HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/04/21 (3)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 21, 1993
Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Design Review Committee decision to deny approval of
modifications to existing restaurants located at 802 Third Avenue
and 486 Broadway - Jack-in-the-Box Restaurants
A. BACKGROUND
On September 14, 1992, the Design Review Committee (DRC) considered two proposals
by Jack-In-The-Box Restaurants to make exterior modifications to two existing driye-thru
facilities located at 802 Third Avenue and 486 Broadway. While the two existing
buildings are not identical, the proposed exterior treatments are essentially the same. The
proposed modifications include repainting and minor trim additions to the buildings and
modifications to the existing signs. Specifics of what is proposed are contained in the
staff reports to the DRC (attached). The essence of the proposed changes is to paint the
existing buildings and sign structures to achieve a black and white color scheme with
minor red accents. This modification would be part of a nationwide marketing program
for all Jack-in-the-Box stores.
The reaction of both Planning Department staff and the Design Review Committee is not
favorable to the proposed modifications. When faced with the views of the Committee,
the applicant, at the September 14, 1993 meeting and at continued meetings held on
October 26, 1992 and December 14, 1992, indicated an interest in working with the
Committee's concerns to reach an acceptable compromise. On the two subsequent
meetings, the same proposal package was resubmitted with virtually no changes. During
the process of these meetings, landscape enhancements were offered, but ultimately
withdrawn by the applicant based on costs which he said would make the projects
financially infeasible.
After a series of continued meetings as described above, the Design Review Committee,
at its regular meeting on Monday, January 25, 1993, denied the projects by a 5-0 vote.
Denials for both projects were based on the following:
I. The proposed color palette was not complementary to the building;
2. The existing building materials would not be utilized to their best potential;
3. The proposed designs would not be complementary to the surrounding areas;
4. The proposed modifications to landscaping were insufficient; and,
5. The proposed improvements do not justify removal of the current architectural
detailing of the buildings.
Upon notification of denial by the Design Review Committee, the applicant filed appeals
to the Planning Commission on February 3,1993. The package submitted to the Planning
Department, upon review, required additional information and graphics which were
I-I
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 21, 1993
Page 2
submitted in March, at which time the appeal was set for the meeting of April 14, 1993.
The meeting of April 14 was moved to Wednesday, April 21, 1993.
The projects are categorically exempt from environmental review as Class l(a) and 1 1 (a)
exemptions.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the attached resolution confirming the decision of the Design Review
Committee and, thereby, deny the appeals.
c. DISCUSSION
The applicant's proposals involve, primarily, a change of the exterior color schemes of
the two existing buildings along with modifications to the existing sign graphics.
Specifically, the proposals consist of the following:
1. Painting of all existing natural brick veneer surfaces inclusive of exterior walls
and service enclosure areas white - (Whisper White/semi-gloss enamel finish).
2. Painting of the existing light brown metal roof black (Ultra Black/exterior flat
finish) at the Third A venue location, and painting black the existing wood shingle
roof at the Broadway restaurant.
3. Installation of a new 18-inch wide aluminum fascia over the existing wood fascias.
4. Removal of the existing fabric awnings.
5. Installation of an aluminum roof parapet cap with neon accent lighting along the
roof perimeter.
6. Replacement of the existing pole and wall-mounted sign copy.
7. Painting of the existing brown cabinet frame and retainers of all wall and pole
signs red.
8. Painting of the existing brown pole sign support black.
9. Painting of the existing brown menu cabinet frames white and menu pole supports
black.
As mentioned in the background section of this report, the applicant also proposed, in
addition to the above items, enhancement of the existing landscaping. At a later meeting
before the Committee, the applicant withdrew the proposal to upgrade the landscaping.
I' 2.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 21, 1993
Page 3
At the various meetings where the projects were discussed, the Committee's opposition
to approving the proposals was consistent. There was not a unanimous position against
the colors proposed per se, but the overall projects were felt to be unacceptable based on
a number of factors which were summarized as justifications for denying the project.
These are listed as part of the background statement above and are expanded upon below.
D. ANALYSIS
In the review of these two projects, both staff and members of the Committee were in
agreement that the proposals were inappropriate in the overall impact on both the existing
buildings and adjacent land uses. While the design issues at hand are subtle and
subjective, there was total agreement on the inappropriateness of the proposed
modifications as reflected in the unanimous vote to deny the project.
When examined in the context of the principles and standards contained in the Design
Manual of the City of Chula Vista, two specific principles apply to these proposals.
Under general principles is the statement that "inappropriate, bizarre, and monotonous
design and architecture should be avoided". Although not stated by the Committee in the
exact language, the consensus that the proposed changes would be inappropriate and
bizarre can be inferred. The colors proposed, in themselves, were not rejected so much
as was the way they were to be utilized to turn pleasing and acceptable architecture into
an advertising statement.
An additional principle is stated as "materials and finishes should be selected for
architectural harmony, aesthetic quality, durability and ease of maintenance". A major
concern of the Committee related to the misuse of building materials. Specifically, the
painting of brick veneer and wood shingles hides the essential aesthetic character of these
materials. In addition, once painted, these surfaces will require frequent re-painting to
maintain their modified appearance. An additional factor is that, in the original design
of the buildings, the colors and textures of these materials was the reason they were
employed to create a harmony in the various architectural elements which created an
overall pleasing design.
The signage modification issues are less subjective that the architectural changes
discussed above. Specifically, the revised signs violate Principle C. contained in
19.60.250 of the Zoning Ordinance which states, "The copy area of signs, including logos,
emblems, crests and pictorial representations should not exceed fifty percent of the
background area on which it is applied". For purposes of applying this principle, the
copy area is computed by drawing a rectangle around the graphic or the copy which
includes all the area within whether filled in completely, or not. By this method of
calculation, the proposed sign modifications exceed the City's standards.
Also at issue in the applicant's proposals to modify the architecture of these two buildings
is the appropriateness of using a building to become part of an marketing campaign.
Simply put, at what point does a building cease to be a building and become a sign. The
Planning Department has frequently been asked to address "corporate image" type
/.,..3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of April 21, 1993
Page 4
architecture in which .signs or specific elements are integrated into the architecture of a
building. In these two cases, the proposal to modify the entire exterior of the buildings
goes well beyond previous proposals which involved only elements of an overall design.
In a previous Design Review case which was appealed to the Planning Commission
(PCM-87-l), a similar request for use of a garish, and extreme, color scheme was
considered. In that proposal, for a Handyman Store on Broadway, the commission upheld
the action of the Zoning Administrator in denying a continuous ten foot high band of
orange paint across the entire front facade of a masonry building. The applicant had
insisted that this identification was used on all their stores in the Handyman chain of
stores. The Zoning Administrator's decision was based on the determination that the
color was overpowering and inconsistent with the adjacent commercial structures and that
it actually represented a massive sign rather than an architectural element of the building.
