Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 10, 1998 . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday ,March 10, 1998 7:15 p.rn. in .the Council Chambers Planning Commission proceedings are tape-recorded and on file in the office of the Community DevelopmentDivision, . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, March 10, 1998 at 7:15 p,m, in the Council Chanibers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W, Huntington Drive with Chainnan John Murphy presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang; Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy ABSENT: None OTHERS A'ITENDING: Mayor Robert Harbicht City.Attomey Michael Miller Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Assistant Planner William Stokes Secretary Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms,.Butler distributed two letters that were submitted regarding T A 98-001, TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) None 1. MINUfES of 1/27/98 & 2/10/98 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve the Minutes ofJanuary 27th, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: MOTION . . Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Murphy None Commissioners Kalemkiarian, Sleeter It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve the Minutes of February 1OIh, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy None Commissioner Bruckner 2. PUBLIC HEARINGTM 52497 907-913 Sunset Engles Shen Consideration of a tentative map for a 5-unitcondominium project, The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened, Engles Shen, 600 W. Main, Alhambra, the engineer of the project was present. He stated they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Bell to close the public hearing. The vote passed by voice vote with none dissenting, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve TM 52497 subject to the conditions in the staff report, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy None Chairman Murphy'noted that there is a ten-day appeal period, Appeals are to be filed by Friday, March 20lh, Arcadia city Planning Commission 2 3110198 . . 3, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING MP 97-009 401 E. Santa Clara Mr, Dennis Stout for Extended Stay America Considl:fation of a' modification for a 50' -O'~ high freNtanding sign in lieu of 25' -0" maximum height allowed, The staff report was presented, Ms, Butler indicated that the developer was aware of the sign codes when they began the project. Staff has not conducted a study regarding signs butwill do so at the direction of the Planning Commission. or the City Council. She anticipated that this study would take approximately two months, Staff already has some,information from cities to the east of Arcadia. The cities of Duarte and Monrovia have their commercial corridor on the freeway, whereas, Arcadia has only a small portion. The other hotels that are not on the freeway have expressed interest in having identification along the freeway. The City would like to give attention to all the hotels that are in,the City, Commissioner Huang thought that it would be a good idea to develop a policy, He did not want to hold up this applicant aild asked if staff would have a definite date that they could return with a policy and if ESA agreed they would continue this hearing to another date, Ms. Butler responded that it would take a long time to go through a text amendment, which would require public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the text is amended and ESA complied then a public hearing would not be necessary, A public hearing would only be scheduled if they needed a modification. At this point, staff does not feel that there is cause that it meets any of the. findings that are necessary to make for a modification to the code, Commissioner Bruckner said given the limited frontage, there,is a potential for several of these types of signs along the freeway. He thought there would be a greater opportunity to create a "hospitality district" that would tie iil the different businesses together for a bigger concept. A sign that would identify the different restaurants and hotels in the area instead of each business having their own sign. He thought creating a sign ordinance would be setting the City up for having a series of similar types of signs, But if there is. one sign and a series of directional and identity signs creating a district, he thought everyone would prosper, Ms. Butler replied that this concept was discussed with Monrovia at a recent meeting and a variety of names identifying the area were considered, They are presently exploring the idea, The public hearing was opened, Dennis Stout, 871 N. Maple, Orange, said that ESA would like freeway visibility, At staff's request, they have redesigned this sign eight times already. The proposal before the Planning Commission is per the direction of staff, The double sign supports is twice the cost of a regular sign and they are willing to go with that He felt that they have gone through a lot of expense for nothing, They have tried many different things to accommodate the City such as color and style of text. They are forced'toask for this modification due to the topography of the land and if the berm and trees were different they would not Arcadia city Plmming Commission 3 3/1019g . . be going through this process, If the land was more level they would place a monument sign and they would not be here today but due to circumstances beyond their control they are forced to ask for this modification, He went on to say that a multi-tenant sign is a good idea but noted that the City has been discussing it for the past two years aIid an agreement still has not been reached. He thought it would be difficult to agree on a cooperative freeway sign (CFS) and'wondered who would be paying for itor in charge of the design. Timing is a problem and although a CFS could be a good idea, ESA will be without identification until one is designed and