No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/11/08 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS:, PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Louis LeBlanc, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the amended minutes of October 11, 2006. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of October 25, 2006. R f f M1 k CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF PECAN AVENUE EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY(V-209)—TOLL BROTHERS—A request to vacate a 66-foot wide excess portion of Pecan Avenue located north of Vista Street and South of Tract 16279. Motion: • Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-00068 - RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB, INC. -A request to modify the conditions of approval for utility undergrounding for a new clubhouse totaling 35,176 square feet on 120 acres of land in the Open Space District, located at 8358 Red Hill Country Club Drive-APN: 0207-101-03, 23, and 35. Related Files: Variance DRC2005-00527, Lot Line Adjustment LLA#601 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00486. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the item and referred to the exhibit shown on page B-10 of the agenda packet. He said the current conditions require the removal of one pole and undergrounding of 315 feet of utilities regardless of the Commission action this evening. He said with that requirement, a powerpole near the midpoint of the 315 foot stretch would still remain along with an offsite powerpole located to the east of the site. He reported that the applicant is asking the Commission to reconsider the condition because the surrounding neighborhood is fully developed and therefore they would have to absorb the entire cost of the undergrounding with no opportunity for the costs to be shared, which was the original intent of the policy of fees paid towards a "fair- share." He added that the request is for Engineering Condition 1-f be deleted from their requirements, or the Commission could deny the request and the original conditions would stand as is. He said the leaning poles slated to remain would be relocated during the street widening project and would be placed in a more erect position. Commissioner Munoz asked for clarification as to what would happen if the Commission does or does not move forward on the request. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, clarified and stated that if the Commission does not accept the deletion then the Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial that could be brought back on the next agenda. Chairman Stewart clarified that the net result is that only one pole will be removed and the applicants have already paid fees towards the undergrounding improvements. Mr. James confirmed that Red Hill Country Club already paid for a share in the removal of poles to the south east of the club and they were ok with that (near the Sycamore Inn property). He remarked that the requirement as it is shown now would be at their sole cost. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, stated that when the item originally came to the Planning Commission,they determined that they wanted to see all of the poles underground. He said that in working with Edison and the utility consultant they realized that many years ago undergrounding was never considered. He remarked that there was no contest with providing the undergrounding on the lower section of the project. He noted that the golf course does not have the rights to the easement to put the poles underground in the upper section of the project. He said one pole would still remain and they plan to take the service underground from that pole up to the club house. He said because of logistics, costs, and feasibility, the applicant has made the request. He added that the leaning pole that cannot be permanently removed would be uprighted when it is relocated. Edward McKuen, 8396 Red Hill Country Club Drive, stated he lives across from the country club and he has looked at the wires for 31 years. He said he was told these poles would be taken down and he is disappointed and that he wants to see them undergrounded. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 8, 2006 Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing and commented that this problem was created in part by Edison. She noted that Edison would not be allowed to remove one of the poles. She asked if the leaning poles will be moved and if the landscaping will be cleaned up. Mr. Buquet remarked that Edison has no legal authority to take these lines underground (that are located to the north in the neighborhood) but that everything they do have control over would be undergrounded. He confirmed the remaining pole would be relocated, straightened,and the rest will go underground. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that when there is an opportunity to underground utilities, it is a good idea. He remarked that the visual clutter of poles and power lines is noticeable and that he would like to see them all go underground. He commented that this particular situation is unique because the rest of the area is fully developed and they may never have the opportunity to underground the poles there. He added that the full burden of the expense would be on the applicant. He said he believes the request is justified. Commissioner Munoz concurred and said that this appears to be the best we can do for this situation and for the lack of easements. He agreed we should underground whenever possible, but in this case there does not seem to be an alternative. Commission McPhail agreed with her colleagues. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to approve the request to adopt Resolution 06-100, modifying the undergrounding requirements as presented (4-0-1 Macias absent). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried • R 4 4 4 • C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18033 - WEINBERGER - A request to subdivide 9.9 acres of land into 13 lots in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street and east of East Avenue - APN: 0225-191-09 and 17. Related file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2006- 00309. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 25, 2006 MEETING. Lou LeBlanc, Assistant Planner, orally updated the Commission on the status of the project. He noted that a new resolution was placed before the Commissioners and the applicant had indicated to him that he would accept the conditions shown in the resolution. Commissioner Munoz asked for a recap of what is happening with the project. Mr. LeBlanc stated that Engineering has revised their conditions because the project will be phased and since that was different from the original request, that was the main reason for the continuance. Chairman Stewart noted the public hearing from the October 25, 2006 meeting was still open and that the applicant was present. Robert Weinberger, 1407 High Bluff Drive, Newport Beach,stated he had just received and read the resolution but that he is looking for both an option of phasing the project and for doing one final map Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 8, 2006 • recordation. He said there is access to the west from East Avenue where cul-de-sac X Street could be developed immediately, however on the east side off of Y Street, development is contingent upon Tract 17651. He said he had to consider whether he should wait for Tava to develop their tract or go ahead and construct on what he can today. He noted that the resolution indicates proposed phasing conditions and that is not what he requested. He said he was requesting the option to phase or not to phase. He said he would accept what was written in the original resolution from 2 weeks ago for not phasing with the option of what is shown in the resolution here but would not accept the way the conditions are written now. He said he wants the option to develop today or not and then allow another developer to put in the required street improvements. Chairman Stewart asked for staff to clear some of the confusion on the project. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the conditions presented 2 weeks ago were written without phasing options. He noted they also did not give an option on the drainage issues. He said the current conditions show an option for Phase 1 and Phase 2 and do not preclude him from recording both phases at the same time but he thought there might need to be a clarification on one of the conditions regarding some fees if he chose to not phase the project. Commissioner Munoz asked for the attorney to clarify where we are with the resolution before them. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, said that it would be appropriate to continue the item to allow Engineering to work with the applicant towards conditions so that if he wants to record one final map what those conditions would be and that if he does not want to do that and record two final maps then what those conditions would be so that whichever direction he takes,the conditions will follow. He indicated that it might not be feasible to re-draft the resolution here during the meeting without • making some errors. He said this resolution is clear in that it indicates the recording of a Phase 1 and then a Phase 2. He commented that this is new information just received tonight as to changing the request and therefore should be addressed correctly and be carefully handled and then brought back at a future time for action. Commissioner Munoz encouraged the Commission to take that option and added that negotiating conditions at the meeting would not be advisable. Chairman Stewart concurred and commented that the Commission is not really prepared to negotiate or act upon the item because they have not seen these conditions before and they really do not know what the resolution contains, therefore, the applicant must come back with the item when everything has been worked out. Mr. Weinberger then asked the attorney to comment on a hypothetical situation. He asked if he accepts the conditions as shown, and if he sells the land to a developer and they choose not to record a final map, but a separate map, would they still be obligated to adhere to these conditions. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, said that if the resolution is approved and he sells the property, then they are not obligated to file any final map for any portion of it but if they sell individual lots,then they must file and record a final map prior to selling them in conformance to the tentative map and the tentative map conditions. Mr. Weinberger indicated they are not looking to sell them individually, but to develop them collectively. Mr. Ennis confirmed that if they want to develop it with houses on the proposed lots,then they need to have recorded the map on the proposed lots. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 8, 2006 Chairman Stewart suggested that they continue the item and re-notice it for a future undetermined date in the future. She said that staff will help the applicant find an appropriate date to come back to the Commission for action on the project. James Troyer, Planning Director added that staff can not react to all these contingencies at the meeting nor is it appropriate. Mr. Weinberger stated he was not sure he could commit to either meeting on December 13 or December 27. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher,to continue Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18033 to an unspecified date. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None • R R R k • ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Troyer, AIC Secretary Approved: December 13, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 8, 2006