Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal Application No. 2025-02 – Forty Martyrs Armenian Church Middle School (5311 <br />W. McFadden Avenue) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Exhibit 6 – Response to Appeal Comments <br />Page 8 of 19 <br />operate during the same business hours, stagger recess times for students to <br />mitigate noise concerns, and stagger pick-up and drop-off times to mitigate <br />potential traffic impacts on McFadden Avenue and Euclid Street. <br /> <br />3. Appellant Request: Multi-institutional Corridor Conditions and Impacts <br /> <br />Analysis of Issue: <br /> <br />The project property currently operates as an integrated church and school <br />campus since 1982. Additionally, the project property maintains a shared access <br />and parking agreement with the property located at 5305 W. McFadden Avenue to <br />mitigate potential traffic impacts along McFadden Avenue. The project site also <br />has an emergency access agreement with the property located at 5321 W. <br />McFadden Avenue. However, the access agreement is only used for emergencies. <br />The sites do not shared traffic circulation during regular business operations. <br /> <br />Pedestrian and vehicle access for all sites along McFadden Avenue, including <br />5311, 5315, 5305, and 5321 W. McFadden Avenue is limited to all the driveways <br />and sidewalks located along McFadden Avenue. No vehicles nor pedestrians can <br />access the previously mentioned addresses from Tampion Avenue. <br /> <br />Moreover, as stated in the staff report, the addition of the new school building is <br />only anticipated to increase student enrollment by approximately 15 students. The <br />current operations of the school and the church will remain the same. As <br />demonstrated by the focused traffic analysis and the parking management plan, <br />the addition to the school will not introduce cumulative impacts to the surrounding <br />residential land uses. <br /> <br />4. Appellant Request: Improper Use of CUP Modification Process <br /> <br />Analysis of Issue: <br /> <br />The appellant claims that the City’s decision to process the application as a <br />modification rather than a new application limited the review of the proposed <br />project. However, the process for new conditional use permit applications and <br />modifications to existing entitlements are treated equally and are required to <br />establish the findings in Section 41-638 of the SAMC. Additionally, as stated on <br />recital number E on the first page of the resolution for the Planning Commission