No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/02/09 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 9, 2000 Chairman McNiel 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 Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in theipledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a letter had been received from United States Fish and Wildlife Services requesting that a decision be deferred regarding Items B and H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0-1, (Tolstoy absent), to approve the minutes of January 12, 2000. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-60—CARPENTER'S TECHNOLOGY—The development of a 56,200 square foot industrial building on 4 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area specific Plan, located on the west side of Milliken Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard —APN: 229-011-031. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-63-CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES—The development of a 70,620 square foot industrial building on 4.25 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast comer of Tacoma Drive and White Oak Avenue—APN: 209-461-11. Related file: Development Review 99-62. C. VACATION OF A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT—A request to vacate a storm drain easement located northerly and on Caltrans proposed frontage road approximately 285 south of existing Highland Avenue centerline. Commissioner Mannerino asked that Item B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. • Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to adopt Items A and C of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS k D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15993—WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - A residential subdivision of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard -APN: 227-091- 21 through 24. Related File: Development Review 99-45. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-45 - WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract Map 15993, consisting of 94 single family lots on 18 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 227-091-21 through 24. Related File: Tentative Tract 15993. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that a letter of withdrawal had still not been received from the applicant. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments and he closed the hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to deny Tentative Tract 15993 and Development Review 99-45. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15963 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A residential subdivision of 13 single family lots on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and the west side of London Avenue -APN: 201-251-01. Related files: Development Review 99-42 and Tree Removal Permit 99-13. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-42 - PKT PROPERTIES LLC - A design review of 12 building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract 15963, consisting of 13 single family lots, on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street, on the east side of Archibald Avenue and on the west side of London Avenue-APN: 201-251-01. Related file: Tentative Tract 15963. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that two residents were in the audience and wished to discuss their concerns. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 9, 2000 Chairman McNiel observed that the applicant had appeared reluctant to enhance the buildings as requested by the Design Review Committee. He asked what assurance the City had that the • applicant would do as the City desires. Commissioner Stewart concurred with Chairman McNiel's concerns. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he understood the Commission's concerns and he suggested they ask the applicant for assurance they are willing to comply with conditions. Chairman McNiel indicated the Design Review Committee and the applicant could not reach agreement. Commissioner Macias asked why the item was before the Commission. Chairman McNiel responded that the applicant requested that the matter be forwarded to the full Commission. He opened the public hearing. Bill Kimble, 15838 Aurora Crest Drive, Whittier, indicated he is one of the developers and owners. He stated they had some thinking to do because they had six to seven months of upgrading and new requirements were added each time they met. He stated they reviewed the conditions and agreed to accept them. Commissioner Macias asked that Mr. Kimble review the conditions on a point-by-point basis and indicate if they are in agreement. Mr. Kimble agreed to all conditions and said they were proud of their buildings. Commissioner Macias asked Mr. Kimble if he had ever built in Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Kimble responded that he had not but they had received awards in other communities. Chairman McNiel indicated that Rancho Cucamonga prides itself on being a step above. Commissioner Stewart said she was still concerned because the items that Mr. Kimble had just agreed to were the same items that he was asked to agree to at the Design Review Committee meeting. She stressed that the City is looking for enhancements, not what has already been done. Mr. Kimble said he was willing to sign a letter of agreement if necessary and that his word was good. Commissioner Macias asked why he had not agreed to the items at the Design Review stage. He was concerned that if the Commission approved the project, staff would be pressured because the Planning Commission would be out of the picture. Commissioner Mannerino felt that if staff feels it is not successful in getting compliance with the conditions, the matter could be referred back to the Commission. Mr. Buller noted that if the applicant fails to meet the conditions, staff would not sign off on building permits. He said staff felt the project has reached the point where it will work. He suggested the Commission may wish to add a condition that the project be referred back to the Design Review Committee if staff feels there is not compliance with the conditions. Commissioner Mannerino agreed that would be acceptable and noted that the Committee could refer the matter back to the full Commission if necessary. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 9, 2000 Laura Hope, stated she lives just south of the project. She indicated they built their home four years ago adjacent to a vacant lot. She asked that their current wood fence be replaced with a block wall now that the adjacent property will be developed because her bedroom windows face the development. Chairman McNiel asked if the wood fence in located on her property. Ms. Hope confirmed that it is. She said she had indicated her concerns at the first meeting. She noted they are across the street from the development and that the road is now seldom used but will be turned into a street. She expressed appreciation that the homes will be single story. Chairman McNiel asked if her house is part of a tract. Ms. Hope replied that it was custom built. Commissioner Macias asked why she thought the developer should build a wall on her property. Ms. Hope replied that there is currently only an access road which is used by one other parcel but it will now be a street with 13 homes taking access from it. She said they are concerned about headlights and noise. Commissioner Macias indicated he thought that is something that other residents have to deal with as well. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, noted that the grading plan submitted by the developer shows removal of the fence as it is in the public right of way and it will be at the current fence line. Commissioner Macias asked if she knew her fence would be removed. Ms. Hope replied that she did not. She said there had been some talk about removing some trees and widening the access road. Commissioner Macias asked if it was intended that the developer build a new fence. Mr. Kimble believed there was a mistake on the engineer's plan. He said they did not intend to remove the fence because it would not be any advantage to the new development. He said the fence could be right on the property line. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated there will be a difference in elevation from her property to the new sidewalk. He said the current wood fence could not be used as a retaining wall. Commissioner Mannerino stated the applicant would have to modify the grading plans to reflect the removal of the fence. He stated that no one who owns a house adjacent to a vacant lot should expect that the lot will not be developed. He felt that if the grading plan calls for removal of the fence, the fence should be replaced. He thought the homeowner and developer should work together to build a block wall and suggested they should share the cost. Mr. Buller noted that it is standard policy for the Planning Commission to require block walls on corner side yards adjacent to public streets. He observed the Commission commonly requires developers to construct a perimeter wall around a tract and the applicant is responsible for putting in the wall along shared property even were there is an existing fence. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney noted that if the development will have an additional impact such as additional noise, lights, etc;. it is permissible for the Commission to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 9, 2000 Commissioner Mannerino asked how many linear feet of wall would be involved. Mr. Coleman indicated it would be approximately 100 feet. He suggested modifying the standard condition to require the 6-foot decorative perimeter block wall be continued on the south side of Liberty Street if the existing wood fence is removed. John Wang, 8316 Red Oak Street, #101, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned some property to the north of the tract and had been told by the City that he could not develop his property to take access from Archibald Avenue when he submitted a Preliminary Review in 1988. He noted he lost some of the property during the recession. He asked if the policy has been changed so that the parcels he now owns could take access from Archibald Avenue. He asked if his parcel will be permitted access to Archibald Avenue when the existing house is tom down and replaced. He indicated he would like the answer on record if the City will allow such access. He stated it would be prohibitively expensive to connect to the sewer in Archibald Avenue and indicated he thought the applicant's project should be designed with two cul-de-sacs coming off London Avenue, one at the south end and the other across the north of the property being developed. He noted that would give them the ability to develop the lots to the north. He said an alternative suggested by the City was to take access from Banyan Street by purchasing access rights for a corridor through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right of way. He reported MWD wants to sell an access corridor of 120 feet by 12 feet wide with a chain link fence along either side of the corridor. He did not think that would be an attractive entrance to a home. He asked who will pay for the development of Banyan Street as this developer owns parcels between the proposed development and the MWD right of way. He said that at the first neighborhood meeting, the applicant had indicated he would process an easement through the MWD property, but by the second meeting the applicant had deleted plans to develop the parcel adjacent to Mr. Wang's. He said the applicant indicated at that time that he would give Mr. Wang an easement along the north of the property currently being developed so that he could connect utilities to London Avenue, but then backed out by saying that his engineer recommended the not sign an easement. Mr. Wang said he is also a developer but he considers adjacent properties. He asked if the City has the right to help him get an easement for access to his property. George Taunton, PKT Properties, LLC, 684 Dundee Court, Brea, stated they have had an on-going two-way conversation with Mr. Wang. He noted that he had purchased property that Mr. Wang lost during the recession. He said their first meeting with Mr. Wang took place right after they bought the property. He confirmed they had brought up the concern about the sewer at the neighborhood meeting. He stated that it would cost $160,000 to improve the street through the MWD right of way and it would be economically unfeasible to develop the street in order to develop a 1-acre parcel. He said he had offered to grant Mr. Wang a utility easement along the south property line of the remaining two parcels when they file a parcel map for that property if Mr. Wang's engineer would draw the easement; however, Mr. Wang merely sent him a grant deed to grant the easement. He said they met with MWD and it would be possible to hook up Mr. Wang's existing house to the sewer in Archibald Avenue. He noted there is a 30-foot easement across the property granted by the prior owner. He said there is a 5 foot drop if they put in a cul-de-sac where Mr. Wang suggested. He said they would also be concerned because they would have to cover the storm drain in order to place the street there. He reported they have been working with the Engineering Division on how to design the subdivision in order to make the project work. He commented it would not make economic sense for them to underground utilities and to rebuild Archibald Avenue to arterial standards in order to have two cul-de-sacs. He suggested they would be willing to work on getting the easement from MWD along with Mr. Wang. Mr. Wang said his engineer prepared an easement but PKT said their engineer recommended they not sign it. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 9, 2000 Mr. James indicated that the existing single family house along Archibald Avenue takes access from Archibald Avenue. He reported it is the goal of the City to limit access to Archibald Avenue and a master plan has been developed. He indicated that Mr. Wang owns two parcels which currently have access to Archibald Avenue and they could continue to have access to Archibald Avenue; however, any additional lots resulting from further subdivision should take access from Banyan Street. Mr. James commented on Mr. Wang's proposal for two cul-de-sacs by saying that the developer considered that layout but chose instead to drop development plans for their northern parcel. He noted that the developer owns that parcel but it is a separate parcel and the City cannot force the developer to build it at the same time as the current project. With respect to Mr. Wang's question as to who will improve Banyan Street, Mr. James said it will be tied to the development of either the applicant's property or Mr. Wang's property. As for Mr. Wang's assertion that it would be impractical to run a sewer lateral to Archibald Avenue, Mr. James conceded that it looked difficult, but said he had not run the calculations. He did not feel the City can force the applicant to grant an easement. Mr. Ennis stated that it did not seem reasonable that the City should require the developer to give up some of his property rights to benefit Mr. Wang. He said the applicant's proposal does not impact Mr. Wang's property, it is only that the applicant did not select an alternative that would be more beneficial to an off-site property owner. Chairman McNiel asked if creation of this tract map would create an unnecessarily undue hardship on any adjacent property owner. Mr. James replied that it would not and if the City required the alternate layout of two cul-de-sacs, that would create an undue hardship because that layout would require removal of an existing house to the south of this development. Chairman McNiel asked if approval of the project would result in any landlocked parcels. Mr. James said it would not. Mr. Ennis noted that creation of the subdivision would not put Mr. Wang's property in any worse condition than it now is. He noted the design does not maximize the benefit for Mr. Wang but it also does not make conditions any worse than what currently exists. Mr. Buller confirmed that approval of this subdivision would leave limited solutions for developing the adjacent parcels. Chairman McNiel said that each time any project is approved, it begins to limit adjacent opportunities. Commissioner Mannerino felt the applicant is entitled to develop the subdivision as they wish. He stated that if the grading plan requires removal of the wooden fence, then that area of grading is the perimeter of the project and the developer should construct a block wall fence in compliance with the Commission's policy. Commissioner Macias felt the wooden fence should be replaced with a block wall consistent with the balance of the project only if the project impacts the wooden fence. He did not think it should be a requirement only for aesthetic purposes. He said that if the project does not impact the wooden fence, the neighboring homeowner has the right to retain the wooden fence or build another fence. He did not believe this project would leave Mr. Wang any worse off. Commissioner Stewart agreed with Commissioners Mannerino and Macias. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 9, 2000 Chairman McNiel concurred with Commissioner Macias with respect to the wall. He noted it is a perimeter fence but it is on the opposite side of the street and there would be no fence built if there were no house there. He said that if the current wooden fence is impacted, it should be replaced with a block wall consistent with the remainder of the project. He agreed that nothing would change with respect to Mr. Wang's property. He noted the Design Review Committee recommended denial of the project and staff had worked with the applicant to get a design the City can accept. He indicated he expected that development would be above the minimum and anything less would not be acceptable. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 15963 and Development Review 99-42 with modification to require a block wall aldng the south side of Liberty Street if the existing wood fence is removed and that compliance with the conditions is to be to the satisfaction of the City Planner or the project is to be retumed to the Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried NEW BUSINESS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 99-62—CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES—The development of three industrial buildings totaling 82,376 square feet on 4.12 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Arrow Route, approximately 300 feet east of White Oak Avenue —APN: 209-461-02 and 209-471-03. Related file: Development Review 99-63. Chairman McNiel noted that staff was recommending that Items B and H be continued to March 8, 2000, to allow the applicant to address concerns raised by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. • Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to continued Development Review 99-63 and Development Review 99-62 to March 8, 2000. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. • COMMISSION BUSINESS I. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that staff was in the process of reviewing elements as they are drafted. He indicated that staff hoped to have a task force meeting in late February or March. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 9, 2000 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0 (Tolstoy absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, B dam. erV S- - ary Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 9, 2000