Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 24, 2002 (i) . . ., M, I NUT E S Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:15 p.m. in the Council Cbambers 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, September 24, 2002 at 7:15 p.rn. in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Olson presidfug. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ARSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None OTHERS ATTENDING Council Member John Wuo Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Associate Planner Joe Lambert Assistant Planner Tom Li Senior Administrative Assistant Silva Vergel PRESENTATION TO OUTGOING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HUANG AND MURPBY On behalf of the Planning Commission, Chairman Olson presented outgoing Planning Commissioners Huang and Murphy with resolutions. He thanked them for their service and remarked that they would be a tough act to follow. Chairman Olson noted that Commissioner Huang was appointed to the Planning Commission 'on April 7, 1992 to fiUout the.unexpired term of Dave Szany until June 30, 1994 and was reappointed to two full additional 4 year terms, which expired on the June of this year. Commissioner Murphy was appoinJe<l to the Planning Commission and has served two consecutive terms which expired in June. Both Commissioners served extra time until new Planning Commissioners were appointed. SUPPLEMENTAL lNFORMA TION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) Gail Ferrar, 915 N. Santa Anita, was concerned that she would not be able to develop her property as a result of the proposed regulations. She did not think that at least in her case, the rules should change, . , . . because her lot is small and it would be a hardship for her to develop her property under the new regulations. She was informed that she could speak during that portion,ofthe agenda. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian 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. L MINUTES 911 0/02 Chairman Olson noted that the motion on page 2 indicates Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion which is incorrect. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve the Minutes of September 10th as amended. ROLLCALL: AYES: NOES: 2. PUBLIC HEARING TPM 2002-016 1023 Sunset Blvd. Hank Jong Commissioners Baderian.Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None Consideration of a tentative parcel map for a,4-unit residential condominium project. The staff report was presented. In reply to, a question by Commissioner Lucas, Ms. Butler stated that this project complies with code. The architectural design review (ADR) has already been approved on this project. She explained the parking requirements. Even though the actual plan states that there are only 8 parking spaces, the staff report supercedes which indicates that there would be8 parking spaces and 2 guest parking' spaces. It was explained that this is a subterranean style project and the guest parking is in subterranean garage. Mr. Nicholson explained that the approved ADR will hold them to what has already been approved and not what is onthe subdivision pian. Commissioner Wen felt that the EIR Checklist was incorrectly checked off on the loss of view because undoubtedly this would affect someone's view, as well as how city and schooJ~ervices would be affected. Ms. Butler replied that the CEQA guidelines address scenic view and highways and not what Mr. Wen is referring to. The City currently does not have an ordinance with regard to the preservation of view. Ms. Butler said that when an application is submitted, various city departments are notified and they are asked to review the plans. In this case, none of the contacted departments objected to the proposal. This project is in conformance with the General Plan (GP) which was adopted in 1996. When the GP was adopted, it took into consideration how the city would be affected when it is completely Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 9124102 , . . . buih out. She ,noted that the project complies with the current density. She also noted that residential impact fees are collected at $1 88'per unit which are available for parks as well as school district fees. The public hearing was opened. Scott Chang, 11823 Slauson Ave., Santa Fe Springs, said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the' staff report. Judy Rothwell, 1119 Arcadia Ave., said that she is surrounded by condominiums and was concerned about the density in the area If there is no code regarding the preservation of view then there should be one. When will all the building stop? Because the current situation is ridiculous. She said that it is too late for her to be there because she cannot see the street or the sunrise anymore but she was sure that she did not want another condominium built there. Steve Chou, 1023 Sunset, the property owner stated that when he purchased the property it was already surrounded by two-story condominiums so he was sure that he was not blocking off anyone's view. It is a good idea to reduce the density for the entire community but tbat would not make sense for his property: His project complies with Code. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve TPM 2002-016. subject to the conditions listed in the staffreport and file the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Wen asked if preserving the view'is a legitimate concern? Mr. Nicholson replied that the tentative parcel map is site specific. A tentative parcel map permits the subdiVision. They couId technically build this as apartments but the TPM allows them to sell each individual unit. He noted that the project is consistent with the development in the area and the project fully complies with all code requirements. What could possibly be deceiving is that single-family dwellings that are in the multiple- family zones 'are often replaced with condominiums. But, in ,these areas condominiums are permitted. It is the single-fiunily homes that are legal non-conforming. This area ~ been zoned for this type of a development for many years. Ms. Butler indicated that the City Council could elect to adopt a view preservation ordinance and she reiterated that currently, there is no such ordinance. She remarked that the code was more lenient in the 40s. Most of the projects that are being developed now are less dense than older projects and have interesting designs. Commissioner Hsu asked what the rules were on CC&Rs and Mr. Nicholson replied that for 4-tmits or less the City requires that the developer prepare the document for the City's review and approval. The CC&Rs discuss the maintenance of the property and address Code issues and for 5-units or more the developer is required by State to prepare the CC&Rs. Arcadia Cily Planning Commission J 9f24102 . , . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: CommissionersBaderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None Chairman Olson noted tlult there is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. Appeals are to be filed by October 7111. 3. PUBLIC HEARING TPM 2002-017 1630 S. Santa Anita Ave. Hank Jong Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating 2-lots from one. The staff report was presented In answer to a question by Commissioner Bitderiiln, Ms. Hiltlerstated that the project would not have s significant impact on public services. The public hearing was opened. Scott Chang, 11823 Slauson, Santa Fe Springs, said they are 'in agreement with all of the conditions listed in the staff report. No one,elile spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Lucas to approve TPM 2002-017, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and file the Negative Declaration. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, OlSon NOES: None Chairman Olson noted tlult there is a ten day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by October 7111. 4. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 2002-017 305-B N. Santa Anita Ave. Jungle Gym Rock Climbing Consideration of a conditional use permit for an indoor rock climbing gym ina 6,000 sq. ft. warehouse building in the C-M zone. Thestaff report was presented. Arcadia City Plannirig CommissiOn 4 9fl4102 . . Commissioner Baderian asked if the parking took into consideration what would happen if the uSes changed on the site and Mr. Li replied that this is an office building and any other use would need approval from Planning. Commissioner Lucas indicated that the hours in the EIR form are different than what is in the Staff report. Staff indicated that the hours listed in the staff report are correct. Commissioner Hsu wondered how staff would enforce the maximum number of students? Ms. Butler replied that typically if there isa problem, other businesses wiII call the City at which time the City will follow up with an inspection. Fortunately, one of the City's Code Enf. Officers resides in the City and he has conducted inspections in the evenings. Staff is always made aware of parking problems and that could signal non-compliance. She explained why the, ETR Checklist differs from the staff report. In answer to a question by Commissioner Wen, Ms. Butler stated that surveys are usually conducted by the applicants, espcciallythe evening counts. The City does not have adequate staff to conduct these typesofsurveys, However, staffwill conduct drive-by surveys during the day, to verifY the accuracy of the counts. Staff has found that the surveys that are submitted are accurate. Mr. Li indicated that a parking agreement is not necessary because it is under one ownership. The public hearing was opened. Tom White, 305 N. Santa Anita, said they are in agreement with-all of the, conditions in the staffreport. He indicated that they' will coutrolthe occupancy by requiring reservations. This wiII be similar to ,a fitness gym and membership will be required. Their members will need to have special training lind must be in good health. No one else spoke in fuvor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Olson closed the public hearirlg. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve CUP 2002-017, subject to the conditions in m.e staff report and file negative declaration ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bacierian, Hsu, Wen, Olson Commissioner Lucas Chairman Olson noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. The resolution will be adopted on October 81b. Appeals are to be ,filed by October ISIb. Arcadia City Planning Commission 5 9/24102 . , . . 5. PUBLIC HEARING TA 2002-003 Consideration ofa text amendment amending the R-2 and R-3 regulations. The staff report was presented and a Power Point presentation was made. Staff also had exhibits available and illustrated how the new code would affect development aDd compared it to the existing code. The public hearing was opened. Gail Ferrar, 915 N. Santa Anita, said the proposed regulations would preclude her from developing her property. When she talked With her architect, he did not even want the job due to the new setbacks. In order for her to develop, she would have to demolish everything and she did not want to so that and she wanted to be an exception to the regulations. Margie Kierstein, 1156 W. Duarte Rd., said there is nothing in the proposed regulations that addresses privacy which she thoughrwas important. lnresponse to various issues that Ms. Kierstein brought up, it was recommended that she contact staff because her concerns were site specific, Jeffrey Lee, Nevis Homes, 255 E. Santa Clara, a developer, said that most people are probably in favor of the proposed regulations. He was just concerned as to when the changes would go effect and would plans that are in the process, now be exempt or would they have to comply with the new regulations? No one else spoke infuvor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Baderian