No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/01/26 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 26, 2005 Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Cristine McPhail ABSENT: Pam Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Lois Schrader, Secretary; Mike Smith, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 3-0-1-1 (Macias abstain, Stewart absent), to approve the minutes of January 12, 2005. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16776-VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -A request to subdivide 19 gross acres of land into 59 lots within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN:0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related Files: Development Review DRC2004-00052, Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. B. VARIANCE DRC2004-01002-VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-A request for an increase in wall height related to 59 single-family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low- Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Development Review DRC2004-00052, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. NEW BUSINESS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00052 - VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-The review of site plan and elevations for 59 single- family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner presented the staff report. He mentioned that new information was received from the applicants this afternoon just prior to the meeting. He reported that the adjacent property owners to the west have expressed concerns that the roots of the windrow on the adjoining property would be damaged by the proposed block retaining wall with wrought iron on top. He stated the applicant proposed a change in the grading plan to eliminate the need for a retaining wall. Stephen King, 2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25, Riverside, stated he is the Executive Vice President of Van Daele Development. He said they are generally in concurrence with the conditions as proposed by staff but wished to modify some of them. He asked that the condition requiring preservation of the Blue Atlas Cedar be deleted. He explained that the property owner originally wished to take the Cedar tree to his new home but the tree was damaged about a year ago and the cost of moving the tree is prohibitive. Mr. King submitted a letter from the arborist stating the damage to the tree would shorten the tree's useful life and ability to recover from stress. Chairman Macias asked if staff had reviewed the document. Mr. Pomeroy said staff had not seen it before the meeting. Mr. King also asked that Planning Condition No. 8, be modified to allow for a lot line adjustment to remedy the building encroachment. He said the engineer on the project could discuss the revisions to the west side of the lot that would avoid disturbance to the tree line that lies to the west of the property line. He asked that the landscaping and wall conditions be modified to utilize WoodCrete, which uses posts in lieu of the continuous footing required for a block wall. Chairman Macias asked if these changes had been discussed with staff. Brad Buller, City Planner reported that the applicant met with staff earlier in the day. He suggested staff could respond after hearing the applicant's proposal. Jens Thielmann, Thielmann Engineers, 221 South Glassell Street, Orange, said the current plan shows a typical 6 foot freestanding masonry wall along the west property line. He suggested an alternative of providing a graded slope that would lower the rear portions of Lots 1-10. Because the rear of those lots are only 20-25 feet deep, he proposed shifting Street"A"7 feet to the east, which would give a flat back yard depth of at least 20 feet for those lots. He indicated they would provide a smaller graded slope from 0-4-foot high for Lots 27-31. He proposed using WoodCrete or a similar product, which would have posthole footings, thereby reducing the impact on the tree roots. Mr. Buller asked if they are planning to use the WoodCrete wall as a retaining wall. Mr. Thielmann explained that by lowering the grade and exporting some dirt,they would be at grade with the neighboring property, and for those lots where they cannot lower the grade, they would provide a 2:1 graded slope. He showed a cross-section of the proposed slope. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 26, 2005 Commissioner McNiel asked if the slope then encroaches on the backyards and their workable, useable space. Mr. Thielmann replied that it would encroach but those lots have deeper backyards and it would not interfere. Commissioner McNiel clarified that the slope would go down the back yard and back up to the house and it would basically have a V-ditch. He asked where the water would go. Mr. Thielmann said the slope would go down 4 feet and then have a 2-foot bench. He stated that with a type of a French drain, the water would infiltrate and yard drains could be placed in those lots that are affected so they drain to the street. Commissioner McNiel asked if that would occur everywhere. Mr. Thielmann said it would not. Commissioner McNiel asked if the French drains would accommodate storms like what had happened recently. Mr. Thielmann replied the infiltration area would be gravel lined and the runoff could be accommodated. Commissioner McNiel asked if that meant there would be cross-lot drainage rather than having the water getting to the street from each lot. Mr. Thielmann said they could not get the water to the street in some conditions but they would expect the water to infiltrate within the lot. Commissioner McNiel asked for confirmation that they were requesting to use a WoodCrete wall in place of the retaining wall. Mr. Thielmann responded affirmatively. Commissioner McPhail asked Mr. Thielmann if he had an example of a WoodCrete wall. She said what she has seen of this product is not very aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner McNiel noted it could be painted but said it is not a masonry wall. Mr. Thielmann explained that there are other products that are similar and there are various grades to choose from. He noted that if the Commissioners are concemed about the drainage, they could create an easement along the back of the lots and have the Homeowners'Association responsible for maintenance of the drainage system. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the appearance of the WoodCrete product is solid. Mr. Thielmann said it is precast and comes in panels that are scored to resemble wood. He noted that postholes are dug and the panels fit into slots on the posts to secure them. Commissioner McNiel noted there is an example on Vineyard Avenue South of Arrow Route. He noted it is embossed with a wood grain. Commissioner McPhail asked where the Blue Atlas Cedar is located and why they can't.grade around it. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 26, 2005 Mr. King stated that it is in the detention area and because there is so much work that needs to occur around it, they believe it should be removed. He noted it is near the back of one of the proposed lots in the detention basin. Chairman Macias asked how the tree would affect the basin. He asked if the basin could be dug,but still leave the tree in place. Mr. Thielmann said it is possible. Mr. King said it is actually on the slope of the basin and it is not impacting the construction of the current homes. Chairman Macias asked who is responsible for maintenance of the detention basin. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the developer is responsible for maintenance but the City is requesting the developer to agree to post a$10,000 bond to maintain the detention basin and that the City has no problem with leaving the tree where it is. Commissioner Fletcher observed that when the lots in the detention basin are developed, the tree will be at the back of a lot and he questioned why it could not stay where it is. Mr. Buller noted that there is a mitigation measure in the environmental study requiring that the Cedar be preserved through relocation. He noted that if that mitigation measure were deleted, the study would need to be re-circulated. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, noted that the environmental documents call for relocation for preservation in order to mitigate the effects to less than significant. He stated that preservation in place could be considered as a like mitigation measure for the tree. Mr. Buller asked for staffs thoughts on the change in grading and materials for the wall. Mr. Pomeroy noted that staff only had an opportunity to review it earlier in the day. He said there appears to be sufficient excess in the lots to allow shifting of Street"A"to accommodate the grade change. He thought the WoodCrete wall material seems durable and would allow a solid fence that is noninvasive to the eucalyptus tree line. Mr. Buller mentioned that the grading option is less than ideal and that the alternate wall being proposed is different than all the other perimeter walls proposed with this project. He added that the plans did not show the windrows on the adjacent property and that it came to staffs attention late in the process that actions on this property could affect the trees on the adjacent property. He commented that staff feels the solution is acceptable but less than ideal. Daniel Mora, 34077 Country Road,#25,Woodland, stated he is one of the property owners adjacent to the proposed development. He reported that when the developer approached them in October,he told Mr. King he was particularly concerned about the trees, the demolition of the building that straddles the property line, and the drainage. He said that during heavy rains,there is a lot of runoff in the area. He did not believe his concerns have been sufficiently addressed. He commented that he provided staff with an arborist's opinion that the trees along the western boundary of the project would not tolerate the construction of the walls, as the trees need at least a 30-foot buffer around their root zones to have a chance to survive. He noted that if the health of the trees is compromised, then they could fall, causing liability issues. He said that even with the new slope and wall plan proposed by the developer, he is concerned heavy construction vehicles in the area will damage the tree roots. He said the wall would be too close to the trees, providing only about 2 feet of drainage and the sloping grade would bury the root crown. He said he would like another arborist's opinion. He asked if the French drain would also cut into the soil, thereby cutting the tree roots. He Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 26, 2005 suggested that standing water following a rainstorm and winds could be a problem to the tall, large, historic windrow. He said he asked the developer to trim them and preserve them but they were not interested in doing that. Mr. Mora said that if the City wants to preserve the trees, there should be some compensation for the property owners. He thought the developer only appears interested in dealing with the building problem and is stonewalling them about their other concerns. He asked the Planning Commission