Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 20,1983 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 25:0855 I ROLL CALL TRAFFIC (Holy Angels Church) ~)~ CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT I ATTEST: M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1983 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in an adjourned regular session at 7 p.m. December 20, 1983 in the Arcadia City Hall Conference Room. PRESENT: Councilmen Dring, Haltom, Hannah, Pellegrino, Lojeski ABSENT: None Council was advised of forthcoming meetings by the City Manager. Also the dinner in honor of the visiting Newcastle, Australia band members and visitors which will be held December 28 at the Arboretum. Everyone who can was urged to attend. With reference to the traffic problem at the Holy Angels Church on Sundays at its 10:30 a.m. and 12:30 ,p.m. services, the Chief of Police suggested methods of providing assistance for the members to cross Holly Avenue on Fairview Avenue. It was MOVED by Mayor Lojeski, seconded by Councilman Pellegrino and carried on roll call vote as follows that solution No.1 of the report be put into effect, with the cooperation of Father Walsh and the church members. No.1. Prepare a map for church members showing how to enter and leave the church lot by use of streets other than Holly Avenue and Fairview Avenue west. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmen Dring, Haltom, Hannah, Pellegrino, Lojeski None None The City Council then entered a closed session to discuss litigation matters with the City Attorney. Council reconvened at 7:30 p.m. and adjourned sine die. , Mayor ... ~ fi/{f,:t&eZ #h(/ -1- 12-20-83 . .~~ -\ '. I T RAN S C RIP T (INSOFAR AS DECIPHERABLE) RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION RES. NO. 1245 DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE FOR PROPERTY AT 141 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE. (To identify those speaking: LOJESKI WOOLARD DR. GOTTUSO BARBOSA MILLER SERENO TSE QUAKKELSTEIN HALTOM HANNAH PELLEGRINO WATTS t-1AYOR PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICANT ATTORNEY FOR DR. GOTTUSO CITY ATTORNEY MEMBER OF CONGREGATION DR, MARIO, RESIDENT MR. PAUL, RESIDENT COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN CITY MANAGER PROCEEDINGS AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1983 LOJESKI WOOLARD LOJESKI GOTTUSO LOJESKI GOTTUSO Item No.2 Public Hearing. Mr. Bill Woolard. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council this is Planning Commission Resolution No. 1245 regarding the property at 141 W. Las Tunas Drive. The Planning Commission at its September the 13th meeting adopted Resolution No. 1245 denying a Conditional Use Permit for a church at this address. The applicant Dr. John Gottuso has appealed the Planning Commission's denial. The Planning Commission in its consideration expressed concern that there was not adequate onsite parking space and that the proposed offsite parking was too far from the proposed church. It was also felt that the proposed UI Commission noted that the Conditiona church which might subsequently pur- was too intensive for the site and the Use Permit could be transferred to any chase the property. You have in your packet the applicant's letter of appeal and the staff report which was presented to the Planning Commission, this concludes my report unless you have any questions. Any questions of Mr. Woolard? This is a public hearing. Anyone desirous to speak in favor of this item on the agenda please come forward. Dr. John Gottuso who made the appeal. Do you want my address again? Please. 370 W. Las Flores, Arcadia. I would like to address again our proposal for the scope of what we would be doing there. Our major desire is to be able to hold a couple of Sunday services - one for worship in the morning and a Bible study at night. And a couple of week nights. At the prsent time we have one week night Bible study on a Thursday night. Within the scope of our desire to do ,this we had purchased this facil ity not as a pre-school per se, we had a double escrow - one to purchase the facility itself and the . other also to purchase the pre-school. We invested our total savings to purchase this, a quarter of a million dollars, and we put $70,000 down to be able to do this as a church ministry. We use to be in Glendale and then we moved here awhile back and we have been meeting in various members homes -1- . , I then it localized at my particular place because we had a large family room. And now it just seemed appropriate for us to be able to have a building that we could use. We purchased it also with the intent because it was zoned c-o and we thought there would be no problem about the usage as a church rather than as strictly in a residential community - so that is the basic background in our scope of usage. The use that would be there, we had also stated, would be approximately 50 members. In dealing with both the Fire Department and the Planning Department that seemed the best breakoff point for us to utilize. Also if we got into higher numbers we're talking about all kinds of conditions to change the building. Thats one thing about the physical plant. One of the other issues is - the total scope of ministry and thrust - is towards personal growth and not programmed growth. That maybe difficult to comprehend in a world that believes that bigger is better, but as Burroughs says "its not necessarily so even though its IBM"-~its- you can be smaller and still be doin~ a very dynamic work and thats what we're into. We're into people growing and developing as spiritually mature persons and we're not into a high active program oriented church that is similiar to the business world that is in- terested in growth and profit. Our profit is in growing functionally and we have had a history of at' least 25 years in Glendale and now as we're here in Arcadia, of smaller congregations. We have probably never exceeded 50, not because either myself or the .people do not know how to grow and have progams, but its been our thrust to grow in depth rather than in numbers. What we believe is train a unit of people and let them go out and reach others. If we have 50 people we could reach 5,000 people with a particular message as we deal with the people interacting in life, but not bring them back to our particular facility. But reach them and then let them live where they are and stay where they are and join a particular place where they are rather than bringing them into our place. Thats been our philosophy -2- .,' and it will continue to be our philosophy. So from the standpoint of the use we do have that condition of 50 people. The physical facts of the plant itself will just prohibit what was presented in that we might sell the facility and then someone would, come in with 500 