More Time to Study Zoning Changes : Council Extends Building Moratorium for 60 Days

The Glendale City Council has extended the city’s building moratorium up to 60 days beyond its Feb. 24 expiration date to allow city officials more time to study changes to the zoning code.

The council voted 4 to 1 on Tuesday to extend the building ban after the city’s Planning Commission was unable to come up with final recommendations on the proposed zoning changes Monday.

Councilman John F. Day said he voted against the extension “because I don’t detect a sense of urgency.”

Before the vote, Councilman Larry Zarian told his colleagues he planned to introduce an ordinance next week that would exempt from the moratorium’s extension some of the 25 building projects held up in the plan-approval stage.

“Something must be done for the people that have acted in good faith and worked with the system,” Zarian said. “They should not be unfairly penalized.”

Zarian said the council should give special consideration to the projects that are “90% done, and were one or two weeks away from final approval.”

City staff members first presented the proposed zoning changes to the Planning Commission in November. On Monday, the commissioners decided to reopen a hearing on the changes on Feb. 13 to allow more time for public comment.

The initial 150-day moratorium was adopted unexpectedly Sept. 27 to prevent an overflow of building permit applications during reevaluation of the city’s building and zoning codes.

The moratorium would expire immediately if the zoning amendments under study become effective before the extension deadline.

Because the extension will probably push the moratorium beyond the April 4 council elections, a developers’ representative criticized the extension Tuesday as a political ploy to appear tough on growth.

“It seems like someone should have known that 150 days was not enough to have the zoning amendments ready,” said Berdj Karapetian, spokesman for the Glendale Fair Growth Coalition, a consortium of developers who oppose the moratorium. “The actions of the City Council are suspect.”

During its hearings, the Planning Commission has received comments on the draft ordinance from residents, neighborhood organizations and developers--including the Fair Growth Coalition, which objects to most of its proposals.

The commissioners decided on the continuance to give the Glendale Chamber of Commerce more time to present its own written comments.

The chamber has set up an ad-hoc committee to study the zoning proposals. Its members include an engineer, an architect, a development consultant, Glendale homeowners and representatives of real estate development firms. Committee Chairman Richard Jutras said its report will be ready in three weeks.

The chamber’s comment is considered crucial not only because it reflects the opinions of the primary interest groups that would be affected by the zoning changes, but also because a similar chamber committee was instrumental in the city’s 1986 zoning changes.

City Planning Director John McKenna said his staff will design a matrix comparing the proposed ordinance to whatever changes the chamber suggests.

The chamber has not disclosed what changes it is considering, but both McKenna and Fair Growth Coalition Chairman Haik Vartanian said they were confident that the chamber’s suggestions would be compatible with their own ideas.

McKenna said he has heard that “the two proposals are not too far apart.”

Vartanian said that based on his meetings with the ad-hoc committee, he senses that the chamber will incorporate at least a significant number of the coalition’s proposals.

The coalition, however, takes issue with nearly every change proposed by the city.

Vartanian criticized the proposed reduction of the allowable ratio of building floor space to lot size as downzoning in disguise because it would allow fewer units to be built per lot. He said that this building restriction, combined with other limitations included in the ordinance draft, would drop the market value of Glendale real estate.

The coalition also criticized as too extreme the city’s proposals for enlarging the space required between new and old buildings. The only provisions in the new ordinance it found acceptable were those that would require more outdoor public space and laundry facilities in all new buildings.

The Fair Growth Coalition, for example, blasted a proposed requirement for spas or swimming pools in apartments with more than three units, saying, “Spas and pools are health hazards, create major liability, are inconsistent with state water conservation regulations, create maintenance problems and waste gas and electricity.”

On the other hand, most homeowner associations have welcomed the city’s proposal, and tended to fault it only for not being far-reaching or explicit enough.

In a list of suggestions, the Glenoaks Canyon Homeowners Assn. asked that in addition to requiring elevators for all new three-story buildings, the city should require barrier-free access ramps for the handicapped at the first floor.

Another resident at the commission hearing suggested that all multiple home neighborhoods be downzoned so as to only allow single-dwelling development.