Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 23, 1999 . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, March 23, 1999 7:15 p.m. in the Couucil Chambers Planning Commission proceedings are tap~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, March 23, 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: COlIlmissioners Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy; seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to excuse Commissioner Bruckner from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING Council Member Gino Roncelli City Attorney Michael Miller Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Associate Planner James Kasama , Assistant Planner Candyce Burnett Secretary Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms, Butler noted that the following items were distributed to the Planning Commission: I. NewEIR checklist for TPM 99-008 2, Additional information on TA 99-003 TIME RESERVED FOR TIlOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATIERS (5 MINUfE LIMIT PER PERSON) None L MINUTES Of3/9i99. . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve the Minutes of March 9th as published. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Biuckner 2. PUBLlCHEARINGTPM 99-008 (PM 25704) 1140 S. Eighth Bade Development Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating three lots from one, The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Milton Bade, 77 W. Las Tunas, indicated that they are in agreement with ail of the conditions in the staff report. Beverly Stansbury, 1103 S, Eighth, wondered when all this development would stop? In the past decade 19 new homes have been constructed on 9 lots. These additional homes increase traffic and noise, They have resulted in cutting of trees to make room for the additional buildings, Houses are on top of each other. Both properties on either side of her are now developed with two-story homes, The new homes are monstrosities, Cul-de-sacs are popping up all over. To the south of her property, 3 lots were developed with 6 homes on a new cul-de-sac and to the north "Miami Vice! Art Deco - painted pink and aqua" style homes were constructed. With all these increased revenues why has street sweeping been reduced to once a month? Where are all these tax dollars going? Chairman Kalemkiarian responded that ,the responsibility of the Planning Commission is land use issues. They look at compliance with code. Is what is being proposed complying with Code? What Ms, Stansbury is commenting on would require code changes and the City Council is the body to approach with these types of requests. Ms"Butler remarked that the code, allows subdivisions, Tlie area is zonedR-l 7,500. In fact, a few years ago, the code was amended for comer lots requiring an 85' wide lot where it used to be only 75'. The zoning of the area has not changed. Apparently, owners of large parcels are selling their properties to developers who then subdivide the properties. Itis the property owner's right to sell their properties. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item, Chainnan Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. An:odi. City P1anniog Commission 2 3123199 Commissioner MUrphystate~t the project complies with code. It tears that it is economically practical for developers and property owners to subdivide: MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve TPM 99-008 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Murphy, Sleeter,.Kalemkiarian None Commissioner'Brucknet Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that therejs a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed byApril2, 1999. 3. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 99-005 164E. Live Oak Anthony-Taylor Consultants for Foodmaker, Inc. (Jack in the Box) Consideration. of a conditional use permit for a 2,426 sq. ft" 24-hour, eating establishment with seating capacity for 40 persons and a drive-thN. RESOLUTION NO, 1588, granting CUP 99-005 for an eating establishment at 164 E., Live Oak Ave. The staffreport was presented. In response to a question from the Planning Commission, staff anticipated that at a, later date they would request a freestanding sign but they have not seen an actual sign plan yet Chairman Kalemkiarian remarked that he liked the cottage style design of the Jack in the Box at the comer of Myrtle and Duarte Rd. The public hearing was opened, Jaymes Dove, Anthony-Taylor consultants, 2240 Vineyard Ave., &condido, was in agreement.with all of the conditions in the staff report with the exception of condition la, He asked that they be able to operate 24 hours for the drive-thru. He did not thi!lk that they would actually have it open but wanted to have the flexibility if they decided to at a later date. In response to a question by Commissioner Murphy, Mr, Dove said that they would like to have a freestanding sign but staff is recommending a monument sign. He did not want to discuss the sign because that is a separate issue from the CUP, The proposed design of this Jack in the Box is unique. There is not another one with the same design in USA. Carolyn Ziegler-Davenport, 11159 Daines Dr., representing Monrovia! Arcadia Town Council, spoke in favor of the proposed use. Representatives from Jack-in-the-Box.met with the residents in the area and they are excited about this addition, This area of Arcadia is in need of redevelopment and this is An:adia city PllUlDing CommissiOll 3 3123/99 a positive step fOIWard. In thleginning, theresidents were a little ]1 of the increase traffic and noise but after meeting with Anthony-Taylor who showed them their good intentions, they were in favor of this use, ' No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chainnan Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. Commissioner Huang said this would be an appropriate use. Jack in the Box is an established business, which will help revitalize the area. He strongly recommended improving the east and west elevations, with decorative treatments, not necessarily windows. Chainnan Kalemkiarian agreed and reiterated his comment, regarding the location at the comer of Myrtle and Duarte Rd. He was hoping that it would be a Spanish or Mediterranean style building. He thought that providing details would deter graffiti. He was inclined to go with staff's recommendations on the hours. Commissioner Murphy agreed with Commissioner Huang's comments regarding the design and with theChainnan with regard to the hours of operation. Commissioner Sleeter concurred and thought.this would be a positive improvement. He also noted that.the elevations on both east and west sides. need to be improved. MOTION It was.moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve CUP 99-005 and adopt Resolution No, 1588 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the additional condition that the architect work with staff to improve the eaSt and west elevations. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang. Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Bruckner Chainnan Kalemkiarjan noted that there is a five working day appeal period, Appeals are to be filed by March 31, 1999, 4, PUBLIC HEARING MP 99-004 & ADR,98-042 1115 Faitview Ave, Jeff Lee Consideration of modifications for an 8-unit residential condominium project. The staffreportwas presented. Staff commented that the back-out area is adequate for cars to maneuver in and out of the garage, Arcidia City PJanning Commission 4 3/23/99 The public hearing was open' . John Sheng, 1002 E. Mooney Dr., Monterey Park, said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. He remarked that they opted for this design with having 4 separate dwellings instead of having one building with 8-units. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. Staff remarked that the front elevation.is the same as the side with the exception that the garage is not visible because of the berm. The driveway is depressed. The front of the building is 2'-3' higher than curb level. Chairman KalemIgarian liked the project. Commissioner Sleeter was displeased with not being provided with the street elevation. It is very difficult to visualize, He thought they needed to provide that to them. He did not like having projects with the garage facing the street. Although he did not object to the layout, he thought the buildings lacked character and resembled a warehouse. He thought that possibly additional landscaping would help mitigate his concern. Commissioner Murphy asked to see the material sample board, He did not have any-issues with the elevations. He was pleased that they decided to break up the building, The requested modifications are mmor. Staff distributed the rendering. After carefully inspecting the rendering, Commissioner Sleeter thought the design was not as bad as he initially thought. Staff explained that the rendering was tuined in tonight. Staff did not have adequate time to inspect it. Ms. Butler said that the rendering doesn't always show the true articulation of the building. It does not give the depth feeling. Sometimes renderings show mature landscaping, which would not be .how the development would De after completion, It takes time for the landscaping to mature and develop, Staff's intention by providing the rendering is to show the building, Chairman Kalemkiarian liked the percentage of landscaping and was pleased with the grass area in the front yard. It is a welcome addition, He could not tell thilt this was a duplex because it looks like some of the homes that are already in the city. Commissioner Huang thought the landscaping would mitigate the mass of the building: Commissioner Sleeter was pleased with the layout and the placement of the structures on the lot but remarked that it is difficult to do an ADR when there are no good elevations submitted, MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Huang, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approveMP 99-004 & ADR 98-042 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Ar=lia Cily Plonning ComnUssioo , 3f1:J199 ROLL CALL: . . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Bruckner Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by March 31, 1999. 5. PUBLIC HEARING MP 99-005 & ADR 99-004 320 Diamond St Bowden Dev. Consideration of modifications for a 3-unit residential condominium project The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened, Richard Tipping, Bowden Development, 425 E. Huntington Or" Montovia, said .they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the .staff report. No one else spokein'favor of or in opposition to this 'item. Chaiiman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. Commissioner Murphy preferred.to see landscaping along the driveway but was pleased with the design of the project. In his opinion, it was nice to see something a little different. Commissioner Sleeter agreed and complimented the architect, He stated that even the garages, which are facing the street, are not obtrusive. Commissioner Huang also complimented the architect and remarked that he liked the different approach to this type ofa development. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve MP 99-005 & ADR 99-004 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Bruckner Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there isa five working day appeal period, .Appeals are to be filed by March 31, 1999. -Arcadia city Planning Commission 6 3/23199 6, PUBLIC HEARING .f99,004 . Consideration of a text amendment for a proposed adult business ordinance. The staff report was presented. Staff indicated that this text amendment was .initiated to update the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMe). The proposed .ordinance was drafted in response to recent court rulings, case law interpretation, and advisement from legal counsel that the AMC provisions, which regulate adult businesses, . need to be updated. It is not the intent of this proposed ordinance to suppress or infringe upon any expressive activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States and California Constitutions. It has been drafted to enact reasonable time, place, and manner regulations that address the adverSe secondary effects of adult business. The current ordinance sets forth definitions and locational requirements, and requires a CUP to impose