Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 25, 2003 8) . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, Marcb 25, 2003 7:00 p.m. in tbe Arcadia City Couneil Cbambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, March 25,2003 at 7:00 p.m.in the Arcadia Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Dr. with Chairman Pro Tem Baderian presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Baderian Commissioner Olson MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Wen to excuse Commissioner Olson from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING Council Member John Wuo Community DevelopmentAdministrator Donna Butler Senior Planner Jim Kasama Senior Administrative Assistant Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMA nON FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. The motion passed by voice with none'disseming. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINVTELIMIT PER PERSON) None 1. MINUTES 3/11103 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Wen to approve the Minutes of March lllll as published, . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Baderian None Commissioner Olson 2. PUBliC HEARING CUP 2003-003 ]038 S, Baldwin Ave. Frank Yang Consideration of a Conditions! Use Permit and Architectural Design Review, and Parking Modifications to build and operate a 2-story, 4,400 square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of82 people, and with beer and wine service. The staff report was presented. In response to a question by Commissioner Wen, MI. Kasama said that thereisa Clearance of up' to 6' from the fountain to the existing overhang, which will be removed. The corridor that Commissioner Wen is referring to is not heavily utilized and pedestrians are not using it. It is not a highly traveled area and is not congested. The bank has since redesigned and the doors are no longer at the location that is depicted on the plan. Commissioner Wen was concerned about safety issues and what would happen during an emergency, He was concerned about the narrow corridor in between the buildings. With regard to the parking stalls, Mr, Kasama said that by redesigning the parking lot and angling the parking they are able to create more parking, They will be reducing the depthofthe stalls rrom20' to , ]8'. The existing parking is two-way and they are proposing to make it one-way, The combination of the reduced isle width and stalls enables them to provide 65 parking spaces. The conditions in the staff report were suggested by the traffic engineer. Staff has found that c6mpact spaces are not necessarily used by smaller cars. He noted that the existing transformer would be able to accommodate both buildings. This entire parcel is owned by one person. In reply to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Mr. KaslilIlllstated that the existing Din Tai Fung restaurant would remain open and this proposed restaurant would be adjacent to it. Based upon the 4,{O,O sq. ft.,building, they would need 44 parking spaces, They need a total of75 parking spaces ,for- ,- both the bank and the restaurant, but they are only providing 65 parking spaces. In answer to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Kas"ma said that the loading and unloading area would be incidental to the restaurant, Commissioner Lucas felt that the loading and unloading zones would be a major portion of this use and that could aggravate the existing parking situation even more. Mr, Kasama replied that delivery times have been restricted as a condition of approval. If approved, staff would monitor this by any complaints that are received and observing the property for non- compliance. The public hearing was opened. Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 3/25103 . . .' Frank Yang, 338 Whispering Pines, said the loading dock is something that they are hoping to do in five years and it is not for the near future. They intend to have a branch in Irvine, C.F. Young, lOSS Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, the architect of the project, replied to a question by Commissioner Wen, by saying that they have been working on this project with staff for 18 months. Several alternatives have been presented and the design has been modified and reduced,in size. He felt that they are already being penalized because the parking requirement takes into the consideration the square footageofthe second floor even though that area will be kitchen and office area only. There will be no dining area for customers on the second level. Approximately 1,200 sq. fL will be for sit down dining. The owner would like to have an upscale restaurant and will be spending $1.5 million .to make these improvements. So, it is understandable that he would like to squeeze in as much parking as possible. In reply to a question by Chairman Pro Tern Baderian regarding hours of operation, Mr. Young said that it would be financially difficuh to only be open during dinner hours, He suggested that the Planning Commission consider limited seating during lunch hours. They have conducted two ttiffic studies; one in the beginning of the project and the other was conducted in February. Both reports indicated that the busiest day was Saturday WId there were only 29 cars at that time. They would not be creating a parking problem, although, Saturdays could be busy. This is the only issue that is of concern to them; otherwise, they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. In answer to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Mr. Young said that 70% of the building would be kitchen and office area and not be utilized for dining purposes. A large area is needed to prepare the dumplings, which are made fresh, daily. The Planning Commission should base the parking on the dining area and notthe square footage of the entire building, No one else. spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lucas, seconded by Commissioner Wen close the public ,hearing. The motion passed by voice vote only with none dissenting. In reply to a question. by Commissioner Wen,. Ms. Butler stated that the City is conducting a parking survey and is finding that the City's requirements are much iower than other cities, There is a high tUrn over in eating establishments; therefore, less parking" is required. The parking requirement is not based upon occupancy. After staffis done with.the parking study, it is anticipated that the standards will be increased, Staff is concerned that that there will be a parking problem during the lunch hours and does not want to have this use impact the other uses in the area and that is why staff is recommending that they should not open during the lunch hours, Ms. Butler went onto say that the depth of compact spaces is less than what is allowed by code. Staff worked on a compromise with theJ)) to allow greater stall widths with less depth. The new parking code will recommend the elimination of compact spaces: She indicated that tandem parking would not be permitted due to the layout. Commissioner Hsu said that Din. Tai Fung is a quslity restaurant and he was looking for the best resolution to this problem. Ms. Butler replied that staffs recommendation to resolve the parking issue Arcadia City Plarming Commission 3 3125103 . . ..:. was forthe restaurant to be open during dinner hours, Mixed uses work well together if the uses operate at different hours and are not in conflict with one another. But in this case staff is concerned that if the restaurant would be open during lunch hours, it might exacerbate the parking, Staff has actually observed patrons utilizing this parking lot and walking across the alley to go to the bOwling alley, There is no doubt that this is a busy center, Staff,feels strongly thatthe parking would be comprolllised if they opened during lunch hours and that the other uses shaU.not be impacted by this use. The applicant co.uld