HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-22-09 (2),.,.o., AGENDA
ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 7:45 A.M.
°.~,Mry ate' City Council Chambers Conference Room
ROLL CALL:
1. MODIFICATION NO. MC 09-21
766 Singingwood Drive
Luis R. Nunez
Kruckeberg, Penman, Parrille
The applicant is requesting the following modifica-
tions:
a) A front yard setback of 36'-0" in lieu of 50'-0"
Approved. 3-0 required for a new 130 square-foot, front
covered porch; and,
b) An 8'-6" building separation in lieu of 10'-0"
required for a new 149 square-foot, one-story
addition to the existing residence and a 175
square-foot addition to the existing detached
garage.
2. MODIFICATION NO. MC 09-27
820 West Orange Grove Avenue
Michelle Kim
Approved. 3-0
Note: The proposed design has been approved
by the Rancho Santa Anita Homeowners'
Association's Architectural Review Board.
The applicant is requesting a modification to allow
a new 600 square-foot, guest house to be located
26-0" from the rear property line in lieu of 35-0"
required.
Note: The proposed design has been approved by
the Rancho Santa Anita Homeowners' Associa-
tion's Architectural Review Board.
There is a five (5) working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on September 30, 2009.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Modification Committee members regarding any
item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at Arcadia
City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007 - (626) 574-5423.
3. MODIFICATION NO. MC 09-30 The applicant is requesting the following
and ADMINISTRATIVE SF ADR modifications, subject to Architectural Design
NO. 09-47 Review, for a new 7'-0" high wrought iron fence
367 Monterey Pines Dr. with seven (7) pilasters and an 8'-0" high gate in
James Jaska and Becky Kilbourne the front yard area:
Approved, 3-0 1. A T-0" high fence and pilasters in lieu of the
maximum permitted height of 4'-0";
2. An 8'-0" high driveway entry gate in lieu of the
maximum permitted height of 6-0"; and,
3. To place four (4) pilasters adjacent to the front
property line in lieu of a minimum setback of
3'-0".
Note: The proposed design has been approved by
the Whispering Pines Estate Architectural
Committee.
4. MODIFICATION NO. MC 09-31 The applicant is requesting a modification to allow
1045 West Huntington Drive a new 54 square-foot, illuminated wall sign for
Warner Le Menager, Union Bank Union Bank on the rear wall of an existing office
Representative building that will be located 77' in lieu of 100' from
a residentially zoned property.
Approved. 3-0
5. MODIFICATION NO. MC 09-32
468 East Santa Clara Street
Dick Hale
Approved, 2-7
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
COMM. DEV. DIV. REPRESENTATIVE:
The applicant is requesting a parking modification
to allow 360 parking spaces in lieu of 462 spaces
required for a new 9,811 square-foot, one-story
medical office building, an existing 55,000 square-
foot, three-story general office building, and an
existing 30,000 square-foot, three story medical
office building.
None
Kruckeberg, Penman, Parrille
Flores, Li and Schwehr
MC Agenda
9-22-09
Page 2
eo
FINDINGS
ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 7:45 a.m.
°a•.~, •~4'°r Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room
PUBLIC HEARING MC 09-21
Address: 766 Singing Wood Drive
Applicant: Luis R. Nunez
Requests: The applicant is requesting following modifications:
a. A front yard setback of 36'-0" in lieu of 50'-0" required for a new 130
square-foot front covered porch (AMC Sect. 9251.2.2); and,
b. An 8'-6" building separation in lieu of 10'-0" required for anew 149 square-
foot, one-story addition to the existing residence and a 175 square-foot
addition to the existing detached garage (AMC Sect. 9251.2.9.1).
BACKGROUND
The subject lot is 29,710 square feet, zoned R-O & D, and developed with a one-story 3,679
square-foot home with a two-car garage that was built in 1957. The subject property is located
within the Rancho Santa Anita Property Homeowners' Association. Within the R-O zone, the
required front yard setback is 35-feet or the average of the two adjacent properties, whichever
is greater. The average front yard setback of 50'-0" for the two adjacent neighbors is the
greater requirement in this case.
