Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-22 Agenda PacketCITY OF ARCADIA Arcadia Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, October 11, 2022, 7:00 p.m. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from Planning Services at (626) 574-5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. 根据《美国残障人法案》的规定，需要提供残障相关调整或便利设施才能参加会议的残障人士（包括辅助器材或服务），可向规划服务部 请求获得此类调整或便利设施，电话号码 (626) 574-5423。请在会前 48 小时通知规划服务部，以便作出合理安排，确保顺利参加会议。 Pursuant to the City of Arcadia’s Language Access Services Policy, limited-English proficient speakers who require translation services in order to participate in a meeting may request the use of a volunteer or professional translator by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 574-5455 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. 根据阿凯迪亚市的语言便利服务政策，英语能力有限并需要翻译服务才能参加会议的人可与市书记官办公室联系（电话：626-574-5455 ），请求提供志愿或专业翻译服务，请至少在会前 72 小时提出请求。 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Brad Thompson, Chair Vincent Tsoi, Vice Chair Angela Hui, Commissioner Domenico Tallerico, Commissioner Marilynne Wilander, Commissioner SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) Each speaker is limited to three (5) minutes per person, unless waived by the Planning Commission. Under the Brown Act, the Commission or Board Members are prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at a public hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. Separate and apart from the applicant (who may speak longer in the discretion of the Commission) speakers shall be limited to five (5) minutes per person. The applicant may additionally submit rebuttal comments, at the discretion of the Commission. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge in court or in an administrative proceeding any action taken by the City Council regarding any public hearing item, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1. Resolution No. 2104 – Administrative Architectural Design Review No. Admin ADR 22-321 with a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the request to install a standing seam metal roof on an existing two-story house at 1231 S. 4th Avenue Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2104 Applicant: Julie Tokushige There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 24, 2022. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Commission, staff, or the public request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action. 2. Minutes of the September 27, 2022, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIASION MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. Welcome to the Arcadia Planning Commission Meeting! The Planning Commission encourages public participation, and invites you to share your views on City business. MEETINGS: Regular Meetings of the Planning Commission are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A full Planning Commission agenda packet with all backup information is available at City Hall, the Arcadia Public Library, and on the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov. Copies of individual Agenda Reports are available via email upon request (Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov). Documents distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission after the posting of this agenda will be available for review at the Planning Services Office in City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Your participation is welcomed and invited at all Planning Commission meetings. Time is reserved at each regular meeting for those in the audience who wish to address the Planning Commission. The City requests that persons addressing the Planning Commission refrain from making personal, slanderous, profane, or disruptive remarks. When the Chair asks for those who wish to speak please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please provide a copy of any written materials used in your address to the Planning Commission as well as a copy of any printed materials you wish to be distributed to the Planning Commission. MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA should be presented during the time designated as “PUBLIC COMMENTS.” In general, each speaker will be given (5) minutes to address the Planning Commission; however, the Chair, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers time to address the Planning Commission. By State law, the Planning Commission may not discuss or vote on items not on the agenda. The matter will automatically be referred to staff for appropriate action or response, or will be placed on the agenda of a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS are items scheduled for which public input is either required or desired. Separate and apart from an applicant or appellant (who may speak longer at the discretion of the Planning Commission), speakers shall be limited to (5) minutes per person. The Chair, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers to address the Planning Commission. The applicant or appellant may also be afforded an additional opportunity for rebuttal comments. AGENDA ITEMS: The Agenda contains the regular order of business of the Planning Commission. Items on the Agenda have generally been reviewed and investigated by the City Staff in advance of the meeting so that the Planning Commission can be fully informed about a matter before making its decision. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member of the Planning Commission, Staff, or the public so requests. In this event, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered and acted on separately. DECORUM: While members of the public are free to level criticism of City policies and the action(s) or proposed action(s) of the Planning Commission or its members, members of the public may not engage in behavior that is disruptive to the orderly conduct of the proceedings, including, but not limited to, conduct that prevents other members of the audience from being heard when it is their opportunity to speak, or which prevents members of the audience from hearing or seeing the proceedings. Members of the public may not threaten any person with physical harm or act in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as an imminent threat of physical harm. All persons attending the meeting are expected to adhere to the City’s policy barring harassment based upon a person’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, or age. The Chief of Police, or such member or members of the Police Department, may serve as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Planning Commission meeting. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall carry out all orders and instructions given by the presiding official for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at the meeting. Any person who violates the order and decorum of the meeting may be placed under arrest and such person may be prosecuted under the provisions of Penal Code Section 403 or applicable Arcadia Municipal Code section. DATE: October 11, 2022 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator By: Vanessa Quiroz, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2104 - ADMINISTRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADMIN ADR 22-321 WITH A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) FOR THE REQUEST TO INSTALL A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF ON AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 1231 S. 4TH AVENUE Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2104 Denying the Administrative Modification SUMMARY The property owner, Julie Tokushige, is requesting approval of Administrative Architectural Design Review No. Admin ADR No. 22-321 for the request to install a standing seam metal roof on the existing two-story house at 1231 S. 4th Avenue. The request is typically subject to an administrative architectural design review (Very Minor Review) and then a building permit, but it is being referred to the Planning Commission for their review and consideration since the proposed roof material is discouraged by the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Administrative Architectural Design Review No. Admin ADR 22-321 and adopt Resolution No. 2104 (refer to Attachment No. 1) and find that the project qualifies is Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15268, as a ministerial project. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 20,815 square foot interior lot and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential with a General Plan Designation of LDR – Low Density Residential. The property is located between La Sierra Avenue and Leda Avenue along S. 4th Avenue and is surrounded by other single-family residences that are also zoned R-1 zone – refer Resolution No. 2104 – Admin ADR No. 22-321 October 11, 2022 Page 2 of 9 Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity. The site is currently developed with a two-story Ranch style house with an attached two-car garage that was built in 1932. The home has undergone multiple changes throughout the years including alterations to the exterior façade, window changeouts. As a result, it has altered the specific architectural features of a Ranch style house. The site also has a detached 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the property that is currently under construction. At the beginning of this year, the property owner requested to install the standing seam metal roof on her existing house that she had already purchased without permits. Staff informed the property owner that we cannot support the material since it was discouraged by the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (Rooflines on page 16) which states: Discouraged roof types includes: built-up and torch down roofs, rock roofing applied over an approved built-up roof, corrugated metal and fiberglass roofing panels, standing seam and similar metal roofing panels, and gravel roof. The property owner decided not to proceed at that time, but then reached out to staff and the Planning & Community Development Administrator in April, at which point it was decided that the request should be referred to the Planning Commission for their consideration since the material is discouraged and a standing seam metal roof is not typically found on a residential home in the City. A request to re-roof an existing house is subject to an administrative architectural design review (Very Minor Review) by the Director or designee per the Development Code. However, the Director or designee may refer any applications to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. Since this is the first request of this type of roof in 16 years after the design guidelines first discouraged it, and the owner already purchased it, the Planning & Community Development Administrator thought this should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff recently became aware that the tile roof on the house was removed in May/June and only the roof underlayment was left – refer to Figure No. 1 for a street view of the house with the previous tile and Figure No. 2 for a street view of the house without the roof. Since the work was done without a building permit, a stop work order was issued on October 4, 2022. A roofing permit must be obtained as soon as a decision is rendered by the Planning Commission on the roof material. Figure No. 1: A Google street view of the house with the previous tile roof. Resolution No. 2104 – Admin ADR No. 22-321 October 11, 2022 Page 3 of 9 PROPOSAL The proposed standing seam metal roof is manufactured by Western States Metal Roofing in the Matte Musket Gray (medium gray) color. Along with the new roof, the property owner is also proposing to change the color of the windows frames from white to black and paint the red brick white to modernized appearance of the house and try to complement the proposed metal roof – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the product information on the metal roof and a rendering of the façade improvement and Figure No. 3 below. The rendering below does not provide an accurate depiction of the colors but is included for visual reference of the area in change. If approved, the property owner intends change the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) facade to match the main house (in terms of colors) as well as the roof. The roof for the ADU has not been purchased yet. Figure No. 2: The current condition of the house. Figure No. 3: Rendering of proposed façade improvements. Resolution No. 2104 – Admin ADR No. 22-321 October 11, 2022 Page 4 of 9 ANALYSIS The Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines are utilized during an architectural design review to ensure the visual character of the community is preserved and that the highest quality of design is