always come back to the City and request an amendment to the application if the parking is under utilized. Commissioner Lucas wondered if there are different requirements for the manufacturing of food vs. serving of it. He thought this was not what it appeared to be. Ms. .Butler replied that if the preparation offood were incidental, then the parking requirement would be 5/1000. Their other restaurant has many employees. Staff does not feel comfortable recommending approval for the restaurant portion to be open during lunch hours. However, staff is not opposed to allowing them to open during dinner hours and see how busy they get and the status of the parking once they have opened and are in operation, As previously mentioned, they could, come back to the City to amend the hours of operation. Ms, Butler went on to say that this is a restaurant that will be preparing food to be shipped out. Staff is classifying this as a restaurant. She indicated that the Planning Commission should not view this by the square footage that would be utilized for dining, The restrictions on the loading and unloading were placed so there would be minimal interference and inconvenience on the site, The trucks could park adjacent to the building during the early morning hours, since the bank will not be open. They are not required to provide truck loading ,area but feel that they could have a loaqing area without impacting the other uses, She noted that the CUP allows the City, to review the business if any problems arise and if other uses are impacted as a result of the use and they could take appropriate action at thattime. Commissioner Hsu made a motion to approve the use but the ,motion died due to lack of a second. Chairman Pro Tem Baderian understood the concerns relative to parking demands and needs. He felt they need to look at the overall parking constraiirts that are placed upon other businesses in the area. Staff has suggested revisiting this issue after they have been in operation to see if there are any parking problems, Commissioner Wen realized that the applicant has been working on this project for a long time. He has visited the site and thought the courtyard area would'beunder'utilized. He WiIS'in agreement Witlistaff's recommendation of reviewing the project after it has been in operation. Motion It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve the CUP, file Negative Declaration, direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution and to have a report brought back to the P1anning Commission six months after they have been in operation. Commissioner Lucas remarked that the applicant has indicated that he will be spending $1.5 million on this project, He could not see the relevance of the review period. ArQldia City Planning Commission 4 3125103 . . Commissioner Wen said that his reasoniilg was based'upon staffs recommendation and the six month would allow them to open their business and be in operation and allow staff to observe the parking situation and their operation. The second issue is the manufacturing ,aspect of the business, which is unconventional to a normal restaurant, and it is unclear if that would impact the parking, Commissioner Lucas asked if the six-month review would be to allow them to open during lunch hours? Ms. Butler explained that similar conditions have been placed on other projects. It is simply to allow them to open. have staff observe the operation and to make a report after they have been in operation for six months as to how the business impacts other uses or on the parking, In some instances, it was determined that a business did impact the surrounding uses and additional conditions were imposed to mitigate any problems, This six-month period would aiSo allow them the opportunity to open their business but would not give them the right to extend their hours at the end of the six-month period. If there are any concerns the project could be brought back atthat time and the CUP could be revoked or additional conditions could be imposed. Of course, the Planning Commission could make a decision - - -~ - - -, - -. ._~ - -- - --. . -. . tonight, and the applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council if they chose to do so. She thought they should impose a six-month review period after they have been in operation and at that time they could review it and impose additional conditions if necessary; This gives the City the flexibility to review the project. They could also request to open during lunch hours at that time. There would be a filing fee if they want an extension of their hours. Chairman Pro Tern Baderian re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Young remarked that his client bas expressed concerns over the discussion and has indicated that if he is imable to be open during lunch hours, he may reconsider the project. He will be spending a substantial amount of money on the building. He sliggested possibly openiilg during lunch hours with reservation only policy, which would allow them to control seating. Chairman Pro Tern Baderian closed the public hearing, The Planning Commission voted on the motion that was previously made by Commissioner Wen approving the CUP with a six-month. review period after they have been in operation. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Wen. Baderian Commissioner Lucas Commissioner Olson Chairman Pro Tem Baderian noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. The resolution will be adopted on Apri122nd. Appeals are'to be filed by April 29th, Arcadia City Planning Commission 5 3125/03 . . NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM RESOLUTION NO. 1688 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, reCommending approval of OP 2003-001 to the City Council to increase the allowable floor area ratio of non- residential square footage for mixed-use projects, Ms. Butler read the title of the resolution. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded by Comniissioner Lucas to adopt Resolution 1689 and fonnally affmnthe decision of February 25m and the votes thereon. ROLL CALL AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Wt:n, Baderian None Commissioner Olson Chairman Pro Tern Baderian noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. Appeals are to be flledby April I 51 . MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Wuo thought tonight's Planning Commission proceedings were interesting and they had a good discussion regarding the. restaurant. He said that many times, people will go into these centers, do their shopping and then dine at one of the restaurants which in turn means that they are not parking there for a short period of time. It generally means that they are there for a couple of hours. He announced the upcoming City functions, MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION In reply to a comment by Commissioner Lucas, Ms. Butler said that staff is working on several issues. Parking is one of them and it is anticipated that the public.hearing on this item will be scheduled in July. Itis interesting to note that cities are not addressing parking for mixed nses. Commissioner Wen indicated that he attended the Planner's Institute and found it very informative. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Chairman Pro Tern Baderiansummarized the Modification Committee actions. MATTERS FROM STAFF 1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Arcadia City. Planning Commission 6 3125103 . . 2, UPLANNING COMMISSIONOMlNG AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler said that she distributed a paCket regarding abstentions and explained the new regulations as well as a packet prepared by the Economic Development Department, which talks about community profile,and city servjces to new comers into the City. ADJOURN TO APRIL 22ND 8:00p,m. IsIDonna Butler Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 3125103