Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAUGUST 28, 2007 ~. . . . MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 28,2007,7:00 PM. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in.regular session on Tuesday, August 28, at 7:00 p,m., in the Arcadia Council Cbambersofthe City of Arcadia, at 240 W. ffnntington Drive, with Chairman Baderian presiding, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu Panille MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to eXcuse Commissioner Panille from tonight's meeting, The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. MOTION: It was. moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baerg, to read all Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolution, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian,Baerg, Beranek and Hsu None Panille OTHERS ATIENDING Councilman Peter Amundson Commnnity Development Administrator Jason Kruckeberg Senior Planner Lisa Flores Associate Planner Tom Li Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr, Kruckeberg advised the Commissioners that two letters were received in opposition to the projects at Orange Grove Park, items 2 and 3, and that they will be reviewed with the projectS. . . TIME RESERVED FOR TBOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON~PUBUC HEARING MATIERS - Five-minute time limit per person . "~ None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. PUBLiCHEARIN.G CUP 07-09 220 S, First Ave, Platinum All-Stars Cheerleading Tony Hodges Stephanie Schwartz Akram Heniaidan The applicants have submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to peimit a cheerleading training facility, Each class will have a maximum of 15 students. The proposed business hours will be from 3:00 pm to 9:00 pm, Monday through Thursday and from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturday. RESOLUTION NO. 1763 A ReSolution of the I'Ianning Commission of the City. of Arcadia, California, approving Conditional Use Pe~t No, 07-09 for a cheerleading training facility at 220 S. First Avenue. Senior Planner Lisa Flores presented the staff report. Commissioner Beranek noted that condition number three lists specific types of actjvities to be taught at the cheerleading training facility. He asked if the applicant will be required to apply for a new Conditional Use Permit if they decide to expand their prograrit Chairman Baderian suggested a more generic type of program description to allow the applicant some flexibility. Ms, Flores agreed that this approach would be more practical, Ti:te public hearing was opened. Mr. Tony Hodges; 220S. First Avenue, representing the applicants, agreed to the Conditions of Approval and offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have, Commissioner Beranek asked Mr, Hodges if the program is expected to change from year to year. Mr. Hodges explained that little change is expected, PC MINUTES 8-2847 'Page :I --- ----~ I .; commission& asked ~ut ~e sound level. Mr,edges said that two inch foam mats are used to reduce sound and that the sound level is equivalent to that of a gymnastic facility, Commissioner Baderian asked how a program expansion would be handled, Mr. Hodges said they would try to add more classesand/or to expand hours of operation to accommodate added students. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the public hearing. Without objection the public hearing was closed. Chairman Baderian suggested modifying condition number 3 to describe the program in more general terms and the Commissioners agreed. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve Conditional Use Permit 07-09 as amended, subject to the conditions in the. staff report, and adopt Resolution No. 1763. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu None Parrille There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution, Appeals are to be filed by September 6, 2007. 2. PUBUC-HEARING CUP 07-03 AND ADR 07-04 Orange Grove Park Royal Street Communiction5, LLC (Representative ofMetroPCS) Continuedfrom 8-14-07 The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review for the installation and operation of an 80-foot tall Ulltnllnne(l wireless teiecommunications facility camouflaged as a pine tree (monopine) to support 6'panel antennas and a 2.foot diameter microwave dish antenna with the capability to accomm~e .additional antennas for other wireless carriers. Mr, Kruckeberg explained that items 2 and 3 on the agenda are represented by two different applicants, both with interest in Orange Grove Park. Staff felt that it would be in the best interests of the residents to ask the applicants to colocate their facilities on a PC MlNUTES 8:28-01 Pago3 single monopine .they agreed. He ~so not~ that in ler for the city to ",~int"in aesthetic control of the facility, it must be located on city property, not the public right- of-way. ~~ Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report. Commissioner Beranek asked about the height of the trees in the park, Dave McVey, GeneralServices Superintendent, said that the trees are mature pines of about 60 to. 70 feet in height and that the power poles on the south side of Orange Grove are also about 60 feet high, . CommissionerHsu asked if the monopine were placed in the public right-of-way the project would not come before the Commission for review. Mr. Kruckeberg explained that the height is regulated by the city only if the monopine is located on private property and if it is on the public right-of-way the city cannot regulate height: He explained that the carriers must attain a certain height to get the coverage required, Commissioner Baerg noted that the FCC requires cities to allow these facilities as long as they comply With FCC regulations. Mr, Li confirmed that the proposed facilities will comply with FCC regulations, Commissioner Baerg said that the monopine on the photosimuhition is quite obvious and asked if something less obvious was possible. Mr, Li said that there is also a monoelm design but he has not seen it. The public hearing was opened. Ms, Lucie Ibarra, 715 NEKensington Road, Los Angeles, represented the applicant. 