Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - CUP DEVELOMENT ZONED CC-PD (2)AGENDA REPORT / City Manager Approval.: iVJ Item to be presentedby: `1J`"v� Rich Henderson ` 0— CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 14, 1995 SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 54,343 SQUARE FOOT SITE WITH A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 28368 SAND CANYON ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE ARCO GAS STATION, AND IS ZONED CC -PD (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), PROJECT APPLICANT: IN -N -OUT BURGERS, PROJECT APPELLANT: JAN HEIDT DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On October 18, 1994, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P94-18, approving Master Case No. 94-072 (Conditional Use Permit 94-003) to allow for the construction of an In -N -Out restaurant at 28368 Sand Canyon Road. The Planning Commission approved the project by a vote of 5-0. Conditions of approval required the applicant to modify existing striping along Sand Canyon Road to allow for the extension of a two-way left -turn lane and pay applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees (approximately $40,000). The project was subsequently appealed to the City Council. The item was last heard by the Council on December 13 1994, At this meeting, the Council directed staff to analyze the traffic situation in the project area (from the project site to SR 14) and provide additional mitigation to improve traffic flow and safety.. This item was scheduled for the January 24, 1995 Council meeting. Council, however, reopened the public hearing for this project and continued the item to the February 14 meeting to discuss and review additional information received by the Council. TRAFFIC GENERATION The applicant prepared a traffic study in conjunction with the project. The study was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Section. The project is expected to create 105 PM peak hour and 175 NOON peak hour vehicle trips, which are less than the office building previously approved for the site. The project would not generate AM peak hour trips, as the restaurant would be closed. Overall, the subject project would generate more average daily vehicle trips than the office building. APPROVED Agenda Item:„ CUP FOR IN -N -OUT BURGER February 14, 1995 - Page 2 ACCIDENTS It should be mentioned that the petition circulated cites a figure of 20 accidents in 1993 between Soledad Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road. City staffs original review of the State's computerized accident record system showed a total of nine accidents in 1993. However, a more detailed review of the original accident reports filed by the Sheriffs Department revealed that some accidents were either mis-coded in the computer or had occurred at other intersections away from the subject roadway segment. According to the verified accident reports, only two accidents in 1993, and four accidents in 1994 occurred mid - block between Soledad Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, there was only one accident reported in 1993 and one in 1994. ANALYSIS Staff does concur there is an existing traffic concern which is related to the presence of numerous driveways on that section of Sand Canyon Road. This situation is existing and would not created by the addition of the In -N -Out restaurant. On January 5, 1995, staff met with the applicant, their traffic consultants, and the, property owner. The meeting was conducted in an effort to address the traffic issues cited by the Council at the last hearing. The meeting resulted in both sides agreeing upon a mitigation plan. Staff has included a copy of this plan within the Council packet. City Traffic Engineering staff will present.the proposed plan in more detail to the Council at the meeting of February 14. The proposed improvement plan does include the posting of parking prohibitions along the east side of Sand Canyon Road, which will affect adjacent properties. It is anticipated that three or four on -street parking spaces will be eliminated, and the affected property owners have been notified. The removal of on -street parking will enhance the motorists' sight distance when exiting the driveways to access Sand Canyon Road. In summary, the mitigation plan would enhance traffic flow and improve the traffic safety in the immediate area. Regardless of the existence of the In -N -Out restaurant, the proposed improvements are deemedbeneficial and could be undertaken by the City to improve the traffic flow operations on this stretch of Sand Canyon Road. Staff believes that short of widening the Sand Canyon Road bridge over SR 14, this plan is the most feasible and best alternative to improve the area's circulation. The applicant has agreed to bear all of the costs associated with the proposed mitigation plan. These costs would be in addition to standard road improvement fees such as Bridge and Thoroughfare fees. By committing to do this, the applicant is exceeding the project's "fair share" for improving circulation in the immediate area and would be providing "a benefit to all of the motorists who travel this portion of Sand: Canyon Road. CUP FOR IN -N -OUT BURGER February 14, 1995 - Page 3 According to the latest information from Caltrans, the State Route 14 widening from Sand Canyon Road to Escondido Canyon Road is