Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/12/12 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 12, 2001 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:10 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: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Debra Meier, Contract Planner, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary;Joe Stofa,Associate Engineer; Ruben Warren, Planning Technician ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, carried 4-0-0-1 (Tolstoy abstain), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of November 14, 2001. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-0-1 (Mannerino abstain), to approve the minutes of November 28, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF HERMOSA AVENUE 0/-185)—A request to summarily vacate an easement along the east side of Hermosa Avenue between 5th Street and 6th Street. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy,to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2001-00705 —GOOD FELLAS BAR AND NIGHT CLUB—A request to include disc jockey, dancing, and live acoustic music in conjunction with an existing bar and night club within a leased space of 2,000 square feet in the Virginia Dare Business Center in the General Commercial District, located at 8034 Haven Avenue, Suite B — APN: 1077-661-02. Ruben Warren, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Commissioner Stewart questioned if the application was being processed because of the change in ownership and if the applicant was providing the same entertainment as the previous owner. Mr. Warren confirmed that was correct. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Robert Lang, owner, Good Fellas Bar and Nightclub, 8034 Haven Avenue, Suite B, Rancho Cucamonga, agreed with the conditions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino felt it is a nice place. Commissioner Tolstoy believed it is a good location for entertainment. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolution approving Entertainment Permit DRC2001-00705. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRCDCA01-02-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—A request to amend various sections of the Foothill and Industrial Districts by adding or modifying text and graphics regarding the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. Related files: Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRCTVCPA01-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRCVCPA01-03. D. TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRCTVCPA01-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — A request to establish streetscape standards known as the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Community Plan. Related files: Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-02 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRCVCPA01-03. E. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRCVCPA01-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — A request to establish streetscape standards known as the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Community Plan. Related files: Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-02 and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRCTVCPA01-01. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 12, 2001 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS F. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ROUTE 66 VISUAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN—A request to review and approve the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. Related files: Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-02,Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRCTVCPA01-01, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRCVCPA01-03. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing; however, there was no testimony and he closed the hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy wished someone would provide the money to implement the plan. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-02, Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment DRCTVCPA01-01, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRCVCPA01-03. and the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried G. APPEAL OF INCOMPLETENESS DETERMINATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16279 - COLORADO PACIFIC COMMUNITIES - A ' residential subdivision of 80 single-family lots on 57 acres in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, between Etiwanda and East Avenues-APN: 227-051-01,04,05,06,09,and 28 and 227-061-05. Debra Meier, Contract Planner, presented the staff report and indicated staff had received a letter from Dona Smerek favoring an equestrian design for the project and asking that consideration be given to extending sound or garden walls to include the area adjacent to the three single story homes east of the project. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Danny Brose, Colorado Pacific Communities, 31012 Via Mirador, San Juan Capistrano, stated the project has been in process for several months and had gone through several renditions of various plans. He said they had narrowed down the project to something they believe is within the current designation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He indicated they met with staff 8 to 10 months ago and felt there was an interpretation that the property is out of the equestrian area. He stated they submitted a plan in October and were then told they have to meet equestrian completeness items. He believed the property is not within the Equestrian Overlay District as outlined in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He observed that the Plan states that the Equestrian Overlay District applies to all residential properties located north of Route 30 and to residential properties abutting a Community Equestrian Trail. He noted that the equestrian trail goes behind homes on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue,whereas his property is east of Etiwanda Avenue. He said his property is not contiguous to or abutting the equestrian trail but is 660 feet away from the closest equestrian trail. He felt that the Etiwanda Specific Plan would have to be amended to accommodate staffs interpretation that the trail should continue from the comer of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues. He also objected to being asked to abide by the new standards that require a 200-foot depth for equestrian lots. He felt their project was being held up on what is a de facto moratorium. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 12, 2001 Emile Lee, 9805 Howland Drive, Temple City, stated her family is the owner of 45 acres within the proposed development. She said they had planned to close escrow in July 2001 so that Mr. Brose could develop the property. She gave a brief history of the property, stating that it had originally been bought in 1987 and used for growing vegetables until 1994 but has been vacant since then. She said they have been trying to sell the property for many years and they had been dropped by two other developers because of the storm drain requirements. She did not know why there should be a horse trail on her property as they are on the south side of the freeway. She did not think a horse trial should be needed on her property when there is a war in Afghanistan and homeless people in Los Angeles. She said she just wanted to sell her land for her people. David Long, 13021 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has been a resident of Etiwanda for 38 years. He said he was there when the Etiwanda Specific Plan proponents fought over the plan and they specifically asked that there be no horse trails within this area. He commented that the developer was asked to meet with the residents at the last meeting when the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated the developer met with the residents and the residents accepted a plan proposed by the developer but that plan is not what the developer is now proposing. He said that he had been told that the compromise plan reached between the developer and the residents had been turned down by the City. He indicated some people living north of him will now have a street behind their houses. He said the people in the community do not want trails and the developer does not want the trails. He noted there had been complaints in the newspaper about trails because of a lack of privacy and the responsibility of homeowners to clean up after the horses. He did not like horses and felt there are enough places for horses in the community. He said the Specific Plan was set up so they would not have to have horses in that area and he did not feel that plan should be amended to include horses. Chairman McNiel said all of the plans in the community are not etched in stone when written, but rather are living plans that may change because the community is growing and changing. He indicated he was present when the Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted. Mr. Long asked why there had to be equestrian trails in the community. He said the residents do not want them and neither does the developer. He commented he built an equestrian community in north Alta Loma and no one uses the trails,they have merely become a weed trap. He felt there are enough trails in the community. He asked what happened to the plan that had been agreed upon by the developer and the residents and stated that none of the residents had been informed that the previous plan was being considered by the Commission. He said they were told by the developer that the Commission had turned down the plan. He stated the plan they worked on addressed the water and traffic issues. He said the developer had met with the residents and had worked with them. He asked why the residents' concerns were not addressed. Larette Allen, 13059 Larrera Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said they worked very hard with Danny Brose to get together on a plan. She state she lives in Etiwanda and she walks the path behind Etiwanda Avenue and no one maintains it. She said it is filthy and has graffiti. She indicated she walks the Belmont Estates and the homeowners in that area are responsible for picking up the manure there. She asked who would monitor a bridle trail and she felt it would be unsafe. She asked who would take care of a trail. She questioned what percentage of the residents own horses and believed it is only 1 percent of the population. She felt the Etiwanda Specific Plan shows the area is not horse property. Candice Fowler, 13205 Catalpa Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they worked with Danny Brose all through the summer when they were supposed to be enjoying their vacation. She said they worked hard to come up with a plan that everyone could agree to. She felt it was silly to hold up a development for bridle trails because no one uses them. She said she has only seen horses on them once in the 14 years she lived there. She felt bridle trails should be confined to Alta Loma but said there was no one in the area who has horses. She said she had heard of a lot of discrepancies over the bridle trails in Belmont Estates. She felt sidewalks would be much better because high Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 12, 2001 school students now walk in the road through the area. She thought people are more important than horses. John Lee, 9805 Howland Drive, Temple City, stated he is one of the owners of the land. He said the land can no longer be used for farming because they cannot use pesticide or manure because of the nearby residences. He believed Mr. Brose is capable of developing the land and making the City beautiful. He felt that the City should have told Mr. Brose when he first approached the City that it would be necessary to have a horse trail. He said the land will remain vacant and full of weeds if Mr. Brose cannot develop it now because it is now a good time to sell houses. Ken Douglas, 6047 Indigo, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that people complained they never see a horse go by but yet they also complained about the manure that is left behind. He said he has ridden horses and mules throughout the City. He observed that no one seems to complain about cleaning up after dogs or people leave litter on sidewalks in front of their houses. He did not feel a single housing tract should determine what would happen in the City; instead they should have to conform to the City regulations. He felt if a developer wants to build in an equestrian area, that means horses come with it. Ismael Flores, 13060 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has lived in the area for a long time. He said they met with the developer as the City had asked, and Mr. Brose gave the residents just about everything they asked for. He commented they asked that a street not be opened up and Mr. Grose agreed. He said they asked that a water collection point not be built behind his house and Mr. Brose agreed. He indicated he is a United States Marine and will be leaving soon. He asked what happened to the plan that the residents worked on. Jerry Bredlau, 13040 Pinon Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said that when they came to the first meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the builder and residents meet to discuss the plans. He thought that horses are nice but they draw Flies and cause problems. He felt the area was not zoned for horses. He understood that specific plans change, but said that a horse trail in that area would not connect to anything and he saw no reason to have a trail there. He said he has lived there 33 years. He thought that the people who would buy an expensive home would not want a horse trail behind their home. Vicky Vaughan, 5919 