The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1976/03/23 Item 03a,bCITY OF CHULA VISTA ITEM N0. 3 a, b COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT. 3/23/76 FOR MEETING OF: ITEM TITLE: Pub11C hearing - Consideration of request for modification of precise plan at Handyman Center, 1261 Third Avenue - Burger King Resolution 8088 - Amending precise plan for Handyman Center, 1261 Third Avenue ~~ SUBMITTED BY~ Director of P1 anni ng ,'/ ~~ ITEM EXPLANATION 1. The precise plan for the Handyman Store at 1261 Third Avenue (see locator) was approved in April, 1973. A separate parcel (125' x 293') for "future building" was shown on the plan, fronting on Third Avenue. The Burger King restaurant chain now desires to locate a restaurant on this parcel; therefore, a modification to the original precise plan is required. 2. An Initial Study, IS-76-6, of possible adverse environmental impact of this project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on February 11, 1976. The E.R.C. concluded that there would be no significant effects and made a draft Negative Declaration, which was certified by the Planning Commission. A copy of the Environmental Review Committee staff report is attached and the Initial Study application, evaluation and all other relevant documents are on file in the Planning Department for review. 3. Burger King plans to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. building with a drive-through station and inside seating for 106. The architecture consists of a shake shingle roof with the exterior covered in brick veneer. 4. On February 23, 1976 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed modification and concluded that the revised plan relates well to the existing center's access, parking and architecture. 5. A full discussion and analysis of the rezoning proposal is contained in the enclosed staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 23, 1976. EXHIBITS ATTACHED Agreement Resolution X Ordinance Plat X Other-Fxh . A & F~ Rpt. to Plan. Com. 2/23/ Environmental Document; Attached X Submitte~ Qn ~ $ ~ V E DResolution PCM-76-4 by STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council Cit,~ Concur with Planning Commission °F Chula Vista, C/jaliiornia Date ..........~~~ .......................... .. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On February 23, 1976 the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to (1) recommend that Council find that in accordance with the attached Negative Declara- tion and findings therein the revision to the precise plan will not have any significant impact on the environment and certify that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA of 1970 as amended: (2) recommend amendment of the precise plan in accordance with conditions and findings COUNCIL ACTION set forth in Resolution PCM-76-4. Form A-113 (Rev. 5 - 75) I ~ ~ 1 r---- ~ ~ 11 ----~ 1 ~J ' ~~ ~ i - 1 ~ ~ + 1 ---~ ~ 1 ~----~ ~--- 1 1 'j 1 1 1 `--- 1 '1 1 t CHURCH 1 '~ 1 ' ----- --- ~ ~ 1 SF ` APTS. r VA CANT 1 GA WASH --- ' pRIV~-THRU REST. VACANT ( f ----- I T. F --- -~ ~ ~ ~ S.F. -_ 1 t 1 ! 1 -- ~ - --- - i PcT ~~ i CLINIC 1 1 1 1 RESTAURANT { ~ 1 F--~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ jSERVIGE ~ 1 i 1 1 1 1 STATI ON 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 n ¢-ZO~high F ~ ' ~ SERV. 1 1 STA. 1 '.-- - ~---- - ' L ----~ ~1 '~~ '~ IM .~8~~ OXFORD 1 ~ t 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 / ~ 1 j 1 t , i , 1 1 , 1 , 1 1 1 ,1 1 ~ 1 1 1 t I 1 ----J 1 ' 1 I 1 ' 1 1' 1 1 1 I W -----1 1 1 1 , 1 { ' 1 1 1 : 1 ~ I Z ' ' 1 > -.~ -,-a-----~ R-3 Q PET SHOPS ' 1 ( APARTMENTS S T. 1.~ ~ ~~.~ ~ ~ i ' I i 1 1 i I ~ ~ ~ f 1 1 ~ 1 , ~ 1 I 1 1 ~ 1 , , 1 , 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 L-1----t 1 1 1 1----J ~ i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I R-Z1A ~ ;---- I ' ~ I 1 I 1 ~--~- ~r-i---- 1 1 1 I I r---- ~ i ; 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~SF LODGES ~ ~ ~ 1 ~---- VAC; ; i ~ ~---- 1 1 1 1 I 1 ~SF 1 I SF ' 1 I t---- - ~ I I I ~ - ~,( ~' ~'•~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ _. /J/// / / ' ~ ~~~~~~+^ / VACANT -_ / /// / / Ri 1 ~ :r~I ~i:~~~l~A~j: I ~~O ~ - ~ '~ ~ ~ 9 vAGn MT _ v, -f PAP 1 4 -----------------------~-- 1'' ~ ! -- -. - -- - --1 VAGA. N T ` 'A RKlNG _~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~- "- SF S.F. 1 °~" _ _ 1 4'AC ANT ~ ~__, -._- _-~.