No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/06/26 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 26, 1996 Chairman Barker 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 Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Tricia Ashby, Planning Secretary; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner;, Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, carried 2-0-1-2 (Tolstoy absent; Barker, Lumpp abstain) to approve the minutes of May 8, 1996. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carded 3-0-1-1 (Tolstoy absent, Melcher abstain) to approve the minutes of May 29, 1996. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 8587 - PHILLIPS - A request to delete a condition of approval requiring the improvement of a local trail between Parcels I and 2 and along the south boundary of Parcel 2 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located on Rancho Street, east of Mayberry Avenue - APN: 1074-291-11 and 12. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker asked who was in attendance at the Trails Committee Meeting. Dan James answered that Dan Coleman was there. Chairman Barker then asked if there was any representation from the Alta Loma Riding Club. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded that he ardved after the item was concluded and Commissioner Lumpp and Bruce Ann Hahn attended. Chairman Barker requested that in the future, the names of attending Trails Committee Members be included in any staff reports which include recommendations by the Committee. He observed that different members represent different users of the trails. He opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, and Chairman Barker closed the headng. He requested clarification regarding trail access on adjacent parcels. Mr. James explained that there are no trails on the adjacent parcels and there would be no trail on this parcel either. Chairman Barker asked whether the lots fulfill all of the other requirements for equestrian. Mr. Coleman replied affirmatively. Commission McNiel asked if this is the last lot to be developed. Mr. James confirmed that it is. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution modifying conditions of approval for Parcel Map 8587. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: LUMP, MELCHER, MCNIEL NOES: BARKER ABSENT: TOLSTOY -carried Chairman Barker stated he did not think deletion of the trail easement is in keeping with the original intent of establishing a trail system. B. VARIANCI~ 96-08 - ROBERT B. LAGNESS - A request to vary the rear lot height, rear lot building coverage, and guest house size regulations of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Development Code to allow for the construction of a combination residential garage and guest house of 3,231 square feet, 26 feet high, 7 % feet from the side property line, and 5 feet from the rear property line in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at 13355 Victoria Street - APN: 227-141-52. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and photographs of the property. Robert Lagness, 13755 Victoda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, applicant, gave a detailed presentation of his project, the property's history, and the upgrades he has completed, including photographs. He observed that the staff report indicates the guest house exceeds the maximum 640 square feet because the entire 1,408 square foot second floor is considered the guest house. He said that each room has a designated purpose, with one being a recreation room and another a storage room. He stated that the sitting room, guest room, and bath total 406 square feet and he felt only that amount should be considered as the guest house even though it is an open floor plan with access between all rooms. He noted the staff report indicated the structure exceeds the 30 percent coverage limit within the 25-foot rear lot area by only 73 square feet. He stated that the guest house will be adjacent to a 35-acre vacant field that is owned by Mr. Kleinman and Mr. Kleinman had informed him it is not to his advantage to develop or sell the acreage at this time because of the cost of bringing in utilities. He felt his guest house would therefore not interfere with any views from the adjacent property. He did not want to move the guest house closer to the main house because it would interfere with his view and prevailing winds into his bedroom as well as cut down on the size of his Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 26, 1996 landscaped back yard. He showed pictures of what the house and grounds looked like when he purchased it and the improvements he has made. He acknowledged he should have approached the City first to determine what could be done. He stated he had talked to most of his neighbors and none of them were opposed. Commissioner Lumpp asked about the height of the building. Mr. Lagness replied it is 25 feet high because he wants to build a garage with a 12-foot high ceiling as the lower floor in order to accommodate a recreational vehicle. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the 16-foot height restriction is only in the area within 25 feet of the rear property line. Mr. Lagness responded that was correct. He stated he could build the structure if he moves it forward on the lot but he felt it would be a waste to have 25 feet behind the building and complained he would have to tear up his lawn and sprinklers. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the Commission was then dealing with an issue of excessive height rather than an extra 73 square feet of lot coverage. Mr. Lagness conceded he could move the structure forward. Chairman Barker asked what issues would remain if the structure were moved forward out of the 25-foot area. Commissioner Lumpp asked for confirmation that the maximum size for a guest house is 640 square feet. Mr. Warren confirmed that was correct but said the building could be redesigned to separate the guest house portion. Commissioner Lumpp felt the applicant should have contacted the City before designing his plans. He asked if the building could be turned sideways and moved forward. Mr. Lagness replied he would have to move the building 15 feet forward and it would block his neighbors view and would leave him a 25-foot wasted strip behind the building. He stated that the neighbor to the west had indicated he hopes the building will be constructed