Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/11/08 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 8, 1995 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:03 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: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to approve the minutes of the September 13, 1995, Special Meeting. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy absent, to approve the minutes of October 11, 1995. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE 95-06 - CAMPOS - A request to reduce the activity center parking setback from 50 feet to 38 feet for the development of a restaurant and conversion of two single family residences to commercial uses in the Specialty Commercial designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues - APN: 208-153-08 through 11, and 23. Related files: Landmark Alteration Permit 95-03, Development Review 93-15, and Variance 94-04. Chairman Barker noted that Item A would be heard in conjunction with Item A from the Historic Preservation Commission staff report. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for Landmark Alteration Permit 95-03 and Variance 95-06. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be any more difficult for the applicant to apply for a Landmark Alteration Permit to demolish all four of the houses. Mr. Murphy replied that the applicant had requested historic landmark status because of advantages to the applicant. He said that staff feels that the designation was granted in part because the entire block is one of the few remaining blocks that is basically intact from the early 1900s. He noted the previous Historic Preservation Commission felt there should be an historic overlay district for this block to retain the homes. He thought that it would not be any easier for staff to recommend approval if the application requested demolition of all four of the houses. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Ana Campos, 5711 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, stated she had been working on the project for the last three to four years. She said she has spent a lot of money and the houses are currently in bad condition. She commented that if the project is not approved, the houses will continue to deteriorate. She said the project will not be profitable if she cannot provide sufficient parking for the restaurant. She requested approval for the project. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp stated that his original intent with respect to the project was to preserve the four houses. He said he had not been concerned about the building that was to occupy the restaurant. He felt the four houses along Foothill Boulevard are a unique feature that effectively preserve some of the aspects of the early years in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He thought that removing two of the four houses would destroy the ambiance that was the intent of preservation of this small area, even if the two houses are moved elsewhere. He opposed removing the houses and replacing them with a commercial building or parking. He agreed with staff's suggestion that the applicant explore the alternative of adaptive reuse of the houses as a restaurant. He supported removal of the structure on the east side and using that for parking rather than removing the residential units. Commissioner McNiel stated he would like to help the applicant with her predicament, but he felt the City had assisted the applicant by designating the houses as historic. He commented that the structures are in bad condition as a result of negligence on the part of the applicant and he did not feel it would benefit the community to remove or relocate the houses. He thought the structures should be maintained as a window to the past. Commissioner Melcher concurred with the other Commissioners. He observed that the applicant is caught in a trap because the property is in the middle of the block but the project is being required to provide all of the amenities of an activity center at a location where he felt that a four-corner activity center would not be possible for decades in the future. He noted that the southeast corner has a very strong tenant and he thought the tenants on the southwest corner are also strong. He suggested that an option might be to preserve the facades of the houses as false fronts for a new structure to house a restaurant immediately behind them with parking at the east end of the lot. He thought that might maintain the historic ambiance while providing a feasible development. He did not support the project as currently proposed. Chairman Barker noted that the Commissioners were sitting as both the Historic Preservation and Planning Commissions and the applicant was asking that the Planning Commission grant a special privilege. He said the special privileges Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 8, 1995 granted in the past were granted in an attempt to save the structures. He noted this proposal would increase parking by 12 percent to 40 percent of the frontage and would destroy two of the four historic houses in order to obtain 700 more square feet of restaurant space. He saw no advantage to the City and he did not support the application. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of Landmark Alteration Permit 95-03 for adoption at the meeting December 13, 1995. Commissioner Lumpp supported the motion, but wanted to add the comment that the applicant should explore the options suggested by staff. He said he would vote for the motion because he felt the project as currently proposed would destroy the overall objective of the preservation of the structures. The motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of Landmark Alteration Permit 95-03 for adoption on December 13, 1995, carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY - carried Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution denying Variance 95-06. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, NONE TOLSTOY - carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 95-01 - PRAIRIE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS - A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Prairie Pacific Investments for the purpose of providing a senior housing project in accordance with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), including deviating from certain development standards, for 158 apartment units located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-031-75. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated with the application is Development Review 95-22. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-22 - PRAIRIE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS - A request to construct a 158-unit, three story senior apartment project in the High Density Residential designation (24-30 dwelling units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208-031-75. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated with the application is Development Agreement 95-01. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that several changes were proposed for the Development Agreement to further define the varying income levels of the 100 percent affordable housing and staff suggested a change to the resolution to provide for a 3- to 4-foot high planter wall in front of the northern perimeter wall. Commissioner McNiel asked what would be done to mitigate the sight of the 12-foot wall at Base Line Avenue other than a pony wall. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 8, 1995 Mr. Murphy responded that only a small section of the wall will be up to 12 feet high. He said the applicant was proposing to steepen up the slope and intensify the landscaping in addition to the pony wall to help mitigate the height. He noted that the site is about 3 to f feet below the street level and he thought the view will be minimized. Commissioner McNiel asked the dimension between the pony wall and the higher wall. Mr. Murphy replied it will probably have a usable area of about 7 feet. Commissioner Lumpp asked where the building setback from the drive aisle will be reduced to 9 feet. Mr. Murphy pointed out where it will occur. Commissioner Lumpp asked how many units will have the reduced 60 square foot balcony. Mr. Murphy replied that only the one-bedroom units on the third floor will have the reduced balcony. Commissioner Lumpp questioned why the developer would be given three years to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Murphy replied he thought the main reason is the state of the economy. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, observed that development agreements typically have a longer term life. He said for this project, the City wanted to get to some completion within a reasonably appropriate time knowing that these types of projects have additional business requirements. He said the three years was chosen in order to encourage good faith. Commissioner Lumpp said he would prefer to reduce the amount of time to something less than three years because of the previous unsuccessful efforts and the impacts on the adjacent residents. He asked the point of limiting the term of occupancy for temporary tenants under age 55. Mr. Hanson said it was understood that there may be long-term guests or family members and there was a desire that they not stay permanently. Commissioner Lumpp asked what income level is considered Very Low Income. Mr. Murphy replied that he didn't know the actual income, but the rents would be in the neighborhood of $300 for a one-bedroom unit. Commissioner Lumpp asked if additional language should be added to the Development Agreement to advise and perhaps secure approval of the tenants if the owner begins processing the units for conversion to condominiums. Mr. Hanson replied that conversion requirements now require 60 days personal notice to occupants and this project would also have to go through the process of modifying the Development Agreement. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the attorney felt comfortable with the requirements. Mr. Hanson replied that he did and noted that the development is not being built to normal multi-family development standards. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 8, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp asked who in the City is qualified to review the tenant selection procedures and the annual reviews. Mr. Murphy replied that one of the Planning staff members currently conducts annual reviews of the existing senior projects. Commissioner Lumpp asked why there were proposed changes to the annual submission of the project's occupancy profile. Mr. Hanson replied that it is in an effort to avoid classifying the project as a low-income project in order to avoid the necessity for obtaining voter approval for its construction with City money. He noted that the City will be reviewing the status of the project but not managing the project. Commissioner Lumpp feared tenants will come to the City Council with complaints and he thought it would be better to have the annual reports detail the written complaints and the listing of physical defects and description of repair or maintenance work undertaken during the year. Mr. Hanson agreed that the City may be involved with the project during the life of the Development Agreement and may receive complaints when there are tenant problems, but he felt requiring such information on an annual basis should not be required. Commissioner Lumpp asked what would happen to a spouse or caregiver under the age of 55 if the qualified tenant dies. He asked if they would automatically be evicted. Mr. Hanson replied that the agreement is written so that on its face, the non-qualified tenant could be forced to move. He suggested asking the operators what their policy will be. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the requirement for hazard insurance includes earthquake insurance. Mr. Hanson was not sure that would be a matter for the Planning Commission's review. Commissioner Lumpp asked why the maximum building height was being increased from 38 to 42 feet. Mr. Murphy replied that at the front of the building in line with the balconies it is 29 feet; however, the mansard extends back and hits a peak at the front and rear lobbies that is 42 feet high. He noted that the property to the south is also designated as Low Residential so there is a need to maintain a single story within 100 feet from the south as well. He said the southerly lobby encroaches into that 100 feet. Commissioner Lumpp said he had brought up the matter because residents at the last meeting had raised concerns about the height issue and the Commission had replied that it is only a two-story structure, very close to the 35-foot height limit. Mr. Murphy felt that the dimensions that Mr. Pitassi had discussed had not changed but the architectural feature at the south end of the building projects higher than the balance of the roof line. He said the 42 feet would not be along either the east or west side and the plate line will remain at 29 feet. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 8, 1995 Commissioner Lumpp asked that the minutes reflect that the 42 feet only occurs at an architectural feature at the south end of the building and is not a consistent height. He said he wanted to show that a 42-foot high building will not be built that will impact the residents on the west side. He stated he was still concerned about the proposed ratio of only one washer and dryer to every 14 units. Chairman Barker indicated that the public hearing was still open from the October 25 meeting. Dan Guerra, Derbish, Guerra, & Associates, 8331 Utica Avenue, #150, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the civil engineer for the project. He indicated they had provided the wall profiles based on direction at the last meeting. Linda Boone, Executive Director of Orange Housing Development Corporation, 217 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, stated that the primary goal of the City and applicant with respect to the project is to access $7.5 million of private investor funds which will make the project work. She said that private money is what allows the rents to be low and the building to be as nice as it is with the amenities that it has. She reported that they must compete for the right to get tax credits which are sold to investors to raise the money. She indicated the changes in the Development Agreement were as a result of their attorneys looking at the tax credit rules. She said the City Attorney graciously agreed to the changes to make it fit with the tax credit laws so they will be able to compete for the money. She stated that 14 units per washer and dryer has been adequate for every other senior project she has ever worked on and observed that the tax credit qualifications calls for a one per 15 unit ratio. She said the tax credit guidelines are very conservative because they are dealing with investors who want to make sure the developments work. Commissioner Lumpp asked what the management company would do if the residents complain about an inadequate number of laundry facilities. Ms. Boone observed there will be a contingency fund available to take care of that problem if it should arise. She said she would be glad to share a copy of the pro forma statement. Commissioner Lumpp suggested that she provide it to the Secretary. He asked what the policy would be regarding the continuing residence of a non-qualified tenant upon the death of a qualified tenant. Ms. Boone replied that they have at least six different funding sources on their various projects, including HUD, Tax Credit funding, HOME funds, CDBG funds, etc. and every program has different rules and regulations about what they feel is fair and equitable. She said they would follow the Tax Credit policy, which is established by the Internal Revenue Service. Commissioner McNiel asked how soon the project would get started if it is approved. Ms. Boone responded the Tax Credit application must be submitted by December 11 and they should have a response by the end of February. She indicated they hope to start construction in May. Ron Hodge, 7365 Klusman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned where the trash enclosures will be located. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 8, 1995 Mr. Murphy responded that the issue had been raised at the neighborhood meeting and the residents to the west had indicated they do not want the trash enclosures adjacent or behind their properties. He said the architect has committed to moving the enclosures to another area but the exact location has not been pinned down. He noted a condition in the resolution calls for relocation away from the rear yards of the adjoining residences to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Regarding the 14 to one ratio of washers and dryers, he felt the concern was valid. Commissioner Melcher said he felt the project is ready for approval. Commissioner McNiel agreed that the project is ready for approval. He felt the one washer and dryer per 14 units ratio to be more than ample. Commissioner Lumpp noted that Planning Condition No. 3 requires evergreen trees to be planted along the south and west property lines to the satisfaction of the City Planner. He suggested that a minimum size tree and spacing requirement be included to be sure there will be adequate screening and buffering for the adjacent residences. Brad Buller, City Planner, felt that it may be a disadvantage to require a larger size for some species. He preferred latitude and said staff understood the direction to provide adequate buffering. He suggested that the Commission may feel more comfortable specifying minimum 15-gallon trees with a minimum of 20 to 30 percent specimen size trees (24-inch box or larger). He said staff can try to spot some larger vegetation in key locations. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the species of tree has been determined as yet. Mr. Buller said the project is not yet at that point but he thought there are several choices which could provide adequate screening, such as pine, cedar, or Cupressus leylandii planted tightly on center. Commissioner Lumpp felt the idea of placing trees in sensitive locations was fine. He suggested planting the trees prior to construction of the buildings if it will not conflict with the construction schedule so that the trees would have more time to mature prior to occupancy. He noted that the block wall along the project boundary is required to be constructed prior to building construction and he thought that perhaps the adjacent landscaping could also be done at that time. He said he wanted to be sensitive to the neighbors. Commissioner McNiel asked the risk on survivability of the larger trees. Mr. Buller replied that it depends upon the soil conditions, the space available, and the irrigation provided. He agreed with Commissioner Lumpp'that earlier is better and thought staff could work with the applicant to try to get the landscaping adjacent to the wall installed as early as possible. Chairman Barker asked if the current language in the resolution would provide the authority to accomplish what Commissioner Lumpp and Mr. Buller had indicated they would like. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. He observed that the City could host a neighborhood meeting to review the landscape plans when they are submitted prior to approval. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 8, 1995 Chairman Barker felt that was a good idea. Commissioner Lumpp stated he was not necessarily advocating specimen-size trees would be necessary. He liked Mr. Buller's suggestion and felt the City Planner could require specimen size trees in key locations if deemed appropriate. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the Commission was not losing sight of what the Redevelopment Agency and the developer are trying to accomplish. He said it is a very tight site and significant concessions had already been made by the wall. He thought it is unnecessary to require early planting of landscaping, in that he did not feel it would be a significant advantage and it would raise the cost of doing the project. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He thought the trees will be in within a reasonable time in the course of development of the site. He stated that landscaping is generally one of the later elements in a project because irrigation is required and it is a finishing touch. He said it is somewhat like putting walkways within a park when you don't know where people will walk and a common result is unused walkways and dirt pathways. Commissioner Lumpp felt that if the project is so tight that the issue of landscaping will have a fiscal impact that would make or break the project, then he had a problem with the project. Commissioner Melcher responded that the project is tight in that a great number of units are being placed on a small property. He thought it is intelligently planned and he did not feel the City should preconceive how the contractor should go about approaching the construction in an orderly manner and with good speed in the interest of gaining approximately six months of tree growth which will occur naturally within a very short period of time. He thought it unnecessary to require the landscaping out of sequence. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Development Agreement 95-01 and Development Review 95-22 with clarification changes proposed by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY - carried ENVIRONMENTAT. ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-20 - KATELARIUS - A request to construct a 2,940 square foot drive-thru restaurant on 1.11 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street - APN: 209-491-77. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and noted that two additional letters had been received regarding the project, one supporting the project and one opposing it. He reported a number of telephone calls had also been received, some in support and others in opposition. He stated the applicant had attempted to contact some of the individuals and companies to address their concerns. He noted there had been concerns raised regarding littering, increased foot and vehicle traffic, crime, and the need for traffic signals. Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 8, 1995 Commissioner Melcher clarified that he had been unavoidably detained the night the project returned to the Design Review Committee and he had not been there when the Committee gave its consent. Commissioner McNiel asked if there is a projected time frame for building of the other two buildings. Mr. Coleman responded negatively. He said there are no submittals. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Charles Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 205, Rancho Cucamonga, presented an updated artist's rendering of the proposed restaurant when viewed from the northwest corner of the property and a materials sample board. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:17 p.m. to 8:23 p.m. to allow the rendering to be posted and allow the audience to look at it. Mr. Buquet said that the window glazing and framing and metal roofing will be of like materials and quality used for the stadium and Metrolink station. He felt the project will provide a convenient affordable restaurant to the people working in the area. He noted that the applicant has several other restaurants in other communities. He showed examples of fund raising efforts the applicant has contributed to in the past and photographs of some of the other locations which the applicant owns. He said the applicant had indicated he recognizes the need to maintain a litter-free area and will have his employees constantly police the area. He stated that Mr. Katelarius was available to answer questions and requested approval of the project. Commissioner Melcher questioned the color scheme. Mr. Buquet pointed out that there was a slight discrepancy between the architect's rendering and the samples. He said they prefer going with the rendering version. He indicated he also had other options available. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the rendering depicts a sign and he said staff would not recommend or support a canned sign of the size shown on that elevation. He said it should be single channel letter sign. Mr. Buquet indicated that all City standards will be met in connection with everything including signage, lighting, landscaping, etc. He suggested that an overlay be used rather than redoing the rendering. Commissioner McNiel asked about the other color options. Mr. Buquet replied they are in the same shade. He thought the rendering is the closest to what is at the Rancho Cucamonga stadium and the Metrolink station. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel thanked Mr. Buquet for bringing the rendering because he felt the previous rendering had been inadequate. He liked the project. He said he would have questioned the metal roof if the project were in another location. He supported the project. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 8, 1995 Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner McNiel regarding the rendering. He thought the rendering sells the project. He suggested any approval should reinforce the fact that the signs must be individual flex-faced letters as opposed to illuminated cans. He felt the colors should be those of the adult sports complex and the animal shelter as opposed to the Metrolink station because the station relies more on concrete and less on white stucco. He noted that the rendering suggests the back of the building will have a cornice treatment at the wall of equal weight to that at the front while the architect's drawing shows a smaller treatment. He felt it should be equal all the way around. Mr. Coleman felt that Planning Condition No. 11 satisfactorily addresses the cornice molding treatment. Commissioner Lumpp stated that he had spoken with Mr. Buquet regarding the project. He felt the rendering gives a comfortable feeling. He indicated he had previously had some concerns regarding the use of a drive-thru on that location, but he thought a combination of the rendering and his colleagues' comments had convinced him that the use could be compatible. He supported the project. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-20 with the understanding that the color is to be more reflective of the sports arena, the signage is to be approved separately, and consistent cornice treatment is to be applied. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARK. ER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY - carried Commissioner Melcher asked if the Arrow Route entry driveway will be a shared access driveway with the other parcels. Mr. Buller responded there will be reciprocal access. Commissioner Melcher asked if the City was protected so that neither development can preclude use of the driveway. Mr. Buller replied that the City will ensure that there is adequate language in the adoption of the new parcel line. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15707 - RITTENHOUSE - The proposed development of a 5 unit detached condominium project on 1.0 acre of land in the Medium Residential Development District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Alta Cuesta Drive - APN: 202-025-01. Related Files: Variance 95-05, Tentative Tract 14208, Variance 94-03. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. F. VARIANCE 95-05 - RITTENHOUSE - A request to waive the requirement for common open space, amenities, and visitor parking and to reduce the required interior site boundary setback from 20 to 15 feet for a proposed 5-unit detached condominium project on 1.0 acres of land in the Medium Residential Development District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Alta Cuesta Drive - APN: 202-025-01. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15707, Tentative Tract 14208, and Variance 94-03. Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 8, 1995 Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that the Design Review Committee had recommended approval with the suggestion that the lot line separating this subdivision from the adjacent tract be adjusted in order to move Unit 1 closer to the west. He said that following the Design Review Committee meeting it was determined that the adjacent tract has a 15-foot non- buildable drainage and utility easement along the property line meaning the unit could only be moved 3 to 5 feet to the west. He reported that the developer had indicated today that the easement will be removed, so the unit can be moved further to the west. He noted that the Commission may wish to add a condition that the unit be moved. Commissioner McNiel observed that Lot 5 has a pie-shaped section at the top of a slope that would probably not be that useful. He asked if there had been any thought of annexing that portion to one of the two adjacent parcels. Mr. Hayes replied that staff had asked the developer to consider that option but the developer had not responded. Commissioner Lumpp questioned the ratio of visitor parking spaces to units for this project when combined with the adjacent project. Mr. Hayes responded that the minimum ratio is one space per 4 units and the combined project will provide eight spaces for 25 units. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Glenn Cadzow, 1531 North Euclid Avenue, Ontario, stated he is a resident and he wanted to talk about the three residential units north and west of the project. He noted that a utility easement is in the area and Southern California Edison (SCE) lines are located in the area. He wanted to be sure the area remains unencumbered so that utility vehicles can easily access the area. He said grading has already occurred and a berm has encroached into the area making it more difficult for a large SCE truck or fire truck to access the area. Chairman Barker asked where the SCE vehicles enter. Mr. Cadzow replied they currently enter at the south end of the easement. He said there is a lot of brush in the area and he wanted to be sure the area remains open and accessible to either utility trucks or fire trucks. Mr. Hayes said he had heard from two residents yesterday about the issue and contacted Building and Safety staff who will inspect the site next week to be sure there are no problems. Chairman Barker asked if the utility company was aware of Mr. Cadzow's concern. Mr. Hayes thought probably not. Chairman Barker asked if there would be access if the project is approved. Mr. Hayes said the intention would be to leave the easement for the purpose of gaining access. He noted that staff had been informed that a portion of the easement may be eliminated when the property is developed. Ralph Rittenhouse, 400 North Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, stated that he had previously suggested that a gate remain at the back of his park for access to the easement. He said that would allow access for utility or emergency vehicles and it would also allow the neighbors to park trailers or other vehicles in the backs Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 8, 1995 of their properties. He said staff had indicated that should not be a problem. He pointed out there is a difference in elevation with an approximate 3-foot slope. He said he had talked to the adjacent property owner and given him a choice of whether to take it away and put a wall in at the bottom or whether to put the wall at the top in order to give him more privacy in his yard. He said that even if the wall is at the top of the grade, he will cut back the slope so there will be adequate access. Chairman Barker asked Mr. Rittenhouse to address Commissioner McNiel's comment regarding the triangular piece of property at the top of the slope on Lot 5. Mr. Rittenhouse said he had been through a lot of cost and he is willing to deed the very north tip to the adjacent property owner but he did not want to go to a great expense to do so. He suggested going straight across the top lot line. He said he did not want to go down to the middle of the second adjacent lot, nor did he want to go down to the bottom of the second lot line. Chairman Barker said the City did not want to tell him what to do but it wants to be sure it is not just a small piece of useless land. Commissioner McNiel stated the City wants to avoid having the area become a dumping site. Commissioner McNiel asked on which property the easement exists. Mr. Rittenhouse replied it is on the east sides of the adjacent properties, not on his property. Mr. Cadzow said he had just wanted to make sure that the utility easement remains open and unencumbered. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he had observed the project twice at Design Review and he felt the project had been significantly improved since its first submission. He supported the project. Chairman Barker questioned Commissioner Melcher's feelings regarding the possibility of moving Unit 1 closer to the west. Commissioner Melcher replied it had been suggested at Design Review as a way to further increase the space between the units in the new section of the subdivision. He felt it would be beneficial to the tract to move the house to the west as much as possible and share the space that is gained with the other four houses. Commissioner McNiel said he was glad to see this area incorporated into the existing development. He understood the question of moving the house to the west, but he was not sure what would be gained. He felt the easement issue seemed to be resolved. He supported the project. Commissioner Lumpp agreed it would be beneficial to move the house on Lot 1 to the west but he felt it should be left up to the applicant and staff to decide if it is workable. He noted a wrought fence is shown between Lot 1 of the adjacent tract and this tract. He hoped that staff would make sure it is consistent with interior fencing so that there is no difference between this tract and the adjacent tract. He stated he could make the required findings for the variance request. Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 8, 1995 Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and approve the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 15707 and Variance 95-05 with the intent that access be maintained to the adjacent utility easement. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER NONE TOLSTOY - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. CONSIDERATION OF A REOUEST TO FENCE OFF SERENA PLACE, A CUL-DE-SAC STREET, AT ITS CONNECTION TO LEMON AVENUE Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Lumpp asked if staff was aware of any accidents that have occurred as a result of someone not being able to negotiate the curve. Mr. Murphy replied negatively. Commissioner Lumpp thought the cul-de-sacs were left open in order to provide a secondary emergency vehicle access. Mr. Murphy replied that the maximum cul-de-sac length is 600 feet and the.street is under that 600 feet. He noted that there is a storm drain catch basin provided at the end of the cul-de-sac and there would typically be the need for a secondary overflow, which could be through open fencing. Commissioner McNiel stated that in the early development of the community, the City was trying to avoid walled communities with no view access