Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 23, 1999 . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, November 23,.1999 7:40 p.m..in tbe.Conncil Chambers Planning Commission proceedings are tape-recorded and on file in the office ofothe Community Development Division, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, November 23, 1999 at 7:40 p,m, in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W, Hurnington.Drive with Chairman Pro Tern Edward Huang presiding, ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Kalemk:iarian, Murphy, Huang ABSENT: Commissioners Bruckner, Sleeter OTHERS ATTENDING Council Member Gail Marshall City Attorney Steve Deitsch Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Assistant Planner Kenneth Phung Secretary Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms, Butler distributed amendments to the resolution which is on the agenda 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 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemk:iarian, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution, 1. MINUTES of 11/9/9" . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Chairman Pro Tem Huang to .approve the Minutes of November 9th as published, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Huang None Commissioners Bruckner, Sleeter 2, PUBLIC HEARING TM 52878 616-628 Arcadia Ave, (previously 615 W. Duarte Rd.) Hank Jong Consideration of tentative map for an 8-unitresidential condominium project, The staff report was presented and the public'hearing was opened. MityTan, EGL Assoc" 11823 Slauson Ave" Santa.Fe Springs, representing Mr..Jong, said they are in agreement with all of the conditio lIS in the staff report, No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item, Chairman Pro Tem Huang closed the public hearing, MOTION It was moved by COinmissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve TM 52878 subject to the conditions in the staff report, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Huang None Commissioners Bruckner, Sleeter Chairman ProTem Huang noted that there is a ten-day appeal period, Appeals are to be filed by December 6, 1999, 3, PUBLIC HEARING TM 5307l 18 Fano St Arcadia Ritz Development, LLC Consideration of tentative map for an 8-unitresidential condominium project, The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened, Arcodia City P1ll11Ding Commission 2 Il123199 . . R, Sedky, Los Angeles, 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, Chairman Pro Tem Huang closed the public hearing, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Kalemk:iarian to approve of TM 53071 subject to the conditions in the staff report, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemk:iarian, Murphy, Huang None Commissioners Bruckner, Sleeter Chairman Pro Tem Huang noted that there,is a ten-day appeal period, Appeals are to be filed by December 6, 1999, NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4, RESOLUTION NO, 1599 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia,. recommending approval of CUP 99-004 and Vesting TM 52745 for the property located at 701 W. Foothill Blvd" more commonly known as the 'Anoak:ia Property, RESOLUTIONNO, 1600 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, expressing the Planning Commission's comments to the City Council on CUP 99-004 and VestingTM 52745 for the property located at701 W, Foothill Blvd" niore commonly known as. the Anoak:ia Property, Ms, Butler read the titles of the resolutions, Commissioner Murphy had the following concerns: I. Oak vas - he,felt the developer shouIdbe responSible for all the existing and. newly planted oak: trees for at least one year after completion of the project, He said the developer is responsible for all public improvements for one year and the same conditions should apply to oak: trees, There is nothing that guarantees that the trees will survive, It is possible that any damage to a tree would not become evident until 6-months after construction. The developer should be responsible, What if during the course of construction they get too close to the drip line of the tree and it is permanently damaged? Oak: trees are an integral part of this project. His request is not unreasonable since the preservation of the oak: trees is the second most important issue on the mitigation measures, He thought this would give the newly formed homeowner's association (BOA) power in case any of the trees do not survive, Arcadia city Planning CommisaiOll 3 11/23/99 . . Ms, Butler said the new HOA would be responsible for the landscaping in all the common areas, She said that based upon meetings With the developer, horticulturists would be on site during cOnstruction. Sometimes trees die as a result of over watering or disease. It would be difficult to pin point what is caused by the developer, They simply could die because the tree might have not been. in the best condition when the developer was there, The tree might have been partially diseased but there is no real way of knowing, Any condition would need to