HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/02/09 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
February 2005
Chairman Macias 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. Chairman
Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart
ABSENT: Cristine McPhail
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis,
Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, Eric Elder,
Planning Aide; Trang Huynh, Building & Safety Official; Vance Pomeroy,
Contract Planner, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary;Joe Stofa,
Associate Engineer
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, asked that Item A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. He indicated
several letters were in front of the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-1-1 (McPhail absent,Stewart abstain),
to approve the minutes of January 26, 2005.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 3-0-1-1 (McPhail absent,Stewart abstain),
to approve the minutes of the adjourned meeting of January 26, 2005.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00491 - PULTE HOMES, INC. - The review of site plan and
elevations for 93 single-family detached homes on a portion of previously approved Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT14759 in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located
south of Wilson Avenue along Wardman Bullock Road-APN: 0226-102-17. On November 10,
1999, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT14759. 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. (Continued from
January 9, 2005)
Chairman Macias pulled the item from the Consent Calendar.
Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that a number of telephone
calls and some letters were received expressing concems about the removal of the eucalyptus
windrow and respecting of the easement. He indicated that staff conducted several meetings with
neighbors at the site and at City Hall and the Mayor attended some of the meetings. He said that
other meetings were conducted with the developer(Pulte)and his consultants and staff believed that
the proposed site layout and design and the conditions contained in the draft Resolution of Approval
respect the easement for both parties and allows orderly development.
Commissioner Stewart asked if there was a positive outcome of the meetings with the neighbors.
Mr. Pomeroy stated it was his understanding that the issues were generally unresolved, but he
reported that he was not present at all of the meetings. He said there was a meeting in December
and another a few weeks ago. He observed there had also been some meetings with the developer
to took for a solution to respect both sides of the easement. He said there were disagreements with
respect to responsibilities and rights that go with the developer's property and the current owners.
He said there is a block wall that was originally installed with the development of the adjacent tract to
contain water on the Pulte property and the easement was put in place to allow the homeowners of
the adjacent tract to go behind the wall to maintain to maintain that safety margin. He indicated
Pulte proposes a non-wood tubular open fence at the edge of the 5-foot easement with access
through a gate at the end to the back side of the wall to be sure the existing residents can mow the
grass, rake the leaves, etc. and maintain the wall. He observed that the perimeter walls for the Pulte
tract stop at the edge of the 5-foot easement line so there will be no blocking of access he pointed
out that a condition requires written notice to home buyers regarding the 5-foot easement.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the existing wall is a solid wall, meaning that the existing
homeowners have to go around the end of the wall to gain access to the area for maintenance.
Mr. Pomeroy confirmed that was correct. He noted the wall was originally built with the existing tract
to the east as a perimeter floodwall.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the wall would still be needed as a floodwall after development.
Mr. Pomeroy responded that the Engineering and Building Departments have indicated the purpose
of the wall has greatly diminished because of improvements installed with the development.
Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer, stated the wall was originally installed by the developer of the
adjacent tract because there was no upstream protection and floodwaters flowed south across the
Pulte property. He stated there is currently protection from the north. He said Pulte has been
required to install extensive storm drain facilities and the wall will serve no practical purpose for flood
control as the protection is provided upstream and within the Pulte development.
Chairman Macias asked for confirmation that the infrastructure has made the floodwall obsolete.
Mr. Stofa confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Chris Warrick, Pulte Homes, 1351 Pomona Road, Suite 200; Corona, said he was surprised there is
an issue with the easement and the trees. He stated the wall currently only serves as a tract
boundary between the existing tract and the new homes. He said the wall no longer serves any
purpose for flood control and the easement is no longer necessary but he did not see any practicality
for eliminating the easement because it would take a lot of coordination, as they would have to get
the permission from each of the individual property owners on the other side of the wall. He said
they hired their own attorneys to look at the situation, including the rights of the easement holder and
Pulte's rights as the fee owner of the property. He thought the proposal as presented is the best
Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 9, 2005
solution. He said they would be willing to talk to the other property owners regarding their concerns.
He believed they have done everything they were asked to do by City staff and what has been asked
of them has added to the quality of the project.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the existing homeowners stored trash or debris on the back side of
the wall.
Mr. Warrick said his superintendent said he found some grass clippings at one time but there have
been no extensive problems.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if it would be the responsibility of the new homeowners to maintain the
easement.
Mr. Warrick replied it is currently their responsibility to maintain the easement and would be the
responsibility of the new homeowners. He stated that the existing homeowners have the
responsibility for maintaining the wall.
The following people spoke with questions and-concerns regarding the tract.
Irving Berliner, 5756 Johnston Place, Rancho Cucamonga
Barry Hiett, 5770 Johnston Place, Rancho Cucamonga
Robert Zimmer, 5742 Johnston Place, Rancho Cucamonga
Thomas Petrozi, 5714 Johnston Place, Rancho Cucamonga
Sandra Bray, 5882 Johnston Place, Rancho Cucamonga
Jimmy Vianu, 14035 Hickcox Lane, Rancho Cucamonga
Cathryn Spuda, 5784 Johnston Place, Rancho Cucamonga
Paul Stoddard, 14036 Hickcox, Rancho Cucamonga
Harold Juhl, 5784 Johnston Place, Rancho Cucamonga
The residents raised concerns about removal of all of the trees behind the walls resulting in a loss of
shade, windbreak, and privacy; the loss of privacy because of the grade differential with the new
home pads being higher and because the new tract would not have a block wall along the Pulte side
of the easement; the loss of the hawk and owl population resulting in an invasion of rats and mice;
damage to the wall caused by heavy equipment removing the trees and grading; perceived
unresponsiveness from the developer, a fear that the developer was planning to put in cheap PVC
fencing because a reference was made to an open, non-wood fence. A concem was raised about
the price of the new homes being less than their homes because they would be tract houses and
have cheap fencing.
They feared the drainage problem would be more severe because the new home pads are higher
and the ground is graded lower against the wall. One resident showed pictures of sandbags in the
area where the trees had been removed and the grading had begun. Another resident said the new
home pads are higher than what is depicted on their plans, and they are about 5 feet higher than the
existing homes.
The residents felt there was confusion over the location of the property line between their lots and
the new development. Two residents showed a portion of their closing documents referencing an
easement to the west of their property and a number of them stated those documents proved they
own the land beyond the wall. One resident said some people had documents stating that the
easement was 10 or 15 feet wide, but he thought that might have been a mistake by the escrow
company. They believed the trees on the other side of the wall had been paid for by their payments
into a Mello-Roos district or the Landscape Maintenance District and they protested that the
developer removed the trees without permission or notification to the residents. They felt Pulte
removed the trees on a weekend so that the residents could not contact the City and they did it in an
effort to steal the land. One resident stated some of the eucalyptus trees were 60-70 years old,
Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 9, 2005
while others were only about 14 years old. One resident felt the floodwall was originally built on their
property in order to avoid the windrow because it was a protected windrow. He said the developer of
his tract planted new trees to fill out the windrow. He commented that the trees were only trimmed
one time since his tract was built and a few years ago they removed some trees that were said to be
diseased. They questioned why an arborist report was done and one speaker stated that there is no
standard certification test for arborists. They asked why the arborist report only talked of diseased
trees along the other side of the wall and questioned if that meant that other trees in their tract were
also diseased. Several speakers mentioned that olive trees had been dug up from other areas in the
Pulte tract and then just placed behind the fence. One person stated that sprinklers were installed
but never turned on so the olive trees died. Another resident said he had irrigated the olive trees on
the other side of his fence and they were healthy so they should not have been removed. One
speaker thanked the developer for removing the diseased trees and said a sticky substance had
fallen off the trees into their yard. However, she said she had not wanted them to remove all of the
trees. She said she was told that new trees would be planted, but that hasn't been done yet. She
also said she had been told that the easement could not be built upon or taken away. One speaker
said that when he bought his property in 1994 he had to get insurance through Lloyds of London
because no one else would insure his property because of the eucalyptus trees on the other side of
the fence. He said he had wanted to take down the trees but was told he could not because they
were protected by the City. One gentleman showed drawings of a proposed development with a
greenbelt behind the fence.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated the drawing was from a proposed Etiwanda North
Specific Plan prepared by the Caryn Company years ago. He said the plan was never implemented.
Several other speakers suggested that a 10-15 foot walkway be installed on the Pulte side of the
fence and trees be planted. They felt a walkway would be appreciated and used by the new
residents in the Pulte tract as well. One speaker thought the City was given large bonds and the
original plans for the area would be with the people who had held the bonds. Another resident said
that the equestrian trail would come up to the development and then stop. He asked that it be
continued through the tract.
One speaker feared they would lose the ability to bring heavy equipment through the easement area
in order to install pools in their backyard. Several people said they missed seeing the red tail hawk
and the owls and the loss of character that the trees brought to the area. One resident complained
that the developer installed poles with wires running between them and the rats run across the wires
and jump off the wires into their yards.
Commissioner Stewart asked if the City Attorney could explain the difference between street trees
and a windrow. She asked for an interpretation and clarification. She said what she saw in the
paperwork provided by the existing homeowners might not mean ownership of those trees.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney explained that street trees are typically between the roadway
and the front yards of residential properties and, in essence, line the streets. He believed staff had
information about whether or not windrow along the wall is part of Landscape District No. 7.
During the testimony, Commissioner Fletcher asked if the residents would be more amenable if the
easement were eliminated. He wanted to know what the homeowners expect to be done there. In
response, several speakers indicated they wanted Pulte to put back in the mature trees they had
removed or other large, fast growing trees. One resident questioned if the residents would be given
a packet of seeds to plant as replacement trees or if they would just plant twigs.
Mr. Warrick explained that the property was originally entitled through Lennar and therefore they
accepted many of the conditions associated with that title. He reported an arborist report was
completed at the time Lennar processed the tract map and the report identified the trees that were to
be removed and they removed those trees. He Mated that the grading plan called for a 25-foot
Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 9, 2005
plateau area along the boundary of their tract to preserve the windrow. He commented that at the
neighborhood meeting some people said the trees were diseased so they commissioned another
arborist report and that indicated all the trees were diseased, and so they had them all removed at
an extra expense of approximately $20,000. He said they are required to replace the trees with a
specific species and that is all they can do. He noted that some residents thought the trees were
put in as part of Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 7, but he said his property is not
currently part of LMD No. 7. He stated they would become part of the District in the future for
landscaping along Wardman Bullock Road and Banyan Street. He said there had been fears
expressed that the lots will drain against the wall, but all of the lots will be graded to drain to the front
to the street. He added that it is not difficult. He said they have a surveyed boundary that
establishes their tract boundary along the existing wall and that survey had been reviewed and
accepted by City Engineering staff. He acknowledged there is a 5-foot easement on their side of the
wall for maintenance of the wall and said their plans respect the easement.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if their survey shows the property line close to the wall with the
easement on the Pulte property.
Mr. Warrick responded yes. He said he would be happy to give his card out to anyone and they can
call him, and he would return their call. He said he was aware of Mr. Berliner's letter early on but
that he had not received any calls from anyone else.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that some of the pictures with sandbags appeared to be graded about
15-20 feet wide. He asked what the grade would be in that area.
Mr. Warrick said the grade against the wall would not vary. He said they would create a swale on
their property, not on the easement, that would direct the drainage around and to the side of the
property on each lot taking the water out to the street. He acknowledged that in some cases it might
require drains but that in most cases, it could be handled with swales.
Commissioner McNiel asked if the difference in grading would be as much as 4 or 5 feet. He asked
if it was true that some back yards will be 4 or 5 feet higher than the adjacent property. He remarked
that some of the neighbors from the original tract expressed concerns about the grade differential of
the pads. Commissioner McNiel hoped to cut down on the visual intrusion.
Mr. Warrick said they are not finished grading yet and he would have to look at the plans.
Chairman Macias closed the public hearing and noted that a litany of issues had been raised
regarding the property line,walls,trees, hawks, rats, drainage,trails, easement,CC&Rs,Mello Roos
tax, etc. He indicated some issues have been addressed and some have not. He asked Mr. Buller
to summarize the project concems for the Commission.
Mr. Buller reported that the Building Official,Trang Huynh, and Joe Stofa,Associate Engineerwould
be available for questions. He reported that the tract, concept grading plan, layout of the project;and
the map were approved in 1999 and the only issue for consideration tonight was the approval of the
design of the homes, location of the wall, and the replacement of the windrow that was removed. He
observed this tract and the adjoining tract that the speakers currently live in were subject to flooding
from waters that came from the north and flowed to the south; therefore, the builder of the currently
existing tract built a floodwall as the western perimeter wall for his tract. He said there was an
existing windrow near where that property line was and in order for the floodwall to withstand the
possibility of floodwaters, it needed footings that are wider than typical footings. He reported that the
5-foot easement was so that the wall, including its wider footings, could be maintained should there
be any flooding damage prior to the development of the property to the west. He said there needed
to be an easement for the purposes of maintaining and protecting that wall. He noted that the
developer needed to get permission from the previous property owner to do this. He stated all the
documents staff has seen indicate that the wall is built at the property line and there is a 5-foot
Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 9, 2005
easement, not 10, or 15 feet. He commented that some of the trees had to be removed in order to
put in the wall to begin with and that is why the original developer put in some replacement trees. He
said in reality the 5-foot easement should be eliminated at this time because there is no longer a
need for a floodwall, but because that easement is dedicated to each of the existing property owners
to the east, the developer would have to go to each owner and negotiate independently and get
agreement from all of the owners to release or vacate that easement. He noted they would have to
treat it as a whole because it would not work if even one property owner still held the easement
behind his property. He said the developer knew that if they did not get cooperation from all the
adjoining neighbors, they would be faced with how to handle the easement. He noted that some of
the existing neighbors suggested that not only the easement remain, but that it be widened to a trail.
Mr. Buller explained that the Commission reviewed that suggestion in 1999 and determined that
there was nothing in the Etiwanda Specific Plan that dictated a trail must go there. He added that
when Pulte Homes came in, it was already recorded as a map. He said the Commission is charged
with how to deal with the 5-foot easement given the way the tract is laid out and how the walls and
fences should be laid out. He said Pulte Homes suggested wrought iron fencing along their side of
the easement with gates from their lots to allow for maintenance of the easement. He commented
that if the easement were truly for maintenance of the area by the original tract,the City would have
required gates in their back wall for easy access. He said the easement was so that the wall could
be repaired if floodwaters caused damage. He agreed that the existing tract is part of LMD No. 7.
He added that the Pulte tract has not yet been accepted into that District and they are conditioned to
become part of that in the future. He noted that the City does not have any documentation that
indicates the windrow was to be maintained by the LMD and no City crews have maintained it. He
added that the LMD was set up to maintain the perimeter parkway trees and not the windrow. He
then asked staff to discuss the project perimeter fencing and walls. He asked what type of fencing is
planned adjacent to the street.
Mr. Pomeroy responded that perimeter block walls are planned.
Mr. Buller confirmed that all the walls that face the public right-of-way are masonry.
Mr. Pomeroy said yes and explained that there is no plastic fencing for this project. He said the
proposal for the solution for the fencing along the easement is tubular fencing,which is wrought iron.
Mr. Buller clarified that no PVC fencing would be installed and the perimeter fencing is all within the
required standards and follows the design criteria. He noted that it is unfortunate that the trees are
gone. He said the only thing that can be done is that this project is conditioned to replace the trees 8
feet on center in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He stated the trees are conditioned
to be 15-gallon size,which is the size of the pot. He reiterated that the design of the homes and the
design of the perimeter walls are what the Commissioners will act upon. He reported that the
Engineering department is indicating the drainage issue is being handled and the lots will be graded
to drain to the front of the lots and to the street. He invited any homeowners to come in and look at
the precise grading plan if they have any concerns about the drainage on any particular lot and that
the Building Official will be available for questions.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, said he had been given a copy of an Easement Deed for
Encroachment Access and Maintenance and one of the speakers provided a sheet from their title
report that indicates the existence of an easement. He said he had looked at both of the documents
and there are similarities between the two. He explained that the easement defines the terms of a
Dominant Tenement and Subservient Tenement. He reported that the Dominant Tenants are the
neighbors to the east of Pulte tract and they are defined as the beneficiaries of this easement on
property to their west(the Pulte property). He said the legal description defines the location of this
easement as 5 feet wide and located westerly of the west property line of Tract 16656. He said this
indicates the easement is located to the west of the neighbors' property, not on their property. He
added there is an exhibit that depicts the location of the easement that shows the boundaries of lots
fronting on Johnston place and shows the easement west of the property line. He reported that all
Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 9, 2005
the documents indicate the easement is on the property owned by the Pulte Corporation and not on
the property owned by lots on Tract 13566. He said it is 5 feet wide and is only for the purpose of
allowing access to install or maintain the wall and does not give the right to landscape to the property
owners on the easterly tract. He said the easement indicates that the Pulte property owner has the
right to landscape in that area. He said there is no evidence it is part of LMD No. 7.
Commissioner McNiel stated the issues raised this evening were not necessarily related to the item
set forth on the agenda. He thought there might be some other method of dealing with the
separation of the easement rather than the Pulte proposal for the wrought iron fencing. He added
that he was definitely not in favor of block wall because it would create dead space between the two.
He questioned the grade difference between the existing tract and the new one.
Trang Huynh, City Building Official, reported a rough grading permit has been issued. He said the
developer submitted precise grading plans which indicate the final grading, including contours and
drainage. He said this plan was submitted in October 2004. He indicated the City grading engineer
reviewed the plans and issued comments and corrections, but the developer has not yet submitted a
revised plan. He said he met with the developer's Civil Engineer and asked for the status of their
precise grading plans and explained the drainage issues the adjacent homeowners had raised. He
added that he met with several homeowners on several occasions and visited the site three times.
He reported the developer's engineer looked at the site and showed a preliminary set of revised
precise grading plans that conceptually shows drainage from the easement area to the street. He
commented the developer still needs to submit their precise grading plan and it will go through the
plan check process. He confirmed that the City told the developer it will require all the drainage from
both the building pads and the lower easement area to drain to the street and their engineer
indicated it could be done. He noted that damage has been done to the existing block wall and I
mentioned it to the developer and the developer's representatives said they would talk to the
individual homeowners about that and address the issue. He said they promised to talk to them. He
explained that the poles with wires are temporary power poles and that is typically what is done. He
noted the pole would be removed when they are done. He observed that the developer has not yet
submitted building plans because the design of the buildings has to be approved first. He said it
would still be several months before building permits are issued because the building plans must be
processed after they are submitted.
Commissioner McNiel asked the variations in finished grades on the Pulte project versus the existing
homes on the preliminary precise grading plans.
Mr. Huynh responded that the building pads are on a higher elevation and in some areas it may be
possible to see over the fence when standing on the building pad. He added the easement area
varies from 3-5 feet lower than the existing homes. He noted the easement area is almost even with
the backyards of some of the existing homes.