because such designs appear very sterile. He said it was the City's thinking that open corridors at the end of cul-de-sacs provide a break and openness to the community and access to the residents so that people could more easily walk throughout the community. Commissioner Melcher stated he had always felt that the City's original premise for having them open was 50 percent valid. He noted that when the Terra Vista residents requested that the City allow closure of the access, he represented the developer in support of installing the fencing. He recalled the developer installed those fences and he felt the fences are being vandalized because they are not as high quality as the City's current wrought iron fencing standards. He was troubled by the notion that the City should pay for the fencing. He did not feel the City should pay for the fencing under any circumstances, but he was willing to permit the fencing if built to City standards but paid for by the homeowners. Chairman Barker agreed that a wrought iron fence would retain an open view. He noted that having fencing would preclude pedestrians from exiting through the cul-de-sac and jay-walking across Lemon Avenue. He agreed the City should not pay for the fencing. He concurred with Commissioner Melcher's position of a willingness to support the fencing if built to City standards and paid for by the homeowners. He invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 8, 1995 Roy Alcola, 6299 Serena Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property immediately adjacent to Lemon Avenue and he does not oppose having the wrought iron fencing on his property. He said he wants the fencing because of concern for the children. He acknowledged that the street should not be a playground, but stated that children still do play there. He felt that people drive too fast on Lemon Avenue. He said that a lot of the neighbors have expressed similar concerns. Rakech Patel, 6278 Serena Place, Rancho Cucamonga, said that he lives across the street from Mr. Alcola, immediately adjacent to Lemon Avenue. He stated that someone had jumped his fence and attempted to burglarize his home on Halloween night. He also was concerned because of the 15-20 kids who play on his lot, Mr. Alcola's lot, and the cul-de-sac street. Mr. Alcola stated that one of the reasons the cul-de-sac was left open was to allow access to other communities. He felt that traffic travels too fast on Lemon Avenue for people to cross at that point. Commissioner Lumpp asked who the residents felt should pay for the proposed fence. Mr. Alcola replied that initially they wanted the Planning Commission to pay for the fence. He said the neighbors had been talking amongst themselves tonight and they might be willing to look into financing it themselves. He thought that they would have to get all of the neighbors to agree. He said he would be willing to extend the wall on his side. Chairman Barker stated that if fencing were permitted, it would be wrought iron to very specific standards which are not inexpensive. He commented that the Planning Commission has no money and could not put up a fence. He did not think the City Council would authorize such an expenditure either. He suggested they discuss the standards with staff. Commissioner Lumpp stated that he lives in Terra Vista and said he was opposed to the wrought iron fence that was installed in his neighborhood. He said the fence is up but is broken in some areas. He said it is not attractive. He opposed permitting fencing. Chairman Barker stated that with a 2-2 vote, the request would be considered denied. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed the Commission could also continue the matter until all five Commissioners could review the matter. Chairman Barker preferred to continue the matter so that there would be clear direction from the Planning Commission. He suggested that the matter be continued until December 13. Commissioner Melcher noted that Lemon Avenue connects to both Haven and Highland Avenues and there are currently no stop signs on Lemon between those two streets. He felt that motorists use Lemon Avenue as a cut off to avoid the Haven Avenue/Highland Avenue intersection. He thought that Lemon Avenue may have been designed for 35 miles per hour, but some people may negotiate the street at a higher speed, potentially resulting in a serious safety issue. Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to continue consideration of the request to fence off Serena Place at its connection to Lemon Avenue to December 13, 1995. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -14- November 8, 1995 AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER NOES: MCNIEL ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried Commissioner McNiel stated he saw no reason to continue the matter. H. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND MARKET STUDY Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced Shant Agajanian, the consultant for the study. He noted that staff has been working with the Chamber on the preparation of the study. Mr. Agajanian introduced the study and briefly touched on the scenario measures and targets as well as the land use implications and options. The Commissioners thanked Mr. Agajanian for his presentation and stated they looked forward to a follow-up workshop to discuss the plan in depth. It was the consensus of the Commission that the follow-up workshop should be held on November 29, 1995. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS The Commission agreed to a Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on November 29, 1995, in lieu of the November 22 regularly scheduled meeting. ADJOURNMENT 11:05 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned The Planning Commission adjourned to 9:00 a.m. on November 14, 1995, for a field tour of small lot developments. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 8, 1995