Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEBRUARY 16,1988 I I 30:0037 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK v' M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 1988 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular session February 16, 1988 at 7:30 p. m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber. INVOCATION Rabbi Perry Netter, Temple Shaarei Tikvah PLEDGE OF City Clerk Christine Van Maanen ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (Feb.2, 1988) ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY ARCADIA V' TOURNAMENT OF ROSES COURT BOY SCOUTS 1. ./ PUBLIC HEARING (Building Code.Var. Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates) (WITHDRAWN) PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None Minutes for the regular meeting of February 2, 1988 were not available. It was MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be waived. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Gilb presented to the Queen and Members of the Arcadia Tournament of Roses Court Commendations in Recognition and Appreciation of Out- standing Service to the Community. The Court has been very busy acting as embassaries and ambassadors thro~ghout the community in addition to riding in the Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena on New Year's Day. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Gilb presented a Certificate of Commendation to: Maria McCann, Queen; Lyn Bowen; Lisa Giuffrida; Jill Johnson; Jennifer (Gibi) Yount; and Iris Hoffman. -I Mayor Gilb also in attendance. Counsellor for Scoutmaster. welcomed Members of Boy Scout Troop No. 103 who were Dr. James Barrie was with the group. He is Merit Badge "Citizenship Within the Community". Dave Baker is the The public hearing scheduled for consideration of a variance on the parking structure - Arcadia Gateway withdrawn for the time being. building code Centre - was 2/16/88 -1- 2. PUBLIC HEARING (Weed Abatement) (APPROVED) ~ / '1/\ \1/ (- 3. PUBLIC HEARING (APPEAL from Plan. Comsn. 400 Columbia Rd. (DENIED) e, \~O\\\(,A,\ . p -..\1 ~. f\ 7 S E E ~":), ~ " ~ , '" T R A N S C R I P T IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION 30:0038 Consideration of objections to the proposed abatement of weeds, refuse and other material. A representative of the County Agricultural Commission was present to answer questions. Mayor Gilb declared the hearing open and, no one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the County Agricultural Commissioners be directed to abate the nuisance by having the weeds, rubbish and refuse removed. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None Consideration of an appeal of Planning Commission's denial of a request to construct a new two-story, four-bedroom dwelling with attached garage at 400 Columbia Road (Chris Construction Co., applicant). The staff report explained that in October of 1987 a public hearing was held before the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board on the plans proposed by the Chris Construction Company. Based upon testimoney received at that hearing, the Board voted 5 - 0 to deny the - proposed dwelling with findings set forth indicating that the project would not maintain the architectural character of the subject neighbor- hood; it would not be compatible with existing structures in the area; that it was excessive and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood and would not be in harmony or proportion to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. Subsequently the applicant appealed the Santa Anita Village Review Board's denial to the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held before that body on November 24, 1987. The Commission voted 4 to 1 to uphold the Architectural Review Board's denial and adopted Resolution No. 1352 denying the appeal. The matter has now been appealed to the City Council. Mayor Gilb declared the hearing open and the following persons addressed Council both in favor and in opposition. For the benefit of the record, A TRANSCg~~T_~S_ BEE~~REPARED~and attached hereto. Milt Bade, Chris Construction Company, 909 S. Santa Anita, Arcadia, CA Rob Patterson, 18002 Sky Park, Irvine, CA David Olson, 502 E. Camino Real, Arcadia, CA Steve Phillipi, 804 Balboa Drive, on behalf of the Santa Anita Village Assn'n Wes Slider, 921 Balboa Drive I Jack Saelid, 821 Balboa Drive Mae Schultz, 707 Joaquin Road Vincent Allen, 400 Cortez Road Oscar Flear, l14l Cortez Road Following all of the deliberations, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED. Each Councilmember submitted his/her position and it was MOVED Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and carryon the following roll call vote that Council approve the of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed two-story, bedroom dwelling at 400 Columbia Road. by did not -- appeal four- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler and Harbicht Councilmembers Lojeski, Young and Gilb None 2/16/88 -2- I I 4. PUBLIC HEARING (Tent. Parcel Map 87-12) (1224-30 S.Second) (APPROVED) IN FAVOR ~. 30:0039 It was then MOVED by Mayor Gilb that staff be directed to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the Council's findings and decision for denial of the appeal. Motion seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED on the following roll call vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Lojeski, Young and Gilb Councilmembers Chandler and Harbicht None The Planning Commission at its January 12, 1988 meeting voted three to one with one member absent to deny Tentative Parcel Map 87-12 to subdivide two lots into four new lots on a cul-de-sac street at 1226-1230 South Second Avenue. On January 19, 1988 CSL Engineering, Inc., on behalf of Joyce O'Rourke, the property owner, appealed the Planning Commission's denial. The subject site is comprised of two lots containing five single- family dwellings. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the two lots and create a four lot subdivision on a one-sided cul-de-sac. Mayor Gilb declared the hearing open and Rick Shawnee, ll535 Havenwood, Whittier, stated, in part, that he thought the principal objection was the fact that this would be a one-sided cul-de- sac. He said that looking at the land use and zoning map, one could see the way the property is situated the new house built on the property directly to the north is set back far enough away from the street that if the new street goes in there, this would give the appearance of a corner lot which would take away the situation of the one-sided cul-de-sac. There was also the question of the maintenance of the five foot landscaping along the sidewalk. It was suggested that the sidewalk be put right up to the block wall which would mitigate the situation. Several of the neighbors felt that they would be in favor of the project since the cul- de-sac has been moved from the south side to the north side. Also, he felt there should be no problem with security since the cul-de-sac would be straight and not curved and officers in a police patrol car driving by could look straight down the street. Joyce O'Rourke, 1224 South Second Avenue, owner of the property, circulated to the Council pictures of the site and also a petition which had been signed by some of the neighbors. On these two lots there are now five deteriorating rental houses with 12 renters living there. There are seven cars~ four trucks plus cars and motorcycles coming in and out at all hours of the day and night. Some of the surrounding homeowners were originally against the project, but are now in favor and attended the Planning Commission meeting to support her. They propose to tear down the five run-down houses to erect four quality houses which would markedly improve the area, creating large front and back yards. It does not make economic sense to tear down five old houses to only build two new houses. The proposed project will cut down on noise and traffic and improve the neighborhood. A cul-de-sac will improve the area otherwise it will be left with a nonconforming rental property in decaying condition. Raymond Casey, 1221 South Third Avenue, stated, in part, that he had helped Mrs. O'Rourke obtain the signatures on her petition. He is very much in favor of the proposed project and feels that it will improve the neighborhood. David Olson, 502 East Camino Real, stated, in part, that he is a neighbor and is very much in favor of taking the old rental houses out and building the new street. He feels it is for the benefit of the City and is wholeheartedly in support. Johanna Hofer,875 Monte Verde Drive, stated, in part, that she thought the applicant came well prepared and it sounds like something, that should be approved. 2/16/88 -3- IN OPPOSITION 30:0040 Victoria Lum, 1218 South Second Avenue,'stated, in part, that she is opposed to the project because she is concerned about security. She felt there is a possibility that burglers might break into the backyard because the backyard is not built high enough for protection and security. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED. Councilmember Harbicht stated, in part, that he was torn He would like to see the area improved. but he is not in sided cul-de-sacs ... that there are alternatives. Councilmember Young said she was not in favor on this question. favor of one- 1 of one-sided cul-de-sacs. Councilmember Lojeski said he also was not in favor of one-sided cul-de-sacs. Mayor Gilb said he felt the area was in need of improvement and this was a good opportunity to straighten it out. He has seen cases in the past where Council had a chance to improve an area but let the opportunity pass and felt that in many instances it was regrettable. Councilmember Chandler stated that it was easy to say that one-sided cul-de-sacs are not desirable. However, in this instance there 18:.no landscaping involved -- it is just sidewalk to street and cement and wall. The area is indeed in need of cleaning up. If these things are denied, frequently property owners just sit on their investments and it continues to deteriorate. It is unfortunate. In reponse to a question by Councilmember Harbicht, the Planning Director said he did not believe the subject two lots could be split. It was then MOVED by Mayor Gilb, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the appeal of Planning Commission denial of T.P.M. 87-12 be APPROVED; find that the project together with the provision for its design and improvement is consistent with the Arcadia General Plan; move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and move to approve the proposed project subject to conditions of approval set forth in staff report dated February 16, 1988. AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht and Gilb Councilmembers Lojeski and Young (because they object to one-sided cul-de-sacs) ABSENT: None 5. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Johanna Hofer, 875 Monte Verde Drive, stated that she approved of 1 Resolution No. 5405 opposing the high gas rates and inquired if utility taxes would be refunded and if there was any movement to reduce the utility taxes. The Mayor replied there was not. Mrs. Hofer suggested that Council give some thought to providing for treYJuth of the City and thought perhaps the proposed senior citizen facility could provide space for the youth. She also reminded Council that previously she had re- quested that candidates receive copies of the Council packet together with all loose material accompanying it. Mayor Gilb replied that it was not feasible to make these packets available to all candidates especially in election years where there might be as many as 18 candidates. Also. a great deal of the loose material is of a confidential nature and could not be released in this manner. The City Attorney interjected that a lot of the documents that the City has are protected from disclosure by the California Public Records Act. That is so the City may do business with- out disclosing certain items that are properly deemed confidential. 2/l6/88 -4- 30:0041 So, although the agenda package is available at the Clerk's Office and at the Library, most loose material is not available under the Public Records Act and also is not disclosable under the Attorney - Client Privilege. Mrs. Hofer then inquired whether or not the City Manager had to live in the City. The City Attorney stated that accord- ing to the State Constitution, City Managers do not have to live in the cities they manage. 1 Herb Fletcher, 175 West Lemon, stated, in part, he again wished to urge Council to initiate a study on the matter of mass rapid transit. He felt this is an item that will take a lot of time and a lot of input and that it should be made a matter of record for the benefit of future Councils so that it would not be necessary to keep starting over and over. Arcadia should decide what it wants, if anything, before others made the decisions for them. The light rail that is coming into Pasadena will also be going to El Monte and Arcadia has four different accesses. He en- courages the public to have some input into this. Mr. Fletcher also noted that most of the new houses being built do not have driveways that lead to parking in back yards. He feels in the future, one will drive down the street and merely see garage after garage in front of houses. Mr. Fletcher also felt that newcomers to the City should be informed by real estate agents just what they are getting into when they buy a piece of property... they need to think whether they have a boat or a motor home and realize there are restrictions on such parking ... people need to know ahead of time about these matters. Dale Allen, 926 South Eighth Avenue, stated, in part, tht he is Chairman of the Senior Citizens Commission andfue Senior Center Committee and he wished to personally thank Mayor Gilb, the Council and staff members for their action and commitment to provide a senior citizens center in the City. There was also a group of senior citizens in attendance representing the various senior clubs and organizations to add their thanks and support to these actions. 