HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/10/27 - Minutes - PC-HPC •
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
October 27, 2010
Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:05p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL -
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz,
Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney;
Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer;
Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning
Director; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
. . . . .
•
ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made at this time.
f R h f f
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of
October 13, 2010.
. . . . .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE DRC2009-00863 - PETE BABCOCK -A request to reduce the side yard setback
from 5 feet to 6 inches in order to allow an existing 140 square foot storage structure that was
built without a permit and is located within the Very Low Residential (VL) District at 5753 Indigo
Avenue-APN: 1043-121-10. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from
CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15305. The project consists of reducing the required side yard setback by 5 feet and will not
result in any changes in land use, density or create a new lot.
Tabe van der Zwaag,Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He said staff has received two
letters from neighbors opposing the request and these were placed before the Commission as well
as a packet of pictures and addresses of other properties nearby.
Commissioner Fletcher noted there was an inspection in April of 2009. He asked why this problem
is still unresolved and how the complaint was first brought forward.
Mr. van der Zwaag said it began with a letter of complaint from a neighbor. He said it has taken this
long because staff has been working with the applicant and the applicant asked for several
continuances from the Building Department. He said he then hired a consultant and the consultant
asked for more time until he was ready to present his case.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Variance is granted,would the approval cause harm to anyone
in the neighborhood.
Mr. van der Zwaag said the neighbor to the north is unhappy because the shed is right up against
her property line: He said if a Variance is granted for this shed, then there would be the perception
for others to not follow the rules as well. He said it may not be a neighborhood problem, but could
be a citywide problem. He asked why they should make everyone else comply with the required
setback if this Variance request is granted.
Commissioner Fletcher said that with Variances, they look at each case individually and therefore it
does not grant or create precedence for anyone else.
Commissioner Wimberly asked what was discovered when the inspection occurred.
Jim Waters, Building Inspection Supervisor, said there is a problem meeting the fire requirements
and that some reconstruction would have to occur for the shed to comply with the "one hour" fire
requirement.
Commissioner Wimberly asked if there were any other construction issues.
Mr. Waters explained that if the Variance is granted then Building and Safety would do a full
inspection and the property owner would be required to make the structure compliant. He said they
only looked at the setback and because it did not meet that standard, this prompted the Variance
request and no further inspection was done from that point. He said the shed is too close to the wall
to be compliant with our codes as currently constructed.
Chairman Munoz confirmed that if a required element (such as setback standards) does not meet
code then the inspection is stopped until that item is corrected.
Mr. Waters said that is correct and then there is no permit currently issued, so once they find a
violation of a Variance, then they will issue a correction notice to comply with the Variance. He said
if it is found that they have to move it, then they will inspect it fully.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that even if the Variance is granted, then at least
one problem has been identified and then the applicant will still have to have the problems
corrected.
Mr. Waters said that they have discussed the likely remedies with the consultant.
Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked if the structure is 6 inches from the wall or if it truly is against wall.
Mr. van der Zwaag said staff maintains it is 6 inches, but the neighbor says a previous owner built a
property line wall because the previous owner(prior to Mr. Babcock)did not want the walland would
not contribute towards the cost of the wall, so she built it on the edge of the property line. He said
Mr. Babcock states the shed is entirely on his property.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Variance is granted, are there still any major problems with the
shed and does it still need to be inspected and permitted.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 27, 2010
Mr.Waters said he would still have to submit plans for the shed. He said because they did not have
. any construction inspections during the building of the shed, the owner would have to still have to
have a full inspection.
Mr. Flower clarified that the Variance request is just for the setbacks and does not apply to building
code requirements. He said meeting the Building Code is something that can't be waived by the
Commission. He said if the inspection reveals other issues, they would have to be dealt with.
Mr. van der Zwaag reported that one of the issues to be handled is that the shed is over 120 square
feet and qualifies as an accessory structure; it falls under the same rules as a casita. He said one
requirement would be to cut off the eaves that hang over the trail, and add a rain gutter and onto the
neighbor's property and over the trail as well.