The proposal would add a 130 square-foot front covered porch to the existing residence. The
porch would align with the existing building which currently has a front yard setback of 36'-6".
However, because the front property line curves and the residence is built at a slight angle to
the front property line, the proposed front porch would be 36'-0" from the front property line, 6-
inches closer than the nearest point of the existing house. The proposed front covered porch
complies with all other Arcadia Municipal Code requirements. This application is subject to the
Committee's review because front yard setback modifications cannot be processed
administratively per Arcadia Municipal Code.
Within the R-O zone, the minimum distance between a detached garage and the main
residence is 10'-0". This proposal would also add a new 149 square-foot, one-story addition to
the existing residence and a 175 square-foot addition to the existing detached garage. The
garage is considered a detached structure because it is only attached to the main residence by
a breezeway. Detached structures are required by code to be a minimum of 10'-0" distance
from the main residence, however the existing garage is only 6-6" distance from the main
residence as it was built prior to this code requirement. The proposed additions to the main
residence and detached garage would be a minimum distance of 8'-6" from each other, as
shown on the site plan. Both additions would comply with all other Arcadia Municipal Code
requirements.
The applicant is also proposing to build a new covered terrace, a pavilion, a pool, and several
landscaping changes. These changes comply with all Arcadia Municipal Code requirements,
and therefore do not require Modification Committee approval. The Rancho Santa Anita
Property Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board has reviewed and approved
the design of the proposed project.
FINDINGS
Staff presented the specifics of the applicant's proposal, and indicated that Staff did not
receive any comments during the notification period. Following Staff's presentation, Mr.
Penman questioned whether the proposed covered terrace, pavilion, pool and landscaping
changes needed to be included in the proposal, but did not have any concerns about the
modification requests. The applicant, Mr. Luis R. Nunez was present at the meeting, and
informed Staff that the height of the proposed front retaining wall was actually 2-feet tall rather
than 3-feet, but otherwise did not comment on the proposal. Mr. Kruckeberg asked staff
whether the modification for the 8'-6" building separation could be approved administratively.
Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr responded that yes it could be approved administratively, but
was included as part of this application because the front yard setback modification required
Modification Committee approval. Mr. Kruckeberg then expressed his support for the
requested modifications.
Mr. Kruckeberg moved to approve MC 09-21, and was seconded by Mr. Penman.
ACTION
Approval, 3-0
APPEAL PERIOD
There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. The approval is not effective
until Thursday, October 1, 2009, provided the Committee's action is not appealed. An appeal
must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00 appeal
fee by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.
EXPIRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The approval granted by this application shall expire one year (October 1, 2010) from the
effective date unless the project is completed or the approval is renewed.
The actual project must be consistent with the approval granted by the Modification
Committee. Any deviation from the Committee's action shall be subject to review and approval
by the Community Development Administrator and may require a new application and another
public hearing.
If there are any questions, please contact Lisa Flores, Senior Planner at (626) 574-5445 or by
e-mail at Iflores@ci.arcadia.ca.us
Approved by:
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Parrille
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Penman, Kruckeberg
PLANNING SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: Flores
FINDINGS
ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE
September 22, 2009 at 7:45 a.m.
•.,,,.~¢°°Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room
PUBLIC HEARING MC 09-27
Address: 820 W. Orange Grove Avenue
Applicant: Michelle Kim
Request: To allow a new 600 square foot, guest house to be located 26-0" from the rear
property line lieu of 36-0" required (AMC Sec. 9251.2.4).
BACKGROUND
The subject lot is 44,450 square feet, zoned R-O & D, and developed with an existing 4,945
square foot, one-story residence with an attached 400 square foot, two-car garage that was built
in 1976. The site also has an existing tennis court at the rear of the property. The property is
located at an elevation that is significantly higher than the properties to the south on Singing
Wood Drive, and the property is separated from the neighboring residences by significant
setback distances, consistent with the estate character of the neighborhood.
