Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/01/22 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 22, 1997 Chairman Barker 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 Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There werenoannouncements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 4-0-1 (McNiel absent), to approve the minutes of December 11, 1996, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-27 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES - A review of the detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Phase 1 of Tract 14380, consisting of 25 single family lots in the Low Residential designation (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, to the north and south of North Overlook Drive * APN: 225-451-39 to 58 and 225-461-57 to 60. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-28 - RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for 90 lots within Phases 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Tract 13565 in the Low Residential Distdct (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Wilson Avenue and west of San Sevaine Road -APN: 226-211-44, 45 and 51 through 55; 226-222-30; 226-251-24 through 36 and 42 through 45; 226-261-17 through 20, 46 through 58 and 60 through 71; and 226-272-01 through 36. Chairman Barker stated that he had been informed that the applicant wished to discuss Item A and he asked for a motion regarding Item B. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0-1 (McNiel absent), to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-27 - MASTERCRAFT HOMES Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the project. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Harry Tancredi, Mastercraft Homes, 129 Cadllo Street, #200, Costa Mesa introduced William Stoffregen. William Stoffregen, Stoffregen and Associates, 31756 Rancho Viejo Road, #206, San Juan Capistrano, reported the Design Review Committee (DRC) had requested additional wood siding be added to the project, including behind side and back yard walls. He pointed out the high cost to the builder as well as additional maintenance for the homeowner. He stated window tdm and shutter details, in addition to wood siding in the gable areas on the two-story models, are provided. He said the two-story elevations with hip roofs instead of gable ends have been designed with upgraded extedor window treatments in lieu of wrapping wood siding all the way around the house. He stated his confusion regarding the direction of DRC regarding wood siding. Mr. Tancredi stated his firm has agreed to the conditions presented during the DRC meeting; placing windows on the back side of the garages, rear gables on some of the Plan One elevations, and adding wood siding as far back as the fence returns. He requested the Planning Commission approve the project as it is currently presented, or go back to the original direction of DRC, with the additional extension of the corner wood siding to the fence returns. Mr. Tancredi then introduced John Wilder. John Wilder, Keith Engineering, 3370 Cactus Easement, Moreno Valley, asked for deletion of Planning Condition 5, requiring a minimum 18-foot area in front of each garage not to exceed a 5 percent slope, with a maximum driveway slope of 15 percent. He requested that Engineering Condition I be revised to require recordation of private drainage easements only within Phase One at this time to avoid any costly changes in the future if lot line adjustments are required on individual lots. He asked that the burden of cost for the drainage system be addressed in conjunction with the neighboring development, Centex Homes. Mr. Tancredi presented a copy of a three-party agreement, dated October 9, 1989, between the original developers and the City, relative to the subject drainage problem. He reported Mastercraft Homes had agreed to provide, deliver, and record easements. He explained, per this agreement, Centex Homes is required to pay for the construction of the pipe, including the outlets. He requested the City put some force in effect to mandate Centex Homes complete this work. He pointed out this problem will occur again in the future because of common property lines. He reported all bonds have expired and as such, the City cannot enforce them. He stated he will attempt to have General Electric Capital Corporation re-post the bonds. Tom Grahn stated the wood siding issue was included because of direction provided by DRC. He stated this application has gone before :the Committee on three separate occasions. He reported the applicant did revise the architecture to substantially comply with direction from DRC; however they did not address the use of siding as a primary architectural element on the front of each elevation. He observed that because City policy requires a 360-degree architectural treatment and DRC had given specific direction, staff recommended that additional siding be provided on the sides and rear of the structures to provide a distinction between the different elevations, which will be visible from Etiwanda Avenue. He stated the Etiwanda Specific Plan looks for distinction between the different types of units that are provided within different land use categories. He reported following the final Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 22, 1997 review by DRC, the applicant revised the elevations and deleted siding as the primary material on four of the elevations. Mr. Buller stated in an attempt to provide a vadety of architectural styles, the applican~ proposed the use of wood siding and then the question arose as to how much. He asked the Commission if they found the new architecture without wood siding acceptable in this neighborhood and pointed out that Centex Homes, the adjacent builder, does not have any wood sided buildings. Chairman Barker felt it was not the Commission's function to provide guidance with regard to design review at this meeting. Mr. Buller suggested that if the Commission wished to consider alternatives to the wood siding, it could approve the project but refer it back to DRC. Commissioner Macias felt it more appropriate for the project to return to DRC. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not want to lose the 360-degree architectural treatment; however, he was willing to let the project return to the design review process where the applicant could be offered an oppor[unity to provide an alternative approach. Commissioner Macias concurred. Mr. Buller then addressed the maximum ddveway slope issue and presented staff's recommendation that this condition be modified by referring it back to staff to work with the applicant, understanding the issue is a guideline and a policy. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, addressed the private drainage easement issue by concurring with the applicant's request to allow phasing of the easements. He then addressed the installation of the 12-inch pipe by pointing out the condition does not specify who is responsible for it, only that it must be completed pdor to occupancy. He further stated this issue needs to be resolved between Centex Homes and Mastercraft Homes. He mentioned staff had spoken with the Centex project manager and it is staff's understanding that Centex is willing to go forward, but is awaiting the easement documents. Mr. James pointed out that the condition is worded to allow the project to continue while pursuing the legality of the other issue during the course of construction. He recommended no change to the subject condition. Chairman Barker asked if the applicant had requested something further. Mr. James indicated the applicant wanted the condition to read "that the developer shall work with Centex Homes in order to get the 12-inch pipe installed," rather than "install 12 inch pipe." He then addressed the issue of the reimbursement agreement by stating it is the responsibility of the developer to install frontage improvements. Mr. James did not recommend a change to the condition. Commissioner Bethel asked how the three-party agreement fits into this. Mr. Bullet explained an agreement was entered into between the two original developers to resolve ail grading issues. He stated that neither of the original developers are currently involved; Centex Homes and Mastercraft are now responsible, and the City is asking the new owners to fulfill the agreement. Ralph Hansen, Deputy City Attorney, pointed out the City does not need to place this condition on the project as the current developers are legally obligated to fulfill the agreement. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 22, 1997 Mr. Stoffregen stated he had no problem with the agreement, but again asked for the City's help in getting the improvements made regarding the 12-inch pipe. Motion: Moved by Bethel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 96-27, with modifications to delete the requirement for wood siding subject to DRC approval and allow for phasing of the drainage easements. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCNIEL -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS C. VARIANCE 96-09 - OLIVAS - A request to reduce the parking setback from 15 feet to 5 feet along the south property line for a proposed Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Medium Residential zone (8-14 dwelling units per acre), to be located at 8141 and 8171 San Bernardino Road. APN: 207-123-02 and 03. Related File: Pre-Application Review 96-05. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Peter Arencibia, Civil Engineer, 9320 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, reported the existing facility has, in places, as little as a 3 foot parking setback from the existing south property line, but noted there is a 6 foot high block wall with Oleander trees, and remarked the proposed changes will be an improvement. He pointed out existing residences are 30 feet south of the property line. Mr. Melvin Loofgourrow, 8773 Strang Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property to the south. He noted a 2-foot difference in elevation between the subject property and the properly to the south. He asked Mr. Hayes to explain his reference regarding the flag lot and the future medical building. Mr. Hayes explained the property immediately to the southwest of the subject property is an existing medical facility with flag lot access to Red Hill Country Club Drive to the east, creating an additional 20 foot buffer towards any future residential development to the south. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he and Commissioner Bethel had visited the property and he supported the project. Motion: Moved by Bethel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Variance 96-09. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCNIEL -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 22, 1997 D. RECONSIDERATION OF COMMERCIAL USES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND SIXTH STREET (Related file Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04) Brad Duller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Jeffrey DeBerard, P.O. Box 1757, Upland, read a letter to the Commission requesting they expand the commercial acreage limitation of 5 acres to 10 acres. Commissioner Macias asked Mr. DeBerard why he felt a market analysis is unnecessary. Mr. DeBerard felt a market analysis will be needed in the future. He pointed out a zone change is not being requested at this time, but an expansion of the current designation. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a change should be addressed at the time a specific project is brought forward. Chairman Barker asked the total acreage of the subject property. Mr. DeBerard responded 18.33 acres. Chairman Barker then asked what the plans are for the remainder of the property. Mr. DeBerard observed it is zoned for Industrial Park and he pointed out the requirement for a master plan for the entire parcel before any development can occur. Commissioner Bethel suggested that when a project is brought forward, the DeBerards not be required to pay for a zone change, but rather consider it as an expansion. He said there was still a policy issue on the need for an absorption study. Chairman Barker concurred, stating Mr. DeBerard doesn't even have the promise of flexibility at this time; what is under discussion is the expansion of 5 acres of commercial use to 10 acres. Mr. DeBerard stated he requested the issue be addressed now because the zoning had just been changed. He said no development is planned at this time and they are actively farming the property. Mr. Duller noted that any decision other than the 5 acres would require