Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2000/07/196:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 19, 2000 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Thomas, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Willett, Cortes, and O'Neill Absent: None Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Thomas APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 14, 2000 MSC (~Villett]Cortes) (6-0) to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-00-31; Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor stage and drive-in church service; and for increasing the number of participants in the adult care center from 18 to 60. Chula Vista Community Church. Background: Kim Vander Bie gave an overview of the proposed project stating that on June 14, 2000 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for an existing outdoor stage and drive-in church service, and a request to increase the number of participants in the adult day care center from 18 to 60. The Planning Commission requested the project be continued to July 19, 2000 and asked that the proposed resolution be bifurcated so that the Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor stage and the daycare center could be considered separately. At the previous meeting, there was concern that the drive-in church service was an inappropriate use in a residential neighborhood because there might be cars that maintain their engines running during the service in order to have air-conditioning, and that there might be noise emanating from the car radios during the service. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the car engines be turned off during the church service. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - July 19, 2000 Another concern was that there appeared to be a traffic problem on J Street when exiting the church parking lot with vehicles stacking-up at the intersection just west of the church and there is no warning to vehicles traveling west on J Street. Planning staff conferred with the Traffic Engineer and concluded that there is adequate site distance and a "Stop Ahead" is posted near the driveway. Another concern was that the stage is located in close proximity to adjacent properties and it was recommended that the stage be moved further away so that any noise impacting neighbors would be minimized. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the stage be moved a minimum of 50 feet from the property line. The Planning Commission also directed staff to investigate the legitimacy of the truck that is parked at the rear of the property. In a residential zone you are allowed to have one inoperable vehicle if it is not in the front yard setback and is behind a solid six-foot high fence. The existing truck is in the rear of the property and the applicant is proposing to erect a six-foot high fence. However, this truck meets the definition of a commercial vehicle, which is not allowed to be parked in a residential area, therefore, a condition of approval has been included requiring the applicant to remove the truck from the church property within eight weeks of adoption of the resolution pertaining to this permit. Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator presented an overview of the environmental review that was done for this project. An Initial Study was prepared, which concluded that, per CEQA, this use would not create any "significant impacts", therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Ms. Ponseggi stated that it is important to distinguish between a "significant impact", per CEQA, and what may be a "nuisance noise". Noise is evaluated on a 24-hour weighted scale, which means that when you have isolated incidences for short periods of time, even if the noise level is exceeded, on that weighted scale of 24 hours, it still would not rise to the level of a "significant impact". The person who prepared the Initial Study for this project went out to the site on a Sunday morning to evaluate the noise levels or to see if there was anything that would warrant conducting a noise analysis. He found that there was absolute no noise emanating from the drive-in service, which does not mean that there aren't sporatic incidences of nuisance noise at the site, and would not preclude the Commission from conditioning a use permit. If the findings were that there indeed was a significant impact, then mitigation measures would need to be established and a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR would be prepared. At this point, however, it does not rise to the level of "significant impact". The same criteria would apply to the diesel emissions from the buses. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration that has been prepared for this project (IS-00-21); adopt Resolution PCC-00-3 lA approving the outdoor stage and drive-in church service; and adopt Resolution PCC-00-31 B approving the increase of 18 to 60 participants for the adult day care center on the church premises. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - July 19, 2000 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Willett pointed out that Resolution PCC-00-31A on the drive-in church service contains a Condition of Approval requiring that the engines be turned off during the church service. He stated that a similar condition needs to be added to Resolution PCC-O0-31B on the adult daycare requiring that the vans/buses turn off their engines when they are not operating the lift for loading and unloading participants. Commissioner Hall inquired if the Commission were to approve this project, would they then be setting precedence and be on record as having approved it, therefore, other churches could also request the same use. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney responded that Conditional Use Permits are "site-specific", and as such, another applicant cannot use that as justification. The argument to that logic, would be that CUP's are site-specific and applicable solely to that site and those circumstances need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Public Hearing Opened. Marv Amick, 630 Mission Court, Chula Vista, the adjacent resident to the church property stated that the way people choose to worship is a very private and personal matter, however, a drive-in church is outdoors and the noise that emanates from it is imposed on everyone within hearing distance, therefore, he opposes the drive-in church. The other issue that is a nuisance is the noise emanating from people playing basketball and the hoop is located behind their bedroom window. Bob Lind, 676 Mission Court, Chula Vista, stated his only comment would be to ask why would you need to have a drive-in church when you have handicapped access into the church building. Ben Records, 682 Mission Court, Chula Vista stated he did not agree with the criteria that CEQA uses to define "significant impact" when it comes to noise levels. He also stated he had concern with traffic impacts generated by the ingress and egress of vehicles. Mr. Records stated that he regularly walks those streets and he once found an elderly lady wandering out on the street, which he then took by the hand and walked her back to the daycare facility. He, therefore, has concern with the operators' inability to properly supervise 16 participants; how, then, are they going to handle 60? Robert Santos, 635 Mission Court, Chula Vista stated that his concern is with the noise emanating from the Sunday evening services by the other congregation that leases the church building from CV Community Church. Armena Ishkanian, 301 E. J Street, Chula Vista, program manager for the South Bay Adult Day Health Center, clarified that the day care center is licensed by the State to have 60 participants, and they currently have 50 to 60 participants, however, a Conditional Use Permit from the City is required. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - July 19, 2000 Commissioner Hall asked what type of profile do the participants meet in order to be considered for the type of service that the daycare center provides, and what is the staffing level. Ms. Ishkanian responded that some of the participants exhibit beginning stages of Alzheimer's Disease or forms of dementia; people who have suffered from stroke and are wheel-chair bound or have partial-paralysis. There are also a few young people who have psychiatric disorders. The staff to participant ratio is approximately 1 to 8 and the level of expertise of staff ranges from Social Workers, nurses, program aides, activities coordinator, occupational therapist, speech therapist, nutritionist, and psychiatrist. John Van Ballegooijen, 610 Brightwood Avenue, Chula Vista, representing Chula Vista Community Church stated he has been involved in the drive-in church ministry since its inception in 1974. He also stated that the church will do everything that they can to comply with the conditions of approval contained in Resolutions 3 lA and 31 B, however, there are some terms that the church would like for the Commission to reconsider. They are: The removal of the truck. Mr. Van Ballegooijen read into the record a document issued by the Department of Motor Vehicle dated in 1976 stating that the truck was inoperable and, therefore, no longer considered a commercial vehicle. The church has also agreed to construct a 6 foot fence along the northern property line that would then hide the truck from the view of the neighbors. Relocate the stage a minimum of 50 feet from the property line. The church believes that by constructing the required 6 foot high sound wall, that would be sufficient mitigation for sound emanating from the drive-in church. By complying with this requirement, it would put the stage further into the parking area of the parking lot and thereby it would conflict with Condition #9 "5 striped parking spaces shall be added to the church parking lot". The installation of a handicapped ramp at the front entrance of the church. This requirement would create a hardship on the participants having to walk a greater distance than what is presently necessary. Chair Thomas asked for clarification on what the City's position is regarding the DMV's statement on the inoperable truck being deemed no longer a commercial vehicle. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney stated that according to the City's Municipal Code, the truck in question meets the definition of a commercial vehicle; for purposes of the Vehicle Code, it may not. Public Hearing Closed. Planning Commission Minutes - $ - July 19, 2000 Commission Discussion: Chair Thomas stated that he had concern with the ambiguity in defining and measuring "nuisance", and asked if staff could further elaborate on that definition. Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director stated that when this item was last heard, the Commission directed staff to look into those "nuisance" issues relating to noise and diesel emissions and come back with proposed solutions. Staff has identified measures that could resolve those concerns. The Commission is charged with making the findings as to whether a nuisance exists, and whether they warrant applying the conditions that staff has identified. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney further clarified that another way to evaluate "nuisance" is to see if the use that is creating the nuisance is compatible with the adjacent uses. Commissioner Castaneda stated that based on the public hearing testimony, there may be other activities, i.e. afternoon service held by another congregation. He is concerned that those activities do not fall under the specific scrutiny of this Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, Cmr. Castaneda inquired if it would be appropriate to place a condition that addresses "hours of operation" to enable there to be a window; for example, the drive-in church service would not be held earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 11:00 a.m. Cmr. Castaneda further indicated that he would be comfortable including a condition that would mitigate some of the noise and glaring lights where they play basketball in the parking lot. Perhaps restricting access to the basketball hoops in the evening or deterring that activity by lowering or diverting the lighting to a level that is deemed appropriate by the Police Department in terms of safety. Commissioner Hall stated that the nature of churches in the neighborhood is a very delicate one. In his opinion, if the church activities do not adversely impact the neighbors and those activities are within the scope of what a traditional church normally has, i.e. 1 or 2 services on Sunday and a mid-week service, then, most reasonable people would not have a problem with that. The adult daycare facility is a clear example of an activity that goes beyond the scope of a traditional church activity on those premises, therefore, he opposes both resolutions. Commissioner Thomas stated he wholeheartedly supports the homeowners' rights to speak out and complain about issues that are impacting their neighborhood. He did, however, express his concern when allegations are made, that in his opinion, are subjective in nature, and are more appropriately categorized as "nuisance" noise, visual blight, and air emissions, that could potentially revoke an existing use permit. This, coupled with others' statements that those impacts are negligible and even the City's own environmental review determination stating that there are no "significant impacts", make it very difficult for him to make a hasty decision, and would rather err on the side of the benefit that these establishments/uses are offering to the community. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - July 19, 2000 Chair Thomas, further stated that there are clearly some issues that the church needs to take care of, i.e. removal of the truck, and he has no problem conditioning these permits, within reason. He opposes the condition requiring the loading and unloading site to be moved to an area that will require the elderly, who are unstable in their gait and/or are wheelchair bound, to walk an extra 200 feet. He also opposes moving the stage to a minimum of 50 feet, which would then place it almost right in the middle of the parking lot. Commissioner Willett supports placing the gate, lower the lighting standards to 12 feet, which would eliminate some of the glare and also satisfy the Police Department's safety requirements. He also recommends that if they are going to install a sound wall along the north property line, that it be 8 feet high. Commissioner Cortes stated he believes both projects provide a valuable service to the community and would like to see both sides come to a reasonable compromise. On the one hand, the residents have somewhat legitimate complaints, although not egregious, and on the other hand he would hate to see both operators "ham-stringed" with excessive regulations. Cmr. Cortes stated he could support a condition that would ensure that the drive-in church services be held for only one service during a window of time in the morning, and not have it run concurrently with another service that is being conducted indoors. Commissioner O'Neill stated he supports placing a condition for a one-year review. He further stated that he could support the drive-in service CUP with a condition requiring the construction of a fence surrounding the entire property and that it should be a new fence and it should be what is referred to, not in our sound study, but in their sound study as a sound barrier because both of these CUP's would benefit from having a full fence. Cmr. O'Neill stated he felt that the loading issue could be mitigated by having buses come in on the west side and loop into the major parking area and drop off on the west side. By doing this, then the construction of the ramp in the front entrance of the church is not necessary. In terms of the adult daycare center, Cmr. O'Neill believes it is manageable, and would support a one year review. Chair Thomas opposes the one-year review. Asked City Attorney if the drive-in church has been there legally or not. Ms. Moore responded that if it was not an allowed use under the existing Conditional Use Permit, and these services were being held, then it would be in violation of not only the Zoning Code, but also the CUP. P~anning Commission Minutes - 7 - July 19, 2000 Klm Vander Bie stated that the description of the outdoor service wasn't included in the original CUP description MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (6-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration that has been prepared for this project (IS-00-21). Motion carried. MSC (Castaneda/Willett) (6-0) and approving Resolution PCC-00-31B a Conditional Use Permit to allow increasing the number of adult daycare participants from 18 to 60 at the Chula Vista Community Church, 271 "J" Street, in accordance with the conditions contained therein, including the following conditions: 1. That the engines be turned off when feasible during the time when the lifts are not being operated. 2. That Condition #5 be eliminated regarding the installation of a handicapped ramp at the southerly, or front entrance of the church. 3. That a Condition be added stating that the buses load and unload the daycare participants at the westerly side of the building. 4. That the CUP be reviewed by staff for compliance at the end of one year. Molion carried MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) (5-1) that the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC-00- 31A approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow an outdoor stage and drive-in church service at the Chula Vista Community Church, 271 J Street subiect to conditions contained therein, including the following conditions: 1. That Condition #4 be expanded to include wording which states that there will be no drive-in church service held earlier than 9:00 and no later than 2:00 p.m., and that no concurrent service be held during the time that the drive-in service is conducted. 2. That Condition #6 shall be expanded to say that "all noise shall conform to City standards". 3. That the applicant be directed to pay for the City to hire a noise consultant 4. That Condition #7 shall read "A sound barrier sha~l be erected along the northern and western property line according to the specifications recommended by the noise consultant and that any extension beyond the allowed height be contingent upon an approved variance. 5. That Condition #8 be expanded to include "and securing the I~arking ~ot during hours of non-operation", and that the 50 foot requirement on the location of the portable hoop be eliminated. 6. That Condition #10 be modified to read" ...that the parking lot lights be modified in such a way as to be dimmed and/or shield to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." 7. That Condition #8 following Condition #10 be changed to Condition #11. 8. That Condition #12 be added that after the first year of the permit, staff review for compliance will be undertaken and any warranted modifications or compliance issue be achieved. Motion carried with Chair Thomas voting against it. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - July 19, 2000 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-00-14; An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance request to maintain a fence with a maximum height of 6'6" within the front yard setback. A maximum fence height of 3/6" is permitted in the front yard setback. The site is located in the R-1 Zone, with a General Plan designation of Residential. MSC (Castaneda/Willett) (6-0) to continue this item to the August 9, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION ERS COMMENTS: ADJOURNED at 9:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2000. Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission