Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/06/12 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:10 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, June 12, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray (arrived 7:25 p.m.), Tarantino, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Salas STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Griffin, Associate Planner Martin, Deputy City Attorney Googins PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Tarantino) 5-0 (Ray not yet arrived; Salas absent) to approve the minutes of the Special Joint Planning Commission/City Council/Growth Management Oversight Commission workshop meeting of April 25, 1996. Commissioners Tuchscher and Davis noted they were absent at that meeting, but had read the minutes and believed them to be accurate and would vote. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-96-B; REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R2P TO MHP PORTIONS OF PROPERTY TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 25,000 SQ. FT. LOCATED AT 415/445 ORANGE AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING THESE AREAS INTO AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK - Terry Enterprises PC Minutes -2- June 12, 1996 Principal Planner Griffin presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the rezone. Commissioner Willett stated that he had visited the site and also 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. MSC (Willett/Davis) 5-0 (Commissioner Ray not yet arrived; Commissioner Salas absent) to adopt resolution PCZ-96-B recommending that the City Council approve the rezoning in accordance with the draft Council resolution and the findings contained therein. (Commissioner Ray arrived at this time - 7:25 p.m.) ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-96-12; REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A ROOFTOP SIGN FROM 35 FT. TO 42 FT. FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 396 E STREET IN THE C-T THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE - Valley Neon Sign Company Principal Planner Griffin distributed three letters of objection to the request since the report had been delivered to the Commissioners, along with an alternative resolution of approval reflecting the earlier staff "compromise" offered to Mr. Altbaum. Mr. Griffin gave the history of the building and the rooftop sign. He noted that the architecture of the building did not lend itself well to wall signs without substantial modification, and there was no room for a freestanding sign. A revision to the sign code in the 1970's had reduced the height of an allowable roof sign to 35 feet. Mr. Altbaum was requesting a variance to go up to the originally permitted sign height of 45 feet with 150 sq. ft. in area. Mr. Griffin showed sketches, slides, and overheads illustrating the various heights including the request. Staff had suggested a 41 foot high sign with 105 sq. ft., 6 ft. off the roof. The alternative resolution of approval was available to approve the staff compromise. Answering Commissioner Davis, Mr. Griffin stated that staff had thought the building was 25 feet tall when they originally offered the staff compromise, but subsequently discovered that the building is 28 feet tall. Commissioner Tarantino asked the height of the pole currently on top of the building. Mr. Griffin said it was left there from the original sign and was approximately 10 ft. Mr. Griffin concluded his presentation by stating in regard to the staff compromise that staff felt a 100 sq. ft. sign was a very substantial sign, very readable and identifiable. They felt that by allowing the additional height up to 41 feet, 6 feet above the Code, that perhaps by reducing the PC Minutes -3- June 12, 1996 size of the sign but still maintaining identity was fair and appropriate and may address some of the concerns of the neighbors with the visual impact of the sign. Commissioner Tarantino noted that in the presentation, Mr. Griffin had stated a wall-type sign could not be accommodated on the building. Mr. Tarantino asked if could be accommodated on the facia. Mr. Griffin did not feel it would be very attractive; there was no space on the building which was designed to graciously accept the sign. It would look tacked-on. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was another sign in the City that was 15' x 7' to give them some idea of the size. Mr. Griffin stated it would be about the size of three 4x8 sheets of plywood. Commissioner Davis confirmed that staff's compromise was 105 sq. fi. and the original request was 150 sq. ft. Mr. Griffin concurred, and stated that 150 sq. fi. was also allowed by Code. Cormnissioner Thomas asked if there were any restrictions for the applicant; could they completely cover that 105 sq. fi., including pictures and diagrams. Mr. Griffin replied that the Code restricts the combination of copy and graphics to no more than 50% of the background area and advertising to no more than 25 % of the face of the sign and advertising is distinguished from identification. Mr. Altbaum's proposal was in conformance with Code. Mr. Griffin stated in terms of copy and design of logo, staff does not analyze that. Answering Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Griffin said that the picture would conform with Code. Commissioner Willett asked if the sign was lit on both sides. The applicant indicated that it was. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Martin Altbaum, 396 "E" Street, Chula Vista, owner of Coin Mart Jewelry, noted that the building was built in 1972. The original sign had been up for almost 20 years. If in fact there was a sign removal process which allowed 15 years to remove non-conforming signs, the sign should have been removed in about 1988. The sign stayed up until 1992. Mr. Altbaum stated the reason they needed the requested sign was for visibility. The picture can be no more than 25 % of the sign and the written part could be no more than 25 % of the sign. With a request for 150 sq. ft., they really are getting only a 75 foot square sign. The compromise with the City was 41 ft. high; they were willing to compromise at 42 ft. Mr. Altbaum stated they were also willing to compromise on the size of the sign if the Commission allowed the original size lettering and picture. There would be less white space. He introduced Mr. Koonce. Robert Koonce, 27500 Old Highway 80, Guatay, CA, stated he was the branch manager at the time the building was constructed and was very involved in the architectural set-up. A lot of time had been spent deciding how large the sign should be at different heights and positions. PC Minutes -4- June 12, 1996 Mr. Altbaum noted that the logo was a baby picture of his son and had been used 16 years and was an important part of his advertising. Mr. Altbaum and his wife showed a 3 ft. x 3 ft. picture of the baby and noted that the actual sign would have a 6 ft. x 6 ft. picture along with the lettering. He showed the difference in the lettering the City was proposing versus what he proposed. A compromise would be the same picture and lettering with less white space. The City was proposing a 7 ft. x 15 ft. sign, 41 feet up. He would compromise 1 ft. higher, longer, and higher. Mr. Altbaum showed some computer-generated slides of the building with the poles removed, and also showed the design elements on the wall of the building. He had thought he could put some letters in between, but it did not fit. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the letters would fit above the design area. Mr. Altbaum stated it would be too small. Chair Tuchscher asked if the sign would be directed towards Fourth Avenue and "E" Street at an angle. Mr. Altbaum stated it would be exactly as the original sign was positioned. Discussion ensued regarding the orientation of the original sign and the proposed signage. Mr. Althaum noted that he had a hardship regarding signage. He could not put a pole sign on the property since the building was built on the property line. He could put it in the parking lot by removing some parking spaces, but it would not be seen from the street. Mr. Altbaum stated that he did a lot of out-of-area advertising by radio, television, business cards, etc. and used the building to do that advertising. Mr. Griffin noted that Mr. Altbaum had stated the signage could not cover more than 50% of the background area. In this case, the background would be the sign face and the copy and picture applied to it should not cover more than 50%. Mr. Althaum proposed to divide that into 25% picture and 25 % copy. If the white space is reduced too much, there would be a "squeezed" appearance to the sign. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis saw the problem with the sign and why the sign had previously been on the roof. She was happy to see staff trying to work with the applicant. She was concerned that Chula Vista should be more user friendly and business friendly. She thought the sign ordinance needed to be readdressed. This was one of the times when it did not quite fit because of visibility. She encouraged the Commission to look at giving the applicant the 42 feet. She was concerned about the squeezed effect with the 105 sq. ft. sign. She would support a sign of 150 sq. ft. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the elimination of the white area. This was a massive sign and it would be critical to balance it perfectly. Regarding the complaint letters, Mr. Thomas asked if staff had any suggestions, such as cutting the size down or turning the sign's lighting off at a certain time. PC Minutes -5- June 12, 1996 Mr. Griffin stated that staff felt that by reducing the size, it might reduce the glare and the impact. Regarding turning off the sign at night, it is a commercial zone and part of the identity was to have the identity available for late-night travelers. Staff had not considered restricting illumination during nighttime hours. Commissioner Ray stated that the building was a unique building within the City of Chula Vista, and any sign on the roof would take away from architectural integrity of the building. He would rather see something on the facade or facing of the upper portion of the building. Commissioner Tarantino concurred with Commissioner Ray. He felt it was an unusual building, at a critical location, at the gateway of the City. He disliked the idea of a sign on the roof. He thought a sign at the top of the facia with lighted, individual letters would be in good taste and would get the point across. He could not support any sign on the top of the roof. Commissioner Willett had looked at the building and tried to envision other signs on top of the roof. To retain the visibility of the building, he supported the sign going along the facia on the side of the building. He thought a 6 ft. high sign could be used there. He was against the vertical sign. Chair Tuchscher commented that he was happy that Coin Mart had stayed in Chula Vista. He felt the sign ordinance relative to proportion made some logical sense. As far as height, size, etc. he felt the ordinance was over-restrictive and challenged memhants. Design Review tried to balance that with what looks right. He asked staff if there were any plans for the small street- level sign and if it had any bearing on total signage allowable under the ordinance. Mr. Griffin explained that it was an approved sign. On