Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 8, 1999 - , . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, June 8, 1999 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers 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, June 8, 1999 at 7: 15 p,m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Paul Kalemkiarian presiding, RQLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING Council Member Gail Marshall City Attorney Michael Miller Coinmunity Development Administnitor Donna Butler Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Associate.Planner James Kasaina AssistantPlanner Candyce Burnett Secretary Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL JNFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler said that a letter, by Graham Briggs, was distributed with regard to item no. 4 on the agenda relating to the proposed R-O and R-l regulations. This letter was received today. TIME RESERVED FOR lEOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MA TIERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT P.ER PERSON) Chairman Kalemkiarian explained to the audience that two public hearings have already been held for TA99-004. This item on the agenda is not a public hearing. Anyone wishing to make additional comments can do so at this time. The Planning Commission's.recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council will hold public hearings and take final action. Commissioner Huang said since the, Planning Commission would hear testimony in this part of the meeting, why notre-open the public hearing again? Mr. Miller explained that the public hearing. has already been closed. It is possible that some of the people that were present atthe public hearings are not present tonight and it would be unfair to them to open the public hearing and take additional testimony when they are absent and cannot rebut. If the public hearing were opened, it would need to be re-noticed. The Planning Commission can take , any testimony in this part ofth!eeting and should not re.,open the put hearing. He commented that the public would,have another opporturiity to express their opinions before the City Council. Gordon Maddock, 900 S. First, said that he represented the Arcadia Board of Realtors and developers in the city. The reduction in the building area and the setback wiIlresult in a 20%-40% loss, which will have a negative impact on land values. It will affect the footprint of the home, especially with the inclusion of the garage space into the overalI square footage. This move will create many non-confonning properties. Is this what the City wantS to do? Many more modifications would be requested. Even brand new homes would be non-confonning. He waS against modifications because in his opinion, these are undocumented and unclear s.et of guidelines. SelIers will now have to disclose that the property is non-confonning; It will reduce property values. Whatwould happen if a home were destroyed in a fire? Would the ownefbe able to build what was there before? They cannot increase the price of the home because lenders and appraisers would not approveit. He went on to say that he served on a Committee in 1991, cOmprised of realtors, developers, Planning Commissioners and staff who came up with the current regulations. He thought that the .current regulations should remain, and not be changed. In response to a question by Commissioner Huang, Mr. Maddock said that the loss ona $300,000 'home would be approximately $60,000. 1. Han, 436 Catalpa, spoke trainst TA 99-004. He explained that he is a resident of the city, a civil engineer and a realtor. In filS opinion, the proposed regulations would behannful. It would create additional work for staff. He wondered about property rights and how this would affect that? He said that he resides in theLower Rancho arid did not think there is over development. Tony Henrch. 431 N. Altura, wanted to preserve the quality and the .richheritage of Arcadia. He moved into the City many years ago because of tl1e beauty and he wanted to preserve that. He did not want over development of homes. Lynne Mack, 906 Panorama, said she gathered almost ISO-signatures in favor of this TA. This was accomplished during a holiday period in less than a week. She was certain that if they had more time they could get many more signatures. She read portions of the petition that was distributed and quoted some of the comments that she heard while gathering signatures. This was not advertised well. She happened to find out about it because she saw an article in the Arcadia Weekly. She thought better means of notification are needed. This T A would continue to provide the opportunity for young families to buy in the City. Arcadia has become known as. a hodgepodge .castle city. Lily Li, Long Dragon Realty, said that every time she holds an open house, people tell her how happy they are that new homes are being constructed'because that increases property values. These homes improve the neighborhoods and the street image. She was not in favor of the text changes. Robert Ho, 51 W. Palm, Long Dragon Realty, said that although he did not have a petition of homeowners who are against this TA, he was certain that if he tried he could get many more city residents, who have resided here for 40+ years, to sign indicating their opposition to the proposed changes. He