Sacramento Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives in the northern section of Alta Loma and is proud to be a horse owner. She said she rides in the Etiwanda communities. She felt having a horse is no different from her neighbor having a motorcycle except that it requires a larger lot for the horse. She said she chooses to live where it is zoned for horses so that she can keep her horses. She agreed with the City's overall general plan for growth and noted the areas that are growing are the areas where the larger lots are located. She indicated the larger lots can accommodate horses and said the properties in Etiwanda are more conducive to housekeeping than those in northern Alta Loma because they are flat and have more usable property. She commented she would appreciate having more horse trails. She noted that a new development might not be connected to or abutting an existing horse trail; however, there will be more community and feeder horse trails throughout that area. She felt that any property developed in that area should include the overall vision of what is wanted for the future. She felt that when a development is going in a particular part of the City that has specific requirements, it should keep the same overall development. She thought the original owners should not set something in stone so that future owners could not reverse. She felt the property should be developed with long-term plans in mind. She thought the people in the immediate communities should also have a say in what is developed in their community. She asked that the Commission also listen to what the residents were saying and come up with a compromise that will fit the future of Rancho Cucamonga with what the people need and want for their own community. Karen Long, 13021 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the safety problems with horse trails should be considered. She thought there is too much traffic at Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 12, 2001 Avenue to allow for safe crossing of the street by the horses. She stated that cars speed on Etiwanda Avenue making the area unsafe. She commented that she loves horses but she felt they should not have to be there. She said her community spent the summer working with Mr. Brose to get something right and she felt they ought to have a say in the matter. She did not feel horses should be in the area. Carol Douglas, 6047 Indigo Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said it was her understanding that Very Low Density zoned areas within the City are designed for% acre lots and %acre lots are designed for and appropriate for horse keeping. She said that applies to this development She noted concerns had been raised regarding safety of horse trails and indicated she has two horse trails adjacent to her property. She felt her neighborhood is one of the safest in the City. She noted an issue had been brought up that if horse trails are not used by the public, they grow weeds and become unsightly. She stated that issue is one that should be brought to the attention of Code Enforcement. She said that homeowners have a responsibility to look to their neighbors to maintain their neighborhoods and noted that horse trail easements are the responsibility of homeowners. She felt the equestrian nature of the City is part of its heritage and is deeply ingrained within the planning of the City. She said there is one existing equestrian park built and a second one planned for the Etiwanda area of the City. She noted that the Pacific Electric Trail is to be developed to the south of this property and said that was not planned several years ago because it was not available. She said that trail will run from east to west through the City and will have connections to the north to connect to the equestrian areas. She felt that is a significant change and needs to be considered in connection with the City's plans. James Sherwood, 9600 19th Avenue,Apartment 105, Rancho Cucamonga, observed that an earlier speaker had spoken about the speed of traffic on Etiwanda Avenue and said it was unsafe for horses to cross the street. He stated that would also be an issue for people crossing the street. He said if the issue is the speed of the traffic, it is a traffic problem, not a horse problem and should be addressed. He felt it is important that any living thing be able to cross the street safely. Mike Mergener, 6562 Ash Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated he lives directly east of the project. He said the residents of the neighborhood met with Mr. Brose on several occasions to arrive at a plan that would be acceptable to everyone. He stated the people in the neighborhood do not want horse trails and they did not want several other things so Mr. Brose made changes to accommodate their needs. He said Mr. Brose came to them with three or four separate plans and they finally agreed to a plan in August and the residents thought that would be processed. He stated the plan has now been completely changed and the residents do not want what is now being proposed. He asked that the Commission look at the previous plan agreed to by the residents. Don Lundgren, 13020 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked what happened to the plan that the residents agreed to. He said that on the previous plan two houses were abutting the back of his property, but now there is a street. He said he met seven times with the developer and he wanted to know why it had changed. Mr. Brose stated that the residents were referring to the plan for a private gated community, which was tumed down by the Commissioners on a 5-0 vote. He said they worked on that plan for about three months. Carolyn Mergener, 6562 Ash Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, observed that the Kemp House burned down earlier in the day and Code Enforcement had repeatedly been called about kids at the house. She said she had called the Police several times herself and the building was not maintained and burned to the ground. She favored allowing the property to be developed because she did not want a fire hazard anymore. She said she also did not want flies and horse trails so she asked that they go back to the plan agreed to by the residents and the developer. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 12, 2001 Mary Bullock, 6087 Burgundy Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, observed that an issue was being debated that revolves around the developer's responsibility. She said the developer knows what the City codes are and he is responsible to abide by them. She felt the developer was trying to circumvent City codes and regulations and that was not fair to the City or the existing residents. She stated that dogs also attract flies. Mr. Brose stated that the last speaker had indicated that he as a developer has certain obligations to follow the Code. He asked where the Code states that he should have to put an equestrian trail on the property. He said the property does not abut an equestrian trail and is not contiguous to one. He did not feel he was doing anything wrong. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there were two issues in front of the Commission that had been raised by the developer. He indicated that in the normal process, staff determines the completeness of applications based upon interpretation of the Code, which in this case is the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He stated that staff presented a technical nexus as to why the project is required to provide trails but the applicant believes the project should not require trails. He said the key issue for the Commission would be to determine if trails should be required. He observed that the Very Low designation calls for lots of 20,000 feet or greater, which allows equestrian keeping. He noted that horses would be allowed even if trails are not required and the Commission should determine whether trails should be provided to allow anyone keeping a horse on these lots to get to the community trail. He noted the second issue has to do with the lot depth. He said the new code requires a 200-foot depth on equestrian lots to better comply with the distance setback from the keeping of a horse and an adjacent residential home. He said both the Commission and the City Council have adopted the new Code. He acknowledged that this applicant had been in process for 111 months and the new Code was enacted while the applicant was in process with several other plans. He believed the project should have to comply with the 200-foot depth unless the Commission wanted to grant an exception based on unique criteria based on the project's site,configuration,and layout. He pointed out that it adjoins other homes that will never be able to have equestrian uses because the lots are too small. He said he met with Mr. Brose early in the process and Mr. Brose approached the City and discussed developing under optional standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He noted that the basic standards call for 20,000 square foot minimum, 25,000 square foot average lots but Mr. Brose approached the City in an attempt to develop under optional standards with more density. He said he tried to develop a project with smaller lots, more open space, and a switch to move some of the open space to another parcel that was not contiguous. He pointed out there had been some problems with the scheduling of a neighborhood meeting and the surrounding residents showed up at the Planning Commission hearing with questions about and objections to the project. He said the Commission suggested the developer go back to the neighborhood and present a project that the neighborhood would understand. He felt it was the intent of the Commission that the applicant return with a project that would be consistent with either the optional standards or the basic standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He noted, however, that the plan that Mr. Brose returned with which supposedly had the neighborhood support did not comply with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said there are provisions in the plan that would not allow him the density proposed, in fact Mr. Brose wanted to count the streets as part of the density calculations. He said he also wanted a gated community and there is a provision in the Specific Plan that would not allow the gated community as he proposed with the lot sizes proposed. He noted that proposal would have required an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Commission felt the project should be more in line with the Plan. He recalled there was some discussion at that meeting about the equestrian issue and direction that it should comply with the trail requirements. He said Mr. Brose then told the City he would come back under the basic provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and submitted another application. He reported staff responded that he still needed to address the trail issue and Mr. Brose believes the Plan does not require trails while staff feels the Plan may indicate it should be part of the project. He noted that trail maintenance was also questioned during the public testimony. He reported that Community trails are maintained by the City while local trails Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 12, 2001 are to be maintained by homeowners. Mr. Buller outlined the development process. He said that developers submit an application and once staff determines the application is complete, the developer is asked to present the project to the neighborhood before the project is presented to the Commission. He said that Mr. Brose's next step following being deemed complete,would have been to present the plan to the neighborhood before going back through the committee process and back to the Commission. He said the project had not reached that point because Mr. Brose had requested that the Commission find that the application would not have to show trails. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the application to build under the basic standards came before or after the 200-foot lot depth requirement was adopted. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated it was filed before the second reading of the Ordinance. Commissioner Mannerino observed that staff determined that the application was not complete. Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct. Ms. Meier stated the project was submitted on October 9 and the second reading of the Ordinance was on November 7. She said the first reading would have been approximately two weeks following the submission of the application in its present form. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Subdivision Map Act provides that the City should apply the standards in effect when an application is deemed complete. He said that if the application has not been deemed complete before the effective date of the Ordinance, the City can apply the new standards to the project. He noted there is also an exception that if proceedings have been initiated to establish a standard and a notice has been published indicating a hearing on those standards, the City can impose the new requirement even if the new requirement goes into effect after the application is deemed complete. Mr. Ennis said the Commission must make a finding that design or improvements are consistent with applicable general and specific plans. He said that goes to specific text as well as the policy and goals of the plan. He stated the Commission could look at statements, goals, and policies within the plan to determine if it was envisioned to be an equestrian area, thereby necessitating access for that type of use. Commissioner Mannerino found it ironic that the last time the applicant appeared at a Commission meeting, the applicant was the "bad guy"while the Commission was the "good guys" and now