Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/02/25 Planning Commission MinutesOTY OF Cl- ULAVISTA Planning Commission Mnufas REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION Date: February 25, 2015 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Service Building A 276 Fourth Avenue ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Anaya, Fragomeno, Nava and Chair Calvo Absent: Commissioners Fuentes, Gutierrez and Livag MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Chair Calvo made a motion to excuse Commissioners Fuentes, Gutierrez and Livag as requested. Commissioner Fragomeno seconded the motion and it passed 4 -0 -3 -0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE OPENING STATEMENT: Read by Chair Calvo APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 8, 2014 Motion by Fragomeno; Second by Nava Motion passed 4 -0 -3 -0 with Fuentes, Gutierrez and Livag absent PUBLIC COMMENTS: Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Board /Commission on any subject matter within the Board /Commission's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Board /Commission from discussing or taking action on any issue riot included on the agenda;_ but, if appropriate, the board /Commission may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS: The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law. if you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the Commission Secretary prior to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC- 14- 06 /PCC-14 -055 Consideration of a Design Review Permit and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of an 114,760 square foot self- storage facility on a 1.55 -acre site located at 2380 Fenton Street. Applicant: Pacifica Companies. Project Manager: Jeff Steichen Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation which included photos of the project area along with the following information. At the end of his presentation, he advised the Commission that the Draft Resolutions had been revised by the Attorney's Office copies of which were on the dais. In addition, Mr. Steichen said that Condition 1.29 had been added — copies of which were provided. He asked the applicant (Pacifica Companies) to affirm their agreement to the condition. Ms. Carey Algaze, representing Pacifica, approached the microphone and agreed to the condition. INTRODUCTION The Applicant submitted a Design Review Permit and a Conditional Use Permit application to allow for a 114,760 square -foot self- storage facility on a 1.55 -acre parcel zoned Business Center Manufacturing Park (BC-1) within the Eastlake Business Park (`Business Park "). The Applicant is also requesting a reduction to the number of parking spaces required for this use as well as an increase in the maximum height limit for certain architectural features. The 1.55 -acre parcel is located at the southwest corner of Fenton Street and Hale Place. The project site is comprised of one parcel within the Eastlake Business Park. DISCUSSION Proiect Site Characteristics The project site is comprised of a 1.55 -acre parcel located within the Eastlake Business Center 1 planning area of the Business Park at the southwest corner of Fenton Street and Hale Place (Attachment 1- Locator Map). The rectangularly shaped project site was previously graded with the rest of the business park, and is currently vacant. The site is surrounded by both industrial uses and offices. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use The project site has an Office commercial (CO) General Plan Land Use Designation and is zoned as Business Center I (BC -1). The following table specifies the General Plan Land Use Designations, zoning and current land uses that surround the site: Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -3- Land Use Comoatibil Zoning Business Center 1 (BC -1) Business Center 2 (BC -2) Business Center 1 (BC -1) Business Center 1 (BC -1) Business Center 1 (BC -1) Current Land Use Vacant Business Services/ Industrial Business Services / Industrial Offices Offices The establishment of a self - storage facility in the BC -1 zone requires the approval of a - Conditional Use Permit to ensure the use is compatible with surrounding uses. The self- storage facility is appropriate at the proposed location and is compatible with surrounding existing development in that it is located in close proximity to residential uses and will provide a service which meets the needs of the community by providing additional capacity for self- storage. The proposed use would be similar to other uses in the vicinity in that it will be designed with features which complement the architecture of the existing surrounding development. Compliance with Development Standards: BC -1 Development Standards Required for project General Plan Site Office Commercial (CO) North Limited Industrial (IL) South Office Commercial (CO) East Office Commercial (CO) West Office Commercial (CO) Land Use Comoatibil Zoning Business Center 1 (BC -1) Business Center 2 (BC -2) Business Center 1 (BC -1) Business Center 1 (BC -1) Business Center 1 (BC -1) Current Land Use Vacant Business Services/ Industrial Business Services / Industrial Offices Offices The establishment of a self - storage facility in the BC -1 zone requires the approval of a - Conditional Use Permit to ensure the use is compatible with surrounding uses. The self- storage facility is appropriate at the proposed location and is compatible with surrounding existing development in that it is located in close proximity to residential uses and will provide a service which meets the needs of the community by providing additional capacity for self- storage. The proposed use would be similar to other uses in the vicinity in that it will be designed with features which complement the architecture of the existing surrounding development. Compliance with Development Standards: BC -1 Development Standards Required for project Proposed for prqject Building Height: 35 feet or 2 stories 35 feet and 3 stories * (with exception of arch features Grp to 44 ft.) Setbacks Front Yard 20 feet Front Yard 20 feet Side Yard (interior) 10 feet Side Yard (hit.) 10 feet Diagonal Corner 50 feet Diagonal Corner 50 feet Public Streets 20 feet Public Streets 20 feet._ Rear Yard- 10 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Maximum Lot Coverage: 60% 55% Parking: Storage** 