Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/02/12 Tape: 331 Side: 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Wednesday, February 12, 1992 Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Martin, Tuchscher, and Tugenberg COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Leiter, Senior Planner Griffin, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Associate Planner Hernandez, Assistant Planner Wolfe, Contract Planner Gray, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Associate Civil Engineer Ouadah, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDOE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- February 12, 1992 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-91-03, SALT CREEK RANCH SPA (continued from 1-22-92) Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated this item had been continued to provide an opportunity for State agencies through the State Clearinghouse to provide input. No input was received, and Mr. Reid recommended that the public hearing be closed. Chair Fuller declared the public hearing of DEIR-91-03 closed. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-90-02, RANCHO SAN MIGUEL (continued from 2-5-92) Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated this item had also been continued to provide input from the State agencies, LAFCO, Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority, Audubon Society, and the Resource Conservation Commission. Comments had been received, and had been distributed to the Commission, from CalTrans (from the State Clearinghouse), LAFCO, Otay Water District, and the Resource Conservation Commission. He recommended the public hearing be closed after hearing from speakers representing the Resource Conservation Commission and Audubon Society. Chair Fuller opened the continuation of the public hearing on DEIR-90-02. Michael Johnson, 1210 Bridgeport, Chula Vista, representing the Resource Conservation Commission, gave a brief report on the deliberations by the Commission regarding this project. At their last meeting, the Commission had recommended to the Planning Commission that a "no" vote be given to the project. Their concerns were as follows: EIR revealed too many unmitigable impacts with the project as proposed; proposed plan did not conform to the General Plan; the project would cause the destruction of an important ecosystem and the wildlife. They urged not to approve. Norma Sullivan, 5858 Scripps St., SD 92122, stated she was Conservation Chair of the San Diego Chapter of the National Audubon Society and a member of the Endangered Habitat League and County Fish & Wildlife Commission. She felt this project did not fit into Governor Wilson's goal for overall planning for protection of entire biodiversity and ecosystems, or the County Wildlife and Open Space Program. The Audubon Society was concerned that it exceeded the General Plan; the grading exceeded planning limits; non-compliance with the General Plan or the Sweetwater Community Plan; loss of 3.1 acres of wetland with no clear mitigation; disruption of rich diversity of the site; condemn to extinction 40 of 69 pairs of Gnatcatchers; the loss of 467 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; plus four plant species wiped out and not mitigable; the cumulative effect of air quality; impacts to Sweetwater Reservoir. Ms. Sullivan urged that the EIR not be certified nor the project approved. Linda Michael, 827 Gage Drive, SD 92106, representing the Sierra Club, said they had the same concerns as voiced by Ms. Sullivan. Additionally, the Draft Environmental Impact Report PC Minutes -3- February 12, 1992 should evaluate the maintenance preservation of wildlife corridors for large mammals to greater extent; it inadequately evaluated the comprehensive design of an open space system; did not address cumulative impacts; did not cooperate with the NCCP Program and the County's open space habitat conservation planning. She recommended denial of the project. Planning Director Leiter commented that at the last meeting the Commission had requested additional information regarding the General Plan consistency issues which had been raised at the public hearing. Staff had provided the Commission an outline of references in the General Plan to the major issues discussed in the EIR. Additionally, he said a final analysis of the General Plan consistency issues is normally a part of the staff report; however, the Commission had suggested a workshop or other type of discussion on those issues. It had been discussed with the applicant, but Mr. Leiter asked that the Commission wait until staff had reviewed all the comments which had been received on the Draft EIR and they had been evaluated with both City consultants and the applicant. He suggested that the appropriate timing for that review be brought back and discussed at the next Commission meeting. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed on Draft EIR-90-02. ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-05: CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE RANCHO DEL REY EMPLOYMENT PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES - McMillin Communities Associate Planner Hernandez presented the project. The proposal had been presented to the Design Review Committee on January 20, 1992, who endorsed the proposal as presented but with the recommendation that additional graphics be incorporated into the amendment to clarify some of the language in the guidelines. Mr. Hernandez noted that the project was exempt from the environmental review process as Class 1lA, and staff's recommendation was to adopt a motion recommending approval of the proposed amendment as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Martin, referring to page 1--Detached Signs, asked the genesis of meeting more than 50 sq. ft. per sign. Mr. Hernandez answered that buildings in E1 Rancho del Rey were significantly larger than older buildings seen in commercial zones, and the combination of lots would possibly create more than one tenant with the potential of being accommodated in one freestanding sign. There was no specific limit as to the maximum, but the Design Guidelines were being followed to create appropriate monumentation which resembled the building architecture. Commissioner Casillas asked if there were any guidelines which addressed how large the border around the sign could be. Senior Planner Griffin responded that the entire sign area included the border in the square footage calculation. Commissioner Decker was concerned about signage facing "H" Street, and if it would be considered on an individual basis. Mr. Hernandez stated that in this particular instance, it would be allowed by right and subject to design review. PC Minutes -4- February 12, 1992 This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Craig