Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/06/09 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday June 9, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue~ Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Moot, Ray, Tarantino, and Tuchscher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Miller, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller, followed by a moment of silence. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE ZAV-93-10; REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA AT 290 'I' STREET IN THE C-O ZONE - Royston Corporation on behalf of Southland Corporation (continued) Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report, showing the location of the property and the surrounding zoning. He recommended that the Commission deny the request based on the findings listed in the staff report. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Glenn Denard, Old Elbert Road, Royston, Georgia, representing Southland Corporation on behalf of Royston Corporation. He said the Royston Corporation made the interior cabinetry for Southland Corporation as well as the exterior fascia. Southland Corporation was in the nationwide process of doing a major expansion and wished to change the image of their locations, feeling that they were losing market share to their competitors in the area. Other jurisdictions had considered the sign as being the 4x4 logo panel; however, Chula Vista staff had considered the entire system as a sign. Southland was in the process of doing interiors, and the PC Minutes -2- June 9, 1993 exterior pole lighting. The bronze panel across the top of the system was downlighted, diffusing light between the automobiles, serving as further security for the business. The competitors in the area had a considerable amoum of wall signage; Southland only wished to have the sign on top of the canopy and the colors on the architectural panel itself. There were about 10 sites in the City; they chose this as a test case because of the expense. Chair Fuller asked if this was the first store to be presented and was the only one which was more surrounded by residential. Mr. Denard said they had chosen the most difficult case. If their proposed sign with the striping was considered a complete sign, it was acceptable nowhere in the City. Answering Chair Fuller, Mr. Denard said the freestanding pole sign was to remain in front and would remain the same. Commissioner Tarantino asked the average age of the property which would be renovated; would they be bringing all the properties up to this look. Mr. Denard said the newer ones across the nation were using this type of design. The properties in question may be as old as 30 years old, and they were trying to bring them all up to those specifications. The newer ones would also be changed. Principal Planner Griffin said this was one of the freestanding sites that would probably be fairly representative. It may be more restrictive in terms of the zone allowance for signage because the C-O zone was probably the most restrictive zone because of the size of sign that would be allowed. Some of the signs were in small, old centers where there was a design theme established. In terms of the variance issue, they might all present more of a design issue. He agreed with Mr. Denard that this site was the most restrictive in zoning. He noted that it had been determined that this was a new roof-fill element as well as a sign and would be facing a design review process, in addition. Commissioner Martin requested that Mr. Denard explain the hardship involved. Mr. Denard said that the AM/PM nearby had an abundance of signage, but did not have the striping around the canopy and building as most AM/PMs had. They had been stealing market share for a long time; the old, dilapidated look that Southland possessed was one that customers did not feel was a new or clean store. Southland was trying to upgrade both the interior and exterior image at the same time. Commissioner Martin concluded that there was a hardship in order to get the market share. Mr. Denard concurred, saying that with the new system sales revenue would go from 7% to 10% almost overnight. Southland felt it was a hardship, if they could not get the system, because they could not bring their sales up by just remodeling the interiors of their stores. Commissioner Martin asked if the lighting underneath the overhang at the top would indirectly light the parking lot. Mr. Denard said it diffused light down to approximately the rear of the automobiles. It was a fluorescent tube with an aluminum diffuser which diffused the light down PC Minutes -3- June 9, 1993 equally with no dark spots. Law enfomement could see between the cars, customers would feel more secure, and it had been noticed that graffiti had stopped on the sides of the buildings and there was less drug trafficking and loitering in the parking lot. Assistant Planning Director Lee said the site being referred to had new light standards installed which seemed fairly bright for the commercial area adjacent to the residential. There appeared to be adequate light there now. Commissioner Carson agreed that there was plenty of light there. Regarding the 7/Eleven on Hilltop and Naples, she did not think the store had been there more than two years. They had just been closed for additional remodeling. She felt their 7/Eleven sign was very attractive and, because of the curvature of the building, she was not sure how they would remodel that sign. She asked if that was one of the stores to be remodeled. Mr. Denard understood that they wished to bring every store in Southern California up to this image, but he did not have it on his list to permit at this time. Japan does an internal rate of return on each store and the tenant in the store pays for the remodeling. It was amortized over several years. If the store does not meet the internal rate of return, it would be closed and the real