Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/10/23 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chula Vista, California 6:00 p,m Wednesday, October 23, 2002 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA CALL TO ORDER: Hall Madrid O'Neill Cortes Castaneda Hom McCann ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1, ACTION ITEM: PCC 02-32; Consideration of a Resolution of Denial for a Conditional Use Permit to add a gasoline service station adjacent to an existing convenience store at 4300 Main Street in the CN-P Zone, Project Planner: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 02-22; Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a 6,600 sf satellite retail building in an existing in-line retail shopping center, located at 1210 Broadway, southwest corner of Oxford Street. Project Planner: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. ~\~ ---...:- ~~~$ Cffi'~ GlUIA ViliTA Departtnent: of Plan.n.in.g and Building Date: October 23, 2002 To: Planning Commissioners Via: James Sandoval, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning From: John Schmitz, Principal Planner Subject: Resolution PCC 02-32 (Citgo Gas Station) On September 25th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above application and voted to deny the application. Attached is the proposed resolution reflecting the Commission's action with the appropriate findings for that decision. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC 02-32 denying this application for the reasons stated. JCS J:\Planning\JohnS\StaffReports\PC\2002\PC - Citgo denial reso_DOC RESOLUTION NO, PCC-02-32 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC02-32 TO ADD A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE AT 4300 MAIN STREET IN THE CN-P ZONE. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on January 3, 2001 by the Seven-Eleven, Inc. "(Applicant);" and WHEREAS, said Applicant requests permission to add a gasoline service station (Citgo) adjacent to the existing convenience store (7 -Eleven) at 4300 Main Street by way of a conditional use permit if approved by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 1 categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15301 m minor additions to existing facilities or structures) with regards to the effects of the proposal on the environment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee considered this matter on September 16th 2002 and approved the design and forwarded a conditioned recommendation of approval, and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for the public hearing for said conditional use permit and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500-ft. of the exterior boundaries ofthe property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely September 25th 2002 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at both public hearings with respect to subject application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista made the following findings, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that prohibits the stated finding from being made. 1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community, The requested service station use is not desirable and proposes a facility that will not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed facility is not necessary because the public convenience can be served by other service stations in the area. Page 2 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, The proposed gasoline service station would be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. As a result of public testimony, the existing convenience store was found to have lax management and inadequate controls on the exterior portions of the site, which has allowed the subject property to develop a reputation as a place to loiter creating an undesirable atmosphere, especially after dark. The addition of the service station to this existing commercial establishment adjacent to a residential use (condominiums) was found not to be in the best interests of the neighborhood. 3, That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use, The Zoning Code requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone with a Precise Plan modifying district (CNP) allows automobile service stations, subject to a conditional use permit. The site plan submitted with the application presented a proposed service station that appeared to be in compliance with all conditions. codes and regulations. 4, That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency, This conditional use permit for a gasoline service station is in compliance with the General Plan land use designation of Retail Commercial and will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit PCC-02-32 in accordance with the findings contained in this resolution. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 23rd day of October, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Russ Hall, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary J :\Plannjng\HAROLD\Rcsolutions\PCRESOpcc02~32- deny.doc ._.__.__._-----~-_._--~..._.__.._--,---_.__.....- PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item:~ Meeting Date: 10/23/02 ITEM TITLE: Continued Public Hearing: Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite retail building in an existing in-line retail shopping center, located at 1210 Broadway, southwest corner of Oxford Street. The applicant is seeking approval of a Precise Plan pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19. ]2.] 20, Sections 19.14.570 - 580 and Sections 19.56.040 - 048, which allows for deviations from Zoning Code as well as the Montgomery Specific Plan development standards in order to add a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite retail building within an existing in-line retail shopping center. The proposed satellite building will include a Starbuck's Cafe with an outdoor seating area, and two new commercial tenants. The proposal also requires a Planned Sign Program pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 19.60.220- 250 and Sections 19.60.490 - 520 for the existing and new signage being proposed, and the applicant is appealing the decision of the Design Review Committee to replace the two existing freestanding "lollypop" pole signs with a single pylon sign, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Design Review Committee's decision in order to allow forthe retention of the two non-conforming pole signs. Pursuant to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Division has reviewed the proposal and found that the Precise Plan to add the satellite building is exempt per Section ]5303 (c) for small new structures, and that the Planned Sign Program is also exempt per Section 153 I ] (a) for on-premise signs. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At their August 19, 2002 meeting, the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the Precise Plan and the Planned Sign Program with the modification to the Planned Sign Program as noted in the Notice of Decision. RECOMMENDA TION: That the Planning Commission approve the attached ResolutionPCM- 02-22 and PSP 03-01 that: 1. Recommends that the City Council approve the Precise Plan, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached draft City Council resolution 2. Modifies the Design Review Committee's action on the Notice of Decision with regards to the Planned Sign Program to allow the applicant a three-year time frame to replace the existing pole sign on Broadway with a new pylon sign designed to match the style of the shopping center, and immediately replace the existing pole sign on Oxford with a monument sIgn. DISCUSSION: At their September 25th meeting, the Planning Commission considered this application to construct a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite building in the existing parking lot, realign the existing parking configuration r PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01 -2- October 23,2002 including landscaped planters at the ends of the parking aisles, provide a 10-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Streets, and provide fa<;,ade improvements to the existing in-line building. The Commission was favorably disposed to the project because it would provide a facelift to an older commercial center in a part of Chula Vista that is the focus ofrevitalization efforts. However, the evenings debate on this project centered on the handling of the two pole signs on the site that are nonconforming to the City's current sign regulations. The applicant insisted that, ifforced to abide by the requirements of the planned sign program approved by the Design Review Committee, they could not incur the legal costs associated with abating the signs if the tenants sued them over the issue. They would therefore not proceed with the project. With some direction on the signs, the Planning Commission referred the matter back to staff to see if an agreement could be worked out that would allow the project to proceed. Staff met with the applicant on October 2 and sent them a letter a week later outlining the City's position on the status of signs (see Attachment 3). The applicant then discussed the sign issues with their tenants and reached agreement with them that will allow the Oxford Street pole sign to be removed if it can be replaced with a monument sign. The Broadway pole sign may be replaced with the construction ofthe new satellite commercial building, but the applicant would still like to receive a three-year grace period in the event of any complications in final negotiations or construction scheduling They would be willing to post a bond prior to the occupancy of the new building if the sign is not removed by then. Staff believes this is an equitable solution to the sign problem at this location that will allow the remodeling of this center to proceed. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve the modifications to the planned sign program since the applicant appealed it to them after DRC action. Revised Planning Commission and City Council resolutions (Attachments 4 and 5) have been prepared to reflect the changes necessary to document the terms ofthe agreement. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0 1 to approve the modified Planned Sign Program, and to recommend that the City Council approved the Precise Plan subject to the conditions in the draft City Council resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. September 25 Staff Report to Planning Commission on PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0l 3. Letter to applicant dated October 9, 2002 4. Planning Commission Resolution PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0] 5. Draft City Council Resolution J :\Plannin~\HAROLD\PCM-02-22PCreport-2.DOC .;:L ATTACHMENT 1 HARBORSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ,A~eT RM.PII'S SHOPPING CENTER o PAlOMAR TROLLEY CENTER C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C9 APPUCANT: RANCHO BROWNAY, LTD. PRECISE PLAN ~~: 1210BROADWAY Request: Proposal to add a 6,600 sq,ft, freestanding SCALE: commercial building at Pic 'N Save Center. FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale PCM-02-22 -'3 ,4rrACH ME IVT ~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item:--1 Meeting Date: 9/25/02 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite retail building in an existing in-line retail shopping center, located at ] 21 0 Broadway, southwest corner of Oxford Street. The applicant is seeking approval of a Precise Plan pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.12.120, Sections 19.14.570 - 580 and Sections 19.56.040 - 048, which allows for deviations from Zoning Code as well as the Montgomery Specific Plan development standards in order to add a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite retail building within an existing in-line retail shopping center. The proposed satellite building will include a Starbuck's Cafe with an outdoor seating area, and two new commercial tenants. The proposal also requires a Planned Sign Program pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 19.60.220 - 250 and Sections 19.60.490 - 520 for the existing and new signage being proposed, and the applicant is appealing the decision of the Design Review Committee to replace the two existing freestanding "lollypop" pole signs with a single pylon sign, requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Design Review Committee's decision in order to allow for the retention of the two non-conforming pole signs. Pursuant to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Division has reviewed the proposal and found that the Precise Plan to add the satellite building is exempt per Section] 5303 (c) for small new structures, and that the Planned Sign Program is also exempt per Section ]53] ](a) for on-premise signs. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At their August ]9, 2002 meeting, the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the Precise Plan and the Planned Sign Program with the modification to the Planned Sign Program as noted in the Notice of Decision. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission uphold the Design Review Committee's Notice of Decision being appealed by the applicant with regards to the Planned Sign Program, and approve the attached Resolution PCM-02-22 that recommends the City Council approve the Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached draft City Council resolution. DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics The project site is a portion of the existing parking lot located between big box shopping centers (Target and Costco). The Brake Depot is a satellite building immediately to the south on the adjacent property. A Pizza Hut out parcel is located on the corner of Broadway and Oxford Street within the same shopping center. There are also smaller shopping centers and apartment buildings ~ PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01 -2- September 25, 2002 to the east along the Broadway corridor. To the west there is a variety of distribution center industrial uses, mixed with some incidental commercial retail. Further west, there is the recently constructed San Diego County Health Services building, the MTDB trolley/railroad right-of-way, Industrial Boulevard, and Interstate 5 corridors. The project site is also located within the Montgomery Specific Plan area. 2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use The General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan designate the site as Commercial Retail and/or Mercantile and Office Commercial. The Zoning is Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifYing district overlay. The current surrounding land use designations, zoning and existing land uses are: General Plan Land Use Designation & Montgomerv Specific Plan: Zoning: Existing Land Use: North: Commercial Retai/ CC CostcolPrice Club South: Commercial Retai/ Mercantile & Office Commercial CCP Target/Michael's Brake Depot East: Commercial Retai/ Mercantile & Office Commercial CCP Shopping Center Ritmo Latino