No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/06/12 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 12, 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, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: John Melcher STAFF PRESENT: Tricia Ashby, Secretary; Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller announced that the American Planning Association would be hosting a field trip on Metrolink on Saturday, June 29. Chairman Barker presented a commendation to former Associate Planner Scott Murphy for his service to the City. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Melcher absent), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 22, 1996. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and preschool in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Variance 96-03. (Continued from May 8, 1996) B. VARIANCE 96-03 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to reduce the interior landscape setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for a church and preschool in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 94-13. (Continued from May 8, 1996) Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked what the applicant proposes in lieu of the trim surrounds on the windows. Mr. Le Count responded the stucco would come up to the metal fin of the window. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if the proposed resolution includes approval of a preschool. Mr. Le Count responded that the approval is just for the church and a separate application for a preschool will be submitted in the future. Commissioner Lumpp questioned if the phasing of improvements was requested as a result of financial concerns. Mr. Le Count confirmed that the applicant proposed that some improvements occur during the first and second year of operations to allow time for the congregation to grow. Commissioner Lumpp recalled that the applicant had indicated he had contacted neighboring property owners and he asked if staff had received any feedback from residents. Mr. Le Count replied that staff had received no comments from surrounding residents. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Max Williams, Willlares Architects, Inc., 276 North Second Avenue, Upland, stated that he represented Reverend Bumerr. Regarding the window tdm surround, he said they would like to work that out with staff along with the front entry design. He felt they could resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the church is already established and moving to this building. Mr. Williams replied that the church is currently established in Roland Heights and this is an outreach facility. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel felt something needs to be done regarding the window surrounds but said he was comfortable leaving the matter in staff's hands. He said he would not approve an untreated window. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed there needs to be some sod of embellishment around the windows and that staff and the applicant could work it out. He remarked that a lot of improvements will be needed to the public right-of-way, the building, and the properly and he felt they will be expensive. He hoped the church had thought about what would happen if the congregation expands because he did not feel there is much room for expansion, padicularly in the area of parking. Commissioner Lumpp concurred with Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy regarding the window treatment. He agreed it will be an expensive project and stated the Design Review Committee had given some relief with respect to architectural treatment. Chairman Barker stated it was refreshing to have an outreach church show this much assurance of SUCCESS. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolutions approving Conditional Use Permit 94-13 and Variance 96-03 with modification to provide window treatment to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 12, 1996 AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MELCHER - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15726 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request for a 17 lot subdivision on 4.61 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), generally located south of Lemon Avenue and west of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 201-251-28. Related File: Development Review 96-07. (Continued from May 22, 1996) D. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-07 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - Review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tentative Tract 15726 consisting of 17 single family lots in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), generally located south of Lemon Avenue and west of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 201-251-28. Related File: Tentative Tract Map 15726. (Continued from May 22, 1996) Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that he had toured the surrounding tracts and would support the resolution as presented without a requirement for side-on garages. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how many lots will require cross-lot drainage. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated there are two issues with respect to drainage. He said that Lot 15 drains southerly and will have cross-lot drainage across Lot 12. He stated it is acceptable to have a one lot drain across one other lot. He said the issue before the Grading Committee had to do with the vacant property to the west and how that will be developed and how that would achieve drainage. He indicated it was concluded that the vacant property will have a cul-de-sac off Lemon Avenue and runoff will go to a catch basin and drain into the channel to the west. He said only 2~ acres from the east side may drain to this property; therefore, this project will provide an opportunity for cross-lot drainage across Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would be necessary to avoid any cross-lot drainage. He said he prefers not to have drainage because individual lot owners may block the drainage by putting in a swimming pool or landscaping. Mr. James agreed that engineering would prefer not to have cross-lot drainage. He observed that this development has to provide for existing run-off coming from the adjacent vacant property. He felt that when the vacant property develops it will be too difficult to get the east half of the property to drain to the channel but he said staff could request that the applicant's engineer investigate the matter. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter Pitassi, AIA, Architect, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite 105, Rancho Cucamonga, introduced Andrew Wright, President of Diversified Pacific, and Ray Allard of Allard Engineering. He concurred with the conclusions of the staff report and agreed with Mr. Buller's comments with regard to side-on garages. He pointed out they had provided front porches on a number of the units and noted side-on garages would not be compatible with the development of the porches. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the porches will be large enough to be useful. Mr. Pitassi responded they will be a minimum of 8 feet by 15 feet. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 12, 1996 Ray Allard, Allard Engineering, 6101 Cherry Avenue, Fontana, stated he is the civil engineer for the project. He said they have contacted the adjacent property owner and he felt the site to the west will ultimately drain away from their property but they have made an interim allowance for the flows to drain onto this project. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned what type of structure will be provided for the drainage. Mr. Allard replied there will be a gunire swale along the back of the lot and standard side yard graded swales after it comes off the rear gunite. He said that in their experience side yard swales are not disturbed. Commissioner Tolstoy did not agree that side yard swales do not get disturbed, particularly when a wall is installed by the homeowner. Mr. Allard reported that the amount of flow is quite minor and should be on an interim basis. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Diversified owns the property to the west. Mr. Allard replied negatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what provision there will be to alert homeowners that they have cross-lot drainage. Mr. Allard responded it would be on the CC&Rs. Mr. James commented that the final map will have an easement which would be reflected in the title report. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that many homeowners would ignore such a reference on the title report. Mr. James felt that if the drainage is interrupted it would probably cause more damage on the homeowners own property because if the swale is obstructed, it would pond in his own back yard. Mr. Allard commented that the developer will be constructing the walls between units and they will leave an opening in the bottom. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen when the drainage hole is clogged with grass cuttings, leaves, or debris. Mr. Allard felt there will be over-land relief prior to a pad being inundated. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp said he would defer to the City's Engineering Division with respect to the cross-lot drainage but he recalled that the amount of runoff onto this property was very minimal. He agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that he does not like cross-lot drainage but he felt the problem will go away when the adjacent property is developed. Mr. James observed there is an existing house on the adjacent property, and that property would continue to drain onto this property unless it is redeveloped. He remarked it is not uncommon to have one-on-one cross-lot drainage. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the City could require language within escrow instructions to graphically alert homeowners to the situation. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 12, 1996 Mr. James stated that there is no requirement for the development to have CC&Rs. Mr. Buller pointed out that there have been times in the past where the Commission has conditioned tracts that a disclosure be given to buyers and that disclosure could be reviewed and approved by the City. He reported it had been done for the freeway corridor and the rock crusher. He thought something similar could be done regarding this cross-lot drainage. Chairman Barker agreed a disclosure is important. He observed that buyers do not get original plans and said he supported the disclosure so that buyers would know they have an obligation to provide for water drainage. Commissioner Lumpp felt a graphic should be included because he felt that is easier for a layperson to understand. He concurred with staffs recommendation regarding dropping the requirement for side-on garages and liked the idea of porches. Commissioner McNiel felt that if the parcel is developed as it is now designed, there will never be any drainage to the west. He suggested that consideration be given to making the side yard swales gunire from where it intersects the back gunite swale up to at least the fence separating the rear yard from the front. Commissioner Tolstoy doubted that drainage from the adjacent property wilt go to the west because of the house that already exists, so he thought this project will always have cross-lot drainage. He doubted there will be CC&Rs and he suggested that each homeowner be required to sign a disclosure document that cross-lot drainage will occur and that a concrete swale or other concrete device be required across each lot where cross-lot drainage occurs. He said he could not support the project without those requirements. Mr. James said that the conceptual grading plan has a drainage swale along the wall with a flow down into the slope and on into the open drainage easement to the street. Commissioner Tolstoy requested a gunite swale or other concrete device be stipulated. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map 15726 and Development Review 96-07 with the stipulation that a gunite swale or other concrete device be used to accommodate the cross-lot drainage and that a disclosure be provided regarding the cross-lot drainage. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MELCHER - carried E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-07 - ALTA LOMA CHRISTIAN CHURCH - A request to install 3 temporary buildings to house educational activities associated with an existing church on 4.99 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District, located at 6386 Sapphire Street - APN: 1062-332-25. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Michael Evans, Matlock Associates, Inc., 4405 East Airport Ddve, #106, Ontario, requested that they not be required to connect the existing parking lot with the proposed temporary parking lot because Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 12, 1996 of the cost of doing so. He said they do not want to overdevelop for a temporary use and the temporary parking is located where the sanctuary will eventually be located. He remarked that if they connect the two parking lots, they will have to repair that area when the sanctuary is built. He requested that they be permitted to provide a monitor to direct traffic to the appropriate driveway when it is anticipated the temporary area will be needed. He asked that the hours of operation be changed to allow usage up to 9:30 p.m. during the week. Mr. Evans asked that the undergrounding in-lieu fee be waived because the cost would exceed their project costs and he felt it is unlikely the utilities will ever be undergrounded because the property is surrounded by existing residential development. Chades Blanding, 9009 Appaloosa Courl, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a church eider and the treasurer. He said that one of the Commissioners had visited the site and pointed out a need for irrigation along Sapphire Court. He said they have repaired the sprinkler that was broken. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the temporary parking will be a hardened surface. Mr. Evans replied that it will be compacted gravel. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the church would object to a compacted gravel connection between the two parking lots. Mr. Evans responded that the area is on a slope and would need to be designed by a registered engineer which would add additional costs for the engineer, grading permits, etc. Commissioner Tolstoy thought grading would also be needed in the temporary lot. Mr. Evans replied that will not interrupt the natural sheet flow. Commissioner McNiel asked the grade separation. Mr. Evans thought it is about 4 to 5 feet and said there are also several trees in the way and he thought they may have to go further west to make the connection in order to retain the trees. Commissioner Lumpp asked if they would need to retain a Civil Engineer in order to grade the temporary parking lot. Mr. Evans thought they would be able to do that work in-house. Commissioner Lumpp recalled that a suggestion was made at the Design Review Committee meeting that the applicant look at the temporary buildings installed at Hillside Community Church and try to mirror to some degree the style of those buildings. He said he was particularly pleased with the massiveness of some of the architectural features which he did not feel these buildings incorporate. Mr. Evans replied that he felt the landscaping and the placing of two modulars end-to-end was what really worked at Hillside. He showed pictures of the Hillside modulars. He thought the modulars at Alta Loma Christian Church will be similar because there is an adjacent sidewalk and an existing landscaped area to the east. Commissioner Lumpp said he was more interested in the wooden columns and beam and asked if something to that effect could be added to give the modular more definition. Mr. Evans felt they could probably place some sort of an accent there. Commissioner Lumpp suggested the details be worked out with staff. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 12, 1996 Hugh Lansdale, 6153 Sapphire, Rancho Cucamonga, said he was originally in favor of the temporary buildings, but he is now opposed because he feared the buildings will be there for at least five years. He felt temporary should only mean six months to one year. He pointed out that the church already has a house below the church that is being used for offices and he thought they should use that building. He felt that temporary buildings never have enough lights. He thought they should take the money they will spend to put in a good foundation for the modulars and build a building which he felt could house 500 children. Henry Ford, 9200 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he worked with the architect on the project. He reported they were using the house for a chapel and the Fire Department determined it is unsuitable for that type of facility so the chapel is now being held in the classrooms. He said they want the modulars so that they will have more suitable facilities. He noted that most of the space in the modulars will be used for extra child space for the pre-school and he did not think there will be a large increase in the traffic that will be generated. Eileen Watson, 602 Flora, stated she has been the Preschool Director for two years and the growth has been tremendous. She felt the modulars will increase their ability to serve the community. Commissioner McNiel asked the current size of the congregation. Mr. Blanding replied 250 people. Antonio Lopez, 9443 Mignonette Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a church eider and has been a member since 1969. He said they do not want to have the portable buildings indefinitely as they are just a stop-gap measure until they can grow enough to build a permanent structure. He remarked they wanted to build eadier but some of their congregation lost their jobs and had to move. He said they want to develop and be a positive influence on the community. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the church has any realistic idea of when the modulars will be replaced with a permanent structure. Mr. Blanding replied they are now doing well financially. He said a mortgage company has given favorable indications because their size has more than doubled in the last seven months and they hope to move forward with the permanent building during the five-year period. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had raised the issue of landscaping. He observed the church does a nice job of keeping up the area immediately around the buildings and he hoped they will make the landscaping along Sapphire as nice as that around the buildings. He thought improving the Sapphire landscaping would help to show people that the church is active. Mr. Blanding responded that they plan to reseed the area and they will be sure it is kept up. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel agreed with the extension of hours. He observed that most churches invite visitors and he felt the two parking lots need to be linked because visitors will be attending. He recalled there have been occasions where the Commission has reduced in-lieu requirements but he did not recall every having exempted a church, only relieving a portion of the requirement. He agreed with Commissioner Lumpp regarding the additional amenities to the modulars. He remarked that temporary buildings sometimes remain beyond what one would consider temporary and priorities sometimes change; therefore, the modulars should not look like boxcars. He said the Commission has generally had a liberal attitude with respect to the time frame for churches. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred with the extension of hours. He felt the parking lots should definitely be linked. He did not think there should be too much of an increased cost and noted it will Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 12, 1996 help traffic on Sapphire. He felt the architectural enhancements would make the buildings more pleasing and the details could be worked out with staff. He said he was inclined to waive the in-lieu fee at this time and request the fee when the next permanent building is constructed. Commissioner Lumpp asked if staff objected to the expanded hours. Mr. Le Count replied that staff did not object to the increased hours of operation. Commissioner Lumpp concurred regarding linking the parking areas to avoid further impacting the neighborhood. He supported Commissioner Tolstoy's suggestion regarding the in-lieu fee and felt the requirement could be linked to the building of the sanctuary. He agreed with the applicant that there is some question as to whether the utilities will ever be undergrounded. He supported the application. Chairman Barker commented that some students attend class in the same modular buildings as their parents. He felt it is mandatory that temporary buildings be attractive and not merely screened by landscaping. He concurred with the Commissioners on the hours, parking, and enhanced design of the modulars. Mr. Buller suggested that a condition be added to require a trellis element be added to the temporary buildings subject to review and approval of the City Planner. Chairman Barker agreed with a deferral of the fees since the modulars are temporary buildings but he concurred that their fair share of fees should be paid when the next permanent building is constructed. He noted that homeowners pay a tax and he felt the tax money will be used eventually for undergrounding. Commissioner McNiel said he would support temporary deferment of the undergrounding fees. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 96-07 with modifications to extend the hours to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays, require a trellis element be added to the modular units, and defer the in-lieu undergrounding fee until the next permanent structure is constructed. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MELCHER - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:41 p.m. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED - A request to reduce the minimum and minimum average lot sizes under the Basic Development Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Related file: Tentative Tract 15711. Steve Hayes Associate Planner, presented the staff repod. He commented that the applicant had raised concerns regarding staff recommendations to increase the interior side yard setbacks to 20 feet. He said the applicant felt it will create a lack of flexibility by restricting the width of homes. He reported that staff met with the applicant today and prepared a revised development table which included revising the proposal from a 50-foot average lot width which may vary -t- 5 feet to a 50-foot Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 12, 1996 minimum lot width with a minimum of 50 percent of the lots having a minimum lot width of 55 feet. He said in turn, staff was recommending that the interior side yard setback be reduced back down to 15 feet as currently allowed. He thought that modification may help accomplish the goal of maintaining a more open streetscape appearance by requiring wider lots as opposed to more restrictive setbacks. He stated that staff was also suggesting addition of a proposed building separation of a minimum of 20 feet where two-story homes are plotted adjacent to each other. Mr. Hayes stated that at today's meeting with the applicant, staff had discussed ways to encourage the development of significant front and side yard porches and it was suggested that a provision be added to allow porches to encroach into front or side yard setbacks so long as a minimum 5-foot setback is maintained along the interior property lines. Commissioner McNiel asked if the applicant concurred with the changes staff was suggesting. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the 20-foot separation requirement between two-story buildings would apply if a garage is adjacent to a garage. Mr. Hayes replied that staff recommends a minimum of 15 feet between a one-story adjacent to another one-story or to a two-story and the separation be increased to 20 feet between a two-story adjacent to a two-story building. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that 15 feet would be consistent with the rest of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Lumpp requested a further explanation on the proposed porch encroachment provision. Mr. Buller said there was discussion regarding encouraging porches and it is proposed that porches be allowed to encroach within the required front, street side, or side yard setbacks so long as there is a minimum 5-foot setback on the side yards. He suggested a minimum front setback could also be set. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, Peter Pitassi Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite 105, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Andrew Wdght, President of Diversified Pacific Homes; and Dan Guerra, Civil Engineer; were also in the audience. He observed that tonight's discussion was regarding planning issues rather than a specific project, but he noted they have submitted a tract map which will be considered by the Planning Commission shortly. He thanked Planning staff for their support and counsel on the process. He said they have been working on it for almost a year and have met with staff, community groups, landowners, and others who have a history of being active in the Etiwanda community. He stated they are aware of the sensitivity of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the City staff and the residents in the area. He noted that for various reasons there has been little development in the area other than in Very Low residential categories north of Highland Avenue. He felt it is difficult to determine how the development standards will work on smaller lots because of the lack of development in the Medium and Low Medium categories. He observed that the portion of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which is south of the freeway is separated from the area north of the freeway by a 25-foot raised freeway and commercially odented Foothill Boulevard. He said the southern area is also bounded by the Hedtage project in Fontana, the Victoria Planned Community to the west, and the industrial area to the south. He commented that many of the parcels which are currently Low- Medium were Medium prior to an amendment in 1991. Mr. Pitassi thought that under the current plan standards, multi-family housing could be built at an approximate effective yield of up to 10 dwelling units under Medium and 7 under Low-Medium with creative design and land planning. He stated that their proposal will not increase density but will allow single family detached housing to Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 12, 1996 be developed, and the effective densities would be considerably less. He thought single family housing would be more in keeping with the surrounding area. He displayed exhibits of an example of how product could be designed using the development standards they propose along with the architectural standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He agreed that the fundamental standards should not be changed; i.e., Victorian and Craftsman architecture, porches, level of detailing, etc. He reported they hosted a community meeting on April 23, with a mailing to over 600 parcels in a 1,000-foot radius of the entire proposed overlay district. He indicated approximately 25-30 people attending the meeting and they received a lot of support. He presented a copy of a letter of support they had received form Ameron, Inc., which owns 80 acres of residentially zoned property in the area. Regarding staffs initial proposed 20-foot side yard setback, he felt that would restdct the product width to about 30 feet which was not wide enough to develop the porch concept. He commented that product is designed based upon the narrowest lot in order to maximize flexibility for marketing and plotting purposes. He said that with the revised proposal of a minimum 50-foot lot width with 50 percent of the lots to be 55 feet, the house size would be a minimum 35 feet and there will be a 20 to 25 foot separation between houses on the 55-foot wide lots. He supported the proposed 20-foot separation between two-story houses. He said the minimum 15-foot separation does not occur anywhere else in the Development Code, it is currently 5 and 10 and nothing prohibits 5 and 5; therefore, adding the minimum 15-foot separation also