Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 25, 2003 (i) . . MINUTES Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday. February 15, 1003 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in.regular session on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 at 7:00 p.rn. in the Arcadia Council Chambers 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 Woo Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Associate Planner Joe Lambert Senior Administrative Assistant Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 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) None 1. MINUTES 2/11103 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve the Minutes of February 11 tb as publisped. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None 2. PUBLIC HEARING GP 2003-001 Romolo De Paolis Consideration of a proposed amendment to Table 2-A of the Community Development Chapter of the General Plan increasing the aUowable floor area ratio of non-residential . . building square fuotagefrom a .4 floor area ratio toa .5 floor area ratio for mixed-use projects. The staff report was presented. In response to questions by the Commission, Mr. Lambert said that this change would only affect 1 ~ acres in the City, which is relatively minor. He explained the areas of the City that this would affect He noted that there are no other mixed uses in the City, although, another proposal was submittec recently. On the subject project, the use is slightly over what the GP would allow. However, th project will meet and conform to all parking regulations. Without the GP amendment, they would no be able to proceed with their project. The public hearing was opened. Romolo De Panlis, 1771 E. Mountain St. Pasadena, said they are applying for this. so their projectwoulc be financially feasible. No one else spoke in mvor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen torecommenc approval ofGP 2003-001 to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: CommissiclOers Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen, Olson None 3. PUBLIC HEARING 821 San Vicente Rd. Dr. Ibrahim Irawan Consideration of an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of an as-built expansion of the front entry, and a redesign' of the front door and window area for a new two-storyhonie that is currently under construction. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Chairman Olson reminded everyone that there is a 5 minute limit fur each speaker. He asked that if l point has been JDllde, not to reiterate to avoid redundancy. In Favor Colin Greene, attorney for the applicant, said that this has been a long process. The Architectura Review Board does not like the design ofthe house. There were many people that spoke in mvor ofthl house during the.Architectural Review Board meetings, yet no one spoke against it. The front entrance Araldia City PllInning Cotnmission 2 2/11103 . . located in the front of the house, is shielded by the oak tree and has an 80' setback. They are not attempting to grandizetheentrance. He explained that the reason for the 2' extension was because the stairs, as proposed on the plans, are too close to the door. The size of the doors has not increased. There is nothing in the Homeowners Association resolUtion.that states that they cannot have that type of a door. The style of the door is subjective. He indicated that creativity should not be stifled. The photos of the door clearly show that it is not flashy or made of polished iron. In fact, there are number of similar type doors with glass and polished iron in the area. Dr. and Mrs. George Jung, 531 N. Old Ranch Rd., said they live in the immediate area and are in close proximity to the subject house. They wanted to voice their strong support for the applicant. They felt that the extension of the porch would further enhance the home and that this house would increase property values in the area. The 2' addition is in scale with the house and the property. They did not think that the house was too massive, ostentatious or conspicuous. In fact, when, viewed from the street, the change in the size of the entry doesn't seem to be noticeable to the eye. They were distUrbed that this issue has impeded construction and has inconvenienced the immediate neighbors, especially, since the homeowner was going to meelCity's requirements. The decision of the ArchitecturafReview Board does not take into consideration the feeling of the neighbors who live in the immediate area who are in favor of this design and home. They have seen the front door and do not reel that it is in bad taste and feel that it is architecturally compatible. While the wrought iron may be different in its material and overall style and appearance it is very similar to other leaded and beveled glass and wooden framed doors in the area and is equally appealing and superior. It would definitely not be an eyesore, nor would it be extreme or unusual in its design. They felt that, while not everyone has . the same door, who WOuld want to have the same door as their neighbor? Mr. Jung went on to say that harmony couid still be accomj>iished while maintaining individUlility. There are a variety of designs in their. neighborhood and that"was what attracted them to this area. They felt that it is .diversity of architectural styles that gives richness of character and distinctiveness to the area. Harmony does.not mean. sameness or uniforrnityand living in this Homeowners Association does not mean that they have to be relegated to traditional or ranch style homes or the Homeowners Association's architectural elements. They felt that the variety and diversity in this area are vital to the growth and continued pride of ownership in the Lower Rancho. The alternative would be stagnation in home prices and interest. in home renovation and rebuilding. It is important to have standards of quality control in the construction of the homes, but if it becomes too restrictive as to impede individuality and personal style preferences of the homeowner, it would create discord, not harmony for the residents of the area. And, it appears that the constraints and difficulties that have been placed on the lrawanshave done just exactly that. Fred Fedal. 