people. The place it- self just couldn't hold that. We're not even into that, but, it just doesn't even consider the fact that the plant itself couldn't do that. Then the issue of church type activities - that the building is ,not designed for church type of activities. We redesigned our congregational facility in Glendale with a similiar orientation and church type activities - I don't understand that particular objection - I'd like to assuage whatever fear I that may be - or concern. What we're going to be doing is studying the Bible, praying and preaching. Thats our basic structure, we do not have a large heavy social program - trying to get a lot of children in or having people have bakeouts and all kinds of things. We are into spiritual growth and development. Not a social program but a spiritual program. And so I don't know what this church type activity is. From the early church on through history its always been congregations and they would meet at houses and then get a collective building for the people but - so I didn't understand that. We aren't into the modern type hype-program - 10,000 people... 5,000 people... 500... we're into relational, personal growth and not program. So it isn't that we're not into succeeding - we're succeeding in another way, an in-depth kind of way. The issue of parking which seems to be the thorniest issue and my understanding in the analysis of the staff report - there are no' actual requirements for church's to have a particular on-site number and though we understand that we do need some parking. Right now our structure has 6 striped parkina places and I understand that the unwritten formula that is used is 4 - 1. With that we'd approximately need 12 places. Now there are 4 lanes in the front parking area, 2 drive-through driving lanes -3- I LOJESKI GOTTUSO LOJESKI BARBOSA and then 2 for - striped parking - and then another whole lane that is used for entering and exit from the building. Now on Sunday or these week nights that we would have it, the people would be there approximately 3 hours, the cars would be stationary, they'd be there. We could add right now, without changing a thing on-site, we could have 9 places. That means we're looking ,for 3 places to hold the conditional ~imitation of 50 people which would be approximately 12 spaces. So we have enough just with using one of the lanes in front of the facility and not even the double lane for drive-through - 9 places. So we're looking for 3 parking places and not even considering com- pact cars which is less and which is probably 50% of our people's cars are compact, thought I know that's not your consideration. So we could do that. I also have for your - opportunity to look at - a proposal from John Bartletts Associates where we could also include the back area. And with a little re- designing, add 5 more parking places. So we'd have sufficient on-site park- ing to meet the limited conditions of 50 people - which we're asking for. And though even what we have with the amount in front, we have at least enough for g, that would maybe mean a couple of people park on the street. I would open that to you - what you would accept for a limit of 50 people - how many parking places would be necessary, that could carry this particular load. Excuse me. Dr. Gottuso are you advocating a change in whats in front of us this evening as far as the parking and that sort of thing? Well I was trying to assuage the issue of safety in crossing the street. Well if your desirous in making any changes this must go back to the Planning Department - Planning Commission. We're not here to decide changes in the parking structure - the design of the property or the landscaping or anything of that nature. If you're desirous of doing that then I suggest we go back to step 1 rather then to continue on. We 11 Mr. Mayor..... -4- LOJESKI BARBOSA LOJESKI PELLEGRINO LOJESKI PELLEGRINO BARBOSA PELLEGRINO BARBOSA Excuse me.. ... who are you and the name and address please? Yes, Mr. Mayor my name is Henry S. Barbosa. I'm an attorney-my address is 617 South Olive Street, Los Angeles. If you'll permit me to, I think, respond to your question about whether or not we're modifying the application I would respectfully submit to the City Council that because this is a ge novo hearing before the City Council, its ~my understanding that so long as we're within the parameters of the Notice and do not change the proposal that we're making to you, that we can bring this to the City Council. I think what Dr. Gottuso is trying to elaborate to the City Council is to address the concern raised by the staff based upon the physical site as it is presentl laid out. As it is presently striped it shows six spaces, and at the staff report, that I believe you all have, if you'll look at the page behind the aerial photo its got a plot plan of the site. And what is being suggested by Dr. Gottuso, if I can highlight the point, is this.. do you have that before you - the plot plan? Page 18, I think. Mr. Mayor. Yessir. Mr. Gottuso or Mr. Barbosa - on the plan that you show us I see 4 only. Well it shows' the 4 but if you notice in the driveway area it shows two parking spaces that circle. Oh I see - I better put my glasses on, excuse me. The point that I would like to make, that Dr. Gottuso is trying to also make, is that looking at the configuration we do show 6. What we are trying to do is to address the concern the Commission had, and of course, keep in mind that we're trying to draw numbers out of the air. Your code does not speci- fically set a ratio or a formula for church or assembly type uses. I went to parochial school and I've always had the impression that a church has t have a steeple and has to have a bell. And Dr. Gottuso and I have had -5- I several hours of long discussion and discourse about what a church really is - and he's got me convinced, at 1east, about the form and substance of his ministry and I was kind of surprised cause he's not pro-growth. He doesn't want to get bigger and bigger. And he has satisfied me that his congregation, his ministry, doesn't work with more than the number of people, he presently has. At the present time he serves approximately 35 people. The number of not exceeding 50 is something that was drawn out of the air by the Fire Department. As I recall, as I understand it, the Fire Department in reviewing the site said that the building is suitable for up to 180 people. Of course, they would prefer that there not be more than 50 using that site. Now thats not to disregard the parking problems, but the physical building itself could hold 180 people sitting in chairs properly spaced, having Bible readings or listening to preaching and meditation or whatever else they do. But keeping in mind that there is no fixed formula for parking, for church type uses, you have to keep in mind that