Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 25, 2000 v . . MINUTES - (i) Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, July 25, 2000 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers Planning Commission proceedings are tape-recorded and on file in the office of the Community Devel()pment Division. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, July 25, 2000 at 7:15 p.m in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia; at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Sleeter presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: C()mmissioners Bruckner, Huang; Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING Council Member Sheng Chang City Attorney Stephen Deitsch Community DevelopmentAdministrator, Donna Butler Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Assistant Planner Candyce Burnett Assistant Planner Kenneth Phung ,. - - - . Secretary Silva Vergel MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, 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. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler said that a reVised agenda was distributed. She also indicated that the applicant for item 2 requested that theit.item be continued to the August 81b meeting. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON"PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTELIMlT PER PERSON) None I. MINUTES of7/1I/00 MOTION . . It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to approve the Minutes of July 11 tb as published. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAiN: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter None Commissioner Kalemkiarian 2. CONTlNUED PUBUCHEARING MP 00-015 Consideration of modifications for anew dwelling. At the request of the applicant, this item was continued to the August 8th meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 00"011 846 W. Duarte Rd. (President's Square) Pote Nongluk Consideration of a conditional use permit fora 752-sq. ft. Thai Cafe with seating for 20 patrons. Hours of operation will be.from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.,.seven days a week RESOLUTION NO. 1612 A resolution of the Planning GolIlII)ission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting CUP .00- 011 for an eating establishment at 846 W. Duarte Rd. . The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. >. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by ColllIl1iSsioner Kalemkiarian to close the public hearing. The motion passed by vojce vote with none dissenting. In response to a question, staff said that the applicant has received a copy of the staff report. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiariim, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to approve CUP 00-011 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None MOTION Arcadia City Planning C.ommission 2 7125100 . . It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to adopt Resolution No. 1612. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None Chairman Sleeter noted that there is a five working-day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. Appeals are to be filed by August 2, 2000. 4. PUBLIC HEARING'MPOO-017 &ADROO-OI7 45-5.3 E. Colorado Blvd. AIlanAhsien and Jeff Lee Consideration of modifications for a 6-unit residential condominium project. The stalfreport was presented and the public hearing was opened. Robert Tong, Sanyao Int'~ 141 E. Duarte Rd., said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff ~eport. Commissioner Murphy commended the architect on this nice project. He liked the elevations. Commissioner Huang liked the different approach that the architect took. Jeff Lee, 2135 Huntington Dr., #702, San Marino, 'owner, hoped that the Planning Commission would approve this request. He said this is a diffi~ult lot to develop because of the liquor store and the pay Phones and theirproxirnity to the property. These two elements combined bring'in unwelcome activity. He is working on other multiple-family projects that are adjacent to commercial zoned properties. It is very difficult to develop these types of properties. Hong DeVisa,50 E. Newman, had concerns with the,requested modifications. She feh that they need to comply with code. She was opposed to the reduced. landscaping. Landscaping creates open space and provides curb appeal. She felt giving them a blanket approval would not be appropriate for this high- density project. She.came here to seek and preserve residential zones. In rebutt~ Mr. Lee said the property is zoned. R-3, multiple-family. They have worked very hard with staff and have come up with this design. They have tried to come.up with the best project that would fit this property. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. In response to a question by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, staff said that the density requirement would allow of up to 9 units thatcould be either apartments or condominiums. Commissioner Murphy was pleased with the amount oflandscaping that the project offered. He did not share.the concerns raised by the neighbor. He felt the modifications were minor and liked the design. Atcadia City Planning Co~ion J 7125/00 . . Commissioner Bruckner echoed Commissioner Murphy's comments. The project has a relatively small rear yard setback but it does not appear that the neighbor to the rear objects. He was pleased to see that this eye sore would be resolved. This is very close to the freeway and is one of the entrance points to $e city and it is important to have the property cleaned up. . Commissioner Huang was pleased with the amount of landscaping and liked the concept. Chairman Sleeter said the requested modifications were similar to other ones that are requested on similar projects. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to approve MP 00- 017 subject to .the conditions intlie staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None Chairman Sleeter noted that there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by August 2,2000. 5. PUBLIC HEARING FEIR, GP 99-001, Z 99-003, TA 99-006 400 S. Baldwin Ave. Westfield Corp., Inc. Consideration of the Final EIR, general pliln amendment, zone change and text amendment to allow for the expansion of the Westfi\lld Shoppingtown. The staff.reportwas presented. Ms. Butlell,introducedWilliam Halligan from the Templeton Planning Group, the consulting firm selected by the City to prepare the environmental impact report for the proposed project. William Halligan, Templeton Planning Group, 1470 Jamboree Rd., Newport Beach. He said thatthe Draft EIRanalyzesa total of eight impact categories "including: )> Aesthetics > Air Quality > Geology and Soils > Land "Use and Planning )> Noise )> Public Services )> Traffic )> Utilities and Service Systems In addition, the Draft EIR analyzed the cumulative impacts of the project along with other cumulative development anticipated within the area, and three alternatives to the proposed project, including the No-project Alternative. Arcadia City Planning Commission 4 7125100 . . Based on the findings of the Draft EIR, "Air Quality" was identified