, Raoul Sedky,P.l). Box 29t576, Los Angeles, explained his experience in construction. He said that presently there is asingle,family dwelling on this.property and he would like to develop n with the proposed project. The project complies with the side and rear yard setbacks and the requested front yard setback is the same as both the adjacent properties. The averags unit is 1800 sq. ft. with 3 bedrooms each. They will install mschanism in the subterranean parking to. clear the smoke and get rid of the fumes. generated by cars. He. recently constructed a condominium project in Pasadena wnh similar design and in a ,span of 5 months they sold 14 units ar\d he attributed that due to the quality and design 01 the project and he hoped 10 do Ihe same with Ihis project. In order to have a successful development, he would have to build a quality project and he could not take.lhsriskand skimp on the quality. He explained that the proposed landscaping will exceed code requirement. They are proposing 37% landscaping which will consist of hedgss, shrubbery, flowers and trees. He will provide 15-24 gailoMrees and indicated they would try to save the large tree in the corner. Naturally it would be to his benem to save as many trees as possible. Hefett the building would be a much better bUffer than the trees in reducing noise. He said hscould not reduce the projectlo 7 units because n would not be financially feasible. He also said Ihe even number 01 unils provide for a symmelry. Staff explained the Iree preservation plan and how it is reviewed. Staff tries to retain as many trees. as possible. He indicated that 24. box trees are not small and fett they are appropriate. In most cases, the final project provides more landscaping and.trees after it has been completed versus prior to development. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Huang to closs the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with.none dissenting. Commissioner Huang thought the requested modilications were reasOnable and explained that the front yard setback is thssame as.the.two.adjacenl properties and thslncrease inthedensity is minimal. He said the projsct is in harmony with the surrounding developments. He asked that the.developer resubmit a landscape plan to address the concern of the view and privacy and make a modilication to the extent feasible within the context of the existing site plan. eommissioner Hedlund did not think that the increase in the density, which is.a 300 sq. ft., is squeezing another unit. Hs commented that atthough he is not in f,lVor of granting variances, the request is so minor in nature and n is compatible with the neighbOrhood, The additional condition is not necessary and fett conditions set in the staff report address ilII concems. He remarked .that the Commission is not concemed with profits or taxes. The tree preservation plan and the.landScape.plan will be per Code and staff will review it, therefore, thsre is no need for additional conditions. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Huang to approve MP 94-003 subject to the conditions in the staff'report with the additional condition that the developer resubmit alandseape plan for staff's review and approvalto mitigateconcems of view and privacy to the extent feasible in the context of existing site plan. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/12/94 Page 5 The motion died due to.a lack. second. . ., COmmissioner Kovacic asked n the Commission can approve the ADR wnhout seeing a materials and color board? Ms. Butler said the description of the materials isadequats. Commissioner Kovacic noted that the two adjacent properties had the same setback and he could not justify denying this request. He agreed wnh Commissioner Hedlund and did not object to increasing the densny; In response to questions from Commissioner Kovacic, Ms. Butler explained that staff required that each unn .have enclosed private patio. It is not unusual to enclose it with a wall and this would be consistent with Code and the 4' wall to enclose the patio on Huntington D.rive is acceptable. . Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Huang'S motion and Commissioner Hedlund did not agree wnh the additional condnion in his motion. COmmissioner KovaCic said that hs saw the additional comment as being nothing .more than heightened scrutiny on the landscaping so the Commission makes sure that the concerns otthe neighbors are taken Into consideration. Commissioner Huang said hs thought ,that n the ADR was approved, it would also approve the proposed landscape plan and that was not his'intention. He feit that the additional condition, will give staff more time to review the landscape plan to see n any improvement In the landscape plan can mitigate concerns wnh privacy. Commissioner Hedlund went on to say thatstaff is not obliged or in chargs of preserving anyone's privacy and it.is not an issue addressed in Code. Commissioner Kovacic.asked n Commissioner Huang's concern was that n the Commission approved the landscaping plan, it may be incompalible with the subsequent tree preservation plan because the approval would superseds the preservation oftrees? Commissioner Huang replied thaUhe neighbors complained about the loss of privacy but the location, of the tree or shrubs may be able to resolve the situation. The-Commission does not have the site plan for the adjacent properties but staff can take that into consideration when reviewing the tree preservation plan. Commissioner Kovacic asked 'n he is proposing to give staff the additional. authority to fine tune the landscaping plan and the tree preservation plan to have a integrated plan and Commissioner Huang concurred. MOTION It was moved by COmmissioner Huang, seconded by Commissioner Kovacic to approve MP 94-003, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the additional condition thaUhe developer resubmit a landscape plan for staff's review and approval to mnigate concerns of view and privacy io the extsntfeasible in the context of existing site plan. Commissioner Hedlund asked if-this would create an obligation on the staff? Mr. Miller repliedlhat COmmissioner Huang's words'o the extentteasible" and legal, staff will enforce the tree preservation. He thought this would mitigate Commissioner Hedlund'S concems. Ms. Buller remarked that staff sncourages tree preservation although there are no guarantees. Commissioner Kovacic stated that one .can never satisfy all of ths nslghbors and thought the project would be nice. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissionsrs Hedlund, Huang, Kovacic, Daggett None COmmissioner Clark Chairman Daggett noted there is a five working day appeal. Appeals should be filed by Tuesday, July 19. Arcadia City Planning COmmission 7/12/94 Page. 6 <, . . PUBLIC HE~RING MP 94.005 205 E. Laurel Ave. Bemard Altenbach, designer for Thomas Taquino Consideration of modnications to legalize a garage converted into a recreation room, and to add a new.'two~r garage. The staff report was presented and the public hearing,was opened. ., 4. Bemard Altenbach, the dssigner of the project, explained that ihs property owner has been faced with a Challenge and noted that they nesd to Jocate the garage to the rear of the property for loading and unloading of their disabled daughter. They wanted a design to Isave as ITUJch room as possible for the handicap unloading. The ear wUl come:off of the alley.to tum into the new garage. This is both functional and an appropriate use for thsm. They propose to add to the existing garage and noted thaUheexisting garage was converted prior to their purchase. They would like to retain the converted garage so ihat it can used as a recreation room. He felt 'alter'the addition they would have. adequate opsn space in.the rear yard. No One else spoke in favor or in opposition to this Item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Huang, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote .with none dissenting. Commissioner Kovacic did not like 71 % rear yard coverage. The request, howsver, sounds like a necessity and an exception but he was not sure whether It would be adequate reason for granting the request. Chairman Daggett was sympathetic with the applicant. In response to c()mmenis by Cha!rman Daggett, staff said the lot coveragewould be the same n the proposed garage wasl1ioved and It would transfer the grass and the csmsnt areas. The cOnverted garage would n()tbea habitable space or a guest houseani:l would be utilized as recreationafspace. The.conversion was done without permits and the bath and wet bar were installed prior to the purchase by Mr. Taquino. Ms. Sutler indi.cated that a covenant would be required,n'the request was approved, securing that the garage/recreation room and new garage addition shai) not be used as a separate dwelling unit, rented or used as a guest house,and accessory living quarters,shall not be equipped with any kitchen or cooking facilities and shall'be maintainediO<the configuration shown in the plans .submitted under this modnication. In answer to questions 'by the Commission, Ms. Butler said that t!lis process would legalize the conversion without having to return It to a garage and the addition of the new garage would provide the required parKing. She stated that n the lot was larger, therewould not be a problem. Discussion ensued regarding the driveway on Laurel and its possible extension. Staff said the applicant'S reason for the location of the driveway is for the loading and unloading of the handicapped daughter and they will construct ral1lpsalong the sides in conjunction with the addition. The proposed garage is slightly oversized to accomrnodatethe handicapped .daugh1er. If the proposed garage. is not approved; the existing garage would have to be converted back.to a garage. The applicant would lose what should have not been there in the first place. He commented that'the carport was constructed without permits and !he applicant has indicated that he would be removing It. If the carport was not removed, he wo.uld exceed the maximum 45% lot coverage. Chairman Daggett was not comfortable with the lot coverage. Hs wondered n there was another solution' and n the existing garage can be retumed back to Its original use. He suggested !hat the garage be converted back to a two car garags,and that a hole be cutin the masonry wall so there is access to'lt from the alley and then the applicant can add to the east of that in whatever configuration allowed by code to make up for the loss of those illegal functions. Is a bath in a worKshop illegal? Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/12/94 Page 7 Staff said that the conversion ole illegal garags back to a garage is feasibataff discourages baths in accsssory . buildings becauss there is no need for a bath tub in an accessory structure. . Commissioner KClvacic said the applicant would still have to come back to the Commission for a lot coverage variance H they redesigned and he did not want them to have to coms back. He was unsure whether they should convert .the existing.garage.back to a garage and add on. He wanted to give them the flexibilily to keep a portioI') of the existing garage and be abls to on some parking space. He noted the consensus of the Commission is that thsgarage addilion is too large. Attematives were suggested to improve the existing situation and to. better. accommodats the needs of the applicant. Commissioner Hedlund recommended designating a certain percentage and have staff review for compliance. Commissioner