Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-10-11PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, May 10, 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. 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 11 -03 57 Wheeler Avenue Alejandro Alcondez The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant with live entertainment, amplified D.J. music, and dancing at an existing 7,706 square -foot building (formerly Arroyo Restaurant). The proposed business hours are Monday through Thursday from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval 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. 2. MODIFICATION NO.MP 11 -02 AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 11 -05 15 -19 Lucille Street Gangi Development 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 5 -10 -11 The applicant is requesting the following Modifications and Architectural Design Review for a proposed nine -unit, affordable housing project on an R -3 multiple - family zoned property: A. A 10' -0" front yard setback in lieu of the 25' -0" required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.3); B. Three (3) open and eight (8) partially covered parking spaces in lieu of the requirement to provide fully covered parking spaces (AMC Sec. 9255.2.9A); C. Zero guest parking spaces in lieu of the five (5) minimum spaces required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.9.B); D. A 10' -0" driveway width in lieu of the 18' -0" minimum required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.10.B); and E. No landscaping between the driveway and the property line in lieu of the 3' -0" wide minimum landscape area required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.10.H). RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval There is a five working day appeal period after the approval/denial of the applications. Appeals am to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 2011. 3. TEXT AMENDMENT NO. TA 11 -03 Consideration of Text Amendment No. TA 11 -03 to create a single Resolution for the development standards and design guidelines for all five of the City - designated Homeowners' Association areas. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval to City Council The Planning Commission's recommendation and comments will be forwarded to the City Council. CONSENT ITEM 4. MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 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 inspectioh in the Community Development Division offices at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423. PC AGENDA 5 -10 -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 Hearinc 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 5 -10 -11 May 10, 2011 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -03 to allow a restaurant with live entertainment, amplified D.J. music, and dancing at an existing 7,706 square -foot building at 57 Wheeler Avenue (formerly Arroyo Restaurant). The proposed business hours are Monday - Thursday from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., and Saturday & Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. SUMMARY The subject application was filed by Mr. Alejandro Alcondez for a restaurant with live entertainment, amplified D.J. music, and dancing at the existing 7,706 square -foot building (formerly Arroyo Restaurant) at 57 Wheeler Avenue. The Development Services Department is recommending approval, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mr. Alejandro Alcondez LOCATION: 57 Wheeler Avenue Development Services Department REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to allow a 7,706 square -foot restaurant with live entertainment, amplified D.J. music, and dancing. SITE AREA: 82,117 square -feet (1.89 acres) - includes the 24 -Hour Fitness health club and three -story parking structure FRONTAGES: 310 feet along First Avenue 250 feet along Santa Clara Avenue 250 feet along Wheeler Avenue EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site consists of two lots that were consolidated to be held as one for development purposes in 2006. The northerly lot at 125 N. First Avenue is developed with a 38,990 square -foot, two -story, 24 -Hour Fitness health club and a three -story, 234 -space parking structure. The southerly lot at 57 Wheeler Avenue is developed with a 7,706 square - foot, restaurant building constructed in 1976 and a 46 -space surface parking lot. The site is zoned DMU -H4, Downtown Mixed Use with a four -story height overlay. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North Railroad right -of -way — zoned R -R, Rail Right -of -Way South: 2 -story office building — zoned DMU -H4, Downtown Mixed Use with a four -story height overlay East: 1 -story office building — zoned DMU, Downtown Mixed Use West: United States Postal Office - zoned DMU -H8, Downtown Mixed Use with an eight -story height overlay GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Mixed Use (30 -50 du /ac & 1.0 FAR) — This designation provides opportunities for complementary service and retail commercial businesses, professional offices, and residential uses to locate within the City's downtown. Development approaches encourage shared use of parking areas and public open spaces, pedestrian travel ways, and interaction of uses within the district. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of CUP 11 -03 were mailed on April 27, 2011 to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property — see the attached radius map. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the use of the existing 7,706 square -foot restaurant building as a restaurant is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore the public hearing notice was not published in a local newspaper. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The southerly lot at 57 Wheeler Avenue was developed in 1976 with a 7,706 square - foot, one -story restaurant (CUP 76 -10). The northerly lot at 125 N. First Avenue was redeveloped in 2006 with a 38,990 square -foot, two -story, 24 -Hour Fitness health club and a three -story parking structure (CUP 05 -18 and ADR 05 -03). As part of the approval for the health club, the two lots were consolidated into one property with shared parking (LLA 06 -01). Approval of the health club included a parking modification of 280 parking spaces in lieu of 791 spaces. Approval of the parking modification was based on a traffic and parking study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, which estimated a peak parking demand of 277 spaces for both uses; 202 spaces for 24 -Hour Fitness and 75 spaces for the restaurant. The restaurant building was originally approved and operated as a Sawmill Restaurant beginning in 1976, and was reopened as SportsRock Bar and Grill in 1991. In 1996, the restaurant came under new ownership and was remodeled to include a small dance CUP 11 -03 57 Wheeler Avenue May 10, 2011 — page 2 floor and a stage for live entertainment, and was operated as Arroyo Restaurant from 1996 through 2009. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to reopen the restaurant with the same floor plan as Arroyo Restaurant and will make only minor changes to the exterior facade. The facade changes will be subject to design review. The proposed operating hours are Monday - Thursday from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., and Saturday & Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The maximum building occupancy is estimated at approximately 330 people, however the maximum number of seats would be approximately 200 based on the existing floor plan. The restaurant will feature dancing, live music (Mariachi bands), and late night D.J. music. Live music will be limited to weekday evening hours after 5:00 p.m., and on weekends. The D.J. music and dancing will be limited to weekdays and weekends after 9 p.m., with the dance area restricted to 200 square -feet in size. The previous Arroyo Restaurant featured similar live entertainment and music. The subject property has 280 on -site parking spaces; 234 in the parking structure and 46 surface parking spaces. The property was granted a parking modification in 2006 for 280 parking spaces in lieu of 791 spaces required (CUP 05 -08). The parking requirement in 2006 for a health club /fitness center was 1 parking space for every 35 square -feet of gross floor area in all workout areas, and 1 parking space for every 250 square -feet of sales /office area. The current requirement is that the amount of parking be determined through a Conditional Use Permit. As part of the approval for 24 -Hour Fitness, a traffic and parking study was prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers to provide a comparison between the City's parking requirements and the observed parking demand of other 24 -Hour Fitness facilities of a similar size, a forecast of parking demand for the proposed project, and a summary of the shared parking analysis. The study showed a peak parking demand of 202 spaces for the 24 -Hour Fitness gym, and 75 spaces for the restaurant. The parking modification approved in 2006 grandfathered in the 75 space parking requirement for the restaurant as approved in 1976 by CUP 76 -10. The