Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 29,1992 I I "'''0 .. ::, c) a1,j?~i/0322 C'~c... CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK M I NUT E S CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING (WORK SESSION) SEPTEMBER 29, 1992 The Arcadia City Council met in an Adjourned Regular Meeting Work Session and a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Work Session on Tuesday, September 29, 1992 aC 6:00 p. m. in the Council Chambers Conference Room. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CITY COUNCIL PLNG. COMSN. 1. 2. SOUND WALL FINANCING ALTERNATIVES () ~':n -~O Councilmen Ciraulo, Harbicht, Lojeski, Margett and Fasching None ABSENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Amato, Dagge'tt, Hedlund, Huang and Clark None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION a. Architectural Design Review, Single-Family Zones (See Page 3). b. Development standards for 50' wide R-3 zoned lots (See Page 4). c. Tuck-under/subterranean parking, Single and Multi-Family Zones (See Page 4). The September 24, 1992 staff report prepared by the 'Finance Director provided financing alternatives for che construction of sound walls adjacent to the 210 freeway. The costs associated with said construction were provided by the Public Works Department. The total estimated cost for the proposed construction of the walls along both sides of the freeway, with the exception of Second Avenue to Fifth Avenue, is $7,489',000. If construction of the walls were to commence, the entire project would be scheduled for construction in sections. Following are the costs associated with each section. Northside of Freewav Michillinda to Baldwin Baldwin to Second Avenue Second Avenue to. Fifth Avenue $1,297,000 2,723.500 657.000 $4,677 ,500 Souths ide of Freewav Baldwin to Second Avenue 2.311.500 Total construction costs $6,989,000 Financing of sound wall construction has been dependent on the priority listing and availability of funding through the State Transportation Program (STIP). With limited state and federal funds available, and the inability of the City to obtain sound wall construction prioritatization on the Caltrans list for up to 20 years; local communities must look to 1 9/29/92 other time. forth A. 34:0323 means of financing the walls if they are to be constructed at this For discussion, the following financing methods available were set by staff: Cash - oav as vou EO usinE existinE financial uncommitted resources in the: General Fund Capital Outlay Fund Facility Construction Fund Gas Tax Fund $ 4,744,050 2,032,090 3,327,000 1. 107 .000 $11,210,140 B. Lease Purchase - Pay over years using future City financial resources. Many public agencies have financed facilities "through the L3uancl of Certificates of Participation (COP'S) COP'S provide long ter financing via a lease installment sales structure. This type 0 financing does not require a local election. Funds to support leas payments would be dependent on availability of General Fund revenues. C. Soecial Assessment Establish districts and assess those directlv benefitin~ from the imorovement. Special assessments are a method used to construct public improvements and apportion the costs through liens against properties in a designated area. Property ass"ssments must be based strictly on benefit ... the cost to property owners for sound walls would be sizable and may be more than future appreciation of property values realized, according to staff. D. Taxes ~ Imoose soecial taxes to Dav sound wall construction costs. SummarY The levy of a special tax must be put before City voters as required by Proposition 13, which was passed in 1978. Two, thirds of the voters casting ballots must support the tax if it is to be imposed. General Obligation Bonds, Mello-Roos Communities Facility Districts, or Marks-Roos Bonds are financing methods that could be used to finance construction of the walls. The September 24, 1992 staff report describes in detail the advantages and disadvantages of these financing vehicles, also a relatively new financing method such as Infrastructure Financing Districts. The staff report summary of the sound wall financing alternatives included information that. if local gas tax funds were used for construction of the walls, it would result in a trade-off; other needed improvements to City streets and public thoroughfares would be delayed. Staff suggested also that a program could be established to set aside funds each year to accumulate the resources needed for wall construction. An annual allocation of Gas Tax fund IS to this purpose, along with a Capital Improvement program, could b, developed to begin construction in future years. " With limited resources" available, or the impractical use of Specia Taxes or assessments, a pay-as-you-go philosophy appears to be che appropriate means of financing sound walls, according to staff. If sound walls are deemed a priority Capital Improvement. the use of Gas Tax funds could be the resource available for that purpose. After considerable discussion, and considering that Gas Tax Funds could be used for sound wall construction, it was determined that Mayor Fasching, the Director of