Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 1,1988 30:0046' CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1 INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (Feb. 2, 1988) (APPROVED) ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY CLOSED SESSION 1 A:Ev~~s PTA COMMUNITY FAIR ~ M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1, 1988 The City Council session March 1, Chamber. and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a regular 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Rev. Roger Sonnenberg, Our Saviour Lutheran Church Economic Development Assistant Joyce Friedmann PRESENT: ABSENT; Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None On MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 2, 1988 were APPROVED. Councilmember Harbicht did not vote as he was not present at the February 2, 1988 meeting. It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be waived. CITY ATTORNEY Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and City Council in the adjourned regular session prior to this meeting, met in CLOSED SESSION to give instructions to the Agency's negotiators regarding negotiations with the Low family concerning potential land acquisition of property at 333 E. Huntington Drive in the City of Arcadia. PRESENTATIONS Sandy McQuilikin, 1200 S. Santa Anita Ave. and Donna Wood, 60 W. Orange Grove, explained the upcoming PTA Arcadia Community Fair for the purpose of raising money for the school. This is to be held March 4, 5 and 6. The ladies distributed packets to the Councilmembers further describing the event and invited everyone to attend. 1. PUBLIC The City Council on January 19, 1988 adopted Resolution No. 5399 HEARING declaring the City's intention to vacate and abandon the remaining (VACATION portion of North Third Avenue adjoining Huntington Drive. The required PORTION notices were published and posted in accordance with Part 3 of Division N.THIRD 9 of the California Streets and Highway Code. The appropriate utility AVENUE) companies were notified of the intent to vacate. (APPROVED~)(, f' ~r ~~ \S &' Q' ~ 3/1/88 -1- Mayor Gilb declared the hearing open and, no one desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by . ~ouncilmember Harbich1: and CARRIED. ~~The title of Resolution No. 5407 was read by the City Attorney. It ~ was then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION \l~ Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution NO. NO. 5407 ~ 5407, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, (ADOPTED) )( CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF THE SOUTHERLY 210' S OF NORTH THIRD AVENUE ADJOINING HUNTINGTON DRIVE" be and it is hereby ~ ' ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 2. PUBLIC HEARING (STREET LIGHTING SEWANEE LANE) "" (APPROVED), ~ !:: ~ 3. PUBLIC HEARING (T. A. 87-17) (APPROVED) ~'t' , " 30:0047 Councilmembers None None Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb 1 A petition had been received from property owners along Sewanee Lane requesting the ins'allation of s1:reet lights. The Engineering Division has studied the request and has determined that four street lights would be necessary to provide the minimum recommended level of lighting for this street. The installation of these lights would require the construc- tion of underground conduits and ornamental concrete poles at an estimated cost of $10,560. The City will pay 75% of the installation cost if the property owners pay the remaining 25% as well as 100% of the future power and maintenance costs. If the property owners agree, the benefitting properties could then be annexed to the Lighting Maintenance District, Zone "E" and the costs would become part of the property tax bill. The petition from the 18 benefitting property owners indicates fourteen in favor (78%). Mayor Gilb declared the hearing,open and Frank Rush, 2326 Sewanee Lane, inquired of staff if there had been a change in the estimated amount. Staff replied that the estimate was the same. Mr. Rush stated that he and two of-his neighbors were objecting. Staff noted that there would still be 78% favorable response. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED. It waS then MOVED by Councilmember Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Superintendent of Streets be AUTHORIZED to proceed with the installation of street light- ing along Sewanee Lane as set forth in the staff report dated March 1, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None Consideration of Text Amendment 87-17, amending the setback regulations 1 and building height regulations to the R-O, R-l and R-M zones. Staff report presented. In response to concerns expressed by the Commission, Council and residents, the Planning Commission directed the staff to prepare this Text Amendment for consideration. The Commission received both written and verbal comments regarding the large size of new homes and how these large homes do not fit in with the character of the neighbor- hoods. The visual impact of these homes is determined principally by two factors, first. the width of the homes in relation to the width of the property and second, the height of the homes. The original staff recommenda tion proposed a sideyard setback angle which would establish both setback and height limits. There seemed to be some general confusion regarding 3/1/88 -2, 30:0048 1 the use of the angle concept, so in the January 15 report revised recommendations were presented with a more traditional approach. The overall impact of the height and setback on new construction will be nearly identical with either approach. The Planning Commission at its Meeting of January 26 recommended approval of the revised January 15th proposal with some minor changes. The'Commission in reviewing both the November and January staff proposals felt that the scale recommended in the January report was more appropriate and would be more restrictive in the narrower lots than the original recommendations. However, it was the consensus of the Commission that the building height limit should be a maximum of 30' on lots 75 to 100 feet wide rather than the step scale which was proposed by staff. Staff believes that this Text Amendment will result in the construction of both new homes and additions to existing homes which will be more compatible in scale with the size of the property, while at the same time continuing to allow two story