The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOCTOBER 16,1990 32:0247 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I ROLL CALL CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MAYOR YOUNG PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PAPAY 1. OS-:<'O-J 0 ...1,,,--"1"6a<1<5 YOUNG I COUNCILMEMBER HARBICHT YOUNG HARBICHT COUNCILMEMBER CIRAULO CIRAULO MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 16, 1990 ,The City Council and the Arcadia Planning Commission met in a Joint Study Session at 5:00 p.m., October 16, 1990 in the Conference Room of the City Hall Council Chambers. PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young None PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany and Papay None (Commissioner Amato arrived at 7:05 p.m. before roll call was taken on the Motion and Second to excuse his absence) The discussion follows (insofar as decipherable): You have all received an agenda, I hope. And we can follow it or if there's something more important that you think, we can discuss what is pertinent. Chairman of the Planning Commission. I think, speaking for the Planning Commission, I would think that we'd like to hear those issues that the City Council think are the burning iss~es. Several of these, I think, came from members of the Council. We'd like to hear that. We had some thoughts on several of the items and I think we ought to hear what the Council wants. COMMERCIAL BUILDING SETBACKS FROM ADJACENT STREETS. Well, I personally, on the number 1 item, think that a building like the one at First and Huntington that is set sidewalk to sidewalk on both sides, I think if we are requiring landscaping for all other buildings, that they should have it also. What if it had been in the middle of the block? Well, they could have had it in the front, except that most of them... Then it would be set back from all the other buildings. Of course, even with some of the buildings that do have landscaping, they're awfully close to the sidewalk. For instance, the Souplantation seems to be very close. And, of course, now the new development right next to it. I think we talked earlier about the possibility of a new project on the southwest corner, of a greater setback when they came to us with the proposal. And I think that was one of our concerns at that time is that the people who come in with the proposal consider a greater setback for that new project. So I think that's a concern. 1 10/16/90 HARBICHT CIRAULO HARBICHT CIRAULO HARBICHT COUNCILMEMBER FASCHING YOUNG HARBICHT FASCHING YOUNG HARBICHT YOUNG HARBICHT FASCHING COUNCILMEMBER GILB 32:0248 We talked to them about 15 feet. The Souplantation must be 15 feet. Is it? Do you think it's that far? You talk about more than that, you're basically talking about putting the parking in front. Is it 15 feet to the wall where the ramp tp walk in the front door is or 15 feet to the main building? I don't know. Did the Souplantation choose to do that on their own with that setback and that grass in front of their place? Yes. We didn't have that much discussion at all about it. I Well, we did approve the architecture. Concerning the new building which will be built, hopefully, at Second and Huntington when the developer came in, Schaefer, we suggested or somewhat made a condition of that redevelopment project, that he furnish us with green landscaped space in front of that building. And so when he came back in with the plans, he came back in with more than what would have been required. I think he's in with 7 or 8 feet of land- scaping, which he voluntarily did on the building which will be built. Then in discussions such as the building that Mary mentioned at First and Huntington, we can also mention the building at Santa Anita and Foothill - the real estate building there. That's built sidewalk to sidewalk. Other buildings that are built sidewalk to sidewalk for the long range future. Then Bob comes up with the suggestion, well, what do you do if it's in the middle of the block along with adjacent old buildings that are built to the sidewalk? Well, that is a concern and could be a concern, but I think that my feeling is that we should concern ourselves with the long range future. Older buildings such as exist on Huntington, perhaps someday will be eliminated. It might be 25 years, but if we proliferate wi thout having - and rather than use the word "setbacks", we could see landscaped or green areas of landscaping in front or setback areas on those because - and looking at the memo here from the Planning Department, there's so many different setback. lines and setback modifications and requirements in the City, that we'd' almost have to go back perhaps and re-do the whole City from a setback standpoint. Perhaps we could incorporate, from a beautification and long-range application standpoint, a green area or landscaped area in all future commercial developments. And I think that you would have to possibly use the frontage and size of the development, depending on the amount of setback that would be required. But if you look at an older building, Homes Savings, that has greenery on two sides and it is in a block with buildings that are old. And I think it looks very nice and I don't object to the buildings that are out up to the sidewalk. But again, that's on the corner. If the golf shop were to be torn down I and something built and you set it back 15 feet, it would look silly. Well, I'm not talking about 15 feet, because I think 5 feet, then you could do it. I think we're already doing that. Every new building that's built in town has landscaping in front. Everything in the Redevelopment area. But, it's not required on some buildings. Where the setback requirements are, it could be built to the sidewalk, and correct me if I'm mistaken. So we don't have a uniform code. Now I think a lot of those are voluntary. What about La Porte and those streets up there? 2 10/16/90 PLANNING DIRECTOR WOOLARD YOUNG WOOLARD YOUNG I FASCHING WOOLARD YOUNG FASCHING HARBICHT FASCHING ASSISTANT PLANNING DIR. BUTLER FASCHING I GILB COMMISSIONER AMATO GILB WOOLARD GILB FASCHING 32:0249 There's a requirement on those streets. It's industrial zone and we did a minimum 10 feet. Yeah, but the Towne Center Building has landscaping that's maybe 5 feet or something. 'J The Towne Center Building is a high rise building. Theoretically, they're supposed to have a setback of maybe 40 feet, but it got modifi- cations for less than that. It has landscaping. But they still ended up with some greenery, and I think that's our most important thing. I think the purpose of this is basically to increase or assure an ade- quate amount of green area, landscaped area, on commercial development in the future. And whereby, perhaps, we could incorporate that into a type of ordinance rather than having to go through the whole City and do a whole new study of setback requirements. Where we have the special setbacks, and if the special setback is greater than the front property line, through the design review process we'll be able to get landscaping in those areas. But there are places like Huntington Drive downtown where the special setback and property line coincide and unless there are additional regulations imposed saying that in a C-2 zone, for example, there shall be a 5 foot minimum setback landscaped area, except for entry walkway or something like that, we won't ~e able to ... But even First Federal at Santa Anita and Foothill is sidewalk to sidewalk, but it is recessed enough to have a planter box in front of the window. So I think whatever can be worked out to get some greenery in front of the buildings of some kind would be one way to go. Well, probably on that building you mention that was - they didn't face the setback requirement and put it in for their own beautification. I would just guess. I don't know. But to assure us of some green area and other buildings - the one on the south side, I think the one that World Vision was in, that also had some recessed areas in the building itself, as I recall, which had some little trees in it. Yet, a portion of the building was right to the sidewalk. Is the Souplantation a good example or a bad example of what we want? Well, I think the Souplantation is an excellent example. But I think we can't expect 15 foot setbacks. I think that's an extreme. Actually, there, it is 10 feet. There is a special setback in a CPD- 1 zone that requires 10 feet. Oh, OK. Well, that looks very nice. I love the way it looks. Let me give you a "for instance" of Bill Wong's restaurant's for sale. Let's say he sells it and the guy decides to tear the building down. What setback's he going to have to have? He's going to have to tear out his parking to get the setback in the back. Yeah, that's what I'm asking. No setback is required in that area. Well, that's what George is talking about. He wants to have setbacks. Is that correct? Yeah, that's what I'd like to see. 3 10/16/90 GILB FASCHING WOOLARD FASCHING GILB HARBICHT YOUNG HARBICHT CIRAULO GILB WOOLARD FASCHING WOOLARD GILB WOOLARD CIRAULO ASSISTANT CITY MGR./ ECONOMIC DEV. KINNAHAN 32:0250 Well, then everybody's going to be in the alley. Or the property's not going to be worth as much. Well, could Mr. Wong tear that building down - or whoever buys it - and build a new one and come up to code requirements on parking or anything else? It would be a very, very small building. Yeah, so he's out to lunch anyway. Well, we really don't know that. I mean, you know. We don't know for sure what the next guy's going to do with it, but I'm just using that as an example. There's not enough room in the back to move it back and so then the property is worth less money, is what you're saying. If you have to have more setback in the front, then whoever's going to buy any of these lots is going to have to pay less money for them because they're not going to have as much to develop. I Well, the fact is nothing on Huntington is going to be they can't rebuild. So they just keep refurbishing. the parking requirements. They can't beat anything. torn down because They can't beat So I think what we have to do is think of what do we want for the future. Yeah, I mean it's one thing to talk about what we'd like to see. We need to codify it. If we want to require a 5-foot landscaping in front of any new commercial building, then we need to put it into the law. I think, you know, as Larry indicated perhaps, and just speaking for myself, maybe just a feeling from the Council. My feeling is a more conservative approach for the future developments with these things in mind. If conservative is the right word, saying a greater setback, rather than coming closer to the sidewalk. Maybe fewer modifications. Maybe getting a little tougher. I know it's going to be harder to market the properties and to sell them, but you know, we can end up allover town with stuff that's easy to sell and put up. and then nobody in town likes it because it doesn't look right. What are we talking about? The setback on the south side of Huntington Drive at Second? What's the requirement there, Bill? Well, nothing's required by the zoning ordinance, but because it's involving the Redevelopment Agency you have the authority or latitude to require the developer to pull it back. That's basically what he did when we had the discussion giving him the exclusive right. The Council indicated they wanted something there, so he came in with plans and pulled it back. How far back is he? I Seven feet on the medical building and the restaurant had some angles in it that were less than 7, but then it went considerably more than 7. Is that 7 feet back from the inside of the sidewalk? Is that what we're talking about? Yes, and Public Works has indicated that they can probably make that sidewalk, instead of the 10 feet it is now, make it 5 feet, which in effect means that the setback would be greater. It could affect... 