Loading...
Item 4 - CUP 88-14 [t.~ ?--,jJ-f-~:L TO: The City Clerk City of Poway rRECEIVED, JUL 1 4 1992 ; \..... CITY OF POWAY ..,..,f' CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM: Keitha Walker Executive Board First Church of Christ. Scientist Poway-Rancho Bernardo DATE: July 14.1992 RE: ITEM 4 of agenda for City Council Meeting, july 14, 1992 Conditional Use Permit 88-14 REQUEST TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: The Executive Board of the Christian Science Church would like to request a postponement of this issue until the next City Council meeting. We did not receive a copy of the Planning Department's report and recommendations until yesterday, July 13. 1992, nor 11ave we had the opportunity to meet with them to discuss possible solutions. A meeting has been set up for this Thursday. July 16. and we feel all parties would be better prepared to resolve the matter after the discussion on the site of the Church takes place this Thursday. Thank you for your consideration. cc: C. Edmonds ..' V~~ ~er 679-9704 JUL 14 1992 ITEM 4 ~ l D~-t.z-cJ 1-/tJ-9c;;< AGENDA REPORT - CITY OF POW A Y TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council (\.1 James L. Bowersox, City Manager~)f & Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services~ FROM: INITIATED BY: PROJECT PLANNER: Carol M. Edmonds, Assistant planner II DATE: July l4, 1992 SUBJECT: Annual Review of Conditional Use Permit BB-l4, First Church of Christ Scientist, Applicant: The addition of a 6760 square foot sanctuary to an existing religious complex located at l63l5 pomerado Road in the RR-C zone. APN: 275-510-12 DISCUSSION The annual review of Conditional Use Permit BB-l4 was initially considered by the City Council during the public hearing of June 30, 1992. The Council continued the item to July 14, 1992 to allow time to resolve issues raised during the hearing by area residents. The issues raised were: 1. The impacts of the church parking lot lights on adj acent residences. 2. The erosion of the banks of an on-site drainage swale. 3. The erosion of soil around the footings of a fence. 4. Project dust. 5. Decreased effectiveness of a recently installed wood fence to attenuate noise and light. 6. The pomerado Road traffic impacts that will be generated by the church expansion. ACTION: 1 of 10 4 Agenda Report July 14, 1992 page 2 7. The location of a church dumpster and the impacts of parking lot noise on adjacent residences. 8. Equestrian Trail easement. Staff discussed these issues with church representatives and the area residents that had voiced their concerns during the June 30, 1992 Council meeting. A few of the issues have been addressed, staff is currently working with the church to resolve other concerns. Resolved Issues The church presently uses the parking lot lights for regular Wednesday night services and periodic evening church meetings (see Attachment 1). Generally, functions are held at the church only one night a week. For the most part these activities end by 9:00 p.m. so the lights are turned off near that time. The dumpster is currently located in the parking lot near the easterly property line adjacent to residential properties. There were some concerns voiced regarding the noise associated with the on-site trash collection. It should be noted that the church plans to use the dumpster only temporarily. Church representatives checked with their disposal service whose records show that the trash is collected after 9:00 a.m. and not during the quieter early morning hours. The disposal service prefers that the dumpster remain in its present location because it is easier to access. The church is, however, willing to relocate the trash bin if it is necessary. Tackifier has been applied to the currently vacant graded building pad to better control dust emanating from the site. Staff inspected the eroded drainage swale that was damaged by the heavy rains this past spring. The church is required to stabilize the banks immediately to the satisfaction of the Engineering Services Department. Issues CUrrently in the Process of beinq Resolved Mr. Saylor, an adjacent neighbor voiced his concerns regarding the gaps in the recently installed wood fence along the easterly property line of the church. In the past he has been disturbed by church parking lot noise and lights. He believes the church should be required to make the existing single-sided wood fence double- sided to help mitigate project noise and light impacts. Staff 2 of 10 I JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM 4 Agenda Report July 14, 1992 Page 3 believes that the single-sided wood fence adequately complies with the fencing requirement. A field inspection revealed that the spacing between the fence boards was fairly close but there were some spaces that were up to one-half inch wide. It should be