1 Jack Saelid, 82l Balboa Drive, stated, in part, that he wished to thank the Council for its decision on the matter of the proposed house on the Columbia Road property. But he questioned whether the intent of the Council was really to uphold the idea of homeowners associations and architectural review boards. He reminded Councilmember Harbicht that he had said we should have definitive rules, but there had to be discretionary powers on the part of the architectural review boards. He quoted several sections from the Resolution defining homeowner association obligations and powers. He thought it was perfectly all right for Councilmember Harbicht to have felt that the house was proper for that piece of property and to vote for the appellant; but apparently he put the vote on the basis of a clinical determination of what is right and wrong. Councilmember Harbicht replied he did not say there should be definitive guidelines as to what is allowed and not allowed on a piece of property... he had said during the discussion that architectural review boa do have discretionary powers and have the right and responsibility to consider each case. He felt that the property owner has a right to have some general guidelines as to what he could build on his property. Mr. Saelid also noted Councilmember Chandler's remark about shooting from the hip. He said he did not think that the appelation applies, but Councilmembe Chandler is entitled to it. 2/16/88 -5- 6. 7. 7a. ROLL CALL 7b. MINUTES (Feb.2, 1988) (NOT AVAILABLE) 7c. SOILS TESTING (North Side Project) (APPROVED) , {, \ '\ ( ,C' '\. 7d. LICENSE AGREEMENT (Emkay Develop- memt Co.) (APPROVED) ~\ <' I \)- '( 30:0042 CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None The Minutes of the meeting of February 2, 1988 were not available. 1 The Redevelopment Agency is currently contracting with Ami Amini and Associates for soils testing, consulting and hazardous waste removal on the North Side Project. In carrying out tre scope of work of which he contracted, Adini has discovered soils conditions on the former Bong Construction Yard site which he believes may lead to significant clean-up work by the Agency. The Agency staff has approached Hekimian and Associates about rendering a second opinion as soon as possible based upon the findings of Adini and Associates. As part of this work, Hekimian has agreed to review the Adini work as well as perform additional soils sampling and testing as dictated by the site conditions. Hekimian anticipatE that the cost of this work will be approximately $5,000.00 depending upon the tests required. It was then MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency contract with Hekimian and Associates for soils testing and advisory services work on the Agency-owned property located at 123 North Third Avenue in an amount not to exceed $5,500.00 ($5,000.00 + 10%). The contract shall be in a form and content approved by the Agency General Counsel. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None In order to meet a combined critical construction schedule, yet help the Agency resolve the soils problem, Emkay has proposed that it acquire only Parcel 3, the private section of the access drive. The Agency and City would permit Emkay pursuant to a License Agreement to construct the required improvements on City and Agency property and to use a small section of the Derby parking lot for a construction road prior to close. The Agency would then close on the balance of the site in early to mid- March as mentioned above. The $156,000 deduction from the purchase price for off-site improvements as set forth in the Emkay DDA would not be madl until the second escrow on the balance of the site. It was then MOVED by Member Young, seconded by Member Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency AUTHORIZE a phased close of escrow with Emkay as outlined in staff report dated February l6, 1988; that the Agency and City APPROVE the License Agree- ment subject to final approval as to form by the Agency/City Attorney with Emkay Development Company, Hampton Inn (Holiday Corporation) and Residence Inn (Marriott Corporation); that the Agency and City Council AUTHORIZE the Executive Director/City Manager to execute all documents related to the close of escrow and the License Agreements consistent with the previously approved Emkay and Derby Agreements. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None 2/16/88 -6- 30:0043 7e. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned to 7:00 p. m., March 1, 1988. 8. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED ~i;\~, .,l. ~..CO~(:N~~~~_{_, J, Ci>~' ,~. (,~ I 19 ':c..C-: , c:..l '''-'-\.. ~ a. ('1.. - .' '-- "-:f'..- !\ WORK ACCEPTED and AUTHORIZED final payment pursuant to the terms of the / \~ ACCEPTED contract with B-1 Enterprise Corporation for sawcutting and removing '( (Sidewalk concrete curb and sidewalk and constructing wheelchair ramps at various Ramps - locations throughout the City. The contract amount of $20,958 was funded Handicapped) from SB-82l Funds from Los Angeles County. (Job No. 619) 9. I 9b. DEDICATION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY (Santa Clara) 9c. WORK I . . ACCEPTED '\) (Street (. <\ Lighting ~ Instal.) (Job. No. 624) \~ '\\' 9d. BUS.LIC. FEE REDUCTION (Community Carnival) V ge. . J SETTLEMENT /'y' (Ralph Ferguson) , 9f. 'n--'PURCHASE r,~ \) DIAL-A- " RIDE SEDANS I "' ( \ , , 9g. ~ \ PURCHASE ," OF AERIAL LIFT APPROVED the dedication of City-owned property for street and highway purposes and AUTHORIZED the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Grant Deed in a form approved by the City Attorney. ACCEPTED and AUTHORIZED final payment to A.E.C. Eagle Rock for work consisting of installing underground conduit and erecting five street light poles and luminaires along Goldring Road and Kardashian Avenue. ~ The project is funded from the City Yard Relocation account. ~ V ri...- V"" ~b' c0-k ~'_ fL /Yl-"'Pt, [)/ ~ eA-hl ;.:J, j.fJ~,[1, ,(eVe;.. -"{l' ../~._-<(C /J -~ ~.,,: . ,\ , .-\;::- G:.&J '-r.;:!'--- APPROVED reduction of business license fee for the amusement rides to be used for the Arcadia PTA Community Carnival, to be held March 4, 5 and 6, 1988. The fee is reduced to $5. per ride from the regular fee of $30. per ride. APPROVED settlement authority in the amount of $15,592.50 to the City's Workers' Compensation Administrator for the Ralph Ferguson case. AWARDED contract in the amount of $71,924.91 to the low bidder, Grant Chevrolet for the purchase of five Arcadia Dial-A-Ride sedans. All informalities or irregularities in the bids or bidding process were waived and the Mayor and City Clerk were AUTHORIZED to execute the contract in form approved by the City Attorney. The new vchicles will be 80% funded by a State of California Transit Development Act Grant and 20% from Proposition A Local Return Funds. APPROVED purchase of an aerial lift for the Department of Public Works from the low bidder, Truck Hydraulic Equipment Co., Inc. in the amount of $38,100.48. Funds for the aerial lift are in the Capital Outlay Fund FY 1987-88 in the amount of $33,398.48. Additional funds need to be appropriated in the amount of $4,702.00 to cover the increased price of the aerial unit. All informalities or irregularities in the bids or bidding process were waived and the Mayor and City Clerk AUTHORIZED to execute the contract in form approved by the City Attorney. 2/16/88 -7- "A l 1]\ " v '\' ,\ ',- \. " .", 9h. PURCHASE OF BODY VESTS " " \ 9i. LICENSE AGREEMENT (EMKAY DEVELOP- MENT) 10. lOa. ORDINANCE NO. 1877 (ADOPTED) ,; ... c. \ lOb. ORDINANCE NO. 1878 (ADOPTED) ......'7 \' )c '" ,,- ,/ lOco ORDINANCE NO. 1879 (ADOPTED) \. '. ,\:,\\\\ :,., 30:0044 AWARDED contract in the amount of $26,031.58 to the low bidder, Adamson Industries for the purchase of body vests for the Police Department. Funds for the purchase of the body vests are budgeted in account 302 400 2107 8942, Capital Outlay Fund FY 1987-88 in the amount of $28,750. All informalities or irregularities in the bids or bidding process were waived and the Mayor and City Clerk were AUTHORIZED to execute the contract in form approved by the City Attorney. APPROVED License Agreement with Emkay Development construction of on-site and off-site improvements outlined in Staff Report dated February 16, 1988. Company for the on City property as I ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LOJESKI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney presented for adoption, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1877, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 4216.2.7.1, 4216.2.7.2, 4216.2.7.4 AND 4216.3.5 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE PROCESSING OF BINGO APPLICATIONS - UTILIZATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE OFFICER". It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. l877 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Young and Gilb Councilmember Lojeski (He thought it should remain wirh'the None City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney presented for adoption, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1878, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADDING AN "H" (HIGH RISE) OVERLAY TO THE EXISTING CPD-l ZONE AT 420-440 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE, A PORTION OF THE ARCADIA GATEWAY CENTRE SITE". It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember LOjeSkl and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1878 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb NOES: None ABSENT: None, The City Attorney presented for adoption, explained the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1879, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ADDING AN "H" (HIGH RISE) OVERLAY TO THE EXISTING CPD-l ZONE FOR THE PROPOSED HAMPTON INN HOTEL AT 311 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE". 2/16/88 -8- I 30:0045 It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1879 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None 10d. ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented for introduction, explained the content NO. 1880 and read the title of Ordinance No. 1880, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF (INTRODUCED)THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING AND REPEALING VARIOUS SECTIONS AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 3115.2.6 REGARDING FIREWORKS DISPLAYS". ' I 10e. RESOLUTION NO. 5405 (ADOPTED- .\ ~"v'Y.) 11. r', 12. YOUNG ~,\ 1 f\'. \~ CHANDLER 13. ADJOURNMENT (March 1, 1988) It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1880 be and it is hereby INTRODUCED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 5405, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING HIGH GAS RATES". It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No. 5405 be and it is hereby ADOPTED with changes as suggested. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None MATTERS FROM STAFF ).( The City Manager called attention to a report, requested earlier by the City Council, concerning the proposed Senior Citizens' Center. It was proposed that a visit be made to Senior Citizen facilities in other neighboring communities. After some discussion, it was agreed that the Council meet on Friday, March 4, 1988 at 8:00 a. m. at City Hall to visit these facilities. It was also agreed that a study session be set up for 6:00 p. m., March l5, 1988. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmember Young mentioned a letter from Kare Youth League regarding use of City-owned land. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Gilb and CARRIED on consensus that this matter not be placed on the agenda. Kare Youth League will be notified of this decision. Noted that he was not angry about what happened tonight. The the any and meeting adjourned at 10:30 p. m. to 7:00 p. m., March 1, 1988 in Conference Room to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and Closed Session, if any, necessary to discuss personnel, litigation evaluation of properties. ~_ Charles E. ,Gilb, Mayor ATTEST: ~ ~ue~. Chrlstine Van Maan n, City Clerk 2/16/88 -9- " I .. \, T RAN S C RIP T ION (Insofar as decipherable) RELATING TO AN APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION REGARDING DENIAL OF A PROPOSED TWO-STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AT 400 COLUMBIA ROAD. APPEAL DENIED 2. PUBLIC HEARING MAYOR GILB HOFER CITY ATTORNEY Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to construct a new two-story four-bedroom dwelling with an attached garage at 400 Columbia Road filed by the Chris Construction Co. Before we open the public hearing we wish to also have you all know that we have received all of the material ever since it was turned down by the Planning Commission, we have all of those reports that go way back to December. We have the reports of the Architectural Review Board and we also have the testimony of the applicants and various people. So much of thel material we have here but if anyone has anything else we certainly would I to hear from all of you on this matter. Any questions anyone has with M Woolard before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing and we will ask those who are in favor of this appeal to please come forward, which would be the applicant or those in favor of the appeal. Mr. Bade, you said that you were going to bring a model tonight. Please set it right there so everybody could see it. The front is facing Columbia. Johanna Hofer, 875 Monte Verde Drive, I do have a question to ask the Council before they take testimony from the other people. I would like to know if the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board is a legal and effective body to make architectural review decisions. The Santa Anita Village Association has not met in years and is actually a very dormant association. If such is the case, why does the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board still have jurisdiction in approval and denial of building plans? I wonder if you folks could answer that? The Architectural Review Boards are legally established entities pursuant to City Ordinances and City Resolutions. They have been delegated certain powers and they are exercising those powers legally. -1- ~ HOFER CITY ATTORNEY YOUNG HOFER I BADE PATTERSON Even though the organization really does not function so to speak. We have absolutely no information or shall we say no evidence or any other wise that tells us that the entity is not functioning. Johanna, this is the Village Association, not the Lower Rancho Association, I think you live in the Lower Rancho Association. There are two different ones. So you say Santa Anita Village is functioning, and it is the Lower Rancho that is not as far as I know because that is where I belong. Thank you very much. Milt Bade, 63 Birchcroft, Arcadia, I have a construction office at 90g South Santa Anita, Arcadia. We are gathered here tonight to try and determine what the question is on that house. We have designed a home that we feel fits the neighborhood very appropriately. We have been building homes in Arcadia for a number of years and I think that all the homes that we have built have been very well accepted. I would like to introduce Rob Patterson, our architect on this project, who is a graduate of USC and is also of graduate school of UCLA in land planning. He has had experience in drafting and architecture for twenty years, he has been state licensed for ten years and currently sits on the board of the ARB of Emerald Bay in Laguna Beach. So at this time I would like to present Rob Patterson. Rob Patterson, Architect, 18002 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, California. In response to the Santa Anita Village Board findings on the project at 400 Columbia, I would like to say the following. We, our architectural company, worked with Milt Bade, our client, as we do with all our clients. We try to find out before we start a project what the rules are, the city ordinance~ association requirements, and so on. And we do this very often, every time we start a project. In this project we established our design perimeters based upon several things. Based upon a study of the community, we went -2- around the community and photographed homes in the community to try to get an idea of the kind of architecture that is there in the Santa Anita Village. We have researched the city zoning ordinances for R-l standards, we have researched resolution 5286, which is the ARB's resolution. We designed a home for the subject lot which met all of the perimeters with special attention to the compatibility in the neighborhood. That was our main goal and our main objective. We looked very hard at what would market in that community, what kind of house would fit well with the community. Our design meets all of the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance', al to the best of our understanding meets all of the requirements of the Association design standards in terms of square footages, percentages, heights and that kind of thing. We made our presentation to home owners at an open community association meeting, and were denied permission to continue with our project. At that meeting the only stated objections to the project were and I quote, "We heard from the board that the proposed house was too large." That was the only answer that they could give us as to why we were denied at that meeting. The formal findings of the board to this body and to the Planning Commission were that the subject lot is a visable corner lot, I am quoting now from theirs and it will just take a second but I think it's important. "The subject lot is a visable corner lot in a neighborhood that is comprised mostly of ranch-style, single-story residences, and a few two-story residences that tend to blend in or are compatible with the adjoining properties." Our proposal is a very attractivE two-story ranch-style structure. Obviously considerable time and effort was used to design a structure that had material and design features similar to houses in the area. However, the proposed structure is substantially larger than other structures in the area. Our project is a two-story house, the height limit in the city is 35 feet, our project -3- a height limit of 27 feet 6 inches. The first story foot print of our house as we propose is 2,952 square feet, that includes the garage. That is the footprint of the house as it stands on the lot. Going by the zoning ordinance for R-l, we are allowed a coverage of 45 percent. Our building coverage at 2,952 is 36 percent. If we follow the standards for setbacks our building area allowed is 3,445 square feet, and we are proposing a structure that is only 2,952 square feet. So we are far under the allowed coverage and setback requirements on the first floor. On the second story we have 1,444 square feet and an 8,000 square foot lot. Based on city setbacks, 2,580 square feet would be allowed for the second floor. We are therefore 85 percent of what is allowed on the first floor and 65 percent in area of what is allowed on the second floor by the city zoning ordinance, and yet the board stated in their finding that it is not opposed to a two-story house, it is simply too large for the subject lot and neighborhood. And again I am quoting and I am taking it out of context but that is in effect what the ARB is saying to us on our project. I think the ARB is being arbitrary and capricious in their interpretation of what is too large in the community. I think the ARB is trying to regulate the square footage of houses in the Santa Anita Village Community using statements in the resolution that are subjective in nature such as harmony, size, compatibility and so on. So I guess the issue really boils down to the fact that we are trying to get an understanding of what our allowed square footage is when we are way under the resolution as far as statistics and we are way under the zoning ordinance in terms of area and that yet seems to be the only requirement that the ARB requires that we can't seem to meet, and that is size. I request that you all would approve our project or vote in favor of our project. Thank you for your time and I will be available for questions. I -4- MAYOR GILB BADE Any questions of Mr. Patterson? Anyone else that would like to come forward and speak in favor of the appeal? Milt Bade, I was up here once and stumbled through some words--anyway, I would like to point out that--I'm not going to go through everything that Rob said, he covered 100 percent, I don't know how we could cover it any better. We have a model sitting down here in front of you that is a replica of what we are going to build. It has a very low profile, we have gone up and taken a lot of pictures of homes in the area and it seems as though, I have to repeat what Rob said, we have met with all that has been required except the square footage seems to b, th, '01, lII! thing that seems to be a problem. If we were to take and lob 300 square feet off the back of the house and still build the same house with the same profile, the same design, the same heighth, the same architecture, I am assuming that we would be all right. Because Rosalie Barton just got one approved on Balboa and Golden West that had approximately 3,300 to 3,400 square feet in it. So I can't see why reducing the square footage in the house would have any bearing if we could build that same model and the ARB has commented and their report came back to us saying that they thought that the house was compatible, that the material and everything was a nice ranch style home, they liked it, that it looked good, but it was too big. What's too big? We are under the allowed footage. There is a demand for bigger homes today, everybody wants them. We are building them allover Arcadia, and I can't see that the ARB has given us one reason why we are not able to build this house. One of the comments was at the open meeting the night that we met with the ARB from one of the fellows was that he didn't like it because it had a three-car garage on it. I would like to know of anybody in Arcadia that wouldn't like a three-car garage. I have got a four-car garage and I can't get -5- " OLSON everything in it now. I jog in the mornings, I go around the streets early, I walk sometimes late at night and I see cars, three, four cars in the driveways, I see in some cases cars on the front lawns. So I just can't see any reason in the world why we haven't met everything that the city has asked us and I certainly request that you vote in favor of our project. Thank you very much. David Olson, 502 E. Camino Real. I am associated with Chris Construction. No meeting would be complete unless there were some handouts and I have some pictures and also some letters from some of the owners up in the Village area. First of all, you are going to receive some pictures. As Mr. Patterson stated we spent a lot of time up in the Village going around looking at, the homes that are up there taking a lot of pictures. Most of the pictures that we took were of the homes up there that were two-story and there are some 20-odd two-story homes up there and also at the present time in the building department that I know of there are two other plans that are being reviewed that would add second-story additions to two different homes up there in the village area. On the pictures that you have we just took a small sample of the pictures, and the first ones, the numbers one through four, in going through and with Rob's concurrence are houses that he builds and we build are very similar to the one that we are proposing in terms of style, size, compatibility, and harmony. In fact, if you notice the very first picture, the one labeled number one, it really looks like a three-story house because it sits at 447 Drake and I guess they come up a little on a hill there and the garage is on the ground level and they go up two more levels above that and something very interesting about that house, they have had two different major additions to it in the early 80's and the total square footage of the house right now of the living area is 4211 square feet. The lower level garage is 524 I -6- square feet for a total of 4,735 square feet of the house and garage. That is several hundred square feet in total larger than the house we are proposing and just in the living area alone it is 600 square feet more than what we are proposing. The pictures that you have that are on the flip side of that are labeled five through seven, these are houses which in our estimation are less harmonious than the house that we are proposing. At the very front of the house and one thing that we strove to do was to take, as you can see on that model especially as you come around on that corner, on the corner of Columbia and Cortez, is that you I only have the first part of the house, the first story of the house is on that corner and a low profile as you stand back from the street level and you look and it takes the profile of the house looking up like this it's not a solid wall at you. The same as number six, which is on the corner of Portola and Cortez, there is two shots of that, just straight up on the corner and it's a very boxy effect. Someone is saying number seven. What these pictures are just as I said an example there are things up there that we feel look very nice that are the same style, same size, are compatible with the house that we are proposing and there are also houses up there that we feel are much less harmonious than something we are proposing, we have a hard time accepting that they would turn down our house and yet see these other type of houses that do exist in the Village and that were approved at one point or another in the last four years there. The second thing that was passed out to you was a little letter that some eighteen to twenty signed and out of 600 plus homeowners up there it doesn't sound like much but I would like to explain how these things just came about. All these people live up in the Village area and a couple of people were acquaintances of ours some of them contacted us and said we hear you here we want to see something happen -7- and they said that they would like to help us out. We tried to encourage them to come to the meeting but a lot of people prefer not to get up and speak but they were willing to sign a letter like this. There were of these signatures, there are five signatures on here from five different homeowners that came as a result of a meeting that was held in the home of one of the people that lives in the Village. She is a friend of Mr. Bade and in talking to Mr. Bade at some point last January, said, "Hey, I