Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-22 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m.. Public Services Building Wednesday, June 22, 2005 275 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/ MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Madrid, O'Neill, Hom, Hall, Tripp Absent: Cortes, Felber Staff Present: Nancy Lytle, Assistant Planning Director Jill Maland, Deputy City Attorney III Michael Walker, Senior Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair Madrid., ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input, 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 05-31; Consideration to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit for a parochial school to: 1) reflect the proposed construction of a new building for an administration office, two classrooms and a multipurpose room; 2) consider operational requirements for the school; and 3) to allow two modular trailers for use as a temporary administration and construction office„ The property is located at 482 L Street in the R-3-P14 Zone. Applicant: Southwestern Christian School. BACKGROU ND: Michael Walker, Sr Planner reported that the applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to remove an existing 1,950 sf, single-story administration building, and construct a new, 2,455 sf, two-story building.. The new building will accommodate the administration offices, two new classrooms, a workroom, kitchen and multi-purpose room. The school does not propose to increase its current enrollment of 250 students. The project was originally scheduled for consideration by the Zoning Administrator, however, during the public review period, staff received a signed petition from several neighbors opposing the project, and is why the Planning Commission is now Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - June 22, 2005 considering the project, The issues of concern are: • The two-story building will allow occupants to look into backyards invading the neighbor's privacy • The school is not in compliance with a previous court sanctioned settlement agreement between the church/school and adjacent property owners, which prohibits the school from using the south parking lot for recreation activities • Sports equipment and other debris land in neighbors' backyards • Students sit on the back wall taunting dogs and breaking tree branches Mr Walker noted that there exists a 1984 court settlement agreement between the neighbors and the school, which establishes conditions for use of the south parking lot, The language in the agreement reads, ",.,designated parking lot shall be used solely for parking, normal church functions and occasional school functions." He further noted that a breach of the settlement agreement is a civil matter, therefore, enforcement and compliance with the court order is the responsibility of the parties to the agreement, not the City Mr Walker stated that the school has used the south parking lot for intermittent PE classes, The current school administration has stated that they were unaware of the court order, nor were they aware that there were disgruntled neighbors because the school had not received any complaints during the past two years, which is when the current administration came on board They are now abiding by the 1984 court order, Staff conducted a public meeting on May 23`d to hear the concerns and to allow the school representatives to propose possible solutions to mitigate them They proposed to: • Install temporary netting above the 6 foot high wall to prevent objects from getting into the neighbor's backyards when the activities involve sports equipment • Plant trees that would grow tall enough to provide a permanent buffer along the south and west walls; and • Increase supervision in the south parking lot area by assigning additional school staff STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 05- 31 approving the application subject to conditions contained therein. PRELIMINARY COMMISSION QUESTIONS /DISCUSSION: Cmr„ Tripp inquired if the construction of a new two-story administration building, which more than doubles the floor area of the existing building, would be considered an intensification of the land use, Nancy Lytle responded that, it is possible to increase the mass of a building without intensifying the land use, However, the argument could also be made that by increasing the size, you are intensifying the urbanization in that area.. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - June 22, 2005 Ms Lytle further stated that upon staffs review of the project, with an understanding that the student enrollment thresholds would remain the same, as well as questioning the applicant, it was determined that the intent of the project was simply to modernize the facility to current day standards. Cmr. Hall inquired what, if any, is the history of complaints for this site.. Mr Walker responded that upon his review of the site's history he found four complaints; three of which were for graffiti abatement, and one was related to the parking lot ingress and egress. Cmr. O'Neill expressed concern that the Commission's decision, whatever that may be, could undermine the court's decision and force the parties back into court Jill Maland, Deputy City Attorney responded that the court order stands on its own merits and the parties to the agreement are bound by it, irrespective of what the Commission's decision may be. Furthermore, the Commission's decision should be made independent of what the court order stipulates, based on the Commission's ability to make the necessary findings, as they would on any other matter before the Commission PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. Mike Jones, Architect, 7860 Mission CenterCt., San Diego, CAgave an overview of the site plan, building design and its orientation as it relates to the adjacent structures, street, and neighborhood, Mr. Jones restated that there would be no increase in student enrollment, and pointed out that the existing administration building was built in the 1950's and the purpose for this improvement project was simply to bring the facility up to today's standards.. Mr Jones clarified and expounded on the following matters: • the temporary (trailer) buildings will serve as temporary administration offices and will be removed as soon as the new building is constructed. • The kitchen will not be acafeteria-style kitchen, as there will be no food preparation taking place and will be more like a traditional home kitchen with a refrigerator, microwave and stove for occasional heating of ready-made meals, The kitchen will also serve to store the emergency food packs that the State of California requires for each student,. • With respect to comments made about children sitting on the walls, Mr Jones clarified that the wall that abuts the residences is asound-barrier concrete wall that measures 6 feet tall, Furthermore, it's in an area that is supervised when occupied by children, and the likelihood that small grammar students would be sitting on top of it, would be is slim to none, Most likely what has been