felt sony for the elderly who would be negatively impacted by this. It will hurt the senior citizens of the community who are looking to selI and to move out of the community. For mostsenior citizens their homes are the most valuable asset that they own and the proposed changes will immensely hurt them. This will drasticalIy affect property values. He thought that concerns should be addressed through requiring additional landscaping and architectural features and not by ArcDdia City Planning CommisSion 2 6I8i'J9 . . . limiting the size of the homes. He remarked that these homes bring in revenues for both the City and the schools. George Chen, 427 Diamond, said that he came into the City in the early 80's. He has developed a coupkof condominium units. He did not want to'see these changes. He wanted the City to continue to grow and felt the proposed regulations would.not allow that Nancy Chan, 217 Sharon, said that her house is a ranch style house. She felt that very attractive homes have been built under the current code as well as very ugly ones. The problem is with the design review and landscaping and not with the code. There are many ranch style homes 'on Camino Real which are an eye sore and developers have replaced some of them with new attractive homes. This is definitely an.improvement. Jean Jarosz, 46 N. Golden West, said that in less thana week and a holiday in between, Ms. Mack was able to obtain almost 150 signatures. Can you imagine how many she could get ifthere was more time? There is a lot more at stake in here than just the value. What about the value of architectural beauty? That certainly is much more'important. These mansions are known as "Lord of the Manor" homes because it resembles that the gentleman of the area lives in the large home with the smaller homes occupied by his servants. These large homes are out of scale. People move to California because they like the outdoors but with these large homes there isn't much outdoor space left. These new homes have absolutely no style. It is their responsibility to preserve and protect what they have and noHo tear down homes to make way for large incompatible homes. 1. MINUTES of 5/25/99 Commissioner Sleeter made the following corrections: A. Motion regarding the approval of Minutes B. Vote regarding the approval of the Minutes C. Motion regarding TA 99-004 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve the Minutes of May 2Slh as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Bruckner 2. PUBLIC HEARING TPM 99-010 (pM 25551) 11680 Goldring Rd. Hanson Ho Consideration of a tentative parcel map for a lO-unit industrial condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3 6/8/99 . . Hanson Ho, 1260 Huntington Dr., S.Pasadena, thanked staff for all their time and effort and was in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item, Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve TPM 99-010 subject to the conditions-in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Chairman Kalemktariailnoted that .there is a ten"day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by Monday, June 21st. 3. PUBLIC HEARING MP 99-010 & ADR 99-010 325 California St. Sanyao Int'l Consideration of modifications for a 7-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented. Staff explained that the deletion of the required 5'-0" wide landscaped area between the open parking and the adjoining property lines is the guest parking area. The public hearing was opened. Robert Tong, Sanyao Int'l, 141 E. Duarte Rd., exPlained that the owner is in escrow. The tree preservation plan will be submitted to the City. Mr. Nicholson explained that the tree preservation plan will indicate what trees are going to be kept and they will work with the architect to create a balance. Commissioner Bruckner thanked the. architect for making an attempt in not facing the garages on the street. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. Arcadia City -Planning Commi~ion 4 6/8199 Commissioner Sleeter agree~d said he was pleased that no g!es faced the street. He appreciated that the last few proj ects that this architect has worked on, he has presented this type ofa design to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Murphy asked if a 13' wide driveway was wide enough? Mr. Nicholson responded that a 13' wide driveway is not an uncommon request when associated with a proposal that provides landscaped areas along the sides of the driveway, and is limited by a restrictive lot widt.h. The Fire Dept. has reviewed this and because they are requiring alanns and stand pipes it satisfies their requirement. Staff:is more concerned with the required back out area which they are complying with. Two cars cannot pass each other on the driveway. Ms. Butler pointed out the Fire Dept reviews all plans. The alternative would be for them to provide a project with subterranean parking. Mr. Nicholson said that based on the zoning they can build a 12-unit attached project but they have chosen to go witJ:t the detached units. Staff has inspected similar projects with narrow driveways and has not observed any problems. Commissioner Murphy preferred7-units to a 12-unit project. In response to a question by Commissioner MUrphy, staff said that the 2' reduction in the landscape requirements is necessary to accommodate the design configuration at the units, and to provide adequate. vehicular access to the on-site parking spaces. Commissioner Bruckner preferred to see the landscape area instead'ofhaving a wider driveway. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to approveMP 99-010 & ADR 99-010 subject to the conditions. in' the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, MurPhy, Sleeter, I<alemkiarian None Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by June 15th. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Commissioner Sleeter noted that he obtained the tapes from the May II th meeting and heard the full discussion. Commissioner Murphy pointed out for the audience that the City does not have architectural design review (ADR) or landscapereview process. This is not the issue. !tis noteworthy that the demand for larger homes in Southern California is evident. People do not want smaller homes. In some Arcadia Gity PI~ing Commission $ 6IBI99 areas, it is not uncommon to h! 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. lots but in ArCaditlo,OOO-Sq. ft. lot is rather small. Commissioner Huang commented that he attempted to keep track of aU the speakers and t\1eir different positions on the matter. Froin all three meetings that were held, with the exception of one property owner, all the property owners that reside in a. homeoWIiers association favored the change and those that do not were against the proposal. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Consideration ofa text amendment to amend the R-O and.R-l zoning regulations. The staff. report was presented. The Planning Commission took each item listed on the May 11th staff report and discussed it separately. Rot R~lations. 1. Deletion. of Section 9252.1.6 of the R-l regulations. This section has been in the code since at least the 1960's and allows parking on an R-l lotwhen the lot abuts commercial or industrial zones. Staff does not want to encourage this type of use of an R-l zone and do .not think it is appropriate. The Planning Commission was in favor of this. 2. Page 6 Entries are now restricted to a maximum of 14' -0" in height. Two-story entries,are not permitted unless the building is set backa minimum of75' -0" from thecfrontproperty liQe. The Planning Commission was infavor of this. 3. Page 6- no portion of a building may encroach through a plane of30. measured at the front property line. The current code is a 40. angle. This reduces the overall height'at the front of the dwelling. The Planning Commission vote was split 3-2 (Kalemkiarian, Murphy and Huang in favor and Bruckner and Sleeter) to recommend a 35" angle. Commissioner Bruckner and Sleeter thought the 30. angle better addressed the issue of mass and bulk. The three Commissioners voting in favor of the 35. angle felt that the 30. angle was too restrictive and did not allow enough creativity in design. Commissioner Murphy thought this could be a problem. He referred to Page 2 of a letter received by Graham Briggs. The letter indicated another city tried to do this and what they got as aresult were many homes with flat or mansard roofs. Ms. Butler reminded the Planning Commission that the modification process would be available if someone could not comply with code. She said that with the modification process, they could also look at the design as part of the review rather than allowing it by right through the modification process. They can require. additional articulation and enhancements. ArCadia City Plaming Commission 6 6/8/99 Mr. Nicholson stated that the' angle would provide relief from the It property line. With the current code (40. angle), and a 25' front yard setback, the entry could be 21' high but with the 30. angle that would reduce the height to a maximum of 14'. Staffhas tried to deal with the overall size of the structure, Commissioner Sleeter remarked that this item deals with mass and scale and no other item on the list deals with it like this one. If the house is pushed back on the lot, the only people that are affected are the immediate neighbors, whereas, everyone that drives down the street is subject to the big walls and porches that are right on the street. He was in favor of the 30.-angle requirement. Commissioner Bruckner agreed and said that what is important is the view from the street and how the house addresses the street and street frontage. If the pitch of the roof were steeper than the angle from the street, there would be a problem. What they are regulating is the top plate of the second floor. Commissioner Huang did not want to see two-story front entries. It appears that the current code permits such entries. He thought that the 30. angle would impose a.design constraint. Even though the modification process is available, he did not think that it is necessary to reduce the height to a 30. angle to provide a good project He suggested a 35. angle.as a compromise because this would allow flexibility to architects. He has talked with a couple of architects who felt the 30. angle is too restrictive and would limit their flexibility but were in favor of the 35.. He did not want people going to the Modification Committee all the time. The modification should be for rare cases and not the norm. Chairman Kalemkiarian agreed. What staff has presented is too restrictive. It does not accomplish what they have been asked to do. He did not want cookie cutter homes. He was in favor of the 35. angle as proposed by Commissioner Huang. Commissioner Murphy agreed. He .thought there is a relationship with theJront entries' but remarked they have already dealt with that issue. Commissioner Bruckner did not want the bulk of-a two-story home being too close to the street There might be subtle distinction but it has a lot to say about the quality of the homes next to the street He thought that the 30. angle is appropriate. 