600 N. Old Ranch Rd., concurred with the comments made by the previous speakers. He 'cited a home in Diamond Bar that has this type of a door and in his opinion, the door is beautiful. Martha Moore, 876 San Simeon, said that she has seen many changes in Arcadia and most have been an improvement. She took the time to go and see the door which she thought was beautiful. In fact, the oak tree blockS the door so it would not be visible from the street. She said that a Mr. Snow was going around their neighborhood and seeking signatures for a petition against this applicant. She read a letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Ingoldsby, who resides at 868 SaJi Simeon, who could not be present at tonight's meeting. Mrs. Ingoldsby signed the petition but wanted to withdraw her signature from the petition Art"ftdi~ riN Pl........... r...ftft"rOi.,.iAn , "JII I Jt\':!. . . because after she signed the petition she discovered that the home would not detract from the neighborhood. She felt that the home is in good taste and would increase property values. Berry Schupback, 605 Old Ranch Rd., said his property is adjacent to the subject property. This house has been under construction for over a year and it should have been finished already. There have been a number of issues with the Architectural Review Board, who did not like the house from the very beginning. The design if the door is a personal issue. It is starting to get pretty dangerous, when the Architectural Review Board is dictating the type of a door that a homeowner can have. Brad Irawan, 821 San Vicente, son of Dr. Irawan, said that this has been very difficult on his family. They had hoped that they would be able to hold his sister's birthday in their new home but they could not because ofall the problems. They attended a meeting at Mr. Henrich's home and there was no one there that was against the design of their home. He wanted their home to be finished, so they could move in and hopefully be able to celebrate his mom's birthday in their new home. In Oooosition Dr. Bill Spuck, 531 Campesina, president of the Lower Rancho Homeowners AssociatIOn, asked the Planning Commission to uphold the Architectural Review Board's decision. He distributed a list of the membership and explained that each of those members are qualified professionals who are skilled to serve on this Architectural Review Board. The Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, Tony Henrich, is a civil engineer. Among their membership tliey have an architect, a landscape architect, a buildingconstmction manager, and an attorney. They are in good standing and abide by the resolution that wassel by the City. The tenure of their Homeowners Association and Architectural Review Board members ranges from one year to 20 years of service on their board. So, their board is qualified to determine harmony. He explained that a few years ago their Homeowners Association waS virtually doormat and did very little but they have revitalized their Homeowners Association and now they are very active in reviewing projects. During the short period where the Architectural Review Board was doormat, a few homes were able to slip in,and were constructed which were incompatible with their area. The residents did not want their neighborhood to turn in to S. Arcadia and felt that it was time to revitalize their Homeowners Association before it was too late. They changed the composition of the Homeowners Association so there would be more qualified members. He believed that they are representing the majority of their residents. The property owner and builder decided to make alterations without consulting ti:\e City or the Architectural Review Board, despite _ a letter from the City, which clearly indicated that any change would require the approval of both the Architectural Review Board and the City. Are there consequences for these types of actions or does the City Want to establish a policy that a homeowner could ask for forgiveness rather than for permission? If the Architectural Review Board is to be affective, the Planning Commission should deny the appeal and send a loud message. The Homeowners Association believes in harmony, not only in their homes but also in the members of the community. He was bothered that their action seems adversary. He wanted to welcome the Irawans to their community. They have established a procedure to look at developments so they are harmonious in the fairest way. Tony Henrich, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, 431 N. Altura Rd., had a Power Point presentation. He said that the Homeowners Association and Architectural Review Board for the Lower Rancho were established by Resolution No. 5287. The purpose was too assure that designs are not garish or unrelated to the area. They are to promote and maintain the quality of homes, protect property Arcadia Cily Planning Commission 4 2/11103 . . values, protect predominate character of homes, assure contemporary standards of harmony and assure that buildings, structures and landscapes are harmonions. Good architecture is based upon harmony, proportions and that the architecture relates to other structures in the neighborhood and relationship between front yards. He indicated that there are 800 homes in the Lower Rancho. He provided a brief history of the project. He said that the Architectural Review Board feels that the entry is too massive, vertical and not in harmony. The issues before the Planning Commission are the entry and whether the City's rules were followed. With regard to the City's instructions, the homeowner did not follow the City rules. In a letter