Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 14, 2004 (2) . . . MINUTES . Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday, September 14, 2004 7:00 p.m. in the An:adia City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Dr. with Chairman Pro Tem Craig Lucas presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas Commissioner Baderian MOTION: It \lias moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to excuse Commissioner Baderianfrom tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting, OTHERS ATTENDING Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Senior Planner Lisa Flores Planning Intern Andrew Gonzales Senior Administrative Assistant Silva Vergel MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Olson, 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 vote with no one dissenting. . 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 Chairman Pro Tern Lucas explained the public hearing procedures, . 1. PUBLICIlEARING TPM 2004-006 126 Fano K & K Development . Consideration of a tentative parcel map for a 3-unit residential condominium project The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Scott Chang, 11823 Slauson Ave., Santa Fe Springs, the civil engineer was present and said they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. No one else spoke regarding this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderiail MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve TPM 2004- 006 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian Chairman Pro Tern Lucas indicated that there is a ten-day appeal period~ Appeals are to be filed by ~ . September24 . -- , 2. PUBLIC HEARING TA,2004-003 David Sabin, Fiedler Group Consideration of a text, amendment allowing an automated, self~service car wash in conjunction with an automobile fueling station and convenience store. The staff report was presented. Commissioner Wen asked. if the criteria for minimum lot area and frontage were industry standard and Ms. Flores responded that there were no data from their research from other cities and staff felt best to ArCadia city Planning Commission 2 911414 . . have it in place. There are no other similar uses in the City. There could be two possible locations that would benefit from this text amendment; 625 W, Las Tunas, which is an ArcostatiOIl.; and 425 N. Santa Anita, which is Fasching's car Wash. The public hearing was opened. Alex Cuevas, 2322 W, 3rd St., Los Angeles, representing the owner, said that new fueling stations have convenience stores and carwashes. WIth the growing number of cities frowning upon having cars being washed at home, due to increased water discharge and pollution, these types of facilities have become a necessity. Their facility would be drive through. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to recommend approval of T A 2004-003 to the City Council, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian 3. PUBLIC HEARING GP 2004-001 and ZC 2004-003 Consideration of general plan amendments and zone changes to various properties providing consistency between the City's General Plan and Zoning Map. The staff report was presented, In response to a question by Commissioner Olson, Ms. Butler indicated that if the properties With the PR-I zone were to he changed, the difference would be that any potential building could be constructed closer to the property line. Code requires various setback and angle requirements as well as building envelope and window locations for commercial buildings adjacent to residential. Buildings could potentially be closer to the property line. She explained that any commercial building over 20,000 square feet would require a conditional use permit when located adjacent to residential property. Also, Arcadia City Planning Coomiission 3 9/1414 . . any de~elopment would be subject to architectural design review. There are no provisions to allow modifications for a building to encroach into a PR-I zone, Chairman Pro Tern Lucas though that they should discuss each different area one at a time, The public hearing was opened. No one spoke regarding the Live Oak Corridor, Baldwin Corridor 4B, Colorado Corridor and Marendale Subdivision. 8aldwinCorridor. Section 4A. lack Schmidz, U53 Altura Terr., said that his property backs up to Coco's restaurant The parking overlay was placed there to keep any commercial building from encroaching but changing the zoning on this could potentially bring commercial buildings closer to the residential uses, The parking overlay gave the residents the maximum protection while the zone change would not: Their property values have increased and he did not want to see a commercial building 20' from his backyard, He wanted the property to maintain the current zo!'ing "nd said that they wou!dobject to any change that could encourage a commercial building being closer to their homes. Baldwin Corridor, Section 48. indndinl!: the orooertv at 650W. HuotiDl!tOO Dr. Annick Dolonhower, 634 W. Huntington, did not want to change the zoning and feared that would increase the density. Currently, there is a parking problem in the area and allowing a multiple-family use at 650 W, Huntington Dr. would exacerbate the parking problem in the area, There are many older units in this area that do not have ample parking so the parking overflows onto Huntington. In addition, ' a multiple-family use would encourage roderits due to they type of waste, but keeping it as an office use would not becalise the waste is mostly paper. Downtown Corridor Julia Sun, 217 S. Third Ave., objected to any change in the General Plan density along California, Second Ave., Third Ave. and Bonita area because of the potential increase in traffic and noise. They have approached the City Co~cil and asked that something be done regarding the growth of the area and the'increased density and population. Foothill and First Corridor Jim Wright, 250 ESycamore, said that they moved to this home due to the ambiance. Their home is private and surrounded by other homes. They received this notice 3-weeks ago and are concerned about any zone change that would disrupt their privacy and peace, He did not want Shakey'stom down for a Walgreen's, which appears