Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-03-07-77-Adjourned Regular Meeting` 5P74 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 1977 The City Council of the City of Downey held an adjourned regular meeting at 5:30 p.m., March 7, 1977, in the Council Chamber of the Downey City Hall, Mayor Pro Ter. Jennings presiding. PRESENT: Council Members: William L. Greene Richard M. Jennings, Mayor Pro Tem Kenneth J. Miller Theodore H. Jackman ABSENT: Hazel N. Scotto, Mayor (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Charles W. Thompson, City Manager Ervin Spindel, Director of Community Development William A. Goggin, City Planner Robert L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer Mayor Pro Tem Jennings announced the purpose of the meeting is for continued study on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Design Review Board. Mr. Goggin indicated it was his understanding that at the last meeting the City Council was considering whether the Design Review Board would consist of one licensed architect; one registered building designer; one licensed landscape architect; one building contractor; one homeowner; one structural engineer; one person with real estate background; and one attorney. He reviewed other discussion that took place at the last meeting and mentioned at the request of the City Council he contacted Mr. D'Alessandro, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Haines, the architect for the Downey Community Hospi- tal, and a person connected with a Design Review Board to invite them to tonight's meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Jennings mentioned the main items involved are whether a Design Review Board should be established; whether the existing Building Appeals Board will be usedor enlarged; the size of the Review Board; should the members serve at -large or by district; and should the members serve without compensation. Mr. Jack Robinson, 8615 Florence Avenue, favored a Design Review Board and stated he feels the requirements for serving on the Board should be professional status as established by the State of California. He does not favor having builders serve on the Board and suggested limiting the Board members to professional engineers, archi- tects, and building designers. Mr. Robinson said the Board should be small, should not consist of any laymen, and the Board should be able to function as quickly as possible. He drew the Council's attention to two new signs painted on the side of buildings: One is a beauty parlor on Downey Avenue, and the other is a shoe store on Florence Avenue. He responded to questions of the City Council. Mr. Leslie Olsen complimented the Planning Division and Commission for doing an excellent job on design review through the zone exception procedure. He stated the Building Industries Association feels there is no need for the Design Review Board. Mayor Pro Tem Jennings asked Mr. Olsen who will control the excellence of design in the R-3 zone after the ordinance is passed. Mr. Olsen suggested the Building Division, Planning Division, or Planning Com- mission. Responding to further questions, he pointed out there are a number of regu- lations that can delay a project such as environmental impact reports, types of financing, government and present zoning requirements. He commented further regard- ing his objections to a Design Review Board. Discussion ensued. Mr. Jim D'Alessandro, 8201 Fourth Street, holds to the concept of a Design Review Board. He said his only concern is qualified people will serve on the Board and that they become more objective and not subjective in their findings. He cited an experi- ence with a review board in San Bernardino County which created long and costly delays for his company. Mr. D'Alessandro questioned the term "exempt" as stated in Section 9156.04, sub -section (2), and asked that the section be rewritten. As to the number of appointees, he said five would be adequate and should consist of a cross-section of varied interests and experiences --two alternates would also be desirable. Mr. D'Alessandro indicated frequency of meetings is important. He cited conflicts in Regular Meeting 3/7/77 (Adjourned) -1- Section 9156.10, sub-sections(1)(b), (2)(a), and (2)(a)(1), and suggested the method of appeal should be to the City Council rather than the Planning Commission as stated in sub -sections (2)(e) and (3)(b). Mr. Goggin questioned whether the Council would want to become involved as an appeal procedure. Referring to Section 9156.12, sub -section (1), second line, Mr. D'Alessandro suggested adding the words "improve and enhance” following the word "harmoniously." He commented that in Section 9156.14, sub -section (10)(c), is ambiguous and should be clarified. Mr. Dave Harper, an architect, favored an Architecture Review Board and commented on his experiences with review boards in other cities. Mr. Harper cited the need for a professional board which is small in size and should have alternate members. He stated his choice for a Board would be two architects or an architect engineer. Councilman Jackman asked Mr. Harper if he would be willing to serve if appointed. Mr. Harper indicated he would be interested, although at this time he has a heavy workload. He suggested the Council also consider appointing architects who have teaching experience. Mr. Tom Collins, 9032 Charloma Drive, said the Review Board should be small, and he is not adverse to having a lay person serve on the Board as long as he has some construction experience. Mr. Frank Evola, 9047 Florence Avenue, said he has an architecture consulting firm. He voiced concern regarding how much power the Review Board will have and whether it will be dictatorial. Mr. Evola stated concern regarding professional ethics of the people involved and concurred that the size of the Board should be small. The Council then commenced to review Section 9156, Site Plan and Design Review, beginning with page 319. Speaking to Section 9156.06, Mayor Pro Tem Jennings suggested the Council appoint an architect, landscape architect, and engineer, all to