Fukuyanm, representing the applicant, supported staff's recommendation for approval of the request. He gave some background as to the signs facing ~:a~t "H" Street and the language included to provide for sign visibility to East "H" Street. East HH~ Street is a scenic highway corridor and much of the landscaping occurring on the slope along East "H" Street, when matured, would block much of the view. Also, the Design Review Committee was very careful and was looking at very strict landscape screening that would eventually screen much of the mass seen along East "H" Street. The intent was to provide minimal opportunity for some visibility; however, the Design Review Committee felt there should be some flexibility, so the Design Guidelines as proposed provided that these exceptions are allowable under given circumstances which the Design Review Committee found appropriate. Commissioner Tugenberg commented that I-L zone allowed for administrative, executive, and financial offices. He suggested the applicant might consider residence inns within the industrial park. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the tenants who were expressing interest were higher-end tenants by comparison as to what would be found in other industrial areas in Chula Vista. Mr. Fukuyama said there was not a market for the office user; but they were finding users that were more owner occupied, less speculative building. Many were businesses already in Chula Vista who had outgrown their facilities. Answering Commissioner Tuchscber's query, Mr. Fukuyama said exposure to East "H" Street was critical to some of the users, and in some cases could be a deal breaker. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Fuller/Tugenberg) to reconunend approval of the proposed Rancho del Rey Sign Design Guideline Amendment as requested by the applicant. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Commissioner Decker moved that the following amendments be made to the Guideline: 1. Part 2, page 2, third bullet, fifth line: "More than one sign per building side may be approved by the Design Review Committee with concurrence of the Planning Commission." 2. Part 2, page 2, fourth bullet, seventh line: "That the Design Review Committee, with concurrence of the Planning Commission, may approve a sign ..." The motion died for a lack of second. PC Minutes -5- February 12, 1992 VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: 6-1 (Commissioner Decker voted against) ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-91-66: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO REDUCE THE OVERALL PLAY STRUCTURE MASS AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AN ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AREA - Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. Assistant Planner Wolfe gave the project background noting the Design Review Committee's conditions of approval, and the applicant's requested revisions to those conditions. Ms. Wolfe stated that staff found the Design Review Committee's conditions of project approval necessary in order to adequately mitigate visual impacts of the proposed project onto the adjacent restaurant and ensure proper architectural coordination between the outdoor dining area and the existing buildings on-site. Staff, therefore, recommended that the appeal be denied, and that the Commission adopt a motion to approve the project subject to the previously imposed DRC conditions of approval. Chair Fuller asked if the planter area should be larger than shown on the slide. Ms. Wolfe answered that the City Architect had concluded that those areas were not wide enough to accommodate substantial growth that would provide screening of the play structure and a buffer for the dining area. In answer to Chair Fuller, Ms. Wolfe said the recommended height of the play area was a one- story level, and it was a similar height to the McDonald's structure. Commissioner Decker asked that in the future the Commission be given a percentage of reduction. He would like to see the ratio as compared to the volume of the building--the relationship of the volume of the out building to the actual structure to which it was being compared. Commissioner Casillas felt it would have been useful to see sketches of what the Design Review Committee was suggesting. He asked the height of the shrubbery recommended around the perimeter. Ms. Wolfe said the Design Review Committee had not recommended the height of the landscaping material; that would be determined by the City Landscape Architect. The intent was to provide adequate area to allow growth of shrubs that could potentially reach the top of the fence. The applicant was proposing ground cover which would provide minimal or no screening. Commissioner Casillas asked if the buffer was only a chainlink fence. Ms. Wolfe answered that the final landscaping plans were subject to review by the Landscape Architect at the building permit stage. Commissioner Casillas commented that the McDonald's on "E" near the freeway had no buffer. He asked if this applicant should be told that in a certain number of years they would be PC Minutes -6- February 12, 1992 expected to have a certain growth. Associate Planner Hernandez commented that the area required by the Landscape Architect did not necessarily dictate the height of the shrubs, hut the visibility of growing plants within that area. The net planting area would be reduced by the encroachment of the improvements on the lot--the 6" curb area and footings holding the fencing proposed. Chair Fuller noted it was not intended as a screen, just a planter area. She verified that in the Summary Staff Report, the conditions being recommended were a, b, c, d, f, and g. Ms. Wolfe concurred. Commissioner Tugenberg said he was inclined to accept the Design Review Committee's recommendation. Chair Fuller stated she felt this was one of the nicest looking fast-food restaurants as it currently stood, because of the design of the window-seating area which faced Broadway. She took exception to the Design Review Committee's recommendation; if the intent was not to require landscaping and not screen the children and the play area, then it would require more wall for decorative fencing. Commissioner Carson felt the Design Review Committee's report clearly stated the landscaping was proposed to enhance the proposed perimeter area and screen the play structure. Mr. Hernandez explained that to screen did not necessarily mean blocking completely the structure, but providing some sort of a foreground that would soften the view. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if this was the same equipment that was used in other restaurant play areas. Ms. Wolfe said the components were manufactured by the same company, but it was not the same model. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Lorenzo Reyes, P. O. Box 4999, Anaheim 92803, representing Carl Karcher Enterprises, felt the direction from the Design Review Committee was inadequate and did not take into consideration the specifics of the site. Rather than try to bide the playground, they needed to locate it in front of the restaurant to attract customers to the unit. Taking into consideration the French window design in front, the playground was relocated to the side. Access to the playground was only through the building. They had incorporated the design of the playground to enhance the elevation on the blank side of the building. The applicant, in the appeal, was asking for a second level which included a minor pitch on the roof. He discussed the landscaping area, and also noted the Design Review Committee was asking for interior landscaping which would limit the play area. The project was offset in the corner for southbound traffic and would not be seen. He felt the playground offered relief to the asphalted area, and asked for the Commission's favorable consideration. He felt it was redundant to install a hedge to soften or screen an area and then build a wall behind it. Mr. Reyes was concerned with interior landscaping because of possible wet tiles from watering and a possible PC Minutes -7- February 12, 1992 safety hazard. Summarizing, he asked that they be allowed to uso the yellow and red playground with the two-story design, elimination of the interior planting, low wall, and landscaping as submitted. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Answering Commissioner Casillas' query, Mr. Reyes answered that the height differential between a one story and the two story being proposed was 4-1/2 feet. Commissioner Martin asked the rationale regarding the interior landscaping. Ms. Wolfe answered that it was not only a play area but also an outdoor eating area which staff was trying to make as pleasing as possible, referencing a Carl's Jr. in San Diego. Commissioner Casillas questioned the need for an economic analysis. Commissioner Carson was concerned about children falling into the landscaped area while playing; also the lack of supervision and the possibility of liability being imposed on Carl's Jr. Chair Fuller was concerned about a business that was trying to do something for the economic advantage and betterment of the business, complying by redesign. She felt the Design Review Committee had gone a little too far on this project. The recommendation of staff was to deny the appeal, and if denied to approve the play structure eating area design subject to the conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee. MS (Tugenberg/Martin) approve the applicant's appeal to the Design Review Cornmlttee. Chair Fuller clarified that the motion was to approve and a yes vote on this motion would be in opposition to the staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tuchscber commented that he was impressed with the building and with the structure on the side of the building where a blank wall existed. Under normal circumstances, he would not be in favor of the motion; but all things taken into consideration, by having the play area in back, the higher visibility by the larger structure was probably appropriate. Commissioner Martin was concerned about a child getting hurt and nobody seeing him/her. Commissioner Tugenberg, referring to another fast-food restaurant's play facility, said he had never seen children there without the accompaniment of parents. PC Minutes -8- February 12, 1992 RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: To grant the appeal from the action of the Design Review Committee and overturn the conditions imposed, and instead have the conditions stated by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 to grant approval of the applicant's appeal. ITEM 5: DISCUSSION: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SIGN ORDINANCE Senior Planner Griffin gave the background and possible amendments to the sign ordinance. He noted the amendments were to be prepared and distributed for comment without any staff analysis or recommendation, to be returned for further Council consideration at their meeting of February 18, 1992. If the Council should decide to pursue these amendments, they would be set for hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council with a staff analysis report and recommendation. The Commission was asked to review the information in the memo which had been distributed, and give their initial reactions and comments to the Planning Department or to the City Council prior to the next week. He asked if the Commissioners had any comments at that time. Chair Fuller asked if the proposed changes were derived from comments that had come to the Department in the discussion of other signs. Mr. Griffin answered that there was a proposal to look at allowing a message board sign at a particular site. The proposal was referred to staff directly from Council. Commissioner Decker, referring to Section 19.60.610, asked why 30% was chosen and when the sign would mn. Mr. Griffin answered that it was arbitrary figure. Mr. Decker suggested the sign should run during normal business hours. Assistant City Attorney noted the time share could probably be addressed in the Zoning Administration rules and regulations. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if there was an allowance in the current sign ordinance that would accommodate under special circumstances signage out of the ordinary, particularly with regard to a power sender or large volume retail-type outlet. Mr. Griffin answered negatively. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if it would be appropriate to include in the review. Mr. Griffin answered affirmatively and said he would forward it on to Council. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Senior Planner Griffin reminded the Commissioners that they were scheduled to tour the Salt Creek Ranch on Wednesday, February 19, at 3 p.m. with dinner to follow at 6:30 p.m. PC Minutes -9- February 12, 1992 Commissioner Decker asked to be excused from the tour; he would be out of town on business. Commissioner Carson stated she would not be available for the tour because of work, but would be able to attend the dinner. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Chair Fuller noted that the Planners Institute scheduled for April should be included on the agenda for the next meeting. She said that Commissioners Tuchscher and Decker were the two newest members and should go to the meeting. ADJOURNMENT at 8:43 p.m. to the tour of Salt Creek Ranch on February 19, 1992, at 3:00 p.m., which would adjourn to the Regular Meeting of February 26, 1992. N ncy ,ip/ey, Sedetary Planning Commission (PC2-12.mln)