West: Research & Limited Manufacturing lLP Distribution Center 3. Proposal Precise Plan: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite building in the existing parking lot, realign the existing parking configuration including landscaped planters at the ends of the parking aisles, provide a 10-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Streets, and provide fayade improvements to the existing in-line building The utilization of a Precise Plan will allow for the following deviations from Zoning Code, Montgomery Specific Plan, and Design Manual, as long as the Precise Plan findings and Montgomery Specific Plan finding for outstanding planning and urban design can be made. The follow deviations are being requested as part of the Precise Plan for the shopping center: 1. A reduction in the parking space requirement, so that the outdoors seating for the Starbucks is not included in the parking space evaluation. The total number of parking spaces, including a request to allow up to 20 percent to be compact space dimensioned spaces, is 307, and will meet the minimum one parking space per 200-sq. ft. retail floor area ratio and one parking space per 2.5 seat ratio for the two restaurants (Starbucks and Pizza Hut) in the center; s- PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0I -3- September 25, 2002 2. A reduction in the Montgomery Specific Plan required l5-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Street to a 10-ft. landscape buffer on both streets; 3. No intermediate landscape tree wells, medians or fingers between the proposed landscape islands at the end of the parking space aisles as required by the Design Manual. Planned Sign Program: In addition, the applicant is appealing the Planned Sign Program as approved by the Design Review Committee. The shopping center has two legal non-conforming freestanding pole signs, consisting of a 50-ft. freestanding single pole sign along Broadway and a 30-ft. double pole sign along Oxford Street The pole signs are non-conforming due to the 35 -ft. height limit for poles signs and number (the Zoning Code only allows only one pylon sign tor parcels less than 5-acres). The Design Review Committee required that a single 32- 1/2-ft. pylon sign be provided indicating major individual tenants of the shopping center. The Planned Sign Program as approved by the DRC will allow for the retention of the existing walls signs for Bigl Lots and Payless Shoe Source. New walls signs would be allowed for the Everything $5 Store, the Starbucks Coffee, and the two new tenants of the satellite building. In addition, new signboard areas would be allowed for additional tenants ofthe in-line shopping center building (in the event that the building is nlrther subdivided into smaller suites) in between Payless Shoe Source and the southern edge of the building up to 70 percent of the fa<;:ade area, at I-sq. ft. per lineal foot of street frontage. BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a Precise Plan because of the need for some exceptions or deviations from the Design Manual, Zoning Code, and Montgomery Specific Plan in order to add a commercial building to this existing shopping center. The Design Review Committee and Planning Commission review, and the City Council must approve Precise Plans. Since the project is also located within the Montgomery Specific Plan area the deviations allowed through the Precise Plan must be countered or compensated for by a finding that the proposed project would be "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design." The original project submittal showed the proposal to provide some much needed improvements to the existing shopping center, such as a landscape buffer along Broadway, a revised parking lot aisle and parking space alignment, and landscaped aisle ends, but lacked the necessary architectural compatibility needed between the new satellite building and the existing in-line shopping center for a Precise Plan. On June 3. 2002 the Design Review Committee entertained a preliminary review of the proposal, wherein it was recommended that the proposed satellite building and the existing in-line building possess similar architectural features, materials, and colors The applicant provided the necessary architectural changes and as a result, the Design Review Committee recommended approval ofthe Precise Plan at their August 19, 2002 public hearing. ft, PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0I -4- September 25, 2002 However, with regards to the Planned Sign Program, the applicant is appealing the Design Review Committee's decision to replace the existing legal non-conforming pole signs with a single pylon board sign, based on their need to minimize the additional costs of providing a more substantial redevelopment of the existing shopping center, as well their interpretation of the Zoning Code thatthe non-conforming pole signs do not have to be appropriately amortized at this time. ANALYSIS: Zoning Code. Montgomerv Specific Plan. and Design Manual: The following table demonstrates the project's conformance with the development standards of the Central Commercial (CCP) Zone and the Montgomery Specific Plan (MSP). The highlighted portions of the table represent the deviations being requested through the Precise Plan or the appeal of the Planned Sign Program: STANDARDS Front Building Setback: Exterior Side Setback Interior Side Setback: Rear yard setback MSP Landscape Buffer/Setback: Lot Coverage: REQUIRED 25 feet 25 feet o feet o feet 15 feet 50 percent PROPOSED 85 feet 250 feet 5 feet 30 feet 10 feet 28 percent Maximum Building Height: Maximum Sign Height: 45 feet 35 feet 307 parking spaces (not including 23 spaces for the outdoor seating) 25 feet 50 feet Parking Spaces: 330 spaces The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the reduction from the required] 5-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Street to 10-ft. The Design Review Committee also recommended approval to reduce the parking space requirements in order to allow the outdoor patio seating for the proposed Starbucks cafe There are 14 tables with 4 seats each, for a total of 56 seats designated for outdoor seating. Typically all fixed seating is included in the parking space evaluation, whether it is indoors or outdoors, and the requirement is I parking space per 2- ]/2 seats. The applicant also requests that a deviation be allowed in order to retain the legal non-conforming pole signs, which deviate because of height (50-ft.) and number (2) will be discussed later in the analysis regarding the Planned Sign Program appeal. In addition, although not listed in the table, the Design Manual recommends that intermediate landscaping or tree wells within parking space areas be provided, and the applicant proposed not to include any intermediate landscaping. The Design Review Committee allowed for this deviation as part of the Precise Plan. 7 PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0I -5- September 25, 2002 Parking Lot: The site plan represents a dramatic improvement to the existing circulation system for vehicles, which currently has a non-conforming layout with regards to driveway aisles and parking space dimensions. For example, the existing two-way drive aisles access single and double loaded parking spaces from the left instead of the right, creating a haphazard condition and the potential for poor traffic circulation. The angled parking aisles will now be uniform and conform to City standards for right-turn in only circulation within two-way driveway aisles shared with perpendicular