hear you are having this problem but I would like to see it and my neighbors and talking about it and we would like to see this project. They live over on Drake, which is one street over, and they said we haven't really seen the model or anything. Would you, if I get some of my neighbors there, why don't you come up, bring your stuff and you can show what you have got." She invited her neighbors, all the people around that were friends of hers. They had not seen the house before. Out of nine people that were there, five people signed that they liked what they saw. Two people absolutely did not like it, one person was one of the original first houses on the street there on Drake and just thought that it was too much change and another person was concerned, to be brutally frank, with what type of people would move into this house and the concern that there would be more than one family because it was a large house. Two other people they didn't know and took the letters home with them and said they would think about it, I regret to inform you that I have not received the letters back from them. What this is really saying is that we have heard a lot of talk that has been brought about at the ARB and at the Planning Commission meeting that when we appealed this that there is a survey out there that they have interviewed a lot of people and a big high response, people want houses less than 3,000 square feet up there and so on and so on. I think that this is a I -8- HARBICHT OLSON MAYOR GILB PHILLIPI survey, if you will, having that meeting of those nine different home- owners in that house as the official survey that was taken. It was a wide range of emotions that were expressed there in terms of what they liked and what they didn't like and why, some people, why they liked to see this type of stuff being built and why others would not like to see it. So it is not a clear-cut issue as to the whole Village is against something like this. As I said there are several two-story homes there, there are larger homes, all the two-story homes from what we could see were generally in the neighborhood or approximating 3,000 and over in I so square feet and as I said that first house that we showed you is in excess of 4,200 square feet. My mouth is getting a little dry here I end that and I will answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Olson, are all these houses that are pictured in the Village? Yes they are. I would be more than happy to give you the addresses if you would like. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Olson. Anyone else that would like to come up and speak in favor of the appeal? Seeing none, we will hear from the side that is opposed to the appeal. Steve Phillipi, 804 Balboa Drive, President of the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, good evening. I am here tonight to speak on behalf of the residents of my association in opposition to the appeal made by Chris Construction. As a side point let me quickly assure you that the Village is operating just fine, that we held our annual meeting last May, that our membership is fine and in accordance with our bylaws and that everything is exactly as it should be in our area. The proposed project that we have before us tonight is one of 3,685 square feet worth of dwelling, 711 square feet of garage. My map leads me to conclude that that is 4,396 square feet. The lot on which this project is proposed to be constructed is -9- 8,240 square feet. In addition this lot is a very, very visable lot in my area, it is one the corner of Cortez and Columbia. It is a rather small lot, quite frankly, in my area. The project you have before you this evening was presented to the Architectural Review Board of the Village. As always the ARB reviewed the application independently, separately, and with resolution 5286 in mind. The ARB attempts to be reasonable, it attempts to be flexible, it attempts to guide itself in accordance with the City's resolution, and as we all know because we I have been here before, the key concepts in doing so are that of proportion, harmony, and compatibility. It was with these concepts in mind that the Architectural Review Board reviewed this property. Now, by way of contrast, I am told by Gordon Maddock, who as you know is a leader of a builders' group in our town, that his information that the average size dwelling in my neighborhood, in the Village, is 1,650 square feet.' That the average size garage in our neighborhood is 400 square feet. That leads you to an average structure size in our neighborhood of 2,050 square feet. The average lot size in our neighborhood is 9,000 square feet, the average foot print, excluding a garage is 18 percent. In other words, the proposed project is more than twice as large as the average size house in our area and it is proposed that it be constructed on a lot that is approximately 10 percent smaller than the average size lot in our area. Two times as big and 10 percent less lot square footage. Now how does this proposed project compare to the proposed text amendment that has been receiving a lot of attention recently? I haven't done an exhaustive study, but it seems to me that at a minimum the second story fails to comply with what the law would be with respect to second story setback requirements. The old 50 percent square footage, total structure square footage, the total lot size square footage has now been dropped but had it been retained this property doesn't comply with that either. Again, -10- 8,240 square feet here, 4,396 square feet worth of structure. Now, the ARB findings are included in the staff's report. They were made pursuant to the resolution. I believe that the findings are thorough, that they are complete, that they are justifiable, in fact I think that they are downright exemplary. I think that they are exactly how findings should be from architectural review boards. These findings were made by the ARB after a public hearing where there was an opportunity for public debate. After that occurred, the ARB decided that the project would not maintain architectural character of the area, that the structure was excessive and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. The ARB also found th structure not to be in harmony nor in proportion to adjacent structures in the neighborhood. The ARB's vote was five to nothing against the project. I believe the staff report is in error. The Planning Commission's vote was four to nothing upholding the decision of the Architectural Review Board. Now for just a moment I would like to speak to you on the purpose of a homeowners' association because I think it is really key in your ruling this evening. I believe the City Council in its great wisdom created homeowners' associations so that local residents might have the right of self-determination and local control. Now if these tasks are performed reasonably and responsibly, in my opinion, an architectural review board ought not to be overturned. That is local control and local determination ought to apply. This ruling of the architectural review board as agreed by the Planning Commission was just that. It was responsible, it was reasonable, it was based upon the resolution. The ruling was also consistent with the overwhelming majority, not nine households, the overwhelming majority of the residents in my association. The ARB is not some loose canon as sometimes people like to say but, in fact, it's guided by its homeowners' association, excuse me, by its -11- J residents. At the special meeting called by City Council with the Homeowners' Associations I presented to the Council the results of the survey. That survey was sent out to some 620 homes, the response rate was approximately 50 percent. I am not going to belabor all the pOints in the survey but I just want to highlight a couple and that is, number one: 85 percent of the people believe that size should be considered by the Architectural Review 80ard in making its rulings, and second of all: 82 percent of the people thought that size ought to be limited in our area. Again this is not nine households, this 50 percent of the association responding to this survey. I would like to touch briefly on the issue raised by Mr. Bade with respect to demand, because I have heard it before. There is a lot of discussion that there is a big demand for these big homes and that's fine and that is 'understandable that these gentlemen would want to build a house for which there is demand. But I think that really overlooks somebody, and these somebody's are the people who have already bought into that area. The people that live there. The people for whom the association was created. I think that it completely overlooks what they want. Getting back to the purpose of a homeowners' association, self-control, and self-determination. So I think that the point about demand somewhat misses the point. Now, it was stated that the Architectural Review Board is arbitrary and capricious or was at least on this occasion. Some people might say, "Does the ARB have some square footage limitation?"--not going to allow more than 2,000 square feet, absolutely, positively not. As I said when I started; each application is reviewed on its own merits. References made to the property at 900 Balboa, it is very very true that a home of 3,247, or 46, I can't recall which, square feet was approved by the Architectural Review Board. But it is also true that the lot on which that house was built -12- LOJESKI MAYOR GILB PHILLIPI is approximately 1,000 square feet larger than the lot on which this proposed project would be built. I hadn't really planned on saying anything on this but there has been some reference made to the property on Drake. I can recall a recent ARB meeting where a property of about 3,600 square feet was actually approved for Drake. But it just so happens that the lot size there was about 12,000 square feet, or in other words about a third more than the lot size of the project proposed before you this evening. I submit to you that the ARB's decision is reasonable and that plain and simply the proposed project exceeds any I reasonable limitations with regard to massiveness or size. It's true that we don't have any problem with the style. We are not complaining about the style of the architecture. In conclusion, I would like to say that decision of the ARB is exactly what it should have been, made in a manner exactly the way the Council intended it to be made. The decision came after public hearing and public debate. The results were specific in detail, you have seen them. The findings were tied to the resolution and the decision was consistent with the will of the overwhelming majority of the people in my association. On behalf of my association I urge you to deny this appeal and to affirm the decision of the ARB. I would be happy to answer any questions. No questions, only a correction, Mr. Phillipi. I believe you alluded to the Planning Commission voting four to nothing to uphold the decision of the ARB, it was actually a four to one vote. Can I ask a question? Is it the same Architectural Review Board that you have now that turned this down in December or whenever it was? With the exception of one person, one of the members of the ARB moved from the area. A board meeting was held and a person, a fifth person, or another person, was selected by the Board of Directors to fill the -13- PHILLIPI fifth spot. So four out of five are still the same. Well I have some questions. One of the things that was made in testimony at the Planning Commission, one of the objections by a member of the ARB was that this has a three-car garage. Is that the position of the ARB, that three-car garages will not be allowed? I don't believe that is the position of the ARB, again I think it would depend upon a specific application, a specific project. There already, if I remember correctly, on Victoria a three-car garage in our area and it's not my understanding that this project was denied based upon the existence of a three-car garage. It is my understanding that certain people voiced reservations about the existence of a three-car garage. _ At the Planning Commission meeting the minutes reflect that testimony was given by a member of the ARB that one of the objections was the three-car garage, so I am just trying, to clarify whether, if I was a resident of the Village, if I was a property owner there, I would like to know whether I am allowed to have a three-car garage or not. I don't think that there is a specific prohibition against a three-car garage because I think that three-car garages, now that I think about it I think the property at 900 Balboa which was approved has a three-car garage. I think it really depends largely upon the way the house is configured, whether or not the garage is attached or detached, the architecture of the building in general. This is Wes Slider who is a member of the Architectural Review Board, perhaps he can speak on it more intelligently than I can. Gary Kobosich, 947 Coronado, the proposed lot is slightly over 8,000 square feet, the house is very well designed, the materials are certainly compatible. The objection was to the three-car garage and the size of the structure. HARBICHT J HARBICHT PHILLIPI KOBOSICH -14- YOUNG I have been out to the property and looked at it and I think it's a well designed house, but I also noticed to construct a three-car garage they are going to have to take down a pretty fair-sized oak tree. I used to live in the Village and if I recall there is a restriction about removing trees of a certain size. SLIDER Wes Slider, 921 Balboa Drive, That is