his ministry does not involve more than 35 people at the present time. And if you were to apply a factor of four occupants to an automobile, than you're talking about 8 or 9 automobiles - and thats all that he has. So that as I look ,at the problem the scope of the matter before you for a decision is whether or not we can find two more addi- tiona1 spaces. And thats going to depend upon this City Counci1 making a determination in this case - that X number of parking spaces is suitable for his congregation - and he is not to exceed that number. If you'll permit me to go further, if you'll look in the area just above the two parking spaces - it says the front parking and the entrance to the building - I was there this afternoon and you can - and I've been through thousands of these kinds of hearings trying to make parking fit. As this plot plan is presently laid out you could add three additional automobiles. And I'll tell you where - one right in front of the entrance, one on the curve where it says landscaping thats going to the west cause this plot plan faces north and south, and one -6- HANNAH BARBOSA HANNAH BARBOSA HANNAH BARBOSA behind the car in the middle, so what I've done - and its hard for you to see this, but across the entrance there will be room for three automobiles. At this point you have nine. Now looking at that front parking area, it is really a double striped driveway - all these....... Pardon me - do you have a map that we could look at? I'm loosing you. No - this - its the plot plan that is part of your staff report. I have that. Alright - can I step forward? You're talking about putting parking in the landscaping area and putting parking in the......... 31 No, no - if you'll permit me to give this to the City Clerk she can show you what I've drawn with my own pencil mark - give you an idea of what I'm talking about. The point that I am trying to make is this - that there is no fixed - no set number that you have to have to allow assembly type uses and conceding that this is an assembly use, and recognizing the limitations that are im- posed by the nature of this type of ministry - he doesn't need 12. or 13 parking spaces. So really the problem is reduced to nothing more than finding a suitable number of parking spaces that he can provide for his ministry. And with the suggestion that I've pointed to you, we believe that we can meet the parking requirements on the site. Now, let me add just two final words so that the City Council will, hopefully will be confortable with our proposal. Number 1 - Dr. Gottuso is prepared to accept a condition that is you allow a Conditional Use Permit for this use, he will sign an additional condition that he will not sell or transfer the property with that CUP use. That is, if you grant him the use it is limited to him. Of course, I know covenants run with the land, but I also know that conditions such as this limiting the transfer of the property for this use is an enforceable condition. So that if he were to sell the property he would sell it only as a pre-grade child care center, which it presently is at the present time. So that you don't -7- have the abstract academic problem that he will sell to someone else for a church and that will bring 500 people in - your not going..... you'll never have 500 people in that site - it just is an impossibility - so we are pre- pared to accept the recommendation that the number of people in that structure for services will never exceed 50 - and if you believe that it is adequate to say "Dr. Gottuso please show 8 parking spaces", we can do that at the present. And if you add the covenant that he is not to assign the property as a church use, that upon transfer of the property the CUP shall expire - that is an enforceable condition - and we're prepared to accept it and live by that condition - so that you won't have the problem of his proliferating some kind of a use. I have one more comment to make, if I can recall - if I get my notes back. Thank you. So if you're to accept those conditions on our part - I do believe the size is suitable -that we can arrange to pro- vide the parking. If you determine 8 is a sufficient number we're prepared to do that. If you believe that there should be - I'm sorry g -,it shows 6 its 9. If you determine in this case that the site can handle the 9, as I have shown you here, and if you fix that number that you must provide the 9 -' you cannot exceed 50 occupants for the Sunday services - then we can go forward and will accept those limitations. If you feel, in your discretion, that 9 is not suitable for whatever reasons and I can't think of any since we are drawing numbers out of the air - that has to be recognized. We have a proposed plan here and as we are .... it brings it back to the question you raised initially about are we modifying our proposal - No - our proposal is the same. Its for a CUP for a church use. And we didn't come to the Planning Commission with any fixed notion of the number of parking spaces nor do we have a fixed notion here tonight as to now many parking spaces would be suit- able for this particular site, but, if you decide that 9 parking spaces are not adequate for his congregation, we do have a plan here that we would -8- I PELLEGRINO GOTTUSO BARBOSA PELLEGRINO GOTTUSO PELLEGRINO GOTTUSO PELLEGRINO GOTTUSO PELLEGRINO BARBOSA LOJ ESKI HANNAH submit to staff and upon their approval this plan will provide 12 parking spaces on that site. I don't believe we need to get to that if you deter- mine based the testimony thus far that 9 is a suitable number - given his expressed condition not to exceed 50 and keeping in mind he only has 35 mem- bers of his parish right now - we believe that the site is suitable for the use - it has more than adequate access and it is a commercial use in a commercial zone. If I can answer any questions or try and restate or clarify anything I've said I'll be more than pleased to try. Mr. Mayor. Question to Dr. Gottuso. How long have you been there? Since June 1. June 1. How big were your parishioners when you started Dr. Gottuso? I'm sorry...... How many parishioners did you have as of June ~? The same. The same amount? The same amount - yes. It has not grown? Mr. Pellegrino if I may add a comment., I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you - but Dr. Gottuso is a rather modest man. When we first met it took me awhile to learn that he is a State licensed family counselor, and then it began to sink into my mind that he has a very intensive program with the few number of people - and I was skeptical at first but I'm convinced now that he is very committed to his program of ministry, which is personal growth - not growjng in numbers - so that there's no plans for expansion. Any other questions? Mr. Mayor I wonder about the legality of putting a covenant against the property