scheduled to be awarded in April 1996, and the construction is expected to be completed by December 1997. The project is funded and was approved by the California Transportation Commission at its January 1995 meeting. This project includes the replacing of the existing Sand Canyon Road bridge over SR 14 with a full width bridge (a minimum of four travel lanes). CORRESPONDENCE Staff has received a total of 1,550 letters in support of the project. A majority of these letters have been submitted after the last Council hearing. A petition in opposition, containing approximately 230 signatures, has also been submitted. The Sand Canyon Homeowners' Association has also reviewed the proposal and is in opposition to the development. Staff recommends that the Council: 1) Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Master Case No. 94-072, subject to the addition of the mitigation plan to the conditions of approval; and 2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution and conditions of approval for the Council's consideration at the February 28, 1995 Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Mitigation Plan December 13, 1994, Council Agenda Report Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions Planning Commission Minutes GEA:BJ:Ikl counci1\ar94092.bj CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPEAL OF MASTER CASE 94-072 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-003) LOCATED AT 28368 SAND CANYON ROAD, SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A 1.25 ACRE SITE WITH A 2,790 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT (IN -N -OUT BURGER). THE APPELLANT IS JANICE H. HEIDT. PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: Regarding an appeal of Master Case 94-072 (Conditional Use Permit 94-003) located AT 28368 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California. The applicant is proposing to develop a 1.25 acre site with a 2,790 square foot fast food restaurant (In -N -Out Burger). The project includes a total of 50 parking spaces, with approximately 37% of the site being landscaped. The maximum height of the building is 26'. The project site is located on Sand Canyon Road, adjacent to and directly south of an existing ARCO gas station. The appellant is Janice H. Heidt. The continued public hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 14th day of February, 1995, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, California. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: January 27, 1995 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk Publish Dated: February 4, 1995 =es.ph=out.gmd Public Hearing Procedure 1. Mayor opens hearing *States purpose of hearing 2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice 3. Staff report 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent) *Proponent 7. Mayor closes public testimony S. Discussion by Council 9. Council decision 10. Mayor announces decision JAN -1.E:-55 WED 12:02 PM VALENCIA. TELErENTEP.. 805 294 �;1 ;e, . F'.02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND MOU31N0 AGENCY PETE WUSON. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 50. cPRWO Sr: - LO: ANGELES. CAL 100012-2006 TDD !2131897-0498 (213)897-0362 January 13, 1995 Hon William J 'Pete" Knight California State Assembly 36th District 257099 Rye Canyon Road Ste 105 Santa Clarita CAL 91355 Attn: Mr Cameron Smyth Dear Assembly Member Knight: This letter is written to provide you with information requested by Mr Smyth of your staff regarding the status of the proposed widening of the Sand Canyon bridge overcrossing the Antelope Valley (SR 14) Freeway. The current schedule for this project is as follows: PS & E (Plans, Specifications, & Estimates) complete by 6/30/95 Advertise by 1/96 Award contract by 4/96 Construction completed by 12/97 I expect that this will be approved by the California Transportation Commission at the January 1995 meeting, Should additional information be required, please telephone me at the number shown above. Sincerely, O?aHllinDistrict Director AGENDA REPORT City Manager AA, to be pre ented by: AA Henderson PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 13, 1994 SUBJECT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the development of a 54,343 square foot site with a fast food restaurant. The project site is located at 28368 Sand Canyon Road, adjacent to the ARCO gas station, and is zoned CC -PD (Community Commercial - Planned Development). Project Applicant: In - N -Out Burgers. Project Appellant: Jan Heidt DEPARTMENT: Community Development The City Council previously approved Plot Plan 89-146, allowing for a 28,000 square foot office building on the subject property (Ungar Office Building). Recently, the Director of Community Development granted a nine month extension to this approval, which now expires on September 3, 1995. If approval of the In -N -Out Burger restaurant is granted, it is assumed that the property owner would abandon the plans for the office building. On October 18, 1994, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P94-18, approving Master Case 94-072 (Conditional Use Permit 94-003). The proposed facility would include a 2,790 square foot, one-story building that would contain seating for 71 persons. Proposed access to the site is one driveway off of Sand Canyon Road. The applicant is proposing to construct 49 parking spaces in conjunction with the development. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a 100 foot tall freeway oriented sign. The height of the proposed sign is consistent with surrounding freeway signs. The applicant has prepared a traffic study in conjunction with the project. The traffic study has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Section. The project is expected to create 95 PM peak hour vehicle trips. This number is slightly less than what the approved office building would generate. The In -N -Out would not generate any AM peak hour trips as it would not be open. Overall, the subject project would generate more average daily vehicle trips than the office building (1,840 versus 789). Continued To: 1-j v -95— Agenda item:_ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The project was heard by the Planning Commission on October 18, 1994. At this meeting a total of seven persons spoke in favor of the project while a total of eight persons spoke in opposition to the development. Issues cited by the Commission with the project were related to traffic and aesthetics. In summary, the Commission believed that the traffic impacts generated by this use would be less than other commercial uses that could be approved for the site. This was based upon the project's AM and PM peak hour trip generation compared to those of the approved office building. The site is located on a bluff above the Santa Clara River and is visible to residential properties to the south and east located on Lost Canyon Road. The Commission believed that the aesthetic impacts generated by the development would be far less than those generated by a two or three story office building. The proposed In -N -Out restaurant would total 2,900 square feet, whereas the approved office building totaled approximately 28,000 square feet. Conditions of approval also required the applicant to provide a landscape berm, planted with mature landscaping and shrubs, along the project's southeast boundary. After receiving public testimony and deliberating, the Commission conditionally approved the project by a vote of 5-0 with the following modifications: 1) That, if feasible, the two mature trees located on-site be included within the site landscaping. 2) That a landscape berm be constructed along the parking area adjacent to Sand Canyon Road. 3) That signage be posted at the entrance restricting truck trailers from entering the site. 4) That, at the discretion of the City's Traffic Engineer, a raised median be installed on Sand Canyon Road adjacent to the project's frontage. If this cannot be accomplished the applicant shall be required to modify existing striping to allow for the extension of the two way left turn lane approximately 75' south of the edge of the project's driveway to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer. 5) That, at the discretion of the City's Traffic Engineer and CALTRANS, the applicant may be required to post signage restricting vehicles over a certain weight from exiting at the Sand Canyon off -ramps.. A petition in opposition, containing 230 signatures, was submitted to the Planning Commission. The Sand Canyon Homeowners Association also commented on the project. Their comments are included within the Council's packet. Staff also received a total of 72 letters in favor of the project. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve Master Case 94-072; and, 2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the Council's consideration at the January 10, 1994, Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Staff Reports Correspondence and Petitions GAC:RAH:GEA =axil\aN4072.va RESOLUTION NO. P94-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING Conditional Use Permit 94-003 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,790 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ON A 54,343 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28368 SAND CANYON ROAD IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE (MASTER CASE NO. 92-088) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 93-145 was filed by In -N -Out Burgers (the "applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on June 21, 1994. The application for a Conditional Use Permit was filed to allow for a 2,790 square foot fast food restaurant with a drive through window and 50 parking spaces and seating for 71 patrons. The property for which this entitlement has been filed is located at 28368 Sand Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Number 2840-008-031). The project site is zoned Community Commercial -Planned Development: b. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project which determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. c, A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. d. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the applicant with draft Conditions of Approval. e. The site contains a vacant house which is in a state of disrepair. f. The project proposes the extension of water and sewer service to the project site. g. The project site is zoned CC -PD (Community Commercial Planned Development). The CC -PD zone typically corresponds to the commercial and retail activities with the inclusion of a Conditional Use Permit. h. The project proposes access via Sand Canyon Road. The applicant is requesting a 100 foot tall freeway oriented pylon sign. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 18, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows: a. At the hearings conducted on the project, the Planning Commission considered the staff reports prepared for the project and received testimony on the proposal. b. The project complies with the City's Unified Development Code with inclusion of an approved Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit provides the Planning Commission with the authority to approve a commercial development on the site. C. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan designation for the site is Community Commercial (CC) and the zoning category for the site is Community Commercial -Planned Development (CC -PD) The CC -PD zone allows for a maximum floor area ratio of .375 to 1. The project's floor area ratio is .051 to 1. d. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. The identified mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: a. This project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. b. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, consistent with the City's General Plan, and complies with the standards of the CC -PD zone with the inclusion of a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approving a Conditional Use Permit. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby approves Master Case 94-072 (Conditional Use Permit 94-003) subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. This approval allows for the construction of a 2,790 square foot restaurant with a drive through window and a 100 foot tall freeway oriented sign. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 1994. ) . f Pat Modugno, C an Plapning Commission ATTEST: _ � • Y�' u-4i�cA� _ L�6w M. Harris Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarity at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of October, 1994 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Modugno, Townley, Brathwaite, Cherrington and Doughman NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ity Clerk rtigcomV au.m CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MASTER CASE NO. 94-072 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-003 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The approval of this project shall expire if not put into use within two years from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code. 2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City. defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. 5. At any point in the development process, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at which time the City shall be notified. 6. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot at this time, the owner, at the time of issuance of a building permit, agrees to develop the property in conformance with the City Code and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Oak Tree Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, Department of Oil and Gas, South Coast Quality Air Management District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, and Fire Code. Improvements and other requirements may be imposed pursuant to such codes and ordinances. MASTER CASE NUMBER 94-072 RESOLUTION P94-18 PAGE 2 The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. 8. The Sanitation Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the Sanitation Districts' Sewerage System. A connection fee is required in order that necessary expansions to the Sewerage System can be constructed to accommodate new development. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. FIRE DEPARTMENT 9. Provide and indicate on site plan, Fire Department access or vehicular turn -around in accordance with specifications below: a. Provide a minimum, unobstructed width of 26 feet clear to sky, vehicular access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls. b. Post 'No Parking - Fire Lane" signs along vehicular access roads. 10. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 2,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. This shall include the possible installation of one public hydrant and the possible upgrade of one additional hydrant to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 11. All hydrants shall measure 6"x 4" x 2 1/2", brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA Standard C503, or approved equal. Hydrants shall be installed per specifications of the Los Angeles County Water Ordinance No. 7834 (Title 20) (Utility Manual, Section 4.0 to 4.6.) 12. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. 13. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction 14. Show all existing fine hydrant(s) within 300 feet of all property lines (On -Site Plan: Call out hydrant size and dimension to property lines). NOTE: Additional fire hydrant requirements may be made after this information is supplied. 15. Complete and return the "Water Availability" form. MASTER CASE NUMBER 94-072 RESOLUTION P94-18 PAGE 3 ENGINEERING 16. The applicant shall place above -ground utilities, outside sidewalks, or provide a minimum of four feet clear path of travel along sidewalks. 17. The applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, may guarantee installation of improvements as determined by the City Engineer through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. 18. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on streets within or abutting the project, and shall replace driveways to be abandoned with standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 19. The applicant shall construct a slough wall outside the street right-of-way when the height of slope is greater than five feet above the sidewalk. 20. The applicant shall construct the following required road improvements: Street R\W Curb & Base & Street Street 8 Foot Name Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk Sand Cyn. Rd. 110 Ft. X X X X X 21. Applicant shall install separate house laterals to serve each building in the project. Installation and dedication of main line sewers may be necessary to meet this requirement. Applicable sewer connection fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. 22. The applicant's grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report which must be specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the approved plot plan and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission. 23. The applicant shall submit grading and drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with Engineering requirements. These must be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 24. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District Fee to implement the highway element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is in the East West Bridge and Thoroughfare District. MASTER CASE NUMBER 94-072 RESOLUTION P94-18 PAGE 4 25. Driveways shall be constructed using the City of Santa Clarita alley intersection design #101-0 type C. The applicant shall obtain approval from the traffic engineer for the location of all driveways. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 26. The applicant shall install "No Parking" signs along the project's frontage to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 27. The applicant shall modify the site to allow for an increased backup area on the southern parking area to allow for a five foot distance. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 28. The applicant shall provide street trees to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant shall use trees from the City's approved Master Street Tree List, which can be obtained from the City Arborist. The irrigation and maintenance of these trees shall be per Ordinance 90-15. 29. The applicant shall provide final landscape and irrigation plans for review and to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. Drought resistant plants and water efficient irrigation systems shall be utilized in the design. 30. The applicant shall provide bike racks and an area for said racks to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 31. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit final architectural elevations and a materials board to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The elevations shall be in substantial conformance with those approved by the Planning Commission. 32. Prior to the demolition of the existing structures, the applicant shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building and Safety Division. This permit shall also address asbestos removal, if necessary. 33. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. All project lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential uses. 34. The applicant shall pay the appropriate school fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 35. The applicant shall comply with all Building and Safety, and Engineering Division MASTER CASE NUMBER 94-072 RESOLUTION P94-18 PAGE 5 requirements. 36.The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved Conditional Use Permit. 37. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of 30 days. 38. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property involved have filed, with the Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. 39. The applicant is given permission to install one 100 foot tall pylon sign containing 199 square feet in sign area. All other signage shall conform to the City sign requirements. 40. The applicant shall provide screening along the southeastern portion of the property (adjacent to the Santa Clara River) to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. This screening shall include mature landscaping, a natural berm, and shrubs. PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS 41. The applicant shall submit a report analyzing the feasibility of relocating the two mature trees located on-site. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. If the Director determines that relocation is feasible, the applicant shall be required to relocate the trees to a location on-site. 42. The applicant shall construct a landscaped berm, between 30 and 42 inches in height, along the parking area adjacent to Sand Canyon Road. 43. The applicant shall post signage at the project's entrance, prohibiting truck trailers from entering the site. This requirement shall exclude In -N -Out delivery trucks. 