Mr. Waters said that he also would have to have noncombustible construction added onto the shed
on the side that faces the neighbor's wall to meet the "one-hour" fire requirement.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if we know the actual dimensions of the structure.
Mr. van der Zwaag said he would have to research that.
Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing.
Charlie Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, stated that the
applicant worked with staff for over a year, and if the Variance is approved then the property owner
would take care of what would need to be done. He said he met with Building and Safety to discuss
the following remedies: East portion—cut back overhang and make flush and install a rain gutter to
prevent erosion of the trail below; northern property line-there is some exposed wood framing and
he would have to add another layer of fire compliant material to address this. He said Staff has met
with them and only a partial inspection took place. He noted that Andreson Architects can provide
plans for compliance. He said with respect to the property line issue on the north side, the
overhang' would have to be brought back to the property line. He said Mr. Babcock hired a surveyor
to confirm the property line with respect to the 1985 construction of the block wall. He said there
was a claim that he was running a business at his home and he has addressed this and maintains
this is not taking place. He said the applicant thought he was doing the right thing by building
something nice. He referred to a packet of pictures placed before the Commission that were taken
in July. He said Mr. Babcock did not willingly violate the rules, he felt he was reconstructing a prior
structure. He said he tried to meet with the neighbor to the north to address her concerns and it
appears to be a spite complaint related to an earlier dispute about parking. He noted that her 1985
wall permit was issued for only a 3 '1/2 foot-high wall. He said he could not confirm this as there was
not a permit. He said his prior structure had been there 23 years with no complaints and that other
neighbors have also done things in violation. He said the applicant can provide plans and hopes to
work this out. He said he still wants to meet with the neighbor and they left a copy of the survey
completed on October 16, 2010 for her in her mailbox.
Vice Chairman Howdyshell confirmed that the survey was completed on October 16, 2010. She
confirmed that Mr. Babcock only left it in the mailbox and did not actually mail it. She asked how
many of the 11 pictured properties received permits.
Mr. Buquet said he had no documentation of the structures being permitted. He said the goal was
not to raise issues with other property owners, but because the neighborhood was all built around
the same time, these types of improvements were common. He said he made initial document
requests on 4 or 5 of them and the photos indicate those are within 5 feet of the property line.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 27, 2010
Commissioner Fletcher referred to the letter from a neighbor, Pam Ryan, expressing a concern that
the shed encroached on her property.
Mr. Buquet said maybe it does. He said Mr. Babcock would have to flatten that side of the structure
to eliminate the perception of an encroachment.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if he talked with her about it and if no encroachment is found then
does she still have issues with the request.
Pete Babcock, 5753 Indigo Avenue, stated he has known Pam Ryan for over 20 years,and they are
happy neighbors. He said he spoke with her prior to the survey. She said the prior owner of his
house put up chain link fence and he would not help with the costs for a block wall she eventually
put up. He said he asked her if she would sign a letter supporting the Variance request but she
expressed concern. He said if the shed is on her property then he would have to remove it. He said
he told her that if that was the case he would and he dropped the surveyor's letter in her mailbox
because he has been unable to reach her. He said the survey confirmed that the shed is not on her
property but the overhang does encroach the property line on the north side and he would remove
that portion of the shed overhang.
Rosemary Garcia, 5715 Indigo Avenue, said she has been a resident since 1985. She maintained
that Ms. Ryan built the wall on her side of the property line. She said she brought her own walls to
the curbs; she thought they were to code and did not know any different.
Ed Dietl stated he has been a resident for 38 years. He said it was the county then and many
places in that area had sheds. He said perhaps this shed measures 140 square feet on the outside
and not the inside.
Mr. van der Zwaag said this subdivision was processed in 1979.
