Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/06/24 Item 09 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item .9 Me t. Date 6-24-80 e 1n9 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Request for modification of precise plan guidelines for property at 950 Industrial Boulevard to permit freestanding sign adjacent to 1-5 freeway - Fun for All Director of Planning~//I (4/5ths Vote: L ". '- , Yes No~) SUBMITTED BY: A. BACKGROUND: 1. The applicant is requesting a modification to the precise plan guidelines in order to erect a 28 foot high. 112 sq. ft. freestanding pole sign adjacent to 1-5 freeway on the Fun for All site located at 950 Industrial Boulevard in the 1-L-P zone. 2. The proposed project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 11 a exemption. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a motion to deny the request. C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On May 28. 1980 the Planning Commission voted 3 to 3 on a motion to deny the request. Accordingly. the item is forwarded to Council without a definitive recommendation from the Commission. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached. D. DISCUSSION: 1. Existing site characteristics. The subject property is a 1.84 acre parcel bordered on the west and south by the northbound onramp to the 1-5 freeway. to the east by Industrial Boulevard. and to the north by an industrial rental facility. The site is presently developed with an amusement center. Fun for All. approved in 1977 (PCM-77-2) and constructed in 1978. The center consists of: 1) a central structure housing an office. restrooms. snack bar and amusement arcade; 2) a circular batting cage; 3) a miniature golf course; 4) bumper boats; and 5) related parking as well as landscaping. The property is relatively level and essentially at the same elevation as the adjoining streets and freeway. 2. Existing signs. The existing signs on the property are as follows: a. A 3~ foot high. 6 sq. ft. non-illuminated ground sign located near the entrance to the parking; b. A 2' X 121 identification sign mounted on the west side of the building facing the freeway; and c. Other miscellaneous interior signs indicating the major activities. such as "arcade" and "miniature gol f." FO:A~( 3 ~y.v. 11/79) (continued) EXHIBITS Agreement_____ Resolution_____ Ordinance_____ Plat_____ Notification list Plng. Commission Other Minutes ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on Page 2, Item 9 Meeting Date 6-24-80 3. Precise plan guidelines. The subject property is in the I-L-P zone which allows freestanding signs up to 35 ft. in height and 150 sq. ft. in area. However, in 1975 and 1976, Council became concerned about the quality of development and the possibility of freestanding signs at the various freeway interchanges. This concern led to the attachment of the "P" Modifying District to the underlying zone at the various interchanges and to the establishment of guidelines for development. These guidelines, as adopted by Council, are generally more stringent than the basic zoning regulations and in the case of the subject property, the guidelines limit freestanding signs to ground monument signs 8 ft. in height and 50 sq. ft. in area. The applicant is asking that he be granted an exception from this guideline. 4. Similar request. In 1978, the PHd Corporation located at the southwest corner of "L" Street and Industrial Boulevard requested an amendment to the precise plan guidelines by deleting the restriction of signs to ground monument signs on Industrial Boulevard. By a vote of 5 to 2 the Planning Commission recommended that the guidelines be amended to specifically provide for a 28 ft. tall sign containing 100 sq. ft. on the PHd property. The Council upheld this action by a vote of 4 to 1. At the Council meeting it was clear that the guidelines were to remain in effect as to other properties at this interchange and an exception was being granted only for the one property. E. ANALYSIS: 1. The City Council IS action on the PHd sign leaves the guidelines intact as to their application to other properties at the "L" Street/I-5 interchange. As noted in the report on the PHd item, the "L" Street/I-5 interchange is designed as a gateway on the Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan. Such a designation implies that special attention is to be paid to aesthetic considerations. It should be noted that at the time the PHd sign was approved, it was anticipated that the action could result in additional sign requests. Any action by the city to approve a second freestanding freeway oriented sign at this location will negate the precise plan guidelines and set the stage for each business or industrial firm with freeway exposure to make a similar proposal. 2. The subject property enjoys very good exposure from the freeway and Industrial Boulevard. The fact that the property lS located on an onramp enhances its visibility. These factors, as well as those stated in paragraph D.l form the basis for the staff recommendation for denial. DJP:ML:cb ~ 3- 2- b,~f~ CilUI-l '",,_.',. .Iurnia Dated ~/A ~i'O 10/7,/ Office of JENNIE M. FULASZ, CITY CLERK City O~ ChuQa C\)igta CALIFORNIA Date: To: Subject: ( ) Resolution No. ( ) Ordinance No. You will find enclosed a certified copy of the City Council document approved at the meeting of ~UV .:r. JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC City Clerk Enclosures STAR NEWS: PieMe pubwh :thM doc.u.men:t 01'1. and ~end ~ a c.opy 60~ o~ O~nanc.e Boo~. RECORVER: PieMe ~ec.oftd Mud doc.u.men:t and fte:tu.Jtl'l. -it :to ~ at yo~ eaJtli~:t c.onvenienc.e. AL60 enc.lo~ed -u, the ORIGINAL c.opy 06 the ag~eemen:t. PieMe have -it exec.u.:ted and fte:tu.Jtl'l. :to :th-U, 06 Mc.e. ( 0/ 7L/ 276 Fourth Avenue, Chu1a Vista, CA 92010 (714)575-5041 CC-685(Rev.lOi79) MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 28, 1980 A regular business 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: Smith, R. Johnson, G. Johnson, Pressutti, Williams and Stevenson. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner OINeill. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Smith, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (R. Johnson-G. Johnson) The minutes of the meeting of May 14, 1980 be approved as written, copies having been mailed to the Commissioners. Commissioner Stevenson abstained from voting due to his absence on May 14. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Smith called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for ~odification of precise plan guidelines for property at 950 Industrial Boulevard to permit freestanding sign adjacent to 1-5 freeway - Fun for All Director of Planning Peterson noted that the property is zoned I-L-P and that the I-L zone allows signs up to 30 feet in height and 150 sq. ft. in area. He reported that in 1975 the City Council became concerned about development in the vicinity of the freeway interchanges and adopted rezonings which resulted in the placement of the "P" MOdifying District at all interchanges of 1-5 and 1-805 within the city limits. The Council also adopted certain guidelines for development designed to be more stringent than the normal zoning requirements to assure high quality development at those gateways to the city. In this area the guidelines limited signing to monument signs 8 feet high and 50 sq. ft. in area. In 1978 PHd Corporation located a truck rental facility at this interchange and r'equested a waiver from the guideline relating to signs for their property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request and it was approved by the City Council and a 25 foot high sign, 128 sq. ft. in area now exists on that site. That approval was specifically limited to the PHd property so that the guide- lines are still in effect and they do apply to other properties at the interchange. Mr. Peterson advised that in looking at this application and the site. the staff was unable to find a basis for departing from the guidelines, since the property is prominently visible to northbound freeway traffic. He pointed out there is a sign I (J I 7 cj" -2- May 28, 1980 ( \ on the west wall of the Fun for ,1\11 building structure which readily identifies the use to motorists. It was the conclusion of the Planning Department that there is no basis for departing from the guidelines in this case and it is recommended that the request be denied. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. James McKenzie, 616 Oaklawn Avenue, representing Pacific Sign Construction, who is proposing to furnish the sign for Fun for All, stressed that this firm should be given the same considerations as PHd in their request for a waiver from the sign restrictions. He contended this is an attractive type of business at a gateway to the city but does need more visible identification. He reported that due to the design of the building the wall sign is not as large as permitted by the guidelines; and that other signs on the site are internal directory signs and do not serve to identify the facility. He reiterated that this business should enjoy the same rights as other properties in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that the type of structures used for this business, i.e., the batting cage, serve to identify it as an amusement center. ( Clint Sadler, 47 Palomar Drive, general partner of Fun for All, affirmed that people who live in the area and are baseball-oriented know what it is, but that tourists from outside of Southern California, who have stopped at the center, have reported that they had passed the site before and did not realize it was there. He felt the wall sign does not provide sufficient identification and expressed concern that the landscaping which has been installed adjacent to the freeway will further obscure the site from the freeway. He asserted they should be given the same consideration as the trucking firm. Alan Welch, 808 Corte Entrada, commented on a sign that he sees daily in the triangle at I-80S, Nacion and Telegraph Canyon Road. which is a good sized sign and if that kind of a precedent has been set. this request is not unreasonable. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Williams asked if there is a time limit for which the PHd sign is allowed to remain. Mr. Peterson advised that no time limit was specified. Commissioner R. Johnson pointed out that the PHd business is sandwiched in between a warehouse and the overcrossing of "L" Street which tends to obscure its view. In response to a question from Commissioner Stevenson. Mr. Peterson affirmed that the precise plan guidelines were established as appropriate for industrial develop- ment but he did not feel it necessarily follows that an amusement park requires more identification than an industrial use. Commissioner Smith commented that he finds it hard to discriminate between one business and another. MS (G. Johnson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request. l -3- May 28. 1980 The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners G. Johnson. R. Johnson and Williams Commissioners Pressutti. Smith and Stevenson Commissioner O'Neill Assistant City Attorney Harron suggested that the request from Fun for All be sent to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Chairman Smith asked if anyone else wished to make a motion. Hearing none. he declared that Commission action on the item is completed. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 80-21. Bonita Centre East Current Planning Supervisor lee reported that the project site is just over 18 acres in size and is located at the corner of Otay lakes Road and Bonita Road, with the Municipal Golf Course located to the north. a shopping center to the west. residential development to the south, some residential and vacant property to the east. This subdivision would provide for a 3 acre commercial lot at the corner adjacent to the major streets, and residential development on 15 acres, to include 109 residential units. The density has been reduced from the maximum allowed by the zoning regulations. The project will provide a variety of housing types, including single family detached, duplexes. five-plexes and some eight unit clusters. Parking will be provided in garages and open parking bays at a ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit. Mr. lee stated that the landscaping scheme and building elevations, which have been approved by the Design Review Committee, will create one of the finest residential deve 1 opmen ts in the ci ty . Mr. lee displayed slides showing the site plan, including the interior road system, the landscaping treatment and elevations of the buildings. noting the extensive use of tile and shake roofs with large wood beam treatment. He noted the staff recommendation for approval of the tentative map subject to 21 conditions as enumerated and suggested an additional condition which would require the applicant to offer Street "A" for dedication to the city. This would insure proper maintenance through acceptance of the dedication if that should become necessary. He pointed out that one of the critical conditions relates to the provision of low and moderate income housing. In this particular development the developer would be obligated for eleven units to meet the low and moderate income housing formula established by the Housing Element. One of the conditions of approval gives the City the right to require in-lieu fees rather than providing such units on the site. The City Council has not yet established a fee schedule for this purpose, so the condition cannot include a dollar amount. In response to a question from Commissioner G. Johnson, Mr. lee advised there is no recreational center provided, but the site plan includes jogging or exercise trails throughout the project. ! 0) '7C/