44. At the discretion of the City's Traffic Engineer, the applicant may be required to install a raised median on Sand Canyon Road adjacent to the project's frontage to mitigate traffic conflicts caused by the development. If this cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall modify the existing striping along Sand Canyon Road to allow for the extension of the two way left turn lane approximately 75 feet south of the edge of the project's driveway to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer. MASTER CASE NUMBER 94-072 RESOLUTION P94-18 PAGE 6 45. At the discretion of the City's Traffic Engineer and CALTRANS, the applicant may be required to post signage restricting vehicles over a certain weight from exiting at the Sand Canyon off - ramps. FLF curknt\m�40M.nf PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 2: MASTER CASE 94-072 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-003) Rich Henderson introduced the item, a conditional use permit request to allow for the development of a fast food restaurant in a Community Commercial Planned Development zone. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II, gave the presentation. The conditional use permit request would allow an In -N -Out Burger drive-thru restaurant on the 1.25 acre site and a 100 foot high free-standing freeway orientated sign. Since the packet was sent out staff has received a total of 72 letters in favor of the project. A slide presentation was given. Mr. Adamick stated the restaurant would be almost 2,800 square feet, one-story and 26 feet tall. It would contain seating for 71 persons. Grading would not necessitate the altering of the river which lies adjacent to the project site. Staff is recommending that if approved, the Commission require the applicant plant increased landscaping to reduce visibility of the site from the single family homes on Lost Canyon Road. A traffic study was required by Cal Trans since the project is adjacent to State Route 14 and may impact the on and off ramps. They did not require any specific traffic improvements. The City's Traffic Engineering Division is recommending the applicant be required to provide roadway striping to allow for a two-way left turn lane and also provide signage along the project's frontage prohibiting any street parking. The applicant is providing 50 parking spaces in conjunction with the project. Staff is recommending the Commission require the applicant to redesign the plan to provide a minimum of two recreational vehicle spaces. Commissioner Brathwaite asked what distance the project was from the freeway, Mr. Adamick stated it was approximately 500 to 600 feet from the freeway. Commissioner Doughman had a question about big rig parking. Mr. Adamick said the City did not have a code requirement for parking spaces for a big rig truck. He said it would be difficult for a big truck to get on and off the site. Commissioner Doughman asked if there would be a sign at the entrance indicating restrictions on vehicles over a certain weight. Mr. Adamick said the applicant could be conditioned to have such a sign. Chairman Modugno asked if there would be any street parking. Mr. Adamick said there may be parking along the Arco station on Sand Canyon. Commissioner Cherrington asked the location of the freeway sign. Mr. Adamick stated it would be on the northeast corner. Commissioner Cherrington also asked if it would be possible for the grading to stop short of the property line to allow a natural berm. Mr. Adamick believed that it was a possibility. Chairman Modugno opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Those speaking were: Ramund Villanueva, 4199 Campus Drive, Suite 9000, Irvine, the applicant. He stated he is the manager of development for In -N -Out Burger. He commended City staff for working with his organization. Mr. Villanueva said the meetings with homeowners had been very beneficial. He stated the number one concern of the residents was traffic. There will only be one single driveway instead of two thereby allowing a long left turn stacking on Sand Canyon prior to turning left onto the site. This will accommodate 15 to 20 cars, maybe more. The drive-thru stacking has been designed so that it is farthest away from the entrance driveway. The drive-thru stacking can accommodate the most number of cars thereby avoiding any blockage of the main driveway. There will be circular access to the site. In -N - Out does not open until 10:00 a.m. so it would not impact morning traffic. The peak hour business has always been the lunch hour. The evening peak is from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. In -N -Out has been in business for 45 years. It is a solid and stable company and they do not sell any liquor. He stated In -N -Out would like to be our "good neighbor" and they would be glad to accept all conditions of approval prepared by staff, including the weight limitation signs. Steve Sasaki, 680 Langsdorf Drive, Suite 222, Fullerton, the traffic engineer for the applicant. The traffic study was done in conjunction with City staff. Four intersections were looked at and one intersection of concern was State Route 14 eastbound ramps at Sand Canyon. His findings were the impacts of the In -N -Out Burger were relatively minor in relationship to other area projects and growth, Commissioner Doughman asked if the proposed golf course and the arcade were one of the other developments mentioned in the traffic study. Mr. Sasaki said approved projects are looked at and then the growth rate is incorporated to include other projects that may be approved in the future, The future projects are not specifically identified. Commissioner Townsley asked if the Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon intersection had been looked at as well. Mr. Sasaki said yes. He