Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/06/09 (2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZA V-93-1O: request to exceed the maximum allowable sign area at 290 "I" Street in the C-O Zone - Rovston Corporation on behalf of Southland Corporation (continued) A. BACKGROUND 1. The request is to exceed the maximum allowable sign area by a total combined area of 174 sq. ft. on the 7/11 Store at 290 "I" Street in the C-O Commercial Office zone. 2. This item was continued from the meeting of May 12, 1993, at the request of the applicant. 3. The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class lee) and (g) exemption. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution denying ZA V -93-10 to exceed the maximum allowable sign area at 290 "I" Street. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adiacent zoning and land use. North R-l South C-O East R-3-H West C-O Single Family Residential Dental Offices Apartments Service Station 2. Exisling site characteristics. The site is a 14,741 sq. ft. parcel with a 2,400 sq. ft. convenience market located 75ft. from the front property line, 20 ft. from the east property line, and 37 ft. from the west property line. The building is separated from the street by a driveway, two rows of parking and a 5 ft. wide planting strip. All properties to the east of the site on both the north and south sides of "I" Street are residential. Immediately to the west on Third Avenue is an automobile service station. Almost all other commercial properties along Third Avenue in that vicinity are professional offices, such as medical and dental offices, law offices, real estate brokers, etc. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 2 3. Request. The C-O zone limits maximum allowable sign area to 50 sq. ft. on the front of the building and 20 sq. ft. on the sides. The proposal calls for 204 sq. ft. on the front "I" Street elevation, and 30 sq. ft. each on the east and west elevations of the building. The total exceeds the maximum allowable sign area by 174 sq. ft The sign -- a 4 ft. high plexiglass facia panel displaying corporate color stripes and copy logo -- would extend the full 51 ft. width of the front elevation, and return for a distance of 7.5 ft. on each side, completely covering the existing mansard roof. Since this represents a new roof element and significant architectural modification to the building, the applicant has been informed that the proposal also requires design review. D. ANALYSIS The applicant has indicated that it is necessary to increase the amount of sign age because Southland Corporation has been losing market share, due to what the applicant describes as an "old, run-down image." They argue that to call the new exterior treatment a sign is a "misjudgment," since Southland feels that it is merely an image update, necessary to compete in today's market. The term "sign" is defined by Municipal Code Section 19.04.208 as follows: "Sign means any writing, pictorial representation, symbol, banner or any other figure of similar character of whatever material which is used to identify, announce, direct attention to or advertise, which is placed on the ground, on any bush, tree, rock, wall, post, fence, structure, vehicle or on any building. The term "placed" shall include constructing, erecting...or making visible in any manner whatsoever...For definition purposes, all copy applied to one background area only, as defined herein, shall be deemed to be one sign." The Planning Department has consistently interpreted this definition to include any graphic representation, including corporate colors applied in a consistent and identifiable pattern, which is unrelated to the architecture of a building. This has been staff's interpretation with respect to "corporate color striping" regardless of whether it is incorporated on the same surlace or face as the sign copy, or applied independently on other portions of a building. Such schemes are designed not to complement the building architecture, but to act as an additional sign component to identify the use. In a broader sense, it should also be noted that the