Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/10/13 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 13, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:07 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: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette (arrived at 8:11 p.m.) ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 4, 1993. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 3-0-1-1 with Vallette absent and Chitlea abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 25, 1993. Commissioner Melcher requested that the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 9, 1993, be withdrawn. The minutes were not acted upon. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of September 22, 1993. , , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13280 - CENTEX HOMES - The design review for building elevations and detailed site plan for the easterly 67 lots of a recorded tract map consisting of 145 single family lots on 23.9 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of Base Line Road Between Ellena East and Ellena West - APN: 227-070-31 through 40, 43 through 51, 53 through 73, and 95 through 97 and 227-071-01 through 24. Be VACATION OF A PORTION OF CAMINO PREDERA - A request to vacate a portion of excess Camino Predera right-of-way, located south of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-092-11. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, carried 4-0-1 with Vallette absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar. , , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14555 - CHANG - A residential subdivision of 7 single family lots on 4.36 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than two dwelling units per acre), located south of Vista Grove Street and east of Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1074-231-04 and 05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 92-23. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported a nearby resident had contacted the City and requested fencing and security during the time of construction, assurances that refuse would be picked up from the site, and limited working hours. Ms. Niseen stated that the Development Code limits construction hours to 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Ms. Nissen stated that Engineering staff had also requested an additional condition to indicate that the sidewalk on Woodridge Court would only be constructed on the west side. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Twen Ma, 195 Mr. Olive Drive, Bradbury, stated he represented the project owner. Chairman McNiel asked if they would be fencing the project. Mr. Ma responded they would provide complete fencing and trash pickup would be on a frequent basis. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Ma objected to limiting the hours of construction. Mr. Ma replied he did not and indicated they would also set strict rules regarding loud radios. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 13, 1993 Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that as construction on homes may not occur for some time, the condition should be changed to require not only installation, but also maintenance of the drip irrigation system being installed for the replacement trees. Commissioner Melcher asked if a homeowners' association was proposed for the project. Mr. Ma replied negatively. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the tree planting be deferred until the houses are constructed because he felt immediate installation may result in problems with the water metering. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the trees should be planted as soon as possible because they are replacing a wind break and it would also be important that the trees all be planted at the same time. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that there could conceivably be seven different owners, making it difficult to get the trees installed. Howard Burt, 5230 Smokey Mountain Place, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concerns about the size and quality of homes and the possible selling price. Chairman McNiel observed the homes would not be reviewed until they are ready to be built. Ms. Nissen stated the minimum size permitted under the Development Code is 1,000 square feet. Chairman McNiel felt anyone purchasing one of the lots would want to build a more substantial house than 1,000 square feet. He questioned if there would be any notification sent to nearby residents for development of a single custom home. Ms. Nissen replied that for a single custom home, there is no requirement for public notification or a public hearing. Commissioner Chitlea observed that the property is within the Hillside Development Ordinance boundaries which would mean certain restrictions. Mr. Butt stated he wanted to come before the Planning Commission to express hie feelings that adjacent property owners should be protected. Mr. Ma stated they had originally started processing plans for two-story 3,000 to 4,000 square foot houses, but they had decided to proceed with the Tract while they continued to work out the design of the homes. He said they still plan to build the houses after going through the Design Review process, rather than selling off the lots for custom homes. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He stated that would mean the design would come back before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 13, 1993 Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated it would be noted in the file to notify Mr. Burr when the designs are processed and he invited Mr. Burr to meet with Ms. Nissen to view the plans which have been submitted. Commissioner Melcher withdrew his objection to the planting and maintenance of the trees prior to construction of homes. He opposed placing a condition on the project to change the permitted hours of construction because it would increase the applicant's costs. He noted that construction normally takes place between 6:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. He suggested that no reference be made to allowable construction hours other than what the City ordinance provides. Commissioner Chitiea supported Commissioner Tolstoy's suggestion regarding the maintenance of the trees. She felt it would be important to get the trees planted as soon as possible because they are a windrow. She stated she understood Commissioner Melcher's point regarding construction hours, but she felt it would be best to start construction no earlier than 7:00 a.m. because of its close proximity to residences. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned who would enforce a 7:00 a.m. starting time. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that enforcement responsibility would be with the Planning Division. He commented that he would be reluctant and would not support placing a condition regarding different time limits specific to this project. He noted that similar construction takes place daily throughout the City and suggested that if the Commission feels 6:30 a.m. is too early, perhaps the ordinance should be changed. He did not see any special site conditions that would require a special condition. Chairman McNiel felt construction hours should be limited to 7:00 a.m. to dusk for this project. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract 14555 with modifications to provide for construction of the sidewalk on Woodridge Court only on the west side, require maintenance of the drip irrigation system within the windrow, and limit the construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to dusk. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE -carried Commissioner Melcher stated he voted no because he disagreed with the addition of a condition regulating the hours different from the ordinance. , , , , VARIANCE 93-06 - E & R RANCHO PACIFIC. INC. - A request to reduce the required building setback from residential areas from 45 feet to 0 feet for the development of a mini-storage facility in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 8th Street - APN: 209-221-19. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 13, 1993 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned why the wall was being proposed 3 feet off the property line. Mr. Murphy replied that the applicant is obligated to accept the drainage from the north and has elected to build a concrete swale on-site as opposed to making provisions on the properties to the north. He indicated staff has requested that the applicant contact the property owners to the north to try to work out plans to eliminate the 3-foot "no-man's land." Commissioner Tolstoy asked what fences are currently in place along the property line to the north. Mr. Murphy responded that there is a mixture of fences from the single-family residences. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bill Angel, E & R Rancho Pacific, Inc., 9852 Crescent Center Drive, #801, Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval. Commissioner Chitlea asked the proposed height of the building wall along the north property line and whether there would be storage behind the building. Mr. Angel replied that the overall height of the wall will be 8 feet. He said a 1- to 2-foot retaining wall will be incorporated within the 8 feet. He pointed out that the property naturally falls from north to south and said they plan to excavate another 1 to 2 feet along the northern part of the site. He said the roll-up doors will be 6 feet 8 inches to 7 feet high. Co~unissioner Melcher remarked that at the Design Review Committee meeting he had asked the applicant to investigate the construction of the wall to be sure there would be no need for a parapet. Mr. Angel said several alternatives are available. He noted the roof will be steel and said they will meet the Building and Safety requirements. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be done without the use of parapets. Mr. Angel responded possibly. He said the exterior of the building along the north property line will not exceed 8 feet. Commissioner Chitlea asked if they would be able to meet drainage requirements. Mr. Angel replied they will have to grade. He commented that some of the technical issues still need to be resolved. He said they had requested a variance on the setback so they can proceed with the design. Chairman McNiel asked if the wall will be waterproof. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 13, 1993 Mr. Angel responded affirmatively. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his only reservation was the 3-foot space between the property line and the building. He feared the area would collect trash and graffiti, particularly in the areas where the residences have erected fences. Mr. Murphy said the matter had been identified as a design issue to be addressed with the conditional use permit application. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if the variance were approved and the applicant was able to eliminate the need for the concrete swale. Mr. Murphy replied that the variance was written to allow the building wall on the property line. Commissioner Melcher stated he had been on the Design Review Co~nittee, thought the applicant's reasoning was solid, and had suggested Mr. Angel apply for a variance. He co~nented that since that time he had studied the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) and had driven every street in Subarea 5. He noted that the houses are small and older and some may be worthy of preservation. He agreed that the proposed building and wall will not affect the houses but he felt it will change the character of the properties because they will no longer have an open feeling. He thought the minimum 45-foot setback from residential areas was probably put in the ISP in order to provide a buffer to protect the existing older, more affordable housing