Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 006 CC RESO1992 006 CC RESO(Ìì» RESOLUTION NO. 92-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK REVOKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH WAS GRANTED TO ALLOW A VEHICLE DISMANTLING YARD LOCATION: 14812 18418 ARROW HIGHWAY; PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH ROUSSEL; CASE NO.: CP-273) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park does hereby find, determine, and declare, as follows: a) That an application Application") for a conditional use permit Permit") was submitted on behalf of the owner of certain real property, located at 14812 14818 Arrow Highway, in the City of Baldwin Park, described more particularly in the Application on file with the City Planner Planner"); and b) That the Application was sought to allow an automobile dismantling facility within the M-l Zone; and c) That on October 19, 1978 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider granting the Permit, and voted to conditionally approve the Application; and d) That on October 23, 1991 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider whether the Permit should be revoked on the basis that the Permit is being exercised contrary to the conditions of approval imposed on said permit; and e) That the Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented, including applicable staff reports and each member of the Planning Commission being familiar with the Property, voted to revoke the Permit; and f) That the Applicant filed a timely appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission; and g) That the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing upon said matter and determined that the facts required pursuant to the provisions of the Baldwin Park Zoning Code for the revocation of a conditional use permit were present, as follows: SECTION 2. That the City Council does hereby adopt the following Findings of Fact: a) That the Permit granted is being, and has been exercised contrary to the conditions of approval imposed on such Permit, and in violation of the Municipal Code; and b) That the specific violations of the Permit and the Municipal Code are identified as follows: 1) All business activities conducted on the site are in violation of the Municipal Code BIB] 37650-U01 1992-U02 006-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO1126-U03 FO1776-U03 DO1910-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 10/10/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 RESO-U05 92-6-U05 JAN-U05 15-U05 1992-U05 1992 006 CC RESO(Ìì» Resolution No. 92-6 Page 1 of 3 because a Certificate of Occupancy permit has not been issued by the City; and that it is City policy to withhold issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy until all other violations evidenced on the property are corrected; and 2) An illegal recycling business is in continued operation on the site; and that the recycling business is classified as illegal because it has been in operation since the latter part of 1990 without modification of the Permit so as to accommodate a recycling business; and that the Permit issued on the property clearly limits the use to vehicle dismantling as defined by the State Vehicle Code; and 3) A trailer building is illegally located on the property in violation of the Municipal Code and the Permit; and 4) All signs witnessed on the Property are in violation of the Municipal Code because a sign permit has never been issued; and that the pole sign located on the Property cannot be approved under a sign permit because it advertises an illegal recycling business; and that a portable marquee sign has been witnessed on the Property in violation of the Municipal Code's requirements for a sign's size, location, and design; and 5) On-site storage is located so as to be readily visible from the public right-of-way, in violation of the Municipal Code, which requires on-site storage to be blocked from view by a solid fence or masonry wall not less than six 6) feet in height; and 6) Conditions c) and g) of Resolution No. PC78-41 granting said Permit require that a view obscuring fence is to be maintained along the entire easterly property line; and that the existing fence has fallen into a severe state of disrepair in violation of the conditions of approval; and 7) Condition i) of Resolution No. PC7B-41 requires that a landscape and irrigation plan for the Property be submitted for City records; and that no such plan has ever been submitted; and that condition g) of Resolution No. PC78-41 states that all landscaped areas are to be planted and properly maintained, however, inspections have shown that the landscaping has not been consistently maintained; and 8) Condition n) of Resolution No. PC78-41 requires that the applicant sign an affidavit within fifteen 15) days after the adoption of the resolution stating that he has read and accepts all of the conditions of approval; and that City records indicate that no such affidavit has been filed with the City; and BIB] 37650-U01 1992-U02 006-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO1126-U03 FO1776-U03 DO1910-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 10/10/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 RESO-U05 92-6-U05 JAN-U05 15-U05 1992-U05 1992 006 CC RESO(Ìì» Resolution No.92-6 Page 2 of 3 9) City records show that the Property owner and business operators have in the past failed to maintain the site in a neat and orderly fashion in violation of condition g) of Resolution No. PC7S-41; and c) That because the Property owner and business operators have violated the conditions of approval of the Permit and the Municipal Code in the above described manner, the use for which the Permit was granted is being exercised so as to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. SECTION 3. That based upon the foregoing, it is clear that said Permit should be revoked effective as of the date this resolution; and that all illegal activities shall cease and desist within thirty 30) days of the date of this Resolution. SECTION 4. That the Permit, as hereinabove described, be and the same hereby, is revoked. SECTION 5. That the City Council relied upon the evidence presented at the public hearing in making the above findings of facts, and in reaching the conclusion that the conditional use permit should be revoked. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy hereof to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and to the Applicant. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON January 15, 1992. MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF BALDWIN PARK) I, LINDA L. GAIR, City Clerk of the City of Baldwin Park, do herby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park at its regular meeting of the City Council on January 15, 1992 by the following vote: AYES COUNCILMEMBER IZELL, GALLEGOS, KEYSER, MCNEILL, MAYOR LOWES NOES COUNCILMEMBER NONE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER NONE ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBER NONE BIB] 37650-U01 1992-U02 006-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO1126-U03 FO1776-U03 DO1910-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 10/10/2001-U04 ADMIN-U04 RESO-U05 92-6-U05 JAN-U05 15-U05 1992-U05