With respect to the Jack-In-The-Box proposals, this may be the fust case in which the
entire building is being proposed to be subservient to a color scheme which does not take
into consideration the building materials, form or function and the impact on the
surrounding buildings. If approved, the result would be a substantial subvention of the
City's sign ordinance. Staff and the DRC have generally been very cautious when
confronted with building designs and "image" schemes obviously developed by marketing
rather than by design professionals. The applicant has made an inquiry regarding
possible zoning and/or sign restrictions on five other Jack-in-the-Box restaurants in the
City.
WPC F:\HOME'PLANNING\802.93
I~f
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-93-03/DRC-93-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE AND, THEREBY, DENYING THE APPEAL
ON DRC-93-03 AND DRC-93-04
WHEREAS, on July 31, 1992 design review applications were filed by Jack-In-The-Box
Restaurants for modifications to existing restaurants located at 802 Third A venue and 486 Broadway,
and
WHEREAS, the planning Director set the time and place for consideration of said applications
by the Design Review Committee and notice of said meeting, together with its purpose, was mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the properties at least 10 days prior to the
meeting, and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 1993, the Design Review Committee, by a vote of 5-0, denied both
applications based on the following findings:
1. The color palette was not complementary to the building;
2. The existing building materials would not be utilized to their best potential;
3. The proposed designs would not be complementary to the surroundings areas;
4. The proposed modifications to landscaping were insufficient; and
5. The proposed improvements do not justify removal of the current architectural detailing
of the building, and
WHEREAS, duly verified appeal forms were filed with the Planning Department on February 3,
1993 by Jack-in-the-Box Restaurants, and
WHEREAS, said appeal requested that the Design Review Committee's denial of the proposed
projects be reversed, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the properties at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., April
21, 1993, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant concerning the merits
of the project and the Planning Department staff presentation in opposition to the proposed changes to
1'5
Resolution DRC-93-03/DRC-93-04
the projects' exterior colors, materials, impact on surrounding areas and on insufficient landscape
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the following design principles and standards
set forth in the Chula Vista Design Review Manual, which state as follows:
that "inappropriate, bizarre, and monotonous design and architecture should be avoided", and
that "materials and finishes should be selected for architectural harmony, aesthetic quality,
durability and ease of maintenance", and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the referenced principles and standards of the Design Manual, the
Commission detemllned that the proposed modifications were not in compliance with these design
standards and principles, and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review, as a Class l(a) and
l1(a) exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission concurs with the
findings of the Design review Committee as noted above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby affIrms the decision of the
Design review Committee and denies the appeal of DRC-93-03 and DRC-93-04.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Clerk.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Susan Fuller, Chair
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
WPC F:\bome'flanD.ing\800.93
/-t.
THE CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA PAR1Y DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of discJosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on an matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City CounciJ, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of an persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
tJO"-\E..
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
NIt>.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and CounciJ within the past twelve months? Yes
No )<.. If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
tt~"-\W ,.. . WOZ~IA\l..
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No L If yes, state which
Councilmember( s):
Pcrs(m is defined as: '~I1Y individual, firm, co-pm:'nership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation.
l'S({/fC, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any olher cDumy, city and COW1I1)', city, mllllicipalily, district or other political subdivision,
or ony OIlzer group or combination acting as a unit."
(:'-:OTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
D:lte:
-
DE~ A. . WOZt-\lAIt-- .
I.\i I i.\DISCLOSLTX.ll
Print or type name of contractorhpplicant
!Revi\ed: 11 .'U'JO]
1'7
802 THIRD AVENUE. DRC-93-03
. Locator
. Site Plan
. Exterior Elevations
. Appeal Form
. Letter from Jack In The Box
. Applicant's Sign Area Computations
. Sign Drawings (2)
. Original Staff Report to DRC
J'" 8
I
I
I
._ ...J
I
I
I
I
'~I
- - - -
llUT
. AN--!!2(
F~-r
CPPI c.~
----r------
I
~---r---
I I
L__...J____ '
I
I
I
" I
I I I
r-A,---,
I I I
I I I
I
I r----
I
I I
t- - -,- --f---J
L.__, I
I I :
I I I
I
7f~~T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ffi
~
7-
~
,---------- ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. ~-:....--------
I"~ecr .
LOCAr~
t.
I
I
L_
------
r-------
I
I
L_______ ~.
~
---
.
~
-
-- ill
~
~-
---
--- ~
~
~
::> .,j
~
I. I ~
I ~.
( -JA4( I t-J ri+~ f7tX )
, Cbo '2.- 1"H I ~ AY~ . _
NORTI:(Drz-c-Q? -()~ )
--- .,--- -~T--._U
- _.-- 'I
_. ..... u., __._.
--.--'---y
,
'I
It
~
_____ ..J
---- I
I
I I
I I
L_L
-
I
I
-- ~
---
---
I
LOCATOR
~~AiION Cf ~><\~llN~
R~'7'1Al)~T .
'-'{
--.---~~---~-w----..,. -'-' --~'--L
( ) ~ .;N~"':;~}I~~aOO~
~,~
'iJ".<<J.'f'.:
'A8 NM'VW------.r~ '31VO :=t1SS1
L.
-,
'3d,UtNlcrlrEi ....>::.0 '~9T
.:L~~:""
Mf:~
]
/. (~
,
'ji
'Y~
1
(
)
."""
( ) ~ :;;;~"O'~~)n~~aoo~
SN)ISI~
'31\fOWd
'.1,8 NM'ft(]-----~tl;:~rzr_,31YO 31SS!-~'3d.U !JIIITlU"E
I
[t
~o
~1
~..
!'~
,Oi'
,L
!
it
1
I
I
I
II
,
,
,
r-.
I
..r
r/I
-.v ,~ BT
:i' ii:l I
~,illi "J I
" II II
. 111 i illll i:
o
(
J
."",
_':!
OJ
:r-
~
il
;;\
~ity of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Date Received
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
Case No:
Appeal Form
Appeal from the decision of: 0 Zoning 0 Planning ~ Design Review
Administrator Commission Committee
Appellant: ~II;A";JJl.t.":M".V..-/ ~1~1l1e"eol.
Phone /olq / bq, .?"IIS
Address: 1t>b50 ~ ,roO) SN...\. t>\\;;;>!io, <A .''l.I? I
Request for: ~ ~~. 93-03
(Example: zone change, variance, design review, etc.)
Please state wherein you bel ieve there was an error in the decision of 0 ZA OPC SDRC
for the property located at: eo-z. 1\t112.D ~'J P'15 .1\\D11~)
f,",eN?t ~~ to M'\J\a\-1W Ct}IU1.~WD..:v~ DA-iEQ ~~~/I"J<\" ~ ~I<t-
~Pf.AtJA11Vt..\ .
~~
i gnature of ant
1.~ ~.?
Date
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: Planning Department
Do Not Write In This Space
Date Appeal Filed:
Case No:
Date of decision:
Receipt No:
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
Planning Commission City Council on
Planning Commissi'on Secretary City Clerk
(This form to be filed in triplicate.)
