Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 85370 0 RESOLUTION NO. 8537 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DENYING THE PUBLIC NUISANCE APPEAL OF RONALD HRITZ AND AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDER TO ABATE THE NUISANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 850 WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (CASE NO. 88-421) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Azusa does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On September 15, 1988, a duly -noticed Public Nuisance Hearing was held to determine whether a Public Nuisance, as defined in Azusa Municipal Code Section 15.08.010 (F) and (M), existed on the subject property located at 850 West Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, California, more particularly described as Assessor's Parcel No. 8616-3-1. The Hearing Officer, Lt. Byron Nelson, declared the subject property to be a public nuisance due to the storage of disabled/inoperable vehicles on the property, excessive and unpermitted window and banner signs in violation of precise plan of design conditions, and the operation of a retail tire sale and installation business in violation of an Owner Participation Agreement for the Subject Property. These violations were ordered abated within certain time frames. B. The Public Nuisance Abatement Action was directed against Mike Gross and Arnold Gross, a Joint Venture, as owners of the subject property, and against Mr. Ronald Hritz, as owner of the retail tire sale and installation business on the subject property. On September 19, 1988, Ronald Hritz filed a timely appeal from the September 15, 1988 decision of the Hearing Officer. Gross and Gross, A Joint Venture, did not appeal the decision. C. On October 24, 1988, a duly -noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Azusa pursuant to the provisions of Azusa Municipal Code Sections 15.08.070 and 15.08.080 on Mr. Hritz's appeal, with evidence being received from the City through its Code Enforcement Officer, David Rudisel, and by Mr. Hritz. The staff report and the files of the Planning and Building Department, the Code Enforcement Department, and the Redevelopment Agency for the subject property were received into evidence. SECTION 2. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at the public hearing held on October 24, 1988, the City Council specifically finds that: F- A. The subject property is the subject of an Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA") dated April 20, 1987 between the Azusa Redevelopment Agency and Gross and Gross, A Joint Venture. Section 301 of the OPA prohibits all auto service uses on the property with the sole exception of Gene's Smog Repair. Section 301 of the OPA specifically prohibits tire sales and installation on the site. B. Mr. Hritz applied for a City business license for the wholesale sale of tires on the subject property. Mr. Daniel Watrous, Senior City Planner, indicated to Mr. Hritz that retail tire sales were prohibited under the OPA. C. In spite of the Property Owner's and Mr. Hritz's knowledge of the OPA and the provisions limiting retail sales on the property, Mr. Hritz began a retail tire sales business on the subject property. Mr. Hritz stated that he was assigned the lease of Gene's Smog Repair, and claimed to have purchased Gene's Smog Repair for the sum of $1.00. Mr. Hritz, however, presented an alleged bill of sale of "Gene's Almost New Tires" in the amount of $1.00. No conveyance of Gene's Smog Repair to Mr. Hritz took place, and Mr. Hritz subsequently confirmed this. Mr. Hritz's conduct of unpermitted retail sales constitutes a public nuisance. D. The subject property is a public nuisance due to the unpermitted storage of disabled/inoperative vehicles on the property, and due to excessive and unpermitted window and banner signs on the property. These conditions demonstrate a violation of precise plan of design conditions for the subject property. E. As an alternate grounds for finding a public nuisance, Mr. Hritz's retail tire business exceeds the permissible square footage for the subject property. Section 301 of the OPA provides that retail commercial uses on the Site shall not exceed 8,250 square feet of building floor space. Even if Mr. Hritz's retail tire business is a permitted use, it exceeds the square footage permitted under the OPA. SECTION 3. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of this Resolution, the City Council of the City of Azusa does hereby deny the appeal of Ronald Hritz and specifically affirms the decision of the Hearing Officer on September 15, 1988 declaring the subject property to be a Public Nuisance pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.08.010 (F) and (M) of the Azusa Municipal Code and further declares that: A. The storage of disabled or inoperative vehicles cease and any disabled/inoperative vehicles on the subject property be removed or made operational by December 7, 1988. -2- fjn/RES3822 0 0 B. Any portable signs be removed from the subject property by December 7, 1988. C. All banner signs in excess of 20 square feet be removed from the subject property by December 7, 1988. D. The wrought iron gate at the southwest corner of the property be permanently removed by December 7, 1988. E. Mr. Hritz cease all retail sales and tire installation by December 7, 1988. F. Should the owners and/or tenants fail to comply with this Order of Abatement or any time frame, the City may cause abatement as necessary and charge all costs to the property owners and/or tenants pursuant to Chapter 15.08 of the Azusa Municipal Code. The City may take whatever abatement action is necessary to bring about compliance, including commencing a civil suit or commencing criminal prosecution. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Resolution to Ronald Hritz by prepaid first class United States mail at the address shown in the Public Nuisance Appeal filed by Mr. Hritz, or as set forth in the public hearing thereon. Such mailing shall constitute notice to Mr. Hritz in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 and Azusa Municipal Code Section 15.08.10 that any action to review this decision of the City Council shall be commenced not later than the ninetieth (90th) day following the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of November , 1988. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of -3- fjn/RES3822 November Council: AYES NOES: 0 1988, by the following vote of the COUNCILMEMBERS AVILA, STEMRICH, NARANJO, LATTA COUNCILMEMBERS NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS -4- fjn/RES3822