Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 9, 1999 .. MINUTES. -~~ ~~ Arcadia Cit)' Planning Commission Tuesda)', March 9, 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, March 9, 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 Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING City Attorney Michael Miller Commullity Development Administrator Doima Butler Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Assistant Planner Candyce Burnett Secretary Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FR6M STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARINGMA TIERS (5 M1NUTE LIMtr PER PERSON) Faye S~abler, 111 S. Orange Grove, Pasadena, urged the Planning Commission to take action on the CBD hardship exemption case. She indicated that she is the property owner at 34 E. Huntington Dr. and has had a difficult time in leasing spaces. ~. I. MINUTES of2/23/98 Commissioner Bruckner indicated that Mr, Miller was not present at t\iis meeting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve the Minutes of February 23n1 as amended. . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Ms. Butler introduced Kenneth Phung, the new Assistant Planner who joined the department recently. 2. PUBLiC HEAKlNli !PM 99-U02 (pM 25399) 227 Genoa Hank Jong Consideration ofatentative parcel map for a 2-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented. Staff noted that a modification was granted for this project. The public hearing was opened. HankJong, 881 S. Monte Verde, civil engineer of the project was present. He'indicated that they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this .item. Chairman Kalemldarian closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve TPM 99-002 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, .Sleeter, K,aIemkiarian None Chairman Kalernkiarian noted that there Is a ten-dayappeal period. Appeals are to be filed by March 19, 1999. 3. PUBLiC HEAKlNli IPM 99-U03 (pM 25398) 1024 Sunset Hank Jong Consideration ofa tentative parcel map for a 2-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. An:adia city:Plaming Commission 2 3/9/99 Hank Jong, 881 S. Monte "e, civil engineer of the project was prtlt. in agreement with all oftheconditions in the staff report. He indicated that they are No one elSe spoke in mvor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Huang, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve TPM 99-003 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by March 19, 1999. 4.PUBLlC HEARING fPM 99-004 (pM 25419) 20-38 Grandview Tritech Assoc. Consideration of a tentative parcel map fur a 2-unit residential condominium project. The staffreportwas presented and the public hearihg was opened. No one spoke in, favor of or in opposition tothis item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve TPM 99-004 subject to the conditions in thestaffrepoI:t. ROLLCALL: AYES: .NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by March 19, 1999. Arcadia City Plarming Commission 3 319/99 5. PUBLlCHEARINAM 99-005 (PM 24947) 270 W. Orange Grove Rex Moore . Consideration ofa tentative parcel map for a,,2-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented. Ms. Butler stated that a tree preservation plan would be required, approved by both the Homeowner's Association (HOA) and the City. She explained that if more than 60% of the block has a greater front yard setback, then the setback is determined by the average of the two nearest developed lots. The required front yard setback for parcel 3 would be 65', and the corner lot would be required to have a 50' side yard setback. If they construct in the drip line of an oak tree, an Arborist Report is required indicating how the tree would be protected, bilt this particular process does not require an Arborist's Report. The public hearing was opened. Bart Stryker, Stryker Eng, 505 N. Tustin, #170, Santa Ana, was representing the owner. He indicated they were in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Based on staff s recommendations, they revised the plan, which is now before the Planning Commission. He felt confident that there is plenty of room for developing the lots without harming any of the trees. Because he misunderstood the setbacks for the proposed new homes, he asked if they could move the pl\lperty lines' after tonight's approval to better accommodate the houses? They would only move the property lines between parcels 1 and 2, reducing the lot width of parcel 2 by 7' to 145'. He thought that they would bring ina landscape architect to help them design the project so they can preserve as many trees as possible. Ms. Butler explained that lot lines' cannot he readjusted after tonight's approval. Any changes woulO need to be made now. No one else spoke in favor of orin opposition to this item. ChairinaJiKalemkiarianclosed the public hearing. Ms. Butler said that walls and fences over 2' in height require the HOA approval. Commissioner Murphy wanted an Arborist involved with the project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to approve TPM 99-005 subject to the conditions in the staff report with an amendment to condition 1, that a tree preservation plan prepared 'by a licensed arborist shall be submitted to tbe Community Development Division for review and approval prior to any grading activity on the site. Said plan shall locate and identify all trees by type, size and location and shall note, which trees are to be,removed, and whicb trees shall be saved. Arctdi.ll City Pfannin2: Commission 4 319199 . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by March 19, 1999. b. PUllL1~ llliAKlNli IPM 99-uu6 (PM 25413) 46 EI Dorado Hank long Consideration of a tentative parceLmap fora 2-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Hank long, 881 S. Monte Verde, civil elJgineer ofthe project was present. He indicated that they are in agreement with all ()ftheconditions 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 Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve TPM 99-006 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that thereis'a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by March 19, 1999. I. PUllLl~ J-fuAKlNli IPM 99-U()7 (PM 254(0) 330 Diamond Hank long Consideration ora. tentative parcel map fora 2-unitresidential condominium project. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Hank long, 881 S. Monte Verde, civil engineer of the project was present. He.indicated thai they are in agreement with all of the Conditions in the staff report. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Arcadia City P1arming Commissi_OIl s 3/9/99 . . Chairman KaJemkiarian closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to approve TPM 99-007 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is,a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by March 19, 1999. 8. PUllLlC llliARlNli MP 99-U03 285 W. Foothill Blvd. Wes Lind Consideration ofan appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners Association's denial ofan existing solid masonry wall that was constructed along the site's front property line. In addition, the applicant is requesting a modification to permit the height of the wall to remain at 3'-0" to 7'-9" in lieu of a previously approved height of4'-0" (9283.9.1). The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Jack Lynch, 224 Hacienda, C:hairman of the Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board (ARB), gave a brief explanation of what happened with the subject wall. The applicant was informed of what the requirements for the wall were. Mr. Lind's reaction to their conversation was that he would construct what he felt was appropriate and not adhere to the ARB~s requirements. In.his opinion, the wall is not compatible with any other in the Santa Anita Oaks area. He felt if the Planning Commission approves this appeal, it would set a precedent. What would keep another homeowner from doing the same? People would ignore the ARB's recommendation because they would know all they'd have to do is to appeal their decision and the Planning Commission would approve it - because they have done that in the.past. What kind of message would they be sending if this was approved on an appeal? He did not want his area to look like a fo'rtress. He did not agree with staff's recommended condition that the wall remain with dense landscaping. He thougJit they should comply withcode.requirement. ~ - He said Mr. Lind cited his reasons for having a 7' high wallis forthe safety of his children and pets and to keep trespassers out. He noted that portions of the wall are only 3' high. Surely, any trespasser could enter the property jumping over the 3' portion and not the higher portions ofthe wa:Il. The children and the pets could also get out of the property through the shorter section of the wall. He remarked that the ARB members are all frustra!ed by this situation. Wall height is an issue that they constantly encounter. Property owners in their association are always trying to increase the wall height and they try to. enforce the requirement. Another property owner to the west of this site wasjust approved for a 4' high fence - a 2' high wall with a 2' high wrought iron. This property owner wanted a much higher wall but he was told of the code requirements. What will they say to this homeowner, especially, when he was Arcadif!' City Plaming Commission 6 3/9199 . . told he could not build a higher wall? He did not agree with staff's recommendation to utilize dense landsc;aping. Staff's solution was not acceptable to them. Ms. Butler clarified that staff is not recommending that the appeal be approved. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the appeal, then staff is recommending that the appeal be approved with the recommended conditions. Commissioner Huang remarked that if there was such a problem with the requirements forwall heights, then possibly the requirements should be amended and new criteria should be reconsidered. Mr. Lynch replied that this is not their requirement but the City's. They are enforcing the Arcadia Municipal Code. Although they will allow 5' high walls, they have never approved a 4' high solid wall anywhere in their association, Commissioner Huang thought ,that if they are constantly being requested to build higher walls along Foothill Blvd. then possibly an amendment is necessary. Mr. Lynch asked who would ensure that the area between the block walls and the property line are landscaped? Would the City be doing that? He remarked that they try to encourage the use of brick along with wrought iron. A solid block wall would not be compatible with what is in their association. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing, Ms. Butlersaid that the City conducted footing inspections and rebar inspections but the violation was not caught until the wall was completed, because no inspections were conducted again until they called for a final. ' Mr. Nicholson remarked that.the wall heights along Foothill Blvd. vary but it would be less objectionable if they removed the ornaments from the posts and planted heavy landscaping to camouflage the wall. Commissioner Bruckner said that he visited the site and he could.see the reasons for wanting a higher wall. There is a lot'of noise created from Foothill Blvd. and people drive very fast. The homes along Foothill Blvd. are very different from others in the City. The wall would also block some of the lights from Foothill Blvd. and along with landscaping help reduce the impact of the lights. Mr. Nicholson said the appiicant was approved for a modification. There is a substantial grade change on the site but that is not an excuse for what happened here. Commissioner Sleeter was troubled by tl!e owner's blatant disregard of the City Codes. There are many other'homeowners on Foothill Blvd. but none chose the route that Mr. Lind did. He deliberately did not cooperate with the City and felt this would set a precedent for other homeowners in the same situation.' ' Commissioner Huang said this is a unique. case. The site slopes and the City should. address whether a 4' high wall is appropriate in this particular corridor or not Commissioner Murphy disagreed with Commissioner Sleeter. He did not think it is their jurisdiction to punish the homeowner. They need to address the. issue before them; i.e., the existing wall height. He did not Arcadia'Citv Mannina; CommisSion 7 3/9/99 . . Jikethe ornaments on top of the pillars. He also visited the site and said that he was not sure if he would notice the wall height if it was densely landscaped. Foothill Blvd. is a major thoroughfare and the wall probably would go unnoticed. It was noted that the property owner, Mr. Lind, had arrived. Chairman Kalemkiarian re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Lind, 285W. Foothill Blvd., explained that they had to build this wall because what was there fell over and did not have any footings. He was concerned with the safety of his children and their pets. He did not feel that a 4' high wall would keep them safe and out of Foothill Blvd. He realized that the safety of his children, and the pets are not