Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 11, 2005 (i) '. MINUTES . An:adia City Planning Commission Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:00 p.m. in tbe An:adia City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. HuntingtonDr. with Chairman Lucas presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None OTHERS ATTENDING Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Senior PlaTUJer Lisa Flores Associate Planner Tom Li Assistant Planner Andrew Gonzales Senior Adrilinistrative Assistant Silva Vergel MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Wen, seconded 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. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler indicated that a revised page 6 was distributed for item no. 3 on the agenda as well as new elevations for the project. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MA TIERS (5 MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) None 1. PUBLIC HEARING TM 63552 1221 and 1225 S. Second Ave. and ISO E. La Sierra Dr. EGL Associates Consideration of a tentative map for a 5-lot subdivision. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. . . Hank Jong, EGL Associates, 11819 Goldring Rd., explained that there was an error on the map. When they were redrawing the map, they changed the dimension and failed to show the new dimension on the lots. Based on this change, all of the new lots, with the exception of the comer lot, which will be 81' in lieu of 85' required will compiy with the minimum code requirements. They noticed this when they were reviewing the staff report; thus, the report is incorrect because they showed the wrong dimension on their plans and the report is based upon the wrong map. John Barker, 3778 Quarter Mile, Dr., San Diego, explained the mistake. He indicated that he has been a realtor in the community for many years. When this was being drawn, they were contemplating if it is better to have the two interior lots be substandard or have a substandard comer lot. They surveyed the area and found that the majority of the comer lo~ are not in compliance with the 85' requirement. He presented a map of the area that delineated all of the comer properties, 87% of which do not comply, i.e.; 54 of the lots. He pointed out that they are not asking for one-sided cul-de-sacs because they know that these are not desirable. They feel' that what they have proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. He did not see any problems with having an.81' wide lot. In answer to a question by Chairman Lucas, Mr. Barker stated that he did not realize that the.lot size for comer lots had increased; he was always under the impression that they had to be 75' wide. Gordon Maddock, 900 S. First Ave., said that he was the one that suggested having a substandard comer lot instead of two interior lots because he thought it would be better to have only one lot be in non- compliance. He pointed out that the comer lot exceeds all minimum requirements with the exception of the lot width. He distributed a diagram that illustrated the building envelope for a hypothetical home on an 81' wide lot. Presumably, a 4,000 sq. ft. house could be built on this lot, excluding the garage. Thus, the width of the lot would not hinder the future development of the lot. In answer to a question by Chairman Lucas, he assured the Planning Commission that if approved, they would never construct a house on this particular comer lot that would require modifications. Spencer O'Brien, 150 E. La Sierra, was in favor of the proposed lot split. He asked why they would need to redo the gutters when these were done within the last two years? In reply to questions by Chairman Lucas, Mr. Barker stated that if approved, the existing structures would not be in compliance. They prefer to keep the structure on the comer lot. It would have a 23.92' setback in lieu of25' required. They want to construct a house on La Sierra. He said that they would like ,to keep the single-story structure (garage) on lot 2, which is located 5' from the property line, until the property on La-Sierra is developed. Mr. O'Brien is currently using' this structure. Ms. Butler indicated that the setback of the structure on lot 3 does not comply and asked what their plans were with regard to this building. Mr. Barker replied that they would tear it down if they were required to do so. Kent LiD, 165 E. La Sierra, felt this was an inappropriate development of the lot, especially because it does not comply with the Subdivision Map Act. Laws have been put in place for a reason and they need to follow them; there should be no deviation because it will set a negative precedent. He did not object to the development if they were in compliance. The intent is to have compatible projects. He could not see any hardship or any viable reason to approve the project as proposed. Corner lots are very important and he did not want to have one that is substandard in his immediate neighborhood. There are numerous Arcadia Cily PIannins Commission 2 10/1115 . . mature trees on these lots and the ones that are not in the way of the building envelope should be preserved. He did not think that they should be given special privileges. In rebuttal, Mr. Barker said that they have been attempting to obtain this property for 20 years and have recently purchased it because it became available. If they had purchased it 20 years ago, they would have been in compliance because the minimum lot width was 75' at that time; They want to have a quality development and he pointed out that one of the lots is over 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Maddock stated that their request to keep the one structure is for Mr. Barker to reside there while his new home is being constructed. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passel! by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLLCALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None In answer to a question by Commissioner Wen, Ms. Butler stated they should be able to construct a house on these lots and still comply with code. This is an older neighborhood and many of the lots and houses existed prior to the 85' wide lot requirement, which was changed in 1988, also, increasing the required setback for comer lots. When asked if it would be better to have substandard interior lots or a comer lot, Ms. Butler said that interior lots have less of an impact. She explained that the Arcadia Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to grant a modifications under specific findings for substandard lot dimension. She felt that they could construct a home on the corner lot without requiring any modifications. She suggested that if the Planning Commission wanted to approve this as proposed, that the structure on lot 2 be removed. In reply to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Ms. Butler said that when new code is adopted, all existing structures become "grandfathered" but if they were to develop the lots, the new structures would have to comply with the new regulations. She went on to say that if this were approved, the setbacks of some structures on the lotS would not be in cOmpliance. She.remarked that any future homes on these lots should be able to comply with code. The removal of all structures would need to be a condition of approval. She stated that even though the interior lots are being amended to comply with code, staff does not encourage substandard lots. She said that there was no way for staff to know that they made an error on the map because lots are not always rectangular and staff's recommendation and report was based upon the information that was provided by the applicant. She also stated that they would be required to provide a tree, pTeseIVation plan, if the project is approved. She did not think that approval would set a precedent because similar situations are already in existence, but she did not want to encourage these types of developments. The new lots as proposed would not be incompatible with the neighborhood because there are many in the area that are similar or smaller. If the Planning Commission decides to approve this as proposed, they could make a finding that the dimensions of the comer lot meet or exceed what currently exists in the area ArCIIdia City P1l1DDing CommissiOn J 101111' . . Ms. Butler explained which structures comply with current setback requirements. Commissioner Baderian made a motion to approve this request but it'died due to lack of a second. Commissioner Olson was not convinced .that there should be 5 lots here. There was a reason for the code amendment in 1988, i.e., to give COTner lots greater setback and pulling them back from the street, He did not think that there was anything unusual or circumstances about this property that would warrant an approval. He could not see a compelling reason to approve this request. Commissioner Wen was concerned not only about oak trees but also about other trees on the property. Ms. Butler replied that oak trees are preserved in the city but the developer would be required to submit a tree preservation pIan. Mr. Li stated that there are 2 oak trees on the lot. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to deny TM 63552 based on findings D.l to D.4. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsll, Olson, Lucas Commissioner Wen Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by October 21". 2. PUBUC HEARING MP 2005-011 178 W, Longden Ave. Gary Alzena and Dean Lee Consideration of a modifrcation for a second-floor setback for a proposed single-family residence on a reverse comer lot The staff report was preSented and the public hearing was opened. Gary Alzena, 1.78 W. Longden, thanked Mr. GonzaIesfor helping him through this process. He felt that this is a good resolution and that the proposed materials and the design will create a handsome home. He thought they have designed a very special home. In answer to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Mr. AIzona said that the design is their interpretation ora California Prairie style. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Arcadia city P1,..,uog Commission 4 1011115 . . MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner'Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Hsu wondered if this was a true prairie style? Ms. Butler said that this may not be a true prairie style but staff is pleased with the design. The setbacks enhance the designs and the details that have been carried through. It is not a massive structure and feels in scale with other homes in the area. MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Baderian, secOnded by Commissioner Hsu to approve of MP 2005- 011 subject to the conditions in. the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by October 19th. 3. PUBUC HEARING CUP 200~12 & ADR 2005-007 245-253 E. Foothill Blvd. Jim Shuemaker of Rich Development Co. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review to allow a new Walgreen's drug store with a drive-thru pharmacy, and a modification to allow a loading space closer than 100' from residentially zoned propertY. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Tab Johnson, 23456 Madero St., #230, Mission Viejo, said he was representing Rich Development. They have been working on this project for a long time. He said that after speaking with the residents, they would like to amend the hours of operation to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. for the drive through window on weekends. They feel that not only would this be less intrusive for the neighbors, it would be more benefrcial to their customers and give them a competitive edge. He thanked staff for their hard work. Commissioner Wen asked how would keeping the drive through window open one hour later help them? Mr. Johnson replied that retailers believe that staying open one hour later in the evening will be more beneficial than the hour in the morning. The extra hour will also make a difference to the neighbors. He remarked that their competitors do not have this restriction and that this would be helpful to their customers. The market conditions drive the ,hours of the drive up window. The volume is definitely not Ar<adia Ci1y Phuming Commission s 10/1115 . . as much as a fast food establishment. It is the competitive nature of this business that necessitates having the drive up window and they want to have it so they can be on a level playground. Retailers Will not diwlge the volume that goes through their drive through window because they do not want to make that information available to their competitors. Sue Miyahara, 15 E. Foothill Blvd., representing Mr. And Mrs. 