Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/07/11 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 11, 2001 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:06 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; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Debra Meier, Contract Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced there were some documents in front of the Commissioners with respect to various items on the agenda and staff would discuss those correspondence as the items came up on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-0-1 (Macias abstain), to approve the minutes dated June 13, 2001. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16195 — COLORADO PACIFIC COMMUNITIES—A residential subdivision of 139 single-family lots on 45.28 acres in the Very Low Residential District(up to 2 dwelling units per acre)and 13.25 acres of open space in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), utilizing the Optional Development Standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. All residential development is proposed on the 45.28-acre parcel located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of Etiwanda Avenue and all the required open space(per the Optional Development Standards) is proposed on the 13.25-acre parcel located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Victoria Street— I APN: 227-051-01, 04, 05, 06, 09 and 28 and 227-121-16 and 49. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2001-00325, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 01-01, Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00323, Landmark Designation DRC2001-00337, and Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2001-00338. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2001-00325 — COLORADO PACIFIC COMMUNITIES—A proposed development agreement to establish the details pertaining to the transfer of density and open space between Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16195 and the open space parcel — APN: 227-051-01, 04, 05, 06, 09, and 28 and 227-121-16 and 49. Related Files: Tentative Tract SUBTT16195, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 01-01, Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00323, Landmark Designation DRC2001-00337, and Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2001-00338. C. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01 —COLORADO PACIFIC COMMUNITIES—A request to amend to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow the transfer of density and/or open space to non-contiguous parcels when using the Optional Development Standards(Figure 5-3). Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16195, Development Agreement DRC2001-00325, Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00323, Landmark Designation DRC2001-00337, and Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2001-00338. Debra Meier, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if it was suggested that the items be continued to a specific date. Ms. Meier responded that was not known. Commissioner Mannerino asked if it was suggested that the Commission have a discussion without knowing which submission the applicant intends to pursue. He questioned what had been submitted and what the Commission had seen. Commissioner Macias concurred with Commission Mannerino that he did not wish to waste the Commission's time or the public's time. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rick Gomez, Forma, 17500 Red Hill Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, stated he was representing Colorado Pacific. He said they would like to move forward with the original application before the Commission but they presented an altemate option to address some of the concerns raised by the residents so that time would not be lost. • Commissioner Mannerino stated he was confused. He asked if the applicant intends to sit down with staff and the community. He suggested that the matter come to the Commission after that meeting had taken place. Mr. Gomez responded they prefer the original project which was presented in the package. He suggested that the Commission listen to public testimony and direct the applicant to work with staff and the community if it feels the concems raised by the public would warrant that direction. Commissioner Mannerino didn't feel the Commission could give proper direction. He felt it was premature to hear testimony and he thought it was a hollow gesture since the applicant had submitted an altemate plan different from what was on the agenda. Chairman McNiel commented the applicant presented a project through the Design Review Committee and Technical Review Committee and then met with the local community, at which time it appears some red flags were raised. He observed that an alternate plan was then submitted which has not been processed but the applicant has asked the Commission to proceed with the original plan submitted. He agreed it may be a moot point. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the public had an opportunity to look at the alternate plan in a public meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 11, 2001 Mr. Gomez responded negatively. He explained it had been discussed with a few individuals but the residents had not seen it collectively. He said Colorado Pacific was trying to move forward rapidly and he apologized for any confusion. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he understood there was a mix-up with the meeting room schedule at the first public meeting with the residents and they met on the sidewalk. Mr. Gomez confirmed that was correct. He said the School District would not let them meet on the property, so they met with the residents on the sidewalk. Commissioner Tolstoy said he understood, but he did not feel that was the same as having a sit- down meeting. He noted the City always recommends that developers have a neighborhood meeting to explain the project. He thought they should have the public meeting first and he did not want to hear the objections of residents if the project is not going to be processed as submitted. Mr. Gomez agreed the opportunity to hear from the public was less than optimal. He indicated they distributed handouts with graphics and a site map to the 20-25 people who showed up. Commissioner Macias asked if the new altemative would change the environmental assessment of the project. Ms. Meier responded that the impacts would be less; therefore, the Initial Study would more than address them. Commissioner Macias said there was clearly some confusion and that the applicant had not conducted a valid meeting with the residents. He agreed with Commissioner Mannerino that it was a moot point, but he felt it was the duty of the Commission to hear public testimony. Commissioner Stewart agreed with Commissioner Macias. Mr. Gomez stated the project had been advertised as a public hearing and he said the applicant would like to have the hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to continue the items along with the public testimony until staff had an opportunity to digest both plans. Commissioner Mannerino suggested that the public should hold their testimony unless they could not be at the meeting at the continued date. Chairman McNiel asked for direction from counsel since public testimony had not been taken and there had been no presentation by the developer. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Commission could legally continue the matter to another date, or to an unspecified date if re-advertised, He indicated the Commission could direct the applicant to hold a public meeting. He said the Commission could open the public hearing and continue the matter without taking any testimony whatsoever. Commissioner Macias said he seconded Commissioner Mannerino's motion because he wanted the public to have an opportunity to attend a public neighborhood meeting. Mr. Ennis said it was his understanding the motion was to authorize limited public testimony only from those individuals who felt they could not come back to a future meeting after the community meeting. He stated that if the applicant withdraws the application, that would make the matter moot. He noted the City would have to act on the application as originally submitted unless the applicant withdraws it or specifies a modification. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 11, 2001 Brad Buller, City Planner, confirmed that a new plan had been submitted to the City on Tuesday and staff had distributed it to other departments but there had not been time for the plan to be reviewed as yet. He said staff felt it would be fair for the Commission to continue the items but also allow the residents to comment. He suggested a neighborhood meeting be held within seven days and the matter be continued for two weeks. He said the developer could also withdraw their application and re-advertise for a new hearing. Commissioner Mannerino stated he would modify his motion to continue the items to July 25, 2001. Commissioner Macias amended the second. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a two-week continuance would be sufficient. Mr. Buller thought the applicant could hold a meeting, but he wasn't sure if the residents could meet within a week. He said there should be some notice regarding the meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the matter be continued for four weeks so that staff would have an opportunity to prepare a staff report including the results of the neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Macias also questioned if there was enough time for staff to evaluate the project and include the evaluation in the agenda packets. Chairman McNiel felt there would be sufficient time if the applicant proceeds with what was originally proposed. Commissioner Stewart felt there was so much new information that the matter must be continued. She noted the developer had expressed a desire to process their original proposal. She wanted to hear some testimony from the residents regarding their concerns. Commissioner Mannerino felt the applicant could conduct a community meeting and would then know in two weeks if they wish to go forward with the original proposal. He said the items could again be continued if the project was not ready at that time. Mr. Gomez said they would like to meet with the residents. Commissioner Mannerino requested that residents not speak if they would be able to attend the July 25, 2001, meeting. Motion to continue Landmark Designation DRC2001-00337, Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2001-00338, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16195„ Development Agreement DRC2001-00325, and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 01-01 to July 25, 2001 carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Kelly Chase, 13215 Catalpa Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated notices were sent on June 29 that a meeting would be held in a tent on July 5; however, when the residents arrived on July 5, they were told that the City advised them to cancel the meeting because of the possibility of thunderstorms. She stated they had been told tonight's meeting would not happen and they were going to go with a new plan. She felt there should only be 65 homes instead of the 139 they were requesting. David Wong, 132021 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is just south of the proposed development. He believed the developer had not cleared the meeting at the school and said they were then advised another meeting would be held in a tent. He said about 30 residents showed up but the developer did not. He acknowledged that a tract will be built but said the developer informed Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 11, 2001 them that the previously approved plan would be built. He indicated his greatest concern was not density, but drainage. He questioned what would happen with the water coming down from the catch basin. He said the School Board is concerned about where the water will go and felt a drainage system is need to take the water out. He questioned the number of phases and asked how much the lives of existing residents will be disrupted. Enrique Munol, 6658 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that if a different set of plans is presented in the future, the residents have the right to speak out again. He felt it was a waste of everyone's time to have the hearing when the developer did not even know what the plan will be. Laurette Allen, 13054 Larrera Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern that water will drain down Pecan Avenue. She reported that a recent 20-minute rainstorm resulted in standing water from curb to curb. She said her second concern was traffic. She felt there will be unbearable traffic from 2:30-3:30 p.m. with the number of students in the area. She believed that the Kemp House should be restored to its former glory if it is moved. She preferred a park on Etiwanda Avenue. Ms. Allen noted that the area is currently zoned for up to two houses per acre and she felt that should be the maximum permitted. She said there had been two meetings of the residents with 60 people showing up at them. Candice Fowler, 13205 Catalpa Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that meetings had been called on two separate nights. She said that residents showed up but the developer had not. She thought a neighborhood meeting should be held. She believed most residents want lower density. She said they have been promised a number of things by Mr. Brose including only 90 homes and a park. Ishmael Flores, 13060 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern about the drainage basin which will be built directly behind his fence. He did not feel his family will be safe if the basin is built there. He also was concerned about children traveling on Highland Avenue to and from school. Jim Banks, 13181 Victoria Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, concurred with the other residents regarding concerns about drainage, traffic, and the historic house. He stated that the Etiwanda Specific Plan allows for greater density if certain amenities are created and the intent was to keep the amenity with the density. He cautioned against separating the amenity from the density and hoped that a distance limit would be imposed if the City should approve the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission recessed from 8:03 p.m. to 8:11 p.m. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-45 — ALBERTSON'S EXPRESS — A request to construct a 2,029 square foot fuel service and convenience store on 0.71 acre of land in the Community Commercial District (Foothill Boulevard, Subarea 2), located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue—APN: 207-102-49. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated a letter had been received _ from California Department of Transportation urging liaison with Caltrans and asking that the development comply with the Congestion Management Program and make a fair share contribution for regional transportation infrastructure. Mr. Grahn said that all traffic impacts were addressed with the original development of the site. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification regarding the letter from the State Department of Transportation. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 11, 2001 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Congestion Management Plan requires an analysis of traffic impacts in the immediate area as well as beyond the area for projects over a certain threshold. Commissioner Macias thought that was a SANBAG problem. Mr. Buller said that CEQA requires the analysis. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the City was already complying. Mr. Buller confirmed it had been done with the initial approval of the center. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Tate, Tate and Associates, 701 North Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, stated he represented Albertson's Express. He concurred with the conditions. He indicated that Albertson's decided to get into the fuel dispensing business about two years ago and they have installed facilities at 175 stores nationwide. He said they are looking at each current location to determine feasibility as they feel it creates synergy with the main store. He stated the station will be operated as a department of the store. He reported that a pneumatic tube was already installed to allow for transfer of funds and documents from the pad to the main store and there will be continual surveillance by the security personnel from the main store. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they would have payphones. Mr. Grahn responded there are some payphones directly in front of the main store. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it was better not to have payphones because of the potential for drug trafficking. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart felt it will be a nice looking building. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP00-45. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16189 — CONCORDIA-A request to subdivide 26.94 acres of land into 75 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Low and Low-Medium Residential (2-4 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of East Avenue and Victoria Street-APN: 227-141-42,44,46,65, and a portion of 71. Related Files: Development Review DRC2001-00109, Variance DRC2001-00211, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001- 00210. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00109 - CONCORDIA - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 75 single- family lots on 26.94 acres of land in the Low and Low-Medium Residential (2-4 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of East Avenue and Victoria Street-APN 227-141-42, 44, 46, 65 and a portion of 71. Related files: Tentative Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 11, 2001 Tract Map SUBTT16189, Variance DRC2001-00211, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001- 00210. G. VARIANCE DRC2001-00211 -CONCORDIA-A request to increase the wall height up to 17 feet for sound attenuation along the southeasterly boundary of proposed Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16189 in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of East Avenue and Victoria Street-APN 227-141-42, 44, 46, 65, and a portion of 71. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16189, Development Review DRC2001-00109 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001- 00210. Emily Wimer,Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and reported that Air Quality Management District(AQMD)faxed a letter requesting that the City revise its charts for determining impacts to air quality. Commissioner Macias asked what that meant. Ms. Wimer indicated she spoke with the gentleman who sent the fax and he is looking at how the City can update its charts. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that AQMD is revising its methodology for analyzing impacts to air quality. Commissioner Stewart noted that the emergency access at Victoria was shown as temporary and she asked why it is considered temporary. Ms. Wimer responded that the Fire Division had some issues which have now been resolved and it is now permanent access. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Snell, Concordia, 1131 West 6th Street, Suite 11, Ontario ,stated they held a neighborhood meeting and worked through a lot of the issues. He stated they have two points of secondary access and they will be permanent. He indicated they will be exit only with Fire having the ability to enter off Victoria. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that there be consistency of the sound walls along the freeway with those being installed by other developers. He asked if a design has been determined. Ms. Wimer responded the developer is conditioned to match the wall for the tract to the south. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that will be the style for future development. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff is considering a master plan for the corridor. He noted that most of the freeway will be below grade in the residential area. He reported the 210 freeway has specific design criteria where it meets Interstate 15. He suggested it may be similar to the wall along Interstate 15, but not the same. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16189, Development review DRC2001-00109,and Variance DRC2001-00211. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 11, 2001 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2001-00263 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC - A request to amend a portion of the Victoria Community Plan from Medium and Medium-High Residential (8-14 and 14-24 dwelling units per acre, respectively)to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)for 20.15 acres, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue-APN: 227-691- 01. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Phillip Burum, Diversified Pacific, 10621 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel asked what they plan for the area. Mr. Burum stated they plan 109 single family detached homes on 5,500 square foot lots. He noted the last approved proposal was for 243 units. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated it will match the project density and type of subdivision map immediately adjacent. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled there had been a number of different proposals for this property. He hoped this one would develop. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2001-00263. 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. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 11, 2001 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-59-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to construct two industrial warehouse buildings(Building"A" - 140,239 square feet and Building "B"- 201,493 square feet) totaling 341,732 square feet on 15.55 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District(Subarea 9)and the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located south of 8th Street, between Rochester and Buffalo Avenues -APN: 229-251-34 and 229-262-06. Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. and indicated that a letter had been received from the State Department of Fish and Game regarding potential impacts to the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. He reported that the site is outside of the fly area. Mr. Fenn also suggested several revisions to the resolution including deletion of Engineering Conditions 1 and 2, as those items had been addressed, a provision to allow payment of an in-lieu fee for utility undergrounding, and addition of Engineering Standard conditions which had been inadvertently left out of the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, acknowledged the courtesy and professional assistance rendered by the City's Planning and Engineering staff in working with Metropolitan Water District. He said they were able to accomplish a win/win situation with the screen wall. He indicated Craig Halverson and Matt Jepson of Opus West, who will be developing the site, were available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification regarding the potential office area and how it would affect parking on-site. Mr. Buquet responded that the client asked that space be called out as potential office and they have been advised they will have to meet the parking requirements. He said they are cognizant that any such venture involving expansion of office use would require appropriate review by the City. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He indicated he reviewed the project at the Design Review Committee and felt it is a good looking project. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review DRCDR00-59 with modifications to delete Engineering Conditions 1 and 2, allow payment of an in-lieu fee for utility undergrounding, and add Engineering Standard conditions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried COMMISSION BUSINESS J. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS K DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS L. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Commissioner Macias felt all three items should remain status quo. Commissioners Stewart and Tolstoy agreed. Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 11, 2001 Chairman McNiel stated he would like to continue on the Design Review Committee at this time because the Colorado Pacific Communities item should be returning for review. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to nominate current officers and Committee members in their present positions with respect to the Commission. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Carol Douglass, 6047 Indigo Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the current General Plan states that the Trails Committee is to be composed of members from the Planning Commission, City Council, and the local riding club. She said there is currently not a member from the Alta Loma Riding Club on the Trails Committee. She said Sue Rabone is not currently a member of the Riding Club. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there was a community outreach looking for qualified candidates when the current equestrian member, Sue Rabone, was appointed. Chairman McNiel stated the City could not compel someone from the Riding Club to serve if there were no volunteers. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the vote just taken was to renew Commissioner Stewart's appointment to the Trails Committee. It felt it is appropriate to have a member from the Riding Club and also someone from the bicycling community, but he said they have tried to find a cyclist and have had troubling finding someone. Ms. Douglass stated that the Alta Loma Riding Club was respectfully requesting that a member from the Riding Club be included and said they had volunteers who would like to participate. Mr. Buller stated that Sue Rabone's term expired in April 2001. He said staff would be coming back to the Commission regarding filling of the Equestrian Member at Large position. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that Martin Dickey from the Park and Recreation Commission is a bicycler. M. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission would be holding its first public hearing on the General Plan Update on July 25, 2001. Commissioner Macias asked how much public response is expected. Mr. Buller replied it would probably be about the same as the Task Force has seen. He said staff has not received a lot of comments and most of the comments received have been favorable with the public feeling the City is headed in the proper direction. Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 11, 2001 • ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 11, 2001