parking spaces or one-way driveway aisles for two-sided angled parking. Site Plan: As mentioned, the revised parking lot layout will include landscaped aisle ends but no intermediate tree wells. Staff recommended the inclusion of intermediate tree wells to the Design Review Committee, stating that tree wells would not adversely affect the layout or number of parking spaces anymore than the existing parking light poles to be retained, and would make the project more consistent with the adjacent parking lot (Target/Michael's shopping center). However, the applicant's request to not include intermediate tree wells, due to cost, was upheld by the Design Review Committee. Staff therefore recommends that the Design Review Committee's decision be upheld, and that intermediate tree wells not be required as allowed by the Precise Plan as a deviation from the Design Manual. Landscaping: The applicant has agreed to provide a revised conceptual landscape plan in conformance with the Landscape Planner's comments that included consideration for the overall concept to include some elements ofthe planting that will be provided for the Target portion of the shopping center, as well as the existing Pizza Hut parcel's existing landscaping. It appears that the reduction from Montgomery Specific Plan landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Street from IS-ft. to lO-ft. would be acceptable. Of note, the Target/Michael's shopping center was recently approved and will entail enhancement of their existing landscape buffer up to lO- ft. from the City's right-of-way along Broadway and Palomar Street, as part of their current renovation plans within the shopping center along the remaining portion of Broadway. Staff believes that a reduction in the street landscaping requirement can be acceptable in instances such as this where existing shopping centers are upgrading and have limited opportunities to provide the full width landscape buffer without impacting some other requirement such as parking. There is currently a row of palm trees within the Broadway right-of-way that will help to enhance the ] O-ft. proposed. There is also a IS-ft. landscape buffer in front of Pizza Hut on the corner, and 10-ft. of right-of-way along Oxford Street to add to the] O-ft. proposed by the applicant along Oxford Street. Therefore the buffer will appear to satisfy the intent of the Montgomery Specific Plan. Of note, the proposed on-site landscaping is less than 10 percent for all parking areas and IS percent overall as recommended by the Design Manual. unless the existing "Pizza Hut" parcel and right-of- way landscaping is included. In this case, the existing palm trees on Broadway and shrubbery on Oxford Street within the City's right-of-way compliment the 10-ft. landscape buffers. ~ PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01 -6- September 25, 2002 Architecture: The applicant revised the elevations in response to the Design Review Committee's concerns raised at the preliminary review mentioned above regarding the architecture of the new satellite building complementing the existing in-line building. New stucco treatment will be provided on the existing wooden signboard canopy of the "Big I Lots" portion and a squared arch element over the "Everything $S" entrance will be introduced to mimic the same elements being provided on the new satellite building. In addition, the split-face block on the existing in-line building will be introduced on the new satellite building, and the metal canopy proposed for the new satellite building will be introduced on the existing in-line building. The color and materials will also be shared between the buildings contextually. As a result, staff recommends approval of the new satellite building design and the proposed fayade treatment of the existing in-line building as part of the Precise Plan. Appeal ofthe Approved Planned Sign Program: The applicant is appealing the decision of the Design Review Committee with regards to the Planned Sign Program. Specifically, the applicant is requesting that the two existing non-conforming freestanding pole signs be retained, rather than replaced by a single pylon signboard. The appeal statement (Attachment No.6) suggests that the replacement of the two pole signs for single pylon signboard was not within the Design Review Committee's authority. This was implied by reference to the non-conforming sign amortization requirements of the Zoning Code that allows such signs to remain up to ] S years after the establishment of the non-conformity. The applicant also suggests that a contractual obligation with the current pole sign users requires the retention of said pole signs. However, the Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program applications provide the opportunity to upgrade and revise existing non-conformities to meet City codes and standards. The existing pole signs have been non-conforming since January 1, 1986 when the Montgomery annexation became effective. In addition, these freestanding pole signs were reviewed against Zoning Code requirements that would allow only a single pole sign for parcels less than S acres, and that the overall height of such a pole sign would be a maximum 35-ft. height and ISO-sq. ft The Zoning Code also stipulates that the Design Review Committee may reduce sign areas below those authorized by the Code based on the sign guidelines and criteria contained in the Design ManuaL The sign guidelines of the Design Manual (Commercial Section Page III-I2) state that freestanding pole signs are strongly discouraged. The current policy ofthe City is that all pole signs are subject to Design Review Committee review and approval as part of a Planned Sign Program. As such, the Design Review Committee approved the Planned Sign Program with the condition that "A revised sign program shall he provided incorporating one new pylon not to exceed 32-0 ft. in height, or a monument sign to replace the existing freestanding pole signs. The comprehensive signage program shall he revised to include a note to the effect that each potential future tenant signage shall he limited to 70% of the linear frontage of their ,Ipace." '1' PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01 -7- September 25, 2002 Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee's decision be upheld, based on the following: 1. A new 32- J/2-ft. high pylon signboard is consistent with the Code and past practice of the City, and will provide signage opportunity for the existing and future tenants. The existing single-pole SO-ft. high "lollypop" sign on Broadway provides no space for another user name besides Big! Lots, and the existing double-pole sign on Oxford provides minimal visibility from Broadway for the Everything $S and Chula Vista Jewelry Center. A new pylon signboard could incorporate all three of these current pole sign users. The pylon signboard would also perhaps eliminate the need of the Everything $S store operator to park a moving billboard truck within the parking lot spaces along the Broadway frontage. 