4 10/16/90 CIRAULO KINNAHAN CIRAULO KINNAHAN YOUNG I KINNAHAN YOUNG COMMISSIONER HEDLUND KINNAHAN HEDLUND CIRAULO HARBICHT YOUNG WOOLARD CIRAULO WOOLARD CIRAULO WOOLARD FASCHING I PAPAY FASCHING GILB 32:0251 You would make the sidewalk smaller? Is that what you mean? Yes. In that particular area Public Works indicates that they don't need one 10 feet wide. It could be a 5 foot wide sidewalk. Wouldn't that not be in keeping with the rest of the sidewalk down the street? I mean, it's all one thing, There would be - when you get to the driveway it would kind of pull out. Yes, it would be different but it would be a phase in. But it would meet the width of the sidewalk that goes through the little park. Approximately. Yes, I think that's right. The Soup1antation has ramps, doesn't it? Yes. Do you think you'd have any setback in any commercial, Home Savings, or any of them that didn't do it for their customers' access? Well, you know, that's a good way of insisting on greater setbacks, is by asking for handicapped access. I think if you'd do that you'd make it much more restrictive and then cause them to do that. Handicapped access is required, Yes, that's a State law. I think if we had our druthers we'd rather see the handicapped access at grade with the ramping inside the building, rather than eating up your setback. The way it is with the Soup1antation, where the ramping's on the outside. You get more landscaping ... Yeah, because that wall where the ramp is comes pretty close to the sidewalk, which makes it appear as if there's not much of a setback. Because their property is wide it's not as critical as it would be on some of these narrow 50 foot lots where all of a sudden the whole front of the lot becomes a ramp. Well, I think that 5 foot sounds to me like a reasonable figure. I don't think we're going to vote here impulsively tonight on this. But it's something that we could. I don't know where we go from here with it, but I think it's something that really deserves our strong consideration for the future development in the City, I think what's useful from our perspective is to hear this discussion, take some notes and the staff's doing the same thing, They can prepare something, we'll chew on it, and it will come forward in some sort of codified form. Sure, that's great. The configuration of the lots are going to make a lot of difference in this thing. Just like the south side of the street there. They're going to put a restaurant in there and something else and something else. There's only so much that will fit on the property. And if they've got up to 7 feet, I think they did real well. 5 10/16/90 YOUNG COMMISSIONER SZANY WOOLARD SZANY YOUNG 2. 05" /JO-U,- , Genc.,.q// Z-M1n.3 FASCHING YOUNG FASCHING GILB 32:0252 Dave, did you have something to say? Well, in a lot of these buildings they're coming before us for some type of modification or variance of some sort, parking stall, a couple of windows looking over into the residential area in back, or something. And like on Foothill, for instance, the south side of Foothill, there's no setback for the front yards of commercial buildings. But there's always this negotiation process that sometimes goes on. You know, in either Modification or Planning Commission where, well OK, we'll go along with maybe 1 or 2 parking stalls short, because you have given something more back to the City somehow. Whether it's more landscaping or some landscaping at all. At least if we know that we have some of this negotiation - I'm doing a building right now for Dr. Roulakis on Foothill, a medical building. I automatically set the building back 8 foot. That's how I start. I I started with 8 foot landscaping in front. And he asked me, we came to Donna, we're short one parking stall. Well, I'd rather go for that modification for the one parking stall, keep the landscaping. Now we've negotiated a situation so that it's still economical and we've still got, possibly, a pleasing looking building for the next 50 years. This doesn't mean we're going to approve it, Dave. You know, if we know that we can be (inaudible) a little bit with these people. Say, OK, we realize you need X amount of square feet, but we'd still like to have some "growies" in front of your building. Period. So, you know, we can go that direction then. All right. Any more about commercial building setbacks from adjacent streets, which is the first item? OK, well, we'll just go down this. Vacant commercial lots. Now, I don't know what that refers to. Who suggested that? George, what did you have in mind? VACANT COMMERCIAL LOTS. Let's remember we discussed this such as where we had at one time a vacant lot at First and Huntington that remained vacant due to it was tied up in litigation. We grassed the area and everything. This was one to bring it up, and 3 lots come to mind immediately. I think you'll all be familiar with the 2 lots at Rancho and Huntington and the 1 lot at Sunset and Huntington. The vacant properties which have been vacant as long as I can remember for one reason or another. But yet these lots sit in the heart of our City and with just dirt surfaces and no upkeep, and my thought was that if a commercial lot such as this in the commercial prime areas of our City remains dormant for an extended period of time, some consideration perhaps should be given, that we require that this property be grass or some type of landscaping done to this property, so that this doesn't become a continual eyesore in the City. And the only time, I think, they use Rancho and Huntington is when they sell Christmas trees and then we're back to a vacant lot again. Well that, I don't think, is fair to the City as a whole and the residents of this City, to allow these properties to just sit vacant for I a period of time. Originally I though perhaps a one year period or we could discuss the term that it could remain vacant without being improved, so that it would be more compatible with the area. ' Now, you're asking for something, with a water shortage I don't know whether it would go over very well. Well, I appreciate the water shortage, but I don't consider that a deterrent. We could always abate it due to a water shortage, but I think we should still go ahead and consider the possibility of having an ordinance such as this. This is my thought. I'm only trying throwing it out to you other 9 people. Well, both of those properties have and both of them were turned down. owned by Paul Kalmanovitz's estate. had developments proposed on them Both of those lots are owned by We just turned him down recently. 6 10/16/90 PAPAY GILB COMMISSIONER CLARK HARBICHT I GILB HARBICHT CIRAULO GILB CIRAULO CLARK CIRAULO CLARK CIRAULO CLARK GILB CIRAULO I HARBICHT FASCHING GILB 32:0253 Rancho and Huntington - we put a couple of conditions on them, but it was approved. Not the Pier 1. What's going in there now? Two or three offices. (Comments about who liked the development) What George is talking about, he used those properties as an example. Obviously any code restriction is going to apply to any commercial property. And, you know, I think this thing is something we ought to consider. We have a property maintenance ordinance that we apply against residential properties on the basis that if your property is run down it can affect the property value of your neighbors. And I think that same justification can be used in the commercial area. We've got some run down commercial properties and I believe that has to have an effect on their neighboring properties. And if we require that they put grass on it and sprinkler it and keep it mowed and it costs them a couple of thousand bucks a year to do it, so what? The property's going up in value. We ought to start on our own property on the south side of Huntington Drive that we just bought up there on the south project. Well, maybe so. Maybe we should. Set an example. Yes. What was the thinking at First and - what is it, the northwest corner. .. On Huntington. Where the big building is, that was grass for awhile... That was great. It was only about a year that we had the grass there, but everybody in town thought it was the greatest thing in the world. What happened was the Council got embarrassed that they couldn't market it ... Oh, no. That's not true. We could market it but we had one guy that filed a law suit against it. Well, but the point is, it sure as heck looked a lot better than the old Thrifty building that was sitting there broken into. And when the Thrifty building was torn down it looked great to have the grass there, and the newspaper made a big deal out of it and until the new building was put up. I think it was kind of nice. And maybe that's something we ought to consider everywhere we have empty lots and maybe the City should set the example and do it on the properties that we now own. I'm all for that. . I know we're going to have a lot of property owners crying hardship on the thing if we did it. At the same time, if we had a property owner we cited on our property maintenance ordinance and they came up with, "I'm out of work and I can't afford to water it." or "I'm old and I can't afford to mow it," we wouldn't take that as an excuse. It's still affecting their neighbors. The circumstances of why it's... Well, it not only affects their neighbors, it affects the City as a whole. Most of them are absentee landlords anyway. 