Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/08/13 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 13, 2003 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 Board Room at Cucamonga County Water District, 10440 Ashford Street, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias,Cristine McPhail,Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Division Secretary;Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of July 23, 2003. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - SUBTPM15948 - THIENES ENGINEERING INC. -A request to subdivide a 10 acre parcel into two parcels ranging in size from 2.37 acres (Parcel 1) to 7.7 acres (Parcel 2) in the General Industrial Zone (Subarea 4), located on the north side of 6th Street, between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-211-19 and 27. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review per section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Brad Buller, City Planner gave the presentation. He noted that modified language related to the environmental assessment for the resolution has been provided to the Commissioners for their review. He indicated that it is the intent of the applicant to make the one existing building on the property a separate parcel. He commented that this parcel, Parcel 1, meets the standards of the Code and can stand-alone. He noted that by doing this, the applicant will have the ability to also develop Parcel 2 as a stand-alone parcel. Commissioner Stewart asked for clarification on Engineering condition#1 found on page A-8 of the agenda packet. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, explained that the conditions require the developer to install curb and gutter at the existing line for a local industrial street. He reported that it also ensures that the City will have the ability to take the right of way in order to widen the street at a later date at one time. He commented that it could prevent a"little jog"in the street where this development is going in. Commissioner Stewart asked for further clarification on the phrase "City will reject the offer on the final map." Mr. James noted that if the City accepts the offer, an issue of liability could arise because the City could be held responsible for the easement (and accidents that may occur there). He added that if the City rejects the offer, it releases the City from the liability of the easement property, but still allows the City to make improvements or widen the street. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney added that if the City rejects the offer of dedication, it remains open for 25 years, it is not permanently rejected. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph and Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, indicated he represents Hartwell Corporation. He stated he has read the staff report and conditions of approval and concurs with staffs recommendation to approve the project. Hearing and seeing no further comment, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart stated that the project was straightforward at Design Review and is a simple subdivision. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel,to approve Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM 15948 as presented by staff including the revised language in the resolution. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16430-MANNING HOMES - A residential subdivision of 23 single-family lots on 13.6 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Archibald Avenue-APN: 1061-571-04, 08, 09,21, and 22. Related Files: Landmark Designation DRC2003-00574, Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2003-00575, Mills Act Application DRC2003-00576, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00917. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Warren Morelion,Assistant Planner, gave the staff report. He noted that a call was received from Ed Hildebrand, 9730 Peach Tree Lane, who had questions regarding the environmental issues on the site. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Jim Manning, Manning Homes 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, presented a summary of the re-forestation plan using an overhead transparency for reference of the site. He Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 13, 2003 commented that although there are 213 existing trees, the proposed plan incorporates 372 new trees. He reported that of the new trees, there would be 17 large oak trees planted that are 48-inch to 60-inch box size, 44 oaks that are approximately 40-inch box size. He added that they would replace the Eucalyptus windrow with 145 spotted gum Eucalyptus. He noted that there will be an additional 122 miscellaneous trees planted on the slopes that are the 15 gallon size. He added that preservation of several oaks (80-100 years old) was considered but because of cost, soil issues, health problems and based upon the opinion of the arborist, the mortality rate of these trees within 10 years could be 40-50 percent. He suggested that with nursery stock and if we are patient for 5-10 years, the project would look a lot better. With this in mind, he expressed his belief that it would be better to invest in new trees. He added that the arborist, Sam Knaap is available for comment and questions. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail stated she read the arborist report and remarked that it was carefully done. She commented that she understands the idea of replacing the old trees with new and new trees doing better, but that she observed several old oaks from the street and as stated in the arborist's report, are in viable condition and that they could be as old as the historic home. She commented that they are considered an amenity to the community and cannot be replaced. She said she would like to ask the developer to work with the City Planner in order to have the old oaks moved to the historic site because they have historic value. She added that she does not believe the old oaks could be replaced with a 60-inch box tree. Brad Buller, City Planner stated that staff could work with the developer to that end. He noted that on page B-84 of the agenda packet, condition #2 under the Biological heading defers to the City Planner the authority to make a determination. He noted that the applicant would wish for the Commission to approve their proposed plan but that if the Commissioners would prefer, he(the City Planner) can work with the arborist/owner/developer to move the historic trees to the lot where the historic home will be relocated so that it fits with the historic nature and context of the house. Commissioner McNiel asked if she had any number of trees in