asa Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact, meaning that the mitigation measures cOntained in the Draft EIR were unable to reduce the pOtentiai impacts to a level of insignificance. All other impact categories can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. It should be noted that the finding of significant air quality impacts was based on exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's threshold criteria rather than any locally significant air quality impact. Because Southern California is identified as a "non- attaimnent" area, the significance thresholds are set very low. As a result, any shopping center project over 64,000 square feet is considered potentially significant under AQMD's threshold criteria. The Draft ErR was released for a 45-day public review period on May 19, 2000 and ended on July 3, 2000. A total of eleven letters were received. These letters and responses to comments received on the Draft EIR are contained in the Preliminary Final EIR dated July 2000. The Preliminary Final EIR also contains reVisions to the Draft EIR based on comments received during the 45-day public 'review period including the June. 13th Planning Commission hearing. Other revisions include changes to the traffic study based on comments from the City Traffic Engineer, anq phasing of the traffic mitigation based on updated project phasing information from the'applicant. As a resuit, the three improvements identified in the traffic study for the year 2002 condition are required prior to completion of the Phase I-mall improvements consisting of up to 400,000 square feet. The traffic study identifies an additional nine improvements under the year 2015 condition, which would be required prior to completion of the Phase 2 mall improvements consisting. of the remaining 200,000 square feet. ' Commissioner Murphy asked what background traffic count means? Mr. Halligan responded that is the existing 1999 traffic counts, which would be the actual traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways. When analyzing the impact of the project, they took a background count for the year 2002 condition thatinc!udes'a J % per year growth factor to accommodate for background growth. The background 2002 is tll.e existing 1999 pius a 1% growth factor. The year 2015 condition includes a background groy;th factor of 1% through the year 2015 plus cumulative development in accordance with the General Plan. These background volumes are then compared to the 2015 condition with the Westfield project. '. Commissioner Murphy said that he raised concerns and the impact from the racetrack traffic and he did notfeel that issUe was addressed. Frank Scherco, Parsons, the traffic consultant was present. They felt there is a one day overlap between the racetrack operations and what would be considered the peak season for mall activities. Therefore, planning for traffic impacts for essentially a one-day event in their estimation did not make prudent use of public facilities' or private investment. They have taken the normal traffic generated during mall activities as it leads into the busy season and used that as their basis for comparison with the activities with the surrounding traffic or the background traffic and with and without the project and mitigations based upon that Their understanding was that there was only the one-day overlap. This feeling was also shared by the City's traffic engineer. They would have looked at other alternatives, if the situation was different. Chairman Sleeter asked..at what point would that overlap become significant? He remarked that most of them would find the contention of a single day is a little ludacrist. The mall is very busy during the holidays. The traffic does not cease the day after Christmas but continues through the week when schools are out and people are on vacation. ' Arcadia City Planning Commission 5 7125100 . . Mr. Scherco said in traffic engineering they looked at the 20th highest hour into the 65th highest hour or event period and this might extend to 20th highest traffic day into the 65th highest traffic day depending on whether the project is in a rural area. or an urban area. Other than a few days overlap that does not cover that 20-65 day. . Commissioner Murphy voiced his concern that this matter was addressed in the Draft EIR and it blended itito the background traffic count. Nearly six months out of the year, there. isa lot of traffic coming out of the racetrack in the late afternoon. For this issue not to have been addressed in here is a gross oversight. Mr. Scherco responded that the background traffic for the racetrack on a normal ongoing. basis is counted as part of the background traffic and is included in the tables that have been presented to the Planning Commission. Not only in terms oftoday's traffic but multiplied out to the year 2002 and 2015. Westfield also had to look at . the related project also being included which would be a full scale development at the racetrack. This was,then counted as part of the background traffic. This scenario is there in the analysis. Commissioner Bruckner asked about how many seats would be in the theater? Mr. Scherco said itwas estimated.to be approXimately 4,500 seats. Commissioner Bruckner felt that the ratio of seats to the parking seemed odd. He was concerned with the 4.75 blended over the whole center which he thought would be acceptable for retail. He was concerned about the restaurant parking and did not think that would be adeqilate. He thought they should look at seat counts in both theaters and restaurants in determining the parking spaces instead of looking at the square footage. He thought there should defmitely be seat limits in both the theater and theresta~ant. ' , Mr. Scherco if these were stand alone developments, seat counts would probably be the best basis for coming up with a parking demand, but in ~hared parking facilities the methodology used is based on Urban Land Institute information and methodology for large collective centers that have a mix of various activities. The public hearing was opened. John Healy, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, developer of the project was present. He made the following presentation: Security The comment was made that security mitigation should extend beyond parking structures. A security plan is required by item 2 of the police services mitigations. This plan will address staffing and quantity of patrols throughout the Shopping center. The intent was not to limit the security plan just to the parking structure. The structures were the focus since they are the new component. The security plan will cover security throughout all of the common area. Art....fi.. ritv PI..nn..... t"ntnrni....;nn 6 7125/00 . . Concern has been raised about the appropriateness and compatibility of food stores in regional shopping centers. Historically markets and drug stores were part of regional centers. Most regional centers built in the 1950's ahd 60's included markets. Examples of this would be Whittwood Mall in Whittier, the 'Stonewood MaIl in Downey. Anaheim Plaza, Chula. Vista Shopping Center and Century City Shopping Center. Trizec Hahn is including