estate would be sold if more profitable to Japan. Commissioner Ray asked about the franchised facilities. Mr. Denard said all Chula Vista stores were franchised; they were local citizens. Commissioner Ray understood that the striping on either side of the logo was part of the structure. Mr. Denard said that was the way they wished it to be considered. He described the procedure and materials used. Commissioner Ray asked staff what would constitute what would be part of the structure and what would not. Principal Pla~ner Griffin answered that it was not the material; it was the fact that they had painted the corporate colors across the full face of the building. The colors were not related to any architectural element in the building; they were the colors which advertised their business and completely covered the element. That was what made it a sign; it was not the material or the structural qualities of it. After more discussion regarding the striping and colors of fascia boards and signage, Commissioner Ray asked if in the upgrade, there was anything else being proposed, such as landscape improvements, etc. He felt this particular store could use more landscaping. Mr. Denard said he had not gotten any plans for landscaping; this particular location did not have much room for planters, etc. Assistant Planning Director Lee said staff had been in contact with 7/Eleven on that issue. They had done a fairly major interior remodel, and in doing that their building valuation was about PC Minutes -4- June 9, 1993 $40,000 which triggered a requirement for landscaping. 7/Eleven had been contacted, because they were under a very tight schedule. Staff had a letter on file which indicated that they were preparing plans and would proceed to landscape this site. Staff had offered to meet with them to discuss solutions, but saw some opportunities on both the east and west side of the property as it interfaced with the garage to the west and residential to the east to provide some additional landscaping without affecting the parking ratio. Colnmissioner Tuchscher asked for confirmation that sales increased by 7% to 10% average and asked the average store sales in this area. Mr. Denard said that information had not been disclosed to him. They were a contractor and had no access to their accounting procedures or numbers. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that he might feel differently if the ten stores were being considered, instead of the one store before them, however, this was an national effort that 7/Eleven was making. He was not sure that should influence him in making his decision. He asked staff to clarify whether this was a sign or architectural treatment. He felt it was open to interpretation. If this was an architectural treatment, what triggered the process of design review. Was there another opportunity for 7/Eleven to come forward if it was an architectural treatment as the applicant was implying? Principal Planner Griffin said it would not duplicate this process, based upon their interpretation of the definition of signs. It could not go forward in the striped scheme. If the Commission supported the staff recommendation and denied the variance, that would be final unless appealed on to the City Council. If the Colnmission granted the variance, staff would still be taking it through a design review process based upon the new configuration of the roof element. At that point, it would probably be a staff process. If the variance were denied and Southland came back with a solid-colored new roof element, they would still be facing the design review process, but there probably wouldn't be a problem getting it approved. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the applicant were coming back with an exterior renovation of this building changing the architectural style of the building, would that be a different process? Mr. Griffin said it would not trigger a variance process if it did not involve any signage, but it would trigger design review. It was a subjective call. More substantial modifications, new roof elements, significant exterior modification, trigger the design review process. Commissioner Carson asked Mr. Denard what the Southland would do relative to the nationwide upgrade--at least the 10 in Chula Vista--if the variance were denied. Mr. Denard felt the process would end. They would probably leave it status quo except for changing the acrylic in the existing signs. This was extraordinary across the country. Commissioner Carson asked if the cabinetry inside the facility would be improved. Mr. Denard said that was possible, but the package was basically what they were after. In reply to PC Minutes -5- June 9, 1993 Commissioner Carson regarding approval of the proposal except for the striping, Mr. Denard felt they would try to upgrade the cabinetry, etc. Commissioner Tarantino asked for clarification if some of the colors were changed in the striping, would it still be a sign. Mr. Griffin said, in his opinion, if the green and the red striping remained, it would still be a sign. If it was a solid color or if there was a color scheme that was related to a change of direction of the architecture that wasn't corporate striping, he thought that might not be a sign. It was a concern to Planning staff; he did not want to appear to be insensitive to Southland's concerns and would be willing to work with them on schemes to upgrade their images however they could. Staff could not endorse this; as a consistent interpretation in the past, the striping was considered signage. Mr. Denard stated that Southland was doing whatever they could professionally do to gain sales to come out of Chapter 11. They were taking down old striping, painting the building, and putting up new signage. Commissioner Ray asked if instead of the fascia being flat, if it came down flat from the roofline and if some of the striped area protruded and other striping was flat, it would still