Hedlund remarked that based on the Commission's comments, it seems that the Commission is not inclined to approve the request as proposed. He suggested opening the public hearing and asking the applicant H he would like to continue the hearing to allow him time'to address the Commission's concems or to inquire whether he would like it to be denied, giving him ths opportunity to appeaUhe decision to the City Cou.ncil. MOTION It,was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund to re-open the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Mr. Attenbach said thsintention of the applicant is togeta functional garage. If they had to retum the converted garage back to a garage, they would have to load and unload the daughter in the alley which would create a flow problem in the alley. The proposed garage would be to accommodats the applicant's handicap daughtsr and for ap easier loading and unloading, whereas, the existing. garage would not provide ths adsquate space that they would require. He did not think therewere any other ways of providing a functional garage. Based on some of tlie suggestions made by the Commission, the archttect fett he could try to redesign to address the .Commission's concerns. Commissioner Huang suggested converting the existing workshop to a one-car garage and he can add another garage with handicap capabilily next to the existing wor1<shop. Mr, Attenbach said thilt isa good suggestion. Mr: Taqulno said the setback of theexisiing garage is less than the one proposed. Tlle extr\l wide garage accommodates. a gentler turn into the garage. It would. not be practical to utilize the existing garage due to ils narrow width. Mr. Miller remarked that it is ths Commission's prerogative to continue the hearing. The applicant does not have to agree to a continuance. MOTION It was moved.by Commissioner Kovacic':, seconded. by Commissioner Huang to continus the public hearing .to Commission's August 9th meeting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hedlund, Huang, Kovacic, Daggett None Commissioner Clark 5. PUBLIC HEARING MC 94-032 115 E. Longden Ave. Apollo Investmen(.lnc. for David Lau Consideration olan appeal of the ModHlcatlon Committee's approval for a 64'-0. front yard setback Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/12/94 Page 8 . in lieu oHhe 87'-6. avAe frilntsetback of the adjacent propertieeUired for a proposed new dwelling. The appeal was filed by Commissioner Kovacic. The staff report was presented. Commissioner Kovacic explained the reason for the appeal. He indicated that due to the significant modnication, Planning Commission review would be justnied. He c1arnied his reason for denial and said hs nsver Intended for the applicant to provide ths required 87'-6. averags front yard setback of the adjacent properties, but fett the new house should retain the existing setback of 78';0'. Th.e public hsaring was opened. David Lau, 83 Sandra, remarked that approval would Sealre ,an appropriate improvement. He Indicated that the lot is 168' deep and the existing 78'-0' leaves over 50% of the lot unulilized. Over 54% of the lots, In the block have less than~' front yan:tsetback. The approval wouJdbe cOmpatible wtth the setbacks on the block. He submitted letters from the two adjacsnt neighbors, who were unable to attend, approving Mr. Lau's request. He acquired the property thres months ago and wishes to develop with the proposed new house. No one else spoke In favor or Inopposnion to this nem. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded I:lY Commissioner Kovacic to close the public'hearing. The motion passed by volcs vote'with none dissenting. Commissioner Kovac,icsald on one side of tlie.street 7 homes have a 60' front yan:t setback or less and on ths other side 6 homes have a 67' front yard s.etback or more. He wondered n the two adjoining approvals was because they alsowanted to encroach into the. front yard setback. He did not think ths applicant meets.lhe burden of proof and fett that he can stili build a house without this modification. He renerated thi:!t he did not wish to impose the 87' front yan:t setback required by Code but felt strongly that the existing setback should be retained. Commissioner Hedlund wondered ~ the two neighbors wers just happy to see the property cleaned up'. He could not justify approving the requestand agreed with Commissioner Kovacic; He fett setbacks are.sacred. MOTION It was mov.ed by ComrnisslonerHedlund, seconded by.Commissioner Huang.to deny the Modification Committee's approval of MC94-032 and uphold the appeal. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hedlund, Huang, Kovacic, 'Daggett None Commissioner Clark Chairman Daggett noted there is a live working day appeal period. Appeals should be filed by Tuesday, July 19. 6. PUBLIC HEARING TA 94.003 c:onsideratlon ofa text amendment to prohibit projects that would havs more than a single-story directly above any proposed below grade.or subterranean garage in the R-Q and R.l single.family residential zones. The staff report was presented. Staff explained that n this text amendment is approved, any addnion on top of a subterranean would be Iiinned to one-story. The proposed ordinance would require the building height to be measured frointhe garage floor to,the Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/12/94 Page 9 , roof top for that portion of the Lredirectly above the subterranean ga.. The height of the remainder of the house would be governed by the existing code -the average ot the highest and lowest point. He explained that code prohibits below grade or subterranean paJ1dng within the R-Q and R-1 zones becauss of the potentlalilT1lact on adjoining properties relating to. excavation, first floor building height, etc. However, Code