4. Page 7 -an increase in the maximum side yard setback requirement .is being proposed. Currently the maximum side. yard setback' is 10' -O"for the first floor and 20'-0" for the second floor. A maximum setback of 15'-0" for the firSt floor and 25' -0" for the second floor is being recommended. The setbacks are based on the width of the lot; 10% for the first floor and 20"10 for the second floor. On wider lots this will allow formore open space around the dwelling. Both staff and the Pla1lning Commission recommended that the maximum side yard setback requirement be deleted 5. Page 7 -an increase in the side yard setback on the comer lot is being proposed - code currently requires a minimum of 10'-0"; staff is recommending this be changed to 20'.;0" and no portion of a structure may encroach through a 45 degree plane. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 6/8199 The Planning Commission vo!o amend ihis requirement to require linimum J 5 '-0" street side corner setback and delete the 450 plane. Ms. Butler stated that this is more difficult on older narrower.1ots and could create a hardship. This was added because of the elevation from the street and trying to address mass and scale. There could be an impact on lots less than 85' in width. She explained that a.reverse comer lot is when the rear of the house fronts on the front yard of another house, In other words houses do not back up to each other. There are many reverse comer lots on Santa Anita. Mr. Nicholson said that currently on a 75' wide lot, the second story would have to have a 15' setback and the proposal would push it back even further because it would require a 20' setback. In.responseto a question by Commissioner Murphy, Ms. Butler stated that the 20' was' required in the R-O zone. The purpose waS.to address the impact on the street. Chairman Kalemkiarian wanted to delete this item. Commissioner Bruckner recommended IS' and eliminating the other items, thus, adding 5' to the side yard and Commissioner Huang agreed. Mr. Nicholson said that on reverse comer lots with a 20' side yard setback it allows for that much. more landscaping. Commissioner Murphy sllid the trouble with that is for the one living in the hOilse it is lost space. Even-though.it is usable, it is.the side yard area. Mr. Nicholsonreplied that they couldconstmcta wall and make it a usable area, Commissioner Murphy said that even.though itis usable, it is the side yard area. 6. Page 8 - the rear yard setback has beenJncreased from 25'-0" to 35'-0". Unenclosed patios may encroach into this set back 10'-0". The Planning Commission unanimously voted to delete this recommendation. The Commission did not feel that increasing the rear yard setback would effectivelyaffect.mass and bulk of a dwelling. 7. Page 9 -a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) has been added to the code. The current code does not have aFAR. An FAR of 50% of the toiallot area is being proposed i.e., a 7,500 sq. ft. lot would allow a maximum dwelling size of3;7S0 sq,ft. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to delet.e FAR Ms. Butler said that some cities have a 30% ratio. Staff did not conduct a survey. The greatest impact would be on smaller lots. Effectively. on a 30,000-sq. ft. lot there could be IS,OOO-sq. ft. house, on a IS, ODD-sq. ft. lot a 7,SOO-sq. ft, house. Commissioner.Bruckner was more familiar with FAR for commercial/office developments. It was odd to him that this was being proposed on residential zoned property, He thought the front setback A_d..l;.. rrtv 'P1<tnntn... ,..nrnrni""i...... . (JR!W . . . and the angle'from the front yard are much more Important. He wanted to delete this item and keep the angle requirements. Commissioner Sleeter agreed. Chairman Kalemkiarian asked whose business it is how large a person's home is unless it encroaches on the. visibility from .thestreet. They are attempting to address this by angle and setback requirements. Commissioner Bruckner agreed. Commissioner Sleeter said that as long as the second floor setbacks are maintained and effectively deal with the front entry and angle he agreed. He thought since a couple of the Planning Commissioners are in favor of the 300, angle and the others for the 350 angle, both recommendations should be fOIWarded to the City Council. 8. Page 9/10 - Parking - current code allows parking spaces to be within a carport. Staff is proposing that a minimum of two parking spaces be within a garage. If a dwelling has five or more bedrooms, one additional parking space will be required within an enclosed garage. On lots. less than 100'-0" feet in width staff is recommending that no more than 16 linear feet of garage openings may face the. front and/or streets ide yard lireaS. On lots greater than 100'-0" in width there may be a maximum of 3 garage openings facing the front and/or street side yard. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of this recommendation. Commissioner Huang liked the concept but thOught consideration should be given to allowing a percentage of the bui/dingfrontage to be garage, i.e., such as 50%. In other wordS if you have a house 60 'wide you cmlld possibly have a 3-cargarage (30:> fronting on the street. Ms. Butler said that this does not preclude dwellings from having 3-car garages, just having them in the front of the property facing the street. A 3-car garage would still be permitted in the front but would be perpendicular to the street rather than facing the street. Staff feels this provides a better design from the street. Commissioner Murphy remarked that this deals with the mass. and scale issue. Commissioner Sleeter said that in his neighborhood several homes have been built with 3-car garages on the street. These houses resemble a warehouse. Commissioner Huang suggested that smaller lots should. not have 3-car garages but if the lot widtl1is 100'+ then he thought it would be acceptable to have the 3-car garages facing the street, where 50"10 could b.e the garage. He preferred to see cars parked in the garage rather than on the driveway. Commissioner Sleeter thought allowing 50% frontage for a garage is too large. This does not preclude a 3-car garage, it just could not face the street. There are a lot of 60'-70' wide lots that still have a 2-car garage with a large'portion of itfacing the street. Commissioner Murphy concurred with staff's recommendation. This regulation places a limit on the number of garages facing a street. It does not mean that one could only have a 2-car garage. Arcadia City. Planning Commission 9 6/8/99 . . Ms. Butler said this is to Jimit the garage doors atthe front ofthestreel Other Changes I. Page II - the required .rear yard setback for accessory buildings has been increased from 3'-0" to-5'-0". The Planning Commission recommended that this requirement be deleted 2. Page 13 - the side and rear yard setbacks for swimming pools has increased from 3'-0" to 5'- 0". The Planning Commission unanimously concurred with this recommendation. Ms. Butler said that there ate. some problems with excavation when it gets 'too close to the property line. For excavation purposes and to provide adequate decking a minimum of5' is needed. Mr. Nicholson stated thattheS' is consistent with what is required in the multiple-family zoning on thesubterrimean parking garages. The 5' encroachments are pennitted as long as the area is maintained as a buffer for the excavation, Commissioner Bruckner said this sounds lik:e a legitimate reason for approvaL Commissioner Murphy remarked that-is a technical issue and not a design issue. He believed that what someone does in their backyard is their business. Ms, Butler said that modifications could be granted through the Modification Committee. Most people like more decking and it provides more privacy. Generaily, modifiCations are granted for swimming pool equipment and not the pool itself. 3. Page 13 - currently second story side-yard setback modifications for new dwellings must go to the Planning Commission. The revisions propose that modifications for side, front or rear yard setbacks for new dwellings and rebuilds all require Planning Commission approvaL The Planning Commission unanimOllsly concurred with this recommendation. Ms. Butler'feltthat it is better to have the Planning Commission review all modifications for new dwellings. The findings .are the same for both the Planning Commissionari.d the Modification Committee. The filing fee and time limit is the same. This would involve preparing a full report, whereas, reports are not done for the Modification Committee. This might encourage some developers to avoid the modification process. Commissioner Huang did,not think they should burden the applicant if they work with staff and can go to the Modification Committee. If staff does not feel comfortable then Planning Commission could review it. Me. Miller stated that unless there is a strong rationale for the second.story side yard setback to come to the Planning Commission and the others not to, there is an equal treatment argument. Why is the Arcadia City Planning Conunission 10 6/8199 law applied differently? Wha!the rationale for the second-story Sid!d setbackvs. the others? Is there. something special or different, because if there is not, the real issue is how will the law be applied. WilUt be applied consistently or not? Mr, Nicholson said that the issue on the side yard is a privacy issue for the neighboring property. Ms. Butler said that issue came up several years ago, consequently the code was amended.because there was a situation where the side yard setback was granted at Modification Committee level. Commissioner Bruckner was in favor of this since the time.frameand the fees would be the same. Ms. Butler did not anticipate many of these requests. Most of the new projects comply with code even though there are some exceptions. 