PL-60
Rev. 12/83
/../2..
A Division of
Foodmaker, Inc.
4239 South 43rd Place
Phoenix. AZ 85040
602/437.134{)
February 3, 1993
City of Chula vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Design Review Committee 93-03 Appeal of Decision of 1/25/93
Dear Sirs:
Jack In The Box Restaurants presented a proposal for the exterior
renovation of its restaurant located at 802 Third Avenue, Chula
vista and paid associated fees on July 31, 1992. A series of
Design Review Committee Meetings took place on September 14th,
October 26th, and December 14th with the decision to deny the
proposal coming on January 25, 1993.
Extracted from the meeting minutes and summary staff report are the
major objections of the Design Review Committee.
1. Inappropriate use of building materials (paint on brick
masonry) architecturally incompatible materials.
2. Similar or exact color schemes not found in the vicinity of
proposed project.
3. Removal of existing awnings unacceptable as they are an
integral part of building architecture.
4. Proposed look is very stark, similar to AM-PM Mini-Marts.
5. Signage does not comply with code requirements of 50% copy.
6. Existing landscaping required upgrade.
7. Opposed to color scheme.
8. Project needs more than paint.
9. Asphalt shingles do not apply well to mansard roofing.
10. Building needs stucco.
/., I 3
city of Chula vista
February 3, 1993
Page Two
11. Building needs more detail and decorative lighting.
This restaurant was constructed in early 1975 and opened July 10,
1975 with the existing exterior decor. Now, eighteen (18) years
have passed and Jack In The Box would like to apply anew,
relatively contemporary look to the building to enhance the
neighborhood and promote and revitalize the business in the
community.
We have reviewed all applicable code sections, particularly Chapter
19.14.470 and feel that we have maintained the intent of that
section as well as all other sections that apply.
Our signage has been calculated by our sign
meet all code requirements contrary to
denotation. (See attachments)
vendor and does indeed
the meeting minutes
It is the feeling of Jack In The Box that, after a thorough review
of the various meeting minutes, that the Design Review Committee
Board Members cannot agree as a team and are expected to come to a
decision without specific guidelines to follow. For example: Item
#2 indicates that no similar color schemes are present in the
vicinity, yet when shown photographs of painted brick buildings in
the immediate area, the objections changed to other design
elements, which were (are) also present in the immediate area of
our proposed project.
As members of the business community, we asked what criteria had
been established to require other businesses in the area to apply
for a design review prior to painting or repainting existing
buildings in the area. There was no response. We asked what would
have prevented us from painting our building had we not come forth
courteously as good citizens and asked planning first. There was
no response.
Our design was referred to as similar to an AM-PM Mini-Mart, of
which I must assume that there are none of in the city of Chula
vista.
Gentlemen, we simply want to upgrade the exteriors of our
restaurants to bring them up to today's standards. To do so, we
wish to work with community groups and local agencies, but we
cannot do so without assistance and guidelines. We understand the
concerns of the Design Review committee, but believe that the
constraints put upon us were not in keeping with the statues and
code sections authorized by the City of Chula vista.
/-11.(
City of Chula vista
February 3, 1993
Page Three
We would like the opportunity to present our proposal directly to
the Planning commission and hope that we will be allowed to do so
during the appeal process.
O;:~
Dennis A Wozniak
senior Construction site Engineer
Jack In The Box Restaurants
DW: jk
Attachments
c: G. Pearson
L. Webb
File
/, I 5-'
a:i] prOOUCTS J
CALIFORNIA NEON PRODUCTS
4530 Mission Gorge Place
San Diego. CA 92120-4188
(619) 283~2191 Fax (619) 2839503
Foodrnaker Inc.
10650 Treena street - Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92131
Attn: Dennis Wozniak
February 2, 1993
Ref: Jack in the Box # 15
802 3rd Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Wozniak,
We have calculated the copy to background ratio for the
signs at this location.
Pylon sign - 8' X 8' double face
30% - Copy 70% - Background
Wall Signs - 4'-0" X 11'-3"
41% - Copy
59% - Background
Please call if you have any questions.
c~
"
Peter Mccarter - Vice President
PMC/jbr
/./4
Electrical Advertising . Neon . Plastics . Aluminum . Architectural Design
"
.f!n'J;'r~tI..ac~
~ ""JfIi.A..~__,II.~~_""
\:\ ,....,..~
,,~ ' I
- !i ~.. J
,! -\ 1i
<,\ ~
\IL'\'
iiI I "
":; _Z-~
.~ ~ ''i
,/ ~~,
~ ~;
'~III ."
7.. \'\
\;-,,-,-,
:.~\)
~'}\,\\
\\\ \~ \:\
~
j,;.
~
t
,
J
,
~
I
~
,
~
H
~
~
V
"
ij
"
~
u
~
!
I
."~
(c,\
~11,jw~J~A~
,
, ,
:\,\\
,!II
~\\\
1\ ';'
\\:\ \: ~
\\ 1 >
,\ ')\1 I" 1
\\. '.\, ~--~J
1\ t\ \~ _::t,\
\\\ \\I.':,'~ \\)
" ~ ~l\' >',
\~ J~~\<"~
-' \) \ - ,\
'\
.1:.\
\..-,
~ (,
\-
do
,It, \..'\'-
{ \ ~"
;~~\ <:::s::"
o
-~
-~-I
" I
'c I
t
'"
-,
-,~-
.~..,.,.,..........~.~ r ".,.,rf'J'OJ,..
~~::=::"'~'''''.'.P''''U''''III'_
,~.".
\!J
1\
%
o
~
/---,
'01
'-J
II.
01
41
r/7
Lur u
"""""'1" ~,"'"....
~
'-...
.
""1
,...
j
~~i!:;:
_ ""-...: If) ~
h:: ",
w"-u
",,1;1'''
\: ~:J';
~~~
~
'.}
, ,
\i '
. i!
)'
,{I
l\!
-\'I
()I.~-
\\ I .~'
,~) i .
I \1
<"J .\
<' \\
:< 1\\
:11
Ii il
~.,\ !I
<II
.\\ .
',- -
~
".
p--
j~
I r C'"=J J
ffi c:::.r::I
ID c:::!I.:J
~1:;lj
I IIIP"' I
..
~Hfl q
1':,1 :':
,,' . \
l.-' "
~ r ~ q
d
~; t: '
~
II 1
x il
.\( u )
v ,11
~'. \' j~1
"\: .' ~-
I ,-, ,
\)
:z: i{ ..
::J \:
~ 1 !
J
~ . ,il
~ ~ .~ I
rJ ~ -
,
.
, '
, I
, 3
, ~
, .
In ~
1- ~
U!
] ~
U '
~~
o ~~
l ~~
iH
[1.35 !
(!II
~~~~~:
-1"1
~;{y~e~
1~t:f
fif'~!:~~~
.......!; :>
.:;~~~"Zi
.~~ ','
~n;SS5 .. .
