No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-26-11PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — 5 minute time limit per person. PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony conceming any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which you or someone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 1. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION DECISION APPEAL NO. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Dr. Charles Huang Continued from March 22, 2011 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. RECOMMENDATION: Uphold appeal and conditionally approve design 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. CONSENT ITEM 2. RESOLUTION NO. 1835 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending approval of Text Amendment No. TA 10 -04 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -17 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -19 for the conversion of an existing Any writings or documents provided to a majority of Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Division offices at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423. PC AGENDA 4 -26 -11 automobile service station into an automobile fueling station with a convenience store and an automated self - service car wash at 701 West Huntington Drive, pending the City Council's affirmation, and the approval and effectuation of an Ordinance to amend Sections 9275.1.39.3 and 9275.1.39.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow automobile fueling stations and automated self - service car washes at commercial -office (C -O) zoned properties, subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL .& PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Any writings or documents provided to a majority of Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Division offices at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423. PC AGENDA 4 -26 -11 PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the Planning Services Department at (626) 574- 5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. Public Hearing Procedure 1. The public hearing item is introduced by the Chairman of the Planning Commission. 2. The staff report is presented by staff. 3. Commissioners' questions relating to the staff report may be asked and answered at this time. 4. The Public Hearing is opened by the Chairman and the applicant is afforded the first opportunity to address the Commission. 5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 6. Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 7. The applicant may be afforded the opportunity for a brief rebuttal. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 8. The Commission closes the public hearing. 9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time. 10. The Commission then makes a motion and acts on the proposal to either approve, approve with conditions or modifications, deny, or continue it to a specific date. 11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. This is usually presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. 12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews, there is a five (5) working day appeal period. 13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for the Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing. 14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps (subdivisions) there is a ten (10) calendar day appeal period. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Division offices at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423. PC AGENDA 4 -26 -11 April 26, 2011 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Development Services Department FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 of the denial of a proposed 5,158 square -foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car, detached garage at 934 Paloma Drive. BACKGROUND On March 22, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the appeal by the property owner, Mr. Charles Huang of the denial by the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) of a 5,158 square -foot, two -story residence with 408 square feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car, detached garage at 934 Paloma Drive. After the March 22, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission felt that both parties should try to make another attempt in resolving their differences. The Commission suggested that the appellant and the ARB members meet in order to try and reach a compromise. Both parties agreed to meet and to have this item continued to the April 26, 2011 meeting. Because the public hearing was continued to a specific date, no further public hearing notices have been issued. Attached are the March 22, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report. ANALYSIS The appellant and the Lower Rancho ARB have met and agreed to reduce the size of the residence, and make several changes to the architectural design of the residence and landscaping. The ARB has not formally approved the revised design, but has chosen to have the design review handled through this public hearing appeal process. The ARB has informed staff that they are in agreement with all the proposed changes and feel they are a significant improvement. For comparison, the revised and original architectural plans are attached. The changes that were made from the original design are as follows: 1. The total living area of the two -story residence has been reduced from 5,158 square feet to 5,020 square feet. 2. The following features have been removed: The 53 square -foot porch of the rear #1 master - suite, the 36 square -foot family -room porch, and the 80 square - foot balcony on the rear of the house. 3. The front porch has been reduced from 319 square -feet to 244 square -feet and its height has been lowered from 10' -6" to 9' -6 ". 4. The entry area has been reduced by 88 square -feet. 5. The scale and mass of the dormer windows have been reduced. 6. Wood siding has been added to the entire second floor and to the front portion of the first floor. 7. The second floor is being set back 8' -0" further from the front property line. 8. The fountain has been eliminated from the front yard, and replaced with a landscaped berm and an 18" -high sitting wall in front of the porch. In addition to the above changes, the appellant has agreed to incorporate the following two recommendations from the March 22, 2011 meeting: 1. The hedges along the rear perimeter of the property shall be a type that is fast - growing and planted at 15- gallon size. 2. The rear - facing window by the bathtub in the #2 master - bathroom shall match in size and area the side - facing windows. As for reducing the roof pitch from 6:12 to 5:12 as recommended in the March 22, 2011 staff report, the appellant states that with the revisions to the design, the roof pitch should not be reduced, and staff is in agreement with this assessment. It is staff's opinion that the revised design is consistent with the City's design guidelines, and the conditions and principles of City Council Resolution No. 5287 (attached) and is compatible in terms of mass and scale with the neighborhood. CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project complies with all zoning requirements, and through plan check will be required to comply with all other applicable code requirements and policies as determined by the Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive April 26, 2011 — page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 to overturn the ARB denial and approve the revised design. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB's denial, the Commission should move to approve Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 based on the revised design, and state that the proposed project is consistent with the City's design guidelines, the HOA's regulations, and is harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood, is of good architectural character, and will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB's denial, the Commission should move to deny Appeal No. HOA 11 -01, and state that the proposed project does not meet the accepted standards of harmony and compatibility with the neighborhood, is of poor architectural character, or will be detrimental to the use, enjoyment or value of adjacent properties or the neighborhood. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the continuance of the public hearing on April 26, 2011, please contact Senior Planner, Lisa L. Flores at (626) 574 -5445 or Ifloresaci.arcadia.caus. Approved b Jim ama, Community Development Administrator Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes of the March 22, 2011 Meeting Planning Commission Staff Report of March 22, 2011 Revised and Original Architectural Plans Aerial Photo Photo of the Subject Property ARB Findings and Action ARB Minutes of January 26, 2011 Appeal Letters and Exhibits 100 -Foot Radius Map Emails in Opposition from the March 22, 2011 Meeting City Council Resolution No. 5287 HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive April 26, 2011 — page 3 MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers 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 Parrille 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. 