that can't be occupied by more than 50 people - number one. And number two - if we do that then we should probably require 12 parking spaces -9- I BARBOSA PELLEGRINO MILLER BARBOSA MILLER I PELLEGRINO HANNAH BARBOSA HANNAH BARBOSA HANNAH BARBOSA HANNAH BARBOSA if we have that right, which I'd like to ask our city attorney - which doesn't seem right to me - but anyway if he provides only 9 and we have 4 - 1, I think that we should limit the number of people to 36. I think somebody is breathi~~ into his microphone. Mr. Miller I think your microphone is distracting the speaker. I beg your pardon. Those are expensive. very very sensitive microphones. It doesn't I'm sorry. Would you repeat that Mr. Hannah I'm sorry...... Well I - basically I said if we're talking about 50 people, we should have 12 parking spaces - period - on a 4 to 1 basis. If you accept that as a premise then thats - you know - thats debatable, but I won't quarrel with you. Secondly - if you have 36 present members of your church, and you're providing 9 - should we not make a covenant against any increase in the membership? Well - if all the drift - I'll let him respond because its his parish. You haven't grown - you've told me that. If you're saying 40.... .. . But you also that the Fire Chief says you can lBO people there - so then should we legislate to the maximum amount of parking spaces and say we need 40. Mr. Hannah you raise a good point because I had some difficulty in my own mind trying to make this presentation - but if you're prepared to determine or adjudicate in this particular case - that 4 to 1 is a reasonable number and if we represent to you that we have 36 members - therefore we must have 9 - and if you were to impose a further condition that if -, for every incre- ment of 4 that we intend to have there - that we must provide additonal parking - thats a great solution because our proposal to our design to give -10- you 12 - if you determine that to be the appropriate size - does involve a cost - and since he does not have a growth oriented ministry - I don't know Dr. Gottuso - if it grows are you prepared to go to more? If it stays at GOTTUSO g will you take the g? I want to state a couple of things to clarify something - one - the 180 figure is that there are two large rooms, which means that in one you could HANNAH have 100. - using the factor of 7.1 - I think, and then in the other you could have 80. I just used that figure because your counselor said 180 is permissible. I No thats it - it is true - it is accurate from the Fire Departments interpr GOTTUSO tation of usage. We wouldn't be using both rooms at the same time period anyway - we going to be in one room - and we're - which we will be utilizing that at one time. So it would never be/if you had 180 you would need 40 places because we wouldn't hi! - we're not using both rooms and we'd either have worship service in one room and then we'd have a Bible study. So that was just proposed because there are the two 1 arge rooms. The Fi're Department says "you could have that". If we did that we'd have to go into total redesign and restructuring the whole facility. We plan to be there only in the transi- tion time anyway - we weren't thinking of a forever period there and if things go as they have for a quarter of a century we're still looking at the same kind of operation. So it wasn't to have 180 people there. HANNAH Yes - I asked another question - you may not have recognized my face but I sat in on the Planning Commission hearing. My question - and I recognize people in the audience that were here also that night - I don't think the counselor who's here-but why was not the 12 parking spaces proposed at that particular Planning Commission hearing? BARBOSA Because they didn't have a lawyer trying to figure out ways to make it fit. I came into the picture approximately 10 days ago - after the Planning Com- mission hearing. Its fortunate that I did come at this stage - typically -11- I MILLER BARBOSA clients come to you after the City Council and then its too late. Right now is our trial and I think Dr. Gottuso was rather circumspect, rather cautious in calling me when he did - had he gone - I think he made a very good pre- sentation although I wasn't there - from what I've seen in the staff reports and the analysis and the presentation I thought he did a good job at the Planning Commission although they were sensitive to some concerns and I think it took the - my professional assistance - I'll take credit for that - to help him understand the sensitivities of the Planning Department and the pro- fessionals, and to bring the experience that I have - being what it is - to address those concerns then - he's got his eyes on the stars - and I'm looking at the ground and so I think thats the cause for not having a better presen- tation before the Planning Commission, but we would have done so had I been retained earlier - but that wasn't the case. Let me add that I'm sure Mr. Barbosa would concur that you could look at the facts of this particular presentation tonight and - you know - have it con- sidered as a part of this appeal or within the discretion of the Council - maybe you won't agree - send it back to the Planning Commission, but I think there's enough new matter here, in particular these statements on covenants which I certainly would want to be sure of - I've seen covenants to this effect - but whether they're legally enforceable in this situation - we surely want to ascertain that it would be within the purview of the Council if thats your desire to refer this back to the Planning Commission. Well we'd prefer not to go back to the Planning Commission because he's got people worshiping out of his home. Let me make just two points because this is a de novo hearing under your ordinance and the state law - the fact that we're - so long as we're within the parameters of the notice the fact that we put the parking here or there I don't think modifies the application nor does it v~olate due process. In terms of these conditions being acceptable and enforceable I'd just like to point out the two cases that come to my -12- mind - and those are Mc Dougall versus Imperial County,-'a California ! Supreme Court decision. And the case of J - Marion \versus the City of Sacramento. Both cases hold very specifically - in the Conditional Use context where you accept the benefits of ftn entitlement then you are bound by the burdens of the conditions that you accept. We're here to represent to you that we would accept these conditions very specifically and if we accept your permit then we're bound by these conditions. In the case of I J - Marion ~ersus Sacra~ento it was a case where a prior owner in return for his right to come in to be annexed to the city - made a covenant neverl to sell liquor in that grocery store. And on that