be equitable for both the developer and staff'to ensure replacement. The oaf tree ordinance ensures that oak trees will be replaced if damaged by disease or construction,' Staff' feels that this was a fair condition because it ensures that trees are replaced regardless of who owns the property, A City approved horticulturist will be on-site while excavations are taking place because Staff'does not have that expertise, Mr. Nicholson explained that the new HOA would become the property owner of all the common areas and it would be their responsibility to maintain all the oak trees in the common areas, Oak trees are very sensitive but arborist will be available during.construction, Commissioner Kalemkiarian disagreed with Commissioner Murphy He felt once the property changes ownership then the developer should be relieved of that responsibility, During construction inspectors will be on site to assure that oak trees are not damaged and that construction is done properly, Chairman Pro Tem Huang did not feel comfortable with requiriilg a condition from this developer that they have not required of other developers, Commissioner Murphy argued that this is not a typical development, thus, what they have done historically'shouldnot apply here, . Ms, Buder remarked that this resolution will be forwarded to the CitY Council and it is a recommendation to them, The City Council can approve or amend it. 2, 90-day tiine limitforthe relocation of arlifacts- he felt it was physically impossible to relocate items in that time period, He thought that the 30-days for the offer is acceptable but that milestones should be set up, This time limit might be acceptable if they are moving a small garage but not for this project. It would be very difficult to have all the permits in place within that p,eriod to move the building; He felt this is just a way to appease the concerned citizens who wanfto preserve the house but this is not giving these people adequate time to relocate items. Commissioner KalemlGarian remarked that the preservationists .havehad plenty of time to think about relocating, They have been aware of this proposal since the frrst Planning Commission meeting, which was in Allgust but most Were aware of the historical nature of this house for many years prior to the Planning Commission hearing, Commissioner Murphy agreed and said that.he was the Planning Commissioner who said that the people who wanted to preserve the house have had years, He thought there should not be language in the resolution which is physically impossible to accomplish, Ms. Butler could not comment on if this time frame is realistic beeause staff' does not have any formal experience in this matter, She said the 90-days..is from the final approval date, The 90- Arcadia City Planning Commission 4 ll1iJ199 days was agreed upon by Ir and the developer as a reasonable ti! to move a house, Both the developer and staff did not want the relocation of the house to go on indefInitely, They felt that if someone wants the house, they should relocate it without wasting a lot of time. This would not be fair to the applicant. Ms, Butler said that based upon discussions with the developer, staff would rely on their expertise in moving the building but it would be unfair to the developer to not put a time limit The buildings could be placed on blocks and mov~ to interim locations until a permanent location is found, She read the code section in the AMCregarding moving of buildings, 3, Developer to provide traffic control during construction - he thought the immediate area wolild be a traffic nightmare and the developer should provide traffic control. The City should have jurisdiction, over this and. should not incur that cost. Ms, Butler said this is a valid request and she would refer it to the Traffic Engineer for his Comments, Mr,Deitsch said that the condition would read: "If deemed necessary by the City's Traffic Engineer, the applicant shall provide at its cost and expense off-site construction traffic control pursuant.to the approval of the City Engineer," The Planning Commission was in agreement, 4, Maintenance o/common areas - would the CC&Rs, address the maintenance of the perimeter walls' and ,the landscaping? Ms, Butler said that condition 8 addresses that issue and requires that CC&Rs be recorded, "Perimeter walls" are included in the second paragraph under "fInal plans". 