current code requirement for a restaurant/bar greater than 5,000 square -feet is 15 spaces per 1,000 square -feet of gross floor area, which calculates to a parking requirement of 116 parking spaces for the 7,706 square -foot restaurant. Because the restaurant and fitness gym are located within a quarter mile of the site of the new Gold Line Station, these uses receive a 25- percent reduction of their parking requirements. This reduces the current parking requirement of the restaurant to 87 spaces. The proposed project has an increased parking requirement of 12 spaces; 87 spaces today compared to 75 spaces approved in 2006. However, the traffic and parking study prepared in 2006 did not account for the new Gold Line Station that is expected to open in 2014. Applying the City's 25- percent parking reduction for commercial uses located within a quarter mile of the light rail station, the 24 -Hour Fitness would have a reduced parking requirement of 50 spaces; 152 spaces today compared to 202 spaces approved in 2006. CUP 11 -03 57 Wheeler Avenue May 10, 2011 — page 3 In addition to the on -site parking, a 227 -space public parking lot is located approximately 100 -feet to the southwest of the restaurant across Wheeler Avenue. This lot will help to mitigate any overflow parking from the restaurant, particularly in the evening hours and on weekends when the Post Office and adjacent office uses are closed for business. Staff does not anticipate any increased parking demand for the proposed reopening of the 7,706 square -foot. It is staff's opinion that the existing 280 parking spaces will adequately accommodate the parking and traffic demands of the proposed restaurant and the 24 -Hour Fitness gym. Regarding the proposed live entertainment, staff does not anticipate any negative impacts to the surrounding properties or the community at large. The City's Police Department is recommending additional exterior lighting to be installed along the south side of the building and suggests other security measures to help ensure the safety of the parking areas. The City's Fire Department is requiring the fire sprinkler system to receive a 5 -year certification prior to occupancy, and the fire alarm system to be tested and certified prior to occupancy. Staff has included these requirements as conditions of approval. CODE REQUIREMENTS All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design are required to be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. The proposed restaurant will also be subject to Los Angeles County Health Codes. CEQA Proposed projects that are not approved, are by virtue of being denied, exempt from any further environmental assessment. If approved, however, and if it is determined that no significant physical alterations to the site are necessary, then this project, as an existing facility is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report. FINDINGS Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions can be satisfied: 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 restaurant is consistent with the zoning and land use designation of the site and area, and will not have any adverse impacts to the neighboring businesses or properties. CUP 11 -03 57 Wheeler Avenue May 10, 2011 — page 4 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. A restaurant with live entertainment is allowed in the DMU zones with an approved Conditional Use Permit per Section 9267.10 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 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 existing restaurant is well situated on the site, and the reopening will not increase the parking demand. Additionally, the site is in close proximity to a large City parking lot. 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. Based on an independent traffic study prepared in 2006, First Avenue to the east of the site, Wheeler Avenue to the south, Santa Clara Street to the north, and the nearby intersections are adequate to serve the existing 24 -Hour Fitness health club and the proposed restaurant. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The proposed restaurant is a commercial use that is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site. It is staffs opinion that this restaurant proposal with the recommended conditions of approval satisfies each prerequisite condition. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -03, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions of approval for CUP 05 -18 and ADR 05 -03 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 1738) shall remain in effect: a. The parking structure shall provide free - parking with no security gates. b. All the Tight fixtures shall be hooded and arranged to reflect away from the adjoining properties and streets. c. No metal screens or coverings are permitted between the columns on the first level of the parking structure that faces Santa Clara Street. d. A minimum of 280 on -site parking spaces shall be provided. e. All the City's parkway trees shall remain. 2. Any future subdivision of the property shall require a reciprocal parking agreement and maintenance or adjustment of any existing easements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or designee. CUP 11 -03 57 Wheeler Avenue May 10, 2011 — page 5 3. Live music shall be limited to weekdays after 5:00 p.m., and anytime on weekends and holidays. D.J. music and dancing shall be limited to after 9 p.m., and the dance area shall be restricted to 200 square -feet in size. 4. Additional exterior lighting shall be installed along the south side of the building and other security measures shall be implemented to ensure the safety of the parking areas, subject to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or designee. 5. The fire sprinkler system of the 7,706 square -foot restaurant shall receive a 5 -year certification prior to occupancy, and the fire alarm system shall be tested and certified prior to occupancy 6. The use approved by CUP 11 -03 is limited to this restaurant, which shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 11 -03, and shall be subject to periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this Conditional Use Permit may be adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent streets and /or neighboring businesses or properties observed during these inspections. 7. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. 8. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 11 -03 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the restaurant. 9. 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. 10.Approval of CUP 11 -03 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), applicant(s), and business owner(s) and operator(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. CUP 11 -03 57 Wheeler Avenue May 10, 2011 — page 6 11. Separate entertainment permit(s) and business license(s) shall be obtained for the restaurant and all entertainment vendors in accordance with the City's Business License standards. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this application, the Commission should move to approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -03; state the supporting findings and environmental determination, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, and the conditions of approval. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this application, the Commission should move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -03; state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings for adoption at the next meeting. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the May 10, 2011 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr at (626) 574 -5422, or at tschwehr @ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Jim ma Community Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information 300 -foot Radius Map Photos of Subject Property Plans Excerpt from 2005 Traffic and Parking Analysis Preliminary Exemption Assessment CUP 11 -03 57 Wheeler Avenue May 10, 2011 — page 7 " Z , k 1 4 5 7 N 7 8 u BLK 10 28. ` 11 29. 1 121 N I i !1! 1 p3 14 N 25 ZI l N 1 1 I i 28 N m z 33. z z I • M /30 /18. 4 5 N 6 7 N r 8 r I >118 °' 1 10 17. N - _ z �' z 13. go M\ 2 N 16. 33 32 31 30 29 I >118 °' 1 27 19. r z �' z 13. go z , \ M\ 2 12.\ 5 N 6 N 15. 7 N 8 I >118 °' 1 10 19. r 14. N z r .. 20. M 21. 19. r 25 NJ 29 28 27 26 2 4 M /30 100 100 110 100 H z I— Z In 100 107.5 LEGEND S ST JOSEPH 4 5 s NS 31 30 VAC co N N co N 25 'VT 24 23 22 5 6 li sh Nfi Ewe Ism 28 N 27 m 8 2. 20 26 9 25 24 N 10 10. 23 11 N 12 226.63 7. 2 211.60' 32. 