condition to refrain fr an,otherwise unlawful activity he was zoned into the city. He thereafter so the property and the new buyer said 'you can't make me - you can't prevent me fron selling liquor - I have a right under State law, under the code". The court said "no you don't, your predecessor - and you accepted the condi- tions - your predecessor self imposed that condition 'and now you've bought it that way - you have to 1 ive with it". So I think that under J - Marion I versus Sacramento and Mc Dougall versus Imperial County, which is a Supreme Court decision, both these conditions-if we accept them - being otherwise reasonable and not oppressive - that we're agreeing not to try and - not to sell the property for the church use - which is - I think -' on point with J - Marion versus Sacramento and under Mc Dougall the Supreme Court case - if we accept the benefits that you confer to us - we're accepting the burdens that run with it and that is not to exceed 50 and to meet the 4 to 1 ratio, MILLER and to provide the parking as and if the congregation does grow. So that... ... As I understand that - and that wouldn't be a reason for sending it back to the Planning Commission because if they impose those conditions it would all be subject to the assurance that they could be enforced..... -13- thot , BARBOSA Of course..... MILLER That that would be provided, however, it is still within their purview BARBOSA IOJESKI ARBOSA HANNAH BARBOSA HANNAH BARBOSA LOJESKI LOJESKI C!TY CLERK SERENO I if they see fit to send it back to the Planning Commission even though its a de novo hearing it can be argued its a de novo hearing on the issue presented at the Planning Commission. I agree its debatable but I don't want the Council to feel that their discretionl is limited. I agree that there is no legal impediment to your referring the matter - we just don't believe its that big a thing to take back to the Planning Commission. At the same time I respect the deference that you properly give to your Plan- ning Commission - given their familiarity with these kinds of issues - but we would be more than pleased to have you make a decision tonight, if you would. Any further questions gentlemen? Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. We also have other people from the parish to testify if you have any questions about the kind of ministry and the fact that it is lim- ited - and if you'll accept that as a fact - that its a limited ministry and not a growth ministry then we're prepared to submit - we only - we have one individual here - John whats your last name. Mario - I'm sorry. Tse? T-S-E? I don't think we're asking - doubting the integrity of But he's a neighbor who knows the ministry there - and he has no Objection to the project. Yes - we're not doubting the integrity of the church. Thank you very much. Thank you gentlemen. Anyone else desiring to speak in favor of item? (A lady is speaking very faintly from the audience - re: typist) Maam please come to the microphone - name and address please? (Still speaking very faintly) The same person that spoke at the Planning Com. Your address please. 334 El Dorado in Arcadia. Sereno is s-e-r-e-n-o. I don't know how to pronounce your name - is it Hannan - Hannah? Sometimes when questions are thrown back I often wonder after we give our response and our answer what was behind the -14- HANNAH SERENO LOJESKI HALTOM SERENO HALTOM SERENO question and I feel like I'd like some give and take on that. You obviously had a reason for saying "how come we didn't have the 12 parking spaces when we had the Planning Commission meeting". So in my mind I'm saying well why was that a concern of yours? Was there something inside of that that made you question our integrity? Cause thats what I heard and I think thats left open and I'd like to close that - if not I'd really like to hear what the reason was for your question. I don't have any question. The reason for that question was that the Planning and I I didn't Commission primarily - we're concerned with the parking requirements think that they were influenced in their opinion by the fact that you have sufficient parking. Ok - I appreciate that. Then I would say that what we have offered you then is to in fact - give you facts that they were off in their view of what was there - is that possible that they could have misinterpreted the plan itself? Councilman Haltom. Miss Sereno - here is the problem. Sometimes the Planning Commission sees one plan and sometimes we see a changed plan. Therefore its not fair to the Plan- ning Commission that we make a ruling unless we have both ruled on the same plan. So the question could have been - is this the same plan? Thats - to me thats the underlying question. Thats a problem we have and people do that - whether intentionally or as it happened - unintentionally here - where other thoughts come to them - they seek other advice - you know - and things like that. Ok. And I also have another question - I have a question that hasn't been brought up and that is - is this really the primary concern - parking and intensity or are there some unwritten rules or codes or any other principles I that guide you in to determining whether or not in fact a building that is -15- " PELLEGRINO LOJESKI PELLEGRINO SERENO 'ELLEGRIND SERENO PELLEGRINO SERENO PELLEGRINO SERENO PELLEGRINO SERENO PELLEGRINO SERENO PELLEGRINO SERENO ,PELLEGRINO LOJESKI already conceived for one purpose can be changed for another? Thats a deep concern of mine - I wonder if there is something else inside of each indivi- dual on the Council that says "well we're looking for things to stop this from going ahead". Thats a preconceived idea of mine - I'd like that to be put to rest - for my benefit. Mr. Mayor? Yes. Miss Sereno? Yes. You have quite a few considerations in your mind that your deviously thinking that we're thinking.. Devious1y..we11 I'm opening mine up to you so that you can know what I'm saying - but your right - I'm asking. Let me - 1et me te11 you where we sit... Thank you. We see an app1ication'come in front of the P1anning Commission that their first a1ternative was to cross a four 1ane street to get to the church. I think thats a 1itt1e bit dangerous..... you know..... Ok... . Thats one of my inner fee1ings... a1right? Can we take that issue just by itself? Well its of no concern - no because its been revised by the new...... But you brought it up - so I'd just like to deal with that.. if that in fact were the case there is a crosswalk there - so no one should be crossing that street. Quite a ways away from the front of the ------ from the area. Not quite a way s. . . . . . . Ok... . This is getting into a contest - I don't think we need to get into Mrs. Sereno. The Council basically is - having in front of us this evening something differ- -16- SERENO LOJSKI SERENO LOJESKI SERENO