develop- ment. The narrower the lot, the more restrictive the maximum building height limit. The Text Amendment is not intended to dictate any partic- ular'design style. On the other hand, the amendment has the greatest impact on the current trend of constructing large two-story English tudor-style dwellings with minimum side yard setbacks on narrow lots. On wider lots the impact of the Text'Amendment is less. The Planning Commission has recommended that 12' be the height limit above which the setbacks have to conform to the second story setback requirements. A typical 5 and 12 pitch roof with a maximum building height of 12' would only permit a room of less than 15' in width to be located at the single story setback line. Staff believes that this is excessively restrictive and that gable roofs with a maximum height of 20' ,enclosing only single story living space should be allowed to encroach into the required setback area as set forth in the earlier staff report. Because several property owners and builders are proceeding with projects based on exist- ing code requirements, staff recommended that any plans in plan check or submitted to a home owners' association prior to the adoption date of this ordinance (that would be the date of the Council second reading) be ~ exempted from the new regulations. This would give the occupants a ~ minimum of 30 days from the date of the Council's action directing staff to prepare the ordinance to submit plans for plan check to qualify under the existing regulations. I Mayor Gilb inquired what the main objections were which the Planning Commission had in regard to the height step. Staff responded in part that there was not a great deal of discussion on that point. They felt that 35' height would be no problem on lots that were more than 100' and below that they felt that 30' was probably something that could be handled on a modification basis depending on the design of the house and the height that was going to be requested. Originally staff recommended that for each additional 5' of lot width between 75' and 100' we went up another foot in allowable building height. With reference to gable roofs, staff replied that most ranch style homes predominately have gable roofs usually with a relatively flat pitch probably of 3 and 12 to 5 and 12. Councilmember Harbicht inquired if he understood that because of the pitch required for a shake roof to work that given 12' height requirement one would end up with a house that is very shallow. Staff replied that was true unless the builder went with a 10' setback which is not desirable. Mayor Gilb declared the hearing open and Chris Bade, 2416 Florence Avenue, stated, in part, that he was concerned about this Text Amendment. He does not think the City should go to such an extreme. He agreed that a change is needed, but does not think all homeowners should be penalized. He agreed with the new Text Amend- ment with the exception of the height requirement ... that 25' high on a lot that is 71' wide or less is too restrictive. This height requirement will cause the houses to all look the same. Would think the City wouId prefer some variety. Height requirement will also hurt existing homes a house on a 60' lot will make it virtually impossible to add a second story and make the house look architecturally acceptable. The City will 3/1/88 -3- 30:0049 end up with a bunch of boxes with flat roofs. He felt there is an alternative to the height problem which is more acceptable. He thinks it is fair that property owners who have the smaller lots ... the text amendment also penalizes some of the wider lots ... from 75' to 99' a house can only be 30' high. He feels the alternative is that as the lot gets wider, the builder should be able to go higher. This will make the height and the size more in proportion to the width and the size of the lot and he thinks that is the goal of the text amendment. He also feels that gable ends should be exempt. Approximately 75% of homes in Arcadia have gable ends. If they should burn down they could not be rebuilt. Don Crenshaw, 37 E. Duarte, stated, in part, that he is an architect and 1 this has been discussed over a period of time. The-home owners and the builders are not against each other. They are trying to come up with a workable solution. He realizes that the impact from the street of these massive houses is a great part of the problem. Perhaps a solution would be a progressive second floor which would reduce the impact. Also a 400 coming from the street would also reduce the impact. Really the height is taken care of by those two articles alone and this would be a simple solution to the situation. We would end up with a pitch of 4 and 12. The impact from the street is basically what everyone is complain- ing about. He referred to a house in the Village that was 27' high, but 27' is basically 60' from the front of the property. It is 60' back from the street which is on a 66' wide piece of property. It does not have the impact from the street. Judy Packer, 1016 Coronado Drive, stated that she would like to know the address of a house in ,he Village referred to by Mr. Crenshaw. (Corner of Balboa and Golden West) Milt Bade, 63 Birchcroft St. and has a couple of construction companies. He has been building here in Arcadia for 25 years and have had a 35' height limit. There has been a 35' height limit for a number of years ... all of a sudden there is a great deal of resistance to this height level. He is not opposed to the height of the buildings being built now... one always gets a few bad ones ... a few are offensive. On an overall scale of buildings in Arcadia, his companies have probably built 25 - 30 of them. He has had no opposition to the homes built. He has had resistance to two story houses, but there is always resistance to two story houses when they are built next to single story houses. When a house has windows looking into a neighbor's yard it does not matter how high the roof is. The impact from the street is what is important. He would like to see Council adopt the Planning Department's recommendation and he would like Council's support. Byron Dixon, 225 W. Lemon, stated, in part, that he is one of the people who gathered up some of the literature on this matter and got out and talked to people about it. They gathered more than 75 signatures of people who were in favor of the text amendment. The main concern of 1 mos' of the people they talked with was not only of height but also of massiveness. Noted that bliilaers and-developers are worried about being , limited in their construction. He does not think they have taken time to have talked to the people who have lived next door to some of the new construction and get their feelings of being infringed upon and losing their privacy... that is their main concern. He is also concerned about whether or not the public is being informed about the changes which have been made since last November. Many people were in favor of the original proposal and that has been watered down. Councilmember Harbicht replied that what is before Council is what the Planning Commission recommended. 