3S11~p..~ ~ I
!~~i!,i ".'
"~"~M~ ..
.P
~ "
" .
.
.: ~_._.
~
!
1
"
N
f
,1\
cO
\.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'.
.~\
o~
UrD
'- <> "'-0
"" 0'
o
('0C"
. . . \n .
..,', 'c.-J. \ _
.', -<2, 'J 1\:
:v~ ..
'~..~.. 'lJ
.l~ ".3"
. >-. . .0- ] :r~}
rVl ~..~~
/
\
'i
\
., '
',.\1\
\
\
\
\
\
~
!
I
.
>.'~(~::. .
~:
!
" ',.'
(----
r-
..
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Summary Staff Report
CASE NO. DRC 93-03 MEETING DATE: September 14. 1992 AGENDA NO. 2
BRIEF PROJEcr DESCRIPfION: Exterior remodel of exlstine: restaurant and sle:n
desle:n modification
PROJEcr NAME AND LOCATION: Jack In the Box
802 Third Avenue
PROJEcr APPLICANT:
Foodmaker. Inc.
10650 Treena St.. San Dlee:o. CA 92131
A Environmental
This project is categorically exempt from environmental review. as .,. Class 1 (a) and
ll(a) exemption.
B. Recommendation
Deny the proposed building and signage modifications.
C. Proiect Settlne:
The proposed project site Is located at the southwest comer of Third Avenue and
"K" Street and is currently developed as a drlve-thru restaurant fc.cility.
D. Proiect Description
The project proposal involves exteIior renovation of the existing restaurant facility
and rnodjfication of the existing sign design.
E. Staff Analvsls
1. Building modifications
The appl1cant proposes to modify the existing building's exterior as follows:
a.
Paint all existing natural brick veneer surfaces inclusive of exteIior
walls and service enclosure areas white - (WhIsper White/ semi-gloss
enamel finish)
b.
Paint the existing light brown metal roof black (Ultra Black/exteIior
flat finish)
WPC F:\home\planning\86.92
/. 11
. \
.r,
\
. , ~
DRC 93-03
Page 2
C. Install a new 18-1n. wide aluminum fascia over the existing wood
fascia
d. Remove the existing fabric awnings.
e. Install an aluminum roof parapet cap with neon accent lighting
along the roof peIimeter.
Staff has evaluated the proposed building alterations and cannot endorse
the proposed color scheme or building design modlfi~ations. Staff finds the
current exterior building treatment - colors, finish, fascia design, and
window awning accents - to be well coordinated and far more "inviting"
than the proposal at hand. In addition, staff finds that the current building
design scherne provides a better representation of the building materials
utilized In the construction of the structure.
Therefore, staff does not support the submitted building modifications and
recommends denial of the proposal.
2. Signage Modification
The applicant proposes to modity the existing project signage as follows:
1) RepJace existing pole and wall-mounted sign copy, as identified on
the submitted sign Infonnation.
2) Paint the existing brown cabinet frame and retainers of all wall and
pole signs red.
3) Paint the existing brown pole sign support black.
4) Paint the existing brown menu cabinet frame white and menu pole
support black.
Staff has evaluated the proposed signage modifications and has concluded
that the ex!stlng sign design is cornplementary to the existing building
architecture and utilizes a more proportionate sign copy/sign letter
character size VB. sign background ratio than that currently proposed by
the applicant. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the submitted sign
proposal: however. if the applicant wishes to modity the sign copy so that
it does not exceed fifty percent of the "sign background area," then it is
recommended that review and approval of any such modification be
handled at the staff level. .
WPC F:\home\plann1ng\86.92
1.2.0
486 BROADWAY. DRC-93-04
. Locator
. Site Plan
. Exterior Elevations
. Appeal Form
. Letter from Jack In The Box
. Applicant's Sign Area Computations
. Sign Drawings (2)
. Original Staff Report to DRC
/- ;,.,(
-
I- -,
I I
I I
qfPi;~T
~ p~ec,i
~ L.OCATI
--.- - -1---
I
I
I
L___
r----
~ - ~. ..
I ( I I I I I r ". -'. Ii
I VANCE. ST ... ~
. . [[[[[]
II DIIIIJJJ
~ ROOSEVELT ST.- .
~I i [ill 1[]J
I DIrnJ! 11
I OTIS [[[ITI)
t-LillTIl . [J .
c:HUL.-A VI~TA
aN~f':, ... L__________
,..------- -- ----
. I
I
, .
~-----------
r------, r-~----~-
I .' . I'. .
I , I.
I, ,
, . - . ...) '--
----- -~_._-_... - --
(1~~~gw~ ) 'LOCATOR
, P-tN6VATltN tr [;)<.I'?llN?:>
NORTH (tlP-0 - '1 :h?{- ) . i'-f'"ALJI'ANT ,- :22-
(
) ~ .;;:ro"~~3J~~~aoo~
~,~
.3.1V1J"Wd
<;t._q,_~
'AS AAvaJ '"6.'w~.1/ '3.1VO 3"ISS1
'3d.U!JIIIOlIfl3
~'~a:r
, :),
~
!
,
!. ~
,. ,
, I
',(
'eft
l
/.23
(
)
'Th'OS
( ) ~ .;N~'m'13J~\o/~aOO~
!NJISlfaI
.31VO 'W'd
\
\
i1
j1
H ~i
u- 1-~
I
p~
<I I, .
~l n
\
~~~
I
II
')'8/Wo'lM]
(
)
.3.1V\J 3'1S$1 ~". 7~'11 '3&..1 !JIIIOlIrt3 v..<h ~ ar
Ii
tl
,
~
~
~
~
J-"2.L{
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Date Received
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
Case No:
Appeal Form
Appeal from the decision of: 0 Zoning 0 Planning BI Design Review
Administrator Commission Committee
Appe 11 ant: ~~~ A . WOZt-J(AIt./~~tJ1I:\E.l!!iJ)(
.
Phone b\9/ !di?'?vI5
Address: \00<;0 ~A <Dr.) SA'-.)D~o, CA. q;VI'l1
Request for:
~\hI.1 e.~Vlf;;v.l. 9~ -04-
(Example: zone change, variance, design review. etc.)
Please state wherein you bel ieve there was an error in the decision of 0 ZA 0 PC laDRC
for the property located at: 413b ~DWA'\, (*""1'I.\1~\11)
?~E. e~\=IC.Il- 1"0 A1TA@\i:oD ~~e&t:a-XJB.l.Ci5 \)~ ~w~, ~~ f't.IZ. MfEA'L-
~W~'\1eJ .
~t
'l';.1?1
Date
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do Not Write In This Space
To: Planning De pa rtmen t Date Appeal Fil ed :
Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No:
The above matter has been scheduled for publ ic hearing before the:
Planning Commission City Council on
Planning Commissi'on Secretary City Clerk
(This form to be filed in triplicate.)
PL-60
Rev. 12/83
/- ~5
A Division of
Foodmaker, Inc.
