Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 22,1991 I I OflO - S:-o 33: 0282'0..1,.j q, CC I f?H./.3, CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ROLL CALL CITY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDS OdO _ OS- Ill< IJ ~ MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA STUDY SESSION (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDS) OCTOBER 22, 1991 The City Council of the City of Arcadia and representatives of the City Homeowners Associations, Architectural Review Boards, met at 6: 00 p. m., October 22, 1991, in the Conference Room of the City Hall Council Chambers. PRESENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Harbicht, Young and Gilb ABSENT: None OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bob Lincoln, 296 Orange Grove Avenue, Santa Anita Oaks Assoc., ARB Bill Wyman, 507 Monte Vista Rd., Rancho Santa Anita Residents Assoc., ARB Vern Leeper, 518 North A1tura Rd., Rancho Santa Anita Residents Assoc., ARB Tom Crosby, 601 South Old Ranch Rd., President, Santa Anita Village Comm. Assoc. Craig Lucas, 853 Balboa, Santa Anita Village Community Assoc. Jim Potter, 1427 Oaklawn Rd., Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Assoc. I ARB Ralph Bicker, 101 White Oak Dr., Highlands Homeowners Assoc., ARB Chairman Dave Sullivan, 1320 Oaklawn Rd., President, Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Assoc. Harold Hedlund, 310 West Wistaria Avenue, Arcadia Planning Commission Mayor Gilb noted that the Santa Anita Property Owners Association had recently elected new officers and have not yet appointed new members to their Architectural Review Board. At the City Council meeting of September 3, 1991, the Council directed the scheduling of a meeting with the established City Homeowner Associations to discuss jurisdiction and procedures with reference to their Architectural Review Boards (ARB). As part of the process to review the functioning of ARBs, the City Attorney prepared a summary of pertinent legal and liability considerations applicable to the role of ARBs (attached to October 18, 1991, staff report). The following background factors are set forth as a reminder to the Associations of the framework for their existence and role: 1. The Associations derive all of their authority and power from the City as a result of Council-enacted statutes and resolutions. The Associations' authority can be modified (expanded or reduced) and even removed by the City Council. 10/22/91 1 33:0283 2. To assure validity to this delegated authority, various procedures, criteria, and rules have been established by the City Council which are binding on the Associations and their ARBs. The City Council and the Planning Commission function as an appellate body to the decisions of the ARB. Each Homeowner Association has a governing Resolution which has been adopted by the City Council. Based on observations by staff and certain complaints applicable to some of the ARBs, the problem areas have been identified along with some recommendations for consideration by the City Council and ARBs. Following is a summary of the aforementioned: 1. Both the short review and regular review process have time I limits. Failure to act within 10 days of submittal of an application under short review and 30 days for regular review deems the application as approved. It is suggested that the ARB Chairman or whoever receives applications have a specific period of time, i.e., 5 days, in which to review the application for completeness. The applicant for any project whose application is found to be incomplete should be advised in writing as to the specific items necessary for the application to be deemed complete. A completed application should include the application form, site plan, floor plans, elevations, and color and material samples. 2. Although informal guidance and suggestions by a Board member an be helpful, such preliminary contact should not be used to scare off an applicant or extract improper conditions. The applicant is entitled to a decision from the full board. Ultimately, decisions must be made by a majority of the Board, after a noticed meeting at which all parties are heard. 3. The Association and ARBs cannot make rules (formal or informal) to determine in advance how they will consider certain applications. Each application must be decided based only on the criteria set out in the governing Resolution on a case-by-case basis. 4. Decisions must be rendered by a majority of the entire membership of the Board, and such decisions shall be rendered only by those Board members who considered the application. The open meeting law applies, and all decisions must be based on findings that are consistent with the governing resolutions. 5. ARBs do not have any power to waive any regulations of the Municipal Code or to extract conditions that are not directly related to the issue of compatibility. For example, there is no basis for the ARB to require a landscape plan. 6. Conditions that are valid in terms of addressing exterior I appearance and compatibility, such as type of window, should not be limited to one particular type of brand name. A specific type of brand can be used as an example with allowance for the applicant to provide the equivalent. 7. It is recommended that all ARBs prepare a written list of what is expected from applicants in the application process and what must be submitted. The procedural rules and criteria as set forth in the governing Resolutions should be given to an applicant at the beginning of the process to assure up front notice as to the requirements. 