5, Phase I site assessment - Mr. Murphy asked if the. City has required that the developer conduct this type of an assessment to determine possible contaminants in the soil for health and safety purposes? They do not know what happened there while the schools were occupying the site, Mr, Hover the developer of the project indicated that this was conducted and they would forward a copy of the report to the Planning Commission, 6, Who would be responsible for the cost of relocating the houselitems - Commissioner Murphy thought that the developer should be responsible. Commissioner Kalemkiarian disagreed, He did not think that it is the developer's responsibility to relocate the items in the house. The developer is not the owner of the artifacts, Why should he be responsible for the relocation? This is undue hardship on the developer, Mr, Hover felt comfortable with the language in the staff report, They would donate the building to an organization that is interested in the building subject to City approval. They are not experienced historical building movers, They are concerned with the language regarding the expense of moving artifacts or elements from the property, They have agreed to make a ArCadia City Planning Conmiission , 11123/99 contribution to whatever Ity that would be responsible for re!ing those item(s) from the property, Mr, Deitsch said that is how the condition is currently worded, It is without limitation as to what the actual cost might be, It is worded such that the developer would make a contribution to a charitable organization who would then remove the materiaLfrom the property, Mark Elliott, the attorney for the developer, said the developer has agreed to make a reasonable contribution to a charitable organization for the cost of reloCation and storage, The City would ,be evaluating the relocation cost and present the figures to them, The iIltent of the applicant was to establish a specific sum that would go into the document. They would like all of the .issues cleared as part of the condition, He said the Arboretum,has expressed interest in the b'uilding and they are willing to donate a reasonable amount .toward relocation, Ms, Butler said that staff did attempt to contact several companies with expertise in historical renovation, but was unable to get anyone to return her calls and to get any firm answer oil the cost and time limit of moving portions of the house without the City having to pay for the estimate, The City does not have any means of determining what the relocation cost would be, Based UPOIl discussions with the developer, staff will rely on their expertise in moving the building Mr, Elliott said the intent of the developer was to make a contribution to an entity to defray the cost of relocation and storage, It is their intent that there ,be a specific cost. He pointed out that they are notthe legal owners of-some of-the items on the site - the McCaslin Family is the owner who is donating them, Their purpose was to donate funds to defray the removal of McCaslin Family's property to transport the items. The applicant does notfeeithat it is their responsibility and that is the reason they requested that,it be done asa donation. For example, the relocation cost for the fireplace could be $100,000, but the applicant ,could not agree to an unknown figure at this point and time, It is not economically reasonable, The developer will contribute to the cost of relocation of the items to a City approved location and donate the building to the City but they do not feel comfortable to committing to an unknown figure for relocation costs, Ms, Butler cited language on page 3 of the "Mitigation monitoring" dealing with the removal/relocation/storage of materials, Commissioner Kalemk:iarian could not understand why the developer is respOnsible for items that are not the developers, In the letter from the McCaslin Fa1llily they state that reloca.tion would be paid by the organization that is receiving the items, Mr, Deitsch explained the legal theory, An EIR was prepared that has identified a historical issue - something that requires mitigation, This is the way to mitigate the loss of a historical treasure, This is a mitigation measure to reduce the impact on the environment. There are many ways to mitigate and the condition before the Planning Commission is one way that staff has chosen to deal with the mitigation of the ,historical impact; Commissioner Kalemkiarian felt the condition was for an open ended dollar amount. The developer could get his construction workers to move the items and save money instead of an experienced historical mover who would charge much more, He did not .think that removal of ArCadia city PImming Commissi",! 6 11/23/99 most of the items would !ltiffiCUlt but therelocation of thefirepl! would be complicated, suggested going through each item and putting a cap on the relocation of each item, He Mr' Deitsch said the Planning Commission could determine a percentage of relocation cost and the recipient would be responsible for the remainder, Chairman ProTem Huang thoughtthat is a better approach. Commissioner Klllemkiarian thought the percentage route still leaves it open-ended, Mr, Hover said they are not expert'in relocating items, They preferred a specific dollar amount that they could agree to. Mr, Elliott has requested that the .Arboretum, who typically handles items like this, to tell them howrnuchit would cost to relocate these items, Ms, Butler said that the developer's offer was received but staff did not feel that it would be adequate but until the City has some idea they are uncomfortable with taking a dollar figure, Commissioner Kalemkiarian thought those historical movers imd dismantlers would be very expensive. None of the items that are going