7 10/16/90 32:0254 HARBICHT I guess I'd like to see a little research done as to whether or not such an ordinance exists in other cities and, if it does, how it's worked out and maybe some thoughts from the staff on what we might do to ... AMATO Why do we always have to worry about what the other cities are doing? Why can't we set a precedent? HARBICHT Because if the other cities are doing it, I would like to take advantage of their experience. GILB If we're going to do it, we can't just do it on Huntington Drive where it's the center of town. We're going to have to go down on Live Oak and some of these other places and do it. HARBICHT I don't think there's anything wrong with taking advantage others have learned before we put something into the code. of ohoc I PAPAY Would you do it in Chicago Park? HARBICHT That's industrial. It might be a little different situation. PAPAY You mean industrial different than commercial. FASCHING I would think we would. YOUNG It would certainly help Live Oak. GILB Oh, boy. We have a few spots on Duarte Road that could use a little help. YOUNG Like Duarte and Santa Anita (inaudible). HARBICHT So maybe we can get a staff report on that, George, WOOLARD I might mention, we did ask, when we phoned other cities regarding some of the other items on the agenda, we asked them about this issue and nobody has done it and nobody has heard of it. CIRAULO WOOLARD CIRAULO WOOLARD YOUNG CIRAULO GILB FASCHING CIRAULO ,,':'. - i:~ GILB CIRAULO GILB In other cities? Yes. That was kind of limited to Arcadia, OK. Well, then why don't we just do it. Forget everybody else. Let's just do it. There may be cities outside of this area. Yeah, I was wondering about Tustin. It always looks pretty green and organized. Or Orange, Let us write the record. Or Irvine... I No, I think it would be great if we were the first city, that we could come up with something of this nature. Yeah, if we can take advantage of other cities having it, that's great. But if other cities don't have it, let's just go ahead and do it. And we'll do what we want to do. We'd start up there on that south side. It's going to be a while before that's developed. That would be pretty good. Yes. On the northwest side. On the south side. That building that's right next to the vacant lot there where the car place is, there's an old shack in the back there. What is that? Who owns that? On the south side of Huntington. 8 10/16/90 32:0255 KINNAHAN GILB KINNAHAN GILB KINNAHAN .GILB I KINNAHAN CIRAULO KINNAHAN Do you mean the old Dandy Door building? Yes. Behind it. That's part of Dandy Door's property where they stored some merchandise. That will cgme down next? We have to do the asbestos removal - that's on your agenda tonight - and then we'll demolish it. Let the firemen burn it down for practice. I don't think AQMO will Is it our practice, Pete, that when we finally own the property in these redevelopment areas to tear everything down. as fast as we can, or let it stand? Is it much more desirable to have the empty land rather than the old building sitting there? When we had the northside project, which is where the old Third Avenue was and the Derby Restaurant, we left those for quite some time and garnered a significant amount of money in rents. I mean, multi-hundreds of thousands of dollars in rents. But as a practical matter, it's probably better that we take the properties, relocate the people and demolish the buildings. For one new reason. That's because the asbestos abatement requirements are so onerous now and it takes so long, there's such a lead time to it that you want to get them down. CIRAULO I, personally, would like to see that. As soon as we've got the properties and they're gone, tear everything down, fence it off and perhaps put some grass on it. WOOLARD If you leave the building up, you don't have to plant the grass. But once you tear the building down, you... CIRAULO Well, let's plant the grass. Tear the building down and put a fence around it, or something. PAPAY We could have some liability with the old buildings there. 3. on0 _ / j- PRESERVATION OF LARGE LOT NEIGHBORHOODS. "1:C)/I(O - (f,r/,//...;/ YOUNG All right. Moving along, the next item is preservation of large lot neighborhoods. Is that yours? S ZANY It's mine. I've got something I want to pass around. There's some sheets here. This has been bugging me for a couple of years. On the first sheet, it's just a typical street now. It's been zoned R-O 12,500. All the lots in this area are anywhere from 19,000 to 21,000 square feet. You could come in there and do a cul-de-sac and make all (inaudible) lots in the cul-de-sac 13,000 to 14,000 square feet. But as you can see, what happens - what you've done is you've busted up this block (inaudible) large lots. You've also taken 3 lots out and put 6 in place of it. Also, what happens - notice the houses along the street. All of them sit back anywl)"re f;-om l...o to (inaudi):lle) :feet.,;. Now you've got a reverse corner lot, which (inaudible) to 1 foot. So what happens is you're looking down this beautiful street and all of a sudden these houses pop out. And what happens, since I've been a Planning Commissioner, you kind of let 1 in and before you know it the whole block is reverse corner lots. And on Holly, we get these lot splits on Holly all the time. And now Holly is getting - you know, since our new codes have gotten a little more restrictive, it's getting a little more choked and choked with the houses getting closer and closer to the street. So, I don't know how to handle it. Staff has been helping me and we're just trying to come up with something for the General Plan. Actually, the sheet that says #6 in the corner is I 9 10/16/90 32:0256 actually for #6, but I threw that one in right now because you can see what happened is you've got a lot in the center of 2 cul-de-sacs, where a man used to have - he comes in, he bought his home 10-15 years ago thinking he had the normal 3 neighbors. Now he's got 6 to 8 neighbors, where he used to have 3. And those are the kind of things that I've been concerned about personally on some of these cul-de-sacs going in. YOUNG What if you had a cul-de-sac, but the main street frontage had to remain the same. That would put the burden on the person developing it, in that they had to make the lots so that those houses met the setback of the others, S ZANY That would be possible. You could make your sideyard setback 50 to 60 feet. I think we'll see a lot of modifications for block walls, because that still is just going to be your side yard. It's not going to be I your front yard. Well, I guess they could redesign those particular corner lots, so it could be their front yard. Using that example that you have there, you might be forcing them to 4 lots rather than 6. PAPAY YOUNG Well, or that these 2 front houses face the main street and the side yards are on the cul-de-sac. SZANY That'd be another possibility. CIRAULO Well, reducing the number of lots is kind of desirable anyway if you want to keep the density down, isn't it? You know, instead of the 6 we only have 4 lots. Isn't that desirable? If our intent is to ... HARBICHT Well, that's what was there in the first place. YOUNG No, there were 3. SZANY There were 3 lots. It would give them 1 more lot, which by the time you put the street in, demolish the homes that are there, it doesn't sound very economical. YOUNG To me, that's the developer's problem. SZANY Right, I understand that. The only thing is, sometimes what we thought of not being economical 10 years ago is becoming economical now, no matter how hard they push it. How many times 10 years ago would you have thought they'd bought a $400,000 or $500,000 home and torn it down? Who would have said that 5 or 10 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago? And now they're doing it. GILB Well, the economy right now is sort of solving its own problems. There's been too many people doing it. CIRAULO Yes, but that's not going to last forever. SZANY There's something we all have to remember, that as an architect I keep thinking about quite a bit, is when I'm done and gone that building's I still there for 50 years. And I'm stuck with it. My kid can drive by it and say, "Dad did that" or "I don't want anyone to know my Dad did that. " CIRAULO The town is stuck with it. HEDLUND Well, every piece of property we have is being looked at. Maybe not real actively now, but we had the one up on Rancho - where there was a lot split - a 30,000 square foot lot and they rezoned that. But if everywhere here in the lower part of town where we've got.... PAPAY We've had quite a few on Santa Anita on corners where there were a lot of 2 for 1 lot splits going down there. We had about 3 or 4 of them (inaudible) . YOUNG That's right. Yes, Mr. Fasching. 10 10/16/90 32:0257 FASCHING The amount and proliferation of cul-de-sacs in the south end of town is one thing that - I've looked at maps on other projects and I see all these cul-de-sacs that we've built down there, or have been put in. If the Planning Department or somebody, if they have a thought as I go through this, just interrupt any time. But, I think that, 1) today's home buyer that appears in the City of Arcadia has not had that much interest in a lot of property. All they want is a lot of house and very little property. 