be considered a sign since it was a change in the planes of the building. Mr. Griffin answered that it would still be considered signage. Mr. Denard asked if it was just stripe only, would it be considered a sign. Mr. Griffin answered affirmatively. Mr. Denard asked if they used only the 7/Eleven logo and maybe 20 feet of stripe on either side, would the entire panel system be considered a sign? Chair Fuller said as long as the logo and striping only covered 50 sq. ft., it would be the area considered as a sign. In reply to Chair Fuller, Mr. Denard confirmed that the present signage on the building was 50 sq. ft. It was small and was a backlit sign. The 7/Eleven logo being proposed was 16 sq. ft. but with the stripe being considered, it was very large. Assistant Planning Director Lee commented that this was a commercial office zone, and one of the reasons for the sign restrictions was that it faced into a residential area. The sign restrictions in this area were quite extensive as opposed to other commercial areas. He felt Mr. Denard's suggestion of using the 7/Eleven logo of 16 sq. ft. and some striping on either side to constitute the 50 sq. ft. was possible, and staff would be willing to work with them. Mr. Denard said that with a 50 sq. ft. cap, he believed Southland would be more interested in just replacing the acrylic in the existing sign. It would not draw any more attention; they would PC Minutes -6- June 9, 1993 probably measure the entire panel including the striped area as sign area and would decrease the size of the sign. They would not get the recognition they have now by changing the sign. Mr. Lee stated that many of the stores were in commercial areas which would allow larger signs than this particular area. Mr. Griffin said a solid covered panel would clean up the site; the statement made by Mr. Denard about getting attention with the striping was significant. It was a subject call, but that was the reason these were interpreted as signs; their intention is to grab your eye with the colors of the striping with the corporate logo and not with the lines of the building or roof element. Mr. Denard concurred. Chair Fuller stated that the issue of corporate image had been before the Commission twice within the last month, and they were aware of what Southland was trying to accomplish. Commissioner Moot commented that it was obvious that there was a trend, not just with Southland, where the building becomes the advertisement in the sign. He understood the City's desire to have consistency in that, which was important. Because of this trend, however, the City may have to go back and consider the specialized corporate image and maybe consider some overall general changes that they may want to apply. To make variances between businesses, however, would create problems down the line. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ray asked the City Attorney to explain the second finding regarding the competition with certain business in the area. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said the finding had to be something that would not grant a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by the neighbors. The finding was an attempt to say, rather than equalizing and granting the variance given the ability to compete on an equal level, it would give them a special advantage the neighbors did not have and did not meet the requirement for the finding. Commissioner Ray said it was subjective as to whether the signage was a visual blight or a detriment to adjacent properties. There was no definitive way of saying a sign created a detriment. Mr. Griffin answered that the term "visual blight" would be subjective; it would be in the eye of the beholder. The Code is based on some objective standard as to what size sign is deemed appropriate in certain zones, building size, and frontage area of a certain property. A sign exceeding those standards by such a degree as the one proposed could be considered as a negative visual factor. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that the purpose of the finding was to focus on whether or not granting the variance would constitute a substantial detriment to the adjacent property. The facts would be applied to the particular situation to determine if it would be visually PC Minutes -7- June 9, 1993 unpleasing. Staff was suggesting this finding saying the sign would be visually unpleasing and detrimental to the adjacent property because of its oversize in comparison with others. Commissioner Ray asked if the adjacent property owners were notified and if they had any comments regarding this request. Mr. Griffin replied that it had been noticed to 500 ft. and had no comments. Commissioner Ray commented that Finding 4 regarding enhanced visual quality also was a subjective call on the part of the person making the findings. Mr. Griffin agreed. Chair Fuller agreed with Commissioner Moot that the City was getting into an area where the total architectural design of a building may suggest a corporate image. Irrespective of the other stores in whatever zoning, this would still be total frontage of a building which would not be allowable in any area. Assistant Planning Director Lee said it depended on the width of the fascia and the length, it may well fit within a C-T zone; there may be some zones where this would fit, or some modification of it. The C-O zone was the most restrictive, and it did not fit within this particular program. Chair Fuller felt the Ordinance was subject in the term "sign" when it applied to the building itself and felt it should be visited in the future. However, it could not be applied to the current proposal based on the findings and the Code. She liked the corporate image. Commissioner Martin concurred, but said the applicant was caught in a situation. MS (Martin/Tuchscher) to approve the attached resolution denying ZAV-93-10 to exceed the maximum allowable sign area at 290 'T' Street. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that although he seconded the motion and wnnld vote in favor of the motion to deny, he might be open to a uniform refixturing or renovation. If it were consistent throughout the City and applied consistently, that might be more uniform. He was sensitive to Commissioner Moot's statement, and thought that if it were a new construction, it would not be approved in the City. It would not make it through design review tests. Therefore, he could not approve the applicant's request. Commissioner Moot added that, based on the current statutes, it could not be approved. It would not be fair to the previous applicant who had a similar problem; on the other hand, these people are looking at ways to improve their market share and their business; some were very attractive; maybe the City should start planning for the future as to how similar requests might be handled. Commissioner Moot said that possibly Southland might be willing to look at a proposed statute that may allow them to do this type of thing. He urged staff to consider how this would be handled later. He suspected other businesses would want to do this. PC Minutes -8- June 9, 1993 Commissioner Tuchscher said that if these types of proposals come forward and hardship type of arguments are made, the Commission needs all the pertinent information; i.e., average sales per store, and what sales would be in that particular case so the Commissioners could determine if there was actual hardship. He felt Chula Vista was more pro business than most of California, and the Commissioners were sensitive to the needs of business. He did not think they had enough information in this case. Commissioner Ray commented on Mr. Moot's statement regarding consistency and had been prepared to vote against the proposal for that reason. After hearing the applicant and what staff had to say, he was going to vote against the motion on the floor because he felt something had to be done. He was only voting against the motion as a form of protest, generally aimed at the City, because something needed to be done, especially under current economic conditions, to try to retain businesses here and help them to be as healthy as possible. He hoped a continuance could be given for 60 days, and that staff may be able to have the ordinance changed or would allow for this type of situation. Chair Fuller noted that the previous process for ordinance change went through a number of reviews and it was not something that could be done in a short time. Commissioner Ray was concerned that Southland may pull up roots and leave empty buildings. That would be a hardship, not only for the Company, but also for Chula Vista. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Ray voting against) TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION DENYING ZAV-93-10. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-93-01; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE LIEN SALE OF IMPOUNDED AUTOMOBILES (AUTOMOBILE AUCTIONS) SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE I-P (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - City of Chula Vista Associate Planner Miller gave the staff report and recommended that the Commission find the project would have no enviromnental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS- 93-24; and adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Code as shown in the draft City Council ordinance. Mr. Miller noted that the Commission packet included two ordinances, one of which was obsolete, and pointed out the differences in the two ordinances. Mr. Miller noted that staff and the Commission had received a letter just prior to the meeting from Peterson & Price requesting changes to the ordinance. Replying to Commissioner Carson, Mr. Miller said that, on the surface, staff did not agree with the changes suggested. PC Minutes -9- June 9, 1993 Commissioner Carson asked why SDG&E preferred their surplus vehicles to be auctioned on Saturday. Mr. Miller guessed that it was because their employees worked during the week and were off on Saturday. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned why staff suggested holding auctions only Monday through Friday. Mr. Miller said it was felt this was more appropriate given the information provided and the nature of the use. Principal Planner Griffin said it was normal business hours, and an auction on Saturday might have more of an impact on residential areas. Some of the noise and activity may impact the residential enjoyment of nearby neighbors. Further commenting on the Peterson & Price memo, it was generally suggested that the Commission continue the matter so it could be studied and responded to appropriately. This amendment had been discussed extensively in-house with the Planning Director, the City Attorney, and others, and it was staff's feeling that this amendment should be kept extremely narrow and limited and directed to satisfy the Siroonian agreement only. That would be staff's position, and they would not support the suggestions in the memo. Chair Fuller asked whether the narrow focus of the ordinance was aimed at the fact that these types of business were hoped to be phased out in a number of years. Mr. Miller concurred. There were a number of businesses in the same vicinity along Energy Way that had recently applied for special land use permits because they were in a redevelopment area. They go to the Project Area Committee and then to the Agency rather than through the Commission. They would have a life of 13 years with a possible extension of an additional 13 years. Chair Fuller verified that this would be auto wrecking yards, dismantling, automobile storage, etc. Chair Fuller asked the closest residential area to this I~P zone. Mr. Miller answered that it would be the Robinhood Point area. Immediately to the north was the Otay landfill. The northwest corner of the I-P zone was undeveloped. The