also provides for an "exception., such as in hills Ids areas, where this type of parking may be allowed through the modification process, aswasthe ~se at 1863 Oakwood Avenue. Following this approval, Ralph Bidler, Chairman of the ARB, submitted petitions conveying ths association's disappointment with the City Council's approval. In answer to Commission's questiol)s, stall said the maximum height depends on the width of ths lot. Thebuilding height for lots with Isss than 75' in width, as measured at the front property line, is a maximum of 25' and for lots that are 75' or wider, it is a maximum of 30'. There would be two reference points; one would be taken from the. finished surface of the garage area and the other would be the average. Under current Codes, one can build two-stories directly above a subtsrranean garage and the facade would be three stories depending on the location of the siJbterranean garage. The public hearing was opened. Ralph Bicker, 101 White. Oak, Chairman of the ARB for Highland Oaks Association, Concurred with staff's recommendation. He Ind.icated that the additiol1 above the garage at 1863 Oakwood ressmbles a 3-storybuilding and since the property Is located on a comer, it compounds the mass, especially due to the grade, This house was the reason for their petition which was submitted to the City Council requesting this. text amendment. He talked with the majority of ths homeowners in the Highland Oaks AssOc., and with the exception of a few who feitthat home owners should be.able to do whatever they want, a great num.ber were in favor of this request. TIliS tsXl. amendment will niakeprovisions to avoid homes like the one approved at 1863 Oakwood. Most of the lots in his area are large and in mosllnslances the subterranean garages are above curb level. They are subterranean by definition only because they are below the pad; but they are above the slreelcurb and one has to drive up to the subterranean garage from Ihe curb. They do not want to see that three story facade and are In favor of the solution proposed by stall. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Huang to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Stall said Ihis teXl amendment would prohibit homes like the one proposed at 1240 Oakhavsn, which Ihs Commission considered at Its June 14th meeting. Commissioner Huang wondered nthis text amendment would limit design flexibility. He would not object to a second or a third story setbaCk which was tsrracedbaCk rather than the20'x20' directly over the garage. In certain situations, like.the hillsides,lhere could be a real need to maximize the building area In order to save building costs. He leitthere s~ould be a balance betweenaestheiiCs as well as economy aspect. He did notthlnk.they should try to achieve one withoul considering the other, He suggested having an envelope permitting a second-story above Ihe garage and did not want to kill design flexibility. . Ms. Butler said that homeowners would have the option 01 requesting a zone variance, which requlrss a public hearing, it they want to have more than a single-story over the garage. Commissioner Hedlund said the majority of the homes in the l:lighland Oaks are designed for luck-under garages but that does not mean pushing the house out with the garage. Staff did not think thal.creating an envelope would be practical.and may be difficuit for staff to implement. Commissioner Kovacic thought the variance process would be a good remedy. MOTION .. It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seConded by Commissioner Hedlund to recommend approval of T A 94-003 to the City Council. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7/12/94 Page 10 , \ ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: . . Commissioners Daggett, Hedlund. Huang. Kovacic. Clark None ~mmissioner Clark CONSENT ITEMS 7. RESOLUTION 1513 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Calnomia, granting C,U.P. 94-006. fo extend the hours of operation and add karaoke entertainment at the restaurant and cocktail lounge at 16 E. Huntihgton Dr. Ms. Butlenead the tnIe of the resolution. MOTION It was moiled by Commissioner Hedlund. seconded by Commissioner HiJang to adopt Resolution 1513, and to formally affirm the deCision of June 14, 1994 and ths votss thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hedlund, Huang, Kovacic. Daggett None Commissioner Clark Chairman Daggett noted thsre is a fivs working day appeal period. Appeals should be filed by Tuesday. July 19. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commi.ssioner Hedlund remarked that this will be his last meeting. He thanked the Commission and staff. He praised staff and said that Arcadians are privileged to have a beautiful City. He urged the Commission to continue to require mOre green spacs 'in 'condominiu'ms for kids to play. Commissioner KovaciC thanked Commissioner Hedlund for his service and support: He said that he has benefited from his expertise and thai he has been as asset. Commissioner Daggett agreed. Arcadia City Planning Commission . 7/12/94 Page 11 . . MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS COmmissionsr Kovacic recapped the'actions 01 the Modification Committee's'actions and explained the actions taken. MATTERS FROM STAFF 1 . CI1Y COUNCIL ACTIONS Ms. Butler gave a briel summary 01 the actions taken at the City COuncil's last meeting and the i1ems that were belore them lor consideration. 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler announced the applications that have been filed and will be belore the COmmission as public hearings. ADJOURN TO AUGUST 9, 1994 lanmng Commission. Arcadia Ciiy Planning Commission 7/12/94 Page 12 , i. ., . -- There was no Planning Commission meeting on . une 28, 1994.