2. There have been numerous sign code violations and signage installed without benefit of required sign permits within this shopping center. Both of the existing non-conforming pole signs have been ref aced without the required sign permits from the Planning Department. The existing SO-ft. high "lollypop" single-pole sign was re-faced approximately in March 2002 when the existing wall sign for Big! Lots was submitted for review and approval as part of the name change fromPic-N- Save. It is unknown to the City when the existing double-pole sign was refaced with Everything $5 and Chula Vista Jewelry Center. The last permit issued for that pole sign was for DOW Stereo/Video in April 1990. Other non-permitted signs in violation of the sign code include the numerous banners, pennants, and inflated dirigibles for the Everything $S and Chula Vista Jewelry Center. The last permitted wall signs on record for the in-line shopping center include Payless Shoe Source and Fashion Gal in July 1989. First Interstate Bank in May 1994 last permitted the A TM kiosk signage. 3. The Precise Plan request provides the most appropriate time to implement the Planned Sign Program and provide all revised signage. The appellant request is to allow another five-years before the existing pole signs be replaced, since the amortization requirement of the code was adopted in 1992. However, this would allow for an existing non-conformity to continue when improvements valued greater than the cost of removal are being requested (new satellite building, architectural fa9ade and landscape improvements, resurfacing of parking lot, etc.). If the pole signs are retained for an additional S years, it will be difficult to ensure that they will be removed at that time. Meanwhile, the SO-ft. high "lollypop" single-pole sign would become the tallest pole sign within the vicinity of the south Broadway corridor, since the 70-ft. high three-sided Target sign will be replaced by two 3S-ft. pylon signboards on Broadway and Palomar before the end of the year as part of the Target Department Store's Design Review and Planned Sign Program that was approved in July IS, 2002. Another example is the Jerome's pole sign on Third Avenue, where the non-profit MAAC project charter school is now located and the Des ign Review Committee required the removal of that pole sign as part of a Planned Sign Program on June 3, 2002. Non-conforming pole signs are being removed on a regular basis as part of a City policy to rely more heavily on the Design Manual guidelines relating to pole signs, and are being implemented by staff and the Design Review Committee. 10 PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-0I -8- September 25, 2002 CONCLUSION: Staffbelieves that the proposed improvement to this existing shopping center represents another step in the incremental upgrade of the commercial properties in the Montgomery Specific Plan area. The deviations from certain development standards are warranted given the overall improvements to the parking layout, landscaping, and architectural consistency of the new and existing buildings. The Precise Plan requires that specific findings be made for the deviations listed under the proposal and are stated within the findings ofthe attached draft City Council Resolution document along with the proposed conditions of approval, with the exception of the appeal of the Planned Sign Program. The Design Review Committee's Notice of Decision for the Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program permits is attached, and includes their only proposed modifications which is related to the Planned Sign Program, and is included in the draft conditions of approval that accompany the City Council Resolution document. The attached draft City Council Resolution document is also subject to any recommendations or changes to made by the Planning Commission before a final approval can be made by the City Council as part of this combined Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program permit. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution PCM-02- 22 & PSP-03-01 recommending that the City Council approved the Precise Plan and Planned Sign Program subject to the draft City Council resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locator Map 2. Notice of Decision PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01 3. Minutes ofthe Design Review Committee Public Hearing August 19, 2002 4. Planning Commission Resolution PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01 5. Draft City Council Resolution 6. Sign Program Appeal Letter and Application 7. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement 8. Site/Landscape PlanIFloor PlanslElevations J :\Plannin~\HAROLD\PCM-()2-22PCrep()rt.DOC (/ ~Jft- ~;:: - - ---- ~~~;:- A TTAC+lI1AE:N ( 3 Cm' OF CHUL\ VISTA ?LANNING AND 3LJTLDING DE?,!\RTMENT OCTober 9, 2002 Rancho Broadwav. Ltd. Michele Kucinski J 49003 Via la Senda Del \1ar. CA 92014 Subject: Signs for 1210 Broadway Dear ~1r. Kucinski This is a follow up :0 our meeting on October 2 at which Time City staff discussed the issues involved with abating the existing nonconforming signs at your shopping center at 1210 Broadway with you and "our representatives. One of the key points in that discussion was how the 15 year abatement period for nonconforming signs specified in the City's Sign Ordinance would apply to your propeny since it annexed in 1986 after the time line for abatement was established for the rest of the City. The 2..c~onization period appears to have been adopted in J 974 in an amendment to Section 33 050 (the predecessorto ] 9.60.1 ] 0). In ] 989, when The amonization period was due to expire, The Council adopted Ordinance Number 2366 which eA1ended The nonconforming sign amo;"tization period. At that time, the Council determined that those nonconforming signs subject to irnnlediate remo\'al and abatement after December 5, 1989, under the provisions of Section J 9.60. J 10, were to be accepted as conforming signs until December 31, J 990. In cases of undue hardship an eA1ension for a period not to exceed 12 months could be granted Pursuant to the ordi:;ance nonconforming signs were subject to immediate abatement and removal after December 3 I. ] 991 at the latest The subject propeny was annexed into the City on January 1, 1986. Looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the property owner and commencing the J 5-year amortization period on the date of annexation, the 15 years would have expired on January 1, 2001. As we have told you and your representatives, John Ziebarth and Dan Malcolm, both of the pole signs violate the City of Chula Vista Sign Ordinance because of size (the Broadway sign is too high) and number (your sized lot is only entitled to one pole sign). From the legislative history on Section J 9.60 110, you can see that the two pole signs at your shopping center are Jegally subject to abatement at this time. You should be aware of the fact that the City's Community Development Department has initiated a Broadway Revitalization Program designed to make Broadway a more attractive commercial and (,,2 276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 @ P051-Cun<,umerRec\':iedPapt'f nlixej-use en\.ironment for ne\'" businesses. Presentations have been made to both lh::- Plannjnt.: Commission and the City Council on this program with encouragement given by both bodies Members of both the Commission and the Council were consistent in their comments about ,he appearance of Broadway and the negative~impa<:ts of signs along this main street. I mention This because, even if you were to abandon this application for the expansion of this shopping center in an effon to avoid bringing your signs into compliance, it is very possible that pending City efforts aimed at revitalizing the Broadway corridor will soon lead to a formal abatement notice and the signs will hav'e to be removed or replaced. As vou know from the last public hearing on your precise plan application, the Planning Commission seemed to be in favor ofthe removal of the Oxford Street sign, and allowing a three