No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/02/12 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 12, 1992 Chairman McNiel 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 McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that a petition had been received from the property owners to the west of Item E opposing any density higher than Very Low. Mr. Buller commented that the applicant for Item D had verbally requested that the item be withdrawn. He suggested that the Commission continue the item to February 26, 1992, to allow time for the applicant to submit a formal letter of withdrawal. Mr. Bullet stated there would be no Design Review on February 20, 1992, and he suggested that the Planning Commission may wish to reschedule their workshop from February 27 to February 20, 1992. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 with Chitiea and Tolstoy absent, to adopt the minutes of January 8, 1992. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with Chitiea and Tolstoy absent, to adopt the minutes of January 16, 1992. CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13812 - WATT INLAND EMPIRE - A request for a time extension of the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a recorded tract map consisting of 151 single family' lots on 66.77 acres of land in the Very Low and Low Residential Districts (1-2 dwelling units per acre and 2-4 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located north of Highland Avenue, south of Summit Avenue, and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-161-35 through 38, 49, 53, 55, and 61 and 225-171-01, 09, 10, and 17. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13759 - FU MAI LIMITED - A request for a time extension of a previously approved residential subdivision of 56 single family lots on 14.01 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 1076-301-17. MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13759 - FU MAI LIMITED - A request to modify a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tract map consisting of 56 single family lots on 14.01 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 1076- 301-17. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 with Chitlea and Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-16 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP - The development of a 1,080 square foot retail addition to the existing Perry's Market Center on 1.12 acres of land in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located west of 9451 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-261-56· Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Chairman McNiel reiterated that the applicant had indicated a desire to withdraw the application and the Commission should continue the item to February 26, 1992, to permit time for the applicant to submit a letter of withdrawal. He opened the public hearing There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-16 to February 26, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 12, 1992 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried , , , , , Ee ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - BRAYOUN DEVELOPMENT - A residential subdivision and design review of 18 single family lots on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 201-183-01. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated a petition had been received from the property owners to the west opposing any density higher than Very Low. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Paul Suave, Wilson Engineering, 1350 San Bernardino Road, commented he was available to answer questions. #82, Upland, Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel observed that the City had received a letter with eight signatures opposing the lot size. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the letter had been directed to the City Council asking that they decline permits to build. Commissioner Vallette observed that the concern appeared to be density. She commented that when the project was processed through Design Review, she had concerns regarding the rear yard boundaries. She wondered if the home on Lot 9 could be switched. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, remarked that all the homes to the north are two-story. He said there had already been some swapping of footprints. He pointed out that the 15-foot setback is to the toe of the slope and there is an additional 13 feet of slope area to the north tract boundary. Commissioner Melcher felt it was important to understand what the streetscape on Hermosa would look like. He thought that one-story houses would present a better streetscape on Hermosa because of the side-on cul-de-sac. Commissioner Vallette stated a single story house would not address the concerns of the neighbors- Commissioner Melcher noted that the neighbors want two dwelling units per acre, but the area is zoned for four dwelling units per acre. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 12, 1992 Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher regarding streetscape. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14509. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT , , COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NONE CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-38 - FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CHURCH - The request to establish a church in a leased space of 7,083 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial park in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN: 209-401-01. (WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT) Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant had withdrawn the project and no Commission action was necessary. , , , , Ge STREET NAME CHANGE 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the name of Miller Avenue to "Church Street" for that portion of Miller Avenue between East Avenue and the easternmost extent of Church Street, a distance of approximately 1-1/4 miles. This application has been filed pursuant to