Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 13, 1995 . . M I N UTE S Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday,J~ne13, 1995 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Community Development Division. The Planning Commission of the City o! Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, June 13, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, with Chairman Bob Daggett presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: MOTION Commissioners Bell. Clark,Huang, Kovacic, Murphy, Daggett Commissioner Kalemkiarian II was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Clark to excuse .Commissioner Kalemkiarian from tonighfs meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Staff and the City Attorney distributed seVeral documents pertaining to.the public hearings on the agenda. TIME RESERYED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON.PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (FIVE MINUTES TIME LIMiT PER PERSON) None OTHERS ATTENDING:. Council Member Sheng Chang City AttomeyMichael Miller Community Development Administrator, Donna. Butler Assistant Planner, William Stokes Assistant Planner, John Halminski Secretary, Silva Vergel 1 . MINUTES OF 5/23/95 Commissioner Kovacic wanted to add the word 'common' to the last paragraph on page 2 which would read: ...., the three most common complaints received by..... He felllhe word 'influenced' used on page 3 of the Minutes, in the paragraph preceding the first Motion on page . should. be changed to 'affect'. Even though he might have used the word "influence" in his, comments,'affect" would be more appropriate. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve the Minutes of.May 23, 1995 as amended. . . ROLL CALL A YES: Commissioners Bell, Clark, Huang, Kovacic, Murphy, Daggett NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian 2. PREVIEW ORIENTATION OF THE SANTA ANITA ENTERTAINMENT CENTER (SAEC) PROJECT A brief overview of the SAECproject by City Manager and the Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director. (NO ACTION REQUIRED). The City Manager stated the purpose of tonight's discussion is to explain to the Commission what has taken place requesting the SAEC project. The Commission is'probably already aware that horse racing as an industry has suffered. Their revenues are down and as a resultof the decrease, so has the City's revenues. This property is the largest property in the Gity, The horse racing industry is slowly declining and as property owners it is their responsibility to look at options.forthe property. This property is large and underutilized and they need to maximize on their property and with that in mind they approached the City last year with a marketing scheme to reenergize the properly and create a project that would be compatible with the City and at the same time would not hurt.the mall or other businesses in the City. They are proposing. a 1.5 million sq. ft. commercial entertainment complex which has a whole list of proposed uses that are not defined yet. He said the closest example would be a com\lination of City Walk, which is a thsater/retail complex, .a" portion of the concept of Lake and Colorado Streets in Pasadena and a portion of Seventh St. in Santa Monica. This project will be a little bit of all of those and other things. There has been some discussionofa 26 screen AMC thsater but the issue has not been worked out yet. The 1.5 million sq. ft. complex is equivalent to the mall, keeping in mind thatthe mall is multi-level and this project will be more spread out and take up more ground coverage. This project will be from the mall over to Huntington, Holly Ave. and back to the race track and towards theJower Y of Colorado. Considering the enormous amount of stafftimettiis project will require, the City has retained four'separate consultants that are experienced in large developments. Their expertise is in land use, economics, .EIRs and outside special counsel to help the City"Attomey. The Council approved retaining ihem in December and Santa Anita will be paying for all their services. !\Uhe present time, staff, the consultants and Santa Anita are in the process of fine tuning the project They have taken a lot of time defining the project and working on the environmentalirTlpacts. Neither the Council nor staff have taken any position regarding the proposal becaus.e it is still unclear what the project really is. Several questions have to be answered such as how will this change the character of the City? Will it be bringing different businesses to the City? How will this affect public safety and/or how much it will cost? Studies are being done to answer all the questions. To provide the Council, the Commission and the public with any.specific project infOrmation would be very premature and might cause unnecessary confusion because the project has not been clearly defined. Since there has been so much publicity regarding this, there seems to be an opinion that the project has been proposed to the City and it is not being presented and that is.not true. The articles that have come out have been Santa Anita's attempt to.keep the public aware but unfortunately there has been incorrect information published such as' the one that 'Arcadia will be giving Santa Anita tax breaks." On several occasions they were told that there would be absolutely 'no casinos' and yenhe' next question would be 'will there be a casino?' To counter the rumors, on the same day that Santa Anita's application was accepted, a press release was issued by the City giving a brief description of the project. Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 2 . . He hoped to have enough information to distribute at the.scoping meeting which is scheduled for June 29th at 7:00 p.m..at the Community Center. The review of this project will take a very long lime .andinclude a lengthY public hearing process. Their request will require three different applications: 1 . A General Plan Change - changing it from horse racing and residential to commercial entertainment 2. A Zone Change from S-1 andR-1 to planned commercial development 3. A SpeCific Plan which will deal with issues such as landscaping, circulation pattems, landscape theme, signage, architecture, color, uses and density. All three applications and all issues raised will be addressed in the EIR. This is a unique concept. It is presently being worked ()11 and studied and there isn't enough information to. distribute to City Council orthe Planning Commission. He explained that although it may seem to some that. staff is hiding information, due to the rumors, that is absolutely not true. As stated before, staff has noUaken any pOSition on this issue. Commissioner Clark commented thaHhis project will have a signITicant impact on other businesses in the City. The other businesses Will probably want to wait and see what SAEC does prior to going forward with any plans. Comm.issioner Kovacic remarked that he did not find it unusual at all that the public is.concemed with this project and without a community newspaper to inform the citizens, rumors will flow. He asked if citizens have questions, who. should they call? Hearso asked if staff would have adequate information for the'scoping meeting, considering it is only two weeks away? Mr. Kelly informed the Commission, that Rick Gomez, Deputy City ManagerlDevelopment Setvices Director \!;the City spokesman. Anyone with.any questions can call him at (818) 574-5414 and hewill gladly speak to them. His office has been creating a mailing list from persons who want to .be notified of any developments. He felt confident that information would be available for the.scoping meeting. The public can review the documents .and comment on them. They can also discuss issues.that should be addressedsuc~as traffic, quality and noise. Commissioner Kovacic WOndered if the CqrTlmission and Council would be reviewing each application individually or would they review them simultaneously? He feared that if they reviewed them separately, they might approve something prematurely. In response to Commissioner Kovacic's questions, Mr. Kelly.said that they planned toh.ave it presented as one package $0 it would be easier to analyze it by Council, Commission and the public. The City's goal.is to have one package because)f there is a problem with the Specific Plan, for example, to change the General Plan or Zoning would be a moot point because they couldn't implement what their goal is and it also .reduces the number of public meetings that citizens have to follow. It would be much easier for the citizens to have one project to review rather than three different applications. They will not understand that the general plan is one issue and then zoning and then the ~peciflc plan. They look at It as one project sathe goal is to keep it together at both the Planning Commission and Council level. He went on to say that Santa. Anita has retained two wellqualilied architects for this project. The design of the project will tie in with the mall, which has a contemporary design, as well as the race track which has more of a historical design. With regard to timing on the project. Mr. Kelly said they would like to begin the public hearing process before the Commission in early December and Council review sometime in January. Commissioner Kovacic'asked if they could be providecj with updates to keep them informed of the progress and Mr. Kelly replied that staff can forward information as they are published. In response to questions by Commissioner Huang, Mr. Kelly said the design of this building will be a combination of the mall and the race track design. They want to create a project that will benefitthe mall, the track as well as the Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 3 . . community. They would like the entertainment complex to be compatible and not competitive and would like to have it tie in to other development in the City. Commissioner Huang asked it at the seoping meeting altematives would be presented similar to the Downtown 2000 workshop? How does staff plan to involve the community? Mr. Kelly explained that community involvement doesn't always happen in .the beginning. Usually people get involved in the public hearing stages. Staff notified over 900 