Mr. Babcock said he did have a licensed survey done and the line is where he thought it was. He
said he is not feuding with his neighbors. He said there are 12 properties in the 660 foot radius of
his house in violation like him and although it is not his intent to point out his neighbors' violations,
Pam Ryan has 2 sheds on her north property line in addition to 2 others. He said he can't be the
only one to be punished.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked who constructed his replacement shed.
Mr. Babcock said he is a general contractor and he hired an electrician and a framer. He said the
slab and the remainder was done by him or his staff.
Chairman Munoz noted that if he is a licensed general contractor, then what was the thought
process for not getting a permit.
Mr. Babcock admitted the thought process was not a good one. He said the codes usually
encountered by contractors are different. He said he did not know about the 120 square foot rule.
He said he built an addition to his house in 1999 and it was fully permitted and he has abided by the
codes and laws and rules. He said he should have known, and now he is trying to solve problem he
created. He said there are 12 sheds within 660 feet of his house that have structures that do not
meet the setback requirements.
Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Howdyshell expressed concern about a lack of due diligence. She said the applicant
did not properly notify the neighbor and that notification should have been delivered via us mail or
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 27, 2010
registered mail, and not just dropped in the mailbox. She said the letter from Pam Ryan is dated
October 25, 2010. (only 2 days prior to this meeting) and in it she still expressed concerns.
Commissioner Howdyshell mentioned the documentation of 11 other examples of violations in the
vicinity and questioned if the City has to go after them as well. She expressed concern that if a
Variance is in place, it might open Pandora's box down the road.
Commissioner Oaxaca said he shares some of Vice Chairman Howdyshell's concerns. He said that
with respect to awareness/knowledge of City codes, this may be a challenge for some but with the
applicant's experience and line of work, he would expect more from him. He said he was not moved
by the argument that he was replacing a 25 year-old structure with a much more upgraded structure.
He said he is also concerned about the trail encroachment in that he wants to preserve and protect
the trails and they should be accessible for maintenance and emergency vehicles. He said he is
also concerned about the pictures of other structures in the neighborhood. He said some of the
structures look quite old, although some may be newer and the size is unknown. He said he is not
comfortable with taking someone else's issue and trying to solve it for them when it can also create
other situations. He said the codes are in place for a purpose.
Commissioner Wimberly said he has some agreement with his fellow Commissioners. He noted the
mitigation efforts the applicant proposes. He said it looks like there may be others in the
neighborhood in violation and he is not too concerned about that because each case is reviewed on
its own merit. He said the concern is now about the next steps.
Commissioner Fletcher said he visited site, looked at the shed and the layout and the neighboring
lots. He noted that every lot has a shed near the back wall in the corner. He said the overhang
encroaches the trail but the trail is very wide-at least 20 feet. He said he did not think the overhang
would be a safety issue and that numerous trees also overhang the trail and those could also be a
safety issue. He said he did not recommend writing everyone up for this; the overhang is not a big
concern and the property owner said he would remedy that. He said the property to the north is
against the wall but on the applicant's property. He said he did not think this Variance request is too
difficult-no harm, no foul. He said the findings were found to grant an easement and this all started
with a neighbor that was irritated. He said he did not like anonymous letters that cause a 1 %year
of grief and expense. He said the applicant admitted that he made a mistake. He said the
Commission has looked at Variances before construction and after construction-he referred to a
similar situation where the applicant made an effort to make a shed nice and substantial and it
would have created hardship to ask them to remove it. He said the codes are not designed to be a
tool for vindictive neighbors and we should not settle spats between neighbors. He said that if the
applicant was aware of the codes he would not have gone to this expense and this appears to be an
honest mistake. He said he believes the findings are sufficient to justify the facts to grant the
Variance.
