Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1981/07/08 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, July 8, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 24, 1981 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-81-M - Rezone and reprezone 31 properties between Pepper Tree Road and E1 Rancho Vista from R-1-10 to R-1-15 - City initiated 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-81-16 to operate an amusement arcade at 4360 Otay Valley Road in C-N-P zone, Donald C. Jackson DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City PlanniF 'ommiss ion From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of July 8, 1981 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-81-M - Rezone and reprezone 31 ~epper Tree Road and E1 Rancho Vista from R-l-lO to R-l-15 - ~its initiated A. BACKGROUND 1. During its deliberations in May of 1981 on the tentative subdivision map for Pepper Tree Estates, the City Council decided by unanimous vote to consider a change of zone from R-l-lO to R-l-15 on the Pepper Tree Estates property as well as adjacent properties. Such consideration is the subject of this agenda item. 2. The Environmental Impact Report, EIR-81-2, on Pepper Tree Estates has been certified by the Planning Commission and City Council. Proposed action on this rezoning would be consistent with the findings contained in said EIR. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance changing the zoning and prezoning for those properties located at the southeast quadrant of Pepper Tree Road and Hilltop Drive from R-l-lO to R-l-15 as shown on attached Exhibit "C". C. DISCUSSION 1. Council's action on the tentative map for Pepper Tree Estates included a reduction in the number of proposed lots from 15 to 14 and a requirement that no lot contain less than 15,000 sq. ft. The smallest lot size in the subdivision is 16,000 sq. ft. 2. There are certain lots in the study area which are at or exceed 20,000 sq. ft., making a future lot split possible under R-l-lO zoning. 3. The properties lying at the southeast quadrant of Pepper Tree Road and Hilltop Drive are zoned either R-E (Residential Estates, 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) or R-l-lO (Single Family residential, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) in the City of Chula Vista (see Exhibit "A") and either R-S-4 (Residential-Single Family, lO,O00 sq. ft. minimum lot size) or R-R-2 (Rural Residential, minimum 0.5 acre lot size) in the County of San Diego (see Exhibit "B"). 4. In view of Council's action it is appropriate to place the subject property and adjacent properties within the R-l-15 zone. Staff's recommendation leaves the R-E zoning intact but changes the R-l-lO zoning to R-l-15 for the Pepper Tree Estates area and the lots to the north of E1 Rancho Vista, including the lots on Jacaranda. All lots in the proposed R-l-15 area have at least 15,000 sq. ft. The proposed zone change will affect 31 properties (including the Pepper Tree Estates property), five of which are located in the City of Chula Vista. The General Plan land use designation for the area is Low Density Residential, 1-3 dwelling units per acre; the proposed zone change is consistent with this designation. EL RANCHOm DE LAUREN C "H' STREET STREET 1 '-- ¥~A DE LAURENC:O >t ' ; J 1 I I H ~ I I'~- I:. I : .... __~___ ' .... S.~ST~ 'ST~SY ] ~ WHITNEY STREET I I .... ' '-~ -- ' HILLT( " City Planning Commission Page 2 Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1981 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-81-16to_ope?ate a~n~musem_e_n~t arcade at 4360 Otay Valley Road in C-N-P zone, Donald C. Jackson A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is seeking permission to establish an amusement arcade at 4360 Otay Valley Road, suites 214 and 215, within the existing shopping center (Woodside Plaza) located at the southeast corner of Melrose Avenue and Otay Valley Road in the C-N-P zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-81-49, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on June 25, 1981. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Take no action on the proposed Negative Declaration. 2. Deny the conditional use permit based on the findings contained in Section E of this report. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-3-P-12 Condominiums (partially developed) South R-3-G Condominiums (partially occupied) East C-V-P Vacant (proposed restaurant and motel) West C-N-P Convenience market and condominiums 2. Existing site characteristics. The subject shopping center, of recent construction, is located at the southeast corner of Otay Valley Road and Melrose Avenue and consists of three single story commercial buildings with related parking. An 8,320 sq. ft. structure is located along the easterly property line and is partially occupied by a liquor store located in the retail sales space closest to Otay Valley Road. Another building (containing 16,400 sq. ft.) is located along the southerly property line and it, too, is only partially occupied, having a beauty salon as the sole occupant. The third structure is a 2,000 sq. ft. fast food restaurant located near the northwest corner of the site. 3. Proposed use. The applicant wishes to establish an amusement center (Sportsworld) within the two most westerly shops of the building located along