2) All of these have been built by builder/developers. I don't think any individual has built a house on a cul-de-sac. So, everything that has taken place has been done by speculators, builders, developers, in cutting into these cul-de-sacs and everything. I think Dave and myself feel, what has happened to the homeowner that wants to buy a large lot and still have one house on that lot? And perhaps a lot of individuals want to do that type of thing, but we have not had an individual builder type of scenario, I don't think, in the past year or two on house development in the City of Arcadia. And we have had a high influx of Asians into the City who require and want a lot of house and are not necessarily interested in a lot of yard. My first thought along the way would be that we declare a moratorium on cul-de-sacs in the City, which may be too extreme. Mary brought up a nice point there with the frontages in the cul-de- sacs being required as the same frontage that existed on the lots that were acquired on the street they were fronted on. That could be a possible solution. But I, for one, feel like Dave that we could end up, particularly in the south end of town where we don't have the benefit of homeowners associations, with just a magnitude of cul-de- sacs. And I don't think that's really the way we want the town to go for the future of the City. I PAPAY I think the reason we brought this up - the timing of this meeting was appropriate because we had received the General Plan for one purpose and the General Plan does talk about zoning and what have you. And we've just had 2 occasions where we changed the zoning in areas where there are homeowners associations. In fact, increasing the lot size. And the question would be, would the Council be interested in preserving in those certain areas in the south end of town? I think that comes up under #6 a little bit more, but in some of the areas in the south end of town there are large lots and to go in there and put cul-de-sacs in there is a substantial change in the neighborhood, because the lot sizes can go from 30,000 down to 7,500 if they take it all away, and meet code. So we might put some sort of restriction on minimum lot size down in certain areas. I don't know if you'd want to do it in the whole south end of town, but ... HARBICHT I don't think we should do it on the whole south end. I think that we should look at specific areas and determine it on an area by area basis if it should be changed and change it. I think that's the way to handle it. I mean, to require 60 foot setbacks on the corner lot on a cul- de-sac, all you're going to do is end up having 4 lots. You're going to have 2 houses basically facing the existing street with really 2 houses behind them with what amounts to a driveway going down the middle to get to them. You don't want that.' That's crummy. If we want to preserve large lots, then the way to do it is by zoning. I "'''ill'' The cul-de-sac is - I don't even think we should get hung up on that because that's not the problem. CLARK If you change the lot size they're not going to have the cul-de-sac. HEDLUND No, it's the lot size. Nothing wrong with cul-de-sacs. People like cul-de-sacs. There's really nothing wrong with them. It's the location. On Dave's example here - we'll co-mingle with item #6 - if you take Dave's cul-de-sac and, like dividing some property, and made a knuckle out of it and brought it out to whatever the street is, the north-south street there - it's Holly - you don't have a cul-de-sac but you make the problem worse when we talk about item 6 on our agenda. You'd have 2 intersections right next to an existing intersection and you don't have a cul-de-sac. You have a knuckle. And so a cul-de- sac's not the problem, it's cutting up the larger - you've got a 15,000 11 10/16/90 ,:,.'-.;... CIRAULO PAPAY YOUNG PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR LOPEZ YOUNG HEDLUND LOPEZ PAPAY 5 ZANY HEOLUND YOUNG CLARK YOUNG WOOLARD CLARK 32:0258 foot lot, you can't get two 7,500 out of it, but by taking 10 feet off somebody else and scrounging around, you can get it. By adjusting the zoning, right? In point of fact, when you've got larger lots and you've got an overlay of 7,500, if you get 2 of the larger lots, you can put a cul-de-sac in. If you've got smaller lots in the neighborhood in some areas, it takes 3 or 4 to put together a critical mass. So, actually, it's easier to go into the large lot areas and split them up in terms of a cul-de- sac than it is in areas where the lots are smaller. Mr. Lopez, is there any rule of thumb as to how close together streets can be? Most cities, like Arcadia, in the past have viewed and explored on a I case-by-case basis because of traffic impact. But there are some cities that require minimums. For example, like West Covina requires a minimum of 2 lots between streets. L. A. County requires a minimum of 150 feet between streets. And L. A.'City - even though it's a case- by-case basis - they prefer 200 feet between streets. I know the cities that I've been associated with in the past, about 150 feet has been the norm. Thank you. That's not very far. Joe, that's streets intersecting on the same side of the street. How about offset center lines across the street? We don't have a standard and most cities don't have a standard. That's what Dave's picturing. We had one ridiculous one - we turned it down - where the guy became a peninsula. Remember that? There was one cul-de-sac and they wanted to put another one. This guy ended up with a street on either side. Well, we have a case over on Naomi over by Bob's, east of Baldwin. We approved a planned development there for about 8 homes on just a driveway. And then east of that was a cul-de-sac off to the north and then we approved a cul-de-sac to the south and we've got another one in there. And they're only a lot depth apart. I'll defer to Joe on this, but we ended up with one house sitting in between all these when some old lady wouldn't sell to the builder, which is her right. But it seems to me we've just got on a busy street like that, we've got a whole bunch of intersections. People have to make a decIsion too often. Well, and that street off of Baldwin running west isolated a church, didn't it? They put in the street - just below the nursing home. That long one. And that isolated the church. Yes, that was a one-sided one, right? I Yes. And the church is just isolated by itself there. Well, the one Harold mentioned, though. That situation's not much different than driving down Arcadia or Fairview Avenue. In fact, it's less problem probably in the example cited than we have on Arcadia and Fairview where you have all the multiple family projects all coming out on to the street. This is essentially the same sort of thing. You have a multiple family project with its driveway dumping out on to the street. Then you go down a little bit further and you have these other cul-de-sacs, which are very small, and you have maybe 6 to 8 houses dumping out on the street too. Isn't that one that Harold mentioned the one right across from Bob's or just in from it, it looks like a street but it's nominally a driveway. 12 10/16/90 ,": 32:0259 WOOLARD A multiple family project with individual houses. LOPEZ Just strictly from an engineering point of view, I think whether it's on the same side of the street or the opposite side of the street, you want a minimum of about 150 feet just to prevent conflicts in the traffic movement. Now, that's strictly from an engineering standpoint. CLARK HARBICHT CLARK I GILB CLARK GILB WOOLARD GILB WOOLARD GILB PAPAY HARBICHT I don't know what the distances are down there in the places you're describing. Whether they've got 150 feet or not. They're about 200. Are they? This development that's going to be on North First Avenue, that's the same guy that built the houses down there back of Ralphs Grocery Company on Santa Anita? Yes. John Plount. Is that the kind of development this is going to be? Yes. Similar. That's a little - you can jump out of your back window into the guy's front yard. Those are closer down there than the ones up here. Have they sold those? Those haven't been sold, have they? A little less than half are sold. I went biking through there just to see what it was like. I'm in support of the idea of taking a look at some of these areas and rezoning them for larger minimum lots where we have a predominantly larger lot, but I think we're going to need to look at each one on a case-by-case basis. The one thing I'd like to say is, you know, we talk about developers corning in and building these places. Well, the people who are living in them are Arcadia citizens. And I know people who live on these cul-de-sacs and they're real happy, and they're real happy with their houses, they're real proud of them and I go to visit them and they're nice places. And because some developer built it doesn't necessarily make it bad. I didn't build my house and I like it just fine. And, so, I don't think that we can say, well, if it's developers doing it, But if it's a citizen building it, then we'll look at it differently. They're all the same. They're all going to be citizens who live in them. And the developers are building what people want. And so, we can only have one set of rules and it applies to everybody. GILB You know, when I was sitting on the Planning Commission we had one just like this where there was 6 lots, I think, going to get together and make a cul-de-sac. And 4 of those people were women whose husbands had passed away and they were selling their lots to this developer. They got the builder together and they built this cul-de-sac. And they all went together on it. In fact, it was mostly after they sold them. They wanted the maximum out of their lots that they could get. A couple of them moved to Oregon, whatever. And 2 of the people are living in the cul-de-sac houses - 2 of the 6. In fact, they built a house for them. And that's what they wanted. I HARBICHT I don't think cul-de-sacs, per se, are bad. But I do think we could look at some of these areas that have large lots and preserve them a little. YOUNG All right. Let's make notes and do that and then, does anyone have anything more to say about these intersections of some of these new streets? Do you think 150 feet minimum is a good point? I'd personally like to see them further apart. 