--T--1 ~ I ' ._ _.i ~(3PG~~ ' c_-~a~f 1 1 i ~ - -- ~ $AAf?f le ~, , ~? ~- - -- -- ---t ~ ~ I , i i .~ ~--- Fooo.! ~; sTORF i ~ 1 /~ i j ~ P1 VACANT R-3-NI-P PA LO ~V] A R 9~-= I SERVICE j S TAT t C3N ~ i f -------~ SHOPPING C:=LATER C~C 1. 4. v APARTMENTS fi~~~~ ~.,.~,,~ a71AP +~,.~,. n s ~~~~.~~, - ~~sv ?! A,U FoR T~::=~ , ' R-3 o ,oo ~oo~t ~IILJ~~~~ ESL~ I~ M~' (~ Iii ~oU~l .9 i~ _ .. - Y 9 ------ .. ,, n - - ' ~.~ ~ o : ~=v~~~ iti ~~ j ~~ ,110 _~ Y~ 3 '~ Q ____. EXH181T B PCM-76-4 A!lENO PRECISc FLAPJ FOR BURGER KING-I~O~ BLK. THIRD AVE. ~1 ,v...,.+ ~.-~+ s ....c...n r .... ~.. .,,,......o ..- ...~. «-.: ° ~.....~..o...~ M CF W.~w~ ....~... ~~•,e~ J 7 ...... ~.~ •~ .~ ~f~l _ •i- -~- ------ i ire ~ ~ ~n;~~ti~~~i Q ~un~ .~ ..t..... ~s....,..+...« •.w -.n. ..u.wa..o ~w~t`a ~ O~a-~Z~1 t~,,t; ~~ a ,,, , . ~;v, i ,~- . ; . , . ~ , .., ;. • ~ I ~ I i ~ .,~~, .'; ~ t ,, , . •~ f` ,~, o ~~ ~ ~~ z ~ o r ~ P ~ ~~ ~ { ` ~ ~ ~~r ~"F J _ + l ,Ij f ~ ir9 , 4- i l j t. ~ Y , 1 ~ ~) ~~ _~ ~ I ~_ 3a,~ x3 City Planning Can~mission Agenda Items for ~1~eting of February 23, 1976 page 5 3. PUQLIC HEARING: Consideration of request for modification of Precise Plan at 1200 block Third Avenu~.~, Burger King ~ A. BACKGROUND 1. The precise plan for the Handyman Store at 1261 Third Avenue (see lccator) was approved in April, 1973. A separate parcel (125' x 293') for "future building" was shown on the plan, fronting on Third Avenue. The Burger King restaurant chain noYr desires to locate a restaurant on this parcel; therefore, a modification to the original precise plan is required. 2. An Initial Study, IS-76-6, of possible adverse environmental impact of this project was conducted by the Environmental Revie4v Committee on February 11, 1976. The E.R.C. concluded that there ~ti~ould be no significant effects and made a draft Pegative Declaration, ~rhich is herewith forvrarded for Planning Con7nission certification. A copy of the Environmental Review Committee staff report is attached and the Initia] Study application, evaluation and all other relevant documents are on file in the Planning Gepartment for review. 6. RECO~~P~ENDATION 1.' Adopt a motion finding that this project would not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certifying the Negative Declaration. 2. Adopt a motion approving the modification of the Precise Plan PCM-76-4 for the Burger King restaurant, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Section F of this report. C. DISCUSSION 1. Surrounding zoning and land use. North - C-C-P; C (County) Parking, offices South - C-C-P 2 single family.horaes; restaurant East - C-C-P Handyman Store West - C (County) Third Avenue; transmission repair 2. Site characteristics. The 125' x 293' parcel is generally flat; however, it slopes up sharply to Third Avenue, the latter being 5' higher than the site at the sidewalk. The Handyman Center is fully developed with the exception of this property. The site is devoid of natural vegetation. Some landscaping was previously corrpl~ted in conjunction arith Handyman on the slopes next to Third Avenue and the entrance driveway to the Center. The westerly 2/3 of the parcel is now occupied with parking stalls, all of which will be retained. 3. Proposal (See Exhibits "A" and "B") Burger King plans to construct a 3,016 sq. ft. building with a drive-through station and an insido seating capacity of 106. Forty-nine parking spaces are being proposed; only 42 are required; however, the extra parking is needed ror the existing stores in the center. The restaurant proposes to use a freestanding pole . , City Planning Commission Agenda Items far Meeting of February 23, 1976 page 6 sign, 35' high, and 173 sq, ft. in area (Exhibit "B") for its primary identif- ication. The sign 4rould be located next to the sidewalk on Third Avenue. D. ANALYSIS 1. Parking and circulation. The parking and circulation fit 4re11 into the existing center plan. A1tho~lgh the number of stalls matches that required for the total center, a joint parking agreement vrill be required, since there will undoubtedly be joint usage of the parking by patrons of both Burger King and Handyman: Handyman Store - 55,000 sq. ft. 1 200 = 276 parking spaces Express Lane Building - 9,000 sq. ft. s 200 = 45 . Burger King - 106 seats j 2.5 = 43 Total required 364 Total provided 364 2. Architecture. The building utilizes a shake shingle roof with the exterior covered by a brick veneer, making it an attractive commercial addition to the area. 3. 