4. Page 14 - the permitted height offences/walls has' been reduced from 4'-0" to 3'.0" within the required front yard setback. In addition, the fences/walls must be set back 3'-0" from the front property line. Fences/walls on the street side yards may continue:to be 5'-0" and have a miniinum 18" setback from the property line. and/or sidewalk. The reason for an 18" setback is because there is a lesser setback along the street side comer lots, i.e" existing 1 0' -0" max. and proposed 20'- 0". Requiring a 3'-0" setback for fences and walls in this location significantly encroaches into the required side yard setback. Eighteen (18) inches allows adequate room forlandscaping. Wording has also been added requiring that the area between the property line and the fence shall be planted with decorative landscaping. The Planni1lgCommission lInanimously concurred with this recommendation. Ms. Butler said that this is to. address the overall. street appearance. Where there are smaller lots, higher fences are more imposing than if the lots are larger. . Commissioner Murphy said this is a subtle way of dealing with this and helps soften the mass and scale. Commissioner Sleeter said that security is not an issue with a 4' fence, The back yard can be secured with a higher fence. Commissioner Murphy brought up the chain link and wood fences and prohibiting them from the perimeter of the property. He did .not like them. He has visited new communities, and none have had either type of fencing. Ms. Butlerreplied that.chain link fences are prohibited in the front and street side yard, but wood fences are permitted in the front yard as long as they are open work. The Planning Commission did not agree with Commissioner Murphy's recommendation regarding chain link and wood fencing. Arcadia CitY Planning Conunis5ion 11 6/8199 5. Page 16 - the a110Wable'Ved area in the required front yard selk has been reduced from 50% to 40010. The Planning Commissionunanimollsly concurred with this recommendation R,Q Regulations The revised R-O regulations incorporate similar changes as those in the R-l zone. However, the. following are. some changes, specific to the R-O.zone: 1. Page 6 - the minimum front yard setback has been increased from thirty (30) feet to thirty-five (35) feet. The Planning Commission unanimously concurred with this recommendation. 2. Page 6 ~ Staff is proposing an increase in the maxiinum side yard setback requirement. Currently the maximum side yard setback is 15-0" for the first floor and 20' -0" for the second floor; In addition a maximum setback of 20' -0" for the first floor and 25'-0" for the second floods being recommended. Both staff and the Pkuming Commission recommended that themaximl/m side yard setback requirement be deleted . 3. Page 11 - the required rear yard setback for accessory buildings is currently 3'-0", our recommendation is to increase this to 1 0' -0". The Planning CommissionunaniTilOlIsly concurred with ihis recommendation 4. Page 11 - on comer lots an increase in the rear yard setback requirement for the accessory portion of a main dwelling from 15' -0" to 25' -O"'is being proposed. The Planning Commission unanimollsly concurred with this recommendation. Ms. Butler remarked that the. side yard setback is 20'. The rear yard setback for the main portion of the dwelling is 35'. Most R-O lots are a minimum of 22,000 sq. ft. This can create a lot of mass along the street side comer. Commissioner Bruckner thought there woilld be plenty of. room to deal with this issue. 5. Page 13 - swimming pools and spas -the :side yard and rear yard setback is proposed to be increased from 3'-0" to 10' -0"; and on the street side of a comer lot staff isrecommending an increase from 10' -0" to 20'-0". The Planning Commissionunanimolisly concllrred with this recommendation. Commissioner Sleeter believed that this will represent a good improvement if adopted by City Council and will go a long way to fill the loop holes that have been created from the last amendment when attempting to address some of the issues. The compromises that they'have made are good and Arcadia City Pllliming COmmisSion 12 6/&'J9 it is a very good effort on the~art. He strongly urged that what has tn heard tonight be passed on to the City Council. Commissioner Bruckner thanked staff for the illustrations and their patience in bringing to the Planning Commission what was requested. The planning Commission had a great analysis to work with. Commissioner Murphy agreed and hoped that when it is finalized the efforts that they put forth will be benefiCial to the City Council. Ms. Butler thought the City Council would review this at their second meeting in July (July 20th). MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to recommend the approval to the City Council. Staff should prepare a summary of the Planning Commission's recommendations to be ratified at the Planning Commission's next meeting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: . Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None MATIERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member MarShall said the city is moving forward toward a new Police Station and has created a board to help educate the public in passing the bond. Council Member Marshall discussed briefly City Council's review of the budget. MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSON None MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Murphy recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee. MATIERS FROM STAFF 1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler recapped the upcoming projects before the Planning Commission and recent actions taken by the City Council. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m. ~.. Arcadia City Planning Commission 13 618199