HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-22-11MINUTES
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, March 22,
2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive
with Chairman Parrille presiding.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Parrille led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, and Parrille
ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to excuse Commissioner Beranek from the
meeting. Without objection the motion was approved.
OTHERS ATTENDING
Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director, Jason Kruckeberg
City Attomey, Steve Deitsch
Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray
Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores
Associate Planner, Tom Li
Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin
Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
A memo regarding revised conditions of approval for Item 4 was distributed to the
Commissioners.
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
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION DECISION APPEAL NO. HOA 11 -01
934 Paloma Dr.
Charles Huang
The applicant has filed an appeal to reconsider the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho)
Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board decision to deny the
architectural design of a new 5,158 square -foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of
porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car, detached garage.
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Charles Huang, the property owner and appellant, said he followed the design
guidelines of the Homeowners' Association and the proposed house is not subject to any
modifications. There is no FAR requirement, so size is not an issue. He agreed that the
neighboring homes across the street are both one -story and much smaller than the
proposed home. He cited examples of other recently constructed homes in the Lower
Rancho area that are significantly larger than the existing homes. Mr. Huang asked why
these homes are considered suitable but his proposed home is not. Mr. Huang agreed to
comply with all the conditions required by Planning Services and asked the Commissioners
to approve his project.
Commissioner Baerg asked if the proposal presented to the Commissioners is in any way
different from the design originally submitted to the Homeowners' Association.
Mr. Huang said that the design had not been changed since it was originally submitted to the
Homeowners' Association.
Commissioner Baderian noted that the staff report stated that the ARB members suggested
a meeting to explore alternatives that would be acceptable to both parties and he asked why
the applicant declined their suggestion.
Mr. Huang said that his architect met with an ARB member who offered suggestions to
reduce the mass of the building but that he could not compromise on size.
City Attorney Deitsch asked Mr. Huang if he would comply with the conditions proposed by
staff and Mr. Huang said that he would.
Mr. Hank Jong, a neighbor, said that he attended the design review meeting and was
troubled by the opinions expressed by the neighbors. He said that he felt that the property
owner should only be obligated to adhere to the Code and that the design is more important
than the size of the house. He further stated that he felt that the same requirements should
apply throughout the City and that it is unreasonable to limit the size of a new house as that
limitation could have a negative effect on property values.
Chairman Pamlle asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this appeal.
Mr. Steve Mathison, ARB Chairman, pointed out that the average size of the approximately
32 homes on Paloma Drive is 2,588 square feet while the proposed home is 5,200 square
feet, or about twice as large. He quoted the HOA Resolution charging the ARB with
maintaining harmony between buildings and landscaping. He also quoted the Arcadia
Single - Family Design Review Guidelines explaining the principles of proportion and scale
between new and existing structures. Mr. Mathison said that the insensitive treatments of
scale and size are common problems that the ARB must address and that although the
proposed design is consistent with zoning regulations it does not conform to the design
guidelines and the requirements of Resolution 5287.
PC MINUTES
3 -22 -11
Page 2
Commissioner Baderian said that the applicant mentioned another house of over 6,000
square feet and asked if that house is within the HOA area. Mr. Mathison said that although
that home is within the HOA area, it is on a street of very large homes that are compatible
with it. Commissioner Baderian asked if the proposed home were in the same area as the
6,000 square foot home, would it be considered compatible, and Mr. Mathison said that it
would be compatible with some of the existing homes in that area, but at the proposed site it
is not compatible with any of the homes in the immediate area.
Mr. Richard Frickie, ARB Member, pointed out that the developer wants as much square
footage as possible to increase profit and this individual is not building his dream home. He
said he is concerned that the residents are losing control of new development in their
neighborhoods.
Mr. Bill Card, a neighbor, said that he lives across the street from the proposed
development. He said that he has reviewed the plans and feels that even though the design
is within zoning regulations it is not compatible with the neighborhood. He wished to voice
his objections and asked the Commissioners to deny the appeal.
Ms. Marianna Shakhnovitz said that her family lives next door to the proposed home, which
she feels will create an invasion of privacy for her family. She said that the proposed home
will dramatically exceed the size of the previous home and the second floor to be built so
close to the property line it will result in an infringement of her family's privacy.
Mr. Dale Brown, ARB member and architect, said that he met with the applicant's
representative, Mr. Robert Tong, after the ARB meeting to discuss the mass of the proposed
home and harmony within the neighborhood. He noted that presently there are mostly
Ranch and Colonial style homes in the area, but that newer homes are presenting a
conflicting pedigree. Mr. Brown said the ARB tries to encourage a strong design basis and
that he felt the design of the proposed home could be altered to comply with ARB standards.
