Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 9, 1999 . MINUTES . -5 Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, November 9, 1999 7:15p.m. in the Council cbambers Planning Commission proceedings are tape-recorded and on file in the office of the Community Development Division. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regUlar session on Tuesday, November 9, 1999 at 7:15 p,m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Richard.Bruckner presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Bruckner ABSENT: None 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 3 letters with regard to item no. 3. The letters were from: . Petition signed by residents on Anoakia St. . ElizabethWatson . Ken Bernstein, LA Conservancy 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 I. MINUTES of 10/26/99 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalernkiarian, seconded by Chairman Sleeter to approve the Minutes of October 26m as published. . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Bruckner None 2. PUBLIC HEARING MP 99-011 & ADR 99-024 143 Genoa St. Nimer Matta Consideration of modifications for a 3-unit apartment.building. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened, Nimer Matta, 1233 Eighth Ave., said this would bea good development of the ,site. The city is in need of apartment dwellings. There is a shortage. The proposal breaks up the monotony of2-unit developments. He was in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Jose Gonzales, 142 Fano, said that his property is directly to the rear of the subject project - on the other side of the alley. The alley is heavily'used due to the many number of units there. He was concerned that when cars back out from the parking spaces they would go onto the alley, That would be very hazardous. What would happen if both of them backed out at the same time? Already, one of his neighbors has knocked down his fence a couple of times by backing out into the alley. He was concerned with the safety of all of the children 'in the area, He did not think there would be adequate clearance for emergency vehicles. He was concerned with the lQss of privacy due to two-story structure. In rebuttal, Mr, Matta said that the garages ha:ve a 5' setback from, the property line and the living area, which is the second floor, Will have a 10' setback. This area is in transition. Older homes are being replaced with new, Even if this is not approved a 2-unit project would be constructed. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Bruckner closed the public hearing, Mr. Nicholson thought that theback-out area is adequate. In.addition, the visibility standards would be applied anda3" property line wall would extend to the alley. Ms. Butler said the only parking spaces that back out into the alley are the guest 'parking spaces. Parking stalls for the residents are, within the project, The CllIS would not be backing into the alley, She remarked that there is no visibility obstruction beyond the storage area - only landscaping. MOTION It was'moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian,seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to.approve MP 99-011 & ADR 99-024 subject to the conditions in the staff report. . Arcadia city Planning Commission 2 1119199 . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Bruckner None Chairman Bruckner noted that there is a five working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by November 17, 1999. 3. PUBUC HEARING CUP 99-004 & TM 52745 701 W. Foothill Blvd. (NW comer of Foothill blvd. & Baldwin Ave.) The Keith Companies on behalf of Arcadia Oaks, developer Consideration of developing the 19.1 acre parcel commonly known as the Anoakia property with a 31-lot Residential Planned Development. The staff report was presented. Ms. Butler presented a comprehensive staff report outlining the applicant's proposal and recommended conditions of approval. Pat Mann, Principal, CottonlBeland Assoc, (CBA), the consultant hired by the City to prepare the EIRfor this project. The environmental process begins when an applicant submits an application for a project. The city then prepares an initial study to determine whether or not the project is going to have a significant impact. After this study, the city detennihedthat this project would have a significant impact in the area of historic, biological resources, noise and geology. In May, the City issued a Notice of Preparation in which it transmitted the initial study and its findings to other public agencies and made it available to the public to inform them that the city intended to prepare a focused EIRdealing with the environmental affects of the project, That DEIR was published on July 21" and circulated for review through September 81h. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the DEIR on August 24'b The City received responses from a number of agencies and others interested in the historic and biology resources. CBA prepared additional analysis'to respond to those comments and the document before the Planning Commission tonight is a final EIR which includes written responses to the written comments on the DEIR and modifications to the report which reflect further analysis and recommendations in response, to those comments. The certification by City Council will mean that the City Council finds that the EIR provides the information required by law, This is an inforIhational document and not one of public policy. The City Council is required to make a finding that the benefits of a project outweigh the significant adverse environmental affects. Further the City Council must make a statement of overriding considerations to approve project, that after all mitigation measures, has significant affects. The specific environmental affects that they found most important were the adverse impact on historic resources including the loss of the historic Anoakia Estate, the main house and other buildings on the property. Thisis a significant impact in that this project is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The State guidelines for CEQA require that the City Council find tlIat such a project is significant and that they examined the potential for mitigation measures Arcadia City PIaaning Commission 3 1119/99 . . which coi.Jld mitigate those significant affects but they did not fmd arty mitigation measures which would be possible to fully mitigate those significant affects to a level less than 'significant and also allow the project to proceed. The mitigation required for the project includes the development of an interpretive plan, which would reflect the historic character and provide a memorial to the site and the historic character of it. Preparation of a historic resources report would document the site and provide fully developed architectural drawings indiCating the existing conditions of the site. They also examined the possibility of moving the site to an alternate location and the mitigation recommended provides a time period in which such a relocation would be investigated. The relocation cannot be assured by the mitigation measures provided so the assumption is that the house wouid notbe possible to be relocated. They also looked at saving a portion of the property particularly the main house and the immediate surrounding buildings, which would involve the Joss of 3-4 of the lots on the site. They found that this would substantially mitigate the project affects but even this mitigation measure would not fully mitigate the project affects to a less than significant level because of the loss of the character defining features of the site which include the large estate setting of the property and.a number of out buildings which would be lost. As part of the FEIR process, the applicant prepared a cost analysis indicating the feasibility of saving the property and whatit would cost for rehabilitation. The second impact of the project, which was foi.Jnd to be potentially significant, was biological impacts including the loss of some of the existing trees, especially oak trees. Approximately Y. of the existing live oaks on the site would be lost and many other trees will be affected because of construction occurring within their,drip lines - the protected zone, There are 24'Englemann Oaks on the property of which 4 would be lost to development. Mitigation measures are included in the project to replace these oaks in accordance with the city's replacement ordinance on a 2 for I baSis, however, the project does preserve a substantial number of the oaks, Ms. Butler explained the time limits for tentative,maps and conditional use permits, The eXisting gate on Anoakia Ln. will be closed. The only access from Anoakia Ln. will be to the City owned well. site. The landscaping along the perimeter of the site will be cleaned up. Sidewalks are not being proposed and new plantings will be planted where appropriate. The homeowner's association will be responsible for the maintenance of all the common areas outside and inside the gated area. ,The public hearing was opened. Tom Hover, Hover Development, representing Arcadia Oaks LLC, 701 W. FoothilrBlvd. indicated they have been the owners of the property since July 1998, They have spent. a great deal of time processing this application through the homeoewner's association and the City in preparation to reach this point. He showed a presentation of the site, including photos of the dilapidated state of some of the buildings, the proposed new site plan, the entry gate and the new homes. He said their intent is to maintain as much of the character of the site as possible, They will keep the existing wall and enhance the landscaping. along the perimeter. They intend to remove the gate on Anoakia Ln. and construct a solid wall with landscaping, The existing structure was built in 1913, and is approximately 25,000-sq. ft. It has deteriorated dramatically and is used frequently for motion pictures and television and consequently cosmetically Arcadia Cily'PIamling Commi>sicin 4 1119/99 . ' . looks appealing bilt the interior is run down. The property has been without care for the last 10 years and,has continued to deteriorate during that time. There are 474 trees on the property, 150 are oak trees. They would be removing 35 oak trees including 4 Englemanils. They have reached an agreement with the city to replant oak trees on a 2. to 1 ratio. A total of360trees wiIl remain on the property. The proposed entrance wiIl be directly across from Arbolada Dr. This