Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1993/04/21 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, April 21, 1993 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Moot, Ray, and Tarantino COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Senior Planner Crowley, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller dispensed with review of the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. MSUC (Carson/Martin) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher because of business conflicts. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Martin/Carson) 5-1 (Commissioner Ray abstained; Commissioner Tuchscher excused) to accept the minutes of February 10, 1993, as submitted. MSUC (Martin/Moot) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher excused) to accept the minutes of March 3, 1993, with corrections to pages 3 and 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- April 21, 1993 ITEM 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 Senior Planner Crowley presented the staff report, and noted the project had been before the Design Review Committee several times and was finally denied 5-0 and appealed to the Planning Commission. The Design Review Commission objected to the proposed colors, painting over shake roof and brick, removal of awnings, and landscaping. Mr. Crowley stated that the sign area was also exceeded and asked that the following paragraph be added to the proposed resolution: "Be it further resolved that the Planning Commission finds that the copy area of the proposed signs exceeds fifty percent of the background area on which it is applied, in violation of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.60.250 C. " Mr. Crowley noted that Mike Spethman of the Design Review Committee was present at the meeting and would submit a letter from the Design Review Committee during the public hearing. Commissioner Ray asked to review the slides showing some of the surrounding buildings and asked if the awnings were considered part of the architecture, and was interested in whether the use of awnings was consistent. Mr. Crowley answered that the awnings were part of the architecture. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Michael Spethman, 616 Claire Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, representing the Design Review Committee, read a memo which he asked to be distributed to the Planning Commission. The memo delineated the masons for denial of the project as outlined in the staff report. The Committee requested that the Planning Commission concur with its actions and deny the appeal. Chair Fuller asked if when the Design Review Committee considers modifications to a project which is a chain, it took into account that the company was trying to change a corporate image and trying to carry out that idea. What modifications could they have made? Mr. Spethman replied that the Committee did take that into consideration and noted that the Foodmaker Corporation had used other color schemes in different locations--other than the white and black color scheme proposed for these two locations in Chula Vista. The Committee made suggestions; they were not unanimously opposed to the black and white color scheme, but requested that if certain architectural elemems were removed from the buildings that them be some kind of replacement to embellish and enhance the stark building. In reply to Commissioner Tarantino, Mr. Spethman said one of the other colors which had been used on other Jack-in-the-Box restaurants was a subdued forest green. PC Minutes -3- April 21, 1993 Commissioner Ray asked Mr. Spethman the make-up of the current Design Review Committee in terms of architectural related individuals. Mr. Spethman said the Committee was composed of three architects and a contractor/developer. Commissioner Ray questioned whether the Committee would have been as opposed to the painted brick and changing of the color scheme if the project had been a new project rather than a remodel. Mr. Spethrnan replied that the Committee looks at the project as a whole and takes into consideration the surrounding area and whether it would be complementary. This was not an selective decision. Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Spethman said there were several different types of materials which are now available and would be used for a new building which would be more maintenance free. There would not be the same concerns as there would be in painting over a shingle roof which would require much maintenance afterwards. Dennis A. Wozniak, 10650 Treenast, San Diego, project manager for Jack-in-the-Box, read a prepared statement and stated there was no specific direction or theme present and no program in place. They had toured the area and neighborhoods around the location and found there was no consistency which would indicate a theme or plan was present. Mr. Wozniak stated that the overviews presented in the staff report were the modified proposals. They could not find a compromise with the Design Review Committee and had asked for a denial. He asked that if a denial was imminent, the Planning Commission deny it without prejudice and give them an opportunity to come back after direction had been given to the Design Review Committee in a more defined area that would help them. Commissioner Carson asked in the areas where the used brick had been painted over versus the areas which had not, what was the increase or decrease in graffiti. Mr. Wozniak could not tell if there had been an increase or decrease. They had simply painted over the graffiti; they were using a special base paint which was anti-graffiti and could be washed off a number of times before having to repaint. When graffiti is on brick, it has to be sandblasted. Commissioner Carson questioned if they had their choice of another color scheme, what would be used in place of black. Mr. Wozniak said they had tried a number of tones of gray which might be suitable; they had used dark slate gray in some of the new restaurants; instead of using shake roofs in some areas, they had used an asphalt composition black or gray shingle. Commissioner Carson noted that black is gang related; and since a Jack-in-the-Box in the area was highly frequented by Chula Vista High School, Chula Vista Junior, Castle Park Middle students, she was concerned about using black. Mr. Wozniak said they were not opposed to lightening it up or toning it down from the