found level of service C operations during the existing condition. It raises to level of service D when the future conditions without the project are considered and remains at level of service D with the addition of the proposed project. Commissioner Brathwaite asked if the left turn lane in the middle of Sand Canyon would be striped or part of a median. Mr. Sasaki said it was his understanding that it would just be striping. Maurice Ungar, P. 0. Box 1755, Canyon Country. Mr. Ungar gathered the letters in favor of this project. He is the co-owner of the property. He attended the homeowners' meeting mentioned in a letter from Dennis Ostrom. He said although there were some people against the project, quite a few people voted for it and some did not vote at all. He said some of the signatures on the petition were from people out of the area. Randall D. Pfiester, 29701 Wisteria Valley Road, Canyon Country. He would like to see this project approved. He feels it will generate construction jobs. John Lukes, 19803 Larbert Street, Canyon Country, He feels this project will blend in with other stores in the area and be a benefit to the people of the community. Vera Johnson, 26534 Oak Crossing Road, Newhall. She is in favor of In -N -Out Burger. She stated that Jack Shine in cooperation with other developers will be building another bridge across the river north of Sand Canyon Road which should help mitigate future traffic. Christine Jennis, 17952 River Circle, #2, Canyon Country. She read a letter written by Mr. & Mrs. Dunn and signed by Mr. & Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Jennis and her husband. They are in favor of the project. 2 Fred Heiser, 90311 Delight, Santa Clarita. Mr. Heiser said this particular project blends in well with the existing uses. He said this project will generate revenue for the City and provide a good fast food option for local residents. The existing building on the site is an eyesore. Kerry Seidenglanz, 26132 Millstream Drive, Santa Clarita. He supports this project, He has been a resident of Sand Canyon for 13 years. The property is an eyesore and hazard in its present state. The location is excellent. There is no fast food restaurant in that end of the valley. The closest is at Whites Canyon. It will provide revenue and jobs for the City. Susan Ostrom, 16430 Sultus Street, Canyon Country. She is speaking on behalf of her husband, Dennis Ostrom, president of the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association. She stated two meetings were held. The first was June 2 and many spoke against the project. A committee was formed to study the proposed use of the property. The second meeting took place on October 11. The committee had an opportunity to voice their findings. There was a vote by show of hands and the majority was against this project. The primary reason for concern was the traffic impact on Sand Canyon. Chairman Modugno asked Mrs. Ostrom if the changes by In -N -Out were presented to the Association before the vote on October 11 was taken. Mrs. Ostrom said yes. Chairman Modugno then asked if these changes would change her mind as to how this project would be viewed. Mrs. Ostrom said she sees great impact to Sand Canyon. Dotty Patrick, 15660 Iron Canyon Road, Canyon Country. She has been a resident for 6 1/2 years. She is concerned about the traffic. Before any approval is given she would like to have the traffic issue looked at in depth. Charmaine Posten, 16442 Lost Canyon Road, Canyon Country. She said it is hard to oppose In -N -Out Burger because they are nice people. The people who signed the petition against the project who do not live in the area are people that work in the area. There are only two ways out of Sand Canyon. Traffic is tough. She gave some figures for accidents occurring on Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon. Rosa Matsusaka, "16452 Lost Canyon Road, Canyon Country. The In -N -Out Burger affects her directly. It is in front of her house. It is hard for her to leave her home during certain hours because of traffic. The In -N -Out Burger will make it harder for her to leave her home. Penny Upton, 28154 LaVeda Avenue, Canyon Country. She travels down Sand Canyon everyday. The traffic is hazardous. She carried petitions door to door against this project. Big rigs are a concern to her. She said the slides shown do not reflect the traffic at the intersection. David Morris, 26616 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country. Traffic is the major concern for him. The slides presented do not show the true traffic problem. He suggested this project be postponed until the traffic problems are solved. Chairman Modugno read into the record the names of people who opposed the project but did not wish to speak. He stated that if their name was read and they did wish to make comments, let him know and they would be given the opportunity to speak. Leigh Shafer, Charles Upton, Rick Romans, Sondra Romans, Alane DuFreme and David Beardsley did not wish to speak. Don Watson, 15625 Bronco Drive, Canyon Country. He is against the project because of the traffic issue. This project will make traffic worse. He does not see anything being done by the Planning Commission on how the Sand Canyon/Soledad Canyon/Lost Canyon and Highway 14 traffic problem can be solved. More studies need to be done before this project is put to a vote. Pat Weghorst, 26401 Deercreek Lane, Canyon Country. She said no one brought up the subject of the earthquake. Traffic was backed up on Little Tujunga and Placerita Canyon. She is not opposed to a small project that would not make a lot of traffic. Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore, Santa Clarita. Gave a brief history of a previously proposed project on the site. He stated there is in excess of 900 dwelling units in Sand Canyon and nine homeowners association. The In -N -Out Burger is a permitted use for the area. He requested that the trees on the property be saved. He recommended approval of the project. Ray Villanueva explained that the 106 peak hour cars meant the cars were coming in and going out or about 55 cars going in and about 50 out fora total of 106. Mark Lamerow, the design civil engineer for the project, wanted to comment on some of the concerns brought up at the meeting. The grading has been stopped short of the property line in order to preserve the natural banks of the river and to encourage as much landscaping buffer as possible. Regarding the two trees, it would be possible to box them up. The traffic problems are due to the bottleneck with the on and off ramp system at the highway. He said that Cal Trans has acknowledged this and they show it as a funded project in their future. In -N -Out Burger does not want to encourage big rigs on the site but if they happen to turn in there would be adequate maneuverability to turn around and exit the site. Mr. Villanueva said an agreement has been made with staff that the property line along the river would be buffered to screen the project from the view of homeowners across the river. Chairman Modugno closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Townsley asked if anything else could be done by staff to help the people in Sand Canyon feel better about this project. Rabie Rahmani, Associate Traffic Engineer, stated that the median island was brought up when the project was proposed but not feasible. In order to make it easier for people leaving the project, a request was made to change the striping. He had some numbers regarding accidents for that certain area. In 1994 the total of accidents from Soledad to Lost Canyon was 4 in 8 1/2 months. In 1993 for the same roadway it was 9. Commissioner Townley had a question regarding the sign for the project and if it would be affected by the requirement that after 1997 a sign of this size would have to be removed. Mr. Adamick stated that this sign would be permitted because the code is open as far as freeway signage. Commissioner Cherrington stated that the Planning Commission has asked for City Council guidance in developing a traffic circulation pattern for Sand Canyon. He said for a time the Commission was not permitting anything which would add to traffic congestion. He has not changed his view; however, there are a number of outstanding features to this project including community involvement. He is pleased with the southside buffer. He would like staff to look into the possibility of boxing the two trees and putting them somewhere appropriate for the City. He also wanted to know if it would be possible to make a truck 9 weight restriction which could be posted at the exit ramp of the 14 Freeway. He said the traffic level could be worse with some other development on the site. Commissioner Cherrington felt staff should be working with Cal Trans to find ways of mitigating the traffic issue. Commissioner Doughman said that any development on the site would be a high volume use no matter what it is. He felt that In -N -Out Burger was a better option. He would like a sign limiting vehicle size coming on to the property to discourage big rigs from coming in. He also wanted staff to take a look at putting in a raised median in one direction to control traffic coming on and off the property. He would also like to save the trees. Commissioner Brathwaite would like to start a traffic study for the Sand Canyon area. He would like to see a solid median installed on Sand Canyon Road and the trees boxed. Commissioner Townsley felt In -N -Out would be an asset to the community. She said the other Commissioners said exactly what she was thinking as far as conditions were concerned. Chairman Modugno wanted to incorporate that staff review the alternate site plan which did allow for the parking of six recreational vehicles and 49 vehicles. Mr. Adamick to reviewed the conditions which were having the City Traffic Engineers take a look at Sand Canyon and putting in a raised median; relocation of the two trees; look at the back buffer to make sure there is a natural berm on the southeast property line and that trees and shrubbery be used to shied the site from the homes on Lost Canyon Road; a weight limitation on vehicles entering the site; weight restriction sign on the freeway and don't obstruct the view in front of the project site with large trees or high shrubs. Commissioner Brathwaite wanted to add that a berm be put in front instead of a wall. Mr. Adamick stated that could be added to the other conditions. Commissioner Brathwaite made a motion to adopt Resolution P94-18 approving Master Case Number 94-072 which consists of Conditional Use Permit 94-003 subject to the conditions added by the Planning Commission. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Townley. The motion was carried by a vote of 5-0..