Chairman Munoz said he agreed with much of what has been expressed. He said he is concerned
• about the issue of neighbors versus neighbors and about the impact to Mr. Babcock if the
Commission did not grant the Variance. He said he has more knowledge than most but there is
some doubt that things were thought out properly. He said he is not as concerned about setting a
precedent. He said this is the first one in a few years. He said even with a Variance there will be
some expense for the applicant to correct the eaves, add fire safe materials, prove the property lines
have been respected, complete the electrical inspection, etc. He said the applicant said they will
work with the Building Department to bring the structure to code. He said the east side does
encroach, but they have said they will bring the eave back to address the safety issue. He said he
believes there is a way to fit this with respect to making the findings.
Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked if a full inspection be required if the Variance is approved.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 27, 2010
•
Mr. Waters confirmed that it would. He said the foundation, CMU walls,the framing,footings, rebar,
and electrical have to be checked and they have to document how it was built and if it meets the
architectural plan. He said they will have to expose the electrical and conduit and wires and ground
fault, but it can be done; some things can be done using high tech X-ray type equipment.
Commissioner Fletcher noted the applicant will have to satisfy all that and the main issue for the
Commission is the setbacks. He said most sheds in that neighborhood were probably there before
this code requirement. He said he would be disappointed if the City swarmed over them looking for
violations.
Commissioner Oaxaca said the inspection process sounds more elaborate because of having to
work backwards. He asked if more staff time would be involved.
Mr. Waters said that is correct-in that the steel rebar is normally looked at prior to pouring, and they
have to verify it before it can be signed off. He noted that it can be X-Rayed to verify. He said there
may be more staff/inspection time but that the cost of the permit covers that.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if the Commission denies the application could the structure be
shrunk in size or adjusted rather than be removed.
Mr. Waters responded that because the wall is so close, they would have to sever a 4 '/% foot-
section of the wall and erect a new one. He said it would be tough to do and they would also have
to retrofit the footings and slabs to support the modified structure.
Commissioner Fletcher said it is a shed, not living quarters. He remarked that if it was smaller than
120 square feet, no permit would have been required in the first place.
Mr. Flower clarified that if the Commission denies the Variance request,then they should direct staff
to draft a Resolution to deny the request, and if the Commission wishes to approve it they should
draft a resolution to approve with facts and findings. He said they should also add a condition to
comply with all building code requirements, perform a survey of lot lines, specify that the rain gutters
are completed and the encroachment to the north property be removed.
Commissioner Fletcher moved that staff prepare a draft Resolution to approve the Variance with the
conditions noted.
Commissioner Oaxaca said he would like to amend the motion to obligate the applicant to pay any
extra inspection costs as the City should not bear those costs.
Mr. Troyer noted that those costs are already factored in plan check fees.
Commissioner Oaxaca withdrew his amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Wimberly offered to second the original motion posed by Commissioner Fletcher.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, to direct staff to draft a Resolution of
Approval with the noted added conditions. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
•
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 27, 2010
B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00259- K HOVNANIAN -The design review of building
elevations and detailed site plan for 79 single-family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Low
Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on
the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, west of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN:
1087-101-01 thru-55, 1087-111-01 thru-02, 1087-111-14 thru 1087-111-19, 1087-111-21, and
1087-111-27 thru 1087-111-36. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-1. Staff has
found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact
Report(State Clearinghouse#88082915 and#98121091 certified by the City Council on August
1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that
Environmental Impact Report.
Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He noted receiving one call from a
resident who is unhappy with the smaller home product size and the CFD district bonds and the
related buy down. He said a response was e-mailed to the resident explaining the entire process for
the bonds. He also noted a correction on Page B-45— noting that Engineering Condition #6 has
been struck from the resolution.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked if there are title transfer fees for covenants.
Mr. Fowler said he is not aware of them.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked for confirmation as to the percentage of single-story plans.
Mr. Fowler said there was a prior policy with a 10% single-story home set aside and now the
applicant proposes 25% single-story homes. He said originally they had 33%, but then they re-
plotted the development and finally arrived at a 25% single-story set aside.