3/1/88 -4- 30:0050 1 Robert Doeppel, 117 W. La Sierra Dr., stated, in part, that he is very concerned about the new building restrictions. When he purchased his property the City gave him guidelines about what he could do with his property and one of them was to add on or build a 35' high house. Now the City is considering taking away that right. He thought there should be consideration given to whether or not the problem is really related to this code or what is the problem in the first place. This is not just a builders' law... it affects all property owners as well. He referred to the Minutes of the Planning Commission when the text amendment was approved. People were concerned about turrets and castle homes; they were concerned about privacy; about architectural design, etc; Architectural design has nothing to do with building height. Also, there was discussion about cul-de-sacs which seem to be going up all over town. These arguments have nothing to do with the text amendment. The fact that builders make a profit has nothing to do with taking away his right to build on his property. The builders live in Arcadia. Privacy is of great concern but people can look into back yards from a 25' house as well as from a 35' house. Michelle Silvio, 429 W. Lemon, stated, in part, that she wanted to ask Mr. Doeppel if he objected to a grand victorian house which was pink ,and blue next to his house. Such a big house swallows up your little house and property. She does not think they object to two story homes in Arcadia, but that they object to, the style which is out of place. Linda La Rue, 365 W. Las Flores, stated, in part, that she wanted to addresS-some comments made by some of the builders. Some at the Planning Commission said they did not understand why homeowners were so upset by ths new building when their property values were going up. She did not move into Arcadia only to sell in a few years and make a profit. She moved here to enjoy the spaciousness of the City and the education her children receive. An increase in property values at the expense of oversized homes is not worth it. These houses do not fit into the neighborhood. She supports the amendment as proposed by the Planning Department. 1 Louis Hasbrouch, 2721 Caroline Way, stated, in part, that he is concerned about over-development. Many of the new homes are too large and too high for the lots. Some of the new homes are box shaped. He is also concerned some of the older homes in his neighborhood are being torn down and a very disportionate house in relation to the neighborhood, replacing it. There is a slow growth movement sweeping Southern California. We see such an initiative in Pasadena. City Councils and Planning Commissions in other cities have managed this. Perhaps they (Arcadia) are listening to the developers and not to the majority of the voters and home owners. Some say it is un-American to tell a person what he can do with his property. But last December the Supreme Court ruled (in Ross vs. Rolling Hills Estates) that open view zoning ordinance that forbids second story homes was constitutional. It is not un-American. Some of the new homes being built are as large as apartments. He is going to have a 30' home in his neighborhood with view taken, shadows cast down. It just does not fit aesthetically into the neighborhood. Bob Kladifko, 348 W. Las Flores, stated, in part, that he is in favor of the text amendment proposed by the Planning Department originally. Many members of the community share their concerns with him perhaps because of his position on the School Board and those concerns not only involve the schools but they also involve concerns regarding the community and their homes and they have done just that 'in regard to the text ameridment and their concern about the building that is going on in the community. The Planning Department and Planning Commission have worked together on this and have put in many, many hours with much input. He would like to say that he wished the public,other than the builders and architects, had an opportunity to report to the Planning Commission. He felt the 3/1/88 -5~ 30:0051 planners and builders had more opportunity to discuss their concerns with the Planning Commission. He did not feel he was given these same privileges. Many other citizens feel the same. However, he feels the Planning Department has put together a very fine proposal. Council- member Harbicht commented that the Planning-Commission-had never met with the builders except in a public room and that everyone had a right to speak. Kathy Tyson, 310 W. Norman, stated, in part, that she strongly supports the amendment that is before Council this evening. In the Baldwin Stocker area she was one who circulated petitions and talked to a lot of people. Everyone she talked with was very interested because they were very frustrated that homes could be built that were so massive. They want the law changed. She lives in a two story home, but when they built the second story, they worked with the neighbors and respected their privacy. Their windows do not overlook their yards. This can be accomplished. It is Council's job to pass this amendment. 