Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 19, 1989A G E N D A CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 7:30 P.M. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meetings of September 5, 1989 MOTION: Read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive reading in full. PRESENTATION to Gloria Alfery, outgoing member of the Arcadia Beautiful Commission 1. PUBLIC HEARING ACTION Lojeski Excused Absence Approved Adopted Consideration of an appeal to the NOTICE TO ABATE A NUISANCE on property located at 631 W. Walnut Public Hearing Closed; (continued from 9/5/89). Approved 30 day extension 2. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Building Code Variance from Ordinance 1885 regarding the security bars at 5600 Peck Road (Anthony Products Co., appli- cant). Public Hearing Tabled 3. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Building Code Variance from Ordinance 1885 regarding the security bars at 150 E. Foothill Boulevard (Millikan & Thomas, applicants). Public Hearing Tabled 4. PUBLIC REARING Consideration of a Building Code Variance from Ordinance 1885 regarding the security bars at ' 28 -30 E. Huntington Drive (Rowan K. Klein, applicant). Public Hearing Tabled AGENDA 9/19/89 n U 5. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Consideration of appointment to the Arcadia Beautiful Commission. 0 ACTION Patricia J. Eicherly 6. Time reserved for those in the audience who Virgil Anderson wish to address the City Council (five- minute Mrs. Martinez time limit per person). 7. RECESS CITY COUNCIL 8. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a•. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Chandler Lojeski Excused Absence b. MINUTES of.the meeting of September 5, 1989 Approved . C. Request for reconsideration of Design Review for two office buildings, 301 E. Santa Clara by Chandler Group (continued from 9/5/89)• Approved d. Request to issue a Certificate of Completion for the Northside Project (Emkay Development Co.) Offsite Improvements. Approved as corrected e. Design Review - 29 E. Huntington Drive (Steerburger). Approved f. ADJOURN TO 7:00 p.m., October 3, 1989 9. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 10. CONSENT ITEMS a. Consideration of Zone Change (Z -89 -003) to add an "H" (high rise) overlay to the existing CPD-,; zoning designation at 324 N. Second Avenue (Robert and Donald Johnson, owners - PUBLIC HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED). Public Hearing 10/3/89 -2- AGENDA 9/19/89 10. CONSENT ITEMS (continued) ACTION b. Consideration of Building Code Amendments pertaining to Plan Check fees (PUBLIC HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED) . Public Hearing 10/3/89 c. Report and recommendation regarding the con- tracting of the City Newsletter. Approved 11. CITY MANAGER Request from the Mt. Wilson Soaring Society for Denied; approval to use the L.A. County Flood Control Davidson to notify the area for a hang gliding landing site. Flood Control of Council ac n 12. CITY ATTORNEY a. RESOLUTION NO. 5501, appointing specific representatives to the Independent Cities Adopted Risk Management Authority. b. Claim of Royal Insurance (R. Williams) Denied 13.. MATTERS FROM STAFF 14. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS is. ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., October 3, 1989 In memory of Mr. Herb Fletcher Miller /Woolard - Prepare ordinance to grandfather existing security bars in commercial and industrial zones. Staff to hold off enforcement. Approved $2500.00 appropriation from General Contingency for Sister City reception for Mayor of Tripolis, Greece. Davidson - Check traffic signal at Baldwin Avenue and 210 Freeway for proper timing. -3- AGENDA 9/19/89 September 19, 1989 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: REQUEST ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner Building Code Variance for Security Bars 28 - 30 East Huntington Drive d �," -a j - -7.3 A Building Code Variance to permit exterior security grates across the rear windows of a building which is not equipped with an automatic fire sprinklering system (AMC Section 8130.21.5 - Ordinance No. 1885) This request was submitted by Rowan K. Klein, an owner of the building at 28 - 30 East Huntington Drive. The building is occupied by three businesses; H & R Block, John's Discount Golf Shop, and Brothers Photography. The Planning Department is recom- mending approval based on the reasons stated in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION SITE AREA: 49.71' x 146' = 7,257.66 square feet (0.167 acre) EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: One story, three unit commercial building Zoning is C -2&H, General Commercial & Height Overlay GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: C - Commercial REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION: CG - Commercial General SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Commercial shops & offices; zoning is C -2 &H South: Multiple family residences; zoning is PR -3 &H East: Commercial shops & offices; zoning is C -2 &H West: Commercial shops & offices; zoning is C -2 &H i- ;2 Nk." RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department has determined that at this particular property the existing security grates are acceptable since they are located only at the rear of the building and are well maintained. The applicant's reasons, and the reviews conducted by the various City Departments, indicate that the granting of this request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property and improvements in the area. For these reasons, Staff recommends approval of this request. FINDINGS Apyrroval If the City Council intends to take action to approve this request, the Council should make specific findings, based on the evidence