because it would help to buffer him from the future freeway. Steve White, 13383 Victoria Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives on the east side. He said he had no objections to a normal size garage but he felt a 3,200 square foot building is ridiculous. He feared the building will block the sun to his pool and observed that it would be the only thing he would see from his upstairs deck which faces south. He remarked he had not known the size would be 3,200 square feet when he told Mr. Lagness he did not object. He commented that currently Mr. Lagness' back yard looks like a construction storage yard and he would prefer the fork lifts and welding trucks be in a building, but not such a large one. He stated that if the building is moved forward, it will be like it is in his back yard. Mr. Lagness commented that he was not expecting such an objection from his neighbor. He said the building would be about 44 feet from Mr, White's property line and would not block the sun from the pool. He said he did not think the building is a monster. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 26, 1996 Commissioner McNiel observed that many issues had been discussed this evening which seemed to be beyond the scope of the application. He observed the additional dwelling exceeds the standards for a guest house in several areas. Because the structure is so much larger than the 640 square foot guest house maximum, he felt the Commission almost has to view the application as a typical house being built on a vacant lot with certain setbacks and noted the application is in violation of those setbacks. He did not feel the Commission could make the necessary findings to approve the application and to do so would be granting a special privilege to the applicant. Commissioner Melcher stated he was somewhat perplexed about the argument regarding the size of the dwelling unit. He questioned if such a large building could be placed in the back yard if the height limit were observed, two separate entrances were provided, and the two separate use areas were divided by a wall which was not breached by a doorway. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, confirmed that the issue is not the number of square feet on the second floor, but rather the number of square feet in the guest quarters. He stated that there would not be a problem if the guest house were designed differently with its own access and was not laid out in a manner which ties it to the rest of the floor. He observed that the current floor plan requires using the same hallway to get to the guest area and the recreation area. Commissioner Melcher concurred that the current layout provides the capability of using the entire area as one residential unit, even though there is no kitchen. He said he was asking if thoughtful redesign to comply with the maximum height limit and to separate the uses would .allow for construction. He agreed that there is no basis for granting a variance to allow the building as presented. Commissioner Lumpp concurred with the balance of the Commissioners. He felt the applicant could make the building work in a way which would satisfy both he and his neighbor and comply within the limitations of the code. He agreed that he could not make the necessary findings. Chairman Barker commented that legally the Commission is required to make certain findings in order to approve a variance and the Commission could not make those findings in this case. He agreed that granting the variance would give special privilege to this applicant. He observed that the Commission is obliged to protect the rights of the adjoining property owners. He stated staff would be available to discuss ideas on how the applicant could build a structure that would protect the fights of the neighbors. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution denying Variance 96-08. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried Commissioner Lumpp felt the applicant could achieve his desires within the framework of the code. C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code pertaining to the addition of property maintenance standards for landscaping. Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McNiel questioned the interpretation of "substantial." Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 26, 1996 Mr. Makshanoff stated that he had discussed this item with the City Attorney's office. He felt that the term "substantial," meaning a considerable amount, was somewhat ambiguous and subjective. . He defined "substantial" as being the majority of a yard visible from the public right of way. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if this code amendment was enforceable. Mr. Makshanoff responded that the City Attorney had indicated in the affirmative. Commissioner Lumpp asked for a clarification by saying that putting in landscaping is not so much the issue, but rather maintaining what is already there so that it doesn't cause deterioration in the neighborhood and devalue property. Mr. Makshanoff concurred. He further stated that the problem has been that the code has not required landscaping to begin with so that as long as a homeowner did not let it go to weeds, they would be in compliance. Commissioner Melcher said that a homeowner doesn't have to landscape his yard, but if he does landscape it, he has to maintain it under current code. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Hyman Gibson, 6830 Mango Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he represents a group of neighbors who had been speaking to the City on behalf of this ordinance for the last six months. He went on to say that this group has been trying to encourage people to at least do something to their land to maintain property values in the neighborhood. He indicated that one of the neighbors in their area has a tendency not to care for their property and that the group of neighbors he was representing had gotten together and offered their help, which was refused. He further stated that when they turned to the City, they were told there was nothing that could be done. Mr. Gibson and the neighbors he represents feel that the proposed amendment would help them to help the neighbors and perhaps "poke" them into compliance. He further stated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga makes a real effort to make the main streets look nice and his group would like the same effort at the neighborhood level. Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Gibson's group had worked with the City on the wording of the ordinance. Mr. Gibson responded affirmatively and said that the group he represents had petitioned and talked to other neighbors regarding their concerns. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated that this was particularly interesting to him due to the fact that a fellow employee was interested in the proposed amendment. He went on to say that she and her husband live next door to one of the situations that this ordinance is designed to combat. He disclosed that he had taken the liberty of having her look over the amendment and believes this is a step in the right direction. Commissioner Melcher stated that he will support the amendment. Commissioner Lumpp asked if he had a front yard full of green weeds, would he be in =substantial" compliance with the landscaping requirement? Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, responded that tonight's amendment would set a minimum standard to begin discussion with neighbors and Code Enforcement. He went on to say that the City is not looking for a law to put people in jail and that if it ever came to court it would be a difficult matter. He indicated that it would be used in extreme situations and would be controlled by very detailed and elaborate fads, Mr. Hanson disclosed that those issues of a "substantial" nature would Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 26, 1996 be addressed on a case-by-case basis and to do anything other than that would be to create an impossible bureaucracy. He concluded by saying that it would just become an annoyance for everyone Commissioner McNiel felt that this issue was what the California initiative process was designed for. He supported the amendment. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 96-03. AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY -called Chairman Barker requested that Mr. Makshanoff discuss the action taken at Eastwood Apartments and Creekside condominiums. Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, stated there had been a visit by a joint task force from the Police Department, County Welfare Fraud Division, Probation Department, Building and Safety Division, and City Code Enforcement to address concerns within those two developments. He felt the operation was a success and reported that some of the residents expressed appreciation for the action. He reported they found numerous violations of the Uniform Housing Code and abandoned vehicles. He felt that having the law enforcement personnel present made a major impression on the residents. Chairman Barker stated there are certain neighborhoods that are in transition or in danger of being in transition. He said some neighborhoods are getting less safe. He felt the City must be aggressive to keep neighborhoods safe and expressed gratitude that such an aggressive action was taken before the problems grew worse. He said the technique has been used in other cities. Mr. Makshanoff felt the effort was successful because of Police Department coordination. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ann Lungu, 6280 Calloway Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she was happy about the Development Code Amendment. She said she had called Code Enforcement regarding weeds at a house in her neighborhood and the weeds have now been cut and the area is getting green. She stated she works for Diamond Bar, which has a property maintenance ordinance, and she felt it helps. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Melcher stated this was his last meeting as a Planning Commissioner. He commented he could not adequately express what a privilege it has been to serve with such a fine staff and with so many fine, dedicated fellow Commissioners for the past six years. He said he was leaving because he believes that life is full of oppodunities and there are a lot of capable people in the City who deserve a shot at serving on the Commission. He indicated he also wants to do other things, including working actively for political candidates who support planning in the City, and to Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 26, 1996 become an independent, and hopefully constructive, critic of City policy so the City could expect to hear from him from time to time. Commissioner Melcher made the following comments regarding what he considered high points and low points from his time on the Commission. He said he was very gratified by the changes that have come about in the process of doing projects in the City. He felt it has become more fair and easier. He stated he was pleased to be part of the process but he would not take credit for the changes. He observed he was saddened because it has too often meant to the City Council that anything goes in the City and he had seen that more often than he cared to think. He was pleased by the way the design review process has matured so that there now can be an industrial building made of metal (BHP) and a tilt-up building can be only concrete and glass (Mission Foods). He indicated he was especially pleased that the last Design Review Committee meeting approved an extremely unusual building (CCWD headquarters building) and he hoped it will be as fairly treated by the full Commission. He said he was most satisfied that so many members of the staff elected to take Planning's professional examination while he was a Commissioner and each person who attempted it was successful in becoming an AICP and he hoped the remaining two staff members would do so in the future. He stated there is one nagging thing left hanging over the Commission's head which was there when he came and is still there, a big hole in the ground in Terra Vista called La Mission Park. He felt that Lewis Homes has stalled the City regarding the construction of La Mission Park for six years and he hoped they do not do not get another six years. Chairman Barker asked if Commissioner Melcher would be willing to come back for presentation of a Resolution of Commendation. Commissioner Melcher said he would be willing to do so. Chairman Barker said he would reserve his praise for Commissioner Melcher until that time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0 (Tolstoy absent), to adjourn. 8:21 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Dan Coleman Acting Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 26, 1996