'Noda said they are in support of the proposal. Mike RuhI, 307 #A E. Foothill Blvd., said that the developer has been very accommodating. They have met with them and agreed that a taller wall would be provided to mitigate the noise. They have also discussed changing the hours and the residents are in agreement with the new hours. The developer has also agreed to provide more mature trees for better screening. Based on the above, they are now in favor of the proposal. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES, NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None In response to a question by Commissioner Baderian, Ms. Butler stated that staff is in agreement with the new proposed hours for the drive through window. Staff would inspect the property upon receiving complaints. Commissioner Badman congratulated the developer for working diligently with the neighbors and addressing their concerns. MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to approve of CUP 2005- 012 & ADR 2()05-007 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the amendment hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. The resolution will be adopted on November 8'b Appeals are to be filed by November 16'b Arcadia City Planning CommiasU>n 6 1011115 . . 4. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 200~01S & ADR 2005-020 140 E. Live Oak Ave. George Meeker Consideration ofa Conditional Use Permit and ArchitecturaI Design Review to allow a new Walgreen's drug store with a drive-thru pharmacy, and a modification to allow a loading space closer than 100' from residentially zoned property. Resolution No. 1734 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia" California, approving Conditional Use Permit 2005-015 and Architectural Design Review 2004-020 to allow a drive- thru pharmacy, and a lOading space closer than 100' from residentially zoned property for a new Walgreen's pharmacy and drug store at 140 E. Live Oak Avenue. The staff report was presented. In answer to a question by Chairman Lucas, Ms. Flores stated that there is a sidewalk along Live Oak and the driveway for the pick up window is located around the building. The public hearing was opened. George Meeker, 1188 Marine Dr., Laguna Beach, said that they sent out notices and met with some of the neighbors to discuss their project and only 3 homeowners attended. In addition, they went door-to- door and talked with neighbors and answered their questions regarding design. John Peruzz~ Peruzzi Architects, 8800 Venice Blvd., #317, Los Angeles, said that they have been working with staff on this project and feel that they have mitigated staff's concerns by the different plans and the landscaping. The pick up window gives them an advantage over the competition but in reality these do not generate much business. Customers can only pick up prescriptions. In fact, retailers want the customer to come in and walk through the store and see the other products that they offer. They do not get a whole lot of business from these. He has worked with Walgreen's and in his experience these windows are to help the customers who cannot come into to the store; such as a mother with a sick child in the car. It is very important for them not. to be hindered competitively. The driveways were designed so that customers would stay on site. The other location on Santa Anita will close once this branch opens. In reply to a question by Commissioner Baderian, Mr. Meeker stated that the residents were not concerned with their hours of operation and the drive through hours. They were more concerned about the noise that was amplified from the speaker at Jack in the Box. They will not have a speaker. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this.item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. Aro:adm City Planniog Commission 7 10/1115 . . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian thought that there is no consistency between hours of operation. The previous one that they approved was from 8:00a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and this one is from 10:00 am. to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Wen said that this one was different than the one On Foothill because it is more isolated and has an alley as a separation. He did not think that the pick up window would be an issue here. Commissioner Hsu said ,that the alley could be used to avoid the traffic on Live Oak. MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to approve of CUP 2005- O! 5 & ADR 2005-020 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None MOTION: It was moved by ChainnanBaderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to adoptiesolution 1734 subject to the conditions in the staff report. . ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. Appeals are to be filed by October 19th. 5. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 2005-016 & ADR 2005-019 28 W. Live Oak Ave. Robert Daggett Consideration of a conditional use permit to construct and operate an automobile service center with 8 tenants. The public hearing was opened. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Arcadia City I'lannin& C4mmi.uiou 8 1011115 . . . Ms. Butler said that this item should be continued to the Pl,anning Commission's October 25th meeting because they do not want to delay the project. Commissioner Wen said that he might not be at the meeting. MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Olson, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to continue the public hearing to October 25'b ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None CONSENT ITEMS 6. MINUTES OF 9/13/5 RECOMMENDATION: Approve MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Wen approve the Minutes of 9/13/5 as published. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None MAtTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Council Member Marshall summarized the upcoming projects. She also stated that there would be a meeting, open to the public, scheduled for November 16th at which time both Westfield and Caruso Development would present their projects. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS None MATTERS FROM STAFF 1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 2. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler stated that the public hearing for architectural design review has been scheduled for the City Council's November 15th meeting. ' Arcadia City Plaooing CmnnUssion 9 10/11I5 . ADJOURNMENT Arcadia City Pbuming Commission . 9:00 p.m. . IsIDonnaButler Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission 10 1OI1IIS . . 5. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 2005-016 & ADR2005-019 28 W. Live Oak Ave. Robert Daggett Consideration ofa conditional use pennitto construct and operate an automobile service center with 8 tenants. The public hearing was opened. No one else spoke in favor of orin opposition to this item. Ms. Butler said that this item should be continued to the Planning Commission's October251h meeting because they do not want to delay the project. Commissioner Wen said that he might not be at the meeting. MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Olson, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to continue the public hearing to October 25th. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Arcadia city Planning ComnDs,ion 10 10/111' Co . . 4. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 2005-015 & ADR 2005-020 140 E. Live Oak Ave. George Meeker Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review to allow a new Walgreen's drug store with a drive-thru pharmacy, and a modification to allow a loading space closer than 100' from residentially zoned property. Resolution No. 1734 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia" California, approving Conditional Use Permit 2005-015 and Architectura1 Design Review 2004-020 to allow a drive- thru pharmacy, and a loading space closer than 100' from residentially zoned property for a new Walgreen's pharmacy and drugstore at 140 E. Live Oak Avenue. The staff report was presented. In answer to a question by Chairman Lucas, Ms. Flores stated that there is a sidewalk along Live Oak and the driveway for the pick up window is located around the building. The public hearing was opened. George Meeker, 1188 Marine Dr., Laguna Beach, said that they sent out notices and met with some of the neighbors to discuss their project and only 3 homeowners'attended. In addition, they went door"to- door and talked with neighbors and answered their questions regarding design. John Peruzzi, Peruzzi Architects, 8800 Venice Blvd., #317, Los Angeles, said that they have been working with staff on this project and feel that they have mitigated stafI's concerns by the different plans and the landscaping. The pick up window gives them an advantage over the competition but in reality these do not generat", much business. Customers can only pick up prescriptions. InflICt, retailers want the customer to come in and walk through the store and see the other products that they offer. They do not get a whole lot of business from these., He has worked with Walgreen's and in his experience these windows are to help the customers who cannot come into to the store; such as a mother with a sick child in the car. It is very important for them not to be hindered competitively. The driveways were designed so that customers would stay on site. The other location on Santa Anita will close once this branch opens. In reply to a question by Commissioner Baderian, Mr. Meeker stated that the residents were not concerned with their hours of operation and the drive through hours. They were more concerned about the noise that was amplified from the speaker at Jack in the Box. They will not have a speaker. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. _ City Plaonins CouuniBsion 8 10/1115 \ . . . .' ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu., Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Baderian thought that there is no consistency between hours of operation. The previous one thattheyapproved was from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and this one is from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Wen said that this one was different than the one on Foothill because it is more isolated and has an alley as a separation. He did not think that the pick up window would be an issue here. Commissioner Hsu said that the alley could be used to avoid the traffic on Live Oak. MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to approve of CUP 2005- O! 5 & ADR 2005-020 subject to the conditions in the s'"Lliff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu., Olson, Wen, Lucas None MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to adopt resolution 1734 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas , None Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. Appeals are to be filed by October 19m. Arcadia Cily Planning Cornmiuion 9 10111/5 . . 2. PUBLIC HEARlNGMP 2005-011 178 W. Longden Ave. Gary Alzona and Dean Lee Consideration of a modification for a second-floor setback for a proposed single-family residence on a reverse COTner lot. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Gary A1zona, 178 W. Longden, thanked Mr. Gonzales for helping him through this process. He felt that this is a good resolution and that the proposed materials and the design will create a handsome home. He thought they have designed a very special home. In answer to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Mr. A1zona said that the design is their interpretation of a California Prairie style. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Commissioner Hsu wondered 'if this was a true prairie style? Ms. Butler said that this may not be a true prairie style but staff is pleased with the design. The setbacks enhance the designs and the details that have been carried through. It is'not a massive structure and feels in scale with other homes in the area. MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve ofMP 2005- 011 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a frve working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by October l~. Arcadia cily I'bm1iPg C<mlmission j 10/1IlS .. . . r' 3. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 2005-012 & ADR 2005-007 245-251 E. Foothill Blvd. Jim Shuemaker of Rich Development Co. ConSideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review to allow a new Walgreen's drug store with a drive-thru pharmacy, and a.modification to allow a loading space closer than 100' from residentially zoned property. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Tab Johnson, 23456 Madero St., #230, Mission Viejo, said he was representing Rich Development. They have been working on this project for a long time. He said that after speaking with the residents, they would like to amend the hours of operation to 8:00a.m. to 8:00 p.m. for the drive through window on weekends. They feel that not only would this be less intrusive for the neighbors, it would be more beneficial to their customers and give them a competitive edge. He thanked staff for their hard work. Commissioner Wen asked how would keeping the drive through window open one hour later help them? Mr. Johnson replied that retailers believe that staying open one hour later in the evening will be more benefrcial than the hour in the morning. The extra hour will also make a difference to the neighbors. He remarked that their competitors do not have this restriction and that this would be helpful to their customers. The market conditions drive the hours of the drive up window. The volume is definitely not as much as a fast food establishment. It is the competitive nature of this business that necessitates baving the drive up window and they want to have it so they can be on a level playground. Retailers Will not divulge the volume that goes through their drive through window because they do not want to make that information available to their competitors. Sue Miyahara, 15 E. Foothill Blvd., representing Mr. And Mrs. Noda said they are in support of the ~po~. ' Mike Ruhl, 307 #A E. Foothill Blvd., said that the developer has been very accommodating. They have met with them and agreed that a taller wall would be provided to mitigate the noise. They have also discussed changing the hours and the residents are in agreement with the new hours. The developer has also agreed to provide more mature trees for better screening. Based on the above, they are now in favor of the propo~. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Arcadia city Plamting Commission 6 1011115 ~ . . ,- .' In response to a question by Commissioner Baderian, Ms. Butler stated that staff is in agreement with the new proposed hours for the drive through window. Staff would inspect the property upon receiving complaints. Commissioner Baderian congratulated the developer for working diligently With the neighbors and addressing their concerns. MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Wen to approve of CUP 2005- 012 & ADR 2005-007 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the amendment hours of operation from 8.00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsll, Olson, Wen, Lucas None Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution., The resolution will be adopted on November 8th. Appeals are to be filed by November 16th. Arcadia City Planning Commission 1 lOIllIS . . . >r 1. PUBLIC HEARING TM 63552 1221 and 1225 S. Second Ave. and 150.E. La Sierra Dr. EGL Associates Consideration of a tentative map for a 5-lot subdivision. The staff report was presented and the public hearing was opened. Hank Jong, EGL Associates, 11819 Goldring Rd., explained that there was an error on the map. When they were redrawing the map, they changed the dimension and failed to show the new dimension on the lots. Based on this change, all of the new lots, with the exception of the corner lot, which will be 81' in lieu, of 85' required will comply with the minimum code requirements. They noticed this when they were reviewing the staff report; thus, the report is incorrect because they showed the wrong dimension on their plans and the report is based upon the wrong map. John Barker, 3778 Quarter Mile, Dr., San Diego, explained the mistake. He indicated that he has been a realtor in the communityfQf mJIllY ye>>JS. When t!tis was being drawn, they were contemplating if it is better to have the two interior lots be substandard or have a substandard corner lot. They surveyed the area and found that the majority of the corner lots are not in compliance with the 85' requirement. He presented a map of the area that delineated all of the corner properties, 87% of which do not comply, i.e.; 54 of the lots. He pointed out,that they are not asking for one-sided cul-de-sacs because they know that these are not desirable. They feel that what they have proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. He did not see any problems with having an 81' wide lot. In answerto a question by Chairman Lucas, Mr. Barker stated that he did not realize that the lot size for comer lots had increased; he was always under the impression that they had to be 75' wide. Gordon Maddock, 900 S. First Ave" said that he was the one that suggested having a substandard comer lot instead of two interior lots becallse he thought it would be better to have only one lot be in non- compliance. He pointed out that the corner lot exceeds all minimum requirements with the exception of the lot width. He distributed a diagram that illustrated the building envelope for a hypothetical home on an 81' wide lot. Presumably, a 4,000 sq. ft. house could be built on this lot, excluding the garage. Thus, the width of the lot would not hinder the future development of the lot. In answer to a question by Chairman Lucas, he assured the Planning Commission that if approved, they