automobiles would pass through no residential areas other than Otay Lakes Road off 1-805. Referring to Ecology Wrecking, Commissioner Martin said there was a lot of area there. Mr. Miller agreed, but stated that if another developer in another part of the City wanted to do the same thing, but had a smaller parcel, the same requirements would be applicable. Commissioner Martin referred to an auction previously on Main Street which was an Industrial zone and had no parking. Mr. Griffin stated that situation would not be allowed under this amendment, because that was a limited industrial zone. Staff was trying to draft an amendment which would satisfy the agreement with respect to a particular use, but it would apply to any I-P zone and anyone who wanted to establish a similar auction in the I-P zone. That would include the properties on the west if they eventually developed. The ordinance had to be crafted to cover future circumstances that may occur with a new lien sale of autos by auction in an impound yard. PC Minutes -10- June 9, 1993 Commissioner Martin asked how a parking lot, with an influx of autos who would all be there at once and then leave, could be designed or restricted specific to use. He was referring to parking in the dirt. Mr. Miller said staff had recommended that the parking area be paved, that anyone proposing this after A-Z Towing, since they were grandfathered, would be required under the proposed requirements to pave the parking lot because of the environmental impacts. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf clarified that the letter just received from Peterson & Price was not connected with anyone from the Siroonian settlement, and not for anyone for whom the ordinance was crafted. The people involved in the Siroonian settlement were satisfied with the form of the ordinance as recommended to the Commission for adoption. The last-minute suggestion from somebody else in the general area was for a different proposal. Commissioner Martin said that the letter was submitted by Ms. Rebecca Michael of Peterson & Price. They had been in contact during the last couple of weeks, and she was representing Jim and June McCormack, the owners of land immediately to the east of A-Z Towing. There were auction functions going on in portions of the property. He was under the impression they were leasing the property and were not very concerned. Assistant Planning Director Lee commented, regarding days of operation, that staff was not particularly opposed to auctions on Saturday if there was some minimum separation from the residential area. Applying to all I-P zones, if there was a separation of a specific size, the property would qualify; however, there were others that might be detrimental to a residential area and would not qualify. Staff had no objection to that; however, there were other suggestions to which they would object such as conducting auctions out of doors, on non-paved surfaces, and also the auctioning of general merchandise. If there was inclement weather and parking on a dirt area, the mud would be tracked onto City streets and sidewalks. He suggested adoption of the ordinance as crafted with consideration for the Saturday auctions, and if this particular applicant wanted to file a request for Planning Commission action to consider an ordinance amendment with a $1,000 filing fee, staff would look at that separately and come back to the Commission with a report rather than try to include it with this particular application. Commissioner Moot asked if the Cormnission had a choice in approving the ordinance and if there would be ramifications if they did not approve it. Mr. Rudolf said it was the joint conclusion of the Planning staff, the City Attorney, and himself that in order to have the Siroonian settlement work, an ordinance needed to be considered. If an ordinance such as the one before the Commission were passed, it would satisfy the conditions precedent of the agreement. If it failed entirely, the condition precedent failed. If it had other and different conditions attached to it, more onerous than those set forth in the special permit already received from the Agency, it was their opinion that it would not undermine the agreement and would not allow the Siroonians to set it aside. What they need to be satisfied was a form of ordinance which would allow the lien sale of automobiles somewhere in the City. Commissioner Moot asked what was the connection between the lawsuit and the lien sale. Mr. Rudolf said he thought it was a last-minute discovery that this use was going on which had been PC Minutes -11- June 9, 1993 a previously authorized use, but the permit had expired. In an attempt to eliminate any loose ends, this was added in at the last moment to legalize what was at that point an unlawful use because the old permit had been allowed to expire. Commissioner Tarantino asked where other I-P zones might be located in the City and which could be impacting residential areas. Mr. Miller said there were two other pieces presently zoned I-P in the Bayfront area which would be changed as a result of the Bayfront Plan. They were not included in this. There was General Industrial land without the "P" modifier along Main and Otay Valley Road. Commissioner Tarantino did not see the problem if this was the only parcel which could be developed. Mr. Lee said that the western end of the industrial area abutted the residential area at the west end, and that was the reason for suggesting a space requirement for the auctions outside of Monday through Friday. The areas to the west were generally vacant and there could be applications for auctions in those areas. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff to comment on their rationale on the parking ratio, in-door auction, and the paved parking lot requirement. He thought the in-door auction may preclude some of the activities because of the size of the building that would be required. Associate Planner Miller said the parking ratio had been developed based mainly on the experience of Oceanside, who had a similar parking ratio which had proven effective. Regarding the in-door requirement, he had spoken to an auto auctioneer in Santee who had a storage capacity of 3,000 vehicles who held his auctions in-doors. There were environmental issues raised when there was dust kicked up by autos driving on the unPaved dirt, and mud tracked on the streets and sidewalks during the rainy seasons. Paving the parking area would resolve those two issues. Principal Planner Griffin stated the amendment was not designed to encourage auctions, but crafted so that if someone applied for an auction, it would have the least potential adverse impact on surrounding areas. Staff was not trying to accommodate other auctioneers who might be applying, but to meet the requirements of the Siroonian agreement. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the ordinance was crafted to discourage auction activities. Mr. Griffin answered that it was only to ensure there would not be an adverse impact, if an application was approved. Regarding the in-door auction in Santee, Commissioner Tuchscher said he thought the building was probably used for auction purposes only. Mr. Miller said he understood that an automobile was brought into the building, auctioned, and then taken out. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. PC Minutes -12- June 9, 1993 Rebecca Michael, 530 B St., #2300, San Diego, CA 92101, representing James and June McCormack, stated they had received the staff report on Friday and had spoken with Mr. Miller on Monday, but because of the confusion as to the correct ordinance had not been able to finalize the letter until that afternoon. She said she had spoken with Mr. Miller regarding expanding the definition, and was told that staff would not make that recommendation but would not oppose it. She was concerned that the ordinance was to be narrowly directed at the settlement agreement and nothing else. Her clients opposed the assessment district, were not part of the settlement agreement, and had auctions of vehicles and general merchandise on their parcels since 1978. It had been determined that the use permit that was on the property had expired and now the parcels had to come back in for special use permits. They had submitted an application for the special use permit, but staff had indicated to them that the I-P zone did not permit that type of auctions, even though they had been conducting them since 1978 and a business license had been issued. Staff's suggestion that the McCormacks apply for an amendment and make a deposit was economically difficult; they had been approached by people wanting to lease the property for auctions and could not because of the lack of a permit. It was a hardship on the McCormacks not to have a broader definition and permitted use by conditional use permit in the ordinance. They hoped to avoid the process for an amendment by taking action. Ms. Michael explained her proposed revisions and said that with those modifications, the McCormacks could go forward with their permits on file with the department and move forward through the Redevelopment Agency to get the permits on the property so they could lease the land and conduct the types of activities they had always been conducting. James H. McCormack, P. O. Box 598 Spring Valley, CA (property address: 880 Energy Way), said his business at 880 Energy Way was a salvage auction business at which they sold vehicles for insurance companies. They had also sold new water damaged furniture and other general merchandise which had been declared a total loss by the insurance companies. He did not know of an auto auction in Santee. Commissioner Carson asked for examples of general merchandise sold. Mr. McCormack replied that they had sold art work and farm equipment, but mostly wrecked automobiles and trucks. He said one of the problems with trying to sell inside a building was that wrecked cars sometimes had to be towed through, but were not towable. Other used cars and wrecks could be driven through to be sold. They had sold cars outside for the U. S. Marshals. Commissioner Ray asked about the potential lease of the property and what kind of uses were being considered. Mr. McCormack said that with the proposed special land use permit, word had gotten out that auctions may not be permitted in the area. He said that his son also sold cars for the U. S. Customs, SDG&E, and bankruptcy courts. In reply to Commissioner Ray, Mr. McCormack said he hoped to lease the property to others to do the same type of business on the property. His son had his own auction on a separate lot. PC Minutes -13- June 9, 1993 Commissioner Martin asked Mr. McCormack how he got business, and how often the auctions were held. Mr. McCormack answered that there was one auction held every two weeks. The cars came from insurance companies. When the insurance company determined it had a total loss, the McCormacks would pick it up, pay whatever charges there were against it, and bill the insurance company. The average time for a claim to get settled was about 45 days; the car could not be sold until they had the title papers, which on a wreck would be a salvage certificate. Sometimes used cars were in litigation and sat there for years. Mr. McCormack confh-med that the auctions had been in existence since 1978. Commissioner Tarantino asked if they sold the merchandise at a separate time or if it was auctioned concurrently with automobiles. Mr. McCormack said it was sold concurrently. They did not have a high volume of furniture. Answering Commissioner Tarantino, Mr. McCormack said they sold Marshals' cars which were alien cars that were seized by the Marshals and the U. S. Customs cars sold by his son were usually drug cars. Ken McCormack, 880 Energy Way, CV, son of James McCormack, reiterated that there was no auto auction in Santee. He