serve at -large, and two pro- fessional alternates. Councilman Greene concurred with having three board members and two alternates Councilman Jackman suggested a landscape architect, a building designer, and a licensed architect, with two alternates for each member serving. Councilman Miller suggested a restricted number of members but having sufficient alternates to ensure scheduling a meeting. Mr. Goggin mentioned the board might want to arrange its own schedule. Mayor Pro Tem Jennings said the board members should be professional people engaged in either design or construction of buildings. He then said the board members should be reimbursed equal to the other commissions in the City. Mr. Goggin suggested the amount for reimbursing the board can be established by resolution. The Council concurred with establishing a board meeting time of once a month, and more often upon request. Mr. Goggin pointed out the Council requested an addition to Section 9156.06 at the end of sub -section (2) on page 322: "A board member may be removed by a four - fifths vote of the Council." On page 322(a), Section 9156.08, Mr. Coggin stated "depict contain" shall be changed to "include." On page 323, sub -section (1)(c) was replaced with the wording contained in sub- section (11) on page 324 to read, "All existing and proposed street dedications and improvements thereon, including the location and nature of all street improvements in the public right-of-way." A discussion was held regarding sub -section (8) on page 324. Mayor Pro Tem Jennings indicated that if the sign section controls signs, addi- tional regulations should not have to be placed in this section. He, along with Councilmen Greene and Jackman,asked that this paragraph be removed. Regular Meeting 3/7/77 (Adjourned) -2- Speaking to Section 9156.10, Mr. Goggin stated the filing fee referred to in sub- section (1)(a) could be the building permit fee. A discussion was held regarding sub -sections (1)(b), (c),,and (d). Mr. Goggin was asked to make clarifications in sub -sections (2)(a) and (2)(a)(1). Under sub -section (2)(d), page 327, third line, the permit filing period of "seven days" was changed to "20 days." Mr. Goggin said in sub -section (3)(a) a provision will be inserted for permitting appeal to the City Council for final decision. He pointed out the appeal would not require a public hearing. Under Section 9156.12, Sub -section (1), Mr. Goggin noted that pursuant to the Council's indications, the second line will be changed to read, "will integrate har- moniously and enhance the character and design of...." In Section 9156.14, sub -section (2), after the word "development" at the top of page 331, the rest of the sentence was deleted. Following discussion, sub -section (10) beginning on page 332, including sub- sections (a) through (e), was deleted. Under Section 9156.20, line 3, "specific sections of this section" was changed to "specific sub -sections of this section." Mayor Pro Tem Jennings asked Mr. Goggin to insert an outline of the appeal pro- cedure in the Design Review section of the Ordinance. Mr. Goggin was requested to rewrite the Design Review Section, making all of the changes and submitting it back to the Council. The Council then turned to page 367 to review Section 9166, Enforcement, Legal Procedures and Penalties. Councilman Greene indicated it was his understanding the first sentence in Section 9166.08 would be changed to read, "The City Planner and/or such other person as designated by the City Manager with the concurrence is hereby designated at the enforcing agent of this chapter and amendments thereto." Mayor Pro Tem Jennings commented on suggested wording by the City Attorney con- tained in a letter dated August 20, 1976. Mr. Thompson explained another person could be designated, and it is felt there should be some flexibility so there would be no questions. Discussion ensued. The Council concurred with changing the first sentence in Section 9166.08 to read, "The City Planner and such other person as may be designated by the City Manager hereby is designated as the enforcing agent of this chapter and as used in this section." Mr. Goggin said the second paragraph under Section 9166.10, lines 13 through 18, will be rewritten. In Section 9166.12, page 370, third Line, the word "chapter" was changed to "code." Section 9166.16 was changed to read: "Any building or structure erected, altered, repaired or maintained, or any use of property contrary to the provisions of this Chapter, is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance. The enforcement officer and the City Manager are hereby authorized to cause legal action for an injunc- tion to restrain continuation of such violations or any other appropriate action or proceeding to enforce these provisions." Mr. Goggin advised the Council the following sections will be changed to read: Section 9166.18, line 14, the word "Commission" will be clarified as "Planning Commission." On line 20 where it says, "The decision of the Commission" will be changed to "The decision of the Council." Section 9166.20: "It is the intent of this Chapter that all questions of inter- pretations and enforcement shall be presented to the City Planner, and after appropriate administrative review shall be presented to the Commission on appeal." Regular Meeting 3/7/77 (Adjourned) -3- 5F- '77 Section 9166.22: "The City Manager or his duly authorized representatives may enter any premises at any reasonable hours for investigation or inspection...." Section 9166.24: Deleted from the Ordinance. Mr. Goggin asked the Council to study the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce pertaining to proposed uses in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zone. Mayor Pro Tem Jennings said at tle next study session on March 8'th, the Council will review uses permitted in each zone. Mr. Goggin requested the Council to make a list of additions or deletions for correlation. There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Robert L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer Regular Meeting 3/7/77 (Adjourned) -4-