1 226.65' HUNTINGTON 7. OWNERSHIP NO. OWNERSHIP HOOK RADIUS MAPS ETC 3544 PORTOLAAVENUE LOS ANGELES CA 90032 OFF /FAX: (323) 221 -4555 radiusmapsetc @sbcglobaLnet 30: 0 N z 7 7 0 � 60 60 70 60 60 '- 300' RADIUS - OWNERSHIP MAP SITE LOCATION: 57 WHEELER AVENUE ARCADIA CA 91006 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 AND 2, PM 143 - 37/38. ST x ST g CASE NO.: 30 DR DATE: 12 - 27 - 2010 SCALE: 1" = 100' T.B. PAGE: 567 GRID: D -5 APN: 5773-006-039,057 SUBJECT PROPERTY - EAST ELEVATION SUBJECT PROPERTY - SURFACING PARKING LOT LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS 24 -HOUR FITNESS SUBJECT PROPERTY - SOUTH ELEVATION PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE SUBJECT PROPERTY - SOUTH ELEVATION ALONG WHEELER AVENUE SUBJECT PROPERTY - NORTH ELEVATION PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE SUBJECT PROPERTY - NORTH ELEVATION AT 24 -HOUR FITNESS ENTRANCE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH - RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY PROPERTY TO THE EAST - ONE -STORY OFFICE BLDG PROPERTY TO THE NORTH - TWO -STORY OFFICE BLDG PROPERTY TO THE WEST - POST OFFICE ARCADIA PUBLIC PARKING LOT - ACROSS WHEELER AVE ARCADIA PUBLIC PARKING LOT - ACROSS WHEELER AVE SIGNAGE - ARROYO RESTAURANT SIGNAGE - ARROYO RESTAURANT SI_Ny UAU121V Prepared by: (fa/16a . 9t Sarah M. Drobis, P.E. Transportation Engineer 111 •%N, TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANALYSIS 24 -HOUR FITNESS PROJECT City of Arcadia, California Revised- November 16, 2005 Prepared for: Dorn Platz & Company 210 S. Orange Grove Boulevard Pasadena, California 91105 LLG Ref. 1- 043510 -1 Under the Supervision of: rn . $ ,z_ Clare M. Look - Jaeger, P.E. Principal LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 234 E. Colorado Blvd. Suite 400 Pasadena, CA 91101 626.796.2322 r 626.792.0941 F www.11gengineers.com 13.0 CONCLUSIONS The proposed 24 -Hour Fitness project consists of the development of a 24 -Hour Fitness facility with 38,990 square feet of gross floor area. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in year 2006, with occupancy by the year 2007. The existing restaurant located on the project site will be maintained as part of the project. A total parking supply of 280 spaces will be provided on the project site, with 50 spaces provided in surface parking areas adjacent to the existing restaurant use and 230 spaces provided in a proposed parking structure adjacent to the 24 -Hour Fitness facility. In order to evaluate the potential impacts due to the proposed project, three intersections were analyzed. It is concluded that the 24 -Hour Fitness project will not create significant impacts at any of the study intersections. Incremental but not significant impacts are noted at the study intersections. Because there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended. A summary the City Code parking requirements, a comparison of the City Code parking rates to the observed parking demand at other fitness facilities, a forecast of parking demand for the proposed project, as well as a summary of the shared parking analysis was prepared for the proposed project. It is concluded that the proposed parking supply is expected to adequately accommodate the sum of the parking demand requirements for each use (277 spaces), as well as the projected peak parking demand based on shared parking (255 spaces). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 42 LLG Ref. 1-043510-1 24 -Hour Fitness Project :'p as 1''•.pro - 10 13, Il t. ES., 1IY•.r ep;;rt'J ` dk1a5 .loc I. Name or description of project: CUP 11 -03 2. Project Location — Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 57 Wheeler Avenue 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name ! Alejandro Alcondez (2) Address 468 N. Camden Drive Suite 273C Beverly Hills, CA 90210 4. Staff Determination: The Lead Agency's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project. c. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project. d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. The project is categorically exempt. e. /1 Applicable Exemption Class: 1 01 f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: g. ❑ The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: April 28, 2011 Preliminary Exemption Assessment\2010 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) Staff: Tom Li FORM "A" May 10, 2011 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner STAFF REPORT Development Services Department SUBJECT: Modification Application No. MP 11 -02 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -05 for a nine -unit, affordable housing project at 15 -19 Lucille Street SUMMARY Mr. Mark Gangi of Gangi Development, Inc. filed the subject applications for a new, nine -unit, affordable housing project at 15 -19 Lucille Street. It is staff's opinion that the proposal is consistent with the State requirements for affordable housing, and secures an appropriate improvement that will be architecturally compatible with the neighboring developments. The Development Services Department recommends approval of the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mark Gangi of Gangi Development, Inc. LOCATION: 15 -19 Lucille Street REQUESTS: To permit the following Modifications and approve the Architectural Design Review for a proposed nine -unit affordable housing project: A. A 10' -0" to 16' -0" front yard setback in lieu of the 25' -0" required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.3); B. Three (3) open and eight (8) partially- covered parking spaces in lieu of the requirement to provide fully- covered parking spaces (AMC Sec. 9255.2.9.A); C. Zero guest parking spaces in lieu of the five (5) minimum spaces required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.9.B); BACKGROUND D. A 10' -0" driveway width in lieu of the 18' -0" minimum required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.10.B); E. No landscaping between the driveway and the property line in lieu of the 3' -0" minimum wide landscape area required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.10.H). LOT AREA: 15 Lucille Street: 7,139 square feet (0.16 of an acre). 19 Lucille Street: 6,700 square feet (0.15 of an acre). Total: 13,839 square feet (0.31 of an acre). FRONTAGE: 103 feet along Lucille Street. EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The property is vacant. The previously existing three dwelling units have been demolished. It is zoned R -3. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Multiple - Family Dwellings, zoned R -3 South: Gymnastics Training Center and Multiple - Family Dwellings, zoned C -2 & R -3 East: Multiple - Family Dwellings, zoned R -3 West: Parking Lot, zoned C -2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential — 12 -30 dwelling units per acre. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of MP 11 -02 and ADR 11 -05 were mailed on April 28, 2011 to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are within 100 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map). Because the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was not published in a local newspaper. State Housing law requires that a local jurisdiction accommodate a share of the region's projected housing needs. This share, called the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), mandates that jurisdictions provide sufficient opportunities to accommodate a variety of housing types for all economic segments of the community. Under the 2008 -2014 Housing Element update, the City was allocated a total of 2,149 new housing units to be provided by 2014. Currently, 1,727 units MP 11 -02 & ADR 11 -05 15 -19 Lucille Street May 10, 2011 — page 2 remain to be fulfilled; they consist of 549 very low income units, 340 low income units, 362 moderate income units, and 476 above moderate income units. The proposed project was initiated by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency (Agency) to satisfy the affordable housing mandates, and in this case, the project targets families earning 50% of the regional median income level. The rental rate is expected to be $788.00 per month. The Agency acquired 15 Lucille Street in July 2009 and 19 Lucille Street in August 2010. To accommodate the proposed development, the previously existing three (3) residential units have been demolished, and a lot line adjustment application is being processed to consolidate these lots as one parcel. The Agency issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and three responses were received. After reviewing the proposals and interviewing the respondents, Gangi Development was selected to build and manage the project. At the January 4, 2011 City Council meeting, the Agency Board held a study session and supported the proposed nine -unit apartment project for this site, with a provision that the finishes reflect an Arcadia development. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, in partnership with Gangi Development, Inc., is proposing to build nine (9) affordable apartment units, as shown on the submitted plans. The two -story project will be constructed on -grade and the nine (9) two - bedroom units will have living areas ranging from 850 to 1,140 square feet. Two parking spaces are proposed for each unit. There will be a central courtyard with a specimen tree as the focal point. A central laundry facility will also be provided. The subject property has 13,839 square feet of land area. The density in R -3 zones is 2,200 to 1,450 square feet per unit, which would allow a minimum of six (6) units and a maximum of nine (9) units on the subject property. State law requires that municipalities provide concessions to developers for affordable housing. Examples of concessions include relief from building height, setback, and parking requirements. For the subject proposal, staff feels that Requests A and D go beyond mere concessions and should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Staff feels that Requests B, C, and E qualify as concessions per State law. The subject proposal is being funded by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, and it is designed to provide affordable housing in a cost - effective manner. The following Modifications /concessions are necessary to facilitate a financially feasible affordable housing development on this property: MP 11 -02 & ADR 11 -05 15 -19 Lucille Street May 10, 2011 — page 3 Modification Request A • A 10' -0" to 16' -0" front yard setback in lieu of the 25' -0" required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.3). The applicant is requesting a 10' -0" to 16' -0" front yard setback in lieu of the 25' -0" required for the subject apartments. A 48' -6" wide, single -story portion of the westerly side of the proposal will be 10' -0" from the front property line. A 23' -0" wide section of this portion is the front porch of Unit Type B. On the easterly side of the property the front porch of Unit Type A is proposed to be 16' -0" from the front property line with the second story above set back 20' -0 ". The setbacks of 16' -0" and 20' -0" for the easterly portion of the proposal would qualify as a concession, in staff's opinion. This property is situated between a C -2 General Commercial zoned property to the west and an R -3 Multiple - family zoned property to the east. Because the C -2 zone does not require any front yard setback, the proposed front yard setback would serve as a transition between the commercially zoned property to the west and the R -3 zoned property to the east. Modification Requests B and C • Three (3) open and eight (8) partially covered parking spaces in lieu of the requirement to provide fully covered parking spaces (AMC Sec. 9255.2.9.A); • Zero guest parking spaces in lieu of the five (5) minimum spaces required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.9.B) The Code requires two (2) covered parking spaces for each unit and one (1) guest parking space for every two (2) units. The proposal provides two (2) parking spaces, some only partially covered for each unit for a total of 18 parking spaces, and no guest parking will be provided. Covered parking spaces are required as a minimum level of quality and help to screen parking areas from public view. In this case, with the exception of the one (1) parking space located at the end of the driveway, the parking area will not be visible from Lucille Street. For a low- income housing project, the cost of providing fully- covered parking spaces is counter - productive, and the open and partially covered aspect of the proposed parking will not affect the tendency for tenants to utilize these spaces. To the west of the subject property is a parking lot that is available for the gymnastics training center. This alleviates the need for the training center to utilize street parking. With ample street parking, the absence of on -site guest parking will not create a parking problem. Staff's opinion is that these requests qualify as concessions that cities must provide to facilitate the development of affordable housing per State law. MP 11 -02 & ADR 11 -05 15 -19 Lucille Street May 10, 2011 — page 4 Modification Request D • A 10' -0" driveway width in lieu of the 18' -0" minimum required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.10.B). The Code requires driveways that serve access to more than twelve (12) required parking spaces to be at least 18' -0" wide. The proposal provides a single 10' -0" wide driveway to access eighteen (18) parking spaces. Although it would be preferable to have a two -way driveway, it is not uncommon for apartments to have a single, one -way driveway. Conflicts of incoming and outgoing traffic on site should be rare, and because of the low traffic volume on Lucille Street, they will not result in significant problems. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the subject driveway and did not express any concerns for fire access. Modification Request E • No landscaping between the driveway and the property line in lieu of the 3' -0" minimum wide landscape area required (AMC Sec. 9255.2.10.H). The 3' -0" wide landscaping requirement between the driveway and the property line is to provide an aesthetic feature to soften the appearance of the driveway and block wall that typically is placed along the property line. The landscaping also serves as a buffer between properties. In this case, the adjacent properties are zoned C -2 and the adjacent areas are developed as parking areas. And, both commercial parking areas have on -site landscape buffers. The subject proposal will have an approximately 2' -0" wide landscape buffer between the driveway and the apartment building. As previously mentioned, this request qualifies as a concession for affordable housing per State law. It is staffs opinion that the subject Modification Requests, if approved, would secure an appropriate improvement of the lot, and will facilitate a financially - feasible, affordable housing project as required by State law. Architectural Design Review Concurrent with the Modification application, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the architectural design of this proposal. The designer describes this as a "Traditional" -style that includes architectural features such as smooth -lap siding, window shutters, heavy timber porch supports, and gridded windows. Staff finds that the applicant's proposal meets the City's Architectural Design Guidelines for multi - family developments, and that the architectural style of the project will be compatible with the neighboring developments. MP 11 -02 & ADR 11 -05 15 -19 Lucille Street May 10, 2011 — page 5 Email of Opposition Staff received the attached email from Mr. Steve Nichols, the owner of the neighboring properties at 820 and 900 S. Santa Anita Avenue. Mr. Nichols is opposed to Modification Request C; to not provide on -site guest parking spaces. Mr. Nichols states that the previous residents of the subject properties parked in his parking lot in the evenings, and that he is concerned that future residents will also park in his parking lot. CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project is required to comply with all Code requirements and policies as determined to be necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, and Public Works Services Director, which are to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval. CEQA The proposed project qualifies as a Class 5 Exemption (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Modification No. MP 11 -02 and approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -05 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed project shall be developed and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and approved by Modification No. MP 11 -02 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -05. 2. 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. MP 11 -02 & ADR 11 -05 15 -19 Lucille Street May 10, 2011 — page 6 3. The approvals of Modification No. MP 11 -02 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -05 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed the Acceptance Form available from Planning Services to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission should, based on the evidence presented, state that the proposed design is consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines for multiple - family developments, and specify which of the following purposes the approval of the Modifications will accomplish, and move to approve the project subject to the conditions set forth in this report, or as modified by the Commission: • That the request(s) will secure an appropriate improvement, or • That the request(s) will prevent an unreasonable hardship, or • That the request(s) will promote uniformity of development Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should, based on the evidence presented, state with specific reasons that the proposed design is not consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines for multiple - family developments, and that the requested Modifications will not accomplish any of the above purposes, and move to deny the project. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this project prior to the May 10 hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447 or tli @ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: j, ama Ji immunity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information 100 -foot Radius Map Proposed Plans Email of Opposition Photos of the Subject Site and Surrounding Properties MP 11 -02 & ADR 11 -05 15 -19 Lucille Street May 10, 2011 — page 7 a..a.. u'^u'a Y1tUYS 't n:�.e� Imsgc. courtesy iQQ r 15 -19 Lucille Street MP 11 -02 & ADR 11 -05 )EST US DR 0) z z 7 -1" m LLE ST 0) z m > 1 710 L 900 ALICE ST 1 5 22 31 36 33 30 34 W E 33 1U% ®iiii I ni iuii !uV1�88 oe tWII811= �s u mc .. -1P eir-fartiOV r ROOFING ASPHALT SHINGLE MALARKEY HIGHLANDER CS HEATHER L_ APPLICATION MATERIAL MANUFACTURER MODEL COLOR GANGI DEVELOPMENT 229 E. PAUA AVE. EUREANK CA 91502 Ts 818.845.3170 Pz 818.247.7259 EXTERIOR WALL APPLICATION MATERIAL CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING, STUCCO CERTIAN TEED MANUFACTURER FINISH SMOOTH LAP, 7" EXPOSURE, FLAT PAINT DE6122 - DRY CREEK WINDOW ALUM. CLAD DOUBLE HUNG WHITE APPLICATION MATERIAL MANUFACTURER SIERRA PACIFIC OR SIM. HARDWARE COLOR TRELLIS HEAVY TIMBER TBD PAINT WHITE BUILDING COLORS & MATERIALS REVISION - STAFF COMMENTS -APRIL 18, 2011 APPLICATION MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH COLOR O APPLICATION j RAILINGS, FENCE, ENTRY DOOR MATERIAL WOOD / STUCCO PAINT MANUFACTURER TBD FINISH DEC756 - WHEATHERED BROWN 15 &19 LUCILLE ST 9UN'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1E & 19 LUCILLE STREET ARCADIA CALIFORNIA 91006 i3 S 5 2 g : 5 I 1 1 1 1 11 I 10411110 gi g g g Ante s- 4 T 1 4 1 b o It Vg t ;5 z z fr 4 . g It: 1 IMI i 1111 ■ m 111111111 R p mm ) |f || I CU frZ z. 7 —3 at T 1 T Zt uJ .J CO t 4 o u. coda u.,a4 09g z a, t Ant oR ; 0 M 8 s Tom Li From: Steve Nichols [ steven ©chinovalleyranchers.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:05 AM To: Tom Li Subject: Public hearing on May 10,2011 Public Hearing and modifications: Application Nos.: MP 11 -02 and ADR 11 -05 Location: 15 -19 Lucille Street Applicant: Mark Gangi Dear Thomas Li, I am the son and trustee for Isabella M. Nichols. Isabella passed away on Sept. 19, 2010. She owed the property across the street from the applicant. We own 820 So. Santa Anita Ave. and 900 So Santa Anita Ave. I have concerns of zero guest parking. Reason is that this street is already impacted by street parking and when there's no place to park on the street they park in our business parking lot. In the past the people who lived in the houses before they were taken down would park in our parking lot in the evenings. At times we could to get into the rear portion of our building we would have to hunt them down and have them move their cars. I can see a future problem when families move into these units and as their children grow up, learn to drive and then buy a car. Where will they park these cars? This project needs to have overflow or guest parking in order to ease the street parking. Sincerely yours, Steve Nichols Work Ph # 626 - 444 -9400 Cell Ph # 626 - 353 -1226 Subject Property at 15 -19 Lucille Street Residential condominiums to the east of the subject property Parking Lot to the west of the subject property Gymnastics training center to the southwest of the subject property Townhomes to the southeast of the subject property May 10, 2011 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUMMARY STAFF REPORT Development Services Department SUBJECT: Text Amendment No. TA 11 -03 to create a single Resolution for the development standards and design guidelines for all five of the City - designated Homeowners' Association areas. The five single - family Homeowners' Associations (HOA) in the City of Arcadia are proposing an amendment for a new Resolution that will consolidate the development standards, design guidelines and design review processes of all five HOA Resolutions into a single Resolution for all five HOA areas. The amendments include changes to the design guidelines, construction regulations, and processing procedures. The five City- designated HOA areas are as follows, and are depicted on the attached map: 1) Highland Homeowners Association — "Highlands" 2) Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association — "Upper Rancho" 3) Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association — "Oaks" 4) Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association — "Lower Rancho" 5) Santa Anita Village Community Association — 'Village" The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment as set forth in this staff report. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted Ordinances and Resolutions to add the Architectural Design Overlay ( "D ") zoning to the five areas that had formed single - family homeowners' associations and to provide for design review in place of the then due to expire conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC &Rs) regarding design guidelines that are separate from the City's regulations. The Resolutions governing the HOAs were last amended in 1986, and the regulations within those Resolutions have been successful in providing guidance for applicants and homeowners in the planning and development of new homes and additions. Each of the five aforementioned HOAs is interested in the continued protection of the architectural character and the quality of life within their respective neighborhood, and the City enjoys an excellent relationship with the HOAs in the review and processing of applications and projects. Each HOA has an Architectural Review Board (ARB) that is tasked with reviewing all proposals in accordance with their guidelines to ensure compatibility. These ARBs conduct the official design review for these projects with the City Planning Services being responsible for plan check review in regards to zoning code compliance. It has been apparent to all five HOAs for some time that their guidelines are in need of updating. And, in recently reviewing the 1986 Resolutions, it was realized that there are many similarities in the five Resolutions. As a result, the five HOAs have agreed that it would be more efficient for all affected parties; the HOAs and ARBs, the homeowners, developers, and the City to have a single Resolution that contains the regulations and development standards for all five HOA areas, and a single, uniform set of design review processes. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS Representatives from all five HOAs met numerous times to discuss the many issues of concern within the Resolutions and alternative solutions. They also analyzed the City's Single - Family Design Guidelines and the procedures of neighboring cities. The result of this collaborative effort is the attached draft Resolution No. 6770 (Exhibit "A ") which will continue to promote desirable and compatible construction within each of the HOA areas, and provides consistent design review procedures. The City Attorney has reviewed the new Resolution and his comments have been incorporated. The new consolidated Resolution provides a simplified and reorganized version of the existing Resolutions, but includes many revisions to the development guidelines. The HOAs identified areas within the text of their current Resolutions that needed to be clarified and /or made more specific to enable them to conduct their design reviews more efficiently. The draft Resolution No. 6770 includes yellow - highlighting to show the reorganized sections and the new and amended language. Summaries of the major proposed changes are as follows: 1. Defined Neighborhood (Section 4.1.) — For neighborhood compatibility and to ensure that a new home or addition is designed to blend with the immediate neighborhood, a new section has been added to define, "Neighborhood." This defined "Neighborhood" is to be comprised of the two properties on each side of the subject property, the three properties to the rear, and the five properties across the street that face the subject property — see the diagram on page 2 of the draft Resolution. The HOAs feel this new regulation is easier to understand than the current 100 -foot radius, and is more relevant because it is not affected by the sizes of the properties involved. The existing 100 -foot radius method occasionally excludes relevant properties in large lot areas. 2. Streetscape (Section 4.B.) — There is new language in the draft Resolution that relates to preservation of the "Streetscape." In their established neighborhoods, the TA 11 -03 — Draft Reso. 6770 May 10, 2011 Page 2 HOAs wish to preserve the streetscapes; not only in relation to structures, but also as is often the case, the openness among front yards that are not obstructed by fences, walls or dense landscaping. This new regulation is to ensure that any improvements visible from and along the streets, including fences, landscaping, and hardscape do not change the character of the "Streetscape." 3. Minimum and Maximum "Guidance" [Sections 4.C.(1) & (2)] — The term "Guidance" is to be used in relation to the mass and scale of structures. This new provision is intended to ensure that new developments are designed in a manner that is similar to existing structures in terms of mass and scale. The current Resolutions have minimum size requirements for new homes, but they do not provide any guidance about maximum sizes. All of the HOAs have experienced complaints from their residents about new homes being overwhelming or disproportionate in mass and scale for their neighborhoods. 