Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1975/04/22 Item 12a,bAGENDA ITEM N0. [12ab ] CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: April 22, 1975 Consideration of Precise Plan for development of approximately one acre at the northwest quadrant of I-805 and Bonita Road, Creaser-Price ITEM TITLE: Insurance gency Resolution - Approving Precise Plan for the Mex Insur Agency and Chula Vista Tourist Information Center at the northwest quadrant of I-805 and Bonita Road. INITIATED BY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission considered a conditional use permit to build in the Sweetwater Valley Flood Plain and a Precise Plan for the one-acre parcel on April 9, 1975. The conditional use permit was approved and the Precise Plan was recommended to Council for approval. The staff report to the Planning Commission on the Precise Plan is attached. 2. Conditional use permit resolution since it is referenced in the Precise conditional use permit is required. PCC-75-2 is enclosed for Council's information Plan recommendation. No Council action on the 3. An Initial Study (IS-75-10) of possible adverse environmental impacts of this project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on January 30, 1975. The E.R.C. concluded that there would be no significant effects and made a draft Negative Declaration (enclosed). The Planning Commission certified the Negative Declaration on April 9, 1975. The Negative Declaration is herewith forwarded to Council for review and certification. ANALYSIS Sign Program Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the applicant's proposed 40 ft. high, 192 sq. ft. pole sign not be approved, but that instead a smaller temporary sign be approved at the northwest corner of the adjoining property closer to the offramp until such time as a motel was built, or for a maximum period of 5 years, provided the necessary agreements were reached between the two property ATTACHED: Resolution [X] (contor~aedao~ s~ppl emenlAgr P mgerit [ ] Plat [X ] See EXHIBITS [X] No. 1 thru 9 Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 4-2 on April 9, 1975 to: (1) Certify the Negative Declaration (IS-75-10); and (2) Recommend that the City Council approve the Precise Plan in accordance with Resolution PCM-75-2. Department Head Recommendation: Concur, with the following additions and modifications: (1) Adopt a motion finding that in accordance with the attached Negative Declaration and the findings therein, the Creaser-Price Precise Plan PCM-75-2 will not have any possible significant impact on the environment, and certifying that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, 1970, as amended. (2) In lieu of condition No. 3 d of the Resolution, regarding the 40 ft. high pole sign, it is recommended that a temporary freestanding pole siggn (maximum letter height 30", maximum height 28 ft. and maximum area 100 sq. ft.) shall be allowed to be located at the northwest corner of the adjoining property until such time as the motel is constructed. This approval is predicated on the applicant procuring the necessary agreement with that property owner. Upon construction of the motel the pole shall removed and the sign relocated on the end of the motel building. The pole sign may remain in position fora maximum period of five years, after which time it shall be removed regardless of whether the motel has been constructed or not. The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post a suitable surety to guarantee performance pursuant to this condition of approval. City Manager Recommendation: Concur with Planning Commission recommendation.. - /~-?7~~ AGENDA ITEM N0.12ab Supplemental Page No. 2 owners. (Please see paragraphs B c and C 1 (b) of the staff report to the Commission.) Under the C-V zoning the maximum permitted height and size of sign is 35 ft. and 150 sq. ft. However; under the Precise Plan zoning, Council can modify this. The owner of the adjoining 2~ acre site has filed a letter with the City stating that the signs of all the businesses, including this applicant, may be placed on the end of the proposed motel structure. Staff's concern has been that approval of a permanent freestanding freeway oriented sign for one business will set the stage for other similar requests. The issue of freeway oriented signs is not easy to resolve. Two basic questions which must be answered are: (1) whether freeway oriented signs should be allowed at all; and (2) if so,how should that identification be accommodated. Most of the commer- cially zoned areas along the I-805 freeway enjoy relatively good exposure. However, only a small proportion of freeway traffic can be expected to be familiar with the various businesses at each interchange. To the extent that Council wishes to incourage through freeway traffic to stop in Chula Vista, large, freeway oriented signs can be justified. In considering this question it is appropriate for Council to recognize that such signs would be out of scale with the development and the surrounding area. Council should also be aware of the probability of signs within the freeway right of way, north of the Bonita Road offramp, which will indicate that food, lodging, gas and visitor information are available at the next interchange. The second question relating to how to accomplish the identification is more difficult. Each business could be allowed to erect its own sign, provided each applicant supplied the City with the necessary data regarding height, size, etc., noting the recommended distance needed to read the sign and make a safe exit from the freeway. The farther each business is from the interchange, the taller and larger the sign proposals will be. Alternatively, some kind of integrated sign proposal can be worked out. As noted earlier, the owner of the property adjacent on the west (on which a motel, restaurant and gas station have been approved) has indicated a willingness to allow the applicant to place a sign on the end wall of the motel. Staff has worked on several designs for this type of cooperative signing and believes it to be the preferable solution (see illustrative Exhibit F). The Planning Commision took testimony from both property owners and voted to recommend that the applicant's sign be approved as submitted. This is contained in paragraph 3 d of the Planning Commission Resolution PCM-75-2. Circulation At the April 9th Planning Commission meeting, testimony was given by the representative of the adjacent property in which certain concerns were expressed relating to the internal circulation pattern between the two properties. Since that property owner is going to request an opportunity to address the Council during its deliberation on this matter, it may be helpful to brief the Council on the sequence of events and plans leading up to this submittal. 1. In August, 1972, the northwest quadrant of I-805 and Bonita Road was rezoned to C-V-P. 2. In October, 1972, the Planning Commission approved a Precise Plan (see Exhibit C) for the westerly 2~ acres. Plans were not submitted on the remaining one acre parcel since the site was owned by Humble Oil Company and plans for development of the site had not been formalized. Recognizing the need to coordinate access between the two ownerships and, more importantly, to provide the future developers of the one acre site with safe access to a controlled intersection, the Planning Con~ission required that the owners of the 2~ acre site provide a 24 ft. wide joint access driveway to the adjoining site. 3. In the latter part of 1974 the various property owners contacted the City. The owner of the one acre site indicated his desire to request approval of a Precise Plan and the owners of the 2~ acre site expressed their desire to refine the original plan which was somewhat schematic in layout. The staff suggested that the owners meet to develop a mutually acceptable plan. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12 ab Supplemental Page No. 3 4. Asa result of that meeting an architect was hired and an overall plan developed predicated on the relocation of specific property lines and joint access agreements to facilitate circulation between the businesses. During the develop- ment of this plan discussion took place between the developers relating to the possible exchange of a portion oP property along the westerly end of the one acre site. 5. Months and several plans later, the property owners were unable to reach an agreement. The owners of the 2~ acre site notified the adjoining property owner that they were no longer interested in the purchase of additional land. 6. A Precise Plan for the development of the one acre parcel was then submitted for Planning Commission consideration. With the exception of a minor adjustment to the location of the required joint access location, the plan sub- mitted was in complete coordination with the adopted plan for the 2~ acres. 7. During the time the owner of the one acre site submitted plans for approval and the hearing date before the Planning Commission, the owner of the 2~ acre site submitted various plans encompassing all of the properties within this quadrant of I-805. Those plans indicated the need fora 24 ft. wide joint access along the entire westerly property line of the one acre parcel up to the freeway right of way. 8. The staff has no objection to this alternate proposal, since, in our opinion, the traffic circulation for the one acre parcel is neither impaired nor improved by the change. However, since the City has already approved a plan for the 2~ acre parcel, it is inappropriate for the City to ask the owner of the one acre site to design his circulation to fit a plan which has not been adopted. It is staff's opinion that the two owners should resolve the problem between themselves at this point in time.