Commissioner Fletcher asked how many single-story homes will there be.
Mr. Fowler replied there would be 20.
Commissioner Fletcher asked about the residents' concern and if they thought the new owners
would pay less than the owners of the earlier development.
Mr. Fowler said the bond fees are determined by the size of the house, but the developer pays
upfront to buy the bonds down. He confirmed that it is prorated on the size of the house and the buy
down equalizes the payment.
Commissioner Oaxaca confirmed that 18 homes were built and sold prior.
Mr. Fowler said that is correct.
Steve Scherbarth, 1500 South Haven Avenue, Ontario, thanked staff and Mr. Troyer for their help
with the design and enhancements. He said K. Hovnanian looks at Rancho Cucamonga as the
premier city in the Inland Empire. He said it is a desirable place to live.
Commissioner Fletcher asked the applicant to explain their decision to reduce the number of single-
story homes.
Mr. Scherbarth said the actual original plan was for all the plans to be two-story homes as one plan
was designed with a mock loft. He said the DRC said they needed single-story product. He said
they chose one that fit the dimensions of the lots. Because they have a bigger footprint, it makes it
more difficult to fit on the lot and meet the required setbacks. He said the single-story homes will be
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 27, 2010
on the larger lots. He said the single-story product may be one of the best sellers. He noted that the
buyers are not looking so much for huge size homes now.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if it is more difficult for buyers to get a mortgage now.
Mr. Scherbarth said, yes, lending standards are more difficult.
Commissioner Fletcher noted the upcoming report and discussion on the agenda regarding set
asides for single-story homes. He asked if they find these set asides difficult to meet in other
communities.
•
Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scherbarth said the footprints are larger and setbacks are difficult to meet with the square
footage combined with the lot sizes. He said if the setbacks could be massaged to fit a single-story
house, it would be helpful. He said they are looking at another property in the City and they are
proposing all single-story plans for that development.
Emani Houman, 5069 Stillwater Avenue, said he bought his house thinking the entire development
would all be above 3400 square foot plans. He said the City is trying to meet a quota for taxes and
that is why we are building smaller homes. He said the bond will get paid but it will affect the value
of their property. He said he did not get a letter of notification about the smaller home proposal.
Quang Si, a resident, said he lives in Rancho Estates and he bought his house 6 months ago. He
said the smaller homes devalue his property. He said elected officials are supposed to.look out for
the tax payers but the builders/developers come and go. He asked the Commission to reconsider
the application.
Kris Courtney of K. Hovnanian said in the development built earlier, they built a 4,000 square foot
home but it was not over that. He said many designs were considered. He said the downturn of the
economy has de-valued their homes. He said the product they are proposing will maximize value in
this economy. He said the home product has the elements the City looks for and it is a premier
development. He said many developers are not able to build now and their land sits vacant. He
said this is a product the home buyers are happy with and it allows them to complete the
development without having lots sitting vacant. He said they want the residents to be happy with the
product and the overall community.
Commissioner Fletcher said it is better to have the lots built on. He said the price will be based on
square footage and single-story homes may even be priced higher per square foot. He said this
should not adversely affect home values and it is a misconception that it will detract from the value
of existing homes.
Mr. Courtney said the bonds are assessed on square footage and even though the single-story
product is smaller, the value is still based on what it has and what it is and it does not take away
from the value of a larger home as it is in a different category. He said the economy is what has
changed the value.
•
Mr. Houman said the developer was there in 2006 and they walked away. He said if they were
concerned about the community then why did they leave. He said now they are coming back but the
area was supposed to built a certain way and the City is allowing them to build smaller homes. He
said they keep changing and it is unfair to the existing home owners as it affects them in the long
term. He said the term of the bond will be 31 years instead of 27 years.