provisions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-57 and in conformance with City Code Section 12.12.050. This application is exempt from environmental assessment as provided in City Code Section 12.12.060. (WITHDRAWN) Chairman McNiel remarked that the project had been withdrawn and no action was necessary. , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS H. REVIEW OF AMENITIES AND RECREATION BUILDING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, thought the reduction in the size of the recreational building had been approved in February. He Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 12, 1992 stated that the components needed for a recreational building are a different mix for sale projects as opposed to rental projects. He felt the proposed building size was appropriate for a "for sale" project and he noted that the homeowners will have to pay for maintenance of the recreational building. He introduced Roger Anderson from their marketing department. Roger Anderson, Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, commented that their firm had done extensive marketing surveys and found that the primary recreation amenities wanted by homeowners are a spa, pool deck for sunning, and a pool, in that order. He said they have found that Homeowners' Associations oppose arge structures because larger buildings increase Homeowners' Association dues. He remarked that the Family Fitness Center and the future YMCA spa are in close proximity to the project. He commented that typically only about 15 percent of the residents want the facilities. Chairman McNiel asked how many dwellings would be lived in by the owners as opposed to investments. Mr. Anderson said that probably only 5 percent would be investment properties. He said they had observed a greater incidence in single family homes being purchased for rentals. He said there will of course be instances where homeowners who have lived in the property may later rent out the condominium and move up to another residence. He said the flat housing market has reduced the number of investors. Chairman McNiel asked if the recreational room is used in rental units. Mr. Anderson replied that in apartment units the weight rooms and card rooms are used. He said that apartments generally attract more single people and those areas are good meeting places. He said tenters do not seem to recognize that a portion of their rent is paying for the facilities but homeowners oppose higher dues to support large recreational buildings. He said Homeowners' Association dues in excess of $70 per month tend to be met with opposition. Chairman McNiel asked the difference in the Homeowners' Association dues with the building as revised and as originally proposed. Mr. Anderson said he did not have that figure. He said the current proposal includes those amenities most buyers want. He said the most used amenity is a 10-foot diameter spa. Mr. Oleson stated that a larger recreational building would require more staff to maintain it and would cost more for upkeep. He felt the difference would be about $20 to $25 per month. He remarked that the new proposal still includes a weight room and also a larger meeting room. He said they mostly removed the rental office space and large entry, which would have been used to display the apartment layouts. Chairman McNiel asked if an outdoor sports court was being proposed. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 12, 1992 Mr. Oleson responded negatively. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Vallette stated she had requested that the item return to the full Commission because she was not secure in the direction to downsize the recreational building. She expressed concern that the amenity package should not include the adjacent park or fitness center because those facilities may not be there. She felt the original proposal offered an opportunity for an interesting amenity package. She did not think the Commission had encouraged the applicant to downscale the recreational building. She felt the original proposal had been upscale but the new proposal was only average. Commissioner Melcher remarked that he lives in a neighborhood with a Homeowners' Association and he understands the burden of paying dues for facilities that he doesn't personally use. He understood the difference in amenity packages needed for sale projects as opposed to rental properties. Commissioner Vallette felt that the additional $20 to $25 per month would offer homebuyers an opportunity to buy into a unique project. Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Melcher how many people in his development use the facilities. Commissioner Melcher estimated 25 percent. rest rooms, and a large picnic area. He said they have a pool, spa, Chairman McNiel asked how far through the process the second building had progressed. Brad Bullet, City Planner, responded that it had gone to Design Review for approval, but the Design Review Committee members felt it should be considered by the full Commission. Chairman McNiel stated that he understood why the applicant wanted to downsize the building, but he also agreed with Commissioner Vallette that one of the key factors in making the project a good project was the recreational building. He thought the other amenities were acceptable but he was concerned that the recreational building was now only about half the original size. Commissioner Vallette observed that an outdoor sports court was also deleted. Chairman McNiel invited additional public comment. Mr. Oleson commented that the new proposal still includes a weight room. He said almost 2,000 square feet of the originally proposed 6,300 square feet was for rental office facilities, which would no longer be needed because the project would now be a sale project. He noted they were now proposing additional spas and a much larger tot lot. He stated that the new proposal included an additional 3,000 square feet of recreational and open space. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 12, 1992 Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated the original recreational building had several areas which were to have been used for sales functions including offices for the manager, a living room, and an oversized entry hall to be used to display the plans. He said that accounted for approximately 2,000 - 2,500 square feet. He said there had also originally been a 770 square foot second floor sun deck area. He indicated the new proposal scaled down the entry, moved some of the rest rooms outside for use by the pool and spa users, increased the size of the weight room, and moved the sunbathing area adjacent to the pools. He said if they were forced to increase the size of the recreational building, they would have to eliminate some of the amenities added to the area. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Vallette noted that the original concept included 7,701 square feet of open play area and the new design calls for 13,512, while the recreational building had been reduced by 3,534 square feet. Chairman McNiel noted that some other amenities had been added. Commissioner Vallette stated one open play area, one more rest room building, and one more spa had been added. She thought each project should have a unique aspect or quality; and if the special feature amenity of the larger recreational building would only cost $20 to $25 more a month, the building should be as originally approved. She felt no direction had been given by the Commission to downscale the amenities. She said she did not feel comfortable approving such downsizing without the full Commission's input. Chairman McNiel understood the reasons for the proposed amenity package because as a practical matter it may not make sense to build a 6,000 square foot building that will not be used. He thought if the project were then diminished because it had lost that feature, it may then make sense to possibly approve the downsizing but direct that architecturally it must be a magnificent structure and he was not sure this proposal met that concept. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the downsizing had been approved in February. Ms. Hernandez stated that the concept of downsizing had been identified as an issue to the other recreational amenities but had not been approved. Mr. Bullet agreed that the question of downscaling the building would be part of the Commission's decision. Chairman McNiel stated that if the Commission agreed to downsize, it will not be as grand as originally proposed. He thought it could still be an architecturally significant building but he felt the reduced recreational building would no longer make a statement. He thought the rationale exists for downscaling the building and felt the applicant had introduced other amenities which may better serve the project but he thought perhaps it should return to Design Review to be sure it is a stunning building. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 12, 1992 Commissioner Vallette asked the location of the three open space play areas ..... Ms. Hernandez stated that a fully revised site plan had not been submitted. Mr. Buller stated that the Commission was being asked to determine if the amenity package is in keeping with the originally proposed amenity package and if the downscaling and architecture of the recreational building was acceptable for the project. Commissioner Vallette agreed that she could accept the downsized recreational building if it only meant reduction of the sales office area. Chairman McNiel asked if the architecture on the proposed building was significant enough to be acceptable. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission should see a revised site plan to be able to determine if the amenity package is acceptable. He noted that the site plan still shows a sports court, but none is now proposed. He felt a pictorial image of the scale and relationship to the surrounding buildings should be shown. Chairman McNiel felt that downsizing of the recreational building would be acceptable, but he was not convinced that it should be as small as proposed. He felt the recreational building must architecturally complement the project. Commissioner Melcher felt it was hard to tell if the building architecturally complements the rest of the project. He thought a reduction in the size of the recreational building commensurate with the elimination of the facilities necessary for the operation of the project as a rental project would be acceptable in concept. He suggested the applicant return with appropriate exhibits and a site plan with the proposed amenities. He indicated that would also mean a revised recreational building. Chairman McNiel suggested the project should return to Design Review. Commissioner Vallette indicated Design Review had looked at the different tot lots but they had not been viewed in relationship with the entire site plan. Mr. Bullet asked if there was consensus from the Commission that the recreational building could be reduced by the amount of space in the sales office, manager'e space, janitorial storage space, and grand entry area that had been proposed for display of plans. Commissioner Vallette felt that the grand entry area to the recreational building was part of the amenity package of the project by providing an entry statement for the project. Chairman McNiel agreed the building would need a nice entry but he didn't necessarily think it would need the sales office entry originally proposed. He thought Design Review should further review the project. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 12, 1992 Mr. Bullet was concerned that it would be in the same loop as before. He did not feel there had been a clear direction as to whether the full package of amenities was acceptable- He said he had thought the size of the recreational building was the only issue according to the last Design Review. Commissioner Vallette stated that the original concern raised last February had been the tot lots. She thought that perhaps the other issues now need to be addressed. She agreed that Design Review had basically approved the tot lots. Chairman McNiel felt the entire package could return to Design Review with the critical issues being the design and ultimate size of the recreational building and its impact on the project as a whole. He thought it could then return to the full Commission to study the full layout of the project. Commissioner Vallette said it was her feeling that the original design of the recreational building downscaled would be acceptable, but that the new proposal was rather average and would be unacceptable. She asked if that was the direction the balance of the Commission would like pursued. Chairman McNiel agreed but felt that the former architecture downscaled would lose a lot of impact. He thought that should be considered. He invited further comment. Mr. O'Neil stated that the original design included a second floor element with open deck area but that the new proposal has added additional sunbathing area by the pool. He said their concept was that the open deck area was now where it should be, around the pool. He said that would necessarily change the structure of the building. Chairman McNiel stated that the downscaled building would have to be treated to look spectacular. Commissioner Vallette felt that the second story deck area should be part of the amenity package. She thought it was something that is not often seen and is therefore unique. Commissioner Melcher stated that a roof deck may be different, but he did not see it as an amenity. Chairman McNiel agreed that roof decks are commonly provided where there is no place for a ground floor deck. He also thought that roof decks are a maintenance nightmare. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant would be willing to continue the item. Mr. Oleson commented that the map had been approved in December. He agreed it was acceptable to schedule the item for Design Review on March 5. Mr. Buller commented it was his hope that two of the three Commissioners would be on that Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 12, 1992 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend the Uniform Sign Program by adding two pylon signs, two secondary identification monument signs, and five pedestrian oriented directory signs within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-42-05, 06, and 18 Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher stated he was surprised to see that the plaza area is the terminus of the greenway, as he thought the greenway concept extended to the corner of Foothill and Haven. Ms. Fong stated the original greenway concept in the Planned Community text brought the trail to the corner. She said the trail concept had later been changed. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Rick Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, asked that the name be changed to Western Land Properties. He stated they were not proposing pylon signs. Mike Lasley, Western Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, agreed with staff's recommendation regarding removal of the arrow on the secondary identification monument signs. He proposed that the pedestrian oriented directory signs be blue to match the existing grillwork on Buildings E and G. He showed an artist's sketch and a mock up of the proposed metal grillwork arch signs. He said Commissioner Tolstoy had previously expressed concern about the view being blocked into the courtyard area. He felt the signs are very transparent. He indicated they proposed a mesh covering on the signs to prevent people from being able to climb them. He said they had requested that the signs include the names of the tenants in the food court, but if the Commissioners objected, they would be willing to delete the restaurant names and only identify the gateway to the food court. He said they saw the signs as an architectural statement at the entrance to the traffic circle and at the north food court entry. He suggested that additional verbiage could be added to indicate the terminus of the greenway trail. He agreed to the proposed greenway trail sign but requested that its installation not be tied to release of occupancy for the Service Merchandise building. He suggested that it instead be tied to Buildings S and P if necessary. Commissioner Melcher asked where the request had been. He recollected that the Commission had already advised the applicant that pylon signs were not a good idea. Mr. Lasley replied they had considered another alternative of removing the pots off the top of the columns and spanning the 38 feet over the driveway with grillwork, but they felt it was too massive and out of scale. He said they had also explored the option of having the theatre marque in the center of the theatre and identifying the food court where the theatre marque presently exists, but that option had been denied at Design Review. He said they determined that the best alternative would be transparent arch signs. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 12, 1992 There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher was not convinced that food court signage is needed from Town Center Drive. Chairman McNiel did not oppose signage to identify Plaza de Cafes$ however, he did not like the structure because he felt it is trendy and commonplace. He felt a lower profile sign would serve as well. He did not think the individual tenants should be identified. He feared that the proposed design would provide a carriage for all sorts of other signs and felt the mesh would not stop children from climbing the signs. Commissioners Vallette and Melcher agreed. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners agreed with staff on the secondary identification monument signs, pedestrian oriented directory signs, and the sign to identify the Greenway Trail at the plaza area within the Food Court. Commissioners Vallette and Melcher concurred with staff. Chairman McNiel felt it would be satisfactory to have the applicant work with staff regarding the timing of the placement of the trail identification sign. The other Commissioners agreed. It was the unanimous conclusion of the Commission that (1) the secondary identification monument signs were acceptable without the arrows and with the sign at the first driveway off Town Center Drive to be placed on the east side of the drive~ (2) the pedestrian oriented directory signs were acceptable with detailed design to be approved by the City Planner~ (3) the concept of signs to identify the food court was acceptable, but the particular design presented was not acceptable~ and (4) signs should be installed to identify the Greenway Trail and to direct bicyclists around the food court, with the timing and design of the signs to be approved by the City Planner. Mr. Lasley asked if they could appeal one aspect of the decision. Mr. Buller responded that an appeal would be of the entire action. Mr. Lasley asked if they could receive a separate action denying the archway signs so that they could proceed with the other signs, while appealing the arch sign decision. Chairman McNiel indicated they had taken one action on the entire package because it had been submitted as one request. Mr. Lasley suggested that the Commission could take action on each item separately. Commissioner Vallette felt it was fair to take one action on the package. Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 12, 1992 The Planning Commission recessed from 9--00 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. , , , , COUNTY REFERRAL 91-06 - GOMES - A request for Preliminary Development Plan, Final Development Plan, and Tentative Map No. 15157 for 24 dwelling units on 26.26 acres of land generally located north of the Southern California Edison utility corridor and east of the extension of Haven Avenue in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence - APN: 201-043-28. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and showed a video of the area. Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that Miki Bratt and he had attended a development review meeting at the County. He commented that the item was before the Commission without an exhaustive staff analysis because the City's Engineering, Fire, and Planning Departments were still reviewing the proposal. He solicited the Planning Commiseion's thoughts on the project~ and he indicated the applicant is moving the project forward at the County. Chairman McNiel asked if the County requires full plans for grading and drainage. Ms. Bratt responded that grading and drainage plans are submitted after project approval at the Tentative Tract stage but before the map is finalized. Chairman McNiel thought the grading and drainage plans could affect the lot yield. He noted the County in its plan suggested that the property would yield 11 lots. He questioned why the proposal was for 24 lots. Mr. Bullet remarked that when the County did the Snow Drop Road plan, they estimated the yield to determine the financial assessment responsibilities of the various properties. He reported that the plan indicated a reasonable yield would be 11 lots. He said the County indicated that each project would stand on its own environmentally. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, remarked that the County had indicated the yield was based on estimates using the County's West Valley Community Foothills Plan and Hillside Development standards in that area. Ms. Bratt stated there were two figures in the Snow Drop Road study. She said one figure indicated a reasonable yield of lots would be 11 on this property and 128 lots for the area. She stated the other estimate based on County zoning was slightly higher at 164 lots. She said this project yielded 22 lots under the County zoning with a density bonus of an additional 2 lots available for good design for preserving the oaks and providing a tennis court. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 12, 1992 Lowell Gomes, 8772 Vivero Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that when the West Valley Community Foothills Plan was put together, the density estimated in that section was 175 maximum units with about 120 to 150 to be realized. He said the plan calls for a planned development approach on any sites over 25 acres. He co~unented that the engineers conducting the Snow Drop Road Study were given instructions to disregard any land within an easement. He said a large portion of his land was not considered in that study because of the original offer for dedication of the roads and flood control and drainage easements. He said those items were in the process of being redesigned with proper engineering so that land would become available for siting units. He said there was also an understatement of the size of his lot because of a mix- up on the assessor's parcel roles. He did not feel the Commission should fear that the area would have twice the density that was anticipated in the West Valley Community Foothills Plan because some property owners felt they had been accorded too many lots. He said his site contains the most developable portion of land in the area, so it has a higher density, equaling approximately .9 of a unit per acre with the density bonus. He indicated the predominant amount of grading would be the road grading required for the loop road to meet the fire requirements. He said he was avoiding the canyons except where they have to be crossed so there would be minimum impact on the trees. He said the plan calls for preserving over 90 percent of the trees and the trees would be replenished by planting five acorns for every tree removed. He said he did not intend to grade flat building pads in most cases, but the plans would show flat building pads because he has to prove to the County that each proposed lot is buildable. He indicated there was no commitment to the County to follow the grading plans and he did not intend to build the lots as indicated on the plans. He said he did not necessarily want to dig flat pads, but he would grade a ridge down to a smoother contour. He remarked the rest of the grading plan was determined by a need to keep the roads as level as possible and with the proper turns. He showed a proposed grading plan. Mr. Gomes stated there will be CC&Rs to control development within some of the areas. He anticipated including a small pedestrian trail