a market in the 'redo of Plaza Pasadena. Los Altos sic in Long Beach recently was renovated with a Sears, SavOn and Bristol Farms. Valley Fair in San Jose is one of the most sUccessful centers in the country and it has a Safeway market and a drug store. The ability to provide the consumer witli convenient, one-stop shopping is of utmost importance in today's hurried lifestyle. Having the various land uses available in one location reduces the number of daily trips thus reducing traffic noise and, air pollution. A food store will bring customers to the center on a daily basis and will serve to differentiate Santa Anita from other regional shopping opportunities. Staff .has recommended an artificial control on the size of a food store. We believe the market conditions should determine the appropriate size and ask that this condition be.removed. With regard to Transportation Mitigation, and as stated in our letter dated June 30, 2000 to Ms. Butler regarding the Draft EIR, we do not believe that the transportation mitigation as currently drafted. provides a clear and fair method of allocating mitigation costs. The Traffic Impact Fee Program has not been adopted by the City and may never be;'yet it is included as a potential mitigation.:projects of this nature must have the ability to determine conClusively its obligations in order to proceed. The impacts oHheproject are measurable and should be outlined as mitigation measures. He was confident that a fair and equitable mitigation can be developed in working with Staff prior to the City Council hearing. Questions have been raised about the reduction in the parking .ratio from 4.75 to 4.50. Based on 1.5 million sq. ft, this is a reduction of375 parking spaces; Shopping patterns have changed dramatically over 'the last ten to fifteen years. As an example, stores used to be open from 9:00 am to 9:00 PM, J?ow it is not unusual to have department stores opening at 7:00 am and closing at midnight. By spreading out the shopping day, the demand for peak parking is lessened and,thus a reduced parking ratio is I}'iable. Each of the department stores has a right under' t4e Reciprocal Easement Agreement to approve this change. Their success or failure is directly related to our ability to provide convenient and sufficient parking. May Co. operates in excess of 400 department stores, FedetatedJMacy's operates 400+ department stores, JCPenney operates 1,200 and Nordstrom operates 70+ stores. Parking is a major concern to each of them and an issue they do not take lightly. The department stores are in agreement with providing parking at 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. ofGLA. This is a common practice in the industry and is endorsed by'ULI, ICSC and ITE. Staff.is recommending that kiosks be included in determining gross leaseable area. They believe kiosks should be excluded given the temporary nature, lack of permanent walls, and the industry standard is to exclude them. Kiosks represent a first start for many members of our community and, to the extent kiosks are counted as GLA; additional parking would be required. The cost of occupancy for these first start tenants will increase. Staff is recommending that perimeter signs be limited to 4 signs with a total sign area of 500 sq. ft. They are currently negotiating a Letter ofIntent with five large space users, totaling 20,000 sq. ft. or Arcadia City Planning Co~ioIi 7 7125/00 . . more each, who will require street front signage. They are. requesting the perimeter sig1lllge be increased to a minimum of5 panels with a total sign area of750 sq. ft.. In response to a question by Commissioner Murphy, Ms. Butler said that the applicant had requested that kiosks not be included as part of the off street parking but staff is recommending that it be 'part of the off street parking requirement, so that it would be included in the leasable space, The kiosks average 150.sq. ft. aild would require about 25 parking spaces. Chairman Sleeter asked that when the large department stores signed off on parking were they aware of Westfield's plans to have 110,000 sq. ft. for theaters and up to 25,000 sq. ft. for additional eating areas. He wanted to make certain that when the department stores agreed to the reduced ratio that they understood that there were other factors that are currently not in the mix. Mr. Healy replied that they have presented their concept plan to each of these stores, which included theaters and restaurants. They agreed that they would consent to the plan based on a45 parking ratio. Dave Hokanson, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, Vice President of Development for Westfield Corp. With a 110,000 sq. ft. theater, an optimum design would provide 1 seat per 16.5 sq, ft. Today, with the stadium style seating it.is about 23-24 sq. ft. per seat, which is a natural barrier or limitation. He proposed 4,800 seats, which would be 22.9~23.9 sq. ft. It.is difficuhto limit the restaurants because they are impacted by a number of different venues such as bar area, kitchen size, fixed or floating seating. He was hesitant to pula limitation for restaurants because he did not know what a good number to. agree would be. He felt that 523 parking spaces would be adequate to serve the theater based upon the proposed size of the center and the shared parking!analysis that is being introduced and .accepted across the board by this industry. MS. Butler clarified that in the AMC parking for r~staurants is based upon total square footage and not the number of seats. The reqUirement is 10 per 1,000 sq. ft. per gross floor area. Under the code, 250 parking spaces would be required for a 25,000 sq. ft. restaurant. For theaters, the code is 1 per. 5 fixed seats or 1 parking space per 35 sq. ft. of or area devoted to the cinema area. Scott Sayre, 444 West Huntington Drive, across.the street from the maIl. He indicated that he is an architect, licensed in California. The firm for which. he works for specializes in commercial design, specifically shopping centers, power centers, mixed use, and regional malls" so he is very familiar with the issues at hand. He commented on the public hearing notice and said that the projecris noted as only a 600,000 sq. ft. addition. When.service spaces are included, the addition will be over 700,000 sq. ft., plus multi-level parking garages of several hundred thousand sq. ft. more. Future notices and other city documents Should give a fuller, more accurate description. It's unfair to expect laymen to understand the implications ofihese zone amendments without any explanation. He said that he generally approves the proposed mall expansion. He thought that the size is manageable with appropriate design. Regarding the G.P. 99-001, he understood that "Modified Building Area", which is similar to gross leasable area (GLA) in that it excludes the maIl concourse, was used as the basis of design in the original project. It's customary to use gross building area as the basis for floor area ratio (FAR) Arcadia City Planning Commission 8 7125/00 . . calculations. He felt this would be preferable, because using gross leasable area tends to mask the true size of the project, and