Chairman Munoz closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 27, 2010
Commissioner Fletcher noted tonight's decision is specific to the Development Review and the
Commission has no control of the bond issue and therefore is not part of the Commission's
consideration. He said that if homeowners felt misrepresented then that would be an issue between
the developer and the homeowners. He said the economy tanked and it caused problems for
everyone. He said it is good that the development is being completed and he likes the change in the
size of the homes. He said in prior years we had an informal requirement for a 20% single-story set
aside and it was often ignored. He said the City needs more single-story homes to serve the needs
of the community. He said he likes most of the designs. He said this is a good addition for the City
of Rancho Cucamonga.
Commissioner Wimberly said he worked with the applicants at the DRC and it was a pleasure as
they worked with staff to mitigate all the issues. He said they re-designed their single-story product
to make it right for us and he is proud of the applicants because they are finishing what they started.
He said 25% of this new development is single-story units and he is happy they met the
requirement; it is a nice product.
Commissioner Oaxaca said this discussion reveals that we are making painful tradeoffs-and it is an
example of finding the best medium we can in this situation. He noted they can complete the
•
community and respond to the market forces;timing is everything and it is a constant moving target
with difficulties now and they will continue. He said this is an opportunity to complete the area and
build it out. He said he is pleased with the product. He said it is different than the original proposal;
these are.different times. He agreed that it will be a good addition to the City and will provide
affordable home ownership.
Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she is pleased to see construction will begin again. She said we
see empty dirt lots and values have dropped and it will take time for the values to rise. She said
single-story homes are typically premium and the first to be sold, so she would like to see a strong
ratio of them. She then referred to Plan #3-. She said she struggles with a large home and only a
2-car garage. She said if we have 6 or 7 bedrooms, and only a two-car or tandem garage, we will
see more cars on the street. She said she likes the single-story plan and the option for an additional
bedroom. She said there are other builders trying to reenter the construction market, but they are
waiting for better times to build, so she is glad to see this.
Chairman Munoz concurred and applauded the applicant. He said they were held to higher
standards even though they are smaller homes. He said he agrees with the builder in that they
could have vacant lots or empty two-story homes instead and this is the better option. He said this
does not help and the economics are at work. He noted the number of foreclosures and said this
issue is bigger than the bond issue. He thanked the builder for exceeding the current policy of the
single-story set aside requirement. He said he is glad the next development from them will be all
single-story because we have many seniors that want them, we want to keep them here, and we
want to encourage them to stay in Rancho Cucamonga. He offered praise to the builder for this.
Motion: Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolution of Approval with the
elimination of Engineering Condition#6 as noted by staff for DRC2010-00259. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
•
I
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 27, 2010
NEW BUSINESS
C. DRC2010-00724 - CONSIDERATION OF A POLICY RESOLUTION REGARDING SINGLE-
STORY HOMES IN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA.
Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that this request to
formalize this policy is not for mixed use or multi-family projects; it only applies to new single-family
home developments.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that we had a prior informal policy and there has a problem enforcing
that. He said we encourage developers to include single-story product, but we may end up with two-
story product. He asked what the difference is between this proposal and the prior policy.
Ms. Burnett said the first option would be to adopt a policy by resolution and the second option is a
Development Code amendment.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the policy is enforceable.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, noted that many policies are incorporated into the design
guidelines but are not absolute requirements and the ultimate discretion is with decision making
bodies. He said the problem was that the 20% requirement was not written anywhere. He said by
adopting the written policy so everyone knows, and by codifying it;furthers the ability to uphold it as
we could make it mandatory. He said if it is not the intent of the Commission to make it a hard cap it
allows some flexibility for special situations if for example, the lot size does not fit. He said there is
functionally no difference between adopting the formal written policy or a Development Code
Amendment. He said there is a practical difference in that if the Commission desires to have a
• Code amendment, the Commission would initiate the amendment and then it would have to go to
the City Council for final approval and it would be part of the Code. He said it takes more to get
there with that option.
Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that even if it is codified,the Commission could still make a case
by case exception.