mind for preservation. Commissioner McPhail said she did not have a specific number in mind, perhaps 1 or 2 or whatever is reasonable. She commented that she understands the expense involved but that the trees have historic value to the community. Commissioner McNiel commented that it is difficult to move trees of that size, it can be horribly expensive, but that it has been done in the past, and if its reasonably dose and feasible, then he would agree to do so. Chairman Macias asked if since a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has already been prepared, would changing this direction on the trees add further mitigation to the Negative Declaration. Mr. Buller noted that whether we modify the plan to save some of the old trees or not, the same mitigations apply. Chairman Macias commented that he wanted to be sure the Commission's actions are not in conflict with what was already identified in the Negative Declaration. Mr. Buller reported that the condition has been written in a broad sense and therefore gives the City Planner discretion. He remarked that if he hears the majority of the Commission express a desire to save 1, 2 or 3 trees, he would do his best to restore them to the historic site. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 13, 2003 Chairman Macias stated that with that discretion in mind, he would move to support the project as presented by staff. Commissioner Stewart concurred. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he believes the developer has assessed the situation and that if the trees can be moved, he would favor that, but if there were only a 50 percent life expectancy then he would like the replanting idea better. He added that we might end up with a better product in the end by replanting than trying to move the trees. He stated he would like to know the likelihood of the success in moving trees that size. Chairman Macias reopened the public hearing so that the arborist could address the Commission's concerns. Sam Knaap, Knaap Associates, 5187 Golden Avenue, Riverside, stated he was the arborist on the project. He pointed out that there are possibly 2-3 oaks that are suitable to move. He reported that one is a 24-inch multi stemmed oak that could be relocated but the survival rate after a 10-year period is about 50 percent. He noted that the large oak currently located behind the historic home has been damaged by farm equipment. He commented that there are 2 oaks in front of the house that"co-mingled"with an ash tree and therefore would not be the best choice for preservation. He reported that the large oak by the barn is weak and probably would not survive a move. He added that the cost to move one tree is about$25,000 plus and that preservation of one tree is possible, but there would be no guarantees, and he would rather see new trees. He commented that on a scale of 1-5, with 5 representing the highest suitability for preservation, he would give it a 4. Commissioner McNiel asked what the typical mortality rate is for nursery trees, at a 60-inch box size. Mr. Knaap indicated that nursery trees generally have a 10 percent mortality rate and death is usually caused by improper watering. Commissioner McNiel clarified that their survival rate is about 90 percent or better. He commented that several trees in the proposed landscape plan are 60-inch boxes and that seems larger than usual. Mr. Knaap said the average box from a nursery is a 24-inch box, but that larger boxes are commercially available. Commissioner McNiel asked if nursery stock comes with a guarantee. Mr. Knaap replied that typically it is guaranteed for one year from the date of installation and that there is no guarantee when moving a tree. He stated that if a tree dies when it is moved, it is sometimes replaced with 6, 60-inch specimens as mitigation, but that this is usually negotiated into the contract with the tree mover. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the fact that this is a high wind area affects the viability of the trees. Mr. Knaap said that it had been considered, but a greater concem would be for the rocky soil. He explained that trees that have been planted in rocky soil experience a more difficult removal because the root ball does not stay together well and it is difficult for the movers to build a box around the roots. He said a great deal of the roots must be carefully preserved to help the tree survive the move. He added that once the tree is placed into its new location, it would be stable enough to withstand the winds. Commissioner Stewart asked if assuming a historic tree was moved to the new location of the historic home, could the new owners remove the tree at their discretion. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 13, 2003 Mr. Buller indicated that the action for the Landmark Designation would stand as it is and that it does not include historic trees, therefore, they could conceivably remove the tree at a later time. Pat Hildebrand, 9730 Peach Tree, asked the approximate age of the tree. Mr. Knaap stated that it is approximated at 50-100 years, depending upon the previous care of the tree, which is an unknown. Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart commented that she wants to save trees and their age is significant,but now she is concemed that$25,000 could be spent to move one tree and then it would have no protection from future removal. She remarked that according to the proposed plan,we would be getting about 159 more trees than what we are removing and that the positives of this outweighs trying to move a 100 year old tree plus the better rate of survival for new stock. Commissioner McPhail said we are asking the City Planner to work with the arborist and if it is not reasonable to preserve the trees then we are not requiring that to happen. Mr. Buller offered to work with the arborist and report back to the Commission. Chairman Macias stated that he agrees with Commissioner McPhail, that they are not dictating the preservation of the trees and that we should ask the City Planner to work with the arborist and to use his discretion regarding the preservation of any of the trees. Commissioner Fletcher said that if there are any big trees in the development, then they should be preserved within the development, but if the options don't work, he is opposed to changing the proposed plan. Chairman Macias asked if we have had this issue in the past and whether we have gone above and beyond the mitigations written by staff. Mr. Buller stated that we have, and tree preservation has always been an issue in Rancho Cucamonga. He added that it is not typical for oak trees because they are not listed as a required tree for preservation within the Tree Preservation Ordinance. He noted that tree preservation on a project site for other types of trees is not unusual and sometimes a project can be designed around a tree earmarked for preservation. He added that on the Tolstoy property, some trees were included in the Landmark Designation but that they also applied for a Landmark Alteration Permit,which allowed them to remove some fruit and nut bearing trees, which were not protected. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the Goerlitz property, which was recently recommended for Landmark Designation, included language that protects certain trees and vines on the property because of their historic value. Chairman Macias asked if that property is sold in the future, would the new owners be required to protect the elements listed in the conditions for preservation. Mr. Buller stated they would. Chairman Macias asked how it would be handled if the protected trees/plants died. Mr. Buller explained that an evidentiary hearing would be performed to determine how/why the trees/plants died, and then it would go from there as to further action. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 13, 2003 Commissioner McNiel suggested they refer to Condition # 3 found on page B-84 of the agenda packet, which refers to the removal, and replacement of heritage trees that must be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Planner. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and to approve Tentative Tract Map 16430 as presented by staff with the understanding that the City Planner will work with the developer towards the feasibility of preserving heritage trees. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS C. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2003-00709 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to initiate a Development Code text amendment to allow self-storage facilities within residential zones, under specific circumstances with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Brad Buller, City Planner, made the presentation. He remarked that there is an opportunity for the development of a unique site and with creative design, a project could be brought back for the Commission's consideration, but that the proposal cannot move forward without this amendment. He clarified and reported that if the text amendment were approved, the property would remain residential, but would allow certain types of development on the site. He confirmed that this initiation does not reflect the Commission's consent or approval of the amendment. He added that staff believes there is some merit to the applicant's proposal, but that it cannot move forward without the text amendment. He noted that staff has received many requests for commercial uses to be allowed on this site. He commented that this application will not be site specific, and that other sites in the City will have to be looked at to determine if this is a good concept overall and if we can allow this type of use to protect an adjoining neighborhood. He remarked that this action would give the Commission an opportunity to look at the concept. Chairman Macias confirmed that the amendment includes text changes that can allow further action in the future. He then opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395,stated he has been contacted by the current property owners with requests to change the zoning to allow commercial uses. He stated that they would prefer a different commercial use rather than fast food or a gas station, and the text change would make that a possibility while at the same time allow for a use that would blend with the adjoining neighborhood and be more compatible overall. He added that he believes they can provide a design that would enhance this particular corner, much like a previous project at Hermosa and Arrow. He added that with the change, they are able to propose a self- storage use and that they intend to parcel off 6 or 7 lots to finish the residential neighborhood. He said the storage facility would provide added noise mitigation from the freeway and that they are working on criteria that would work citywide and not just this site. He commented that he would work with staff and would retum with a project for the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Fletcher asked if other locations have been identified that might be affected by the text change. Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 13, 2003 Mr. Buquet noted that a similar approach was taken where the 210 and 1-15 Freeways intersect except that it is now a RV storage facility instead of self-storage. Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel commented that the mechanism of an amendment makes good sense and could protect these areas from unwanted uses and that self-storage is definitely needed in Rancho Cucamonga. He added that self-storage facilities have minimal impact to adjoining uses/neighborhoods. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that the text amendment is a good solution, provides protection for the neighborhood and is a good idea. Chairman Macias stated that he has no problem with the text change. He reported that he had concems about compatibility but he did not think of it from this perspective. He noted that when the amendment is brought back to the Commission for consideration, he wants to be sure it is right. Commissioner Stewart echoed Chairman Macias and added that the design of the facility would have to be "above and beyond." Mr. Buller stated that the applicant has been wamed and that the go ahead to initiate the amendment does not mean the Commission is consenting to the amendment itself, that the Commission is only allowing the amendment to be presented for consideration at this time. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel to allow the initiation of Development Code Amendment DRC2003-00709 as presented by staff. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional comments were made at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS Chairman Macias asked the City Planner to coordinate a field trip/workshop of the City for the Commissioners so that issues and concerns can be brainstormed. Brad Buller, City Planner agreed to set up an itinerary for this purpose and that he would report back to the Commission with possible dates and times for tours. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, carried 5-0, to adjoum. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 8:12 p.m. to a workshop. The workshop adjourned at 9:45 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 13, 2003 Respectfully submitted, Bra•77,orr r Se -tary 1 1 Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 13, 2003