The applicant is requesting a modification to allow a new 600 square foot, guest house to be
located 25' from the rear property line in lieu of 35' required. The new guest house will consist
of a living room, one bedroom, and one full bath. The property is fully vegetated with mature
trees, including three (3) oak trees along the north-eastern portion of the property (one in front
of the main house and two trees adjacent to the side of the house). There are no oak trees in
the rear yard, and the proposed guest house is not located within the dripline of any of the oak
trees located on the adjacent properties.
In reviewing the modification, Staff considered alternative orientations for the guest house.
However, there were several disadvantages associated with complying with the required 35'
rear yard setback because of the significant grade change at the rear of the property. Orienting
the guest house to comply with the 35' rear yard setback would result in either having to
increase the height of the building or require the building floor to be stepped to accommodate
the significant grade change since the rear yard slopes downward - over 5' from the main
dwelling to the rear property line. The alternative would also compromise the contemporary
architectural design of the structure. The applicant has also indicated that another disadvantage
to the alternative orientation is that it would significantly reduce the passive solar advantage and
make the guest house less efficient. The design and orientation of the guest house was guided
by the principles of increasing its energy efficiency and maximizing passive solar advantage
based on the pattern of the sunlight exposure during the day.
The Rancho Santa Anita regulations (City Council Resolution No. 5288) require that no building
or structure shall be located less than 40' from the rear property line (stricter than the City's
regulations). On July 9, 2009, the Rancho Santa Anita Homeowners' Association's Architectural
Review Board (ARB) reviewed and approved the architectural design of the guest house and
allowed the guest house to be placed 25' from the rear property line instead of 40'.
FINDINGS
Staff presented the specifics of the project, and indicated that Staff did not receive any
comments or concerns from the adjacent neighbors. Following the presentation, Mr. Parille
stated that his only concern was to ensure there will be no kitchen facility and become a second
unit. Mrs. Kim, the property owner, assured him that there will be no kitchen facility and it is
definitely not their intent to make this guest house into a second unit. Mr. Kruckeberg agreed
that the architectural design is attractive, and feels that that modification is warranted not
because of the topography, but because the property is a very private property and there will be
no direct impacts to the adjacent residences. Mr. Penman agreed and felt that there was
compelling reasons to approve the modification since the Homeowners Association approved it,
and there were no objections from the neighbors.
Mr. Kruckeberg moved to approve the modification, and was seconded by Mr. Penman.
ACTION
Approval, 3-0
APPEAL PERIOD
There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. The approval is not effective
until Thursday, October 1, 2009, provided the Committee's action is not appealed. An appeal
must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00 appeal
fee by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.
EXPIRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The approval granted by this application shall expire one year (October 1, 2010) from the
effective date unless the project is completed or the approval is renewed.
The actual project must be consistent with the approval granted by the Modification Committee.
Any deviation from the Committee's action shall be subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Administrator and may require a new application and another public
hearing.
If there are any questions, please me at (626) 574-5445 or by e-mail at Iflores@ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Parrille
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Penman, Kruckeberg
PLANNING SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: Flores
MC 09-27
820 W. Orange Grove Ave.
0
~r
FINDINGS
ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 7:45 a.m.
Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room
PUBLIC HEARING MC 09-30 and Administrative SF ADR 09-47
Address: 367 Monterey Pines Drive
Applicants: James Jaska and Becky Kilbourne
Requests: The applicant is requesting the following modifications, subject to Architectural
Design Review, for a new 7'-0" high wrought iron fence with seven (7) pilasters
and an 8'-0" high gate in the front yard area (AMC Sec. 9250.3.16):
1. A 7'-0" high fence and pilasters in lieu of the maximum permitted height of
4'-0
2. An 8'-0" high driveway entry gate in lieu of the maximum permitted height
of 6-0"; and,
3. To place four (4) pilasters adjacent to the front property line in lieu of a
minimum setback of 3'-0".
