Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/10/28 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 28, 1998 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; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Lois Schrader, Secretary; Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner; Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that Bill Bethel was unable to attend this evening's meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannedno, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of September 23, 1998. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carded 5-0, to approve the minutes of October 14, 1998. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of October 14, 1998. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CONCOR DIA HOMES - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for the development of 30 single family lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Beryl Street, north of Manzanita Drive, west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1061-761-03, 1062-111-03 through 06, and 1062-061-01 and 02. Related flies: Development Review 98-15 and Tree Removal Permit 91-28. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-15 - CONCORDIA HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for the previously approved Tentative Tract Map No. 13951 consisting of 30 single family lots on 22.56 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Beryl Street, north of Manzanita Drive, west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1061-761-03, 1062-111-03 through 06, and 1062-061-01 and 02. Related file: Tentative Tract 13951. Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Snell, Vice President, Concordia Homes, 408 South Stoddard Avenue, stated they had met with several of the neighbors and he was not aware of any issues. He thanked staff for its efforts in processing the application and stated he was in agreement with the conditions. John O'Neil, 5656 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives to the east of the project. He questioned if the new homes will have access to the riding trails and the type of fencing. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated the placement of fencing on the map. He said the new lots will have access to the local trail and the fencing will be peeler fencing, which the new homeowners have the option of upgrading. John Bama, 5708 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives in the historic Palmer House to the east of the project. He asked why the block wall running east-west along the north of "C" Street is not being continued to the north along the equestrian trail past the back of his property. Mr. Coleman thought the developer had proposed block wall fencing to prevent waters from entering the property from the north. Mr. Bama indicated that the elevation of the new homes is lower than his property so the new homes will not be that visible to him. Mr. Coleman indicated the contours run east/west and the waters would flow south. Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Barna both said they would like to go on record as requesting a block wall along the trail adjacent to the new units. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the applicant address the wall issue. He pointed out that normally a developer is asked to provide trail fencing adjacent to local trails. He indicated the fencing would be on the properly side of the trail. Chairman McNiel commented that trail fencing is generally left open for views. Mr. Bullet suggested the matter could be deferred back to staff and the Trails Committee if the Commission so desired. Nancy Warner, 5819 North Beryl, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives adjacent to the project. She wished assurance that the trail will remain open and is not littered with junk. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 28, 1998 Mr. Buller observed that local trails are to provide access for homes within a tract to get out to community trails. He stated homeowners are required to keep the trails clean and clear at all times but the City can only enforce the matter through nuisance abatement proceedings as it is private property. Ms. Warner indicated there are places along Beryl Avenue where the trail is blocked. Mr. Buller suggested that Ms. Warner contact City staff as she becomes aware of such problems. Mr. Snell stated that Concordia feels the trail should stay open and feels it is a great asset to the property. He indicated they will be building the trail at great expense and the CC&Rs will indicate that homeowners have an obligation to maintain the trails, keeping the area clear and prohibiting structures. He thought the City had wanted a block wall going east to west because the new structures are fairly close to the property line at that point. He believed the trail fencing should be open and putting up block wails would be counter productive. He said they would prefer not to put in a block wall along the north south line but would be willing to do so if the Planning Commission felt that was preferable. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He questioned the location and extent of the proposed block wall. Ms. Van Buren indicated the placement and said it would run east/west and then would continue north for 15 feet. Commissioner Macias asked the placement of the living quarters on the adjacent property. They were depicted on the map as being to the eastern side of the property. Commissioner Macias felt open fencing is more appropriate along the trail. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that individual homeowners can put in a block wall if they so desire. Mr. Buller noted that homeowners typically put in a block wall if they put in a pool or have small children. Commissioner Macias commented that homeowners have that option. Commissioner Tolstoy disclosed that he is a member of the Trails Committee but said he was speaking for himself, not on behalf of the Committee. He did not feel trails should be lined with walls. Commissioner Mannerino asked the type of fencing along the west boundary of the adjacent property. Ms. Van Buren responded that it is chain link. Commissioner Macias thought that the development as proposed would not damage the potential for development of the adjacent properties. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13951 and Development Review 98-15. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 28, 1998 AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Chairman McNiel commented that it is a very nice project and the homes are good looking. Commissioner Tolstoy complimented the developer on the elevations. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13527 - GE CAPITAL CORPORATION - A request for a time extension of a previously approved tentative tract map for a residential subdivision of 252 single family lots on 88.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN: 225-071-68. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy observed the habitat assessment indicated there was a high level of disturbance and he asked how the site had been disturbed. Mr. Grahn replied responded the area had been cleared at least one time in the past year to prevent fire. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Lemas, Mastercraft Homes, 129 Cabrillo Street, #200, Costa Mesa, stated they were redesigning some of the lots to allow for a larger model. He indicated they have built the first phase and have been getting a good response to the houses. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13527. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. VARIANCE 98-03- AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/RICHARDS -A request to increase the maximum allowable height of the base district from 50 feet to 70 feet for the construction of a freestanding cross in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), for the Alta Loma Brethren in Christ Church located at 9974 19th Street - APN: 1076-051-05 and 12. Cecilia Williams, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated staff had received 102 letters from church members in support of the request and a letter of opposition from the Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 28, 1998 owner and manager of the adjacent townhomes. She also distributed a packet of information from AirTouch Cellular. Chairman McNiel observed that all other antennas in the City have been kept to a maximum of 50 feet high. Commissioner Macias noted that the primary function of the Variance request is to accommodate an antenna and the cross is merely for aesthetic purposes. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff had an opportunity to review the packet of information submitted by AirTouch Cellular. Ms. Williams replied staff had just received it a few minutes earlier and it had not been reviewed. Commissioner Stewart thought the facility needs to be 500 feet from neighboring residences. Ms. Williams replied that a major facility needs to be at least 500 feet away; however, staff had interpreted the facility to be minor because it would be a "stealth facility" and if it were determined to be a minor facility, it would therefore not be subject to the 500-foot rule. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Richards, Richards Mueting Wilkes, 6529 Riverside Avenue, #115, Riverside, stated his company is in charge of planning and engineering issues on behalf of AirTouch Cellular. He indicated two other locations of facilities along the proposed freeway, one to the west and the other to the east and stated they need this site at 70 feet high to provide adequate coverage for the freeway corridor. He said that if the proposed cross and antenna were approved, there would be no need for additional facilities in the city. He asserted that there are few acceptable locations available and that the height of the tower is paramount due to the local hillside elevations. He thought the church location was an ideal match because the necessary coverage for the freeway corridor could be provided as well as an added feature of the cross for the benefit of the church congregation. He expressed his opinion regarding the issue of the findings by stating that the structure is stand-alone equipment and that staff had not taken the wireless code into account in their findings. He further stated that in relation to state law, the facility definitely has a uniqueness of use and is unique to the property and has certain technical requirements. He noted that the church property is unique in regard to its location because it allows for optimum antenna spacing and provides an opportunity for a stealth design. He illustrated his point using photo simulations indicating the stealth facility at 50, 60, and 70-foot heights and explained that since the new freeway will be below grade with sound walls along the corridor, the 70-foot height was necessary to cover the gaps. Chairman McNiel asked the height of the facility to the west in Upland. Mr, Richards responded that it is a 40-foot Pacific Bell site which they intend to use in conjunction with Pacific Bell, Chairman McNiel observed that ail sites have been held to a maximum height of 50 feet and that he did not consider this to be a special circumstance. He then asked if anything was being done in the area of research and development that would minimize the need for a 70-foot height requirement, Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 28, 1998 Mr. Richards was unaware of any developments in that regard. He acknowledged that Air Touch is the first to request 70 feet but felt accommodations should be made because it would be a stealth facility, hidden in the church tower. He thought the arrangement with the church is a win- win situation. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if two 50-foot towers at different intervals would suffice. Mr. Richards thought it may. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that perhaps this was the direction they should take. Commissioner Macias felt the proposal being submitted as a variance was inappropriate. He believed the intent of a variance is to provide for the landowner's benefit. He stated that the findings are designed to address the use of the property under current zoning which, in this case, is worship. He did not think it is appropriate to set up a new use and then claim hardship. He thought the church cannot claim hardship by not having a radio tower or a 70-foot cross. Commissioner Mannerino concurred with Commissioner Macias that the application is more for an antenna not a cross. He questioned whether a variance is appropriate and what wireless regulations apply. He felt the information provided by AirTouch should have been given to staff in time for staff to analyze it and said he would not make a decision prior to having staff's input on the new information presented. Commissioner Stewart asked if anything could be done with the existing cross on the church. Mr. Richards replied that the location of the existing cross is too far from the freeway corridor to give adequate coverage. He believed the wireless ordinance has provisions to allow for a variance and felt the City needs to consider the objectives of the wireless code when making the findings. Brad Buller, City Planner, remarked that the Planning Commission could determine that this is a major facility as opposed to a minor facility. He thought the facility may have been viewed differ6~qtly if the applicant had come in with an antenna that looked like a tree. Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the information given by the applicant appeared to be a creative way to make findings but he felt more time was needed to analyze the information. He explained that the purpose of a variance is to provide flexibility when special circumstances pertaining to the property deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. He disagreed with the appropriateness of a variance. He explained that a vadance may be applied for but the argument could be made that this is a major facility and therefore needs a Conditional Use Permit. He believed the issue should be further evaluated by staff. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing for discussion. He suggested they continue the item. Commissioner Macias stated he was not opposed to the purpose of the antenna but noted that his issue was with the application being submitted as a variance and that the vehicle might be inappropriate. He suggested the item be continued to allow staff look for a more appropriate vehicle. He felt it is a major facility if service may be impaired if the facility were not installed. Commissioners Stewart and Tolstoy concurred that it is a major facility. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 28, 1998 Commissioner Mannerino stated he was not sure if the facility would be major or minor. He wanted guidance with respect to appropriate height, location, etc. Chairman McNiel noted there had been major discussions regarding antennas over the years, but the 50-foot height limit had been adhered to because it is important to limit "skyline clutter." Mr. Duller noted that the application may change considering the opinion of the Commission that the antenna would be a major facilty. He suggested the matter be continued to an unspecified date. He indicated staff would re-advertise the matter when it is ready for hearing. Commissioner Macias asked if that also would entail an environmental review. Brad Duller said that it might. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue the item to an unspecified date. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-04 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - A request to change the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and CivicJCommunity to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17 acres of land on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1300 feet east of the intersection of Rochester Avenue - APN: 0227-091-18 through 21. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 98-03 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - A request to change the Victoria Community Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Community Facility to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 17 acres of land on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1300 feet east of the intersection of Rochester Avenue. APN: 0227-091-18 through 21. Motion: Moved by Stewart and seconded by Mannerino to continue Items E and F to the November 10 meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNER1NO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. REQUEST TO INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS TO REVIEW THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 6 ACRES OF LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,100 FEET Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 28, 1998 EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 2~ ACRES APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias to initiate the amendments to the General Plan and the Victoria Community Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried H. DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR SIGN PROGRAM NO. 123 - LEWIS HOMES- A review of sings for 24-hour Fitness Sport, a major tenant within Town Center Square located at the northeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-90 through 97. The staff report was presented by Nancy Fong, Senior Planner. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the name "Fitness Sport" is a registered trade mark. Ms. Fong replied that it is. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. There were none. Commissioners Tolstoy, Mannedno, and Macias concurred with the staff findings. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, to approve the "Fitness Sport" sign as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MAClAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried I. DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of a request to change the location of placing the La Fourcade arch on Building 5 - APN: 0229-011-39. Commissioner Mannerino recused himself from the discussion of this item because of previous business dealings with the applicant. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Macias asked what building material was depicted directly behind the arch on the building wall as shown on the architectural rendering. Ms. Fong responded that it is slate tile. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the arch had deteriorated. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 28, 1998 Ms. Fong replied she had not seen it but that it was her understanding that it is could be repaired. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the applicant was asking for a change. He noted the arch was originally over a doorway and he recalled previous discussions that it was to be placed over a doorway. Brad Bullet, City Planner commented that the owner believes it is not appropriate as an architectural element and would be better as a landscape element. He indicated that staff would be satisfied with that provided the applicant could provide a satisfactory alternative. He noted no satisfactory alternative had been presented as yet. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the arch would be in scale and in proportion if it were placed on the building over the doorway. Mr. Buller thought the applicant would say the arch is not appropriate in scale or architectural design. He indicated staff felt the elevation could be modified so that it would work on the building but it would also be acceptable within the landscape area where there could also be documentation to explain its significance. Commissioner Tolstoy feared it would be more subject to vandalism if located in the landscape area. Mr. Buller agreed it may be more subject to vandalism such as graffiti if it were located close to the ground but he did not foresee that as a major factor. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see an architectural redesign of the archway in place over a doorway before making a decision. Ms. Fong showed such a redesign. Commissioner Macias asked what the direction was from the last meeting. Ms. Fong replied the Planning Commission indicated a willingness to look at other options. Commissioner Macias stated that their willingness to look at alternatives should not be construed as an indication that they no longer wanted it on the wall. He asked if cost was a factor or if the issue was stdctly the design of the arch. He suggested the arch go back over the door unless it is strictly a cost issue. Mr. Buller cautioned against a decision of the Planning Commission being based upon cost. He continued by noting the Planning Commission had not dictated how the arch was to be incorporated and that the issue was simply a change of mind and may not be a cost only issue but is also a design issue. He asserted that the Planning Commission can state a preference and abide by their choice. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Mike Scandiffio, Masi Commerce Partners, 11871 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the conditions of approval indicated the arch should be part of the" Vintner's Walk" and then the Spaghetti Factory suggested it be included in the building. He said the building is the "Masi Building" and not a "La Fourcade Building" and was designed with a different approach. He said the arch is a historical element but felt it does not fit the design of the building. He stated they had Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 28, 1998 upgraded the "Vintner's Walk" beyond what was required. He believed Compass Creek should have the right to add their own elements and allow the City Planner to work things out directly with the brewery. He continued by saying the arch is "vulgar" in design and does not fit the context of the brewery and further asserted his desire to include the arch in the walk where it would face Foothill Boulevard. Chairman McNiel agreed it is a Masi building but pointed out that the only thing salvageable from the La Fourcade period was the arch. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that the arch was originally on the corner building which was demolished because of the tenants; however, the significance of the site was to be retained. He said the only thing salvageable was the arch, which was dismantled and saved for future installation over a building entrance. Ms. Fong responded that the City Council resolution indicated the arch was to be used in an interpretive display and the applicant feels they are meeting the intent. Commissioner Macias stated the applicant had indicated the arch was not historically significant and he felt the applicant was trying to put it aside. He noted the intent of preserving the arch was to mitigate the significant impact of demolishing the building. He agreed that aesthetics are important but felt that adding the arch over the doorway would not be detrimental to the look or use of the building. He disagreed with the applicant and thought the design of the arch is not vulgar. He confirmed his inclination to place the arch over the door. Commissioner Stewart expressed concern about the arch being vandalized if it were placed within the landscaping. She desired to see the historical value preserved. She preferred locating it above the doorway but was not opposed to further ideas. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred the arch is not vulgar and feared the columns would be subject to breakage if placed at ground level. He believed the building would be enhanced by having the arch over the doorway. Chairman McNiel agreed the arch should be over the doorway. Mr. Scandiffio stated the original conditions of approval did not require the arch to be located over the doorway and requested that the Masi family be considered. Chairman McNiel noted the Masi family was considered within the Vintner's Walk. Mr. Buller said he understood the Commission's direction to place the arch over the building entrance. He noted the tenant desires occupancy in the near future and he stated staff would work with the applicant regarding occupancy. He did not want to see a lot of work being done after the building is complete. Commissioner Macias noted that he did not see any further options and he expressed concern about the possible loss of control if further alterations were made directly through the City Planner. I't was the consensus of the Commission 4-0-0-1 (Mannerino abstain) to place the arch above the building entryway. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 28, 1998 PUBLIC COMMENTS There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission business. AD~JOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 10, 1998. The November 10 meeting is being held in lieu of the regularly scheduled meeting on November 11, 1998. Respe~.ctfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 28, 1998