the southerly property line. The center would offer pinball machines, foosball and electronic video games. The applicant intends to occupy only the most westerly space (1,000 sq. ft.) for the first six months of operation, after which the use will be expanded into the second retail space which also contains 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. There are no City Planning Commission Paqe i~ Agenda Items for Meeting off ,July 8, 1981 restrooms in either space; the applicant has indicated that they will be installed by the owner as a condition of the lease. Each store has a separate entrance and a rear service door. Once the use expands~ only the westerly entrance will be used. Aside from the machines, a change booth and counter will be located in the center. The proposed hours of operation during the school term will be as follows: Monday through Friday - 2:00 p.m. to lO:O0 p.m.; Saturday and Sunday ~ 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. During the summer months, legal holidays and days when schools are not in session, the hours will be from lO:O0 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There will be one full time employee for 8 hours each day and one part time employee working 5 hours on Saturday, Sunday and when schools are not in session. A security guard is proposed on week ends for the first weeks of operation. After that time, there will be no guard unless it becomes necessary as determined by the applicant. 3. Similar requests. a. The Planning Commission recently denied a similar request to establish an amusement center at 60-C East "J" Street. Two of the primary factors leading to the decision were the adjacency of the proposed use to the schools in the area and the fact that the commercial center was already being used as a congregation point by area youths. In addition, the proposed use was strongly opposed by the nearby residents, who felt it would compound the loitering and noise problems of the neighborhood. b. Amusement centers have been approved at Orange and Melrose (C-N zone) and at Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road (C-C zone). The center at Orange and Melrose is no longer in operation, however, there have been inquiries to reopen an amusement center at that location. According to the Police Department both locations have experienced problems. The MacDonald's Restaurant on Bonita Road has made several complaints to the Police Department concerning vandalism since the opening of the amusement center near them. The lease at Orange and Melrose was not renewed, due in part to complaints lodged by other tenants in the shopping center regarding problems caused by the clientele of the amusement center. c. Other cities were contacted to determine if they had experienced any problems with this type of use. The typical response given by other jurisdictions was that both adjacent businesses and nearby residents of commercial centers have been affected in a negative manner by the addition of game centers where there was not a significant amount of adult pedestrian activity within the shopping complex. D. ANALYSIS 1. Although I supported the last request for a game center on "J" Street, both the testimony received at that hearing and the review of other jurisdictions, as well as comments from our Police Department, have led me to the conclusion that this type of use does not belong in a neighborhood shopping center. Such centers are simply too close to residential areas to accommodate a use which attracts large numbers of young people. It is a use which also should most desirably be located where adults are present as pedestrians or shoppers, as the mere presence of mature persons tends to deter vandalism and improper behavior which might otherwise occur in parking lots and other nearby areas. City Planning Co~nission Page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting of July 8, 1981 2. The subject location is adjacent to the condominium complex to the south. A portion of the parking area which would serve the proposed use is located in~nediately adjacent to the property line between the condominium develop- ment and the shopping center. The proximity to the condominium area of both the parking area and the building which would house the game center would, on the basis of experience, be detrimental to the quiet enjoyment that a homeowner has a right to expect of his neighborhood. 3. The fact that the subject center has been largely vacant for some time indicates that it is unlikely that there will be a substantial volume of adult pedestrian activity nearby to provide informal surveillance which has a suppres- sive effect on vandalism. The large number of vacant shops might provide an inviting target for vandalism. E. CONCLUSION On the basis of our own experience and that of other cities, the proposed use in this location would be detrimental to the condominium development to the south and would tend to bring about vandalism and other inappropriate behavior. F. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the particular 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. While the proposed use may provide a service to the youthful residents of the area, its proximity to the condominium development to the south would be disruptive and detrimental to that residential area. 