to be a very tall building that would be constructed very close to the property line. Currently, there is a parking lot behind the building but the plans for Walgreen's showed a loading dock in that same area as well as a drive-through window. They would have never purchased this property had they thought this was possible. He cited the following concerns, which included fear for his family's safety and security from vandalism and vagrants, that are always seen in the alley behind Ralph's. The buildings would be too close to their _ City Planning Commission 4 9/14/4 . . properties and would increase noise and ruin their privacy and view from their backyards. He felt that there would be constant noise from the parking lot traffic, radios from cars parked in the rear lot, the existence and ioeation of a drive-through window, which would force traffic to the rear parking lot, the location of the loading dock and the constant delivery of goods, the loitering of people in the rear parking lot. Michael Ruyl, 307 E. Foothill Blvd., concurred with Mr. Wright He objected to any change and said that a portion of his property is zoned PR-I and if this was approved then his property would be zoned half residential and halfcommercial. Ms. Butler checked and said that Mr. Ruyl's property is ,zoned residential. She noted that none of his property is within the '1''' overlay zone. Ed Litty, 236 E. Sycamore" agreed with comments made by his, neighbors, He admired how this was presented to the Planning Commission. He thought this change would devaluate their property values and he will be impacted. He was opposed to this Change. No'oneelse spoke regarding this item, MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CommissionersHsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian Commissioner Hsu commended staff on a thorough report. He was in agreement with all of the recommended changes with the exception of the parking overlay zone changes. Commissioner Olson did not want to change the parking overlay zone unless there is a good reason for it. Ms; Butler remarked in regard to the properties in the Downtown Corridor they are zoned R-3. Properties could be improved if they comply with code requirements. There'is potential for'change in this area and they are finding that most of the time less units are being built. A brief discussion ensued regarding the building at 650 W. Huntington Dr. and Ms. Butler briefly explained the City Council's action on this item. She went on to say that in regard to the "P" overlay on Foothill Blvd" Walgreen's submitted plans for architectural design review. Walgreen's would require a conditional use permit because of the drive-through, Commissioner Wen commended staff's work on this project and agreed with Commissioner Olson, He was in favor of many of the proposed changes. He agreed that there should be consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. He asked how this would affect the schools and the population of the City? He suggested continuing the public hearing to allow them more time to review this. Arcadia City Planning Commjssion s 9/14/4 . . Ms,Butler replied thatthe City Council met with the School Superintendent and she did not think there would be an impact from the residential development in the City and felt the school district could handle the, change. The PR-I zone impacts the location of any commercial building, If this zoning is removed, commercial buildingS could be constructed closer to the property line. The main reason for this process is housekeeping and making sure that the General Plan and the zoning are consistent with one another, She explained what could be constructed at 650 W. Huntington Dr. if it was zoned R-3. In answer to a question by Chairman Pro Tern Lucas, Ms. Butler said that the properties that are inconsistent and are not being addressed tonight are City properties. These will be done at a later date. She also explained that the proposed General Plan and Zone Change applications will require City Council approval and will be forwarded to the City Council at the same time because they did not want to hold separate hearings for each application. If the Planning Commission continues this discussion, new notices will oot.be mailed, MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Well, seconded by Commissioner Olson to continue the deliberation on,the subject matter to November 9th. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian CONSENT ITEM 4. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion regarding Architectural Design ReView for Single-family residential projects. The staff report was presented. Ms, Butler indicated that the City Council would like to move ahead with this, although, there is no set time line. Commissioner Wen said this was a good document and commended staff. Commissioner Olson was in agreement with Commissioner Baderian's e-mail; which was attached to the staff report. He liked the tiering approach. He liked option 3; which provides exceptions and exemptions to the design review process. Chairman Pro Tem Lucas preferred option 2 which required architectural design review on all new construction, exterior alterations and/or additions, including window replacement, Ms. Butler explained that she was looking for the Planning Commission's recommendations to forward to City Council. They can amend what has been proposed. Arcadia City f1-anning Commissioil 6 9/14/4 . . Chairman Pro Tern Lucas said that he resides in a Homeowners Association and likes it. He preferred that all items be reviewed by them. He preferred having a more comprehensive architectural design review and was not in favor of tiering. Ms. Butler asked about roofs and explained that currently each Homeowners Association has specific roofing materials that they accept. At this time, there is no standard type of roofing material in the remainder of the City, Commissioner Lucas replied that the roof represents the largest feature of a home and to permit the degradation of such major architectural component of the house would only invite problems. He wanted this feature in the architectural design review. Commissioner Wen favored option 2. Commissioner Hsu liked options 1 