Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout47-Planning o o o o Appeal of Modified Conditions of Approval for Conditional Develo~nt PerRit No. 1141 Mayor and Council Meeting of July 5, 1988, 2:00 p.m. . My name is Larry Thompson. I live at 244 E. 4lst Street, San Bernardino. I am a member of Faith Bible Church. My comments will be against the Recommended motion: "That the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and uphold the May 17, 1988 Planning Commission modification of conditions of approval for Conditional Development Permit No. 1141." I want my presentation to be as brief, clear and to the point as possible. To do this I have prepared for each of you and the city clerk a transcript of my presentation with exhibits of pertinent information. Please have patience, our congregation considers this a very serious issue and we would appreciate your undivided attention. ~ the staff report CDP 1141 before you, there is a summary of actions regarding this problem dating back to June 16, 1981. In this report are misunderstandings and inaccuracies about the directed actions of the Planning Commission hearing on June l6, 1981. There are also misunderstandings and inaccuracies regarding the meetings of December IS, 1987 and May 17, 1988. As well the current CDP ll41 is inaccurate. "We appreciate working with the planning staff, for the most part they have been helpful and courteous. In December we worked with Michael Norton, he left the department, in May we worked with Ed Gundy, he left and now I suppose we will work with John Montgomery. My point is this, apparently due to turnover in personnel there have been some major disconnects in the facts of this issue. ~~~# U'7 o o o o Please turn to page two of the request for council action titled "Staff Report." ~\ Our request is: "To revoke the requirement for a wall beyond Parcel Nos. 24 and 25 or to change the requirement from a solid masonry wall to a chain link fenl:e." -' Our church board has agreed that we want to secure this property from outsiders with a chain, link fence where necessary, but until we develop the property for commercial use we are strongly opposed to a masonry wall. \'On page two of the staff report next to June l6, 1981 it states: "Planning Commission recomm~nded that COP No. 1141 be ann roved by the Mayor and Common Council with the conditions, including the block wall as required by City Code." Please refer to the city code section of my notes for you. This is a copy of the City Code, this code is still the same today as it was in 1981. This is the same code applied to convenience stores, fast food restaurants and service stations. It is up to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council to determine how this code is applied. What the staff report fails to mention is that in this instance the masonry wall was applied to the parking lot only and even then with conditions for not having to build the wall at all. Please turn in my notes to the minutes of the planning commission and look on page two. Underlined in yellow is a clarification of the extent of the wall. Please refer back to page two of the staff report next to July 6, 1981 and notice that the requirement of wall along parking lot only is omitted. Please turn in my notes to the 1981 map. This map shows the situation as it existed in 1981. The parking lot was built north of Mrs. Martin's property with a six foot masonry wall. As in the conditions read, Mr. Moseley from Faith Bible Church contacted Mr. Marshal Miles concerning not having to build a wall o o o o along lot no. 37. Mr. Miles said he did not own the property, yet his name was recorded on the title. Mr. Moseley sent a letter to Mr. Miles stating that if we did not hear from him that we would assume no wall was necessary. No reply was ever given. In 1984 the title of lot no. 37 changed to Mr. Peters. For six yea.rs no complaint was received from Mr. Miles or Mr. Peters regarding the parking lot or the lack of a wall. In 1987 Mrs. Martin purchased lot no. 37 from Mr. Peters and requested a wall. At this time the church was unclear on the issue, did not understand the seriousness of the issue and was slow to act. Mrs. Martin rightfully requested and received a hearing. Ple~se refer back to page two of the staff report next to the date of December IS, 1987 (read statement). This statement is misleading and inaccurate. It does not mention that the planning staff recommended to only complete the masonry wall to the end of the paved parking lot. It does not mention that after meeting with the planning staff the church went into the December meeting agreeing to comply immediately with the planning staff recommendation. Also this statement falsely represents the 1981 CDP when it states "The block wall was still required to be built along the entire south and east property lines (Parcel Nos. 24, 25, 7, 61, and 66)." After the December l5, 1987 meeting the church did not understand clearly the appeal procedure and did not find out in time to make changes that it needed to go to the city council. After meeting with Dennis Barlow in the planning office we discovered our only recourse was to request a meeting with the Planning Commission. Please refer again to page two of the staff report next to May 17, 1988. The following statements do not mention that minutes from the December l5, 1987 meeting we just being approved at this meeting and although we had beim o o o o requesting the minutes since December we were only able to get a copy in May. This statement also fails to mention that we had questioned the accuracy of the CDP 1141 changes in December and that Ed Gundy from the planning department stood up and stated that there was no way to confirm the minutes because the last eighteen minutes of the tape of that