Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 11, 2003 Il . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, Marcb 11,2003 7:00 p.m. in tbe Arcadia City Council Cbambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, March 11,2003 at 7:00 p.rn. in the Arcadia Council Chantbers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Dr. with Chairman Olson presiding. . ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None OTHERS ATTENDING Council, Member John Wuo Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Associate Planner Joe Lambert Sernor Admini><trative Assistant Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler said that a letter in support of the appeal at 1857 Highland Oaks was distributed. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) . None MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Chairman Olson to read all rl;Solution by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution. 1. MINUTES 2125/03 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve the Minutes of February 25th as published. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas,. Wen, Olson None . . 2. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 2003-002 618 E. Live Oak Ave. Ming Shen Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a church with a maximum occupancy of 20 people in a commercial center. RESOLUTION NO. 1690 A Resolution of the City of Arcadia, California, granting CUP 2003-002 to operate a church at 618.E. Live Oak Ave. The staffreport was presented. In response to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Lambert ~ated thllt they anticipate having week night services that would begin at 6:00 p.m and end by 8:00 p.ni. The.CUP would allow the Planning Commission to restrict the hours of operation, however, staff is not recommending that at this time. CommissioJJe1' Wen remarked that there does not appear to be any restrictions or mention of services on Saturdays. He was concerned that if they do have activities on Saturday, that the center would be congested because of the other businesses there. Mr. Lambert responded by saying that the Planning Commission could add a condition regarding the use on Saturdays. The public bearing was opened. Ming Shen, 618 E. Live Oak, said their primary use would be on Sunday mornings. If they do have any gathering during the week, it would probably be on Wednesdays, for a couple of hours, from 6:00-9:00 p.rn. There is plenty of parking in the back. They will be an asset to the community. They are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staffreport. He anticipated having approximately 20 people on Sundays and about lOon week nights. They will not be holding any gatherings on Saturdays. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by <;;ommissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve CUP 2003-002, subject to the conditions in the staff report, file Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 1690. Commissioner Lucas remarked that he was concerned about the parking, What would happen if the church was successful and parking became an issue for the adjacent uses? He felt there should be a condition on the days of use, possibly prohibiting Saturdays. An:odia City Plaooing Commission 2 3/11103 . . Commissioner Baderian amended his motion, limiting the use to Wednesday nights and Sundays. They can always come back to the City and request-an amendment if they require it. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None Ms. Butler remarked that the resolution would be amended to reflect the Planning Commission's action. Chairman Olson noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are to be filed by March ISth. 3. PUBLIC HEARING MP 2003-001 25 Andrea Ln, Jim Kuhn for Mr. Mel Wabuke Consideration of modifications .for a proposed rebuild to add an attached below-grade two-car garage; convert the existing garage into living space; add onto the first floor; and add a second floor for a master suite. The staff report was presented. Commissioner Wen asked if the neighbors needed to review the plans, since, there is no Homeowner's Association in this particular area? Ms. Butler replied that all homeowners within 100' of the subject property received notification of tonight's hearing and they had the opportunity to come tonight or send a coItespondence regarding this issue. Commissioner Lucas had questions on the retaining wall? Ms. Butler replied that the retaining wall will be allowed to remain on the property line and would not be subject to a'modification because it serves a purpose and is not a decorative feature, rather it is a necessity. . The public hearing was opened. Jim Kuhn, 1715 S. Santa Anita, the architect of the project, spoke on behalf of the property owners. He said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. In response to Commissioner Lucas's question," Mr. Kuhn said that they desired to have a sweeping driveway instead of having a straight one. If the Planning Commission wishes, they could change it but that would make it a little more difficuh to get to the stairway. It is just a matter of design and preference. He noted that staff likes a curved driveway. Jodille Burke, 33 AndreaLn., was concerned that this large house would only have a 6' setback from the property line. If they are tearing this much of the house down, it would be practically a rebuild, why can they not comply with code? Why can't they shift the house to the other side, where there is a much greater setback and distance between the homes? She was also concerned with the location of the additional air conditioning unit and the noise that would be genemted from two units. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3 3/11103 . . In response, Mr. Kuhn said that the setbacks are not changing on either side because they are maintaining the existing setbacks. He noted that the air conditioning units would be located to the rear of the ho~and not on the side yard. No one else spoke in mvor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hsu suggested having a noise barrier for the air conditioning units to reduce noise. MOTION It waS moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to approve MP 2003-00 1 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the additional condition that a sound barrier be utilized for the air !lQndition units, subject to the review and approval of the staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None Chafrrnan Olson noted that there is a five working day appeal period. AppeaJsare to be filed by March 18m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING HEARING - Arehitectural Review Board Appeal 1857 Highland Oaks Dr. Phong and Gail Ngo Consideration of an appeal of the Highland Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board's denial of