LOJESKI TSE ently - much differently as Councilman Pellegrino states then what is in front of us here and also what the Planning Commission had concerns about. Also we are here to represent the best interests of the city in all phases of this and you're going to not find - I don't think five more open minded indivi- duals when they look at this. We have ruled for and against - many times - our own Planning Commission Thats what I wanted to know And for and against a number of individuals in the community - so - any of the underlying theories you may have-please put them to rest - as far as our I concerns in that direction. I appreciate that and I want you to know I'm a novice and thats one of the reasons I'm asking the questions. Fine - no problem thats...... Thank you..... You're very welcome. Anyone else desirous of speaking in favor of this item on the agenda? My name is Mario Tse of 154 W. Las Tunas. I have known Dr. Gottuso for some time - not a very long time but long enough. As a matter of fact I'm a dentist and some of the people in the congregation are my patients - and I know those few very well - I know what kind of religion they're into - like they keep reassuring you that they're not into growth - Ok - they're more concerned with their own personal growth - they don't want to expand. They did invite me to'join their congregation but - but theres certain kind of - how would I say it - but they did - they are very firm on the fact that they are very limited. They are not open to everybody. As a matter of fact they want to be as closed as possible and its just like Dr. Gottuso said - they're not into growth at all. And it seems to me that the Council is very concerned with the I fact that their overwhelmed with the permits they have and I really don't believe that would happen because - as I mentioned before - I know some of -17- ,. these people pretty well. And I have full confidence that they would not abuse what they already have - Ok - I think I shouldn't go any further than this before I say anything wrong. LOJESKI Thank you doctor. Anyone else desirous of speaking in favor of this item on the agenda? Anyone in opposition to this public hearing item on the agenda? QUAKKELSTEIN My name is Quakkelstein and I live on 159 W. Sandra in Arcadia, been living there for the past 18 years. And I'd like to vote my vote against it because I I don't think it is a very good site for a church to' start with. And I would not have liked to have seen even the Christian church in there or pre-school bec~use we're getting a lot of small children on our street and parking in our street from it-and I'm sure we will get more parking from this church that they want to open up. Because there is a house in the back of that peoperty and I believe that is in the same - I think those two properties are connected. And I feel that people would be parking on our street and taking parking away from our own guests - if we have them. And the noise ratio - I'm sure we will have more noise fr,om it. I just think it is just not a very good site for a church - and.thats my opinion. LOJESKI Thank you very much. QUAKKELSTEIN Ok - thank you. LOJESKI Anyone else desirous to speaking in opposition? Would you like to address that comment doctor? GOTTUSO Prior to our purchase of the facility the people who owned it also owned the peoperty directly behind it. They sold that separate to a residential family unit and it is no longer combined in any way, shape and/or form. The facility on Las Tunas is totally self-contained within itself and we have no access to that back lot that butts up to the property. There will be absolutely no I parking on that street - as we've already said - there really is sufficient space there. The only problem we really had on the parking was that is wasn't... -18- .. if you have this turnaround variable - we could tandem park if you would allow that - we could valet park there - there is plenty of parking space for our usage. Its just that it doesn't meet the configuration of this turn-around factor. We have a lot of land wasted just like back on the other issue that we can't utilize for parking that really could be adequate to hold it for the Sunday service or the Wednesday service - where your not having in and out moving of traffic - your just going to go in park the cars in the front lot which is plenty to hold - even to 12 you're talking about without doing any- thing. You know - thats the part that is - I haven't been able to communica1 in some way. I would like to say unequivocally that I am not in question of the integrity of the Council - I do believe exactly what you said - that your concerns are the total good - I have no qualms about the fact that you are piercing whatever there is to see that you do whatever is best. The hidden issues of whether there is nonbelief about our growth factor - I can only tell you we're already saying 50 and that - you know what can we do - we're putting a condition it. The parking is adequate there - we went to offsite because they said there wasn't this turn-around factor - we'd like to contain it on the lot - if you would allow that and say that - within the parameters of the design of how you park theres enough right there. I did not want to have the thing denied because of some extraneous variable that we had no control - there's plenty of space there if we'd even tandem park and without - and still have a two lane driveway - not blocking any of the parked cars. But it doesn't have turn-around variable - so it denies all that usage of three lanes of paved property - but we can't use it because you can't turn around - its not striped - but if we just park them there for the 2 or 3 hours of the meeting and then left - there wouldn't be any problem but it doesn't meet that exact configura- tion that was the issue. We also even have the back paved but we can't use -19- I that because of the turn around factor. If we stick with that strict limit I LOJESKI PELLEGRINO HALTOM LOJESKI HALTOM I of the variable of turn around we could park there with other designs of parking - which we would be willing to do - like have an usher park all the cars. Or park them over at my house where I have one of those big lots you're talking about that I can't utilize and then we'll bus them over there and just use two of the parking places with a van. I mean there's other alternatives - I don't have any problem we'll have 10 cars parked on my lot which is half paved and park them over there and we'll have someone drive them over there. Well then we'll just use 2 parking places with 10 people in a van or two times go get them and not have this parking problem - if that is the difficulty - thats what I'm addressing - there are other alternatives of using whats there if you would open that up to conceive of it that way. Thats what I'm asking. Thank