to consider all of their concerns. He believed the Initial Study did not consider the windrow trees. Commissioner McNiel asked if they are Blue Gum Eucalyptus, their height, approximate age, and how much of the property Mr. Mora owns and his intentions for his property. Mr. Mora replied they are Blue Gums, approximately 60-70 feet tall. He said he did not know their age but they are approximately 5 feet in diameter at the base of the trunk. He reported he owns the two parcels to the west of the proposed development. He noted that his father and brothers currently live on the property and the trees are in their front yard. He added that the proposed wall is only about 20 feet from one of the residences. Commissioner McNiel asked how many trees there are. Mr. Mora responded that the arborist indicated there are 51. Commissioner McNiel commented that Blue Gums are subject to breakage and disease and they have usually been replaced with Spotted Gums because they are hardier. He asked Mr.Mora if he is open to having them replaced. Mr. Mora replied they would like to have their liability lowered but they want to conserve the windbreak and shade they provide. He said he would entertain being compensated for them. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the windrow runs the full length of the property from north to south. Mr. Mora said yes, but the windrow comes just short of Base Line Road. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the trees are healthy. Mr. Mora replied he had submitted an arborist report today that indicated the trees are relatively healthy and viable for their age. Commissioner Fletcher asked what the remedy is for the building that is encroaching the property line. Mr. Mora said the developer proposed a lot line adjustment. He indicated his family would accept that if it does not trigger the requirement to provide sidewalks or improvements on his property. Loren Fritz, 13104 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the owner of the property being developed. He said he wanted to clarify that in October they met with the Mora family and Van Daele Development offered to remove the trees. He indicated he owns a nursery and offered to replace the trees. He noted that the Mora family expressed concerns about the trees falling and being their liability. He reported that the issue of the encroaching building had been known for years and that he had told them he would not press the issue until he was ready to develop. He noted that Van Daele offered to remove the building and provide four storage containers in its place and then the Moras expressed concerns about lights from Base Line Road coming onto their property because the building wouldn't be there to block them. He said the developer offered to put in a temporary screen wall. He believed the developer has tried to cooperate. He commented the Blue Atlas Cedar tree was damaged when it was hit with a tractor about a year ago. He said he looked into relocating the tree but found it would cost about$25,000 to move with no guarantee of its viability. He stated Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 26, 2005 that the tree had never been irrigated and if it is left in the detention basin, it would probably die on its own. He said he bases this opinion on 30 years of experience in the nursery business. Mr. Mora said he is only looking for consideration of his rights. He acknowledged the developer offered to remove the trees but did not offer compensation for the loss of use of their property. He felt the developer was asking him to give up his rights to his property so the development can go forward. He commented that he does not wish to stop the development; he only wants to be compensated. He remarked that they talked to City staff about having storage containers on their property and were informed that the City would not look favorably on it. Mr. King stated they offered to not only remove the windrow but to replace the trees if the City wanted them replaced. John Mora, 13096 Base Line Road said he lives in the house next to the building that encroaches the property line. He said he had concerns about the drainage and that water comes down from the north through the old culverts. He wanted to be sure they would not be inundated by water. He commented they were working on the lot line adjustment. He added that they had not seen the arborist report until today. He asked that the City look carefully at the drainage. He said that the water that is currently draining to the northern portion of the development property does not come from his property. He noted there is a private dirt road to the north that has put a lot of dirt on Base Line Road. He said that when it rains very hard, the first lane of the street is under water. He indicated there is drainage from north of the railroad tracks that runs along the trees in conjunction with any run off from their development and their retention basin. He commented that there are ditches now where the old trucks were parked and when the storms came they filled up, overflowed, and drained down to Base Line Road. He said there is a telephone pole where their properties join. He was concerned about accidents because of plans to widen Base Line Road because that will cause an abrupt change in the course of the road. He also stated there are rocks in the median and 1cars go over them. He said the windrow protects his property from the wind, sun, and dust. Mr. Thielmann said that the drainage would significantly improve with the development. Commissioner McNiel asked if there would be any cross lot drainage. Mr. Thielmann said yes but they