staff and Design Review Committee have consistently rejected the "corporate identity" argument if the proposed building design, color scheme or sign program is found to be inconsistent with the City's design guidelines and standards. For instance, AM/PM Mini-markets use full-perimeter facia City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 3 color striping in other areas of the country and county, but not on their facilities in Chula Vista. Another perhaps more dramatic example are McDonald's "golden arches," which have been rejected as an unacceptable corporate identity by Chula Vista and many other municipalities throughout the state. Furthennore, 7/11 is proposing this treatment only for their older facilities. Newer facilities such as their store at Hilltop and Naples, and other 7/11 's which are incorporated within centers or planned communities with strict private design controls, are not proposed for the "corporate color striping" approach. However, the site in question is also particularly sensitive with respect to design issues since it fronts up "I" Street rather than Third A venue and adjoins residential uses to the north and east. Overstated signs and colors are inappropriate in this setting. A unique hardship related to the property must be found in order to grant a variance. In this instance, the use is identified by a prominent freestanding pole sign adjacent to the street frontage, and there is nothing to obscure visibility to a 50 sq. ft. wall sign applied to the building, which is setback only 75 ft. from the street. Consequently, staff can find no hardship related to the property -- nor is one being argued other than "image" and "market share" -- which would justify the granting of the variance. Following are the recommended findings for each factor which must be found in order to grant a variance. E. FINDINGS 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. The site contains a prominent freestanding pole sign adjacent to the street which identifies the use to both "I" Street and Third Avenue to the west. The building is located only 75 ft. back from the street, which should provide no impediment to readily identifying the copy applied to a 50 sq. ft. wall sign. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The applicant's statements about loss of market share notwithstanding, there is no proof that this increased signage area is necessary in order to provide proper identification and conduct business and compete with similar businesses in the City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 9, 1993 Page 4 vicinity. On the contrary, the increased sign area would constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by other uses in the same zone and vicinity. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or public interest. While adequate signage is essential to the success of any retail business, excessive, unnecessary signage can be defined as visual blight and, as such, a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. It is believed the proposal to exceed the maximum allowable sign are by almost 300% is contrary to the public interest and will materially impair the purpose of the Code to regulate signs in a reasonable and equitable manner. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. One of the General Plan objectives for Central Chula Vista calls for enhanced visual quality through such actions as improved sign age. It is not believed that the approval of the request would further this objective. WPC F:\home\planning\978.93 RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-93-10 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA AT 290 "I" STREET WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was filed with the City of Chula vista Planning Department on April 13, 1993 by Royston Corporation, on behalf of Southland Corporation, and WHEREAS, said application requests approval to exceed the maximum allowable sign area at a convenience store at 290 "I" Street in the c-o zone, and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said variance application 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 9, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class l(e) and (g) exemption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. DV-res.pc zav-res.pc The site contains a prominent freestanding pole sign adjacent to the street which identifies the use to both "I" street and Third Avenue to the west. The building is located only 75 ft. back from the street, which should provide no impediment to readily identifying the copy applied to a 50 sq. ft. wall sign. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The applicant's statements about loss of market share notwithstanding, there is no proof that this increased signage area is necessary in order to provide proper identification and conduct business and compete with similar businesses in the vicinity. On the contrary, the increased sign area would constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by other uses in the same zone and vicinity. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or public interest. While adequate signage is essential to the success of any retail business, excessive, unnecessary signage can be defined as visual blight and, as such, is a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. It is believed that the proposal to exceed the maximum allowable sign area by almost 300% is contrary to the public interest and will materially impair the purpose of the code to regulate signs in a reasonable and equitable manner. 4. That the graJting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any government agency. One of the General Plan objectives for central Chula vista calls for enhanced visual quality through actions such as improved signage. It is not believed that the approval of the request will further this objective. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies this variance request. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this ninth day of June, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Susan Fuller, Chairperson Attest: Nancy Ripley, Secretary za....rcs.pc \ ...... \ --, -~ - \ -- ~---~ - - - - - - - 4:] -- -- -- -- - - .- -- - - -- ---0-- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- ( z.. i 0 ':I I ~il2.U'T) LOCATOR ~IANGe:. ,-0 NORTH [ZAV '1'-10) ,~Ic:f~~.fe:^. .~ -1 "'<f ., . .. ""--". - - -' - - ~ -.: - ~T =--..,,-... - -" ' -,,=...t=... ' - '- ~ ....- \ , . rJO'TO ~ 0" T"'~O, 1"~' JI 0" _.. -' .' , o -' <:> ",,' OR.IVC.WA.V -;0"'0" -"1..0' OIUV..w.....,... ~r.Q II 111.0' : JJ' I 2.0' 0 l4....g~C4..'"'' ":>7.0' , " \ ~~ 7., ..O~ ~;N II 10. II, I~, 11>. ."'to ..~,..~7it.._ .. !. ~ / c - e" ~~\a:~ .. \ 't' O~,," It ! j;j .. 8 ~ T , \ a .. ~ c:: ~"IIo.I~ RIC.H FI EL-O \ ufE L'HE, SEJ<..'/ I C E- o ? .' Sit.:...T\OtoJ \ / . \ , tc I'( " " 1'1 t( - - ~~()" ,'.0" t( 4. .2. '5. 4. .... I.. 7. .9. .- - 5 1010&W ~ '7' .. ~ .. 10' , . 7- E.L.e.V E. Mho ~"'Ii. -40'-0 Co , .. . , I ,,7.0' .. f .rI.t c::./TE!- PJ...AW ,. .,. l.t ~~A.~A:; I .. 2.D-O - 0-1." '-- 1~~'2 \" - L....~... , ,~- II I I w ~ UJ ~ ..... (L '0.: ;I~I~ Z 'w C11a51"" II I "") it' I oi I '_I~ zl 10 ",,15 I In Ie:; "" '-' I II I I I I , I I . , ! , I~ ~ I T I I " f;; I , II I I I I I I , , I I i I ! ~ " ~ w ;; 0; ~ Z D ~ e- "'" > w ---" w e- Z D Ck LL L ----1 .~. v ~ ~L~T v I~l 13 ~ o ~ ~ . r , 1 I ~ , I \ I '" i' " ~ ~ ~ ~ '"", ) , " >;! ~ ~ ~ !;1 ~ " w \ ~ ~ ~ " < 0 0.: 3 ~...: oO>~ .c-' &\D~ ~~ Ox. u@~ ;-.: ~c:i~:; g~ <(ii~1 "'w ~. ~ d ~ Z D e- "'" > W ---" W W o ~ "'" e- LL W ---" - - cry - 1"1 ()1 "- '" - "- - 0 '" ru 0 1"1 . 0 I U1 ...J ,u ~_..__._-- .,' i fr I I I ! , i ~- STANDARD MANSARD LI /~ I~ \\ /" I fI ~t-If/ll u"'--- - ---.'-... .., STORE #-.lJ53.~ ~~~ BB NATIONAL STANDARD I 56 'tf.lf ~I AI -r----- STORE #: _t.~2~!l. ADDRESS: h...c/'1.$]c.udt rf-.7~ r~ CITY: ~--J/J~b STATE: __LAL ZIP:___qLqL~_______ - SURVE Y DA ft-: ~ - - SURVEYOR: STORE PHONE: 6/'1- fI~- ft).,/~ CREW: '< INSTALLATIDN-DATE~~--- JURISDICTION STATE: COUNTY: CITY: .-..- -- . . I l..j' / 6 '1 ~l~ ~ 'fl1r:? ~ PLOT LAYOUT 5'~' ;(PC{' , I )@~ /@tt' , I~'i ' I~!' City'of Chula Vista Planning Department Zone Variance Application Jse No: ZAv - q~-/o L!-13-Q.3 Zone: c.