buildings, there could be a combination of signs. There could be wall signage plus free-standing signs and directional signs. In this case, a roof sign of a certain size was allowable. In addition to that, there could be wall signs. A sign permit had been issued for the small sign, and it was conforming with Code. Chair Tuchscher questioned the ordinance relative to banners after an additional sign was put up. Mr. Griffin stated the banners are a grand opening feature. Since Mr. Altbaum was pursuing a permanent sign, staff had been flexible in allowing the grand opening banners to remain and provide some identity until permanent signage was installed. Upon installation, the banners would be down. Chair Tuchscher commented that the building had a unique architectural style. The features across the top were problematic. He felt that signage which ran the length of the facia on top of the building might be a solution that would give visibility and address the concerns of the other Conunissioners. Commissioner Ray asked how much of his business was drive-up versus someone who was actually seeking out their business. PC Minutes -6- June 12, 1996 Chair Tuchscher noted that Mr. Althaum did a lot of out-of-area advertising and directed people to Chula Vista to his location, and the signage helped them recognize it. In response to Mr. Ray, Mr. Altbaum stated that most of his advertising was by radio and most of his business was out of town. Having been at the old location for 20 years, some of his customers still go to that address. He needed the signage to direct them to the new location. He felt if all the utility poles were removed, it would look good on the side of the building and would be seen. However, as it is, vision would be obscured and he needed it on the roof. Commissioner Ray stated that two of the five poles were temporary, the one on the corner and the one on the roof. The only others were street lights. To him, street lights were not an impairment. He asked if the utility line would be undergrounded. Mr. Griffin felt it would be undergrounded, but he did not know the timing. He felt it might be undergrounded when the property at the northeast corner developed. Commissioner Ray felt that if someone were looking for a particular jewelry store, they would be looking for something that would catch his eye to let him know he was there. He personally did not see a big difference between the pole signage and the facia signage. He thought the roof signage took away from the architecture of the building. Mr. Altbaum stated that he would be unhappy to go to the Design Review Committee to change an existing building that would be very difficult to change. He did not believe he could get approval to remove the architectural elements. Mr. Griffin stated if the idea was to make the facia smooth and not have the elements in order to accept a facia sign more comfortably, he did not feel it would detract from the building. It did not seem to be something that would Design Review Committee approval or a formal process and a lot of expense or review. Commissioner Davis understood the concerns of the Commissioners, but felt the 6 ft. x 6 ft. picture of the baby, which is the trademark Mr. Altbaum used, would not fit on the facia. She felt that was an important part of the sign which could not be eliminated. Commissioner Ray asked the height of the facia. Mr. Griffin stated it was a total of about 5 feet. Commissioner Davis pointed out that in the ordinance, Mr. Altbaum had a right to a rooftop sign. It was the height that was in question. The fact that the Commissioners did not like the rooftop sign was not as vital to the question as was the height. The Commissioners had a recommendation for a variance of 41 ft. by staff with 105 sq. footage of sign. Whether or not the Commissioners liked a rooftop sign was not important; it was what size of the rooftop sign they were going to allow him to put up. PC Minutes -7- June 12, 1996 Chair Tuchscher noted that the applicant had a right to a rooftop sign, but a workable rooftop sign that would fit within the height limits, etc. Commissioner Willett stated that he was confused on the lettering which would have been in the 7 ft. x 15 ft. sign. What percent would it have been. Mr. Griffin replied that staff had not calculated what size lettering that would have allowed. Staff felt the overall sign dimension was more than adequate to provide visibility. It could be identified from surrounding streets and the copy could be easily seen. Chair Tuchscher clarified that this was not a scientific calculation. There was a certain amount of signage coverage. From his perspective, he would like to see an allowance exceeding the current ordinance, but to bring that signage down to the facia. It was a difficult building; he would be comfortable exceeding the total allowable signage if it were positioned differently. He would rather give the applicant two big signs on the facia. Commissioner Thomas stated that the comments he had made were based on the concept that the Commission could not deny them a rooftop sign. He asked that the City Attorney clarify that. Attorney Googins said he understood that the existing governing ordinances would permit a rooftop sign that would not exceed 35 feet above grade with certain dimensions. The notion that the Commissioners would prefer the sign somewhere else was not before the Commission; however, the comments were legitimate ones to factor into their decision to the extent that if a reasonable alternative exists which could place the sign on the facade, then a legitimate basis for not finding a hardship would exist. The comments were legitimate; a rooftop sign would be allowed. At the same time, not