developed. From its initial implementation in 2006, the Single- Family Residential Design Guidelines discouraged the use of standing seam metal roof. In 2019, under a comprehensive update to all of the City’s design guidelines, the standing seam metal roof material was once again listed as a discouraged material. Metal roofs appear too industrial and are generally not supported as the primary roofing material on any residential homes in the city. With this material, a residential house could look out of place and out of character in a residential setting. Additionally, the material is not traditionally used on certain architectural style homes such as Ranch, Minimal-Traditional, or Traditional style homes which typically use shingle or shake roof materials made of tile, wood, or composition. This roof material is often used as an accent roof on homes over a bay window or porch, but not on the main house. However, the use of the standing seam metal roof has grown in popularity. The material has been used on residential homes to give it more of a contemporary look, on modern homes, and on new modern farmhouse architectural style homes – refer to Figure No. 4 for a picture of a new developed house with this roof. The material is considered for its durability, affordability, and low maintenance. Although the standing seam metal roof can be seen on Farmhouse style and contemporary homes in other areas, it is not appropriate on this house. For this house specifically, the use of the material would further reinforce an indistinctive architectural style that is highly discouraged by the design guidelines. As mentioned, throughout the years, façade changes were made to the existing house that did not cater to the original Ranch-style, and although the property owner is proposing to change the colors on the house to give the house a cohesive look, the use of the standing seam metal roof will Figure No. 4: New Farmhouse style Resolution No. 2104 – Admin ADR No. 22-321 October 11, 2022 Page 5 of 9 further result in an indistinctive architectural look. The heavy metal appearance of the standing seam metal roof along with the highly visible roof (wide width of the house and downward sloped roof) of the existing house will make the house appear out of place and out of character, not only with the other homes in the surrounding area that hav e shingle or tile roof materials, but with homes across the City. The request is not consistent with the objectives and standards of the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines below: 5. Architectural Styles (page 14): a. Consistency and/or complementary architectural styles should be maintained within an existing neighborhood context. 7. Rooflines (page 16): d. Roof plans, overhangs, colors, and materials should be consistent with the chosen architectural style f. Discouraged roof types include: built-up and torch down roofs, rock roofing applied over an approved built -up roof, corrugated metal and fiberglass roofing panels, standing seam and similar metal roofing panels, and gravel roof. Therefore, the proposed standing seam material is not in compliance with the regulations of the Development Code since the Code requires that an administrative architectural design review meet the standards and objectives in the Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines (design guidelines). FINDINGS Section 9107.19.050(F) of the Development Code requires that for a Site Plan and Design Review to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions be satisfied. 1. Be in compliance with all applicable development standards and regulation in the Development Code. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed standing seam material is not in compliance with the regulations of the Development Code since the Code requires that an administrative architectural design review meet the standards and objectives in the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (design guidelines). The design guidelines state that houses should have a distinct architectural style and be consistent with the surrounding ne ighborhood. The home is a modified Ranch-style house and the neighborhood, while architecturally mixed, predominately comprises traditional and ranch-style houses. Ranch-style houses typically have tile or shingle roofs and not metal roofs. There are no pr operties in Resolution No. 2104 – Admin ADR No. 22-321 October 11, 2022 Page 6 of 9 close proximity to the home that have metal roofs. Furthermore, standing seam metal roofing is specially discouraged in the design guidelines. Metal roofs appear too industrial and are generally not supported as the primary roofing material on any residential homes in the City. The proposed metal roof is not consistent with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and existing City policy, therefore is not in compliance with the Development Code. 2. Be consistent in the objectives and standards of the applicable Design Guidelines. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed standing seam metal roof is not consistent with the objectives and standards of the Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines (design guidelines). The standing seam metal roof material is specifically listed as a roof material to be discouraged in the design guidelines. From its initial implementation, the design guidelines have discouraged the material due to its industrial and commercial appearance which does not complement the residential architectural styles and design found in the City. The existing house is a Ranch-style home built in 1932. The home has undergone multiple changes throughout the years including modifications to the façade and windows, and does not present strong, specific architectural features. Ranch houses typically have tile or shingle roofs. Installation of a standing seam metal roof will further compromise the Ranch architectural design of the home and reinforce an indistinctive architectural style that is highly discouraged by the design guidelines. Lastly, the heavy metal appearance of the standing seam metal roof along with the highly visible roof (wide width of the house and downward sloped roof) of the existing house will make the house appear out of place and out of character, not only with the other homes in the surrounding area that have shingle or tile roof materials, but with homes across the City. Therefore, the