will be a gated private community with a guardhouse near the entrance, The project has been designed to maintain some of the character of the existing property. They will refurbish and relocate the existing arbors on both sides of the entry. This woiJld tie it in with the character of the community. Driving into the project one Will see the existing La Jooo fountain which wiIl be refurbished and relocated to the entrance. He explained the proposed site plans, There will be a secondary emergency entrance off of Foothill Blvd., which \Vill be gated. There are 31 half-acre lots. They have spent a great deal of time and effort to minimize the impact of the houses on the trees. They have continually developed different architectural elements within the design of the homes to allow them to be flexible in terms of tree location. In several instances, they detached the garage to save trees. Heielt there is a lot of flexibility in the design of the' architectural plans. He'pointed out that they have taken the garages away from the street. To get to the garage, they'd have to go through the portcOchere or it will be a side entry garage and by doing so they have eliminated garage doors from facing the street. Vince Foley, 320 Cambridge, said that it is the owner's right to develop the progerty within reason, He said that he is involved with the Arboretum and providing tours for 4th and 5 graders. This site is a source of great history and an integral part of Arcadia's history, It would be ashame to lose that. He suggested moving a portion of the house to the Arboretum so that it would be on display, The Arboretum can create an area showcasing apertion of the house, It would be much better to have ondisplay'a portion of the house instead of showing photos. Wayne Williams, 1029 N. Old Ranch Rd., said that his street faces the subject property. They would be glad to see something done with the house. His neighbors are all in favor of the development of the site. They feel it would be an improvement. It is an eye sore. Meyer Piet, 757 Anoakia Ln., wondered why there is a need to have a private community in the City? He said. he resides in a small ranch style home and has been there for many years,They assisted the City to annex this property many years ago. When this property was ,rezoned, Mr, Gilb, who was a Council Member'at that time, assured the community that if and when the property was developed, it would have full size city streets. He did not think that 28' wide streets with rolled cu\bs are acceptable, The streets should be at least the width of Anoakia Ln. Their street is 40' wide and it only serves 7 homes. The proposed streets would be a mess on trash days, especially, when considering that each home will probably have a minimum of 3 cars. That would be at least 90 cars in this 'area. It would be difficult for emergency vehicles to get through the development. 28' wide streets are ridiculous. He asked that the Planning Commission keep in mind that once the developer develops the property he will leave and forget about the area but the residents will be left "holding the bag". It is the Arcadia city Planning <:Ommission 5 1119/99 . . Planning Commission's responsibility to keep the area beautiful. He was concerned with setbacks and building heights. Beth Costanza, Execut1ve'Director of the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce, 388 W, Huntington Dr" read the following letter from the Executive Board of the Arcadia Chamber: "The ExeCutive Board of the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce wishes to go on record as a supporter of some sort of preservation of the historic Anoakia Estate, We, as a chamber of C()mmerce wish to ,state that we also believe it is in the best interest of the community and, indeed, the area at large, to preserve the oak trees on the Anoakia property. The Chamber belieVes that it is high time to utilize preservation over demolition in our town. The main historical heritage of Arcadia is in our beautiful oak: trees and in the Lucky Baldwin legacy, and these twoohistoric bastions are equally in'anger of disappearing with a shove of the same bulldozer. The Arcadia Chamber of Commerce would like the Planning Commission to make every effort possible to at least partIy preserve what little is left of our vanishing history - the Anoakia Mansion and the oak: trees. We believe that there is a way to preserve to some degree, the mansion, and to an even greater degree the,.oak: trees. There are architects who are able to design homes that are built around trees, not over them. There are conservancies and historical societies that are willing to help find fmds, grants and donations, not moan over the lack thereof. In a positive, affirming attitude, we,need to work together to preserve as much as possible of what is left ofthehentage of OUT City of Arcadia." Carol Libby, 438 W. Norman Ave;, agreed with Ms, Costanza's comment regarding "preservation instead of demolition". She thought they should somehow preserve it by relocating a portion of the house. Phyllis Chapman, 430 S. Grandview, Sierra Madre, said she shares the same concerns as her Arcadia neighbors, Many people,are interested in the history of this site. She thought it would be,a good idea to move a