you very much. Anyone else desirous of speaking in opposition of this item? Gentlemen. Mr. Mayor I MOVE that we close the public hearing. Second. MOVED and seconded. Anyone desirous of leaving it open - Ok - its closed. Yes - Councilman Haltom. OK - and the solution - if - and I say only if because I don't know how the rest feel. If we feel that we want to grant this to expedite it would we consider sending an approved plan - I don't know - well what I want to say is as a means of protocol to the Planning Commission to show them why we ruled on ;,t - if we do rule on it - just to expedite it - because its not a major structure change or something like that - it is a change. Of course all this is contingent upon whether or not we decide to approve it - but I offer that as an alternative to sending somebody back to the Planning Commission and then possibly back to the Council and - to the exercise that I offer it only because its not a 'structure change or a consent change of that nature - but I do think that we should justify it to the Planning Commission and show them why we ruled - if we do rule to grant it. Ok? -20- PELLEGRINO LOJESKI PELLEGRINO HALTOM LOJESKI PELLEGRINO WOOLARD MILLER Mr. Mayor. Councilman Pellegrino. Some of the recommendations that Dr. Gottuso brought up in - the Planning Department has brought up - I don't know - I think time is of an essence in any matter but I see them coming up with the solution of the problem that is so indicated by the Planning Commission which they will put adequate parking on the premises that they need - alright. If they do that then I would be in favor of recommending this with the following recommendations put forth by the Planning Commission that the maximum occupancy of anyone tim' shall not exceed 50 persons. Number two - that the required exits shall be ) installed and all fire safety requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Number three - that a covenant in a form and content approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded, noting that such owner, or owners, of the property at 120 - 126 Las Tunas Drive, and 150 Las Tunas Drive will continue to maintain their parking area for said use of the church as long as the church is maintained. Number four - that the church shall not operate until all conditions of approval have been complied with. Number five - that the CUP 83-16'sha11 not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available for the Planning Department - or for the - yes, I guess the Building Department... Planning Department... Building Department accepts what they have put on the premises. I'll second that. Any discussion? Is that - did I make that clear - or did I confuse it? I might need some clarification here. I would like some too, because there was a couple of covenants that were represented by Mr. Barbosa which I believe the Council might be interested I in if you're going to seek approval action. -21- PELLEGRINO WOOLARD lIIJ PELLEGRINe HANNAH LOJESKI HANNAH LOJESKI PELLEGRINO WOOLARD LOJESKI WOOLARD I HANNAH LOJESKI HANNAH BARBOSA Ok - excuse me - excuse me Mr. City Attorney I meant to include what only - that they have accepted to give us. Mr. Barbosa's recommendation of putting a covenant on the property for the said use of this and this business alone and if it was to sell that it would go off. I think the problem I'm having here is that a couple of the - one of the conditions that you just read - which was Number 3 of the original staff report - regarding the covenants - those were covenants that would tie-in properties across the street for use as parking. And I think that is not what they're really pr.oposing at this time. Ok - I'm sorry - I'm sorry - I do not want to use any other parking, or any other parking across the street from Las Tunas Drive. I think they've con- formed to the solution of putting the parking they need onsite - onsite parking is what I intend to get across to the rest of the City Council. Question. Yes - Councilman Hannah. How many parking spaces are we requirin9? Is it......... I don't know. Well at this point...... Mr. Woolard.... I'm not sure how many many you're requiring - its really a decision of the Council. I believe their attorney proposed that they would have on the property at least one space for each four persons who would be on the property at any.. time. And I guess that with what... 30 some odd members. Question - may I ask a question? Yes - please. Is that your intent - that you will provide 1 on........ 4 on 1? If you determine that - yes - we will comply. -22- HANNAH BARBOSA HANNAH BARBOSA PELLEGRINO LOJESKI PELLEGRINO MILLER BARBOSA MILLER BARBOSA r~ILLER That will be included in the covenant?.........Thank you. Thats correct - so that if we're at 36 or fewer its 9 - if we grow we've got to come up with the parking or we can't do it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Barbosa. We have....... I will make that in the form of a MOTION if its clarified to our City Attorney Mr. Mayor. I would like Mr. Barbosa to restate the two covenants th,t th" ",,'d ""lIII be subject to a final to and I would like to recommend that those covenants review by me as to their enforceability. And we have to come back with a resolution if thats your action tonight. At the next council meeting I'm going to recommend that you direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution to reflect this and then at that time I will be able to advise as to the legality of the whole process. Mr. Mayor I can restate - there's three not two. The three conditions we will accept - gladly accepted - are these. Number 1 - the use shall never exceed 50 persons. Number 2 - the use shall not be transferable - and we will place that specific limitation ~ and I will talk to the City Attorney and we'll discuss those authorities so thats enforceable - we'll accept it. So a limit of 50 - no transfer or sale of the property with that use. And Number 3 - that we will maintain at all times a 1 to 4 ratio of cars to parking - within the parameters of 50 maximum. And would you agree that the CUP could be revoked if the membership exceeds a certain number? If it exceeds 50 its revoked. Thats a material breach of the conditions and it is revokable. I Thank you. -23- BARBOSA PELLEGRINO HALTOM LOJESKI PELLEGRINO LOJESKI PELLEGRINO LOJESKI I PELLEGRINO LOJESKI HALTOM I Clearly..:.. Thank you very much. I. will include that in my r~OTION, Mr. Miller? Well......1 can put that in my second. Discussion....... any discussion? Call for the question. I simply....... Oh excuse me - I'm sorry Mr. Mayor. Pardon me..... I just simply have a little bit of trouble with this - you know we have a Planning Commission which we...... obviously have sit and review this type of situation - and again I go back to my original question - and I think