HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/04/26 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 26, 2006
Chairman Stewart 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 Chambers at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Lou Munoz, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart
ABSENT: Rich Macias
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner; Emily Cameron, Associate Planner;
Jennifer Fechner, Assistant Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney;
Donald Granger, Associate Planner; Joe Stofa, Civil Engineer; Lois
Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Barbara Tuncay, Planning
Department Secretary.
* ** * *
ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements were made at this time.
* ** * *
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz, (Macias absent) carried 4-0-1, to approve the
minutes of April 12, 2006 adjoumed meeting.
* * * * *
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00034-TOLL BROTHERS, INC.-The design review of
building elevations and detailed site plan for 11 single-family lots on 7.59 acres of land in the
Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of
Archibald Avenue, north of Hillside Road -APN: 1061-561-05. Related Files: Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT16592, Minor Exception DRC2004-00076 and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2004-00075. On May 26, 2004, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the
Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592. The California Environmental
Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for
subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative
Declaration.
Chairman Stewart asked the Commissioners if anyone had comments or wanted to pull this item
and seeing there were none, asked for a motion.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, (Macias absent) carried 4-0-1 to adopt the
Consent Calendar by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-01096 - VERIZON WIRELESS - A request to
construct a 60-foot monopine cellular tower in the Hillside Residential District, located at City
Fire Station #175, 11108 Banyan Street - APN: 0201-191-28. This project is categorically
exempt from the requirement of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to
State CEZA guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities).
Jennifer Fechner, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing.
Dean Brown, 627 North Main Street, Orange stated that he was the applicant and wanted to
personally thank Chief Bryan for being so helpful and very desirous of improved broadband service.
Mr. Brown stated that his business is trying to improve coverage throughout the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and this is their first site along Banyan Street, near Chaffey College. He stated that
they have received a lot of complaints from students and faculty at Chaffey College and felt this site
would provide excellent coverage up in that area. He added that they had reviewed the staff report
and conditions of approval and have no problems with them and added that he is there to answer
any questions.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he had some questions for the applicant and asked how close a
person has to be to a cell tower to pick up reception.
Mr. Brown answered that it depends on a lot of factors, typically they are still dealing with "line of
site"technology, meaning if you can't see the wireless communication antennas, you usually don't
have good coverage. He continued that because of the relatively flat terrain and no obstructions in
the proposed site area you should have 2 to 2 '/z miles of coverage in all directions surrounding the
cell site.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if reception will improve if you are down Archibald Avenue. .
Mr. Brown replied that they are looking at other sites throughout Rancho Cucamonga and closer to
other Fire Stations as well; Chief Bryan has given them direction on which areas do not have good
coverage.
Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner, noted that the City did receive an application for a new
co-located facility at the Amethyst Fire Station which is about a half mile from Archibald Avenue.
Commissioner Fletcher added the City has another tower going in the Archibald Avenue area and
he has had several neighbors ask him questions with concerns about possible physical dangers to
those in proximity to a cell tower.
Mr. Brown replied that there has been no evidence demonstrated as of yet and stated that when
they build more cell towers, they actually tum down the power so they don't over-power other
surrounding wireless facilities. He added that typically the FCC requires careful analysis of any cell
Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 26, 2006
site antennas that are below 10 meters in height or about 32 and Y2 feet. He stated that their
antennas are going to be approximately 55 to 65 feet up in the air. He continued that they have
documentation that they are well within the FCC power density standards for radio wave signals. He
said they are a fraction of the FCC standard anywhere around the vicinity of the proposed project;
very low power levels these days.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that some of his neighbors asked if the cell tower would interfere with
satellite dish reception.
Mr. Brown explained that the FCC tightly controls the frequency band widths that are licensed to use
and stated that there have been some interference issues with another carrier with their 800
megahertz systems and emergency police and fire bands that are very close to those 800
megahertz systems; primarily the Nextel frequencies,and actually the FCC is re-banding the Nextel
frequencies out of the 800 megahertz range. He reported the FCC is very careful about monitoring
interference and makes sure that when they license a wireless company that they are in a frequency
range that does not conflict with any other type of TV, radio or any type of emergency
communication facilities and when they do, they take action to try and minimize that and the only
real interference issue has been associated with Nextel broadcast range being very close to public
safety frequency ranges. He said there will be no interference with any kind of Direct TV or any kind
of satellite dish TV.