agreed upon by all the users. Their circumstances are special and unique and he did not think that approval would set a precedent. He.felt strongly thatthey meet the requirements for'approval. He urged the Planning CommisSion to approve the sign, No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seConded by Commissioner Bell to close the public hearing, The motion .passed by'voice vote with none dissenting, Commissioner Kalemkiarian felt that this is an important issue that could change the character of the City, The code should address this type of a'project. This needs serious study, He wanted to move to deny this project, He liked the idea of having a "hospitality sign", Commissioner,Bruckner felt he could second the motion and went onto say that he did not think having a series of signs would be in keeping with the character of the City, He felt they needed a comprehensive view of signage in this area with possibly one sign that would identify the area, He wanted to encourage that direction rather than a sign code change. In response to ComniissionerBell'squestion, Ms, Butler explained the process for text amendment. Chairman Murphy feltthis is an important issue and they should do the right thing' even if ittakes a long time because any sign there would be therefor a long time, He felt they need to give staff time to come up'withdesign guidelines, Ms. Butler said that if they decide to continue the hearing, it must be continued to a dati: certain but she was unable to tell theni when they staff could.retumwithguidelines. She noted thatthe.applicantroight want a decision tonight that they can appeal to the City Council.if they wish, If the direction by the Planning Commission and City Council is to create guidelines and they comply, they would not need Planning Commission approval, They can participate in a joint sign venture that would not necessarily need Planning Commission review. Commissioner Huang said that it appears to him that everyone is in agreement with a unifonn signage and if they deny the project, then that should be their basis rather than the aesthetics of the design, He felt that if their decision is based on the policy or criteria rather than the sign, they would be punishing this applicant by having them submit another appeal fee, Ms, Butler said that if the Planning Commission is unable to make one of the following findings that this would be an appropriate improvement, prevent an unreasonable hardship or promote unifonnity of A%cadia city PlMning C=ission 4 3/10/98 . . development then the Planning Commission should deny this application and there is no reason to continueit. Mr. Miller said that if the Planning Commission decides to continue the hearing, they should ask the applicant if he is in agreement to a continuance because they could be taking away his right to.an appeal, The applicant nodded in favor of denial, which would give them the opportunity to appeal the decision to the City Council. MOTION It was. moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to deny MP 97-009 and find that the n'ecessary findings cannot be made to grant a modification to allow a 50' -0" high sign at this location and that this sign is not in character with the City and is inappropriate for this area, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy None Chairman Murphy noted that there is a five working day appeal period, AppeaJsare to be filed by Wednesday, March 181h, 4, PUBLlCHEARINGTA98-001 Consideration of a proposal to amend certain sections of the CBD zoning regulations primarily relating to uses, signage and outdoor displays and amending the commercial sign regulations relating to window signs and banners and adding sections relating to flags and portable signs, The staff report was presented. In r~ponseto a question by Chainnan Murphy, Ms, Butler said that the office building at the northwest comer of Huntington Dr. and First would never be required to have retail use, although, a retail use would not be discouraged, Theconcem~pressed in the letters from some of the property owners is that their properties were constructed for office uses, Throughout the years there were a. mixture of uses; With this amendment, they would not be abie to have any use that was other than retail in the front 1/3 of the building, Presently, they could not even have a photography studio because 75% of their receipts are not derived from retail sales, These property owners are asking for flexibility to be able to lease to something other than retail - such as consumer type uses, Some of the buildings on Huntington Dr. were clearly not built and intended for a retail use. The 1/3 is considered from the frontage from the street and going back. She went on to say that the intention.is to create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere where people will enjoy walking in the area, Adult entertainment uses are not permitted in this area. Commissioner Bruckner wondered if drive-in facilities would be permitted and. noted that these types of uses interrupt pedestrian walkways. Aroodia CiIy Pbuming Commission s 3/10198 . . Ms, Butler responded that some of the streets that are zoned CHO do not have the same character. Outdoor dining is pennitted as part of the CUP process and would not have to be stated separately on the application, She indicated thattravel agencies would be considered as an office use due to the 75% rule, thus, this use would not be pennitted within the front 1/3 of the building, With regard to the sign code, she stated that what is in the CHO zone are exceptions to the sign regulations, They are over and above what is allowed. Staff attempted to clean up the code and' eliminate the inconsistencies, However, temporary and portable signs have been addressed, - The public hearing was opened, Garland Roberson, 134.E, Huntington Dr" Sullivan Pailits, also President of the ABA, SpOke in favor of the proposed text. amendment. He remarked that there are some property owners who are not in favor of this text