portion to the Arboretum. If they demolish the house, then the history is gone forever but by.,moving it they will be able to save some of the history and heritage, of Arcadia, Peter Adkins, CEO Los Angeles County Arboretum, 2026 Sinaloa Ave" Altadena, said there would be a great deal of benefit if a portion of the house was moved to the Arboretum. This would be a great educational tool. In rebuttal, Mr. Hover explained that the building heights, setbacks and density of the project are in conformance with the zoning code. They are willing to donate t4e mansion to any entity that the City deems worthwhile. The entrance from Foothill Blvd, is only for emergency vehicles. They will do all of the site work including demolition at one time including all of the,improveri1ents. From a construction stand point, they would phase it based upon the success of sales. Steve Deitsch, the City Attorney, remarked that the developer met with staff this afternoon to further refme, a few ofllie conditions dealing with tree preservation and historical stru<!1Ures. If the Planning Commission directs staff to prepare a resolution, it is likely that there might be amendments to the Arcadia CityPImning CoimiUasioit 6 1119199 . . proposed conditions of approval. Separate and apart from trees, another issue that was discussed was the modification to the indemnification condition (condition 5). The Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review and approve final conditions and the developer will still have the right to express their position. ' , In response to a question by the Planning Commission, Mr. Hover replied that they have not studied relocating a portion of the building, Their estimate, which is included in the package, is from a moving company to relocate the top two floors of the mansion but not for moving portions of the building. In the pilrchase agreement,from the McCaSlin Family, a number of items were excluded from the purchase. They do not have accesS or control over a number of those.items. They are governed by Mr. McCaslin and his family, He was aware that Mr, McCaslin has had discussions with a representative from the Arboretum as well as the City in terms of potentially making donations of some of those items but he was not privy to speak on what items. One item discussed with staff was that within the next week a meeting be held with the McCaslin representative and the Arboretum to discuss what items would be donated so that there would be a list. He hoped to have something executed by the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Huang said that based on most of the testimony heard tonight and the letter from LA Conservancy it is requested that the building be donated. He asked If they would consider in participating with relocation, costs? He realized that they are willing to donate but would they help in the costs, involved? ML Hover said that it would not be economically feasible to restore or relocate the structure. There is no. estimate on relocating a portion of the. building. This project has taken significantly longer than they anticipated. They have been impacted from a financial standpoint. He would not be willing to make a commitment or comment on their willingness to join iJ10n that cost. Ms. Butler said that one of the conditions is that within 60-days from final approval someone must make a bonafide offer to move the building. Mr. Hover said they would allow a third party to relocate the building. No one else spokein favor'of or in opposition futhis item, Chairman Bruckner closed the public hearing and asked Mr, Deitsch to enumerate the conditions that are being discussed for potential changes. Mr. Deitsch said he was prepared to address in principal the conditions that were being discussed tills afternoon. If the Pllinning Commission directs to prepare the resolution for approval, the resolution will contain a comprehensive list of conditions. This matter will proceed to the City Council because the Planning Commission's action is only a recommendation, The City Council could adopt the resolution as fotwarded by Planning Commission or add, delete or modify conditions. Ar=Iia City PJanniilg Commiasion 7 1l19~ . . The following items were discussed: . Condition 5 - indemnification provision, The applicant raised a point regarding whether it would be fair to the applicant to indemnify the City regarding the operation of the project after completion, Staff considered this and agreed with deleting the words "and operation" from the last sentence of the condition. . Tree mitigation- the applicant raised concerns with the time period of 5 years which the applicant or successors would be asked to assure that all trees including replacement trees remain living. Staffwill return with a clarification of this condition which will provide that the applicantwiJl be responsible'for maintenance of living trees for the period of time which the applicant owns the property and the successor homeowner's association will thereafter be responSible for abiding by Section 9706 of the AMC which is the tree preservation ordinance. This provision provides for replacement of trees that are damagedouemoved, . The applicant was concerned about ready availability of Englemann trees for planting in