to be donated are fragile, Mr. Elliott said the.initialfigure they came up with for relocation cost was $5,000. They felt.the City couldmak:e a.counter offer if they did notfeel this amount is adequate, He realized that it is not staffs responsibility to come up with the relocation costs, He pointed out that the items belong to the McCaslin Family, Commissioner Murphy remarked that the McCaslin Family is donating the items but they are not the developers, He did not think this is staffs problem. The developer should resolve this issue, The developer has a list of the items and it is their responsibillty to get quotes on relocation, Mr, Hover pointed out that the McCaslin Family's letter states that the.relocation would be paid by the reeipient, He suggested continued discussions with staff for a total sum, Mr, Elliott said the applicant is Caught in the middle. This property does not belong to the applicant, It belongs to McCaslin Family, The McCaslins do not have to donate any of these items, They can remove and sell them, There.is a benefit that both the City and Arboretum are gaining from these donations in the aspect of preservation of these items, The applicant is trying to ease that-process bymak:ing acontributiori, It is difficult to agree to an open-ended figure, Commissioner Murphy did not thihk that $5,000 was adequate, Commissioner Kalemk:iarian thought most of the items are fairly easy to relocate, The more difficult,items would be ones that need to be dismantled, Chairman Pro Tem Huang wondered if they could move ahead with this project pending a discussion with staff and the applicant to come up with a resolution prior to the City Council meeting, Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 11123i99 Ms. Butler suggested th!veloper get someone to go out there! a quote, She thought that hopefully they could come up with a figure, She hoped they would have a definite figure by the time this goes to City Council. Mr, Deitsch said the condition is worded in such a way that it places thecesponsibility on the developer to come up with a proposal, If their objective is to preserve the condition and meet the mitigation measure described in the ErR, then the condition is worded appropriately for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City CO!mcil, The City Council may change it if additional information becomes available, The City needs to be able to defend the EIR and the mitigation measures in terms of having met ,all matters and issues addressed in the EIR, If they cannot defend that then the City and the developer would have not succeeded because there could be a successful challenge, Ms, Butler said they would continue to work with the applicant. She suggested that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council with the proviso that the Planning Commission would like staff to work with the developer on the wording of condition 12, Commissioner Murphy wondered who would pick up the cost between what amount is agreed upon and whatitactually costs.to relocate? In response to a question by Commissioner Murphy, Mr' Elliott responded that the 9O-day time frame was consistent with the AMC for removal of items, It seems thatit is a significant amount of time to remove a room off of abuilding, They felt that 3-monthsis plenty of time, Commissioner Murphy asked if they could agree on' milestones? Mr, Elliott responded that that is how it was negotiated, Commissioner Murphy asked that the developer provide a copy of the Phase I Environmental Assessment to the Planning Commission, The developer agreed, Mr, Deitsch summarized the changes: . Completion and filing with the City of Phase I Subsurface Soils.Investigation report and if the developer has already completed such report that would stifficeforfilingc . Construction traffic control monitoring . Addition to condition 8 concerning the inclusion of perimeter walls and landscaping, entry areas and the description of what is the common area subject to the requirement for CC&Rs, . The changes as distributed by staff, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to adopt Resoc 1599 and 1600 including the revised wording,to the mitigation measures and forward these resolutions to.the City Council for their December 7th meeting aild include the changes discussed and outlined above, Atcadi. city P1anning Commission 8 11/23/99 . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CommissionerKalernk:iarian, Murphy, Huang None Commissioners Bruckner, Sleeter MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSON Commissioner Murphy congratulated the developer for the Anoak:ia project, Itis a nice project, MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Kalernk:iarian recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee, MATTERS FROM STAFF 1, CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2, UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms..Butler informed the Rlanning Commission of upcoming agendaitems, ADJOURNMENT 9:20p,m, ~~ Secretary, Arca . . g Commission Arcadia City Planning Commissioo 9 11123/99