HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 13, 1998
.
MINUTES
.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
Tuesday, January 13, 1998.
7:15 p.m. in tbe Council Chambers
Planning Commission proceedings arc tapc-recorded and on file in the officc of the Community
Development Division.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Planning Commission of t1ieCity of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, January 13, 1998 at
7: 15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman
John Murphy presiding.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy
None
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMA nON. FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
None
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS TIlE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER
PERSON)
None
OTIl.ERS ATTENDING:
Mayor Robert Harbicht
Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson
Associate Planner James Kasama
AssistantPlanner John Halminski
Assistant Planner William Stokes
Secretary Silva Vergel
1. MINUTESofl2/9/97
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve the
Minutes of Dcccmber 9th.
cmmute/l1398
.
.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter
None
Commission Murphy
2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING MP 97-009
401 E. Santa Clara
Mr. Dennis Stout for Extended Stay America
Consideration of a modification for a 50' -0" high free-standing sign in lieu of 25' -0" maximum
height allowed.
The staffreportwas presented.
Staff indicated that Economic Development Dept. would like to conduct a study which they anticipate
will take approximately 3-months determining if enough businesses would be interested for a
cooperative sign and whether it would be feasible or .not. May 121h would be the next Planning
Commission meeting date after the study period, If Planning Commission denied this request and the
applicant appealed that decision, this item would possibly be scheduled for a public hearing at the City
Council's second meeting in February. Economic Development Dept. has not yet started the
coordination process but studied such projects from other cities so they are familiar with the process.
They probably will begin approaching businesses within the next few weeks, Any business that is
interested would be able to participate.
The public hearing was opened.
Dennis Stout, 871 N. Maplewood St., Orange, was representing Extended .Stay America (ESA). He
asked that the Planning Commission approve this request and asked that they vote on this item tonight.
They have'come up with a different location that takes away the view of the pole from the public right-
of-way. By adding architectural features to the sign, in essence they would be adding a lotof bulk. This
is going to be a dark green sign located in the trees and he felt that ids environmentally friendly. The
letters will only be 17" tall and it will not be a huge sign. ESA is trying to go with a small
environmentally friendly sign.
He went on to say that in his experience it can be very difficult to get people to agree on things and it
could be very time consuming and because of that they would like to move forward with their request.
It is necessary tohavegood visibility for this type of a USe. He was notaware of the completion date for
the building buthe knew that ESA would wanHhe sign in place for their opening. They are trying not to
disrupt the.landscaping'and he said that 50' is the minimum desired height. They have a unique problem
because the property sits so low, the freeway berm is high and the trees are on top of that. These
,circumstances should address the Planning Commission's concern with setting a precedent.
From speaking with ESA he gathered that these signs are not inexpensive and they pursue these matters
with economic factors in mind. These types of signs help businesses become more successful. The
more exposure the more successful. Without any Visible identification the business does not do as well
Arcadia City Planning,CommiSsion
2
1113/98
.
.
as the ones that are very visible. It does have a financial impact on their business, otherwise it would be
more cost effectivefor them not to have it.
Fred Jahnke, 11 Hacienda, said that he had not come to the meeting because of this item, but felt
compelled to speak because he could not believe that the Planning Commission would want to deny a
sign that abuts the freeway. This is an important development for the City. A City that is trying to be
business friendly; but based on whathe has heard tonight he was not getting that vibe, coming.from the
questions and comments by staff. He did not think that this sign is going to cause any problems. If the
property was 25' higher they would not be here. This is a revenue generating business and given the
budget problems he urged the Planning Commission to approve this request.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Huang, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to close the public
hearing. The vote passed by voice v()te with none dissenting.
Commissioner Kalemkiarian thought it would be nice to have the sign for their opening. He asked that
the project be brought back in 30-60 days instead of the May 12th meeting. The feasibility of a joint
venture sign is tough.