leaves the city dependent on the accuracy of the applicant's rent"rolls to verifY compliance. fie was willing to overlook this, though, for two reasons: I) A precedent has already been set on the property to use GLA, under which the project complies, if the FAR increase to 50% is granted, and 2) The area can be successfully added if sensitively designed. However, before the mall is granted the opportunity to construct so much space, including very large parking garages which do not figure in the planning department'sanaIysis, the Planning Commission should definitely request some volumetric or massing studies (for example, photos with outlines of the new buildings drawn in), to get an idea of how heavily covered the site will be, particularly the northeast quadrant. . The Zone Change requesting the future expansion D & H-8 overlay zone is shown as extending nearly down to Huntington Drive. It is'clearly inappropriate to extend the mall this far south. The expansion area should be cut off on a line extending east from near the south side of Robinsons May. As a resident across the street, he strongly objected to this portion of the proposa~ and wanted the building setback protected by a wide margin. Furthermore, the expansion zone is by far larger than even the suggested 50% FAR would allow. While the .applicant should be given some flexibility, there is no need to, designate so much space. for potential development, The proposed expansion at the northwest corner should be held back 40'"50' from Baldwin Ave., to create a separation between the ,proposed restaurants and the R-l zOned.single,family houses across the street. Serious consideration should be given whether this is even a proper location, or if the restaurants would be better located closer to the southwest corner at Huntington Drive, by the fire station. Regarding the proposed T.A. 99-006, hetooJ<: exception to the addition of "food supermarket" to the list of approved .uses 'because: " I) This is not.an appropriate tenant in a maI~ and 2) A speclaity market or ranch market would better sUpport any number of other. existing, struggling centers. in the city. Adding "multiplex cinema" to the approved list should be fine, considering there was one in the IDaIl for twenty years. However, he thought "theaters" as too vague. What type of live performilnces will this allow? What aboutnoise, security, hours of operation, etc.? This element should rightly be kept as a separate appro'val. "Liquor and entertainment" should likewise not be added to the resolution for the same reason. Finally, he took exception to the amendment regarding "kiosks and carts", unless a reasonable maximum size and minimum spacing for these elements are also included. It's perfectly obvious from the proposed text that the applicant just wants to avoid future conditional use permits. He did not like this type ofan approach. The Text Amendment also includes the proposed parking ratio reduction from 4.75 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. to 4.5 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft.. As stated at the Draft E.l.R. hearing last month, he had serious reservations about this change. Again, without going into too much math, if the current city parking ratios are applied to ret~ cinema, and food areas in this 1,500,000 square foot project, he estimated that about 9, I 00 stalls would be required. Arcadia City Planning Commission 9 7125100 . . If the 10% internal capture reduction and peak accumulation analysis percentage reductions as outlined in the Draft E.I.R areappIled (assuming those percentages are valid), they would.get a matriX with a.maxin1um net reqUirement of about 7,700 parking stalls. In this light, the historic precedent of using 4.75 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft.. times 1,500,000 sq. ft.. for a requirement ofa mere 7,125 ~aIls looks very liberal indeed. This is already a low figure, and should be considered the absolute low edge for acceptability. They should be discussing how mariy inore stalls above this they really need. Finally, after considering this whole process, he concluded that the Planning Department has taken the wrong approach. Zone boundaries and floor area ratios are the wrong tools to control a project of this scope, especially where building inaSsing, parking structures, and mixed use are at issue. The appropriate tool is Planned Development. He. reCommended. that the Planning Commission combine all the approvals into single planned development package. Of course, as part of that approva~ the applicant must prepare a development site plan and massing study for your review. Since Westfield Co~ration has their own internal architectural department, he thought they could accommodate the City in no time - but they need to be asked. He took the opportunity to look up WeStfield's website information on the mall, which can be found at www.westfieldamerica.com/portfolio/santaanita. On that page,. he was surprised to learn that the gross leasable area of the mall is about 1,100,000 sq. ft. (not 900,000 as noted in the D.E.I.R). The discrepancy appears to come from a 25% reduction factor for "storage" which.has been applied to the area of the four department stores; The Commissioners should get a clarification from staff whether this is part of the original definition of "Modified Building Area" used when the mall was built. He belie,ved that it is not, and that this 200,000 sq. ft. of area should be counted as GLA for FAR and parking requirement purposes, as Westfield is apparently actually receiving rerit onit. , The website also states that there are 6,500 p'arking stalls on site (not 5,700). The point of all this is, again, that on a project of this complexity, the Planning Commission should insist on a real site plan that can. be verified by staff, not-just verbah,descriptions and generalities. This option is still available to the Planning Commission, and they should take it. Bill Klipstein, 401 S. Old Ranch Rd., concurred with most of the remarks made by Mr. Sayer. He felt that the two restaurants near Baldwin Ave. should have a greater setback.. Item 16 of the resolution deals with minimizing the impact on the residential neighborhood across the street. The Planning Commission should Consider that and disallow the restaurants there onequest. a substantial setback with nice landscaping and berming. The applicant is requesting. additional signs including some for the restaurants. He could envision neon signs..on Baldwin Ave. and he did not want to see that. The open air expansion is a great idea. It would be nice to have an open air expansion. He thought that a supermarket is inappropriate. He was concerned with additional'hours for the. mall traffic and the traffic that it brings both in terms of people pushing shopping carts and the in and outtraffic. Everyone wants to park near the supermarket. No one will park far away and walk with their cart. The location of the spaces for a supermarket .is very important. Arcadia City Planning Commission 10 7125/00 . . He prererred not to have a theater there, even though he realized there was one there before. The applicant is trying to extend