Commissioner Munoz asked for clarification if the channels being used by the proposed project are
totally different than television channels.
Mr. Brown explained that it's the same as the old UHF channels and yes, they are very separate
from any of the channels that are broadcast now.
Commissioner Fletcher asked what the regulations are if we were to have a presidential visit or
something close to that because he had heard that, for security reasons, they jam cell phone
transmissions.
Mr. Brown answered that he really didn't have any knowledge of those regulations but he stated that
he did know that they are instituting regulations over the wireless industry that will allow priority calls
coming from Government officials, so he believes they do have the technology for emergency
facilities to override and tap into those communication systems.
Chairman Stewart closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that it is always a good thing when we can improve the
communications that we have within the City and that he knows it's a struggle to find sites and
stated that the City appreciates any new sites that do get approved without a lot of controversy and
would be in favor of this project.
Commissioner Munoz stated that he didn't have any comments but that he felt the Commission
should move to approve this project.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, (Macias absent) carried 4-0-1 to approve
Conditional Use Permit as presented by Staff by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS
Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 26, 2006
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-01173-JACK HALL-A requestto convert an existing
historic home into an office on 1.4 gross acre of land in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre) located at 6710 Beryl Street - APN: 0202-461-65. This project is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32 Exemption — In-Fill Development Project). Related file:
Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2006-00226.
Emily Cameron, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Munoz remarked that while he does approve of the use and the work Mr. Hall has
done which is significant to the property and while he agrees that the use is beneficial to the property
versus what the City has seen in past years, Mr. Hall does have a history of having various violations
and not acting on them. Mr. Munoz asked what assurances the Commission has that Mr. Hall will
keep his end of the bargain this time.
Emily Cameron indicated that Staff has the Resolutions of Approval and the Standard Conditions as
well as an outstanding list of what were the original violations and what has been cleared up. She
added that Staff has been working with Mr. Hall to get the violations cleared up. She noted that in
the past twelve months Mr. Hall has been vigilant in getting those issues completed; however, the
City does have a pending court case and if Mr. Hall doesn't get those issues resolved;the City has
the means to bring that case back to court.
Commissioner Munoz asked for clarification that there is pending legal action that, if given our
approval,and if he meets those requirements noted in the approval,then the pending court case will
be dropped and if he doesn't meet the requirements, Staff will move forward on the court case.
Emily Cameron confirmed that Mr. Munoz is correct.
Commissioner Fletcher asked for an explanation of what some of the violations were and what the
pending litigation is.
Ms. Cameron explained that there are basically minor zoning code violations left and the major
zoning code violations have already been resolved. She stated that storage has been a problem
and currently there is a landmarked house that is vacant that they had been using for construction
storage, but currently it is a graded field with construction fencing with no construction going on so
that is something that Staff will need to monitor. She continued that the on-site violations are the
parking lot, interior and exterior modifications that have been constructed without building permits so
the City needs to diligently process those permits so we can get Mr. Hall on the right track for
approval for this entire project.
Chairman Stewart inquired if the Conditional Use Permit will help satisfy some of the outstanding
issues.
Emily Cameron confirmed that the CUP will take care of some of those outstanding issues.
Commissioner Fletcher added that he believes the Commission can approve the Conditional Use
Permit conditioned on those code violations being resolved.
Emily Cameron agreed that Commissioner Fletcher is correct.
Dan Coleman,Acting City Planner, noted that the violations are now listed as Conditions of Approval
under the Fire Department and the Building and Safety Department section in the resolutions. That
is, the list that has been compiled over the last couple of years on pages C-22 through C-25, all of
Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 26, 2006
which relate to the conversion of a residence to an office occupancy and all the associated things
that have to be done in the building fire codes to address that from a life safety stand point.
Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present.
Katherine Hall, 16769 Colonial Drive,stated that she is the project manager on this site and that she
is willing to answer any questions the Commission may have.
Chairman Stewart asked Ms. Hall if she had any response to the long standing code violations.
Ms. Hall responded that they are trying to solve all of those problems and felt that they have been
working towards accomplishing that. She stated that if one drives by there recently and if it had
been seen a year ago, the difference that has been made in how it looks can be seen.
Chairman Stewart noted that is does look a lot better and they have made many improvements.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Ms. Hall if she had any objections to any of the conditions.
Ms. Hall stated that she did not have any objections to the conditions.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the reason the work hadn't been done and or completed was just a
matter of finding time to do it.
Ms. Hall explained that yes, a lot of the conditions are still not resolved because they do not have
the Conditional Use Permit,but once it is approved,a lot of these issues will be covered. She stated
that she does understand the parking issue and that they are trying to resolve that and that is why
they are there.
Mr. Coleman confirmed that the Conditional Use Permit, if it's approved,would clear the way for the
issuance of building permits for the applicant to do all the work that's necessary.
Commissioner Munoz asked Ms. Hall if she is aware of the requirements that need to be met.
Ms. Hall answered that she is aware of them and they have addressed as many as possible up to
this point in time and now they are just awaiting approval of the CUP.
Chairman Stewart asked if there was anyone else in the audience that would like to speak in regard
to this item.
Don Chambers, 11691 Mt. Baker Court,stated that his Grandmother's house is directly south of the
property and they have some reservations of this being turned into an office building because this is
a residential area. He added that Mr. Hall had already violated the City's regulations and put in a
parking lot and that the parking lot drains into his Grandmother's house. He added that in the past
Mr. Hall had other companies in there that violated all the codes and obviously with all the violations
listed, he is not adhering to current City regulations. Mr. Chambers expressed concern that Mr. Hall
is going to do whatever he wants. He continued that for 20 years his Grandmother's house has
been known as the house next to the green ugly house and for about 4 years, his Grandmother's
living room looked out to boarded up windows while they were doing construction.
Chairman Stewart asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in regard to the proposed
project and seeing there were none,closed the public hearing and asked Staff to address some the
issues brought up by Mr. Chambers.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 26, 2006
•
Dan Coleman explained with a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission has the authority
to review this application at any time they feel it is necessary. He said that normally what would
happen is Staff would continue monitoring this to make sure that work is being completed in a timely
fashion and if there are problems that occur and the City thinks it's necessary,Staff would inform the
Planning Commission and they could choose whether they wanted to review the CUP. He added
that through the review process the Commission would be able to establish new conditions,a new
time frame and so forth. He emphasized that there is some additional leverage because we do have
a prosecution case involved, so if things fall apart and don't progress, then that avenue is also
available to the City.
Chairman Stewart questioned if the adjacent lot is slated for future residential development.
Mr. Coleman replied that Mr. Hall has indicated the desire to subdivide that surrounding land.
Chairman Stewart added that it would probably add some buffering to Ms. Hall's property.
Mr. Coleman agreed that it would.
Chairman Stewart asked if drainage issues would be mitigated once the other property is developed.
Mr. Coleman replied that the drainage issues would be mitigated by what is proposed tonight. He
said that this application requires the reconstruction of the parking lot in an east/west fashion
instead of the north/south fashion that was originally done.
Chairman Stewart asked Mr. Chambers if his questions were answered satisfactorily.
Mr. Chambers stated that he believed that the reconstruction proposed on this parking lot is pending
his Grandmother selling her property to Mr. Hall.
Chairman Stewart stated that situation isn't something that is in front of the Commission tonight and
they really shouldn't be discussing it at this time. She said the Commission does have a Conditional
Use Permit before them tonight which is going to offer Staff opportunities to bring this back to the
Commission should the project not be compliant. Chairman Stewart informed Mr.Chambers should
he have the retum of wood-chopping, paving companies and what have you,it can be brought back
to this Commission.
Mr. Chambers added that at one point they had people living in tents on the property.