would. never coll3tTUct a house on this particular corner lot that would.requiremodifications. Spencer O'Brien, ISO E. La Sierra, was in favor of the proposed lot split. He asked why they would need to redo the gutters when these were done within the last two years? In reply to questions by Chairman Lucas, Mr. Barker stated that if approved, the existing structures would not be in compliance. They prefer to keep the structure on the corner lot. It would have a 23.92' setback in lieu of25' required. They want to construct a house On La Sierra He said that they would like to keep the single-story structure (garage) on lot 2, which is located S' from the property line, until the property on La Sierra is developed. Mr. O'Brien.is currently using this structure. Arcadia C'JI)I PWming ~ 2 1011115 . . MS: Butler indicated that the setback of the structure on 10tJ does not comply and asked what their plans were with regard to this building. Mr. Barker replied that they would tear it down if they were required to do so. Kent Lin, 165 E. La Sierra, felt this was an inappropriate development of the lot, especially because it does not comply with the Subdivision Map Act. Laws have been put in place for a reason and they need to fullow them; there should be no deviation because it will set a negative precedent. He did not object to the development if they were in Compliance. The intent is to have compatible projects. He could not see any hardship or any viable reason to approve the project as proposed. Comer lots are very important and he did not want to have one that is substandard in his immediate neighborhood. There are numerous mature trees on these lots and the ones that are not in the way of the building envelope should be preserved. He did not think that they should begiven,specia! privileges. In rebuttal, Mr. Barker said that they have been attempting to obtain this property for 20 years and have recently purchased it because it became available. If they had purchased it 20 years ago, they would have been in compliance because the minimum lot width was 75' at that time. They want to have a quality development and he pointed out that one of the lots is over 20,0Q0 sq. ft. Mr. Maddock stated that their request to keep the one structure is for Mr. Barker to reside there while his new home is being constructed. No one else spoke in favor of or In opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voiCe vote with no one dissenting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian,.Hsu, Olson, Wen, Lucas None In answer to a question by Commissioner Wen, Ms. Butler stated they should be able to construct a house on these lots and still comply with code. This is an older neighborhood and many of the lots and houses existed prior to the 85' wide lot requirement, which was changed in 1988, also, increasing the required setback for corner lots. When asked if it would be better to have substandard interior lots or a corner lot, Ms. Butler said that interior lots have less of an impact. She explained that the Arcadia Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to grant a modifications under specific findings for substandard lot dimension. She felt that they could construct a home on the comer lot without requiring any modifrcations. She suggested that if the Planning Commission wanted to approve this as proposed, that the structure on lot 2 be removed. In reply to a question by Commissioner Hsu, Ms. Butler said that when new code is adopted, all existing structures become "grandfathered" but if they were to develop the lots, the new structures would have to comply with the new regulations. She went on to say that if this were approved, the setbacks of some structures on the lots would not be in compliance.' She remarked that any future homes on these lots should be able to comply with code. The removal of all structures would need to be a condition of ArauIia City Planning Commission 3 10/11/5 . . approval. She stated that even though the interior lots are being amended to comply with code, staff does not encourage substandard lots. She said thatthere was no way for staff to know that they made an error on the map because lots are not always rectangular and staff's recommendation and report was based upon' the information that was provided by the applicant. She also slated that they would be required to provide a tree preservation plan, if the project is approved. She did not think that approval would set a precedent because similar situations are already in existence, but she did not want to encourage these types of developments. The new lots as proposed would not be incompatible with the neighborhood because there are many in the area that are similar or smaller. If the Planning Commission decides to approve this as proposed, they could make a finding that the dimensions of the comer lot meet or exceed what currently exists in the area Ms. Butler explained which structures comply with current setback requirements. Commissioner Baderian made a motion to approve this request but it died due to lack of a second. Commissioner Olson was not convinced that there should be 5 lots here. There was a reason for the code amendment in 1988, i.e., to give comer lots greater setback and pulling them back from the street. He did not think that thcrc was anything unusual or cirCUliL:>"tai1ces about this property that would warrant.an approval. He Could not see a compelling reason to approve this request. Commissioner Wen was concerned not only about oak trees but also about other trees on the property. Ms. Butler replied that oak trees,are preserved in the city but the developer would be required to submit a tree preservation plan. Mr. Li stated that there are 2 oak trees on the lot. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Olson, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to deny TM 63552 based on findings D.l to D.4. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Olson, Lucas Commissioner Wen -Chairman Lucas indicated that there is a there is a ten-day appeal period. Appeals are'to be filed 'by , October 21". Arcadia City Planning Commission 4 1011IIS