correct. It's contained in Resolution 5286. There was a lot of debate over that tree, in fact, about whether it was going to be removed or be replaced or relocated rather.' As far as I know the status of that tree was never firmly set., If I may say something about the garage, it was my interpretation,about the opposition to the three-car garage, being, that it occupied or took up such a large portion of the structure. It wasn't so much that it was a three-car garage, please understand, we approved a three-car garage for 900 Balboa, the ARB did, it wasn't the fact that it is a three-car garage so much as, this is my interpretation of the opposition to it, so much as the fact that it, again, took up such a large percentage of the front of the structure. It looked as though you were looking at a three-car garage, not a home. HARBICHT Wes, I had another question. This particular case really boils down to size and nothing else. The Architectural Review Board can consider a lot of different factors in your deliberations--apparently, all of the other factors were not a problem, it's size. We are down to one specific issue--is that correct? SLIDER It was size taking into consideration the fact that it might also impair or destroy the enjoyment of the surrounding properties namely the property to the south and to the east. The property to the east, it's not a square block in that area, that property to the east is actually on a curve so it doesn't have the rear of the home facing this proposed -15- HARBICHT structure--it has more of the what would be the southwest corner of the structure would be aimed at the center of this particular proposed project here. Again, that is what was taken into consideration when we- But the impact would be a result of the size, it is not because of the materials, or the design of the house. No, Mr. Harbicht, not at all. It is perhaps, I have only seen a map of that isolated area--it is most definitely the smallest lot in the area-- I wouldn't stand here and say it is the smallest lot in the Village, but it is certainly the smallest lot in that particular area. Does the Architectural Review Board have a'guideline as to size of dwelling which will be allowed? Well, our text case, sir, was the 900 Balboa, and I think we are kind of subscribing to that or adhering to that as a guideline. I know that is what I am doing. I am approaching this as objectively as I possibly can. Not subjectively. Which is what? Well, the home that we approved there again was a little over 3,200 square feet with a detached three-car garage. The foot print on that home was about 1,900 square feet. Did the 1,900 square feet include the garage? No, sir. That would be another 600 square feet. So we are talking around 3,800 square feet? Well, 2,500 on the foot print and 3,800 square feet overall, yes. The reason I am asking the question is, is that in the city zoning ordinances we set certain maximums for setbacks and heights, number of square feet, things like that, and so the property owner has those and he knows this is what he can do and what he cannot do. I would be concerned SLI DER J "RBI,"' SLI DER HARBICHT SLI DER HARBICHT SLI DER HARBICHT SLI DER HARBICHT -16- if I was a property owner and I was thinking about adding onto my house or something, without having some guidelines as to what I could do, sort of in a position, you are sort of doing it like case law as opposed to legislative law. So I would design something and 'what do you think' and I may be told to go back and try again. As opposed to having some idea as to what the limit is. That is why I am asking if you have some guidelines. SLIDER Well, that is what we were trying to establish too with this survey in HARBICHT ratio lot size to size of structure and we have not to my knowledge I anyway confirmed a table to follow in that respect. That would be idea if we could come up with such a table that would identify ratio of the . lot size to the square footage of structure. You are probably familiar with what the Planning Commission's deliberations on an ordinance that we are going to be considering in our next Council meeting, i~ which they try to set some of those things legislatively. I am concerned about a person not knowing what his rights are and I am struggling a little bit--if I was a property owner there and I wanted to add on to my house or knock it down and build a new one, I would really be operating in the dark. SLIDER Well, in respect to identifying standards or some guideline, as I recall, I could be wrong on this, but I understand some of these gentlemen were in attendance at the Rosalie Barton hearings that we conducted so they certainly must have gotten a feel from those hearings as to the tone of the board there, the ARB, and the tone of the community, just the Village at large. We couldn't give them firm guidelines in writing as that has not been established as yet. One thing too that was not pointed out earlier and that was that I believe it was Mr. Clark, on the Planning Commission, stated in the Planning Commission hearing on this project, -17- CHANDLER SLI DER CHANDLER J PHILLIPI ~ MAYOR GILB CHANDLER SLI DER CHANDLER SLI DER CHANDLER that he had driven by this site himself and he could not conceive how this particular project was going to fit on that small lot. So that was word of mouth from one of the gentlemen from the Planning Commission. A couple of questions please. There were a lot of averages going around. Do you just by chance have the average lot size that was referred to in some abstract way? I believe Mr. Phillipi came up with that information. Do you just have an average, something close? Yes, 9,000 square feet, but approximately 750 square feet more than this particular lot. That's an average. That is what Gordon Maddock says, we don't know is that is for sure. Just as a matter of interest do you have any notion about the average age of the homes? I know that my house was built in 1941 and it is 47 years old and I would say that most houses range in age from 50 to 40 years, in that neighborhood. There is one question that I have. What exactly do you mean when you say our text case? The reason I cited the Barton project at Balboa and Golden West was because that was the first project of this type that we collectively as an ARB had to address. There was a lot of scuttle, a lot of complaining about a project that had been built north of that location and the amount of lot that it consumed and so we were trying to listen to the residents in the area and not only adhere to that but adhere as strongly as we could to 52B6 and I believe we accomplished that to resolution 52B6. Our findings cite 5286 almost verbatum I think. I know you spent a lot of time with that and in the case of this issue I believe it's been trailing since August or whatever that at first they approached the ARB. Somehow I thought it was August. -18- , SLIDER PHILLIPI MAYOR GILB PHILLIPI MAYOR GILB This text case issue doesn't mean that nothing else can happen until this is built and everybody takes a look-see and says, 'o.k., alrighty.' No, sir. Not at all, no. That's water under the bridge so to speak. That project is under way. They are putting up the walls right now around the property and I imagine that they will be breaking ground on the actual structure pretty soon. There is nothing hinged on that project other than that is sort of a guideline for us to follow in terms of ratio. I would not place too much emphasis on the words 'text case.' I think what Mr. Slider is saying is nothing more than this is obviously a new issue. It is not an issue which existed way back when when the area wa originally subdivided. So obviously it breaks some new ground, for whic the law evolves and changes and that's exactly why the City Council is now considering the proposed text amendment. If I might mention one thing, there are some people down here that have called me and they said, you know, what can I do down here, do I take my plans and see whether the boys like them or not and then if they don't like them do I make new plans. Because there is a lot of uncertainty in this. Now, there is no question that there have been a lot of homes built in throughout Arcadia that should never have been built, there is not question of that. But by the same token if this house was being built any place but where there is an ARB we wouldn't even be here tonight. Well, that's correct and that is in fact the beauty of the review board and the homeowners' association. Yes, but that is what I'm saying. There are a lot of people that are very interested in this too, and like I said when we talk about a text case, there are a lot of people that don't know where they stand. The ARB doesn't really know for sure until they get it all put together either is what you are saying. -19- , SLI DER MAYOR GILB SLI DER MAYOR GILB l'lIDER MAYOR GILB SLI DER MAYOR GILB Well, Mr. Mayor, what I am saying is that the lots in our area vary in size, obviously from 8,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. Well, when you tell me they are 9,000 average that just surprises me. That is what I am told and believe that to be the case. We attempt to, as we are required to do, view each project on an individual basis and in my mind that means that a certain lot is going to accomodate more square footage than others. No question. Certain areas, it just so happens this lost is a very small, very visable lot. There aren't a lot of two-story houses in that area. I want to emphasize that the Architectural Review Board is not telling Mr. Bade and Chris Construction it has got to construct a 2,000 square foot house or forget it, far from it. I think what it's saying is that when you look at this lot, when you look at the houses which surround it, when you look at the proposed text amendment, it just goes too far. I think that is what Mr. Harbicht was getting at when he said is it really just an issue of size. In the back of this house,next to the garage, is there five feet from there to the property line and five feet to the next property line, I mean to the next house, the next dwelling. Is there ten feet between that house and the next house? There should be a five foot setback, yes. On the first story, on the second they reflect a ten-foot setback. I tried to address that issue before with respect to whether or not it would comply under the proposed text amendment. My reading of the proposed text amendment is that it would requre on the second story five plus ten percent of the width or thirteen if it is approximately 80 feet wide. And the front of the house is 25 feet from the curb? -20- YOUNG MAYOR GILB HARBICHT MAYOR GILB SAELID Well, I was just going to say that I hope that all of the citizens, not only in that area, but in Arcadia appreciate all of the work that has gone into this regardless of how anybody feels because I think this is an up-and-coming issue for a town that is a mature town and is going to be a changing town. I happen to agree with the Architectural Review Board because that is one of the smaller lots in that area and I think this is a litlle bit massive for, how did they word that, substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. Anyway, let's go on with the public hearing. Is there anyone else who I would like to speak? Did you have another question, Mr. Harbicht? I was just going to find out if that five-foot is the sideyard setback. Anyone else that would like to speak on this subject please? Jack Saelid, 821 Balboa Drive, I have lived in the Santa Anita Village area since 1961 and I personally feel that one of the reasons that'that area has managed to maintain the quality and the value is that we have had the advantages of the Architectural Review Board and several of you have talked about the problem city-wide about how we are getting some smaller lots that are being over-built but what I would consider to be overzealous developers. We are not immune to that. People come into the area and they ask for the kinds of things that you are hearing tonight. I would point out also that when you hear comments like, 'gee, it meets all the City codes, why can't you go along with it,' well I think that when you talk about the Santa Anita Village Community Association or any of the Architectural Review Board overlay or architecturally restricted areas there are resolutions that apply and that is a part of the City code. Resolution 5286 is a part of the City code. If you look at page 9 of that resolution and paragraph B, good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the -21- I structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. Pure and simply that is what we are talking about. Earlier we saw the ----- who was trying to make the case that the Architectural Review Board acted capriciously and arbitrarily, I will be charitable and say that's an inaccurate statement. I was there that night, there was full discussion of what was proposed, it was very clearly, and it continues to be very clearly in my view, a tremendously overbuilt development for that size lot. There is no question about it and that has been pointed out to you. I think also if you look at that particular lot and if you look at the land use and zoning plot that you have in your packet, the actual lot size the property owners' rights are for a piece of property that's 60 by BO.46. So you are really talking about a very small piece of property to put what amounts to a 4,000 square foot building upon it. I thlnk that one of the things that we have had the benefit of over the many years that I have lived in the Village is the consistency with