Loading...
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