Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-04-18-60-Regular MeetingR-1.9 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY HELD APRIL 18TH, 1960 The City Council of the City of Downey held an adjourned meeting in the Council Chambers of the Downey City Hall at 7:30 P.M., April 18, 1960, Mayor Hollis M. Peavey presiding. PRESENT: Councilmen: Temple, Dunnum, Giddings, Peavey ABSENT: Councilman: Stamps ALSO PRESENT: Oren L. King, City Manager Glenn Kendall, Assistant City Manager Dan McNutt, City Planner Della Doyle, City Clerk Alberta Pfeiffer, Deputy City Clerk The Mayor announced that this meeting was called due to an appeal which had been filed against the decision of the Planning Commission regarding a sign on the property owned by Mrs. Sammartano in Zone Exception Case No. 168. Representing those against the Zone Exception Case No. 168 was Richard J. McCrea, owner of property adjacent to the Sammartano Property, 10537 Arrington, Downey, and residing at 7740 Birchleaf, Pico Rivera, California. Mr. McCrea stated he would attempt to prove that the sign was illegal; that it has done damage to this area as a rental area; and to refute some of the statements felt to be responsible for the extension of the sign being given. Mr. McCrea read the petition that had been presented at the time the appeal was filed which set forth a vacancy factor, deed restrictions that had not been adhered to; and that the sign has caused a hardship on the other apartment owners in said tract. Pictures were submitted by Mr. McCrea of a small sign which had been placed in addition to the electrical sign granted Mrs. Sammartano; a newspaper ad for rental of a single apartment to gentlemen; a letter written to Gayle Rose by Mrs. A. H. Wineman Jr. stating she and her husband had been charged $35.00 per week for the rental of an apartment from Mrs. Sammartano the months of September, October and November, 1958; the apartment was on the west end, only partly furnished; no phone, tele- vision or radio was included. This $35.00 weekly rental is quite different from the $89.50 per month rental Mrs. Sammartano was supposed to be charging for her apartments, and would be at least $140.00 a month, or closer to $150.00. Mr. McCrea feels that Mrs. Sammartano should rent the apartments for about $89.50, the same as the other apartment owners in the area are charging. Richards D. Barger, Attorney representing Mrs. Sammartano, reported that Mrs. Sammartano had advertised for one day only apartment rentals for gentlemen; that she has not since, nor before that time, rented to anyone but families. Mr. Barger stated there seems to have been a great deal of weight put on the effect of what Mrs. Sammartano charges for the premises. Transients naturally pay more as this type of rental is figured on a different basis- - families, however, are charged only $89.50 per month. Mr. Barger reported that although the opposition had stated Mrs. Sammartano's sign had brought a hardship on other apartment owners in the area and caused a vacancy factor, during the period in question, a new apartment was constructed across the street with 16 or 18 units with a swimming pool. He feels therefore that this vacancy factor has relatively no basis and in his travels throughout t7r) the area, he has never seen more than 3 vacancy signs at any one time within the area. Councilman Stamps arrived at the Council Meeting at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Barger concluded his presentation by stating the zoning ordinance had been upheld in that it had preserved a substantial property right of the owner, and the exception had not been materially detrimental to the public welfare and to the property of other persons located in the vicinity thereof. Verne Pollock, tenant at 9007 Muller since June 8, 1959, stated he found the Aloha Gardens Apartment Motel a quiet residence except for the traffic on Lakewood Boulevard; that Mrs. Sammartano was very helpful and tries to make her tenants as comfortable as she can. Terry Pinzon, owning property 10527 Arrington, residing at 11234 Hollyhock Street, Santa Fe Springs, also spoke against the zone exception. Attorney Barger stated that the burden of proof has been on the appellants who have not submitted any new evidence. He does not think a serious property damage exists to property owners in the vicinity by the zone exception, and substantial damage to Mrs. Sammartano's property would exist without the sign. Councilman Temple inquired as to whether or not, since its inception, the sign granted Mrs. Sammartano has given her substantial relief. Attorney Barger stated that the sign has helped and has been a substantial relief. It was moved by Councilman Temple, seconded by Councilman Giddings and passed by the following vote that the hearing on Zone Exception Case No. 168 ( Sammartano) be closed. AYES: 5 Councilmen: Temple, Dunnum, Stamps, Giddings, Peavey NOES: 0 Councilmen: None ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None Councilman Dunnum asked the Planning Director to present a summary of the