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. for 1" 20 K sq. ft. = 20 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. for 2'd 20K sq. ft. — 10 1 space per 4,000 sq.ft. over 40 K= 18 Office Component: Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -4- 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 5 Total parking spaces required" 53 1 Total parking spaces provided = 26 * Due to the low traffic generation and parking requirements for such facilities, staff has recommended that an additional story be allowed subject to the same 35 ft. height restriction. The project complies with 35 ft. height limit with certain exceptions for architectural features described more fully in body of this report. * *The parking requirements noted apply to storage facilities in general and present the closest nominal standards in policy regulations to what is being proposed. However, as has been used with other mini- warehouse facilities in the past, a provision contained within the General Provisions of the Off- Street Parking Requirements (Section VII.1 (G) of PC District Regulations) indicates that for those uses which do not contain specific parking standards, such standards can be development by the approving body, subject to supporting information provided. This will be described in further detail in the "parking" section below. Materials /Colors Colors and materials should be consistent with the chosen architectural style and compatible with the character of surrounding development. Sensitive alteration of colors and materials can produce diversity and enhance architectural form (CVDM p. 1V -52). For materials, the project primarily utilizes stucco, metal awnings, metal panels, glass storefront, and split face block. Metal awnings have been utilized for visual interest at the buildings entry ways to assist in guiding visitors to the office and main access points. The metal awnings also appear at additional locations on the exterior of the structure at varying heights to provide horizontal and vertical articulation to the structure and to prevent a monotony of long uninterrupted walls. Metal panels are also featured on the building at varying locations to help break -up the building's size while also introducing a durable, aesthetically appealing material to the project. In an effort to further break -up the facade as well as compliment the neighboring office buildings, glass storefronts are proposed at several locations on the building. The use of glass not only offers relief from the solid building components, it also serves as a viewport to the business at hand by displaying the storage rental units. To further articulate the structure and provide variation in materials, a split faced block was chosen for its durability and resistance to the elements (including graffiti). The block will be comprised of two different colors that will create "banding" around the base of the building and assist in unifying the different elements of the building. These horizontal "bands" will also compliment the horizontal runs of the metal panel and display units located behind the glass. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -5- Landscaping /Screening For industrial uses, landscaping should be used to define areas by helping to focus on entrances to buildings, parking lots, loading areas, defining the edges of various land uses, providing transition between neighboring properties (buffering) and providing screening for parking, outdoor storage, loading, and equipment areos(CVDM p. IV -55). Screening has been provided along Fenton Street and Hale Place through the use of a proposed rhythm and spacing of both columnar and standard spreading trees. This pattern of trees both compliments the architectural style and massing while providing screening and softening of the building elevation. By balancing the openness needed for the display units and signage in front, with the framing and massing of trees and shrubs to blend the front facades into the rest of the landscape, a curb appeal has been created without the starkness of an urban plantless landscape. This approach to screening was utilized in order to provide a more human scale for pedestrians along the sidewalks, as well as visual relief from the multi -story elevation when viewed from afar. With the simple repetition of a loose pattern of foundation shrub plantings mixed with repeated similar groupings of trees, the architectural style has been enhanced while also screening and softening the expanse of the building elevation. CONCLUSION The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Eastlake II PC District Regulations with exceptions noted. Staff recommends the requested increase in height limit in order to provide for additional vertical articulation and roof equipment screening, and that the twenty -six parking spaces provided be considered adequate per the analysis provided in this staff report. Based on the preceding information in this report, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolutions approving the proposed self - storage facility. RECOMMENDATION That Planning Commission adopts Resolution DRC 14 -11 approving the proposed project, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Questions to Staff: Q. Why were there no further efforts to enhance the east wall as the other 3 sides? A. Focus is usually on "public view areas" and staff felt the landscaping would provide a sufficient screen. Q. What are the sizes and maturity rate of the trees? A. Deferred to applicant. Bruce Jordan later described the trees as 24 and 36 inch boxes. Q. What is the distance from the existing building to the proposed one? A. Approximately 100 feet. Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -6- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Carey Algaze representing the applicant, Pacifica Companies, stated that she, along with Bryan Grissinger, Project Manager (Pacifica Companies) and Bruce Jordan, Architect for Pacifica Companies were available for questions. Bruce Jordan spoke and thanked staff for working with them so well. He recognized that the adjacent property owners had sent a letter. He continued in describing their background and the basis for which they are developing the project, including studies they had done on storage units nationwide, the number of them in the immediate area, land use, traffic patterns, security, design of office spaces, parking, and the trends in self - storage buildings. Mr. Jordon advised the Commission that they had been working with the adjacent property owner, Matthew Dolan, Investcal Realty Corporation, and had agreed to 1) remove the east wall metal panel and use stucco with faux shift in color in the recesses and 2) to provide additional trees as a screening mechanism. Mr. Jordan completed his presentation by saying that they have done other facilities in residential neighborhoods and that they have gotten letters saying how quiet the neighborhood is. Also, none of the loading activity is visible from the public right -of -way. Mr. James Stevens, Attorney for Investcal Realty Corporation (Investcal) —the adjacent property owner — acknowledged the letter that was sent to the Commission and Chair Calvo confirmed that the Commission did receive and review the letter. Mr. Stevens stated that Investcal was in agreement with the amendment to the eastern wall to eliminate the metal and has no problem with the alternating shades of stucco to be used. They do, however, have concerns about the landscaping element. They would like to achieve a complete screen, or one as nearly complete as possible. They feel that it is a very tall structure and that 100 feet is not far for such a large project. They would suggest tall trees (Cyprus mentioned) or a hedge to completely block the blank wall. Absent agreement with the applicant, they do not waive any of the items that have been put forth. if an agreement can be reached on the type and size of vegetation, how long it will take to achieve the screen and how long it will be maintained, he feels they can commit to go forward. Matt Dolan, Investcal, reiterated what Mr. Stevens had said and that he is concerned with the esthetics and hopes to achieve the blockage of the wall. Applicant (Mr. Jordan) stated that they were in agreement with Investcal and proposed they meet to achieve an acceptable landscape plan and then bring it back to staff for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -7- Commissioner Deliberations /Questions Anaya: Thanked the applicant for bringing the project forward. Impressed with the pro - activism to reach out to the adjacent resident and being amenable to make changes to the current plans. Shows him that the applicant is working to be a good neighbor and it weighs heavily in his decision. Fragomeno: Why can't the west side elements be mimicked on the east side — with the windows? Jordan: If it is something the property owner wants, they could do it. However, he does not then see why landscaping element would be needed. If it is desired, they could do it. Fragomeno: Feels that the applicant did the minimum requirements (in neglecting the east wall). Even with the box trees, part of the east wall will be seen. It's a nice area and other office buildings look fantastic; many contain glass and he feels that the 36 -foot wall of concrete is distracting. Doesn't look like the east wall is following what the rest of the neighborhood has incorporated into their designs. There was additional discussion about the lowered pad (4 feet) and the 10 -foot set -back. The applicant reiterated that the landscaping would be added. Mr. Stevens: Thinks Commission comments and concerns are appropriate and feels that if the windows could be incorporated, it would soften the visual impact until the landscaping grows sufficiently to buffer it. Anaya: Partially agrees with Fragomeno, but does not think the windows are necessary. Thinks the same look can be achieved by reveals that mimic the windows on the other side. If you have the hedge and the windows, he thinks it will be made worse. His suggestion would be to use the proposed landscape and include the reveals to mimic the windows. Calvo: Does not agree with going to stucco; the difference in materials is better and it looks for more articulation. If staff and the applicant are in agreement with the windows, she feels that's ok, but she disagrees with the all stucco look — which is also more prone to graffiti. She feels the gradation of materials will add to the architecture. Calvo then asked for a confirmation on the zoning. Project Manager Steichen confirmed that it was a Planned Community and BC -1 zone (Business Center 1). She asked staff how they felt about the proposed changes. Staff replied that they were comfortable with either proposal — to either leave it the way it is, or use the stucco with colors that distinguish the elements wanted. The way it is now definitely provides the articulation in materials, but staff is open to what works best for everyone. Calvo agrees and feels that more trees should be added and, Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2015 Page -8- maybe in the future, a hedge, but feels that 100 feet is substantial along with the 4 foot elevation difference. Calvo at first made a motion to approve DRC 14 -06 /PC 14 -055 with the architectural addition of windows and the addition of Condition 1.29. Commissioner Nava asked about clarification of the addition of the windows. Calvo clarified her motion which was to leave the materials as they are and add windows to the elevation. PUBLIC HEARING RE- OPENED Mr. Stevens wanted to know if they were adding a landscaping element to buffer the east wall in addition to the windows, or windows in -lieu of the landscape? They had suggested both or at least faux windows. The applicant is agreeable to adding the windows /faux windows and augmenting the screen. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MSC ACTION: Motion by Calvo—To approve DRC 14- 06 /PCC 14 -055 with Condition 1.29 added, as well as adding additional faux windows on the east elevation and the addition of the landscaping enhancement to the east elevation. Second by Fragomeno Vote: 4 -0 -3 -0 with Fuentes, Gutierrez and Livag absent OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Scott Donaghe reminded the Commission that there would not be a meeting on February 11, 2015. Next meeting is scheduled for March 251". 5. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: There were none ADJO- URNMENT: -At 7:04 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on March 25, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Sub itted by: Pat Laughlin, Secretary *' Minutes approved April 22, 2015 MSC: Fragomeno /Gutierrez (4- 0 -2 -1) Gutierrez abstaining