the use of the mall late into the evening and this is not what he associated with the lifes!yle of Arcadia. He did not want to encourage that. The uses that he found objectionable are the ones that have been tacked onto the restaurant. He did not like the addition of on-site liquor and entertainment. He was concerned with the text as proposed by staff with regard to "when entertaimnent should be ailowed". How could. they decide "in conjunction" would mean? He was uncomfortable with that wording. He did not think that the mall should expand and actually be closer to the residential areas both to the west and the south. He went on to say that the parking issue is more complicated. Exhibit 9 indicates that they would be adding a requirement of 19% to the.number of parking Spaces but 65% to the gross leasable area. He was confused about these numbers; To him, the main parking issue was not where people will park but the parking lot, i.e., all of the streets surrounding the mall. He realized that a parking study was conducted. He did not think that a 1% growth was realistic, He hoped that the Platming Commission would support viable local businesses that. bring real jobs into the area and preserve the quality and character of the City rather than just allowing additional mall expansion. They should keep in mind that the racetrack can also add about the same size retail space. He said they .should consider the traffic nightmare that these two projects could create for the heart of Arcadia. Michael Grego, 330 S. Old Ranch Rd., said this is a good mall especially with the new stores that have come in the recent years. His concern was similar to ones that have already been raised. In his experience, most shopping malls are crowded not only during the.holidays but throughout the year. He did not think. that just because other cities are doing this they should be doing the same. If they are going to bring in something good to the City, they should say that here it. has to be different and still be pleasant for everyone to come to. By reducing the parking ratio, they will be doing. what everyone else has done which is a horrible experience. He. has shopped at a supennarket, which was located in a mall. It was terrible because he had. to park far away an\!: it was very inconvenient. It helped the shopping center but not the residents who resided th~e. They need to look out for the city and not the busineSs that are there. " The department stores are thinking that more parking spaces would translate into more customers for them. He was concerned that a restaurant could' have an'arcade or a bowling alley, a billiard hall and serve liquor on Baldwin Ave. This would invite cdme and problems. They have not seen any reports from the Police Dept. or an outside police agency discussing the crime-impact. He was concerned with the fire station at the comer of Baldwin Ave. and Huntington Dr. When there is an emergency, many times they go the wrong way on Baldwin Ave. to get out. 'How are they going to get out of there willi all this additional traffic? Will they need to build another fire station? Why can't the restaurants be inside the mall? They would draw more customers to the mall and it would be much more secure. Trouble makers and gang members' who cause problems would be much more .hesitant to go in if they have to go through mall security. There is a general lack of knowledge on the elevations of these buildings and their exact location. It is the Planning Commission's obligation to have a much clearer understanding and visuaIizationin all aspects before approving this project. Myles Nagaoka, 427 S Old Ranch Rd., liked the mall but he was concerned about the environmental impact and air quality. His home is one block west of Baldwin and he was concerned about the air they would be breathing. As part of the consideration and expansion he ,asked they consider the impact ofair quality on the residents, the horses to the north of the mall and the floraandJauna in the area. Arcadia City Planning Commission 11 7125100 . . Mr. Hokanson thanked the neighbors who came out to speak and said their intent is to try and resolve whatever concerns they may have. This mall is a very successful shopping center. The sales volume for the center is' in the upper tier for Southern Califorriia as well as the nation as a whole. There is an interesting concept in the market today. Restaurants like Dave and Busters have become popUlar. He realized that.the text might not'be as clear as it should be but the City should rely'on Westfield's ability to put a first class product on the market. They have entered into a very comprehensive and extensive reciprocal easement agreement with each of the different department stores. In those particular documents, there are standards of operations, conduct, leasing, etc. that they are required to adhere to. Tonight's request, is to simply try and bring the zoning and code text into compliance with or at an equivalent level. Their desire.is to bring this center into the millennium. In response to questions by Commissioner Huang, Mr. Hokanson, said there are existing setback requirements that they' would adhere to. The big concern is that the larger the' setback, the larger the number ofparklngstaIls at grade that are lost and the more they woiild need to build into the structure format. Parking on grade is approximately $1 ,500-1 ,700 as opposed to one in a parking structure, which is $12,000-15,000. With regard to signage, in other projects that have been in close proximity to residential. projects they have been required to comply with a limitation on how long the sign may stay lighted after any particular time. They would be willing to do an increase'in the berm as well as some enhancement of the landscaping in that'area to try and further mask it from their view. Commissioner Murphy commented that they are being requested to forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding very iinportant issues. He asked why they have not presented a concept plan? He realized that is not part of this process but it wotild give them a general feel {or the project. Although, the developer may be aware of what their plans are, it is not Clear in his mind. He felt uncomfortable that they have come to the Planning Commission without any specific information. Mr. Hokansonsaid they started this project in Novl!mber of last year. Not only have they been working with staff they have been busy with the ret,ai] community and their department stores to get a better sense of the level of interest. Within the last 45 days they have settled on a plan and his office is currently working on thesubmittaI to theC~y. He was.confident that they would be very happy with the plan. Commissioner Murphy felt they were doing this. vAthout the benefit of all the information. He had concerns on the view orientation on Huntington Dr. and the racetrack. He realiied that it will come back to the Planning Commission, but it would have certainly been nice if it came to them with a concept He. suggested to staff that when this is presented to the City Counc~ they be given the benefit of concept plans, Chairman Sleeter asked why the