Public Works, and one other Councilman, would arrange to meet with Caltrans officials in Los Angeles, to try and get a commitment from Caltrans for reimbursement to Arcadia if City funds are used to build any sound walls. If this can not be accomplished, a program for accumulating funds in a 2 9/29/92 la. ARCH. DESIGN REVIEW (Single-Family Res.Areas) 0",,; tJ ,~ I I 34:0324 special account, similar to the Equipment Replacement Fund, could be considered for implementation as a means to construct the walls, a section at a time, at a future date as funds accumulate. Further, consent was achieved that Council will meet on the 10th of October, to discuss and prioritize community needs, develop a project priority list, which would include means of financing. Consideration of an architectural design review process for single-family residential areas. The September 29, 1992 staff report states, as background information, that currently the City requires architectural design review for all multi-family (R-2 and R-3), commercial and industrial developments. According to the 1990 census, there are 11,742 single-family detached dwellings in the City. There are 2,709 single- family dwellings located within areas which have architectural design review (23~7% of the total). The remaining 9,033 single-family dwellings are not located within areas which have architectural design review (76.93% of the total). There has been an average of 79 new single-family homes built during each of the last four fiscal years. During this same period, there has been a yearly average of 485 additions/alterations to single-family dwellings. From July, 1991 through June, 1992, the City issued 43 permits for new single-family dwellings and 313 permits for additions and alterations to homes outside the existing homeowner association areas. This averages approximately 30 applications a mORth which would be subject to architectural design review if such review were applied to the areas of the City which are not within homeowner association areas. Single-family dwellings are not subject to design review with the exception of properties located within the five homeowner association areas (HOA) of the City. Further background information is detailed in the September 29, 1992 staff report in connection with HOA's and, in particular, their review procedures for new homes as well as home additions, alterations, and other improvements. Staff recommends that, if the Council wishes to pursue the concept of architectural design review for single-family dwellings, Council should first determine if they wish to include all single-family zoned properties within the City, or Council could determine that they would want to address only those single-family properties outside the existing homeowner association areas. In addition, staff recommends that a committee be formed to study this issue. Further, the committee could be comprised of homeowners representing the different areas of the City (which mayor may not include the existing HOA's based upon the Council's determination), architects, builders, realtors, representatives of the Planning Commission, City Council, and staff. This committee could be similar to the make-up of a previous committee which was formed to review the R-l regulations. The purpose of the committee could be to study in detail the concept of design review. Listed below are a few of the issues which need to be addressed, as well as other issues the Council and Commission may feel necessary for review. 1. What single-family areas should be subject to design review? Should there be one architectural review board or several? What should be subject to design review: * All new buildings (house, garage, accessory buildings) * All additions to an existing building * Any external building alteration (except painting) * Reroofing * Walls and fences over 2 feet in height * Tennis court lighting What should"be the evaluation criteria? What should be the application processing procedures (steps of approval, time to act, noticing. records, fee, appeals, etc.)? 2. 3. 4. 5. 3 9/29/92 CLOSED SESSION () 110 0 'In lb. DEV. STD'S FOR 50' WIDE LOTS (R-3 Zones) t1 ~~ f(? - 'f0 lc. TUCK-UNDER/ SUBTERRANEAN PARKING (Single & Multi-Family Res.Zones) (J ,," \. ,I . /. 34:0325 6. Relation of ARB to other legislative reviews, i.e.. Modification Committee? 7. Review Board * Number of Members * Qualifications of members * Terms * Frequency of meetings 8. Impacts on homeownersjbuilders, i. e., costs, time delays, etc.? 9. Role of City staff, i.e., staffing requirements, etc.? A lengthy discussion ensued. By general consent the City Council and the Planning Commission agreed that a committee be formed to study in detail the concept of design review for those residential areas which are outside of an existing homeowner's association. The committee shall be composed of Arcadia homeowners and shall include as members: Councilmen Margetl' and Harbicht; Planning Commissioners Hedlund and Huang; representative from the real estate industry; building industry; architects/designers a recommended by the Planning Commission and City staff; and one member cl an existing homeowner's association within