0.^.-site light s+,.andards. . The proposed on-site light standards are unattractive (see Exhibit B)• Their height and configuration are such that they call attention to themselves. A simpler, slimmer, more graceful, less conspicuous design should be required. See 8'~ x 11 xerox print showing small sketch of two electrolier designs. 4. Signs. The proposed pole sign does not comply with the sign ordinance with regard to area, nor is it compatible in height with other signs within the C-C-P zoning at Third Avenue and Palomar. - The zoning ordinance (Sec. 19.36.040 A. 2) limits the maximum sign area of a freestanding sign to 150 sq. ft., whereas the proposed sign is approximately 173 sq. ft. in area. Under the provisions of the "P" District (Sec. 19.56.02 i) all signs being proposed must be submitted for Planning Commission review. Tire following comparison of other signs within the "P" District area of Third and Palomar is offered for the Planning Commission's consideration. Business Sign Area Height Handyman 100 sq. ft. 30 ft. Express Lane 84 sq. ft. 21 ft. Texaco 72 sq. ft. 20 ft. Proposed bank 96 sq. ft. 25 ft. Burger King 173 sq. ft. 35 ft: ~Q~ -City Planning Conmission Agenda Items for h1eeting of February 23, 1976 page 7 It is clear from this comparison that the proposed sign is not in proportion to nearby signs in the area. Sec. 19.60.220 of the sign regulations indicates that it is the intent of ttie City Council to avoid the placer;ent of signs which are ~ disproportionate and disharmonious with adjacent signs or structures. Therefore, ~ it is appropriate that the Corr~ission give consideration to limiting the sign in some fashion. An area of 100 sq. ft. and a height of 25-30 ft. appears appropriate The restaurant also proposes a 60 sq. ft. mansard sign facing Third Avenue which is in conformance with the ordinance standards. 5. Landscaping In addition to the landscaping proposed on Exhibit "A", the existing slope bank up to Third Avenue should be renewed. j(~QO 3a,~ x~ DRArT trEGATIVE [~ECLt~;2ATI0id OF ENUIttOtt°1LffiAL IMPACT On February 11, 1976 a draft Negative Qeclaratian of Fn viror~rrrental Imf:~act was rc:~o;i~r~,~ric~~~y `tTie tnvircr•~~~c:nial Rcvieti~a •Cc~,lmittee of the Ci ~y of Chula Vista. The proaect is described as fol-Ic~~~s: Construr_tion of a 3000 s:~. ft. ~ "fast. food" r.estaur_ant c~,.ith 49 vearkings <?.~~ces and 5643 sq.~_t:____._ oi= lan~scapinc~ y `~ ro`Toca-£'ior% On tie eas=t side o _ Tn~.rd t=eve. etween hcnne y St. It i s the finding of th? Env i rcr7;n~ntal Revi a.a Ca~nmi Lt<~S that the prof ect wi 11 nc~t hate a significant effect on the environmEnt for the following reasorrs; 1. The project is proposed f.or an urbanized area of Chula Vista which is void of any substantial environmental resources or hazards. The operation of this small retail facility will not generate any pollutants which could degrade the qualit~j of the environment. Standard development regulations will preclude any significant impact. 2. The project conforms to all long range goals of the City of Chuia Vista and therefore will not attain short term to the ~ disadvantage of long term goals. There will be no significan~ long term impacts . ~ mhe l~vv ,_.~ -,.,.. ..~ , < w..l ~: ;paw ~. on airy resources Yi cc:iuue any cumulatively significant impact. The lack of any growth inducing factors precludes any interaction that would produce cumulatively significant impacts with secondary effects. 