meeting was missing. This is important to note because that is the section that had the final decisions on it. We had heard the entire tape in January but somehow now it is missing in May, we find that very unusual. But even now the modified conditions of approval listed on page three are inaccurate. Condition no. 1 states (read condition). Yet here is what the tape clearly s'tates. Commissioner Brown states the proposed motion and Chairman Nierman restates it for the vote. Please notice that the document from the planning department is inaccurate as well as the CDP. Now I would like to sum up our presentation by going to each point of the CDP as listed on page 3 of the staff report. Itea 1, we will comply. Even though this item is incorrect from the May 17th meeting, after talking with Mrs. Martin we are willing to concede this point in preference to her wishes. Itea 2, the wall is completed and this condition has already been met. Itea 3, this is an undeveloped vacant lot. This area is not paved but is grass that we maintain. It used occasionally by our Christian school as a play area, but only under adult supervision. (If necessary, please refer to the photos in my notes that picture this area in relationship to the paved parking area, the freeway and the disputed property.) Also include in my notes is a petition from the neighbors of Faith Bible Church in regards to this lot that is located to the rear of their property. o o o 'J Our,proposal is to build a six foot chain link fence in lieu of the masonry wall as outlined. We will comply with all other requirements in Item 3 within the time frame stated. It~ 4. We agree and thank the Planning Commission. It~ 5. We also concur. CONCI.USIONS Information obtained by Harold Hoffman from the Planning Commission regarding the code used in the decision made on May 17, 1988 was based on Code 19.26.080, entitled C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. The City Council appears to be the final authority for deciding the application of the code or granting variances of it whether and when this code is applied to churches, schools, etc. Please remember this is the same code that is used for convenience stores, fast food chains, service stations etc. The property that we are asking a variance for is an undeveloped grassy lot. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS We request that the Mayor and Council accept this appeal and revise or revoke the May l7, 1988 Planning Commission's modified conditions of approval in No. 3 concerning the block wall construction requirements. RECOMMRNDATION . ;,. That condition 3 be changed to read as follows: Within 90 days after the f1nal local court decision, there shall be a six foot, chain link fence built on the East, West and South boundaries of the church property, as needed. (Reference is made to Parcel No, 149-032-69.) Thank you for your time. I am available to answer any questions you may have. , \ o o. CITY OF~ SAN BERNARDINO o 0 ,..,.. ~ - REQUESTFOR'C~ACTI( R. Ann Siracusa From: Director of Planning Dept: Planning Date: June 15, 1988 ~E.~ of Modified Conditions of REt1N.~M~~dVal for Conditional Develo~ ~~~~ P~rmit No. 1141 1988 JUN 23 rn 1+0 IIJ Mayor and Council Meeting July 5, 1988, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: Conditional Development Permit No. 1141 was approved by the Mayor and City Council on July 6, 1981. (In 1981, the City Code required that the City Council make the final action on Conditional Development Permits.) At that meeting a condition for a masonry wall separating the parking area from residential districts was required. The Planning Commission has subsequently considered and acted on this matter on December 15, 1987 and May 17, 1988. (See staff report for synopsis of those actions.) Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and uphold the May 17, 1988 Planning Commission modification of conditions of approval for Conditional Development Permit No. 1141. ~M;~ SIgnature R. Ann Siracus R. Ann Siracusa Contact person: Phone: 384-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct, No,) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: / / ~-- ~ o 0 CITY OF" SAN BERNARDINO - o 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCI~ AC.TIO , STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Modified Conditions of Approval for Conditional Development (COP) No. 1111 Mayor and Council Meeting of July S, 1988. REQUEST ~ To revoke the requirement for a wall beyond Parcel Nos. 24 and 25 or to change the requirement from a solid masonry wall to a chain ITnk fence. BACKGROUND This is a complicated issue on which the Planning Commission has spent several meetings and many hours hearing testimony and nego- tiating the appropriate conditions of approval. The applicant is Faith Bible Church and the aggrieved neighbors are Mrs. Joyce Martin and Mr. Robert Peters. June 16, 1981 planning Commission recommended that COP No. 1141 be approved by the Mayor and Common Council with the conditions, inCluding the block wall as required by City Code. July 6, 1981 Mayor and Council approved COP No. 1141 with conditions, including the block wall. December IS, 1987 Planning Commission heard a request for a revocation of COP No. 1141 because the required block wall never was built, and the parking lot was being used as a play yard without approval. Rather than revoke the COP ~he Planning Commission voted to add new conditions which were required to be com- pleted by April 1, 1988. The block wall was still required to be built along the entire south and east property lines (Parcel Nos. 24, 2 S, 7, 61, and 66). May 17, 1988 Planning Commission heard a request by Faith Bible Church to amend the block wall require- ment of December IS, 1987. After two hours of testimony and questions, the