proposed standing seam metal roof is not in consistent with the following guidelines: Architectural Styles: • Consistency and/or complementary architectural styles should be maintained within an existing neighborhood context. Rooflines: • Roof plans, overhangs, colors, and materials should be consistent with the chosen architectural style • Discouraged roof types includes: built-up and torch down roofs, rock roofing applied over an approved built-up roof, corrugated metal and fiberglass roofing panels, standing seam and similar metal roofing panels, and gravel roof. Resolution No. 2104 – Admin ADR No. 22-321 October 11, 2022 Page 7 of 9 3. Be compatible in terms of scale and aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments. Facts to Support This Finding: In terms of aesthetic design, the standing seam metal roof is not compatible with the other homes in the surrounding vicinity because the neighborhood consists of homes that use shingle and tile roofing material. Since the standing seam metal roof is not commonly used as the primary roof of residential homes in the City, the use of the material is not only inconsistent with the surrounding homes but the all residential homes in the City. Also, the use of the standing metal roof along with the proposed color change (the proposed roof is dark grey) does not strengthen the Ranch architectural style of the home, but makes the house architecturally indistinct. As such, installation of the metal roof will not complement the existing neighborhood streetscape and will not help establish a clear architectural style for the house. Installation of a metal roof will not compliment and will visually disrupt the neighborhood setting. 4. Have an adequate and efficient site layout in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping; and Facts to Support This Finding: The request does not consist of any changes or improvements to the site layout. Thus, the existing access, vehicular circulation, parking, and landscaping will remain the same. 5. Be in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5; (a) Compliance with this Section, this Development Code, and all other applicable City regulations and policies : (b) Consistency with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; (c) Consistency with any adopted Design Guidelines, policies, and standards. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed standing seam metal roof is not in compliance with the Development Code, the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, nor the Arcadia General Plan. One of the General Plan’s objectives is to protect and preserve the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design. This is achieved through the implementation of the zoning regulations under the Development Code and the guidelines and standards under the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. The standing seam metal roof is discouraged under the design guidelines. The proposed roof material will not strengthen the home’s Ranch architectural style and would result in an aesthetic incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The standing seam metal roof is considered an inappropriate material for residential properties in the City due to its industrial appearance. Therefore, the proposed material is not in compliance with the City’s regulations and standards. Resolution No. 2104 – Admin ADR No. 22-321 October 11, 2022 Page 8 of 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS It has been determined that the project qualifies as a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15268, as a ministerial project - refer to Attachment No. 4 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment. PUBLIC COMMENTS/NOTICE A public hearing notice for this item was published in Arcadia Weekly and mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property on September 29, 2022. As of October 6, 2022, no comments were received regarding the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2104 denying the request to install a standing seam metal roof material on the existing two-story house at 1231 S. 4th Avenue and find that the project is Statutory Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15268, as a ministerial project. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to deny Administrative Architectural Design Review No. Admin ADR No. 22-321, stating that the proposal does not satisfies the requisite findings and adopting the attached Resolution No. 2104 that incorporates the statutory environmental exemption and Architecture Design Review findings as presented in this staff report, or as modified by the Commission. Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to approve Administrative Architectural Design Review No. Admin ADR 22-321, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption a t the next meeting that incorporates the Commission’s decision and specific findings. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party ha s any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the October 11, 2022, hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Vanessa Quiroz, at 626-574-5422, or by email at vquiroz@ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: Lisa L. Flores Planning & Community Development Administrator Resolution No. 2104 – Admin ADR No. 22-321 October 11, 2022 Page 9 of 9 Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2104 Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property and Surrounding Properties Attachment No. 3: Standing Seam Metal Roof Product information and Rendering of the Façade Improvement Attachment No. 4: Preliminary Exemption Assessment Attachment No. 1 Resolution No. 2103 Attachment No. 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2104 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADMIN ADR 22-321 WITH A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) FOR THE REQUEST TO INSTALL A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF ON AN EXISTING TWO- STORY HOUSE AT 1231 S. 4TH AVENUE WHEREAS, on September 26, 2022, property owner, Julie Tokushige, submitted a request under Administrative Architectural Design Review No. Admin ADR No. 22-321 to install a standing seam metal roof to the existing two-story house at 1231 S. 4th Avenue (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on September 30, 2022, Planning Services completed an environmental assessment for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined that the Project is subject to a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15268, as a ministerial Project; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said application informing the public that the Director’s designee has referred this request to the Planning Commission for review and consideration, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 2 SECTION 1. The factual data submitted by the Community Development Division in the staff report dated October 11, 2022, are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds that based upon the entire record, pursuant to Section 9107.19.050(F) of the Arcadia Development Code, all of the following findings cannot be made. 1. Be in compliance with all applicable development standards and regulation in the Development Code. FACT: The proposed standing seam material is not in compliance with the regulations of the Development Code since the Code requires that an administrative architectural design review meet the standards and objectives in the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (design guidelines). The design guidelines state that houses should have a distinct architectural style and be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The home is a modified Ranch-style house and the neighborhood, while architecturally mixed, predominately comprises traditional and ranch-style houses. Ranch- style houses typically have tile or shingle roofs and not metal roofs. There are no properties in close proximity to the home that have metal roofs. Furthermore, standing seam metal roofing is specially discouraged in the design guidelines. Metal roofs appear too industrial and are generally not supported as the primary roofing material on any residential homes in the City. The proposed metal roof is not consistent with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and existing City policy, therefore is not in compliance with the Development Code. 3 2. Be consistent in the objectives and standards of the applicable Design Guidelines. FACT: The proposed standing seam metal roof is not consistent with the objectives and standards of the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (design guidelines). The standing seam metal roof material is specifically listed as a roof material to be discouraged in the design guidelines. From its initial implementation, the design guidelines have discouraged the material due to its industrial and commercial appearance which does not complement the residential architectural styles and design found in the City. The existing house is a Ranch-style home built in 1932. The home has undergone multiple changes throughout the years including modifications to the façade and windows, and does not present strong, specific architectural features. Ranch houses typically have tile or shingle roofs. Installation of a standing seam metal roof will further compromise the Ranch architectural design of the home and reinforce an indistinctive architectural style that is highly discouraged by the design guidelines. Lastly, the heavy metal appearance of the standing seam metal roof along with the highly visible roof (wide width of the house and downward sloped roof) of the existing house will make the house appear out of place and out of character, not only with the other homes in the surrounding area that have shingle or tile roof materials, but with homes across the City. Therefore, the proposed standing seam metal roof is not in consistent with the following guidelines: Architectural Styles: ™ Consistency and/or complementary architectural styles should be maintained within an existing neighborhood context. 4 Rooflines: ™ Roof plans, overhangs, colors, and materials should be consistent with the chosen architectural style ™ Discouraged roof types include: built-up and torch down roofs, rock roofing applied over an approved built-up roof, corrugated metal and fiberglass roofing panels, standing seam and similar metal roofing panels, and gravel roof. 3. Be compatible in terms of scale and aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments. FACT: In terms of aesthetic design, the standing seam metal roof is not compatible with the other homes in the surrounding vicinity because the neighborhood consists of homes that use shingle and tile roofing material. Since the standing seam metal roof is not commonly used as the primary roof of residential homes in the City, the use of the material is not only inconsistent with the surrounding homes but the all residential homes in the City. Also, the use of the standing metal roof along with the proposed color change (the proposed roof is dark grey) does not strengthen the Ranch architectural style of the home, but makes the house architecturally indistinct. As such, installation of the metal roof will not complement the existing neighborhood streetscape and will not help establish a clear architectural style for the house. Installation of a metal roof will not compliment and will visually disrupt the neighborhood setting. 5 4. Have an adequate and efficient site layout in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping. FACT: The request does not consist of any changes or improvements to the site layout. Thus, the existing access, vehicular circulation, parking, and landscaping will remain the same. 5. Be in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5; (a) Compliance with this Section, this Development Code, and all other applicable City regulations and policies with the General Plan, the City’s Design Guidelines, and provides an efficient site and layout and design. FACT: The proposed standing seam metal roof is not in compliance with the Development Code, the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, nor the Arcadia General Plan. One of the General Plan’s objectives is to protect and preserve the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design. This is achieved through the implementation of the zoning regulations under the Development Code and the guidelines and standards under the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. The standing seam metal roof is discouraged under the design guidelines. The proposed roof material will not strengthen the home’s Ranch architectural style and would result in an aesthetic incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The standing seam metal roof is considered an inappropriate material for residential properties in the City due to its industrial appearance. Therefore, the proposed material is not in compliance with the City’s regulations and standards. 