Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1995/11/29 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Cbambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, November 29, 1995 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Ray, Commissioners Davis, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas and Willett COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Tuchscher STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Acting Senior Planner Hernandez, Senior Civil Engineer Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Moore MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Willett/Thomas) 6-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher because of conflict of interest - EastLake projects. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair Ray led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Willett/Davis) 6-0 (Chair Tuchscher excused) to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1995. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Vice Chair Ray reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- November 29, 1995 ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-94-24; APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY THE INSTALLATION OF A THREE FT. HIGH 16 FT. WIDE GATE AT LACOSTA AVENUE BETWEEN THE EASTLAKE GREENS NEIGHBORHOODS KNOWN AS MASTERS COLLECTION AND BRISTOLWOOD - B-EDC17 L.P. c/o Brehm Investment Inc. Assistant Planning Director Lee presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission support the Design Review Commission in denial of the request. He noted that Brehm contended that it was a private street and without the gate, there would be certain maintenance and liability issues that could develop between the two associations. Staff had received a petition from 34 homeowners in the Masters Collection subdivision who were within a close proximity to the proposed gate area, who were citing concerns over emergency access and delays with emergency vehicles getting through the area, removal of the landscaping to provide for the torn-around, the creation of two long cul-de-sacs in excess of 2,000 feet, and the awkwardness of the "T" torn-around. Mr. Lee explained traffic circulation which would be affected by the gate installation. Regarding maintenance and liability issues, staff had not been convinced there were any real arguments. Staff felt other solutions needed to be explored if there was concern about traffic going through the area. Staff supported the Design Review Committee in their recommendation to deny the request. Commissioner Salas, referencing the required length of the cul-de-sac not being over 500 feet, asked if the 1,200 feet would be a significant consideration in making their decision. Mr. Lee stated the intent of the original project was that it be a through street. Having a cul-de- sac of that length was several times the normal cul-de-sac length of the City. He noted there were opportunities within the project to physically turn around which may not be available in a typical subdivision with cul-de-sacs only at the terminus of the design. Mr. Lee stated that the reason for the 500 foot cul-de-sac was typically for fire and safety. In this case, the fire and safety personnel could physically get through the area with the use of a Knox box. Commissioner Willett had observed traffic from the south and from the west in the evening and the very early morning. He did not see a great amount of traffic. He did not agree with the cul-de-sac. He had looked at the lot configuration and what would happen to the open space, and the hammerhead turnaround. Commissioner Willett supported staff's report. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Scott Sandstrom representing the Brehm Communities, the applicant, gave the history of the project. He said it was understood the gate was a feasible option and that the gate option was open for later consideration. Mr. Sandstrom stated that conditions 10 and 11 of the original approval stated there was an intent that the gate would be reconsidered. Brehm never filed an appeal thinking they had an opportunity during the course of staff meetings to examine designs for which to make the turnaround acceptable to the Fire Department and to other services. The PC Minutes -3- November 29, 1995 Fire Departmem had approved the design of the gate. The DRC and staff could not address the legal implications. Nancy Scull of Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps had clearly in written form presented many arguments as to why there was clear litigation and legal implications on having two open private roads abut without physical separation. Mr. Sandstrom said there was an issue of invitation and not a matter of open access. The School District was not planning on running buses through the subdivision with or without a gate. MTDB thought any subdivision should be open. The Police Department has a Knox box which is used throughout the City in subdivisions in gated communities. Regarding the cul-de-sac, Mr. Sandstrom stated their subdivision was 1935 feet with four opportunities to make U-turns within a 45 foot radius. The hammerheads proposed were for the last ten homes. He felt the two communities had distinct personalities. The majority of the opposing residents were the people who wanted to traverse through Bristolwood unobstructed. Mr. Sandstrom said this