10/22/91 2 33:0284 8. Board chairpersons are reminded that the City Resolution requires their designation of someone to act in their absence to assure a non-lapse in the processing of applications. 9. An applicant before the Board is in effect an applicant before the City. Procedurally and personally, they should be dealt with in a fair and courteous manner. Further, the City recognizes that ARB members are volunteers and usually make a concerted effort to properly apply the established procedures. The purpose of periodic review and study sessions is to make sure the process works fairly and consistent with practical and legal requirements so as to ensure its continued viability for the benefit of the affected neighborhoods and the City as a whole. I Mayor Pro tem Harbicht opened the discussion by relating, in part, his concern about potential lawsuits that could result from certain Architectural Review Board (ARB) action. Council has received letters from at least two citizens who were unhappy with the way they were treated, or the actions that were taken by the ARBs, one of which came from an attorney. Further, the risk involved could affect not only the City, but the property owners within the purview of a Homeowners Association (HOA) if a suit was lodged and the City lost the case. Mayor Pro tem Harbicht went on to cite a case in San Diego where this situation did, in fact, occur and each property owner within that HOA was assessed a share of the judgment awarded to the homeowner who won the suit. The City Attorney then reviewed the staff report, outlining some of the maj or problems gleaned from various complaints received, as well as staff information. The City Attorney advised that at this time there are two ARB situations which are coming before the Planning Commission on appeal. Both of these appeals are represented by attorneys, and they may very well even take these cases to court to seek judicial review. Further, in the last five-year period, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a city can be liable for money damages with regard to land-use decisions. Prior to those rulings this was not really possible, with a few limited exceptions. In the past the ARB process has worked very well and has never been tested in court. A problem exists however, if the record of any particular proceeding creates a picture of unfairness or arbitrariness. In that case, odds are that the City would lose the case and not only be subject to money damages but of having the ARB system that has worked so well for Arcadia in the past perhaps thrown out by the court. I The City Attorney commented that he and the Planning Director emphasize that it would be a good practice, and the City could make it a mandatory practice, to give all applicants a form outlining the procedures and requirements at the onset of the application process. The Resolution governing each Homeowners Association could also be given to the applicant as well as a guideline as to what the time requirements are. Also, a list of what is needed to make an application complete. Staff believes the fairest way to handle the time limits is for the ARB to get all the needed material to make an application complete; then from that point the time starts to run on the 30 days for the regular review process for the long form, within which the ARB must act. The time limitation appears to be one of the concerns of many property owners that come into the Planning Department, according to staff, Further, after expiration of the 30 days, the project is deemed to be approved if the ARB has not acted on the application to approve or deny it. 10/22/91 3 33:0285 In regard to the approval process within the time limitations, the discussion centered around the issue of a continuation of a situation to another date. Referring, in particular, to consideration of an application where the applicant receives input from' the ARB and the impacted neighbors, then fails to return to the Board with a redesign within the required time. There is no provision in the HOA Resolutions to cover a continuation of a matter, according to Mr. Crosby of the Village Association. The City Attorney commented, this may be an area to clarify in the rules. Further, if the ARB and the applicant have agreed to a continuation, this should be in writing with the applicant's signature affixed. Mr. Crosby requested the City prepare a set of forms for use by the ARBs to cover the application progression as it travels through the process. Councilmembers Ciraulo and Harbicht agreed. Mr, Crosby presented another issue which, he said, has been a problem to the ARBs. He noted that the Council and the Planning Commission meet on alternate Tuesdays each month and there is a notification period required to notify affected property owners before the hearing date. The ARBs have no set meeting dates; consequently I applications are submitted to the Board at any time of the day and any day of the month, and each application has its own particular date by which the mat:ter must be acted upon. This system involves extensive time just to keep up with all the paperwork. Mr. Crosby suggested that the resolutions governing the HOAs be amended to schedule one day a month to be set aside for public hearings on ARB issues within the different HOA areas, and to allow for the appropriate time to notify property owners. Mayor Gilb suggested that applicants turn in their applications, that require the long form and public hearings, to all ARBs on the 1st and 15th of each month. The short form application could be turned in for review at any time. An exchange of information regarding the filing of the short form application for approval occurred. The