presented, that the request would secure an appropriate improvement, prevent an unreasonable hardship, or promote unifor- mity of development, and move for approval subject to any conditions which the Council may deem as appropriate. Denial If the City Council intends to take action to deny this request, the Council should make specific findings, based on the evidence presented, that the request would not secure an appropriate improvement, nor prevent an unreasonable hardship, nor promote uniformity of development, and move for denial. Bldg. Code Variance 28 -30 E. Huntington Dr. Sept. 19, 1989 Page 3 24 Q! vaw'"o Lel r PARKINCf PAI?KINft D15TIZIc T i I . N � N SO SO ?S P25 50 50 5 D 50 50 40 7 �"C lot v� tj h I V � W W V ( v v M F; m�it� 0 O O O I 4?9J (31) (J7) K41) �a5/ s1.r. 50 50 25 ?5 50 50 • SU SC 10 �. HUNTINGTON 5v 50 50 50 50 (Air) (;12) �.rsi has aeJ REALTY OFFICE tA e v s dd EATIN41 EST. E W d_ LIQUOR STORE a _ W„i d r Qua 44 t C1 1514 50 50 50 50 50 50 1 50 SO H 51. a 50 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Ln U) I I I I ��0 vz 00 Z - Y 0 0 I ®'®00 S 3 2 -) I es » I �9. rr� <� rsJ as rs� (rrJ �ss� < . I ( 317) 51,10 50 50 50 50 1 50 1 50 SO 50 50 SO 50 A LTA 0 151.12 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 re OFFICES .®00000 00D LA 28-30 E. HuNori aTom DR. — SITE MAP SCALE 1"- 100 26 �'0 September 19, 1989 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: REQUEST ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner Building Code Variance for Security Bars 150 East Foothill Boulevard A Building Code Variance to retain an ornamental security gate and grate which encloses the front entry area, and a wrought iron grate inside a rear window of a building which is not equipped with an automatic fire sprinklering system (AMC Section 8130.21.5 - Ordinance No. 1885) This request was submitted by Millikan and Thomas, attorneys for Mr. Sterge T. Demetriades, the owner of the building at 150 E. Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Department is recommending approval based on the reasons stated in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION SITE AREA: 120' x 105.67' = 12,680.4 square feet (0.291 acre) EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: One story commercial office building Zoning is C -2, General Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: C - Commercial REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION: CG - Commercial General SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Shopping center; zoning is C -1 &D South: Single family residences; zoning is R -1 East: Commercial offices; zoning is C -2 West: Commercial offices; zoning is C -2 Ll 14 BACKGROUND Section 8130.21.5 was added to the Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 1885 in June of 1988. It prohibits the use of security bars, panels, sliding metal grates, or other similar security devices on the exterior of any building openings of all structures in commercial or industrial zones. Such devices may be installed on the interior of a commercial or industrial structure provided that the entire building is equipped with an automatic fire sprinklering system. Properties which had existing security devices in place as of June 21, 1988 were given until July 21, 1989 to comply with Ordinance No. 1885. Security devices and fire sprink- lering systems are to be installed under permits from the Building Division, and inspected for compliance. The security devices must be approved by the Fire Chief. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a Building Code Variance to allow him to retain the existing ornamental gate and grate around the front entry area, and an existing security grate inside a rear window of the building at 150 E. Foothill Boulevard without installing an automatic fire sprinklering system. The applicant's reasons are stated in the attached letter. The applicant's request has been reviewed by the appropriate City Departments. The Building Division has no objections to this request. The Fire Department feels that the existing security grates and gate do create a minimal hazard to public safety, but, not of a level significant enough to require an automatic fire sprinklering system in this particular building. The Police Department feels that the security grates and gate reduce the property's exposure to burglary and are a reasonable method of protection. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department has determined that for this particular property, the ornamental grate and gate around the front entry area is well integrated into the building's design, and that the grate across the small rear window is almost unnoticeable. Therefore, the grates and gate do not detract from the property's appearance. The applicant's reasons, and the reviews conducted by the various City Departments, indicate that the granting of this request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or Bldg. Code Variance 150 E. Foothill Blvd. Sept. 19, 1989 Page 2 15 ", 'n' "4✓ `rr' V104 to the property and improvements in the area. For these reasons, Staff recommends approval of this request. FINDINGS AR roval If the City Council intends to take action to approve this request, the Council should make specific findings, based on the evidence presented, that the request would secure an appropriate improvement, prevent an unreasonable hardship, or promote unifor- mity of development, and move for approval subject to any conditions which the Council may deem as appropriate. Denial If the City Council intends to take action to deny this request, the Council should make specific findings, based on the evidence presented, that the request would not secure an appropriate improvement, nor prevent an unreasonable hardship, nor promote uniformity of development, and move for