Chairman Stewart stated that hopefully with some upgrading of the structure and the office
designation, it should help remove some of the problems that Mr. Chambers has experienced and
she believes that they will not have anymore problems with people staying in tents or camival
opportunities or that type of thing and that certainly this would be a positive direction in that regard.
Commissioner Munoz reported that there weren't any tents at the proposed site today and that he
took a picture of the property and noted that it has been significantly upgraded and submitted the
photo to the Commission for their review. Mr. Munoz added that he believes the Conditional Use
Permit will take care of the parking lot issue as well.
Mr. Coleman confirmed that the CUP will take care of the parking lot issue.
Ms. Cameron added that about 4 months ago Mr. Hall attended a neighborhood meeting. He had
told the neighbors that he had graded the lot once before and if the drainage needed to be
improved; he would go out and grade it again to help resolve the drainage problem.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 26, 2006
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he understood that it is the slope of the parking lot that was
developed without permits that is causing the drainage.
Ms. Cameron noted that Mr. Fletcher was correct.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the parking lot would be reconstructed.
Ms. Cameron answered yes that it would be paved, re-striped, curbed, sloped, gutters and
everything done to code.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is a timetable associated with that.
Ms. Cameron said they have actually already submitted construction drawings a couple of times for
preliminary review, and that they are pretty serious about getting this completed.
Chairman Stewart stated that she understands they have litigation in this matter and there has been
a continuum of code violations and the Commissioners are expressing some concern, as is Staff.
She said it might be prudent in this case to bring this back before the Commission in about 6 months
for a progress report.
Mr. Coleman confirmed that Staff could bring back a Director's Report in 6 months to let the
Commission know how things are progressing.
Commissioner Munoz asked if that would require an amendment to the current Conditional Use
Permit Resolution.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney explained that they could add Condition number 14 under the
Planning Department Design Review that would provide that a Directors Report shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission regarding compliance by the applicant with the terms and conditions as
a CUP and that report be set for an agenda in approximately 6 months. He added to do so would
make it clear in the record and the applicant will understand that as a written condition.
Chairman Stewart agreed with Mr. Ennis and asked if there were any other comments from the
Commission.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that it is a historic property and whenever it is a residence, it is
always preferable to have a family move into it and restore it,but that's not the case here. He added
that there has been quite a bit of work done to it and the structure can still be preserved under
alternate uses and in this particular situation the CUP will give us more leverage in order to control
the improvements and make sure it's not detrimental to any of the neighbors.
Chairman Stewart agreed with Commissioner Fletcher and added that there have been
improvements on this historic structure and that it is a treasure to the City. She went on saying that
unfortunately in this instance she felt that the office use was prudent because the way we've
encroached upon this property doesn't make it real desirable for residential. And she added that
with the CUP in place and us visiting this issue in another six months, it was a good project at this
point in time.
Commissioner McPhail moved to approve with the additional condition that it will come back as a
Director's Report in six months for review.
Chairman Stewart explained that the motion would be to approve both items under the Historic
Preservation Commission for the Landmark Alteration Permit and the Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 26, 2006
Motion: Moved by McPhail,seconded by Munoz,(Macias absent)to approve Landmark Alteration
Permit DRC2006-00226 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2004-01173 with the requirement of a
progress report in 6 months, carried 4-0-1 by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS
D. TRACT MAP SUBTT16114-TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES,L.P.-A request fora time extension
of a previously approved tentative tract map for the development of 21 single-family lots on
15.15 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District(.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) in the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east side of East Avenue,approximately 650 feet south
of Wilson Avenue. The requested amendment involves minor adjustments to street alignments
for the purpose of increasing lot depth to 200 feet in compliance with current City standard while
maintaining the same number of lots-APN:0225-131-16. Related File: Development Review
DRC2005-00401. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts for consideration.
Chairman Stewart explained that item D is related to New Business item E and the items will be
heard concurrently.
Donald Granger, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Fletcher asked for clarification of timelines.
Mr. Granger stated that he wanted to refer Mr. Fletcher's question to Kevin Ennis, Assistant City
Attorney for Map Act guidelines.
Mr. Ennis explained that the Subdivision Map Act would permit the City to grant a total of 5 years of
extensions and the City code requires that they be granted in 1 year increments. He added due to
the length of time this application has been pending for the reasons indicated, Staff felt that it's
appropriate to grant a series of 1 year extensions in this situation.
Commissioner Fletcher asked when the original approval was given.
Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner, replied that June 7, 2001 was the original approval date by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Ennis added that it is a good question and to be clear the initial approval period is for 3 years
and the extensions of 5 years occur on top of those 3 years.
Commissioner Munoz questioned whether the City was consistent with those dates.
Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing.
Mr. Granger confirmed that they were consistent with that.
Pat Maher, 3400 Central Avenue, Suite 145, Riverside, introduced his design team and explained
that his architect would give a brief overview of the design,but first wanted to comment that Donald
Granger has been very professional in getting the project and applicant where they are today and he
really appreciated that and wanted to thank him and the overall Staff.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 26, 2006
Hans Anderle, 2031 Orchard Drive, Newport Beach stated that they have 21 lots and 3 floor plans,
one plan is single-story and the other 2 plans are two-story. The goal was to meet the design
guidelines for the Etiwanda Specific Plan and that their goal was to make sure that the community is
as pleasing as possible and somewhat historically accurate while meeting market needs. He stated
that they have a total of 5 elevation styles and have applied 4 of those styles to each plan, which
shouldn't have more than 2 elevation styles repeated on the plan throughout the site. Each of the
elevation styles have a combination of stucco and stone, stucco and brick and siding and stucco
and the 5 styles they are using are Tuscan,Adobe,Executive Farmhouse,Traditional and Monterey.
Mr. Anderle added that they enjoyed the interaction with Mr. Granger and appreciated his
professionalism and his input in moving this project forward and lastly working with Trimark Pacific
Homes. He explained that they have had an outstanding relationship with them over the past 15
years and are certainly confident that they will execute their design vision to the level of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
Chairman Stewart asked if the perimeter walls on the project are block.
Mr. Anderle replied that he would let the landscape architect answer that question.
Ed Doll, 34197 Coast Highway, Dana Point, explained that they are using masonry block on any
exposed walls to the street and the side walls would most likely be block as well, but yes, block is
the primary wall element.
Mr. Ennis asked if Chairman Stewart would like to have that condition clarified so there's no
ambiguity about that.
Chairman Stewart replied that in DRC the Commission made the commentary that all perimeter
walls are to be block material and they are requiring that because of fire protection.
Dan Coleman informed the Commission that condition 7 requires all interior side and rear walls to be
block;the only distinction in condition 8 is where those are exposed to views which is along a public
street have to be split-faced, so it is covered in that the entire perimeter will be block wall, they will
just be more decorative walls along the street.
Mr. Ennis asked if the Commission would want to amend condition 7.
Chairman Stewart stated that she thinks they are covered but it wouldn't hurt to put the word
"perimeter" in condition 7, that way it assures the City that that is what is going to happen because
this is a fire protection issue in this instance.
Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing and asked if Commission had any questions and/or
comments.
Commissioner McPhail stated that this project is fairly straight forward and the issues that came
before design review were addressed and the architecture does have the appropriate articulation
and she would move approval.
Chairman Stewart announced that she had the motion and the second to approve this item with the
amendment to condition # 7.
Motion: Moved by McPhail,seconded by Fletcher, (Macias absent)to approve Tract Map 16114
with the amended condition as noted by adoption of the Resolution of Approval,carried 4-0-1 by the
following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 26, 2006
AYES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS
NEW BUSINESS
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00401 -
TRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES, L.P. -The design review of building elevations and detailed site
plan for 21 single-family lots on 15.15 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District(.1 to 2
dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east side of East Avenue,
approximately 650 feet south of Wilson Avenue-APN 0225-131-16. Related Files: Preliminary
Review DRC2004-00466 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16114. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Heard in conjunction with item D.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
•
Motion: Moved by Fletcher,seconded by McPhail, and carried 4-0-1(Macias absent),to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
04410/Da �c ing Se etary Approved: May 10, 2006
Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 26, 2006