Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 11, 1999 . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuellday, May 11,1999 7:15 p.OL in the CouncirChambel'll 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, May 11, 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. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian ABSENT: Commissioner Sleeter MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to excuse Commissioner Sleeter from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING Council Member Gail Marshall City Attorney Michael Miller Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Assistant Planner Kenneth Phung Secretary Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL lNFORMATIONFROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler noted that two letters were distributed with regard taTA 99-004. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) Ed Huang, 69 W. Naomi, thanked the Planning Commission for taking the time and listening to his proposal at the last meeting. He knew that the Planning Commission felt uneasy about the position they were put in and said that he also felt uncomfortable. But, he felt compelled to do what he thought was right and he felt strongly that his proposal was right. 1. MINUTES of 4/27/99. . The City Attorney remarked that he made additional remarks in reference to Mr. Huang's participation with his project and thought the Minutes should reflect it. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to approve the MinuteS of April 27th as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Sleeter 2. PUBLlGHEARING TPM 99-009 (PM25526) 320 Diamond St. Bowden Development Consideration of a tentative,parcel map for a 3-unit residential condominium project. The staffreport was presented and the public hearing was opened. Richard Tipping, 425 E"Huntington Dr., Monrovia, representing Bowden Dev., indicated that they are.in agreement with all6fthe conditions in the staff report. Noone else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by CommissionerMurphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve TPM 99-009 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Sleeter Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by May 24th. 3. PUBLIC HEARING TM 52892 31-33 Failo 8t. Arcadia,Ritz Development Consideration of a tentative map for an 8-unit residential condominium project. Arcadia City Planning Commi;ssion ~ 5/11/99 The staff report was presenteA the public hearing was opened. . Vic Mardian, 416 N. Glendale, #C, Glendale, was representing the owner. They were 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 Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve TM 52892 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT.: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Sleeter Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed byMay 24th. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Z 99-002 324 N. Second Ave. Donald and Robert Johnson Consideration of a zone change from CPD-l (Commercial Planned Development) to C-M (CommerciallManufacturing). Tbe staff report was presented. Ms. Butler commented that Agency review is mandatory for any project on this site. Planning Commission review would only be required if the project did not comply with code. There were no comments received from any of the adjacent property owners. The public hearing was opened. Donald Johnson, 2280'University Dr., Newport Beach, was present to answer any questions. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. Commissioner Murphy remarked that the zone change would make the property consistent with tbe General Plan designation. MOTION Arcadia City Planning Commission 3 5111/99 It was moved by comlsioner Bruckner, seconded by commloner Huang to recommend approval ofZ-99-002 to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Sleeter 5. PUBLIC HEARING MP 99-008 & ADR 99-009 615 W. Duarte Rd. Sanyao Int'I Consideration of modifications for a proposed 8-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented. Staff indicated that the landscaping plan was conceptual only, It waS noted that it was the architect's preference to have the garage face the street'along Duarte Rd. The public hearing was opened. Robert Tong, 141 E. Duarte Rd., said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report, With regard to the design of the proJect, he stated that they wanted to present a different design. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public,hearing. Commissioner Murphy thought the driveway was very long and that it would not be aesthetically pleasing from the street. He thought it would resemble a cement bO\iVlingalley. He,noted that other projects have used electrical gates that soften the appearance of the deep narrow driveway. Commissioner Bruckner suggested utilizing mature landscaping against the building. Staff noted that.there is,no grade change. Commissioner Huang suggested requiring large trees to mitigate the their concerns. Mr. Nicholson said that the landscaping would need to comply with the visibility standards. Chairman Kalemkiarian preferred to see pavers in the driveway to provide visual relief. Commissioner Murphy did not thiilk that different colors of pavers would soften the look of the driveway. Landscape pop outs would not do much either. An:adia City Planning Commission 4 5/11/99 Mr. Nicholson said that vinAUld be planted to mitigate the wal_taff could work with the architect to create amore curvilinear driveway and plant additional tree(s) in the triangular landscape area. They could require36" trees and ground cover at the base of them. Chairman Kalemkiarian felt the off set would help mitigate their concerns. Mr. Nicbolsonsaid that staff is not concerned with. the narrow width of the driveway. MOTION Itwas moved by CorilmissionetHuang, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve MP 99-00Ssubject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Sleeter Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a five working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by May 18th. 6. PUBLIC HEARING T A 99-004 Consideration of a text amendment to amend theR-O and R-l zoning regulations. The staff reportwas presented. Mr. Nicholson gave a presentation with various drawings. He iIIustra.ted comparisons between the 'proposed regulations and current code requirements. In response to a question by the Planning Commission, Mr. Nicholson said that the 400 angle is measured at the grourtdJe\iel along the front property lines. Commissioner Bruckner remarked thatFAR (Floor Area Ratio) limits development on the'property. It does not limit the location of the, building but the size 9f it. Ms. Butler said that concerns have been expressed with size of homes. She said one option could be the deletion of carports, covered patios and storage sheds from the FAR. The footprint would be included in theF AR. FAR should include enclosed space. Sbe remarked that on a 7,500-sq. ft., with the 50% FAR, a property owner could still construct a 3,350-sq. ft. home, excluding a 400-sq. ft. garage. She remarked that staff is proposing ,that all setback modifications be reviewed by the Planning Commission. WIth .regard to the 35' rear yard setback, she indicated that shallow lots would be more affected by this requirement but most lotS in the City are 100'+ in depth. She indicated that the FAR deals with total square footage, whereas, lot coverage deals only with the building footprint Arcadia City Plarming QJmmission 5 5111/99 She went on to say that FAR Jld be most restrictive on a 7,500-sq. ft._. With the current code a 4,400-sq. ft. could be built but with the FAR that,would be reduced to 3,750. The size of the second floor would,need to be reduced in order to comply with all setback requirements. Many cities use FAR. For example, if there were two identical homes.that.looked the same from the street; one had a two- story entry and the other used the space above the entry as floor area, the home that utilized the space as actual living space would have more sxquare footage and yet the exterior appearance would be the same. Another tool to reduce mass and to bring a home to scale is the proposal for a 300 angle as well as limit the height of the front entry. She remarked that the proposal for a 35' rear yard setback would only have an impact on narrow and shallow lots. Mr. Nicholson added that the modification procedure would be available for unique cases or if the code is too restrictive. The impact of some of the existing new homes on the adjacent properties is excessive. FAR will provide total square footage limitations, help with the visual relief, mitigate the overall mass and make the home more proportionate to the lot. If someone wants a large home they would need to get a larger lot instead of cramming a large home on a.smaller lot. The current lot Coverage only addresses that portion of the secOnd story that projects beyond the perimeter of the first floor. As long as it is within the perimeter of the first floor that portion is not even counted and in his opinion, that is where the excessive mass is The public hearing was opened. Ralph Bicker, Chairperson of the Highland Homeowner's Association, 101 White Oak, spoke in favor of the changes. Their board is in favor of the changes. It will help their HOA and benefit his area. Thehomoowners in his area want to keep control. Laurie Thompson, Chairperson of the Village Homeowner's Association, said the Village has many small lots. They submitted a letter previously, which explains their position. She felt fortunate that they have an Architectural Review Board (ARB) and felt bad for south Arcadia because they do not have an ARB. Many of the homes that are being proposed in this area are trying to maximize on the lot and they repeatedly send them .back and ask that they reduce the size. They have spent night after night with various property owners to try to Come up with an appropriate design for their area. The proposed changes will help them. Bob Bartley, 506 S. Old Ranch Rd., said that he is the owner of one of 22 lots on S. Old Ranch Rd. that is only 60' wide.and 150' deep, 9 are 200' deep. There is a potential o(having very long homes on these lots. If anyone constructed such a home, it would practically hang over.the,neighbor's yard and, be an intrusion. Terry Earll, President of the Association of Arcadia Realtors, 725 Pamela Cir., asked why the changes are being proposed? Ms. Butler replied that the City Council directed staff to look into this and, return with an appropriate text amendment based upon complaints received. Mr. Earll replied that persons who are happy do not call the City Hall or City Council to inform them. The City Council only hears from people who are unhappy. The proposed changes will adversely'affect property values in the City. The FAR will drastically limit what can be built. Most Arcadia City,Planning Commission 6 ,/11/99 new homeowners want 3-car !ages and with this change it would luce the size of the home. Builders will notbe able to afford constructing new bomes, especially south of Duarte Rd. This will drastically affect the City's tax base, reduce'revenues for both the City and the School District. The revenues for the City would be reduced due to the reduction' in Building Permits, Business Licenses. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this text amendment to the City Council, they will be forced to inform all property owners of the City's intentions and how this will affect their property values. In response to questions by the Planning. Commission to be more specific, Mr. Earll responded that he is against the FAR and the 300 angle. The proposal would eliminate circular driveways, which are very desirable. He thought this would reduce property values approximately 20%. He explained how developers are able to construct new homes with current code and how much more difficult it would be with tbese new regulations. It would not be financially feasible for builders to develop properties anymore. Patricia Ames, 2222 S. Second Ave., thought the new homes on Second Ave. are very nice and she admires them every time she drives by. She was grateful that the property owners decided to build these homes in her neighborhood. Gordon Maddock, 900 S, First Ave., said that he was involved with the committee that proposed the existing regulations in 1991. Their committee was comprised of city staff, homeowners, developers and real estate agents. He'felt the existing regulations do not need to be amended. People move into this area because Arcadia is a great and safe community and has good schools. The demand is there for large homes. Many of the families that are purchasing these' homes have extended families such as older parents that live with them. The,proposed changes will drastically reduce property values because:of loss of buildable area of lot. He asked how important is it to reduce rear yard setbacks, when it only affects the property owner? The changes will mean that more non-conforming properties go througb the modification procedUres. ' Pam Olender, 1000 Coronado, was thankful that these changes were being proposed. She was not opposed to two-story homes but thought that the homes should be compatible with the neighborhood. She,thought that south Arcadia is a mismatch area of homes. She said that they have, homeowners wbo like the homes on Singingwood Dr. and try to build.them on Hugo Reid. It is not compatible. Their area is special and she wanted to keep it that way. She did ,not think that property values would be affected as it has been predicted. Ron Ely, 242 E. Newman, cautioned the Planning Commission on infringing on property rights. He agreed with Mr. Earll's comments. He suggested putting this on the ballot and have the people vote on it. He guessed that the complainants would not be affected by the proposed changes. His home is very small and the codes would not affect him. Don Thomas, 1831 Beryl, Newport Beach, owner of2216 S. Second,Ave. said that his parents built their 2-bedrooml1-bath house in 1947. Back then there was no demand for a 5-bedroom house just like there is no demand for a 2-bedroom house now. Property values on Second Ave. have increased as a result of these larger homes. The changes will have a significant impact on property values. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 5/11/99 David Lee, 630 W. Huntingto'Dr., said that he moved into the Cit~cause it is a friendly city. The demand is there for large homes. Developers are building them because people buy them. It is the,rule of supply and demand. Is it the spirit of Arcadia to build homes that people do not want to buy? Because if they change the codes that is what they will be doing. Ron blelete, n w. Las Tunas, Century 21 Val, said he is a realtor that works with developers. Land values have increased over the years and a developer will be unable to build homes that the market demands and be able to sell with a profit. The proposed regulations limit 3-car garages and this is a major selling point when, selling homes. The loss of the third garage will result in a loss of approximately $80,000-$100,000. Even though tandem parking iS"allowed it is not the same as a 3- car garage. The proposed changes will bring down property values drastically. Developers will not be able to build what new homeowners want. These changes will bring down the City's tax base and reduce revenues. The schools will suffer as a result. Lis Stark, 1018 Balboa Dr., said that all the developers and real ,estate agents are seeing is the financial aspect. She is a resident who is concerned with her neighborhood and the reduction 'in how much money a developer makes is irrelevantto the homeowners. MaJjorie Bartley, 506 S. Old Ranch Rd., pointed out that when developers take older homes, tear them down and replace them with large and expensive homes, they take away the opportunity for young families to buy in Arcadia because the homes be(:Ome unaffordable. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. Commissioner Murphy asked,whether this would eliminate circular driveways? Ms. Butler replied that it could impact circular driveways on narrow lots. She pointed out that the modification procedure is available and they are granted on existing codes. Anytime codes are changed reasonable requests are granted for homeowners who require modifications. The department receives requests constantly for various modifications and these are generally granted when the requeSts are reasonable. Mr. Nicholsonsaid that the width of a minimum driveway is 9'. Circular driveways have widths of 15'+. Theyfeel this is not a hardship. Too much concre.te in the front yard resembles a parkinglot. Ms. Butler said the "maximum" for setbacks is not necessary. Front and side yard setbacks.have not changed. The only proposed change on setbacks is for the rear yard and accessory buildings. On accessory building, the 3' gives minimum clearance around the building and on a typical lot 5' is a minimum that should be allowed. The-s' is a minimum side yard requirement. Pool equipment and air conditioning units must comply with side yard setback requirements. Staff receives many modification requests for that and when reasonable it is granted. The reason behind the 35' rear yard setback.is to provide more'open space. She went on to say that 3-car garages could still be constructed, especially when the lot is deep. The garages could be constructed perpendicular to the'street. There are many new homes ,that have been built with that concept. Staff is suggestiog that not