Note: The proposed design has been approved by the Whispering Pines Estate
Architectural Committee.
BACKGROUND
The subject lot is an R-M zoned property. Within this zone, fences in the front yard area are
limited to a maximum height of 4'-0", with the exception an entry gate may be permitted up to
6-0" in height. And, when there is a sidewalk, a 3'-0" setback is required from the front property
line for a fence. The applicants are proposing to construct a 7'-0" high wrought iron fence with
seven (7) pilasters and an 8'-0" high driveway entry gate, and to locate this fence, including four
(4) pilasters, adjacent to the property line.
In 2004, the Modification Committee approved a similar proposal for 7'-0" high fence and 8'-0"
high gate for the adjacent property at 368 Monterey Pines Drive. The Committee considered
the fact that many properties in the Whispering Pines Estate Area have fences and gates that
have been granted height modifications, and approval of the request would promote uniformity
of development.
The proposed fence and gate will be constructed of decorative wrought iron with seven (7)
pilasters, finished in ledgestone veneer, to match the architectural style of the main dwelling.
The Whispering Pines Estate Architectural Committee, although not officially recognized by the
City, has reviewed and approved the design of the proposed fence and gate. It is staff's opinion
that the proposal would promote uniformity of development and meet the architectural design
review guidelines.
FINDINGS
Staff presented the specifics of the applications. The Committee stated that, in the past, they
have reviewed and approved a number of these front yard fence and gate height modifications
in the Whispering Pines Estate area. At one time they suggested to the Whispering Pines
Estate Architectural Committee to apply for a text amendment, changing the code to permit
higher fences in this area, because of the unique nature of these properties. The Whispering
Pines Homeowners Association never applied for an amendment and therefore each fence
must obtain separate approvals for front yard fence height modifications. The Committee felt
that since many similar requests have been granted in the past within this area, approval of the
applicant's requests would promote uniformity of development.
ACTION
Approved, 3-0
APPEAL PERIOD
There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. The approval is not effective
until Thursday, October 2, 2009, provided the Committee's action is not appealed. An appeal
must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00 appeal
fee by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 1, 2009.
EXPIRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The approval granted by this application shall expire one year (October 2, 2010) from the
effective date unless the project is completed or the approval is renewed.
The actual project must be consistent with the approval granted by the Modification Committee.
Any deviation from the Committee's action shall be subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Administrator and may require a new application and another public
hearing.
If there are any questions, please call Thomas Li at (626) 574-5447 or (626) 574-5423 or by e-
mail at tli -ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Parrille
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Penman, Kruckeberg
PLANNING SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: Li
t fro
G~ M FINDINGS
ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE
September 22, 2009 at 7:45 a.m.
~••..h,,.f~°'Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room
PUBLIC HEARING MC 09-31
Address: 1045 W. Huntington Drive
Applicant: Warner Le Menager, Union Bank Representative
Request: To permit a new 54 square foot, illuminated wall sign for Union Bank on the rear of
an existing office building that will be located 77' in lieu of 100' from a residentially
zoned property (AMC Sec. 9262.4.4 B).
BACKGROUND
Earlier this year, Union Bank changed their signage with a new Union Bank logo and trademark.
As a part of the new brand, it is necessary for the bank to replace all the existing exterior
signage, which reflects the former name.
On July 27, 2009, Planning Services approved the new branding for a new wall sign on the
tower that faces the intersection of Huntington Drive and Sunset Boulevard, and a reface on the
monument sign. The applicant is now requesting a modification to replace the non-permitted
illuminated wall sign at the rear wall of the building with a new wall sign. According to Arcadia
Municipal Code Section 9262.4.4 B, "No wall sign on a side or rear wall shall be located within
one hundred feet (100) of a residential zone." The proposed 54 square foot, illuminated wall
sign will be located approximately 77' instead of 100' from the residential property to the north.