4. Privacy and Views (Section 4.L.) — A new home or addition should be carefully designed with respect for the affect on adjacent properties and the neighborhood, including impacts on privacy and views. This new regulation is to ensure that a new home or addition is designed so that certain elements, such as second story windows and balconies will be situated so as to reasonably protect the privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards. 5. Short Review vs. Regular Review (Sections 5.C. & 5.D.) — The Short and Regular Review procedures have been amended to clearly define the different scopes of projects under each category. The Short Review will remain an administrative process in which the ARB Chairperson or designee reviews and acts on smaller projects, such as single -story remodels or additions, or other minor improvements to a property. A list of project types eligible for the Short Review process has been included in the draft Resolution. The Regular Review process still requires a public hearing and is to include all new homes, second -story additions, and any project not eligible for the Short Review process. Both processes have time limits for reviewing the applications for completeness (10 or 30 days) and it is specified that decisions must be rendered only by the Chairperson or those Board members that considered the applications. The Planning Commission and City Council will continue to function as appellate bodies to the ARB decisions. The draft Resolution standardizes the processes for all five HOAs. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the text amendments will have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines as minor alterations in land use limitations. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached. TA 11 -03 — Draft Reso. 6770 May 10, 2011 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Text Amendment No. TA 11 -03. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendation and comments on the text amendment to the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the public hearing on May 10, 2011, please contact Senior Planner, Lisa L. Flores at (626) 574 -5445 or Iflores a.ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: sama munity Development Administrator Attachments: Map of HOA Areas Exhibit "A" — Draft Resolution No. 6770 Preliminary Exemption Assessment TA 11 -03 — Draft Reso. 6770 May 10, 2011 Page 4 Homeowners' Association Areas 1) Highlands Home Owners Association — "Highlands" 2) Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association — "Upper Rancho" 3) Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association — "Oaks" 4) Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association — "Lower Rancho" 5) Santa Anita Village Community Association of Arcadia "Village" Orange Grove Av. Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft RESOLUTION NO. 6770 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE SINGLE — FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREAS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby repeals Resolution Nos. 5286, 5287, 5288, 5289, and 5290 and Ordinance No. 1832, and adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 2285. SECTION 2. To implement the Single Family Residential Design regulations applicable to the real property within the Single — Family Homeowners' Associations, there are five "D" Architectural Design Zone areas. — Architectural Review Boards are established for each Association and are hereinafter referred to as the "ARBs ". The five Homeowners' Associations and their Architectural Design Zones are: Santa Anita Village Community Association of Arcadia - "Village" Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association - "Lower Rancho" Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association — "Upper Rancho" Highlands Home Owners Association — "Highlands" Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association — "Oaks" (entire section added) The boundaries for each Association are depicted in Exhibit A. The ARB for each area is governed by the corresponding Homeowners' Association Board for that area. SECTION 3. 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 6 (previously section 4), there are hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said associations may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 4. It is determined that each building or structure and its landscaping and hardscape on properties within each area should exhibit a consistent & cohesive architectural style, and be harmonious and compatible with other neighborhood structures in architectural style, scale, visual massing, height, width and length, and setbacks in Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 11 relationship to site contours and architectural elements such as texture, color and building materials. (re- wording and new text) To promote harmony and compatibility of properties, the following standards and conditions are hereby imposed upon all properties within said areas pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in ownership or control of property within said areas, are subject to this Resolution. A. DEFINED NEIGHBORHOOD (new section) - The "Defined Neighborhood" (Neighborhood), for the purpose of conducting design review shall be deemed to include at least the two properties on each side of the property subject to plan approval ( "subject property "), five properties facing the subject property, and three properties to the rear of the subject property. (Unusually situated properties, those where a second story addition or modification is involved, or where the slope of the terrain might impact additional neighbors may require additional properties to be part of the defined neighborhood, as determined by the ARB Chair or designee.) The defined neighborhood shall not include properties outside of the HOA or commercially zoned properties. An example of a defined neighborhood is set forth below, although the neighborhood may vary case by case. 4i Street - Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft A A, A A Subject Property Defined Neighborhood Properties included in "Defined Neighborhood" As related to Subject Property O 3 �-- Street B. STREETSCAPE. (new section) The developed subject property, when viewed from the street, should blend and be harmonious with the other structures and landscaping on the street. This includes and is not limited to setbacks, structural mass and scale, height, roof forms, facades, entries, building materials and everything that can be seen from the street. Each Neighborhood or street has an established streetscape that defines its character. The stronger the established pattern the more important it is to maintain its character and harmony. Front yards Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 11 should promote a feeling of openness; fences, walls and hedges across the front of the yard are not permitted. C. FLOOR AREA (re- wording, added text and outlined sub - sections) (1) Minimum Guidance: - The space contained within the boundaries of the property including any open porch, open entry, balcony, covered patio, trellis, or garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, shall NOT be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building as measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls in computing the required minimum floor area of a dwelling. Village & Lower Rancho - 1,400 ground floor area if 1 -story & not less than 1,000 on ground floor if 1.5 or 2 -story Upper Rancho - 2,500 ground floor area Attached covered porch, balcony or garage shall be counted at .5 Highlands - 1,600 if 1 -story & not less that 1,200 on ground floor if 1.5 or 2 -story Oaks - 2,000 ground floor area, except 1,800 in Tracts 14656, 13544 & 10617 in which no one - family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains Tess than 1,800 square feet of ground floor area. (2) Maximum Guidance: Any open porch, open entry, balcony, patio, or garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, shall be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building as measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls in computing the maximum allowable floor area of a dwelling. Maximum guidance for each individual project shall be determined by analysis of the other homes in the Neighborhood. Determining factors shall include consideration of mass, size, scale, and character of a substantial majority of the Neighborhood. The slope of the site, and affect on neighboring houses shall also be considered. (3) Any livable areas with interior ceilings of 15 feet in height or higher shall be doubled as gross livable area in computing square footage. D. FRONT YARD SETBACKS.(re wording & added text) 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 the subject property, the ARB shall have the authority to require a front yard setback for the subject property equal to at least an average of the two adjacent front yards Village — Underlying Zoning Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho - Minimum 50 feet Highlands — Underlying Zoning Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft D. Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 11 Oaks - Minimum sixty -five (65) feet from the front property line, except that Tract 13544 shall be not less than sixty (60) feet, Tracts 13345 and 11013 shall not be less than fifty -five (55) feet, and Tract 14656 shall not be less than fifty (50) feet. E. SIDE YARD SETBACKS — (new section) Village -10% of yard frontage, and not Tess than 5 feet Lower Rancho - a lot with a bldg. or any part thereof within the front 100 feet shall have a side yard of at least 10 feet, or 10% of lot frontage whichever is greater. Upper Rancho - Minimum 18 feet Highlands - a lot with a bldg. or any part thereof within the front 100 feet shall have a side yard of at least 6 feet, or 10% of lot frontage whichever is greater Oaks - Minimum 10 feet, or 10% of lot frontage whichever is greater F. REAR YARD SETBACKS (new section) Village - Minimum 25 feet Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho - Minimum 40 feet Highlands — Underlying Zoning Oaks — Minimum 35 feet G. CORNER LOT SETBACKS.