people for the General Plan workshop and the turn out was very low. The City will do all that it can to get community involvement and will attempt to solicit as much input from public and address as many issues'as possible. If there isn't enough input,. there might be a need for a second meeting. Ms. Butlerindieated that there was an article relating to thescoping meeting published in the 'Arcadia At A Glance' which was recently mailed to all City residents. Mr. Kelly continued by saying that staff will have a better picture once the EIR is completed. Only one project will be presented and there will not be alternatives. The project might change as inquires, and comments are made as the EIR is being prepared. Nothing is definite at this time, for example the loeationof the building might change. Mr. Miller .commented that thescoping meeting would be similar to a preliminary meeting. The purpose olit is 10 gel initial input from the public. There will be ample time to get input in the early public hearing stages. Commissioner Murphy asked if the 1.5 million sq. fl. is a definite size for the building? Mr. Kelly replied that staff would be analyzing the worst case scenario and based upon the available land, 1.5 million sq. ft. would be the largest building they can build. Several issues will have to be 'considered prior to approving the project. . Commissioner Murphy suggested staying away from a definite square footage. Mr. Kelly said they would clarify that better. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING MP95-001 AND ADR 95-001 303 Genoa:St. Judy Cheng Consideration.of a 25'-0' westerly street side yard setback for a proposed 2-unit residential project in lieu of the 35'-0" special setback required along Third Ave. . The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Andy Wong, 1261 S. Hacienda, Hacienda Heights, the architect of the project was present. He asked the Commissiontoapprbve their. request. Following the last Commission meeting, he has worked very closely with,staff to improve the project and felt they have accomplished that and have addressed the Commission's concems.ln his opinion, the project has improved. he indicated that they were in agreement with all of the conditions listed in the staff report. In response to Commissioner Bell's questions. Mr. Wong said the planters will have an automatic drip system with drainage. They will comply with requirements by the Engineering Division requiring them to plant trees in the parkway area. The overall height of the building is 25'-0". With regard to the sidewalk issue, Ms. Buller said Engineering Division ean revise their condition. for the sidewalk or any of their conditions as. they are needed. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 4 . . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Huang to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none disSenting. . Commissioner Kovacic felt the project before the Commission is far superior over what was presented before. It is a much better design and he was happy with it. He remarked that planters can become an eye sore,Jf they are not well maintained and he suggested adding a condition to address that issue. . Commissioner Clark agreed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Clark to approve MP 95-001 and ADR 95-001 subject to the conditions in the staffreport with the additional. condition that the planter boxes be irrigated and have appropriate drainage subject to the review and approval of the C.O.D. ROLLCALL: A YES: Commissioners Bell, Clark, Huang, Kovacic, Murphy, Daggett NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian Chairman Daggett noted there is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to.be filed by Tuesday, June 20, 3. PUBLIC HEARING MC 95-012 1508 S. Eighth Ave. . Leonard Peterson, property owner Harold Ellis, appellant Consideration of an appeal ofthe Modification Committee's denial ofa 19'-0' front yard setback along Eighth Ave. in lieu of the 35'-0' special.setback for a proposed porte cochere extending out from the front of the existing house. The staff report was presented. In response to Chairman Daggefs inquiry, staff explained theJetters that were included in the staff report. Ms. Butler said Mr. Ellis has received all the documents inclUding all attachments. The public hearing was opened. Harold Ellis, 1504 S. Eighth, the appellant spoke in favor of the appeal. He explained that the reason all the letters were written back and forth was because staff failed to provide him with what he was requesting in a timely fasnion, costing him lots of time and.money. He felt the information he was requesting was like 'pulling teeth' and all he was asking for was the definition for 'appropriate improvement". He directed Commi!;sion's attentions to the photos that he provided and describe.d each. He said having the posts at the 22' setback would place them in the middle of the driveway. He felt Mr. Peterson has tried to minimize impact but made an error in the dimensions thus the reason for being before the Commission tonight. He felt it would be unreasonable to put the posts in the driveway which would