Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/04/14 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 14, 2004 Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Cristine McPhail STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Lois Schrader Planning Secretary; ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, carried 3-0-1-1 (McPhail absent, Macias abstain), to approve the minutes of March 24, 2004. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2003- 01037-JOHN LAING HOMES-A request to change the zone from Community Commercial to Mixed Use for a .7 acre portion of Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located north of Foothill Boulevard, between Hellman and Malachite Avenues - APN: 0208-151-20 thru 23. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16567, Development Review DRC2003-01036,Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00139, and Historic Point of Interest DRC2004-00105. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16567 - JOHN LAING HOMES-A request to subdivide 12.74 net acres of land into 23 numbered and 9 lettered lots for the development of 18 single-family detached condominiums and 138 attached condominiums with common recreation facilities and common area landscaping within the Mixed Use District(Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located between Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, and between Hellman and Malachite Avenues-APN: 0208-141-06 thru 18, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, and 38 and 0208-151-07, 14, and 19 thru 23. Related Files: Development District Amendment DRC2003-01037, Development Review DRC2003-01036, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00105, and Historic Point of Interest DRC2004-00105. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01036 -JOHN LAING HOMES - A request to master plan and develop 18 single-family detached condominiums fronting San Bemardino Road and 138 attached condominiums with common recreation facilities and common area landscaping on 12.74 net acres of land within the Mixed Use District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, located between Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road and between Hellman and Malachite Avenues-APN: 0208-141-06 thru 18, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, and 38 and 0208-151-07, 14, and 19 thru 23. Related Files: Development District Amendment DRC2003-01037, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16567, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00139, and Historic Point of Interest DRC2004-00105. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the public hearing was still open for the Historic Preservation item, Historic Point of Interest Designation DRC2004-00105, and that it would be heard concurrently with the related Planning Commission Items A, B, and C as noted above. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report noting that a few minor corrections were being made to the resolutions. He commented that the resolutions delineate the 18 single- family structures as condominiums and that since each property owner will own the individual lots, the resolutions should indicate that they are single-family detached homes. In addition,he noted that on page 142, A-C of the agenda packet, that condition#3 would be revised to read, "The buildings along the west boundary shall be adjusted to provide a minimum 20-foot setback and a continuous buffer of the Podocarpus evergreen trees shall be provided along the project boundary." He added that on page 160, A-C of the agenda packet, condition #15 would be changed to read, "Six foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the east and west project perimeter. For perimeter walls, if a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter." Chairman Macias asked the Commissioners if there were any questions. Commissioner Stewart asked why the other homes were not being relocated like the one at 9494 Foothill Boulevard. She asked why we did not require the developer to pay to have all of the homes moved for preservation. She commented that from a historic preservation perspective, she wondered if offering the homes for purchase or salvage is enough. She was concerned that perhaps we have not done enough to save these structures and that from the larger perspective of the Etiwanda Historic Study Task Force; she knows Etiwanda is looking for historical structures. Mr. Henderson responded that the Craftsman house at 9494 Foothill Boulevard is an example of classic Craftsman architecture and that it has been well cared for. He commented that it is the only home of the group that has architectural significance and is unique. He remarked that the other homes are very simple and have been structurally altered and are not in very good shape. He added that they did not consider the homes as a group in the sense of being a historical district either because they are not really linked by design or arrangement and the area has been split apart with various commercial businesses. He noted that the other homes are also quite small (800-900 square feet)and it would be difficult to find someone that would be willing to invest in and rehabilitate such small homes. Commissioner Stewart said she had overlooked the size of the homes. She commented that the City now has the Etiwanda/Base Line Historic Study Task Force that is trying to get more significant historic homes moved into the historic area. She noted that she wants to be cautious about destroying homes that may have merit and at the same time post a plaque giving Klusman recognition and then not do the appropriate thing by destroying homes. She remarked that she believes the Task Force will want the relocation of the Craftsman house. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 14, 2004 Mr. Buller responded and noted that we(the City)do not want to see a loss of our historic resources because of relocation or rehabilitation costs. He remarked that the other homes moved to the Northtown area are larger and that this particular group of homes not being considered to be relocated or restored tonight are not recommended for preservation because of their small size and because their architecture is not representative of the historic element found in Etiwanda and even the one on 9494 may not be the appropriate age or size for the Etiwanda area. Rhonda Kneeley, John Laing Homes, 255 East Rincon Street, Corona, stated that they had contacted the Northtown Housing Development representatives to discuss their possible interest in the old homes. She remarked that their only interest was in the Craftsman home at 9494. She added that they would continue to work with staff on Commissioner Stewart's suggestion. She added that there are other conditions that they are requesting to be revised including the conditions found on pages 113, 128, and 130, A-C of the agenda packet, which, with the revisions, will specifically allow the building permits for the model homes to be issued prior to; 1)the processing of the Vacation of 2nd Avenue; 2) the recording of the final Tract Map; 3) the recording of the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowner's Association, and 4) the submission of the Street Improvement Plans. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Douglas Pure, 7970 Layton Street, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that he is excited and happy with the new proposed project over the project proposed a year ago. He remarked that he likes the design and believes the project will enhance the property values adjacent to the project. He commented that the developer was responsive to their concerns regarding public safety and he is pleased they are putting in a traffic signal at the intersection of San Bernardino Road and Archibald Avenue. He pointed out that a number of people were in attendance at the meeting with him and he ' asked them to stand showing their support of the project(5 people stood). He reported that this is a democratic process and that it works well. He noted for the benefit of the high school students in attendance that when the previous project was proposed for this site, 400 people came out in opposition. He remarked that if you are going to come out and complain about a project that you also have the responsibility to come out in support (of a good project). Gilbert McCoy, 9340 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he and his wife own Foothill Mobile Manor trailer park. He reported that he is supportive and excited about the new project. He said the project will make a wonderful neighbor and should help with the difficulties they now experience with drug activity on the property and people jumping the fence who cause damage to the trailer park. He added that many of the residents were in attendance in support of the project and that he said of the 90 units in the park, there is almost 100 percent support of approval for the project. Jayme Walinga, 11357 Mountain View Drive,#132, Rancho Cucamonga, asked for a definition of the term "seller/salvage" and if the home became a Historic landmark, would the designation keep that from happening. Commissioner Stewart explained that it is her understanding that if the home is not sold then the home could be dismantled and sold off in pieces. She noted an example would be that someone could come and buy the bathroom fixtures and someone else might buy the doors or hardware from the house. She said specifically that they are considering relocating the home at 9494 at the least and to consider the feasibility of relocating all of them. She added that the Point of Interest requires the developer to place a commemorative plaque but does not require the preservation or habilitation of the structures. Krystal Hereford, 10730 Church Street, #88, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the home at 9494 Foothill Boulevard is the largest of the homes in question. She asked what would be accomplished if the six Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 14, 2004 residences are relocated or demolished and if that would that bring in more executives or businesses to the area. Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller responded and explained why would we remove or demolish several homes. He explained that because these homes front the Old Route 66, it is no longer an appropriate place for single- family detached homes. He added that our goal is to build projects that are good neighbors to the existing residences and businesses and that as old homes are removed, they are replaced with new stock that are designed to be better neighbors. He commented that along Foothill Boulevard, we give a little to get better development for the community. He noted that this project will provide more homes for families and they are designed to be more compatible with the businesses that are now located along Foothill Boulevard and they will benefit the businesses as well. Commissioner Stewart commented that she believes it is a good project although she never really was a proponent of the"motor court"concept, but she is in favor of this one because it is mixed use and Foothill Boulevard needs some attention in that area and the design thematically reflects Route 66 with the motor court concept. She added that a condition of the project requires the developer to place commemorative plaques along Foothill Boulevard that point out the significance of Route 66. She added that she appreciated the neighbors' participation and their support. Commissioner McNiel said he felt is it a good project. Mr. McNiel asked if there is a perimeter block wall between the single-family home section and the condominium section. He also asked the developer to be conscientious about keeping the construction dust down and being mindful of the allowable hours for construction. Mr. Buller reported that the project has been designed to actually integrate the two sections of the project and therefore there is no block wall separating them. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he is in agreement with the other Commissioners and that he is thrilled and glad about the support of the neighbors and it shows the applicant worked well with them and addressed their concerns. He added that the new project ties in with the Route 66 motor courts and the 18 single-family homes provide an excellent transition to the condo project and is excellent for the homeowners along San Bemardino Road. He added that the visual enhancement would help revitalize Foothill Boulevard and the west end part of the City. Commissioner McNiel added that he agrees with Commissioner Stewart in regard to the residence at 9494 Foothill Boulevard and that we should do whatever we cari to preserve it. He commented that we had several homes in the City we attempted to preserve that were never relocated; one was up on blocks and eventually it fell apart. He commented that he only has a real interest in the Craftsman home. He noted that he understands why we do not have interest in the other homes. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey, asked if there is any direction or clarification from Engineering and if the changes to the engineering conditions mentioned would meet with their approval. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated that allowing Building Permits to be issued for the model homes prior to the other conditions being met is not an uncommon request and that it would be acceptable. Mr. Buller commented that it has been a "good marriage"with John Laing Homes and commended them for working with the neighborhood and for the neighborhood working with John Laing Homes. He thanked them and Mrs. Kneeley for their hard work. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, to recommend approval of Historic Point of Interest DRC2004-00105 and Development District Amendment DRC2003-01037 to be forwarded to Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 14, 2004 the City Council for final action and to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16567,and Development Review DRC2003-01036 and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and to accept the various revisions to the Conditions of Approval and the Resolutions of Approval as noted during the presentation and public hearing.. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried The Planning Commission then returned to the remaining business of the Historic Preservation agenda to its completion. At the close of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting at 7:42 p.m.,the Commissioners returned to the business of the regular Planning Commission agenda as follows. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16487-OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - A request for a single parcel subdivision for industrial condominium purposes on 1.2 acre of land, in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located at the northeast corner of Red Oak Avenue and Laurel Street-APN: 0208-352-11. Related files: Development Review DRC2003-00987, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16488, and Development Review DRC2003-00988. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00987-OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT-A request to construct a 16,448 square foot office building on 1.2 acre of land in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located at the northeast corner of Red Oak Avenue and Laurel Street - APN: 0208-352-11. Related files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16488, and Development Review DRC2003- 00988. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that Item D would be heard in conjunction with item I. Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Manny Badiola, 10431 Almond Street, Rancho Cucamonga stated he represents Oasis Commercial Development and that they have read and understand and concur with all the conditions of approval. He noted that he especially appreciated all of Mr. Granger's and Ms. Fong's assistance and that they were wonderful to work with. He commented that they are working on an adjacent site that will mirror the image of this one and should enhance the development of the area. He added his thanks to Mr. Buller for his help as well. Chairman Macias stated his appreciation of Mr. Badiola's compliments and remarked that they are good people to work with. Seeing and hearing no further comment, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel commented that the proposed project is a fine development and that he is impressed with the good work done by the Design Review Committee. He said the people on Design Review are doing a great job. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 14, 2004 Chairman Macias remarked that is a big compliment from Commissioner McNiel. Commissioner Stewart stated Commissioner McNiel had trained her for the Design Review Committee. She added that it is a great project and that it is neat to see the condominium concept. Commissioner Fletcher reported that he was glad to see that the developer worked with the Design Review Committee and increased and integrated the pedestrian feature into the design. He added that this Industrial/Office condominium product is good to offer to the community. Chairman Macias added that it is a good project. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, to approve the Resolutions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487 and Development Review DRC2003-00987 as presented with the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16323 - WILLIAMS CHIAO ARCHITECTS, LLP-The proposed subdivision of 4.27 acres of land into 4 parcels in the Haven Avenue Overlay District and Industrial Park District, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approximately 660 feet south of 6th Street - APN: 0210-081-26. Related files: Development Review DRC2003-01001. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01001 - WILLIAMS CHIAO ARCHITECTS - The master plan and design review of 4 two-story office buildings totaling 66,190 square feet on 4.27 acres of land in the in the Haven Avenue Overlay District and Industrial Park District, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approximately 660 feet south of 6th Street - APN: 0210-081-26. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16323. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Brad Buller, City Planner noted that because the items are related, E and J would be heard together. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner gave the staff report. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Made Glynn,William Chiao Architects, LLP, 276 North Second Avenue reported she represents the applicant. She noted that they have read and accept all the mitigation measures. She asked that the conditions be revised to allow the building permits for the Parcel Map to be issued prior to the approval and recordation of the final map. Mr. Fenn commented that this had been discussed with Engineering and that they would agree to the request. Commissioner Stewart remarked that the project features some beautiful night lighting effects. Ms. Glynn reported that the front elevations and the front entries along the Haven Avenue portion of the project would be lighted at night. She added that lighting has been added between all the buildings in addition to illuminated bollards and up-lights in the trees. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 14, 2004 Leah Elson, 6502 Torino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, asked what the environmental impacts are. She asked if a water truck is really enough to keep the dust down with the amount of construction occurring all over the City. She commented that asthmatics really have a hard time with the construction dust in the air. Mr. Fenn reported that air quality would be one example of an environmental impact. Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller gave a brief explanation of the environmental review process(CEQA) process noting that the State requires us to answer a battery of questions regarding the various impacts on the environment such as water quality, noise, and traffic. He reported that we are required to do to certain things to minimize those impacts called mitigations. He offered to the high school teacher in the audience that a staff member could come out and explain the whole process to the Government Class if she would like. He said every project is required to address these environmental concerns. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, remarked that the Environmental Study is a 48-page document and that on this particular project; there are 19 specific mitigations for air quality alone. He remarked there is great detail in the information presented to the Commission for their review. Chairman Macias commented that State law requires environmental review and that it is taken very seriously. He added that the Air Quality Management District(AQMD) establishes the thresholds for air quality and that construction impacts to air quality are considered short-term impacts. He said these short-term impacts are the easiest to address. He noted that if the thresholds are exceeded then the City cannot adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and that the project has to go thorough a much more thorough review called an Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner McNiel commented that he is old enough to remember years ago, if you could actually see our local mountains for 3 days during an entire summer,we would feel good about that. He said we respect the work they do (AQMD). He commented that the air quality for the area has improved considerably since then. He noted that he respects the work that went into the project and that the architecture is spectacular and that the project will be a great contribution to the City. He said he wished they all looked as good. Commissioner Stewart concurred with Commissioner McNiel. Commissioner Fletcher commented that the project is an attractive addition to the Haven Avenue corridor. He stated he feels it is a great project and that it meets the purpose and goal for the area as an upscale project and it "fits the bill." Chairman Macias concurred that it is a great project. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McNiel, to approve Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16323 and Development Review DRC2003-00987 with the noted revised conditions and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16369 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to subdivide 4.23 acres of land into 6 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at 9300 Santa Anita Avenue-APN: 0229- Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 14, 2004 321-10. Related file: Development Review DRC2003-01007. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01007 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to develop a master planned industrial project containing 6 industrial buildings totaling 81,812 square feet on 4.23 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14), located at 9300 Santa Anita Avenue - APN: 0229-321-10. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16369. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report noting that an error in the parking calculation was made on the report. He reported that the required number of parking spaces is 106 and we are providing 116 spaces. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, stated he represents the applicant and he concurs with all the conditions of approval. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing and hearing and seeing no comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher commented that it is a fairly simple project and nice. Commissioner McNiel commented that this project is a different animal than the others presented tonight but the design is acceptable. Chairman Macias did not have further comment. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to approve Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16369 and Development Review DRC2003-01007 and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00047 CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow RV storage for the southwest parcel on 9.87 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of the 210 and I-15 freeway interchange-APN: 0228-011-31. Related file: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003- 00048. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00048 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to master plan and develop a RV storage facility on 9.87 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of the 210 and 1-15 freeway interchange-APN: 0228-011-31. Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00047. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Doug Fenn,Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He read a section of Page 2 of the report into the record as follows: Part 11 Chapter 5, 5.22 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 14, 2004 Add in the "L"District, .202 Other Uses Table, that"Recreational Vehicle(RV)and Boat Storage"is a conditionally permitted use with the following footnote: "Recreational Vehicle (RV) and Boat Storage is permitted subject to not being adjacent to single- family or multiple-family residences, and must be adjacent to both the 210 and 1-15 freeways." Brad Buller, City Planner, asked that the project area map be placed on the overhead so that the students in the audience could gain perspective as to the site location. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga stated he represents the applicant. He asked for clarification and noted that he originally presented this idea to the Commission over two years ago for some type of development that would work with this particular location and the result was that the Commission "blessed" the idea of a Development Code Amendment. He noted that the project design addresses some concems about impacts with a planned residential area to the west and to serve as a buffer to the freeway. He reported that access to the project is on Victoria Street and the street improvements along Victoria Street will help the circulation and parking situation at the High School. He added that located to the north is an emergency access only for fire services off of Fisher. He commented that the facility features enclosed garages for boats and RV's. He added that Phase 2 of the project is just a continuation of this design and would use the same access. He commented that he concurs with the conditions of approval and he offered his thanks to Doug Fenn and Brad Buller for their assistance and that he believes this is a "win-win" for the site. Commissioner McNiel asked what the grade differential is between the site and the freeway. Mr. Buquet reported that the grade varies and that is one reason for the grove type of entrance onto the site and the height of the wall will create a high presence that will act as buffering to the view and the wall will be softened with landscaping. He said they did what they could to minimize the visual impact from the freeway. Chairman Macias closed the public hearing and remarked that the project is a good fit. Commissioner Stewart commented that this is a compatible use for the land. She noted for the students in the audience that over the course of the 2-year process for this proposal, the project began with a Preliminary Review and then the design had to be reviewed by several committees and went through several revisions before it was ready to be brought before the Commission. Commissioner McNiel commented that there is a waiting list for every storage facility in town. He added that it is a good project and a good use for that particular site and it makes sense. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that it is an excellent project and he felt the Development Code Amendment was a good solution for an odd piece of property and that this use is more appropriate for the site rather than homes. He said it will be better than unhappy homeowners in the future, the traffic count is lower, the use is quiet, and it is much nicer looking than other storage facilities in other communities. Chairman Macias said it is a great fit for the site and it works. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, to recommend approval for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment to be forwarded to the City Council for final action and to approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00048 as presented by staff with the issuance of a Mitigated Negative declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 14, 2004 AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: McPHAIL - carried NEW BUSINESS I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00987-OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Item I was heard in conjunction with public hearing Item D. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01001 - WILLIAMS CHIAO ARCHITECTS - Item J was heard in conjunction with item E. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01007 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES Item K was heard in conjunction with item F. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS L DISCUSSION OF ROOFING ORDINANCE — WILLIAM TRUDEAU—A request to change the City's roofing ordinance to allow homeowners the opportunity to choose between multiple types of roofing products, including but not limited to, changing existing tile roofs to composition shingle. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report and indicated two letters regarding this issue were received. He noted that one was a follow-up letter from the applicant and the other was an e-mail submitted by a resident in opposition to changing allowable roof materials. He suggested they take two minutes to review the letters and excuse the students from the audience at the same time. At 7:28 p.m., a brief two-minute recess was taken and the students were excused from the audience and thanked for-their participation in the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Buller reported that Mr. Trudeau has been working with staff for almost a year and he has been a gentleman throughout the process. Mr. Buller said that he appreciated his tenacity. He reported that Mr.Trudeau had asked to replace his tile roof with composition shingle and that we had said no. He asked what he could do to change our minds. He then asked some members of the City Council and the Council referred the matter back to me with a request to place the issue before the Commission Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 14, 2004 for a recommendation that could be brought back to them. The Planning Commission said in a subsequent meeting with Mr. Trudeau that they did not see justification to change their position or the Development Code standards. He reported that Mr. Trudeau's neighborhood is all tile roofs(built by Lewis Homes) but that the neighborhood tract behind his is a combination of both types of roofing. He commented that he and Mr. Trudeau had extensive discussion regarding the newer composition roofs now available and their "upgrade" improvements over the years and that they are class "A" materials with a quality look and are safe. He reported that Mr. Trudeau presented his case and had discussed why he believes tile was not a good choice for his roof for reasons such as public safety, and the quality of the newer composition roofs. Mr. Buller added that our Development Code still says that composition roofing is not permitted. Mr. Buller noted that Mr.Trudeau went to the Council and the Council sent the issue back to the Planning Commission for reevaluation and discussion and that it would be sent back to the Council with a position statement. He noted that his staff report reflects that all decisions about design have their origin with the General Plan and that the General Plan calls for a commitment of quality within the community and that roofing materials are one of those issues that reflect quality. He reported that Rancho Cucamonga sets a course independent of what other cities do and that staff has been advised that other cities have adopted our standards. He remarked that Mr. Trudeau feels we are biased in our quality standard and that it is not a question of quality of workmanship or material but of aesthetics and if that is the case, then he believes we have not allowed a freedom of choice. He explained that since 1980,we have required tile roofs on all new projects and we have been consistent with that. He added that composition roofing is not considered by most people to be the same level of quality as tile. He commented that if someone came into an "all tile" neighborhood and put in a composition roof, it would be likely that we would have many people coming in with opposition to that. He reported that he reviewed all the applicable code sections with Mr. Trudeau and he explained how we came to this position. He noted that on one occasion, we had a homeowner come in with a request for a standing metal seam roof in a neighborhood where no one else had this type of roof and we denied his request. He reported that it was a situation where his entire neighborhood came to the Planning Commission meeting(about 100 homeowners) in support of his request and we maintained our position that we did not believe that was an appropriate choice. The applicant took it to the Council and they allowed the metal roof. He reported that following that was the resulting Code change that brought us to this point with our current standards. He noted that the Code now shows the choice of tile, or a metal roof or imitation thereof with the approval of the City Planner and that decision could be appealed. He noted that the City issues about 10 permits per week for residential re-roofing. He reported that we did a Code amendment in 2001 and that clearly says that if you have a composition shingle roof, you can re-roof with composition shingle. He added that if we did a Code amendment today, we could require a Class "A" thick composition roof with architectural dimension and not even allow the thin-layered composition roofing. He noted that Mr. Trudeau is not asking for that, but it is one option that the Commission and the Council could consider. He said that staff is not recommending that only tile or an imitation of that be allowed as the only choice for re-roofing, but the Commission could consider that and could be part of their discussion tonight. Chairman Macias asked Mr. Buller to respond to Mr. Trudeau's letter after his presentation. Mr. Trudeau presented color photographs of homes that had been roofed with composition roofs. He noted that the first photograph represents the type of composition product he would like to use. He commented that one house is on Hidden Farm Road and that the Council made an exception to allow this roof on a newly constructed home. He noted that because tile roofs easily break, he decided to pursue re-roofing with composition. He pointed out that he explained to his neighbors from a freedom of choice perspective and that if he lived on a different street, he could choose from any number of roofing materials including composition roofing. He remarked that he felt it odd that if you are choosing a quality product more expensive than some tile products and other communities allow it on multi-million dollar homes then why would it not be allowed as a replacement on his street. He reported that the new high quality composition roofs are a lifetime product. He stated that when he drove by neighborhoods with comp roofs, he did not feel offended or that they did not look right. He added that you are not even able to tell the difference of some of the roof products. He Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 14, 2004 commented that if they"painted their house purple you would notice that, and that is the kind of stuff we should focus on"in regard to compatibility and the lowering of home values. He added that one of the photographs depicts a home that sold in his neighborhood for a huge amount of money and set a standard for home value. He commented that this particular home is roofed with a composition shingle, "a step down"from what he is suggesting for his own home. He reported that he was asked how we would allow only the quality composition roofs and keep others out. He noted that composition roofs are rated by their weight and with architectural shadowing effects and that could be one way to evaluate the quality standard of the materials being used by homeowners. He stated he is not asking to downgrade the community, and that even Mayor Alexander has chosen to re-roof his home with composition product. He commented that his current tile roof lasted about 15 years before it started to fail and that even the cheapest composition roof would give the same type of performance. Commissioner Fletcher asked if we had confirmed the location of the home pictured on Celestite and if the home was originally roofed with composition roofing as it is shown now. Mr. Trudeau confirmed the location and stated that the roofs pictured were originally tile or wood shake. Mr. Buller noted that the two tracts were built by different developers. He commented that Mr. Trudeau lives in the Lewis development, which was built at a later time than the development on Marble. He added that the first tract