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 PC MINUTES 3 -22 -11 Page 2 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. Ernie 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 Commissioners to consider if this project as it presently stands would bring something to the neighborhood that everyone could be proud of. Chairman Parrille 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 an 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 governed 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. PC MINUTES 3 -22 -11 Page 3 Chairman Parrille returned to Item 1. Chairman Parrille asked the applicant and ARB members if they would meet privately to make arrangements for another meeting to try reach a compromise and return 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. 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. PC MINUTES 3 -22 -11 Page 4 March 22, TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SUMMARY 2011 This is an appeal by the property owner, Mr. Charles Huang of the denial by the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) of a 5,158 square -foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car, detached garage at 934 Paloma Drive. The Development Services Department is recommending that the Planning Commission approve appeal no. HOA 11 -01, subject to the conditions of approval listed in this staff report. BACKGROUND Arcadia Planning Commission Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner STAFF REPORT Development Services Department Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 of the denial of a proposed 5,158 square -foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car, detached garage at 934 Paloma Drive. The subject property is a 15,340 square -foot lot, zoned R -O &D. An aerial photo of the area and photos of the subject property are attached. It is currently improved with a 3,493 square -foot, two -story residence, a 600 square foot, two -car garage and carport, and a swimming pool and spa. The house was originally built as a one -story, 2,148 square -foot residence in 1950. A 1,345 square -foot, second -story was added to the residence in 1994. On January 26, 2011, the ARB denied an application for a new 5,158 square -foot, two - story residence. The ARB Findings and Action Report and Minutes (attached) indicate that the application was denied because of the size of the proposed house as compared to the sizes of surrounding homes, and because the proposal is not consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines regarding "Massing ". On February 4, 2011, Mr. Huang filed the attached appeal, and submitted the attached explanatory appeal letter on March 8, 2011. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on March 10, 2011 to the owners of those properties within 100 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map) to the neighbors that attended the January 26, 2011 ARB meeting, and to the Lower Rancho HOA President and ARB Chairman. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a new single - family residence is Categorically Exempt, and therefore, the notice was not published in a local newspaper. Staff received the attached four emails that express opposition to the size of the proposed house, the loss of privacy, and the blocking of the view of the mountains. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB denial of the proposed 5,158 square foot, two -story residence with 408 square -feet of porches, and a 638 square -foot, three -car detached garage at 934 Paloma Drive. As stated in his March 6, 2011 appeal letter (attached) the appellant believes that the proposed, two - story residence is not too large for the area and that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood, nor change its character and complexion because the proposed residence will be comparable in size to the other homes on similar sized lots. The appellant provided the attached photos of homes that were built in the Lower Rancho in the past 4 years (Exhibit E of the attached March 6, 2011 appeal letter). The ARB of the Lower Rancho HOA believes that the design of the proposed two -story house does not meet the intent of the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines on "Massing" because the new dwelling will not be compatible in mass and scale to the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. In regards to the architectural design, the ARB offered some design suggestions to address the mass of the proposal — see the ARB's minutes of the January 26, 2011 meeting. One ARB member, Mr. Dale Brown offered to meet with the architect to offer some advice on the design. The appellant, Mr. Huang has stated that careful considerations were made in designing the proposed residence to ensure that negative impacts to the neighbors were identified and minimized; such as: 1) providing approximately 21' -0" to 24' -6" second -story setbacks that are greater than the minimum 18' -0" requirement on both sides of the house; 2) tall hedges to be placed along the perimeter of the property; and 3) providing more landscaped area than the existing condition. The appellant provided diagrams of these considerations (Exhibits C & D of the attached March 6, 2011 appeal letter). Furthermore, to address privacy, the appellant made sure that the only windows on the sides of the second floor are small, high windows, as opposed to the four large windows of the existing house. As a result, the appellant believes that the proposed project meets the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines. Lower Rancho HOA Regulations The Lower Rancho HOA regulations are established in City Council Resolution No. 5287 (attached) which states: HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive IV�arc�, 22, ?f'' � —pace 2 "It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, effecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia." The Resolution also states that in order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within the Lower Rancho area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of the property, the following conditions are imposed pursuant to the City's zoning regulations: • FLOOR AREA. No one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, and not less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two stories in height. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. • FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the ARB shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard. • SIDE YARD. A lot with a building, or any part thereof, occupying the front 100 feet, or any part thereof, of such lot shall have a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet. • EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. • EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. City Council Resolution No. 5287 also sets forth that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision shall be guided by the following principles: • Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive March 22, 2011 — page 3 features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). • Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). ■ A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). • A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Front Yards). Zoning Regulations The City's zoning regulations allow the subject property to have two stories and an overall building height of 30 feet. The setback regulations are as follows: Front Yard — 38' -9" based on the average of the two adjacent lots and a 30- degree plane projected from ground level at the front property line. Side Yards — First floor: 10 feet Second floor: 18 feet based on a requirement of 20 percent of the lot width as measured at a right angle to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. Rear Yard — 35 feet The zoning regulations allow for a much larger residence than that which is proposed. For the subject property, a two -story residence could be 2 feet taller, 6 feet wider on the first -floor and 10' -5" wider on the second - floor, and 23 feet closer to the rear property line. And, based on the 35 percent lot coverage limit for a two -story residence, the ground floor structures could have a combined area of 5,369 square feet. Single- Family Design Guidelines In regard to massing, the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines state, The Zoning Code allows a certain building envelope for each site. Proper design is often needed to soften and refine that envelope, as address by the guidelines: 1. New dwellings and additions should be compatible in mass and scale to surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and with the natural site features. HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive March 22, 2011 — oaae 4 2. Design elements such as eave overhangs, textured wall materials, recessed windows and door openings, ornamental details, and landscaping are encouraged for visual interest and to help reduce the impact of building scale. 