stressed that general merchandise was not only furniture, but hard items such as track loaders, bulldozers, generators, industrial items, and machinery, all of which generated sales tax. These items were from SDG&E, Department of Energy, other cities, and the Water Authority. The vehicles were not sold inside a building. A building of that size would be very large and too expensive. The vehicles have to be sold in rows, one at a time. The ones that run were parked outside, driven through, and sold one, two, or three at a time. They might have three lanes or four lanes. They were seeking the same rights afforded A-Z who had been in operation wince 1990. The McCormacks had been there since 1978. On auction days, they employed approximately 25 people, 5 full-time and 20 on auction day, with an average of 15 per day during auction week. Mr. McCormack said they were presently engaged in a multi-year contract with SDG&E and U. S. Customs was up for renewal in September. Last year's sales were slightly more than $2 million, with approximately 25% to 30% taxable. There was no sales tax generated for the City from the sale of lien sale vehicles. It was collected by the DMV. Sales tax was collected from law vehicles that were from Mexico or out of state. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Ray/Carson) to continue the item for a sufficient period of time for staff to respond to the letter from Peterson & Price and make the potential modifications to the resolution. Principal Planner Griffin responded to a statement by Ms. Michael who said that staff had stated they would not oppose a more general approach to the amendment. Mr. Griffin clarified that if it was the Commission's desire to investigate that, staff would not oppose it. It was made clear that it was not the amendment proposed and staff would not support a privately initiated proposal to do that. However, if the Commission desired staff to look at it, they would do so. PC Minutes -14- June 9, 1993 Commissioner Martin asked staff if there had been any problems on the 880 Energy Way property since 1978 as far as any e~vironmental damage or any complaints. Associate Planner Miller replied that the special land use permits that were being processed were all Class 5 Categorical Exemptions according to the Environmental Review Coordinator. For purposes of the special land use permits, there were no environmental issues since the use was continuing; however, since they were dealing with vehicles in various states of repair, he felt that once the area was redeveloped, there would probably be major clean up because of contaminated soils and leakage, oils seeping into the ground, etc. Commissioner Martin asked what the Commission could do to support a business that had been there since 1978. How could they support them in continuing the auctions until development came in without limiting the City later when some requirement was needed. Associate Planner Miller noted that the Planning Commission had the option to direct staff to review the suggestions in Ms. Michael's letter to possibly expand the definition or develop some compromise language that would permit the continuance of the existing auctions under various requirements that would be developed later. The other option was to go ahead with it the way it was proposed by staff, taking the Siroonian agreement very literally and judging on that. Mr. Miller said it should be kept in mind that either one of those options would meet the letter of the law and the Siroonian agreement. Principal Planner Griffin said that another option could be that upon review, staff could determine that the use that had been going on since 1978 had been illegal, but was a socially desirable use that should take place somewhere in the City; that staff should search the City Code and find a place where it should be done and propose an amendment to the Code to allow it. Commissioner Martin asked if that would be consistent with the term "grandfather" or, if because it may not apply to that specific site, would it not fall under the term "grandfather." Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that the term "grandfather'' was typically applied to the lawful nonconforming use which at one time was lawful. Because the zoning was changed or that use was disallowed in that zone, under vesting law it remains a lawful nonconforming use as long as it was not legally required to be discontinued. This business was never legal, so it could not be grandfathcred. Assistant Planning Director Lee clarified that staff had located a zoning permit which had been issued in 1980 to James McCormack. There was a reference listed as an auto auction with a qualifier that it was to be held one day per month. He assumed it was looked at as being an accessory to the storage operation. Over the years, it had evidently expanded beyond auto sales into general merchandise and from once a month to once a week. City records show nothing being refiled. The auto auction technically was not allowed except as an accessory, but had PC Minutes -15- June 9, 1993 become the operation. Mr. Lee felt there were enough concerns by the Commission that the item should be continued to respond to them. Commissioner Moot felt the McCormacks and staff had raised some concerns that led him to believe that the operation should be considered separately, in the normal process, without being considered as part of this item. Chair Fuller felt the motion to continue was to ask staff to come back with a modification in the language that allowed some of the options the McCormacks raised. That was the only area in the City being considered for that type of service. Commissioner Tuchscher thought that although the McCormacks were trying to tag on to an ongoing effort, it was appropriate. They were an adjacent land use no different from new construction adjacent to a residential area. There was no concern relative to parking ratio. Regarding the paved