( revised) Minimum 25 -foot setback from side street Village — Underlying Zoning Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho - Underlying Zoning Highlands(added) — Minimum 15 foot from side street for Tracts 10725,13367,14626,15285 & 16920 Oaks (added) - On a corner lot, any detached garage shall be located a minimum of twenty (20) feet, at any point, from the side street property line. H. FRONT OF DWELLING (new section) — For all HOA's, any dwelling on the lot should face the front lot line. Exceptions for good cause may be granted through review process. I. GARAGES. (section revised and each HOA is addressed) No carports allowed. Village & Lower Rancho — Front facing garages are strongly discouraged. Upper Rancho — No garage door shall be allowed to face the public right -of -way within the front 150 feet of the property. No garage door shall be closer to the street than the dwelling. (Tract #13184 - Lots 1 thru 20 shall be excepted.) Corner lots shall be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Highlands — Underlying Zoning Resolution - All HOAs, Proposed Draft AMIT Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 11 Oaks A detached garage shall not be located less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the front property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be one hundred forty (140) feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 and 13544 which shall be one hundred twenty -five (125) feet, and in no case shall the garage be closer to the front property line than the main dwelling. Front facing garages are strongly discouraged. Trees previously followed Garages, but is now following section (L.) J. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS (previously No. 6). Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including without limitation 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. K. 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, (added text) inclusive of landscape and hardscape. Any fence between adjacent properties not within the front building setback or street side setback area is subject only to review by the City. - L. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD (new section) — The impacts on adjacent properties shall be addressed, including impacts on privacy and views. First story and second story elements should be designed and articulated to reasonably address these issues, and windows and balconies shall be located to reasonably protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards. M. TREES (revised). City Planning staff must approve removal of any Oak Tree or construction of any improvements under the drip line of Oak Trees. Village, Lower Rancho, Highlands & Oaks (sections outlined and include specific requirements) - No other living tree with a trunk diameter larger than 12" Diameter Breast Height ( "DBH ") shall be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the ARB. The ARB Chair or designee shall determine whether a certified Arborist's evaluation of the condition of the tree is required prior to removal. Upper Rancho — No living oak, sycamore, liquidambar, magnolia, pine, or redwood tree with a trunk diameter larger than six inches, measured at DBH, shall be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the ARB. Such permission shall not be granted unless it is shown that the tree is a nuisance, and that there is no practical way of removing the nuisance except by cutting down, killing or removing it. N. ANIMALS. Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft D Exhibit "A" Page 5 of 11 SECTION 5. APPROVAL OF ARB REQUIRED.(previously No. 8) 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 ARB. 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 ARB. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the ARB. (text added) No lot shall be cleared without advance approval of the ARB whether or not a new structure is proposed for the subject property. Specific requirements of the ARB for proper consideration of an application are listed on the Short Review or Regular Review Applications. The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building that does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. The ARB (acronym added) shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in the applicable area described in Section 1. b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the ARB. c. Said by -laws provide that only property owners can be appointed to and serve on the ARB. d. Owners have been appointed to the ARB in accordance with the by -laws. e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto has been filed with the City Clerk f. The ARB 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 ARB shall be maintained by the ARB, in accordance with the City's records retention policies. Section (h.) through (k). were previously sentences included under section (g.) h. The ARB's decision on a Regular Review Process shall be accompanied by specific findings, based upon a reference to supporting facts, setting forth the actions and decisions. Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft D HY:: Exhibit "A" Page 6 of 11 i. Only ARB members present at the meeting can participate in making the decision. j. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall render the decision. k. A copy of the ARB's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within seven (7) working days of the ARB's decision. I. (previously section (h.) All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). B. POWERS OF THE ARB. Pursuant to Section 3, and through the specified review process, the ARB shall have the power to: (sections revised according to conditions) a. Determine the compatibility with the Neighborhood of the mass, scale, size, design and appearance of the proposed project (Conditions A, B, C, & D) b. Determine and approve appropriate setbacks (Conditions D, E, F & G) c. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible with the Neighborhood (Conditions H, I, J, K & M) d. Determine the impact of the proposed project on adjacent properties. (Condition L) e. Subject to compliance or consistency with the City's Municipal Code, any of the conditions set forth in Conditions A through M of Section 3, may be made less restrictive by the ARB if the ARB determines that such action will foster the appropriate development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the Neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Resolution. f. The ARB shall have the power to establish requirements concerning project applications and procedures for review for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such requirements shall be kept on file with the Planning Department. C. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE (new sectionl a. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single story remodel or addition where (1) the applicant has obtained the signatures of approval of the plans from all the Neighborhood owners, as determined by the ARB Chair or designee, or otherwise meets the notification requirements; (2) where the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and Neighborhood; and (3) where the design is in harmony with the streetscape of the Neighborhood. Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft Exhibit "A" Page 7 of 11 Specific Short Review Process Items include but are not limited to: • Single -story remodels or additions • Detached accessory structures — new, additions to and /or remodels • Fences and /or walls in and /or facing (i.e., visible from) front and street side yards • Hardscape and landscaping in front and street side yards, including without limitation swimming pools, spas, fountains and other water features • Fences, lights, and other features related to tennis courts, sports courts or other significant paved features • Mechanical equipment • Removal of trees as listed in this Resolution • Roofing b. If a property owner in the Neighborhood cannot be reached after three attempts on three separate days, the applicant may submit evidence of efforts to contact the owner. The ARB may then determine, in its discretion, not to consider that owner as an opponent of the proposed project. A Short Review Application will not be considered complete until all such required documentation from all owners in the Neighborhood has been submitted by the applicant. c. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. d. The ARB Chairman or another ARB member designated by the ARB Chairman, to act in his absence, shall render his /her decision on a Short Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such completed application is filed with the ARB; 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. e. If the ARB Chairman or designee determines that the proposed project is not a cohesive design, not in harmony with the neighborhood, or might have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, he /she may require that the application be processed under the Regular Review Process procedure. D. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE (new section) The Regular Review Process shall be used by the ARB for review of (1) any new home construction, (2) any new or expansion of a second story (3) any significant change in architectural style on an existing building, and (4) all projects that are not eligible to be processed by the above Short Form Review procedure as determined by the ARB Chair or designee. a. The ARB is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process application. b. The applicant shall provide to the ARB all documents required by the application. Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft D p G1 Exhibit "A" Page 8 of 11 c. Notice of the ARB's meeting shall be deposited in the mail by the ARB Chair or designee, postage prepaid by the applicant, to the applicant and to all property owners within the Neighborhood of the subject property, not Tess than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. d. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall render such decision. e. The ARB shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date a complete application is filed with the ARB; failure to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the thirty (30) working day period. E. EXPIRATION OF ARB'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the ARB, has not begun construction (as evidenced by clearing and grading and /or the installation of a new foundation and /or by installation of new materials or a structure that is being remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for renewed approval; however, the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been previously approved in accordance with the current standards in effect. (text added) F. LIMIT ON ARB'S POWER. The ARB shall not have the power to modify any regulations in the Municipal Code. The ARB may, however, make a recommendation regarding modifying such regulations to the City staff department, commission or board that will be considering any such modification request. SECTION 6. APPEAL. Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services within seven (7) calendar days of the ARB'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 a completed appeal from the ARB's decision, such appeal shall be processed by Planning Services in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee, except noticing shall be consistent with ARB noticing. A. STANDARDS FOR ARB DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The ARB and any body hearing an appeal from the ARB'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 Resolution - All HOAs, Proposed Draft D Exhibit "A" Page 9 of 11 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 ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, & M of Section 3 of this Resolution — Defined Neighborhood, Streetscape, Setbacks, Front of Dwelling, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, and Trees). Refers to new or revised sections. 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 A, B, C, D, E, H, J, K & M of Section 3 of this Resolution — Defined Neighborhood, Streetscape, Front of Dwelling, Floor Area, Front & Side Yard Setbacks, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, and Trees). Refers to new or added sections. 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 A, B, J, K & L Section 3 of this Resolution — Defined Neighborhood, Streetscape, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, Affect on Adjacent Properties). 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 B, D & L of Section 3 of this Resolution — Streetscape, Front Yard Setbacks & Affect on Adjacent Properties.) SECTION 7. (previously 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, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft Exhibit "A" Page 10 of 11 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 8. (previously 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 decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of 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 9. (previously section 6.) That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution — All HOAs, Proposed Draft p Exhibit "A" Page 11 of 11 1. Name or description of project: Text Amendment No. 11 -03 - to create a single resolution that contains standards and guidelines for development in all five Homeowners' Association areas. 2. Project Location — Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' . topographical map identified by quadrangle name): Homeowners' Association areas (see attached). 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. Lisa Flores City of Arcadia, Planning Services, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007 B. Other (Private) (1) Name j (2) Address 4. Staff Determination: The Lead Agency's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project. c. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project. d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. The project is categorically exempt. e. /1 Applicable Exemption Class: 15305 f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: g. • h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: April 27, 2011 Preliminary Exemption Assessment\2010 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) Staff: Tom Li FORM "A" MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman PerriIle presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Parrille led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao and Parrille ABSENT: Commissioner Baerg MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian to excuse Commissioner Baerg from the meeting. Without objection the motion was approved. OTHERS ATTENDING Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, PhD Wray Senior Planner, Lisa Flores Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS There were none. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON - PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS — Five - minute time limit per person There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION DECISION APPEAL NO. HOA 11 -01 934 Paloma Dr. Charles Huang 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. Senior Planner, Lisa Flores presented the staff report. The Public Hearing was opened. Chairman Perrille asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Charles Huang, the applicant, explained that he and Mr. Brown of the HOA Architectural Review Board had met and worked out a compromise on the plans that is satisfactory to both parties. He added that he is happy with the result. Mr. Dale Brown, Architectural Review Board member, said that he too, is satisfied with the result of the compromise. He expressed appreciation to the Commission for their handling of the case. Chairman Perrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. None MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Beranek said that he was pleased that a satisfactory compromise could be reached and Commissioner Baderian expressed his appreciation to both parties for their willingness to work together. MOTION: ROLL CALL It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to approve Appeal No. HOA 11 -01 to overturn the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association Architectural Review Board's denial and approve the revised design. AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Baerg There is a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2011. CONSENT ITEMS 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 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. PC MINUTES 426-11 Page 2 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2011 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Chiao, to adopt Resolution No. 1835 and to approve the minutes of April 12, 2011 as presented. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Baerg MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Baderian said that he will not be able to attend the May 10, 2011 meeting. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Chairman Parrille reported that the Modification Committee meeting for this week was cancelled. MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Flores announced that the City was awarded honorable mention for the prestigious APA award for the General Plan Update for a small jurisdiction and that Mr. Scott Hettrick was awarded first place for distinguished leadership as a Citizen Planner. Ms. Flores said that the next agenda will include an affordable housing project on Lucille Avenue and Text Amendments to amend the Homeowners Associations Resolutions. There will also be one item for the Modification Committee. Chairman Parrille announced that the grand opening of Campus Commons will be held on Friday, May 27, at 11:00 a.m. ADJOURNED ATTEST: Chairman, Planning Commission 7:15 a.m. PC MINUTES 4-26-11 Page 3