3. All sides of a structure, including those that are not visible from the street, should have adequate wall and roof articulation to minimize the building's visual impact. 4. The building base should visually anchor the building by appearing more massive than the upper stories. 5. The upper story of a house should exhibit a lighter character than the base, possibly by reducing floor area and building mass. The second floor should generally step back from the ground floor. 6. Cantilevered forms are generally discouraged, particularly when they are used without aesthetic justification. 7. Building elements that emphasize a structure's verticality are generally discouraged. 8. On corner Tots, wall planes facing the street should be varied and articulated into modules that reduce the overall massing and scale. Architectural projections or indentations should be provided to avoid an uninterrupted flat wall. 9. Incorporating trellises, pergolas, covered patios, and other similar features can help break up the mass of a large two -story structure and are encouraged, provided that they complement the architectural style of the house. Staff finds that the proposed design is consistent with the City's design guidelines, but the appearance of the new residence can be further softened by reducing the pitch of the roof from 6:12 to 5:12, which will reduce the amount of roof area and slightly reduce the overall height of the residence. And, to further protect the privacy of the neighbors, the hedges that are to line the rear perimeter of the property should be a type that is fast - growing and planted at 15 gallons in size. Additionally, the rear facing window by the bathtub in master bathroom #2 could be the same size as the side - facing windows. CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project complies with all zoning requirements, and through plan check will be required to comply with all other applicable code requirements and policies as determined by the Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 to overturn the ARB denial and approve the proposed design, subject to the following conditions of approval: HOA Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive March 22. 2011 — pace 5 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE 934 PALOMA DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 11 SANYAO INTERNATIONAL INC. • R•aWmal Planning • 766 E. Santa Can 6L, /700, Ana044, CA 61006, USA Tel (676) 446-00411• F94 (070)446.7000 6 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE 934 PALOMA DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 11 SANYAO INTERNATIONAL INC. • Residential Planning • 366 E. Santa Clara 8t., 6300, Arcadia, CA 61006, U.SA Tel (636) 448.8046 • Fax (636) 446.7090 0t~. O A N Q ti Z O 0 0 z z (] LOPE 1/• M ri r. r. 7. r. L r '7r1 I / , I _S / L w. 6r. r-r r. r. r. MOM Mt —N ED m Ir. 4' A 8 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE 934 PALOMA DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 11 SANYAO INTERNATIONAL INC. • R•IdnHi•1 Planning • 266 E. Santa Clara SL, 6200, Arcadb, CA 07006, U.SA TM (626) 4464040• Fax (626) 4467060 O 4 Q r • -1 ri ' rx z z r-r m Z Ird 1 rr >rx 8 r-r gp la-r ax Ir-$ 17.0' IOW v -r 11 " 1� 1 [] • \I lr-r 6 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE 934 PALOMA DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 11 SANYAO INTERNATIONAL INC. R..Id.n11.I Pl.ledl9 • 225 E. Sant. Clan. 61.,71200. An:.dl., CA 91006, U.S.A. Tel (626) 4466044• Far (126) 4467090 5 0 1 uu'y; 0) a 11 II 9 11 1 i - --- PALOMA DRIVE O L!T • 1 I� z 1 i hI ,. P m�� i r" poll: I1( o " ' �1: 11:Ili �ii ilidilil alliAl 11111 1ji.1 Il !! it 1111301110101141iali! 1 1 Il l Al P i 0 !1r Ie , � i . ile II II l kI! �I o iI p ! I 1 t12 � ■ I Imp I ii I1 t 1i 1 1i 0: I i i 93.29 555 °10'50 1; LAT RE 1 vim A P z� 0 111 I I 1,1 11 I I 11 1 I 11111 g 1 ego ia g a II I! �so ;, # aaa CCC 7' 3 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE 934 PALOMA DRIVE ARCADIA, CA I SANYAO INTERNATIONAL INC. • R..IM PI.n k g 766 E. 8 1.1(026) µ62p44.6 ( 61 6)4461010'"'"' O y aped - 1.1.0Z 2 1 -1 0 JEIN enpa ewoled VE6 I O - L VOH 'oN paddy VOH L8Z9 'oN uol }nlosa�l IlounoO 'T!O uolliSOddQ ul silew3 den snip sl!glgx3 pue saanai Ieaddy sa}nuiw pue uoiToy pue s6u!pu!d ENV ApadOad loafgnS o ;oqd oloyd Ielaay :s}uewyoe}}y 1 ao1eaIslulwpy luawdolanaa A}lunwwo3 `e ese) wlf :i(q panoaddy •sn•eo•eipeoae•iogsaaow }e ao 9.1709-0 2 (9Z9) le saaoid es! `aauueld aoluas Toe }uoo aseald `6upeay oiignd 1.0Z `zz yoaew eq . o4 mud as }dew slyi 6ulpr6aa s}uawwoo JO suoRsanb Aue seq Aped paIsaaaTul Jaywo JO aauolsslwwo3 6uluueld Aue 41 •pooyaogg6lau 0111 JO salpadoad Tueoefpe 4o amen JO }uawAofue `asn 0111 oq. ieluawmp aq IIIM ao `aaloeaego leanloalloae good Jo sl `pooyaogg6lau 0111 g1lnn AlIilgliedwoo pue i(uowaeq 4o spaepueis pe daooe ay} laaw ;ou soap pafoad pasodad ayl Tey1 awls pue VOH •oN paddy Auep 01 OAOW pinoys uolsslwwoo 0111 `uoisloap s,my 0111 ploydn pue leadde aq; Auep O1 spuaIul uolsslwwo3 6uluueld aqi le1Uaa •pooyaogy6lau 0111 pue sa!padoad lueoefpe 4o amen pue }uawAofua pue asn aq1 01 IeIuawlalap aq Iou II!M pue `aa1oeaego lean1aapgaae pooh }o si `pooyaogy6lau aye ql!M aigliedwoo pue snoiuowaeq s! pue `suoiTein6aa sIVOH 0111 `sauwiapin6 u6lsap s,Apo ay} y}!M }ualsisuoo sl loafoad pasodoad aqi ;ail ales pue `gyp -U 6 VOH 'oN paddy anoadde o1 OAOW pinoys uolsslwwo3 aye leivap s,e*ly aye uanpano pue leadde 0111 anoadde o1 spualul uolsslwwoo 6uluueld an 41 Ienoaddy NOILOV NOISSIWWOO ONINNV1d •sMOpu!M 6uloe4 -app ay} 4O u6lsap pue azls 0111 yo}ew Keys Z# woo q eq as }Sew uI gniq eq 0111 i(q Mopu!M 6uloe4 aeaa 0111 'E •ezls Li! suolle6 9 1e palueid pue 6ulnnoa6 -lse4 sl ley} ads T e aq Heys Apadoad ay} 4O aa}awlaad aeai 0111 6uole sa6paq ayl 'Z 71.:9 eq !legs a6eae6 payoe}ap pue aouaplsaa 0111 uo pool ay; 40 yo1ld ayl i O4OLPP .rs.n .55,5.5 vo tz4•7057:.....::::::ts .5 555 I • Gum... 5.555.,... . '3N11VNOLIAINS3LNI OVANVS 0 mm anomm w mumm ossa U z 0 w w C5 .72404111 vo Viavoav 3A110 VW0Tdd tn6 asnoH KllI V1 310NIS u: I 2 ......17:`1,7;!:,Z .1 3 000 • 6.1•0.1d isno•Pt••ki • 'ONI 1YNOL1VNY131N1 OVANVS vO • ICIV321V 3Al21C1 VINOlVd VE6 3SflOH AllIAIVA 310NIS a I P 111 2 t I g Iz e t * :11 11 gg ri I ; 08 1 " 11 11 " 1 - hi 1 I 11 hii If " 1 h l 1 i§ il IT& 1 .1■1■11 z • 0 6Z•C6 g 1:1 b id Dri 3 .09,01. SCS ' !I 1: 1 1111 ! 110 gi 1 :411 1 1 : 1 ; 1 ::il l ii! i l ti i igi j ; . 1 1 : 11 1 1 11411; oigipP0110. 0 im b id •1 31I Ian ,Linta VA'07Vd _ 1 1 0 2 , 81/711111111/III71 ••••■■.-1.• MN -10-61a 060[900 1 ta • 9tP9tt 19191 9 1 16 00'SIP• 0 00 i '0010 0 "15 •�'ID •lu•5 3 550 • E • '3N11VN011VN2131N1 OVAN V �./ S VO 'VIQV321V 3AIHO VINOIVd 4£6 3Sf10H /.IIWVd 31ONIS 0601 ( 9L91. 9 1 •9.9P9n (91 I.1 VS'fl'90016 VJ'.IM> '0669 "l6 10.13 [9 .1 906 • 6u1uu•la l.N0.W..a • '3NI 1VNOLLYN2131NI OVA N V S VO VIOVD21V 3Al2I0 VWO1Vd VC6 3Sf OH AIIWV� 31DNIS 3 Vans o61 9t119L91 •tf • 9t0991t 19[91 Nl 'Irs, V00R VD VIP. /' - 1S uqp vueS'3 99L • nv.wld lenu•V•.tl • DNI 1YNOI1dN2131N1 OVA N V S Va `vlav my 3n12J0 VWOIVd 4£6 3Sf1OH AIIWVI 310NIS ve,.w.ev , ui.Le is e.,e1ue5'3 SSL��� _ � :..m I ONI 1VN011VNN3INI O V AN V S ^� v3 vtavOav 1 3AINO vwolvd t' 6 3Sf1OH AlIWV3 319NIS Z 0 1- w -J w W 1 0502 • svoi,,,lyzg), S n . 900,6 V3 Vtov.v '00.11' IS •■,3 qu.s •3"z •••••••• ■■•■••■••••■■•■••••••• • aulIv.ld 1•11.•o!setl • '3N1 1VNOLLYNE131N1 OVANVS um mini 1•111111111111.1 111111111112 111111111111111111 e , z 0 LU -J w w F/5 vo `viavoNv 3Al2:30 VINOlVd 17£6 3S110H A1IWV3 31ONIS maw" mom t 1 Vs n swots VS ..op......ous Is ..,,,, .,.i , 353 I • 61 . 1 fUll,..1..1.. 1 iN • DNI1VNOIIVN831N1 OVANVS V3 VICIV321V 3A1813 VVIO1Vd t'£6 3SflOH A1IIlV1 310NIS 934 Paloma Drive HOA Appeal No. 11 -01 934 Paloma Drive ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: ' ' P/9-4444 4 2 '. B. PROPERTY OWNER: ,� C4, /74. ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT): //6 /T L'% 14 . r ,P by C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide , awritten explanation for each check). 