1\18, Ibarra thanked staff for their efforts and offered to answer questions on the project, She stated that the conditions ofilpproval were acceptable to the applicant. Chairman Baderian asked if there is another style or type of camouflage available, Ms. Ibarra said that a flag pole was originally proposedanl( other than that, she doesn't know of any. Chairman Baderian asked if anyone Wished to speak in opposition to the project. Dr, Maher Hathout, 1435 N. BaldWin Avenile, Arcadia, said he has three issues With this project, First,. he feels that the pole Will disrupt the appearance of this beautiful residential area, Second, he said that none of the neighboring cities have a pole this high and liSkedifthe applicant couldn't find a less residential area to placethisfacility7 Third, he has conCerns about the trimming or cutting of trees; Chairman Baderian asked Dr. Hathout ifhe is opposed to any pole regardless of the height, Dr. Hathout confirmed that he is opposed to any pole but particularly this one because of the height and appearance, pc. MINUI'ES 8-28-07 Page 4 --- -- - --- 1/ I Ms, Susan An.S, 31 E. Orange ~ove Avenue, Siereadre, stated her opposition to a 60 or 80 foot pole in Orange Grove Park.. She distributed photos showing how the proposed pole would-look in the park. She noted that the facility would require a 32 by 36 square foot area which would use.about balfofthe play area of this l.4.acre park. Ms. Andrews pointed out that the General Plan stresses visual integrity and the Municipal Code has a height restriction of30 feet in residential areas, She noted that the FCC Act of 1996 states tbata city cannot prohibit Coverage but she feels that coverage is already available in the area. Ms, Andrews said thather remarks apply to both cell tower applications. ,. Mr, Raymond Reardan, 647 Gloria Road, Arcadia, said he has been a resident of the city since] 949. He stated that he is opposed to the project because as a commercial facility it is inappropriate in a residential neighborhood and he is concerned about the potential for an antenna fium. Mr. Rearden said.that the local Homeowners Associations were not aware of this. project until very recently and they need more time to. prepare and provide input, During rebuttal, Ms, Ibarra said that the height question has been addressed to allow the monopine t() blend in with the existing trees, She also explained that each carrier has to provide their own coverage. They cannot share with other carriers. Chairman Baderian asked Ms, Ibarra how the area near the tennis court is expected to be used, Ms. Ibarra said it is designated as an equipment cabinet area of 12 feet by 18 feet. The other carrier has a 13 foot by 24 foot equipment cabinet area. Chairman BalIerian asked.how the trees in the park would be affected. Mr, Alexander Dubois, project manger for MetroPCS, explained that the trees in the park are of a significant height and their signal must clear this obstacle by going over the trees, He said a.smaller structure would work if the surrounding trees were thinned out, CommissionerHsu asked if another carrier might wish to share this pole in the future, Ms. Ibarra said this would not be practical, Commissioner Baerg asked if the equipment cabinets will house air conditioning units and wiUthat create noise, Mr, Dubois said that instead of air conditioning units, outdoor fans are used and any noise created would be of the same intensity and volume as normal conversation. Following the original rebuttal, additional speakers asked to be heard. Mr, Vince Vargas, 655 Gloria Avenue,asked for clarification on tree trimming. He said the information provided to local residents was vague and he asked.the Commissioners to investigate the tree trimming and noise factor before making a decision. Mr, Ioe Speiler, 6254 Avila Road, Yucca Valley, representing T"Mobile, said thatthe highest tree on the property is 86feet high and utilities poles are about 70 feet high. He said that T -Mobile operates at a very high frequency and high power and the trees create serious problems. pc. MINlITES 8-28-07 Page S Upon additional rL Ms, Ibarra stat~ that ~eexistingts win be trimmed but not cut. . ~ 'It MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close. the public hearing. Without"objection the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Hsu asked if there had been complaints about noise from other similar facilities in.the city. Mr. Kruckeberg said there had not and that the noise level is well below what is allowed in residential areas. Chairman Baderian asked when the notices were sent and to whom. Mr, Li said the notices were sent 21days in advance of the meeting to everyone residing within 300 feet of the park, Chairinan Baderian asked about the status of the