Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1982/10/27 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, October 27, 1982 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PP~AYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of October 13, 1982 OP~AL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map for E1 Rancho del Rey #6, Chula Vista Tract 80-5 - Gersten Company 2. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map for Bonita Vista, Chula Vista Tract 80-12 - Vista Bonita Partnership 3. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map for Carabella, Chula Vista Tract 80-13 - E Street Ventures 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-82-10 - Request for modification of conditional use permit to delete limitation of the alcoholic beverage display case area in mini-market/service station at 407 "E" Street - Thrifty Oil Company 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-83-8 - Conditional use permit to establish video arcade at 678 "E" Street in the C-t zone - Kamiar Simantob 6. Consideration of appeal of Design Review Committee's denial for a monument sign in Bonita Centre East - Security Pacific National Bank DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COIV~iENTS To: City Planning Commission From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 1982 1. Consideration of request for two sear extension of tentative subdivision map for E1 Rancho del ReS #6, Chula Vista Tract 80-5 - Gersten CompanS A. BACKGROUND On May 27, 1980 the City Council approved the tentative subdivision map known as E1 Rancho del Rey #6, Chula Vista Tract 80-5, to subdivide 181 acres within the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan into 369 single family lots. In the fall of 1981 the Planning Commission granted a one year extension of the tentative map, which is due to expire on November 27, 1982. The developer has requested that the tentative subdivision map be extended for an additional two years. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion approving a two year extension of the tentative subdivision map known as E1 Rancho del Rey #6, Chula Vista Tract 80-5; the map will then expire on November 27, 1984. C. DISCUSSION In June, 1982 the State passed an emer§ency bill which increased the len§th of time for extensions of tentative maps from two years to three years. This exten- sion, if approved, would constitute the maximum time for which the tentative map may be extended. If allowed to expire, the applicant would have to refile the subdivision map. There have been no significant physical changes in the immediate vicinity which affect the original condition~ or findings for approval. Therefore, the approval of an extension of time is appropriate. DEL CENTRO I 6-~o .STR~T EL ~-~ BENNETT'S ~f/ATE~LINE /. £ASEW~T LADERA SAN DIEGO GAS a ELECTRIC CASA '- REY- NO SCALE City Planning Con~nission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 Page 2 2. Consideration of a request for one year extension of the tentative subdivision map for Bonita Vista, Chula Vista Tract 80-12 - Vista Bonita Partnership A. BACKGROUND In September, 1981, the Planning Commission approved a one year extension of the tentative map for Bonita Vista, Chula Vista Tract 80-12, for the conversion of a 60 unit apartment complex located at 4243 Bonita Road into a one lot condominium project. The extension is due to expire on October 29, 1982 and the developer is requesting another one year extension. B. RECO~ENDATION Adopt a motion approving a one year extension of the tentative subdivision map for Bonita Vista, Chula Vista Tract 80-12; the tentative map will then expire on October 29, 1983. C. DISCUSSION There have been no significant changes in the immediate vicinity which would aftect the original findings for approval of the tentative subdivision map. Therefore, it would be appropriate to approve the extension as requested. Under the amended provisions of the State Map Act another one year extension would be available for this map. CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL GOLF-COURSE PROJECT \ MFD \ MFD · SblOI:~ING - SHOPPING . CENTER MARKET .' ' City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 Page 3 3. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map for Carabella, Chula Vista Tract 80-13 - E Street Ventures A. BACKGROUND On June 10, 1980 the City Council approved the tentative subdivision map for Carabella, Chula Vista Tract 80-13, for the development of a 0.37 acre parcel located at 457 "E" Street in the R-3 zone into a one lot condominium project consisting of ll townhouse units. In October, 1981 the Planning Commission granted a one year extension of the tentative map, which is due to expire on December 10, 1982. The applicant is requesting another one year extension. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion approving the one year extension of the tentative subdivision map for Carabella, Chula Vista Tract 80-13; the map will then expire on December 10, 1983. C. DISCUSSION There have been no significant changes in the immediate vicinity which affect the original conditions or findings of approval. In light of the current economic situation, the request for a one year extension is reasonable and justifiable. Under the amended provisions of the State Map Act another one year extension would be available for this map. City Planning Commission Page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-82-10 - Request for modification of conditional use permit to delete limitation of the alcoholic beveKase display case area in mini~market/service station at 40'7 "E" Street - ThriftyOil Company A. BACKGROUND 1. On January 13, 1982 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the conversion of the existing Thrifty Oil Company self-service gas station located on the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and "E" Street into a retail market/ self-service station. One of the conditions of approval limited the number of doors for the display of alcoholic beverage to three doors (approximately 8 feet in width). 2. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal of that condition to the City Council requesting l0 lineal feet (4 doors) of display cooler space. A petition 'containing the signature of 23 persons was submitted against the appeal. The appeal was denied by the City Council on February 9, 1982. 3. The applicant is now requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the limitation on the amount of cooler space which may be devoted to the display of alcoholic beverages from 8 feet (3 doors) to 12½ feet and 5 doors. B. RECOMMENDATION Approve the request to modify PCC-82-10 to allow a 12½ foot wide alcoholic beverage display area. C. DISCUSSION 1. Applicant's letter. In a letter to the Planning Department, the applicant has indicated that unless an increase in the amount of alcoholic beverage display is approved, the plans to remodel and upgrade the site will be abandoned (see attached). 2. Other conversions. There have been a number of service stations converted into a combination market/service station for the purpose of providing convenient shopping to the motorists. Because these establishments cater primarily to motorists, the Planning Commission in the past has been concerned over the sale of alcoholic beverages and for that reason has limited the amount of space devoted to those items. 3. Cooler space. It is the applicant's contention that the amount of cooler space devoted to display of alcoholic beverages s-hould be based on a percentage of total cooler '~ space rather than a fixed lineal figure, such as 8 feet. In this case, the requested 12½ lineal feet of cooler space for alcoholic beverages represents approximately 36% of the total cooler space. City Planning Con~isslon Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 Page 5 D. ANALYSIS The applicant has not submitted any new information not previously considered by the Planning Con~aission and City Council. However, I feel that the sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline on the same premises is not necessarily a planning issue, but rather a general welfare issue. A limitation on the amount of cooler space devoted to alcoholic beverages will not prevent an individual from driving under the influence of alcohol. Alcoholic beverages can be purchased at several locations within one-quarter mile of the subject site. Increasing the display area by 4½ foot length may not necessarily increase the likelihood of an individual to drink and drive. We do not have any evidence that would substantiate whether the added conven- ience of purchasing alcoholic beverages at a gas station increases the number of persons driving under the influence of alcohol. At any rate, it would seem to me that the real question is whether to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages or not--rather than limiting the size of cooler space. If this site were not utilized as a service station, the C-T zone would permit a liquor store as a permitted use without any conditional use permit require- ment (and no limitation on amount of cooler space). THRIFTY OIL CO. September 28, 1982 City of Chula Vista l~lanning Department 1~.O. Box 1082 . . ~- Chula Vista, CA 92102 Attention: Mr. Ken Lee Dear Mr. Lee, This letter will serve as a request to the l~lanning Commission to remove Condition 5 of 1~CC-82.10. After reviewing our Food Store l~rogram, I found that the Con- ditional Use l~ermit granted us on January 13, 1982 will become void if not utilized by January 13, 1983. Rather than letting the CU~ become ineffective, forcing us ~o abandon all plans to upgrade ~his site, I am requesting tha~ the Planning Commission reconsider the area designs[ed to the display of Alcoholic beverages. The 5'x7' area that was approved does not provide the necessary space to properly merchandise the national brands of beer, and leaves no space to advertise wine. This project is of mutual benefit to us and the Cify of Chula Vista. It would be a shame to miss an opportuni[y to remodel and beautify this corner in your city over a discrepancy of several feet. Without this change we will be forced to leave this si~e in its present condition. Please advise me when I can discuss this matter with the Planning Commission, and if you bare any quesfions, call me in my office. cerely, Gregory T. Roberts GTR/cjg ~7 ~_~ 10000 Lakewood Boulevard Downey California 90240 (213) 923-9876 (714) 522-3244 p,4 RKING j City Planning Commission Page 6 Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-83-8 - Conditional use permit to establish video arcade at 678 "E" Street in the C-T zone - Kamiar Simantob A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is seeking permission to establish a video game center at 678 "E" Street within the Big Bear shopping center in the C-T zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-83-9, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Con~nittee on October 14, 1982. The Con~nittee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-83-9. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "F" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-83-8, to establish a video game center at 678 "E" Street subject to the following conditions: a. A bicycle rack for at least 10 bicycles shall be provided within close proximity to the entrance of the proposed use, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Director. b. Any reported disturbance or problems regarding this center shall cause the conditional use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for possible revocation. c. No alcoholic beverages shall be permitted on the premises. d. No school children under 18 years of age shall be allowed on the premises during the normal school hours. e. The restreom shall be available for customer use at all times during business hours. f. An adult owner, manager or qualified security guard shall be present on the premises at all times of operation. g. The two pool tables shall be removed from the proposed floor plan due to the narrow width of the store (15 feet). A revised floor plan shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North C-V-P Feaster Elementary School South R-3-D Apartments East C-T Hotel West C-T Car Wash City Planning Conlnission Page 7 Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 The adjacent uses within the shopping center are as follows: North Parking and restaurant South Road easement East Coin store West Barber shop and freestanding dental building 2. Existing site characteristics. The Big Bear shopping center is located on the south side of "E" Street between Broadway and Woodlawn. The center has four freestanding buildings forming a "U" shaped complex with parking in the middle. The largest building is located near the southerly property line. Access is provided by three drive- ways along "E" Street and two road easements on the south and east sides. 