which the Architectural Review Board has dealt with proposals, there have been some which have varied from what I thought was proper and I guess when they have come to my attention I have been one of those that have appealed decisions. Or at least I have recently. In this case I think they dealt completely appropriately, rightly, there was no element of capriciousness about it and I ask that you deny the appeal on this matter. Thank you. If you looked at your land use and zoning chart in your packet of materials, you will see that the corner of Cortez and Columbia Road shows it's 80.46 east and west on Cortez and 60 feet across on Columbia. If you add to that your public or right-of-way I'm sure that you may come up with a larger number than we are talking about. -22- WOOLARD I might make a correction--that doesn't include 30-some feet, 31 feet, that is one the radius so to each of those numbers ,you have to add 31.42 feet. SAELID Yes, that was my misreading of the chart. WOOLARD The numbers you read were just the straight line segments that don't include the corner radius. SAELID Are you saying, Mr. Woolard, then, that if you include that the total lot size as shown here would be that much more from 4,824 to 8,200 square feet? i, ,littl, :tIr HARBICHT The dimensions are 80 by 102 with the exception of there corner cut out on the curve there. SAELID I am not sure what your actual lot area is going to turn out to be, let's , assume that it is 8,200, it's still 1,000 square feet nominally less than what the average is in the area and this is a tremendously overbuilt proposed development for that area. HARBICHT The purpose of an architectural review board is to protect an area, protect the property owners in the area. What would be the negative effect that would accrue if this house were to go in? SAELID Well, it would be totally out of character in terms of the size. It might make the property adjacent to it, I have used this term before, it might make the neighbo~hood, the neighboring property look like the gatekeeper's residence or something of that sort. It would not be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. It's far too large. It would look like you were trying to cram something far too large onto far too small a piece of property. That would not help anybody. Now we could redirect the goals of the area. We might say that, let us assume that the people within the area wanted to see a far more dense development of the area and give up some of the open space, and give up some of the -23- , HARBICHT SAELID , HARBICHT SAELID MAYOR GILB sunlight in their backyards and this kind of thing. If they chose to do that, why then a change to doing this kind of a development may be consistent with that but that is not the goal that the association has. The goal is to maintain some openness, some airiness, and keep the density from becoming far too great and I think this violates all of those. What do you think would be the economic effect if there were a number of homes in the 3,000 to 3,500 foot range built? I am sure no expert in that regard, Mr. Harbicht. I can tell you that it would have less desirability for me as a homeowner to remain there. If the property values went up then I would look at it purely as a speculative investment. My investment in my property, I might look at it positively. But that is just speculative by its nature. I was just asking if you thought they would go up or down or stay the same? I could see that even if you want to talk about the negatives and I again make no claim to be an expert in this area but if you begin to allow people to look at their investment, their property investments, only for the value of the raw land underneath their improvements, there is a negative incentive to keep their properties up. They say, 'why should I put a $10,000 or a $15,000 roof on a place if my real value here is the raw land and, therefore, they are going to tear down whatever I put up anyway.' I could see that as a negative incentive. That certainly would not be positive. You know Jack, there are some people in the Village, I have gotten a couple of letters from two ladies that said we shouldn't allow anything to be built in there over 1,400 feet. I mean I got two of these letters and there are some people in the Village that want to sell their homes---- they are getting ready to retire and they want to sell their homes and -24- SAELIO MAYOR GILB SCHULTZ they want to get everything out of them that they can. So they are kind of on the other side of this coin, too, and it's interesting--I heard this yesterday, ------ I heard that there was a home sold on Balboa for 350,000 bucks the other day. Which really surprised me, I mean I guess surprised everybody. When they go out to build another house to replace the one they sold, wait until they find out what it is going to cost. Anyway, and so that is where this comes about where people are thinking well, the Architectural Review Board and that's why we asked the question of Steve about the size of homes, I mean the, are people that think that the Architectural Review Board want to hold homes down to 1,400 or 1,600 square feet. That's why we are asking that question. I think that Mr. Phillipi answered that appropriately. We don't have a maximum in terms of the square footage of a home that can go into the Santa Anita Village Association. I don't think that would be proper; I think that perhaps some kind of rule of thumb relative to square footage related to lot size might make sense. Again, that is something that I think the Planning Department and the Planning Commission in trying to come up with the text amendment dealt with that. It was a very, very difficult thing to do. I don't have a real good answer for you, but I can sure tell you when something doesn't match the area and this sure doesn't do it. Thank you. Any other questions? Is there anyone else that would like to come and speak on this matter? Mae Schultz, 707 Joaquin Road, Arcadia, they are fond of saying it's going to increase the property values with these big homes but it isn't true. It's only good for people who plan to sell their homes. People who plan to stay in the neighborhood for the forseeable future don't share -25- I MAYOR GILB ALLEN all this enthusiasm. Let's face it, those increased property values are realized only when a home is sold to someone who wants to tear it down and build a new bigger one. It is unlikely that people moving into a neighborhood where new homes are crowding out the older, smaller ones are going to feel terribly comfortable in their tract-size homes as newer ones tower over them. Rising property values will in that case actually make the smaller homes harder to sell to anyone who doesn't want to tear it down and build a big one. And so this is how it goes. So that is my feeling about these great big homes--are not going to improve our value at all, only to those who want to tear them down and build something bigger, but not for all of us folks that have lived in the Village. I have been there 30 years, and it is a lovely, lovely area. While I am here I would like to say I feel sorry for all the architects that have no imagination and are all slapping three garages in front of the houses. I can understand why they do it on the small lots, but they are doing it on the large lots in south Arcadia and then to do it on a corner lot is unbelievable. Why would they put the garages in front on a corner lot? It is not understandable. Thank you. If anyone else is going to speak on this matter would you please come down in front. Vincent Allen, 400 Cortez Road, I am right across the street from the ~ proposed project. Now how can anybody say this house is compatible with the surrounding houses--this will be two and one-half times larger than the house I live in. I live directly across the street. All the surrounding houses are about the same size. As this gentleman said that he went through the neighborhood getting signatures, he sure didn't come in my area to get any signatures because there's nobody up there that I know that signed anything like that. Another thing that I want to point -26- out, from Balboa Blvd. all of the way up Cortez clear to end into the cul-de-sac every house faces each other on each side all the way up, so it is all parallel, all even. Except for one house and that is this proposed project. Now what they are going to do, they are going to bring this house out to Cortez to the edge of the street and from the fireplace to the curb will be seven or eight feet. Now, you darn near can stand in the street and touch the house. Now, as you come up Cortez you are not only going to see the side of the house you are going to see part of the rear of the house. And to make it even worse the house is going "f so it is not only going to jut out into the street it's going to jump up in the air. The house is huge, it throw everything out of proporti when a house does not fit into an area it becomes a monstrosity. I think that this house is a monstrosity--it does not fit in and I don't know, we live here in the Village. The Village is a planned community. It is an established community. The Village is meant to be an area with a village atmosphere, a small-town aspect and that is what it was set out to be to begin with and now they are coming in and destroying what we have here. Who gives these people the right to do this? I mean when 1 bought my house into the area, you take in a lot of consideration besides the house you are going to build, you look at the surrounding areas, you do not buy into an area anticipating there is going to be some radical changes made in the future. You buy into that area as the area exists at this time. You don't contemplate anything that is going to be made later. Now when you build a house two and one-half times bigger than the existing structures around it, I mean that goes beyond being radical. That goes to the extreme of being radical. The house does not fit there, it is too big. You have got a great big buidling and it has a lot of square footage in it. And that's all it is. To me to build -27- FLEAR anything radical in an established neighborhood always has an adverse effect on all of the property that surrounds it. You can ask anyone who is a bank or anyone who puts value on a piece of property that what you are going to have in building these two-story buildings, for the houses that surround these two-story buildings that you are going to lose your privacy. When you lose your privacy, you are losing some of your value. That house becomes less desirable. When a house becomes less desirable it means it is worth less money, it is going to become that much harder to sell that house. If you have to sell your house and people are going to see they don't have any privacy in their backyard, that is going to affect the sale of the house and that is going to affect your value and taking away their privacy is a form of theft. You are stealing their privacy and you are entitled to that privacy. I would never buy into a neighborhood where I couldn't have the privacy in my backyard, not that there is anything wrong that I needed that privacy, but I am entitled to my privacy. I can't see why building these great big structures up here, you know you take away all your privacy. Well, I guess that's about it. Oscar Flear, 1141 Cortez Road, I am just here tonight to ask you please don't let them put that house on that lot. It is going to take all the shrubbery, trees, all the beauty of the Village that you could imagine. I have stood in front of that property and I have visualized what that property would be if that house was built on it and as far as the design of the house it's just a hay barn, to look at it if what I see when I go over there to look at it. Maybe I have lowered the roof and all that kind of thing, and I don't blame a guy for coming in and try to make a buck, but not at my expense. Those three garages there you know very well it's going to be the same old story, where are those people going to put \ -28- all of their extra stuff? Like people would have their garage full of stuff that they should have thrown away a long time ago. The Salvation Army could use the whole thing distributed. And another thing--go down Second Street and down in the lower end of Arcadia and see some of those monsterS they have put on those lots, and I beg you let's don't let it happen in the Village. Thank you. MAYOR GILB Anyone el se in the audience that would 1 i ke to speak? We always give the other side a chance to reply. PATTERSON Rob Patterson, the architect on the project. Several th'", h,,, b,,, , said that seem to be misleading or certain people have some mi sundersta g~ and misgivings about our project. It does not sit seven feet from the , street certainly and the lot is certainly 80 foot and not 60 foot. I think there is a tendency overall for people to begin to look at something and think it is going to be a monster. I have experienced it in other communities being on a review board and it turns out that it is really not as bad as we all thought it was going to be. In fact it turns out to be a very nice home. It is certainly not a barn. To be very specific for a second, the lot size and this is one of the key issues to this whole thing I think, when they talk about a variety of different lot sizes in a community certainly the lot sizes may be larger but the street frontages are only slightly larger in most cases. I think that you will find that a lot of those 9,000, 10,000 square foot lots still have an 80-foot frontage and that is what we are talking about. That is the