Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/07/23 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 23, 1975 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Smith, Floto, Rudolph, Starr and ex-officio member Roeder. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioners Pressutti and Rice. Also present: Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Community Development Director Desrochers, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Attistant City Attorney Beam, and Secretary Mapes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Rudolph-Starr) The minutes of the meetings of June 11 and June 25, 1975 be approved as written. Commissioner Smith abstained due to absence at those meetings. Chairman Chandler requested that the minutes of the meeting of July 9, 1975 be corrected on page 4 in the sentence which referred to his interest in Sweetwater Valley, by changing the word "organization" to "accelerated development." MSC (Floto-Chandler) The minutes of the meeting of July 9, 1975 be approved with the correction as noted. Commissioner Rudolph abstained due to absence at that meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communications and none were presented. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Consideration of request for one year extension of tentative map for Bonita Ridge Estates Units 2, 3 and 4 MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) The item on the consent calendar be approved. 2· PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-11, request for reduction of front setback from 25' to 10', 1115 Calle Mesita, Roy E. and Edna Buddhu Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the lot at the end of the cul de sac terminating Calle Mesita. The lot is 1/2 acre in size and the only adjacent structure is a house presently under construction to the south of this lot. Since the lot slopes rapidly to the east, locating the house as near the front property line as possible will lessen the amount of grading required and permit retention of open space in the natural topography. Commissioner Smith reported that some ordinances provide for reduced front set- back in cul de sacs. He wondered about examining the desirability of changing the ordinance in that regard. Mr. Lee advised that years ago the Chula Vista ordinance permitted reduced setback on cul de sacs, but it has been changed to the standard requirement. He noted that in level lots this presents no problem. -2- July 23, 1975 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Roy Buddhu, applicant, and his contractor, Mr. Vanderhorst, were present to answer any questions. They expressed concurrence with the staff report and recommendation. As no one else wished to speak the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) Variance Resolution PCV-75-11 be approved based on the findings in the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ~~n~s~e~t~k 3. ,lll Country Club Drive, James E. Woodill Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this variance application was filed to permit a room addition. Site inspection by the staff revealed that it is not an addition, but a conversion of an existing garage, which does not require a variance. Since the public hearing had already been advertised it was necessary to place the item on the agenda. No action is required, except to file the application. MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) Variance application PCV-75-12 be filed. - 4. Consideration of precise plan for Speak Easy Restaurant and California 6 Motel in Bayfront Area at 789 E Street Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that plans have been submitted for development of a 3~ acre site at the northwest corner of E Street and I-5 which is located in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project area. The requirements of the zoning ordinance are superseded by the Redevelopment Project plan, but the Planning Commission is asked to review the proposal and make a recommendation to · the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Lee noted the proposed location of a motel and restaurant building on the site with provision for 228 parking spaces, which meets ordinance requirements, with 17 per cent of the area devoted to landscaping. He referred to architectural renderings of the buildings, noting that while not similar in design they will utilize similar materials, such as tile roof and wood/stucco siding. Mr. Lee discussed their proposed sign program which includes wall signs and a ground monument sign for each structure. In addition they have requested a freeway oriented pole sign approximately 41 feet high, which would include a separate sign, 75 sq. ft. in area for each of the two facilities. Mr. Lee advised that a freeway oriented pole sign, 25 ft. high, 75 sq. ft. in area, was approved for Anthony's Restaurant across the street from this site for a 7 year period during development of the Bayfront area, which is to be removed by September 17, 1981. It was suggested that the Commission may wish to recommend approval of similar signs for the two new proposed uses, or combining the two signs into one cabinet, 150 sq. ft. in area, 32 ft. in height. Chairman Chandler reported that the Safety Commission has expressed concern with regard to the setback of the proposed monument signs at the