wanting a rooftop sign at all was a legitimate consideration to the extent it had an impact on whether or not there were reasonable alternatives. Commissioner Thomas stated he would tend to support a facia sign. Principal Planner Griffin reiterated that Mr. Altbaum could have a sign 150 sq. ft., no higher than 7 ft. above the 28 ft. high roof line, which would not exceed the Code requirement of 35 ft. above grade as a matter of right, as long as the picture and copy did not exceed 50% of the background area. In terms of the facia signage, because of the intervening elements on the facia, a sign could not be put on there except in the form of a sign "can". The background for a sign is defined as something that is uninterrupted by architectural features. If the facia were smooth, some cut-out letters could be added to that. Trying to fit individual sign letters between the architectural elements and spaces would not work as the facia is designed. Chair Tuchscher asked if the Commission took action recommending signage of a certain size on the facia, would there be any additional process, if the applicant agreed that would work? Mr. Griffin replied that approval of conforming signage was a staff process. There was no other public hearing or discretionary process. PC Minutes -8- June 12, 1996 Chair Tuchscher believed two signs 150 sq. ft., one on "E" Street and one on Fourth Avenue, on both facias, would accomplish the applicant's task and would solve the concerns of the residents. The signs would be 5 ft. x 30 ft. Commissioner Davis asked if he would allow the applicant to exceed the background of the verbiage. Mr. Tuchscher stated he was just defining the parameters outside the sign. They would be asking the applicant to compromise off his proposal. He may not be able to get his logo on the signs the size that he wanted. It would mean the Commission was far outstretching the City ordinance to accommodate a very unique building and perhaps solve some of the height concerns. Commissioner Ray would not mind giving the applicant another 6 inches over the height and let the sign go over the top of the facia. He was concerned that where the facia stops, a roof sign would take away from the architectural integrity of the building. He could not support any roof sign on top of the building. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Altbaum to step up to the microphone to comment on the possibility of facia signs. Mr. Althaum did not agree to the facia signs. He stated he would put up a sign on the roof that was 2 ft. high by 75 ft. long while the appeal processed, making the 150 ft. he was allowed to have. He would appeal it to City Council, and then take it to court. He believed that if a sign is left six or seven years past the sign moratorium when there were 15 years to remove it, that there is tacit approval that it can remain there forever. Commissioner Ray made a motion that the Commission not accept staff's proposal but allow two 150 sq. ft. signs, one on the facia facing "E" Street and one of the facia facing Fourth Avenue. Commissioner Ray asked for confirmation that it did not require any other approval. Mr. Griffin stated that he and the City Attorney were concerned because there was a specific request before the Commission which had been noticed. The proposal by the Commission may require another notice, involving another variance for size or background. He noted that the basic staff recommendation which was part of the report was to deny the request as submitted. The motion died for lack of a second. MS (Ray/Tarantino) to approve staff's recommendation to deny the request as submitted. Commissioner Davis stated that she was against the motion. She was in favor of allowing the rooftop sign of 42 ft. with 150 sq. ft. She felt the sign ordinance needed to be revised; Chula Vista should be business friendly and she felt this sent the wrong message by not allowing him to put up the type of sign he wanted. She didn't think it exceeded Code very far; staff was compromising at 41 ft.; the other sign was at 45 ft. before. PC Minutes -9- June 12, 1996 Commissioner Ray agreed that the City should be more business friendly; the sign ordinance needed to be revised. However, part of the presentation was that this was a unique building. He did not think it needed to be degraded by a rooftop sign. Chair Tuchscher asked the City Attorney if there was any type of prescriptive rights that might run with the fact that the old sign was in place for some period of time beyond the point it was asked that all signs were to be in conformance. City Attorney Googins stated that the general rule was that where there was previously a use and the Code is changed so that that use becomes to a non-conforming type use, under City Code which implements general laws, the non-conforming use should be eliminated at the earliest possible moment so that if a proposal comes forward to change the existing use or apply for an alternative use, the first inclination is to make that use a conforming use. However, where standards are established, variances can also be granted which vary somewhat with the appropriate circumstances from what is being proposed. He noted that the City is generally immune to any action against the City in order to challenge the City's ability to impose that new and revised use against subsequent purchaser. Chair Tuchscher asked if a continuous use was a part of that same issue. If there was a variance or non-conforming use, it is allowed to continue until such time as there is a discontinuation of that use. Attorney Googins replied that it would be even more supportive of the general rule. The notion that a use is allowed to continue to be non-conforming does