applauded stafffor the report. He thought these were good recommendations. It will help the Planning Commission and reduce the number of requested modifications. He was in support of most of the recommendations. He concurred with Mr. Lee regarding when the regulations should become effective and if they should affect existing projects that are under way. He suggested having a study session. ' Commissioner Wen agreed and appreciated the efforts by staff in coIning lip with the recommendations. He indicated that this is a huge task that they are being charged with at their second, meeting serving as Planning Commissioners. He asked ifthey needed to forward this immediately to the City Council or would there be a little time to review it. Mr. Nicholson explained the history of the multiple-family zones and regulations. He stated that the majority of the 50' wide lots in the multiple-family zone are developed with single-family homes or duplexes. Under the code that was adopted in the early 90s, these lots are almost impossible to develop due to the narrow lot Width. There was one architect that was able to develop a 50xl60 Jot with alley access that fully complied with code but that was the only one. Anything more than 2-units would require modifications ranging from the driveway Width, garage dimension, encroachment into the side yard area all of which are common requests in order to develop 50' wide lots. These types of Arcadia City Planning Commission 6 9124/02 . . applications are reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated that it has taken staff one year to come up with the proposed regulations. Ms. Butler indicated that although a decision does not have to be made today, a public hearing has been tentatively'scheduled before the City Council artheirNovember 51b meeting. The Planning Commission can continue this item to the next meeting after tonight's discussion. In answer to a question by Chairman Olson, Mr. Nicholson said that the building height in the 70s was 30' but that was increased to 35' to do away with flat roofs and to place air conditioning units on the rooftoreduce noise. Also, in the 70s ahd 80s all units were either subterranean or tuck under parking and it appeared as if the buildings were 3-stories. But, the units that are developed now resemble single-family homes. He stated that many of the regulations that have been proposed are a direct result ofstafrs eXperience of what works and what does not He went on to say that the increase to 60% landscaping would further enhance the project and staff feels that would be a reasonable amount. He said that they have gotten away from the straight driveways of the past, which resemble a small airstrip, and are now looking at projects with more curved or circular driveways. He indicated that,one way to improve upon the hardscape would be by using grass block. Ms. Butler did not think that grass block in the front yard is a good idea but it is a good one in the parkingarea She suggested other types ofhardscapessuch as fountainS, rocks or other elements. Chairman OlSon suggested having 1I sliding scale for side and rear yard setbacks. He thought it should be incremental and suggested working up from 50' rather than going downward from the 65' width. Ms. Butler said that typically modifications are sought for the depth of the parking space on 50' wide lots and garage encroachments. As the lot gets wider, ,setbacks would increase. Mr. Nicholson explained that the,setback on a 65'-0" wide lot would be 20% or 13'-0". On smaller lots the garage would encroach upon that 13' to a maximum of 5' for an 8' setback. The intent was to minimize the commonly requested modifications. Commissioner Hsu felt the comparisons were of great help and wanted to see a cross section of a 35' height and the 5' setback and the driveway on a 50' wide lot. Mr. Nicholson explained that only the single-story portion of the building would encroach into the setback. The seCond floor would have to comply with the setback requirement. It is,difficult to develop the:narrow lots withoutthese modifications. Commissioner Hsu remarked then that possibly these lots were not meant to be developed as multiple- family. Mr. Nicholson noted that the R-2 zone allows the lot to be developed with a single-family residence but the R-3 prohibits such a development. The proposed regulations prohibit subterranean parking. Staff felt that if there was a need for that type of a development, such as if the property was land locked or it was a corner lot, then the developer could approach the Planning Commission and plead his case. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 9/24102 . . Commissioner Lucas was surprised that all these efforts were being made just to develop small lots. Perhaps they should be required to consolidate. Ms. Butler said that in reality it benefits a developer if they could consolidate because they can actually build more units and comply with code without requiring any modifications and incurring any public hearing costs. But, sometimes that is just not possible because the adjaCent owner may not want to sell and that would drive up prices. Also, the property could be land locked, in other words, the properties to either side could be developed with newer units. There were incentives in ,the code to encourage these types of projects but staff found that did not work. It is really difficult to require a developer to consolidate. She expbiined that with a 50x160 lot, currently, a developer can construct 2-3 units with modifications. On a 100x160, he can build up to 8-units without modifications. So, they would,more than double the units iithey consolidated, The proposed reguiationswould reduce the no. of units. The proposed regUlations would work for the smaller lots. Mr. Nicholson said the back out inthe commercial zone is 25' but for the multiple-family zone it was increased to 30' due to the larger units that were being