Planning commission modified the conditions of approval as follows: 4. . o o o o Appeal of Modifed Conditions - CDP ll41 Mayor and Council Meeting of July 5, 1988 Page 3 20 foot setback for playground condition Present block wall condition Future block wall condition I~ ~ Playground location condition 1. On Parcel Nos. 24 and 62 play- ground activity will be permittedl however, there shall be no play- ground activitv within 20 feet of Parcel ~os. 45/and 37. Vote was 6-2, one absent. Commis- sioners Stone and Gomez voted "No." 2. The remaining 27 feet of the six foot, masonry wall shall be completed along the north property line of Parcel No. 37 (Mrs. Martin's property) within 60 days. Vote was 6-2, one absent. Commis- sioners Gomez and Lopez voted "No." 3. Within 90 days after the final local court decision (concerning the property ownership question of Parcel No. 69), there shall be a ~ foot solid masonry wall built on the east, west and south boundaries of the church property, as needed. (It was thought by the Commission that if the church obtained title to Parcel No. 69 that it should build a wall or heighten the existing walls around the southern portion of that parcel to help protect the neighboring resi- dences from future potential land use conflicts.) Vote was 6-2, one absent, Commis- sioners Stone and Gomez voted "No." 4. The church is permitted to use the existing, vacant field, Parcel Nos. 7, 61, and 64 for playground activ- ities. Vote was 6-2, one absent. Commis- sioners Stone and Gomez voted "No." Gate requirement condition 5. A block wall shall not be required along Parcel No. 66. The west end of Parcel No. 66 shall be gated with a six foot high ,gate. Vote was 7-1, one absent, Commis- sioner Stone voted "No." o o o o , Appeal of Modifed Conditions - CDP 1141 Mayor and Council Meeting of July 5, 1988 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS The Planning Commission has been trying to reasonable enforce the City's long-standing standard of a six foot, masonry wall protecting residential districts from nonresidential uses. Condition Nos. 2 and 3, ~s defined above, reflect that attempt. The church does not ;.;ant to build the wall beyond their paved parking lot (Parcel Nos. 24 and 25). ~IA~OR .~NP,COUNCII. _ O~_'I:~ Uphold appeal and revise or Commission condition Nos. 2 construction requirements. revoke tne May 17, 1988 Planning and 3 concerning the block wall cr Qenyappeal and uphold the May 17, 1988 Planning Commission modification to conditions of approval for Conditional Devel- opment Permit No. 1141. RECOll~lE.l'iPA~I ON Deny appeal and uphold the May modification to conditions of Development Permit No. 1141. 17, 1988 Planning Commission approval for Conditional Prepared by: John Montgomery, Principal Planner for R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning Attachments: A B C Area Map Appeal Letter State~ent cf Cfficial Planning Commission Action of May 17, 1988 May 17, 1988 Planning Commission Staff Report o mkf/6/15/88 M&CCAGENDA :CDP1141 o ~ \ i - i <(. , " 1: ~ 'lL '::> \-:t ~~ \\\ ~ 1: ~ -x.~ ~~ r'~ -< \! 'i- ""i \.\- o US -.L.. I:::J, o 1_ o ~ ~ @ @ ~ ~ ""1. ~ ~ ~ \. ~ ... ~ @ ~, '-, ri" 'c' ~ ~I ~I @ @ J4.~ ,~ o '/-;"';.J.../L. 7' V ) n<2/~/79' u 6/1/;; f (z:l3 O . T~'Cl.'-'!F.'- ^ i". ....~.....,...~ ~- - 1 .:i?;:"-' -- ... .. -' . : !v:~ ~ai~ltGJJible- ~il ~'~GlturcJt:/~~~ ,-,~ ,,-~ ""'-j ~.. - ----- '-... o n"" .r..... - - . ! .,..,.. "1 'r '....:" I ~.L..n, IU(. 1 ,.:.,to ,r ',.n ,\Imllh.r:. .'.;iTIlH..'r "r \llt'I...- . ",.11 F'I"'III, : 'Ian \11I1I"I.:r :-!ay 31, 1988 'lUesday Mayor and Comm:m Council c/o Ms. Shauna Clark, City Clerk City Hall 300 N. "D" St. san sernardino, CA 92418 ~e: ~evocation or amendment of condie ion #2 in CJP #1141 Dear :-layor and Council :-!embers: On May Ii, 1988 Faith Bible Church appeared before the Planning Commission (item #5 on the agendal to ask for amendment to conditions #1 and #2 (CDP #1141) placed upon us in a hearing December 15, 198i. Condition #1 stipulated where we could play on our parking lot / playground. Condition #2 required a six-foot wall along the entire length of our property line from "Go St. to "F" St, ta separate us from neighbors and undeveloped R-l property to the south. We felt that condition #2 was excessive and burdensome. Moreover, when we received from the city our copy of the conditions (stamped "draft") in December, we noted that condition #1 was ~n error. We did not appeal at the time because we were under the impression that these problems could be worked out through the Planning Dept. staff. (A Statement to that effect was made by the chairman during the hearing, but we apparently misunderstood his intent.) By the time we realized that we would have to appeal, it was too late. We were advised, however, that 'Ne could ask for another hearing before the Plannlng Commission, so we did. In the May lith hearing, we asked for two things: (1) correction of the reading of condition #1 to reflect accurately what was stated in the DeCember hearing; (2) amendment of condition #2 to require a wall only along the length of our oaved parking lot ,playground. (We completed such a wall [minus three feet, pending the outcome of the May hearing] as we had told the Planning staff 'Ne would do in conversations before the Decemoer hearing. The wall was completed a month in advance of the planning Commission deadline at a cost of more than $3,000 in materials alone.) ~o our dismay, the erroneous reading of condition #1 was left intact, and the wall requirement was modified only slightly. FUrthermore, we were accused of dragging our feet and refuslng to comply with the law! We found this charge incredible, conSidering the effort we had made to explain our paSt actions, to ':9rh una G Streets Sun ncmuTuinu. ~'...lLfomu4 