4. The relationsip with adjacent commercial uses and the lack of any significant emissions directly or indirectly from the proposed project will preclude any significant impact. IvTOTE: These findings are limited to the consideration of a modification of the precise plan and site plan and architectural review of the proposed project. Information for the Initial Study was pr~epared by: -- David harper & Assoc. 9050 Te14gr_aph Downey, The Initial S%udy Application and Evaluation is on file with the Environmental (;ev-~ew Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista and may be reviewed at the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista bet<<~een U:00 a.rn. and 5;UO p~m. • A~ ~ ~~J//</ ~'` Envi roni~~a~kevi ew Coorai rya nor; CASE NUi~t6ER IS-76-6 Date Feb . i 1. , i. 97 G G~(~r-CN 3 {rev. 3-?.J~75~ lJdr February 10, 1976 T0: Members of the Environmental Review Committee FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator SUBJECT: IS-76-6 Burger King A. Background This project involves the construction of 3000 sq. ft. "fast food" restaurant on the east side of Third Ave. between Kennedy St. and Palomar St. The site was previously graded and is void of any - significant natural features. There are no substantial hazards on or near this site which could adversely effect the project. B. Recommendation ~ ---Adopt this staff report and evaluation form and recommend that ~ the Planning Commission and City Council find that the project will not have any possible significant impact on the environment in accordance ;~;ith the attached ?negative Declaration. C. Project Setting The project site was graded with the Handyman Store a number of years --ago, all natural features were removed at that time. The nearest earthquake fault is the Sweetwater Fault almost a mile to the east of this site. -A soils report on the site indicates the presence of expansive soils, however adequate compensation can be provided through footing/slab reinforcement. -here is no ground water present, no flood plain or any signifcant -.drainage problem. The project will be subject to normally unacceptable noise levels due to traffic on Third Ave. Because of the nature of the project, no significant effect is anticipated. D. Project Description This structure would have 3016 sq. ft. of floor area and would be -~ served by 49 parking places while providing 5643 sq. ft. of landscaping. In addition to the walk-up counter and the drive thru window, seating for 106 would be provided. The existing parking area east of the new facility would be -- re-striped from 60'" to 45° parking. Three 38 ft. high mercury vapor light standards would be provided. This lighting would be shielded by spherical light enclosures. The air quality impact analysis in the Initial Study is based on 25 new vehicle trips associated with the project. The proponent has indicated that the other 1000+ trips would not be unique trips, i.e., they would be made even without this facility. The engineering memo includes an analysis, based on the total 1050 trips per day. Either method results in a finding of no significant air quality impact. E. Findings 1. The project is proposed for an urbanized area of Chula Vista which is void of any substantial environmental resources or hazards. The operation of this small retail facility will not generate any pollutants which could degrade the quality of the environment. Standard development regulations will preclude any significant impact. ~' 2. The project conforms to all long range goals of the City of Chula Vista and therefore will not attain short term to the disadvantage of long term goals. There will be no significant _ long term impacts. 3. The lack of any impact on any resources preclude any cumulatively significant impact. The lack of any growth inducing factors precludes any interaction that would produce cumulatively significant impacts with secondary effects. 4. The relationsip with adjacent commercial uses and the lack of any significant emissions directly or indirectly from the proposed project will preclude any significant impact. -NOTE: These findings are limited to the consideration of a -modification of the precise plan and site plan and architectural review of the proposed project. "v