13 10/16/90 iJf~~~~~-\. CIRAULO PAPAY HEDLUND PAPAY HARBICHT HEDLUND CITY MANAGER WATTS CIRAULO SZANY HARBICHT S ZANY CIRAULO WOOLARD CIRAULO WOOLARD CLARK WOOLARD 32:0260 Yeah, that's not very far. I suggest that we get the staff to give us some examples of 150 and 200 or whatever and we'll go look at them and come back, if it's something that comes to us. I think everybody's in agreement that we want to do something. Let's take a look at it and perhaps come up with something to recommend to you - a minimum 150 or.... Right now we have nothing. Yes. If we think 200's more appropriate, or whatever, but I'd like to go out and look at a few of them and get the sense of what the separation is. It's my understanding that most cities haven't established hard and I fast rules because it depends a lot on how much traffic. If you say 200, but on a certain street that has an awful lot of traffic, 200 might be too close. While on another street, that might be really more than is needed because it's just a very lightly traveled street. And generally they've judged them on a case-by-case basis and that's essentially what we're doing. There is bound to be a good way to do things and all too often we get left with, well, this is all we can do. And it would be nice if we had some criteria of our own. On this side the Planning Commission can do anything you want to. Turn it down if you don't like it, I guess. Does that address your concerns, Dave? Well, yeah, I was just trying to point out that they're at random. They go anywhere from 20 to 60 to 100 to 150. Whatever works out that comes to us, and it's really never addressed. A lot of cases become very awkward in planning. I realize what Bob was saying about people living on cul-de-sacs. When these tracts were laid out and designed by engineers, they were laid out so everything did move smoothly and not just all of a sudden plugged into one corner. A cul-de-sac here; a cul-de-sac there. Now as you can see, we're starting to hodge podge along the streets. We've got spacing all - one lot in the middle with 7 or 8 neighbors now. I don't think that's how it was planned. I don't think it's good design, good planning. So, should we make a law against cul-de-sacs? No, but we can prevent it from keeping on going that way. Don't we want to make anything better? Yeah, I think maybe - we're talking about doing it on a case-by-case issue and as long as we kind of all agree that this is what we would like to see, as these come before the Planning Commission then the Planning can say, "Well, that's not what we want to see." I But you're going to have to adopt... Some measures? Some formal measures. (inaudible) in the General Plan and some changes to the subdivision and lot area requirements, because you can't sit here at the Commission and say, "This one's no good", and then down the block you say, "That one's fine", when they're pretty much identical. You have to have some solid criteria to use. Just a question on that package that Bill put together. Under the policy it says, "where residents of the area wish to maintain the character and integrity of the neighborhood, encourage the preservation of large lots." The question I have there, how do you do that? You have to change the zone. Change the limited lot size. 14 10/16/90 . '~r,,~ 32:0261 If '; 1 CLARK In other words, we take the action. You don't do a poll of the neighbors in a particular area and ask them, how do you want to deal with this? WOOLARD Well, yeah, on the other hand we start changing the zoning of an area, we don't want to start and find that everybody in the area thinks we're crazy and doesn't want to do it. PAPAY Have a public hearing. If none of them show up, either they don't care or they like what you're doing. WATTS That's why there's Planning Commissions. You can be the guinea pigs for the Council. You hold the first public hearing. 1_ ''''HWO Bob made a point there that he's discussed with people that live on cul-de-sacs and they've become citizens of Arcadia, which is true, and they're perfectly happy with their houses, which is true too. I go back to the point I made earlier, that it seems that today it's big houses and not big properties that people are interested in. They want a lot of house. They're content with these cul-de-sac type of arrangements. But yet, my feeling is - and we come back to cul-de-sacs - that I like the way Dave says, the flow was originally intended years ago as a street with lots down the street. I don't feel that it's in the best interest of the City long-range that we proliferate big houses on small lots and cul-de-sacs throughout the City. That's my feeling about that part. GILB I'm not sure what "big houses on small lots" mean. I've asked you that before. In my area (inaudible) square foot houses, and we've got houses going up that make them look like peanuts. And they're on 30,000 foot lots. We've got one going up over there, it's got to have 20,000 - I don't know how many square feet that thing's got. CLARK Is that one of the Tudor's going side by side? GILB Yeah. How many square feet is in that house? About 11,000. GILB HARBICHT FASCHING HARBICHT -'''"" S ZANY HARBICHT 1 FASCHING YOUNG HARBICHT l1,OOO? That was my question. Do we want to make a law for no more cul-de- sacs? No. That wasn't the question. That's what I asked Dave. I didn't say we should make a law for no cul-de-sacs. I didn't say that was your answer. That was my question. I mean, you say you don't want cul-de-sacs. I think we should find a way to curtail or to have them a little better than they are. . . Well, then we make a lot size change. We'd have to make quite a change, because most of these lots are over 10,000 square feet. Now our minimum is 7,500 square feet, which is a pretty good size lot. FASCHING Well, can't we come up with something like a greater distance between streets, such as maybe not the 150, but a greater distance. Then also maybe frontages, and that type of thing. I don't want to prohibit people from building and selling, but I don't want a town of cul-de- sacs. 15 10/16/90 '....... 32:0262 GILB But you keep talking about "big houses on small lots". We've had problems here lately, people have a 1400 square foot house and the guy next to them puts a 2200 square foot house on with an upstairs in it and it's a big house on a small lot. And it's only 2200 square feet. Because the one next to it's so small. That's the problem we run into. And just because these people go in and put these "Normandy" houses in, that doesn't mean I like them or the ~ouncil likes them or even the Planning Commission likes it. The guy's entitled to build what he likes himself. That's his business. But the fact that they're up there, it's all of a sudden they say, "Well, you like those kind of houses or you wouldn't approve them." Well that isn't the answer. BARBICHT I think the answer is what I was saying. We need to go in and look at each of these areas and decide if we want to make this a minimum 15,000 square foot lot area, then we should rezone it. I YOUNG That's right, because the thing that bothers me is this one lot left over between two cul-de-sacs. I agree. That's not good engineering. PAPAY I think that - well, number 1, in the large lot areas if you put an overlay in like 15,000 or whatever, it obviously cuts down on the number of subdivided parcels you'll get. Secondly, if you do come up with something dealing in minimum separation, it doesn't stop you from having cul-de-sacs, but the number of cul-de-sacs that can be put in, therefore, it would be reduced. What happens is if you do get a lot of them close together, then you do get this one isolated property between 2 cul-de-sacs. And instead of having one neighbor on each side, you've got three on one side and three on the other and one in the back. CLARK OK, pull this out to larger lots, you're going to have greater distance between the streets coming out too. If you can put them together. WOOLARD The other thing is, the street separation may force a developer not to include a lot because it doesn't benefit them as far as street separation. You want a further separation, so he skips the lot and consolidates the ones beyond that. BARBICHT Here's what I think we should do in addition to looking at some of these things. There's going to be areas left that don't want to be rezoned or it doesn't make sense to rezone them because they've already largely been converted. In terms of separations we probably should be looking in terms of having them separated far enough apart that another one could go in the middle and make sense, rather than isolating a lot or two lots. I think that would be maybe a rule of thumb that we could use. I don't want to leave this that, well, we'll decide on a case- by-case basis. Because I think everyone has a right to know what he can do with his property. And I don't think he should have to worry about whether Bob Harbicht, who hates cul-de-sacs, happens to be on the Council when I want to develop my property. I think he should be able to look and say, this is the law. I think we should govern by laws. And we should make the laws cause the kind of development that we want. Not to just say kind of generally to you guys, well, you know, make sure I that things are nice. Or, you know, if somebody's too close, you move them back. What's too close? We should be able to put that into the codes, what's too close. And so that somebody when they come here they can walk up to the Planning Department and say, "What do I have to do to meet the code?" And we should have a code that will accomplish what we want to accomplish. And so, that's why I'm asking, what do you want to do? FASCHING This would tie in with the preservation of large lot neighborhoods on a zoning basis. BARBICHT Yes. And you do that by zoning. Then everybody knows. You can't go in there and come in with 10,000 square foot lots because the minimum here is 15,000. There's no question about it. FASCHING Right. Well, I think that's what... 16 10/16/90 CIRAULO YOUNG S ZANY 4. 05'i1D- 'I S- f"qr-t<. I;"':} PAPAY I ,~ PAPAY YOUNG CIRAULO GILB CIRAULO PAPAY GILB I CIRAULO GILB PAPAY (Inaudible PAPAY 32:0263 Well, I think that's what we said in the very beginning. Zoning is the way to approach it. Okay. I appreciate your comments. PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. (Relating the parking requirements to the number of bedrooms/unit) We've been getting recently - beginning a process of escalation on the size of condos, whether it's on 50 foot lots or 100 foot lots or whatever. A few years ago they were, perhaps, 2 bedroom condos. And then they went to 3 bedroom condos. Maybe 1400 to 1500 square feet. The old 3 unit buildings were apt to be right around 3500 to 3600 square feet of living space. Total. So you divide that up, you've got 1100, 1200, 1300 per unit. In the last few months we've seen a couple where they were going over 2000 square feet. 4 bedrooms in front, 2 threes in the back. So whereas you had 6 or 7 bedrooms in a 3 unit, now you're getting 10 bedrooms in a 3 unit development. It leads to all sorts of problems and modification requests. But the specific question here is: the requirement in terms of the number of parking spaces right now is independent of the size of the units and the number of bedrooms. And it would be 6 + 2 guests in either case. And in one case you've got 6 + 2 with 6 or 7 bedrooms. And now you could have 6 + 2 with 10 bedrooms. And the thought we had is perhaps what we need to do is come up with something that either goes on the square footage of the units or the number of bedrooms or rooms