-O # Fil ed : c=J Public Hearing o No Hearing 6('. -!J.loq f 3~ .s111.fLr Recei pt Hearing Date -, . . Project location: o1.C;o I .5~EE'f"' Address: 7?//. ~cx (,,/9 Contact Person: fi/e"" 4, Applicant's Interest: Own 7?"u.~ -/Z;;., 'f-L , , '0 en <",-",C,( Assessor's No. 77~- 17 0- () L 11f/5Iv", 0/ Phone: KEfOO)f;WZrt.-//f..> eJe.vry;n 3ct,/.t;.. Phone: (8co tlB5'-tllt.- , Applicant: ~,tZ "C>PA77Q..,1 - 17,,..{ . Existing use of, the property: No. of years___ lease ..;$ (; u T1-1I-f./N b 7- tLt::. v;;JJ In Escrow Option to purchase COAit/m/aJ7 67V12e 7D 'fW'lA /~I ' Request: 117J1'> N~w N1SC/4 70 J=x(~77NC k'J~N~4;;?J) ~~r Sff/N"uLf (l/h'd''-/ ./hI) ~ 41/0 7-~at k,v fo 17.:.cN'T ;?r BwLOI-./? /??vI) 4/)D $ECLlL'/7fLltl/77/'/{ ?C'-f4w7 fj/llL-S DF,I]<1I<.>.;,II/((. . .J.. Code RequIres: ..);in ~ '1'1o..AL.":"u:" Z;;T 5i9""~ c;;-L The fol1o~ing special circumstances that apply to the property must be evident before a variance may be granted from the requirements of the Municipal Code. The strict application of the zoning regulations 1) causes an undue hardship or pose practical difficulties relating to the use of the land because of the lot size, shape. topography, location or sur~oundin9s, and 2) deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the immediate vicinity and in the same zone. r.eeping the above in mind. the applicant should complete the following stat~rnent as thoroughly as possible since it will assist in determining whether sufficient justification exists to grant the request. I believe the variance should be granted.because: vJG ARE ('L~NI^,~ uP "n1/- t:JCIJll,v 9 7--Ell:'7(~ {VA rk.<)/1 , "'C-9(2, . Cl/1c1 hav i- /1/2,..", 115 VJk"1..L- 45 4CRCJf ~'I'I'JflyHr:n-rJ d",€. L"kCld;d /-8 (7ka~ tAp ~e s,./e.. 5<',",m<.4-./~ 4nd 5~C.(<.-r~'17 /;yAh'; ~ "tIzt",r 5 d----~ ~ 5/i(JI./"~ 171E Al'47?cJ'/. TDo/d 't- f 0 <A71-f Lit-I'( i) AM i7fc 6FlrV f)rt:oc Ics I- fr7C<//.!tl 10 U1 770 ,J 5 Ir( c~~~ ~ I.., reI e.- Iv D {..- /I hv../7. dlL"l!1C,';c, /htJ/hf!J,t? "N/";' ffl5tJtrEC/'nlNfO 71I14r 01.11:'- ~'"N77l2t rF1Su4 .s ~/~N.46c /7/ """ 7Jtr.w... E.,dC[7)I,{~ '77-tt r4l-/..O-A'4/jI..l" 5iGrlR~l So f;. C7/f'I1/1 ..4 Oer.vrd , , J Prfnt - Name 0 f AR i cant/Agent ..!v.A71MWt} rrn.) 'PM7 J71c 5(6A/..4t;cl' rey"r(>c( ',' 7V {(.-Yro/,d-t ?U-d f7.t!- def.e"h1-;"~tz.'~.1/ta.r-M~ , it ^ :u.rCl' ) 4/f5/q3 . .1 /1, P1t..L(.. '-'b'14(;{ /S <'L,.../SjitrK,,;,i{ok{-r. SIgnature Date I n149'" / L"n~ I' 7", '1 ,J'''r / -7. /-f& lAo'&-'.?r e ,'the/ Wet'" I 50,," th /t:I,.tI /71'0.<<5 f111~' '/fV<"ji' J .... ,I -f"r; cp,.-"pe-Ie I'" "11,/; a r-e CL- . <tel d 'I &J -.i&.&C ( ~.<./ " 'r cJ, >'Iy ('CMNfII- Form Pl-16 n,..,.. " /0") 1HE Cll" OF CHUlA VISTA DISCLOSURE STAIEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the propeny which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. ~1Ck77-!1-4 { (7co,c c',4 c'Ai ']""/51z"Yi c"p/d"C/>ll..J -1 jJtVI>rI..l "'/ !:iv... II LELo2./'C",-"1"':1 T7~ 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or pannership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest in the pannership. (. /'/c' ,,"co-' ) 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) 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. (I.""t) 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any memb~ of the City staff, Boards, Commissions. Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ NoL 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. E/) ('~I'NA V~1L? ~ ,-1c.~~/'-A>.,i) 4",,, tc~" - ~~.:;-!--I,-A,Jj) (f/f'"n Yl.0~,'c,.d - f\J.....H (oJ~ 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregat!:>-contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes_ No~ If yes. state which Councilmember(s): . . . (N01E: Attach additional pages as necessary) . . . Date: Signature of contractor/applicant Print or type name of contractor/applicant . ~ is dLfUu:d as: "Any individua~ finn, co-p01't1W"Ship, joint venture. associaJion, sociill club, fratenUJl organ.ization, corporation, estote.l1USt, ~cdver, syndicme, this and allY oINT COWJI)', cay and cowU1)~ dry 111J.lnicipality, district, or other poli.tKaJ subdivision, or any other tfoup or combination acting as Q unit."