4239 South 43rd Place
Phoenix, AZ 85040
602/437.13.u,
February 3, 1993
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Design Review Committee 93-04 Appeal of Decision of 1/25/93
Dear Sirs:
Jack In The Box Restaurants presented a proposal for the exterior
renovation of its restaurant located at 486 Broadway, Chula Vista
and paid associated fees on July 31, 1992. A series of Design
Review committee Meetings took place on September 14th, October
26th, and December 14th with the decision to deny the proposal
coming on January 25, 1993.
Extracted from the meeting minutes and summary staff report are the
major objections of the Design Review Committee.
1. Inappropriate use of building materials (paint on brick
masonry) architecturally incompatible materials.
2. Similar or exact color schemes not found in the vicinity of
proposed project.
3. Removal of existing awnings unacceptable as they are an
integral part of building architecture.
4. Proposed look is very stark, similar to AM-PM Mini-Marts.
5. Signage does not comply with code requirements of 50% copy.
6. Existing landscaping required upgrade.
7. Opposed to color scheme.
8. Project needs more than paint.
9. Asphalt shingles do not apply well to mansard roofing.
10. Building needs stucco.
/.. 2(P
City of Chula Vista
February 3, 1993
Page Two
11. Building needs more detail and decorative lighting.
This restaurant was constructed in mid 1971 and opened December 16,
1971 with the existing exterior decor. Now, twenty two (22) years
have passed and Jack In The Box would like to apply a new,
relatively contemporary look to the building to enhance the
neighborhood and promote and revitalize the business in the
community.
We have reviewed all applicable code sections, particularly Chapter
19.14.470 and feel that we have maintained the intent of that
section as well as all other sections that apply.
Our signage has been calculated by our sign vendor and does indeed
meet all code requirements contrary to the meeting minutes
denotation. (See attachments)
It is the feeling of Jack In The Box that, after a thorough review
of the various meeting minutes, that the Design Review Committee
Board Members cannot agree as a team and are expected to corne to a
decision without specific guidelines to follow. For example: Item
#2 indicates that no similar color schemes are present in the
vicinity, yet when shown photographs of painted brick buildings in
the immediate area, the objections changed to other design
elements, which were (are) also present in the immediate area of
our proposed project.
As members of the business community, we asked what criteria had
been established to require other businesses in the area to apply
for a design review prior to painting or repainting existing
buildings in the area. There was no response. We asked what would
have prevented us from painting our building had we not corne forth
courteously as good citizens and asked planning first. There was
no response.
Our design was referred to as similar to an AM-PM Mini-Mart, of
which I must assume that there are none of in the City of Chula
vista.
Gentlemen, we simply want to upgrade the exteriors of our
restaurants to bring them up to today's standards. To do so, we
wish to work with community groups and local agencies, but we
cannot do so without assistance and guidelines. We understand the
concerns of the Design Review Committee, but believe that the
constraints put upon us were not in keeping with the statues and
code sections authorized by the City of Chula vista.
/- ;:;.,?
City of Chula Vista
February 3, 1993
Page Three
We would like the opportunity to present our proposal directly to
the Planning Commission and hope that we will be allowed to do so
during the appeal process.
O;:~
Dennis A Wozniak
senior Construction site Engineer
Jack In The Box Restaurants
DW: jk
Attachments
c: G. Pearson
L. Webb
File
1- "2 C6'
Gi] proouc:::,s )
CALIFORNIA NEON PRODUCTS
4530 Mission Gorge Place
San Diego CA 92120-4188
(619) 283~2191 Fa, (619) 283~%03
Foodrnaker Inc.
10650 Treena Street- Suite
San Diego, CA 92131
Attn: Dennis Wozniak
301
February 2, 1993
Ref: Jack in the Box # 6
486 Broadway
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Wozniak,
We have calculated the copy to background ratio for the
signs at this location.
Pylon sign - 8' X 8' double face.
Copy - 30% Background - 70%
Pylon sign - 6' X 6'-6" double face.
Copy - 34% Background - 66%
Wall sign - 7'-6" X 7'_6"
Copy - 30% Background - 70%
Please call if you have any questions.
c~
""'I
Peter Mccarter - Vice President
"
PMC/jbr
Electrical Advertising . Neon . Plastics . Aluminum _ Architectural Design
1- 2.1
,\
\
\
\
.~\
-c-i \
..--<:)-..<)
. G <J
.oJ1 ] 1
,.>-C-. ... .0-. ~./3
r\l1 b(}-
i.\:,
\
\J1
v --...
UjD
'-() '-..0
0'- 0'
o
(Dc-
"
"
N
f
"'
W
\
'i
.-~
\
j...
t..~.
". ..
. -:
\
i
i
I
l
!
I
,
~
';;'
"
':'
, ,','
'. ,
..:',
, .....-----L- ~,
~ t-~
. -\\\~
~tl.\L
" ,'.
.. '
-"-
()
4-
&
\-
j:
S-
f
)-
~
,~
,J*
~.......<>
o .""-
"3""'..0
1V1--9
1
-
~
'. I,.' ":,
. .
"
"" "
','
\' ,",";'
,1;'1'
(,
.'
:'-',!
, .
, .
::i.'
;':""".
1-'.3/~. i.
'-'
. !J
. ~
r'
, .
.,
,
. ..
, .
.
"
.
'. ,
^ .
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Summaxv Staff Report
CASE NO. DRC 93-04 MEE'I1NG DATE: September 14. 1992 AGENDA NO.
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Exterior remodel of existinl!' restaurant and sll!'n
DrOl!ram modification
PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: Jack in the Box
486 Broadwav
PROJEcr APPUCANr:
Foodmaker. Inc.
10650 Treena St.. San Dlel!'o, CA 92131
A Environmental
ThIs project Is categorically exempt from environmental review, as a Class 1 (a) and
11 (a) exemption.
B. Recommendation
Deny the proposed building and slgnage modifications.
C.' Profect SeWnI!'
The proposed project site Is located on the west side of Broadway between "H"
Street and Otis Street and Is currently developed as a drlve-thru restaurant
facility.
D. Project Description
The proJ~ct proposalmvolves exterior renovation of the existing restaurant facility
and modification of the existing sign design.
E. Staff Analvsts
1. Building modifications
The applicant proposes to modify the existing builcl!.ng"s exterior as fonows:
a.
Paint all existing natural brick veneer surfaces inclusive of exterior
walls and patio walls white - (WhIsper WhIte/semi-gloss enamel
finish)
b.
Paint the existing light brown wood shake roof area black (Ultra
Black/exterior flat fln1sh)
WPc ,",\home\pI&nnlng\II5.92
1-3::L
\ }
".
DRC 93-04
Page 2
c. Install a new 18-In. wide aluminum fascia over the existing wood
fascLa .
d. Remove the existing fabric awnings.
e. Install an alwnlnum roof parapet cap with neon accent lighting
along the roofper1meter.