When the architectural design of the building was approved in 2006, it was designed to
accommodate one major tenant sign on the north elevation, which is the reason for the large
blank wall between the windows and the eaves. Every new wall sign would be subject to a
modification. It is Staff's opinion that the new signage is an improvement compared to the non-
permitted illuminated wall sign in that it is much smaller in size, and the new colors are more
subtle.
FINDINGS
Staff presented the specifics of the project, and the Committee agreed with Staff's
recommendation that the requested modification would secure an appropriate improvement to
this property, especially since the new sign will be smaller and more attractive than the existing
non-permitted sign.
Mr. Kruckeberg moved to approve the project, as submitted, and was seconded by Mr. Penman.
ACTION
Approval, 3-0
APPEAL PERIOD
There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. The approval is not effective
until Thursday, October 1, 2009, provided the Committee's action is not appealed. An appeal
must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00 appeal
fee by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.
EXPIRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The approval granted by this application shall expire one year (October 1, 2010) from the
effective date unless the project is completed or the approval is renewed.
The actual project must be consistent with the approval granted by the Modification Committee.
Any deviation from the Committee's action shall be subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Administrator and may require a new application and another public
hearing.
If there are any questions, please me at (626) 574-5445 or by e-mail at Iflores@ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Parrille
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Penman, Kruckeberg
MC 09-31
1045 W. Huntinoton Drive
FINDINGS
ARCADIA MODIFICATION COMMITTEE
September 22, 2009 at 7:45 a.m.
Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room
PUBLIC HEARING MC 09-32
Address: 468 E. Santa Clara Street
Applicant: Mr. Dick Hale
Request: The applicant is requesting a parking modification to allow 360 parking spaces in
lieu of 462 required for a new 9,811 square-foot, one-story, medical office
building, an existing 55,800 square-foot, three-story general office building, and
an existing 30,000 square-foot, three-story medical office building.
BACKGROUND
In 2001, the Redevelopment Agency approved an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with
the Fifth Avenue Group LLP (Dick Hale and partners) to develop two large office buildings near
the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Santa Clara Street. One building at 51 North Fifth Avenue
is a 30,000 square foot, three-story, medical office building. The other building, at 488 East
Santa Clara Avenue, is a 55,800 square-foot, three-story, general office building. The
applicant, Dick Hale, is now proposing to develop a new 9,811 square-foot, one-story, medical
office building at 468 East Santa Clara Street, just west of the existing building at 488 East
Santa Clara Street. On September 15, 2009, the City's Redevelopment Agency approved the
architectural design of the building, which is similar in style to the existing two buildings.
The two properties at 488 East Santa Clara Street and 51 North Fifth Avenue have a
reciprocal parking agreement to share the parking on each property. Based on the City's
requirement, a total of 403 parking spaces are currently required for the mix of general and
medical offices. The site currently has 385 parking spaces, and is therefore deficient by 18
parking spaces. Some reconfiguration of the on-site parking areas will be required to
accommodate the new medical building, which will result in reducing the number of parking
spaces from 385 to 360 spaces. Because the new medical building will require 59 more
parking spaces, the site will be deficient by 102 spaces. The applicant is requesting a parking
modification to allow 360 parking spaces instead of 462 spaces required for all three buildings.
To determine whether, or not, the requested modification would have a parking impact staff
requested a parking analysis. The applicant retained the services of Linscott, Law &
Greenspan.
Parking Assessment
The parking analysis analyzed the parking demand for all three buildings, which is different
from the parking requirement of 6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area
for medical and 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area for general
office use. The parking demand assessment analyzed how much parking would be needed at
particular times. Based on the analysis, the site will have a surplus of 82 spaces after the
completion and occupancy of the proposed medical building.
The parking study was reviewed by the City's Engineer, and he concurred with the overall
conclusion that there will be a surplus of available parking with the new medical building.