restrict cars getting through and would look funny. The definition of "appropriate improvement' would be the opposite of "inappropriate improvement' and his exhibit clearly shows that having the posts in the. driveway would be inappropriate. It just does not make any sense. In response to a question'by Chairman Daggett, he said the roof position would remain the same regardless of the location of the posts. Arcadia City Planning.Commission 6/13/95 Page 5 . . No one .else spoke in.favor or in opposition to this:item. MOTION. It was moved by Commissioner Clark, se.conded by Commissioner Murphy to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Clark said.that he drove north on Eighth Ave. and there were two homes that were closerthan this setback but of course they were buill a long time ago. Staff explained that originally when Mr. Peterson approached ihe City for.a modification, his plans were. not precise and showed a 22' setback. Upon a field inspection, staff discovered that it had. 19' setback, subsequently leading to the second modification. The Modification Committee denied the 19' setback because they felt it was an inappropriate improvement and that he should comply with the 22' setback. Commissioner Huang said he sat at the first Modification Committee meeting in December and he asked how difficult ~ would be to maneuver a car if the posts were at the 22' setback? Staff answered that the 22' setback would give them a clearance of 9'-10' between the driveway to the edge of the posts. In answer to Commissioner Murphy's question, ~ was noted thaI only. the location ofthe postS were changed and not the overall size of the porte co-chere. Commissioner Bell said she sat at the Modification Committee's May meeting and explained her reasons for denying the. request. She felt thala 13' encroachment would be major for the neighborhood, the porch was poorly designed and~would not be appropriate for this house. She said the beams we'ren~ to scale with the porch giving it a top heavy appearance. She thought this was poorly planned and would not be a valuable improvement. Commissioner Clark agreed with Commissioner Bell regarding the top heavy appearance but he did not think the Commission was being asked to review the design but the setback. Commissioner Kovacic remarked that he was adamantly against an applicant building a structure.without approval and he felt they should be penalized. On the other hand it is logical to assume that they'didnot intend to place the supports to goin the driveway. Even though this is not a good design, it is only a 2' encroachment and he was more offended by them going ahead without the approval than the encroachment. Chairman Daggett agreed and said there is no design review in this area. They. are in violation of the setback: Ms. Butler indicated that the Commis~ion can review plans and designs when in conjunction w~h.a modification. The modification provides for some latitude when the request affects the.overall.appearance of the house. Commissioner Huang said that at the December hearing, they asked for the reduction of size of the porte co-chere and did consider whether a car could get through the posts, if they were to increase the front yard area. Staff said the bulk of the piilars were reduced to add more leeway to comply with the 22' setback but that would still not allow enough space. Commissioner Clark remarked that ~ would be difficult for a car.gerthrough with the 22' setback. Commissioner Murphy sajd since it is a circular,driveway it would be difficult to get through. Staff explained that.the posts were at 22' on the plans which would place them on the edge of the driveway. The first modification was granted. knowing that the location of the posts would.be althe edge of the driveway but when they were digging the. footings, the posts measured at 19'. This was an error in the plans resulting in the second modification. Chairman Daggettthoughlthis was.poorly planned. Ms. Butler explained that what was constructed is different than what was presented on the submitted plans. Part of the problem was that they continued with the construction even afterthe Modification Committee's denial in May. Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 6 . . The Committee originally approved the design in December but when it was constructedthere.was.an overall change in the roof line. The overhang that was approved is not what is shown in the photos or was.on the plans. Mr. Miller concurred with Comm.issioner Clark's comments regarding the issue they are considering. Commissioner KoVacic remarked that it is difficult to get a fair hearing ilthe submitted plans werewrong but he felt denying this. would be a hardship. . Commissioner Huang explained that when the Modilication Committee approved their request, the posts were to be located at the edge of the driveway and not in the middle of it. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bell, seconded by Commissioner Huang to deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's denial of the request. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Bell, Huang NOES: Commissioners Clai1<, Kovacic, Murphy, Daggett ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian The motion failed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve the appeal and find thatitvJouldprevent unreasonable hardship. ROLL .CALL: AYES: Commissioners Clark, Kovacic, Murphy, Daggett NOES: Commissioners Bell, Huang ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian Chairman Daggett noted ihere is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by June 20, 4. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 95-003 AND ADR 95-004 166 E Huntington Dr. (the southwest comer of Huntington Dr. and second Ave.) Fancher Development Seniices, Inc. on behalf of A~cadia Steakhouse Rest. Considel!ltion of,a c:onditional use. permit to construct a 6.500 + sq. ft. Outback Stellkhouse Restaurant with a total seating of 240 persons in the dining and cocktail lounge areas. Operating hours are proposed from 10:00 a.m. to midnight. The staff report was presented. Ms. Butler distributed a revised page 4 of the staff report. In answer to the Commission's questions, Ms. Butler said the park will remain as a landscaped area and noted that it is City property. As part of the Miiigated Negative Declaration prepared, it was recognized that the traffic would- increase cueto diversion oltraffic.from First Ave. on'to Second Ave. and Santa Anita as a result of the reduction of number of lanes 6n Firs Ave. In response to Commissioner Huang's question, Ms. Butler indicated that even if this project. was not to go through, the City is planning on vacating ii as part of the [)owntown2000 plan. Mr. Miller said.the City Council will approve and has jurisdiction over the vacation 01 streets. Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 7 . . Commissioner Huang remar1<ed.that it seems that anyone going to this site would benefit from said vacation. How can the City and its citizens benefit by the vacation? . Pete Kinnaha,n, Economic Development Administrator, said negotiating this property took several months and initially they did not include the vacation as part of the deal but Outback needed the additional space and this was. granted as part ollhe overall deal. This did increase. the purchase prove and the taxes. .Commissioner Murphy asked whether 4 handicap par1<ing spaces would be adequate and Ms. Butler said the provided spaces comply with the ADA requirements. TheBuilding Division will look at all the ADA requirements. Commissioner Kovacicasked.what role does the Commission play in vacating this area? Mr. Miller indicated that the vacation has only been provided to ihe Commission as information only. The City Council will make findings and based upon recommendations made by the Engineering Division and make a decision. The Commission can make recommendation to the them as an advisory body. Commissioner Kovacic asked. if the previous traffic study considered the traffic on the alley if a restaurant was to occupy the site? Ms. Butler explained that when Bart & Aschman did the traffic study for the 50.000 sq. ft. medical building that was to have a subterranean garage with direct access trom the alley, the study found thatthe.traffic would not have a significant impact on the alley. The purpose olthe alley is to serve asa secondary access to. the site. Staff does not discourage using the alley. Mr. Kinnahan f.urther clarified that part of the traffic study done in 1989, looked at this intersection as a major one in the downtown area and the possibility of eliminating right tum lane the through the island. The traffic study also considered a restaurant and a 20,000 sq. ft. retail ceriter which would have the most impact on the area. Ms. Butler said that staff has wor1<ed extensively with the developer to design a project that will have the least impact and accommodate the:traffic. Commissioner Clark not~ that the Downtown 2000 plan will reduce traffic currently using First Ave. to Second and Santa Anita. Will second Ave. be able to handle the additional traffic. Ms. Buller said that staff is aware that the traffic would overflow.to these two streets as a resutt of the redesign of First Ave. and did noUeel that itwould have an adverse affect. The public hearing was opened. William. Fancher, Fancher Development, 1342 Belli TlIstin, saidas p<irt.of the condition they have agreed to takeover the maintenance of the par1< wHich will be a benefit to the City. It will be attached and used as their site. Even though they can. get along withoutthe additional strip of land but the vacation would allow them extra parking. He explained thatthe:roofmaterial will not fade. Steve Fricker, 13526 Pennfield Point, San Diego, one of the partners of the T-Bird Co. Outback was founded in 1988 in Tampa, F;lorida by two entrepreneurs. Today there are approximately 250 restaurants in 32 states in operation and they are planning on opening 80 more this year. There is nothing Australian about it'oth,er than.the theme. The chain was founded when the America's CUP was taking place:and there was a real fascination with Australia. Their food is .extremely-high quality and they do notserva lunch, just dinner. Their food cost is extremely