stock. He noted that the ISP is very specific within Subarea 5 regarding the 45-foot setback adjacent to residential areas. He commented that the applicant's property merely sits next to where that provision is applicable and he feared that approval of the variance may trigger other such requests. He thought the applicant should be challenged to provide a solution without the variance. Chairman McNiel thought the drafters of the ISP may not have considered a mini-storage use. Con~nissioner Melcher noted that public storage is included in the list of conditional uses for Subarea 5. Conwnissioner Chitlea stated she had not been involved at the time the original ISP was adopted, but she had been on the committee when the ISP was revised. She felt the thinking was that the 45-foot building setback was to protect the houses from intense use. She thought landscaping should also be used to soften the effect. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the thinking was to protect the residences from larger industrial uses. He thought the currently proposed layout with the building 3 feet from the property line or along the property line would protect the residents from seeing vehicles which could be stored within the 45-foot building setback. He felt the variance was justified and would serve the adjacent homeowners as well as the project applicant. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 13, 1993 Co~missioner Chitlea agreed it would be better to have the building closer to the property line in order to eliminate the storage of vehicles in the area, but she was concerned about the lack of landscaping and the "no-man's land" with a concrete swale. Commissioner Melcher noted that an 8-foot wall would be permitted on the property line with the 45-foot building setback. He said he did not question whether the concept of placing the building at the property line was good but whether a variance would be the best vehicle to use. He felt the variance should note that only low-profile buildings would be within the 45-foot setback so that no precedent would be set to allow higher buildings. Commissioner Chitlea questioned the landscaping requirements. Mr. Murphy replied that if a parking lot or drive aisle were located within the 45-foot building setback area, a 5-foot landscape planter area would be required. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, said one tree per 30 linear feet would be required if there were no buildings within the 45-foot setback area. Commissioner Chitlea asked where landscaping would be placed if the variance were approved. Mr. Coleman replied that would be a design issue. He suggested landscape vine pockets could be placed on the building. Chairman McNiel felt it would be difficult enough to make sure that the concrete swale is left clear of debris without having leaves dropping into it. Con~nissioner Melcher noted that a similar condition exists in Subarea 4 with tall buildings and the off-site side of the wall is a frequent target of graffiti vandals. He thought it might be a good idea to require planting and maintenance of vines on the exterior wall to discourage graffiti. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it was unrealistic to think that vine pockets would be maintained in the 3-foot space. Mr. Bullet stated that the effect of the building would appear as an 8-foot wall to the adjacent homes. He suggested that if the Planning Commission felt some sort of landscaping should be required, that they could condition to provide vines or perhaps provide landscaping to be placed on the adjacent properties. Co~nissioner Chitiea felt the building would need softening. Commissioner Melcher agreed it will be one long wall. Chairman McNiel observed that the view from each home will be only the width of their own yard. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 13, 1993 Con~nissioner Melcher felt that anything planted in the back yards of the adjacent homes would probably not be maintained because they have such deep lots. Chairman McNiel questioned the adequacy of the drainage. Dan James, Senior Engineer, stated that Building and Safety will look at the drainage study to make sure drainage will be adequately handled. Chairman McNiel felt that vine pockets and an irrigation system would be the best solution for the wall. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be best to underground the drainage system and put an 8-foot wall on the property line. He thought that would cause fewer problems for everyone, giving the adjacent property owners a nice wall and not requiring maintenance by the applicant. He suggested approving the variance but eliminating the swale. Mr. Murphy stated there would have to be some mechanism for accepting the flow from the adjacent properties onto the site. He commented that Building and Safety would prefer to have the flow in the open so that it would be visible for maintenance purposes. Commissioner Melcher suggested any conditions regarding landscaping be placed on the conditional use permit application. He thought if the Co~=nission wanted landscaping, maintenance should be included but maintenance should be terminated when the properties to the north develop. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission should only consider the variance request. Chairman McNiel thought that design issues should be considered in conjunction with the variance application. Mr. Coleman suggested adding a condition that landscaping be required with the particulars to be worked out when the conditional use permit application is processed. Mr. Bullet suggested that Condition 2 be changed to indicate that building walls along the north property line and within a 45-foot setback should not exceed 8 feet in height as measured at the property line. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that was a good suggestion. Commissioner Melcher was concerned that fire walls may need to extend above the roof line and that would make the'height greater than the 8 feet. Mr. Murphy stated there should be no problem because of the grade differential and the taller height would still be within the 8-foot height measured at the property line. Planning Co~nission Minutes -8- October 13, 1993 Motion= Moved by Chitlea, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Variance 93-06 with modifications to provide that wall height along the north property line and within a 45-foot setback area would not exceed 8 feet and to provide for landscaping. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS= COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE VALLETTE -carried , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public con~nents at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SELECTION Chairman McNiel stated that currently Co~nissioners Melcher and Vallette serve on the Design Review Con~nittee. Commissioner Chitlea felt some continuity should be maintained. Con~nissioner Melcher stated that he frequently is called upon to attend the Route 30 meetings and he prefers that type of activity over Design Review. He indicated he would prefer to go back to an alternate status for Design Review. He observed that the Commission had gone on record that they would surrender a good deal of the Design Review activities back to staff and said he would be willing to continue to serve on the Design Review Committee if that shift were to take place right away. Commissioner Vallette stated she had requested to be excused from the Design Review Committee because she has classes on Tuesday evenings during this school quarter. She said she enjoys being on the Design Review Committee and feels it is an important part of the process. She indicated she would like to return to the Committee if she can reschedule her classes starting in the next quarter. She remarked she does not see any problems with the process as it currently exists and felt that the Commission has done much to expedite the process. She observed that numerous projects have been going through in a single session. Commissioner Melcher said that in order to provide continuity, he would be willing to serve on the Committee until Commissioner Vallette would be able to return. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would also be willing to serve until Commissioner Vallette returns. Commissioner Chitlea stated she has a schedule conflict on Tuesdays and she would prefer to remain an alternate. Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 13, 1993 Chairman McNiel appointed Commissioner Melcher and himself through the end of the year, with alternates to be Commissioners Tolstoy, Chitiea, and Vallette, respectively. He directed that the appointments be reconsidered in December. F. STANDARDS FOR INTERIM USES Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitlea asked how long interim chain link fencing is permitted. Mr. Coleman replied that it is permitted for 3 years with extensions allowing up to a maximum of 5 years. Commissioner Chitlea felt it would be reasonable to require minimal landscaping in conjunction with chain link fencing. After some discussion on the period of time interim uses can exist and the t~pe, quantity, and maintenance of the landscaping~ it was the consensus of the Commission that the interim standards in the Industrial Area Specific Plan need not be changed, but that maintenance and the enforcement of the standards is very important. G. UPDATE ON ROUTE 30 Commissioner Melcher stated he had attended a Route 30 meeting on October 12 which gave a brief technical update. He reported plans were made to set up subcommittees to deal with some of the areas of concern such as bridges, sound walls, etc. He said CalTrans had presented alternatives and options available within their specifications and those choices would have to be made. He noted that CalTrans works on a City-by-City basis and the Cities would have to interact if they wish consistency along the route. He reported that Brad Bullet was to set up a task force to study the issues and a field trip would probably be organized. H. FOUNDERS DAY PARADE AND CELEBRATION Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that each Co~nissioner had received a flier inviting their participation in the Founders Day Parade or the afternoon celebration to be held on November 13, 1993. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the Commissioners not ride in the parade. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested they may participate by being present as individuals. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would not participate in the parade but they may wish to individually volunteer time at one of the booths, such as the one which the Etiwanda Historical Society is sponsoring. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 13, 1993 Commissioner Melcher noted that the Commission had approved an application at the September 22 Planning Commission meeting regarding land use only to allow an administrative and office use at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Red Oak Street. He said he had since learned that the applicant was pursuing a San Bernardino County Social Services facility for the location. He expressed concerns that the Design Review process might be bypassed because it would be a County facility. He requested that staff attempt to find out if the City could retain control. , , , , Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that on November 2, 1993, a program would be presented on Crime Prevention through Design and a bus tour of commercial centers would be scheduled for November 4. He indicated that the Commissioners were invited. , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adjourn. 8:50 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following in the Rains Room regarding Development Review, Building X, at the Terra Vista Town Center. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 13, 1993