year abatement period for the Broadway sign. We were directed to meet and try and work out an agreement on this issue. At our meeting we discussed the option of replacing the Oxford Street sign with a monument sign to give your tenant sufficient identification from the street. Staff would not oppose such a replacement with the understanding that this would have to be approved as part of the planned sign prot-'Tam for the center. Staff would also suppon an eA"tended abatement for the Broadway sign only if vou were to post a bond or cash deposit sufficient to cover the cost of removing the sign if you do nO! Please let us know in writing as soon as possible whether you will agree to this solution so we can return this matter to the Planning Commission Associate Planner Harold Phelps or I can be comacted should vou have any question about this letter. Harold's number is (619) 409-5872, and mine is (6]9) 476-5367. Sincerely. ~ y~ /}~/ r John Schmitz J Principal Planner JCS Cc: Elizabeth HulL City Attorney James SandonL AICP, Assistant Director of Planning Harold Phelps, Associate Planner John Zeibarth, 800 W. h"y - Suite E. S.D. 92 I 0 I Dan Malcolm, J:\PJan.,ung'oJohnS\Leners.2002\J.:ucin.ski - sjg:ns121O BroadH'ay.doc /3 1 f"'.ITV n!: ("WI II 1. \IICTA RESOLUTION NO, PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01: 4 TTftc tt MevVT f RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHVLA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT PRECISE PLAN PCM-02-22 FOR A 6,600-SQ, FT, SATELLITE RETAIL BUILDING IN AN EXISTING RETAIL SHOPPING CENT.ER LOCATED AT 1210 BROADWAY, AND APPROVING A MODIFIED PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM, PSP-03-01 FOR SAID SHOPPING CENTER. \VHEREAS, duly verified applications for a Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 15, 2002 and August 12, 2002 respectively by John Ziebarth and Associates, "(Applicant)"; and WHEREAS, said applicant requests permission to develop a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite retail building in an existing in-line shopping center located at 1210 Broadway; and \VHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the proposals are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as Class 3 and Class 11 exemptions for small new structures and on- premise signs respectively; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee considered these applications at a public hearing held on August 19. 2002. and recommended conditional approval of both, and \VHEREAS the applicant appealed the Design Review Committee's decision that the two existing pole signs must be removed and replaced with only one pylon sign on Broadway, and \VHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a Planning Commission public hearing on said Precise Plan, and an appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision on the Planned Sign Program, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500-ft. of the exterior boundaries of the propeny at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and \VHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place advenised, September 25, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was continued until October 23 and thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to subject application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLAN},TJNG COMMISSION does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Precise Plan PCM-02-22 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Planned Sign Program PSP-03-01 is approved subject to the approval of Precise Plan PCM-02-22 and submittal of revised exhibits that will reflect the removal of the two existing pole signs, and details on the location and design of a new 32 Yz foot high pylon sign on Broadway and a new monument sign on Oxford Street Iy RESOLl1TlON NO, PCM-02-22 & PSP-03-01: BE JT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council PASSED A.Jill APPROVED BY THE PLANNfNG COMMISSION OF CHlJLA VISTA,_ CALIFOR.l\!IA, this 23'd day of October, 2002, by -the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: Russ Hall, Chair ATTEST Diana Vargas, Secretary J :\PLANNING\HAROLD\REsOLUTIONS\PCRESOpC~I-()2-22&PSP-()3-()I.DOC ;<; AlTA C 1-1/1/1 i?..NT S RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING. PRECISE PLAN ZONING PERMIT PCM-02-22, TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 6,600-SQ. FT. SATELLITE RETAIL BUILDING WITHIN THE EXISTING IN- LINE RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER AT 1210 BROADWAY A RECITALS 1. Proj ect Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is located at ] 21 0 Broadway ("Project Site"); and 2. Project Applicant WHEREAS, on April 15, 2002 a duly verified application for a precise plan zoning permit (PCM-02-22) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department by John Ziebarth for Rancho Broadway LTD ("Applicant"); and 3. Project Description; Application for Precise Plan Zoning Permit WHEREAS, said Applicant requests to develop a 6,600-sq. ft. satellite retail building within an existing in-line shopping center with some deviations from the CCP zoning and the Montgomery Specific Plan, which can be provided as part of a Precise Plan for the subject property and which may be given to development projects "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design" if approved by the Planning Commission and City Council on the site ("Project"); and 4. Design Review Committee Record of Application WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on the project on August 19,2002 and voted X - X - X - X recommending that the Planning Commission approve the project; and 5. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the project on September -' 2002 and voted X - X - X - X recommending that the City Council approve the project in accordance with Resolution PCM-02-22; and 6. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on October _, 2002; to receive the /(P Resolution No. Page 2 recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLYED that the City Council does hereby find. determine, and resolve as follows: B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on September ~ 2002 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. C ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA nON The Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 exemption for small new structures. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution PCM-02-22 including the exemption from CEQA on September _, 2002 recommending that the City Council approve the Project. D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Coordinator and the Planning Commission was reached in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista. E. PRECISE PLAN ZONING PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of a precise plan zoning permit, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. I. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The issuance of a precise plan zoning permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or genera] welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The precise plan will enable the development to provide an outdoor seating area without increasing the required parking spaces beyond what would be required for the entire shopping center retail floor area and indoor restaurant seating. The precise plan will also 17 Resolution No. Page 3 allow for a reduction in the l5-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Street as required in the Montgomery Specific Plan to a 10-ft. landscape buffer. The redevelopment of the shopping center can be considered as one "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design" in that the site plan and architecture will of the shopping center will be significantly improved, and will enhance and benefit the surrounding community and general vicinity. There will be improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation, landscape elements, and architectural elements and features shared between the new satellite building and the existing in-line shopping center building. The in-line shopping center building will receive revised fayade treatment and wall signage. A more modern and subdued pole sign will be required if desired as a condition of approval. 2. That such plan satisfies the principle for the application of the P modifying district as set forth in Section 19.56,041, Section 19.56.04] sets out four principles, one of which must be applicable to the proposed project before the Precise Plan modifying district may be applied. Based upon the facts presented, Section 19.56.04](C) would apply. This states that the basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or the city appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. By strict interpretation, additional parking would be required for the outdoor seating area per the Zoning Code, and a ] 5-ft. landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Street would be required as set forth in the Montgomery Specific Plan. In order to provide some flexibility to these requirements, a precise plan as set forth in the Zoning Code is the zoning permit mechanism being utilized to provide the required review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the P precise plan modifying district, The only exceptions to be granted which would deviate from the underlying zoning requirements is the discounting of the outdoor seating against the typical parking requirements, and the reduction in the required landscape buffer along Broadway and Oxford Street from 15-ft. to 10-ft. These deviation are appropriate because a high parking standard is already being utilized for retail floor area (1:200-sq. ft. ratio) and for restaurants (1:2.5 seat ratio), and the amount of outdoor seating request is not exorbitant as part of a smaller use and could be considered negligible. The impact of allowing for a reduction in the landscape buffer from l5-ft. to 10-ft. is lessened by the fact that it will match with the lO-ft. landscape buffer of the adjacent shopping center (Target), and that there exist significant landscaping within the adjacent right-of-ways, such as palm trees along Broadway, and a 10-ft. planter area along Oxford Street. The landscape planter on the corner is 15-ft. surrounding the Pizza Hut. On site, the parking lot will possess landscape aisle ends that will be required as a condition of approval. Ig Resolution No. Page 4 4. That approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the adopted policies of the city, Approval of the Precise Plan-Zoning Permit will be in substantial conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial Retail and the Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Mercantile and Office Commercial. The flexibility requested with regards to parking and landscaping can be provided for within the Precise Plan and is allowed for by the Montgomery Specific Plan for developments "characterized by outstanding planning or urban design," as determined by the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Precise Plan Zoning Permit PCM-02-22 subject to the following conditions whereby the Applicant and/or property owners shall: I. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use of the subject property in reliance on this approval, the applicant shall satisfy the following requirements: Planning and Building Department Cunditio/1S: a. Provide revised plans and elevations incorporating all conditions of approval. The revised plans and elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of building permit. b. Provide planting and irrigation plans incorporating all conditions of approval. The planting and irrigation shall be revised in conformance with the revised conceptual landscape plan, subject to review and approval by the City Landscape Architect prior to issuance of building permit. c. A water management plan shall be prepared and submitted with the conceptual landscape plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to issuance of building permit. d. A revised sign program shall be provided showing the removal of the two existing pole signs on the site and replacing them as follows: 1) The pole sign on Broadway shall be replaced with a new pylon not to exceed 32-\1, ft. in height and matching in style and colors the decor of the shopping center, and 2) The pole sign on Oxford Street shall be replaced with a monument sign not to exceed 8 feet in height and also matching the decor of the shopping center. The comprehensive signage program shall be revised to include a note to the effect that wall signs for each potential future tenant shall be limited to 70% of the linear frontage of their space. /9 Resolution No. Page 5 e. Lighting for the facility shown on the site plan shall be in conformance with Section 17.28.020 of the Municipal Code. A lighting plan shall be provided that includes details showing that the proposed lighting shall be shielded to remove any glare from adjacent properties, and shall be re.viewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. f A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code regarding graffiti control. g. All building permit plans shall be reviewed for conformance with this Precise Plan Zoning Permit. Building Plans shall comply with 1998 Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and National Electrical Code article 500. Building shall comply with handicapped accessibility requirements and 200 I Title 24 energy requirements. Openings are required to be fire protected if less than 10-ft. from a property line. One hour rated walls are required when less than 20- ft. from a property line. Resource Recycling and Consen'ation Coordinator Condition.<: h. Commercial properties shall have trash enclosures, bins, or carts that meet the design specifications of the City Conservation Coordinator. The locations and orientation of storage bins and dumpsters must be pre-approved by the City franchise trash hauling company. Provide sufficient space for designated recyclables. The applicant shall contact the City Conservation Coordinator at 69 I -5122. Fire Department Conditions: L Obtain the necessary permits from the Fire Department. Provide the address on the satellite building visible from Broadway. Provide a minimum rated fire extinguisher (2A-IOBC) per 75-ft. of travel distance. A fire hydrant may be required as part of the building permit review requirements. If a fire sprinkler system is desired, the plans must be provided prior to issuance of building permit. Public Works Department Conditions: J All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be met prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall pay all Engineering Division fees including but not limited to sewer capacity and connections, development impact for public facilities, and traffic signal fees prior to issuance of building permits. k. The proposed freestanding pylon or monument signs shall require review and approval by traffic engineering to ensure that sight visibility entering and exiting the property is maintained. The location of signs shall be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. ~7J