lot, decomposed granite or some other solution seemed more appropriate than paving and more cost effective. He felt the indoor auction was overkill and onerous to that type of business. Commissioner Carson felt uncomfortable responding to something they had received that evening and thought it was fair that staff have an opportunity to review it. She was also uncomfortable with the term "general merchandise." Assistant Planning Director Lee said that there was no problem with staff looking at those concerns, but they wanted to keep in mind the long-term picture. The property was adjacent to the Baldwin development and the future development of industrial in the Otay Ranch. He thought staff needed to look at the setting and what would be created out there, whether or not there should be some time frame. That was the advantage of going through the conditional use permit process. Commissioner Moot believed the item before them should be acted on, and that the McCormacks should bring theirs before the Commission separately. He was reluctant to consider the two items together. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf agreed with Commissioner Moot. He felt the McCormacks' proposal raised many different issues that had not been examined and might have other environmental impacts not connected to the item being considered. The item before the Commission had been reviewed, had been discussed with the person most directly affected, and was prepared to go forward unless the Commission wished to make changes. The Commission had a clear choice to either approve what was before them and separate the two, or combine the two together in their motion for a continuance. Staff's recommendation was that the Commission act on the proposal before them, either approving it or amending and approving it. Chair Fuller noted that in that case the McCormacks would have to go through the process and pay all the fees. PC Minutes -16- June 9, 1993 Associate Planner Miller said that the Commission could direct staff to do that, or they could simply direct the applicant to file an miscellaneous Planning Commission action with the appropriate filing fee. He noted that staff was trying to clarify Council priorities and balance projects that were coming in. Should staff time be spent for this type of an application without any fees? In reply to Chair Fuller, Commissioner Ray said the intent of the motion was two-fold: 1) that one zone be created that could be applied in industrial areas within the City, not just to A-Z Towing. It could encompass the automobile lien sales, large heavy equipment items, and other items mentioned. 2) Give City staff enough time to expand the resolution to include language in the amendment to make auctions such as the McCormacks' an acceptable use under that zone. Commissioner Tuchscher again said that he had a concern keeping the issues separate. This was a public hearing and an appropriate time for the McCormacks to come forward with revisions that concern them. He was speaking in favor of continuing the item. Chair Fuller asked the City Attorney if there was any time pressure to pass the ordinance as presented because of the Siroonian settlement. Mr. Rudolf answered negatively. Principal Planner Griffin suggested a 90-day continuance to the meeting of September 22, 1993, since there may be a need for another environmental review with legal noticing and posting. VOTE: 7-0 to continue PCA-93-01 to the meeting of September 22, 1993. Chair Fuller noted that the Commission had not taken any action on the item, but had continued it until the meeting of September 22. That should give the McCormacks time to work with staff. She thanked them for their input. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee informed the Commissioners that the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council would be meeting on June 16, 3:00 p.m., City Council Chambers regarding Otay Ranch. The Commission was scheduled for a dinner/workshop following that meeting; however, the workshop portion had been canceled and the dinner was still scheduled to be held at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Bamberger, who was scheduled to present the water issue, would be in Sacramento and would not be back. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Ray asked if there had been a response to the letter regarding the Orange Street Library and the gating. Mr. Lee replied that the library had gone to Council the prior Tuesday and had been approved. The letter was part of that package. Principal Planner Griffin said that he had been at the hearing, and the issue had not been brought up and the letter had not been discussed. PC Minutes -17- June 9, 1993 Commissioner Ray again stated that conditional use permits which did not have a periodic review on them were worthless. There should be a way to solve the problem of issuing a conditional use permit that has conditions on it, the business changes after several years and something totally different is being done, and the conditions of the permit is not being enforced because it is not known that the business is doing something wrong because the use has not been reviewed. Mr. Lee noted that in this particular case, it was not a conditional use permit but a zoning permit. It could not be done without additional staff to run a yearly investigation. The Fire Department had previously run yearly investigations with all the businesses they check, but were now investigating every two years. There was no foolproof system. Commissioner Ray felt there should be some way to collect a fee from businesses to help with the expense, or other alternative. ADJOURNMENT at 9:35 p.m. to a Dinner Meeting of Wednesday, June 16, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. and to the Regular Business Meeting to be held June 23, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ancy Ripl0~, S[crcd'{ary Planning Commission (6-9-93 ,rain)