Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 8, 2000 (i) . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, August 8,2000 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers Planning Commission proceedings are tape-recorded and oil 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,_ August 8, 2000 at 7:15 p.m. in the Coui1cil Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Sleeter presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Comrrrissioners Huang, Kalemkiariart, Murphy, Sleeter ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Huang, seconded by Commissioner Milrphy to excuse Commissioner Bruckner from tonight's meeting_ The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING Council.Member Sheng Chang - . , Community Development Administrator, Donna Butler Associate Planner James Kasama Assistant Planner Candyce Burnett Assistant Planner Kenneth Phung " Secretary Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler said that a revised agenda was distributed. She noted that letters were distributed from the same resident, William Kaplan, on item no. 2 in favor of the project. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WlSHTO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON.PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) Chairman Sleeter announced that the applicant and speakers who are present at tonight's meetingJor the signs at 801 W; Huntington Dr. will be given the opportunity to speak when that item comes up, even though it is not a public hearing. None 1. NITNUTESof~25roO . . MOTION It waS moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve the Minutes of July 251h as published. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: . Commissioner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None Commissioner Bruckner 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARlNGMP 00-015 Consideration ofinodifications for a new dwelling. The staff report was presented. Staff indicated thatthe minimum rear yard setback for a detached garage is 3'. The public hearing was opened. Dianne Dilly, 163 E. Camino Real, gave'a brief history of the project and said thattlJey have redesigned and. reduced the size of the house. The neighbors are in favor of the project. Graham Briggs, 22 Genoa, designer of the project said th.e requested modifications are justified because of both the sub-standard lot depth and that the lotis a.reverse corner lot. Because it is,a reverse corner lot it is required to have a wider than normal street' side yard. He noted that the 35' special setback is imposed on two sides ofthe property and not just one. If they were to meet all setbacks the maximum livable area for the entire home would be 1,974-sq. ft., much less than many condominium units in the City. This would be 17.5% lot coverage. Code allows 35% lot coverage for two-story homes. Ms. Dilly's original request was denied. They have redesigned and reduced the size of the house; however, they are, still requesting two of the previously requested modificatioIls. These two requests,are for a 2.0' easterly side yard setback in lieu of35' and for a 30' rear yard setback in lieu of35' for the secondcfloor, He noted that staff is recommending approval of these. modifications. He remarked that the 20' setback on Second Ave. would not be a front yard setback. as it is with most'properties along Second. This 20' setback would be their side yard setback because this is a reverse cornedot. With regard to concerns being raiSed about the opening of the 'driveway onto Second Ave., Mr. Graham said that the driveway has opened onto Second Ave. for the last 16 years and only.seven years ago the additional opening was constructed onto Camino Real. He noted that the main bulk of the house complies with the 35' special setback. They are requesting a 3.0" modification for a covered porch. This porch is to shelter the south facing entry from rain and the heat of the S\ID. The building separation of 5' in lieu of 10' is.the other requested modification between the ho~and the detached garage. This is necessary due to the substandard lot depth. Arcadia City Pl8nning:Commission 2 818/00 . . In closing, he stated that staff is fu agreement with the requested modifications and finds them to be acceptable and that the revised design is in proportion and visually ham-.onious with the surrounding residential development. He urged the Planning Commission to approve their request. Henry Shih, 1526 S. Second, said that he has seen the plans and urged the Planning Commission to approve their request. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Sleeter closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve MP 00~015 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None Commissioner Bruckner Chairman. Sleeter noted that there is a five working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by August 16,2000. 3. PUBLIC HEARING TPMOO-015 515 S. Second Ave. Hank Jong Consideration of a tentative parcel map fur a 2-unit residential condominium project. , The ,staff report was presented and the public hearing'was opened. Winston Lu, EGL Assoc., said 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 Sleeter closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to appro~e TPM 00-015 subject to the conditions listed in the'staffreport. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None . Commissioner Bruckner -Arcadia CitY Planning Commission 3 8/8/00 . . Chairman Sleeter noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by August 18, 2000. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. SADR2000-014 & SADR 2000-051 801 W. Huntington Dr. Signs Express Consideration of architectural design review for signs on a two-story office 'building for TCM Healing Institute. and' Merrill Lynch. Robin Bell, representing the design company that prepared the sign for Merrill Lynch, 1802 American St., Anaheim said they are in agreement with the pian and the recommendation by staff. Francis Yu, 801 W. Huntington Dr. owner, was very ~appy to have one of the top five Fortune 500 companies, Merrill Lynch, occupying the bottom floor ofhis building, There has been numerous case of confusion, since they have moved into this building. Many times their customers have gone into Merrill Lynch only to be told that they occupy the second floor of the building. The strUcture is very limited and these issues were not addressed in 1997 when they were constructing the building. Because the external and internal walls are only 6" in depth, traditional channel lettering cannot apply to this building. To have one sign on each side of the building, as the modification requires, would be much more destructive than what they are proposing. Their pr(Jposal is to have the signs parallel on one side of the building. Ronald May, 13635 Van Horn Cir., Chino Hills, said he is an engineer. What is professional looking to one:person may not be to another. This is a very subjective issue. For example some one may think that neon sign would be appropriate but he did not think that a neon style sign would be for this building. Pauline Cheng, 25 E. Huntington Dr., a .reaI estate agent, said that her client turned down many interested tenants that wanted to occupy the first floor ofthis building because he wanted it leased by a Fortune 500 company. This isa perfect location for Merrill Lynch and she hoped that they would occupy this building for a long time'and service the community. Signs onaparallelline on'a single line would not identifY which tenant is on which floor. As mentioned earlier, many of Dr. Yu's clients go to Merrill Lynch because they do not realize that he is on the second floor of the building, This has become irritating t() the staff of Merrill Lynch. It is both practical and functional to have two signs identifying each business. After all, isn't that what signs are for? , David Sheen, 2196 San Marino, said this is an aesthetic issue. He works for, a design company that does commercial signs and this is a standard practiCe. He agreed with comments made by Ms. Cheng. It would be confusing to have both signs in line but putting one on top of the other would resolve the issue. Having two signs would resemble a commercial/retail building. Professional offices tend to have signs as proposed by Mr. Yu. Joe Wan, 8464 E. Elm, San Gabriel, asked that the Planning Commission approve this request. Terry To, Signs Express, 2446 Merced Ave.,.EI Monte, was present to answer any questions. Arcadia City- Planning. Commission 4 818/00 . . No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. The staff report was presented. In response to a question by Commissioner Murphy, staff said that if approved, these would be the only two signs that would be permitted on the building. The total square footage of these two signs are the maximum that is permitted by the modification for the building. Ms. Butler stated that in 1997 when the building was being constructed, the applicant presented a concept plan. The City's architectural design regulations require that signing be incorporated in the ADR for buildings. Since this was a condition of approval, she was disappointedthaf they did not make accommodations for the'two signs on the bottom by having Some way of accessing the signing so they could have used channel letters. When the building was approved in 1997, this was a condition of approval. It may .sound logical to the applicant to have their sign on the second floor, since they occupy the top floor. But by the same token, what would happen if there was a three or four story building? Would they allow signs for each floor going'up the building? The'plirpose of ADR is to have the sign in the best possible location while complimenting the building design. With regard to the confusion, Ms. Butler said that.the entrance is primarily from the back where the parking and elevator are located. It would be easy to place an unobtrusive directional sign that would'resolve that problem. The confusion.is not a good reason to allow the signing up on the second floor area. Staff feels strongly about this issue and feels the decision that was made in 1997 was appropriate; To have both signs on the top would be another option. Staff is looking not only at balance but it is easier when.in a car to look across (eye level) rather than having to look up onabuilding. Co!l)Illissioner Murphy said the applicaJ?t's proposal gives the appearance that only one half of the building is occupied. He agreed with staff's recommendation. . Commissioner.KaIemkiarian said the other side of the building looks empty. Commissioner Huang realized that there is a criteria for signs. He thought that both signs are well designed and mtegrated with the building. He agreed with the multi-story building comment and if they allowed every floor to have a sign it would be chaotic. The purpose of the Planning Commission hearing is to look at each individual case and its own merits. This is a well,designed building and signs and he was in favor of the two signs as proposed by the applicant. Chairman Sleeter agreed with staff's recommendation'andhis vote back in 1997. The signs as proposed are'attractive. He thought that signs.'should remain between the first and.second floors.. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to approve SADR 00-014& SADR 00-051 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter Commissioner Huang Commissioner Bruckner Arcadia City Planning Commission 5 8/8/00 . . Chairman Sleeter noted.that there is a five working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by August 16, 2000. MOTION It was moved. by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Huang to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. The motion passed by voice ,vote with none dissenting. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 1613 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, forwarding the Plaiming Commission's comments to the City Council on the final ElR, GP 99~001, Z 99-003 and T A 99-006 for the' Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita expansion. Ms.. Butler read the title of the resolution. MOTION It was moved by Commissione~ .Murphy, seconded by Commissioner KaJemkiarian to adopt Resolution No, 1613 and to formally affirm the decision ofJuly 25th and the vote thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None Commissioner Bruckner RESOLUTION NO. 1614 ., A resolution ofthe Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending to the City Council approval of GP 99-00 I to modify the maximum intensity floor area ratio (FAR) from.40 to .50 for the property located at,400 S. Baldwin Ave. (the NE comer ofBalrlwin Ave. and Huntington Dr.) Ms. Butler read the title of the resolution. MOTION It was' moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to adopt Resolution No. 1614 and to formally affirm the decision of July251h and the vote thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, KaJemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None Commissioner Bruckner Arcadia City Planning Commission 6 8/800 . . RESOLUTION NO. 1615 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending to the City Council approval of Z 99-003 to reconflgure the C-2 & D H8 overlay to incorporate the new building envelope for the enclosed and proposed open-air mall on the property located at 400 S. Baldwin AVe. (the NE corner of Baldwin Ave. and Huntington Dr,) Ms. Butler read the title of the resolution. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Huang, seconded by Chairman Sleeter to adopt Resolution No. 1615 andto formally affIrm the decision of July 2S'b and the vote thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None Commissioner Bruckner RESOLUTION NO. 1616 . A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, forwarding recommendations to the City Council relating to T A 99-006 to amend Section 9269.5 of the AMC relating to the parking requirements for regional shopping centers, adding Section 9220.25.3 a definition for gross leasable area to the AMC and a request to delete the floor area of kiosks and carts from the parking requirements. . Ms. Butler read the title of the resolution. MOTION '. It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to adopt Resolution No. 1.616 aild to formally affIrm the decision ofJuly 2Slh and the vote thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Huang,. Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: ., None ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner RESOLUTION NO. 1617 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, forwarding recommendations to the City Council relating to T A 99-006 requesting modifications to City CouncilResolution4185 that establishes specific regulations relating to design criteria, uses and landscape standards for the property located at 400 S. Baldwin Ave. (the NE corner ofBaldwiil Ave. and Huntington Dr.) Arcadia City'Planning Commission 7 818/00 . . Ms. Butler read the title of the resolution. She aSked for clarification on the issue of "entertaintnent". Are they recommending that a use such as Dave and Busters would be permitted subject to an approved CUP? The current recommendation limits and prohibits entertainment Unless it is. incidental to an eating establishment restaurant. Do they want to allow entertainment with or without a restaurant use subject to the CUP procesS? This would mean that this typeofa use would require a public heating before the Planning Commission. Commissioner KaJemkiarian was,inagreement with that recommendation. Commissioner Murphy agreed but anything above and beyond that would be a stretch. Chairman Sleeter agreed. Commissioner Murphy thought that the entertaintnent portion being an incidental use is a gray area. Ms. Butler said that it is pretty clear for staff by looking at the floor plan but if there are any hints of problems, the final.determination would be made by the Development Services Director. MOTION It was moved by-Commissioner Huang, seconded by Chairman Sleeter to adopt Resolution No. 1617 as amended and to formally affirm the decision of July 25th and the vote thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner HUang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None' Commissioner Bruckner Ms. Butlerstatecl that the public hearing for this item has been scheduled for the City Council's September 51h meeting., . MATTEE-S FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Chang summarized the ' recent actions taken by City Council. MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Sleeter eXplained his reasons for resigning from the Planning'Commission. Commissioner Huang said he would be absent from the next meeting. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Huang recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee. MATTERS FROM STAFF I. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Arcadia City Planning CommisSion 8 8/8/00 . . 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler informed the Planning Commission of upcoming agenda items. ADJOURNMENT 8:15 p.m. ~~~" / Arcadia City Planning Commission 9 8/8/00