the Commission had been told it should be ashamed, He said he was not persuaded by the argument that horses should be excluded because current residents don't want horses. He observed he does not own a farm, but if someone had the right to have a farm, he would protect that right. He said he was not persuaded by the argument that the Commission should allow the previous plan because the developer and residents had agreed to it because the Commission would not approve it if they had agreed to build a Disneyland. He observed the ultimate responsibility of determining if a project complies with zoning regulations lies with the Commission. He said there is no question that the project does not lie north of the 210 Freeway and there is no question that the project is not contiguous to any existing trail but there also appears to be no question that a lot this size permits the ownership of horses. He did not know if there is any policy in the City with regard to someone being permitted to have a horse but not having access to a trail. He said he is in favor of trails and believes the developer should be held to the 200-foot standard but he did not see a compelling reason to place the property within the Equestrian Overlay District and to necessitate a trail. He said he had very persuasive argument on both sides. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that anyone who buys a 20,000 square foot lot can have a horse and he said it has always been the City's policy to provide trails for that type of property. He stated that the developer originally approached the City and said he wanted to develop under optional standards and the Commission told him he could not. He noted the developer has now conformed to the density required, which permits horse keeping. Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 12, 2001 Commissioner Macias stated that when the Commission directed the developer to meet with the community, the Commission assumed there would be full compliance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He supported the development of trails in the tract. Commissioner Stewart found it troubling to think a horse could be put on a lot without providing a trail. She felt the tract should be held to the 200-foot lot depth standard. She believed the Commission had told the developer that trails would be appropriate at the Pre-application workshop. She found it disconcerting that trails were not included. She felt there should be a trail requirement. Commissioner Mannerino thought that discussion took place in connection with the proposal to develop under the optional standards. He recalled the conversation about the trails. Chairman McNiel noted that the discussion regarding trails was not a new subject or a surprise to the developer. He said the institution of the 200-foot lot depth was done to solve similar problems in other locations and unfortunately falls on this project as well. Mr. Buller noted the applicant made a good-faith effort to meet the 200-foot lot depth but there were still a few lots that do not meet the depth. He said that was not as significant of an issue as the trail issue. Chairman McNiel stated that it would be ludicrous to require a builder to build garages and not put in streets and he felt there was a parallel. He felt it makes no sense to develop potential horse property and not provide trails to service that use. He supported staffs position. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Chairman McNiel. Chairman McNiel stated the City is proud that Rancho Cucamonga is a planned community with living plans that can be adjusted and he felt that has made the community better. He said the City has the opportunity to provide facilities for a wide variety of uses, i.e., horse trials, biking and hiking trails, and virtually every other type of recreational facility that can be thought of to satisfy all of the people of the community. He felt it is better to be a somewhat equestrian community than to exclude that activity. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Tolstoy,to deny the appeal. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: MANNERINO ABSENT: NONE - carried Commissioner Mannerino stated he voted no even though he was very much concerned about creating an anomaly of creating 20,0000 square foot lots that have the right to have horses but don't have trails. He said he did not see a way to require this property to be part of the Equestrian Overlay District. He hoped there would be some negotiation to solve the problem. Mr. Buller stated that in working with the applicant to try to address neighborhood concerns, they tried to avoid having trails adjacent to existing lots that could not accommodate horses. He said that Commissioner Stewart had suggested that perhaps a front-load trail access similar to Deer Creek could be considered to avoid having trails abut existing smaller lots. He suggested that residents could come into the City to see what plans are in process. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Deer Creek layout is good because horse owners have the ability to access the trails and those who do not own horses, can have a front yard with grass. Commissioner Stewart felt a front-loaded trail may be a successful compromise for the residents and the developer and those that favor horse keeping. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 12, 2001 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it could be a good compromise. Mr. Buller stated that the only lots in the latest application where there might be a local trail would be those homes at the end of Pinion and Vista, east of Pecan. He felt there might be alternative trail layouts or restrictions placed on those lots. He said it is unusual to have a juxtaposition of 8,000-9,000 square foot lots abutting 20,000-25,000 square foot lots. He felt the applicant could look at design altematives or there might be some justification for a variance on those lots. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a buffer should be provided and that may be the buffer. Chairman McNiel agreed that may be a possibility. H. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-81 - JAROD CROW-An appeal of the City Planner's decision to not require fencing along the southeasterly property line for a 2,455 square foot single family home on .29 acre of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre, located at 8721 Predera Court - APN: 207-631-19. Chairman McNiel noted there was a letter before the Commission requesting that the item be continued for 30 days. He invited public comment. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to continue consideration of an appeal of Development Review DRCDR00-81 to January 9, 2002. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission business. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i vai B ler V Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 12, 2001