Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/06/27 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 14, 2000 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Secretary; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner; Sal Salazar, Associate Planner; Alan Warren, Associate Planner; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, Debra Meier, Contract Planner; Laura Bonaccorsi, Associate Park Planner. ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner suggested that Items B and C should be heard together as well as Items G, H, I, and J. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, carried 4-0-0-1 (Macias abstain), to approve the minutes of May 24, 2000. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF NON-VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR SAV-ON'S NEW DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, V171, located at the southeast corner of Town Center Drive and Haven Avenue — APN: 1077-422-06. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-26. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-02—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—The addition of Section 17.20.060—Hillside Overlay District, to Development Code Chapter 17.20, and revisions to Section 17.24.020, in order to implement the addition of a Hillside Overlay District on the Zoning Map. Related file: Development District Amendment 00-02. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-02 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — The addition of a Hillside Overlay District to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Map in order to geographically define the Hillside area, as defined in Development Code Chapter 17.24. Related file: Development Code Amendment 00-02. Debra Meier presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel commented that he believes this amendment will make development in the Hillside areas easier to manage. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, but hearing no comments or questions, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart reported that they had discussed the issue in Design Review and agreed that this change makes sense. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias,to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 00-02 and Development District Amendment 00-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to update local street trees to current approved species, update street tree figures for main streets to reflect appropriate spacing and successful species, and revise references within the Specific Plan for size. (Continued from May 10,2000) Laura Bonaccorsi, Associate Park Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel observed the matter was continued from May 10 and the public hearing remained open. Hearing no comments, he closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 00-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 14, 2000 E. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 16026 - AMETHYST ESTATES L.P. -A request to modify a condition of approval regarding a Community Trail along Amethyst Street for previously approved Tentative Tract Map 16026, a residential subdivision of 18 single family lots on 11.3 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District(0-2 dwelling units per acre), located west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View Street- APN: 1061-401-03. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report stated that additional correspondence was received from a group of residents on the east side of Amethyst Street. The residents are: Gareth and Jane Ruddle, 5333 Amethyst; Harold and Gloria Miller, 5313 Amethyst; Patty New and Brian Demolpied, 5377 Amethyst; James and Sylvia Foran, 5353 Amethyst; Carole and Duane Bliss,5423 Amethyst; and Julie Miller, 5433 Amethyst, Rancho Cucamonga. The letter cited their concems about horse and rider safety, tree roots breaking up the side walk on the west side of Amethyst, a lack of maintenance to the existing trail on the west side of Amethyst between Valley View and Hillside Road, traffic control, the removal of existing landscaping in front of five homes, and the impacts to five residents as opposed to the benefit to one resident. The letter also expressed their perception of comments attributed to Dan Coleman at a meeting held on April 4, 2000. Mr. Zeledon noted that the residents had been sent a response letter addressing their concerns. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, reported that he had new information regarding the progress of the Demens Trail. He indicated that bids for the construction of the trail fencing are to begin on June 15, 2000, and that it is anticipated that construction will actually begin in July. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chip Foran, 5353 Amethyst Street, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to the letter noted by Mr. Zeledon, and pointed out that moving the trail to the east side of the street affects a total of five homeowners, and would create a potential hazard to horses and riders. He commented that the proposal would require horses coming from the new tract to cross the street without protection from the traffic. Gareth Ruddle, 5333 Amethyst Street, Rancho Cucamonga noted that many homeowners pull out in reverse and might not see a horse and rider behind them or those approaching their driveways, and that the trail would affect the frontage properties of the homes on the east side of Amethyst and does not affect the homes if the original proposal is used. Brad Buller, City Planner, clarified for the Commissioners that the proposal before them is a modification to a condition of the Tract Map approval. He added that the installation of the trail is no longer a priority and that the developer is asking for a deferral to install off-site improvements for the trail at this time, but that the trail would remain on the map on the west side until money is available to actually build the trail, and then the issue could be raised again if there is still a need to do so. Chairman McNiel explained to the residents that they, in effect, are not impacted by the trail at this time, and that when they are ready for the trail to be built, all the residents will be notified so that the issue can be raised and that a new public hearing will be held at that time. Michael Vaughn, 9493 Valley View Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he is the president of the Alta Loma Riding Club, and that he is not opposed to the proposal because with the opening of the Demens Trail, the issue of traffic along Amethyst will be relieved and the location of the section of the trail along Amethyst can be decided at a later time. Commissioner Tolstoy pointed out that the City has had trails in front of homes before,that this is not a new idea, and he reminded them of the Deer Creek project and that in that tract, the trail follows along the front of the homes and also traverses two streets. Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 14, 2000 Commissioner Stewart commented that the issue before them is only the modification of the condition requiring the developer to build the extension of the trail along Amethyst. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, to adopt the resolution of approval modifying the condition for the trail extension. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15398-KEYSTONE INVESTMENTS, LLC - A request to subdivide 2.1 acres into three parcels in the Very-Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, west of Beryl Street - APN: 1062-121-24 and 1062-051-02. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Melcher, P.O. Box 1085 White Oak Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is appearing on behalf of the applicant, Greg Cames from Keystone Investments. He reported that he felt the Trails Committee had dealt with the concems in an impressive way and that he concurred with the proposal to record a deed restriction,which will prohibit the keeping of horses on the three parcels in question. Mr. Melcher noted that he felt several of the conditions shown in the standard conditions do not apply to their project and asked that they be struck, specifically, on pages F-40 and F-41 of the package, under"G"—Street Improvements, and a, c, d and e, "I"—h, Street names; and under "H"— Public Maintenance Areas, for the reason of non-applicability. Jeri Weirich, 5830 Buckthom, Rancho Cucamonga stated she owns two-1/2 acre lots to the southeast of the project, (Parcel 1062-1212-6000) and that because of a lack of access, will be "landlocked." She reported that she had lost an interested buyer for the property because he had received information from his real estate agent as well as the City that, access improvements would have to be paid for by the buyer. She also reported that it was her understanding that if a project creates a lack of access to another properly, that it is the responsibility of the developing party to put in access so that no parcel is landlocked. Mrs. Weirich asked where the street would be coming into the project and if she could get access to her land from that street and where would the run-off water from the new project would be directed and if there is a law regarding landlocked property. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that when the project was reviewed,it was determined that the landlocked position of Mrs. Weirich's land was not caused by the project being considered, and that her position was actually created prior to this development, and therefore it would not be the responsibility of the developer to provide access to her property. Mrs. Weirich asked if the new portion of the project along Wilson would not be horse property. Mr. Zeledon noted that staff had determined during the review that she would be able to provide her own access to her property. He pointed out that because of her ability to provide her own access, the developer would not be required to. He added that the three homeowners on Wilson will be restricted from keeping horses on their property. Mr. James pointed out that it would not be street access, only driveways. Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 14, 2000 Mrs. Weirich stated that her understanding was that driveway access to Wilson was not allowed and that she had come to the City on previous occasions to challenge this. Mrs. Weirich stated that she understood a street would be constructed by the developer and she could subsequently get access. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that legal lots had been created prior to our current codes but the map would not change. He asserted that if she had previous access that she was using, then if she could make a case that she is landlocked and then she would have the City's obligation, not requirement, to correct the situation, but that in this case, the developer has not caused a landlocked situation and that she could seek another way to obtain access to her property either by working with the other adjacent property owners or some other way. Mrs. Weirich maintained that she should be given access to Wilson Avenue by a street or a driveway. Chairman McNiel stated that she has property that she could easily build three homes upon,and that since there is a pre-existing condition, they cannot prohibit reasonable development of someone else's property. He added that with smaller parcels, and maps that were created prior to the City's incorporation, sometimes there are no solutions that fit with the current criteria. He noted that they have had to look at the current circumstances that exist and work with it. Mrs. Weirich asserted that she understood there would be a street giving her access to her land. Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that the parcel to the east and west of the project are undeveloped and that direct access along Wilson Avenue was not allowed. He said all of the previous subdivisions have been "rear-on" access. He added that a drive easement could be authorized with a joint driveway to the landlocked parcel, but that when engineering addressed this issue, a public street did not make sense. Dan James indicated there had been no discussion about the possibility of a driveway easement to connect to the landlocked parcel. Mr. Buller asked Mr. James about the water run-off and drainage. Dan James stated the water would flow in the natural drainage course to the gully. He explained that the development above the project was required to make drainage improvements and that the resulting water flow should actually be less than the amount that flowed to the gully before. Mrs. Weirich asked if it is going to remain an open gully or if they were going to build something for the water. She asked exactly how the water would flow. Dan James explained that the water would drain to the gully toward the back yard and the site would be graded toward the gully. Mr. Buller explained that much of the water has been diverted via the new improvements made to the north of her property, and therefore the amount of water is minimized, but the water from all three lots will flow to the gully and Engineering has determined that more drainage improvements are not required. Mrs. Weirich stated that because of the location of her lots, and the driveway situation, she is now unsure if they can be developed at all and if she could ever connect to Wilson with an access easement. Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 14, 2000 Bill Delo, 5820 Buckthom, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property is in a flood zone. He asked if the minimized water flow to his property would give him the ability to have his property removed from the flood zone. Mr. Buller indicated the applicant may have an updated status of the flood zone. John Snell, 1131 West 6th Street, Suite 110, Ontario, stated he represents Concordia Homes. Mr. Snell reported that he is filing to remove Lot 28 from the flood zone, and that letters to the property owners to the south of their project have been sent inviting them to share in the expense and file along with them. He added that if there are property owners such as Mrs. Weirich and Mr. Delo that would like to be included in the filing to be removed from the flood plain, he would be happy to meet with them to expedite that. Mr. Snell also indicated that he did not foresee any problems with the construction of the trail and that it would most likely be more of a pedestrian trail as opposed to horses, as he had not seen any horses as yet. He indicated that they did not sense any urgency to buy more of the available lots at this time. He also noted that the gully area to the south of his project is a recorded drainage easement. Vic Danzo, 5810 Buckthom, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern about water flowing from his property to the gully, noting that he pays a high price for his home insurance because his home is on part of the flood zone and that he can not get flood insurance until his home is removed from the list of being part of the flood zone. Mr. Danzo asked when he could be removed from the flood zone. John Snell stated that the lots to the south of the development are not physically subject to flood; However, according to FEMA the lots are subject to flooding, and it is a complicated lengthy process to get the lots out of the flood zone, but that the neighbors could join in the filing he had mentioned before, split the appropriate fees, and that he would be happy to file the paperwork on their behalf. Vic Danzo asked for a guarantee that if he paid the fee for the filing, he would be removed from FEMA's list. Chairman McNiel stated there are no guarantees, and that the City does not know what FEMA will do. Mr. Danzo asked about the drainage on his property. Dan James stated again that the waterflow would still go the ditch as before, but that the flow would be less because of the improvements made to the north of his property. Mr. Danzo asked if there would be a driveway and a ditch. Mr. Buller referred to the map on page F-3 which indicates the properties on Buckthom will drain the same as before and the gutter will remain the same. He clarified that the developer would not be altering his property at all. Dan James clarified that it would drain at a 2:1 slope. John Snell explained that the drainage should actually be more effective because it has a greater fall. Mrs. Weirich stated that she felt things have changed in her part of the community and that proposed changes have not been properly communicated to the residents. She indicated her doubt about • getting to hers and her neighbors elfin out of the flood zone if all of the run-off would be flowing 9 properties south of the new development. She commented that she feels new developers come in and the old property owners lose. Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 14, 2000 Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Dan James clarified the conditions required of the project, noting that all will remain as shown because even though some may not apply to the project at this time, they may apply in the future. Mr. Ennis referred back to staffs recommendation to preclude horses from being kept on the three properties in question. He recommended that a specific condition be added to preclude horses from being kept on all three lots. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolution of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 15398, amending the conditions to include a prohibiting of keeping horses on Parcels 1, 2, and 3. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried The Planning Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m. and returned at 8:32 p.m. G. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 00-01 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—A proposal to add a Mixed Use zoning district with accompanying definitions, processing provisions, and development standards to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-01A, Development District Amendment 00-01, and Development Agreement 00-01. (Continued from May 24, 2000) H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-01A — NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. — A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Commercial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)to Mixed Use for 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, south of the intersection with La Grande Street and north of the intersection with Lomita Drive. The City will also consider Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternatives for the entire site — APN: 202-151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, Development District Amendment 00-01, and Development Agreement 00-01. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from May 24, 2000) I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-01 — NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. — A request to change the Development District zoning designation from General Commercial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use, and the establishment of a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), including deviation from certain development standards for the residential portion of the base district, on 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Street, south of the intersection with La Grande Street and north of the intersection with Lomita Drive. The City will also consider Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) and Office as altematives for the entire site — APN: 202-151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, General Plan Amendment 00-01A, and Development Agreement 00-01. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from May 24, 2000) J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-01 -NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. —A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Northtown Housing Development Corp. for the purpose of providing a Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 14, 2000 Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Section 27.020.040 of the Development Code) including deviation from certain development standards for 80-96 senior apartment units and one manager unit on a Mixed Use site of 3.24 acres of land located on the east side of Amethyst Avenue, south of the intersection with La Grande Street and north of the intersection with Lomita Drive — APN: 202-151-12. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-01, General Plan Amendment 00-01A, and Development District Amendment 00-01. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from May 24, 2000). Alan Warren, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the property could be used for either housing or offices but not a mix of both. Mr. Warren replied that it could be a mix but that any development would be subject to design review. Chairman McNiel asked if the developer has committed to senior housing and that there would be no offices, and if that is the case, why the option of an office use was included in the amendments. Mr. Warren replied that since mixed use is being seriously considered in other parts of the City, this flexibility would make it possible for some other use if for some reason the developer did not come through with the senior housing. He noted that there are some office and retail uses already in the old Alta Loma business area. He added that if the senior housing becomes a reality, the possibility of an office use would be a mute point. Chairman McNiel asked if in the future any offices went in with the mixed use, that they would be"in tune"with the senior housing such as doctor's offices. Mr. Warren pointed out that there is a provision in Item G, the Development Code Amendment,that requires any mixed uses to be subject to Planning Commission approval. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing on all four items. Peter Pitassi, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, assured the Planning Commission that it is Northtown Housing Development Corporation's intention to develop the senior housing project and not to build a mixed use project. He understood staffs wanting to leave in the flexibility to develop mixed use if for some reason the project did not become a reality. He asserted that Northtown is doing everything possible to make the senior project a reality. He added that it would be possible for some other applicant to come in with office uses appropriate for seniors, but that is not the intent of Northtown Housing Development Corporation. He pointed out that the Development Agreement was drafted to touch the highpoints that would normally be addressed in this type of agreement, but that they have been worded in such a way to lend flexibility as the design evolves and concepts are presented to the Commission. He added they are comfortable with the wording and look forward to the Commission's approval. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing for all four items. Commissioner Mannerino commented that professional office uses such as doctors, optometrists, tax preparers and the like could fit very well with the senior housing. Chairman McNiel concurred. Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 14, 2000 Commissioner Stewart stated that she felt the amendments provide ample opportunity for the Commission to review the design of future projects and the senior project would be a nice addition to the area. Chairman McNiel added that he has been very pleased with every project that Mr. Pitassi and Mr. Gracia have brought to the Commission and with what they have brought to the community. Motions: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 00-01, General Plan Amendment 00-01A, Development District Amendment 00-01, and Development Agreement 00-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried K. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16058 — GRIFFIN HOME BUILDING GROUP — A request to subdivide an 18.8-acre site into 92 single-family residential lots, one lot for a private park, one lot for off-site access, and seven lettered lots for internal roadways in the Low-Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located near the southwest comer of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street. APN: 210-062-31. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified on November 20, 1996. Sal Salazar, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, noting that a letter was received from Carla Florence, 9580 Meadow Street, Rancho Cucamonga, which cites her concerns for the preservation of the historical value of the Lucas Ranch Complex as well as its incorporation with the adjoining housing tract and concerns about noise, traffic, and parking. Mr. Salazar noted that the current proposal allows for parking and master planning of the site in the event the home should become a designated landmark in the future. The owner of the Lucas property indicated in a letter that he was not in support of allowing the cul-de-sac to be pushed back to the property line. The property owner stated he did not want higher noise levels from the neighboring homes in the development. Mr. Salazar acknowledged that staff understands the concerns of the owner,however, staff has asked the homeowner to view the extension and the lack of access to Archibald Avenue from a safety perspective, and that reasonable development should occur. Mr. Salazar noted that staff supports the extension of the cul-de-sac as discussed in Design Review to allow future development of the street. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bruce Strickland, Griffin Homes, 9540 Springbrook Court, Rancho Cucamonga, distributed to the Commissioners new, full color maps of the project as well as photographs depicting the 4th Street gate and the park areas and the 6th Street gate which have already been built. Mr. Strickland commented that they would like to add another park with basketball courts (1/2 courts) in the future. He added the new project is a natural extension of what they have to date. Mr. Strickland clarified that the enhanced meandering walk along Archibald Avenue would be landscaped and maintained by the association. He also asked that on page K-18, the Fire condition could be re-worded by changing the first word on Lot"F". to "If." He added that the wall along Archibald Avenue would be according to the sound requirements. Mr. Strickland then made a request to shorten the cul-de-sac so that it would not push into the Lucas Ranch Complex, stating that he felt it would be better for the neighborhood and provide more of a buffer to the development. Commissioner Stewart asked if this was a new proposal. Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 14, 2000 Chairman McNiel noted that this was the original design that had been brought to the Design Review Committee and that it would remove access from Archibald Avenue. George Assanelli, 9510 Archibald Avenue, owner of the Lucas Ranch Complex concurred with Mr. Strickland's proposal. He added that he has no intention of selling his property and that he would not want two-story homes or a road that close to his property. Chairman McNiel asked what the possibility is of the home becoming a landmark designation. Mr. Assanelli felt there was no advantage for him from a tax perspective to do that at his time and his mother did not favor that either. Carla Florence, 9580 Meadow Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had sent a letter citing her concerns about future parking and noise if the property becomes a historic landmark in the future. • She asked how the parking issue would be resolved with the limited area for parking in the cul-de- sac and that there would be"spill-over"into the neighborhood since no parking would be allowed on Archibald Avenue. Brad Buller, City Planner, pointed out the difference between this property and the "Christmas House." He explained that this property has commercial property with parking just south of the project and that for safety reasons, no parking would be allowed on Archibald or in that neighborhood, but that with an encouraged joint use, the commercial area could provide the parking needs. Ms. Florence asked if there is a reciprocal agreement with the adjacent commercial properties. Mr. Buller stated there is not. Chairman McNiel replied not yet. Ms. Florence asked if the City was planning to get such an agreement. Mr. Buller indicated that an agreement would be sought only if the property did become a Historical Landmark. Commissioner Macias stated that it is not an issue. Chairman McNiel stated that because the home is a private residence at this time and that until it is a public place to visit it is not an issue. Commissioner Macias pointed out that even if the owner applied to become a historical property, the new use and issues of parking and noise would be addressed at that time. Ms. Florence commented that the City does not plan ahead. Mr. Buller replied that the City does plan, and that it is fortunate that there is a commercial center to the south with available parking. Commissioner Mannerino pointed out that to obtain a reciprocal land use agreement for a historical designation on a property that has not been designated yet, and that further the owner says he does not want it historically designated, is not a possibility. Ms. Florence asked how one could get an agreement if the current landowner does not want to do it. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 14, 2000 Commissioner Mannerino stated the issue would have to be addressed if and when the property ever became a historical landmark which the owner says he does not want to do, and that it is un known if that will ever happen. Ms. Florence indicated that she feels the City did not realize the Christmas House would have problems with noise, parking and traffic either. She noted that the property owner does not know whether his children will want to designate the home as a landmark and that she wanted the issues and concerns on record. She also suggested that on the north side of the property there could be a greenbelt area that could be used for future parking. Chairman McNiel stated that proposal would restrict the housing adjacent to the Lucas Ranch Complex to single or two-story homes, whichever applies. Ms. Florence felt that this is the City's opportunity to plan ahead for the possibility of visitors to tour the area with parking provided. Chairman McNiel explained that the reason the cul-de-sac is being pulled in is to allow for possible future access, that it was done in Design Review so that in the future, closed access to Archibald could be avoided, noting that the applicant nor the adjacent property owner wants that access. Commissioner Tolstoy interjected that another possibility exists, if at some future time, the owner of the Lucas Ranch chose to sell his property, the commercial area to the south could be expanded. Commissioner Mannerino thought that might be a bit speculative and asked if there was some other reason Chairman McNiel felt strongly about the proposal in Design Review Chairman McNiel replied that it was a subject of discussion and that it seemed appropriate to provide for access at that point so that we could eliminate the problem with Archibald Avenue. Commissioner Mannerino noted that he felt that in the future this property could end up a historical property and further, he could not imagine Historic Preservation Commissioners allowing anything happen to it. He added that he is not offended by not having the cul-de-sac reach to the bottom of the property. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the cul-de-sac should not go to the bottom of the property and that there are other alternatives. Commissioner Macias agreed with Commissioners Tolstoy and Mannerino and that the project should be evaluated based upon its merit for now and the immediate future and anything beyond that is speculative. He added that planning for a small scale development should be realistic. Commissioner Stewart agreed. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant and staff concurred about the conditions and if clarification is needed. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer pointed out that the resolution should be changed by deleting Engineering Condition #10 on Page K-17 which discusses the cul-de-sac and that on Page K-18 under Fire Protection, #1, the word "If"should begin the sentence because that deals with the 600- foot limit for the length of a cul-de-sac. Mr. James also noted that the parkway landscaping issues will be worked out in plan check and that the entrance may or may not be like the one on 4th Street because they are to be consistent with the commercial area. Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 14, 2000 Mr. Buller asked for clarification from the Commission before taking action on the concept of the shortened cu-de-sac. Mr. Buller asked if it is the position of the Commission to not require an access easement to the property where the drive might have been placed, noting that in Design Review the goal is to allow for future options and altematives to access other than Archibald, even if it remained residential and if there was cooperation and interest to not access off of Archibald if there was an easement between the shortened cul-de-sac and the north property line, allowing for that future possibility. Mr. Strickland stated that the original plan had that option, and that they could put that in and it would be a good condition. He added that they would disclose the issue of the access easement to those property owners and that they (Griffin) would be responsible to sell that concept to the buyers. Chairman McNiel indicated that he thought that option would be a reasonable compromise. Mr. Buller indicated a drive access easement to the satisfaction of the engineer should be added as a condition. Chairman McNiel confirmed with Mr. Strickland that this would not change the plotting of the houses. Mr. Strickland asserted it would not. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey modified the condition to read " An ingress and egress easement of a minimum width of 26 feet or such width as required by the Fire Department shall be required from the southern end of the shortened cul-de-sac to the north property line of the property known as the Lucas Ranch Complex." (Parcel No. 210-062-10). Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy explained that although he feels Griffin has done an excellent job with their development, he was casting a"no"vote because he feels people are subjected to a lower quality of life if they are living on Archibald Avenue, a very busy and important street, and that there should be a better buffer between the industrial area across the street and the residential area. He added that since there are few retail/commercial centers in the immediate neighborhood,the residents will"leak" over to Ontario to shop. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map 16058 with the modified condition and added condition regarding ingress and egress easement to Archibald Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried L. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-00-03- MCALAN'S PUB AND GRILLE—A request to modify a previously approved restaurant and bar to permit serving of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor patio area in the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Haven Village Center, located at 6321 Haven Avenue (formerly Willie & Pies Pizza) — APN: 201-271-69. 1 Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 14, 2000 Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report noting that a letter and phone call were received from the owner of Tole House Café. Ms. Wimer added that the issues noted in Mr.Towles' letter had been resolved with cooperation from the property owner and both tenants. Ms. Wimer noted that both tenants agreed to a condition which will prohibit the serving of alcohol until after 2:00 p.m. on Sundays. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mark Campero, representing McAlan's Pub and Grille at 6321 Haven Avenue stated that he had not agreed to any conditions which limits the serving of alcohol for any specified hours. He noted that he had assumed that with their original Conditional Use Permit, the use of the patio was included as it had been for the previous tenant. He added that he had a meeting with Mr. Towles earlier in the day and expressed disappointment that Mr. Towles had not raised his concerns sooner. He noted they would like to work things out. He explained that Mr. Towles asked that no alcohol be served on the patio between the hours of 11:00a.m. and 2:00p.m. and if that was agreed to, Mr. Towles would withdraw his complaint. Mr. Campero felt strongly that he should be given the same consideration as Willie and Pies as a start up business. He asserted that he could not in good conscience agree to Mr. Towles' condition and that he is requesting"equal footing and access"to the use of the patio. Commissioner Stewart asked if any agreement has been reached. Mr. Campero stated no agreement had been reached. Ms. Wimer indicated that she had been in contact with the landlord earlier in the day, and it was he who stated in his letter that both tenants had agreed to the conditions and faxed the subsequent letter to her. Commissioner Stewart asked the applicant if he had seen the letter. Mr. Campero stated he had not. Commissioner Macias asked what restrictions Willie and Pies had for alcohol service. Ms. Wimer indicated her belief that Willie and Pies served only beer and wine on the patio and since the fence was added at a later time and is under 3 feet high and no permit was required. Mike Towles, 6331 Haven Avenue, stated he is the owner of the Tole House Cafe. He noted that this is an opportunity to change the existing use permit, regardless as to Willie and Pies previous use. He explained that on Sundays his business is family oriented environment with a large church crowd. He commented that he does not want beer, wine, or any alcohol served on the patio between the opening time of McAlan's and 2:00 p.m. since the Tole House is only open for breakfast and lunch and closes at 2:00 p.m. He acknowledged the expense and time it takes to open a new business. He asked that the limitation only apply to service on the patio, not inside their restaurant. He added that the patio area is a common space used by both tenants. Chairman McNiel asked for the patio area square footage. Mr. Towles indicated that the square footage for each tenant is approximately the same for both tenants, about 377 square feet. Chairman McNiel asked if it is partitioned and if there is separation. Mr. Towles stated that the McAlan's portion is partitioned with a fence and gate. He explained it is separation but not a separation to foul language and smoke. Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 14, 2000 Commissioner Macias asked if there was access to television on the patio or if McAlan's would have television only on the inside of the restaurant. Mr. Towles stated that television would only be available indoors. Commissioner Macias asked Mr.Towles if that his concem was about the drinking customers,and if there was a sporting event, would they be inside, watching the television or is his real concern is about the spillover of customers to the patio. Mr. Towles stated that his concem is about the drinking customers on the patio on Sundays,whether or not there is a sporting event. He asserted that it is his busiest day and that he does not have a problem with their serving alcohol or the liquor license, it is Sunday that is the problem. Ms. Stewart asked if he was amenable to the use of a more enhanced separation between the two patio areas other than wrought iron. Mr. Towles indicated that was a possibility, but that he did not want the cost incurred by himself, the Campero or the landlord. He felt that refraining from serving alcohol on the patio for 3 hours on Sunday is a reasonable compromise. Chairman McNiel asked if this was a problem when Willie and Pies had been there. Mr. Towles replied that it was in the beginning, but then their business died down tremendously,and so at the end it was not much of a problem. Brad Buller, City Planner, interjected that a Conditional Use Permit application requires the consent of the owner/landlord, and the letter received indicates the conditions the landlord is consenting to and it indicates there is a mutual agreement. Mr. Buller continued and suggested that if the Commission wanted more time to look at the issues they could make a motion to continue the item, but that nothing other than what the owner has agreed to can be acted upon. Mr. Buller stated that the only action that could be taken would be continuance of the item until clarification could be gained from the owner or adoption of the conditions as stipulated by the owner. Commissioner Mannerino indicated he was in favor of the application, but that he was concerned about the letter which really does not indicate the owners approval. Mr. Buller replied that it is not just the letter that is the issue, but the fact that the formal application requires the owner of the property to consent to the application and therefore, continuation would be appropriate until clarification can be gained from the owner who is not present and in the mean time, the tenants can negotiate and try to reach an agreement. Motion Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino to continue the item to the meeting on July 28, 2000. AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-06 — CABOT — The development of two industrial buildings in two phases, consisting of a 254,494 square foot building to be constructed during Phase I and a 61,598 square foot building to be constructed Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 14, 2000 during Phase II on 17.73 acres of land in General Industrial District(Subarea 8)of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and 1-15—APN: 229-021-29 and 57. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Douglass Fenn, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Darrell Butler, 3685 Main Street, Suite 220, Riverside, stated he represents Cabot Industrial Trust. He indicated they feel ready to proceed and had no questions. Hearing no comments or questions, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart stated that every project submitted by this applicant has been high quality and that Design Review Committee has only had to ask for minor changes. She expressed her appreciation for their excellent work. Chairman McNiel echoed her praises of the project and their consistent, excellent work. Motion: Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to approve the project by adoption of the resolution with conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Chuck Buquet of Charles Joseph Associates, 1681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission and thanked them for their positive comments about the project. He reminded the Commissioners that he has filed a Master Plan application for the south side of sixth street between Haven Avenue and the Channel. COMMISSION BUSINESS N. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report Brad Buller, City Planner gave the report noting that Staff is reviewing the Design Element and that the Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Report has been filed with the State Clearing House and that discussions are taking place with the consultants for traffic analysis. He added that Alan Warren,Associate Planner, has contacted most of the property owners that are in the areas that will experience designated land use changes. Mr. Buller noted that progress is being made and that the Planning Commission and the public will be informed soon as to the start up of the Update Taskforce workshops. Planning Commission Minutes 15 June 14, 2000 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, sett Br Iler I S-cretary 1 Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 14, 2000