Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-09°°~"` AGENDA ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 7:00 P.M Arcadia City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 'SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA Tl"EMS TDKE RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - 5 minute time limit per person. All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which you or sorrreone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING I. TENTATPJE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-02 (70985) 19 Genoa Street Trinity Genoa, LLC The applicant is requesting a tentative parcel map for athree-unit residential condominium RECOMMI?NDATION: Approval There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be filed by Apri13, 2009. 2. TEXT AMENDMENT 09-02 Citywide Text Amendment No. TA 09-02 amends the regulaflons for temporary banners and parking for multiple uses. RECOIvIl~4ENDATION: Approval CON5ENTITEMS 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2009 RECOMIvIHNDATION: Approve 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: Approve MATTERS FROM CI1'P COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made . available for public inspecfian in the Flaming Services office at City Hall, 240 W. HuntingWn Dt., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)574-5423. PC AGENDA 3-24-09 PLANNING COM14II5SION Pursuant to the Americans with DisabilifiesAct, persons with a disability who require a disability related modifrcation or accommodalion in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626J 574-5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibiltiy to the meeting. Public Hearine Prrocedure 1. The public hearing is opened by the Chairman of the Planning Commission. 2. The Phuuting report is presented by staff. 3. Commissioners' questions relating to the Pltuming report maybe answered at this time. 4. The applicant is afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. 5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES). 6. Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES). 7. The applicant maybe afforded the oppomuriry for a brief rebuttal (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES). 8. The Commission closes the public hearing. 9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time. 10, The Commission then acts on the proposal and either approves, approves with conditions or modifications, denies the application, or continues it to a certain date. 11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. (There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution). 12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews; there is a five working day appeal period. 13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General PLm Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations aze forwarded to the Ciry Council for the Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing. 14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Pazcel Maps (subdivisions) there is a ten calendar day appeal period. Any writings or documents pmvided to a majoriTy of the Plamting Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planni ~ Services otLce at CiTy FIall, 240 W. Hmrtington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)574-5423. PC AGENDA 3-24-09 ~~ .rw.. s,iim ,~ STAFF REPORT Development Services Department March 24, 2009 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: .Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-02 (Map No. 70985) 19 Genoa Street SUMMARY Tentative Parcel Map Application, No. TPM 09-02 was submitted by Robert Tong, representing the property owner, Trinity Genoa, LLC, for athree-unit residential condominium project at 19 Genoa Street The Development Services Department is recommending approvalrof TPM 09-02, subject to the conditions of approval in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: =Robert Tong (Representative of property owner, Trinity Genoa, ...LLC.) LOCATION: 19 Genoa Street REQUEST: A tentative parcel map for athree-unit residential condominium. LOT AREA: 8,450 square feet (0.19 of an acre) FRONTAGES: 50 feet along Genoa Street 50 feet.along an alley '1 EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The property is currently developed with a 1,153 sq.ft. single- family residence built in 1947, and is zoned R-3. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with multiple-family dwellings, and are zoned R-3 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Multiple Family Residential -Max. 24 dwelling units per acre BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Development Services Department approved the applicant's design concept plans. under Architectural Design Review no. ADR 08-28 on December 29, 2008 for the three-unit residential project, as shown on the submitted site plan. This approval was based on staff's determination that the design was in compliance with the City's zoning and architectural design review regulations. On January 22, 2009, the applicant submitted plans to Building Services to initiate the plan check process. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a tentative parcel map for residential condominium purposes. The subject property has 8,450 square feet of land area. The density factor in the R-3 .zones is 2,000 square feet per unit. This would allow for, a maximum of four (4) units on the subject property. All development standards have been met by the project and no modifications were necessary. The requested subdivision is consistent with the City's .General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. All City requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Community ,Development Administrator, Fire Marshall, and Public Works Services Director. The proposed plans have been reviewed by these departments and some special conditions are deemed necessary in addition to the staridard conditions of approval. These conditions are listed as conditions 1 and 2 of this staff report. CEQA This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15315 as a minor land division in an urbanized area. TPM 09-02 March 24, 2009 Page 2 ,~ RECOMMENDATION The.Development Services Department recommends approval of TPM 09-02 subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer will be required to pay the following fees prior to occupancy: Map Fee: $100.00 + Final Approval Fee: $25.00 =Total $125.00. 2. "Post a $200.00 deposit for a Mylar copy of the recorded map prior to occupancy. 3. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Public Works Services Department, and Development Services Department. 4. That condominium Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) containing provisions for property maintenance, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney, and shall. be recorded concurrently with the parcel map. 5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack; set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim; action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option; to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 6. Approval of TPM 09-02 shall not take effect until the property owner and"applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval. TPM 09-02 March 24, 2009 Page 3 '~ PLANNING COMMISION ACTION Approval The Planning Commission should move to approve TPM 09-02, subject to the following findings: A:1. Find that the project and the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the Arcadia General Plan, and that the discharge of sewage from the project into the public sewer system will not violate any requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this region. A2. Find that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15315. A.3. Authorize and direct the Development Services Director to approve and execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this. project. A.4. Apprdve this project subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Planning Commission. Denial If.the Planning Commission takes action to deny this parcel map, the Commissioh .should make specific findings based on the evidence presented and move to deny the project. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following findings which must be expanded upon with specific reasons for denial: D.1. Find that the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Subdivision Map Act. D.2. Find that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and spedific plans. D:3. Find that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. D.4. Find that the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. D.5. Find that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. D.6. Find that the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: TPM 09-02 March 24, 2009 Page 4 v D.7. Find that the design of.the subdivision or the type of improvements are, likely to cause serious public health problems. D.8. Find that the requested subdivision injuriously, affects the neighborhood wherein said lot is located. D.9. Find that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. in this connection, the Jegislative , body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for use, will be provided. and that these will be substantially equivalent to ohes previously acquired by the public. This subdivision shall apply; only to easements of record onto easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and' no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for .access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested part has any questions. or comments regarding this matter, prior to the March_24~ public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574-5447. Approved: ~'-` Ji sama ommunity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo with zoning information Tentative Parcel Map 09-02 (Parcel No. 70985) Environmental document Photos TPM 09-02 March 24, 2009 Page 5 ::.~,:,Po TPM 09-02 T9 Genoa Street ewe I~bn vm ro m'"'aminWi w tl vo •vlav~av IffiII!"~R7bII9W~Wj0~9 C~{ I9~I~, S@~7C7N101 ~~ ia3ais vorva~e~ ~ ps IJI~~'~1~~ II I'1 ~~IJl~~I'1 (f'~~~~ I~' ~NOIlYJOl103fOLd ~, { ~ ~° t s s ~ g ~~~ ~ E ~ ~~_~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ g ~j ~ ~G rn ~ IIiI [~6tlg ~sp~ ~ ~~~~~ m ~ g ~~~g91a656~~ .., yM .,, ~, o m ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~g~ ~°~ - ~,~, O ao W .m, M ~~~~s~e~~ Z r// ~wU ~ i ~ Z~ ~ u~1 o TM^ I d ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ 'y 1~y Q¢ O a o i I! m ~~«8 9 ~ ° ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ V ~o - ~ ~ m ' i ~ ~~~a~Ei~EE'' U U ~~ V w i I Q p~pIOI~a Z.~ ~ ~ {p ' ~ 6 F LL ~ a ~ ~ \ III 2 H i ~ ~ II 1 YYYY yU'F U~? ~ Iii $ W Qh ~QNp~ VIII F< LL Q f ~' < 5 >O OWE S I ^" III / ~ ~~aw . ~~ ~<Q 3 ~ ~ I '~, 4 = vi ~ ! ~ ~ o W - °~~ ~, ~~~ ~I ~~~ri I ~®sE m ~. ~; ~ W ~ ooa ~ ~ ~~a E ~ r s g I ~~~~ ~ r ~ ~~~ ~4 ~~ . m u: ~ • j ~wE°5~~~ I ~~~ ~~ ~k~ @@~ ~ ~~~~~I~~g~~~~~ @s~g ,inv., .., eee•a 3 e ~. _ -___ a ~ d '~~~'-'~-~,,, ~ O®00®OB9Bm000m a ~w..~,, ~` PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT 00rap~et W° (Certificate of Determination when attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: TPM 09-02 2: 3. Location: 19 Genoa Street Entity or person undertaking project: A. X B. Other (Private) (1) Name: Trinity Genoa, LLC (Property owner) (2) Address: 255 E. Santa Clara Street. #200 Arcadia, CA 91006 4. Staff Determination: The City's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City's "Local Guidelines .for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessmerifbecause: 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. X The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 15 f. i The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: 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: February 4. 2009 Thomas P: Li Staff ~~oz a 0 c. V U ~~ ti N Y 0 3 m z c, 0 a Y U 7J Q~ '~ y ..U Y w 0 .~ Y Q Y 0. W U b~ Q z a. 0 a Y U N ~^ 7 h 4J Y ~. 0 V y 0 Y ^0 .~.II N U cd ~~ ~~ :~ ~ <` March 24, 2009 TO: FROM Arcadia Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Development Services Department Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of Text Amendment No. TA 09-02 to amend the Arcadia Municipal Code's temporary banner regulations and commercial/industrial parking standards SUMMARY The Development Services Department is proposing to amend. the City's temporary • banner regulations and parking standards to address recurring issues that staff has encountered over the past few years. For the banner regulations, staff is proposing to add a provision that addresses the location of temporary banners and to create a time limit exception for future tenants and existing tenants without permanent signage. Staff is also proposing to amend the parking regulations to prohibit the designation of required parking spaces for a specific business, individual, or group of individuals. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed text amendments as set forth in this staff report. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS Temporary Banners Recently, staff has observed a growing number of free-standing banners in some of the City's major retail centers. Such advertising devices are held up on poles and typically installed in landscaped areas of surface parking lots. Staff has approved such banners because the current temporary banner regulations do not address the location of banners. In staffs opinion, free-standing banners are not only unattractive (especially when there are multiple banners) but also pose a safety hazard due to their potential to fall over in the wind. Therefore, staff is proposing to add a provision stating that banners shall be mounted on a building. Additionally, staff. recommends prohibiting roof-mounted banners since the Code already prohibits roof-mounted flags, • balloons, and similar attention-attracting features ., Another issue staff has encountered is when a future tenant wishes to display a banner announcing their imminent arrival (e.g. "Joe's Restaurant Opening Soon") or when they open for business but have not yet installed a permanent sign. In such cases, staff finds it appropriate to allow an exception to the banner time' limits since the banners are not announcing a special promotion or event (e.g. "50% Off' or "Change in Ownership"), but'are effectively serving as the tenant's primary sign. Under the current regulations, a business is only permitted to display a banner for up to 30 continuous days and no more than 60 days per calendar year. The proposed text amendment would allow future tenants to display a banner advertising the name of the business for up to 60 continuous days, which would not count toward the 60-day maximum display period for the year. (Several nearby cities, including Pasadena, Monrovia, and Temple City, currently allow a time limit exception for future tenant banners.) Staff also recommends granting this same exception for existing tenants whose permanent signage is removed for remodeling or maintenance work. Finally, staff made further revisions to the regulations to improve their organization and clarity. Please refer to Attachment 1 for the amended regulations. The existing text to remain appears in black and the new language appears in red, with strikeouts on the language to be omitted. The amended regulations would apply to all commercial and industrial zones. Designation of Required Parking Spaces • Planning Services has a written policy dating back to 1983 stating that "required parking spaces are not permitted to be reserved." The reasoning behind this policy is that reserving required spaces for one business has the net effect of removing such spaces from use by the general public. Staff is proposing a text amendment to codify this long-standing policy. The requirement. would appear .in the .commercial/industrial parking regulations under the Mixed Use section (staff is proposing to re-title it Multiple Use), and would prohibit designation of required parkirig spaces .for -one particular business, individual (e.g. Reserved for Bank Manager), or group of individuals (e.g. Employee Parking Only). Staff would like to clarify. that this would only apply to required parking, meaning if a property with multiple uses has surplus parking, those extra parking spaces could be reserved. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the amended regulations. CEQA The proposed text amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the text amendments will have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and this text amendment does not constitute a "project" under Section 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. TA 09-02 March 24, 2009 Page 2 -. J~+l: • RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Text Amendment No. TA 09-02. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendation and comments to the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding this matter prior to the March 24, 2009 public hearing, please contact Steven Lee, Assistant Planner, at (626) 574-5444 or via email at slee(o)ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved By: Ji asama ommunity Development Administrator • Attachments: 1. Amended Temporary Banner Regulations 2. Amended Parking Regulations 3. Preliminary Exemption Assessment C~ TA 09-02 March 24, 2009 Page 3 f. • ATTACHMENT ! 9262.4.13. TEMPORARY BANNERS. The following regulations shall apply to temporary banners: A. Definition: A temporary banner is a sign containing a message in text form, which is constructed of pliable materials such as canvas, fabric, vinyl plastic or similar materials which will withstand exposure to wind and rain without significant deterioration, and which does not require a building permit for its construction; or installation outside of a building. ''''~ ''^----"-~'•' ^°-"'"°"'°"' ^''^`'^° ^"' > > B. Application Process: Requests An application for a temporary banner permit shall be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division, and requires approval by the Development Services Director or his/her designee; prior to the display of any banner. and The application shall include a description of the banner and its materials, its general content, location on'the property, size, barer the time period that the banner will be displayed, the address of the property, the name of the business, and the name of the person requesting.the approval of the permit. A fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council from time to time shall be submitted at the same time the application is filed with the City. C. Number and Size: A maximum of two (2) temporary banners, at any one (1) time, maybe pernritted for each business. The maximum total surface area of all such temporary banner(s), in the aggregate, for each business, shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. D. Location and Height Clearance: Temporary banners shall be mounted on the building in which the • business displaying the banners is located. Free-standing or roof-mounted banners are prohibited. No part of a banner shall have a clearance of less than seven feet (7') over a pedestrian way and fifteen feet (IS') over a vehicular way. E. Time Limits: The use of temporary banner(s) for eseb any business shall not exceed ~ sixty (60) cumulative days in any one (1) calendar year, with any single display period not to exceed a r~a*imua}e€ thirty (30) continuous days per in any one (1) yeaz~ilk. There shall be a minimum interval of two (2) weeks ixter~al between tt~xies approved periods during which the a