makes the area unique. He agreed with staffs recommendation on allowing porches to encroach into the setbacks because it encourages porches and would allow the opportunity to wrap the porch around the elevation and provides an opportunity for the porch to be more prominent. He observed that the standards established for the overlay district would apply to the entire area south of the 1-15 freeway. Commissioner McNiel asked if they had considered wide, shallow lots. Mr. Pitassi replied they did not because they looked at the standards in the Development Code which are in effect in the balance of the City. He noted that if a wide, shallow lot can be built under the Development Code standards, then it could be built here. He said they did not plan them for their property. Commissioner Lumpp questioned what type of rear yards will be generated. Mr. Pitassi indicated the minimum setback is 15 feet and it would depend on the product. He thought a one-story would probably have a 15-20 foot setback while a two-story may have 25-30 feet. Commissioner Lumpp disclosed that he met with the applicant about six months ago regarding this issue. He thought the proposed development standards are consistent with existing Development Code currently being used in the City. Mr. Pitassi confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the Etiwanda Specific Plan currently has its own development standards and he stated the Commission could apply standards in excess of what is in the Development Code. Mr. Pitassi stated they felt the Development Code standards would be a logical beginning and they were fine tuned to provide for the uniqueness of Etiwanda. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the background information submitted by the applicant indicated that it would be difficult to have at least 50 percent of the garages detached, side-on, or set behind the front pad of the dwelling because the new home market prefers the convenience and security of an attached garage. He asked if the applicant felt that goal could be met. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 12, 1996 Mr. Pitassi responded that they felt they could meet the requirement with a combination of front entry, side entry, and corner lot side entry garages but they were suggesting removal of the reference to detached garages. Chairman Barker stated the intent was to avoid a streetscape of garage doors. He felt the flexibility is there to avoid detached garages. Mr. Pitassi indicated he had recently driven through all of the projects which have been built since 1983 and 80-90 percent do not have detached garages even though they are on much wider lots. He felt they could meet the intent by turning the garages and getting creative. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the lots will be smaller. Mr. Pitassi still felt they could meet the requirement. Commissioner Lumpp asked what the City would gain by approving the amendment. Mr. Pitassi felt it is not a gain/lose situation. He thought the standards which have been in place for the last 13 years have not been tested to the full extent on smaller lots, He noted that the land use designation is higher in this area of Etiwanda and several landowners have expressed an interest in developing single family homes instead of multi-family. He said that in analyzing all of the constraints in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, single family homes are penalized. He thought it makes planning sense to revisit the plan. Commissioner Lumpp thought there is an existing approved tract adjacent to Diversified's property. Mr. Pitassi responded that there are no approved projects south of the freeway. Commissioner Tolstoy thought one of the impediments to development may be the drainage problem. He asked what plans there are for dealing with that. Mr. Pitassi responded that the drainage issue has been discussed at length in connection with the tract map they are currently processing and they are working to mitigate the issue including putting in major master planned flood control facilities. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he was talking about basins or pipes. Mr. Pitassi replied he was talking about pipes in streets. He said the basin is a part of the Etiwanda Master Plan of Flood Control Improvements until the San Savaine Channel is approved. He commented that the Federal government recently appropriated a lot of money to the Flood Control District. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the San Savaine Channel will be approved. He hoped that the developer would not ask to put in detention basins in the interim. Mr. Pitassi replied they hope not to have to use detention basins. Commissioner McNiel indicated that he had also met with Mr. Pitassi some time ago with respect to this application. Chairman Barker disclosed that he met with him approximately a year ago. Joe Deem, 14034 Foal Ross Coud, Fontana, stated that even though a housing development would pay fees to the School District, it would not guarantee that the District will build schools in a timely manner. He felt that Etiwanda High School is currently a high quality school and he saw no benefit Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 12, 1996 in increasing the housing density on the high school. He feared there would be too many students for the school and observed that high schools in Fontana and Rialto each have 4,000 students. He did not see any benefit to changing the plan. He questioned why people would speculate on land when the lot size restrictions are known. He said he did not understand why separation by the freeway would mean that property to the south should not have the same Etiwanda characteristics, such as larger lot sizes, as that to the north. He was concerned about further development. Chairman Barker commented that under the current designation, up to 14 dwelling units per acre could be built on the Medium properlies and 4-8 on Low-Medium. He said such development would be apartments, condominiums, or town houses. Mr. Hayes said that the proposed project would be slightly over 4 dwelling units per acre where the density range for their parcel is 4-8 per acre. He stated the modification to the lots sizes would allow them to develop at the lower end of the density range already in place. Chairman Barker stated that there would be no increase in density on the Low-Medium parcels and density would be reduced on the Medium parcels if the land were to be developed as single family lots. Mr. Deem suggested that the Commission may wish to discuss why the initial plan allowed so many dwelling units per acre. He also questioned why the freeway or nearby commercial development would detach that section of Etiwanda from the remainder of Etiwanda. Mark Nuaimi, 13444 Columbus Court, Fontana, stated he understood the reasoning for reducing the average lot size; however, he was concerned that there is no minimum house size. He feared that smaller houses would be built and he felt that would not be compatible with the overall product they have in the Village of Heritage even though he acknowledged that they do have some very small houses in Heritage. He suggested that a minimum