way you see the house. On an interior lot, you see the house for 80 feet, not for any volume or area. I really agree wholeheartedly with Councilman Harbicht that there would be a concern for somebody living in this community or somebody proposing a project to this community and to this town, that they know what the rules are. That they know what the -29- requirements are on a project. I would love it if somebody were to come 1 MAYOR GILB CHANDLER to me and in our ordinance in our resolution we have a limit of 3,000 square feet in this community and then I could design a house accordingly. But the way it is set up now it seems as though an applicant ----- a design based on the rules that are arbitrary enough, so that we have to keep coming back before your group and back before the Planning Commission, go back to redesign come back, may be now it's too small and so on and so on. I think that under the resolution there is a procedure by which the community can amend the resolution. The Board can amend this resolution I would suggest that maybe the Board go out to their community, do a survey, have it accredited, determine what is best, put it up to vote to the people in the community, and have a decision made as to what the square, footage should be, if that is what is needed here. However, there is a way in which you can determine the. massiveness or size of a house on a lot and whether it is compatible or not, ------- I think it is important that we maybe do that. I also heard someone say something about the average size house is 1,600 square feet, well the minimum allowed square footage under the resolution is 1,300 square feet. So you know, the resolution was set a long time ago and maybe it needs to be amended. Certainly we want to follow the rules, we would just like to know what they are, and we certainly are not ready to follow rules that have not yet been adopted such as the text amendment. I don't think that is fair at all. We don't know what the text amendment is going to come up with in the long run. So how can we design a house, we may have to meet the text amendment if we keep being delayed and we keep having to go through this procedure. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. When did you start this process? Was it November, was it August, when was it? -30- PATTERSON CHANDLER PATTERSON MAYOR GILB HARBICHT PATTERSON MILLER PATTERSON HARBICHT MILLER It was in September, I believe. Your own findings of October 21 show me that you are wrong there. We attended an earlier ARB meeting on the other projects, but we were ready in September. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Comment, Mr. Harbicht? I would just like to comment on a point that you made there. The Architectural Review Board is part of the ordinance. That is part of our zoning ordinance in this particular area and so they do have the right to And if they were to sal that the thing that we are contemplating two weeks from now are their _ guidelines, even though the City hasn't adopted it, they do have the _ be more restrictive than our zoning ordinance. right to be more restrictive than the City is. I think that they do have to go through a formal procedure though, don't they? They have to process their findings and make an amendment to the resolution. No, no. They can, in fact, on a case by case basis apply their own criteria for their Homeowners' Association and that is part of the ordinance. The fact that you have to go to them before you get your building permit. They are, by ordinance, part of the zoning ordinance. Are you saying in their interpretation of their ordinance or are you saying. They don't have an ordinance. That is one of the things that we are asking them about, for guidelines, they don't have them, but they do, in fact, have the right to be more restrictive than the City zoning ordinance. No, I think Mr. Harbicht just clarified it, but we did have a program for the ARB's and went over a lot of this, and indicated that City legislation, which establishes certain perimeters, does not per se limit the discretionar: authority, which is also established by ordinance for the ARB's to determine these issues of compatibility and harmony. They still have that perogati despite certain minimums and maximums which might be stated by statute. -31- OLSON David Olson, 502 E. Camino Real, Arcadia, I have a business at 909 South Santa Anita, Arcadia. Just a couple of things were said, we did start this project in early September, designing, going through that community. I get really concerned when people keep bringing up talking about--well, let's compare it now to the text amendment, you know that's really tough, it's like saying let's also consider something that might be in law five years from now, or ten years from now. The fact is, there have been changes and at one time, I guess the only thing right now that the house would not meet under the proposal that the Planning Commission adopted last month would be the second story setback because they changed what they originally had in terms of angles on the side to make something actually much more easy to understand and gave a percentage of how wide your lot is to how much the house sits back. The fact is that actually under the original, the first time the text amendment on that angle, the house did meet the criteria. So as you can see, every single time before different board laws, or potential laws are being discussed and changes are made, sometimes the house makes it and sometimes it doesn't. But, clearly, when this house was designed it met all of the code and laws that were in existence at that time and that are in existence today. The second thing is, on the, I guess another thing that I keep hearing is that the size of the lot, relative to the size of the house. When I hear that, it is something like case law, I guess someone said. In other words, there is no law, they will say, well, we are not going to tell you it has to be any house that is less than 3,000, you can have a certain but, then again, they are kind of saying the same thing in a round-about way. If your lot is bigger, then you can have the bigger house, but if you lot is smaller, then it is the smaller. In essence, that is a law, it's a building coverage-type law, that they are setting down. Just one last quick thing, -32- MAYOR GILB OLSON where the house sits, there is frontage on two streets, and the parkway, which is City property, which is from the curb, it goes from the curb back 12 feet, all around the property, and that exists all around the property, which does not show on your plot plan. What you see is just the pure property that is owned on that lot. So there is a 12-foot wide strip there. That house will sit 25 feet back on Columbia from the property line, that means it is sitting 37 feet back from the curb which is the exact distance the house to the south sits. The house, in relation to the house to the south, will be, on the first floor, will be five feet from the property line, so there will be 10 feet between the two houses. The frontage on Cortez, the setback there, from the property line is 10 feet, so that ho on the side of the house there will be 22 feet back from the curb. I think it is very interesting point out now that if you all have gone by and seen the house that sits there now, the garage that sits for that house currently, sits 3 feet from the east property line, it is a detached garage. Well, that garage will no longer exist and all that area will be backyard. The benefit to the person that lives directly to the east of us is in my estimation is greater. There will be no structure within 25 feet of their property line where as it is now it is 3 feet from their property line. As this one gentleman said, that lives across the street, that's right, we didn't go around to the people knocking on doors asking them to sign a letter or anything. Mr. Olson, please. Could you conclude this. I am going to give you every chance. I don't want to be impolite but you have had 8 minutes on your 2. So let's wrap it up, please. I have talked to the neighbor to the east and his concern is now that the two-story house was there, he was concerned about the height law that is existing there now between our two properties, it's 5 feet and his conce -33- MAYOR GILB SLIDER MAYOR GILB SLIDER is that he was wondering if maybe we could go up to 6 feet for him. But he did not seem opposed at all to the house that we are proposing. He is right next door to the east. His house runs on Cortez. Could I just ask Mr. Slider to come back to, the microphone? I am just trying to get some guidelines. You have considered this piece of property, this particular proposed structure. Would you allow a two-story structure on this piece of property? That is a difficult question to answer. I'll tell you, I ride by this property daily and quite honestly I mean I am not saying the City, the map area, or the map that represents the lot in that area is incorrect. But it seems to me that that lot by visual account on my part anyway, is not the size that is represented on that map. I really question the size of that lot. It looks much, much smaller than what is represented there and I know that is not an issue but I will tell you, for the size of your lot, sir, to answer your question, for the size of the lot I would really question whether any two-story home would fit on that lot, quite frankly,. and fit in well. So as a member of the ARB there is no two-story home that you would allow there. The reason I am asking the question is that some of the objections that were made is the fact that it is two-story and I am trying to find out whether that is a valid objection if it wasn't this house but it was a different house that was two-story? Let me say it was a 2,000 square foot house but it had a second story? Well, quite honestly, because you are asking for my opinion and you are getting one opinion here, sir, I did not vote in opposition to this project because it was two-story as much as I did because of the bulk of the structure. It is, I believe, a little over 4,400 square feet including the garage. That is a large structure. -34- MAYOR GILB PATTERSON HARBICHT SLIDER HARBICHT SLIDER I am just saying, if I owned this piece of property and you 'told me I can't build this, where would I go from there and so I would like to know if I can propose a two-story home and have a chance of getting it approved. ' What if you wanted to put a second story on the house that is there? We would certainly entertain any plans that are submitted as an ARB, and I entered into these particular things open minded. We are not arbitrary and capricious. We give very detailed objective explanations of our position on it. Each of us does as a matter of rule. I would like to comment on that. I think that the findings in here are outstanding. I think that this whole thing was done in the best possibl way. There was a public hearing, I think that the findings are very clear. I don't think anyone up here is criticizing the procedure you went through or the findings or anything~ I think that you can be proud of the work that went into those. I will tell you, I have seen some homes, Mr. Harbicht, in our area, two- story that I believe are of a design that just might fit on that lot. Unfortunately the lots that come in mind are not situated like that so it is hard to say without seeing that plan placed on that lot, plotted on that lot. One home that comes to mind is on Balboa, I believe it is in the 800 block on the north side, it's a blue, white-trimmed home that was just modified and a second story was added to it and I think it was done very, very nicely. To me it is something that blends in very well into the community, into the Village. What about a three-car garage? There again, I know in my mind that our board is not opposed to three-car garages, sir, it was my understanding that the garage here was a prominent feature on the front of that house and there was concern about that and -35- HARBICHT SLIDER that is why the opposition surfaced for a three-car garage. That is the way I took it. I did not raise the opposition on that issue but for the member of the Board that did, I interpreted it as that. That that is a prominent feature on the front of that house, and it looks like a three- car garage on the house, period. That is what it looks like as you are approaching. If this home was too big, what size home is right? Well, I would like to see plans for something in the neighborhood of 3,000 square feet. That is arbitrary there I will tell you, because again I am no expert in plotting structures on land. I have seen friends who have built 3,000 and 3,600 square foot homes on vacant lots much larger than that and I know their homes are very, very large appearing, bulky structures, with attached three-car garages. In fact just the same as this one. But this is over in Burbank, where I am thinking of. Do you think that the other members of the ARB would consider a 3,000 square-foot lot the maximum for this lot? We believe it might be in the ballpark or maybe even a little under 3,000 even. It is again, we have been looking for some definite guidelines here recently with the advent of all this discussion and then these projects that are under way. A table to follow would sure be nice if it could be established. I am asking these questions, not to try to put you on the spot, I think you told 2,982 feet is right. I am just trying to--if you put yourself in the position if you owned a piece of property and you wanted to build a house on it you would want to have some feel, some guidelines, on