1}2":'05 (> o o o consult '..ith tte planning staff at every step, and to comply with or go beyond all the conditions imposed in December, inCluding building a $3,000+ wall. Our ~equest We are aSking you either :0 (1) drop condition #2 altogether in view of the reasons below, or (2) modify condition #2 to require only a chain link fence where a solid masonry wall is presently required beyond Mrs. Martin"s property. Reasons for Reauest 1. Only one neighboring resident, Mrs. Joyce Martin, has registered any complaint about our paved playground, and her property borders us south of where we built the wall. Approximately 30 feet of wall beyond the pavement still needs to be built to separate our property entirely from hers, and the consensus of our church board is to complete this remaining 3D-foot stretch within the 60 days stipulated by tne Planning Commission. Mrs. Martin has stated that she will be sat:sfied if we complete the wall that far. No other resldent in the area has reglStered a complaint with us. 2. Only one other person, ~r. Robert Peters, wants a wall, but he does not have a clear title to L,e property he alleges to own--an undeveloped parcel east of Mrs. Martin (south of our vacant playing field). He has expressed concern about liability for injuries a child might suffer on this property during our regular school and church activities. Ownership of this property is belng disputed in court. Roland Moseley and Roy Crosswhite hold the firSt trust deed to this property, and they are challenging Mr. Peters" claim of ownerShip. Mr. Moseley and Mr. Crosswhite have stated their intention to give the disputed property to Falth Bible Church if the matter is decided in their favor and they gain uncontested ownership of the property. Should Mr. Peters prove to be the owner, tis liability concern could be alleviated by a chain link fence. 3, All the residences bordering both this disputed property and the remainder of our property are separated by existing walls ranging from three to four feet in helght. We have had no complaints from any of these neighbors about the play actlvity of our children on our vacant field. EVen Mrs. Martin has stated trat she has no problem with the children playing in this area. ~o reiterate, we would like you either to (1) revoke altogether the wall requirement of condition ,2 beyond Mrs. Martin"s property, or (2) to change the requirement in condition #2 from a solid masonry wall to a chain link fence if some kind of barr:er must be required. ThanK you. :AITR BIBLE C~JRCH Sincerely yours, ~!':,~~t~._ -^-~ Board Chairrran '-- c ^ --- - -::",(.J Q r- '.:; / ~ '-:-/ - - I (.Jf? C c... (..? A iTAC.14111'!:NI , ~ o o ATTACHMENT 0 o City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF,OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Request to Modify Conditions of Approval for Conditional Development Permit No. 114l Applicant: Faith Bible Church ACTION Meeting Date: X ~tay 17, 1988 Modified Conditions of Approval per Attachment A. Denied. Withdrawn by Applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT FINDINGS FOR WAIVER OF BLOCK WALL REQUIREMENT 1. Based on the size and shape of the parcel which render it unbuildable and unusable, and based on the fact that there is no need for the wall to ensure health, safety and welfare of the citizens of San Bernaldino, the block wall shall not be requiled along Parcel No. 149-032-66. ~ONDITIONS O~ APPROVAL This project was approved subject to the attached Conditions described in Attachment A. 2Qll. Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Brown, Cole, Corona, Lopez, Nierman, Sharp * None Lindseth *Sepalate motions were made for each of the Conditions of Approval, which all passed with a majority vote. Commis- sioners Stone and Gomez voted "No" on Condition Nos. 1, 3, and 4. Commissioners Gomez and Lopez voted "No" on Condition No.2. Commissioner Stone voted "No" on Condition is. o o o o City of San Bernarclno STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Conditional Development Permit No. 1141 Page 2 I, hereby, certify that this Statement of accurately reflects the fir.al determination Commission of the City of San Bernardino. Official Action of the Planning , } '. J. .. . . I ", ,I ,~ I"" ... _... - - - --~--_._---_.- _._- - - - - .'. - --- -- - -- -- - - ------- Signature Date R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning - - - - -. - - . - . .. -- - . - - - - -- - - - - ~ - - -- - - - - - - - - -- .. - --- Print or ~ype Name and Title RAS/mkf DOCUMENTS:FCAGENDA PCACTJON o o o " -T" ""1-..0 .;.J. ~.l.n...t._'j..r.: .. r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CDP 1141 \. CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 5 5/17/88 .., )2. l' 'J Modified Conditions of Approval for Conditional Development Permit No. 1141, modified by planning Commission at their meeting of May 17, 1988: 1. On Parcel Nos. 149-032-24 and 149-032-62 playground activity will be permitted; however, there shall be no playground activity within 20 feet of Parcel Nos. 149-032-45 and 149-032- 37. - ~ The remaining 27 feet of the six foot, solid masonry wall~ ~ shall be completed along the north property line of Parcel No. 149-032-37 within 60 days. v Within 90 days after the final local court decision, there shall be a six foot, solid masonry wall built on the East, West and South boundaries of the church property, as needed. (Reference is made to Parcel No. 149-032-69.) 4 . The church is permitted to use the existing, vacant field, Parcel Nos. 149-032-7, 149-032-61, and 149-032-64 for play- ground activities. 5. A block wall shall not be required along Parcel No. 149-032-66. The west wnd of the parcel shall be gated with a six foot gate. - AI 11II h C> 0-0 CITY OF SAN ...ERNARDINO o ~_ .EMORANDUM -, To Planning Commission From Planning Department ::iubject Request for Amendments and Clarification Date May 17. 