Staff has evaluated the proposed bu11d1ng alterations and cannot endorse
the proposed color scheme or bu11d1ng design modifications. Staff finds the
current exterior building treatment - colors. ftnJsh. fascia design. and
window awning accents - to be well coordinated and far more "InViting"'
than the proposal at hand. In addition. stafffinds that the cun'ent building
design scheme provides a better representation of the bu11d1ng materials
utllized In the construction of the structure.
Therefore. staff does not support the submitted bu11dlng mocllfications and
recommends denial of the proposal.
2. Slgnage Mocllflcation
The applicant proposes to mocllfy the existlng project slgnage as follows:
1) Replace existing pole and wall mounted sign copy. as Identlfled on
the submitted sign Infonnation. .
2) Paint the existing brown cabinet frame and retainers of all wall and
pole signs red.
3) Paint the existing brown pole sign support black.
4) Paint the existing brown menu cabinet frame white and menu pole
support black.
Staff has evaluated the proposed signage mod1flcations and has concluded
that the existing sign design is complementaIy to the existing bu11d1ng
architecture and uW1zes a more proportionate sign copy/sign letter
character size vs. sign background ratio than that CUITenUy proposed by
the applicant. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the submitted sign
proposal; however. if the applicant Wishes to mocl1fy the sign copy so that
it does not elCCeed fifty percent of the "sign background area." then it is
recommended that review and approval of any such mod1flcation be
handled at the staff level.
WI'C r:U-\pI&nnIrc\85.~
1- 3.:3
MINUTES AND STAFF MEMORANDA
. DRC-93-03
. DRC-93-04
/.3r
("';
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-2-
SEPTEMBER 14. 1992
2.
DRC-93-03
Jack-in-the-Box 802 Third Avenue
Remodel & Sian Modifications
3.
DRC-93-04
Jack-in-the-Box 485 Broadwav
Remodel & Sian MOdifications
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Wolfe stated that these two projects were
sUbstantially the same and would be presented together, with
differences between the proposals to be noted. She stated
that the proposal was to paint existing brick veneer surfaces
and other exterior surfaces with an off-white semi-gloss
finish, paint the existing roofs black, remove fabric awnings,
install aluminum facias over existing wood fascias, and
/... ..!S"
r
l. I
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-3-
SEPTEMBER 14. 1992
install roof parapets with neon accent lighting along the
perimeter. Ms. Wolfe stated that staff had reviewed the
proposal and found the existing building exterior treatments
and design to be better coordinated, providing a better
representation of the building materials than the current
proposal; therefore, staff recommended denial of the proposal.
Ms. Wolfe added that as proposed signage did not meet zoning
ordinance requirements relating to the ratio of sign copy to
background area, denial of proposed signage was recommended;
however, any modifications to bring the proposed signage into
conformance with the ordinance could be reviewed at staff
level.
Committee Ouest ions
Member Flach asked about recent revisions to the sign
ordinance relating to lighting; Mr. Griffin responded that
revisions recently adopted addressed lighting for electronic
message boards only.
ADDlicant ResDonse
Dennis Wozniak of Foodmaker Inc., presented photographs of
other sites in the County that had been remodeled under the
currently proposed scheme. He stated that the proposed
remodel was being done nationally, and was simply a result of
economics and marketing research, adding that sales in the
remodeled facilities have increased. He acknowledged that the
regulations in each city were somewhat different, adding that
if this proposal was not acceptable, he would like specific
direction as to what would be, or what specific parts of the
project were found to be acceptable.
.
Committee Discussion
Chair Gilman stated that her basic reaction was that the
proposal was not a good use of the building materials. She
stated that she did not object to a white building with a
black roof, but felt that the technique of this retrofit did
not suit the building designs and materials. Member Spethman
agreed, stating that the existing used brick was more inviting
as an exterior building treatment; he questioned the
desirability of painting it white. Chair Gilman felt that
simply applying paint to the buildings did not address them
sUfficiently.
Member Rodriguez pointed out that buildings utilizing black
and white color schemes were not found in the vicinity of the
Third & "K" location; he felt that the building would be out
of context in that area, adding that items such as the red
banding and sign changes could be done here without creating
-
/-.3G.
.
.
o
.'
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-4-
SEPTEMBER 14. 1992
such a visual conflict; member Spethman agreed that the
surrounding areas were important, and that some ot the ideas
presented could be utilized. Mr. Wozniak acknowledged that
the proposal could be modified to accomplish the needs ot both
Jack-in-the-Box and the community.
Chair Gilman pointed out that as the awnings are an
architectural part of the building, their deletion needs to be
addressed. Replacing the blue band with a red band was not
seen as a problem by members. Mr. Wozniak stated that
modifications could be worked on and brought back to the
conunittee. Chair Gilman noted that subcommittee meetings
might be helpful in this case.
MSUC (Gilman/Flach) (4-0) to continue DRC-93-03 tor a period
not to exceed six months, to allow the applicant time to
revise the proposal.
MSUC (Gilman/Rodriguez)
period not to exceed six
to revise the proposal.
(4-0) to continue DRC-93-04 tor a
months, to allow the applicant time
I. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
~~:~r.or
/ -~?
r,
~(
MEMORANDUM
October 16, 1992
TO:
Chairperson and Members of the Design Review COmmittee
FROM:
Amy Wolfe, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: DRC-93-03 and DRC-93-04/Extertor Remodel of Jack-in-the-Box
Restaurants
On Septernber 14, 1992, the Design Review Committee considered two remodeling
proposals for the Jack-in-the-Box Restaurants located at 802 Third Avenue and 486
Broadway, respectively.
The proposals consisted of the following buildings and signage modillcations:
a. Painting of all existing natural brtck veneer surfaces inclusive of extertor walls
and service enclosure areas white - (Whisper White/semi-gloss enamel fmish}.
b. Painting of the existing light brown metal roof black (Ultra Black/extertor flat
finish) .
c. Installation of a new 18-inch wide aluminum fascia over the existing wood
fascias.
d. Removal of the existing fabrtc awnings.
e. Installation of an aluminum roof parapet cap with neon accent lighting along
the roof pertmeter.
f. Replacement of the existing pole and wall-mounted sign copy.
g. Painting of the existing brown cabinet frame and retainers of all wall and pole
signs red.
h. Painting of the existing brown pole sign support black.
1. Painting of the existing brown menu cabinet frames white and menu pole
supports black.
Upon evaluation of the project proposals, the Committee continued the items in order
to allow the applicant time to revise the proposals and address the Committee's
concerns which were focused on the overall suitability of the proposed retrofit (see
attached minutes from September 14, 1992 rneeting).
1- ~8
,,-.
'(
Chairman and Members of the Design Review COmmittee
October 16. 1992
Page 2
The applicant has modified the previous remodeling proposal and has requested a
preliminary presentation of the revised proposal In order to obtain design Input
directly from the Committee.
Graphics and Infonnatlon on the previous and currently proposed remodeling will be
available and will be presented to the COmmittee during the meeting.