not prevent the City from requiring conforming uses at a time that an alternative use is proposed. Chair Tuchscher noted that the fact that there was a sign there at one time should not be a part of the Commission's decision. Before the Commission was a new sign application and variance to the City's sign ordinance. Attorney Googins said a sign being there at one time may have some bearing on the Commission's ability to make findings in relationship to the variance application. The fact that there might be an old sign may factor in to support findings the Commission may need to make to grant a variance. But it need not factor in. Mr. Griffin added that, in this particular case, Mr. Altbaum could have a rooftop sign as well as facia signs. Facia signs are considered wall signs. In addition to rooftop signs, the Code states that each business is allowed a combined wall sign area of 1 sq. ft. per lineal foot of building frontage facing a dedicated street or alley. However, the sign area may be increased to a maximum of 3 sq. ft. per lineal feet of building frontage provided the sign does not exceed 50% of the background area. By right, Mr. Althaum could have 1 sq. ft. of wall sign area per lineal foot of building frontage facing both Fourth Avenue and "E" Street in addition to a rooftop sign. The rooftop sign could only be 7 ft. high because of the existing height of the building. PC Minutes -10- June 12, 1996 Commissioner Ray stated he wanted to do what was right for the City; he did not feel a rooftop sign would enhance the building nor Mr. Althaum's business to the extent that the building should be altered. From a visual standpoint and from a "quality-of-life" standpoint for the citizens of Chula Vista, he would like to start making amendments to the sign ordinance. Chair Tuchscher suggested that the sign ordinance be dealt with in an upcoming workshop. Chair Tuchscher noted that even if the current motion failed, the Commission would not be moving forward in the process. He wished to allow the system to move Mr. Althaum forward in a positive way. There may be some way to address Mr. Ray's concerns by creating a variance and allowing language to restrict signage elsewhere on the building, or limiting the building to one sign. Commissioner Ray clarified that the motion was to deny the 42 ft. sign on the top of the building. VOTE: 3-3 MOTION FAILED (Commissioners Davis, Thomas, and Tuchscher voted against.) Chair Tuchscher noted that he had voted "no" on the motion even though he did not like the sign nor the inconsistency of the sign. He did not want to send the merchant away to do whatever he wanted in the way of rooftop signage, side of the building signage, etc. and end up with something that is worse. Commissioner Ray said that there had to be some way to prevent the signs from going up prior to a revision to the sign ordinance. He felt it would be the wrong thing to allow the rooftop sign, especially on this building. Chair Tuchscher asked if there was a potential to add language into whatever variance the Commission allowed that would limit additional signage on the building. Mr. Griffin thought if the applicant agreed to that, it would be appropriate. Attorney Googins stated that depending upon the nature of the condition being proposed, arguably, such a condition could be included as an element which the Commission found necessary to m~¢ the findings that would be required in order to grant such a variance. In order to limit the detrimental impacts, one of the findings required is that the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties; or that approving a sign that is larger than what is otherwise permitted would be of some detriment but for the fact that elimination of other signs reduced the proliferation of signs in order to counterbalance the fact that a slightly larger sign than Code is being allowed. He believed that such a condition could be an appropriate condition to granting of the variance, if agreed to by the applicant. Chair Tuchscher preferred to make that type of revision in a variance of this nature. PC Minutes -11- June 12, 1996 MS (Davis/Thomas for discussion) to approve a variance for a 42 ft. sign 150 sq. ft. which would be a 9 ft. x 17 ft. rooftop sign. Chair Tuchscher said he wanted to give the applicant a sign similar to the one he was proposing. He was going towards staff recommendation but a little smaller, and wanted to make sure there were no additional signs by right, recognizing the fact that the Commission was making a variance relative to height and that the additional signage on the building would not come in later. Attorney Googins asked if Commissioner Davis was proposing that the findings made in the resolution approving staff's compromise proposal be incorporated into her proposal. Commissioner Davis answered affirmatively--that there was a hardship. After reviewing the findings, Mr. Griffin noted that item 3 would have to be revised to exclude the reference to reducing the overall area. Mr. Googins stated that finding 2 would also need revision. VOTE: 1-5 MOTION FAILED (All Commissioners except Commissioner Davis voted against) Chair Tuchscher suggested that the previous motion be put back on the table which would allow the applicant to immediately appeal it and take it to Council. Commissioner Ray stated that one of the three who voted against his motion would have to vote for it to be sent forward to Council with a denial from the Planning Commission. Motion by Commissioner Ray to reconsider staff's recommendation to deny the request as submitted. Commissioner Davis asked if the tied vote could move forward to Council with no recommendation. Attorney Googins said he understood that Mr. Rudolf, who had previously staffed the Commission, had opined that where there is a deadlock and insufficient vote to deny a permit, so that the applicant could progress, an additional vote--if in fact four votes to deny could not be obtained, the matter can proceed for appeal to the City Council so they could reconsider it. Chair Tuchscher asked that, for housekeeping purposes, the motion be put back on the table to be revoted. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION MS (Ray/Tuchscher) to adopt staff's recommendation to deny Resolution ZAV-96-12. PC Minutes -12- June 12, 1996 Mr. Althaum asked if he could speak. The City Attorney recommended that the public hearing be reopened. Chair Tuchscher declared the public hearing reopened. Martin Altbaum stated that he would make a compromise if it meant anything to the vote. He would agree not to put anything on the facia on either side of the building at any time in return for the rooftop sign under the conditions he talked about before (42' x 17' x 9'). A rooftop sign was allowed, but the question was how high. He would put up a rooftop sign. It would not be with his baby and it would not be the size he wanted, but he would conform to the 35 foot. It would be 75 feet long, but it would put his name in front of the public and it would give him the 35 foot height limitation. He did not think it would look attractive and he would continue on appeal to get the original one. Robert Koonce, 27500 Old Itlghway 80, Guatay, said he was a disinterested third party. He said there were two things that made that building pretty. The building won the award in 1972 for being the most beautiful in Chula Vista because of the facia and the pillars. During the 15 years he had been manager there, no one had ever suggested any changes to the architecture or facia. There is no commercial building in California that wouldn't look prettier if all of the signs were taken away. If they were, it would not be a commercial building anymore. Chair Tuchscher told Mr. Altbaum he appreciated the offered compromise. In a deadlock situation, nothing positive happens. He was taking the position to allow the applicant to move quickly to the next step, he was asking staff to hurriedly bring this item to Council. Chair Tuchscher closed the public hearing. Commissioner Thomas stated that by adopting the staff recommendation, it would move it forward to the appeal process. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Thomas and Davis voting against) ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPS-96-04; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 865 STELLA STREET, COMPOSED OF A 37 FOOT 9 INCH TALL MONOPOLE SUPPORTING SIX (6) DIRECTIONAL (PANEL) ANTENNAS AND TWO RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS - Pacific Bell Mobile Services VARIANCE ZAV-96-16; REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 6 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 37 FEET 9 INCHES IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE ABOVE FACILITY PC Minutes -13- June 12, 1996 Associate Planner Miller presented the staff report and recommended approval of the special use permit and variance. He noted this area was in the southwest redevelopment area and the project would move forward to the Redevelopment Agency rather than the City Council. It was being brought before the Planning Commission rather than the Southwest Project Area Comanittee since the PAC did not have enough sitting members presently to form a quorum. Commissioner Tarantino said he thought the cellular companies ~ere going to work together to cluster their systems on a single pole. He questioned if all three major cellular companies were represented or if someone else would come in and request another pole as well. Mr. Miller stated that the GT Mobile Net and AirTouch Cellular monopoles were 1/4 to 1/2 mile to the south. It might be a possibility that there would be others. Staff usually encouraged roof-mounted antennas, but because of the situation at this particular site, staff focused on the monopole. Principal Planner Griffin stated that the clustering of antennas was kept in the conditions of the permits so that staff could analyze that and require them to be clustered if it was preferable. It is not something that is required on each company but a capability staff has with that condition in each permit. Commissioner Ray asked if going further west would diminish the area that could be covered. He questioned why the monopole on Quail Court could not be used. Mr. Miller stated that Quail Court was off of 1-805 and was designed to cover the 805 corridor. This facility was off of 1-5 and was designed to cover the 1-5 corridor. Because of FCC regulations and requirements and limitations on their signal strength and how far that signal goes, the one on Quail Court was not designed nor could it go all the way to I-5 because of FCC restrictions. Answering Commissioner Ray, Mr. Martin explained the differences between the cellular and PCS systems and their service radii. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kirk Dakan, 9610 Granite Ridge Dr., SD, stated this was the first time the City had recommended that their company install a monopole. He agreed that was the best, from a technical standpoint, and the easiest way to design a system. He felt the staff position was logical from a land use standpoint, from a visual and aesthetic standpoint. The primary viewshed they were trying to protect was the freeway. In reply to Commissioner Tarantino, Mr. Dakan stated they would be willing to share monopoles if it were necessary and City staff requested it. However, when co-locating, there would be less poles, but the poles would become more visible because of more antennas. He felt it was better to have a larger number of minor-impact facilities than a smaller number of really obvious designs. PC Minutes -14- June 12, 1996 Commissioner Thomas asked if this design was consistent with the changes that were made on "H" Street. Mr. Miller stated that the poles were fundamentally different. The pole proposed on "H" Street was a 70' tall pole with 15' tall whip antennas on top. The recommendation of the Planning Commission was' to remove those whip antennas on top. AirTouch's system requires them to have both panel and whip antennas. The system being considered did not require that. They only have the panel antennas. It was fundamentally different from the traditional cellular tower that also incorporated a dish antenna, as well as the panel and whip antennas. Commissioner Thomas asked if there would be additional dishes; if this was the maximum. Mr. Miller replied that if the applicant wanted to add anything to it, they would have to come back for a modification. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Dakan if there was any potential that PacBell would come back to the City at some point in the not-too-distant future with a master plan showing all the potential locations that might be necessary within Chula Vista. Mr. Dakan stated that could not be done because of several reasons including competition and unexpected need for coverage. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Thomas/Willett) 6-0 (Commissioner Salas absent) to accept staff's proposal. OTHER BUSINESS: ITEM 4. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION ON TELEGRAPH CANYON SHELL CARWASH (PCC-94-47 Principal Planner Griffin pointed out the options the Commission might consider in connection with this project. Commissioner Thomas stated that he had been at the property three times during the last few weeks. The primary concern was water being put on the streets. Twenty to thirty percent of the cars were not being washed. Taking that into consideration, he did not find that there was a significant amount of water on the streets to cause any particular problem. Commissioners Ray and Davis had also visited the site and concurred with Conunissioner Thomas. Conunissioner Willett had also visited and took photographs. Out of the nine cars that went through the washer, seven elected to use the blower. Of those that did not use the drier, 80% of the water had dripped off before going onto the street. He had noticed on Halecrest that there was a lot of damage on the road with the chipseal broken off. There was a severe problem with the property next door with water running down the street. Regarding the carwash, Mr. Willett PC Minutes -15- June 12, 1996 noted that a credit card system could be used to indicate whether or not the customer wished to use the carwash and/or the drier. He concurred that the wash did not have an impact on the streets. In reply to Commissioner Tarantino, Commissioner Thomas stated that he had brought the issue before the Commission because he thought there was a problem. In monitoring the program for a longer period of time and finding that 20% to 30% of the cars do not use the drier, and he saw only one car which dripped water on the road, he did not feel there was a problem. Commissioner Ray stated that the photographs showed there was a significant amount of traffic on Halecrest next to that facility. He asked if that was from the carwash and the runoff or if it was a poorly designed street. Mr. Griffin did not feel the carwash had been in operation long enough to cause that much damage. It was likely there was damage beforehand. Staff would let the Public Works Department know about it. Commissioner Ray stated that Mr. Thomas, in previous discussion, had felt the dots and the drain would be enough to knock off 80% of the water. He thought that was taking care of the problem. Commissioner Thomas felt the drier had been significant in the deliberation, but now, after the fact, the problem is not there. Chair Tuchscher stated that these types of facilities were coming before the Planning Commission on a regular basis, and standards of acceptability were being put in place. Since this was on the Planning Commission agenda, he wanted to take whatever had been learned from the operations of this carwash and apply it to the next application. Deputy City Attorney Googins offered an alternative which was to direct staff to do nothing at this time in light of the fact that the Planning Commission had found there had been no problem being created by the fact that the blow drier isn't required to be turned on at any time. This was slightly different from staff's recommendation no. 1. MSC (Thomas/Ray) 6-0 (Commissioner Salas absent) to direct staff to do nothing at this time since it was found that no problem was found. ITEM 5. REVIEW OF SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES REPORT FOR FY 1995-1996 Assistant Planning Director Lee asked that the Commissioners review the Summary of Activities and make any comments and/or recommendations that they might wish to pass on to Council. Commissioner Davis noted that bullet #4 under "Highlights of Activities" stated there was no federal legislation on adult care limits, and it may need to be re-worded. PC Minutes -16- June 12, 1996 Commissioner Tarantino, under "Comments and Recommendation," would like to see that the Council did not cut the Conferences and Meetings budget each year. It is a learning experience, and he did not feel the Council should be taking out the opportunity to go to conferences. Chair Tuchscher asked to be advised when the Council would be considering Boards and Commissions budgets. He had drafted a letter to the