the propo~ rehabilitation addition to and permitting of a pool house that was built without permits. The staffreport was presented and the public hearing was opened. Ms, Ngo, 1857 Highland Oaks, said they would like to rehabilitate the pool house, which has been there for two decades. She noted that there has never been any complaints from any of the neighbors regarding- this structure. They are more than willing to bring the structure up to code and at the same time make it aesthetically pleasing to them and to the one neighbor who can see it. This particular neighbor has indicated that they would not like to see it from their property, therefore, they cannot increase the pitch of the root: They are interested in increasing property values. They have the support of their neighbors. Currently, the roof is not completely flat and has an 18" pitch. They would like to maintain it as such. The Homeowner's Association's requirement for the roofing material is not an option due to the cost involved because it would involve tearing up the entire root: Also, the structure.as it currently exists, would not accommodate the heavy shingle and there would be drainage problems because of the pitch and it would be more visible to the neighbor who does not want to see this structure. Although, they would like this structure to be aesthetically pleasing, they do not want it to be the main feature in their back yard. The Chairman of the Architectural Review Board has indicated that this type of roof has never been approved in their Homeowner's Association, yet driving to the meeting, she Arcadia City Planning Commission 4 3/11103 . . noticed several flat roof structures above Virginia Dr. So, they would not be the only ones with a flat roof structure in their Homeowner's Association. It would not be an anomaly. This structure is not visible from the street This structure would only be visible to their neighbor. The Planning Commission should not worry about a hypothetical situation; i.e., if their neighbor COnstnIcted a second- stOry home that their structure would be visible at that time. In reply to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Ms. Ngo did not know whether their purchase price reflected a lower amount as a resuh of this illegal structure. Ralph Bicker, Chairman of the Highland Architectural Review Board, 101 White Oak Dr. said that the Architectural Review Board is in charge of revieWing all plans for any remodel or expansion. They work very closely with homeowners and frequently speak with them from the beginning of a project, so they can minimize any misunderstandings oj-miscommunication. They communicate with the homeowners at every stage of the process. Because of this, there are hardly any appeals to their actions and they have a high approval rate. They do their best to treat all applicants the SlIlIle and maintain the high standard of harmony and quality in the construction of the homes in their area. At each of their annual Homeowner's Association meetings, their property owners encourage them to maintain the highest standards that have been set forth. When the Ngos purchased their property, he met with them andcsaw the guest house. It was very clear to him that the structure was COnstnIcted \vithout permits and Architectural Review Board approval. The roofis almost flat and has pipes protruding from it and is clearly poorly built. He explained to Mrs, Ngo that it is the Architectural Review Board's responsibility to ensure harmony and maintain the character of the area and that structures are architecturally compatible. Their Architectural Review Board has never approved a flat, asphalt or rolled type ofroofstruct~ and the ones mentioned by Mrs. Ngo were constnIcted prior to that area.being annell.edto their Homeowner's Association, approximately 10 years ago. At that time, they did not have any control over that area. There is no structure in their Homeowner's Association that is similar to what Mrs. Ngo has on her property. He explained the requirements of roofing material in their area The Architectural Review Board is strongly recommending denial of this appeal because it would be down grading the quality of homes and would set.a negative precedent. In response to a question by Commissioner Lucas, Mr. Bicker thought there are probably six structures in their Homeowner's Association that were constructed without pennits. In rebuttal, Ms. Ngo commented that their structure has been there for more than 20 years. She thought that there are probably more than 6 structures in this area constructed without pennits or Architectural Review.Board approval. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman.Olson closed the public hearing. In reply to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Ms. Butler said that this illegal structure was discovered as a real estate inspection which was conducted when the Ngos purchased this property. When irregularities are discovered as a resuh of these types of inspections, the property owner is required to bring the property up to code. In this case, if this appeal is denied, they would have to remove this structure because they could not bring it up to code, because the Homeowner's Association will not An-RttiJll rltv PI!llnn;no rnmnnote;Mt . "'111m." . . approve the structure. They could'not reroof it,nor could they upgrade the electrical or the gas meter or change out the windows because Building Services could not issue them a permit without the Homeowner's Association's approval She noted that the building could not be occupied. Unfortunately, this is a "catch 22" for the homeowner, who would like to bring the property up to code but is unable to do so because they cannot get Homeowner's Association approval. She commented that any structure over 2' high would require Architectural Review Board approval This is an illegal structure and cannot be grandfathered because technically, on paper and according to City records, this structure does not exist. When.thisstructure was constructed, it probably complied with the set backs of the time. This is a non-conforming structure. Commissioner Baderian agreed that the property owner has a dilemma. But, based on Mr. Bicker's comments, it does not appear that this structure was constructed within the spirit and parameters of the Homeowner's Association. The property owner would have the option of appealing the Planning Commission's decision to City Council if they deny the appeal. In response to a question by Commissioner Wen, Ms. Butler said that any alteration to the building would require Architectura1 Review Board approval Commissioner Lucas said that this structure has no legal basis to exist, thus, that an8lysis should be applied. The structure has no legal right to be there. He felt that the City Council, who is the policy makers, must