accordance with the conditions of approval. The applicant felt that it might be extremely difficult to secure the necessary trees in the S, California market. Staff indicated that they wanted to obtain additional infonnation from the applicant and they will be engaging in additional discussion with the applicant regarding this issue, . Historical issues - due to the lengthy period of time during which the project has .proceeded up to the present, the applicant felt that it would be a. hardship to maintain the availability of the main residence on the site - the relocation of the historical residence. The applicant was concerned that the period of time reflected in condition 10, page 10, might cause hardship because the applicant is prepared to proceed with gradIng and site preparation., Staff is concerned with makingavailable'to the public the opportunity to step:forWard and indicate a willingness to enter into an agreement and relocate the liistorical structure on the site. Staff will be discussing on a continuing basis a reasonable time period within which to leave open the opportunity for anyone in the public to step;fOlward and enter into an agreement to relocate the historical structure, Mr, Deitsch said that in addition to the above mentioned conditions, he did not want to limit staff's ability to modify any other conditions as they go back in review the full list of cOnditions and have additional discussions with the developer, Mr., Deitsch said they discussed condition 12 but there was no resolution. Staff would like a condition that requires artifacts and portions of the structure to be maintained for preservation. He hoped that the applicant and Mr, McCaslin could devise a list of all those portions of the historical structure which ,might be preserved which are of interest for preservation so they can detenninethe feasibility of preserving. As currently drafted, the condition requires, that in the process of dismantling and demolishing the historical structures the 'applicant would do so in a way to preserve the artifacts for relocation and that would presumably be included in the cost of demolition. Staff will continue the discussion of the cost of relocation of artifacts and where they would be stored on an interim basis if they cannot be immediately installed on a pennanent basis at some other location. Ms, Butler said that depending on the Planning Commission's action, this would be coming back with a resolution at the next meeting. The wording on some of the conditions from the other departments will be refined, Madi. city PIaoning CoJDIDission 8 1]/9/99 . . Commissioner Murphy was confused on how they can ask for the preparation of a resolution until they fully understand what the conditions are going to be, Mr. Deitsch replied that the conditions as presented form a reasonable basis for the Planning Commission to give staff direction to prepare a resolution. Ultimately, it is a matter of the Planning Commission's comfort. He suggested that the conditions are reasonable in approach, they are subject to some suggested modification. When the resolution is brought back before the Planning Commission for adoption they will have one final opportunity to make any revisions that are finally presented. If they agree with the framework of the conditions presented tonight, they can direct staff to come back with,a resolution with a more refined list of conditions. Commissioner Kalemkiarian said that prior to touring the house he thought that it was in good shape. However. after going through the house he saw the condition of the home. All the,antiques have been removed. The house is nothing but a shell that at .onetime used to house beautiful antiques, He thought the plan preseIited by the developer is very nice. He liked the entry. The developer has indicated that they would donate the structure. He did not think that it is the developer's responsibility to save the structure. The place has been up for sale for many years. The structure is dilapidated. He did not think that the developer should be responsible. for trees for 5 years, What happens if the new owner kills a tree inadvertently? Why should the developer be liable? He thought that once the property is sold the developer should be relieved of the tree issue. He retnarked that they should'look at how many trees will be left and not how many are being removed. Based on his calculation there will be approximately 14 trees per lot, i.e,; one tree for every 1,500 sq, ft. In response to questions by Commissioner Murphy, Ms. Butler stated that the Fire Dept. does not have any objections to the street'"i.vidth as long as thestreet'is posted with "No Parking" signs, These signs will be reviewed bystaff. There might be mmormodifica:tions to the front entry, subject to the Fire Dept. approval for access, All other departments have reviewed the project and with the exception of the front entry width they are satisfied. She noted that condition 6 could be deleted. Commissioner Murphy said the mansion is trashed, It looks good from the exterior but the inside is in horrible shape. The site was used fora boarding school and day school for 50 years and as a ,result has been ruined, ,The building has been stripped from many of its valuable items, leaded