noted that the City's intent in requiring the church to install a wood fence along the property line was to provide a physical and visual separation or barrier between the church use and adjacent residential land uses. The fence is not an effective noise attenuation barrier and was never intended to perform that function. The fence does, however, effectively screen parking lot vehicle lights from adjacent residences even with the intermittent small gaps between the boards. The required wood fence also runs along the northerly property line adjacent to the drainage swale. As mentioned above, the drainage swale suffered considerable erosion during the spring rains. The fence was sited close enough to the swale so that in a few sections the erosion is so extensive that some of the footings for the fence have been completely exposed. Staff supports relocation of the fence further south away from the drainage swale to avoid similar problems in the future. Relocation of the fence will require that an adjacent equestrian easement also be relocated. The preferred location for siting the equestrian trail is along the westerly and southerly property lines of the church (see Attachment 2). Staff is currently working with the church on the proposed relocation of the equestrian easement. It should be noted that to date the church has not agreed to the relocation of the easement. The estimated costs for redesigning and relocating the easement, in addition to the church's preferred site design, could influence the church's decision. Another neighbor voiced concern regarding the pomerado Road traffic impacts that will be generated by the proposed church expansion. The City of San Diego has jurisdiction over pomerado Road along the stretch of the street that fronts the church. Staff has contacted the City of San Diego to check if on-site traffic signs (i.e., no left turns onto pomerado Road) should be used to lessen traffic impacts on pomerado Road. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report and allow Conditional Use Permit 88-l4 to remain in effect. The proj ect will continue to be regulated by the conditions of approval listed in Resolution No. P-88-l08; however, with a minor modification requiring the equestrian easement to be relocated along the westerly and southerly property lines. Section 17.48 .100 of the Municipal Code allows for minor revisions or modifications 3 of 10 JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM 4 Agenda Report July 14, 1992 page 4 to a conditional use permit to be approved by the Director of Planning Services if it is determined that the changes would not affect the findings. The proposed relocation of the equestrian easement will not affect the project findings. JLB:RWQ:CME:pcm Attachments: l. Letter, Church of Christ Scientist, July 6, 1992 2. Approved Location of Equestrian Trail REPORT\2CUP8814.AGN 4 of 10 JUL 14 1992 ITEM 4 Delivered to Poway City Planning Department July 6, 1992 Please Note: Exhibit A is a large architectual drawing that will be presented at the next City Council Meeting, July 14, 1992. FROM The Church of Christ Scientist 16315 Pomerado Road Poway, CA 92064 48704007 or contact Keitha Walker, 679-9704 ATTACHMENT 1 5 of 10 JUL 14 1992 ITEM 4 MEMORANDUM TO: The Poway City Council cc: Carol Edmonds, JoAnn Van Dyke City of Poway Planning Department FROM: Keitha Walker. Chair Executive Board Christian Science Church. Poway /Rancho Bernardo DATE: July 6, 1992 RE: Mr. Saylor's complaint regarding activity in the Church parking lot. In response to the comments and concerns Mr. Saylor expressed at the City Council Meeting last Tuesday evening, the Executive Board of our Church would like to present some information we feel is necessary to have a proper perspective on the activity in our Church parking 10t--espeQllli!ly in relationship to Mr. Saylor's property and any effect that activity would have on the Saylor residence. To begin with. the Church (eastern) property line borders the Saylor's back yard for approximately 214 feet. Directly adjacent to half of that fence line is open space on both sides of the property line with occasional trees, shrubs and boulders. As you know, this entire border is now divided with a solid wooden fence according to the specifications given by the City of Poway. The area of concern is the northern half of this property line. which is where the back end of the church parking lot is located (it is approximately 12 feet from the fence and 106 feet across (see Exhibit A n. and has ten lined parking spaces. First we would like to point out that because this area is the very back end of the parking lot. it has the least amount of activity. There is a total of 122 parking spaces on the premises, 15 of which are at the front of the Church property and could have no impact on any of our neighbors. Because