6 SECTION 3. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), this Project is subject to a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15268, as a ministerial Project. SECTION 4. For the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission determines that the Project is subject to a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15268 as a ministerial Project and denies Administrative Architectural Design Review No. Admin ADR No. 22-321 for the request to install a standing seam metal roof on the existing two-story house at 1231 S. 4th Avenue. 7 SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 11th day of October 2022. ______________________ Brad Thompson Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ______________________ Lisa L. Flores Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney for Attachment No. 2 Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property and Surrounding Properties Attachment No. 2 Overlays Selected parcel highlighted Parcel location within City of Arcadia N/A Property Owner(s): Lot Area (sq ft): Year Built: Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): R-1 (7,500) Number of Units: LDR Property Characteristics 1932 4,129 1 Property Owner Site Address:1231 S 4TH AVE Parcel Number: 5781-021-015 N/A Zoning: General Plan: N/A Downtown Overlay: Downtown Parking Overlay: Architectural Design Overlay:N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential Flex Overlay: N/A N/A N/A N/A Special Height Overlay: N/A Parking Overlay: Racetrack Event Overlay: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Report generated 25-Sep-2022 Page 1 of 1 20,813 sf Subject site: 1231 S. 4th Ave Neighbor to the north at 1225 S. 4th Ave Neighboring property to the north at 1209 S. 4th Ave Neighboring property to the south at 1301 S. 4th Ave Neighboring property to the south at 1305 S. 4th Ave Neighboring property across the street at 1210 S. 4th Ave Neighboring properties along La Sierra Ave that are across the street from the subject site Neighboring property across the street at 1220 S. 4th Ave Neighboring property across the street at 401 Ilene Ave Neighboring properties along Ilene Ave that are across the street from the subject site Neighboring property across the street at 1306 S. 4th Ave Neighboring properties along Ilene Ave that are across the street from the subject site Neighboring property across the street at 1312 S. 4th Ave Attachment No. 3 Standing Seam Metal Roof Product information and Rendering of the Façade Improvement Attachment No. 3 Rendering Attachment No. 4 Preliminary Exemption Assessment Attachment No. 4 Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A” PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT 1.Name or description of project: Architectural Design Review No. Admin ADR No. 22-321 for the request to install a standing seam metal roof to the existing two-story house at 1231 S. 4th Avenue 2.Project Location – Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’ topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 1231 S. 4th Ave - The property is located between La Sierra Avenue and Leda Avenue along S. 4th Avenue, and is surrounded by other single-family residences, zoned R-1 zone. 3.Entity or person undertaking project: A.Julie Tokushige 1231 S. 4th Ave Arcadia, CA 91006 B.Other (Private) 4.Staff Determination: The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. The project is a Ministerial Project. c. The project is an Emergency Project. d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: f. The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: Section 15268 as a ministerial project g. The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: September 30, 2022 Staff: Vanessa Quiroz, Associate Planner ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City’s Planning Services Office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. CALL TO ORDER Chair Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Tsoi, Hui, Tallerico, and Wilander ABSENT: None It was moved by Commissioner Tallerico, seconded by Chair Thompson to excuse Commissioner Hui from the meeting. Without objection, the motion was approved. Commissioner Hui arrived shortly after. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) There were none. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Resolution No. 2103 – Approving an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 84-24 with a Parking Modification and a Categorical Exemption Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to allow Arcadia Care Center to increase the number of patients and beds from 117 to 161 at the existing convalescent facility located at 1601 S. Baldwin Avenue Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2103 Applicant: Keith Levine MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING Chair Thompson introduced the item and Associate Planner Vanessa Quiroz presented the staff report. Commissioner Tallerico noted that the driveway appeared to be narrow and asked if the first responders will have difficulty entering the property through the north side. Ms. Quiroz responded that the driveway meets the required width for emergency vehicles and that there is a fire lane and turn around area that must remain clear at all times. Commissioner Wilander added that she has observed emergency vehicles on site when passing the property and they usually park at the main entrance, and it did not appear they had issues with them entering or exiting the property. 