banner(s) is displayed. Each business shall be allowed a maximum of six (6) display periods in any one (1) calendar year. Exceptions: 1. Temporary banners for events or activities sponsored bynon-profit organizations may be authorized for an additional thirty (30) cumulative days in any one (1) calendar year. 2. Future tenants and existing tenants whose permanent lawful signage is removed for remodeling or maintenance work may display a banner(s) advertising the name of the business for up to sixty (60) continuous calendar days. Such banners shall be removed prior to installation of a permanent sign and shall be exempt from the time limits as described in Paragraph E above. Notwithstanding any other section of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the owner or person ir~essessien-ef who installs or displays a banner in violation of this Title shall remove the sere banner upon order of the Development Services Director or designee. Far the purpose of this Section, any portion of any day in which a banner is or remains installed displayed shall be counted as one (1) full day. ;; - ;?' . _;~ • 9269.4. B MULTIPLE USES. ATTACHMENT 2 In the event that two (2) or more uses occupy the same building, lot, or pazcel of land, the total requirements for off-streetpazking shall be the sum of the requirements applicable to each and all of the various uses computed separately. Designation of required parking spaces for exclusive use by one particular business, individual, or group of individuals is prohibited. ATTACHMENT 3 ~= PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT ,.~z:: "•••~.,•~•°°f (CeRificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: Text Amendment No. TA 09-02 amending the City's temporary banner and parking regulations 2. Project Location -Identify streef address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7%' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): Citywide 3. Entity or person undertaking project: ® A. City of Arcadia ^ B. Other (Private) (1) Name: R (2) Address: (3) Phone: 4. ~ - Staff Determination: The City's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City'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: 15061 Section No.: (b)(31 f. ^ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: Section No.: 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: City of Arcadia Date: March 24. 2009 Staff: Steven Lee. Assistant Planner • ~- r MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive, with Chairman Beranek presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Pacrille and Beranek ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING City Councilman Gary Kovacic City Engineer Phil Wray Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama Associate Planner Tom Li Assistant Pianner Steven Lee Senior Administrative'Assistant Billie Tone MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to read the Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full text of the Resolutions: The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS -Five-minute time limit per person None PUBLIC HEARINGS L TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 07-OS (69775) - REVLSION An approximately $3-acre property generally located north ofthe terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road. Nevis Homes TPM 07-OS (69775) is a Tentative Parcel Map for a three (3) parcel subdivision. Parcel 1 would be approximately two (2) acres in azea and Parcel 2"would be 0.82 acre in azea. Both parcels are proposed for residential development.-The remaining parcel, Parcel 3, would be approximately 80 acres in area and would remain undeveloped. Assistant Planner Steven Lee presented the staff report. The proposed subdivision, as described below, was conditionally approved by the Arcadia Planning Commission in August 2008. The nature of the subdivision is not changing; rather, the applicant is requesting a revision to Mitigation Measure 1.5 from the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that requires a nonrefundable $200,000 deposit to the City to fund the maintenance of the approximately 80 acres of undeveloped land. The applicant is proposing an alternative measure to create an assessment district that would place the financial burden of maintaining the open space on the owners of the two proposed residential properties. Commissioner Baderian asked if Pazcel 3 would be accessible to the public or only to the owners of Parcels 1 and 2. Mr. Lee said there are no plans for a public trail but that the applicant must agree to an easement for maintenance. Commissioner Baderian asked if the city were to apply for funds from an open space conversancy would the responsibility for maintenance fall to the public or to the owners of Parcels 1 and 2. Mr. Kasama explained'that would depend on the agreement between the present and future owners of the property. Commissioner Baerg asked if this fee would be assessed.to all property owners along this open space or only to the owners of Parcels 1 and 2. Mr. Lee said it would only apply to the owners of Parcels 1 and 2. The public hearing was opened. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the project. There were none. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to close the public hearing. Without objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Baderian said that he is not comfortable placing the burden of the cost of maintenance of 80 acres on the future owners of thisproperty. He pointed.out that the original plan to set aside $200,000 for maintenance seems more reasonable. Pc Muarri'Ps 2-io-o9 Page 2 ~, ... MOTION: It was moved by Chairman Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve the Revision to Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07-OS (59775) subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Parrille and Beranek NOES: Commissioners Baderian and Baerg 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TM 69958 1402, 1406 and 1410 South Eighth Avenue Dexter 8'" Avenue, LLC The applicant is requesting a Tentative Tract Map to consolidate three existing lots for afive-lot subdivision. Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report. Commissioner Hsu asked for verification on the General Plan designation for this site. Mr. Li explained that the General Plan will allow a maximum of eight units on the property but the only way to situate them is on a one-sided cul-de-sac. The public hearing was opened. Chauman Beranek asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Charles Huang, the applicant, said that he retained a designer and an engineer and they originally laid out six lots in compliance with city code. Later, he decided to reduce it to five lots. Mr. Huang said they met with city staff many times to make sure the one-sided cul-de- sac was acceptable and, with the assurances of staff, he decided to proceed with the purchase of the property. He said that he also asked the owners of neighboring properties if they were interested in selling but they were never able to reach an agreement. Mr. Huang pointed out that he made every effort to comply with city regulations and that he believes the project will be beneficial to the city. He said he is willing to comply with all conditions of approval and he and his associates offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Commissioner Baerg asked if there is a technical reason for placing the street side of the cul- de-sac to the south instead of north. Mr. Hank Jong, EGL, explained that the nature of the drainage on the property makes this most practical. Mr. Jong explained that there are no regulations prohibiting one-sided cul-de-sacs. He poirned out several examples in the handouts distributed earlier to the Commissioners. He said that the applicant is willing to satisfy the city engineer's requirements, provide landscaping to cover the wall and hire an arborist to protect the oak tree at the site. He discussed plans for the width of the street and the size of the lots pointing out that the applicant is willing to comply with all conditions of approval. Pc Hm~r~nes zao-0v• Page 3 Attorney Patrick Perry represeneed the applicant. He said that it is impossible to make the Findings necessazy for denial of this application and he reviewed each one. Mr. Perry also pointed out the existence of one-sided cut-de-sacs in other parts of the city and again stressed the developer's willingness to comply with all regulations and conditions. Mr. Bruce Pfeifer represented the sellers. He said the sellers contacted the city to find out how the property could be developed and they were assuranced that aone-sided cut-de-sac was acceptable. Mr. Pfeifer stated that the sellers aze anxious to proceed with the project. Mr. Gordon Maddock said that he met the developer, Mr. Huang, through Bowden Development. He said that in 2006 Bowden made an offer on these properties and he drew up a map for asix-lot subdivision on a one-sided cut-de-sac. He discussed these plans with staff at the time and was assured that they were acceptable. He asked the Commissioners to approve the project as presented or make a recommendation to widen the street by five feet to a total of 60 feet. Mr. Eddie Hsieh, a neighbor, said he supports the project and feels it would be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Scott Yang, another neighbor, said he agrees with Mr. Hsieh and supports the project. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the project. Mr, David Cheng owns the property to the north of the project site. He said that he had spoken to the developer about adding his property to the project, but they were never able to reach an agreement. Mr. Cheng said he feels that without his property the project will be incomplete and so he is opposed to it. Mr. David Johnson represented Gwen Johnson and the Johnson family. He said he is opposed to the project because he feels. the wall on the ono-sided cut-de-sac would be unattractive and a magnet for trash and debris. He also wanted to be sure that the city's historic association with the equine culture would be protected and preserved: Chairman Beranek asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. Mr. Jong pointed out that the project site is not designated as horse property in the General Plan and that six dwellings are allowed per acre. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to close the public hearing. Without objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Baerg said that he is inclined to deny the application because of the one-sided cut-de-sac. He said that he felt the property could be developed without the one-sided cut-de- sac. PC MINUTES 2.10-09 Pnga 4 /' f '` Commissioner Hsu said that he is in favor of the project because it complies. with. regulations, but that he would ask the applicant to work with staff to reduce the negative aspects of the wall. Chairman Beranek said that he cannot see any basis for denial of the application. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Chairman Beranek, to approve Tentative Tract Map No. TM 69958. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Hsu and Beranek NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg and Parrille MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to deny Tentative Tract Map No. TM 69958. ROLL CALL; AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg and Parrille NOES: Commissioners Hsu and Beranek CONSENT ITEMS 3. TEXT AMENDMENT 08-05 -REVISION Citywide This is a Revision to Text Amendment No. TA 08-05 amending the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations as set forth in Sections 9295 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1789 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-IS and a related Parking Modification to expand an existing 1,006 square- foot eating establishment into a ],971 square-foot restaurant with beer and wine service and seating for 33 patrons at 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Units G & H. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 1790 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-19 to revise a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Modification (GUP 94-01 /Resolution No. 1508) to increase the seating capacity from 8 to 23 persons at an existing 1,376 square-foot eating establishment at 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Unit A. Pc Mixvres z-io-os Page 5 6. MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2009 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to approve the Revision to Text Amendment No. TA 08-05, adopt Resolutions No. 1789 and 1790 and approve the minutes of January 27, 2009, as presented. Without objection, the Revision to Text Amendment No.TA O8-OS was approved, Resolutions 1789 and 1790 were adopted, and the minutes were approved by voice vote as presented. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING Councilman Gary Kovacic said the Mayor's Community Breakfast will be held on March 27 at the Community Center. The program will include Rose Queen Courtney Chou Lee and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. He said that the City Council approved a new contract with Waste Managemem that includes aone-day-a-week collection schedule. He said that the Council reviewed the mid-year budget and found that sales tax revenue and temporary occupancy sales tax revenue had been overestimated, resulting in a $2 million deficit, which staff is working to find ways to reduce. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, the Fourth of July event has been cancelled. MODIFICATION COMMTI'TEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Parrille said that there was no Modification Committee meeting today. FURTHER MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Kasama reviewed a memo on the status of current projects and reminded the Commissioners that the City Council will be joining them for the February 24a' meeting at the Police Department Community Room: He said that more information will follow. ADJOURNED to February 24, 2009, at 6:00 pm at the Arcadia Police Department Community Room 8:25~m Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Pc MuauTes 2-10-09 Page 6 `. "' _.up~w._ CITY OF ARGADIA """~'"' JOINT' MEETING OF THE ,o~,ry ec4°°r ARGADIA CITY COUNCII./REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ANL PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2009, 6:00 p.m. MINUTES Location: Arcadia Police Department, Community Room/Emergency Operation Center 250 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Mayor Harbicht called the meeting to order. 1. ROLL CALL City Council/Redevelopment Agency Members: Amundson, Chandler, Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht Planning Commission Members: Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek OTHERS ATTENDING City Clerk Jim Battows City Manager Don Penman City Attorney Steve Deitsch Development Services Director Jason Kruckeberg City Engineer' Phil Wray Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama Senior Planner Lisa Flores Assistant Planner Steven Lee Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone General Plan Advisory Committee 2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kruckeberg pointed out that a copy of the Power Point presentation on the General Plan Project and a petition from the Highland Homeowners Association were given to each Councilman and Commissioner. Any writings or documents provided fo a ma/only o/ the Clty Council regarding any item on this. agenda wiN be made ava0eble for public inspection in the City Cferk's o1Bce totaled et 240 W Huntington Ddve, Arcadia, CaltPomia, during normal business hours. Page I of 7 TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON} Mr. Phil Consiglio, President of the Highland Homeowners Association,. and Mr. Jeff Bowen, a past President of the Association, stated that members of their organization are strongly opposed to the proposed designation of the area east of Highland Oaks Drive as open space recreation. They feel .this would bring excessive traffic and noise to their quiet residential neighborhood. Mi•. Consiglio and Mr. Bowen said that their members want this study area to be removed from consideration in the General Plan update. 4. Discussion and/or direction on a. Affordable Housing options and strategies. Ms. Beth Stochl, Principal, Beth Stochl Associates, gave a Power Point presentation describing affordable housing options for the Redevelopment Agency and explaining the state mandate to provide housing units at different levels of affordability. Councilman Chandler said he understood that the affordable housing funds for senior housing had been depleted. Mr: Penman explained that the law has changed, i.e., previously the percentage of seniors in the city was the sole determining factor. Now, however, the percentage of low-income seniors to the overall low-income population in Arcadia is the determining factor. He further noted that some very low-income housing needs can be met through senior housing. Councilman Chandler asked if only new construction meets these housing requirements or if rehabbed units are acceptable. Ms. Stochl saidthat 20-25% of the low and very low category can be met by previous market units that are substantially rehabbed and covenanted to provide low-income housing. For example, a building with a history of code violations and in need of substantial rehabilitation might be a good candidate for the city to acquire, rehabilitate and turn into affordable senior housing. Councilman Chandler asked about the city's obligations to provide shelter for people and Ms. Stochl explained that the city must designate sites that are zoned to allow emergency shelters by right; perhaps an industrial site. Councilman Kovacic asked if the city is required to create these units even after the designated funds are depleted. Ms. Stochl explained that the city is obligated to provide the opportunity for these facilities to be built. Councilman Kovacic said that the largest group of low-income residents is at the race track and he asked if the city can meet its housing obligations by assisting this group. Any wddngs or.documenfs providetl ro e meJonry offhe C!ty Council regaNing any kem on this agenda w!il be made available ror publk Inspection in fhe CHy Clerkffi office loeeted et 240 W. kuMington Ddve, Arcadia, Califomle, dudng normel6usiness hours. Page 2 of 7 ;~ Councilman Chandler pointed out that the low-income housing .status must be guaranteed for 55 years and the race track is not in a position to make this guarantee. Mayor Harbicht said that should the city fail to meet RHNA requirements the Housing :Element of the General Plan may not be certified by the state. He asked what consequences could be expected in this everrt. Mr. Kruckeberg suggested that state funding might cease, and Mr. Deitsch said that the approval of subdivision maps could also be an issue. Mr. Penman pointed out that the city must make an effort to create a General Plan that will allow affordable housing units to be built. He noted that the RHNA numbers are based on growth projections that are no longer valid and suggested that the city might investigate the possibility of asking the state legislature to redsse their estimates. Mr. Amundson noted that the city does not have to provide the housing itself but only the opportunity for development of affordable units. Mr. Deitsch added that these numbers must be reflected in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Ms. Stochl said that there needs to