Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/01/24 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 24. 2001 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Kirt Coury, Associate Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner, Duane Morita, Contract Planner, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of December 13, 2000. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, carried 4-0-0-1 (Macias abstain), to approve the minutes of January 10, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-74—CENTEX—A request to construct six single family homes within Tract 12659 on 3.6 acres of land in the Very-Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue south of Wilson Avenue -APN: 255-511-01 through 06. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-55—CENTEX—A request to approve building and design of 92 single family residences within Tentative Tract 16058 on 18.8 acres in the Low-Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located near the southwest comer of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street—APN: 210-062-31. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0 to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01C — 2000 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580-65589.5 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at-risk of conversion to market rate through June 30, 2010. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Stewart asked if there had been any thought given to utilizing GIS systems to assist in streamlining of processes. Mr. Grahn replied it did not include that as part of the evaluation. He said it has improved the City's ability to review submitted projects and make a more detailed analysis of community characteristics; i.e., the vacant land inventory analysis. Chairman McNiel asked if the Housing Element is updated every 5 years. Mr. Grahn confirmed that was correct. Chairman McNiel asked for confirmation that the data was based on the figures in the 1990 census. Mr. Grahn indicated that was correct. Commissioner Macias asked if the data was consistent with the data used by SCAG. Mr. Grahn responded affirmatively. Commissioner Macias stated that SCAG is going to take another look at its growth forecast. He did not think they would change the final numbers they produced for population and the jobs/housing balance but said they would take another look at re-distribution of those numbers throughout the SCAG region including the Inland Empire. He observed that would have a potential impact on everyone, including Rancho Cucamonga. He advised staff to monitor the Growth Visioning Task Force. He said the process is a political process and SANBAG and Riverside County are cognizant of the fact that Los Angeles County is involved. He said essentially it is best for the area to not have growth only in residential, but rather a balance of bringing new jobs to the area. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the San Bernardino/Riverside area will experience more growth of population because of the lower land prices Commissioner Macias replied that SCAG is projecting that by 2025 there will be a growth in population approximately equal to two cities the size of Chicago in our region, which would go primarily to the Inland Empire area, Riverside County, and the Palmdale area. He said San Bernardino County needs to deal with how to balance that growth with jobs. He indicated SCAG have already published the Regional Transportation Plan, which is based on the 1990 census. He reported the Environmental Impact Report for that document is to be released for public review on January 29. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the area has ready access to transportation via the railroads, freeways, and airport and that has led to the growth of industry which is not labor intensive. He said the City had envisioned that the Industrial area would have a higher labor intensity than what is occurring. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 24, 2001 Commissioner Madas stated that if the Inland Empire is strategic about its growth, it has to focus on manufacturing, supporting airport expansion, and greater development of the colleges and universities because those things drive strong economies. He felt that Orange County's economy will continue to grow. Chairman McNiel stated that Orange County previously had a lot of warehouses and a lot of those buildings have been replaced by more intense uses. He suspected this area is on the same curve, but behind Orange County. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments,and he dosed the hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt Mr. Grahn had done a fine job. He thought the City had been commended on the Housing Element. Brad Buller, City Planner, confirmed that was true and he noted that SCAG personnel had also commented that Rancho Cucamonga does an excellent job in managing and monitoring our reports. He said staff will be monitoring the SCAG situation. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Mannerino,to adopt the resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 01-01 C and to direct staff to forward the draft 2000 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for a 45-day review period, respond to the comments, and then forward it to the City Council for approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-49—LENNAR HOMES—A residential subdivision of 70 single family lots on 47.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District(1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues—APN: 225-171-05, 12, 13,20,22, and 25. Related files: Tentative Tract 16147 and Tree Removal Permit 00-35. Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tom Nievez, AIE-CASC Engineering, 937 South Via Lata, Suite 500, Colton, stated he was representing Lennar Homes. He concurred with the conditions of approval and said he was available to answer questions. He thanked staff for getting the project to the Planning Commission. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel dosed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the "not—a-part" parcel. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the owner had spoken at the last Planning Commission meeting. He noted there is legal direct access out to the street. He indicated the lots on either side are large enough to allow for lot line adjustments while retaining standard size lots if the parcel is incorporated into the development. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 00-49. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 24, 2001 AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried E. VARIANCE 00-09 (TRACT NO. 10035)—CONCORDIA HOMES—A request to allow retaining walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope gradients of approximately 1.5:1,where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive—APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. (Continued from January 10, 2001) NEW BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47(TRACT NO. 10035) —CONCORDIA HOMES—The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country Club Drive — APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. (Continued from January 10, 2001) Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel indicated the public hearing remained open. John Snell, Concordia Homes, 1131 West 6th Street, Ontario,thanked the Planning Commission for the continuance. He said they had gotten the CC&Rs to staff immediately. He noted that the spreadsheet in the staff report (Exhibit "B") shows compliance with the CC&Rs and he showed an exhibit of the house plotting which illustrated the chart. Renee Massey, 8088 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her property is located across the street from Lots 1 through 5. She said that the Fire Protection District Technical Review comments dated September 30, 2000, state that the project is located in a high fire hazard area, but the Initial Study indicates the site is not indicated to be in a high fire hazard area. She stated that the Initial Study references a report from Gary Rasmussen and Associates prepared in 1997 but the GeoSoils, Inc. study states that the Rasmussen report was prepared in 1987. She said the Commission approved the CC&Rs in 1988 and she believed the Commission originally requested single story homes because of the CC&Rs. She noted that Commissioner Stewart had indicated it had been determined that single story homes were not feasible. She hoped the determination was not based on cost and felt the builder could modify its plans to build single story homes. Mrs. Massey stated that she had been told by staff that a variance had never before been granted for a 10-foot retaining wall and that such a variance could not be granted unless there are unusual circumstances or the lots are unusually small. She did not see any special circumstances or reason to grant a variance. She noted that the Hillside Ordinance calls for slopes.to be as gentle as possible and not manmade. She felt the 2:1 slope is substantial and observed a gradient of 1.5:1 would increase the grade even more. She said staff could not recall such a request having been granted in the past. Mrs. Massey observed that she and her husband had gone on record at the previous meeting to request Option 3 offered by Concordia Homes but had never been consulted on a fourth option. She stated that Mr. Snell had indicated none of the options was feasible. She withdrew her previous support of the project and asked that the project be denied because it does not reflect the type of homes in character with the community, is not in keeping with the CC&Rs, requests variances which have not previously been approved by the Commission,and is at odds with Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 24, 2001 the Hillside Ordinance. She agreed with staffs comment that a portion of the homes are below the level of the street, but said that there are no homes opposite those lots and the upper five and the lower five homes will obstruct the view from existing homes. She said they would exercise their right to seek civil action against all parties involved if the project were approved. Lynn Massey, 8088 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the Commission for allowing him to present his concerns. He thought the facts presented were misleading. He showed a picture of his house and indicated that the level of sight from his front door and his balcony is equal or within 6 inches. He felt the line-of-site drawings were misleading because they show two different elevations for his house. He stated his view of the valley and city lights will be obstructed by homes on Lots 2 through 5. He felt that 75 percent of his view will be obstructed and that he will lose all of his view when trees are grown by the new homeowners. He read from two advertising flyers from Concordia Homes from other communities and several real estate advertisements which highlighted a view as one of their selling features. Mr. Massey stated the community is semi-custom homes with the majority being split level or single story. He thought the Commission originally requested single story homes but staff felt Concordia's proposal for two-story homes was feasible. He believed the property is better suited for split-level homes and that property values may not be increased because the new homes are not congruent with the community. He indicated that if the Commission approved the plan, it may be encouraging a civil matter between a voter, taxpayer,and citizen toward an entity that can't vote or pay taxes and is not in the community. Chuck Buquet, 8725 Predera Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his is one of the homeowners who spoke at the last meeting regarding CC&R issues and sensitivity to the fact that it was previously a custom lot subdivision which is now being transitioned to a production lot development. He agreed with the Massey's comments and noted that the variance is needed to enable the project to move forward. He stated that variances are granted only when there are overwhelming reasons and specific findings must be made. He