was a private road, and the people traveling through were trespassing. He felt Bristolwood would take an unacceptable and higher ratio of the traffic flow. Because of that the Bristolwood HOA would bear an undue burden of maintenance and liability of Masters Collection coming onto their property. He believed there was not a reciprocal load or maintenance or wear. Regarding open space and landscaping, they would be taking some of the open space and landscaping, but had made commitments to relocate the mature trees. Mr. Sandstrom said them were legal implications that had not been understood or considered; there was positive feedback for the gate from the Board of Directors of the HOA from Masters Collection. Legal opinion had been provided that the Board had the rights to grant the necessary modifications to the open space. He said Brehm adamantly felt that the project needed the gate, and in the absence of the gate there was litigation and possible legal implications that they would have to consider, depending on the action of the Planning Commission. Gina Henke, 2496 La Costa Ave., CV, representing her mother, Darlene Dusseault, read a letter from Mrs. Dusseault. Mrs. Dusseault felt that even though the Fire Department would have a key, the police, ambulance services, border patrol, and Westec Security would not. School buses were not able to access the full length of the street; Laidlaw trash services were required to drive around from one side of La Costa Avenue to the other rather than go straight through; City maps would not show that the street was gated, resulting in numerous instances of confusion and inconvenience for delivery services. She was also concerned about removal of trees and grass which provide the only park-like area on their street. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the gate. Ms. Henke did not understand how property could be taken from their side of the gate, if the gate had to go in. Anita Lewis, 2498 La Costa Ave., CV, who lived one unit from the proposed gate, felt it was a matter of safety and the fact that the maps would not reflect that the gate was there. It would be wasted time for emergency vehicles. She has an asthmatic son, and there were a number of heart patients in the area, and it could have an effect on the time the emergency vehicles took PC Minutes -4- November 29, 1995 to get to them. She felt if there was a liability, it would be on their side since residents of the Masters Collection would be going to their swimming pool. She would not have bought in that neighborhood if she thought that would be a cul-de-sac. The gate stops no one but a car. The border patrol would not likely come through there; the police would not routinely patrol it; delivery people and other services already go there looking for people on the other side of the gate. Even with a key to the Knox box, it still presented a matter of safety. She was opposed to the gate. They didn't move there thinking they would lose their greenbelt nor the safety factor. Iva Butler, 2505 La Costa Ave., CV, lived five units from the proposed gate. She was in opposition of the gate; felt it would cause a lot of confusion; she has asthma and a heart condition and was also concerned about delays in obtaining medical service. There is a child who lives across the street who has polio and is in a body cast. This child would need special school bus pickup, so buses would have to get down there. Taking out the trees and installing blacktop would be an eyesore and would decrease the property value of the people who live within view of the gate. Her main concern was in loss of time in obtaining emergency help. Commissioner Tarantino asked if Ms. Lewis or Ms. Butler had noticed which entrance the delivery trucks use. Ms. Butler replied that they generally came down from Torrey Pines down to La Costa, then have difficulty turning around at the temporary gate to get back out. She was also concerned that even if the gates were painted and marked "no parking" there would be parking in front of the gate. There was presently limited parking on the Masters side. Emergency vehicles may have a key to unlock the Knox box, but then would not be able to get through the parked cars. Commissioner Davis addressing the applicant stated that the applicant had mentioned liability as one of his concerns. She asked if in the future he was going to come back and look at a gate at the other end of the community. Mr. Sandstrom replied that they were not considering that. Commissioner Davis stated that the liability was in the middle and not at the both ends. Mr. Sandstrom said their liability was from the cross-lot easement issue and the lack of maintenance agreements between the two private communities that abut that have free flowing cross traffic without proper easements, dedications, maintenance agreements, and rights of entry. Commissioner Tarantino asked if the legal opinion was in the Commission packet. Mr. Sandstrom stated that it had been provided to City staff. Commissioner Tarantino stated the DRC minutes cited the legal opinion. Mr. Sandstrom also stated that cul-de-sac versus through streets garnered higher property value appraisals. Commissioner Willett asked if the legal opinion pertained only to private streets. Mr. Sandstrom answered affirmatively. He stated that gating a private community was commonly done in the City. PC Minutes -5- November 29, 1995 Mrs. Lewis returned to the podium to state that neither the Brehm nor Masters communities were gate guarded. If they were, she could understand the division. Anyone could gain public access. The only thing the gate did was to put in a barrier to obstruct traffic. There could be more legal implications if the border patrol, police, or fire could not come through. A Knox box would take up valuable time. Jack Dusseault, 2496 La Costa Ave., CV, lived directly next to the greenbelt. He said this was not a cul-de-sac; it was a dead end. Sixty-eight percent of the residents on the street to the cul-de-sac barrier were opposed to the gate. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salas, regarding confusion by delivery trucks, etc., asked if the Thomas Guide indicated barriers or small gates. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that he was not aware of any indication. Signs could be placed at the beginning of a street indicating that it is not a through street which might be helpful. With the temporary gate, it was extremely awkward; the "T" turn-arounds being proposed would help a number of the vehicles in turning around, but it was not staff's preference. He pointed out some of the furore attractors both east and west. Vice Chair Ray asked if there had been any comment from the Police Department relative to what a 3' high gate would do in the event of a pursuit of some sort. Mr. Lee said they would have to stop and physically open the gate in order to get through. It would be more of a detriment through a normal patrol. From a police perspective, through streets would offer a better method of patrol. Commissioner Thomas said with maps he had from the City and knowing exactly where he was going, he had a hard time finding the location. He could see how deliveries would be a nightmare. He felt that with the long cul-de-sac, it would really cut down on the patrol by the Police Department. He disagreed with the applicant regarding the aesthetic value. He felt a cul- de-sac made with gates would cut down on the aesthetic value. He would support staff's proposal. Commissioner Salas stated that if she was a homeowner either in Bristolwood or Masters Collection, she would want her options to remain open in terms of which way she would access the major streets. The community had a legitimate argument in raising the safety issue. She had visited the site and couldn't see where it made sense where they were proposing to put the gate and where the liability would stop. There was open space and easements on both sides of the gate where people, if they had the intent to go into either neighborhood, could very easily do so. She said she did not believe in breaking up a community, and there did not seem to be any compelling reason to have the gate. She supported staff's recommendation to deny the request for the gate. MSC (Salas/Tarantino) 6-0 (Chair Tuchscher excused) to support staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. PC Minutes -6- November 29, 1995 ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: DRC-95-44; APPEAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION TO A PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW INCREASED HEIGHT FOR AN EXISTING POLE SIGN LOCATED AT 4450 OTAY VALLEY ROAD - Holiday Inn Express Commissioner Willett asked to be excused, since he is the father of the individual representing the applicant. Assistant Planning Director Lee presented the staff report, noting that a height increase to 50 feet had been approved in 1990 to allow for continued freeway visibility. The present proposal is to increase the height of the sign because of the growth in the trees near the freeway which obstruct visibility of the sign. The Design Review Committee denied the request, believing that raising the sign again was not a good long-term solution. The trees would continue to grow. The sign height requested was more than double that allowed by the City ordinance. CalTrans had provided their generic signs both north and south of the interchange which identified the area as having food and lodging available. Staff supported the Design Review Commission decision. Mr. Lee believed the approved MCA amphitheater east of 1-805 and other activities planned to the east, and the increase in traffic and activity would give greater exposure to the business, regardless of whether or not the sign was visible from the freeway. Mr. Lee stated the sign was visible from the freeway but not until the off-ramps are passed. He noted there were a number of businesses along the freeway which do not have specific freeway exposure. Staff had contacted CalTrans regarding the potential of trimming the trees and was told it was not within their policy. Staff did not support the increase in height. Several of the Commissioners were concerned about the height of the signs near the Palm Avenue exit, the billboards along I-5, and other signs in the area. Commissioner Salas asked about the auto park sign. Mr. Lee stated that the proposal was being reviewed by the Community Development Department. They were going to meet with the auto dealerships. Mr. Lee suspected that because of the problems with the one dealership, it wasn't being pursued at the moment. Commissioner Salas asked if other businesses would be able to use it for their advertisements, such as the Holiday Inn. Mr. Lee felt it would be very difficult. Other businesses on the east side of the freeway had expressed an interest; it was doubtful that someone on the west side would be able to use it. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Cheryl Cox, Cox & Associates, 647 Windsor Circle, Chula Vista, representing the Holiday Inn, spoke in favor of the increase in height. Using overheads, she showed the design of the sign, and pointed out the lack of visibility from the freeway because of the Eucalyptus trees and PC Minutes -7- November 29, 1995 because the Holiday Inn sat down in a gully. The applicant had rehabilitated the property and had hung the Holiday Inn sign which cost them $100,000, but for the month of August collected $12,000 in transient occupancy tax, or approximately $150,000 per year. The property owner had investigated other options which might be available, none of which were viable. Ms. Cox had investigated the ambient light which some of the nearby residents felt might be a problem and did not believe it to be a problem. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the additional height. Commissioner Salas asked Ms. Cox the maximum height to which the trees would grow. Ms. Cox answered between 90 and 100 feet, which would mean that with a 75 foot sign, in five to seven years the sign could again be clouded by trees. At that point, CalTrans could decide that the trees because their height could become unsafe and trim them, or because of the increased activity at the amphitheater and other proposed projects, that the Holiday Inn Express would have built such a good clientele that that signage would then be complete. Steve Palina, 176 Montgomery St., Chula Vista, President of the Otay Committee, supported raising the sign, but would not support raising it again in five or 10 years. He would work with CalTrans. The members of the Otay Regional Park Plan were not happy with Eucalyptus trees because they are not indigenous to the area. When the Eucalyptus trees die within the river bottom, they would not replant them because they wanted the vegetation to be natural. Mr. Palma said the hotel was losing money, because it was hard to see. Other hotels in the area could be seen from the freeway. He was unhappy with Design Review in their justification that the hotel may come back in five years. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the request. Commissioner Salas felt the Eucalyptus trees were beautiful and added to the charm of the hotel, and hoped they would live for a long time. Replying to Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Palma stated he would not support any increase in five or 10 years, because he was going to work with CalTrans to make sure a height increase is not necessary. Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, representing the Chamber of Commeme, urged the Commission to grant the applicant an increase in the size of the sign. He felt there was a problem with signage. He believed the trees would be taken out in the future, because CalTrans would have to widen the on-ramp to two lanes to handle the traffic flow. Vice Chair Ray noted that the Chamber had previously endorsed the sign ordinances for the City of Chula Vista. He asked, aside from this being a new corridor of development, what was the motivation for the Chamber in terms of Citywide changes to the City ordinances? PC Minutes -8- November 29, 1995 Mr. Davis replied that the ordinances the Chamber supported were the ones that were on commercial streets to unify streets. Business is changing, the nature of Chula Vista is changing, and it will demand the change in signage. Vice Chair Ray asked if the Chamber would endorse overhauls Citywide to the sign ordinances. Mr. Davis stated they had not dealt with that as an issue; they were looking at the Port's presentation to the Chamber about the message boards and to the Holiday Inn Express sign to lead the way to rewriting the City's sign ordinance. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis had driven the area looking for the generic sign but had missed it. She did not feel the sign was sufficient for someone looking for a hotel to spend the night. She considered the site to be unusual in that it was so low and in the gully. She felt it had a definite disadvantage, and the fact that CalTrans would not address the issue of the trees was not the fault of the owner of the property. She favored an increase in the sign. Commissioner Thomas was torn, between the importance of the TOT tax and bending the rules because the project generated income. He had also visited the property and agreed that the property owner should not have to suffer because of CalTrans, but the City shouldn't have to bail them out. He was leaning toward making an exception and granting the increase but was afraid of setting a precedence. Commissioner Salas felt the City needed its sign ordinances, but needed think logically and have some flexibility in dealing with unique situations. She felt the hotel was clearly at a disadvantage. Ms. Salas believe Mr. Davis had brought up an important point that Chula Vista is a changing city, going from a small town to one of the most dynamic cities in California. She felt the signs of San Diego put Chula Vista at a competitive disadvantage. MS (Salas/Thomas) to approve the appeal to allow the sign increase. Vice Chair Ray commented that the Design Review Committee interpreted the book law, and he felt that was primarily their role and they could not make exceptions. It was the Planning Commission's role to make the exception and decide if it is a viable reason. VOTE: 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Willett abstained; Chair Tuchscher excused) to approve the height increase. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted staff, based on the Planning Commissioners' comments, could come back at their next meeting with the Precise Plan findings, because the findings were drafted in support of a denial. PC Minutes -9- November 29, 1995 ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-96-07; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (EASTLAKE I EXTENSION), EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA), PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WATER CONSERVATION PLAN AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN Acting Senior Planner Hernandez presented the staff report. Commissioner Salas questioned the number of dwelling units per acre. Mr. Hernandez stated that the Medium High density ranges from 11 to 18 units per acre. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Willett/Thomas) to adopt Resolution PCM-96-07 recommending that the City Council approve the proposal in accordance with the draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Vice Chair Ray noted that the usable acreage was 1.37 because of the existing water tank and acreage designated as an easement. Mr. Hernandez concurred. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the easement could potentially be used for parking; it was not entirely wasted. Mr. Hernandez had pointed out that the net usable acres complied with the City standard. Commissioner Salas stated that property currently being planned as part of the Otay Ranch project west of SR-125 may require the extension of Palomar Road to connect to EastLake Parkway between the parcels. She asked if that was being coordinated between the two developers. Mr. Lee replied that it was being coordinated and was a very significant issue because of the importance of crossing the freeway. Baldwin recognized that because of the location of the high school and the library, not having the crossing at that location would force the people on the west side of the freeway to go to Telegraph Canyon Road or Orange Avenue. Staff felt the crossing was very important and EastLake had concurred with that. VOTE: 6-0 (Chair Tuchscher excused) to approve. ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-96-02; TENTATIVESUBDIVISIONMAPFORTHE EASTLAKE GREENS UNIT 12, CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-02, INVOLVING 92 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 21.5 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HUNTE PARKWAY AND SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE - EastLake Development Company PC Minutes -10- November 29, 1995 Acting Senior Planner Hernandez gave the staff report, giving the project location and design. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MS (Willett/Davis) to adopt Resolution PCM-96-02 recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map EastLake Greens Parcel R-12, Chula Vista Tract 96-02, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Vice Chair Ray asked if the landscape design would be in accordance with the City Landscape Manual. Mr. Hernandez assured him that it would be. VOTE: 6-0 (Chair Tuchscher excused) to approve. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 5. UPDATE OF COUNCIL ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Lee stated the goals and objectives for the San Miguel parcel had been taken to the City Council. The report had been accepted by the City Council, and staff would proceed with planning of the project with the applicant. The City Council, as a body, was concerned that large lots 1-acre in size be incorporated into the project. Staff would be meeting with the applicant to review that particular aspect before proceeding on with the planning of the project. Regarding the ad hoc citizens advisory committee, Mr. Lee stated there were two missing members which the City Council needed to establish--a member at large and a member from the Bonita community. Council had instructed staff to send out a request of interest. The Council would then interview and appoint those two members. Mr. Lee reminded the Planning Commission of their meeting on December 13, and their dinner workshop on Ethics on December 20. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioners Tarantino and Willett stated they would be out of town on December 20. It was a consensus of the Planning Commissioners that the workshop be rescheduled. Commissioner Willett stated he had a call from the Bonita Highland Association, who would like to have a person who lived in the area as a member of the Ad Hoc Citizens Advisory Committee. PC Minutes -11- November 29, 1995 Mr. Lee stated someone from Bonita Highlands should contact the City Clerk for an application. The Council would be making a selection. He reported that Paul Manganelli is the project manager and could be contacted, also. ADJOURNMENT at 9:00 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of December 13, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nahcy RiI~ey, Sec~tary Planning Commission (m:\home\planning\nancy\pc95min\pcll-29.min)