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(WITHDRAWN)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withdrawn for the time being.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-