our membership is around 100 people, and most come to church and meetings in pairs and families. on our most active day, Sunday, there is rarely more than 10-15 cars in the back portion of the lot. Perhaps more importantly are these two facts: 6 of 10 JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM 4 1. The first 70 feet of this northeastern border is already double fenced. Mr. Saylor has a barn and two RV's stored right next to the property line in this corner of his lot, and some time ago put up a high fence for this 70 feet. Behind these structures are another small building (storage shed or workshop) and at any given time a minimum of ten other parked vehicles. Thus, it is not likely that noise or parking lights could penetrate at this point; 2. The remaining area which appears to be the focus of Mr. Saylor's complaint inCludes four parking spaces, which are twelve feet back from the new fence and approximately 36 feet across the property line. Although these spaces are used almost every Sunday from 9:45 a.m. to 11: 15 a.m. by Sunday School teachers, they are rarely used during evening meetings because of their location away from the lights in the parking area. Please note also, that Mr. Saylor's house is a considerable distance back from this property line with yard, cement decking and a pool between. There is only one sliding glass door, which in the past (pre-fence) could have been' impacted by any light, as their patio area is to the side on the south end of the property, In addition, it is not very light in the parking lot when we have our weekly Wednesday night meetings (from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m.!, and it is very dark in the far end of the lot at night. We would invite you to investigate this for yourself, Our good neighbors to the south, Saint Bartholomew Church, are much higher than we are and have many more lights, and we are not aware of any problems they are having. Please do not misunderstand, if there is a problem we are creating for any neighbor, we will be more than happy to do what is reasonable and fair to correct the situation. Finally, we would like to share with you the amount of activity that has taken place at our Church during evening hours for the past 18 months. Please refer to Exhibit B. Although these documented meetings reflect an unusual amount of activity, due to our Church building project, no distinction has been made as to Which meetings were held during Daylight SaVings Time. These figures reflect possible activity which would impact our neighbor to the east 13 evenings in the past 547 days, or less than 3% of the time in the past 18 month, which ended some time between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and II: pm.; and 78 regular Wednesday evening meetings in which all activity was ended before 9:00 p.m. (78 ourof 547 or 14%). It is our feeling that with a solid fence in place, we have now taken steps that more than insure any adverse effect on Mr. Saylor. Thank you for your time and consideration. 7 of 10 ~~~ JUL 1 4 1992 ITEM 4 Exhibit B MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS 1991 DATE OPENED ADJOURNED 1. 01-22-91 7:35 p.m. 9:50 p.m. 2. 04-15-91 7:35 p.m. 9:35 p.m. ~ 05-20-91 7:30 p.m. 9:00 p.m. j. 4. 07 -15 -91 7:30 p.m. 10:30 p.m. 5. 09-09-91 7:35 p.m. 9:45 p.m. 6. 10-21-91 7:30 p.m. 10:25 p.m. 7. 11-12-91 7:30 p.m. 9:55 p.m. 1992 8. 01-21-92 7:35 p.m. 9:25 p.m. 9. 04-20-92 7:35 p.m. 10:55 p.m. 10. 06-29-92 7:34 p.m. 9:06 p.m. Added to this would be two well-attended workshops held by our Church during evening hours in 1991 and one so far this year. Some committees do meet in the evening, although most meet on Saturday mornings, but such activity would amount to no more than five or six cars per early evening. 8 of 10 JUL 14 1992 ITEM 4 ) , , '~i~ ! i ' ~\l''i.' 'f~.J.~i I ~ I k;:!~ ( l): 41 ~, I h.' , ... i . ;~. : ~I i ~i ! <<:I! i~ \. ~ ~:'.. ~ -I I I I , , I~ ~ .' ~ of 10 I i , iv' i~ _V\ \)1 ,.j-1 >- .~ I r r~1 < ~d '''''''J1f ~ I i )...1 r~! i~1 1~1. !~Ii ~I I j ~~ " ' ,~ -:) oQ ~ / I I l I " , ! ,. \. I. ./--- , ' I _/ ~ U j- ~., , 'J !',- - ,.-.) ...-'---- if " i! I. !i !: , j\ ., , ii I , ~ '1(l~ .. V'- (4... '<.~ . ~ --~, ,~r ~. . _ LI~ ~ ~ \ 1 / j ~ / .-.~ -- s.~~-:i!!!.2'" . .Cc9;:;>~da olE I f I ';i 'li ~ ~ ~ ,,,", <J ! L-~ -- .s:';a.o:;>cda be -----'-. ~'____ ___ _ _ _---'--JuJ:: ~4~19.~2__~~EfJJl;4_ rv~i , \ ~.~ i. , ,,\1) ~ , ' "_. I -..-----1 ............ -- - ~ ~ I g I I 1:1,1 ---;:r::3;: VlHlIOJll'o'J J.VMO~ avo. OOnJW04 U Ut 1SIIN3DS 1SI~I.D ~O H)~mD 1S~U NV . _ ~11S 0311V 130 ; ~ t: ~ "- ~! I ~ :,j~- liD f --------../'~ z , ..) O~ 57 . , I I ,I i I. I: II ,I l:!!!ll,!l: 0( I' !!! ~ 'l; ~ l'lli,hi'!.' ~ I t:; li I I I I 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT 2 I'll Ill. J I .\ \J -: ~.:-, :0-. \\ I. ~ z <( ....J CL LU~ f-~ V1~