high, about 42% of their sales, which is extremely high for a restaurant. They have a very unique' ownership structure. Each.restaurant is partially owned by the person running it ,who signs an employment contract stating that he will stay in that restaurant for 5 years. By owning a piece of it they are being forced to stay there thus providing stability, consequently the staff is better trained.and'the,customers that come in get a much better dining experience. They are active in their community and become. involved with the local activities. He went on to say that their building will not be as large as Claim Jumper. The average restaurant generates $3.3 million in sales which is eXtremely high, considering they only serve dinner. The average per person check is .about $17,whereas the average in Claim Jumper is mid $20s. They provide bigger portions but naturally more expensive. Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 8 . . Outback offers high quality foods and are open seven days a week.from 4:00 p.m. until midnight, depending on the flow of business. Usually the doors are closing by 10:30 p;m. The purpose of their bar and the serving of liquor is to accommodate their customer. Commissioner Murphy remarked that he dined at an Outback Restaurant in Atlanta and he thought their food was delicious. Mr. Fricker said they do not want to have an overwhelming menu because they do not want to complicate themselves in the kitchen. About 60% of what is served is red meat dishes and they.also serve chicken, pasta and seafood dishes. Commissioner-Murphy said that in as much ?S they are overparked, he was concemed about .the 29 parking stalls in the rear and he thought there should be an island to break it up with some lanoscaping to break up the monotony of the number of cars parked'there. Mr. Fricker said, that by Outback standards, they are under parked. Their typical site criteria .is 125,spaces because of the volume. They want to be convenient for the residential neighborhoods. Their research has shown that most people do not want to. drive after coming home after a long day and would prefer to go somewhere near. Mr, Fancher remarked that they will be planting many trees, He stated they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. He remarked that the only access to this. site would be persons traveling eastbound on Huntington Dr. and the only access westbound traffic would be through the'alley. In,answer to a question by Commissioner Huang, Mr. Fancher replied that their main access for persons traveling westbound on Huntington would be from the alley,-otherwise, they would have to go down Huntington,.turn around. and come back. - Dr. Silas Chan, 153 Alta St., did not. want to have an exit.on the alley and asked that a wall be, constructed between the property and his house, He wanted the wall for the sense of security that it would provide. Although dense landscaping is nice, anyone can walk through it. Commissioner Kovacic asked Dr. Chan, if he was'aware that the Police Dept. recommended against a block wall because it would reduce visibility. Dr.Chan reiterated..thata wall would provide him wllh a sense of security and privacy, especially because he would be living directly behind the restaurant. He indicated that he has chain link fence at the present time. Mr. Fancher was willing to plant heavily dense shrubs which would be very attractive. Dr. Chan agreed that landscaping would be aesthetically very nice but it would not give him the security and privacy that he is looking for. No.one else spoke in favor orin opposition to this item, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Clark to. close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Clark thought this is a very nice project. Commissioner Kovacic could not see any way of getting around from. having access from the alley. He did not think lhatawall would help, Ms. Butler indicated that if the landscaping is done property, it will provide a nice barrier, She did notthink thata wall would address Dr. Chan's concem. Landscaping can enhance and provide appropriate screen' but there is no way of preventing anyone from,going through it. Code requires that the landscaping be a minimum of 3' high but staff will require more, dense landscaping but not enough to obstruct visibility. The material utilized will be consistent with the downtown area. Chaiirnan Daggett stated that he was not in favor of walls and felt they could be very, dangerous. - Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 9 . . Commissioner Murphy was against walls. especially since the Police Dept. did not recommend ij and thought it could create a bigger security issue for Dr. Chan. He thought this was a good project. Commissioner Huang felt sensitive to Dr. Chan's feeling of wanting a sense of security but agreed with staff regarding having landscaping on the alley_ 1\ it is dense enough, it could prevent foot traffic. He wanted to have a 'left tum only' sign for egress traffic at the southeast exilof the s.ite because the majority of the egress traffic flow will go to Second Ave. but there is a possibility to take a short cut through