be enough sites available to meet low and very low income level requirements and Mr. Penman pointed out that the city can fulfill a large portion of the very low income requirements with senior housing. b. General Plan Update and Land Use Plan 2030. Mr. Kruckeberg, DSD, Ms. Flores, Senior Planner, and Ms. Laura Stetson, of Hogle-Ireland, gave a power point presentation on the General Plan Update and Land Use Plan 2030. Mayor Harbicht opened the meeting to discussion. Mr. Henry Nunez, GPAC member, spoke about the wide range of demographics in the city and suggested that the best way to create a vibrant life style for such a widely diversified group is through mixed-use development. He said he enjoyed working with the GPAC and although the GPAC members originally found it difficult to project thirty to forty years in the future,. he felt that the final product was very good. Mr, Nunez also commended city staff for their efforts on the project. Mr. Scott Hettrick, GPAC member, thanked city staff and the consulting team for the high quality of the staff report and presentation. He said the GPAC was made up of a diverse group of residents representing almost all demographics and geographic areas of the city, yet they were able to set aside their individual needs and evaluate the options for the city as a whole. Mr. Hettrick noted that the GPAC recognized that even though the city is "built out" it is important to develop plans that would encourage new revenue sources and also to address Any wddrrgs or documents pruvlded M a malorgy of tha Ctty Council regarding any ifem on this agenda wfil be made available for pubNc Inspection in the City Clark's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CaUfomie, during normal business hours. Page 3 of 7 azeas of the city where change is needed. Mr. Hettrick said the GPAC chose to endorse the mixed-use option to create adowntown-type area that would provide revenue potential. In addition, this option would also provide housing opportunities for people who work in the city but can't afford to live here now, such as policemen and teachers. Councilmen Chandler and Kovacic expressed concern that the mixed-use concept will encourage accelerated growth causing stress to infrastructure. Mr. Kruckeberg explained that only land use concepts are being explored at this point and the impact to utilities and schools will be addressed later in the process. Ms. Mary Dougherty, GPAC member, said she enjoyed working with the group and noted that they were all very respectful ~of each others' widely varying opinions. She said they recognized the importance of developing a plan for adding up to 2100 additional units over the next twenty to thirty years that would still allow enough flexibility to accommodate any required changes. She noted that the First Avenue revitalization effort has not'been as successful as hoped and suggested that one of the main reasons for this is parking. Ms. Dougherty said that the proposed Gold Line Station will create an area of opportunity and that it is important to remember to include convenient parking and businesses that attract people. She stressed the importance of building flexibility into the plan for future development. Mr. Rich Dilluvio, GPAC member, stressed the importance of remembering that the plans being developed today will be implemented over a twenty to thirty year period. He said it is important to look to the future of transportation in the city, including the Gold Line, and to take this opportunity to improve Baldwin Avenue and First Avenue. He stressed the importance of remaining open-minded in considering the mixed-use option which could attract not only families with children but also working professionals and retirees, i.e., the types of people who want a lifestyle that provides the freedom and flexibility to simply lock their door and leave. Mr. Dilluvio suggested visiting cities where older neighborhoods have been successfully revitalized such as San Jose. He said the GPAC is a diverse group that, with the help of a forward looking staff, came up with a wide range of ideas for consideration in the General Plan Update. Councilman Amundson asked for the names of other cities besides San Jose that have successfully revitalized older neighborhoods. Mr. Dilluvio said that Brea and Fullerton are two examples of cities where businesses aze thriving and property values are rising. Mr. David Lee, GPAC member, pointed out that the high property values in Arcadia make it difficult for young people to purchase homes. He suggested that mixed-use development would provide affordable housing foc young families and noted that not all families require a yard, which is usually not available in a mixed-use development. He also noted that Arcadia has, and will continue to Any writings or documents provided to a majaAty of the City CouncN regerding any Item on this agenda wiN 6e made aveNable Ior public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W Huntington Drive, Arcadia, Celilomia, tluring normal business hours. Page 4 of 7 { have, a large Asian community, and that many recent Asian immigrants are comfortable with the concept ofhigher-density living. Mr. Robert Lum, GPAC member, said that in the Asian culture, parents sometimes give their larger homes to the children with growing families and move to smaller homes. They would like to stay in the city and mixed-use properties would provide low-maintenance housing options for them. Mayor Harbicht said that over the last 27 years he has seen a lot of change in Arcadia, but that the ideas presented in the proposed General Plan Update seem to be contrary to his vision of the city. He said he often hears residents complain about new condos being built and that when the Caruso project was first proposed, it included residential units, which the public opposed. Mayor Harbicht questioned the necessity of adjusting standards for the sole purpose of allowing population growth, and said that thousands of condos and apartments is not his vision of Arcadia. Councilman Wuo said that his family moved from Alhambra to Arcadia in 1985. He said. that he is very proud of the city and he disagrees with the GPAC about changing the city to make it more affordable. He indicated that his children cannot afford to purchase a home in Arcadia now, but will have to work then way up just like everyone else. He stressed that he is not against growth or change, but that he would prefer to see the city continue~to develop at a pace that will not affect the lifestyle. Councilman