Commissioner McNiel asked if the Olive trees are to be replaced.
Mr. Buller replied they are conditioned to be replaced with non-fruit bearing Olive trees.
Commissioner McNiel said that considerable testimony had been heard and some of the complaints
are legitimate and in some areas the neighbors had been misled or misinformed with respect to the
property line. He observed that the City Attomey indicated the property line is where the floodwall is
and the easement was there to maintain the wall should there be flooding and the wall was for the
purpose of water control. He said he understood Pulte and the County Flood Control District are
handling the flooding issue upstream and flooding should no longer be a concem. He noted the
property that is zoned for up to 4 homes per acre and they are only building at 1.43 units per gross
acre, which is essentially the next density range down. He therefore did not see a problem with the
lot sizes. He was concerned about the wall treatment and the pad elevations. He said there needs
to be some kind of wall treatment that prevents visual intrusion from the new homes to the existing
Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 9, 2005
homeowners' backyard. He expressed concern that the easement would create an area that would
collect trash. He noted that typically there is a single wall between properties so there is not a "no
mans land." He said he was concerned about the wrought iron fence but did not see another way
around it. He commented that 15-gallon trees are not large but they allow better rooting than larger
trees, which often do not survive the winds because they don't have an opportunity to root. He
expected Pulte to fix the broken walls. He supported the project.
Commissioner Stewart commented that the resolution specifies the sizes of the trees that will
replace the trees that were removed. She noted that smaller trees are often better because they can
get a better root base. She said the winds in Rancho Cucamonga are a concern. She agreed it is
unfortunate the trees are gone, but the new trees will grow and in time will mature. She commented
that following the City Attorney's comments concerning the easement, she no longer has any doubt
as to who owns the easement. She said it appears clear from the legal documents that the
easement belongs to the Pulte tract and therefore that issue is settled as to who owns that property
and can control that property. She noted the Commission can only work from legal facts. She
reported the design of the homes went through Design Review Committee twice and the developer
was required to enhance the design and introduce some single story features. She echoed
Commissioner McNiel's comments regarding the possibility of a"no man's land"and she encouraged
Pulte to work with staff. She also expressed some concern about the finished grade of the homes
and she thought there should be further work in that respect to help resolve some of the issues with
the existing neighbors. She urged the developer to work diligently with the neighbors and staff and
felt it would be prudent for Pulte to let the neighbors be part of the resolution of the problems. She
commented there appeared to be a lack of communication and she did not understand why phone
calls were not being returned. She felt the issues could be resolved. She was concerned about the
fencing, the creation of a no-man's land, and the finished grade of the homes. She believed
drainage would be improved with the infrastructure that will go in with this project. She said the walls
are consistent with what the City requires.
Commissioner Fletcher believed that the housing product is what is needed in this community with
respect to the size and mix of the homes. He reported that the concerns mentioned were new to him
but with staffs report and counsel's report he is satisfied that the easement situation is clear. He
mentioned that wall damage is a concern. He said he would like Pulte to assign one person to be a
construction manager to deal with the residents and that name should be given to the residents and
staff so that they can deal with one person to get issues resolved. He agreed that heritage trees are
protected in the City but said that with all the development of the City the City's attitude about the old
Blue gum eucalyptus windrows has changed somewhat over time. He observed that although the
trees may look healthy on the outside, they tend to rot within and may snap in half when the winds
come. He noted that sometimes you cannot build around the big trees and they need to remove
them and replace them so that the development can occur. He mentioned that the Blue gums are
being replaced with Spotted gums and in the end it will be a more desirable windrow.
Chairman Macias said the Commission has articulated the issues well. He was satisfied with the
responses of staff and the City Attorney to most of the issues presented. He concurred that there is
a lack of communication and said the developer needs to communicate or none of these problems
are going to go away. He said he believes there is consensus among the Commissioners that the
developer needs to address this communication issue. He said the City expects Pulte to fix all the
walls damaged as a result from their construction activities. He expressed concerns about the
elevations in regard to privacy. He asked that staff work with the developer to resolve that.
