Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27 - Denying CUP ZA-02-75RESOLUTION NO. 03-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ZA-02-75 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by John Casoria, authorized agent for Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana Inc., with respect to the real property located. at 3150 Bear Street, requesting approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow religious related activities and television programming outside of the building; and WHEREAS, The Zoning Administrator forwarded the application to Planning Commission for public hearing; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2003, and continued to March 24, 2003; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission continued ZA-02-75 for 9 months; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission action on ZA-02-75 was appealed to City Council; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 21, 2003. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", the City Council hereby Denies Minor Design Review ZA-02- 75 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of April, 2003. ATTEST: Depu City Clerk of the City of Cost Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) Mayor of the City o Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: City A torney I, JULIE FOLCIK, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 03-27 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21St day of April, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Steel, Cowan, Monahan, Mansoor NOES: None ABSENT: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 22nd day of April, 2003. eCity Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of t City Council of the City of Costa Mesa EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS A. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing before the City Council, the City Council finds that the proposed use does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: 1. The use is not compatible and harmonious with uses that exist in the general neighborhood. Residents living adjacent to the subject property testified about existing adverse impacts on the both the adjacent neighborhood and individual homeowners who lived directly on the border of the subject property. Because these activities occur in the evening hours (approximately 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) the noise, lighting, traffic and parking impacts are disruptive to adjacent residential properties and the outdoor uses proposed would increase the intensity of the already existing adverse affects. In particular, testimony was presented that residents adjacent to the property could hear the outdoor performances, which often included amplified music, within the confines of .their homes, even with all their windows and doors closed. In addition, there was testimony regarding the noise of traffic in the parking lot created by doors slamming and honking of horns from the many vehicles leaving the parking lot upon conclusion of the performances. The noise from both the parking lot and the performances would often waken sleeping residents, including young children. Testimony was also presented from the neighbors regarding the intrusion of bright lights from both the decorative light display and from the lights used for outdoor filming. 2. . Although the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the City Council specifically finds that the proposed use is inconsistent with General Plan Objective LU -1F.1 in that the proposed use harms the "existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities" for the above stated reasons. 3. The cumulative effects of all planning applications (existing conditional use permits and minor conditional use permit) have been considered and a determination made that the testimony presented indicates that approval of any additional outdoor uses would create an unreasonable incompatibility with the adjacent residential use. B. Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing before the City Council, the proposed use does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: - 1. For the reasons stated above in paragraph A, the proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area because of the close proximity to single family residences. 2. For the reasons stated above in paragraph A, granting the minor conditional use permit will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. Specifically, testimony as discussed herein above, was presented by adjacent residential property owners about the adverse affects of past outdoor activity (live tapings and 'broadcasts), which activities are the subject of the current application for a conditional use permit. Because these activities occur in .the evening hours (approximately 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) the noise and lighting impacts are disruptive to adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, no testimony was presented as to why the activities the applicant requested be allowed to be conducted outdoors had to be conducted outdoors other than the applicant desired to use the outdoor setting as an alternative backdrop for the filming activity. It is specifically found that, sufficient alternatives exist to eliminate the adverse impacts of the requested outdoor activities, such as conducting all activities entirely within the existing building. C. The City Council finds that denial of the application would not substantially burden the applicant's. exercise of religion.* Specifically, the Council finds that the applicant has failed'to prove that the proposed outdoor activities cannot be conducted entirely within the existing building and therefore sufficient alternatives exist.