FINDINGS
Staff presented the specifics of the applicant's proposal and the parking analysis. Staff also
explained that the City Engineer, after reviewing the parking analysis, recommended that the
existing peak parking demand numbers from the study be increased 10% as a factor of safety
to account for daily fluctuation, and an additional 20% as a worst case/highest usage scenario,
in case existing or future uses at this location were to intensify and require more parking.
Including these contingency measures, Staff explained that the project would still have a
parking surplus of 11 spaces during peak business hours (349 spaces used versus 360
provided).
Following Staff's report, Mr. Kruckeberg asked for clarification on whether the City Engineer
was suggesting a total buffer of 20% or 30%. Staff explained that the City Engineer was
suggesting a total buffer of 30%, and that with this 30% buffer there would still be an 11 space
surplus during peak business hours.
The applicant as well as two other parties were present at the meeting to discuss this item. Dr.
Weissman, part owner of the development at 51 North Fifth Ave explained his opposition to
the proposed parking modification. He expressed his opinion that the parking analysis for this
project is flawed because it was done during August which is a notoriously slow month for
businesses. He also stated that with the current economic recession, businesses are not
operating at full capacity and therefore the peak parking numbers are abnormally low. Dr.
Weissman stated that this project would negatively impact his property because it would
restrict the ability of businesses at 51 North Fifth Avenue to grow, and also harm the property
value of this location.
Mr. Jenkins, representing Dr. Barnhart (tenant and part owner of the development at 51 North
Fifth Ave), explained his client's opposition to the parking modification. He explained that Dr.
Barnhart is against the modification for the following reasons:
The 102 space parking deficiency is not a minor change, and therefore should be
reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council rather than the Modification
Committee.
2. The parking analysis is flawed as it was conducted in August, a notoriously slow month
for businesses.
3. The economic recession means that businesses are not operating at full capacity, and
therefore the peak parking demand is being underestimated.
4. The negative impacts of the project would fall on the property at 51 North Fifth Avenue,
whereas the benefits would go exclusively to the property at 488 East Santa Clara
Street.
5. The shared parking agreement signed in 2001, was not entered into with the intent of
allowing a new building to be constructed and existing parking to be eliminated.
The applicant, Mr. Hale, explained that the proposed location of the medical building is in a
section of the parking lot that is never used by patrons of the existing office and medical
buildings. Therefore, most of the patrons of the new medical office building would use parking
spaces that are currently not used. As for the project only benefiting the owners of 488 East
Santa Clara Street, Mr. Hale stated that the new medical building would also benefit the
owners of 51 North Fifth Avenue, as it would allow more doctors to be located near the surgery
center.
Mr. Kruckeberg asked Staff if a parking modification, regardless of its deficiency in spaces, is
subject to Modification Committee review. Staff confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Penman
stated that since the subject property is not located near any residential areas, any potential
parking problems would have a limited impact on the surrounding community. Commissioner
Parrille stated that since there is opposition to the parking modification, it might be more
appropriate if this request is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Penman, relying on
the City Engineer's analysis and review, stated that he felt there would be no impact from
approval of this parking modification.
Mr. Penman moved to approve MC 09-32, and was seconded by Mr. Kruckeberg.
ACTION
Approval, 2-1
APPEAL PERIOD
There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. The approval is not effective
until Thursday, October 1, 2009, provided the Committee's action is not appealed. An appeal
must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00 appeal
fee by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.
EXPIRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The approval granted by this application shall expire one year (October 1, 2010) from the
effective date unless the project is completed or the approval is renewed.
The actual project must be consistent with the approval granted by the Modification
Committee. Any deviation from the Committee's action shall be subject to review and approval
by the Community Development Administrator and may require a new application and another
public hearing.
If there are any questions, please call Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner at (626) 574-5422 or
(626) 574-5423 or by e-mail at tschwehra-ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Parrille
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Penman, Kruckeberg
PLANNING SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: Schwehr