from the City dated November 2002, it was clearly stated that any changes would need to be approved by the Architectural Review Board. The owner made changes without this approval and the City inspector issued a stop work order. The minor changes involved the windows, roof design and that the rear was enlarged by 18". The major changes included extending the entry 2' forward or 33% and the new "iron-glass" doors and windows: The Architectural Review Board denied the 2' extension because theydid.not feel that the area is needed for the stairs. The porch was extended without any approvals. It makes the porch area more massive and vertical looking. This.extension encroaches upon the oak tree. which is not healthy. He also wanted to send a loud message to builders that they need to follow City rules. He pointed out that the architect did not require the 2' extension. The door location is the same as the approved plans, revised plans and as it is constructed. This extension is not needed for the stairs because the doors are located at the same location as originally approved. With regard to the iron glass doors, he said that it creates a greater vertical look and a more massive entry. There are no iron glass doors in their Homeowners Association. He noted that both the City and. the Homeowners Association have recommended denial on this issue. The entry does not match the newly adopted City codes. He said that it is tl1eArchitectural Review Board's goal to adhere to the City Resolution. They want to make certain that improvements proposed in neighborhoods conforrn to the majority of the homes in the area and maintain harmony and protect property values. They also want to maintain the character of the area and "elements of style". He asked that the Planning Commission uphold their denial. Dale Brown, 507 Monte Vista Rd., an architect, said..that variety is indeed good when it is appropriate and there is harmony in scale, massaild level of detail. Change is good but at the same time it needs to be within context. Their guidelines deal with scale and mass and it is their desire to follow those guidelines. They want something in their area that fits in. Bob ErikSon, 400 Vaquero Rd., said that he has been an Architectural Review Board .member for 25 years. During the construction, he became concerned of the healthofthe oak tree and had it examined by two qualified arborists. Both reported that the tree was in deep distress. Naturally, the Homeowners Association is concented and does not want it harmed. The arborists suggested an extensive remedy plan to bring the tree back to its original healthy condition. Patty Wong, 910 W. Catalpa, said their area is a very nice. Many of the residents have lived there for many years. The Architectural Review Board is there for a reason. It is because the residents of their area would like to maintain the architectural character and charm of their neighborhood. She submitted a petition and read excerpts of the petition, which discussed the residents' satisfaction with the job that the Architectural Review Board is doing, their dislike of mansionizatioDand their desire to protect their Arcadia City Planning Commission , 2/11103 . . neighborhood from homes that are incompatible and are over sized. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the appeal. Steve Matheson, 900 Paloma, said that it was encouraging to see so many homeowners concerned that showed up to the meeting. He commented that all the members of the Homeowners Association and the Architectural Review Board are volunteers. They want a community of homes that are harmonions with one another. Every neighbor that the Architectural Review Board contacted had strong opinions and was in support of the Architectural Review Board's position. They are requesting that the front porch be brought hack to what was originally approved. Suzanne Thomkins, 432 N. Old Ranch Rd., was in support of the Architectural ReviewBoard and felt that without the service that they are providing to their community, their area would lose its charm. Most of the residents in their area have moved there because of its charm and character and they are concerned that they will be losing it. She strongly believed that the extension of the porch and its mass are not in harmony with the other 800 homes in the Lower. Rancho area and that.the front entry door should be what was approved originally. Vince Foley, 320 Cambridge, said that there is no one in the Homeowners Association that bears a grudge toward the IraWaDS. They just want to maintllin the integrity of their community. The pristine of the community was what has drawn them to the Lower Rancho and they just want to maintain that. They are not out to get anyone. He hoped that the Planning Commission would support the Architectural Review Board's action and uphold the City Council's action when they set up their Homeowners AssOciation and gave them authority to oversee their area. He thought that the entire City should have architectural review so that the integrity and the quality of the homes are maintained. He asked the Planning Commission to support the Architectural Review Board. Bob Garrett, 1051 Monte Verde, said they have skilled volunteers who donate countless hours and serve on their Homeowners Association. If the City wants the Homeowners Association to have any meaning then their actions and their judgments should have great respect. Unless the Planning Commission concludes that the Homeowners Association is flatly abusing its discretion and is completely arbitrary then they should respect and defer to their judgment and their decision. The record reflects that the property owner did not go through the normal process. He built the home as he saw fit and it was almost as if he was saying "catch me if you can". If they reward this type of a behavior, then the existence of the Homeowners Association and city staff are irrelevant. If they approve this appeal, in essence the Planning Commission would be making all of the hard work of these skilled people and the countless hours that they spend on projects completely irrelevant. He urged the Planning Commission to give respect to both the HOllleownersAssociation and the Architectural Review Board. . In rebuttal, Mr. Green, said the homeowner would be happy to do whatever is necessary to save the tree. They were unaware that'the tree was in distress. This is not about whether the people who are serving on the Architectural Review Board are qualified or not, it is about their judgment and how that should be adhered to. It. is about property rights and how the homeowner would like to develop it. The home is not garish. In the letters that were read, there was no mention of the home, only that the people, in general, were in support of their Homeowners Association. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item Chairman Olson closed the public hearing. Artad.ili City Planning COmmission 6 2111103 . . In reply to a question byChairrnan Olson, Mr. Nicholson stated that the owner could change the color of the door anytime without seeking Architectural Review Board approval. Commissioner Baderilm was concerned that the criterion that has been established by the City Council was no followed. Therefore, the Planning Commission needs to look at it very carefully because this project deviated from that criterion. The homeowner was aware of the process, which was that any aherations would require approval. He was unsure that the proper channels were followed. Commissioner Hsu felt that the changes were made during construction to make the project possible. He fehthat the location of the entry, which is behind the oak tree, is shielded by the tree and would not have an adverse impact on the neighboring properties. He did not think that this would devaluate the adjacent properties. He did not think the door was aesthetically unpleasing and did not feel that this would be an ostentatious home. Commissioner Lucas said he reviewed the Homeowners Association actions and looked at the home owner's intent. He congratulated the home owner for making a commitment to the community. It is obvious that homes in the area are going through renovations. The City Council has established areas in the city to have architectural design review and they have been given a system to review projects with limits. They are not to be abusive when exercising that discretion. The question in his mind is did the Architectural Review Board abuse its discretion? Another issue, which he wanted to hear about but he did not, was why did the homeowner pursue these changes? He did not see or hear any compelling evidence that the homeowner would in any way be prevented from enjoying his property by adhering to the Architectural Review Board's prescribed ruling. . Commissioner Wen said that he has served on the Homeowners Association in his area and respects their efforts on this issue. He was impressed with the Architectural Review Board's preparation for this meeting and their presentation. He has never seen a house built without any changes from the construction plans. He could sense a lack of communication between the homeowner and the Architectural Review Board. He wondered if the door was also moved forward with the 2' extension? If the door moved forward with the porch, then the change is insignificant because the physical dimension of the entry is the same. Chairman Olson was disappointed that he did not hear anything in.the testimony regarding the need for the alteration, other than a statement that the door is too close to the stairs. In looking at the slides, it did not appear to him that there would be a change and that was one of the reasons why the. Architectural Review Board denied their request and the applicant did not respond to that issue in their rebuttal. He was troubled that they did not respond to that issue. He is fully aware that changes will occur. The Architectural Review Board has already approved the other changes including the windows and the roofing. He was also troubled by the IS" extension in the rear, which in essence enlarges the house. The applicant's testimony did not present clear reasons why the changes were made. With regard to the door, he indicated that he was troubled that the door color could be changed. He said there were some comments that.the applicant attempted to sneak these changes through, but he did not think that was the case. The city through normal process discovered these changes and informed the applicant and the Homeowners Association. He was troubled by this application because he did not-feel that he has seen enough evidence to support the changes. MOTION ArtIidia City Planiting Commission 7 2/11103 . . It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Lucas to deny the appeal at 821 San Vicente Rd. finding that the project is not architecturally harmonious and compatible and uphold the Architectural Review Board's denial. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, LUCas, Wen, Olson Commissioner Hsu Chairman Olson noted that there is a five working day appeal period.aile the adoption of the resolution. The resolution will be adopted on March Iltb. Appeals are to be filed by March 18tb. MATIERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Woo said that tomorrow night is the dinner for volunteer hosted by the Police Dept. He remarked that February 22nd was the opening for the Little League. MATIERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION None MODIFICATION COMMITIEE MEETING ACTIONS Chairman.Olson summarized the Modification Committee. MATIERS FROM STAFF l. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. UPLANNING COMMISSIONOMING AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.rn. Is/Corkran Nicholson Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission ArCBdia City Planning Commission 8 2111103