denial. Bldg. Code Variance 150 E. Foothill Blvd. Sept. 19,1989 Page 3 16 `W%W %"W-400 MILLIKAN AND THOMAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6ANC J. THOMAS 704 MIRA MONTE PLACE C. C. •AAD M111IKAN QIICOOAY F. WI.oKAN lipa5•�96a1 SECOND FLOOR PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 01101 -2521 (2131 60'•0659 (6 6) 796.0106 VAX 1014) 796.4736 August 16, 1989 City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 -3104 Attention: Mr. James Kasama, Assistant Planner Dear Mr. Kasama: On behalf of Sterge T. Demetriades, we are responding to your letter dated July 28, 1989 concerning the alleged violation of Arcadia Ordinance No. 1885 ( "Ordinance ") by the property at 150 East Foothill Boulevard ( "Property "). Based on our telephone conversation, I understand that you have conferred with your supervisor and that you have determined that the front courtyard gate ( "Gate ") and interior grill ( "Grill ") on one window in the back of the building do not comply with the Ordinance. By this letter we are requesting that the City Council consider and re- determine the applicability of Ordinance No. 1885 to the Property. The bases for this request are as follows: 1. The Gate and Grill pre -date the adoption of the Ordinance. These fixtures are not dangerous to anyone nor do they interfere in any way with emergency access to or from the building. Under these circumstances, we do not think the City can lawfully require their removal except under its powers of eminent domain. Section 8760 requires owners at their expense and without compensation from the City to remove security bars, etc. which were in compliance with Building Code as of June 20, 1988. We view Section 8760 as an invalid regulatory action as applied to existing devices (unless there is specific showing of imminent public danger from these particular devices). Such a taking without any just compensation violates our state and federal constitutions. 2. If Section 8760 is valid, your determination that the Gate is subject to the Ordinance is still incorrect. It should be rescinded by the City Council. As a sidewalk gate to an exterior courtyard, the Gate is not within the class of devices nor in a location covered by Section 3802. Subsection (b) 1. of Section 3802 as amended states, "The use of security bars, panels, sliding metal grates, or other similar security devices is prohibited on the exterior of any building openings of all structures in commercial or industrial zones of the city." �� 17 �', it r✓ '„�,' �+ City of Arcadia August 16, 1989 Page Two The Gate is not a security device nor does it occupy the exterior of any building opening. We concede the Grill is described in Section 3802 (if valid), but see our request under No. 3 below. 3. Assuming that Sections 8760 and 3802 are applicable and valid, a variance as requested follows: a. The rear window in which the Grill is located is in a room in which there are two exterior doors which have no security devices to hinder access. The window, approximately 2 ft high by 4 ft wide, is shoulder high from the interior of the back room. It is even higher from the exterior. The interior Grill is not distinguishable except from up close and then just barely. It is therefore aesthetically neutral. Since the back room has two doors to the outside, the Grill does not hinder exit from the room and therefore has no impact on safety. Access, ingress and egress by the Fire Department and other emergency personnel or by occupants in the event of emergency is not in any way hindered, by the presence of the Grill on one rear window. Please note also that the Grill is not visible from any public way. It is on the rear window of the building. We enclose a diagram showing the floor plan together with fifteen (15) recent photographs for the benefit of the City Council. b. Concerning the Gate, it has been locked from time - to -time in the past only to discourage transients from sleeping in the building courtyard. our architect assures us that it is not an eyesore; on the contrary, it matches and blends in with the grillwork which serves (a) to support the AC water drain and the rain gutter drain and (b) to channel foot traffic and elminate the danger of walking into the lanscaping features. Aesthetically, it makes a positive contribution to the atrium or courtyard and to total building facade decor. From the safety point of view, even when it is locked. the gate latch can be easily sprung by inserting a fireman's axe or other leveraged tool between the gate and the concrete block wall which contains the hole for the bolt. A strong pull on the last bar of the gate can accomplish this without tools. Thus, the assertion that it hinders access to the building by the Fire Department can be proved erroneous. Mr. Demetriades would be glad in any event to cooperate with the Fire Department in a mutual lock or other program which would provide the Fire Department access through the front gate at all times, locked or unlocked. The Gate does not interfere with any individual or emergency personnel gaining entrance to the building structure or exiting from the building structure. Based on the foregoing, we request that the determinations of 18 'fir• rar � •.�' City of Arcadia August 16, 1989 Page Three your department be reviewed and modified as noted above. GFM:peb cc: Mr. Sterge T. Demetriades gfm \arcadia.ltr Very truly yours, MILLIKAN AND THOMAS GREGOR F. MILLIKAN Attorneys for Sterge T. Demetriades 19 52' l� C 'aAV -7 711100 -� U) O 1,N a rf P L .4 /v T S ac . ATTRIUM (OPI= W 5v4 cF-) SHOWER ENTRY P LA A(T 5 CONFERENCE REPRO CONFERENCE ROOM ROOM ROOM KITCHEN LOBBY AND MENS RECEPTION OFFICE ROOM AREA OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE II LADIES ROOM OFFICE OFFICE WAA/1)90 IA/ QWO-rioW. Im TEL Y Y RM 80' 'I 1 /10" = 1' p M� 21