black. They realized there were certain elements they couldn't work with; they were wrong in their computations in the 50% signage. Those modifications could be made. Commissioner Tarantino stated that the white walls gave an invitation for a tagger to put their tag on it, and asked if they were not setting themselves up for more maintenance by painting the PC Minutes -4- April 21, 1993 walls white. Mr. Wozniak did not believe so, because they were introducing more landscaping which would become taller at the building. He also noted the neon fixtures were being replaced with a high pressure sodium fixture which would shine down and brighten up the building in the evening, which they hoped would eliminate the opportunity for those elements to be around the restaurants. He also stated that Foodmaker had full-time security on staff. In answer to Commissioner Ray, Mr. Wozniak said there was disagreement among the Design Review Committee as to the materials to be used. There was not a set of rules established which could be utilized. At one time, it was suggested that a subcommittee from the Design Review Committee be developed, but he realized these people were volunteers and their time was valuable and no subcommittee had been formed. Mr. Wozniak did not feel they should be penalized because they built the building out of materials which were appropriate in the 70's. Commissioner Ray asked if there was anything on the books for the City that would narrow the focus, or narrow material uses, or any form of direction that staff or the DRC could give Foodmaker to help them. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that staff was updating the Design Manual, and hopefully that would narrow some of the standards in the manual in a more definitive manner. The Committee was made up of registered architects, and the level of expertise allowed a certain degree of flexibility and creativity. He felt it was the concern of the Committee that the colors and materials did not work well together. Chair Fuller asked how the project could be expedited if the applicant was willing to make some changes. Should the appeal be denied and referred back to staff to work out an alternate plan? Assistant Planning Director Lee stated it could be continued with concurrence of the applicant, and it could be referred back to the Design Review Committee to come back to the Planning Commission on a date certain. Mr. Crowley suggested that the applicant, along with the original architect, meet with the Design Review Committee to try to come to some agreement. Mr. Wozniak replied that their project designer had been present at the second hearing to answer questions. Chair Fuller concluded that the firm was trying to make a marketing statement, and it did make an improvement in some circumstances. She had no problem with the color scheme, except she probably would prefer slate gray instead of black. She did not feel it should be held against Foodmaker Corporation for trying to change the corporate image in today's economy; fast-food restaurants did not always blend in. Mr. Spethman, of the Design Review Committee, returned to the podium to state that the Design Review Committee was not adamantly opposed to the black and white color scheme, but was unanimous in opposing the removal of the canvas awnings and the lack of improved landscaping which would restore the building to a square box. The color scheme would accentuate the squareness of the building. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes -5- April 21, 1993 MS (Ray/Carson) to continue the project for no more than 30 days and refer the applicant back to the Design Review Committee and staff to try to develop a more palatable solution for both sides. Commissioner Ray felt the sign issue would comply with City standards or the project would be denied; the landscaping needed improvement; the black and white color scheme was okay, but he thought the slate gray would look better; he noted the comments of Commissioners Carson and Tarantino regarding graffiti and that it would be a big target for them; he did not see consistency in color scheme or architecture. He felt Foodmaker had represented themselves as being willing to make some changes, and if given more direction, possibly both sides could be more flexible and come up with an agreeable solution. Chair Fuller agreed; the building was designed as a square box, and maybe the clean lines would not be such a bad image. In reply to Assistant Planning Director Lee, the applicant said he agreed with the continuation to May 26. After some discussion with Assistant City Attorney Rudolf, Commissioner Ray said he thought the Commission would agree with the DRC recommendation at that point because there were some open issues, and unless they could resolve those issues to the satisfaction of the DRC, he would not be comfortable voting against the DRC recommendation for denial. He desired to give them 30 days to come up with a reasonable solution, and if they could not do so within 30 days, it would be denied. Assistant Attorney Rudolf concluded, then, that if in the 30 days there was another official meeting of the Design Review Committee and approval by the Design Review Committee, then the denial by the Planning Commission would not take effect; if they could not roach agreement, the denial would take effect and the applicant would go on to Council from the original decision. Commissioner Ray asked if the second concurred; Commissioner Carson answered affirmatively. The applicant was concerned about meeting the Design Review Committee's calendar. Assistant Planning Director Lee informed the applicant there would be two meetings during the next 30 days and there should be no problem including the item on their agenda. Mr. Spethman of the Design Review Committee asked that staff set aside some time for a workshop between the applicant and one or two members of the Committee to expedite the matter, so the applicant would know what to expect and is prepared for the next Design Review Committee meeting and the matter would not be delayed any longer. Commissioner Moot felt the Commission should vote on the project rather than refer it back to the DRC. He was concerned that these procedures may set some type of precedent for future decision making. Assistant Planning Director Lee reiterated that if the item was continued to the May 26 meeting, the applicam could go back to DRC and hopefully resolve the issue. If agreement was not roached, the applicant would proceed on to the Council if he wished. PC Minutes -6- April 21, 1993 Commissioner Ray concluded that with the amended motion, if the applicant and DRC had not reached a consensus or an agreement that was acceptable to themselves and staff, the appeal is denied and would not come back before the Commission. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained, also, that if agreement was reached, it would not come back to the Planning Commission. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: MS (Ray/Carson) to refer the project back to the Design Review Committee and staff for a period of 30 days to try to develop a more palatable solution for both sides; the project is denied unless an agreement is reached. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Moot voted against; Commissioner Tuchscher excused) ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-93-F, APPLICATION FOR PREZONING 1.05 ACRES AT 4045 PALM DRIVE TO THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (RE) ZONE - Chia Chen and Chuang Chu (owners) Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report, stating that the property owner wished to annex to the City of Chula Vista in order to obtain sewer service. In order to annex to the City, it was necessary that the property be prezoned to be compatible with surrounding uses. The density would conform with County zoning. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Martin/Carson) 6-0 (Commissioner Tuchscher excused) to approve the Planning Commission resolution PCZ-93-F finding that, based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum prepared under IS-93-15, the project will not a have a significant environmental impact and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum prepared under IS-93-15; and recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum prepared under IS-93-15; and that the City Council introduce for first reading the draft ordinance prezoning 1.05 acres located at 4045 Palm Drive to the Residential Estate (RE) zone, and making necessary findings. ITEM 3. 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/SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT IN THE I-P (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Dale Wineteer, A-Z Metro Towing PC Minutes -7- April 21, 1993 Chair Fuller noted that the applicant had been contacted and did not object to a continuance to the meeting of May 12, 1993. MS (Martin/Carson) to continue PCA-93-01 to the meeting of May 12, 1993. Answering Commissioner Moot, Principal Planner Griffin noted that the current language for the "I" zone did not allow auctions of any kind. With the amendment, this type of auction would be allowed in the 'T' zone with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Ray asked if that would indicate that any auto shop, etc. would fall into that designation. He believed they had that right through the State. Principal Planner Griffin said some definitions would be included which would refine the terminology, but staff would follow up on that before the next meeting. Commissioner Moot also suggested that staff contact the Bureau of Automotive Repairs for more information regarding lien sales if needed. He was concerned about changing very strict existing laws monitored by State agencies on lien sales. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated the focus would be on the auction aspect as opposed to private sale. VOTE: 6-0 (Tuchscher excused) to continue PCA-93-01 to May 12, 1993. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-93-16, ADOPT STREET NAMES FOR TWO (2) NEW PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN THE CHULA VISTA AUTO CENTER Principal Planner Griffin stated that PCM-93-16 was to establish street names for the new streets serving the Auto Center. The parcel map for this project was processed administratively; however, the adoption of street names required Commission and Council action. He proceeded to indicate the streets and the proposed names of same and recommended approval. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Martin/Ray) 6-0 (Tuchscher excused) to adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve "Auto Park Drive" and "Brandywine Avenue" as new street names for the proposed streets within the Chula Vista Auto Center project site. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee discussed the Planning Commission calendar, noting the next meeting was on April 22 with the County regarding the Otay Ranch, and there was a joint PC Minutes -8- April 21, 1993 meeting on May 8 at 8:00 a.m. He also reminded them of the joint meeting with GMOC on May 12, which would begin at 5:00 p.m. which would include dinner, with a regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. Regarding the May 19 CEQA workshop, the Council had not confirmed the date. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Carson stated she would not be in attendance at the meeting of April 22, 1993, because of a school obligation. Chair Fuller reminded the Commissioners to bring their GDP binders and errata sheets to the meeting the next day. She said the Commission should be finished with the land use issues and hope to get into the text issues. Commissioner Carson requested a new layout of what had been put into place vs what the County had; what is now open space that County had voted for--all the different changes that had taken place--that those motions be put onto a visual that could be shown overhead as well as those to be handed to the Commissioners, so they could see them all together. Commissioner Ray asked if the name change on Otay Lakes and Telegraph which occurred was because the people at the mobilehome park protested the name change. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered affirmatively. Mr. Ray asked if the City had offered any help. Mr. Lee said staff had stretched the name change over a period of time to give people time to adjust; however, Council left the name of the road as it was. ADJOURNMENT at 8:30 p.m. to the Joint Planning Coinmission/County Conunission Meeting of April 22, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. at the County Department of Planning and Land Use Room; and to the Regular Business Meeting of the Chula Vista Planning Commission of Wednesday, April 28, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripl~, Secre~ry /' Planning Commission (4 21 93.min)