Proposed Glendale Building Limits Get Mixed Review

Tough proposed restrictions on apartment and condominium construction in Glendale drew praise from neighborhood groups and complaints from developers at a city Planning Commission meeting Monday.

About 100 people packed commission chambers for a 3-hour public hearing at which homeowners testified that stronger zoning regulations are necessary to stop construction of unsightly, boxlike apartments and condominiums in their neighborhoods.

“I’m disturbed, I’m mad, I’m unhappy with what’s going on,” said John De Phillip, a retired policeman and 28-year Glendale resident. “I’m in favor of slow growth, downzoning or whatever you want to call it.”

The city planning staff proposed amendments last month that would tie the amount of floor space allowed for an apartment or condominium building to the size of the lot involved, effectively reducing the size of buildings by as much as 58%. The amendments would also require developers to provide more parking spaces and such amenities as spas, pools and open space.

‘Pyramids All Over’

Patrick Chraghchian of the Glendale Fair Growth Coalition, a developer group, warned that the amendments would make it impossible to build on small lots. He also said requirements for amenities and open space would lead to higher rents. “You’re not penalizing the developers,” he said. “The cost of this is going to be paid by the community in different ways.”

Chraghchian was especially critical of a proposed requirement that the second and third stories of apartment buildings be set back from the first story in a stepped fashion. “You’ll have uniform-looking buildings all over town,” he said. “I don’t think you’ll want to see pyramids all over Glendale.”

The developer group also discussed the proposed regulations Monday with the Glendale Chamber of Commerce, chamber spokeswoman Sandy Calderon said. Chamber members have met with city officials and will make recommendations on the amendments Dec. 12, she said.

Representatives of seven homeowner associations addressed the commission Monday, with most supporting the amendments. They said they will present detailed studies at the commission’s next public hearing, scheduled for Jan. 9, when the commission is expected to vote on the issue.

“We’ve heard a lot from the developers about how costly these regulations are going to be,” said Bert Finburgh of the Royal Canyon Property Owners Assn. “Maybe that’s great. Maybe that’s what we’re trying to accomplish here.”

Commissioners made few comments on the proposed revisions. Commissioner Gary Tobian, however, said he does not think amendments can address all problems caused by rapid development, including traffic congestion and population growth.

“I’m not too sure I see in this draft ordinance what we’re trying to accomplish,” he said. “We might be better off if we started all over again.”

City planner Jim Glaser said the Planning Division will explain the ordinance to the chamber and the Glendale Hills Coordinating Council, a group of 10 homeowners’ associations, in meetings this month.