Commissioner Huang agreed and said that the Economic Development Dept.'s proposal may not
materialize and some of the businesses in the area may not go along with,it. He did not think that this
project should be held hostage to that study because there'is no guarantee that they will have a result.
In response to a question by Commissioner Huang, staff said that in reviewing existing signs with
freeway exposure in neighboring cities; Le. Monrovia and Duarte, it was discovered that theirs are
double pylon signs that create an arched affect. These'arches are stucco treated with decorative material.
Some of these signs have fratnes'around the actual sign, which is much more substantial than what has
been proposed and could double the cost ohhe sign. This has been communicated with the sign
company and what is before the Planning Commission is what was returned.
Commissioner. Huang agreed with staff's opinion that the sign is simple and remarked that generally this
type ora sign would be in an industrial area. He urged staff to continue to work with the applicant.
Commissioner Sleeter wondered how far above the roofline the sign would sign extend? He thought a
50' height at its current location would be acceptable. He shared' Commissioner Huang's concerns with
regard to it being a plain sign and felt it could use architectural treatments. He was pleased to see that it
was moved to the back parking area. He did not want to stop them from moving forward when there are
so many others, just because of a possibility of having a cooperative sign. He wanted to see an
improvement in the visuals prior to the final approval.
Staff responded that the hotel structure has an overall heightof40'.
Chairman Murphy thought the need for visibility from the freeway is apparent. He wanted to have the
joinnign venture explored and because if it.is possible, it would benefit other businesses. He asked that
they continudt for another 30 days prior to making a ruling.
Arcadia City Planning COnlmission
3
1113198
.
.
Commissioner Kalemkiarian thought that based on other ESAs that he has seen, he knew that they
would eventually want this type of a sign. He .suggested continuing to the Planning Commission's
March 10th meeting which would give them an opportunity to come up with some designs for Planning
Commission's review and also give staff some time to explore the feasibility of ajoint venture sign.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to continue
the public hearing to the Planning Commission's March lOth meeting.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy
None
3. PuBLIC HEARINGTM 52424
900-904 Simset.Blvd.
Tritech Assoc;
Consideration of a tentative map for a 14-unit.condominium project
The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened.
Tom (::ao, TritechAssoc., 735 W. Emerson, Monterey Park, said 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 Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Huang to close the public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
MOTION
It.was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to approve
TM 52424 subject to the conditions in the staff report.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian, Murphy
None
Chairman Murphy noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals areto be filed by Friday, January
23rd. .
4.
Arcadia city Planning Commission
4
1113/98
.
.
5. PUBLIC HEARING TPM 98-001
165-167 Bonita Ave.
Tritech Assoc.
Consideration of a tentative parcel map for a 3-unit condominium project
The staff,report was presented and the public hearing was opened.
Tom Cao, Tritech Assoc., 735 W. Emerson, Monterey Park, said 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 Huang, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to close the public.
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve
TPM98~001 subject to the conditions in the staff report.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian,Murphy
None
Chairman Murphy noted that.there is'aten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by Friday, January
23rd.
6. PUBLIC HEARING TPM 98-002
270 W. Orange Grove Blvd.
Stryker Engineering
Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating three lots from two.
The staff report was presented.
Staff noted that all the new lots would face Caballero. The narrower street frontage would constitute the
front lot line and the front yards would be on Caballero.
The public hearing was opened.
Bart Stryker, 505 N. Tustin Ave., #170, Santa Ana, the engineer of the project was present. He
explained that it is preferable to have all the frontages on Caballero. Any driveways along Orange
Grove would be closed. There is a natural barrier of landscaping along Orange Grove and they would
Arcadia City Plannmg-Commiision
5
1/13/98
.
.
propose to wait for the architectural design to dictate what would'be there. A lot of that landscaping
would remain as a screen. He indicated that they would have some type of fencing or barrier along
Orange Grove but not necessarily a block wall. Presently they do not have any formal plans for the
improvements of the lots but he assured the Planning Commission that it would be in keeping with the
homes in the neighborhood. He said they are in agreement with. all of the conditions in the staff report.