constructed and the amount-of two-way traffic. Ms. Butler said that Stafflearns through trial and error of what works and what does' not work. Nothing is set in concrete and even after codes are set in pbice,they can be,amended. Commissioner Hsu asked how other cities address the development ofsmalllots? Ms. Butler said that some allow a lesser setback even going as far as a zero setback. Most cities do not have the 30' back out requirement the maximum that any city they have information on has isa 28' back out In talking with developers, they have indicated that the City's parking requirement is less than what is required in other cities. The proposed changes may result insmaller units. Commissioner Lucas feltthis should be pushed along aild acted upon,tonight. He realized that the code could always be,amended, especially because modifications are needed with the current codes. Mr. Penman indicated that there is time to continue this for one meeting to allow them more time to review. Commissioner Baderian said they rely on$ff's expertise. He asked if staff could have examples of some developments under the new codes. Commissioner Lucas wondered if there would be a moratorium adopted pending the proposed'change and can the Planning Commission make, any recommendations to that issue? This is a significant issue and is important for tIw future development of the city. Mr. Penman,said that item is on the City Council's agenda and staff is working on the staffreport. He was not sure what the recommendation would be from staff. The City Council is aware and they will deal with that issue. The Planning Commission's thoughts could be forwarded to the City Council. Since the moratorium is not on the Planning Commission's agenda, they cannot make any recommendations on that issue. Commissioner Baderian concurred with Commissioner Lucas in wanting to strike a balance, He thought they should recommend to the City Council that in their decision making they take into Artadia city Planning Commission 8 9fl4102 . . consideration developers who are already in plan check and that the new regulations should not affect them and possibly they should adopt a moratorium until the new regulations are adopted. Mr. Penman assured the Commission that their comments would be forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Olson concurred. Mr. Nicholson asked the Commission to call staff prior to the meeting if they had any questions and Ms. Butler added that would give time for staff to research 'if needed. She suggested meeting prior to the October Sth meeting, possibly at 6:30. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by CommiSsioner to continue the public hearing for TA 2002-003 to the Planning Commission's October Slh meting at 6:30 p.m. to further discuss the issue. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None NON-PUBLIC BEARING ITEMS 6. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion regarding meeting time beginniDg with the October 2200 meeting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to change the meeting time to begin at 7:00 p.rn. beginning with the October 22nd meeting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None 7. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE Report regarding CUP 2002-003, which granted the serving of alcoholic beverages and ,extended the hours of operation at the existing New Capital Restaurant at S55 S. Baldwin Ave: The staff report was presented. There was no further action required by the Planning Commission. Arcadia City PlaMmc.Commission 9 9/24/02 . . 8. RESOLUTION NO. 1678 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California. granting CUP 2002. 016 fora 1,000 square foot martial arts studio with a 480 square foot training floor area at 153 N Santa Anita A ve. ' RESOLUTION NO. 1679 A resolution of the planniJig Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending to the City Council amendments to the table and text of the Cominunity Development section of the General Plan to increase the maximum intensity for senior housing projects. Ms. Butler read the titles of the resolutions. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to adopt Resolutioll Nos. 1678 and 1679, and formally affIrm the decisions of September 10tb and the votes thereon. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None Chairman Olson ,noted thadhere isa five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by october I st. MA TTERSFROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Wuoremarked that the multiple-fiunily text amendment is a very important issue so much so that he is considering asking the City Council to increase the density in the R-3 to 2,400 sq. ft. MAITERSFROM PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Baderian complimented staff on the handbook and said staff did a tremendous job on it. Commissioner Lucas was concerned about the CEQA checklist, and !laid that even though one project might not have an affect, the cumulative affect of several projects would have an impact Commissioner Hsu expressed concerns over parking in the various centers in the City and Ms. Butler replied that certain,uses can go in a center by right and would not need to have hearings but some uses such as a restaurant or computer arcade would need a CUP which requires'a public hearing. MODIFICATION COMMIITEE MEETING ACTIONS Chairman Olson summarized the Modification Committee actions. This is an informal meeting and he invited the Planning Commission to attend because one of them will be chairing it from January. ArCadia City Piatuiing CcmmiSsion 10 9(24/02 . '. . . MAITERS FROM STAFF 1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler discussed the upcoming agenda items. Staffis very busy and she referred to the "project list" which was distributed. ADJOURN TO OCTOBER 8 AT THE LIBRARY 10:10 p.m. IslDonna Butler Secretary. Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning COrnnUssion I] 9f14102