Mr. Brown said he is still willing to work with the applicant to reach an acceptable
compromise.
Mr. Jerry Johnson, a neighbor, said that the height of the proposed home is inappropriate,
even though it falls within the maximum height allowed, because it is on a slope. He pointed
out that the neighbors on the down -hill side will have no privacy in their yards and their view
of the mountains will be obstructed. Mr. Johnson said he felt that the long -time residents in
the area should be able to have full use of their yards. He also said that he could not agree
with the speaker who said that design standards should be uniform throughout the city but,
in fact, he feels that design standards should be flexible to allow new construction to be
harmonious with existing structures and landscaping. Mr. Johnson said that he wished the
project architect had been willing to work with the ARB before appealing their decision.
Mr. Michael Zourabian, another neighbor, reminded the Commissioners that this is a
business project and is not being built for personal use. He said he is not comfortable with
the prospect of such a huge home next to his home and that he agrees with the
recommendations of the ARB. He feels strongly that this project will not increase the value
of the existing homes as suggested by the applicant.
Mr. Emie Boehr, ARB member and neighbor, said that Arcadia is a community of homes
and Paloma Drive exemplifies that concept. He said that whether the proposed home is
built for the owner to live in or as a business proposition, the applicant and the ARB should
be able to come to a compromise that will be satisfactory to both parties. He asked the
PC MINUTES
3 -22 -11
Page 3
Commissioners to consider if this project as it presently stands would bring something to the
neighborhood that everyone could be proud of.
Chairman PerriIle asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal.
Mr. Robert Tong, the architect for the project, said that he has worked successfully with the
ARB many times in the past and he is confident that a satisfactory solution can be reached
in this case as well.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the
motion was approved.
Commissioner Baderian said that he is not comfortable taking action on this item at this
time. He noted that the ARB representatives made several suggestions on ways to reduce
the perception of massing and make the home more harmonious with the neighborhood and
he suggested that the ARB and applicant meet to discuss their options.
Commissioner Baerg pointed out that it seemed the parties had not reached art impasse
before the appeal was filed and, therefore, his preference would be for them tO meet again
to try to reach a compromise.
Commissioner Beranek said that he recently reviewed the design guidelines for the
community and since the applicant's design fell within the guidelines he feels the project
should be approved.
Mr. Deitsch said that the City zoning code must be applied, along with the HOA Resolution,
which gives the ARB some discretion in determining what is compatible with the
neighborhood. In addition, how is the neighborhood to be defined; as including only the
street or the entire area govemed by the HOA? He explained that the applicant can take the
matter to the City Council or the Commission can direct both parties to meet again and
report back.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to reopen the Public Hearing. Without objection
the Motion was approved.
Chairman Perrille asked the applicant and ARB members if they would meet privately to
make arrangements for another meeting to try reach a compromise and retum to the
Commission before the end of the current session. Both the applicant and ARB
representatives agreed to meet privately and return to the Commission with their decision
before the end of the meeting.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -18
72 W. Live Oak Ave.
Ying Wan Phu
Continued from February 22, 2011
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing 869 square -foot
day spa located at 70 W. Live Oak Avenue to expand into the adjacent 710 square -foot
building at 72 W. Live Oak Avenue.
PC MINUTES
3 -22 -11
Page 4
Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Beranek said that he understood that massage had to be incidental to the
business. Mr. Baldwin explained that this business is a day spa and that massage will
remain incidental to the business. He said that only a small percentage of the additional
square footage would be used for massage.
Commissioner Baderian pointed out that some of the parking spaces are substandard and
he asked what makes them substandard. Mr. Baldwin said that they are substandard
parking spaces because they are less than the 9 wide feet by 20 feet in depth as required by
Code.
Commissioner Baerg noted that according to the staff report, 40% of the business is
dedicated to massage and he asked if that is considered incidental. Mr. Baldwin confirmed
that it is.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
There were none.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the
motion was approved.
Commissioner Beranek asked if the applicant was prepared to accept all conditions and Mr.
Baldwin explained that the staff report, listing all conditions, was sent to the applicant but
they have not responded.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10-18 and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate
Resolution.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Beranek and Parrille
NOES: Commissioner Baderian
ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao
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.
PC MINUTES
3 -22 -11
Page 5
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -19
MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MC 10 -35
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 71478
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 10 -18
650 W. Huntington Drive
Scott Yang
The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit, Parking Modification, Tentative Tract
Map and Architectural Design Review to allow the existing office building to be expanded to
25,105 square feet with a parking deficiency of 128 spaces in lieu of 151 required and
subdivided into medical office condominiums..
Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Baerg asked if there is a parking deficiency at present and Mr. Baldwin said
there is not.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Parriile asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
Mr. Scott Yang, the applicant, said that he wanted to convert the building to medical
condominiums because doctors want to purchase entire units. He also said that his traffic
consultant was available to answer questions.
Mr. Ron Knox, the traffic engineer said the street is easily able to accommodate the
expected 5% increase in traffic.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek to dose the Public Hearing. Without objection the
motion was approved.
Commissioner Baerg said that a 23 parking space deficiency is significant and that he is not
comfortable with that.
Commissioner Baderian said that he agreed that although the increase in trips would not be
a problem, he was uncomfortable with the deficiency of 23 parking spaces.
Mr. Kasama explained that the Commission could deny the Parking Modification but still
approve the Conditional Use Permit and Tract Map for the conversion of the building with a
combination of tenants rather than medical only.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10-19, Tentative Tract Map No. 71478 and Architectural
Design Review No. ADR 10-18, but to deny Modification Application No. MC 10 -35. Also, it
PC MINUTES
3 -22 -11
Page 6
was moved to amend recommendation No. 15 to eliminate the limitation to medical offices
and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution.
Chairman Parrille asked for clarification on the amendment of recommendation No. 15. Mr.
Kasama explained that changing medical office use to general office use reduces the
parking space requirement to four spaces per 1,000 square feet, thereby eliminating the
parking deficiency. Medical offices would be allowed, but only if the parking requirement of
six spaces per 1,000 square feet will be met.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, and Parri Ile
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao
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.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11 -01
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 11 -01
1410 S. Sixth Ave. - Camino Grove Park
Shannon Vitale of Core Development Services for Verizon Wireless
The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review for
a wireless telecommunication facility comprised of a 55 -foot tall monopole antenna support
camouflaged as a pine tree with one platform array of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1)
four -foot (4' -0 ") diameter parabolic dish antenna, and four (4) ground - mounted equipment
cabinets in a 544 square -foot concrete block enclosure.
Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Baderian asked if staff had received any comments from local residents and
Mr. Li said he had not
Chairman Parrille asked if there was any objection from the school district and Mr. Li said
they were informed, but had no comment.
Commissioner Baerg asked why the antenna could not be incorporated into the existing cell
tower. Mr. Li explained that the existing tower was not designed for co- location and can't
meet the needs of the carrier.
Commissioner Baerg expressed his doubt about the ability to adequately camouflage the
antenna as a tree.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
Ms. Patty Mejia from Verizon said that they worked with staff to develop the most
appropriate and least visible design and that the proposed tree is designed for co- location to
accommodate future needs.
PC MINUTES
3 -22 -11
Page 7
Commissioner Baderian asked if the applicant was in agreement with the amended
recommendations Nos. 7 and 8 and Ms. Mejia said Verizon had no objection to the
recommendations and would comply with them.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved 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
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -01 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -01
and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, and Parrille
NOES: Commissioner Baerg
ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao
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.
Chairman Parrille retumed to Item 1.
1. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION DECISION APPEAL NO. HOA 11
934 Paloma Dr.
Charles Huang
Chairman Parrille asked the applicant and the ARB members if they had reached an
acceptable compromise. Mr. Dale Brown of the ARB said that the parties agreed to meet
again and they would like a continuance to April 26 to allow time for them to resolve their
differences.
Chairman Parrille asked Mr. Huang if a continuance to April 26 was acceptable to him and
he said that it was.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to continue
Item No. 1 to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 26, 2011.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, and Parrille
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao
PC MINUTES
3 -22 -11
Page 8
CONSENT ITEMS
5. MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2011
6. RESOLUTION NO. 1831
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -02 to amend CUP 10 -10 for the tutoring center at 50
West Las Tunas Drive.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to approve
the minutes of March 8, 2011 as presented and to adopt Resolution No. 1831.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Parrille
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
There were none.
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA
Chairman Parrille reported that an application to allow a third gas pricing sign instead of two at
102 E. Huntington Drive was approved.
MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Kasama reported that the City Council adopted a Resolution to formally approve 7:00 p.m.
as the time to begin Planning Commission meetings, and that the next agenda will include an
application to remodel a gas station at Baldwin and Huntington.
Commissioner Beranek said that he watched the last City Council meeting on television and
noted that they reversed the actions of the Planning Commission in two cases.
ADJOURNED
ATTEST:
8.27 p. m.
PC MINUTES
3 -22 -11
Page 9