3. Proposed use. a. The applicant intends to lease a 750 sq. ft. (15'x50') vacant store area located near the west end of the largest building in the shopping center for the purpose of operating a video game center consisting of 20 to 25 video ~ames and two pool tables. A restroom is located at the rear of the store. The video games will be located on both sides of the store with the two pool tables located in the middle. b. The proposed hours of operation are between ll:O0 a.m. and ll:O0 p.m. seven days a week. There will be two work shifts with one employee per shift for a total of two employees. 4. Similar establishments. The closest establishment offering video games is the Cabrillo bowling alley located at I-5 and "E" Street. The billiard room in the 100 block of Broadway also has video games in addition to pool tables. The closest video game center (Silver Cue) is located within the shopping center located at Fourth Avenue and "F" Street. D. ANALYSIS l. The subject property possesses some characteristiCs which are appropriate for a video game center and some which are not. On the positive side, the property fronts on "E" Street, a busy commercial street, and it is located near the west end of a larger commercial building. On the negative side, the property backs up to a multiple family residential area and the building sets back several hundred feet from "E" Street, making surveillance by the Police Department less than ideal. 2. The other factors which merit consideration relate to the extent to which young people may indulge in inappropriate behavior outside the building. The presumption has been that as a gathering spot for young people, there is likely to be vandalism, noise and other disruptive behavior which may spill over into adjoining residential areas or nearby businesses. To a certain extent this is controllable by proper management of the center. The Planning Department has contacted other businesses which are located adjacent to existing operating arcades City Planning Commission Page 8 Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 and has found mixed results. Arcades which tend to be located close to public view, or those who cater to families, are not causing problems within the existing centers. However, the more isolated arcades which are adjacent to businesses which are open later in the evenings have more of a tendency to be problems for those nearby businesses. 3. Feaster Elementary School is located directly across the street and the game center could attract children during school hours when the center is open. For this reason young people should not be allowed on the premises during normal school hours. Also, the video game center is located within a relatively high activity shopping center on a major street, therefore, I am recommending that the request be approved, subject to conditions pertaining to adult supervision. E. CONCLUSION It is my conclusion that a properly managed game center, which is willing to comply with all of the stated conditions, makes this an acceptable land use in this location. F. FINDINGS l. 9hat the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborheod or the community. The proposed use is located within a major shopping center and there are no other video game centers in the immediate vicinity, therefore, the use will offer a commercial recreational serVice where none presently exists. 2. ~hat such use will not, under the circ~nstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or workin~ in the vicinity or inj~ious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The requirement of adult supervision will deter inappropriate behavior which may affect adjacent uses. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use is located in an existing commercial center which meets the requirements of the code. 4. T~t the ~rantin~ of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the C~neral Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan designates this area as a commercial district in which this use would be most compatible with other allowable uses. negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Video Arcade PROJECT LOCATION: 678 'E' Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Kamiar Simantob 520 'E' Street, #204 San Diego, CA 92101 CASE NO. IS-83-9 DATE: October 14, 1982 A. Project Setting The proposed project would be located within an existing commercial shopping center at 678 'E' Street. The specific lease area is 750 sq. ft. in size. Adjacent lease areas consists of a barber shop on the west side and a watch repair on the east side. Apartments are located at approximately 90 feet to the south, the shopping center parking lot and 'E' Street is located to the north. The site is completely developed with no natural or manmade resources present. B. Project Description The project involves the operation of a video arcade, complete with approximately 20-25 video game machines and two pool tables. The proposed facility will employ two individuals (one per shift) to operate from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans The proposed amusement center will be subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will assure compliance with the Municipal Code and will consider compatibility with adjacent land uses. D. Identification of environmental effects The proposed use will be contained within a fully insulated existing commercial structure, therefore noise levels associated with the operation of video machines will be self-contained within the structure. The proposed location within the commercial center should help avoid any nuisance noise impacts on neighborhood residential areas. E. Findings of insignificant impact 1. The project will not adversely affect any natural or manmade 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 environment or curtail the range of the environment which supports the bio system. 