system. He indicated the Homeowners' Association would control the pedestrian trail system and the tennis court and would maintain them in a fire safe fashion. He commented he did not want to remove any more of the natural shrubs than necessary- He said he would be happy to work with the County regarding a potential conservation easement to prohibit development on the steep slopes. He proposed using crib walls to avoid slopes which are unnecessarily long and to provide a plantable slope. He said the largest proposed crib wall is 30 feet high and 15 feet out. He proposed some changes to the current drainage pattern but stated he would try to maintain the natural channels. Chairman McNiel asked the average lot size. Mr. Gomes responded it was probably approximately 13,000 square feet. Chairman McNiel asked if the lots would be built to meet the intent of the general standards of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and if the lots would be sold off. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 12, 1992 Mr. Gomes replied he wanted to retain as much control as possible but, depending upon the market, the lots may be sold off. He thought the ideal situation would be to sell the lots but contract to build the homes desired by the purchasers. He said there will be CC&Rs which will establish fence standards and not allow fencing in the non-developable portions of the lots. He stated he wanted to participate in the building of as many as he can. He said he was not very familiar with the Hillside Development Ordinance. Chairman McNiel stated the ordinance minimizes grading and provides that houses be built with respect to the contours of the ground. He felt it was very applicable in this situation and he suggested that Mr. Gomes review the concepts. Mr. Gomes agreed that the concept of working with the terrain would work well on a majority of the lots. Chairman McNiel asked how Mr. Gomes had convinced the County an Environmental Impact Report was not necessary. Mr. Gomes said he had submitted all the various studies the County had requested~ a bio-survey, a cultural resources study, geology plans, etc. He stated the site will be revisited in the spring when more plants are in bloom. He reported there were no rare or endangered species. Commissioner Vallette requested a formal Environmental Impact Report. She said there had been Environmental Impact Reports in the past on other hillside projects and she had found them very helpful. She asked that Mr. Gomes apply alternative plotting as suggested in the Hillside Development Ordinance to create less of an environmental impact. She appreciated the concern Mr. Gomes had indicated for preserving the oaks. Mr. Gomes stated he had discarded several other designs on the project. He said he had previously written Environmental Impact Reports and he did not feel one would accomplish anything. He said that the requirement for such a report would delay the project for a minimum of six to nine months. Chairman McNiel felt that hydrological conditions could be touchy. Mr. Gomes said there is only about 200+ acres which drain into the area. He said a preliminary hydrology study had been completed to show how many cfs are in each of the channels. He stated there are very well defined hydrologic channels and he would utilize the channels and not build directly adjacent to them. He said in some cases, the channels will be improved. Chairman McNiel stated an Environmental Impact Report would show the overall effect to the area. He said that the County had developed the vast majority of Alta Eoma without considering and improving the drainage, with little attention paid to the big picture. Mr. Gomes responded that an Environmental Impact Report was prepared when the West Valley Community Foothills Plan was developed. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 12, 1992 Commissioner Vallette asked if he had considered clustering the units for less impact. Mr. Gomes said that had been considered when the West Valley Community Foothills Plan was considered. He stated he wanted to avoid the look of condominiums and preferred to stay with large, single family homes because he felt the market calls for detached single family homes. He said houses are being placed in areas to avoid an impact on the trees. Commissioner Vallette suggested shared driveways and guest parking areas to decrease the number of driveways. Mr. Gomes said a common driveway approach is suggested in a few places, but predominantly the grade is too great to accommodate shared driveways. He thought the homes will probably have sufficient on-site parking with three-to- four car garages. Commissioner Melcher asked what types of houses are proposed. He said many of the existing homes in the area do not fit well, because they are two-story homes which stick up instead of fitting into the grade. He was concerned that the individual owners will all want inappropriate, bulky mansions with steeply pitched roofs. Mr. Gomes stated that low homes require digging into the ground. He said that if grading is not desired, the homes will then stick up, but the look can be mitigated by colors and roof types. Commissioner Melcher felt that low sloped roofs with one-story construction and building off the high points are the key to not overwhelming the area. Mr. Gomes agreed but said that the market will probably dictate large two- story homes. Chairman McNiel questioned the road width and indicated the City felt a wider road was necessary. Mr. Gomes responded he had proposed a 26 foot width because he wanted to minimize grading. Me said a larger road bed will require more cutting on the hill. He stated he may have to build the road at 44 feet in order to satisfy fire department requirements. Chairman McNiel felt there are a lot of unsettled issues but he acknowledged that the project would probably proceed under County supervision. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to review the application. He was particularly concerned with drainage because the more area that is paved and urbanized the greater the impact of flood run-off into the City. Mr. Gomes said the off-site flows would be going approximately 1,000 feet to a catch basin and then would be in a concrete channel. He felt there was no way the run-off could impact the City. Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 12, 1992 Chairman McNiel asked the next stage of the project within the County. Mr. Gomes said he hoped to have the final Development Review the beginning of March. He said following clearance from Development Review, the project would proceed to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and he would then proceed with final designing and engineering. Ms. Bratt stated they were attempting to go to the Board of Supervisors for final approval in April. Tony Marocu, 9436 Balsa, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a landowner in the area and he had sold Mr. Gomes the property. He reported the County requires that potential pads be sited before they will approve the map. He said that causes concern, but it does not mean the depicted grading will take place. He said the Army Corps of Engineers had done many hydrology studies from 1975 to 1986 in order to determine the location of the existing catch basins. He felt those studies should be sufficient. He said he has a 50 acre building site into which he has sunk $700,000 and he plans to build his house as big as he wants it. Vic Cherbak, 9820 Cinch Ring Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, said he was born on the hill and he is very pleased with the way the development has gone. He discussed the drainage channels. He thought the County has done a tremendous job in putting in dams to protect the City. He said he and his brother had put in roads over the last 30 years. He said they brought in municipal water and had constructed a 12-inch line even though only a 6-inch line was needed. He indicated he was going to do everything he could to construct a 40-foot road so that it would not have to be expanded in the future. He said he would discuss the City's concerns, as listed in the December 20, 1991, letter to Carrie Hyke, with the County. He reported there will be a 36-hole golf course developed to the east of the property. He said that golf course would be built under County direction and the previous hydrology studies would be considered. Chairman McNiel stated that as development occurs and plans change, it is important to study the effects on the drainage. Mr. Cherbak said the dams and channels were built to meet projected demands in 2030. Fred Daniel, 10783 Bell Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was an adjacent property owner and he wanted to see the property developed. There were no further public comments. Mr. Buller stated the County process does not necessarily allow the City to go through the same level of review as a project that would be processed in the City. He said the item before the Planning Commission tonight was for information only. He asked that the Commission comment on staff's direction. He said Mr. Gomes had indicated he agreed in concept with the Hillside Grading Ordinance in wanting to be sensitive to the grading and not Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 12, 1992 intending to grade as shown on the plan. He said there were a variety of ways Mr. Gomes could attempt to address the concerns of the Commission, such as working with the County on grading criteria specific to the project site, establishing deed restrictions on the various parcels to restrict certain grading areas, and establishing building envelopes. He said the City would ask the County to consider the Hillside Development Ordinance criteria. Chairman McNiel agreed with the points made in staff's letter to Ms. Hyke. He felt the area would eventually be part of the City and he thought the City should be concerned now. Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to see continued emphasis for requesting an Environmental Impact Report. She requested that the Hillside development standards be made available to Mr. Gomes because she felt he might be able to use the ideas to build a pleasing project. , , , , K. PROGRESS REPORT ON OLD ALTA LOMA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and showed a map outlining the area. Commissioner Melcher asked if the area extended south of Base Line. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that staff feels the intersection of Base Line and Amethyst is an integral part to the success of the Old Alta Loma area. He said the study will address the vacant parcels on the south side of Base Line at Amethyst. Commissioner Vallette felt staff had done a good job and that the redevelopment project should be one of the best things done in the City. She mentioned that she had attended a mobile workshop in New Orleans regarding housing for the elderly in combination with revitalization of historic structures. She thought a senior housing project in the packing house will be excellent. Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to set up a tour of Old Alta Loma. Commissioner Melther commented a tour would enable the Commission to better participate in the process. Mr. Buller suggested that a walking tour be scheduled in April after Daylight Savings Time becomes effective. , , , · , COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner,' suggested that the Planning Commission's annual workshop at the Tolstoy residence be scheduled for February 20, 1992. Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 12, 1992 The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Buller stated that on Friday, February 14, the City would be hosting a Department of Fish and Wildlife presentation on white sage. , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. , , , , ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 with Chitlea and Tolstoy absent, to adjourn. 10:55 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a February 20, 1992, workshop at 5:30 p.m. at the Tolstoy residence, 9540 Hillside, Rancho Cucamonga, regarding 1992 outlook and work program. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -18- February 12, 1992