observed are students Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - June 22, 2005 sitting on a 4-foot high wall that is located at the front of the school, fronting L Street, and most likely those would be students from the adjacent Chula Vista High School Mr Jones pointed out that the use of the south parking lot that abuts the residences is not used for free-play recess-type activities, but for scheduled supervised physical education classes Leigh Moffett, Principal, Southwestern Christian School, 482 L Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated she's been with the school for two years and has never received any type of complaint, otherwise she would have addressed it immediately, Ms Moffett further stated that she believes they are in compliance with the stipulations in the agreement and make minimal use of the back parking lot where they conduct supervised PE classes.. Additionally, with the construction of the new building, use of the parking lot will be further minimized because of the multi-purpose room of the new building that will enable them to conduct some PE classes, especially for the smaller children and during inclement weather, Ms Moffett clarified that the PE classes are conducted one class at a time, as opposed to the free playground area where there are multiple classes.. Additionally, the State of California requires that 100 minutes of physical education classes must be provided to the students.. This translates to approximately three, 33-minute PE classes per week, If these classes are forced to move to the playground at the same time that other students are having recess, you are not lessening the noise, you're just relocating it and creating a safety issue because you have different aged children playing at the same time. Jackie Kottke, 5494 Soledad Rd., stated she has been a teacher at SWCS from their early days when they first were established and her children also attended the school, Although she does not live in Chula Vista, she continues to teach 6th grade because she is committed to the school and believes it makes a valuable contribution to the community. Ms. Kottke briefly described the activities that are in question that take place in the parking lot and concluded by stating that it is their desire to be in compliance with all regulations, I be good neighbors and work with the neighborhood in order to be able to co-exist in a peaceful, amicable environment, Peggy Hupp, 450 Westby St, Chula Vista, CA 91911 stated she is a party to the agreement and that the homes were built in 1967 before the church or school were ever conceived of Years later, when the church and school were constructed and the church parking lot was transformed into a playground area is when the problems with noise and privacy issues came into play. As a civil matter between neighbors, the only recourse that was available to the neighborhood was to take them to court. Ms Hupp further stated that although there is a concern that at a future date they may Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - June 22, 2005 consider increasing the student enrollment cap, even so, they don't object to the construction of the new building„ All they ask is that the school be compliant and uphold their end of the agreement.. Furthermore, the neighbors are not opposed to an "occasional" special activity in the south parking lot, i,e a Harvest Festival or a Christmas function, however, they oppose its use as a playground or to conduct PE classes, Shirley Ross, 453 Westby St., Chula Vista, stated she concurs with Ms Hupp's previous statements and urged the Commission to uphold their request, Rose Kraus, 466 Westby St., Chula Vista, stated she concurs with Ms. Hupp's previous statements and urged the Commission to uphold their request, Karyn Graham, 470 Jamul Ct, Chula Vista stated she attended SWCS in the late 1980's and she has never observed anyone from the school sitting on top of the fences, She restated previous comments regarding a decrease in the use of the parking for PE classes because of the new building's multi-purpose room and the occasional use of the Chula Vista High School sports field that they have agreed to allow SWCS use on occasion when its not in use by the high school She urged the commission to support the project.. Catherine Schultz, 470 Jamul Ct., Chula Vista stated she is a teacher at SWCS and the new building will allow for two additional classrooms, which would enable larger classes to be made smaller, which in turn would minimize noise from the PE classes because, for example, instead of having one class with 28 students, there would be two classes of 14 students in each class, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Cmr. O'Neill stated that item #5 of the court order document is quite clear and unambiguous; it reads, "The southern area ofthe church's property designated for use as a parking lot shall be used solely for parking, normal church functions and occasional school functions," Cmr. Hall stated he came to the meeting prepared to hear an uproar of opposition on the construction of the new building, but instead the matter of contention is noise and the school's alleged non-compliance with the agreement regarding the use of the parking lot.. Cmr, Hall further stated that since noise is subjective, he asked if a noise analysis was conducted to measure the levels and evaluate whether they are within what is allowed Mr. Walker responded that environmental staff reviewed the proposal and determined that according to CEQA the project was Categorically Exempt, meaning that there are no impacts associated with the project Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - June 22, 2005 Cmr Hall stated that in the absence of a noise study, he does not have the necessary information to make an informed decision Cmr. Madrid stated that it appeared both parties were close to reaching consensus because the residents have stated they do not oppose the construction of the building and their concerns are related to the use and noise emanating from the south parking lot, The school has also made efforts to offer solutions to mitigate the neighbors' concerns.. Cmr. Madrid further stated that she concurs with Cmr. O'Neill's earlier comments regarding the clarity of the language in #5 of the court order, therefore, she recommended that perhaps a condition could be added further defining the word "occasional" to mean occasional holiday events, i e harvest festivals or Christmas events.. MSC (Madrid/O'Neill) (4-0-2-1) thatthe Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC 05-31 approving the application subject to conditions contained therein including a condition that re-defines the language of court order #5 to read as follows: • "The southern area of the church's property shown on Exhibit "B"designated for use as a parking lot shall be used solely for parking, normal church functions and no more than 12 special events per year." Motion carried with Cmr'. Hall abstaining. ADJOURNMENT to a regular Planning Commission meeting on June 8, 2005. Diana Vargas, Secret to the Planning Commission