Mr. Nicholson stated that this property is in the Santa Anita Oaks HOA.
Rex Moore, 1201 Somerset Ln., Newport Beach, was there to answer any questions that the Planning
Commission might have. In response to a question by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Mr. Moore
responded thatit would be easier and more profitable to have the lots split as proposed.
Gloria Koeppel, 1445 Caballero, said this development would adversely affect the character of the
neighborhood and many of her neighbors feel the same way. Many of the lots in the area are nice and
she was concerned that large homes would be constructed on the properties and noted that the existing
properties have many mature trees.. She said the subject property has a curve and asked what the.front
yard setbacks would be? She submitted a letter in opposition from Dr. Raj. She asked that this process
be continued until they have had ample opportunity to review the staff report.
In reply to Ms. Koeppel's questions, Mr. Nicholson responded that the minimum front yard setback in
this zone is 30' but if 60% or more of the block is comprised of greater setbacks than what is being
proposed for the new development, then it has to be consistent with the average of the two nearest
developed lots. .
Robert DeLanzo, 1440 Caballero, submitted a petition signed by 15 of his neighbors who were in
opposition to this development There are several double lots in this neighborhood. This area has
character and a certain ambiance to it. He did not think that this project should be approved just because
it complies with Code. He asked the Planning Commission to deny this, but if it'isgoing to approved,
he requested that at least one lot face Orange Grove.
He went on to say that when this area was planned out, the intention was to have large'lots. Unless there
is a compelling reason to'subdivide these lots, he could not see anything other than economic reasons for
an absentee owner to want to do this. He will be the only one who will benefit from the subdivision.
Many lots in the area are double lots, which add to the quality of life in the neighborhood. Prom
marketingpoint,of view, three lots will not necessarily be more valuable than two lots. The verbal
assurances of maintaining the landscaping buffer or the appearance are meaningless, and cited as an
example, the home that was recently constructed atthe comer of Rancho Rd. and Hacienda Dr. where all
the greenery was removed.
He remarked that the Hoe's remarks and opinions were not sought and even though technically they can
only comment on the materials and colors that are utilized a subdivision IS a much more important
action than any opinion about the shape or color that is being used. They are trying to preserve the
existing neighborhood. When this area was created the comer lots are left large on,purpose.
Thomas Lo, 1470 Caballero, agreed with the comments by his neighbors. This is a nice area and he did
not want to see properties subdiVided for financial reasons. He was concerned with increased traffic and
depreciating property values asa result of the proposed development.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
6
1113/98
.
.
Anthony Ferraro, 1436 Carmel ita PI. said his property backs up the subject lots. The subdivision will
really not have an impact on him. This is a unique area. When the Oaks was planned it was intended to
have large lots. The new homes will probably occupy a major portion of the property, be two-story and
only have 10' side yard setbacks. He stated that the Oaks is a wonderful area and these new homes will
look like tract housing and have a negative affect on all the Caballero homeowners.
Peggy Markolf, 290 W. Orange Grove, said the property has n9t been maintained. She waS against
creating three lots from the existing two. She asked for the Planning Commission to deny the request.
Elly Stauff, 1401 Rancho Rd., said he is a member of the ARB and remarked that they probably will
construct homes that will be 10,000-sq. ft. on these lots. The neighbors do not want these types onarge
homes in the area orto change the rural atmosphere to a high-density neighborhood. He urged that the
Planning Commission keep the neighborhood consistent.
Jack Lynch, Chairman of ARB, 224 Hacienda, said that every time plans are brought into the ARB
neighbors continuously ask for compatibility and urge the ARB to maintain the harmony. He did,not
think that the lots should face Caballero and remarked that it is unfair to the property owners on
Caballero. If the Planning Commission decides to approve this, he asked that at least one lot face
Orange Grove.