dwelling unit size be included. He thought the Development Code allows a minimum size of 1,000 square feet and said he hoped larger homes would be required because he has seen what happened to the 1,000 square foot homes in Heritage. He felt the current lot size designations are preventing development and he supported the amendment if it will promote single family detached development as opposed to multi-family. Commissioner McNiel asked for Mr. Nuaimi's best estimate of the average lot size in Heritage. Mr. Nuaimi replied there are lot sizes down to around 4,000-5,000 square feet on the west side and 5,500-6,500 on the west side, excluding the town home lots. He said the proposed average and minimum lot sizes are consistent with Heritage, but not consistent with current Fontana codes for new projects, which require a minimum of 7,200 square feet or 6,200 square feet with an amenity and minimum dwelling sizes of around 1,500 square feet. He hoped a minimum 1,500 square foot dwelling unit would be required. Commissioner McNiel commented that the proposal asks that the amount of lot coverage be increased from 40 percent to 50 percent. He thought they will maximize the lot coverage as much as possible. He stated he understood Mr. Nuaimi's concerns, but he doubted if anything close to 1,000 square feet would be proposed. Aron Katsof, 15533 obeo, Studio Way, stated he is the architect for Seal Beach Business Center which owns 10 acres in the area. He said they have also determined that this is not the time or place for multi-family housing. He thought the proposed amendment will lower the overall density and will make it economically viable to develop the land with single family homes. He thought the guidelines proposed will produce better and more attractive housing than any multi-family projects that would be contemplated there. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 12, 1996 Commissioner Tolstoy said he had long thought the area should be looked at and he felt the proposal is good. He thought the schools and park land that would be needed for the change should . be considered. He-supported the amendment. Commissioner McNiel indicated it has been questionable as to how this area would be treated. He observed that it sounded like a good idea at the time the zoning was set to accommodate multi- family housing because condominiums were still being built at a fairly regular pace. He thought this is a very sound alternative. He acknowledged that the concerns raised by the Fontana residents are valid. With respect to schools, he observed that schools are governed by the State and new schools are scheduled for construction after they are impacted. He felt that did not mean the City should stop growing. He supported the amendment. Commissioner Lumpp asked for background on how the Etiwanda Specific Plan was developed and why the standards are what they are. He said he was still trying to determine any value to the City of modifying the plan. He acknowledged that the current density ranges encourage multi-family development, but stated such development is not taking place. He noted that if land is developed with single family product under the existing development standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, development would be at a rate of 1 ~ to 3 dwelling units per acre because the lot sizes are required to be much larger. He felt there should be a benefit for the City. He stated that if someone currently wants to develop single family detached homes, there would be a minimum average lot size of 10,000 square feet. He did not feel there is much threat of getting high density development based on the Low-Medium and Medium ranges, so he did not see any reason to lower the minimum average lot size to 6,000 square feet. He said he agreed with the logic of changing to a smaller lot size south of the 1-15 freeway as he thinks it is a logical boundary; however, he thought the City should gain some additional advantages. He felt the minimum lot size should perhaps be 6,000 square feet instead of the 5,000 requested with a minimum width of 55 feet. He thought staff should work with the applicant to create some shallow, wide lots and some language should be added to require that curb appeal be enhanced by sliding back a certain percentage of the garages in addition to side-on. He agreed there should be a minimum dwelling unit size and he suggested a minimum of 1,500 square feet. Chairman Barker recalled a strong disagreement regarding some of these issues at the time the Etiwanda Specific Plan was first adopted. He observed there was very little development in a large part of Rancho Cucamonga at the time. He stated that some people were strong believers that a diversity of housing types should be provided within the City and all areas were forced to provide a scope including town homes, condominiums, and various types of density. He noted that other people, including him, disagreed and felt that there should be only as many multi-family dwellings as were absolutely mandated by law. He observed that the compromise reached was that if multi- family dwellings were necessary in Etiwanda, then the minimum amount of impact would be south of the freeway, off in its own little corner. He stated that apadments create an overnight impact on schools, town houses are faidy quick, condominiums are slow, and individual houses generally have a growth which allows School Districts to catch up. He reported that at one time the City had authority to prohibit development until the School District provided a letter that it could accommodate the students that would be generated; however, the State law was changed to prohibit that. He acknowledged that the money for construction of new schools is provided by the State only after major impacts have been felt. He remarked that if high density units are constructed, the schools would be impacted much faster. He remarked it is not the objective or mission of the Planning Commission to make it economically viable for a developer to build, but rather to plan for the long term and to protect the people who live in the City. He felt the City will gain because the resulting product will be more compatible with the surrounding area and more likely to have a predictable limited density. He observed that when the initial plan was adopted, many hours were spent on developing numbers and he jokingly feared this process was moving too smoothly. He felt the change is appropriate and it is a creative approach. Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 12, 1996 Commissioner McNiel commented that when the Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted, there were two factions--large parcel owners in absenteeism and residents who lived on approximately 7,200 square foot lots in several small tracts. He indicated the residents wanted wide open space with nothing built and the absentee landowners wanted high density. He said there was also a goal to achieve a level of affordable housing mandated by the State. He said this area was chosen for multi- family because it was freeway adjacent and divided from the remainder of the area by the elevated freeway. He thought the proposed amendment is an oppodunity to move in the right direction. He observed that it seemed that every time units were built in the 1980s, the value escalated so that the project no longer fit in the affordable housing category. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City was gaining a chance for lower density plus the retention of some of the characteristics called for in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Lumpp stated the current standards call for retaining those characteristics. Commissioner McNiel felt large lot housing will not be built south of the freeway. Chairman Barker agreed and also thought that multi-family units will not fit into the Etiwanda architectural characteristics. He observed there seemed to be concurrence from the majority of the Commission that the amendment is good. He asked if any of the other Commissioners shared Commissioner Lumpp's concems regarding changing the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet and minimum lot width to 55 feet and including a minimum dwelling size. Commissioner McNiel thought it might be a good subject for a workshop. He suggested it might be best to call for innovative design to achieve 5,000 square foot lots as opposed to standard design for 6,000 square foot lots. Mr. Buller stated that he understood that the Commission had not had a lot of time to look at the "fine-tuning" revisions presented this evening, but said staff felt comfortable with the numbers presented in the staff report. He reviewed the proposed changes which staff presented on the basis of the meeting held with the applicant earlier in the day. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff felt a minimum dwelling size should be added. Mr. Buller stated that when another code is silent, the Development Code prevails and the Development Code spedties a minimum 1,000 square feet with provision to lower that number if the product is innovative. He commented that the Commission has never taken a position of requiring units to be a certain minimum size, but has focused more on neighborhood compatibility, appropriateness, and quality. He said that is reviewed during the discretionary review process. Commissioner Lumpp stated he had also brought up another item regarding the relationship of putting the garages behind the front part of the dwelling unit. Commissioner McNiel was comfodable with the existing language. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that detached garages are not viable. He was comfortable with the numbers as presented. He questioned if the Commission should think about increasing the minimum 1,000 square feet. Chairman Barker recalled that a developer had proposed a 750 square foot product and that triggered the 1,000 square foot minimum in the Development Code. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel it would be economical to build a house under 1,000 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 12, 1996 Commissioner McNiel stated there are some homes under 1,000 square feet in Victoria. He was not sure that placing a minimum size would benefit the community. He questioned if the 1,500 square foot minimum would apply to a single story house and if the garage should be excluded from the calculations. Commissioner Lumpp responded that there are 1,500 square foot homes plus a garage on 5,000 square foot lots all over the City. He said he had just suggested it off the top of his head. Chairman Barker felt there is not necessarily any logic for a change of minimum dwelling size to 1,500 square feet. He reopened the public hearing. Mr. Pitassi asked how long the 1,000 square foot minimum had been in the Code. Mr. Buller thought it was about eight years. Mr. Pitassi felt that prevailing logic at that time was that 1,000 square feet was the minimum the City was comfodable with; however he did not recall any products being built in that range over the last 10 years. He thought there are probably a few 1,200 square foot homes. He observed that in the late 1980s the thinking was to maximize square footage and homes were built in the 2,500-3,500 square foot range on 6,000 square foot lots. He felt the 1,000 square feet is a realistic bottom end that has worked in the City and he was not aware of any areas that have exhibited problems because they are at the lower end of the square footage range. He felt that changing that number for one area does not make sense and thought that market forces will dictate houses no smaller than 1,200 square feet. Commissioner McNiel asked the square footage of the in-fill products built in Nodhtown. Mr. Pitassi they ranged from 1,280 to 1,680 square feet. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel agreed with the proposed lot sizes and widths and language regarding garage placement. He said he would be comfortable with a 1,200 minimum dwelling unit size, if the 1,000 is to be changed. He remarked that wide, shallow lots are not precluded, but he doubted that many such lots would be proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy suppoded the amendment with the changes proposed by staff and did not feel the 1,000-square foot minimum needs to be changed. Chairman Barker supported the proposal as presented by staff and said he was not comfortable making a change in the status quo for the sake of making a change. He thought if the minimum should be increased above 1,000 square feet, it should be for the entire City rather than one area. Commissioner McNiel agreed that was acceptable. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 with the changes presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: LUMPP ABSENT: MELCHER - carried Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 12, 1996 Director's Repods G. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (DR) 96-01 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to determine if the proposed development located at the nodh side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm and Milliken Avenues is consistent with the Terra Vista Community Plan. Chairman Barker excused himself to eliminate any chance of a possible appearance of a conflict of interest or failure to comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the election codes. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff was looking for a concept discussion, not a specific master plan review. He pointed out that the applicant now wishes to develop a portion of the center as large box retail. He said the applicant also wanted to know what the next step for processing should be. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if fast food restaurants were included in the original zoning for the site. Ms. Fong replied that the applicant is not proposing a fast food restaurant, but rather a use to be included within the gas station. She indicated there is an example of such a use at the intersection of Highway 71 and the 1-60 Freeway. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Greg Hoxwodh, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, felt that the uses presented are very much in keeping with the odginal planning for the site. He remarked that all of the uses are permitted under the current zoning and they were only trying to clarify how they might be built under current market conditions. He did not feel that retail needs to be further defined. He presented renderings to show residential buildings in the background and how the pedestrian circulation would work and revised plans to show an increase in the stacking distance off Elm, the elimination of one driveway off Foothill Boulevard, and subdivision of the 50,000 square foot tenant into two to show that would work on the site. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned why revised drawings and a rendering were presented since the Commission was only to consider the plans as conceptual. He asked why the original drawings were not good enough for conceptual purposes. Mr. Hoxworth replied that staff had raised several issues regarding the site such as the stacking distance from Elm and how it would relate to the Texaco station. He reported they have discussed the Texaco site with staff and will be submitting the project shortly. He said they also showed a more realistic footprint for apartments on the site corresponding to the permitted density. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that he had always thought more service stations are needed on Foothill Boulevard. He asked if they will only have an entrance from Elm Avenue for the proposed station. Mr. Hoxworth responded there will be an entrance from the main entrance throat on Foothill Boulevard, but it will not allow left turns. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if that meant the whole parcel needs to be developed in connection with the Texaco portion. Mr. Hoxworth thought their negotiations with Texaco call for only the Elm access to be built in connection with the gas station and the entrance throat to be developed in connections with the balance of the site. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 12, 1996 Vice Chairman McNiel asked if phasing has been discussed. Mr. Hoxworth replied they have discussed phasing with Texaco and they are trying to solidify proposals for the other pads. Mr. Buller said staff believes the essence of the Terra Vista Community Plan calls for a mixed use within the block. He said staff was questioning how much commercial could be on the property before taking away the mix and making it more of a commercial center. He thought the commercial may become so successful that the residential no longer makes sense and he felt elimination of the residential would require an amendment to the Plan. He said staff does not object to what has been proposed and he asked if the Commissioners may wish to discuss total square footage. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the area will become all retail. Mr. Hoxworth responded that there is currently no demand for that much retail on Foothill Boulevard and they have a lot of other retail area to be developed. He stated that the market may change and acknowledged they do have concerns regarding residential development on the site. He indicated they feel it will possibly be a senior complex because of its proximity to the hospital. He said they are willing to live with the mixed use ratio of what they have submitted. Mr. Buller asked for clarification from the Commission if the block should be processed with a conditional use permit and a phasing plan or as an amendment to the Terra Vista Community Plan. He said that aspects of phasing and levels and types of improvements would be discussed in connection with the conditional use permit. Vice Chairman asked if Foothill Boulevard from Haven Avenue to the City limits had been incorporated into the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Mr. Buller replied that only the design elements for activity center areas are incorporated in the plan. He said the land uses of the Terra Vista or Industrial Area Specific Plans were not combined into the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He acknowledged that is a long term goal to combine everything under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Vice Chairman McNiel asked what the Terra Vista Specific Plan says about drive-thrus and drive-thru lanes from Haven Avenue to the east. He questioned if there is a potential nightmare with respect to possibly having Taco Bell as pad of the Texaco station. He feared it will open a Pandora's Box for a fast-food City. Mr. Buller said he understood Vice Chairman McNiel's concern, but said he did not think it should lead to problems. He pointed out that the Commission has considered drive-thru policies, such as how and where they will be located, proper stacking distances, etc. He observed that the Commission has had a field trip and has indicated a desire to readdress the matter. He felt there is sufficient room on the site to allow such a combination gas station/drive-thru to work properly and did not feel it should be prohibited on Foothill Boulevard. He noted that such combinations are becoming more prevalent throughout the country. He thought the City has standards and policies in place which will ensure a quality layout. Vice Chairman McNiel said he understood that it was not necessary to discuss that issue this evening, but he wanted to raise the issue. He remarked that in the past preliminary plans have included certain things which were not addressed and five or six months down the road the applicants have asserted that certain things were in the plans all along. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he supported conceptual consent to what was presented but he thought there needs to be buffering for a gas station and drive-thru facility and that buffering is not Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 12, 1996 shown on the plans presented at this point. He also interjected that buffering will be needed between the residential area and the parking lot. He supported the mixed use concept. Commissioner Lumpp stated he was pleased with what has been presented and felt it is consistent with what the Terra Vista Community Plan calls for. He recalled that when the Commission was considering the Wohl application, Lewis had made a comment that it would be seeking an amendment to their plan to make this entire area commercial. He agreed that residential may present some challenges. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the proposed plan is conceptually consistent with the Terra Vista Community Plan. Chairman Barker rejoined the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS H. SITE PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that the item was placed on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Melcher. It was the consensus of the Commission that the item be deferred. Mr. Buller stated that business seems to be picking up. He reported that recruitment is underway to replace Associate Planner Scott Murphy and staff is still shorthanded. He observed that staff is having a difficult time keeping up with the work load. He asked that the Commissioners bring matters to the attention of staff when they see things in progress. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Melcher absent), to adjourn. 10:45 p.m. -The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 12, 1996