what you should do. I assume it is fairly expensive.... From a personal standpoint, if I owned that lot and I were looking to build something on it, I would probably look for something even smaller than HARBICHT SLIDER HARBICHT SLIDER -36- HARBICHT that. More around 2,700 square feet. I was doing it more from the standpoint of if you owned the lot you would at least like to know what the rules are and that is why I'm trying to get some feel from you as a member of the ARB as to what you see as the guidelines somebody should be looking at. That is why I am asking. Thank you very much. I move to close the public hearing. I second it. MOTION CARRIED I am looking at the land use and zoning map and that defines the lot siz as 60 by 80 and that is the printed map there. That is the same thing that Mr. Saelid brought up, what 'you have is a radius on the corner of 31.42, not a radius, but that is the dimension around the corner which converts to about a 20-foot radius. You have to add this 20 foot. I see, so that 31 is added to..... but on the south side of the lot it says 80 or something. All right, thank you very much. There is no question that resolution 5286 is part of our city code. Somehow I get the feeling though that the ARB in this case and maybe even in the past. not just the recent house with the structure on Balboa, was kind of shooting from the hip a little bit, that is the impression that I get here listening to both sides of the case. In fact, some of the information that is thrown out for people to digest has been a little bit misleading, including the continuation of discussion about the actual lot size which I think for the record has been clearly stated by Mr. Woolard. I think the builder has made painstaking efforts to build something that is suitable, it is not a tudor, it is not English, it is ranch, it is just two-story. The discussion about lot size can be very deceiving. Not YOUNG CHANDLER YOUNG ? YOUNG CHANDLER -37- YOUNG everybody wants a huge backyard to maintain and in many cases with some of these photographs, this particular house, I would guess it has a huge backyard which may be nice but not everybody necessarily wants that, so what's in a person's backyard is not necessarily that clear-cut' of an issue. This whole thing about a text case, I think, is really absurd. I am going to vote to approve the appeal of the Planning Commission and allow this building to be built as presented. I do not feel that this is an easy subject to deal with. I am very familiar with that area and I think that the architects have done a good job. I do not object to the style of the house. I feel the Architectural Review Board has done a very good job. I do feel that the bulk of the building is too big for that corner and I think that in,upholding the Village, and it was named that for a reason, is most important and therefore I would vote to deny the appeal. I don't want to be redundant with what has been said. I think we have a situation that there has been some question as far as credibility of the ARB. Perhaps the degree of expertise in associating what they may be, as individual, perceive on this particular lot. I think if I were the builder, the owner, or the architect of this particular project, I would start to get a little bit of a message I think from what possibly are problems in the design of the particular project. No one at any time, nor here at the meeting tonight, has criticized the architectural styling. That is not even a consideration in this particular deliberation. If we want to call this a quote, "ranch-style home," and ranch-style becomes harmonious with the area, so be it. But I think what you definitely have here is a corner parcel. Whether it is a big corner or a small corner, I think you look at that lot in relationship to everything around it. Where it sits. In this part of the community that is a highly visible LOJESKI -38- HARBICHT built product on the parcel. In another part of the city that may not be true. I think in this situation you have got perhaps the right house yet on the wrong parcel of property as simple as that may be. And all of the discussion of lot coverage, massiveness, however you may describe that. I, as an individual, may sit here and say well, I don't like the boxy look yet this ranch-style home. Who's right or who's wrong I don't think it is so simple as Mr. Bade may have said and I heard him saying after the Planning Commission meeting, well we will just go in and lob 300 feet off the back. I don't think that solves the problem. I think we are also dealing with an Architectural Review Board which I can tell you, of all the architectural review boards in the community do a better job of giving reasons, .giving credibility, and attempting to come to some sort of a compromise with the development. I think if you want to revert it back to the Barton case, the Barton house, there is an excellent case in point. Mrs. Barton didn't give up the ship. She went back, the architect, if you want to use the term, maybe sharpened the pencil a little bit more and a little bit better, they came up with something that became compatible to the neighborhood. To some people that still may be an overbuilt and overdeveloped yet, the feeling was it is now compatible to the neighborhood. If I were the architect or the builder and I wanted to put that house on that property, tonight I would have had all of the neighboring property owners on Cortez and Columbia standing there talking in favor of my project and I sure didn't hear that tonight. I think that with those type of comments I didn't want to get that redundant, I would vote to uphold both the opinion and the feelings and the vote of the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission. I would like to say first, that I think that the Architectural Review Board in the Village is sincerely trying to uphold and maintain the -39- '. I community as they see what the citizens want. I tell you though, I have a problem in the fact that they don't have any guidelines. I think it is unfair to property owners. I don't care if it is a developer or somebody that has lived there for forty years. No one knows what they can do with their property and so I fault them in that regard. I have already commented that I think they do an outstanding job of publishing their results and holding public hearings and being as fair as they possibly can be. It would be as if here in the City we have zoning ordinances, if we just threw them all out and anybody who wanted to do anything in the City, we just said welcome and tell us what you have in mind and we will tell you whether or not we will let you do it. There's no guidelines. I think that it is unfair to the property owners. Someone wants to add on to their house, if they want to knock kown their house and build a new one, if they want sell their house they can't tell the potential buyer what he can or cannot do on his piece of property and I think that is wrong and I don't think that is what we had in mind in establishing an architectural review board. So I am concerned about that. If this house is too big and that is something you could, I don't think there is an objective measure of whether the house is too-big or not. But if it is, then the question, the obvious question is, what isn't too big. What's right for the piece of property and I think that if we deny the appeal we are sending away this property owner with absolutely no guidelines, no suggestion of what he can do with his property sand I think that we're taking away part of his property rights. Not only his, but everybody else who owns property in this area and I am concerned about that. The other thing is that I think that an architectural review board is not a dictatorship. An architectural review board is subject to certain rules just like city government is. We can't just do anything we want -40- to do--we have to operate within the law, we have to operate within the Constitution. Again the justification for having an architectural review board is to protect the properties in the area ---------- if this restriction wasn't put on. I think the question of economic harm, I don't think you can make a case that there would be an economic harm to other properties and I think that you will find that if larger homes were to go into this area the property values would increase. We have seen that in the southern part of the city where we have had some of the property values are increasing. So if it is not economic harm then Whatl person next door doesn't want to look at at my house if I paint it a color that I harm is it? Is it because the it? They may not want to look like because they don't like that but they would have to make a case that my house is so garish-the color that I selected- that it is having a negative economic effect on their property value and I don't really see that here. I would like to uphold the Architectural Review Board, but I really can't in good conscience do that without giving some guidelines to the property owners as to what they can do and I think that to uphold it is basically we are perpetuating the same situation and that is that we are not going to tell you what you can do, we are only going to tell you in each specific instance what you can't do and so, on that basis, I just can't vote to deny this appeal because we just left them up in the air. MOTION CHANOLER I,would like to move to approve the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed two-story, four-bedroom dwelling at 400 Columbia Road. HARBICHT (Seconded the motion) -41- MAYOR GILB I have to tell you how I feel. Well, first, I want to tell you about some of the comments that I have heard Planning Commission and other commissions about the developers and all the money that they have made and so on and so forth. The Bade family, and I have to say this, have been in this communiyt probably longer than Mr. Phillipi is old, and they have supported everything that has ever happened in this community with their children and their family and the schools and everything that has ever been good, so they are not developers that have slipped in and got the buck and left town. They are members of this community and they are well-respected and I think that needed to be said. I was very interested in, and I can understand exactly what Mr. Harbicht is saying, but in clear conscience I have to look at this house, I was up looking at it and I was thinking about one of the gentlemen who came up and started talking about the invasion of privacy. I live up in an area where we have 20,000 square foot lots and we also have people building two-story houses next door and looking down in our yards and we have lost our privacy, so the size of your lot hasn't a thing to do with losing your privacy, I can tell you that. People build next to you or anything they want and even though the guy next door may not like it, the guy next door has to live with it and it's very uncomfortable because it's not what he had most of his life and it is really not fair in my personal opinion. When I went up and looked up at this lot, and I am going to say it plain and simple, I don't know what the guidelines are going to be and I'm sorry it went this far but the house is just too darn big for the lot and I can't say it any other way than that. Please, I might change my mind. But, I looked at the lot, and I stood on the lot and I talked to Mr. Bade, and I said, "Milt, I am going up there to look and I am going to give you my honest opinion." Now how -42- MAYOR GILB it all got to this point all I can say is that I apologize. How we got this, it got these expenses and everything else, but that house is just too big for the lot. Now we can talk about how we got there and all of the things we have done wrong in this society that we run but that doesn't justify, the end doesn't justify the means by saying, well, put it there because we don't know what we are doing. That doesn't make it work in my opinion. The house is too big for the lot the way it curves around--I just could not support that house, on that lot--walking around it, seeing how close it was to that next yard and seeing how it is in thl area and yet, I know, that there are other homes coming into the area and I can see other houses coming in that are going to be built that are going to increase that value of the property, that are going to be larger and how much larger I don't know-------- I went out and looked at a lot some time ago, a house that was on a lot in the Highlands. It had no business being on that lot and I got a number of calls the next day about how I was a racist and whatever else I was. But the point was that the house was too big for the lot. That was the question and that was the point and I would love to sit here and tell my friend, Milt Bade, that he can go ahead, but, in all clear conscience I just can't do it, and I love the man. Anyway, we will call for question. Would you call the roll? AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht Councilmembers Lojeski, Young, and Gilb None We will have another motion then. There al'e"two'ways:to, do <'it, actually since we, if the council doesn't object, that can be deemed a denial and therefore we will still prepare the appropriate resolution if you want to. MOVED to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the Council's findings and decision for denial. -43- LOJESKI MAYOR GILB (Seconded the motion) May we have a roll call on that please? AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Lojeski, Young, and Gilb Councilmembers Chandler and Harbicht None APPEAL DENIED. -44-