1. The proposed construction materials ARE ®; ARE NOT 0 compatible with the existing materials, because 2. The proposed materials WILL 0, WILL NOT L1 Have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property. because 3. The proposed project IS , IS NOT 0 significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of way, because 4. The proposed project IS l ", IS NOT 0 significantly visible from the adjoining properties, because 5. The elements of the structure's design. ARE III, ARE NOT 0 consistent with the existing building's design, because 6. The proposed project IS 0, IS NOT i proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because ?We 5/ee 7'ry ocwv e ! .91.06.1 7 G. y z, 5e. hems -' mom'` cam' r%" r'rt�, 7. The location of the proposed project WILL 0, WILL NOT f 'be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood, because 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO Lit' DO NOT 0 provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because 9. OTHER FINDINGS: PZ-8 6 f ' 7" i4 7. std /�vc� a1C ✓ ", r.,:., 7• /t ©L' 4 � its r r o Gait.}C... , J . • Floc /finciinfisfomi D. ACTION: 0 DENIAL E. DAT'E OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION: f Z!� // F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION: G. REPRESENTING THE r �' 5 / � 0 50.4 � ^�ASSOCIATION. H. APPEALS ❑ APPROVAL ❑ APPROVAL subject to the following condition (s): /Z7c..K /A/ A n .' /)4.6 ,A AI Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Offices, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, within seven (7) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL /Zo r If for a period of one (I) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has bee unused, abandoned or discontinued. said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Serving the Lower Rancho & College St. Areas Date: January 26, 2011 Re: Review of 934 Paloma Drive, Arcadia CA Mtg Date: Wednesday January 26, 2011 . Mtg Tinie: 7:30 pm to 8:30 pm (open to the public) The meeting was opened and the following board members were present: Steve :Mathison Dale Brown Rick Prickle Bob Eriksson Ernie Boehr Lou Pappas The purpose of the meeting was to perform. Architectural Review for a new 2 story home at the referenced address. A good amount of residents were in attendance (they are listed at the bottom of this document). The meeting was opened and a brief description regarding the responsibilities of the hoard and generally how the meeting was to progress was reviewed. It was also discussed that both Steve Mathison & Ernie Boehr (ARB Members) lived close to the proposed development and they would both abstain from voting and would offer their comments as neighbors and not participate in the vote. The floor was then turned over to the Architect Robert Tong to discuss the proposed project. The home presented is approximately 5200 sf in size, in addition to approximately 640 sf of garage area. The lot size is approximately 16000 sf. Many of the concerns of the neighbors' were consistent with each other, the following notes are intended to cover the primary issues as brought up by those in attendance. Concerns of the neighbors were voiced as follows: 1) Concerns over the size of the home were shared by almost all in attendance. The size of the proposed home compared to the size of the homes on the street was a great concern and the hone was considerably larger than any other home on the street. In general it was thought by most to be far too large. 2) A few neighbors voiced concerns about renovations they had done and how difficult it was to work with the ARB and could not believe that the ARB could even consider approving a home of this size. 3) One neighbor brought up "deed restrictions" and said at one point 2 story hornes were not allowed in the area and wished it was still the same way. 4) A few neighbors complemented the design but felt the home was too large. 5) One neighbor questioned how close to the property line the new home would be, the setbacks were then reviewed and discussed that they were in compliance with city code. 6) One neighbor complemented the design and said that the new larger home would increase property values in the area. He felt that the home would be a fine addition to the area. 7) Many Neighbors were very concerned regarding the size of homes starting to be built in the area. Using recent projects as examples of homes that don't fit into the area recently or currently being constructed on Monte Vista, Altura. There was overwhelming feeling that homes are becoming too large for the lots and not fitting into compatibility with the neighborhood. 8) The size of the new home was discussed, it was noted that the new home proposed is approximately 6300sf (combination of Home, Garage, Covered Porches, & 2 story ceiling area) It was then noted that the average home size including these items on Pal.oma is probably in the 3000sf range. It was noted that the new home will be more than 2 times larger than the average home on the street. Currently the largest home on the street is 3700sf (refer to LA County Assessor information attached) After discussions the public meeting was closed and the ARB comments were offered as follows: 1) Dale Brown: Voiced concerns regarding the style of the home and questioned "American Traditional" style. Dale felt that the house was too big and looked massive. Dale made some suggestions to make the home look smaller by pushing the house back, deepen eaves, drop the plate height, and drop the height of the eave line at the first floor. Dale also had concerns regarding the proposed fountain in the front yard. Dale further discussed that the home looks so massive because it is so deep as well Dale offered some design suggestions for the Architect to consider (which are attached to these notes), he also offered to meet with the architect to further offer some advise on the design. 2) Rick Frickie: Voiced concerns that the home was too large for the lot and felt it should be smaller. Rick also voiced concerns regarding the height of the home. 3) Lou Pappas: Stated that he thought the design of the home was OK, but felt that it was to large compared to the homes on the street. 4) Bob Eriksson.: Voiced concerns regarding the amount of hard scape in the front yard and commented that the home was too big and needed to be smaller. It was then motioned by Lou Pappas that based on the size of the home as compared to the surrounding homes that the development was not compatible (City of Arcadia: Single Family Residential Design Guidelines "Massing "). The motion was seconded by Dale Brown, was voted and agreed upon unanimously. The meeting was then adjourned at approximately 9 :00 pm. Minutes By: Steve Mathison Neighbors Attending: 1) Steve Mathison: 900 Paloma. 2) Kang Chan: 925 Paloma 3) Judy Boehr: 957 Paloma 4) Ernie Boehr: 957 Paloma 5) Michael Zourabian: 938 Paloma 6) Catherine Lomasney: 948 Paloma 7) Jon Pawky: 1101 Paloma 8) Don Smith: 1049 Encanto 9) Richard Tipping: With Applicant 10) Robert Tong: With Applicant 11) Charles Huang: Applicant 12) Hank Jong: 881 Monte Verde 13) Carol Wopschall: 943 Paloma 14) Steve McLaren: 965 Paloma 15) Angela McLaren: 965 Paloma 16) Fred Ashkar: Encanto 17) Nanci Todd: 1010 Paloma 18) Jack Lau: 859 Monte Verde February 7, 2011 City of Arcadia Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 RE: 934 Paloma Dr., Arcadia, CA Dear Mr. Jim Kasama, I am writing this letter to appeal the Racho Santa Anita Residents Association's decision for denial of architectural design review for 934 Paloma Dr., Arcadia, CA. The denial is based on ARB's findings which it states the proposed house is too big in size for the area. I do not agree with the ARB's decision and findings. This proposed house is designed based on both the Arcadia design guideline for single family residence and Resolution No. 5287 which was approved and adopted by the City. In fact, this proposed residence is significantly smaller in size than the maximum allowed per City code requirement. I will be out of town starting from February 21, 2011 to March 18, 2011. Please kindly schedule my appeal to the Planning Commission any date after March 18 RECEIVED FEB o 4201 Planning Services City of Arcadia Sincerely, Charles Huang, Applic 11819 Goldring Rd. #C Arcadia, CA 91006 oil )/ - - ° 1 March 6, 2011 City of Arcadia Planning Department Planning Commission 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 RECEIVED MAR 0 8 2011 Planning Services City of Arcadia To Whom It May Concern: I'm writing this letter to appeal the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's decision for denial of architectural design review for 934 Paloma Dr., Arcadia. I do not agree with the ARB's findings dated 1/26/11 in which it mainly states the proposed home is too large for the area. The exiting home is a 2 -story 3,493SF living area situated on a 15,400SF lot originally built in 1950 with a detached garage and a pool in the back. The proposed new home is a 2 -story 5,158SF living area with a detached garage in the back. It meets all codes and