should see a big improvement in the drainage over what they have now. He commented that there currently are two culverts to the north,which will be intercepted and placed underground under the street and they will drain to the detention basin. He said they had also suggested the lot line adjustment to the Mora family so that could be pursued if the Moras do not want to take down the building. Deanne Jones, 13108 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is also an owner of the property adjacent to the proposed development. She expressed concerns about the engineer's theories. She noted that when Caltrans made improvements to Base Line Road and removed the large drainage ditches located along the road, Caltrans assured them that the improvements were designed to keep water off their property. She reported that Base Line Road floods every time it rains since the removal of the ditches. She noted that during one storm Mr. Fritz had to dig a trench to channel the water because it was coming down along their property line. She feared that with the new houses being higher, the water might drain toward their property instead of where it is supposed to go. Chairman Macias closed the public hearing and asked for comments from staff. Mr. Buller said that if the Commissioners were uncomfortable with what was presented tonight, he would recommend a 2-week continuance so better exhibits could be provided. He remarked that the technical aspects of how the west property line is addressed with respect to the walls and grading could be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff if the Commission felt comfortable with what Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 26, 2005 • was presented. He commented that like Commissioner McNiel, he did not favor French drains. He reported that staff does not normally favor the grading suggested by the applicant's engineer tonight. With respect to the Cedar tree, he said the Initial Study requires mitigation to relocate the tree but staff believes an option would be to retain it in its current location rather than relocating it. Chairman Macias commented that it was out of the ordinary for all of these issues to be brought to light today. Commissioner McPhail noted the condition for the Cedar tree stipulates that it be relocated.. She asked if doing anything else would necessitate re-circulation of the Initial Study. Mr. Ennis said that if the Commission finds an equal or more effective mitigation measure and includes it in the Resolution of Approval,then the study would not have to be re-circulated; but if the condition were deleted or lessened, it would require re-circulation of the environmental documents. Chairman Macias asked for confirmation that if the mitigation measure is deleted but it is replaced with a new mitigation measure that is equal or better than the one deleted, then the documents would not need to be re-circulated. Mr. Ennis confirmed that is correct. Commissioner Fletcher stated he felt uncomfortable with the proposed changes to the project and asked for staff to more thoroughly review them before the Commission makes a decision. He asked if the Moras would have civil remedies if drainage does go from the rear of the lots of the new homes to the Mora's property or if the installation of the wall kills the trees on the Mora property. He asked if such liability would extend to the City. Mr. Ennis stated the City is granted immunity to this type of liability. He added that if the property owner's actions cause damage to the adjacent property, it would be a private remedy. Commissioner Fletcher questioned the legal responsibility regarding the encroachment of the building. He asked if the adjacent property owner is required to remove it. Mr. Ennis replied that normally the City would not approve the project until the building is removed, but that we are requiring the developer to remedy the encroachment. He said the developer has three options: demolish the entire building with the consent of the owner, process a lot line adjustment, or sever the building. He stated the appropriate time to resolve the matter is prior to development. Commissioner Fletcher commented on the proposal to shift the location of Street "A." He said it appears the depth of the lots is sufficient but he is unsure as to how it affects the lower lots or the detention basin. He said he would like to see plans before approving the project. Chairman Macias commented that there are too many unresolved issues and said he would like a continuance to allow staff time to thoroughly review the proposed changes. Commissioner McNiel said that he does not believe the project is approvable because of the "floating" grading plan being presented and the currently unresolved tree issues. He believed the developer and neighboring property owners need to resolve the issues. Commissioner McPhail concurred and said she felt ill prepared to take action with all of the information presented at this late time. She commented that she wants to see the issues addressed; trees, drains, the Blue Atlas Cedar, and then she wants all the parties to come back with solutions. She was concemed about the quality of the proposed fencing and also concerned about the drains Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 26, 2005 and "v" ditch. She agreed that property owners would want to fill in the area. She agreed they should continue the item. Mr. Buller commented that he heard the Commissioners express concerns relating to the west property line and the Cedar tree. He asked if the Commissioners had any other issues with the rest of the project. Commissioner McNiel noted there were also concerns about water getting onto Base Line Road. No other concerns were raised by the Planning Commission. Mr. Buller recommended a two-week continuance and said it could then be continued again if necessary. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher to reopen the public hearing and continue Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Variance DRC2004-01002, and Development Review DRC2004-00052 to February 9, 2005. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried D. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00404- HOGLE-IRELAND, INC.-A request to construct a commercial building of 8,350 square feet for a retail use, a dental office, and a restaurant in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Street-APN: 0229-011-84. Related Files: Development Review Modification DR99- 11, Development Review Modification DRCDR99-11MOD, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15630. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999, and June 28, 2000, respectively, and a Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2002. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declarations. Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Carter Ewing, 301 Shipyard Way, Newport Beach, said he is the applicant. He thanked staff for their assistance during the process and said he agreed with the conditions of approval as presented by staff. Commissioner McNiel asked which part of the building is a restaurant. Mr. Ewing replied it is the 2,500 square feet on the western side and has a patio. He remarked that it is a Wahoo's Fish Taco restaurant and there is not a drive-thru. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher supported the project and said the elevations are consistent with the surrounding buildings. Chairman Macias concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 26, 2005 Commissioner McNiel commented that this is smaller than most of Hogle-Ireland's projects. He said he also supports the project. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolutions approving Development Review DRC2004-00404. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. USE DETERMINATION DRC2005-00002-ALL ABOUT FUN LLC-A request to determine that an indoor family entertainment center, including inflatable play equipment and games for birthdays, church and school fundraising, and corporate events, is similar to Recreation Facilities and/or Entertainment land use categories within the industrial districts. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that following the production of the agenda, the applicant notified staff that they found a better location on the south side of the same center that offers more parking. Commissioner Fletcher commented that the use description was fairly close to Commercial Recreational and he was curious as to why that was not an option. Mr. Coleman responded that Commercial Recreation is used only in the Commercial areas and the description was provided for comparison purposes. Commissioner Fletcher asked if staff would still look at parking where uses are permitted. Mr. Coleman replied affirmatively. Chairman Macias invited public comments. Charles Morrell, 5652 Moreno, Rancho Cucamonga, believed it should -be a recreational use because people are doing things. He said that by moving the facility to the south side of the center, they have 200 available parking spaces so parking should no longer be an issue. Garrett Watkins, 1948 Great Highway, San Francisco, stated he is the Director of Real Estate for "Pump it Up," a similar company that has 61 locations in the country. He remarked that he has a lease agreement ready for signature across the street in the same business park. He said if the developer is willing to allow both businesses in the same center, he believed one would not survive. Commissioner McNiel asked when he spoke with the developer. Mr. Watkins replied that he called the Planning Department and asked for an application and was told that someone else had filed that morning for the same property. He indicated he was told he could not file a Conditional Use Permit application because someone else had already filed one for the property and the Use Determination would need to be made prior to processing. He said he then Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 26, 2005 called the developer and the broker and the broker suggested he should sign a lease before this evening's meeting but his company declined to sign until a determination was made. He remarked that his company plans to open 161 inflatable businesses within the next year. Chairman Macias stated the issue before the Commission this evening was a Use Determination only. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed that was correct. Commissioner McPhail said the use sounds like fun and she supported staffs recommendation to determine the use is a Recreation Facility. Commissioner McNiel commented that the two competing businesses have a problem with the management of the business park and the leasing agent, not the City. He supported staffs recommendation on the Use Determination. Commissioner Fletcher concurred. Motion: Moved by McNiel,seconded by McPhail,to determine that the proposed use is similar to a Recreation Facility by adopting the resolution with respect to Use Determination DRC2005-00002. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:47 p.m. to a workshop. The workshop adjourned at 9:30 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, Buller V Secretary Approved: February 9, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 26, 2005