usable as bedrooms and have a graduated number of parking spaces for them. I'm all for that and I'm all for not giving variances. I think there's several ways to approach that. One is certainly - and I don't know how you'd do it for sure - to perhaps limit the number of bedrooms, if that can be done. Another would be to limit the number of condos on any given property - the number of units. And maybe a third way around that - and I don't know if you can do this either - is to insist on handicapped facilities, which by the very nature of doing that would cut down the number of condos on a piece of property. How do you limit the number of people who are in a bedroom? Well, you can't do that. That's why we're trying to focus on the number of rooms usable as bedrooms. Because 5 people could be in a bedroom. But if you only have 2 bedrooms, at least that's better than 4 bedrooms. If you only have 2 bedrooms, that's only 10 people as opposed to 20 people. No, what I'm talking about, though, that if you have 4 people in each bedroom, you've got to have a place to park 16 cars. If you've got 2 bedrooms, it's only 8 people. If you've got 4 bedrooms, it could be 16 people. It's still a problem. I don't think we can legislate the number of people in a bedroom. several talking at once) The point is if you increase the amount of parking required, then they've got to do a trade-off on the number of bedrooms vs the number of parking spaces. They're going to have to do a little bit of a trade- 17 10/16/90 CIRAULO YOUNG CIRAULO WOOLARD YOUNG ASSOCIATE PIANNER NICHOLSON PAPAY NICHOLSON HARBICHT WATTS FASCHING SZANY YOUNG 32:0264 off there. And that's what it will force them to do. 'get 3 units with 3 or 4 bedrooms. I may have to either units or I've got to go to 3 units which are 3 bedroom "Well, I can't drop back to 2 or 2 bedroom." As long as we don't get in the habit of granting the modifications to overcome that. Yeah, I think - giving variances' and modifications drives me up the wall. You get nit-picked to death. I mean, this one may be OK, and maybe this one over here might be OK. And pretty soon you have 30 cases all over town where maybe it was OK. And we're beginning to see a trend. There really haven't been modifications for a number of parking spaces in multiple family projects. I But it would be if we increased the parking. Madam Chairman, I just want to throw something out as far as considering increase in parking in multiple family. I really feel that if you increase the parking ratio for bedrooms, you're really creating a greater potential to have larger families live there. I mean, in all the multiple family projects that are in the City, I don't know of one that has a parking problem. Corky, if we - say in a 4 bedroom you required 3 or even 4 parking spaces, there's no way they're going to be able to fit all those parking spaces and all those bedrooms and all those units on a 50 foot lot, is there? They'd have to make some sort of trade-off between number of parking spaces, or the area set aside for parking, and the number of bedrooms. ' Well, then they could actually - instead of having your ongrade type development, they would most likely start turning to the tuckunder type or something... What is the problem that we're trying to solve here? What did you think of the recommendation that was in the report? Dave I ask you question, because I"ve got a question I want to ask Corky and Larry right now. Oh, I really don't have a question. I was going to summarize what's been happening in the Planning Commission for the last 5 years. We've been talking about these 50 foot lots. People have been coming in very comfortably putting 3 units on there. To put 3 units on these lots you must ask for a variance. You cannot do it without a variance. I don't care how creative you are or imaginative. You need a variance. Or what we can do is (inaudible) consolidate the property, get the lot next door. Then they go to 8 units with tuck-under parking. The building becomes bigger, more massive. We have problems with sump pumps, drainage, so forth. Sump pumps only work in the summertime. The power goes out in a rainstorm. So what's happening is we've been slowly over 5 years approving these modifications because they look nice. They seem to work. But they've been getting bigger. Every time we see one they're getting bigger. The bedrooms are getting bigger. They're parking off the alley ins tead of bringing the parking in, because they can't get the parking in on the property, so they park off the alley now. The building cantilevers over the driveway more, so it looks more massive from the street. So, we've been at this dilemma saying, well, gee, are they pushing us a little too far for these modifications that we've been graciously giving them for the last 5 or 6 years? So that's where we're going with this. Do we want to cut it off or just if they want to put 6 bedrooms in, just say forget it. Put 6 bedrooms in. I Don't grant the modifications. We've got rules. Make them stick to the rules. 18 10/16/90 HARBICHT YOUNG HARBICHT YOUNG AMATO I CIRAULO NICHOLSON CIRAULO NICHOLSON CIRAULO NICHOLSON I ~,~, WOOLARD HARBICHT WOOLARD HARBICHT CIRAULO a__~_"_~.'...",...._.,. 32:0265 No, we have to grant the modifications. You don't have to grant any modification, but we have to allow 3 unit development on those lots, because not to do it is going to in the long term result in more dense development, uglier development. Oh, I agree with that, but we... We have to grant them, but I guess what you're looking for is maybe some guidelines as to how much is too much. Can you say you can't have a cantilevered building? The whole thing is after it comes to us, it goes to them. If you can't use parking to do that, can you address the number of bedrooms. Is that a way to do it? The projects that Dave was referring to, I believe there were 2 or 3 that went before the Planning Commission that were not the typical 3- unit project where the front unit's a 3 bedroom and it's around 1300 square feet and you have behind that 2 second-story flats that are 2 bedroom units at 1100 square feet. Those in the past have been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission and those have, in my opinion, it appears to work out very well. I'd say in the last year we've had, I believe, 3 projects come before the Planning Commission that, yes, they modified that typical plan to provide for greater units by modifying the location against parking and so forth. The last one that went before the Planning Commission was denied. And I believe the applicant is considering appealing it. But, with that denial what staff does now if an individual comes in and he's considering proposing a 3-unit project on a 50 foot wide lot, but it is not of that typical design, we basically tell him, "Your chances are slim to nil." And, believe me, the gentleman has a right to pursue it, but I'd say 99% of the time, they are not going to pursue that. You know, I think that's a key element. I think if the staff can discourage a lot of this right there at the table before he even gets to the Planning Commission, it will go a long way. It's just convenience. It's not.., Rather than just saying, well, give it a try and take your chances and see what happens. That's a waste of time. When I made the comment not to grant the modifications, I didn't mean not to grant modifications on 50 foot wide lots (inaudible), but if the Commission and staff sees something that indicates that it is changing from that typical development where they're trying to push and get the maximum square footage, larger units and so forth, that's the time when you really have to consider those modifications and whether or not to grant those. Corky or Bill, what would you think if we were just to establish as part of the code a maximum number of square feet of living area on that particular size lot? I think everybody in the single family zones would want the same thing. But we're just talking about multi family. I don't know what you're controlling. That doesn't control the number of people either. It does to some extent. Well, if we can't control it by limiting parking and if we can't control it by the number of units on a lot, what measures are left open? How can we control it? 19 10/16/90 WOOLARD AMATO WOOLARD CIRAULO WOOLARD YOUNG WOOLARD YOUNG WOOLARD WATTS FASCHING NICHOLSON FASCHING NICHOLSON FASCHING HARBICHT FASCHING NICHOLSON FASCHING YOUNG FASCHING HARBICHT FASCHING WOOLARD CLARK YOUNG FASCHING WATTS 32:0266 First of all, what is the problem? The 5 bedroom units. Why is 5 bedrooms a problem? You're going to have on-street parking. We don't allow on-street parking. But they can buy a permit, forever. 1 guess. I don't know what the basis is for a permit, but... If there isn't enough parking, you can buy a permit to park on the I street. OK. So, if the problem then is not enough parking, so then we need to address that problem. Well, what do you think of the staff recommendation? Well, that's what I want to ask. The problem is presented correctly, and Corky made a statement there that we haven't had any problems in the past concerning the parking on units. But yet, as' I read these charts of 2-1/2 parking places per dwelling unit and we look at a 3- unit project and a 6-unit project and a 10-unit project, the thing is that we're reducing the number of units, increasing the size of the individual unit and, thereby, still only holding to the 2-1/2 parking requirement per unit. Is that the problem? This is what we're talking about. Isn't that correct? If you build 6 units, you've got to have 15 parking places. Correct? What really, the problem is keeping the number of units the same on a 50-foot lot - that is, 3 units - but increasing the number of bedrooms on that lot. $0 for 3 units on a 50-foot lot, he needs how many parking places? He needs 8. Eight. What if you built 2 units? That's 5. OK. But if he builds 2 with 5 bedrooms each, he still only needs 5 parking places. That's right, under the current ..... Well, that's wrong. That's what he's saying. I Then we should act on that. That's why there's a recommendation to deal with that. aut - this chart deals with that? No. How many spaces would that example require with the recommendation? George, is the recommendation you're talking about - that we have modification (inaudible). Well, the recommendation is that we change it. Right? Yes. 20 10/16/90 FASCHING GILB NICHOLSON GILB NICHOLSON GILB I NICHOLSON GILB HARBICHT CIRAULO YOUNG HARBICHT YOUNG HARBICHT YOUNG HARBICHT HARBICHT YOUNG HARBICHT I YOW' PAPAY GILB CIRAULO 32:0267 But there's no formula here for changing it. I want to ask you a question. Do we vary the size of the parking space? It's standard 10 x 20. It's standard? For underground parking, what about that? It's the same. What about - how do they put these campers and vans and all the other things in those? They don't, unless the building's specifically designed for those type of vehicles they don't fit. So, then, if it's all outside parking and 4 of them have vans, they're going to have a problem. Right? The staff recommendation is that we require 2-1/2 spaces per unit up to 3 bedrooms and an additional space for each additional bedroom. I think that answers the problem. Sure. But then we can't give modifications, to have that work. You can't Mary, we haven' t given modifications on parking. You keep saying that, but we haven't done it. Well, in the past we have. The modifications that we're g1v1ng are on the turn-arounds and things, which we have to do to make them work. Well, that's where I say that the designer has to go back and design something. .. It can't be done. It can't be done. It's impossible. If we don't give them modifications, then the only way they can develop is to put 2 lots together, then you get 8 units. That's more dense. I understand that. So, the modifications aren't, per se, bad. We're not giving modifications of parking requirements, though. These are minor modifications to make the thing work. But during the modification process we're also getting architectural considerations and various other things. We're doing a little trade-off here. Well, I have another comment. I would like to see guest parking not on a back alley. I can't in a hundred years see guests parking on a dark alley when they're coming around to the front to come into the apartment. And there've been a lot of guest parking places off of alleys. And so they're going to either park something else in them or they're not going to use them. You're on #5 already, aren't you? Well, the staff recommendation sounds good to me. On Number 4, yes. (General agreement that staff recommendation is good on Number 4) 21 10/16/90 I<ATTS FASCHING I<ATTS WOOLARD FASCHING (GROUP) STAFF YOUNG 5. 0580- 4 () 1f-.3 Zon-e. 5"0' hJ"cI, Iz,f,s HARBICHT YOUNG HEDLUND YOUNG HEDLUND WOOLARD FASCHING ClARK 32:0268 What if we just bring that to the Planning Commission and get that started? Which? The staff recommendation. (Some inaudible comments) One of the things this would probably do is mean on the small lots, you're going to get smaller units because they cannot provide, really, more parking than what they have to do now. When you consolidate the lots, then you might find that, yes, they can go with 4 bedroom or 5 bedroom units because they'll have either tuck-under parking or some other arrangement that allows them to get more parking on the site. I To me it seems like that's one way of kind of solving some of the small lot problems and, also, if a guy wants to have 4 or 5 bedroom units, then they're looking at 100 foot wide (inaudible). Is the Planning Commission happy with this? Yes. RECOMMENDATION - The 2.5 parking spaces per unit which the City has required since 1980 has generally been sufficient. However, with the increasing size of units, the Council/Commission may wish to consider a text amendment which would provide for additional parking, in the R- 2 and R-3 zones, when there are larger units (i.e. require 2.5 spaces per unit for up to and including each three bedroom unit, and one additional space for each bedroom in excess of three). Fractional numbers are always rounded up. All right. Next item, modifications for developments on 50 foot wide multiple family zoned lots. MODIFICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENTS ON 50-FOOT WIDE MULTIPLE-FAMILY ZONED LOTS. That's what we just talked about. Well, but it's a different item. Well, the problem here is that on these 50 foot lots we have to grant a variance to get 3 units, is what they're applying for, with no landscaping on one side and there's no way we can help but grant that. Because otherwise they can't get it on with the driveway width... So why don't they build 2 units? Well, there's a need for 2 bedroom units. Because we don't want them to build 2 units. 2 without modifications, I you would have a 50 foot wide lot. Let's start on one side - you'd have a 10 foot setback, 10 foot setback on the other side, YOU'd have a 20 foot garage, and you'd have the entry to the house, which might be in the remaining 10 feet less. So what you see when you drive down the street will be a street of garage doors and 10 foot left over for the entry to both of the units. Off the alley, you'd have the same situation. You have basically a garage door and your guest parking's got to be on there somewhere, so you make - one of those side yards is going to be - it's a simple modification, I guess, to have parking on the side yard without a landscaped area. So you have a narrow, long unit. All you need is a 5 foot landscape (inaudible). 22 10/16/90 HARBICHT I HEDLUND ASS'T PLANNING DIRECTOR BUTLER HARBICHT WOOLARD I "'''"'' GILB HEDLUND CLARK 32:0269 I think that, you know, another thing that we've got to keep in mind is, particularly with these parking modifications, what you're going to get on these 50 foot lots are 2 and 3 bedroom units - basically what we've gotten in the past except for just a couple of examples here - and, you know, we have to keep in mind, there's a lot of people that 2 and 3 bedroom unit is what they need. I mean, we have people come to our meetings when somebody wants to build one of these monster homes and they say, "What ever happened to the small houses? How can newcomers move into the City? How can young people move into the City?" Condominiums are the starter homes of today and so we can't just think in terms of, well, we're going to spend $400,000 for a house so it ought to be designed this way. There are people who need these smaller units and so I think that it's in the public interest to allow these R-3 lots to continue to develop with 3 units and just for that reason alone. But beyond that, things that the staff says in their report and the fact that if you hold it to 2, they're going to put 2 lots together and put in 8. So you get denser development. You don't have the controls on the architecture. And, as Bill describes what they're going to look like, I think with what we've got, we're getting some pretty good development out of this thing and I think we're getting a type of property that's needed. I don't see where there's a problem with what's been going on. Recognizing then, Bob, that you go down the whole street you'll have these blocks with no landscaping at all on one side. If that's acceptable to you, then... You don't see that from the street because usually you've got a gate there. In fact, Corky can probably address this better, but really take a look when you go down these streets. You don't see it like there's no landscaping on one side. You've got a gate that effectively is in front of that. Where you might notice it is from the back. But it does provide, you know, I have to agree with Bob, I lived in a unit like that here in Arcadia. It was a nice unit. It was very accommodating. It was the right size. I didn't want a 3 bedroom unit. I wanted a 2 bedroom unit. I had a nice open space area. It provides a certain type .of housing that is moderate, plus income. But most of the proj ects that we look at, they're really nice. They look like single family homes in front. The access is totally off the alley. front. So you have yard area in the In a lot of them you're deleting the landscaping, which may be visible, but it's only usually visible from the alley, because that's the way most of these projects are being accessed. The other thing is that the request usually is for the landscaping, which is where the vehicles back out. They have other landscaping all the time, but usually adjacent to a driveway, but not for the vehicles to back out, because that's where it's maxed out, so you can't meet the code and have the back-out landscaping and the garage and setbacks all fit on the lot. So it's not always the entire length of the property that's not landscaped. Usually just a portion of it. Well, if the Council wants to continue to grant these with no landscaping on one side. I think that you should direct it. I just hate to keep having to vote for modifications, so I don't vote for them. You vote against them all, don't you? Not always. I have to listen to the evidence. (Several speaking at once) We kind of took a position at the last meeting. We had one of these things, and the Commission voted it down. I think it was first. This was the one which had the very large bedroom. 23 10/16/90 32:0270 CLARK But there were some of what Harold's talking about in there, too, in terms of cumulative impact and that type of thing. I guess what I found in reading this report, I wasn't aware of the magnitude of this thing. In reading through it, maybe it's not quite as big a deal as I thought it was before, as far as proliferation. We're only talking about, what - keep me honest here - 65 existing lots that have single family lots on them in that area, over time. And I guess if we get those all on modification, we're done in that area. GILB I think Bob's right, though, that these are at least making them available for younger people to at least be able to get something to live in before they go out and worry about buying a monstrosity. HARBICHT I know a lot of people that have sold half a million dollar houses in I Arcadia and are living on Genoa and they're 60 years old and they don't want the yard anymore. They want to stay in town. I, for one, as one member of Council, feel that we should continue to grant these and control it as we 'have. I don't see anything wrong with them going on. GILB I agree. HARBICHT I think the cure is worse than the problem. AMATO I think the problem we're talking about isn't buying. I don't have a problem with the 3 on a lot. I think the big problem is the larger amount of bedrooms. HARBICHT Well, I think that this parking thing effectively control that. Because on that enough parking places to (inaudible) is going to pretty much size lot you just can't put AMATO The staff did a good job on that. YOUNG Yes, Mr. Watts. WATTS Before you leave this subj ect, also part of this was the idea that possibly the Planning Commission and the Council would like to allow the Modification Committee to hear requests for very multi-family projects. The rationale being that it would reduce the work required of the Planning Commission, reduce the time it takes for the project review by one week, and reduce the application cost to the applicant. PAPAY My reaction's "no". YOUNG My reaction's "no". GILB My reaction's "no", AMATO I think it gives us tighter control in regard to what's happening, rather than just over the table. WATTS We're talking Modification Committee, which in the past has a record of being as conservative or more conservative than the Planning Commission itself. I GILB My answer's still "no", HARBICHT I like the idea because I like the give and take around this table, as opposed to the yes or no in the Chambers there. YOUNG I think it's working all right. Maybe it'll be a little more work, but.. . HARBICHT What about the 2 members we haven't heard from? HEDLUND I prefer it the way it is. AMATO I say, keep it the way it is. It's working. 