Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 84-2247RESOLUTION NO. 84 -2247 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING AN APPEAL FROM, AND CONFIRM- ING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 71 -358 AND VARIANCE 83 -703 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. Town & Country (applicant) has filed for modification of CUP 71 -358 to permit the parking or storage of trucks on R -4 property in conjunction with an adjacent C -3 use and zone; and, for a variance to enclose such truck use with a fence in excess of tpermitted six feet (said fence has been constructed without a permit or variance to a height of more than 12 feet at its highest point). SECTION 2. The Planning Commission denied such requests after a Public Hearing as set forth in Resolution 84 -1100 P.C. SECTION 3. The applicant duly appealed such denial to this City Council; a Public Hearing has been held, evidence submitted, testimony taken, an E.I.R. presented, the files, records and Minutes of the Plan- ning Commission considered, and each member of the City Council having personally visited the site. SECTION 4. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council finds and determines as follows: A. Matters relating to law: 1) It is found that the truck parking or storage is not regular or routine; that a truck may be parked or stored for one to three days. 2) That such parking or storage is for the purpose of conducting refrigeration storage in that the trucks are loaded with perishables, then parked or stored for no fixed period of time with refrigeration. 3) That the area used for such refrigeration is an R -4 zone. 4) That Section 9361(1) (d) limits truck parking or storage for more than 30 minutes. See also Section 9366(1) (a) . Accordingly, the City Council finds that the truck use requested is storage rather than parking, and, thus, prohibited in an R -4 zone; even if considered parking, it would be in ex- cess of 30 minutes and, therefore, involves a use variance. Accordingly, the City Council concludes that it may not grant such use in an R -4 zone. B. Matters relating to the E.I.R. 1) The E.I.R. makes no mention of noise or mitigation thereof. 2) There was substantial evidence (testimony of neigh- bors and decibel measurement) that the noise from the refrigera- tion units was and is excessive, especially at night. 3) The E.I.R. was silent as to mitigation of light. 4) There was substantial testimony and observation that the lights are excessive. 5) There is no mention in the E.I.R. of fire risk. Resolution No. 84 -2247 - Page 2 6) The Fire Chief represented that the fence and "squeezed" truck use could increase fire risk and loss. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the E.I.R. is inadequate. C. Matters relating to equity: 1) Applicant sets forth in his appeal, several grounds of estoppel based on alleged misrepresentation of City officials. 2) Each of the officials charged denies any such involvement. 3) The testimony of the City officials is more credible, and the City Council does not believe such mis- representations took place. 4) Even if such events did occur, they do not, under current case law, rise to the level of estoppel. Accordingly, the City Council finds no equitable matters involved. D. Matters relating to the standards and merits: 1) There was substantial evidence that the truck use was divisive and disrupted peace and enjoyment of neighboring properties as a sight nuisance. 2) The testimony concerning noise and lighting was overwhelming at present, and this proposal would move the nuisance 50 feet closer. 3) There was indication that there was an alternate site available to the applicant. 4) There was evidence that the site was too small resulting in overcrowding; that the access to the streets was impaired, and that the use would cause harm to the enjoyment of neighboring properties. Accordingly, the Council finds that applicant has not proved or carried the burden of proof with regard to the standards set forth in Sections 9201 and 9202 of the Temple City Municipal Code. SECTION 5. For the reasons, findings and conclusions set forth herein, said CUP modification is denied. SECTION 6. With regard to the Variance for an over height fence, the Council finds that no grounds have been given for such height - in fact, applicant agrees it may be lowered. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Resolution No. 84 -1100 P.C. said Variance is denied. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 1984. 1 Resolution No. 84 -2247 - Page 3 ATTEST: I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meet- ing held on the 20th day of March 1984, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen- Atkins, Dennis, Swain, Tyrell, Gillanders NOES: Councilmen -None ABSENT: Councilmen -None