Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1628 . RESOLUTION NO. 1628 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-017 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 3,949 S€l.FT. TWO-STORY MIXED-USE CREMATORY FACILITY AT THE EXISTING MORTUARY AT 500 S. FIRST AVENUE. WHEREAS, on October 18, 2000, a Conditional Use Perrnit application was filed by Jim Larkin to construct and operate a 3,949 sq.ft. two-story mixed- use crematory facility with a second floor employee apartment unit at the existing mortuary located at 500 South First Avenue, Development Services Department, Case No. C.U.P. 00-017, the property more particularly described as follows: 500 S. First Avenue: Tract #866 northerly 10' ft. easterly of street of Lot 35' and easterly of street of Lot 36; Block 63 y., and 506 S. First Avenue: Tract #866 easterly of street of Lot 34 and southerly 45' easterly of street of Lot 35; Block 63 y.; and 114 EldoradoStreet: Tract #866 southerly of street of Lot 33; Block 63 Y. located in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of Caliornia. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 9, 2001, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That similar crematory facilities cited in the oral testimony are located primarily in cemeteries with large expanses of open space creating less impact on adjoining properties. That the existing mortuary directly abuts a residential neighborhood to the east and is one block south of the First Avenue Middle School. That the proposed crematory is located 34'-0' from residentially zoned properties and, therefore, does not provide an adequate buffer to residents in the surrounding area. That based on both the written and verbal testimony received . prior to and at the public hearing, the proposed addition of a crematory to the . . existing mortuary facility is incompatible with the adjoining residential property, the middle school and other commercial uses. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit would be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. 2. That the site is currently substandard in parking and the proposed expansion to include a crematory would exacerbate an existing parking problem. That based on the Municipal code, 117 parking spaces are required; currently there are 16 on-site parking spaces and the proposal would provide the same number of on-site spaces. That based on both the written and verbal testimony received prior to and at the public hearing, when the mortuary has a service there is limited on.street parking because there is inadequate on-site parking, forcing persons attending services at the mortuary to park their cars on the street. That the site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the expansion, and the parking and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. 3. That the mortuary adjoins two streets; First Avenue and EI Dorado Street. First Avenue is a commercial street; EI Dorado is a residential street serving the multiple-family dwellings to the east. That the additional funeral/memorial services held on the subject property, as a result of the expansion of services to include a crematory, would further negatively impact the on-street parking and traffic in these residential and commercial streets. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons, this Commission denies Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 00-017 to construct and operate 3,949 sq.ft. two-story mixed-use crematory facility in conjunction with the existing mortuary. SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of January 9. 2001, by the following vote: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Olson, Murphy None . SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution . and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council ofthe City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 23, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSl:AIN: None . APPROVED AS TO FO~M: ~r.~ Step en P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia . ~~ City of Arcadia STAFF REPORT DEVEUOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT January 9, 2001 FROM; Arcadia City Planning Commission Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator By; Kenneth Phung, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 00-017 TO; SUMMARY . This Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) application was submitted by Jim Larkin to construct a 3,949 sq.ft. two-story mixed-use crematory facility with a second floor apartment unit at the existing mortuary located at 500 S. First Avenue. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal, and the adoption of Resolution No. 1628 granting the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT; Jim Larkin (Owner) LOCATION; 500 S. First Avenue REQUEST; A Conditional Use Permit to construct a 3,949 sq.ft. mixed-use crematory facility with a second floor apartment unit at the existing mortuary on the subject location. SITE AREA; 29,000 sq.ft. (.67 acres) . FRONTAGES; 160 Feet on First Avenue 135 Feet on Eldorado Street . EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING; The site is currently developed with a mortuary business that includes two on- site residences for its employees. One residence is a second-story unit directly above the mortuary and the second unit is a detached single-family residence, as shown on the submitted site plan; zoned C-2. , .- . . . SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: EI Loco fast food; zoned C-2. South: Offices; zoned C-2. East: Apartnients; zc:med R-3. West: Offices; zoned C-2. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The site is designated as Mixed Use. PROPOSAL The applicant's proposal involves the removal of an existing detached two-car garage for the construction of a 3,949 sq.ft. two-story mixed-use crematory facility with the second floor being utilized as an apartment unit. The crematory, a witnessing room and a three-car garage would occupy the first floor (2,304 sq.ft.) with a 1,645 sq.ft. apartment unit on the second floor. The new apartment unit will be used for employees. The mixed-use crematory facility will have a 34'-0" easterly rear yard setback and a 3'-0" southerly side yard setback that is adjacent to a 20'-0" wide alleyway. The height of the structure is 28'..0" high. The site's funeral and cremation service will open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The applicant expects 2 to 3 cremations a week. Crematory services will not be conducted simultaneously with any funeral services to minimize the need for on-site parking. The applicant is requesting the proposed crematory because the demand for such a service has increased 30% in recent years to a projected 50% within the next ten years. Parking: The proposed site improvement includes 16 on-site parking spaces, and 6 enclosed spaces.. The enclosed spaces Will be for the employees and the residents of the site. The property owner currently has a verbal agreement with the neighboring EI Loco restaurant to utilize their parking lot for morning services in the event that there is insufficient parking on-site. The applicant stated that he would obtain a written agreement with the restaurant to further secure such parking. CUP 00-017 January 9, 2001 Page 2 \- . . . Landscaping: Landscaped planters will be provided to enhance the parking area, as shown on the submitted site plan. The size, type, and quantity of the planting materials are subject to staff's review and approval. ANALYSIS It is staff's opinion that the applicant's proposal is compatible with the current operation of the mortuary business, which has been located at this site since 1939. Neighboring property owners have expressed concerns that the proposed crematory will have an impact on property values and that the cremation machine will emit pollutants. The applicant has ensured staff that all cremation procedures would be indoors. and that the cremation process will not release smoke or create any odor. The proposed mixed-use crematory facility will also be compatible with the existing buildings on site, and will have no advertisernent for the crematory service. The applicant also 'inforrned staff that the crernatory equipment system is safe to operate and does not emit more pollutants than your standard residential fireplace or diesel truck (see Emission Table). Staff believes the applicant's request, if approved, would allow the mortuary to better serve the needs of the community. Architectural Design Review: Concurrent with the consideration of this CUP application, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the applicant's design concept plans for proposed facility. The proposed building is compatible with the architectural design of the existing structures. The Planning Services staff believes that the applicant's proposal meets the Intent of the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. The design elements for the building will provide the necessary visual break up of flat wall areas. Also, the architectural design of the building and the exterior .matenals would be visually harrnonious with the surrounding commercial development. The applicant shall be required to comply with all code requirements as determined necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshall, Maintenance Service Director and Community Development Administrator. CUP 00-017 January 9, 2001 Page 3 \ - . . . CEQA Pursuant to the provIsions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the' proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic, significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION The DeveloPl11ent Services Department recornmends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 00-017 subject to the following conditions: 1. All City code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the Fire Department which shall include, but not limited to the following iterns: a. If only one of the proposed restrooms is to be disabled/handicapped accessible, then both of the restrooms must be unisex. b. Installation of a Knox-box with keys in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. c. Installation of an NFPA-72 fire alarm system in conformance with the Arcadia Municipal Code. 2. The proposed crematory shall be limited to 3 cremations a day and the cremation services shall not be conducted simultaneously with al)Y funeral service. 3. A covenant agreement shall be filed with the City Attorney to ensure that the proposed apartment unit above the crematory shall be rented only to employees of the business. 4. There shall be no signage advertising the cremation service. 5. Approval of CUP 00-017 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval. 6. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to completion of the tenant improvements, and opening of the mixed-use crematory. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of CUP 00-017 shall be grounds for imrnediate suspension or revocation of any approvals that could result in the closing of the restaurant. ' CUP 00-017 January 9, 2001 Page 4 " - FINDINGS AND MOTIONS . Approval The Planning Commission should move to approve the Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 1628: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 00.017 to construct and operate a 3,949 sq.ft. mixed-use crematory facility at 500 S. First Avenue. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this Conditional Use Permit application, the Commission should move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings. If any Planning Comrnissioner, or other interested pa~ has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the January 9 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, Kenneth Phung at (626) 574-5447. Approved by: . /7~~ ~Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map Negative Declaration & Initial Study Emission Table Resolution 1628 Opposition Letters Plans . . CUP 00-017 January 9, 2001 Page 5 e so I'" /41.G9 ~ ~I ~ 50 14..G9 oil . 17 ~'" '" "aeam ~ /4 ~ 0." I~ ~'" (ff)<1 ." uquor Store ~'" ~ (!jf) _ '0 ~ ($~ ChlropractlcOfflce~N, 50 ' IAI.l.9 ""~ '. r~ 1<11,7 0 7.0 Q oil Lt\ Offices ~~ r~~", '-'~ 19 '" .r -." '" '21 0 Insurance Qfflce ~'" oil 18 III Arcadia Mailbox \: 50 , e ~ w 141.7 7'> > Card Shop ~'" <( /7 ~'" I) =~ I- ~~ en ~~~ 1& :;:,,'" ~ AcoL Office -.:i:!:!'" ~ 8 I - II Beauty Salon ~Q LL. tx <3.1 ~".J ! 141.7 ~'" ).0,3' . 50 (5 ,141.7 ~ ?O~ ~ . ~. Association of Realtors ." , r~ ~ -'1 50 L ~I 100.04 ;35 135 =,0 50 50 ~ ",,,, ..n; Law Office v 11\ 11\ 5 4 c. so ~ , 50 50 7 8 N ' 0 "!'! '2 0 \j "'\!;" ."",- ~ Cb -I-EI Loco - \ @)~ r\\ " 1 0 (117) \..!..) -3 '" '" ~//..../ (/1.1'/ (/24/ O.-.P (/2~ 135 50 50 SO 50 50. ELDORADO ST. 50 50 50 50 (118.1 (/.22/ ~/2"./ I'/...,a 3'2 31 30 'Z'f 080 50 SO SO 50 .- .. .. .., l:i Dental Office . ""..::;-----'" cz:)Sunny Construction ~ ri)l'4~ c-o~.... . C'" ,r \1'3; ~ --- --~ "" U a~~'l" '" Tailor ShOP+j () A' '~.."' ~ -~~ '/ IY - CS q, (\1'j~~ "'0 "'lda Hair Salon " ltl '" ,~. li., ".Q;-19 \. ~ ~ - - - ~;~t t3' 5l[il Vacant Office 5l (//Si ' W '" 135 100,010 so 50 . FANO ST. .'. S\~ 135 Florist 13 . H 50 ;0 50 50 o (7/tJ1 t'72a1 1'/2i(/ I'/~ "'Z]) 00~) LAND USE & ZONING MAP 500 S. First Avenue CUP 00-017 e /....,AS' '<l l-- N" I! l,l Q') ~ I' 3<t:~\l " 0:: tOa ~~. (I;S~~ a t'~a ;0, -tn' t NORTH 1 Inch = 200 feet . . . @) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. 00-017 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division I. Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kenneth Phung (626) 574-5447 4. Project Location: 500 S. First Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: lim Larkin 500 S. First Avenue Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 447-8148 6. General Plan Designation: Mixed Use 7. Zonlng: C-2 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its Implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.): A Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 3,949 sq.ft. two-story mixed-use crematory facility with the second floor being utilized as an apartment unit for an employee. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: South: Eas,!: West: EI Loco Drive-through; zoned C-2 Offices; zoned C-2 Offices; zoned C-2 Apartments; zoned PR-3 10. Otber public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or 'participation agreement): CEQAFORMS/CHECKLIST Page 1 of4 . . . ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources CulturalResources Geology / Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Noise - Population / Housing Mineral Resources - Recreation - Transportation / Traffic Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (fo be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I [md that the proposed project MA Yhave a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT Ai IMPACT REPORT is required. - 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based oil the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have 'a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARA nON, including revisions,or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~~ Signature ' Kenneth PhWlg Printed Name 12/15/2000 Date CITY OF ARCADIA For CITY IR VPUB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" Page 2 of4 . . . EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific, screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, lesS than significant with mitigatioll, or less than significant "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the'mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect.to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section xvn, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). . 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier,Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adl!cjuately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the ,mitigation measures which were incorporated or relined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference, to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. CITY /R vPUB/2000/313 785 FORM "J" Page3 of 4 . 7) Supporting:Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources,used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in, whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, ifany, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, ifany, to reduce the impact to less than significance. . . CITYIRVPUI;3/2000/313785 FORM "f' Page4 of 4 . . . Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a Slate scenic highway? . c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed crematory facility will be located on an existing commercial site that has a funeral home aod two residences for the funeral parlor's employees. The crematory will be required to comply with local architectural standards and illumination limits and will not result in any ofthe above impacts. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant ' environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Wi\liamson Actc.onlract? CITYIRVPUB/20002000/546265 I Potentially Significanl Impact File No: CUP 00-017 Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x x FORM"]"