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"]"