24 10/16/90 32: 0271 CLARK Yes, I think with direction here. I think, fine. It's not a big deal. FASCHING That's the way I feel. YOUNG OK. Mr. Ciraulo, do you have anything? CIRAULO No, I agree with that. FASCHING I could go either way. If the Commission wants to keep it the way it is, then I think the Commission should have a say and that's the way they want it done. But I would go either way that you want to go. YOUNG Well, it sounds like we'll keep the Modification Committee. I '"000. (Inaudible comments from several people) Planning. Whatever it is. OK. That seems to be the end of the agenda, because we talked about #6. Is there anything else anyone. .. Sometime in the back I read where the General Plan would be discussed tonight, but it wasn't on the agenda. I don't know whether there's anything on that we want to discuss or not. PAPAY Really #3 - maybe #6 in one sense, but mainly #3 we wanted to get to because that has a General Plan implication. We wanted to get a sense from the Council, because we will have that next week. GILB Let me ask you a question. Say you're talking about the zoning on large lot neighborhoods, doing some rezoning. How do those people get notified? Do we send a notice? PAPAY They'd all get notified, because we would designate a geographical area and they'd all be notified that there's going to be a public hearing to rezone that area. GILB I just asked the question "how?" other than the fact that they will be. Do you go out and deliver a notice to each one of their doors? Or do you mail it to them? Or how do you do it? WOOLARD Mailed notice to the last name on the assessment role - the County Assessor - and then to everybody within 300 feet. FASCHING I'd like to bring up one subject that came up in the Arcadia Beautiful Commission meeting. What is our position on trees in the City? I have a report here that was in 1987. Where do we stand on trees, ordinance-wise? Oak trees and trees in general. WOOLARD In most of the homeowners associations, except for the Lower Rancho, there are certain trees identified that require approval of the association before they can be cut down or removed. It's not all trees; it's magnolias and oaks, liquidambers. There's a couple of other trees that are in there too. If it's not one of those - an avocado tree or something - you can take it down. Elsewhere in the City there are no restrictions. I 'MO"" It seems that Pasadena just recently did a mailing to all their citizens concerning the preservation of trees, the article - I didn't bring with me. Here's an article - last Sunday, September 30 - Rosemead City Council cast vote for tree protection. And the trees seem to be getting an awful lot of attention lately. PAPAY There's one other thing. Whenever somebody wants to set up a subdivision, etc., there has to be a tree preservation. WOOLARD Yeah, we've got a tree preservation plan. We try to encourage that the trees that can be saved, be saved. Obviously they all can't because some of them end up in the middle of the house footprint. Some end up in the middle of the street, so they can't be saved. FASCHING That's just from the homeowners association, the only tree conservation program we have. Then there's been a lot of mention in the Rancho area 25 10/16/90 32:0272 of some type of an oak tree preservation program on the part of the City, but nothing's ever been acted on that either, right? GILB George, there's nothing you can do about it. Even in our area, if you have a preservation of oak trees and tell them you can't cut them down and somebody comes in and cuts one down, what do you do, hang 'em? HEDLUND Fine them $1200. YOUNG We always find out about it when it's too late. GILB We had one on Foothill a couple of years ago, a guy called me up and he said t~ere's a guy cutting an oak tree down and I got out there and the thing was laying over on its side and the guy's upstairs and he said, "Oh, I wasn't supposed to do that?" The tree was down. Now what are you going to do? That's the problem you've got. YOUNG And that happens even within the homeowners associations. I GILB Anybody that wants to fight it and cut a tree down has to go through - well, we're going through one right now that I think's been going on for 3 months up in our area - and they finally told them they couldn't take the tree down, even though they're willing to take it down and plant a new one. It was ruining their sewer system and everything else. But if she'd gone out there at night and cut the thing down herself, we wouldn't have had those 3 months of hearings. I can tell you that. FASCHING It could be something we're going to hear more and more about in the future. GILB We're trying to protect the trees. YOUNG I agree with you George, because it's going to come up in air quality as well. And as we all know, some of our newest residents are the biggest problems in the tree area. Because they don't like shadows, or whatever it is, they don't want the trees. And yet the trees are what's going to help our air. Now how we can get that message across, I don't know. HARBICHT The Arcadia Beautiful Commission recently had a meeting with some representatives of the Chinese community and explained to them that in coming to our country they needed to adapt some of our ways, and the trees were something we really appreciated here and that they were causing enmity between them and their neighbors by cutting them down and asked if they would get the message out, that in the United States trees are considered beautiful things. And they seemed to be very receptive to that because of the fact that they wanted to fit in and they ,were going to publish an article about it in their Chinese newspaper. FASCHING They did. We couldn't read it, but they printed it. I saw the paper. FASCHING I think it's going to keep coming up. I don't mean that I'm necessarily going to bring it up, but I think more and more in the future we're going to be looking at this tree situation. I HARBICHT This keeps coming up. HARBICHT I love trees. I planted 2 of the biggest trees in Arcadia in my front yard, but I'm not in favor of having a law that says if you want to cut down your own tree in your own yard you have to go and ask "Big Brother" for permission. I don't think that was the intent of setting up a free country. It's not very much of a leap to require that you put in dichondra lawn and have X% ivy and so many petunias. The fact is, if I have a tree in my back yard that's dropping stuff in my pool or the shade of it's killing my orchids, I don't think I should have to come on down here to City Hall and say, may I take this tree out, please? And have a bunch of bureaucrats sit around and decide that I can or can't take that tree out. As a matter of fact, if I just want 26 10/16/90 FASCHING HARBICHT GILB I.OOUM YOUNG GILB FASCHING HARBICHT GILB HARBICHT WATTS WOOLARD FASCHING I CLARK WOOLARD YOUNG ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: Alford, 32:0273 that tree out because I don't like it there, it's my tree. And I should be able to take it out. I wish I hadn't mentioned it, Bob. Well, if this keeps coming up and the Arcadia Beautiful Commission's on you because they talk to me about it and I.... The Arcadia Beautiful Commission wants 9 members instead of 7. That was in their minutes again this week. When I remodeled my house, I had an oak tree. And the property owners association wouldn't let me take it down. Now it stopped a million dollar expansion. I put in 18 trees afterwards, but they told me I couldn't take that tree down. Well, I had to take it down or I couldn't move the house. So I got it down. I had to get 42 experts to come and tell me it had fungus on it, or some thing, that was killing all the bugs. Whatever I had, I got the gunkus out of it and I took the tree down. One thing you might take a look at sometime, George, there was a picture in the City Manager's office one time. It showed the Baldwin Stocker area years ago. And you could count the trees on your fingers. There aren't many trees. There are more trees, probably, in Arcadia now than there ever were. Usually when you get new development you tear down 6 trees, the homeowners come in and put in 20 trees. When I first moved here, at the corner of Hugo Reid and Altura in 1950, I could see to your house. I could see the train station on the Santa Fe tracks and right up the hill. And now you can't see across the street. I think the only ones it's affecting is the Chinese people. Nobody else is taking trees down. They try to preserve trees. Well, I only bring this up because every time I pick up a newspaper, every time I hear something, we're going to start someday having people come to the meetings and telling us about how we have to conserve trees. They're getting a whole lot of press these days, I'm telling you. Did Jim Green drag out his article that shows that trees cause more air pollution than they solve? Has he got an article? It was in the paper about 8 months ago. Eucalyptus trees. I was reading something in the paper and I thought that one of these things we're going to be voting on required that you plant a tree for every 500 square feet of building. I think that is something in there. Big Green has some tree planting. Don't get me started on that one. I think that's what it's in. Well, we can officially adjourn the meeting.... At 6:37 p.m. the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting ADJOURNED sine die. ;m~"?fc11~t'7 Mary B oung, ayor 4 k 27 10/16/90