next project if this one is notapproved? Mr. Kruckeberg explained that the Commission must take action on both applications because they are dependent upon each other. If one is continued, they must both be continued, Commissioner Beranek asked for a survey of the trees and for c\arificationofwhat is meant by trimming trees. Mr, McVey, said that the City Arborist would allow only light trimming because more extensive trimming alters the shape and design of the trees. Commissioner Beranek said he feels there are too many questions unanswered and he would prefer to continue this item until the answers are available. Chairman Baderian said he is uncomfortable disrupting this green space for placement of a comD;lercial fixture and would like to know what other options are available, Commissioner Beranek asked for information on other cell sites in the city including a survey of the nearby trees, height of poles, type of area, etc. Commissioner Hsu asked for more realistic photosimulations and suggestions for alternate camouflage material, Chairinan Baderian asked how much time staffwould need to gather this additional material, Mr, Kruckeberg said staff could be ready by September 25. ' Chairman Baderian said he will not beatthe September 25 meeting and suggested the fITst meeting in October, Mr, Kruckeberg said staffwill be ready by then and that an additional notice is not required if the item is continued to a specific date. PC MINUTES 8.28-07 Page6 -- ------ --- -l MOTION: . . It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to continue Conditional Use Permit 07-03 and Architecfural Design Review 07-04 to October 9, 2007. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, . Baerg, . Beranek and Hsu None Parrille 3. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 07-10 AND ADR 07-06 Orange Grove Park Omnipoint Communications, Inc. A Subsidiary ofT-Mobile USA, Inc. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review for the colocation and operation of an unmanned wireless communications facility consisting of 12 panel antennas and a 2-foot diameter dish antenna on an 80-foot tall monopine installed by another canier: The reading of the staff report was waived, The public hearing was opened. Mr. Joe Speilet of T ,Mobile said he is in favor of continuing this application in order to provide more information to the residents, He said I-Mobile will work closely with staff to provide information on alternatives, Commissioner Hsuasked specifically for pictures of existing examples in other cities. Mr, p, K. Singh ofT-Mobile, Ontario, said that to reduce interference. trees should be trimmed ata diameter of about ISO feet from the pole, Ms. Susan Andrews said the comments that she made regarding the previous item apply to this project as well. Ms, Andrews noted thattrees define the community and although she understands the signal blockage issues, destruction of the trees is not the answer. Mr, Richard KirkendalL 550 W. Orange Grove Ave., said he is opposed to the project. He said he prefers trees to antennas and asked if the trimming would apply to trees on private property as well as those on public property. Mr, Kruckeberg said the trimming would only apply to trees on public property and would have to be approved by the city in any case. Mr.Speiler said trimming will be professionally done and will not harm trees, He said he will not be available for a meeting on October 9 and asked if the Commission would consider hearing the application on September 25 instead. PC MINUTES 8-28-07 Page 7 MOTION: . . " It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the public hearing, Without objection the public hearing was closed, Mr. Kruckeberg reminded the Commissioners that they cannot approve this application before the other one given the co-loClition, so it. could be continued to October 23, or to October 9, MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu,seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to continue Conditional Use Permit 07-10 and Architectural Design Review 07-06, to October 9. ROLLCALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek Hsu None Parrille CONSENT ITEMS 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1764 A Resolution of the Plalming Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 07-05 to expand the tutorial center (Nobel Education Institute) at 1 West Duarte Road. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to adopt Resolution No. 1764,.as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: . ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek andHsu None Parrille Thereis a five working qay appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution, AppealS are to be filed by September 6, 2007, PC MINUTES s-i8-07 !'ago 8 - ~- ~-- ---------- .I . MATIERS.FROM STAFF . I, P1anning Commission Land Use Determination - "Clinic" , Mr. Kruckeberg explained that there is no guidance in the General Plan or Municipal Code as to wb8t constitutes an emergency hospital or a clinic as opposed to amedica1 office use. He said that in the past this has been detennined on a case by case basis by staffbut it could be defined and formaIizedin a City Council Resolution, These types of land use decisions are the responsibility of the Planning Commission if the code is deemed to be'ambiguous or if there is an omission, Commissioner Hsu asked what an applicant's options would be ifhe does not agree with staff's interpretation on such a use classification. Mr, Kruckeberg said an applicant can appeal staff's decision to the Planning Commission. Chamnan Baderian pointed out that having staff decide on an individual'basis seems to have been working out so he sees no reason to change the policy and if an applicant is not satisfied withstaff's decision they can appeal to the Commission or City Council. MOTION: It was moved by Cotnmissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to allow statfto differentiate on an individuaIbasis between an emergency hospital and a clinic. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu None Parrille MAn'ERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Councilman Amundson said the Council is looking into lighting districts and discrepancies within the city and Code Enforcement issues in the Live Oak Avenue area. He said the Council will meet tomorrow to discuss the new City Manager position, He also said.that he will not be able to attend the September II meeting, MODIFICATION COMMI'ITEE MEETING ACTIONS Mr.. Kruckeberg reported that there were two items on the Modification Committee agenda and both were approved. PC MINUTES 8-28-01 Paga9 FURTHER MATIE40M STAFF . .\. Me, Kruckeberg said that Ci1;y Engineer Phil Wray has offered to participate with the Commission on a citywide tour to review the.transportation master plan. The Commissioners decided to schedule the tour on Tuesday, October 30 Me, Kruckeberg said he will continue to seek training opportunities for the Commissioners, ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p,m. Is/Jason Kruckeberg Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission PC MINUTES 8'28.07 Page 10 -- 2~34 cmaL T-...-.'.. - PAGE 02 08/28/2007 12:35 ......... NeW YO"" STDCIl =_IN(:. AU. MA.J()A FlNANCW, ExCWoNOes a 61PC August 28, 2007 . Members of the An:adia City P1anni..g Commission City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 Re: CUP 07-()3, ADR 07-<>4. CUP 07-10 and ADR 07-()6 CroW"ell,'VVeedon &00. ESTASLISHEO 1m ONi WILSHIRE BOULev",FlC \.06 ANGSLSS.' CALlPO~Nl" 80017 (2131l2tJ.1&SO wirw,otow.llWteDon,C:cnn Dear Esteemed Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission: My name is.Andnlw Crowc:ll, My wife, two children and I have been Arcadia residents since 1999. OUr CUIl'ent address is 635 Gloria Road, just around the comer from the proposed site of the 80 foot antenna under review this evening. As a homeowner in this lovely foothills neighborhood, I want to voice my loud objection to this proposal.as it has been submitted by Royal Street Communic:ationsLLC and Onmipoint Communications, me. This area oCour special city is a high-end residential neighborhood, D21 an industrial zone. There 8nl cummtly no towers of the proposed height anywhere in View, nOf fof that matter' anywhere in the city! Tberellt'e IS coimnunications towm in the city of Arcadia that are registered with the FCC. None of these.isaven 40.feet in height. Why would we break an important precedent at this time and why of all places in this beautiful neighbol'hood? The notion of a "camouflaged palm tnle" tower of this height is simply ridiculous. PLEASE reconsider this proposal. I and others in my neighbothood bclievethat if accepted, this proposal would negatively impact the entire SIlU'Ounding area. set a bad pfecedent fOf similar foothill locations within the city and ultimately lower the value of rea! estate in the foothills. Pasadena made B mistake years ago with their towers -let's !!l!1foUow in their footsteps. Inconclilsion,please note that my family's objection is primarily/with the g of the tower. Ih proposal fOf B substantially smaller tower wet'l! introduced, we .Would be supportive ofa CBJJloutlaged antenna. ~~ HomeoWner 626-297-4936 . . L;IIY or Arcadia Community Development Division IPlanning Services Arcadia CA91107 Attn.: Thomas U. Associated Planner Subj.:80 ft. telecommunication facility at Orange Growe Park As one of those living within a 300 ft radius of the planned monstrosity I wish to voice the following objections against the planned facility: 1.) The 80 ft, tower will be an eyesore affecting the property values in both the Arcadia and Sierra Madre neighborhoods. I would have never bought a house in a vicinity of a similar tower, 2) It is a commercial facility in a strictly residential neighborhood. 3) The height exceeds the maximum construction height in the area, 3) It will affect radio reception and espeCially short wave radio reception which ihthe Foothill area is already now marginal. 4) In combination with the existing 16,000 high voltage lines the radiation from.the antennas might have an adverse health effects. 5) Because the property values in Sierra Madre will be affected without any commercial benefit to the city (contrary to Arcadia), an approval of the project by the City of Sierra Madre should be mandatory. Respectfully ~~ \'!\~ .~ ~~~\"\~\f'\'~ 'i III. ~C', 6 () B, ~l,)t-i~f-.. Prv(t '> \:11.. ~~&- ~Ii'-~\... ~oJ.... '\\. ~~l.\ , .. . . SIGNING THlS DOCU1IilENT IS VOLUNTARY - YOUR ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SIGNING THIS DOCU1IilENT, PRINTING YOUR NAME, ONLY ENABLES THE SECRETARY TO CORRECTL Y SPELL YOUR 1\AME & ADDRESS, Please PRINT your name and.address below: NAME ADDRESS <-- ,:;>-1. n ~ ~ -(1 /hJi aut. 5 -Qj~~ rL~ ~ '?6J:,( fr ~G; ~ Gfr.,. 65" .r- ~h')vl /-V It.} 3L ~ L- <:.- 06 L-- A.ac--~ VJ? , ,J;,e :5161 L-Uo 32Sf r-c:. S~-.....J . l. 06 a TJZ.)'J.J6 ~.(}/{;:J v~ t'