1988 to Conditions of Conditional Development Permit No. 1141 Approved Agenda I t em ~o. 5 Date 1. REOU~ The applicant has requested in a letter dated February 16, 1988, two items: 1. Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Conditional Development Permit No. 1141, and 2. Written clarification of certain points recently amended Conditional Development (See Letter, Attachment "A".) in the Permit. 2. SITE LOCATIQN The suhject propeIt~ is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land located on the south side of the Crosstown Freeway (Highway 30) between "G" and "Fft Streets and approximately 175 feet north of 29th Street. The site is utilized as a parking lot for the Church and play yard for the school operated by Faith Bible Church located across the street on the west side of "G" Street. 3 . CEOA STATJ.',S Previous environmental review in conjunction with the approved Conditional Use Permit. 4 . fl}~C!<i:illOUND On June 16, 1981, the Planning commission made a recommendation to the mayor and common Council to approve Conditional Development Permit l141 to establish a 68 space parking lot addition to an existing church facility in the R-I-7200 Single-Family Residential Zone District. In 1981, the City Code required that the Planning Commission make recommendations to the City council for final action on Conditional Development Permits. On July 6, 1981, Conditional Development Permit 1141 was approved by the Mayor and Common Council with conditions, including the following: C> To: Re: Page L o o o The Planning Commission - May 17, 1988 Meeting Conditional Development Permit 1141 2 According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Chapter 19, Section 390 (Separation from residential districts by wall), "Where such areas adjoin residential districts, they shall be separated therefrom by a solid masonry wall five feet in height, provided the wall shall not exceed three feet in height where it is in the front yard area of an abutting residential use or district." Therefore, a ~ foot high masonry wall shall be required along the south o~~he Martin property line of proposed parking lot. That portion that abuts vacant land may be deleted if the property owner agrees in writing and evidence is presented to the Planning Depar tmen t. The mitigated Negative Declaration for environmental review was also considered and approved. On December 15, 1987, the conditional Development Permit appeared on the Planning Commission agenda due to code enforcement action initiated because the parking lot was also being utilized for a play yard without authorization and Condition No. 7 requires the construction of a six-foot high, solid wall which had not been complied with. The December 15, 1987 meeting was to consider revoking the Development Permit. Rather than revoke the Conditional Development Permit the Planning Commission voted to add new conditions as follows: 1. shall be no playground activities within feet of Parcel Nos. 149-032-45 and 149-032- There twenty 37. 2. A six foot masonry wall shall be erected along the entire south and east property lines (Parcel Nos. 24, 7, 64 and 66). 3. The basketball court shall be relocated to the northern portion of the site and have an east-west orientation. 4. Locking gates shall be installed at the entrance to the parking lot. 5. All conditions for Conditional Development Permit No. 1141 shall be completed by April 1, 1988. o o o o To: The Planning Commission - May 17, 1988 Meeting Re: Conditional Development Permit 1141 Page 3 The request from the Church is to of Conditional Development Permit follows: amend Condition No. 2 No. 1141 to read as "A six foot masonry wall shall be erected along the southern property line of Parcel No. 149-032-24." The reasoning for making this request is stated on page two (2) of their letter dated February 16, 1988 (Attachment "A"). In addition to the amended condition clarification and/or a correction is requested. Specifically, the concern is that the amended Conditional Development Permit implies, but does not clearly state that playground activities such as football, soccer, kickball, etc., would be permitted in the grass area to the east of the 68 space parking lot. The request is to have this clearly stated. Condition No.1 also states that there is to be no playground activity within twenty feet of Parcel Nos. 149-032-45 and 149-032-37 yet the applicant states that the Commission at the public hearing stated that the intent was to prohibit playground activity within twenty feet of Mrs. Martin's house and not her property line. (See Attachment ftB".) On May 9, 1988, staff met Church site to review December 15, 1987. with Mr. Marvin Scoggin at the the uses of the site since The following are items which were noted during the field check of the site. 1. "No trespassing, vehicles will be towed" sign has been attached to the gate at the entrance on "G" Street. 2. A street wall and entrance plate has been welded the post supporting of "Gft Street. between the block the gate at the 3 . The back stops basketball goals Scoggin informed removed from the have been removed from the within the paved parking area. Mr. staff that the goal posts will be site. IW o o o o To: The Planning Commission - May 17, 1988 Meeting Re: Conditional Development Permit 1141 Page 4 4. A block wall for the length of approximately 150 feet has been constructed along the south property line adjacent to Mrs. Martin's residence. This block wall extends the full length of paved area less two feet. 5. To the east of this block wall is a grassy area. This area is adjacent to and south of the existing baseball field. Mr. Scoggin has stated this property is subject to a court case. The court case will be held on May 12, 1988, subsequent to this writing. His request revolves around the fact that since the Church may soon be receiving this property and there are existing walls which separate the residence along the periphery to the south and east of this ballfield area, the Church does not believe they should be required to build another wall. (See Attachment "A".) 