1 Gordon Maddock, 45 Christina Street, stated, in part, that he had been to many of the Planning Commission meetings on this matter. He believes that the Planning Commission at the direction of the Council and the citizens recognized a problem in the community and the staff came up with a proposal which was originally presented at one of the Planning Commission meetings. At that time the builders -- most of whom live in this city and mos' have been building in this city for many years they recognized the problem at the same time. We sat down with the ordinance that was proposed by the staff and tried to make recommenda- tions and tried to study it from an architectural freedom point of view but yet address the problems that the citizens were concerned with. Staff put forward proposals they felt comfortable with. At the Planning Commission hearings everyone had a chance to be heard. People were trying to work together to solve the problem. Perhaps the height consideration had been decided too quickly. There should be some consideration for the wider lots with a difference in heights. The builders did not agree on what the height limitation should be. Their presentation was not very clear. The staff had agreed on a graduated reduction in height to lot width. He feels this is a step in the right direction. It not only affects new homes, but also affects remodeling. We have to do this one step at a time. He suggests Council give con- sideration to the recommendations given earlier of Chris Construction ownero_ Milt Bade, 63 Birchcroft St., stated, in part, that they must allow a foor-Dr so here or there to allow for the width of the lots. Maybe 55' they are asking for 26' height .,. that could be 25' ... is not a big deal, but he thinks that when they get up to 60' wide they have got to have some type of height there to get some pitch on the roof and have some type of architectural design to a house. You can build a box but that is not good. It is important. Has listened to the people who have apoken but none of tham have really addressed what we are talking about ... the height of a house ... worried about windows looking into yards. We are talking about the height of a house. They can't build new houses and make ,hem look like the older houses that are already there. I , , ~ Don Crenshaw, 37 E. Duarte, stated, in part, that with regard to whether or not a foot makes a difference in the pitch of the roof it does because if you go on a gradual scale like 7 and 12 or 6 and 12 that means that you go over 12 feet and up 7 feet ... that is how they judge a roof pitch. The wider the house that means that the pitch is going to have to be higher. It is important in a 5 foot or 6 foot wider house. Councilmember Young asked if different types of roofing material make a difference in the amount of pitch that a roof needs. Answer -- wood shake has to have a 4 and 12 pitch. Under that can go into composition or rock roof at 3 and 12. Concrete tile needs more than a 4 and 12 pitch. 3/1/88 -6- / 30:0052 Trudy Kladifko, 348 W. Las Flores, stated, in part, that she was in favor of the Planning Commission amendment. She thinks it is a good compromise. Stella Ross, 743 Southview, stated, in part, that she is distressed because she does not really know what the issue is here. What is more comparable; more appropriate. Are people just unable to handle change. She has recently moved from a home to an apartment building and has managed to adjust and is very happy with her new surroundings. People must be afraid to know each other. Council must be fair to everyone. 1 Griffin Blake, 871 Coronado, stated, in part, that he thinks the reason we-ar; all here is because of the matter of too much house on too little lot. He is for anything that can be done to improve that situation. Mary Pozza, 600 Workman Avenue, stated, in part, that the question is proportion ... it is not two storys, not privacy, it is proportion. Let's put the house in proportion to the lots. Steven Philippi, 804 Balboa Drive, stated, in part, that he feels the proposed text amendment is in response to new construction which people perceive to be too massive, too large, too much. That translates into height and setback and he wants to compliment the Planning Depart- ment and the Planning Commission for coming up with what he believes is a workable plan -- perhaps only a first step but a workable first step. This will attempt to alleviate this problem and yet not stifle construction. It is very misleading to act as if there will no longer be construction in Arcadia if this proposed text amendment is passed. He does not think that is the case at all. Builders here tonight have suggested that Council abandon the restrictions on height. He referred to the transparancies which were shown which graphically set forth the differences the height restrictions would make. When you see them, you see that the height restrictions are the important issues. He would encourage Council to pass this proposed text amendment. No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED. 1 He wanted to reply to Mr. Philippi that this did come about as a result of 'concerns expressed over the past several months or a year and he thinks that the Planning Commission and Planning staff have done a yoeman's job in putting together all three public hearings, all of them well attended. Their efforts and the efforts of the concerned citizens are appreciated. As a result of that we have made some modifications and now we probably have a better ordinance before us than we probably had when we started out. That was the purpose of the whole thing, so the system works. He wished to respond to a couple of points. Someone had made the point that whenever we make changes we are infringing on people's rights and that, of course, is true. You have a certain code and you make the code more stringent then we are taking something away from people. But also I would like to point out that'happens all the time. As a matter of fact in Arcadia we used to have a 3' sideyard setback and changed it to a 5' setback some years ago. I think that was something that was good for the City but it did, of course, restrict what people could do on their property. There was also a point made that height is not the issue. I am going to disagree with that. I think that clearly height is the issue. What we are talking about here and what this proposal is trying to accomplish is to reduce the apparent bulk of the homes. The original proposal had a square footage restriction in there and I think a number of people testified that it is really not the number of square feet in the home, it is what the home looks like from the street ... the neighboring residences and so height and setback are really things that address those particular issues. There was a proposal made tonight by Chris Construction Co. for different height restrictions than were proposed either by the staff or the Planning Commission and those differed somewhat. I