Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 02-C0320 0 RESOLUTION NO. 02-C32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. C-2001-09 FOR A CHURCH USE AT 521 NORTH AZUSA AVENUE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on September 12, 2001, on the application of Vincent Margolis (Praise Chapel) with respect to the requested Conditional Use Permit No. C-2001-09. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after carefully considering all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered in the case as presented at the public hearing, denied the conditional use permit request for a church use in an existing commercial building, in the C-2 (Restricted Commercial) zone. WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by Vincent Margolis, appealing the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on October 15, 2001, January 7, 2002, and March 18, 2002 on the application of Vincent Margolis with respect to the requested Conditional Use Permit No. C-2001-09. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1:. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the project has been deemed to be Categorically Exempt and the finding has been made that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 2: That in accordance with Section 88-320 of the Azusa Municipal Code, it is found that the project would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity and would adversely affect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, the City Council hereby denies said Conditional Use Permit based on the following findings: That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan. The Commercial Land Use Goals includes an objective that states, "To preserve the integrity of commercial areas by prohibiting the mixture of incompatible noncommercial uses within these areas." So, while the General Plan does not say churches are prohibited in commercial areas, it does setup a test to determine if they would be considered "compatible." This Conditional Use Permit process provides for the review to test the compatibility of this proposed use. In this regard, because other assembly uses are permitted in the same land use district, it can be concluded that the establishment of a church at this location is not inconsistent with the General Plan. That the nature, condition, and development of the adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the use may adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The uses directly adjacent to the subject property are commercial uses to the south and north, residential and church uses to the west, and residential and commercial uses to the east. The Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 proposed use would be materially detrimental to the uses located to the north and south its demand for parking exceeds the available supply of on-site parking. The shortage of parking may result in church members occupying a substantial amount of parking designated for the adjacent commercial uses. 3. That the site is not of adequate sue and shape to accommodate the use, buildings, yards, fences and walls, parking, landscaping, and other development features proposed. The project site is not adequate in size to accommodate the required parking and landscaping. The proposed use, along with the existing retail use on the property, requires 56 on-site parking spaces (53 standard, 3 handicap). The proposal is to restripe the parking lot at the rear of the property to create 10 on-site spaces (8 standard, 2 handicap). The project, therefore, would be deficient by 46 spaces. If the project site was located within 400 feet of a public parking lot, it could utilize the public parking lot to provide the additional required 46 spaces (assuming that there are 46 parking spaces available). However, since the project site is located approximately 450 feet from the nearest public parking lot (Heritage Court), it cannot use the public parking lot to provide the remaining required spaces. Moreover, the development standards of the C-2 zone requires all setback areas to be landscaped. The project fails to meet this requirement because the 15 foot rear yard setback would not be landscaped (the front yard and side yard setbacks cannot be landscaped because they have an existing zero -ft setback). Nonetheless, if it was landscaped, it would eliminate 4 on-site parking spaces, which would have an added negative impact to the already problematic parking situation on the project site. 4. That the proposed conditional use does not comply with all of the applicable development standards of the zone district. The proposal meets all of the applicable standards of the C-2 zone in which it is located in, with the exception of the required parking and landscaping. Staff has analyzed each development standard and prepared a Zoning Conformance Table to show compliance or noncompliance. 5. That the site is adequately served by highways or streets of suflicient width and improved as necessary to accommodate the type of traffic associated with the proposed use. The project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on traffic or circulation. The project would be served by Azusa Avenue and by a 20 foot wide alley at the rear of the lot. 6. That the proposed conditional use does not observe the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed conditional use does not observe the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because it fails to meet two development standards of the C-2 zone. SECTION 3: Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. C-2001-09, for the property located at 521 North Azusa Avenue. SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 18th day of March , 2002. CHRISTINA CRUZ -MADRID, MAYOR 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 18th day of March 2002 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA,CHAGNON,MADRID NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,, R, C' CITY CLERK 6.1CITY ATTORNEY