Loading...
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