does not require any modification or variance. See Exhibits A and D. I was very sensitive and concerned with both neighbors' privacy during the design phase and instructed my architect to 1) make sure we provide additional setbacks on both sides of the house than existing condition, 2) provide vegetation hedge along both property walls, 3) create more "green" landscaping area than exiting condition. On Exhibit B, the yellow highlighted area shows the existing foot print of the building, and the solid gray line shows the proposed home. The existing setback on the west is 15ft, proposed is 16ft. The existing setback on the east is 7ft, proposed is 10ft. The existing garage setback to the west is 3.5ft, proposed is l Oft. It clearly shows we have achieved additional setback on both sides including the garage area. On Exhibit C, we have setback the 2 floor on the east side at 22ft, which is an additional 6ft more than the City code requirement. Also, we setback the west side by 24.5ft, which is an additional 8.5ft more than the City code requirement. Due to the driveway is located on the west and to provide additional privacy for the neighbor, we only have bathroom high windows on the entire 2 floor facing west versus the existing 4 large windows. By using landscaping, trees, lawn, and vegetation hedge, we are able to create harmony and privacy. See Exhibit D. The January 26, 2011 meeting minute item #8 states "it was noted that the new home proposed is approximately 6300sf (combination of home, garage, covered porches, & 2 story ceiling area) ". This statement is in full contradiction with Arcadia Design Guideline for single family residence and specifically with the adopted Rancho Santa Anita Resolution No. 5287. Under the resolution section 3, it states "The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building ". In fact, this proposed residence is significantly smaller in size than the maximum allowed per City code requirement. Under the City of Arcadia design and code guideline, this proposed home can be approximately 6,500SF in size. Lastly, I've provided examples of some of the new homes built in the past 3 -4 years along with their perspective lot sizes and living areas, and various designs of 2 -story single family residences in the Rancho Santa Anita area. See exhibits E & F. Sincerely, C arles Huang, pp icant 934 Paloma Dr. — Current 934 Paloma Dr. - Proposed Exhibit A -1 Neighbor to the East Neighbor to the West (recently remodeled) nrrn oz 3tl 1791 3.05.01,93S 6Z'68 Din w ooz 3a 13l C7 Z J CO C7 z CO X w a w H u) g 0 0 7dI27QVIVO7Vd - - - -- — Exhibit B '3NflVNOLLW4I 1N1 O tl ANVS vo 'vlavoav 3AIlia tlwolva 4£6 3Sf OH A1MV l 31ONIS Exhibit C Existing Backyard MEND: Frigi Proposed Landkape Plan PAhOMA ORI LR00NO: SAFE, LI 01101 ■•••INMNI. Exhibit D 955 Monte Verde Dr. 13,500SF Lot with 4,888SF Living Area 851 San Simeon Rd. 21,570SF Lot with 6,228SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 1 of 6 875 Monte Verde Dr. 13,235SF Lot with 4,084SF Living Area 911 Monte Verde Dr. 14,248SF Lot with 4,395SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 2 of 6 400 Altura Rd. 16,024SF Lot with 4,816SF Living Area 1010 Volante Dr. 12,105SF Lot with 4,376SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 3 of 6 1117 Encanto Dr. 14,076SF Lot with 4,820SF Living Area 1001 Panorama Dr. 13,998SF Lot with 4,282SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 4 of 6 840 Volante Dr. 13,371 SF Lot with 4,743 SF Living Area 918 Encanto Dr. 16,553SF Lot with 5,160SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 5 of 6 522 Monte Vista Dr. 13,888SF Lot with 4,488SF Living Area 321 Vaquero Rd. (under construction) 21,370SF Lot with 6,149SF Living Area Exhibit E Other new homes in the Lower Rancho Page 6 of 6 620 Vaquero Rd. 863 San Vicente Rd. Exhibit F Other 2 -story homes in the Lower Rancho Page 1 of 4 a . 441111. W, ' ::::r ,..„ i i 77 , i .!.!! „ • trirslili -11741 1111 1 R ty 821 San Vicente Rd. 588 N. Old Ranch Rd. Exhibit F Other 2-story homes in the Lower Rancho Page 2 of 4 573 N. Old Ranch Rd. 860 San Simeon Rd. Exhibit F Other 2 -story homes in the Lower Rancho Page 3 of 4 876 San Simeon Rd. 1137 Encanto Dr. Exhibit F Other 2 -story homes in the Lower Rancho Page 4 of 4 1 Water Meter Location Bridges Fire Hydrants Water Valve Street Centerlines Buffer parcels H condo parcel Features City Boundary SCALE 1 : 3,131 ( cb Zadi Js 6 04 Mom_ Dr. 200 0 200 400 600 FEET N y� mwf Tuesday. March r Lisa Flores Subject: FW: common for 934 Paloma Drive remodeling case Dear Lisa: This is the homeowner of 933 Encanto Drive,,our family just had a meeting to talk about the remodeling of our backyard neighbor. We just disagree their case because of two reasons - - -(1) their building will block our view to the mountain.(2)we'll have no privacy to the 2 -story house. Sincerely Yours Yulu Chou March 14, 2011 1 Lisa Flores From: Don Smith [drs1049 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:26 AM To: Lisa Flores Subject: [BULK] propose new house Importance: Low Please be advised that I am very unhappy with the size of the proposed home at 934 Paloma Dr Arcadia 91007. Lisa Flores From: nancilu todd [nancytd @earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:28 PM To: Lisa Flores Subject: App. No. HOA 11 -01 Attn: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner Re: App HOA 11 -01 I have been a homeowner and resident of 1010 Paloma Drive since 1966, and although I do not live within 100 feet of the proposed residence at 934 Paloma, I would like to express my concern about this planned construction. I have viewed the designs, and feel strongly that this is much too massive a building for the location. We do have other two story houses on this street, but they are built in scale to the existing ranch -style houses. The proposed design is not. It is entirely too immense for the lot it would be built on and would be out of place on Paloma Drive. It is my understanding that Arcadia, unlike our neighboring cities, unfortunately has no existing code regarding the relationship of square footage to lot size. I do hope that our City Council members will take the lead in the necessary procedures to amend our city codes to rectify this oversight. Thank you for your consideration. Nancilu Todd 1010 Paloma Drive Arcadia March 13, 2011 1 Lisa Flores From: Jon Pawley [jon.pawley @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:38 AM To: Lisa Flores Subject: Public Hearing 3 -22 -11 Re: HOA 11 -01 Location: 934 Paloma Dr. After attending the Lower Rancho Homeowner's Association review of this proposed project which was denied due to excessive size and design, I fail to understand why Arcadia does not regulate as to ratio sizing according to lot size and design in keeping with the historic neighbors general architecture. Jon Pawley 1101 Paloma Dr. Arcadia, CA 91107 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5287 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA AREA AND IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE TURF CLUB AND COLORADO STREET "D" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the City Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 4020, and adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 1389, for the property described in Exhibit "A ", attached. hereto. To implemer u the regulations applicable to the real property within the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association "D" Architectural Design Zone area, the Architectural Review Board is established and is hereinafter referred to as the "Board ". The governing body of the Board, is the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' As soci a tion. SECTION 2.. In order to promote and maintain the quality single- family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4, there is hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said area pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in control of property within said area, are subject to this Resolution and Ordinance No. 1832: 1. FLOOR AREA. No one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, and not less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two stories in height. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. 2. FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the Board shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard. 3. SIDE YARD. A lot with a building or any part thereof, occupying the front one hundred (100) feet, or any part thereof, of such lot shall have a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet. 4. ANIMALS. Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. 5. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. 6. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. 7. APPROVAL OF BOARD REQUIRED. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the Board. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the Board. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the Board. If necessary to properly consider any application, the Board may require specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples. The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. 8. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. The Board shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: 2 5287 a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in said area. b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the Board. c. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Board. d. Owners have been appointed to the Board in accordance with the by -laws. e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. f. The Board shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action, and decision of the Board shall be maintained by the Board. Any decision by the Board shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the reasons for the Board's decision. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. A copy of the Board's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3) working days of the Board's decision. h. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). 9. POWERS OF THE BOARD. The Board shall have the power to: a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2 of Section 3. b. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible in accordance with the above Conditions 5 & 6 of Section 3. c. If a grading plan is required for a building permit for a structure, the Board may require such plan to be submitted along with the building plans. d Any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, may be made less restrictive by the Board if the Board determines that such action will foster the development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the general neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this resolution. e. The Board shall have the power to establish rules for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules shall be kept on file with the Secretary of the Association and the City Clerk. 3 5287 10. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE. a. The Short Review Process may be used by the Board for the review of applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, provided that the application for a Short Review Process shall be accompanied by a completed application form which shall contain the signatures of all contiguous property owners indicating their awareness and approval of the application. b. The Board is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process Application. c. The Board Chairman or another Board member designated by the Board Chairman, to act in his absence, shall render his decision on a Short Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. d. The Board may determine which requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3 are not appropriate for the Short Review Process, and therefore require the Regular Review Process for the consideration of such Conditions. Any list of such Conditions which are not appropriate for the Short Review Process shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. 11. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES. a. The Regular Review Process shall be used by the Board for the review of the Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, (eligible for Short Review) in those cases in which the applicant fails to obtain the signatures of approval from all of the required property owners. b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to those Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, which the Board has determined are not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above. c. The Board is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process Application. d. Notice of Board's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. The applicant shall also provide the Board with the last known name and address, of such owners as shown upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the County. - 4 5287 The applicant shall also provide the Board with letter size envelopes, which are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The applicant shall provide the proper postage on each of said envelopes. e. Arty decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board members who considered the application. f. The Board shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. 12. EXPIRATION OF BOARD'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. 13. LIMIT ON BOARD'S POWERS. The Board shall not have the power to waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the property in said area. The Board may, however, make a recommendation to the City agency, which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such regulations. 14. APPEAL. Appeals from the Board shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within seven (7) working days of the Board's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Board's decision, such appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee. 15. STANDARDS FOR BOARD DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The Board and any body hearing an appeal from the Board's decision shall be guided by the following principles: a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. 5 - 5287 (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Condition No. 2 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Front yards). SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, effecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which pre- existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final derision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of 6 52.87 the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 1st day of April, 1986. ATTEST: s / CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia /s/ DONALD PELLEGRINO Mayor of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN, Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5287 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of April, 1986, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino NOES: None ABSENT: None /s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 7 5287 EXHIBIT "A" Area #1 Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 13312; thence northerly and easterly along the easterly and southerly boundary of said tract to the southeasterly corner of Lot No. 1 to its intersection with the easterly line of Golden West Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Vaquero Road; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly terminus line of said Vaquero Road; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 17 of Tract No. 11215; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of aforementioned Tract No. 11215; thence northerly along said easterly line and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Colorado Street; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Tract No. 17430; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36 of Tract No. 15928: EXHIBIT "A" cont'd 8 5287 gdt EXHIBIT "A" Area #2 Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot No. 62 of Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo' Reid Drive; thence easterly along said center line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Tract No. 14460; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said Tract No. 14460; thence southwesterly along said westerly line, and its southwesterly prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the northeasterly corner of Lot No. 61 of Tract No. 12786; thence westerly along the northerly line of said tract to the point of beginning, said point being the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of Tract No. 12786; Area #3 AL properties with that area bounded on the west by Baldwin Avenue, on the north and east by Colorado Street and on the south by the southerly tract boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940 and 15318. EXHIBIT "A" 9 5287 RESOLUTION NO. 1835 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TEXT AMENDMENT NO. TA 10 -04 AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -17 AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 10 -19 FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION INTO AN AUTOMOBILE FUELING STATION WITH A CONVENIENCE STORE AND AN AUTOMATED SELF - SERVICE CAR WASH AT 701 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE, PENDING THE CITY COUNCIL'S AFFIRMATION, AND THE APPROVAL AND EFFECTUATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 9275.1.39.3 AND 9275.1.39.3.1 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE FUELING STATIONS AND AUTOMATED SELF - SERVICE CAR WASHES AT COMMERCIAL - OFFICE (C -O) ZONED PROPERTIES, SUBJECT TO AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHEREAS, on November 23, 2010, three applications were filed by Joseph Karaki of Western States Engineering Inc. on behalf of the property owner, Hamid Kianipur for the conversion of an existing automobile service station into an automobile fueling station with a convenience store and an automated self - service car wash at 701 W. Huntington Drive, Development Services Department Cases Text Amendment No. TA 10 -04, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -17, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -19; and WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review would not be applicable without the effectuation of an ordinance to implement the text amendment, which is subject to City Council consideration and approval, the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review are nevertheless being processed in conjunction with the text amendment so as not to separate the three applications, which are proposed by a particular applicant on behalf of a particular property owner for a particular piece of property, 701 West Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission action on a text amendment is advisory to the City Council, and normally would be definitive subject to appeal on a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review; in this situation, the Planning Commission's action on the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review by virtue of being dependent on the text amendment are essentially advisory and the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review are subject to consideration and a determination by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2011, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated April 12, 2011 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. The proposed fueling station is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject property and will not conflict with the existing uses at or around the subject site. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. The text amendment, if approved, would authorize an automobile fueling station and an automated self - service car wash with an -2- 1835 approved Conditional Use Permit in any C -O or Tess restrictive commercial or industrial zone. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. The subject proposal is designed to avoid impacts to surrounding uses, will improve traffic flow, provides a surplus of on -site parking, and enhances the landscaping of the site. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. The subject site is bordered by arterials that accommodate high volumes of traffic. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. An automobile fueling station is a use that is consistent with the Commercial Land Use Designation of the site. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -17 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -19 for the proposed fueling station and car wash at 701 W. Huntington Drive, subject to approve by the City Council and the effectiveness of Text Amendment No. TA 10 -04, and recommends City Council approval of Text Amendment No. TA 10- 04 to allow automobile fueling stations and automated self - service car washes at Commercial -Office (C -O) zoned properties with a Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following conditions of approval: -3- 1835 1. The use approved by CUP 10 -17 and ADR 10 -19 is limited to the proposed automobile fueling station and automated self - service car wash. The automobile fueling station. and automated self - service car wash shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 10 -17 and ADR 10 -19. 2. All regulations for automobile fueling stations pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9275.4 shall be complied with unless determined otherwise under CUP 10 -17 and ADR 10 -19. 3. Signs attached to the gasoline pumps, pump island canopy supports, light standards, and /or bollards, which advertise specific products or services shall not be permitted. 4. All outside lighting shall be arranged and shielded to prevent any glare or reflection and any nuisance, inconvenience and hazardous interference of any kind on adjoining streets or properties to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 5. All on -site parking stalls shall be double- striped in accordance with Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9269.8.1. 6. The existing monument sign shall be removed and replaced with a monument sign limited to a maximum height of 8' -0" located at least a minimum of 25'- 0" from the intersection, as shown on the submitted plans or as determined by the City Engineer. The design of the subject monument sign, along with the other proposed signs, shall be subject to separate sign architectural design review processes. 7. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Administrator or designee prior to the issuance of a -4- 1835 building permit, and shall include dense shrubbery along all property lines that are adjacent to residentially -zoned properties. 8. The project shall comply with the following Fire Department requirements, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal: a. Installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard. b. Sprinkler systems that serve 20 sprinkler heads or more shall be fully monitored. c. Provision of a Knox box with keys for access to restricted areas. d. The building address number shall be posted on the south facing wall of the convenience store. The number shall be at least six inches (6 ") tall and of a color that contrasts with the color of the wall on which it is affixed. 9. The project shall comply with the following Engineering Services requirement: The sidewalk along the length of the Baldwin Avenue property line shall be replaced per City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. All City requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the Fire Marshal. 11. Approval of CUP 10 -17 and ADR 10 -19 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 12. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to opening of the automobile fueling station and automated self - service car wash. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 10 -17 and ADR 10 -19 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in a delay of the Certificate of Occupancy or the closing of the automobile fueling station and automated self - service car wash. 13. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] -6- 1835 ATTEST: Secretary Passed, approved and adopted this 26 day of April, 2011. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney P 4-rir441 Chairman, Planning Commission 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, Chiao and Parrille ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama Associate Planner, Tom Li Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS There were none. There were none. MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers 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 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. MODIFICATION NO. MP 10 -06 & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 10 -16 137 Califomia St. Michael Chen The applicant is requesting a Zoning Modification and Architectural Design Review approval to allow an addition to a legal non - conforming four -unit multi - family development with six (6) parking spaces for the residents in lieu of eight (8) required, and no (0) guest parking spaces in lieu of two required to replace the existing, one -story, 776 square -foot, detached front residential unit with a two -story, 1,932 square -foot, detached residential unit with an attached 432 square -foot, two -car garage. Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr presented the staff report. Commissioner Baerg noted that there would be no net gain in the number of units and still no open space for the triplex. Mr. Schwehr explained that staff recommends landscaping of the space between the new house and the existing triplex, but that space would not be private. It would be a common open space area. Chairman Parrille pointed out that there is a fire hydrant in front of the property so the owner, tenants and their guests would not be able to park on the street in front of the property. Commissioner Beranek asked if the proposed landscaped area between the residence and the triplex could be used as a parking space. Mr. Schwehr explained that because a guest parking space is being recommended to be striped in the area next to the triplex entry, the area between the two buildings will be blocked off. 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. Chairman Parrille expressed concern that the parking was inadequate and, in addition, the fire hydrant on the street prevents guests from parking on the street. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to reopen the Public Hearing to ask the applicant a question. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baderian asked if the applicant had reviewed the conditions of approval. Mr. Michael Chen, the applicant, said that he and the property owner had reviewed the staff report and the conditions of approval and felt that they were reasonable. Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Chen why there was no open space planned for the front of the rear property. Mr. Chen explained that the area in question is designated as driveway for the four rental units, but that the rest of the area will be landscaped as much as possible. Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Chen if he anticipated parking problems because of the fire hydrant in front of the property. Mr. Chen explained that the owner will occupy the front house with his family of four and they will be using their two -car garage so the fire hydrant will not be a problem for them. Commissioner Baderian asked if the tenants in the rear units will have problems with the limited parking provided to them. Mr. Chen explained that these units are already occupied PC MINUTES 4-12 -11 Page 2 and they have a total of only three cars for all units so they haven't experienced any parking problems. Commissioner Chiao said it appears that one of the parking spaces that's not a garage parking space, is in front of two of the garage doors in the triplex area, i.e., that the garages are not utilized as garages. Mr. Chen confirmed that one garage is currently being used for storage but the owner intends to restore it to use as a garage. Commissioner Chiao restated Mr. Chen's comment that within the triplex each tenant has only one car which is parked in a garage and the fourth garage is used for storage. Commissioner Chiao asked where the new parking space will be located. Mr. Chen said that the new guest parking space would be along the east side of the triplex. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Chairman Parrille, to deny Modification No. MP 10 -06 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -16 because the project fails to promote uniformity of development. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Chiao and Parrille NOES: Commissioner Baerg, Beranek 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -17, AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 10 -19, AND TEXT AMENDMENT NO. TA 10 -04 701 W. Huntington Dr. Joseph Karaki, designer /engineer on behalf of property owner, Hamid Kianipur The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Design Review approval, and a Text Amendment to convert an existing service station into a fueling station with a convenience store and a drive - through carwash. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Commissioner Beranek asked if the noise produced from the car wash would have a negative effect on the adjacent uses. Mr. Li explained that there is a dental office next door, and to ther ear are the garages for an apartment complex. Commissioner Chaio asked if there were plans for containment of contaminated wash water and Mr. Li said that the automated car wash would reuse the water. Commissioner Chiao asked if this development would generate traffic congestion at Baldwin and Huntington. Mr. Li said that the traffic plan was reviewed by Engineering and they determined that any additional traffic could easily be handled by the systems already in place, and that this development will close the two driveways closest to the corner, which will improve traffic flow at that area. PC MINUTES 4-12 -11 Page 3 Commissioner Baerg asked if approval of the project would be contingent on City Council approval of the Text Amendment, and if this Text Amendment would be applicable to the entire city. Mr. Li explained that City Council approval of the Text Amendment would be required and that the regulations set forth in the Text Amendment would apply to the City as a whole although any new applicant would be required to file a Conditional Use Permit application for review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Baerg asked if this particular use can be limited to this specific location. Mr. Kasama explained that instead of a Text Amendment that effects the entire city, the zoning could be changed, but that would make this property eligible for any commercial use. It was determined that the restrictions imposed by a Conditional Use Permit will adequately regulate the proposed use. Commissioner asked if there are similar operations in the City. Mr. Kasama said that there is a similar business at Baldwin and Las Tunas in a C -2 a zone. The Public Hearing was opened. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Hamid Kianipur, the property owner, said that his business has been serving the community for 15 years. He explained that the original auto repair business at the site has declined and he has had difficulty supporting his family. He considered different options for this property, but found the idea of a convenience store and car wash most promising. He asked the Commissioners to approve his project and said that he would like to stay in the community for a long time. Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Kianipur if he would comply with all conditions of approval and Mr. Kianipur said he was aware of the conditions and would have no problem complying with them. Mr. Kianipur expressed his appreciation for the courtesy and cooperation granted by staff throughout the application process. Commissioner Baderian asked if the current water shortage will impede the growth of this business. Mr. Kianipur explained that the water shortage will not impede growth because water will be reclaimed and reused at the site. Mr. Joseph Karaki, the project architect, thanked staff for their work on the project. He assured the Commissioners that water conservation is important to his client and that they are also planning a state -of -the -art energy and lighting system. Mr. Karaki said they hope to achieve green certification. 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. PC MINUTES 4-12 -11 Page 4 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -17, Architectural Design Review No. ADR10 -19 and Text Amendment No. TA 10 -04 and to direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendations and comments on the Text Amendment to the City Council, and to prepare the appropriate Resolution. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Chiao and Parrille NOES: None 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. CONSENT ITEMS 3. RESOLUTION NO. 1832 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -18 for a day spa expansion at 70 and 72 West Live Oak Avenue. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1833 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 10 -19, Tentative Tract Map No. 71478, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 10 -18 and denial of Modification No. MC 10 -35 for the expansion of the existing office building and subdivision of the building into commercial office condominiums at 650 West Huntington Drive. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 1834 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -01 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -01 for an unmanned wireless communications facility at Camino Grove Park — 1410 S. Sixth Avenue. 6. MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2011 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Baerg, to adopt Resolutions Nos. 1832, 1833 and 1834 and to approve the minutes of March 22, 2011 as presented. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Parrille NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Chiao PC MINUTES 4-12 -11 Page 5 MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Baderian said that he will not be able to attend the May 10 meeting and Commissioner Beranek said that he will not be able to attend the May 24 meeting. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Chairman Parrille reported that the Modification Committee reviewed three items at the meeting today. Two were approved, but the third item, to extend the time allowed for a temporary banner, was denied. MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kasama reported that the applicant for the HOA appeal for the project on Paloma Dr. met with representatives of the ARB and they have apparently reached an agreement, so the project will probably be on the next Commissioner Beranek asked for the status of the Rusnak project. Mr. Kasama said it will probably go through and since a Design Review and a revision to the Conditional Use Permit are required, the matter will come before the Commission. ADJOURNED ATTEST: Chairman, Planning Commission 7:25 p.m. PC MINUTES 4-12 -11 Page 6