driveways. -3- July 23, 1975 Mr. Lee advised these would be set back 5 feet from the sidewalk which has not resulted in a sight distance problem at other locations. Mr. Lee called attention to the recommended conditions, pointing out that the parking requirement was stipulated as one space for each 2.5 seats in the dining room and bar, and one space for 3.5 seats in the meeting or banquet rooms. Since the latter will not have fixed seats, the applicant has asked that the parking requirement be based on floor area. The staff has no objection to changing the condition to require one parking space for 50 sq. ft. of floor area in the meeting rooms. Assistant City Attorney Beam called attention to condition ll, which is a require- ment that a parcel map be filed. He advised that while parcel maps or subdivision maps may be required within redevelopment projects, they will not require the usual Planning Commission or staff involvement, since the conditions normally attached to a map will be covered by the Participation Agreement between the developer and the Redevelopment Agency. Community Development Director Desrochers advised that a Participation Agreement between an owner or developer and the Redevelopment Agency is a very binding agreement which creates a cloud on the title of the property. Such an agreement will cover such things as the signs and any time limitation placed on their use. He felt the developer should be assured that if Bayfront identification has not been established after a certain length of time, his signs would not arbitrarily be removed leaving the business with no identification. Mr. DesrQchers explained that the Commission recommendation with regard to the proposed plans will be presented to the Redevelopment Agency, hopefully next Tuesday, so they may direct the staff to prepare an Owner Participation Agreement, and to petition the Coastal Commission jointly for approval of the development to allow the developer to go into his final plans and get his building permit. Chaiman Chandler announced that although this is not a public hearing, the Commission would be pleased to hear from the developer or his representative. George Hauk, Vice President of Starland Design Engineering Construction Corporation, speaking on behalf of the Speak Easy restaurant operator, advised that he had reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Department with regard to signs but did not have time to coordinate with Motel 6. He suggested that the pole sign be revised by placing the California 6 sign directly above the Speak Easy sign to form a more uniform shape and get away from the torn apart individual cabinets. This would result in lowering the overall height of the sign to 34'6", with each sign having an area of 75 sq. ft. It is their desire that such sign be placed in the southeast corner of the site to get visibility from the south in time for the offramp. Chairman Chandler expressed the opinion that is a better positioning of the signs on the pole and since it lowers the height it is closer to the staff recommendation. Mr. Lee affirmed it is closer to the 32 ft. height recommended but indicated he would not want to react to the design on the spur of the moment. He felt it should be discussed further before it goes on to Council. -4- July 23, 1975 Commissioner Smith directed a question to the Engineering Division with regard to condition 10 c, which requires the applicant to construct the remaining portion of the sewer in Bay Boulevard to the westerly extension of his northerly property line although such sewer wiql not serve this development. He asked what it would serve. Mr. Desrochers reported that the Redevelopment Agency, through the use of tax increments, will install utilities, sewer and streets, and this is one of the items that will be negotiated with the developer or owner. These things have not been worked out and will be part of the Owner Participation Agreement. Commissioner Smith again questioned the engineering requirement for a sewer line that would be too shallow to serve the property. Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt advised that this condition is included to inform the applicant of the requirement that sewer service must be available to adjacent property. Since the sewer plans have not been developed it is suggested that the applicant may request a deferral if he so desires. Commissioner Smith took issue with a statement made by Mr. Desrochers which he felt would commit a future Planning Commission to take a lenient look towards the signs if in six years there has not been very much development. He felt such commitment cannot be made. Mr. Desrochers advised that it was the intent to require a fidelity bond to assure removal of the sign at a certain time, but they also want to assure the owner that, if certain things haven't come about, then the Agency will renegotiate or take another look at it. He expressed a desire to in some way protect the developer without having to obligate future Commissions or Agencies. He felt the Agency could assure the owner that they will have proper identification of their business, and the word "proper" is the one that will have to be worked out legally. Assistant City Attorney Beam pointed out that the Owner Participation Agreement is a binding contract, but as with any contract, if it is in the best interest of both parties, the contract may be modified at a future date. In this particular case the City and the applicant have a mutual interest in seeing that there is signing and identification in order that the BaYfront development will be success- ful. Bill Stits, representing California 6 Motels, with offices at 1300 North Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, Calif., responded to a question raised by Commissioner Rudolph with regard to the reader board portion of their proposed monument sign. This portion of the sign usually states "TV and phones," and the rate of "$6.90 single and $9.00 double." He affirmed that they need the flexibility of a reader board in the event a change in rates is necessary. Mr. Stits expressed concurrence with the revision to the pole sign as suggested by Mr. Hauk which would place the California 6 sign at the top. He spoke strongly against the removal of the sign in six years, pointing out that their business, unlike the restaurants which serve local trade, depend largely on freeway customers. He felt that even a Bayfront identification sign indicating lodging was available would not fulfill their need, since they are a budget motel which some people are looking for. He felt that the success of their operation, running at 90% occupancy, as compared to 65% occupancy for other motels on a national basis, is due to their -5- July 23, 1975 freeway oriented locations and signing to attract freeway travelers. Mr. Desrochers pointed out that the Bayfront project has been talked about for a long time and to date there is only development--Anthony's. He felt it is urgent to eliminate the junk yard and get a nice development at this location because it introduces the whole project. He spoke of the sale of three and a half million dollars worth of bonds in the near future and the need to develop a precise plan for development of the entire area, but felt that at this time it is not possible to stipulate at what phase in the development these signs will be removed and another type of signs take precedence. Mr. Lee pointed out that the Bayfront Plan as adopted by the City Council said in essence there would be no identification signs along the freeway for individual businesses. The City Council had also indicated that granting a sign to Anthony's was a privilege above and beyond what the plan calls for, and it was therefore limited to a specific period of time. The Bayfront plan speaks in terms of some identification signs located at key points to direct people to the Bayfront area but does not anticipate individual signs on a permanent basis along the freeway. Commissioner Starr asked if there is some way a performance type thing could be set up to assure this chain of identity from a certain distance on the freeway. Mr. Desrochers felt this should be worked out in the Owner Participation Agree- ment. He suggested that one thing to be considered is the impact of the South Bay Freeway when it interchanges with I-5. At that time a change in signing may be desirable. He indicated this cannot be settled now but will be considered four or five years from now. MSUC (Smith-Rudolph) The Commission certifies that it has reviewed EIR-73-5 and considered the information, and that the EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, 1970, as amended. MSUC (Smith-Rudolph) Recommend to the Redevelopment Agency approval of the precise plan for the Speak Easy Restaurant and California 6 Motel, subject to ten of the conditions as recommended by staff, and that condition No. 5 be modified to permit either the unified cabinet sign, or the alternative proposed by the applicant with the Motel 6 sign on top, but eliminating the provision for separate pole signs for the two facilities. 5. Consideration of boundaries of Third Avenue Central Business District Redevelopment Project Attorney Beam advised Commissioner Floto to abstain from discussion or action on this item inasmuch as he has a business establishment within the area under consideration and this might be a conflict of interest. Community Development Director Desrochers advised that this is a joint effort of the Community Development, Planning, Public Works, and Building and Housing Departments. Under the direction of the City Manager a task force was formed to attempt to incorporate the Third Avenue Economic Study of Gruen and Gruen with the news that the County of San Diego will establish a South Bay Judicial Court District in Chula Vista, and the possibility that there will be a South County Regional Center, including courts, most likely at Third Avenue and H Street. This may mean 15 municipal and 5 superior courts within five years, as well as other County offices, which would probably mean up to 700 employees -6- July 23, 1975 at Third and H. This type of facility would stimulate office development in the city. For that reason it was felt appropriate to extend the boundaries from E Street to I Street along Third Avenue, although the major portion of the Third Avenue business district ends at G Street. He pointed out that the business district portion would be treated in a different manner than the southern half which encompasses the court development, and indicated that tax increments would be used for improvements in one area and net the other. Assistant Director of Planning Williams referred to a plat showing the proposed boundaries of