Mr. Buller asked how staff should take direction with respect to the term used by Commissioner
McNiel as "visual intrusion."
Commissioner McNiel stated that in the past a second wall has sometimes been added that is
slightly offset and exceeds the height of the existing wall.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 9, 2005
Mr. Buller suggested adding an additional condition to read, "The developer shall return a revised
precise grading plan for all lots along the easterly property line to the City Planner for review and
approval. The goal is to lower the home pads as low as possible while maintaining lot drainage to
the street front of each lot."
Commissioner McNiel felt that was a preferable option.
Mr. Buller said that staff agrees with the Commissioners that it is unfortunate that when the first tract
was approved, the easement was in total control of the property owners to the east. He noted Pulte
cannot demand nor can the City demand Pulte to get rid of the easement. He believed the best thing
would be if all the property owners in the existing tract could say together that they believe the
easement is no longer necessary. He thought if Pulte showed the existing homeowners a revised
landscape plan showing the windrow replanted,the existing homeowners might agree to vacate the
easement. He observed Pulte could then come back and ask to extend the back wall to the existing
wall and that would be the optimum solution. He said the City cannot dictate to the homeowners
what they should do with their easement. He suggested also adding a condition that the developer
should make a good faith effort to work with the existing property owners to the east in an effort to
remove the easement. He noted it would be a good faith effort and they are not obligated.
Commissioner McNiel said that if the developer doesn't get a good faith response, it is a moot point.
Mr. Ennis said that you are asking the developer to work with the property owners to the east to get
the owners to vacate the easement. He said that would be a private consensual civil matter
between the two property owners, and if they want to do that, they may. He added that you can ask
them to attempt that,but the City has no legal right to compel them, but you can ask them to discuss
it
Commissioner McNiel interjected that this would put Pulte in the position to take the wall up a few
courses, thereby giving the existing residents more privacy.
Mr. Ennis commented that there might be some of the owners would agree and some who may not,
which could mean some might have a higher wall and others might not.
Commissioner McNiel believed that for aesthetic reasons, it should have to be all or nothing.
Commissioner Stewart suggested adding language to prevent varying wall heights.
Mr. Buller suggested that it be worded to have the developer make a good faith effort to work with all
property owners to vacate the entire easement.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher to adopt the resolution approving Design Review
DRC2004-00491 with modifications as noted above. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. VARIANCE DRC2004-01289-JOUD CONSTRUCTION-A request to exceed the 3-foot height
for garden walls within the front yard setback along 19th Street in the Low Residential District(2-
4 dwelling units per acre), located at 6700 Inyo Place-APN 1076-381-17.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 9, 2005
Tabe van der Zwaag, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public
hearing.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart to approve Variance DRC2004-01289 as
presented by adoption of the Resolution of Approval. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16776-VAN DAELE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -A request to subdivide 19 gross acres of land into 59 lots
within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north
side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN:0227-131-29,
34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related Files: Development Review DRC2004-00052,
Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from January 26,
2005)
D. VARIANCE DRC2004-01002-VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-A request for an
increase in wall height related to 59 single-family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low-
Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Base Line
Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52,
53, and 55 thru 58. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Development Review
DRC2004-00052, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00701. (Continued from January 26,
2005)
NEW BUSINESS
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00052 - VAN
DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-The review of site plan and elevations for 59 single-
family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units
per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of
Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration. (Continued from January 26, 2005)
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff requested the items be continued to March 9, 2005.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher to continue Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776,
Variance DRC2004-01002, and Development Review DRC2004-00052 to March 9, 2005. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS '
There were no public comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 9, 2005
COMMISSION BUSINESS
There was no Commission Business.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-1 (McPhail absent), to adjourn. The
Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/ Br- > : ler
Secretary
Approved: March 9, 2005
Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 9, 2005