Mr. Flower said yes, and they could adjust the language in a resolution as well. He said the
language that is proposed is not set in stone, and if the Commission desires a mandatory 20%
single-story set aside, then that could be included. He said the language in the draft resolution
could also be adjusted.
Commissioner Fletcher said when the City had the prior rapid build out, there was some desire for
some flexibility, but now the City has a lack of single-story homes. He said there are not many
remaining opportunities to get the right mix of single-story homes; this is 8 years too late. He
confirmed that if we implemented a policy and if the property owners/developers entitlements have
expired they would have to renew their applications and it would be brought up for review including
their single-story set aside.
Mr. Flower noted that the result would be the same if a Code amendment was in place. If an
entitlement expired they would have to come back and comply with the current rules.
James Troyer, Planning Director, also noted that this would not affect applications that are already
deemed complete.
Commissioner Fletcher said he thought it should be a requirement and he would suggest a 25%
requirement for the development of 4 houses or more with flexibility to waive the requirement.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 27, 2010
Ms. Burnett noted the survey of other cities included 5 units or more and they ranged from a 15-25%
set aside.
Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she is an advocate of single-story homes. She remarked that the
City is 90% built out and seniors want to stay here. She said she would like to see some muscle in
the requirement and the builders need to see that we want to serve our community needs.
Chairman Munoz concurred with staff. He said he has wanted to have a policy, but was unsure of
what the standing policy was. He said whether it be a resolution or codified as an amendment, it is
irrelevant, and he is pleased that it is getting support from his fellow commissioners.
Vice Chairman Howdyshell said she would like to focus on a community that is 55+ development
and/or single-story homes for what we have left for residential development.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if a set aside of 25%for 4 or more would cause a problem and if there
would still be some flexibility. He said he favors it to be more restrictive than not.
Chairman Munoz asked if the Planning Commission would like a code amendment for a 25% set
aside in developments of 4 homes or more,
Vice Chairman Howdyshell said the more single-story homes, the better.
Mr. Flower said that if the Commission opts to process a Development Code amendment, a public
hearing would be required and staff would have to have to work out the numbers. To present to the
Commission.
Commissioner Oaxaca said he agrees that the Commission can send a strong message for what
the City should have in this regard.
Mr. Flower noted that staff will have to bring this back with a draft resolution for review as a public
hearing.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, to initiate a Development Code Amendment
requiring a single-story set aside of 25%for new single-family housing developments consisting of 4
or more units. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ed Dietl thanked the Planning Commission as he is a big supporter of single-story homes. He
asked if anything is being considered regarding the need for single-story rental apartments and
condos. He said he would like rental units on one level.
•
•
COMMISSION BUSINESS
James Troyer, Planning Director, said the land economics would be difficult for that to pencil out for
the builders. He said currently there is not a requirement for this and that requirement would be
difficult to adopt.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 27, 2010
Commissioner Fletcher expressed concern about applications that are being brought forward such
as the Variance request this evening. He said the City should be more customer friendly,especially
to single-family residents. He said the applicant endured much expense and time; over a year and
he had to hire a consultant to help him. He said it started with a vindictive neighbor and then staff
put the property owner through grief. He said something similar also came up at a recent Council
meeting. He said in the future, he wants to see staff head them off. He said no one would complain
that staff is helping out the homeowners. He said he would rather see staff be more liberal and get
them through the process. He said Mr. Babcock said he was even threatened with a legal filing.
Commissioner Fletcher said we have the ability to be more flexible. He said staff should solve these
problems before they get to the Commission.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked that a short staff report on how bonds work be put on a future agenda.
He asked what the outcome would be if a developer does not complete his project and then comes
back with development changes.
Vice Chairman Howdyshell asked that the report consider the correlation of former construction and
future construction within the proximity of the first construction.
ADJOURNMENT •
Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Troyer, AICP
Secretary
Approved: November 10, 2010 .
•
Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 27, 2010