Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 8608RESOLUTION NO. 8608 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE SUBMITTED BY TRIAD PARTNERS, INC., FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 902 NORTH AZUSA AVENUE (VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. V-88-25 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. C-88-36). 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) There has been filed with the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa applications of Triad Partners, Inc. by James W. Sharp, ("Applicant") requesting permission to construct a three tenant mini -mall with reduced parking ("the project") on the property located at 902 North Azusa Avenue, and legally described as: Lots 22, 23, and 24 in Block 13, Map of Azusa, ("Subject Property"). (b) The applications for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance were duly noticed and notice of public hearings thereon were duly given and published in accordance with the applicable law. (c) A Public hearing thereon was duly held by the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa on January 25, 1989. However, at that time the Applicant changed his project plans for the subject property from a two tenant building to a three tenant mini -mall and so the hearing on the applications was continued to February 8, 1989 to give the Planning Commission and Staff additional time to review the changed plan. (d) A Public Hearing thereon was duly held by the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa on February 8, 1989. At that hearing the Planning Commission denied the applications by resolutions numbered 2650 & 2651 on the grounds that the proposed project would cause adverse effects upon the neighboring property owners. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that the project plans were insufficient in that: (1) The required loading space was located directly behind a parking space in such a manner that if trucks unload from the loading space, then a passenger car in the parking space in front would be blocked. 0 0 (2) Approximately 454 square feet of interior landscaping has been removed, leaving the parking area essentially devoid of interior landscaping. Said removal also reduced portions of the perimeter landscaping below the three foot minimum required. (3) Separation of traffic was impaired in the proposed plan. The layout of parking spaces was awkwardly designed and would cause vehicular circulation problems encouraging vehicles to cut across spaces in order to reach a parking spot. (e) Thereafter, the applicant duly filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk within the time required by law for such appeal to the City Council. (f) The hearing on the appeal by applicant was duly noticed and the hearing was conducted on April 3, 1989. The City Council considered all of the information presented to the City at the public hearings held on January 25, February 8, and April 3, 1989, including, but not limited to written reports of the City staff, testimony of various witnesses, and documentary evidence submitted by the appellant. The Council specifically received into the Administrative Record such material as well as the photographs submitted by the appellant and the Building Department, Planning Department and Finance Department files pertaining to the subject property. (g) The public necessity, convenience, welfare and good zoning practices justify the denial of the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance because: (1) The subject property does not have an irregular parcel shape. Also, since the parcel will be cleared of all existing buildings prior to the construction of the proposed mini -mall, a reduction in building area or some other redesign of the project is not inhibited by the physical characteristics of the property. Therefore, no exceptional circumstances exist which differentiate this subject property from other similar commercial properties. (2) The granting of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance would adversely impact the neighboring properties, in that if granted, the Conditional Use Permit and Variance would result in a reduced level of parking. -2- JFR/RES1018 0 (3) The approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance would be tantamount to granting a special favor to this particular applicant who has not been able to demonstrate any special circumstances requiring special consideration. The granting of approval in this instance would be the same as bestowing upon the applicant a special favor to pursue commercial opportunities while burdening neighboring property owners. In addition, this Project is contrary to the objectives of the land use element of the Azusa General Plan for orderly commercial development. (4) The project contemplated was previously approved when it was presented as a two -tenant commercial building. The addition of a third tenant commercial area has resulted in the inability of the applicant to provide adequate parking. Since the two -tenant commercial building was previously approved by the Planning Commission of the City, it is clear that the problems which exist may be the results of poor planning and over designing of the space by the applicant. SECTION 2. Based upon the findings set forth above, the City Council of the City of Azusa hereby denies the appeal filed by Applicant and thus denies the request for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance which would have allowed the applicant to build the project on the subject property. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and shall mail by first-class, prepaid United States mail, a certified copy of this Resolution to the Appellant and Applicant to such addresses as are shown on the applications and appeal. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April , 1989 . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY `CLERK -3- JFR/RES1018 0 0 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 17th day of April 1989 , by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS AVILA, STEMRICH, NARANJO, LATTA, MOSES NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS NONE -4- JFR/RES1018