installed shake, the other, tile. Chairman Macias opened the floor for public comment. Curt Schacitem, 6195 Celestite, Rancho Cucamonga, reported that he lives in the development built by Lewis Homes. He said that Mr. Trudeau explained his position and what he wanted to do and so he then signed the petition but right after he did it, he reconsidered and he is now in opposition. He stated that he now only wants tile roofs. He said he believes the Planning Commission was right in their position. He added that his property slightly overlooks the homes on Marble and that he would like to see the City keep its current standards. He added that we have rules, they knew what they were when they moved in, he has lived here many years, he plans to stay, and he would like the Commission to not change the standards. Harold Robar, 6225 Celestite, Rancho Cucamonga stated he is happy with the tile roof requirement. He recalled his original CC&Rs had a clause that stated if their roof failed, they were required to re- roof with tile. He noted that he is a retired fireman and that the October fires of 2003 came very close to the development on Marble and now two of those homeowners are re-doing their roofs. He remarked that they spent the night on the roof with a charged hose to defend against the hot embers. He asked the Commission to keep the tile standard because he appreciates the visual effect and it is a good policy. Tyler Hamilton, 9602 Apricot Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked the Commission to keep the standard the same. He stated that he has lived in several locations throughout the City and that they were all tile roofs. He reported that Rancho is "upper middle class" and that composition roofs anywhere in the City would be "frowned upon" by people moving into the City. He commented that comp roofs are fire resistant but are not fireproof and that because his Dad is in construction, he knows that leaks are not because of the roof material (comp or tile) but because of the failure of the paper beneath it. He added that roofs are not meant to be walked upon and a professional should probably do any work that is to be done on the roof. Mr. Buller then responded to Mr. Trudeau's letter. He reported that staff has not reviewed the standards for other cities, that we have always set ourselves apart with our own standards. He commented that as far as neighborhood compatibility is concerned, the majority does not rule when it comes to design review in a neighborhood because some people will accept one thing whereas Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 14, 2004 someone else will not. He stated that the Planning Commission will consider the input of the residents, but it is the Commission that makes the evaluation. He remarked that a composition roof in a neighborhood tract that is primarily tile would stand out. He noted that whether or not it would stand out as quality is subject to one's personal opinion. He added that although the issue of quality is a personal opinion, most people would probably agree that tile gives the perception of high quality over composition roofing. He reported that with the hundreds of permits issued each year for re- roofing, quality is allowed to remain in that the many homes built in Rancho prior to the City's incorporation, have re-roofed with quality material. He noted that if someone must re-roof, it is not a lowering of quality if they re-roof with what they already had, we would allow what was originally allowed in that tract. He said that you could better that quality but that is a different debate that the Commission could discuss at this time. He remarked that in Alta Loma and Cucamonga there are many homes built prior to 1980 that have composition roofing. He added that it is a policy issue whether we seriously modify those neighborhoods and require tile. He commented that it is often an economic issue for people being able to re-roof a composition roof with a tile roof. He then recommended the Commission begin their discussion. Commissioner Stewart commented that this is a difficult decision and she was present when Mr. Trudeau first came to the Commission. She remarked that she has been placed on the Commission to represent the majority of citizens. She said that if the Commission allowed composition roofs then 400 people would show up in opposition of it. She stated that she does not want to address it from an aesthetic basis. She added that some homes look good with composition roofs and some do not. She noted that our citizens have come to expect tile for a long time, and we have policies in our General Plan and the Development Code and that our newer housing stock is all in tile. She commented that it might not be tolerated well in newer neighborhoods but that in older neighborhoods you might see a blend of roofing materials. She pointed out that Mr. Trudeau's petitions are curious in that the signatures do not support composition roofing; instead they support his comment regarding freedom of choice. She stated that she believes there is plenty of freedom of choice in regard to any kind of tile and that almost anyone would sign a petition that supports freedom of choice. Commissioner McNiel remarked that he believes they are rehashing a prior decision made some time ago and that he did not see any reason to change his opinion. He reported that he has re- roofed his home with composition, but that the house is 56 years old and it was previously an ugly rock roof"that was ugly as God could make anything." He said his was an upgrade to a composition shingle. He commented that the Development Code serves the City well and we build upon those standards to make this place a special place whereby other cities say, 'Those people got it together." He said to alter that standard would ultimately affect this community on a much grander level than just his roof and it would be gross negligence and therefore he could not support a change. Commissioner Fletcher reported that he is the newest Commissioner. He stated he is only partially sympathetic to Mr. Trudeau's cause. He added that he re-roofed his home with tile. He noted that Rancho has a long history of high quality development that is supported by the Development Code, building codes and