are extending building area "C" to the SE corner of the site beyond the bridge by the unused gate to the track? Why have they chosen to include that area in this expanded building area when clearly if something is constructed or proposed there, they will run into serious opposition from the people that live along Huntington Dr. These residents are also the ones that are constantly raising issues to protecting the view of the grand stands. He asked what the logic was with including this when they have made assurance~ thatthey do not want to do that? In response, Mr. Hokanson replied that they had a need to pursue the entitlement process to get certain things done. It is a cooperative planning effort with the department stores and staff. Arcadi"a City Planning C9mmission 12 7125100 . . No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Sleeter closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kalenikiarian said the applicant has to subrnita specific plan of what and where they are going to build. If approved, they will come back with a specific plan that tells will include the location and design of the structures.' Commissioner Bruckner said they need to establish a standard for review. Commissioner Kalenikiarian said architectural design review and .setback requirements would set the standards for review. Ms. Butler said the review before the Planning Commission and City Council will be of the entire site plan, floor plan, elevations, signage and lighting which wo.uld require public hearing. and notification to all residents within 1000'. If the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the C~2D H 8 overlay be included for building area "C", they could be looking at buildings 85' in height within the red boundary or within building area "C". While this might mean that it complies with the height requirement, the Planning Commission and City Council have control over the site plan. When this was initially submitted, they did not indicate location of the buildings and wanted flexibility. With regard to the H overlay, the Planning Commission can recommend. approval as proposed or they could modifY the recommendation. What is before the Planning Commission is to provide the applicant with flexibility of design. Ms. Butler said that the restaurant sites if developed as restaurants or any use that currently requires a CUP,. would have to apply for one for the two pads located along Baldwin Ave. If it was a retail store and it met the code requirements they would not be required to apply for a CUP because retail is a permitted use in the C-2 zone without a CUP. this'would be for any building not.attached.to the mall. . She went on.to. say that the items listed on page 14, in the staff report are specific to this site and are not typical requirements for all commercial p~ects. All commercial projects require architectural design review'by staff but it might bea use that is permitted by right such as any sort of retail. Staff is adding this to the resolution. The current resolution requires City CotihciI review ofall designs. and additions to the mall but staff is recommending to this that it comes before the Planning Commission for design review and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would then have the final say 'on the project. Commissioner Bruckner said there are many other fine sites in the community that could accommodate a specialty food market that need revitalization. He felt if they put all of the retail on this site that they would be doing a disservice to other areas that need revitalization. Commissioner Murphy agreed and felt they should paSs this on to City CouilciL Ms. Butler clarified and said that staff is including grocery stores in this development but,with aJ8,000 sq. ft. limitation. CommissionerKalenlldarian thought food markets should be allowed. Araulia City'Plarming Commission 13 7125100 . . Ms. Butler said that markets generally do not require a CUP. The applicant is requestirtg that it be added to the list of permitted uses. Resolution 4185 excludes super markets. Staff is recommending that it be included but that the maximum size be limited to 38,000 sq. ft. Ii would not require any special use permit. If the Planning Commission does not want a particular use they need to indicate that in their motion. The applicants could come back and,request a particular use. It would be an amendment to the permitted uses. Mr. Deitsch explained that it would .not be a conditional use but it is a possible future amendment. Ms. Butler said a 38,000 sq. ft. market would be similar to the existing older markets in the City. Most recent super markets like Albertson's and Ralph's are approximately 50,000 sq. ft. A 38,000 sq. ft. market would be more typical of a Gelson's.or Bristol Farrns~ The Yon's on Foothill might be smaller than 38,000 sq. ft. Mr. Penman said the intent of staff was to restrict it to a specialty grocery store and not a full service. Staff's original recommendation was 32,000 sq. ft. but the developer does not want a restriction, but staff's intent was to restrict it to a specialty grocery store as opposed toa full service. :staff felt that limiting it to 38;000 sq. ft. would 1imit it to Ii specialty type like Bristol Farms, Gelson's or Wild Oats. It was difficult to define what a specialty store could carry and by the industry's own standards the square footage would restrict that and essentially eliminate certain product lines within the market. These types of stores 'would carry food goods, specialty deli, fresh meat and boutique types of items as opposed to ~ goods. Commissioner Bruckner wondered if there are other sites in the community that would be better suited and more easily accessible for that type of a use? Mr; Penman said that staff struggled with their request in determining whether it would even be appropriate or not. One of the unique things about 'Westfield is that it is an Australian company. Their concept in Australia is full service. Their maIls have everything from medical to ~ goods. Their super markets are a one stop shopping experience. His understanding was that this was a concept that they were trying to bring in the U.S. I, Commissio~ Bruckner remarked that the currem'mall has approximately 5,800 parking spaces. They are proposing 6,800 spaces with the proposed expansion. He understood the shared use concept but he thought that it deserved another look. Especially, with this large expansion that includes a. theater; Everyone agrees this use alone would require 800-900 more parking spaces, but they are proposing only 1,000 more spaces for the entire expansion. He thought someone else should look at the numbers. The proposed uses are very intense. They are adding a lot of square footage but only adding 1,000 parking spaces. He thought it could be.a real problem. He was worried about what itwould do to the traffic. He felt the on-site parking could be a serious problem. He wanted to recommend that grocery stores not be included because he felt there are other more suitable sites; Commissioner Kalemkiarian agreed that on the surface the parking might look substandard. But, they have to realize that, even while they