there has been substantial changes in whats in front of us as far as printed material and what our Planning Commission acted on. And I really would like to see their input and I would strongly urge the Council to consider giving this back with the appropriate information - the appro- priate changes as outlined on this new plan which none of us have seen - with the hypothetical 12 parking spaces - and it should go back to the Planning Commission. Now we don't know whether this - whether the parking can all fit in there - if 12 spaces can fit onsite - now what are we doing - now where are we? We have certain rules and regulation as far as spaces - as far as turn-around space - as far as size of parking spaces and stalls - I've got some real problems with this. Mr. Mayor Dick.. . You know - all parking is hypothetical - I don't care - take your own situ- ation in Town Center - I'm sure that you'd maximize the parking you'd find out that its inadequate there for the occupancy - but when is anything fully occupied - you know - I don't know about their growth factor but I know the vast majority of church's that I'm associated with have a little problem with any growth. They have a problem getting their regular congregation there -24- LOJESKI PELLEGRINO LOJESKI WOOLARD LOJESKI WOOLARD LOJESKI -- much less growth. I don't have that much of a problem with parking be- cause parking is seldom ever used to its maximum. I seldom go in any place that is fully parked and most church's to be' successful - really successful church's in Arcadia - that I see - they park on the street there too - you know. So if you want to apply the same criteria to those church's - they no longer would qualify - you know. I think that we're making too much out of too small a situation and I agree with you emphatically about the Planning Commission - that they should see the same thing we see. However, I feel that this is a little bit of an exception in that we're dealing with that'was already really available on the premises - that nobody just it out for anybody - but I agree with you about sending something to parkil drew Planning doing something to the Planning Commission but I think it would be sufficient to send them a new drawing and an explanation of why we did rather than ..... if I were them I would be affronted if we went over their head - you know - I understand that. But I don't feel its of a magnitude that it warrants going back to the Planning Commission - back to the City Council - then to have the City Attorney draw-up some new legislation to - you know we're talking about two months down the road - you know - and things really get bogged down in city government - its not that big a deal. If they're building a ten story building - yes. What are we looking at time wise Bill if it went back to the Commission? Mr. Mayor...... Can you give me some sort of an idea? Well it would depend somewhat on the applicants - but theoretically it could be back at the Planning Commission at their next regular meeting. Which is next Tuesday... Next Tuesday night and come back to Council at the Councils first meeting in November. I Which would be November 1. -25- " HAL TOf~ HOOLARD CITY CLERK PELLEGRINO LOJESKI MILLER I LOJESKI AUDIENCE LOJESKI BARBOSA PELLEGRINO BARBOSA WATTS LOJESKI WATTS HALTOM MILLER I Then how long for Mr. Miller's..... Then you have another two weeks for the preparation of the resolution - so that would be basically a what - four week delay. Six weeks. Six weeks. Can't he do his part kind of simultaneously? Yes - there'~,no problem with that. That would take place simultaneously - as far as the legal part of it - Mr. Barbosa and I could get together and prepare something that is justifiable in a legal sense - I'm sure. If there's any problems I'd report that. The situation is not new - its been going on since June? Four months.... Background talking...... Would it be a real hardship to ask you to go another month? You know.. ... You wouldn't want to pay a lawyer for more hours than you had to. Amen. Thats my only concern - its consideration of the clients having to keep me on the meter - my kids love it - but the clients don't appreciate it. May I ask a question...... Would you mind sharing that with the rest of the Council. I was just informing the Mayor that there would be no loss of time if the City Attorney, in the meantime, continued to work on preparing the documents. You could refer the matter to the Planning Commission for their meeting next week and then it could be back before the Council with their action on November 1st. Call for the question - lets roll lets........ fish or cut bait... There is a MOTION and Councilman Haltom has called for the question - I just wanted to clarify - Mr. Barbosa - that the motion is to approve this but direct us to bring back a final resolution adopting it at the next council meeting. So the action wouldn't be final until November 1st. Ok - thank you. -26- ,> HANNAH LOJESKI HANNAH MILLER LOJESKI PELLEGRINO LOJESKI HALTOM LOJESKI C!TY CLERK I'd like to add one more thing. Yes. My vote is contingent upon that the City Attorney accepting the covenant as being legal. That has to be a forgone conclusion as far as I am concerned. And I'm voting in favor of it only because I'm assuming that the City Attorney will have the last word on whether or not that covenant is legal. Yes, I think we all agree that your approval is predicated on the validity of that condition and we will certainly report back on that prior to t.he I next meeting - of those conditions. If your still going to have it back gentlemen in the same amount of t,me - why not still have the Planning Commission look at it and get their input. I can't see what would be harmful in that. Mr. Mayor my problem with that - and I've served on the Planning Commission - and you are absolutely 100% right - what they see is oranges and what we see is apples - because of the fact that is the procedure of the local govern- ment - when Planning Commission directs somebody on what to do and how to do it - then they appeal it to Council - they make sure that when they come in front of Council - what Planning has corrected or told them to do - that that is included in that project. Not only do we see something they haven't seen but I'm sure that Mr. Gottuso and his attorney have tailored this condition to what the Planning Commission had setforth at that first meeting. And thats why my reason was for moving it - but if you feel satisified at moving it to - I'd just like to get it done. Well it still going to be done in the same amount of time - thats what I'm..... we'l ,Ok. . . . Call for the question.. lets not kill it. Call for the question... go ahead. th, ",;, I Haltom-yes, Hannah-yes, Pellegrino-yes, Lojeski-no - and only on that I would like to see the Planninq Commission review it.... -27-