Ordinances. He noted that they are reviewed periodically and they change and it is thought those changes are for the good of the community. He added that Rancho has good guidelines that have served us well over the years and they are worthy of protecting. He added that Rancho sets itself above the rest for the highest standards and higher quality and that developers look to Rancho for the highest in quality development. He said that citizens, investors, and developers look to Rancho because they think we have done something good. He reported that he does not believe freedom of choice is being unreasonably suppressed and that is not an issue. He said that aesthetics couldn't be ignored. He commented that there are so many choices amongst tile roofs that it is hard to choose. He noted that he never considered re-roofing with composition shingles. He remarked that he does not want to walk on his roof and roofs are not meant to be walked on. He added that trying to enforce standards for the various types of composition roofs would be difficult. He then stated that he would be inclined to make the Code more restrictive and would propose that composition roofs not even be allowed as an option to replace an existing shake Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 14, 2004 roof, that it be required to be re-roofed in tile. He commented that this could present a problem in other areas where it is an older, smaller home and in those cases we could allow them to use composition material. He said that he would not like to see more neighborhoods with the cheapest, thinnest composition roofing because it detracts from the value of the other homes. He added that one of the homes on Marble Street had an articulated composition roof with 3 or 4 vibrant colors in it and that it is not attractive. He said that if we change our Code, we could eliminate part of that problem. He reported that since 1987, most everyone has roofed with tile. He stated the Planning Commission is responsible to maintain and enhance development in the City. He said that he does not believe comp roofs would be an enhancement, but that it does allow us to maintain what we have. He remarked that it is really a question of aesthetics and that a multitude of people would agree that tile roofs are more appealing than composition. He re-stated his position that he would like to recommend that homeowners that currently have shake roofs, not be allowed to re-roof with composition. Chairman Macias also noted that he has been on Planning Commission for nearly 8 years and that once in awhile we get a hard issue like this and this was a hard decision. He complimented and thanked Mr.Trudeau for being both a gentleman and a scholar and that he has handled this well and he has been easy to deal with. He stated that he sympathizes with his plight but does not agree with his position. We remarked that we have established standards and that although it may be difficult for some, but for the vast majority of applicants, we abide by those standards. He reported that this is one instance among the many and that it should not be a burden to this City. He commented that he sees the request as an affront to the many who willingly comply with the requirements. He then added that he does not see the need to change the Ordinance and he noted that other cities come and observe us to see how we do things here and they ask us how we do what we do here. He remarked that the foundation has been established and complied with routinely everyday and that in this instance he sees no need to change. He then asked the other Commissioners if they have a consensus to maintain the Ordinance as it is. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that the pictures Mr. Trudeau supplied are of attractive homes with composition roofs and how much more attractive would they be with tile. He said that is an enhancement/upgrade that we try to encourage in the City. He noted that once it is built,we have to wait until it fails or a new owner comes in and chooses to replace it. He added that he is serious about a possible amendment regarding the re-roofing of existing shake roofs and that composition roofs not be allowed and that way you will not end up with a neighborhood with a nice house with a nicely articulated comp roof and others with the cheapest composition roof you could have. He said that you can no longer put a shake roof on a house and the life of the remaining shake roofs in Rancho is running out and they are re-roofing now. He commented that with the current policy we could end up with homes that are re-roofed with the cheapest composition roofs for financial reasons. Commissioner McNiel suggested the issue be referred to staff for research. He commented that he does not disagree with Commissioner Fletcher. Chairman Macias said he wants to clearly let the City Council know that they are specifically opposed to Mr. Trudeau's request. Mr. Buller stated that staff would prepare a response and bring it back as a Consent item for action by the Planning Commission and they can confirm that is what they want to present to the Council. He noted that Commissioner Fletcher's comments could be included in that statement. He added that language could be included that there is some urgency because of the typical life of the remaining wood shake roofs is ending and that we could miss a window of opportunity because many of those homeowners are re-roofing now. He added that another point to clarify would be if someone has wood shake now and the Planning Commission needs to discuss whether they want to allow an architectural composition material or no composition at all or do they have to go right to tile. Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 14, 2004 Mr. Trudeau thanked the Commissioners and remarked that he never intended to put something unsafe on his roof and that the Commission gave him "the nicest 'no' he ever heard." ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-1 (McPhail absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to a workshop held in the Rains Room. The workshop adjourned at 10:15 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, i ie sag ,B I, leryr •cre ary 1 Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 14, 2004