Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1973/07/17 Item 04AGENDA I~'EM N0. [ 4 ] A. CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OP: JUIy 17, 1973 a. Public hearing - Consideration of revision in General lan from Industrial to Visitor-Commercial for 3.33 acres at northwest corn r of E St. and I-5 ITEM TITLE: b. Public hearing - Consideration of change of zone from to C-V-P for 3.33 acres at 789 E Street c. Reso]u~ion - Amending Gfenera~ Plan to redesi Hate land use from Industri 1 to Visitor-Commercial) or 3. 3 acres at nort~iwest corn r of E St. and I-~ INITIATED BY: d• Ordinance - Amending Zoning Ordinance req~rding cf~~n a of zone for 3.33 acres at 789 E Street from I to C-V-P - First rea in Director of Planning BACKGROUND The original request by the applicant included a General Plan change from Industrial to Visitor Commercial, a zone change from I to C-V-P, and a conditional use permit to construct and operate a service station. 'The applicant proposes to construct and operate a service station, restaurant and motel on the 3.33 acre site on the north side of E Street between Bay Boulevard and I-5. The Planning Commission heard the matter first on April 23, 1973 and continued it to June 13, 1973 to permit the Environmental Impact Report to be completed and approved. The E.I.R. was approved by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1973. At the June 13, 1973 meeting the Planning Commission noted that while the General Plan and zoning changes conformed to the proposed Bayfront Plan, the proposed site plan for development of the site did not conform to the development criteria set forth in the Bayfront Report, which has been endorsed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Accordingly, the matter was continued to June 27 to allow the applicant time to consider whether or not they wished to submit revised plans conforming with the Bayfront design and development criteria. Such plans were not submitted, and the applicant indicated that he wished to have his plan considered for approval as originally submitted. On June 27 the Planning Commission adopted motions which recommended to the City Council that: (1) The General Plan be changed from Industrial to Visitor Commerciah (Res. PCM-73-8) (continued on supplemental page) ATTACHED: Resolution [x] Ordinance [x] Agreement [ ] See EXHIBITS Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: 1. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan for the subject prof Industrial to Visitor Commercial in accordance with Planning Commissi 2. Adopt an ordinance amending the zoning of the subject property frc accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCZ-73-G. Department Head_ Recommendation: Concur City Manager Recommendation: Concur Plat [ x] x] No. 1,2 arty from m Res. PCM-73-8. I to C-V-P in ,~b~3s' AGENDA ITEM N0. 4 Supplemental Page No. 2 (2) The zoning be changed from I to C-V-P (Resolution PCZ-73-G). The Planning Commission also adopted a motion denying the conditional) use permit for the service station. The applicant has filed a letter of appeal but has not filed the app al fee. Technically, therefore, the matter of the appeal is not before the C uncil. The applicant does hope to gain some direction from Council as to his pr posed site plan and architectural treatment, however. These matters are also discussed in this report so that Council may address this issue if it so desires. B. ANALYSIS 1. Conformance to Bayfront Plan. The proposed amendment to the Gen ral Plan and rezoning request are in basic conformance with the recommendation co tained in the consultant's plan. The plan designates this area (subarea D, Bay Bo levard area of the Bayfront Study) for visitor commercial uses, such as restaura ts, motels, and gas stations. The importance of this area is emphasized in the tudy because of its relationship to the major entranceway to the Bayfront (E Street). 2. Conflicts with Bayfront Plan. The applicant's proposed plan (ex ibit B) does not, however, conform to the development criteria recommended by the consultant and endorsed by the Council and Commission (exhibit C). The major p ints of conflict are: (a) The applicant's plan proposes direct access from E Street hich the Bayfront Report specifically recommends against. This may seem at first glance to be a small point, but more careful review reveals the import nce of this consideration from a design point of view. Direct access to th service station from E Street vs. a landscaped berm in this area is an issue wh ch will tend to determine whether this visitor-commercial cluster will be a typ cal highway oriented service station, motel and restaurant complex, or whet er it will constitute an inviting, appealing entrance into an attractive, nique area. The applicant has indicated that without this access an oil com any would not be interested in the site. It is difficult for staff to believ that major oil companies would reject this site unless direct access to E treet is avail- able. Certainly, westbound motorists on E Street west of I-5 w uld not object to turning a corner and traveling an additional 200 feet or so n order to obtain gasoline. ~I (b) The Bayfront Report recommends that buildings should be si ed close to the Bay Boulevard frontage, with most of the related parking pr vided to the rear, adjacent to the freeway right-of-way. The study also rec mmends that landscaping, sufficient in height to screen parked vehicles fro view, be provided adjoining the E Street offramp. The applicant's plan hows the majority of parking oriented toward Bay Blvd. with a sparse pla ting area adjacent to the E Street offramp paralleling I-5. (c) One of the principal objectives of the Bayfront Plan is th t "high design standards must be maintained so that an attractive entranceway s created, consistent with the planning for the balance of the Bayfront." ~,, This objective encompasses not only land forms and land use but also architec- tural design and materials. The consultants have emphasized th t it is not so essential to develop a specific architectural theme for the ntire Bayfront, but rather close attention should be paid to all architectural etails of individual projects so as to promote a feeling of distinctive u iqueness and beauty. The architectural concepts proposed for the three uses in question lack compatibility and imagination of design and materials and are typical of a cluster of uses that may be found at a freeway interchange in any area lacking design control. The proposed design treatment is entirely unsatisfactory as an entry feature into an area that may potentially become an exciting and unique recreational area. ~~93s~ AGENDA ITEM N0, Supplemental Page No. 3 3. Signs. The applicant indicated his acceptance of the sign provisions proposed in the Bayfront Report. However, he would like to utilize signs permitted by the present C-V District standards for a minimum period of five years. Under the State Division of Highways' present proposal, the southbou for the E Street interchange will be relocated from its existing loc point approximately 1/2 mile to the north, coinciding with the Inter interchange. At such time as this permanent interchange is construc mately 1978), even tall, freeway-oriented signs on the subject prope be capable of being seen time for southbound freeway traffic to exit offramp. Such signs would, however, be visible to southbound freewa the interchange system now in existence. Understandably, the applic freeway-oriented signs, 40' and 50' in height, for this period. It opinion that such a proposal represents a reasonable request but tha should be given to placing the signs on one pole. The sign should n 225 sq. ft. in total area or 50' in height. Such signing should be on a temporary basis and guarantees for the future removal of the si required. 4. Street Furniture. In order to help create a distinctive charactE Bayfront Area, attention should be given to the development of specie for such items as electroliers, street signs, fire hydrants, and pert signals. Staff desires to be able to do considerable work in this ai Planning Commission and City Council can adopt special designs to be Bayfront Area. d offramp tion to a tate 5 and #54 ed (approxi- ty will not on the E Street traffic under nt desires two s the staff's consideration t exceed llowed only ns should be ~r i n the ~1 designs laps traffic 'ea so the used in the k~r3s'