Resolution No. Page 6 ] The satellite building and reconfiguration of the parking lot and landscape islands shall be designed such that drainage flows away from the satellite building and away from neighboring structures. _ The_ drainage patterns shall be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. m. A geotechnical investigation/soils study will be required along with the improvement plans to provide information addressing the erosion potential of the site as well as foundation recommendations prior to issuance of building permits. n. The parking lot design shall be for two-way traffic flow. Show the typical dimensions for aisle width, stall to curb, stall width, and parking stall angle. Appropriate markings and signage shall be added to direct traffic flow at each aisle. The design shall incorporate ADA requirements for parking and accessibility. The parking plan shall be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. o. According to the NPDES Permit, Order No. 2001-01, the project is a priority development project, and it is required to comply with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Numeric Sizing Criteria of the Permit. In addition, the project is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution of the storm drainage systems, both during and after construction. Adj acent storm drain inlets shall be protected at all times during construction of the new building and improvements. A drainage study will be required along with the improvement plans and include information addressing the measures that will be implemented to reduce storm water runoff to pre-development flow rates at the outlet of the site. The drainage study shall be provided for review prior to issuance of building permits. p. IdentifY and clearly label the existing sewer and the proposed sewer lines that will serve the project, and show the connection to the existing sewer line on the required improvement plans to be provided for review prior to issuance of building permits. Police Department Conditions: q. The security lighting fixtures shall use low wattage bulbs. The lighting for the signage and interior nightlights shall be independently wired so that they can be independently used. This will aid in complying with the Governor's Executive Order D-19-0 1. r. Obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police Department for specific recommendations on access control, surveillance detection, and police response. In addition, training of management and employees in security procedures and crime prevention shall coincide with the commencement of operations. The Crime Prevention Unit should be contacted at 691-5127 for more information. ~I Resolution No. Page 7 Other Conditions: s. Applicant shall contact the Chula Vista Fire Department about required fire flow requirements and submit a -lettCJ:- to the Sweetwater Authority stating the requirements. The Authority will determine if there is a need for new or substantial alteration to the existing water systems, as well as the availability of water for operational and fire protection purposes. 1. Applicant shall pay all required fees of the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District prior to issuance of building permit. 2, Prior to use or occupancy of the property in reliance on this approval, the following requirements shall be met: a. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Title 19, and the Montgomery Specific Plan. b. Prior to any use of the project site and/or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. c. All landscape and hardscape improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan and the comments of the City Landscape Planner. d. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. e. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Director. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director Details shall be included in building plans. f The pole sign on Oxford Street shall be removed. If the pole sign on Broadway is not removed, the applicant shall post a bond or cash deposit with the Planning Director sufficient to cover the removal of said sign no later than three years from the date of this approval. g. A fire flow of 2,500 gallons per minute for duration of two (2) hours must be provided. The back flow preventor shall be screened from view, and the Fire Department connection shall not be located with the back flow preventor. .~l Resolution No. Page 8 h. Applicant shall obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police Department for specific recommendations on access control, surveillance detection, and police response prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. L The Precise Plan approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or the approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of this approval, unless a written request for an extension is received prior to the expiration date. 3. The following on-going condition shall apply to the subject property as long as it relies upon this approval. a. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title ] 9 of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance. b. Buildings and Landscaping shall be maintained according to the approved plans unless modifications are approved by the City of Chula Vista. c. If not removed prior to the occupancy of the new 6,600 square foot satellite building, the existing pole sign must be removed within three years of the date of the approval of this precise plan d. This Precise Plan permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of thi s permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. e. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this precise plan, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this precise plan where indicated, below. Applicant' s/operator' s compliance with this provision is an express condition of this precise plan and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assIgns. .,,)5 Resolution No. Page 9 G. EXECUT]ON MID RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the Jines provided below, said execution indicatiDg that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this recorded document shall be returned within ten days of recordation to the Agency's secretary. Failure to return said document to the Agency's secretary shall indicate the property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said document will also be on file in the Agency's office and known as document No. _' Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Representative Date H. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk. I. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no -further force and effect ab initio. Presented by: Approved as to form by: John M. Kaheny City Attorney Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning & Building .;2y Resolution No. Page 10 PASSED, :\PPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this _ day of October, 2002 by the following vote: Ai'ES: NOES: ABSENT ABSTENTIONS Shirley Horton Mayor ATTEST Robert A Leiter Director of Planning & Building STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss: CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Robert A Leiter, Director of Planning & Building Department of the City of Chula Vista, California DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. and that the same has not been amended or repealed. Dated: October _,2002 Robert A Leiter Director of Planning & Building ,) :\PUN,(INGIHAROLDlREsOLUTIONSICCRESOrCM-02-22.DOC ---- .:J'-c,