2 9/27/22 Commissioner Hui questioned how additional beds would be added inside the building and asked if Staff felt the valet and shared parking would be enough to provide sufficient parking for the site, given the expected increase in visitation as more COVID precautions are lifted in the future. Ms. Quiroz noted that that additional beds are currently in place, as permitted by a State issued Emergency Order from March 2020, and that no more beds would be added. Ms. Flores added that the proposed amendment is intended to keep those the additional beds permanent after the emergency order expires in October 2022, and that the additional 12 more parking spaces, the valet service, and five more off-site spaces from the neighboring business will help mitigate any future parking issues. Ms. Flores mentioned that the City did not receive any comments from the residents during either of the two different times the notices were sent out for the project, and the City has not received any complaints about the parking situation along the streets in the last few years. But that the conditions give the City the ability to revisit the parking situation should any issue occur in the future. Commissioner Wilander asked for confirmation that the amendment is being requested to permanently approve the number of beds which are currently in operation under an emergency order that will expire in October. Ms. Flores confirmed and added that the Applicant has operated at this capacity successfully since March 2020 and continues to have a waitlist despite the additional beds. Vice Chair Tsoi asked for clarification on the number of parking spaces available and how many they would be deficient with the parking modification. Ms. Quiroz answered they started with 55 spaces, will lose two with the restriping of ADA parking spaces, gain five spaces from the neighboring business and another 12 when the valet service is operating. She added that the deficiency would be the twelve spaces gained through the valet service, since the service will not operate at all times. Chair Thompson noted that two parking spaces would be lost due to restriping for ADA spaces, and added that the Applicant would still have sufficient parking with the valet service. Ms. Quiroz confirmed that is correct. Mark Pagone, the Architect for the project, represented the Applicant. He expressed the Applicant’s appreciation of working in the City and that they look forward to serving the community as best they can. Commissioner Tallerico asked if it was possible to get an exemption from the State on the required shifts and can they potentially change the nursing ratios during certain times to help reduce the parking needs. Mr. Pagone answered that the staffing and nursing ratios are complex and that, even if possible, an exemption would not resolve the need for more nurses at certain times. He added that employees also have personal schedules that could be negatively impacted by abrupt changes to scheduling. Chair Thompson asked if staff regularly utilized street parking, specifically during the time where staffing is at 90 employees, and if there have been any complaints or issues during that time. Mr. Pagone confirmed that staff do park on the street, but there have been no issues or complaints, and added that many staff members utilize carpooling and other types of ridesharing which helps reduce street parking use. There were no further questions by the Commissioners. There were no public comments. 3 9/27/22 It was moved by Commissioner Wilander, seconded by Commissioner Tallerico, to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Commissioner Tallerico was in favor of approval and had no additional comments. Commissioner Wilander was also in favor of the amendment, with the ability to make changes in the future should any issues arise. Vice Chair Tsoi commented that with Staff’s recommendation to extend the valet service to 7:00 p.m., which is when visitation hours end, he feels that sufficient parking is available and is in favor of approval. Commissioner Hui stated that her initial concerns had been addressed by staff, and she had no further comments. Chair Thompson agreed with the rest of the Commission and was in favor of approval. MOTION 2. It was moved by Commissioner Wilander, seconded by Commission Tallerico to approve an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 84-24 with a Parking Modification and a Categorical Exemption Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to allow Arcadia Care Center to increase the number of patients and beds from 117 to 161 at the existing convalescent facility located at 1601 S. Baldwin Avenue ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Tsoi, Hui, Tallerico, Wilander NOES: None ABSENT: None There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 10, 2022. CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Minutes of the July 26, 2022, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve It was moved by Commissioner Tallerico, seconded by Commissioner Hui to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2022, Planning Commission Regular Meeting. ROLL CALL 4 9/27/22 AYES: Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Tsoi, Hui, Tallerico, Wilander NOES: None ABSENT: None MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Council Member Tay reminded everyone to vote in the upcoming election on November 8, 2022. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSONERS Commissioner Wilander brought up issues with excessive debris and lack of maintenance of the parking lot stairwell at the 24 Hour Fitness parking lot, and requested Staff reach out to the property owner. Ms. Flores answered that she will reach out to the property owner. Vice Chair Tsoi asked Mr. Maurer if he had any information on AB 2097, regarding lifting parking requirements for certain development projects. Mr. Maurer responded that the bill follows a pattern of the State to reduce local government’s ability to place requirements such as parking minimums on developments that are near transit stops. He added that his office is currently preparing an overview of several upcoming bills pertaining to development, including AB 2097, and he will distribute the report to Staff and Commissioners once it is finalized. Chair Thompson asked the Commission to bring up any upcoming vacation plans at the next meeting in order to insure there will be a quorum at meetings near the holidays. MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Mauer had no additional updates for the Commission. MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Flores informed the Commission that there will be one item at the next Planning Commission meeting, which is the Commission’s consideration of a metal roof on a single-family home. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.m., to Tuesday, October 11, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Brad Thompson Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Lisa Flores Secretary, Planning Commission