have dealt with the smaller shopping centers, the City's code requires more parking than what is necessary based on the fact that some of the uses are shared. He thought it would be a good to have a third party review this just to validate what bas l?een presented by Parsons. He thought the concept is a valid concept. The market idea is a progressive and neat idea. They have to realize that shopping patterns are:changing, especially with the internet. These destinations that have comprehensive shopping are a progressive and interesting idea. Arcadia City Planning Commission 14 712l100 . . Chairman Sleeter was concerned with granting this by right and not having a CUP review on.issues that are contained in the revisedtesolution. He felt they should consider maintaining a CUP process. This area is one of controversy within the City. They are giving upa lot of potential control if they grant that by right. He was concerned with area "c" extending down to the. SE corner. He thought it would be in their best interest to exclude the area SE of Just Tires so they don't have to deal with an 85' high buildingein that area. With'regard to parking, he concurred with Commissioner Bruckner's COmlllents. On the one hand, he thought that parking is adequate but more than 20% of the parking is far away from the building. While the numbers might add up, the location and proximity of the parking is problematic, as a user ofthe.mall. He feh they may want to encourage multi-level parking. He was concerned with restaurant area "A" platform due to its proximity to the neighborhood. Commissioner Murphy'said that based on his experience anything over.a two-level' parking would not be utilized. He liked a two-level parking structure. He wondered how manymuhi-level parking structures would it require to make up the parking spaces that are going to be required for the new development. He thought they should restrict the parking to two levels. He agreed with Chairman Sleeter with regard to the entertaimnent element oftherestaurants for the additional uses that are being recommended. He was troubled with the laundry liSt of proposedentertaimnent uses. Ms. Butler said that freestanding signs for maIl identification are currently allowed by Reso. 4185. Staff is'recommending the addition of no more than 4 tenant monument identification signs with a maximum of500 sq. ft. The applicant has requested 5 signs With a maximum of 750 sq. ft. Currently, wall signs are allowed on the exterior of all buildings. Theoretically, all tenants could have signs but it is subject to review; Staff is recommending thai the anchor stores, major department stores and eating establishments which. contain 5,000 sq; ft. or more would be allowed to have exterior signing. The single-sided monument signs have been proposed to be located immediately adjacentto the perimeter of the actual structures and not on the exterior of the perimeter of the property. With regard to the comments made by Commissioner Murphy about two-level parking, she ,stated that the applicant requested this to be changed to multi-level to,aIlowthem flexibility. Commissioner Murphy was troubled by thll, four freestanding tenant monument signs. He did not see the need. People Will not go to the mall just because there is a: sign advertising a particular business. Thetwo identification signs are acceptable. In'response to a question, Ms. Butler said the initial parking study was conducted by Parsons and paid for by Westfield. The city's consultant had a firm that reviewed their report as well 'as the City's traffic engineer. Changes were recommended by both before it was accepted at'its current form. The Planning Cominission proceeded to vote on each issue: FEIR Commissioners Bruckner and Kalemkiarianwanted the'traffic to be it reviewed by an independent party. Commissioner Murphy reiterated that the EIR does not address the racetrack traffic at all. Commissioner Bruckner concurred. Chairman Sleeter questioned the one-day overlap issue and felt it was Clearly an error in the fact. Arcadia City Planning Commission 15 7125100 . . Commissioner Murphy felt the race track traffic is for approximately 6-months a year. Commissioner Bruckner said this would not include additional events that might happen there. ChalnnanSleeter said that comments were made by speakers on air quality issue. This is an issue of concern to him. In response to comments by Chairman Sleeter, .Mr. Deitsch replied that the Final EIR would require the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations by the Ciry Council, if there is an unmitigated enviromnent impact. Ms. Butler summarized the Planning Commission's comments: ~ The parking be reviewed by an independent firm ~ The traffic study should discuss the racetrack impacts and' if it is included, it. should specifically state where that information is in the report .' ~ The air quality- note that.it is an unmitigated enviromnental impact. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seConded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to recommend the aoove to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None . GENERAL PLAN MOTION '. It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Huang to recommend approval of the proposed General Plan amendment to allow a .50 FAR for the mall to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: . Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None ZONE CHANGE Chairman Sleeter had an issue with the hi-rise overlay being extended down to the SE comer of the property. He wanted to exclude the SE comer by Just Tires. He feared that somebody will come along and want to build an 85' building at that comer. He did not think thanhey should be wasting all of the public resources by having it ,in the potential mix. This would be an attractive nuisance to have there. Arcadia City Planning Commission 16 7125100 . . In reply to a suggestion by Co.mmissioner Mmphy, Ms. Butler said that the EIR actually has some visual modeling, This wo.uld be where an 8-story building could potentially be constructed. Another option is to limit the height within that portions of the building envelope and restricting it to what would be allowed in the C-2 zone which.is 3 stories 40'. Commissioner Mmphy liked .that idea. Ms. Butler said that another option is that they could modify it so that the building height would be restricted to what has been recommended on building areas "A" and ~'B". The final action would be taken by the City CounciL She thought that that 3 story/30' height would probably work in the area S and E ofJust Tires. Commissioner Kalemkiarian wondered if that would that exclude bell towers? He was more satisfied with a specific plan taking care of it. He thoughrthat the specific plan could just indicate that they could not build an8-story high building. Ms. Butler said that the Planning Commission and City Council have final say over anything that goes in here, including placing limitations on.theheight of the buildings. The. underlying zone, C-2, allows a 3- story/40' high building. . MOTION It. was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to recommend approval of the Zone Change as