WPC:F: \HOME\PlANNING \241. 92
{' 3r
(
DESIGN REVIEW COMMTITEE
-4-
OCTOBER 26. 199~
4.
DRC-9~3
Jack-in-the-Box
802 Third Avenue - Exterior Remodel
5.
DRC-93-04
Jack-in-the-Box
486 Broadwav - Exterior Remodel
Preliminarv Presenution
Staff Presentatio{1
Assistant Planner Wolfe stated that as the proposal had not been changed since the
last meeting, no report had been prepared.
ADDlicant Presentation
Applicant Dennis Wozniak indicated that he had taken the committee's comments
back to a corporate committee, which had decided against any revisions to the
proposal and wished to pursue the originally proposed program in its entirety.
I, Jt'~
(
DESIGN REVIEW COMMlITEE
-5-
OCTOBER 26.1992
Company architect Larry Webb pointed out that an attempt was being made to
brighten the buildings, which would be more compatible with many other buildings
in the area; further, no structural changes are proposed. Mr. Wozniak added that
some buildings In the area have been painted recently; he stated that If the
committee was unable to approve the proposal, a denial would be preferred so that
the appeal process could be initiated. Mr. Griffin noted that since this was a
preliminary presentation, no action could be taken.
Committee Discussion
Chair Gilman asked if staff had reviewed the proposed signage changes. Member
Spethman stated that the new design resembles an am/pm mini-mart, especially
when lit up at night as depicted in photographs; he noted that the look is very stark,
and asked if landscaping would be upgraded. Mr. Wozniak responded that this was
possible. He pointed out that economics playa major role in what can be done,
adding that ADA requirements are also being worked on. Senior Planner Griffin
asked if the committee's past direction has changed, and suggested that specific
direction be given if conditional approval was seen as an option. Chair Gilman
stated that she did not see an)1hing changing, but expressed a desire to work with
the applicants. Mr. Wozniak suggested bringing specific elevations in to the
committee; Chair Gilman stated that this might help. Assistant Planner Wolfe
stated that she would talk with the applicant regarding scheduling the project and
any proposed revisions for the next available meeting.
F. ADJOURNMRNT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
l.~'~:~'d"
1- ~/
n f.
MEMORANDUM
December 3, 1992
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Design Review Conunittee
FROM: Amy Wolfe, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: DRC-93-03 and DRC-93-04/Exterior Remodel of Jack-ijJ-the-Box Restaurants
On September 14, 1992, the Design Review Conunittee considered two remodeling proposals for
the Jack-in-the-Box Restaurants located at S02 Third Avenue and 4S6 Broadway, respectively.
The proposals consisted of the following buildings and signage modifications:
a. Painting of all existing natural brick veneer surfaces inclusive of exterior walls and
service enclosure areas white - (Whisper White/semi-gloss enamel finish).
b. Painting of the existing roofs black (Ultra Black/exterior flat fmish).
c. Installation of a new IS-inch wide aluminum fascia over the existing wood fascias.
d. Removal of the existing fabric awnings.
e. Installation of an aluminum roof parapet cap with neon accent lighting along the roof
perimeter.
f. Replacement of the existing pole and wall-mounted sign copy.
g. Painting of the existing brown cabinet frame and retainers of all wall and pole signs red.
h. Painting of the existing brown pole sign support black.
1. Painting of the existing brown menu cabinet frames white and menu pole supports black.
Upon evaluation of the project proposals, the Conunittee continued the items in order to allow
the applicant time to revise the proposals and address the COnunittee' s concerns which were
focused on the overall suitability of the proposed retrofit (see attached minutes from September
14, 1992 meeting).
At the October 26, 1992 regular DRC meeting, the applicant informed staff and the Design
Review Conunittee that the "corporate conunittee" had decided against making any architectural
revisions to the originally proposed plans, and indicated that they would consider enhancing the
existing landscaping on both sites as a means of addressing the COnunittee' s concerns.
{- y:2..
r'
f.
Chairman and Members of the Design Review Committee
December 3, 1992
Page 2
The applicant did revise the previously submitted site plan and is proposing to refurbish the
existing landscaping and provide additional planting materials, as identified on the plans dated
November 23, 1992.
Staff has evaluated the proposed site and landscaping enhancements and finds that they would
positively contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of both sites; however, staff has concluded
that the Design Review COmmittee's previously expressed concerns which were related to
architectural issues have not been fully addressed through the proposed landscape screening
solution. Therefore, based on the analysis provided in the September 14, 1992 staff report (see
attached reports for DRC-93-03 and DRC-93-04) staff recommends denial of the proposed
renovations of the Jack-in-the-Box restaurants located at 802 Third Avenue and 486 Broadway.
WPC F:\HOME\PL\NNING\388.92
/- Y.3
r
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITIEE
-3-
DECEMBER 14. 1992
2.
DRC-93-{)3
Jack-in-the-Box
802 Third Avenue
Exterior Renovation
3.
DRC-93-04
Jack-in-the-Box
486 Broadway
Exterior Renovation
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Wolfe reviewed the remodel proposals for the two restaurants, reminding
members of the discussion held at two previous meetings involving this project. She stated that
the applicant had proposed refurbishing existing landscaping; while staff felt that this
refurbishing would enhance the site, it was found that the committee's previously expressed
concerns had not been fully addressed, and staff recommended that the project be denied.
Applicant Presentation
Dennis Wozniak of Jack-in-the-Box stated that it would not be possible to add landscaping to
these sites without impacting parking and incurring substantial cost. He asked if the proposed
building materials would be seen as ccmpatible if the buildings were stuccoed and the roof
materials changed; Chair Gilman responded that she felt that a standing metal seam roof could
be painted, adding that other members' input should be obtained also. Mr. Wozniak stated that
it was hoped now that a continuance could be granted rather than a denial, so that the proposal
could be brought back with different components.
Committee Discussion
Member Speth man stated that landscaping should be utilized to enhance the architecture rather
than camouflage it. Member Flach stated that he was opposed to the color scheme, noting that
he had seen some of the remodels and thought they looked terrible. Member Rodriguez stated
that he felt that more than just paint was needed. Chair Gilman stated that she was not opposed
to the proposed color scheme; she noted that other remodels did look somewhat stark, but felt
that landscaping could soften this. Member Bernier indicated that from a design standpoint,
asphalt roofing would not apply well to mansard roofing. Member Rodriguez asked if both
buildings would be stuccoed; Mr. Wozniak stated that he would take this option back to his
company.
Member Speth man stated that the majority of the committee had not been happy with the original
proposal, including the color scheme; member Rodriguez agreed with this. Speth man then noted
that this had not changed, nor had any solution been presented. Mr. Wozniak responded that
it was hoped that some combination of enhancements or changes would provide a solution, rather
than abandoning the color scheme, and that his impression had been that this was possible.