glass, tiffany lamps and the woodwork. What they are looking at is a shell that is not earthquake safe. There are huge cracks from the Sierra Madre earthquake, He thought that itwould be'a good idea to, preserve and save it but'where has everyone been for the past 50 years? The project at hand is an excellent project. The elevations are beautiful. He liked the layout of the meandering streets and the entry. He could not find any reason to deny the project but some of the conditions need to be refined. C6inmissioner Sleeter agreed with comments made by Commissioner Murphy regarding the condition of the building. He was appalled when they visited the site, He had no idea of the deterioration and how badly the building had been stripped out. Prior to that time, he was of the opinion that there should be some type of an intervention to preserve the facility. He was happy to see the willingness of the Arboretum and others to consider preserving some portion of the structure for future generations. The homes are beautiful. He wished more homes could be presented of this caliber. They are consistent with all of the zoning regulations, albeit, the zoning regulations might be different today than when the original project was approved. It is unfortunate that they will be losing what potentially was a treasure but it certainly is not now. An:adia City PIarming Commission 9 1119/99 . . Commissioner Huang was impressed with the site layout as wen as the architectural design. He was particularly impressed with the applicant's presentation. He thought the effort has been made to have detached garages in order to save trees. The developer has made efforts to save as many trees as he can. He commended the developer on that because they do not see this type of an approach often. There area variety of different plans or architectural styles'for only 31 homes. He asked that particular attention be given to the bathhouse and the gym in preserving the buildings. The main house is in a very deteriorated state but the two buildings mentioned above are unique and resemble the Asian/Greek temples. He strongly suggested that these two buildings be preserved. He was glad that they received a letter from the LA Conservancy indicating their acceptance of the Final EIR. This group is wen known for not hesitating to take legal action tostop'similar type projects. Commissioner Bruckner viewed this differently than the other Planning Commissioners. The proposal would be a flne layoutcifthe property was anywhere else and did not have the history that it has. The history of this great site and house are tied to the history of the city, This is probably the last parcel of its size available for development He was not against developing the site. The development regulations encourage a wen-planned development including providing flexibility and creatiVity in design. Taking into account the history of the site, he thought there could have been more creativity and a genuine effort to look at the building and to try to save them by either utilizing them for condos or community purposes. The idea of moving it or saving relics of it take it completely out of context. and not in the spirit of what they should be doing to preserve the history of the city. The developer purchased the lot knowing the history of the site and its sensitiVity. He thought the Planning Commission should review it further, The developer should utilize more creatiVity in the subdivision of the site and should look ataltem~tives to preserve the building and the setting. He could either redevelop the lot with the same number of homes or with slightly less but achieve a preservation project in a setting that is' important to the city, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to recommend approval of 1M 52745 and CUP 99-004 and Final EIR and direct staff to. prepare the appropriate, resolutions. ROLLCALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter Commissioner Bruckner Ms, Butler said that a public hearing has been scheduled tentatively before the City Council on December 7fb. Arcadia City Planning Commission 10 1U9199 . MATIERS FROM CITY COUNCIL . Council Member Marshall, said that Measure C passed, She remarked that there has been an article in the Editorial Section of the paper regarding how to monitor contractors. In reply to a question by Council Member Marshall, Ms. Butler said that ascoping meeting has been scheduled on December 6th at 6:30 p.m. for the Westfield project (mall expansion). ,Property owners within 1000' will be notified of this meeting. MATIERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSON None MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Kalernkiarian recapped the actions taken by the. Modification Committee. MATIERS FROM STAFF 1, CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2, UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS 3. Planning Commission's Decemb.er 28th Meeting It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to cancel the Planning Commission's December 28th meeting, Ms. Butler hoped that the new Code Services Officer will begin her employment with the city within two weeks, ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p,m. ,Arcadia City Planning Commission 11 1119/99