ARB Chairmen receive phone calls or visitors late at night and early in the morning who wish to submit applications. Staff suggested the new application form could include a time limit with specified hours within which an application could be submitted. Mr. Crosby commented that the Planning Department should give this information to the applicant when they apply for a building permit. Perhaps a supplement to the form could include this information. Mr. Crosby then commented that he would like to establish two hearing dates for the Village Homeowners Association ARB, and stipulate that those who file the long form application ten days before the hearing date will be heard on that scheduled date. Mr. Lincoln felt this would be a burden on his ARB because of the time involved to hear multiple applications at one meeting. Mayor Pro tern Harbicht said he had no problems with scheduling the twice-monthly meeting dates under those conditions. The City Attorney noted that each Board could set up its own procedure and rules with City approval. Mr. Bicker commented that his committee would rather retain their flexibility to have their meeting procedure as it now exists. A brief exchange occurred centered on the subject of gate and wrought iron fences in the Village Area and the difficulties the ARB has with such requests. Mr. Crosby also cited the list of allowable roofing materials and the problems enforcing this requirement. He noted that there are at least eight composition roofs which have been installed without permits or ARB review in the Village area. He noted also that the only guideline for the Village ARB is what is compatible, "and if somebody else has it, it's compatible." 10/22/91 4 I I , ' 33:0286 I A discussion developed of landscaping and trees to reduce or soften the appearance of large homes situated next to smaller homes in the Village area and the Lower Rancho. Landscape improvements are treated as suggestions by the ARBs and not as conditions of approval of an application. This sometimes causes problems between the ARBs and the property owner who is attempting to improve'his property and feels he may not get approval of his proj ect unless he agrees to these suggestions. In reference to the issue of trees, the City Attorney pointed out that the entire matter is laid out in point No. 5 of the staff report memo. It gets down to a matter of degree, he noted, and he did not believe the ARBs could specify trees or require a landscape plan as an absolute condition. If staff draws out a format to give to applicants as to what can and cannot be done, it is going to somewhat cover that point. The property maintenance issue then arose as related to completed construction on properties which are then occupied and the front yard is left in the construction stage and not planted or landscaped. Council informed the ARB representatives that this type of a situation should be reported to City Code Enforcement for action. In summary, it was concluded that the City would develop a form which would be distributed to all of the ARBs, which will include a date/time sequence of the progression of an application and clearly indicate when the 30-day time limitation for approval and/or denial expires. The City Attorney and the Planning Director will prepare" a written list of regulations for the Boards. The City Attorney requested that the ARBs provide him with copies of their forms in current use for their application process, for his files. Also, the ARBs should set their meeting schedules and their own particular special procedural requirements. The City Attorney and Planning Director will review the above and tailor the forms to each Architectural Review Board. Mr. Crosby requested that he would like each application requiring submission on a long form to be supported by a drawing of the proposed project. This to include the proposed home as well as the adjacent homes on either side. Mayor Pro tem Harbicht noted that many people do not know they must go before an ARB until they come in to request a building permit and are then informed by the Planning Department of this requirement. At that point, Planning could provide the applicant with the name of his Homeowners Association; the required forms to be completed and submitted to the ARB for review and approval; the ARB Chairman and his address; and a list of required plans, drawings, etcetera, that must be submitted with his application. The forms also .to include the appropriate hours in which the applicant may contact the ARB Chairman. By general consent of those present, this procedure received approval. I Mr. Nicholson, Planning Department, suggested also that the ARBs be provided with a standard form to use for incomplete applications, This because he feels the packet given to the applicant still does not ensure that the application is going to be completed, "because we have not resolved what is defined as the submittal date." Also, this form should contain a section to describe what is still needed. The City Attorney, addressing the ARB representatives, in particular, the Chairmen, reminded them to designate someone to take the Chair for them when they are absent from a meeting of the Board. 10/22/91 5 33:0287 Councilmember Fasching, speaking on behalf of the Council, expressed appreciation to the Architectural Review Board representatives for giving their time and for all of their hard work serving on the Boards. ADJOURNMENT At 7:00 p.m. the meeting ADJOURNED to 7:05 p.m., October 22, 1991, in the Conference Room of the City Hall Council Chambers, for the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. ATTEST: 10/22/91 6 I I