Chair Gilman stated that she had not left previous meetings with the idea that black and white
was completely out. She asked if other members felt that black and white was completely
. /-'-fy
~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMI1TF.E
-4-
DECEMBER 14. 1992
unacceptable; member Spethman noted changes that had been brought up by the committee, such
as some type of replacement for the awnings, black wrought iron fixtures, and other elements;
however, these changes were not a part of any proposal the committee had seen, and he felt that
the color scheme was g(aring, and that some accents or other elements were needed to enhance
the buildings. Chair Gilman agreed that the committee had discussed details such as the
awnings, and was looking for some degree of richness or detail. Project architect Larry Webb
suggested that some type of bracket fixture lighting could be looked at, as well as the possibility
of continuing the gray wainscot.
Chair GiJman summarized the committees concerns as follows: the committee was looking for
some level of detail that was in keeping with what was there presently, as well as compatible
types of materials. Softening details, such as the gray wainscoting was desirable. Black and
white are acceptable if certain other criteria are met. The increased planting as originally
proposed was desirable. Better use of materials, such as the possibility of the standing metal
se<lm roof instead of shingles at the Broadway store location; stuccoing the walls was also
recommended. Member Flach added that details would be needed with the use of stucco, such
as reveals, in order to break it up.
Member Speth man asked jf the applicant was agreeable to providing decorative lighting or some
other accent in place of the existing awnings and light fixtures; Mr. Webb stated that they would
be agreeable to this. In response to questions by Ms Wolfe, Chair Gilman stated that she did
not see room for additional landscape areas beyond what the applicant was proposing; however,
she would expect that refurbishing the existing landscaping would include the use of substantial
masses of plant materials.
Mr. Wozniak asked for a continuance, stating that he would be willing to return as a vote item.
MSUC (Gilman/Flach) (5-0) to continue DRC-93-03 and DRC-93-04 to the second meeting in
January.
/- 7' ..5
MEMORANDUM
January 7, 1993
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Design Review COrrmUttee
FROM: Amy Wolfe, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: DRC-93-03 and DRC-93-04/Exterior Remodel of Jack-in-the-Box Restaurants
On September 14, 1992, the Design Review Committee considered two remodeling proposals for
the Jack-in-the-Box Restaurants located at 802 Third Avenue and 486 Broadway, respectively.
The proposals consisted of the following building and signage modifications:
a. Painting of all existing natural brick veneer surfaces inclusive of exterior walls and
service enclosure areas white - (Whisper White/semi-gloss enamel finish).
b. Painting of the existing roofs black (Ultra Black/exterior flat fmish).
c. Installation of a new 18-inch wide aluminum fascia over the existing wood fascias.
d. Removal of the existing fabric awnings.
e. Installation of an aluminum roof parapet cap with neon accent lighting along the roof
perimeter.
f. Replacement of the existing pole and wall-mounted sign copy.
g. Painting of the existing brown cabinet frame and retainers of all wall and pole signs red.
h. Painting of the existing brown pole sign support black.
1. Painting of the existing brown menu cabinet frames white and menu pole supports black.
The COrrmUttee expressed a number of concerns which were focused on the overall suitability
of the proposed retrofit (see attached minutes from September 14, 1992 meeting).
The applicant requested that the item be rescheduled for a preliminary presentation to DRC so
that direct input on the revised concept could be obtained. The item was rescheduled and
returned to the Committee on October 26, 1992.
At the October 26, 1992 regular DRC meeting, the applicant informed staff and the Design
Review COrrmUttee that the "corporate committee" had decided against making any architectural
/- 'i~
, }
Chainnan and Members of the Design Review Committee
January 7, 1993
Page 2
revisions to the originally proposed plans, indicated that they would consider enhancing the
existing landscaping on both sites as a means of addressing the Committee's concerns and
requested a continuance to the next available DRC meeting.
The item was continued to the December 14, 1990 regular meeting. Subsequently to the October
26, 1992 meeting, revised site and landscaping plans were submitted by the applicant for review.
The revised proposal involved upgrade of the existing on-site landscaping and construction of
new planter areas.
Staff evaluated the submitted plans and concluded that, although the proposed improvements
would contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of both sites, they did not fully address the
Design Review Committee's concerns which were related to architecture.
On December 14, 1992, the above proposal was presented to the Committee with a staff
recommendation for denial. Following staff presentation, the applicant indicated that the
landscaping costs made the submitted proposal infeasible and he would like to examine and
pursue other architectural design options that would address the Committee's concerns. The item
was rescheduled for the January 25, 1992 regular DRC meeting.
Since that time the applicant has indicated to staff that a different architectural concept is not a
desirable option and wished to present to the Committee the "enhanced landscape" proposal
which was previously presented on December 14, 1992 for fmal review and consideration.
Staff's position on this concept remains as previously presented. Therefore, staff recommends
denial of the proposal for the reasons discussed on the attached reports (see DRC 93-04 and DRC
93-03 staff reports).
Minutes from the September 14, 1992, October 26, 1992 and December 14, 1992 have been
attached for review and clarification.
WPC F:\bome'i'lanning\461.93
1- '77
,
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-3-
JANUARY 25. 1993
1.
DRC-93-03
Jack-in-the-Box
802 Third Avenue
Exterior Renovation
2.
DRC-93-04
Jack-in-the-Box
486 Broadway
Exterior Renovation
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Amy Wolfe introduced the projects, reviewing previous meetings at
which the committee had considered and provided input on the proposed exterior
renovations for the Jack-in-the-Box restaurants. She stated that although at the last
meeting the applicants had asked for, and was granted, a continuance to provide them
with time to pursue architectural design options which might address committee concerns,
they had since indicated to staff that this was not a desirable option. Rather, they wished
to present the enhanced landscape proposal which had been previously presented to the
committee at the December 14, 1992 meeting. As staff did not feel that the proposed
improvements addressed the committee's concerns, which were primarily architectural,
and the applicants were requesting final action on the proposal, staff's recommendation
was for denial of the proposals.
Committee Ouestions
Chair Gilman noted that at the last meeting the applicants had indicated that a gray
wainscot could be utilized, but that this was not shown on the plans. Ms. Wolfe
responded that the current proposal was the same as the last proposal, which had not
included this architectural enhancement. Member Spethman asked about plans for other
Jack-in-the-Box restaurants; Senior Planner Patrick Crowley stated that discussions had
taken place regarding approximately five other restaurants. Ms. Wolfe added that future
determinations on the various restaurants would depend on individual circumstances.
Chair Gilman stated that she did not particularly object to the proposed color scheme;
other members disagreed with this. Committee members generally expressed concern
about both the proposed treatments and the materials to be used relative to the existing
structures.
MSUC (Speth man/Bernier) (5-0) to deny DRC-93-03;
MSUC (Spethman/Bernier) (5-0) to deny DRC-93-04; with both denials based on the
following:
Proposed color palette not complementary to the building; existing
building materials not utilized to their best potential; proposed designs not
complementary to surrounding areas; proposed modifications to
landscaping insufficient; proposed improvements do not justify removal
of the current architectural detailing of the buildings.
I-~'$