Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1991/03/27 Tape: 321 Side: 1 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, March 27, 1991 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Grasser Horton, Commissioners Carson, Casillas, Decker, Fuller, and Martin COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Tugenberg, with notification STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Senior Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf pI.F. DQE OF AI.I.EGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Grasser Horton and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Grasser Horton reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting of January 23, 1991 MSC (Fuller/Carson) 4-0-2 (Commissioners Decker and Martin abstained, Commissioner Tugenberg absent) to approve the minutes of January 23, 1991, as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- March 27, 1991 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: McDONALDS CORPORATION - APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY INSTALLATION OF A 35 FT. HIGH FREESTANDING POLE SIGN AT 619 BROADWAY Senior Planner Griffin gave the location of the project and noted the property presently contained a 25 ft. high, 437 sq. ft. freestanding sign located in the play area adjacent to the street. The sign was erected prior to the City's present sign regulations and was subject to abatement under the City's 15-year sign amortization program, because it exceeded the size requirements by about 300 sq. ft. McDonalds proposed to replace the existing sign with a 35 ft. high 115 sq. ft. pole sign to be located in the landscape planter in the northwest portion of the site. Mr. Griffin stated the proposed sign complied with the dimensional standards for the site which would allow a sign up to 35 ft. high and 145 sq. ft. in area. Mr. Griffin said, however, that the design and composition of signs were also subject to qualitative discretionary design review in accordance with principles itemized in the Zoning Ordinance regarding general aesthetics, proportionality of the sign, and the context of the sign in relation to the signs on adjoining properties. Based upon the Code, the Design Review Committee had taken the position of favoring lower profile, more tasteful signs along Broadway and other commercial thoroughfares in the City. The Design Review Committee denied the applicant's request as submitted and suggested either a monument-type ground sign or a low-profile 25' high maximum sign with all copy contained within a unified sign panel of approximately 72 sq. ft. The applicant's appeal was based on three factors: 1) that their proposal met the dimensional standards of the Code; 2) that staff's recommendations had been arbitrary, subjective, and based on personal taste; and 3) that the recommended change in design could diminish the applicant's national identity. Senior Planner Griffin said that since the appeal had been filed, staff had conducted a survey of free-standing signs within 500 feet of the site and found the average height of those signs to be approximately 16-1/2 feet and a maximum height of approximately 30 feet. Based upon the principles for sign design, the DRC's decision, and their intent to have lower profile, more tasteful signs along the thoroughfares, and also the survey of surrounding signs, staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Design Review Committee. He then showed slides of some of the other McDonalds locations; some which had been approved by the County, and some in the City's jurisdiction under the present sign standards. -3- March 27, 1991 PC Minutes Commissioner Carson asked if either the sign on Bonita Road or "E" Street would be usable in the subject area. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered it would be more difficult to try to utilize a monument-type sign in this case because of the play land in front. Chair Grasser Horton asked if the new developments east of 1-805 were subject to the same sign regulations as the inner part of the City. Assistant planning Director Lee said that most of the areas east of 1-805 are under planned community sign district regulations which are more restrictive. The sign ordinance developed for the main part of Chula Vista was more of a compromise ordinance in working with existing signs and the business community. Mr. Lee said the sign limits were maximum, and consideration was given to the surrounding area in working with the businesses to reach a compromise. Answering Chair Grasser Horton's inquiry, Assistant Director Lee said the sign ordinance could possibly be revised in the future. Chair Grasser Horton commented the volume of the subject sign seemed to be large for the area. The newer area of the City would not allow that type of sign. Assistant Planning Director Lee commented that with the number of buildings with zero setback on Broadway, it is difficult to work in an area with existing buildings, remodeling, and new buildings with more setback area. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Beatrice Kemp, 450 B Street, Suite 1080, San Diego, representing McDonalds, said that because of the current location, the surrounding buildings and foliage, a 25 ft. high sign as proposed by staff would not work. The trees obscure the signage. The proposed 35 ft. high sign would be visible. She also had taken pictures of other signs in the area which appeared to be the 35 ft. height. Ms. Kemp discussed the design of the sign and asked permission to use the sign consistent with the other McDonalds signs. They would consider incorporating staff's design if granted the 35 ft. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Carson asked about the trees hiding the sign. Senior Planner Griffin answered staff felt there was adequate visibility at the 25 ft. height. Another option would be for the applicant to move a 25 ft. high sign inside the area now occupied by the present sign toward the center of the site. Commissioner Decker asked if the applicant had the authority to have the trees on the adjacent property trimmed. Senior Planner Griffin replied that it was the responsibility of the owners of the property. PC Minutes -4- March 27, 1991 Senior Planner Griffin pointed out that the second part of the recommendation to approve a 2~ ft. high sign would not necessarily limit the applicant to that; they could reapply for any sign they wished, take it before the Design Review Committee, and then appeal if dissatisfied. Commissioner Fuller asked about the number of different designs McDonalds had. Assistant Planning Director Lee said that McDonalds had several different signs that were used throughout the area and the United States, and that the Design Review Committee was suggesting something that would not be contrary to their options available, but would fat into the area and hopefully fit within their more typical sign program. Commissioner Fuller objected to the word "sleazy" in the Design Review Manual. She asked if any other signs along Broadway which were referred to in the staff report were to be changed under the sign ordinance. Mr. Lee answered that the only signs that could be abated under the abatement program were those which exceeded the maximum ordinance requirements. There may be a number of signs that technically complied and would remain. Mr. Lee stated the Design Manual was being modified to incorporate better design guidelines and terminology. Commissioner Fuller commented that McDonaids Corporation had had to conform to design standards throughout not only our community but also communities nationwide, and as long as the golden arches were incorporated in the design, it carried out the national logo. MSUC (Carson/Casillas) 6-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent) to deny the appeal. MSC (Carson/Casillas) 5-1 (Decker voting against; Tugenberg absent) to approve a 25' high freestanding sign with the restaurant's corporate logo arches incorporated within the sign cabinet frame as suggested in staff sketch I. ITEM 2: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-91-03 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR OXFORD TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 9D03 - Avner Cohen Senior Planner Griffin gave the location of the project site, designated as Mercantile and Office Commercial with a special study overlay. The property was zoned R-V-15, Multiple Family Residential allowing for 14-1/2 du/ac. The project had been approved by the Design Review Committee and could be constructed as rental units; the purpose of the subdivision map was to provide for sale of the units. Mr. Griffin said there was an apparent inconsistency between the project and the Commercial designation of the General Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan. Staff had originally included in the staff report a recommendation which called for an amendment to the plans prior to approval of the final map. Since the staff report was distributed, it had been determined that the designation allowed for residential use under the Montgomery Specific Plan. He referred to a memo distributed to the Commission which recommended deleting that condition (condition q) from the report as well as a minor clarification to condition f. -5- March 27, 1991 PC Minutes The project was considered by the Montgomery Planning Committee who had not forwarded a recommendation to the Commission, since they had failed to adopt the Negative Declaration by a 0-6 vote. The Committee was concerned that the few students generated from the project would be a significant environmental impact because of the overcrowded condition of the schools serving this site. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the subdivision map based on the findings and conditions noted in the staff report, as amended by the staff memo. Answering Chair Grasser Horton's query, Mr. Griffin said that there was not a problem receiving water permits in the Sweetwater District. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted there was not a final readout from Sweetwater. The County Water Authority had adopted their ordinance, and if Sweetwater is purchasing water from the County Water Authority, they had to comply with that which would result in a zero net increase. The applicant, however, would have to go to the District and get a "will serve" letter. Commissioner Carson, referring to page 7 of the staff report, under Findings, said she did not know what the housing needs were in the region. Mr. Griffin answered that staff looked at the housing needs overall in the City and tried to address those to provide not only the number of required low- and moderate-income units, but also a balance of that throughout the community. Assistant Planning Director Lee added that the ability to provide condominium units west of 1-805 had been limited because of the area's 80% to 90% build-out. This project would add to that the number of units available. He felt the duplex-type unit with garage would provide a needed balance on the west side of the city. Commissioner Carson asked if any consideration had been given to usage of low-tolerant plants. She felt xeriscaping should be considered. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that the Landscape Planning Section reviewed each plan as it came through the department, in some cases deferring landscaping, reevaluating the amount of hardscape, and the types of plant materials, while awaiting the final results from Otay and Sweetwater. Commissioner Carson asked if there would be grading done on the site. Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich answered that to recompact there would have to be some grading to reduce the expansion potential. Answering Commissioner Carson's query, Senior Planner Griffin said residential uses were allowed under the Specific Plan designation and an amendment to the General Plan would not be needed. -6- March 27, 1991 PC Minutes Commissioner Decker asked if reclaimed water would be used for grading and compacting. Mr. Griffin answered that Sweetwater Authority had not adopted specific implementation measures in response to the County Water Authority's directive. Assistant Director Lee noted that staff had met with an applicant who had a well in the vicinity who had provided written correspondence to the City Council asking for consideration for an emergency ordinance that would allow him to distribute water in the nearby area to people needing it for grading. Something could possibly be in place in the near future to provide a substantial amount of water for grading purposes. Commissioner Decker questioned the adequacy of two guest parking spaces. Assistant Planning Director Lee answered that the Council had increased the amount of parking required for two- bedroom units, but had removed the specific requirement for guest spaces. In recent years, there had been more of a trend toward garage parking for security purposes which provides a better design element but creates some potential issues with guest parking. This is taken into consideration by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Decker asked about the six students generated from the nine 3-bedroom homes. Senior Planner Griffin answered that on a district-wide basis, this was the generation rate provided by the District which they use to do their planning. Commissioner Casillas asked if the garages had spaces in front of them. Mr. Lee answered that there was only a back-up area. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Tim Jones, 978 Myra Avenue, Chula Vista, designer of the project, said they had been in contact with Sweetwater Authority who had told them they were continuing to process their project. They had a large amount of storage facilities and had no problem issuing water permits for the project at that time. The applicant was also installing a fire hydrant to meet the Fire Marshal's requirement. The gazebo had been replaced with a tot lot with playground equipment; the trees had been replaced with passive recreational sodded areas. The applicant had spoken with the Landscape Architect and had taken into consideration the usage of low-water-usage plants. Regarding grading, there would be no import or export required for the project. Minimal grading would be done for proper drainage and recompaction. Commissioner Decker asked if the roadway was wide enough for cars to park. Mr. Jones said it was a 24-foot roadway which the Fire Department requires to be red-lined. Therefore, there would be no parking. Commissioner Decker asked about the price range of the condominiums. Mr. Jones answered it would be in the $125,000 to $140,000 price range. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. -7- March 27, 1991 PC Minutes Upon Commissioner Casillas' query, Mr. Jones described the exterior of the condominium. Commissioner Fuller commented that she thought the project would be a fine addition to the area. She was concerned that the Montgomery Planning Committee had failed to adopt the Negative Declaration based on the concerns for schools. She felt their action was unwarranted because of the scale of the project. She would like more feedback from the Montgomery planning Committee as to their concern. Commissioner Carson said she understood a Negative Declaration could not be disapproved because of the schools. Senior Planner Griffin answered that the Environmental Review Coordinator was going to meet with the Committee to try to explain what action is appropriate in the case of schools. MS (Decker/Martin) to adopt Negative Declaration, IS-91-10. Chair Grasser Horton said she agreed with Commissioner Fuller in that she did not find the issue regarding the schools significant. She would vote in favor of the motion. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent) MS (Decker/Fuller) that based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report, approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Oxford Terrace Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 91-03, subject to conditions, as amended by letter dated March 27, 1991. Chair Grasser Horton added that she felt this type of project would benefit the Montgomery ea It would bring health and a new economy to the area. She complimented the Design ar ' · - ,,--- :-~- ,ne,, are doino She would vote in favor of the project. Review Committee on me excen~m juu u, ~ ~ Commissioner Decker commended the applicant on their design. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Tugenberg absent) Chair Grasser Horton said she had received a letter from Mayor Pro Tem Leonard Moore requesting that the Planning Commission appoint a member for the Bayfront Task Force Subcommittee. As requested by Commissioner Fuller, Assistant Director Lee explained the task force make-up and purpose. He did not know how often the task force would meet. Assistant Attorney Rudolf recommended that action not be taken since it was not on the agenda. -8- March 27, 1991 PC Minutes Chair Grasser Horton asked that it be placed on the next agenda. Commissioner Carson asked staff to find out how often the task force would meet; and also some input regarding the committee on which Commissioner Tugenberg had been serving and how often they met. DIRECTOR'S REPORT stated staff had contacted the Zoning Enforcement Division who Assistant Planning Director Lee "H" had taken a Saturday sweep down Street, Otay Lakes Road, and Bonita Road and picked up approximately 350 subdivision signs. They would continue picking them up for a while; written notice had been sent out. GOMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Casillas commented on an article which had been in the Star-News regarding the Bayfront asking people to write to two certain Councilmen; why not the whole Council? Assistant Director Lee answered that the two Councilmen were Subcommittee members who had been appointed by the Council and that was probably why the article directed correspondence to them. Commissioner Fuller commented that the City should take the initiative emphasizing xeriscaping in landscaping. She suggested that it be a positive condition in the Design Manual. Chair Grasser Horton asked if the new projects were required to use drip irrigation. Mr. Lee explained that drought tolerant materials had been used for quite some time. Active play areas are exempt if they are public. Some developers were taking a stronger posture as far as using the xeriscape landscaping on private property. He went on to explain the City's role insofar as public and private property landscaping. Mr. Lee said the City had tried to put more emphasis on water management. Commissioner Decker noted the lack of trees at some of the houses; he asked if they were required to have a tree. Assistant Planning Director Lee said people remove the trees for various reasons and it would be hard to police or to require them to replace the trees. Commissioner Decker commented that he was interested in the Bayfront Committee, but if it was to be held every week, he may have conflicts. Commissioner Martin thanked the City for allowing him to represent the Commission at the Conference in Monterey. He was interested to learn that the City of Chula Vista was probably the only city in California that didn't have a paid Planning Commission. He showed a planner's pocket guide he had gotten at the Conference. He said there was also a VHS tape for planning commissioners put out by the League of California Cities which he recommended that staff obtain for new planning commissioners. He suggested that staff attend one of the sessions. -9- March 27, 1991 PC Minutes ADJOURNMENT AT 8:30 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of April 10, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nancy Ripley, Sect/etary Planning Commission ~CMI~3-2'7)