Loading...
CC - Conditional Use PErmit 96-678; Appeal Church with Off-Site Parking 2518 & 2530 N. San Gabriel - Internal File 046 7 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-678; APPEAL Church with Off-Site Parking 2518 & 2530 N. San Gabriel Boulevard Conditional Use Permit 96-678, allowing construction and operation of a church with some of the off-street parking located on a separate lot was approved by the Planning Commission on August 51 1996. The staff report(s) and minutes are attached for your review. On August 13, 1996, the City Clerk received a written appeal of the decision from the Law Offices of David L. Brault, who is representing Mr. Joseph Barclay who owns the neighboring property. A copy of the appeal letter is attached for the City Council to review. There are three issues that the appeal raises regarding this decision. These issues and an analysis from staff is outlined as follows: ISSUE 1: The appellant contests that they did not receive proper notification of the public 'k hearing. They note that Mr. Joseph Barclay is the proper owner to receive notice and that they were informed that Sanwa Bank owned the property. They find that the lack of notice deprived them the ability to protest and raise their other issues. i ANALYSIS 1: The notices were prepared by Mr. Engles Shen as shown on the Affidavit attached. A copy of the mailing label list shows that a notice was sent to Mr. Barclay at his mailing address in Modesto. This address is confirmed with the City's TRW ownership database and the property profile provided by Mr. Barclay's attorney (attached). The public hearing notice states that challenges are limited to issues raised at the hearing or through written correspondence delivered prior to the hearing. No issues were raised by Mr. Barclay until after the hearing process was completed. Staff finds that the ownership information is correct, the appellant was duly notified, and they did not participate in the hearing process. Therefore, they should not have any grounds to file an appeal. COUNCIL AGENDA SEP.19199f ITEM No. B Conditional Use Permit 96-678; Appeal City Council, 9-10-96 Page 2 of 3 ISSUE 2: One of the objections is that the use of a church at this location would diminish the appellants property value. As such, they contest that this action would constitute a taking without compensation. They assume that the church would limit who would and would not want to buy their property. ANALYSIS 2: First of all, this is a point that should have been raised during the public hearing before the Planning Commission. The appellant neither attended the meeting, nor submitted a written objection. Each business always has the opportunity to decide where they want to locate. Second of all this appears to be an economics issue rather than a land use issue. A conditional use permit is a land use entitlement that is not tied to economic conditions. The site would be developed in accordance with the development standards, so no variances are included. In fact, the current church operation has enough parking on-site to support the occupancy limits placed in the conditions of approval. The off-site parking is not required at this time. A new development of any kind at this location would clean up unpermitted, run down buildings and property (created by the construction company) that would most likely increase the property value. However, since the properties are being purchased through a foreclosure, the comparable values are going to be lower for whatever use moves in. In addition, churches are typically good neighbors that maintain their properties which is why they are allowed in any zoning district. Also, the parking lot to the north would not appear to be part of the church development, and could be a valuable asset for any new business at this location. ISSUE 3: Mr. Barclay is concerned that a church is an incompatible use next to his construction company. He feels that the church may object to their operation and file complaints against them. He also feels that the church location creates a liability for his business. ANALYSIS 3: This also is an issue that should have been raised at the Planning Commission level. To start with, churches are allowed uses in any zone upon granting a conditional use permit. This is done because these uses are compatible with all other uses. Also, the church has made a conscious decision to locate next to this established business. They would have a hard time justifying any nuisance claims regarding the operation. They are aware that they are in the M-1 zone which means that any light industrial manufacturing use could locate next door at any time. Any noise or other impacts, that are within the levels allowed under the City Codes, are something the church has to accept. Pedestrians will not be allowed to walk between the properties because the CUP requires that the church construct a fence to separate the uses. No gates would be allowed through these fences. The construction company has its own access to operate its business. The only potential "conflict" Conditional Use Permit 96-678; Appeal City Council, 9-10-96 Page 3 of 3 point is at the driveway access which holds true for any pedestrian walking down the street. As noted in analysis 2, the off-site parking is not currently needed for the church operation. They have enough parking on-site for the occupancy of about 60 people. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the issues raised are unwarranted and untimely. The appellant was duly notified and they did not participate in the process. Comments regarding this project should have been presented to the Planning Commission first. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision to approve Conditional Use Permit 96-678 and deny the appeal request. Attachments: 1. Appeal Letter (dated 8-13-96) 2. Planning Commission Staff Reports (dated 7-15 and 8-5-96) 3. Planning Commission Minutes (dated 7-15 and 8-5-96) 4. Planning Commission Resolution 96-42 5. Copy of Mailing Labels used for public notices 6. Assessor Parcel Map Book 5283, Page 013, parcels 018, 019, and 020 7. TRW REDI Property Data profiles for 2518, 2524, & 2530 San Gabriel Boulevard