5. COMMEN~~,~ECEIVED On April 7, 1987, the department received a letter from Mrs. Joyce Martin requesting that code enforcement officer be present to show that conditions of approval regarding the required block wall have not been complied with by the time limitation of April 1, 1988 (See Attachment "B".) 6. C_QtlCJ.USION The applicant has completed certain conditions of approval up to this point and is seeking clarification and amendment from those conditions yet to be completed. From the field review, the proposed amended condition seems to be logical and reasonable. Before the evening of the Planning Commission meeting, staff will review the audio tapes of the meeting of December 15, 1987, to interpret what was stated regarding Condition No. 1 and the requirement of no playground activities within twenty feet of Parcels No. 149-032-45 and 149-032-37. o o o o To: The Planning Commission - May 17, 1988 Meeting Re: Conditional Development Permit 1141 Page 5 7. RECOMMENDb~~ON Staff recommends that Condition No. 2 of the December 15, 1987 list of conditions to read: "2. A six-foot solid wall shall be erected along the south side of the paved parking surface. (APN No. 149-032-45.)" Depending on the determination made by staff after reviewing the December 15, 1987 Commission tapes, staff would recommend a clarification of that condition for the benefit of staff and the applicant. Staff would recommend to add one condition: "If the property in the court proceedings is not donated to the Church, a solid wall shall be established along the property lines as established in Condition No. 2 of the December 15, 1987 report." Respectfully submitted, R. AN&--SIRACUSA Dir~tor of Planning /~MhA.i1~ ~dward G,;;;J;~> Seniol Planner Attachment "B" Attachment "C" Attachment "0" Request by applicant for the amendment and clarification. Letter from Mrs. Joyce Martin. Map of site in question. Staff report of December 15, 1987. Attachment "An EG:cms pcagenda cdp1141t~ 5/12/88 o \\l \ ''i} (j~ '\ ' , , ./ . ~~ '0;~y o Attach!" t If All o '~ r" ;; ~ ,. ,7 !~ Tfi1n . -. . - - l!J F::8 17 1=88 Dr, Jack T.""MUC. Pauur Dan MinnICh. Mim""" of Mwic Jim A.:hilla. Youch MlntSc"," c.:" . - .-~:::t ..... ... :;~ :..., February 16, 1988 TUesday Ms. R. Ann Siracusa, planning Director Room 331-E, City Hall 300 N. .0" St. San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: Conditional Development Permit 11141 Dear Ms. Siracusa: As chairman of the board at Faith Bible Church, I am writing on behalf of the church to requezt (1) amendment of conditional Development Permit ,1141 because of problems arising from recent new conditions for this CDP, and (2), written clarification and/or correction of certain points in the recently amended COP. The church appeared before the planning Commission in a public hearing on Decereber 15, 1987, in order to get COP 11141 amended to allow us to use our parking lot for playground activities. The planning Commission amended the CDP as we requested, but some conditions were added that seem unnecessary and wi 1: cause financial hardship for our church. (The public portion of the meeting was closed by the time these new conditions were imposed, so we were unable to respond during the hearing. We did not appeal the decision for reasons stated below.) Moreover, one of the new conditions seems to be in error, and another leaves unclear wne:her some of the property discussed in the public hearing may be used as a playground. Thus, we are asking that (1) CDP *1141 be amended and (2) the commission's decision be corrected and/or clarified and so stated in the COP. These two points are discussed in detail below. Amendment N~eded We are requesting that Condition #2 of CDP ftl141 be amended to read as follows: A six foot masonry wall shall be erected along the southern property line of parcel No. 149-032-24. (Mrs. r~artin's Parcel No. 149-032-37 lies to the south.! 29th and G StTWS San &mardino, CalifamUl 92405 , nL_ __..... .'00""' "".... o o o I~ ~estated in this way, condition '2 would only require a wall between our parking lot and Mrs. Martin's property, which would give her what she wanted without imposing on us the undue hardship of having to build a wall along our ball field (Parcel NOS. 149-032-7 and 149~032-61) or our small strip of unused land abutting the 'F' St. cul-de-sac (parcel NO. 149-032-66). We are requesting this amendment for the following reasons: 1. We have received no complaints about play activity on our vacant field (parcel Nos. 149-032-61 and 149-032-7). Even Mrs. Martin said that play activity on this field does not bother her. 2. A wall as extensive as condition'2 now requires would be financially burdensome--in excess of $15,000. We simply can't afford that. (We are already facing $15,000+ in necessary roof repairs for our sanctuary, not to mention other less costly but equally significant and necessary improvements to our facili- ties). Furthermore, in light of 1. above, so extensive a wall does not seem necessary. -- 3. Ownership of parcel Nos. 149-032-67 and 149-032-68 is in dispute, and it is possible that these parcels will become ours in the next few months, in which case the wall required by Condition #2 (along Parcel No. 149-032-7) would be running through the middle of our own property. This matter of disputed property is in litigation and probably won't be settled before July 1988 at the earliest, which we only learned since the time of the public hearing. Since our COP stipulates that all work be completed by April 1, we are in the difficult position of having to erect a wall along a boundary that may end up being in the middle of our own property. 