am not in favor of the proposal 3(1/88 -7- 30:0053 HT d) that was made this evening simply because it raises the height on the smaller lots. The proposal which is before us, there is no difference between the Planning Department's and the Planning Commission's recommendation that any lot of less than 71' will have an absolute limit of 25'. The proposal brought this evening does allow higher building than that on lots from 50' to 60'; 65'. I am not in favor of that. I think that the problem that exists is primarily on the smaller lot in the community and the problem is a result of the height on those lots. So I think that having 25' limits on lots of-70' or'less specifically addresses the major problem that we" have; that it addresses the-issue, so I am in support of that recommendation. I do have some concerns -- we have two somewhat different proposals before us -- one from the Planning Commission and one that was made to the Planning Commission by staff and that is the Planning Commission proposal that we go up in a graduated one foot for everyone foot of lot size -- 71' to 75' and all of a sudden there is a 25'jump with no graduation. I don't think the major concern is on the larger lots. I don't think it is the 80' and 90' lots where we have the problems and I really like the proposal for every 5' of increased lot width we go up another foot. 35' limit of 100' stays unchanged. It is basically the gradual stepup on those 5' increases in lot limit and the fact is that as the lot increases in width, you are allowed to build a wider house. The one foot can make quite a difference in the angle of the roof. If you go out five feet and stay at the same height then you angle just has to keep coming down besides to out so I think that that is a reasonable thing and don't think that it has the same problem on the apparent bulk that you have on 60' lots or 70' or 75' 10ts.The other question I had was on the question of gable and I would like to ask the Planning Director about single story homes, the Planning staff recommended that we allow a gable roof to go as high as 20' which would be just at the very peak of the roof. Is that also for a two story home that has a single story gable roof and another 5' or 7' setback for the second story? Staff answered this exception would only apply to the first story portion of the dwelling. If you had a two story home the second story portion would have to comply with the setback requirement. Councilmember Harbicht asked -- but your recommendation is that they could still go to 20' for the first story gable? Staff answered that was correct. 1 ,I frankly feel that the 20' limit for a gable roof on a single story home 'is a good idea. The other is so restrictive that we wouldn't have any ,gable roofs. I think it would pretty much dictate that everyone would have to go to hip roofs and I would rather see the freedom of design there. I don't think you are really changing things all that much. I am very much in favor of the recommendation with those two reservations and I would like to see us pass it. I think it is going to address a lot of concerns that people have and is going to be a good thing for the City of Arcadia. lBICHT Basically, what I want to do is this -- that the absolute maximum height up to 70' is 25'. 1 fESKI Would you repeat for me what you want to do on the setback situation? l.BICHT You're looking at the recommendation of the Planning Department rather than the Planning Commission and against what was presented by Chris Const.Co. The Planning Department and the Planning Commission are identical except for the portion of the 75' to 100' lots and there is a big jump. I don't think that is where the problem is and it seems to be too restrictive. .B ESKI There was a comment made tonight that there was the feeling that someone was getting penalized by discussing this or perhaps coming up with a new ordinance. I don't look at it as a penalization of anybody. I think we have to understand that when the original code was built in this City there was actually a request that a certain amount of the lot be developed to be built upon and we have '0 remember that historically this was a single story residential community. Two story houses really weren't in 3/1/88 -8- J 1 YOUNG GILB PLANNING DIRECTOR GILB I~- DIRECTOR LOJESKI 30:0054 vogue, particularly in the smaller lot sectors of the City. Well that has changed and I completely agree with comments Councilmember Harbicht made in terms of the visibility of mass and height is a strict consideration. The second story setbacks situation is a strict consideration, too, as far as determining and discussing mass. I don't look at this proposal that is in front of us this evening as any sort of a radical change and I look at it as a very workable plan, one that we can get into. I think historically the City does do things in a very slow, conservative fashion. We have had a number of public hearings on this issue. We have listened to a lot of testimony. We have received a lot of testimony and I think we have come up with a very workable solution and one that on the other hand may need refinement in either direction as time goes on. It is a situation that we need to grow... we need to develop. But we do need to address those concerns from the residential community. I can't remember attending a City Council meeting or listening to the goings on of what was going on in City Hall where there has been such an issue as has touched every sector of the residential community we live in and I for one appreciate all of the input that was given by the citizens of the community. This is not an issue that was just homeowner organizations involved. It was not just the owners or builders or developers or architects. It was the little guy on the street and I truly do appreciate that. I look a' it as a workable solution and one that we should undertake. I have no problem with the gable roof issue at 20'. I also would prefer the Planning Department's recommendation rather than the Planning Commission's recommendation on the building height. I think there can be a little stairstep situation there. These are the only comments I have. I certainly want to compliment the Planning Department and the Planning Commission because of the time and effort and their long hours of study that went into this. I approve the text amendment as it is written, but I, too, feel there is nothing wrong with