the alley instead of going to Huntington. Ms. Butler said the landscape plan was submitted to Planning yesterday and staff has been unable to doa complete analysis. In the plan that was passed around, it seems that they have incorporated some of the suggestions but doesn't really define the patio area. Commissioner Clark felt that condition 8 in the staff report addresses the landscape issue. Commissioner Murphy tllOught that vacation of the right of way would be consistent with the General Plan. MOTION Ilwas moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Bell to approve CUP 95'003.and ADR 95- 004 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the additional condition that the exiting from the southeast driveway located on the alley, be restricted to left turns only and fihd that the street vacation is consitent with the General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: C;:Ommissioners Bell, Clark, Huang, Kovacic, Murphy, Daggett None Commissioner Kaiemkiarian Chairman Daggett noted there is.a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolu,ion. The resolution will be adopted on June 27th. Appeals should be filed by JulyS. 6. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 95-004 311 E. Live Oak Ave. Ralph Sabatella for Carmine's. Italian Restaurant Consideration of a conditional use permij with related parking and landscaping modifications to add a 1,300 sq. ft. patio dining area at an existing restaurant. APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT 7. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 95-005 141 E. Duarte Rd. Dennis G..Schraderfor American Resource Education Center Consideration of a conditional use permit with parking modifications for on-site tutorial ahd language instruction for a maximum of 75 sludents. APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Review of the C.I.P. for consistency with the General Plan per Section 65403(c) of the Government Code. Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 10 . . The staff"report was presented. In response. to questions by the Commission, Ms. Butler said the General Plan discusses the beautification of City facilities, including buildings and parks. The proposed improvements to the City Hall are consistent with goals of the General Plan. She explained that the CIP is for five years. Elich department analyzes its needs and justifies them and reports it to the City Manager. The City Manager then reviews all the requests and prioritizes them. The cost of each project is determined as well as when it needs to be done now or for another. fiscal year. The City Council reviews and approves the requests and the projects are done on an as needed basis. The CIP will be going to the City Council at its June. 20th meeting. The Planning Commission has to review it to determine if the projects are consistent with the General Plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Murphy. to find that the proposed C.I.P. improvements is in conformance with the Gelieral:Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bell, Clark; Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic, Murphy, Daggett None Commissioner Kalemkiaiian MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS / ANNOUNCEMENTS I STATEMENTS Chairman Daggett welcomed Council Member Chang as the new Planning Commission liaison. Council Member-Chang thanked the Commission and said he enjoyed his first night as the liaison. He said the Council is looking fora replacement for Bob Margett and said they have had 10 applicants. He said the ground breaking for the library is scheduled for Monday, June 19th at noon and he said the Commissioners are welcome to attend. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS Commissioner Kovacic asked if itwould be. inappropriate for the Commission t6 attend the seoping meeting and what their role? He said as Commissioners they play dual roles.as citizen and a Commissioner and asked if there was a policy addressing this issue? Mr. Miller said he. would be forwarding a memo addressing his concerns. They are not obliged to attend but if they chose to attend, it should be as observers only and not an active participant. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Clark recapped the Modification Committee's actions. MATTERS FROM STAFF 1 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Ms. Butler gave a brief summary ofthe.actionstaken at the City Council's last meeting and the items that were before them for.consideration. Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 11 . . 2. UPCOMING AGENDA rrEMS Ms. Butler announced the applications that have been filed and will be before the Commission as public hearings. She said staft is tentatively scheduling a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council for July 19th at 5:30 p.m. to discuss genera] plan altematives. She explained that scoping meetings are. for the purpose of receiving input on the EIR only and not on the pros and cons of the project It is simply to discuss issues that the public feels should be addressed in the.EIA. ADJOURNMENT Arcadia City Planning Commission 6/13/95 Page 12