4. parcel No. 149-032-66 is a narrow lot bordered on the north by the Crosstown Freeway and on the south by a residence with an existing four foot wall. This parcel is not being used by the church, nor is there any immediate use planned for it. 5. Mrs. Martin has already erected a wooden fence more than six feet tall near the east end of her property (Parcel No. 149- 032-37), so requiring a wall there seems unnecessary. 6. Existing walls or fences, in addition to vacant lots that serve as a buffer, separate our property from the property of our other neighbors. Clarification and/or Correction Needed Clarification or correction is needed on the following: 1. The amended CDP implies, but does not clearly state, the planning Commission's decision to let us use the vacant field (parcel Nos. 149-032-7 and 149-032-61) east of our parking lot for playground activities (e.g., football, soccer, kickball). We would like this to be stated clearly. 2. Condition #1 (in the draft we received) for the amended CDP prohibits any playground activity within 20 feet of Parcel Nos. ~49-032-45 and 149-032-37. However, this goes beyond what FAITH BIBLE CHURCH 2 I' o // /~ o o o the commission actually said in the public hearing. They only prohibited playground activity within 20 feet of Mrs. Martin's house, located on parcel NO. 149-032-45. WhY We Did Not APpeal We realize that we could have appealed the planning commission's decision within 15 days after the public hearing. We did not do so for at least three reasons: 1. We succeeded in getting COP #1141 amended to allow us to use our parking lot as a playground, as we had requested, so we didn't think it necessary to go any further (i.e., to the City council) on the matter. 2. We were under the impression that any remaining problems, such as the ones mentioned above, could be worked out by the city staff, so our plan was to go back to them for any clarification, correction, or adjustment of the conditions in the amended coP. 3. We did not realize how expensive it would be to build a wall extending as far as the amended COP requires. We were prepared to build a wall along the rest of the southern boundary of parcel NO. 149-032-24, where our paved parking lot is located. (We explained at the hear ing why we had not built a wall along the entire length of the parking lot to begin with: We contacted the recorded owner in 1981 to get his permission not to build a wall along his property, parcel No. 149-032-37, but he denied owning it. We finally sent him a letter saying that, unless we heard otherwise from him, we would assume he did not want a wall. We never did hear from him, either to state his desire for a wall or to complain that a wall had not been built. Only since the new owner, Mrs. Joyce Martin, brought up this matter again have we come to realize that our letter to the owner in 1981 was not sufficient.) We were not prepared for the requirement that the wall extend along the entire length of our property. such a requirement places an extreme hardship on us because of the cost involved: A wall that extensive would cost us in excess of $15,000. summarv of Reauests . We are requesting amendment to CDP ,1141 because of needed clarifica~ion, correction, or change as outlined and explained above. We understand that this necessitates another public hearing before the Planning commission. we have appreciated the helpfulness of the city staff who have worked with us on this matter. Both Michael Norton and Dennis Barlow have been especially patient and helpful whenever we have conferred with them. Thank you for giving this matter your attention, Ms. Siracusa, FAITH BIBLE CHURCH 3 o 00 o o o and for initiating the steps necessary for meeting the above requests. Again, we appreciate the caring attitude that the city staff have displayed, and we look forward to getting this whole thing resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Sincerely yours, ~Jd'~Jt. Marvin G. Scoggin, Jr. ,~ Board Chairman . FAITH BIBLE CHURCH 4 "" H o o AttacnmencO" o JOYCE MARTIN, M.A. mI NClIITH G STRUT SAN II_DINO. CALlfOIINlA - TWPHONI - ~ \,' , ~ I j .1' . .; --' r: 'c: r "'I ,,--. .-:\ ..-\j \:1\ i..:J SPfECH PATHOLOGY ~.PR 07 1988 , " '-"--".~'IT en c. ;-'L 7....... ;.J ;..;,.;t'a...~.iw' SAN BEHN:'RDI~D. CA April 4, 1988 Mr. James Perman City Attorney 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA Dear Mr. Penman: On December 15, 1987, the Planning Commission stipulated certain conditions for confonnity to Conditional Development Pennit No. 1141 for a church parking lot and playground. A copy of these conditions is enclosed. The property in question is owned by the Faith Bible Church and is adjacent to my home. Inasmuch as the church has not complied with these conditions as stated, I am herewith requesting an inspection by a zone enforcement officer, an interview with that inspector, and a report of his findings. To the best of my knowledge, the minutes of the December l5th meeting have not been made available to the public; however, earlier data pertinent to this case can be found in the Commission minutes of June 2, 1981 and June 16, 1981. I can be contacted at 883-5660. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ~'Ice-- (/7?L'2.iL,'L a;~e Martln cc: Mr. Roy Nierman, Chairman, Planning Commission Ms. R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning Enclosure o o o o ATTACHMENT "a" CDP :141 NOTe;: AL.L. DIMf:NS/ON~ Ae.e:. APPOXIMATE: .... ;:.~' .:'~~ ....... , - :i . .. .' , ; l,j ~ < r. " .. " ..J " ).. , .~. ... ". III .- ~ 0, , () ? ~ " < .' ,. .