the graduated height on lots over 75'. I think this will certainly help our City and I think it is a marvelous way to start and I am sorry we did not do it somewhat sooner. I want to ask a ive date of this plans in, etc.? question of staff. I would like will be. Will this be effective What is your recommendation? to know what the effect- for people who have Our recommendation was to have the ordinance worded in such a way that plans which are submitted to the Building Department for plan check or which are submitted to a local homeowners' association for approval by the adoption date, which would probably be April 5, plans that are either submitted to the City by that date or to the local homeowners' association by that date, would fall under the existing regulations and anything after that date would have to comply with the revised ordinance. For the benefit of the audience, if there is a motion made and carried tonight, this ordinance will come back on the agenda at the next meeting for introduction. Then the meeting after that would be for adoption and so what we are saying here is plans that are in plan check or at property owners'- associations will from that date on go under the new regulations, but this is just to let everybody know from where we are starting. One thing we should make clear so people don't see something going up that doesn't comply, once plans are in plan check there is a period of time that they can be in plan check and can be there as long as six months. People can pull building permits after that and they do not have to have their first inspection for six months so it is possible that there could be homes built as long as a year after this is passed which might still be under the existing regulations. I have one more clarification on this -- let's assume everything goes in place as the majority of us have discussed here at the Council table and an architect or developer comes in with a height greater than what the recommendations are, can they do it? What procedures would they have to go through? 3/1/88 -9- PLANNING DIRECTOR CHANDLER HARBICHT GILB 4. 30:0055 Automatically -- no -- they can't do it, but the City does have a modification procedure wherein people can request certain modifications to the regulations. To receive that, they would normally require a notice to property owners within 100' and there would be a public hearing before the Modification Committee to consider the request and at that time the specifics of the individual situation would be looked at and the modification granted, denied or conditionally approved. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by-Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Council adopt the recommendation of the Planning Department, as opposed to the Planning 1 Commission which, as we discussed, is not really significant other than taking into account lots that are 75' or greater; having 1 foot for every five feet. I would also like to include in the Text Amendment an exception for the single story gable roofs not to exceed 20'. And that we exempt all plans submitted to Building-Department and to the various Architectural Review Boards in this community if they were submitted prior to the adoption of this resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and'Gilb None None Wanted to comment that we have an issue that has been a long~ drawn out thing and we have very-disparate/views. I think we went into this knowing that we weren't going to make everybody happy. I kind of look at it as we could finish up tonigh' and have everybody out there mildly annoyed at us, we would have done a pretty good job. I think that the main objective was to get rid of the massive homes and some way to try to restrict them. I think that is really what started this whole thing. Also, I think the Planning Director and the Planning Department deserve a hand for all the work they have done on this. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Johanna Hofer, 875 Monte Verde Drive, stated, in part, that she wished to distribute voter registration cards at the Arcadia Library and also at Von's Market over the weekend and asked if there were any objections to this. The City Attorney replied that this was not the accepted and usual use of a public building inasfar as the Library was concerned, but that she could stand outside and distribute the cards. Mrs. Hofer said that she would be outside. She referred to a planned visit of the members of the City Council to senior citizen facilities in other localities. She wondered if the two City Council candidates would be also invited to participate in these visits. Mayor Gilb replied that 1 the visit would be discussed at a study session to be held at 6:00 p. m., March l5, 1988. Mrs. Hofer inquired how much money had been set aside for such a Senior Citizen Center. Mayor Gilb said none so far. She thought it might be a good idea to run this in the Newsletter and get response. She said she was concerned about drug usage in the City and inquired what was being done to control the situation. Councilmember Young briefly described the activities of the Police Department, schools, City Council and Community Challenge to solve these problems. Mrs. Hofer also expressed concern about the proposed CALTRANS' sound wall along the 210 freeway and Mayor Gilb's statement that it would probably be 20'years before the wall was constructed. Mayor Gilb said-the City staff and the City Council had spent a great deal of time and effort trying to get CALTRANS' approval for construction of a sound wall and that this was a continuing effort and concern. 3/1/88 -10- 5. 6. 