amendment. He read a letter from Mr, Ed Sullivan who resides in Washington and is the property owner fgr 142-144 E. Huntington Dr,. is the trustee for the properties 9-13 and 134 E, Huntington Dr. The letter in part stated his agreement with the proposed text amendment. Mr, Sullivan remarked that it would .be impossible to please everybody, A lot of money has been spent on the downtown and as a result there are only three pieces of property left for lease on First Ave. The fanner's market is coming in March and they are very hopeful with the results that it may produce. They are happy to see that Santa Anita will be moving forward with development and feel that the downtoWn area will benefitandget.some of the fallout business. He went.on'to say that something positive will eventually happen on Huntington Dr. A change must be made otherwise they will.be moving backwards, It would be senseless to turn around and go back to the way things were, First Ave, is not thatbusymainly due to the ratio of retail vs, office uses, It is more beneficial for property owners to lease to office space because there is much more risk involved with leasing to a retail use, Retail usesin this area are in need of a boost, Carol Walker, real estate agent.representing Ms, Faye Stabler, who is the property owner of 32-34 E. Huntington Dr., read a statement from Ms, Stabler, which in part stated that the PI~ng Commission should consider that theretaiI only in the front 1/3 of the building is too restrictive, With' this regulation, retail is not being regulated in but other fme businesses are being regulated out. There is only one building on Huntington Dr, that is suited to sharing retail with other uses and that is the arcade type building on the south side of Huntington Dr, Monrovia has eased up on their regulations and brought in foot traffic on Myrtle by encouraging consumer services such as travel agencies and other businesses that would bring in foot traffic in their downtown, Huntington Dr, and First Ave, cannot be considered in the same category for business, This was evident at the Downtown 2000 celebration when visitors were on First Ave. and none on Huntington Dr. Ms, Stabler wondered if other areas of the city have the retail only limitation and was it successful? Ms, Walker stated that she has been marketing this property for approximately 6-months and there has been only one retail use who was interested. Gingis Tuxedo wanted to lease this space but they wanted Ms, Stabler to invest approximately $50,000 to turn it into a retail looking establishment. To date there have been no retail uses proposed for this property and they have turned away 4 potential tenants that were office uses such insurance, mortgage lender. Arca<Iia City'Planning Commission 6 3/10198 David Chlllig, the property o.r for the property at the northeast .r of Huntington Dr, and First Ave. expressed concern with this' proposal. He feared that he would have to evict his tenants and if they left he would have a difficult. time getting tenants. He thought this change is unfair and felt any business that wants to come to the area should be welcomed, Ms. Butler explained that existing uses are "grandfathered" and would be considered legal non- confonning and could continue to operate as long as they are in existence. If ownership of a. business changed, that use could continue to operate. If a non-confonning use becomes vacant for.more than 90- days and the property owner or the tenant operating the store who has vacated the store but is hoping to release it to someone else, filed a letter with the City Council, the City Council can extend the period ()f non_confonning time, As long as.it continues to operate in that fashion, there would not be a problem. If it becomes vacant for more than 90 days and no request is med to extend the time period then if a similar use wanted to come in they would have to comply with current code. Mr. Chang was extremely concerned with what Ms, Butler explained, No one else spokemfavor of orin opposition to this item, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bell, seconded by Commissioner Huang to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting, Commissioner Huang was in favor of the. recommendations made by staff. Commissioner Kalemkiarian was disturbed with the proposal and was not convinced that the 1/3 rule is the way to go, Ms. Butler explained that the existing code was modeled by UDS who was the City's consultant that' specialized in downtowns to come up with codes that are currently existing. They took a model ordinance and modified it to meet the City's requirements which is very limiting, Commissioner Bell remarked that originally th,ere wasn't muqh retail on First Ave, and they tried to remedy that situation, The 1/3 requirement might be a little difficult in the beginning but it will improve and eventually have a snowball affect. By not maintaining the 1/3 retail it will continue to be the same and people will go somewhere else to shop. She realized that this might be difficult for some property o~ers but was confident that.it would take some time to improve. Ms, Butler said that the current regulation has been in effect since June 1996, Commissioner Kalemkiarian felt that how a building was originally constructed and what it is best suited for is subjective for the property owner, Ms. Butler sail! that the back portionofMs, Stabler's property is currently setup for office uses but the front has been used as retail, because it has afull window display, Looking back at the old permits it has been used for various uses the last one of which was a retail use, She noted that an option would be to apply for a CUP for an office use. There are Some consumer uses that generate a lot of walk-in traffic such as travel agencies, tailors, shoe repair stores and possibly those could be pennitted with a CUP, Azcadi. City l'bmning CommBsion 7 3110/98 . . Commissioner Kalemkiarian said tliiS Could be a good idea, The objective is to bring people