Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/02/10- Workshop Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjoumed Meeting February 10, 1999 Chairman McNiel called the Adjoumed Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:25 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannedno, Larry McNiel, Para Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner;, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 99-01 - MIGHTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. - A request for confirmation of the grading concept for the previously approved Tentative Tract 13674, consisting of 18 lots on 11.29 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Amethyst Street, north of Valley View Ddve- APN: 1061-401-03. Brad Bullet, City Planner, opened the meeting by introducing the project to the Commission and briefly explaining the purpose and goals of the pre-application review process. John Wang, representative for Mighty Development inc., explained that Tentative Tract Map NO. 13674 expired in May of 1993, a few months before the State Legislature passed the law that granted a three-year automatic extension. He indicated that their intention is to now resubmit the Tentative Tract Map and he requested comments from the Commission on the appropriate direction to take. He went on to explain that the previously approved grading plan was designed to accommodate drainage from north of the tract to the south. He introduced a revised south gate entrance concept based on City Engineering Department Standards. Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Planner, summarized comments regarding the grading and site plans. He pointed out that even though the project was approved prior to the adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance, it still meets the intent of the ordinance. He explained to the Commission that mass grading is often defined as the movement of large quantities of earth over a large area and the disruption of the natural topography of the land; however, in order to meet the intent of the Hillside Ordinance, mass grading was proposed in order to reconstruct the natural slopes of land to properly accommodate drainage and street layouts. He said that split level foundations were also proposed in order to minimize alterations of the natural land form. He suggested the Commission may want to discuss the proposed use of cross-lot drainage and explained that the previously approved map was approved prior to the adoption of Resolution No. 92-17, which limits cross-lot drainage to flow from one lot to another only. He pointed out that Lots 16 through18 all drain through Lot 15 and Lots 9 through 11 drain through Lot 8. He said that because of the downward slopes on Lots 9 through 11, cross-lot drainage was really the only acceptable - approach because the only other alternative would be to create steep slopes with high retaining walls to direct the drainage flow directly north to the street. He explained that this would require intensive grading, which would disrupt the natural slope of the land. Chairman McNiel asked what the existing grade of the site is. Mr. Zeledon indicated that the grade is approximately 12 percent. Chairman McNiel thought that cross-lot drainage is a "recipe for disaster." He supported the grading plan but thought that the proposed cross-lot drainage plan should be reconsidered. He agreed that the cross-lot drainage through Lots 9 through 11 on the south portion of the property could be considered but felt the cross-lot drainage on Lots 16 through 18 could be addressed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt cross-lot drainage creates maintenance problems. He suggested the applicant rethink the use of cross-lot drainage, especially on Lots 15 through 18. He asked how the drainage flow on Amethyst Street would be addressed. Mr. Buller responded it was unknown at this time but it would be carefully addressed when the project is resubmitted. Commissioner Mannerino voiced his concerns about the maintenance problems associated with cross-lot drainage. He agreed with the previous Commissioners that the use of cross-lot drainage for this project should be reconsidered, especially for Lots 15 to 19.. Mr. Buller summarized the Commissioner's comments. He stated that the Commission appeared to be in agreement that, with the exception of some of the cross-lot features, the proposed grading plan would be acceptable. He also stated that the Commission would like staff and the applicant to revisit the cross-lot drainage on Lots 15 through 19 but accepted the use cross-lot drainage on the southern Lots 8 through 11. He said the Commission determined that other grading conflicts may result from modifying the drainage concepts for Lots 8 to 11 that would not be consistent with the development to the south. Chairman McNiel concurred with Mr. Buller's summary. Mr. Buller commented that staff would work with the applicant in an attempt to resolve the cross-lot drainage issues. OLD BUSINESS B. THE VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY VICTORIA LAKES) - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO. - An overview of the proposed land use and development concepts for Victoria Arbors within the Victoria Community Plan on approximately 291.8 acres of land, generally bounded by Base Line Road, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, and the Day Creek Channel - APN: 227-201-04, 13 through 18, 22, 28 through 30, and 36; 222-201-33; 227-181-33, 35, 36, and 38; and 227-171-08, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, and 23. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- February 10, 1999 Bred Buller, City Planner, explained that the purpose of the workshop was for discussion only and not for decision making. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented a recap from the January 27 meeting and noted that each of the Commissioners were given copies of the minutes of the public hearings for the development of the Victoda Community Plan. She also gave an overview of the six concepts of the Design Chan'ette. Chairman McNiel opened the meeting for comments. Commissioner Mannerlno stated the six concepts all have similar charecteristics but he particularly liked the concepts from Teams 2 and 3. He questioned whether it is appropriate to have concepts that go beyond the winery boundary. Mr. Buller replied that concepts could go beyond the winery boundary. Commissioner Macias stated that his major concern is the compatibility of surrounding land use with the winery site. He questioned whether the Commission was being asked to advise the Redevelopment Agency on the compatible land use for the winery. Mr. Bullet replied affirmatively. He stated that the winery could be treated as the "jewel" or the focal point within the proposed Arbors project where land uses around it should be complimentary. John Morrisette, Amedcan Beauty Development Co., requested direction from the Commission so that he could plan the buffering around the winery. Commissioner Macias responded that the winery should be the central focus of the proposed project and that the EIR must address its histodc significance and the potential adverse impacts . from the adjacent land uses. Commissioner Stewart commented that she would like the preservation of the winery site because of its histodc significance. She went on to say that the school and the park sites should not relate to the winery, a mixed use zoning should be planned around the winery and beyond the site's boundary, and the site should have an entrence from Day Creek Boulevard to enhance tourism. She believed that senior apartments and garden types of commercial development with arbors and trellises would go well with the winery site. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the winery needs to be preserved. He commented that land uses planned around the winery should compliment the site and that having Day Creek Boulevard exposure would enhance the viability of the winery. Chairman McNiel agreed with the comments from the Commissioners and that the winery is a ~jewel." He remarked that histodc sites such as the Thomas Winery have lost the identity and the essence of historic significance because the grepevines and structures pertinent to winery facilities were taken out. Commissioner Macias agreed that the integrity and the identity of a winery facility must be maintained to create a drew to the site. Jim Frost, Etiwanda resident, stated that the City started a Task Force with the goal of reviewing the current General Plan and bdnging it to the next millennium. He added that the Commission PC Adjourned Minutes -3- February 10, 1999 should look at the project site as a clean slate and take advantage of reviewing it as such when planning the appropriate land uses. Mr. Buller summarized that the Commission's direction was to preserve the winery as the focal feature and to plan complimentary land uses around it. Mr. Morrisette asked the Commission whether they would consider single family development if proper buffering were provided. Mr. Buller asked the Commission to discuss the buffering issues with respect to the Regional Center and the loss of open space/lakes (Subarea 1) and the proposed residential development west of Day Creek Boulevard (Subarea 2) and west of Etiwanda Avenue (Subarea 3). The consensus of the Commission was to provide a strong buffer against the Regional Center. The Commission also stated that the loss of the lakes would mean the loss of view corridor which would need to be mitigated. The consensus of the Commissioners was that they do not support residential development south of Church Street and that there is not enough information for review to support converting commercial and office zoned land to residential development. Mr. Buller asked the Commission to discuss the wetland issue. The consensus of the Commission was not to keep the wetland. The Commission directed staff to obtain more information from the Army Corps of Engineer with regards to the long term responsibility and maintenance of the wetland. Mr. Buller commented that the next workshop topics of discussion would be the buffering issues with the winery and the Regional Center and the fiscal issues of converting commercial and office zoned land to residential uses. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- February 10, 1999