conditions to regulate adult businesses within the M-I and M-2 zones, But the existing code does not have any specific operations standards, The proposed ordinance deletes the requirement for the CUP process, but establishes very specific operational. standards as well as requirements for the licensing of performers. Currently, code requires a distance of at least 100' between adult establishments and prohibits establishments within 500' of a commercial zone and 750' from any residential zone, There is no distance requirement from schools and other sensitive uses. The proposed ordinance reduces the distance to 50' between adult businesses, and restricts such uses from being within 700' of any existing residential zone, park, recreational area, reiigious establishment, library, school, or day care facility; The current M-I andM-2 zoning requirement for adult businesses wiIl be maintained. Aduit businesses that meet the zoning and loeational requirements as proposed by the ordinance would be subject to its adult business regullltory permit requirements as well as other applicable ordinances of the City and laws of the State of California, The City Attorney also presented a brief staff report. He stated that because of the constitutional principles that apply to adult-oriented businesses, regulating in this. area is extremely difficult. The subjects of these regulations are non-obscene adult-oriented bus.inesses, which the courts have said cannot be prohibited altogether, Adult book/video stores, motion picture theaters/arcades and live entertainment have limited ''free-speech'' protection. The intentof this ordinance is to address what is termed "adverse secondary effects" that are caused bya lack of regulation of these types of businesses. Attorney Deborah Fox, who has 12-years of experience in this field, assisted the City with the proposed ordinance. The Police Dept. and Planning staff also reviewed the ordinance. Court decisions recognize that adult use establishments have the potential for adverse secondary effects such as crime, prostitution, reduced property values, degraded commercial districts and, urban blight The courts also realize that the city planning. process with respect to such businesses should be respected and that the community at large and adjacent property owners, both commercial and residential, have, rights and interests that deserve protection as much as the constitutional rights of an adult use operator. The proposed ordinance meets current legal standards and can protect the ATcadia Cilj Ptanning CommissiOll 7 3123199 city from the negative effec'of adult businesses. The ordinanc_kes the required balance between protecting the City and considerations offreedom that underlie the first amendment. Since the 1988 enactment of Arcadia's first Adult Business Ordinance, no adult uses have located anywhere within the City. This ordinance allowed these uses to be located in the M-I and M-2 zones subject to certain locational-distancerequirements and a CUP. During the II-year period that the ordinance was in effect, significant case law developments have effected the code. In response to these developments, the City Council directed staff to prepare a new ordinance. Because the courts invalidated the CUP approach for adult businesses, the City Council on January 19, 1999, enacted Urgency Ordinance No. 2099, which will remain in effect until the date of a new permanent ordinance, This ordinance provides valid regulatory provisions to replace those that had been invalidated by case law and establishes various operational and development standards to apply to any adult business seeking to establish itself in the City pending adoption of a new ordinance, The distance requirement was also ,changed fi'!'m 750' to 700' from residentially zoned property. He went on to say that it is prudent to have ajlpropriate regulations in place before such businesses become established. The better approach would be to enact valid legislation in advance of any problems. The proposed ordinance combines the locational restrictions with development and performance standards, which are designed to address the adverse secondary effects that can result from the operation of such business. Development of these regulations has. included evaluating the proposed locational restrictions in the context of the physical layout of the City with regard to current zoning categories and existing uses~ The ordinance also contains requirements that operators of adiJlt-oriented businesses secure anAdult Business Regulatory Permit, and that persons employed as live entertainers obtain a Performer License, While courts have held the locational restrictions adopted as part of a city's zoning ordinance are a pennissible, form of regulation, in one case the U.S, Supreme Court announced that a requirement that a restrictive zoning regulation must allow for "reasonable alternative channels of communication". The courts have notse! any specific formula, which offers cities guidance, as to how many iocations must be available for adult-oriented businesses, Instead, recent cases have focused on looking into the reasonable availability of sites for adiJlt oriented businesses. In order, to be valid, a regulatory scheme must provide a genuine opportunity for adult entertainment businesses to establish and operate in,the City. This does not mean that the City must provide sites for owners to rent to adult oriented businesses. But the imposition of locational requirements cannot entirely rule out reasonable locations where adult oriented businesses may exist. The public hearing was opened, No one else spoke in favor of orin opposition to this item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the.public hearing. In response to a question by Commissioner Sleeter, Mr. Miller stated that the reason for the reduction from 750' to 700' was to create sufficient alternative site andavaiiable land use. Ms. Fox felt the City would be better off with that distance, The50' distance made a significant difference and the City needs that to sustain the ordinance. A1>:adia City Plamling eo-ission 8 3123199 Ms. Butler stated that the 70~ measured from any