In rebuttal, 'Mr. Stryker said these properties are indeed very unique and there are many mature trees on
the property and it is their intention to keep them. They will submit a tree preservation plan to the City.
This will bea nice project. He remarked that one big lot would have more of an impact than a small lot
because technically they could construct a bigger home on a larger lot, which would over power the
neighboring properties. Three smaller residences would blend in betteL
.
J'
I'
,I
Mr. Moore said that brokers advised him to subdivide because it would provide harmony in the
neighborhood and is the highest and best use of the property. He noted that each lot on Caballero is
approximately 100' wide and he is requesting the same. He felt some of the comments were overstated.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding other alternatives and possible realignment of the lots.
Commissioner Kalemkiarian suggested having one ] 00' wide lot facing Orange Grove and two lots
facing Caballero.
Mr. Stryker noted that to have one lot face Orange Grove would create a narrow lot and feltthe lot,split
would be better as proposed and it work better with the. existing trees and terrain to face them onto
Caballero. The proposal will allow them to save more trees and landscaping and as much vegetation as
possible.
"
No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissio1\er Bell to close the
public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
7
1/13/98
.
.
Mr. Nicholson explained the oak tree regulations and said that HOA has other trees' that they protect in
their area. The Planning Commission can put a condition in their. approval to maintain certain trees and
the vegetation.
Commissioner Kalemkiarian said this is a trophy lot and this area has a certain character. He would not
want the same type of a situation that took place with the house on Hacienda Dr. and Rancho Rd. He
thought that the homeowners are envisioning condominium type developments abutting their homes but
that will not happen. On the other hand, he did not want to see deveiopments similar to the ones that are
taking place in south.Arcadia. He thought there is an opportunity to subdivide properly and maintain the
character of the area.
Commissioner Bruckner recommended that. they prepare a tree preservation plan and submit it. He. felt
they should show every effort to save all specimen trees and go beyond just preparing a tree preservation
plan.
Commissioner Bell said regardless of what precautions are taken to save oak trees, and even after
following all recommendations by arborists, -in some cases oak trees die within a couple of years after a
development goes in. She did not think this maintains the character of the neighborhood. Putting a
development around this manybealitiful trees ruiils the character ofthis special area. There are only a
few similar parcels and once they are subdivided they are gone. Even though all the lots in the area are
100' wide, they would lose the character and charm of the neighborhood by subdividing. In her opinion,
a 100' wide lot is too narrow nextto Orange Groye.
Commissioner Sleeter found it distasteful that all the big lots are being chopped up to the minimum
allowed by Code. He could be in favor of Commissioner Kalemkiarian's suggestion of having a 100'
wide lot fronting on Orange Grove and two lots facing on Caballero. He was not in favor of subdividing
this into three lots facing on Caballero with the poten"tial of having large homes constructed on them.
Commissioner Huang thought there are two issues to consider; the trees and the density. He did not
have any problems with creating three lots. The proposed subdivision complies with Code. He
commented that the engineer should prepare a tree preservation plan and attempt to save.as many trees
as possible. He thought the engineer should come back with different alternatives and show in each
scenario how many trees would be destroyed or need to be removed.
Chairman Murphy remarked that the proposed subdivision complies with Code and is consistent with
the General Plan, however, he was concerned with the surrounding community. He could not see any
economic hardship that would compel him toward approving a development. These are two very nice
lots that the applicai1tcan develop and still remain sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood. He
thought Finding D.8would be appropriate for denial.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Bell to deny TPM 98-002
based on Finding DB.
Commissioner Bruckner said he would be inclined to go with that unless the applicant could return and
demonstrate how to maintain the character.
Arcadia City Planning Commission
8
1113/98
.
.
Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the Planning Commission is looking at the lot lines tonight. The issues
of the trees atId placement of the homes does not fall within this review.
Commissioner Bruckner said even though they are suppose to look only at the lot lines they are
developing a p3;ttem and that limit and prescribe how the homes that will appear. In most cases it would
not be relevant if it were a. clean slate but in this case there are some very peculiar aspects of the lot that
affect how the lines are to be drawn.