decide whether there should be a special rule on non-confurming structures and how they should be dealt with. He did not think that the Planning Commission should decide this issue. Comn;rlssioner Lucas made a motion to deny the appeal Commissioner Baderian agreed with Commissioner Lucas's comments. This is an unfortunate situation. Here is a property owner who wants to do the right thing and bring the property up to code but cannot because she cannot apply for a building permit because the structure has not been approved by the Architectural Review Board. The structure was part of the purchase of the home but cannot be occupied due to legal issues. Ms. Butler remarked that this is an illegal structure. When the real estate inspection was requested, it was understood that everything sbouldbe brought up to code. If the Plannine Commission denies this appeal, the property owner can appeal to the City Council. StafPs opinion was that this structure has been there for many years and based upon the nature of the area, staff did not feel that it was an offensive structure. This structure does not impact anyone and the property owner is attempting to bring it up to code. Commissioner Wen wanted to ask the property owner, as well as Mr. Bicker, if she would agree to reconstructing the roof and using a material approved by the Architectural Review Board, would the Architectura1 Review Board approve it? Chairman Olson re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Bicker said that. if they would bring the structure-up to code and use approved roofing material, they would probably approve it. ArCadia City Plinniug CormilissiOD 6 3/11103 . . Ms. N go said that she had two contractors inspect this structure and both indicated that the structure would not be able to handle the roofing material the Architectural Review Board bas.approved, due to the pitch of the roof because these materials are too heavy and there would be drainage problems. If they would instaII the roofing as suggested by the Homeowner's Association, it would make the structure seem much larger, and visible to the neighbors. This structure was not designed to sustain a heavy roof. It would be very costly for them to change the roof. They would have to tear it down. Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Baderian said that to this unusual circumstance, it is difficult to come up with a resolution. Unfortunately, there is no in between in this case. Chairman Olson said that it is difficuh to say what the pitch of the roof would have to be to avoid any drainage problems, cOmmisSIoner Hsu wondered if they would have to go down to the footings to determine that the foundation was safe and Chairman Olson replied that the remedies prescribed by Building Services has taken that.into consideration. Chairman Olson said as mentioned by Commissioner Lucas, this structuretechnicaIIy does not exist and they cannot factor in the cost into their decision. However, the affected neighbors have approved the structure. The property owner took possession of the property knowing of this situation. Commissioner Baderian said that he has heard the property owner say that they would like to bring the structure up to code and is aware that the neighbors are in favor of it. But, they need to fall back on the issue that this is an illegal building and was constructed without permits - it technically does not exist according' to Cilyrecords. So, how can they legalize a structure that does not exist? Since, there is no legal document that exists that states that the building exists, there is no legal opportunity or avenue to get itJegalized. Commissioner Wen said that is an unfortunate situation, but the property owner was aware of this when they purchased the property. The Planning Commission bas attempted to find a compromise but there does not appear to be one in this case. MOTION It Was mOved by Commissioner LUcas, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to deny the appeal and uphold the Architectural Review Board's denial based upon the findings LISTED ABOVE. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson none Chairman Olson noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. The Resolution will be adopted on March 25th. Appeals are to be filed by April 1st. Arcadia,City Planning Commission 7 3/11/03 . . NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM RESOLUTION NO, 1688 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending approval of GP 2003-001 to the City CoWlCil to increase the allowable floor area ratio of non- residential square footage for mixed use projects. Ms. Butler read the tit1eofthe resolution. MOTION It was moved by CommissionerBaderian, seconded ~ Commissioner Lucas to adopt Resolution 1688 and formally atrlflll the decision of February 25 and the votes thereon. ROLL CALL A YES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson NOES: None RESOLUTION NO. 1689 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, denying the appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of design revisions to the front entry on a.new two-story home at 821 San Vicente Rd. Ms. Butler read the title of the resolution. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to adopt Resolution 1689 and fonnally atrlflll the decision of February 25th and the votes thereon. RQLL CALL A YES: Commissioners Baderian, Lucas, Wen, Olson NOES: Commissioner Hsu Chairman Olson noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolutions. Appeals are to be filed by March 18th . MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Wuo announced the forums that have been scheduled for the School Board candidates, Arbor Day celebration which has been scheduled for Friday and the golf tournament scheduled by the high school Boosters Club. He also noted that there will be a 24-hour event for cancer survivors on July 1 9-20 ,and he would like to have the community and any cancer survivors involved in this event. Since Arc:odia City Planning Commission g 3111103 . . he is the President of the American Cancer Society of SGV, he decided to hold this year's event in Arcadia. This isa very good cause and he asked everyone's support. MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION None MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Chairman Olson snmmarized the Modification Committee. MATTERS FROM STAFF 1. 2. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS UPLANNING COMMISSIONOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butier announced that Jim Kasama, Senior Planner, will be leaving the City in June, after 15 years of empioyment. His family will be moving to Denver due to his wife's job transfer. He will be greatly missed. ADJOURNMENT 8:30 p.rn. IslDonna Butler Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning C<lmmission 9 3111Al3