~ .. . , z.5'3 ~-..NA Y Fe€.(;... ejw l../Nf: t.J -( r. 120 --- / ~ ,/~ :r l,j QV I < 1,)-< ~ '1'10 ..J ~r ..J ~<( ~ Il;" 0( ~ ~ 'I) + \9' PAR\.(IN<:. AREA 33/,37' /~c 0 ~ ~SO' 15'" ,; . ). ~ ... 0 .. ~ ... ~ . . Q,. ... " 0 ~ . " 78' ..~,: :'~ 2.9 t!! ~T. rn 1 4 De:.PAft?:rMt:NT Or PVI3,-IC WO.eK~ .!:NGINf:e:.e./Nt:;, OlVISION "" SCALE.: 1'~4-0' () CITY OF SA~ ~RNARDiR()" .VlEMORAN8uM - To Planning commission Consideration for the Revocation of Conditional Development Permit 1141 From Planning Departme Date December 15, 1987 Su bject Approved Agenda Item it6 Date Owner/Applicant: Faith Bible Church 2898 N. "G" Street San Bernardino, CA 92405 Int rojJuct ion under authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.78.110, the City Attorney's office recommends consider- ation of revocation of Conditional Deve]cf~~nt Permit 1141 which allowed construction of an auxiliary parking lot for an existing church. The purpose of this action is to enable the Planning Comnoission to review conditions of approval which included construction of a block well on Froperty lines adjacent to residentially zoned property. The City of San Bernardino Euilding and Safety Department, Code Enforcement Section has received complaints from resi- dents located next to the church parking lot concernins ~oul'Y people congregating and creating noise. '=he Code EnforC'~M,'I!t section of the City has issued a "Correction Notice" oated October 26, 19f7 tel the church, U:ee JI.ttachment "C"). Location The parking lot utilized by the chuIch is located south of the c rossto,,'n Freeway, (Highway 30) between "G" and "F" Streets and approximately 175 feet north of 29th Street. The r.!c< j r. C.l'l' I c!. complex is pos it icnl:d imn.ed iately on the west ~ic~ of "G" Stteet across from the parking area, (see Attach- ment "A" and "5"'. The site and property south, east, and west are zoned R-1-72GO. Backoround On May 5, 1981, Faith Bible Church filed COP 1141 with the Planning [.epa,rtn'ent. At the r.!eeting of the Planning Comrnis- sicn June 16, 1981, the following action was taken: the C.D.P. to establish a 68 space parking lot addition to an existing church f~cility in the R-1-7200, Single Family Resioential District, was recommended to the Mayor and City Council for approval. City code :equire~ents in 1981 provid- ed the Planning Commission make recommendation to the City Counc il fe'r final act ion. The Commiss ion imposed cone it ic.n ~,. ",' No.7_which read: Ct.~ ,;.', -~;.,~.,...., o o o o PLANNING COMMISSION Consideration for Revocation of COP 1141 December 15, 1987 Page 2 7. According to the San Eernardino Municipal Code, Chapter 19, Section 390 (Separation from residential district~ by wall), "Where such areas adjoin le~jo~ntial Qi~- tricts, they shall be separated therefrom by a solid masonry wall five feet in height, provided the wall shall not exceed three feet in height where it is in the front yard area of an abutting residential use or district." Therefore, a six foot high masonry wall shall be required along the south of the Martin property line of proposed parking lot. That portion that abuts vecant land may be deleted if the property owner agrees in writing and evidence is presented to the Planning Department. The mitigated Negative Declaration for environ~ental review was also considered and approved. Records indicate the C.D.P. was approved by the Ma~cr and City Council on July 6, 1981. ~10 ,,'Litten agreen.ent has been presented to the City regarding elimination of the block wall. Analvsis The parking lot has b~en turned into a playground basketb~ll area along the eastern portion of the parking lot. There ha~ been no modification of the original Conditional Develcf~e~t Per~it tc, al10w the playgrouno. The church operates a school on Monday through Friday, and the lot is used as a play area for students during recess. In addition to the noise generated by school children, the City has received complaints of young people, (without the church's permission) congregating anc cre~ting excessive noise within the parking lot area. A fairly new block wall exists at the entrance to the parking lot, near "G" Street. Conclusion The Conditional space parking lot noted no Thention request. Development Permit was a request for a 68 addition tc en existing church. Staff of a plaY~lcund within the original C.U.P. o o o o PLANNING COMMISSION Consideration for Revocation of COP 1141 December 15, 1987 Page 3 The parking lot has single fa~ily residences to the south and east. No written agreement regarding elimination of the block wall was received by the City. ll.ecoll1Jl1,endat i or' Staff recommends the Planning Commission: (1) amend ori9in~l CD~~jtional Development pereit tc ellow tbe Fl~ygroun6 area and to mitigate the noise factor by requiring a solid wall on the south and east property lines or (2) revoke Conditional Development Permit Ko. 1141. Respectfully submitted, R. ANN SIRACUSA Planning Director ~(~~ MICHAEL NOR'l'ON Associate Planner csj DC>C:MISC CDP1l41 ~ cO 0 c , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE COP 1141 . AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE i2/1S/81 PAGE o CONDITIONS 'I :," .:..' ',' .'. ~ ~>:", . .~~:-: " Additional Conditions for Conditional Development permit No. 1141: 1. There shall be no playground activities within 20 feet of Parcel Nos. 149-032-45 and 149-032-37. 2. A six foot masonry wall shall be erected along the entire south and east property lines (Parcel Nos. 24,7,64 and 66). The basketball court shall be relocated to the northern portion of the site and have an east-west orientation. Locking gates shall be installed at the entrance to the parking lot. 3. 4. 5. All conditions for Conditional Development Permit No. 1141 shall be completed by April 1, 19S'. .:....}i.:. . ~:. ~ .... 't. ... , . "