residentiallYZOnltproperty. not necessarily have to be in the City. The properties do Commissioner Murphy expressed concern with allowing this type of a use in the downtown area - the area bounded by First A ve./Santa Clara/Colorado, It is in the middle of the redevelopment area. He looked up the original ordinance, which was-adopted in 1975 and read excerpts from it. Under "Purpose and Intent" it states in part ". ., to encourage and ensure the rebuilding and development of the project area... to encourage and fosterthe economic revitalization of the project area...". Under Section 6, paragraph 5, it.states in part ". .. the canying out the redevelopment plan will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Arcadia," The appropriate zoned areas in the downtown area are also directly adjacent to the CBD zoned properties which they worked very hard to create. This area would also be within 300'-400' of the future Blue Line, which is a public facility and very near to the Post Office. This. area is extremely close to the existing and proposed hotels. He felt strongly that these types of uses would be inappropriate in the downtown area and should be excluded. Mr. Miller said that some cities have created "special areas" and excluded these types of uses from these areas. There is some support for that. Redevelopment.areas are designed to eliminate blight and in this case there is a downtown area, which is not only in the redevelopment area but has been the subject of various revitalization projects. The City of Simi Valley has made special fmdings to further justifY exclusion ofsuch uses as opposed to other areas of their City, By doing that they have limited alternative sites and the question would be "is there still enough sites to sustain a valid ordinance?" This issue was discussed with special counsel and from a legal standpoint it would be best toinciude this area but it was also acknowledged that "special areas" could be excluded due to their nature. The Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council to eliminate this area. The City Council would be given two alternatives: 1. To eliminate the downtown area as recommended by Planning Commission in the. findings emphasizing the Redevelopment area; or 2. Adopt the current ordinance which is before the Planning Commission Staff said that if the downtown area is removed there would still be 30+ acres of available sites - the Chicago Park area, The area per the new ordinance is available and it is up to the business owners to find a location in the permitted area. Commissioner Sleeter was concerned that'ifthis was permitted. in the downtown area it would be too close to the proposed and existing hotels which are family oriented establishments. He wondered if that would strengthen the determination for a "special area" or could the 700' distance also apply to hotels ? Mr. Miller said staff would explore these areas. Council. Member Roncelli noted that some of the guests of the hotel are there for more than just one night. Areadia City I'IannQ,g Commission 9 3f13199 . . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to recommend approval of-TA 99-004 to the City Council and eliminate the redevelopment area from the proposed ordinance. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Commissioner Bruckner MATIERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Roncelli said this would be his last meeting as liaison because he would be. unable to atteqd the Planning Commission's next meeting, He explained that when he was given the assignment as the liaison for the Planning Commission, he was and still is the Chairman of a group that meets on the second Tuesday of the month at the same time as the Planning Commission, He thought that possibly for the future they should have something in writing that states what is expected from a liaison. He indicated that he was criticized strongly for missing so many Planning Commission meetings, He asked how the Planning Commission felt? What should the liaison be doing here and how much of the time do they really need to be here? He commended the Planni,ng Commission for their time and effort that.they have given to the City. Mr, Miller said that very few Cities have liaisons but the role has never been fully defined. This has been discussed with the City Manager and in some cases they felt it might not be that advisable because'the Planning Commission~s decisions can be appealed to the City Council in which case the ,liaison would have toac! on an issue that he has already reviewed, Because of-that the liaison would have to be careful with what'he says. Ms. Butler said that she could not recall a definition of the purpose and the function of the liaison other than to answer the Planning Commission's questions. Chairman Kalemkiarian felt that the liaison is a passive position and there to hear the.Planning Commission's logic. If the issues come up at City Council meetings, theJiaison can relay what took place because he has heard what has been said. Even though the City Council gets the approved Minutes, it is just text, they don't always reflect the emotions and feelings of-what is going on. The Planning Commission has had some liaisons that are not very vocal and there have been some that have been very active. Commissioner Murphy said the intent of the City Council, when this program was created, was probably to inform them of what is happening, But they receive the City Council Agendas and approved Minutes and the meetings are televised, He could not s~e the need for the liaison. Commissioner Sleeter thought that if a decision has been appealed to the City Council, it would be difficult to get a fair hearing because the liaison has already heard the arguments. He suggested defiilingthe roles of the liaison, Arcadia City-Planning CommissiOD 10 3123/99 . . MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSON None MODlFICA TION COMMITIEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Sleeter recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee. MATTERS 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 8:45 p.m. M#~ Secretary, Arcadia lanning mmission Arcadia City Planning CommiSsion 11 3123/99