The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJUNE 16,1987 .'.... I I 29 :0211 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTE APPROVAL (June 2,1987) (APPROVED) ORD. & RES. READ 8Y TITLE ONLY CLOSED SESS ION 1. PUBLI C HEARING LA. 87-8 (Eating Estab1ish- men ts) (APPROVED) . ~ r P' ,MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCAD IA. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULt.R MEETING JUNE 16, 1987 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Session, June 16, 1987 at 7;30 p.m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber. Rev. 80b Johnson, Arcadia Presbyterian Church City Attorney Michael Miller PRESENT: AIlSENT: Council members Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Gilb None . On MOTION by Counci1member Lojeski, seconded by Counci1member Chandler and CARRIED the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 2, 1987 were APPROVED. It was MOVED by Counci1member Young, seconded by Counci1member Lojeski and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be waived. CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney announced that "This evening the City Council met in a CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to review the City Manager's position regarding compensation for representative employees; additionally, the Agency, Arcadia Redevelop- ment Agency and Council will adjourn to a CLOSED SESSION at the conclusion of this regular meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to give instructions to City negotiator regarding land transactions concerning what is commonly called the Amory site." The Planning Commission at its May 26, 1987 meeting voted 7 to 0 to recommend to the City Council approval of Text Amendment. 87-8 amending the definitions for eating establishments (9220.23.1) and restaurants (9220.51.1). A change in the definitions as stated in staff report for eating establishments and restaurants would enable the Planning Department staff to more clearly distinguish between the two. Mayor Gi1b declared the hearing open. No one desiring to be heard, it was MOVED by Counci1member Chandler, seconded by Counci1member Harbicht and CARRIED that the public hearing be CLOSED. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Council member Chandler and CARRIED on roll ca" vote as follows that the City Council APPROVE and file the Negative Declaration and find that the text amend- ment will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Counc i 1 members None None Chandler, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and G~lb 6/16/87 -1- 29:0212 2. PUBLIC Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of M-87-30 for a 38' 6" HEARING front ya rd setback in 1 i eu of 43' H" at. 445 Los Altos Avenue. The Appeal - Commission upheld the Modification Committee's approval for a 40' 0" Planning front yard setback and a proposed garage"having a depth of 10' 6". Comsn.Denia1 Counci1member Harbicht asked a question about the design as to M-87-30 . whether or not it included a fireplace in front. Staff replied (445 Los Altos) that there was a fi-rep1ace. Councilmember Young inquired if the APPROVED) chimney was to be in additi on to th is.. Answer yes. . (- :1'10 . CI \,{\v ?: ~Cl Mayor Gi1b d~c1ared.the hearing open. G. W. Konze1man, .445 Los Mtos, owner of the property, explained thatl hli! did. not feel th.at the Planning' Commission' had all the facts and that when he had spoken to Commissioner Szany after the meeting, Commissioner Szany'stated that the appeal ~eemed reasonable and that he (Mr.Szany) wished he had spoken to Mr. Konze1man before the meeting. Mr. Konze1man described the design'of his house and the proposed remodeling and gave a brief review of the front setbacks of homes of neighbors on ht~ street. He ~ointed out that he had contacted all his nei9hbors and 15 of them had signed a statement that they had no objections to .the setback'. He stated that he was not remodeling the house for speculation or resale. He has children in school in Arcadia; has lived in Arcadia for twenty years and expects to continue living here. But he. has found that he needs mOre space. The remodeling primarily is a new family room,~but also includes enlarged storage and pantry space. One of the Planning Commissioners suggested that the addition be redesigned but this is just not feasible He is only asking for a It foot setback. Jerry Busse, 704'S. Primrose, Monrovia, Architect of the design in question, felt that some remarks made at the Planning Commission hearing about changing circulation, through the house' so that it gOes through the kitchen were uncalled for. There is a certain natural circulation through houses and they are sometimes very different -- he has designed kitchens; th~t are in the rear left and in the rear center; in this case; th~ kitchen is in the front. He reiterated Mr. Konze1~an's remarks about the approval by petition of his neighbors.,' He has been involved with homeowner associations and feels that homeowners themselves should be heard. Copies of the renderi~g were distributli!d ~nd ~e a~ked for approval. , ' No one else desiring to be heard, the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Counci1member Young, seconded by Counci1member Lojeski and CARRIED. Counci1member Chandler stated that he had been impressed by the rendering presented and had driven by the street and felt there , . , was no real continui,ty in the setbacks; that H feet would not make any difference on the block. He also noted that 15 out of 16 neighbors were not opposed to the'new setback. Councilmember Young said she appreciated the presentation by Mr. Konze1man but was concerned for different reasons. With regard to the setbacks, she has driven by the street and noticed a number of the houses Ire older houses and possibly some will be remodeled i,n the future.' If granted"a 1t foot variance each time, this will eVent~a11y h~ve quite an effect. She is not in favor. Counci1member Harbicht said he had not looked at this particular piece of property, but the 1t foot variance would merely bring the house 1t feet nearer to the street. He thought it very unlikely that this would' start others adding 2 feet to the front of houses. He is not worried about houses creeping '~~ward the street. I 6/16/87 -2-