Wuo pointed out that many of the comments he heard at the meeting apply to an individual or a group, but the City Council is responsible for protecting the entire community as a whole. Councilman Kovacic thanked the. GPAC for their efforts on the project. He noted that the GPAC is made up of a diverse group with widely varying interests and that they were dealing with difficult issues. He also pointed out that it is important not to implement a policy that favors one group over another. Councilman Kovacic said that the idea of mixed-use is intriguing, but perhaps the plan proposes too much of it. He suggested that the group clearly define what it is they are trying to promote. He said that this was a great discussion and that he felt the primary concern should be to protect the quality of the single-family residential neighborhoods and schools. He said he had some concern that the plan may be too ambitious. Councilman Amundson agreed that although the Live Oak area needs change and that the mixed-use concept might be a good option for that area, he is somewhat concerned with the overuse of the concept in other parts of the city. He said he does not view the subsequent increase in density and traffic as positive. Councilman Amundson commended the Architectural Review Boards of the Homeowners' Associations for their work .in maintaining the flavor of the neighborhoods-they serve. Any writings or documents proNded b a majority of the City Council regarding any Ifem on this agenda will be made ava0eble kr public Inspection In the City Clerk's o16ce located at 24o-W. Huntington fNive, Arcadia, CaliPomla, during norms! buskress hours. Page 5 of 7 Councilman Chandler said he appreciated the consideration for long-range planning evident in the proposed plan. He particularly liked the idea of removing certain uses like paint and mechanic shops from the center of the city. He noted that RHNA numbers seem to be a major factor in planning and cautioned that every time commercial land is converted to residential, the city loses an opportunity to earn revenue. He said that he is not opposed to growth and noted that he supported the Westfield Mall and Caruso projects and Downtown 2000. He reminded the group that when the Caruso project was first presented, there was a lot of opposition to the housing- development that was included in the plans. He pointed out that "mom and pop" type shops, though charming, are not usually competitive. Mayor Harbicht said that it is not likely the county would ever stop using Study Area `A' for flood' control but if it is designated as a recreation area it means we are agreeable to this option. He said he envisions this area as an open space area that should be protected. Mayor Harbicht noted thai if, in the future, the County no longer needed the area for flood control, the City could adopt a General Plan Amendment at that time. Commissioner Parrille asked, will the city stagnate if housing is not increased? He said he is concerned with the cost of providing services like fue, water, schools, sewage, etc. as housing is added. He pointed out that parking and traffic on Huntington and Baldwin are already problematic and asked how these problems would be addressed when more businesses are added. Commissioner Baderian noted that the Planning Commission deals with pazking issues at almost every .meeting and that mixed-use will only create more problems. He said that parking is a major challenge for most cities. He also noted thatthere were not a lot of parks and green space proposed in conjunction with the mixed-use option. Chairman Beranek, a GPAC member, pointed out that the plan allows only for the possibility of mixed-use in the city; it does not mean that mixed-use is required. He noted that most. of the city is not changed on the chart. Chairman Beranek stressed the importance of planning for the future and being open to possibilities. He said it is important to think 20 to 30 years ahead and that no.plan is not a good plan: Commissioner Hsu thanked the GPAC and staff for their work on the plan. He said it was well conceived and quite ambitious, but that perhaps something in the mid-range would be more acceptable. Commissioner Baerg said that he agrees the Live Oak area needs some change and perhaps mixed-use is the answer. He said that it seems the plan changes the chazacter of the city and increases the density to a point where traffic would be unmagageable. Any wrltlngs or documents'providad to a majonYy of Me City Council regarding any Item on this agenda wUl be made avefleble for public inspectlon in the C!ty Clerk's office located at 240 W Huntlngton Dave, Aroedia, Califomla, during normal business hours. Page 6 of 7 1 I• Mr. Kmckeberg said that staff had done a lot of public outreach to gather information before developing the plan, but that they would consider ways to address the issues raised tonight at the meeting. He said that the land use concept must be firmed up before staff can proceed. Mayor Harbicht noted that although the plan leaves most of the city unchanged, he has concern over the dramatic increase in condos and rentals in the community. He said that Live Oak may need special attention, but not other parts of the city. Councilman Kovacic said that all the areas pointed out in the presentation need attention. Mr. Nunez, GPAC member, asked if the Council and Commission were opposed to the mixed-use, transit-oriented development concept in the proposed Gold Line area. Mayor Harbicht said that he thought the Gold Line might help to revitalize the area. Councilman Kovacic said he would support transit-oriented development around the Gold Line Station. Mr. Penman said that downtown is a special area with lots of opportunities and special requirements. Mayor Harbicht thanked staff, the GPAC and the Planning Commission for their work in developing the plan. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. The City CounciURedevelopment Agency adjourned this meeting to March 3, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room. The Planning Commission adjourned this meeting to March 10, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Robert C. Harbicht, Mayor R. Edward Beranek, Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Any wrdings or documents prowled to a ma/Drily of the City Council regaNfng any item on this agenda wUl be made aveilatile for public inspection 1n the C!ty Clerk's ollrce located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CaliPomie, during normal business hours. Page 7 of 7