the redevelopment area, noting that these are preliminary boundaries only, or a starting point to conduct a study of the potential problems and needs of the downtown area and its possible expansion. He also referred to a larger area surrounding the proposed boundaries which he indicated would be considered in a study by the advance planning section to make sure tha:t development surround- ing the redevelopment project is compatible. In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Desrocher explained that when a certain redevelopment area is approved, the revenues generated from that area for all taxing agencies are frozen, and the increased revenue which results from upgrading the value of the property within the district is used for public improvements which further enhance the area. He suggested that in this area, such improvements would probably include improvement of alleys and parking lots, and sidewalk beautification. Commissioner Rudolph explained that her understanding of the theory of redevelop- merit is that if redevelopment does not take place, there would be no increase in tax revenue to benefit any of the jurisdictions, and after the improvements have been paid for the tax base is higher than it would otherwise have been and all jurisdictions benefit from the increase. Commissioner Smith expressed the opinion that caution must be taken not to make the boundaries of the redevelopment district too large because freezing the tax increment in one area places an added burden on other areas of the city to meet the rising cost of public services. He felt that the boundaries proposed encompass many properties that need no redevelopment. MS (Rudolph-Chandler) Adopt a resolution designating the boundaries of the Third Avenue Central Business District Redevelopment Project as shown on attachment I of the staff report. failed (change made at direction of Commissioner Rudolph on August 13) car .... by the following vote: The motion ~ AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Chandler, Starr NOES: Commissioner Smith ABSTAINED:Commissioner Floto ABSENT: Commissioners Rice and Pressutti It was noted that this is not the required four affirmative votes necessary to make a recommendation to the City Council, therefore no recommendation will be made on the basis of this motion. Attorney Beam asked if Commissioner Smith wished to suggest a compromise boundary which he could support. -7- July 23, 1975 Commissioner Smith advised that his objection is to encompassing so much area, but without further study and consideration he would not attempt to draw the foundary of the district. Mr. Williams advised that it is not anticipated that the tax increment would be frozen in all areas of the redevelopment district, since some of the properties may be subject only to architectural control. Ms. Roeder asked why the proposed boundary did not extend all the way down to K Street, since all of the areas adjacent to Third Avenue commercial development seem to feel the same pressure from expanding commercial activity. Mr. Williams advised that the boundary was extended only to I Street since it was felt that was far as the influence of the proposed court complex would extend, and area beyond that could develop normally under the existing zoning. DIRECTOR' S REPORT Assistant Director of Planning Williams expressed congratulations to Commissioners Rudolph and Smith on being reappointed for another term on the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Williams introduced Mr. Mel Thompson who has recently completed his bachelor's degree in urban studies at San Francisco State University and is in transit to begin a master's program in regional planning at Harvard. He is currently visiting Chula Vista and has volunteered to give the Commission a short report of his impression of the area if they desire. Mr. Thompson expressed his appreciation for this opportunity to visit the South Bay area and this Commission meeting. He reported that the area did not fulfill the stereotype he had expected of row upon row of tract housing, instead he found it to be an extremely handsome community. He felt the large blocks and extensive low density development, along with deep setbacks from the street and the large amount of greenery combine to make it a very attractive city. He reported that it does not have the crowded appearance of many of the cities in the peninsula area. He also felt the higher denstiy developments, such as Playmor II and Brandywine, reflect careful planning. He complimented the city on their efforts of careful planning for the Bayfront area and also their concern for the central business district before the area has deteriorated to a marked degree. Commissioner Rudolph asked if, as a result of his studies in urban transportation, Mr. Thompson could offer any suggestions for combatting the increasing traffic problem in this community. Mr. Thompson advised he had no solution although public transportation has become quite popular in very concentrated areas where transportation corridors can be established. He pointed out that each type of community will require different types of transportation and the automobile has consistently been the preferred mode for a good many people due the flexibility it provides. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Respectful ly submitted, Helen Mapes,