6a. ROLL CALL 30:0056 CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None 6b. MINUTE APPROVAL (Feb. 2, 1 (i;~:bvED) /6C. OFF-SITE The developer of the South Side site, Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates, IMPROVEMENTS has requested reimbursement for the cost of installing and connecting (Arcadia off-site water laterals and for the time his Project Manager spends Gateway working on off-site improvements at the project site. Off-site improve- Centre ments above $50,000 are an Agency obligation under the Development and Associates)Disposition Agreement. The developer is requesting $13,163 for the (APPROVED) installation and connection of three water service laterals. Upon review _\r~ of the negotiation files and the Development and Disposition Agreement, I\I-r- staff now agrees that these costs are eligible and that the $13,163 can / ~ \ be paid directly to the Water Department on behalf of the Developer. ~\ j6d QUITCLAIM RIGHT-OF- ACCESS (North Third Av. J (APPROVED) ~'\ 1\ ~ " If' On MOTION by Member Young, seconded by Member Chandler and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Meeting of February 2, 1988 were APPROVED. Member Harbicht did not vote on the Minute approval, since he was not present at the February 2, 1988 Meeting. It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency AUTHORIZE payment of $13,163 for the installation and connection of water laterals directly to the Water Department on the Developer's behalf and AUTHORIZE reimburse- ment to Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates in an amount not to exceed $2,608 for off-site project management, upon submittal of appropriate documents. AYES: NOES-: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None Pursuant to the November 17, 1987 and January 5, 1988 Disposition and Development Agreements between the Agency and Emkay Development Co., the Agency is to deliver the Northside Site to Emkay free and clear of all but a few specific exceptions to title. Ticor Title Company indicates that Third Avenue property owners have a private right of access over North ,Third Avenue and that although the public street may be vacated, the private access right remains unless quit-- claimed by the property owners. As the Agency owns property along North Third Avenue, it will be necessary for the Agency to quitclaim these private access rights. It was then MOVED by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency APPROVE the Quitclaim, AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Executive Director to execute it and any other related documents necessary to remove the private right of access over North Third Avenue. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None 3/1/88 -11- 6e. j DESIGN REVIEW (21 S. First Avenue) (APPROVED) ~V 0\ ~<< 6f. j DESIGN REVIEW (46 E. Huntington Drive) (APPROVED) '~6g.J ~PURCHASE I ofl 326 '" E. Oi'. Huntington , Drive) ~ (Derby G, Motel) '" (APPROVED)' 6h.J ASSIGNMENT ARCADIA GATEWAY rr CENTRE ,JASSOCIATES "'" RESPONS IB. r-l TO AM ('>o...OF SO. CALIF. ~ (APPROVED) k.. 30:0057 Design Review for storefront improvements and repair of existing earthquake damage at White Eyes Indian Shop, 21 South First Avenue. Details are outlined in staff report dated March 1, 1988. It was MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency APPROVE this Design Review under the conditions that the project comply with all Zoning and Building codes as established or modified by the City; that final approval is subject to compliance with requirements of the City Departments and that the Design Review be in effect for one year as per ARA-126. 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None Design Review for construction of new exterior facade at First Cabin, 46 E. Huntington Drive. Details are outlined in staff report dated March 1, 1988. It was MOVED by Member Young, seconded by Member Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency APPROVE this Design Review under the conditions that the project comply with all Zoning and Building codes as established or modified by the City; that final approval is subject to compliance with requirements of the City Departments; and that the Design Review be in effect for one year as per ARA-126. AYES: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb NOES: None ABSENT: None Staff noted in reply to Mayor Gilb's question that there would be consistency in the designs of the canopies. The Agency and owners of the Derby Motel have settled out of court for the purchase of 326 E. Huntington Drive (Derby Motel). The amount agreed upon by the parties is $810,000. This amount includes payment for land and improvements, furniture, fixtures, and equipment, goodwill, any interest payments and any and all other claims. The balance to be paid to the Patels is $235,000 plus approximately $1,400 in interest from March 1, 1988 through the close of escrow. The total amount to be paid could reach $236,400. It was then MOVED by Member Young, seconded by Member Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency APPROVE the purchase of the Derby Motel for $810,000 and AUTHORIZE payment in an amount not to exceed $236,400. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None 1 The Disposition and Development Agreement with Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates - S: w. Gribble, requires Agency pre-approval of an assign- ment of the Developer's responsibility to another party. AGCA proposes to convey Parcel 4 to the Automobile Club of Southern'California. The Automobile Club was pre-approved in the August, 1987 Amendment No.1 to the Gribble DDA; however, a formal Agreement is also required. The Agreement permits the Assignment of AGCA's responsibility to AM. How- ever AGCA, as the original master developer of the South Side project, will still have the requirement to pay any future adjustment to the original purchase price as set forth in the DDA if applicable. It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency APPROVE Assignment Agreement of Arcadia Gateway Centre Associates (S. W. Gribble) Developer Responsibility to Automobile Club of Southern California in form and content approved by the Agency General Counsel. 3/1/88 -12- 30:0058 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None 6i. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned to 6:00 p. m., March 15, 1988. (\ 8a. ",,'\ QUITCLAIM~APPROVED Quitclaim of private right-of-access over North Third Avenue, NORTH nI pursuant to November 17, 1987 and January 5, 1988 Disposition and THIRD AV~ Development Agreements between the Agency and Emkay Development Co. 8b. ,~ T.M.45809~APPROVED Final Map 45809 for a six lot subdivision at 1212-1230 S. l2l2-l230Jc Santa Anita Avenue by Mur Sol Incorporated (owner/developer) subject S. Santa~ to the condition that before the Final~ Map is recorded, all outstanding Anita '.' conditions of approval must be complied with. Q.. 7. 1 8. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CONSENT ITEMS 8c. INSTALLATION APPROVED the installation of a 45' radio tower at 376 Huntington OF 45' RADI~ Drive by the Arcadia Chapter American Red Cross. TOWER - Q..'" RED CROSS " ~ 8d. WORK ACCEPTED the work and AUTHORIZED final payment pursuant to the contract ACCEPTED ~With Baker Engineering Corporation for removal of an existing centrifugal (Job ~ chiller and installation of a 100 ton replacement unit at the City Public No.637)t~ Library, Job No. 637. The final contract amount of $54,070.00 was ~ funded from Capital Outlay Fund provided for fiscal year 1987-88. 8e. ADVERTISE/APPROVED plans and specifications and AUTHORIZED' ,he City Clerk to FOR BIDS advertise for bids for the construction of concrete gut'ers and (Job No. miscellaneous curb, drive apron (Job No. 630) and asphalt concrete 630) patching (Job No. 625) of the Eighth Avenue, Naomi Avenue, Glencoe (Job No. Drive, Myrtus Avenue and Golden West. The estimated cost of the 625) project is $88,000. Of this amount, the property' owners' share would be $8,000 which will be advanced from Capital Outlay Funds which will be reimbursed to the City with 7% interest over a ten year period. Property owners also have the option of a one-time payment when project costs are confirmed. The remaining $80,000 will be funded from State Gas Tax Funds. The project is categorically exempt from the require- ments of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301, Class l(c) of the guidelines for implementation of said Act. 1 8f. CONTRACT AWARD (Traffic Signal Modifica- tion ) (Job NO.\, 577), ~~\ ~\~ AWARDED contract for installation of six new traffic signal controllers at intersections on Duarte Road and connection of these intersections to the master traffic computer located at City Hall to the low bidder, Signal Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $318,506. Funding for the project will be 99% Federal Aid Urban Funds with the balance funded by State Gas Tax Funds. $20,000 to be appropriated from State Gas Tax Funds to cover the City's share of the contract amount including preliminary engineering project testing and contingencies. All informalities or irregularities in the bids or bidding process to be waived and that following receipt of CALTRANS' concurrence, the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3/1/88 -13- 8g. 0/ GIFT [:- FROM ," FRIENDS, ~ OF THE \ LIBRARY ( 0-:':" 8h . "'- PURCHASE '" OF POLICE I '0... PATROL V VEHICLES \ ~\ C'/ c f8' L t'~ SETTLEMENT \J AMELIA it:. SANTIAGO 30:0059 ACCEPTED gift from the Friends of the Arcadia Public Library in the amount of $14,000. Councilmember Harbicht remarked that a letter of appreciation should be sent to the Friends of the Arcadia Public Library. APPROVED the purchase of seven police patrol vehicles from Maurice J. Sopp and Sons Chevrolet in cooperation with Los Angeles County in the amount of $90,446.72. The Purchasing Department has permission from the County of Los Angeles to purchase vehicles from their contract. Funds for the purchase of the seven vehicles are budgeted in account 302 400 2107 8701, Capital Outlay Fund FY 1987-88 in the amount of $l08,710.00. I APPROVED settlement in the amount of $7,750 for settlement of claim of Amelia Santiago. 8j. ';I SETTLEMENT APPROVED settlement in the , ~ CHARLES vs. of City of Arcadia's share ~ ARCADIA, County, Hewes and Johnson. ~ L. A. COUNTY \J AND HEWES ~. AND JOHNSON ?:<. ,10 9a. ~ ORDINANCE ~ ~ NO. 1880 /) (ADOPTED) , V; 9b. RESOLUTION NO. 5404 (ADOPTED) "Y ~, y k amount of $50,000.00 for settlement of claim of agreement, Charles vs. Arcadia, L. A. ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS WERE APPROVED-ONuMOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LOJESKI~ SECONDED-BY COUNCILMEMBER HARBICHT 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, explained 'the content and read the title of Ordinance No. 1880, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF 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". It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 1880 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None NOne 1 The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 5404, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES, APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1988, HERETOFORE CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 5385 OF THE CITY COUNCIL'. It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No.5404 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None None 3/1/88 -14- The City Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of Resolution No. 5406, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A PROPOSED TWO-STORY DWELLING '\ '? WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AT 400 COLUMBIA ROAD". 'f') '\ ,lQ ~\ I". 11. 9c. RESOLUTION NO. 5406 (ADOPTED) 30:0060 It was MOVED by Councilmember and CARRIED on roll call vote and it is hereby ADOPTED. Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Young as follows that Resolution No. 5406 be AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers None None Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb MATTERS FROM STAFF None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS CHANDLER ~Thought that the exercise this evening regarding the height res'rictions on buildings was well worth the effort. The most significant thing is that people can no longer build such high buildings on small lots. Some restraint will be necessary. YOUNG ~ GILB I 12. ADJOURNMENT (March 15, 1988 6:00 p. Wondered about the air vent on the new Citicenter Building. that the vent had been damaged by the windstorm and when it it would be covered by the sign. Staff replied was repaired, Stated that he had resented the remarks made by Mrs. Hofer regarding the matter of the sound barrier on the freeway and that nothing had been done about it. Actually Council and staff have been working very hard to get this barrier built. He did not feel he should dignify what was obviously an election issue with discussion, but he had, in fact, stated at one time that it would probably take twenty years," but this is because Arcadia must get on CALTRANS' list for sound barriers and await its turn. There is nothing the City can do because the City does not build the sound barrier. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p. m. to 6:00 p. m., March 15, 1988 in the Conference Room primarily to discuss a Senior Center Building and to conduct the business of the Council and Agency and any Closed Session, m.)if any, necessary to discuss personnel, litigation and evaluation of properties. ~ 1 "''''' ~%~ Christine Van Maanen, City Clerk 3/1/88 -15-