2. The project is in conformance with the long-range general goals of the City of Chula Vista and will not attain short-term to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The proposed video arcade will not have any impacts that are anticipated to interact and cause any substantial cumulative effect on the environment. city of chula vista planning department ~ environmental review lectlofl IS-83-9 Page 2 4. The project will not result in the generation of any air pollution, light, aesthetic blight nor any other hazards to the welfare or health of any human beings. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and organizations. City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner 2. Documents. IS-82-16, Canyon Plaza Family Game Center The Initial Stud;' At)pl [c~tion ami ,~valuation forms documenting the findinqs ¢)f no si~ln~fLcant impact ar~' on file and available for public review ,~t lh~ Chul,~ !']~;ta Plann[nq Dept., 276 4th Avenue, Chu[a Vista, CA 92010. ENVIR~4ENTAL P~VIEW COOF~I:;ATOR city of chula vista planning department environmental review section I ~ ~ FEASTER I I I I , ELEMENTA I I '1 I I I I """ -}"-'- --1 I Res'tau- Mobile I · Serv. I rant. Home I Station I Sales I Sfol'e I E" II Hotel ',' ,Rest I Rest/Bar j L_ ~ I Car Bowling ~ Motel Motel ' , ~_.~ Mote~ I , , o~'fi~es PRO,J. ECT I I MF IMF I MF I 'ZtAV N M. '?'"'1 CIO 0 ~ -- "~ Or) <~ ~. 0~ L1 i C) I-- /"////// - 0_.~ ~ 0_3c0 City Plannin9 Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 Page 9 6. Consideration of appeal of Design Review Committee's denial for a monument sign in Bonita Centre East ~ Securit~ Pacific National Bank A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant's request to have an 8½ foot high, 25 sq. ft. monument sign along Bonita Road in Bonita Centre East was denied by the Design Review Committee on September 16, 1982. The applicant is appealing that decision. 2. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review, Class ll(a). B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section F of this report, adopt a motion to deny the appeal. C. HISTORY OF PROPERTY 1. In 1979 the City Council zoned three acres at the southeast corner of Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road C-C-P, calling for specific guidelines for development, which included the requirement that the area be architecturally coordinated through the use of similar materials, colors and architectural style. All freestanding signs were to be restricted to monument signs. 2. In 1980 the Design Review Committee approved the building design for an "L" shaped center, retaining the corner area for a future building design; approval included a requirement for the submittal of a coordinated sign program upon application for a building permit. 3. The owners of the property responded with the submittal of signs for the building and monument sign program featuring sandblasted wooden signs in brown, orange and yellow colors. One 25 sq. ft. monument sign was approved for each entry drive (Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road). 4. In 1982 the Design Review Committee considered and approved a savings and loan building for the corner area, which included a monument sign designed with similar colors and materials to match the previously approved monument signs. 5. Last month the Desi§n Review Committee considered a request by Security Pacific National Bank to erect the fourth monument sign within the three acre shopping center. The proposed sign was to be approximately 8½ feet high, containing approximately 25 sq. ft., and be located on Bonita Road at the extreme east end of the property. The Design Review Committee did not approve the sign and the applicant is now appealing that decision to the Planning Commission. D. ANALYSIS 1. The Bonita Centre East shopping center now contains six businesses (including Security Pacific National Bank) with the possibility of two or three more stores filling up the remaining vacant space within the main 23,000 sq. ft. building. Home Federal Savings and Loan represents the lone freestanding building within the center. City Planning Co~ission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 27, 1982 Page l0 2. The owners of this center submitted a sign program to the city which features very low key, aesthetically pleasing signs, and other than the monument sign for the freestanding bank building, the freestanding signs identify only the center. 3. The proposal by Security Pacific National Bank is not an offensive sign; however, no other business within the main building has identification at the street. We have asked the applicant to meet with the developers of the center and resubmit a coordinated sign program providing for limited tenant identif- ication. However, the developers of the center are basically satisfied with the sign program as it exists. They have indicated to the city that they do not wish to modify their existing signs and they do not object to one additional monument sign. E. CONCLUSION The shopping center is now developed with a coordinated sign program. The proposed sign is not in keeping with the established design theme of the center. If tenant identification is to be used for the main building, the present sign program should be redesigned to accommodate limited tenant identification on the freestanding signs. Allowing a separate monument sign for this business will make it very d~fficult to respond to other signs requests in the future. F. FINDINGS 1. The proposed monument sign is not consistent with the established design theme. 2. Approval of the sign would constitute an exception to the principles of the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District by allowing identification of this business and not others within the center.