Mayor regarding their budgetary concern, because the Commission had been pared down by 35 % over the last three years. The last two years had directly affected the travel and education budget which he thought was an important issue for the long-term wellbeing of the City. He would go before the Council and reiterate that. He felt the Summary of Activities should include that concern. Next year only two people would be able to go to the California League of Cities Conference, and there would be no other money. Commissioner Thomas commented on the late Planning Commission meetings. He had drafted a letter to the Chair and he had responded. His intent was not to set time limits for the Commission but to indicate that when there were late sessions, it may be good that they all had the freedom to say they need to adjourn the meeting and postpone something until the next meeting. Chair Tuchscher stated that he had responded to Mr. Thomas that it was appropriate for a Planning Commissioner to ask for an adjournment. From his perspective, he would then leave it to the Commission to either go on or adjourn, or for an individual Commissioner to leave. Commissioner Ray asked if the Commissioners would get a response on items 1 and 2 of the comments and recommendations. Mr. Lee replied that it needed to be folded into the work program. Staff was working on the mailing list. The issue of the acreage for CPF sites was a longer-range program which would require more work on staff's part. Staff was asking Council to fold it into the departmental work program. Non-revenue-producing projects get pushed to the back as new projects come in. Regarding notification, Mr. Lee thought staff may be back before the Commission and Council in the next several months. Chair Tuchscher asked the Commission to give the Summary of Activities some thought and contact Mr. Lee before the end of the week if they had any additional comments or thoughts. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Regarding the Otay Ranch matrix summary of Council actions, Mr. Lee noted that the Council retained the phasing program that was requested by the applicant which would allow them to develop in both Village 1 and 5. The access road off of Telegraph Road, which was proposed as a temporary access road, would be included as part of the phasing program. The graphics depicted in front of the Council showed the road on a more permanent basis so far as the landscaping, etc. He complimented Baldwin on the bridge and access into the Telegraph Canyon PC Minutes -17- June 12, 1996 Estates. Regarding the gated issue, Council took a straw vote of 3-2 to not allow gates in this project; however, they had deferred final action until the tentative map. Mr. Lee stated that action on the tentative map is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration in July. Discussion ensued regarding Council's actions on various items listed on the matrix. Regarding the Planning Commission calendar, Mr. Lee noted that the Planning Comanission had committed to a special meeting with the City Council on June 25 at 6:00 p.m. for consideration of the Otay Ranch development agreements. He asked that the workshop for June 19 be cancelled since they would have meetings on June 25 and 26. They would then go back to their normal work schedule for July, August, and September. Commissioner Tarantino noted that he would not be available for the Planning Commission workshop on July 17. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that the next agenda would include an item regarding election of officers for Fiscal Year 1996-97. He asked the Commissioners to give some thought to that. Commissioner Ray stated that he had taken a second job, did not feel he would be the appropriate candidate to be Chair and did not wish to be considered. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Ray asked that the Chair write a brief memorandum to the City Council relative to the phasing program regarding their concerns regarding item G1 on page 5 of the matrix. Mr. Lee noted that the item had already been before the Council who had taken final action. Chair Tuchscher stated that although directed to do so, the Otay Ranch staff had not sent him the packet and did not invite him to the meeting so he could have it on his calendar. The Planning Commission had made a motion to have him represent the Commission at that meeting. MS (Ray/Davis) that the Chair draft a letter strongly voicing the concerns of the Commissioners about the representation of the Commission's votes and what their direction was relative to the Otay Ranch staff and their presentation to the City Council as to the intent of the Planning Commission's votes. Chair Tuchscher added that he would be happy to draft that letter, and wished to add his disappointment of not receiving the packet and not being advised so that he could represent the Commission in full; and that the Otay Ranch should be folded back into the normal planning process and that the Otay Ranch team as it exists today should not be treated separately. The maker of the motion and the second concurred. VOTE: 6-0 PC Minutes -18- June 12, 1996 Commissioner Thomas asked to receive a copy of the letter. Chair Tuchscher agreed to do so. MS (Ray/Davis) 6-0 that the Chair draft a letter to Supervisor Cox wishing their condolences regarding the death of his mother. ADJOURNMENT at 10:30 p.m. to the Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council on June 25, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. and thence to the Regular Business Meeting .of June 26, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. I~an~y R~ley, Secret]ry Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc642.min)