Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-27-10MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Vice Chairman Hsu presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille It was moved by Commissioner Baderian and seconded by Commissioner Beranek to excuse Chairman Parrille from the meeting. Without objection, the motion was passed. OTHERS ATTENDING Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama Senior Planer, Lisa Flores Associate Planner, Tom Li Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Copies of a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Clarizio regarding Item 1 and copies of a letter from Mr. Pachano regarding Item 3 were distributed to each Commissioner. 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 1. MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MC 09 -35 APPEAL OF MODIFICATION COMMITTEE DENIAL 1412 Orlando Drive Dino and Hope Clarizio This is an appeal to reconsider the Modification Committee's decision on denying a Modification to replace the existing 5' -0" high wood fence with a new 6' -0" high wood fence above the existing retaining wall that increases the overall height from 9' -7" to 10' -7 This will exceed the maximum permitted height of 6' -0" (AMC Sec. 9251.2.13.3). Senior Planner, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report. The Public Hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Dr. Clarizio, property owner, said that his father built the residence approximately 50 years ago and the fence has been replaced several times since then. He said that he is seeking approval to retain the current six -foot high fence because the added height provides extra safety in the pool area, provides more security for their dog and is aesthetically pleasing. Dr. Clarizio confirmed that because the fence is set atop a retaining wall, there is a ten -foot drop from the top of the fence on his neighbor's side. He said he spoke to his neighbor, Mrs. Reeder, about the possibility of building a two -sided fence, but at that time, she was unwilling to share in the expense. He noted that all his other neighbors have approved the fence as it currently stands. He said that if he is required to reduce the fence height to 5 feet, not only will he incur additional costs, but the effectiveness of the fence will be diminished. Dr. Clarizio also noted that he and Mrs. Clarizio did not attend the April 13 Modification Committee meeting because they did not receive notice of the meeting. Mrs. Clarizio, property owner, said that their Homeowners' Association has approved the fence, which is now level and uniform. She pointed out that cutting the fence down to five feet would not present an attractive appearance. Commissioner Baderian asked if the Homeowners' Association (HOA) granted approval for the fence initially. Mrs. Clarizio confirmed that the HOA approved the fence project both times it was presented to them. Mr. Mike Fortenese, a general contractor, said that to reduce the fence height will cost approximately $1200 and would result in a non uniform appearance. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. Mr. Bob Reeder, said that he shares the property line that the fence is on with the Clarizios. He said that regulations call for a five -foot fence around a pool and that the fence is to be measured from the exterior, from grade level, and on his side of the property it is now about 10.5 feet, exceeding the five -foot requirement by another five- and -a -half feet. Mr. Reeder pointed out that the fence was built without a permit and is non conforming. According to Code, when a six -foot high fence is on top of a retaining wall, the fence is to setback 6 feet from the retaining wall. He pointed out that the Modification Committee denied this application and that staff is currently recommending denial of the appeal. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the appeal as well. Commissioner Baerg asked if the height of the retaining wall is included in the overall height of the fence. Mr. Reeder confirmed that it is. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. Mrs. Clarizio pointed out that the fence borders the pool which was built with permits and includes a rock waterfall. She stated that it is not possible to move the fence because of the pool and waterfall. Dr. Clarizio said that removal of the fence leaving only the retaining wall would present a safety issue on his side of the property line and would not make sense. PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 2 Vice Chairman Hsu asked Senior Planner, Ms. Flores, if placing the five -foot fence above the retaining wall is permitted. Ms. Flores confirmed that it is. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baderian said that any decision should be based on safety considerations and code requirements and that he is not sure if a difference of one -foot is significant. Commissioner Baerg pointed out that the unique topography of the lot justifies the present height of the fence. He suggested that it is a greater concern that the fence is unfinished on the neighbor's side. Vice Chairman Hsu noted that approval could include a condition that the applicant have the neighbor's side of the fence finished. Commissioner Beranek said that the code doesn't always provide a specific answer for every situation and at those times the Commission must determine the best solution. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve the appeal of the Modification Committee Denial of Modification Application No. MC 09 -35. ROLL CALL AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille There is a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p. m. on Tuesday, May 4 2. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 10 -02 1163 Encanto Drive Warren Cross, representative from Western Roofing Systems on behalf of the property owner, Ms. Terry Traver This is an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board decision denying a Metro Shake 1I, Weathered Timber, stone coated steel roof material at the subject residence. Senior Planner, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 3 Mr. Warren Cross of Western Roofing, a roofing contractor, said that he has addressed the Commission on this subject several times in the past and wanted to briefly review the benefits of a metal roof, i.e., they are energy efficient, Tight- weight, fire safe, etc. He pointed out that the County's building on Baldwin Avenue has a stone coated steel roof. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to approve Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 10 -02. ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille There is a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 4. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADMIN. SF ADR 10 -28 215 W. Naomi Avenue Fausto G. Pachano (Property Owner) The applicant is requesting an Administrative Single Family Design Review for a 270 square -foot front porch cover and the replacement of two patio covers (84 square feet and 128 square feet) at the rear of the existing single -story, single family residence. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Fausto Pachano, the property owner, referred the Commissioners to his letter which was distributed to them at the start of the meeting. Mr. Pachano said that he is a retired school teacher who has lived in Arcadia since 1978. He described his strong association with the city and said that he hopes to live out his life here. He said he is requesting approval of his remodel plan because he feels it will enhance the appearance of his property. Mr. Pachano showed the Commissioners pictures of other homes in the area where similar columns were used and said that his neighbors are in favor of the project. PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 4 Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Pachano why he did not contact the City before he began building, and Mr. Pachano said that he actually did contact the City about two years ago and was told that no permit was required to replace a patio. Commissioner Baderian explained that it was assumed that Mr. Pachano would be replacing the patio with the same materials. He also explained that there was no objection to the structural plans. The objection was to the design and to the fact that the City was not notified. Mr. Pachano said he failed to inform the City about the columns and that he thought the design was beautiful. He said that the design is not out of place in the neighborhood as shown in the pictures other homes in the area that he showed to the Commissioners for their review. He said that he received many favorable comments from his neighbors on the project. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Baerg, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baerg said that he drove by the site and that he felt the photos did not adequately convey the incongruity of the design. Commissioner Beranek noted that the new patios did not blend with the theme of the house. Vice Chairman Hsu said that the added feature does not appear to be an integral part of the existing structure. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to deny Administrative Single- Family Design Review No. Admin. SF ADR 10 -28. ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille There is a five working day appeal period after the approval/denial of the application. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 4. 4. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09 -09 (RESOLUTION NO. 1801) 510 -512 E. Live Oak Ave. (between Hempstead Ave. and Lenore Ave.) Michael Hsiao (designer) Cafe Fusion Consideration of revocation of a Conditional Use Permit granted on October 27, 2009, for a 960 square -foot expansion to an existing 2,040 square -foot restaurant. The status of the PC MINUTES 427 -10 Page 5 permit was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2010 and again on March 9, 2010. Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if the Commissioners had any questions for staff. Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Schwehr if the applicant would be able to comply with all conditions by May 27 and Mr. Schwehr indicated that he felt they would. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if the applicant had submitted all necessary documents to staff and Mr. Schwehr reported that they had. Mr. Schwehr explained that they are only waiting for the Covenant which is currently being processed in the City Attomey's office. Vice Chairman Hsu asked for clarification of the next step in the revocation process. Mr.Kasama explained that unless all conditions are satisfied by May 27, the Conditional Use Permit will automatically be revoked and no further hearing will be required. Commissioner Baerg asked if the applicant understood the implications if the neighboring property owner were to back out of the parking agreement. Mr. Schwehr confirmed the applicant's understanding that termination of the parking agreement would automatically terminate the Conditional Use Permit. If that were to happen the applicant could revert back to the original restaurant and would have to apply for a new CUP for additional parking at another location in order to use the expansion area. The public hearing was opened. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone from Cafe Fusion would like to address the Commission. Mr. Arthur Chen, from Cafe Fusion, thanked the Commissioners and staff for their efforts in resolving all the issues and for reviewing the application so many times. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission on this item. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve Revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -09 (Resolution No. 1801) if all conditions are not satisfactorily fulfilled by May 27, 2010. PC MINUTES 427 -10 Page 6 ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -02 400 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 102 Lauren Bolley Hinds The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate an 800 square -foot art studio with up to 10 students within a two -story, commercial office building. Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Commissioner Baderian asked about the pick -up and drop -off area for students and Mr. Schwehr said they would use the parking lot or adjacent street. He explained that this will be a part-time operation with only one class at a time. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Ms. Lauren Hinds, the applicant, said that she has lived in Arcadia most of her life and liked the idea of staying within the community. She said that she plans to rent the rest of the building as professional offices. Commissioner Baderian asked Ms. Hinds if she had read the staff report and was willing to comply with all conditions of approval. Ms. Hinds confirmed that she'd read the staff report and agreed to comply with all conditions. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baerg, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -02. PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 7 ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. 6. UPDATE OF LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Citywide The Planning Commission considered the proposed Update of Local Guidelines for Implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to make a recommendation to the City Council. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Commissioner Baderian noted that adoption of these guidelines will impact the environmental report on the General Plan Update. Vice Chairman Hsu asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to recommend adoption of the Guidelines to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu NOES: None ABSENT: Parrille The recommendations and comments of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. PC MINUTES 427 -10 Page 8 CONSENT ITEMS 7. MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2010 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to approve the minutes of March 9, 2010 as presented. Without objection the motion was approved. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Baderian asked if a new Liaison from the City Council had been selected yet, and Mr. Kasama said an announcement had not yet been made. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Vice Chairman Hsu reported that the Modification Committee approved three items, which included the replacement of a gazebo on tulip Lane, a semi circular driveway on Highland Oaks and an enclosure of a second floor deck at a condominium on Fairview Avenue. One item, for off -site parking, was referred to the Planning Commission, for their consideration at their May 11 meeting. MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Kasama briefly reviewed the upcoming projects for consideration by the Commission which included the Modification mentioned by Vice- Chairman Hsu and an affordable senior housing project on Campus Drive next to the high school athletic field. ADJOURNED 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Se!ry, anning Commissi C a Planning Commission PC MINUTES 4-27 -10 Page 9