into downtown with whatever it.takes,.Because they probably have never done so, a lot of small business owners are scared of CUPs and the process that it involves, since they are probably not knowledgeable of the process and he thought being flexible would be better, What has been proposed is too restrictive, Commissioner Bruckner said that he felt the same way when they first started diScussing this matter, At that time he thought that Huntington Dr. should be diStinguished from First Ave. because traffic is much more and traveling much faster as opposed to First Ave, which is a local serving street, He was leaning towards staff's recommendation considering that the ABA is strongly in favor of it He thought the code should be given more time and they can always amend it ifnecessary. Commissioner Sleeter agreed and said to improve and bring in more retail uses then the regulation should change to reflect that. They can always go back to the way things were but there may never be an improvement. He thought they could add some of the consumer services that Increase and bring in foot traffic, He thought that would be a desirable addition and that many people think of travel agencies and tailors as retail uses. Commissioner KalemIUarian said some consumer uses do generate a lot of foot traffic. He was concerned that there were only 14 consumer services and he feared that item #15 'with regard to any other use that is deemed by the Planning Commission to be appropriate and referred back to his comment regarding small businesses apprehensiveness of approaching the city, Commissioner Huang left at 8:30 p.m, Chairman Murphy thought they should be a little bit more flexible. Ms. Butleneplied that some cities do provide the flexibility of applying for a CUP for a use that would typically be allowed anywhere else other than Huntington Dr, and First Ave, Commissioner Bruckner did not think thanequiring a CUP would be the right route to go and it should notbe considered, He also did not think that they have given.the new regulations a chance, Commissioner Kalemkiarian thought this is so restrictive that the buildings may never be occupied. Chairman'Murphy said,the whole point of this is to increase business to make downtown more friendly to the residents of this community. He thought they have spent alot of time and effort to come up with what is before them, With regard.to signs, he suggested that they include language similar to one that is in existing 9262.4 which discusses allowable area for identification with regard to English and non- English, His concern was that without addressing that these signs could be in any language, Ms,.ButIer explained that in the CBD zone it specifically states all signs are restricted. In the CPD and C-l zone it is limited to certain signs and does not apply to banners or portable signs. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner BeH to recommend approval ofTA 98-001 to the City Council with the foHowing amendments: A=dia city PIauning Commission 8 3/10/98 . . I, That drive-in facilities and restaurants/eating establishments be excluded from Huntington Dr, and First Ave, 2, The citywide sign regulations are applicable to window signs, banners, portable signs. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Sleeter, Murphy Commissioner Kalemkiarian Commissioner Huang NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1561 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting CUP 98- 002 to operate an eating establishment with seating for 15 patrons at 1 W. Duarte Rd., #H, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to adopt Resolution No. 1561 and formally affirm the decision of February 10th and the vote thereon, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners 'Bell, Bruckner, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy None Commissioner Huang Ms, Butler read the title of the resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 1'562 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, conditionally approving Modification Committee 98-007 to add animation to the two electronic message boards at the Santa Anita Race Track. Ms, Butler read the title of the resolution. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to adopt Resolution No. 1562 and formally affirm the decision of February 10th and the vote thereon, AroaWa CiIy Planning Commissi.OD 9 3110/98 . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy None Commissioner Huang Chairman Murphy noted that there.is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution, Appeals are to be filed by Wednesday. March 18th, MATTERS.FROM CITY COUNCIL Mayor Harbicht thanked thePlanning,Commission for all their effort and time that they spent on TA 98- 001. He informed the Planning Commission that the Landmark Development, the shopping center where Kinko's is located in, is fully leased and on a few occasions when he has visited the site it has been difficult for him to find parking, He thought that is a good indication that the economy is turning around which in turn would have a positive affect on the City, He stated that Santa Anita has refiled their application for development on their property and the Planning Commission will soon be reviewing the project. MATTERS'FROM PLANNING COMMISSON None MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Chairman Murphy recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee, MATTERS FROM STAFF I, CITY COUNCIL ACTONS 2. UPCOMING AGENDA I1EMS 3. Planning COmmlssion's April 14th meeting Ms, Butler introduced Mr. Penman, the new Deputy City Manager, Dev. Serv, Dir" who was in the audience; She recapped the upcoming projects before the Planning Commission, She remarked that Planning Commission Apri1141h meeting will have to be rescheduled due to elections and the Planning Commission asked that it be moved to Wednesday, AprillS1h. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m, ~.. ecretary, . ca la annmg mmlsslon Arcadia city Planning Commission 10 3/10198