Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/10/09 Tape: 324 Side: 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday. October 9, 1991 Public Services Buildino ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, and Martin COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tugenberg (excused) STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Contract Planner Gray, Associate Planner Reid, Assistant Planner Wolfe, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Traffic Engineer Rosenberg, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PCM-92-08: AMEND GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE NO. 2448 - City Initiated Contract Planner Bud Gray stated the proposal before the Commission was an amendment to the City's adopted Growth Management Implementation Ordinance which contains 11 threshold standards that Council adopted in 1987. During last year's review of the threshold standards, the Growth Management Oversight Commission received a study from the Engineering Department relating to a better technique of measuring traffic congestion at intersections. Presently, the City uses the Intersection Capacity Utilization method, and the proposal was to PC Minutes -2- October 9, 1991 substitute the Highway Capacity Manual method which is a more modern technique of measuring traffic congestion from the perspective of the motorists rather than from a theoretical perspective. Mr. Gray stated that the proposal also transferred to the Economic Development Commission the economic portion of the economic threshold standard and renamed the threshold standard to "fiscal" threshold standard. The new standard would contain an annual fiscal report and an annual development impact fee report. He stated the above changes would be made to the two threshold standards in three documents: the Growth Management Ordinance, the Growth Management Program, and the Council's threshold standards policy document. Commissioner Martin asked if there were any fiscal impacts to the City, any grants or money awarded to the City on studies previously done regarding traffic. Mr. Gray answered that any new studies the City may do would be done by using the HCM method. It would not impact any studies already done. To his knowledge, there was no financial loss incurred by this change. Traffic Engineer Rosenberg noted that from $60,000 to $80,000 is budgeted annually to perform a traffic monitoring program study where all the intersections throughout the City are analyzed. It is believed that the new process will provide a cost savings to the City because of the different methodology to be employed. Answering Commissioner Martin's query regarding the economic threshold standard, Mr. Gray said the economic component was being transferred from the Growth Management Oversight Commission purview to the Economic Development Commission. The City would not be losing an overview function of the economic health of the City; it would just be carried out by a different Commission. Commissioner Decker noted that anything would be an improvement over the old traffic methodology. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 5-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent) to f'md that the proposed amendment is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class $ of the CEQA Guidelines; that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed ordinance amendment as described in Exhibit "A"; that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed changes to the Growth Management Program as described in Exhibit "B"; that the Planning Commission accept the proposed changes in the Threshold Standards Policy as described in Exhibit "C". PC Minutes -3- October 9, 1991 ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING; VARIANCE ZAV-92-04: REQUEST TO REDUCE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 1011-1027 THIRD AVENUE ~ Arnold Haber Associate Planner Reid stated that the representative for the applicant had requested that this item be withdrawn. MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 5-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent) that Variance ZAV-92-04 be f'ded. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING; PCM-92-01: AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES AND AN AMENDMENT TO SPAs I, II AND III BY INCORPORATING AND DESIGNATING COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY SITES - Rancho del Rey Partnership Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the City Council had amended about a year ago the City Code requiring that the Planned Community Districts designate community facility acreage based on a formula set at 1.39 acres per 1,000 population. The Rancho del Rey SPA III approved just prior to the ordinance amendment included a condition requiring that all of the SPAs were to comply with any future ordinance addressing this by the City. This requirement was also included in the Rancho del Rey III tentative map approval in July 1991. Using the facility acreage formula, and based on the 1990 Census data, would put their total at 11,608 residents requiring 16+ acres designated for the community purpose facility. Rancho del Rey has identified five sites containing nearly 20 acres of net community purpose facility land. Two of those lots are not owned by the applicant but lie adjacent, outside the boundaries of the present Rancho del Rey SPA identification but are within the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area and zoned P-C Planned Community. The applicants requested that the SPA boundaries be amended to include all of those parcels, for a total of five. The present owners had concurred. Mr. Lee stated the modifications to the district boundaries to include the two parcels already committed for church facilities, as well as specifically designating these sites as community facility areas and modifying the district regulations to ensure they would be limited to those land uses, would bring the Rancho del Rey area into compliance with the City standards. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Decker/Casillas) 5-0 (Corami~sioner Tugenberg absent) that based on the Initial Study and the comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, f'md that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-92-01. PC Minutes -4- October 9, 1991 MSUC (Decker/Casilla~) 5-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the following: a) An amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA I boundaries to include 3.7 acres located at the southeast corner of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero and 10.0 acres located at the northwest corner of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way; b) An amendment to SPAs I, H and IH to incorporate and designate community purpose facility sites as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," and c) An amendment to SPAs I, H and IH to include the community purpose facility district regulations governing said sites attached hereto as Exhibit ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-92-01; REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND TO EXPAND AN EXISTING AMUSEMENT PARK AT 950 INDUSTRIAL BLVD. - Fun-4-All Associate Planner Reid stated the previous owners had been granted a conditional use permit in 1977. The permit was approved on a condition which would expire in 10 years, at which time an application could be made for a new permit. The permit expired in 1987, one year after the present owner took over. The previous owners did not inform the new owners that the permit would expire, and the business had been operating since that time without a permit. Upon application for a modification to the CUP, they were required to apply for a new conditional use permit to continue the operation and add a shooting gallery. The Environmental Review Coordinator had determined that thc shooting gallery addition was exempt from further environmental review. Ms. Reid said the staff recommendation was that the Planning Commission approve the request for the conditional use permit to continue the operation and expansion subject to conditions listed in the staff report. The conditional use permit would be valid for a period of five years, after which they could apply for a new permit. Ms. Reid tben gave an overview of the project, location, and adjacent land uses. The existing signs on thc property consisted of a 3-1/2 ft. high 6 sq. ft. non-illuminated ground sign near the entrance of the property, an identification sign on the west side of the building, and a 28 ft. high 112 sq. ft. freestanding, freeway oriented sign. Commissioner Decker questioned the size of the sign and if it fell under the general guidelines of 75 sq. ft. Associate Planner Reid answered that there had been a special resolution passed by the Council waiving the guidelines for the sign facing the freeway at the time this project was granted a conditional use permit under the precise plan. Upon Commissioner Decker's query, Assistant Planning Director Lee stated it was his understanding that the waiver of the sign was a separate action by the Council. In considering PC Minutes -5- October 9, 1991 a timeframe on this application, a sign removal should be included in consideration of a specific timeframe. Commissioner Decker asked if when the original conditional use permit expired, the clock started automatically. Mr. Lee answered that he was not sure it was clarified in the Council resolution, and it would have to be verified with the Attorney's office. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that he believed the action with regard to the sign was taken by Council and unlimited as to time. That was the reason for condition no. 5 that in the event the conditional use was terminated, the sign as well as the other related equipment would be dismantled, so the issue regarding the sign would not have to be revisited. By being silent with regard to the conditional use permit as to the sign, it was being treated as if it was already legally authorized by the prior action and incorporated and included. Assistant Director ~ felt that in the absence of any specific timeframe, he concluded that it was acted on independently and he felt it was appropriate to bring together the specific time limit of the conditional use permit and the sign. Commissioner Decker asked how the Planning Department was monitoring the conditional use permits, so there would be no future oversight. Assistant Director Lee noted that once the computer was set up, it would automatically flag it. The burden fell on the applicant to renew the CUP. Commissioner Martin asked about the screening of the tank and shooting gallery to keep the balls from hitting children; how far it was from the freeway and how well it could be seen. Associate Planner Reid answered it would be entirely screened with a chainlink material; the only area which could be seen directly from the freeway going north would be the miniature golf course. Ms. Reid said the tanks were small, and a driver's license was needed to drive them. The cage completely covers the area, so no projectiles would be shooting off. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. David Garske, 6841 Birchwood St., San Diego, representing the Fun-4-All, explained the location of the battle tank arena, which faced Industrial Boulevard. The 4-ft. high berm with landscaping provided a buffer from the freeway on-ramp and street system to the tank arena. He said the tank arena itself was completely enclosed with a 10-ft. high ceiling of netting, chalnlink fencing and netting around the entire area, barricades to keep the tanks within the confined area. The shooting gallery was isolated off in the left-hand corner. Mr. Garske said the Fun-4-All had been in business for approximately 14 years. Since 1986, the new owners had improved both the safety factor and the aesthetic value of the center. All ages use the Fun-4-All, including Little Leaguers, adults practicing for softball, and families. PC Minutes -6- October 9, 1991 He said there had been no safety problems, no gang violence, and their record with the Chula Vista Police Department had been clean. The Fun-4-All had been involved in community charities, the PTA, community fund raisers, area carnivals, South Bay Little League and Pop Warner, and access to mentally handicapped and handicapped children every other Wednesday from 9 to 10 a.m. to use the Fun-4-All at their discretion. Also, they offer discounts to rehabilitation patients for the pediatrics division of Scripps and Sharp Hospitals. Elementary school children with perfect attendance records are also given discount coupons for the bumper boats, miniature golf, arcade and free Pepsi. Mr. Garske asked that the conditional use permit not be limited to five years, since they were adding a tank arena which was very expensive. He did not feel they could recoup the cost within the five-year period. They requested a minimum of 10 years. Commissioner Casillas commented that the applicant could request an extension before the five years were completed, and it would probably be granted. He felt they were providing a good, clean service for the community, and their contributions to community groups and young people were appreciated. Commissioner Casillas asked if when the applicants bought the business, the business went through an escrow process. Upon affirmation, Mr. Casillas asked if the applicants were notified that the conditional use permit would expire within one year. The applicants answered that the terms of the conditional use permit were not disclosed to the buyer, and it was a surprise to all of them. Commissioner Carson asked staff if there was a general time limit of a conditional use permit. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that he did not believe there was a set time limit. A determination is made of land use, and that basically is the final decision. In this instance, there was concern on the part of the City as to the life expectancy of this facility since this was a primary entry to the City. He reiterated Commissioner Casillas' statement that an extension could possibly be granted; the conditions existing in that area could be reviewed at that point in time to determine if this use was still valid. Mr. Lee stated that ~L" Street functioned as an entrance to the City and he was hesitant to recommend another 10-year period. Chair Fuller asked if there had been precise discussion regarding changing the land use in that Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that there had not been discussion regarding this particular area. There had been more activity in the Bayfront proper, and "L' Street functioned as an entry to the southern part of Chula Vista. He felt that at the end of five years, it may be proper to take a look at what's happening in that general area. Chair Fuller asked about the cost to applicant to request an extension of a conditional use permit. Mr. Lee said it was considerably less than a new application. It was handled through a deposit system, and there would be less staff time spent on an extension than a new application. PC Minutes -7- October 9, 1991 Mr. Garske noted that some of the changes they wished to make would take from six months to a year. They felt a five-year term would be insufficient time to make smart business decisions. Commissioner Martin asked if when the applicant was considering the installation of the tank arena, they were thinking of a specific number of years for the permit. Mr. Garske said a time limit to the conditional use permit was not in their mind. They had thought it was an open-ended permit. They discovered the original permit had expired when they applied for an amendment to the permit. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Decker to add condition 6 as follows: "That 10 years from the approval of this conditional use permit, the central freestanding sign shall be brought into compliance with the City ordinance pertaining to maximum size, height, etc. subject to the Ordinance No. " Chair Fuller asked if he was changing condition 5. Commissioner Decker answered that everyone else had been given 10 years; he felt the same should be given to the applicant. It had nothing to do with the conditional use permit; he wanted to start the clock running on the sign, regardless of the number of years. Commissioner Martin seconded the motion. After further discussion, it was clarified that Commissioner Decker was concerned with "starting the clock running" regarding sign compliance; the number of years of the conditional use permit could be changed. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that when the City ordinance was adopted in 1974, there was a 15-year abatement period granted which ended in 1989. The City Council then extended it for two additional years, which resulted in a 17-year period on the sign abatement. Most of the non-conforming, illegal signs in the City have now been abated. Responding to Chair Fuller, Mr. Lee stated that the property had been annexed before the Montgomery annexation, and was more complicated because it had the P Modifying District at the interchange. Staff's position was that all interchanges would be closely examined in terms of height of signs and character; therefore, staff suggested that it would be more equitable to try to tie the sign in terms of length of time to the use permit. When the conditional use permit terminated, it would be time for the sign to be taken down. The Commission may wish to include a maximum time period that, if the use permit was extended for a period of 10 years or longer, the sign itself would be brought into conformance with City standards. PC Minutes -8- October 9, 1991 AMENDED MOTION Motion by Commissioner Decker to add condition 6 as follows: "That 5 years from the approval of this conditional use permit, the central freestanding sign shall be brought into compliance with the City ordinance pertaining to maximum size, height, etc. subject to the Ordinance No. " Commissioner Martin said he had a problem with 5 years. He felt it would not be equitable for the applicant. They had done well with the last 10 years; he believed the conditional use permit should be for another 10 years. Chair Fuller concurred. As a business person with that kind of investment, she would want to know she had at least more than 5 years to see a return on her investment. Commissioner Carson stated that since the new owner took over, she was pleasantly surprised with the nice improvements. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND AMENDEr} MOTION MS (Martin/Carson) to add condition 6 as follows: "That 10 years from the approval of this conditional use permit, the central freestanding sign shall be brought into compliance with the City ordinance pertaining to maximum size, height, etc. subject to the Ordinance No. __ ' Commissioner Casillas stated it was a gateway, and there may be some construction in the area that may impact what the City might want to do in the area. He specified the SDG&E legislation, and additional plans SDG&E and other developers have for that part of the City. He felt it should be limited to 5 years. The City may wish to reconsider what the optimum land use might be for that corridor. He would support staff's recommendation of 5 years, and if the business terminated, the sign should be removed. He did not support the 10 year conditional use permit. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf reminded the Commission that their action was final in this instance, unless appealed to Council by the applicant. It would not go on to Council automatically. With regard to the sign issue, because of the Precise Plan Modifier, it is a zoning action. An ordinance action taken by the Council would be required to change it. The applicant may wish to address the sign issue, discuss with the Commission and negotiate a condition in the conditional use permit whereby after a certain number of years the sign would be brought into conformity. The Commission may wish to have a response from the applicant before making a decision. PC Minutes -9- October 9, 1991 Commissioner Martin asked about the Toys-R-Lis conditional use permit. Mr. Lee replied that there was no particular time set for that land use. The Fun-4-All was different, because of the type of construction and open type of amusement land use. Commissioner Martin reiterated he had a problem with only a 5-year time limit for the Fun-4- All. Chair Fuller clarified that the item before the Commission was to extend the period of the conditional use permit item from 5 years to 10 years. This did not address the sign issue. VOTE FAlLED: 3-2 (Commissioners Casillas and Decker voted against) (Four votes were needed to pass the motion.) MSC (Decker/Carson) 4-1 (Commissioner Casillas voted against) that the number of years stated in Condition 5 be changed to 7. MS (Decker/Martin) to add number 6 to the conditions as follows: 6. Seven years from the approval of the conditional use permit, the central freestanding sign shall be brought into compliance with the City Ordinance pertaining to maximum size, height, etc. Commissioner Decker asked the City Attorney if the applicant should be questioned as to whether he agreed. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf replied that technically the applicant did not have to agree; however, in order to avoid potential litigation, it would be nice to hear his thoughts. Mr. Rudolf explained that the intent of the motion was that at the end of 7 years the sign would be brought into the otherwise applicable sign standards, but for the existence of the P Modification exception. Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified for the applicant the conditions that were set forth in the original guidelines, which were more restrictive and waived by Council. Mr. Lee noted that if the applicant agreed to Mr. Decker's condition, at that point in time the sign they now had which had freeway orientation would be removed, and they would be limited to a monument sign on Industrial Boulevard. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf noted that there was a difference of opinion as to what the motion meant and asked Commissioner Decker to explain. Commissioner Decker withdrew his motion because of the confusion. The applicant, Mr. Gatske, noted that the Toys-R-Us sign and Hertz-Penske signs which joined the property were the same size or larger. PC Minutes -10- October 9, 1991 Chair Fuller stated that the Commission was unsure of their grounds regarding the sign, so nothing could be done at that time. MSUC (Decker/Martin) 5-0 that based upon the f'mdings contained in Section E of the staff report, that the Commlasion approve the request PCC-92-01 to permit the conditional operation of the Fun-4-All and to allow the addition of a shooting gallery, subject to the following conditions 1 through 5, as amended by motion and by staff. Chair Fuller explained that the Commission had approved the extension of the conditional use permit for 7 years. Nothing was done about the sign. Chair Fuller asked Assistant Planning Director Lee if the applicant had to wait for 7 years before they could ask for an extension, or if they could request it prior to the expiration. Mr. Lee answered that the applicant could request an extension prior to the expiration; the permit was valid for a 7-year period. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: DRC~92-04: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE INSTALLATION OF A 34.5 FT. HIGH FREESTANDING POLE SIGN AT 830 BROADWAY - The Firestone Store Associate Planner Hernandez gave an overview of the project, noting that the Design Review Committee (DRC) had approved the conceptual pole sign design subject to reduction of the pole sign's area and height, as suggested by staff. On September 9, 1991, the applicant had filed an appeal seeking to retain the proposed sign design as submitted, and citing that other businesses of similar nature, which were located along Broadway, had been permitted to install larger signs with a 35 ft. height. Staff recommended that the appeal be denied. Commissioner Martin asked if the DRC had approved the proposed sign, or a smaller sized sign. Associate Planner Hernandez answered that the DRC had approved the sign design with a reduction in the height of the sign to 26 feet to conform to the surroundings. Commissioner Martin questioned why Firestone would not agree to a 26-foot sign. Mr. Hernandez replied that the question would have to be answered by the Firestone representative. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Terry Dulgard, Pacific Sign Company, representing Firestone stated that the size of the sign was based on the linear frontage of the property; a minimum 50-foot frontage is needed for a ground sign. The property next door had a 35 ft. high sign, with over 130+ sq. ft. of signage. Mr. Dulgard said that was Firestone's argument--that there were other businesses on Broadway like theirs with the same frontage that were allowed to have 35 ft. high signs. He felt the sign was PC Minutes -11- October 9, 1991 compatible with the use of the property; if it was lowered down 8 ft., it would be visible from about a block away which would be enough to make a safe lane change. If the sign was lowered to 26 ft., the sign would be hidden by the building which is 20 ft. high. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification as to the top of the sign. Mr. Dulgard said the sign currently was 42 ft. high, and lowering it by 8 ft. would make it 34.5 ft., which was the applicant's proposed height. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Fuller asked about other signs which did not have to go before Design Review. What was the criteria, and if the other signs were conforming. Assistant Director Ken Lee said most of it was because of the timing. In terms of the one particular sign Mr. Dulgard had cited-Tire World--it had been under discussion for approximately 1-1/2 years with the applicant and the City Attorney. It had not gone to Design Review, because it had not started out in that manner. The Design Review Committee had just recently been utilized in this capacity because of a change in the ordinance. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Dulgard regarding some of the signs on Broadway being partially blocked by buildings, and with zero setbacks. It was very difficult when comparing with other signs, when they went in, and under what circumstances. There was further discussion comparing signs in the area, sign heights, and building locations. Commissioner Casillas commented that the Planning Commission should be consistent in supporting the Design Review Committee. He would support the recommendation to deny. MSUC (Caslllas/Decker) 5-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent) that the appeal be denied, and that the Planning Commission approve the conceptual sign design, subject to an overall pole sign height reduction to 26 ft. (max), and sign area reduction to 75 sq. ft. (max), as indicated in staff sketch I. DIRECTOR'S REPORT; Assistant Planning Director Lee reviewed the revised Planning Commission schedule. The special business meeting which had been scheduled for the following Wednesday had been canceled. The next regular business meeting would be held October 23, 1991, with a workshop of October 30. He explained other adjustments that had been made for November and December. PC Minutes -12- October 9, 1991 Commissioner Carson asked for projected dates as to when large projects may be going before the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lee agreed to supply that. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Chair Fuller informed the Commission that she would be out of town on November 13 and 20, and Vice Chair Casillas would be chairing the meetings. Commissioner Carson, referring to a letter addressed to Chairperson Fuller regarding the follow- up on Scripps Hospital expansion, asked if the comments letters were the ones which had been received the week before, or others which should have been attached. Also, Commissioner Carson said she thought the Commission had agreed that letters regarding a particular project had to be received by the Commission at least 24 hours ahead of time. Mr. Lee concurred but felt that since they were comments on the EIR, they had to be given to the Commission even though the Commission had the right not to act that night. If there was to be a decision to be made on the project, the Commission could continue the item. ADJOURNMENT at 8:50 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of October 23, 1991, in the Council Chambers. Planning Commission