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