Mr. Nicholson recommended that that should be included in their reason for denial.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian, Murphy
Commissioner Huang
Chainnan Murphy noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by Friday, January
23ol.
7. PUBLIC IIEARING CUP 98-001
1 W. Duarte Rd., #H
MingWang
Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate an eating establishment with a seating
capacity for 15 patrons (J 1 indoor & 4 outside), open between the hours of 10:00 am to 9:00 I'M,
Mondaythru Saturday and closed Sunday.
The staff report was presented.
Staff noted that presently this is a "to go" type of an establishment with noseating.
The Pllblic hearing was opened.
Ming Wang, 10142 La Rosa Dr., Temple City, said that many of his customers have aSked him to
provide seating asa convenience. He was in agreement with all of the conditions in the staffreport.
No one else spoke in favor'of or in opposition to this item.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded' by Commissioner Bruckner to close ~'!e public
hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
Commissioner Kalemkiarian remarked thatthe parking is underutilifed and was in favor of the request.
Mr. Nicholson remarked that there are approximately 20 similar type eating establishments with seating
for 12-18 patrons in.the City and staff periodically checks them to ensure that there are no problems and
noted that they have not received any complaints as a result of these. Staff is not aware of an increase in
Arcadia City Planning Commission
9
1113/98
.
.
accidents at this intersection as a result of this center. The traffic count was taken by the applicant and
was provided attimes when the applicant felt would be his peak business hours.
Commissioner Bruckner remarked that he frequently goes by this center and has never seen a parking
problem.
Chairman Murphy had concerns with the amount of available parking and what is actually required by
Code. This property has a serious parking deficiency based on Code. He did not think that the parking
study was very comprehensive. He could not vote in favor of something that is this far out of line with
what isrequired by Code.
Commissioner Bruckner commented that when EIPolo Loco attempted to go into this center he had
reservations and concerns because the center is so deficient in parking based on what is required by
Code, but after EI Polo Loco went in he noticed that there is never a parking problem.
Mr. Nicholson cited the shopping center at the southwest comer of Baldwin and Duarte Rd. and
explained that by Code that center should have approximately 1,400 parking spaces but there are only
800, yet because of the way the parking lot has been laid out,- there are no parking problems.
Chairman Mlirphy thought they should look beyond today and they cannot go back once the project has
been approved. He did not think they are using good judgement in approving these types of uses
because of how far over the line they go.
Mr. Nicholson replied that each project should be looked at based on its own merit.
MOTION
It was' moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve CUP
98-001 subject to the conditionsjn the staff report.
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang; Sleeter, Kalemkiarian
Chairman Murphy
Chairman Murphy noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution.
The resolution will be adopted on January 27th. Appeals are to be filed by Wednesday, February 4th
NON-PUBLIC IlEARING ITEMS
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Harbicht discussed the proposed utility-tax and explained the upcoming election process. He
talked about the new computer system that the Police Dept: has that helps in finding criminals and the
efficiency of this program.
Arcad~ City Planning Commission
10
1113/98
.
.
He remarked that he may appeal the Planning Commission's decision for TPM 98-002 creating three
lots from two. He stated that the project complies with Code and felt they might be taking away the
property owner's rightto subdivide.
MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSON
Cornmissioner Sleeter expressed concerns with the new signs at the racetrack.
Mr. Nicholson explained what was approved by the Modification Committee and the sign regulations.
He said that he and the City Manager have met with Santa Anita and expressed their concerns with
regard to the intensity of the lights and animation. Subsequently, Santa Anita filed a modification
application, which will be coming before the Planning Commission at their February 101h meeting.
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS
Chairman Murphy recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
1. CITY COUNCIL ACTONS
2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Nicholson discussed upcoming projects.
ADJOURNMENT
Arcadia Ci1); PllltUling Commissjon
II
1/IJ/98