all 3-doors for a 3-car garage face !he street. Sbe explained that it is being suggested that the Planning Commission review all modifications for the Arcadia City Planning cOmmission 8 5/11/99 dwelling. Presently, the PI~g Commission reviews only seconAry setback requests. The Modification Committee is presently reviewing driveway modifications and staff is not proposing to change it. The review by the Planning Commission would delay a project by one week and there would not be an increase for the fee. She remarked that a survey was not conducted for two-story entries. They looked at homes in the largerlots and tried to determine what would be more appropriate. Staff feels that when there is a 100' wide lot, iUs acceptable to have 3-car garages facing.the street. After taking away the setback requirements, the house could be 80' wide, 60' offrontage that would be devoted to the house. The garages have been one of the complaints that they have received about new homes wbere the frontage is overwhelmed by the garage and only asmall portion of the house is visible. In response to a question by the Planning Commission, Ms. Butler explained thatthe 350 angle is another option. Another idea is to exclude garages from the FAR. She suggested excluding covered porches, patios because these are not usable space. An enclosed room would be included in tbe FAR. Chairman Kalemkiarian expressed concern with the FAR. He .understood that the intent is to mitigate mass on entrances butto discuss the size of a home is nottheir business. If it complies with code and fits on the lot, the size of the home is irrelevant. The size of homes are discussed in ARB meetings and he did not think that is appropriate. The proposed angle issue and the , setbacks will dramatically reduce the size of the homes. The size of the house should not be restricted by the FAR if the property has the depth to accommodate more, Itwill not.affect anyone but the property owner. He did not see the benefits in this situation. He did not think that financial gain or loss is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. His main concern was restricting the size of the home utilizing FAR. Commissioner Bruckner felt the street elevation is very important. He had a lot of sympathy on the external affect and what appears on the street. What is done inside the prescribed envelope is less concerning thai! what affect there IS on the street. He asked that staff provide them with copies of the plans that were on the board so they can study the figures. FARllot coverage is a complicated issue. The size of the.building is complicated because.it is affected by setback, lot coverage and FAR and all of.those play differently on a different shaped lot. On one lot,'the FAR might be a critical issue and on another it could be the setback or the lot coverage. From that perspective, this is a complicated issue. He wanted to have more time to study this issue because it bas the potential to affect more properties than the General Plan issue, which was tackled several years ago. The Planning Commission took several meetings to discuss it and this issue should certainly be given more time to study because this affects 85% of the properties in'the community. Commissioner Huang agreed. He also wanted to see the drawings. Commissioner Murphy agreed. He was opposed to the 35' rear yard setback because he could not see the rationale behind it. If someone wants a smaller backyard that is,his prerogative. Commissioner Bruckner strongly believed the limitation for garages it! the front yard. He thought that the 300 angle would achieve a lot with some of the Planning Commission's concerns. He also could not see the reasoning for the 35' rear yard setback. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9 5/11/99 Commissioner Murphy agreeclth the garages facing the front. He IUght the 300 would be a good idea. He agreed with the height limits for the entries because that would , soften up some of the massiveness. He did not object to eliminating carports and requiring covered garages, or the front wall height requirement. He did not see a reason for changing the setback on pools and accessory buildings from 3' to 5'. Chairman Kalemkiarian was concerned about FAR. He did not'think that they should limit number of garages or the size of a home if a lot can accommodate it. The FAR will do just that. He also did not think the 35' should be approved. Commissioner Huang did not see',a need for the FAR. The other proposed restrictions will address the mass issue. Hefelt that the current regulations have stifled creativity because all the homes,seem to resemble one another. Placing more zoningTestrictions might result in negative implications that they have not thought of. The market drives the size of homes. He suggested alternative approach such as design review, which will allow a lot of flexibility without taking property values away. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to continue the public hearing for TA 99-004 to the Planning Commission's May 25th meeting, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Sleeter MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Marshall summarized some of the actions taken by City Council. She indicated thaton May 19th, the City Council would be having its first budget session. MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSON None MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS There was no Modification Committee meeting. MATTERS FROM STAFF 1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butlenecapped the upcoming projects before the Planning Commission and recent actions taken by the City Council. Arcadia City flaming Commission io 5/11199 . . Mr. Miller summarized the City Council's,actions on the adult entertainment ordinance. ADJOURNMENT .Arcadia City Planning Commission 9:50 p.m. 5J&"iOO 11 5/11/99