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 v~cinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed location, in a sparsely occupied shopping center, would provide an opportunity for congregations of young people to indulge in vandalism and other inappropriate behavior with little possibility of being deterred by the presence of adult shoppers or pedestrians. 3. T~t the proposed use wil~ comply with the regulations and conditionm specified in the code for such use. The store space could be modified to comply with applicable fire and building codes for this type of occupancy. 4. That the granting of this conditional use will not adverselU affect the generaZ plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. Approval of this request would not significantly affect the General Plan. PROJECT NAME: Sports World PROJECT LOCATION: 4340-4360 Otay Va]Icy PROJECT APPLICANT: Donald C. Jackson 3016 Sylvia St. Bonita, Ca 92002 CASE NO: IS-81-49 DATE: June 25, 1981 A. PROJECT SETTING The proposed project would be located within an existing neighborhood commercial center at 4340-4360 Otay Valley Road, which is void of any significant environmental resources or hazards. There are no geological, acoustical, soils or air quality hazards of any significance that would affect the project site. There are no significant resources such as mineral deposits, archaeological sites, unique biological stands or aesthetic features, other than a stand of mature eucalyptus trees, on or near the site. Adjacent land uses consist of condominiums across Otay Valley Rd. to the north, a vacant lot to the east, condominiums to the south and west. The project is located within a new shopping center which has a high percentage of vacant lease space and adjacent to a condominium development (south) which is unoccupied at the present time. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project znvolves the operation of a video arcade, complete with video game machines and pinball machines, in a 2000 sq. ft. lease space. The applicant has indicated plans to utilize the existing parking within the shopping center. The facility will employ one manager full time and one part time change maker, and will operate from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays, 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends during the winter. Hours during the summer are proposed from 10 am to 11 pm seven days a week. C COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS The proposed land use requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission prior to any operation of the facility. Adequacy of parking facilities will be monitored by the Plann&ng Commission. The Zoning Ordinance assigns a total of 10 parking spaces to this lease space. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section The project is compatible with the General Plau and associated elements. D. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Noise The proposed use is contained within an existing structure therefore noise levels associated with the operation of video machines will be self-contained and insulated. Noise emanating from children arriving and leaving the premises would be considered single event nuisance noises which could occur adjacent ot the proposed use with increased activity and potential off-premise loitering. The condominium development located to the south would be the major receptor of these impacts, although the location of carports and driveway would serve as an adequate buffer from living areas. These impacts are not anticipated to be significant environmental impacts, but rather issues that should be dealt with through the Conditional Use Permit process to determine compatibility of adjacent land uses. E. FINDINGS OF INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1. The project will not adversely effect any natural or man- made environmental features present in the project setting, nor will the project generate any pollutants that will have a potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environ- ment or curtail the range of the environmental which supports the biosystem. 2. The project is in conformance with the long range goals of the City of Chula Vista and will not therefore attain sho~t term to the disadvantage of long range goals. 3. The proposed video arcade will not have any impacts that are anticipated to interact and cause any substantial cumulative affect on the environment. 4. The project will not result in the generation of any air pollution, light, aesthetic blight nor any other hazard to the welfare or health of any human beings. F. CONSULTATION 1. City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Assoc. Planner Roqer Daoust, Sr. Eng. Shabda Roy, Assoc. Eng. Tom Dyke, Bldg. Dept. Duane Bazzel, Asst. Plnr. Donald C. Jackson, Applicant 2. Documents IS-81-46 C,%mpbell's Starcade The Initial Stud}' Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no siclnificant impact are on file and available for public hearing at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 ENVIRO~'.iENTAL REVIEW COOFdDINATOR city of chula vista planning department ~~ environmental review section ~N 6 Vacant MultifamJly Residential VALLEY RD. ~ ) Vacant ~ Vacant Multifamily Reside%tial Multifamily Residential CT. DR. vacant LOCATOR PCC-81- I~ Permit to operate amusement center aar~ ~.'~,00tay Vlly ~