the City. The s:ud) committee's findings and recommendations will be presented to the City Council for review and action at an, as yet, undetermined date. The City Attorney announced that, "pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a), the Council is going into Closed Session to discuss the existing personal injury case of Grigry vs. Arcadia". At 7:05 p. m. the City Council ADJOURNED to the CLOSED SESSION AND RECONVENED the Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission at 7:40 p. m. The Planning Commission has. on several occasions, expressed concern regarding the development of three multiple-family units on 50' x 160' lots. On August 25, 1992. the Commission voted 4 to 1 to deny modifications (MP 92-004) for a proposed 3-unit apartment building to be located at 21-23 El Dorado Street. The Commission in its review commented that the: "Council has informed the Commission to approve these types of modifications for projects on 50' wide lots. The Council felt that it is better to have less units with modifications, than have more units and increasing the density. However, because there are new Council Members, it is possible that they may not feel that way. They thought that each individual project may be nice and aesthetically pleasing, but they should take a look at the cumulative effect on a given street." Therefore, the Commission suggested that this be a topic for discussion at the meeting scheduled for this date. The September 29, 1992 staff report details the typical modifications which are required for the development of 3-units on a 50'-0" wide lot with an alley; the background and history of development of the typical 50' wide lot; and the impact Ofl the development of these properties if such modifications are not allowed. The staff report also indicates that staff recommends that the City continue to grant reasonabl'l modifications for the development of the existing 50 foot wide lots. By general consent the Council and the Commission agreed that in order to keep the density down in these areas. and permit development of three- units on the 50 foot lots, the owners of these 50 foot, R-3 zoned properties, should be allowed to apply for modifications as previously determined by the Council. At the request of the Planning Commission the issues of tuck-under, below grade and subterranean parking for both single-family residential, and multiple-family residential zones. were placed on the agenda. 4 9/29/92 I I 3. LIBRARY EXPANSION 4. LEGISLATIVE REPORT ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: 34:0326 Currently there are two homes under construction which have subterranean parking. One of the homes is at 931 Hampton Drive. The second home is at 182 W. Camino Real Avenue. Both projects include subterranean parking and a basement area. The R-l and R-O regulations do not prohibit below grade, subterranean parking. This type of parking is not common in single-family development because of the significant increase in construction costs. If this form of parking were not permitted, the amount of lot coverage would be increased with the additional surface level garage and driveway that would be required. Staff does not recommend that below grade, tuck-under or subterranean parking be prohibited in the R-M or hillside zoned areas for reasons set forth in the September 29, 1992 staff report. However, if the Commission and Council determine that tuck-under, below grade and/or subterranean parking are not appropriate in the R-O and R-l single family residential zones, the Council could direct that the appropriate text amendment be prepared prohibiting tuck-under. below grade and/or subterranean parking in the aforesaid zones. The September 29, 1992 staff report set forth also the percentage of multiple-family residential developments having below grade or subterranean parking. Also, the percentage of projects in the R-3 zone with the same. and the problems incurred with sump pump maintenance. Staff recommends that the City continue to allow below-grade, tuck-under and subterranean parking areas in both the R-2 and the R-3 multiple-family residential zones; and that the architectural design review process shall continue to be implemented to provide the best possible development of R- 2 and R-3 lots. At the conclusion of a brief discussion regarding subterranean parking within the R-O and R-l single-family zones, Commissioner Daggett suggested that subterranean parking be prohibited in said zones, with the exception that if the only design solution is to have this type of parking, the applicant may apply for a modification to the Code applicable to this situation. It was the consensus of Council that staff prepare the appropriate text amendment to that effect. The presentation of the proposed Library Expansion Project held over to the October 13, 1992 City Council Work Session. Held over to the October 13, 1992 Council Work Session. The Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Arcadia Planning Commission ADJOURNED at 9:40 p. m. to Tuesday, October 6, 1992 at 6:30 p. m. for the City Council, and to 7:15 p. m., Tuesday, October 27.1992 for the Planning Commission. Fasching, Mayor 5 9/29/92