the City's concerns but he felt strongly that he needed to protect his family from any potential harm. If they were to build the wall as it was originally approved, it would look odd, out of place. and ridiculous. The Planning CommissionunderstoodMr, Lind's reasons,for needing an extended wall height based on the variation of the grade; Chairman Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. Chairman Kalemkiarian agreed and said they are not a disciplinary board. Each project should be reviewed on a case by case. He did not think that if they approved this, they would be setting a precedent. The ARB can always appeal their decision to the City Council.' , Commissioner Murphy wanted the ornaments removed so it looks like other pilasters. He thought that would help mitigate some of the problem. He was pleased with the quality of construction and was in favor of the ~p~~ ' Staff commeilted that there are.8 ornamentS on the wall but the lowest portion of the wall does not' have any ornaments. Commissioner Huang wondered if FootQill Blvd. should have a different set of codes due to its unique situation. It is a heavily traveled street and safety is a concern. Mr. Nicholson said the regulations are standard. The modification process is available to all p~operty owners and it provides the flexibility. Commissioner Bruckner was disappointed with the blatant disregard of the City's codes. In response to a question by Commissioner Huang, Ms. Butler said that generally landscaping plans are not approved by the ARB. Mr. Miller said that the ARB is given certain authority by the City Council, the Planning Commission cannot delegate. additional responsibility to them, by requiring them to approve the landscape plans. Mr, Nicholson' recommended that the Planning Commission grant the app~giving them 45 days to bring the wall into compliance, otherwise, the Planning Commission's action would become null and void. Arcadia City'Planning,Commission 8 3/9/99 . . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to approve the appeal subject to the conditions in the staff report with the additional conditions listed below: I. That the wall must be brought into compliance within 45 days after the appeal period. The Planning Commission's action will be null and void if there is no compliance. 2. The landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Division. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Kalemkiarian Commissioner Sleeter Chairman Kalemkiarian noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by March 19, 1999. NON PUBLIC HEARINGlTEMS 9. PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION Planning Commission recOmmendation regarding a request by Faye Stabler to allow hardship exemptions in' the CBD zone. The staff report was preselJted. Chairman Kalemkiariah could not understand why this item was before the Planning Commission, again. He suggested having a joint study session with City Council, once and for al~to solve this problem. Commissioner Sleeter thought that they had studied this enough, illso. Ms. Butler explained that this item was before the Planning Commission as a text amendment one- year ago. In November, Ms. Stabler requested to amend the CaD regulations to include a "hardship exemption" to permit uses other thanretail businesses, within thefronl one-third of a building along Huntington Dr. At that time the Planning Commission continued its discussion and requested itto comeback to them in February, 1999. Commissioner Bruckner remarked that the City Council is asking for Planning Commission's recommendation. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeterto recommend to City Council that they adopt option I. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9 3/9/99 . . Commissioner Sleeter felt that would remove the issue once and for all and they would not have to have south First Ave. come back and want an amendment at a later date. Commissioner.Bruckner disagreed and said that the amount of money that was spent on First Ave. changed the character of First Ave. Commissioner Murphy agreed. After some discussion, the Planning Commission decided that the best solution would be option no. 3 listed in the staff report; i.e.: 3. Amend the code by deleting the requirement that the front 1/3 of the ground floor area be utilized for retail sales along both Huntington Dr. and north First Ave. MOTION Itwas moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to recommend the above amendment to the City CounciL ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian None MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSON In response to a comments by Commissioner Bruckner regarding Tentative Parcel Maps, Ms. Butler stated that staffhas been extremely busy but is working on amending the subdivision regulations. Commissioner Bruckner thoughi that it would be. much more efficient if staff would make the time and amend the code, thus, saving all the time thatis spent in preparing the reports that come to the Planning Commission regarding these routine subdivisions. With respect'to the Santa Anita project, Chainrtail Kalemkiarian stated that at a recent City Council meeting, they tried to appoint a committee comprised,,af Mayor Kovacic and Council Member Harbicht, because of their extensive Planning Commission experience, to review the project, He suggested to Council Member Harbicht that possibly one of the Planning Commission members could also be appointed to this committee. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Sleeter recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee. MATTERS FROM STAFF I. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Areadia City PImming Commissi... 10 3/9/99 . . Ms. Butler recapped the upcoming projects before the Planning Commission and recent actions taken by the City Council. She indicated that two RFPs were submitted for the Anoakia project and staff has chosen one as the consultant. Ms. Butler stated that in order to provide the Planning Commission with adequate time in reviewing the material, amendments for the R-1 and R-O zones were distributed tonight. The public hearing on this item will be on April 13th. Mr. Miller stated that when Rex Moore, the property owner at 270 W. Orange Grove, appealed the City's decision to the courts, the judge in the case 'advised him that "the City of Arcadia is reasonable and if he would redesign his project, ,he was sure that the City would approve the subdivision". Apparently, Mr. Moore took the judge's advice. 9:00 p.m, ADJOURNMENT Arcadia City Planning Commission 11 3/9/99