and 2. Option 1 is for mandatory design standards'in lieu of design guidelines. He wanted specific standards incorporated into the codes, Ms. Butler explained that option 1 is not widely used by other cities and difficult to write because it has to be specific, otherwise it is not enforceable. Some cities indicate what is "acceptable" vs. what is "appropriate". Also, staff can review some aspects, such as windows, over the counter. The Homeowners Associations have two forms that they use; one that requires the signature of neighbors and is relatively simple and one that requires a hearing. There is no doubt that architectural design review would lengthen the process. The current architectural design review process gives staff 30 business days to review a project. If approved there would be a need for an additional planner because with current staffing it would be impossible to absorb the increased number of applications. Currently, most homeowners do not come to the city for permits'for window change outs: Option 2 would require that all window change outs, shutters or small wallsan,d fences be reviewed. The only way the City would be aware of a violation would be if someone reported it but the City does not have the staff to police this. She said the public would be informed of the new regulations by advertising it in the quarterly newsletter. Commissioner Hsu thought that this could encourage violators. Ms. Butler that these are strictly guidelines and not specific regulations, Commissioner Olson was concerned with having to get architectural design review for everything. He cited anexample'of someone replacing a back door that was scratched by'a dog, He did not think that ' these types of improvements should be subject to design review. The type of architectural design review for the north side of Arcadia has,been in existence for many years and has been effective but the area in discussion. is inconsistent in development; there are homes built in the 60s among newer built homes and homes with varying styles. He felt there is a better way of handling this without having to put people through unnecessary delays and expense. He thought that requiring architectural design review for new construction and additions is justified but when a homeowner replaces or repairs something that should not be stibject to review. He thought that architectural design review should be required on anything that requires a building permit. Even though roofs require permits, if it meets the style of the house then it should not require architectural design review, Window change outs, repairs and replacements should be excluded for architectural design review because it just does not make sense to require it, To make things'more complicated for simple improvements is not logical. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 911414 . . Ms. Butler remarked that the deSign guidelines would address what is appropriate for roof material, This is a new process and she was not really sure what to expect. Staff may find that some review can be done over the counter. This will be time consuming, Of course the guidelines may always be amended if the process does not work well. She said that they fmd that many times there is a lack of a true architectural style. Staff would like gUidelines that provide flexibility. The purpose of the guidefines is to promote compatibility and address mass and scale in relation to the neighborhood. She explained the next step and said that eventually a text amendment-would be prepared, which requires public hearings before both City Council and Planning Commission. She said that the Planning Commission should decide tonight whether there should be architectural design review or not and what type ofareview should be in place. The Planning Commission's comments will be forwarded to City Council even if they are divided on some issues. Chairman Pro Tem Lucas felt they should focus on the architectural design review process from the enforcement point of view, He feared that some improvements would fall through the cracks ifpermits were not obtained. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu that architectural design review guidelines be forWarded to the City Council as set forth in the draft dated August IOIh with corrections as indicated, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian MOTON It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, that the various comments made tonight, including comment by Commissioner Baderian in his e-mail be forwarded to the City Council. It is the Planning Commission's recommendation that items requiring building permits,shaJl be subject to architectural design review. Architectural design reviews are to be conducted by Development Services Department staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CommissionersHsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian 5. RESOLUTION NO. 1712 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California denying CUP 2004-010 and ADR 03-035 to construct an approximate 11,800 sq. ft. preschool facility that would also provide after school tutoring at 2125 S, Baldwin Ave. An:adia Ci1y Planning ComnDssion 8 9/14/4 . . . . MOTON It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to adopt Resolution No, 1712 and to formally afftrm the decision of August 10,2004 and the votes thereon, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian Chairman Pro Tem Lucas noted that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. Appeals are to be filed by September 22. . 6. MINUTES OF 8/10/4 Chairman Pro Tem said that t':le minutes should reflect tI-.at he came in late to the study session. MOTION: It was moved by'Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Wen to approve the Consent item, ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Pro Tem remarked that the lights at the mall ,are garish and excessive, MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Olson summarized the Modification Committee actions. MATTERS FROM STAFF 1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT 9:45 p.m. /slDonna Butler Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission Ar<:adia City-Planning rn-nnnif:cMn 9 911414