proposed by the applicantto the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huan~, Kalemkiarian, Murphy Sleeter . TEXT AMENDMENT I, Butler-there are 3 basic requests. It can be broken down. First request is a change in the required parking from 4.75 spaces per modified gross floor area to 4.5 spaces per gross leasable area for each 1,000 sq. ft. Chairman Sleeter felt that they should recommend to the City Council that the parking ratio issue be restudied by an independent expert. Motion, Bruckner, forward'recommendation to the City Council, Huang, second, roll call, all yes MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Huang to recommend to the City Council that an independent traffic consultant review the applicant' s request in terms of the proposed parking ratio and also the distribution of parking on the site as it relates to future development. ROLL CALL: Arcadia Ci~ Planning Commission 17 7125100 . . AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiariim, Murphy, Sleeter None Request No.2 Ms. Butler combined "gross leasable area" definition from ULI and added wording that it would not include service areas within the mall tenant stores ad service areas and occupy less than 25% of the gross sq. ft. of stores in excess of50,000sq. ft. Chairman Sleeter said that the applicant does not concur with the inclusion of kiosks. In reply to a questioll by Commissioner Kalemkiarian of the difference between a store and a kiosk and a cart, Ms, Butler explained that a store is within enclosed walls. The carts are portable and are not something one works within. They can be moved throughout the mall. It has wheels and there is one person.at a kiosk, Part of the issue is that the.mall common area was never counted towards the parking requirement because it was an open area USed for pedestrian interaction.and seating. What has happened is the mall area has become retail area landscape and seating areas have been removed to provide for retail spaCe in the form ofkiosks. Chairman Sleeter thought that.staff's recommendation is a goodcoml'romise. MOTION It wasmo.ved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Huang to recommend approval of the Text Amendment Request.2 to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: , Commissio~er Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None ., Reauest. No 3 Ms. Butler said that staff is recommending that the floor area for kiosk be subject to the parking regulations. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to recommend approval of the Text Amendment Request 3 to the City Council. ROLLCALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter None Ms. Butler said that the changes in Reso.4185 are set forth in the matrix table. Arcadia City Planning Commission 18 7125100 . . Groce" Stores Commissioner Bruckner felt comfortable with staff's recommendations with the exception of food stores. He wanted to eliminate food stores from the jist of permitted uses. He noted that there are malls with specialty food stores, however, in this community, there are other sites that could redevelop with a specialty food store, that would be much better suited for this type of use. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, to eliminate completely the food stores as a permitted use. The motion died due to lack of a second. Commissioner Kalemkiarianthought it would be a good idea to have food stores. Entertainment Uses Commissioner Murphy was troubled by this laundry list of entertainment uses associated with restaurants and without a CUP and by right. Ms. Butler said that a CUP would not be required for a restaurant with entertainment use in building. area "C". They could allow entertainment as an incidental use .to a restaurant. eating establishment. Some restaurants like Dave and Busters are both a restaurant and still have a major entertainment portion. Commissioner Kalemkiarian saw no problem with this thewayjt is written because Daveand'Busters or ChuckeeCheesewould be great. Commissioner Huang agreed. Ms. Butler said that the outside pads (building envelopes "A" and "B ") would require a CUP for this type ofan activity. Commissioner Murphy thought it would be acceptable to have entertainment as an "incidental" use to the restaurants. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Chairman Sleeter to recommend approval of having entertainment as an incidental use to restaurants to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Murphy, Sleeter Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian Parkin!! Structure Commissioner Murphy was opposed to any multi-level parking structure above two levels. He felt that the top levels of parking structures are never used. Arcadia City Planning Commission 19 7125100 . . Commissioner Bruckner said that it is possible that the entrance to the mall could be from the middle floors of the parking structure so that all levels are utilized. After hearing Commissioner Bruckner's explanation, Commissioner Murphy withdrew his objection. Sil!ns Commissioner Murphy did noUike the use of perimeter monument signs. Ms. Butler said that staff feit that there should be some allowable tenant monument signs on the perimeter of the site. The applicant wanted more and what is proposed is a compromise. Theaters like having iiientification signs. Staff is recommending IDOnumentsigns rather than pole identification signs. Chairman Sleeter said that the former theater had a marquee. Ms. Butler said that is now a mall identification sign. Currently, there is only one perimeter sign on the site and that is the mall identification sign on Baldwin Ave. It does not include any tenant information. Commissioner Bruckner thought that it degrades the quality. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Bruckner to delete item3b with regard to monument'signs as recommended by staff to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bruckner, Murphy, Sleeter Commissioners Huang, Kalernkiarian NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6. RESOLUTION NO. 1611 A resolution of the Plarming Commission, of the City of Arcadia, granting CUP 00-010 to provide outdoor dining areas at 400 S. Baldwin Ave. Ms. Butler read the title of the resolution. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to adopt ResolutionNo. 1611 and to formallyatTrrm the decision of July II th and the vote thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Kalernkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter Arcadia Ci_1y P~ing ,Commission 20 7f251OO . . NOES: None - Chairman Sleeter noted that there is a five working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by August 2, 2000. . MATTERS fROM CITY COUNCIL CouncilMember Chang summarized the recent actions taken by City Council. MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Bruckner said that he would be absent .from the next two meetings. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Bruckner recapped the actions taken by the Modification Committee. . MATTERs FROM STAFF 1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT 10:20 p.m. ~~~. ecretary,Arcadia P '. ommlSSlon >, Artadia City Planning CommiSsion 21 7125100