felt there should be a reliance on the requirements and ordinances. He said he had seen some bad projects which have not made it this far. He asked that the Commission carefully weigh the granting of a variance to facilitate development on the last good spot on Red Hill to ensure that what is built is consistent with the neighborhood and the rural topography of the area. He appreciated that altematives had been presented. He said he and a lot of other residents spent a lot of time attending meetings amongst themselves and with the developer and City staff reviewing options which were then stated to be infeasible. He explained he had not seen the staff reports and his only question was what the recommended conditions are. He appreciated that Concordia had made a considerable investment, but said he plans to be there for a long time and he hopes it is a win/win scenario. He felt it is important to keep a balance between view capture and view hoarding and he asked for careful evaluation of the impacts that will occur with a proposed two-story product sitting on a pad created for a two-story product rather than a split level product which currently exists in the area. Mr. Snell felt that most of the comments had been addressed more than adequately by staff and had been discussed at the previous meeting. He said the house and elevations on Mr. Massey's house appeared to have different elevations because the engineer drew the section through the house where that view would be from. He said at one position he was over the garage and at the other, he was at ground level. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino asked staff to review the supporting findings for the retaining wall for the benefit of the audience. Mr. Le Count stated the site has slopes in excess of 30 percent. He indicated a site with 30 percent slope could not be developed under current standards; however this is an existing subdivided property and the only way to achieve development of the site is to have some slopes as steep as Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 24, 2001 1.5:1 and some retaining walls as high as 10 feet. Commissioner Mannerino stated that would be true regardless of the height of the houses being built on the property. Mr. Le Count confirmed that was correct Chairman McNiel stated there have been proposals for this particular property for almost as long as he has been on the Commission. He observed several projects have come and gone and they were not built because the timing was not right or the product turned out to be not doable. He said if nothing is ever built there at all, he would not be unhappy and noted he also lives on Red Hill. He noted a comment had been made that the character of the community of Red Hill might be damaged because of these houses. He observed that there are two tracts of houses that defy any simulation of character and there are houses of every conceivable architecture style, size, and configuration and various lot sizes from large to small. He did not think there is a"Red Hill character"and it is an eclectic community. He thought Concordia had gone a long way in an effort to satisfy the wants and desires of the neighbors in the community. He noted the bulk of the houses are below street level. He said they are not small houses and he did not think they would negatively effect anyone's property values. He observed the Commission needs to deal with whether or not the project is approvable. He noted that if civil action is taken elsewhere, it is not the Commission's concern. He expressed support for the project. Commissioner Mannerino said it is a tough situation because it is a tough property. He indicated he knows a number of the people who spoke this evening and earlier. He noted it is a tract which was approved in 1985 and the developer purchased the property with an expectation of being able to build on the property. He said the Commission was not considering the approval of a tract map. He believed it was unfair to say that view is not important to the Commission. He felt view is important but it is not within the Commission's jurisdiction to ensure it unless there are conditions elsewhere such as in the CC&Rs. He observed it had been his suggestion that the matter be continued so that the CC&Rs could be reviewed. He said staff and the Commissioners had reviewed them and the project is within the stated height as modified by Concordia. He said there is a reasonableness standard set forth in Section 2.04 with regard to view obstruction and that standard sets a maximum roof height on these lots at 24 feet. He did not feel it was the intent of the drafters of the CC&Rs to make that at the discretion of the Planning Commission and it is a contractual relationship among the people who buy into the tract. He understood that the variance for the wall is necessary regardless of the height of the homes. He thought that if the Commission finds the variance is inappropriate, that would take away the developer's right to build on a recorded tract map. He was reluctant to support the project because he understood the concerns raised regarding obstructing the view which they thought would always be there, but he saw no legal reason to deny the project. Commissioner Stewart agreed with the comments made by both Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Mannerino. She noted that Section 2.04 of the CC&Rs also stated in part that each owner by accepting lots in the project may be subject to subsequent obstruction as a result of future construction or plantings. She felt the developer had done everything possible to look at resolving view issues, traffic issues, planning issues, wall issues, etc. presented by citizens, staff, and Commission members. She noted there had been two workshops and three Design Review Committee meetings. She said there have been other developers on the same property and each time elaborate geo grid pattems for berming sections. She felt everything had been done to get a good quality development for the neighborhood. She noted there is 360 degree architecture and the homes had been redesigned in many areas including retaining walls. Based upon what she had seen and reviewing the CC&Rs, she supported the project. Commissioner Macias stated he had not been at the last meeting but he listened to the tape and reviewed the minutes and the CC&Rs and had also been involved early in the design review Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 24, 2001 process. He did not feel the variance request is unreasonable and is no different from variances which are routinely approved. He felt the issue is view shed and it is hard because people want to hold on to what they have with respect to surrounding undeveloped land. He felt that approving this project would not be inconsistent with how those issues have been dealt with in the past. He supported the project and moved approval. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he heard a lot of talk about the CC&Rs at the last meeting. He said he had reviewed the CC&Rs and did not feel this project violates them in any way. He felt the architecture will add value to the neighborhood but said he could not support the project because of the treatment of the slope area adjoining the old railroad right of way. He acknowledged he is not an engineer but said he has witnessed a number of slope failures in other cities. He thought the slope area will be a problem for the owners to maintain and thought it could have been designed better in that respect. He said he would vote against the project only because of that issue. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Variance 00-09 and Development Review 00-47. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried G. SIGN PERMIT REQUEST FOR TARGET(UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM 134)—An appeal of the City Planner denial of a sign permit request for additional signage for the Target store in Terra Vista Town Center—APN: 1077-421-068 and a portion of 087. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-40. Debra Meier, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if staff supports the altemative location for the Pharmacy sign. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded affirmatively. He noted that staff was looking to the Commission for interpretation. He said that staff is aware that any time such signs are approved, requests from other stores with secondary entrances may follow. However, he observed that Target is a major tenant and the sign fits architecturally on the building. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. David Randolph, Pacific Neon Company, 1576 Silica Avenue, Sacramento, expressed appreciation to Ms. Meier for working with them on alternative locations. He observed the sign will be set back 28 feet from the front of the building and will be blocked significantly but said that Target felt a sign in that location is better than none. He stated the Garden Center is really a separate building with its own entrance and he suggested it be considered a minor tenant with Target being a major tenant with the Target sign as the primary sign and the Pharmacy sign as the secondary sign. Commissioner Macias felt that was essentially what staff had suggested. There were no additional public comments on this matter. Chairman McNiel observed that everyone interprets regulations to their own benefit. Commissioner Mannerino stated that if staff supports this particular sign for this tenant in this location, he would also support it. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 24, 2001 Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to deny the appeal and to indicate support of the sign in the alternate location. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried H. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-69—ROBERT K. LAIRD—A request to construct a 6,348 square foot single family home on .71 acre of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8923 Laramie Drive — APN: 1061-810-06. Related file: Minor Exception 00-12. I. MINOR EXCEPTION 00-12 - ROBERT K. LAIRD—A request to extend the maximum building height from 30 feet to approximately 33 feet and the detached garage height from 16 feet to approximately 17.5 feet on a 6,348 square foot single-family home on .71 acre of land within Tract 11626 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8923 Laramie Drive—APN: 1061-810-06. Related file: Development Review 00-69. Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Robert Laird, 143 North Harvard Avenue, Suite F, Claremont, stated he represented the property owner. He felt Mr. Morelion had done an exceptionally good job in presenting the application. Chairman McNiel asked the reason for the additional height for the garage. Mr. Laird indicated it was needed to accommodate the RV door. He said the back gable portion is the only portion that exceeds the height limit. He reported they tried to drop down the house, but it created other issues with the grading. There were no additional public comments on this matter. Commissioner Stewart reported that the Design Review Committee looked at a few ways to revamp the product but they didn't seem to enhance the project and caused other problems. She noted that such requests are looked at on a case-by-case basis and felt the project is consistent with other homes in the area. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolutions approving Development Review 00-69 and Minor Exception 00-12. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carded PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 24, 2001 COMMISSION BUSINESS J. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Task Force met on January 23, 2001, and discussed Chapter IV, Managing Environmental Resources. He indicated comments had been referred back to staff. He said it is staffs hope that the General Plan Update will be adopted in May or June 2001. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m.to a workshop. The workshop adjourned at 9:15 p.m.and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, i 1i i. Br-77;ler Secretary I Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 24, 2001