case as heard before the Planning Commission on February 17, 1960. Mr. Dan McNutt reported that at the hearing it was felt there had been no apparent showing of the sign's being detrimental to the adjacent properties owned by the people registering opposition to the sign and they determined, after considerable deliberation, that the sign should be approved as it was originally approved a little over a year ago, of the same size as originally built. The vote on the commission's action was 4 to 1 in favor of approving the sign as requested for a period of an additional 3 years. Councilman Giddings asked the recommendation of the Planning Department. Mr. McNutt reported that as is usual, on all zone exception cases, a written recommendation was for denial based on the fact that there was no basis for approval given prior to the public hearing. These recommendations, as is generally known, are one of the points of the commission's deliberation in making their final decision, among others. The public hearing and the findings presented at that time bear considerable weight. The Planning Department had originally denied the exception. Mr. McNutt reported that recommendations are based on theories of planning and the intent of the planning ordinance, this being generally considered as shown in writing. If it is obvious that there has been a miscarriage of justice due to zoning or dune to some unforeseen factor, then this can be readily shown in writing at the time of the applications' being filed; however, there was no such indication at the time this case was filed and the commission did further determine their decision after the testimony was heard at the public hearing. It was moved by Councilman Dunnum, seconded by Councilman Temple and so ordered that the hearing be reopened to incorporate the comments of the Planning Director and also to receive the pictures, introduced by appellants or submitted to the City Clerk, marked Exhibit A, the newspaper advertisement marked Exhibit B and the letter as Exhibit C. Councilman Giddings stated that he was quite surprised when the Planning Commission gave Mrs. Sammartano another 3 years' extension for the zone exception. It had been his intention at the time the exception was originally granted that she should have one year to do something about her problem and the idea was that when this time ceased she would have her house in order and would be in a position to conform to the zoning as it has been set up. He has read everything that has come up in this matter, listened to many conversations pro and con. The exception had been granted more or less on a hardship basis and the question in his mind is as to whether it should be extended for a period of 3 years. One piece of evidence is the fact that Mrs. Sammartano has taken no action to improve this situation whatsoever, such as sound- proofing, planting of trees and hedges, etc. to buffer the sound. From his observations this has not been done and he questions the advisability of extending the exception for another 3 years. He feels there should be either a change in zoning or that everyone should be made to conform. It was moved by Councilman Giddings that the extension for another 3 years on Zone Exception No. 168 be denied. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Councilman Temple that the matter be taken under sub- mission. This motion also died for lack of a second. Councilman Dunnum stated that he is ready to vote on the matter. He feels it is an absurd situation and should have been decided a long time ago. His thinking is that the Council are in this case, sitting more or less as an appellant body - -the trial court is the Planning Commission and that is where the case should be tried justly and completely and when the matter comes to the Council for deliberation it should be for some reason that had not been presented to the Planning Commission- -some new evidence not available at the time of the prior hearing that has been made available, and for that reason aid is being sought of the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission's decision. At the time that this matter was petitioned for a hearing before the City Council, the reason for the appeal was that there was new evidence to be presented. There has been no new evidence, and in the absence of showing any abuse, the verdict is already written. Why should the Council substitute its opinion on a matter that it hears only a pleading of a few minutes. It was moved by Councilman Dunnum, seconded by Councilman Temple and passed by the following vote that the Planning Commission's decision be upheld and the exception granted Mrs. Sammartano for a period of 3 years. (Zone Exception Case No. 168 AYES: 3 Councilmen: Temple, Dunnum, Peavey NOES: 1 Councilman: Giddings ABSENT: 0 Councilmen: None ABSTAIN: 1 Councilman: Stamps It was moved by Councilman Giddings, seconded by Councilman Dunnum and so ordered that the meeting adjourn at 8:30 P.M. to 8:00 A.M., Tuesday morning, April 19, 1960, to the Council Chamber of the Downey City Hall. Mayor