an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan, which could be as simple as changing a 5 to a 10 but other altematives could include completely zoning the parcel Neighborhood Commercial and taking it out of the Industrial category, or providing some flexibility subject to review and approval of a conditional use permit master plan at the time the applicant presents a project if the tenant mix requires more than 5 acres. He stated Mr. DeBerard does not have a project ready for presentation and even if the Commission gave him that flexibility today by minute action, no future Commission could be bound by that minute action, unless the code is amended. Mr. DeBerard asked why 5 acres was recommended instead of 107 Mr. Duller responded the information could be found in the initial staff report. Mr. DeBerard felt the change was overlooked at the City Council level. Commissioner Macias asked Mr. DeBerard whether he currently had any plans ongoing for the subject property. Mr. DeBerard responded in the negative. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 22, 1997 Commissioner Bethel noted the landowner was not responsible for initiating a zone change. He asked if the issue could be sent back to the City Council for a minute action. He concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy and felt an expansion should be project specific and asked how the Commission can give the landowner flexibility that will carry over to future Commissions. Mr. Bullet indicated the only way to do this is to process an amendment. Commissioner Bethel recommended whatever process necessary to inform the City Council so the landowner does not have to initiate a zone change. He felt the landowner should not have to pay to initiate a zone change amendment when the City began the process. Chairman Barker pointed out there was no charge to the landowner for the initial 5 acres, but if more is requested by the landowner, he would then be responsible for those costs. He stated if the landowner comes in with a project, there should not be a problem with expanding the change to 10 acres. Mr. Buller noted the minutes do offer a record of this Commission's decision. Chairman Barker agreed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the decision should be made at the time a specific project is presented. Commissioner Macias concurred. Mr. Buller stated the applicant can accept the intent and discussion of this Commission to support such a change by minute action, or request the initiation of a zone change amendment. Chairman Barker recommended, if the opportunity should present itself, a 10-acre parcel be designated as Commercial. It was the consensus of a majority of the Planning Commission that the City not initiate an amendment at this time, but wait until presentation of an actual project or more information to justify the request. E. REVIEW OF ZONE CHANGE POLICIES FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD Mr. Buller presented a draft memorandum, as requested by the Commission, to the Mayor and Members of the City Council. Commissioner Bethel brought up the market analysis issue and asked that it be removed from the memorandum, with the understanding that it be discussed by the subcommittee. Commissioner Macias asked why the policy question regarding market analysis should be deleted and if Commissioner Bethel's objection involved determining who pays for it or the rationale for requiring it. Commissioner Bethel responded both. He stated a market analysis can be costly and unnecessary. He felt a market analysis should be determined on an as-needed basis. Chairman Barker cautioned this could result in preferential treatment. Commissioner Macias concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 22, 1997 Commissioner Bethel did not agree. Chairman Barker asked if the most recent market analysis is allowed for use on ne_w projects. Mr. Buller responded in the affirmative, but stated it is a policy question. He noted it has been past practice to require analysis to show demand. Commissioner Bethel asked if the market study is paid for by the applicant and whether he chooses who does the analysis. Mr. Bullet indicated the City chooses and the applicant pays. He offered the option to the Commission of dropping the name "market study" and instead requiring an "analysis" that broadens the scope of discretion. He stated his understanding of the cost of market studies as well as the potential for flexibility Commissioner Bethel felt it impodant that consistency and uniformity be applied to all applicants. Mr. Buller suggested requesting a submittal of a written justification by the applicant for each proposal, rather than a market study. He stated the problem is a lack of criteria. Commissioner Bethel concurred. After more discussion, the Planning Commission concluded that the memorandum should be sent to the Mayor and City Council with no modifications. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS F. UPDATE ON JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ISSUES Mr. Buller stated the task force members have now been identified and the next step is to create and prioritize the scope of work. He identified the most immediate concern being the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan with Commissioners Bethel, McNiel, Council Member Biane, and Mayor Pro Tern Williams as members of the task force. He stated the next step is to meet and discuss goals. He announced these four individuals will also be working on the Economic Development Task Force. Mr. Buller noted Commissioners Macias and Tolstoy will be working with Mayor Alexander and Council Member Gutierrez on the Signage and Multiple Family Task Force. He announced Chairman Barker will be the alternate for all four task forces. Chairman Barker indicated he had spoken with Council Member Biane, who indicated his awareness that the success, depth, and dimension of these studies is going to depend upon the budget which the City Council adopts. He asked if Mr. Buller plans to indicate the cost of each task force. Mr. Bullet responded staff's current workload will be presented. G. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 22, 1997 Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Tolstoy, to make changes as proposed, with the Design Review Committee appointments of Bethel and Macias; with Tolstoy, Barker, and McNiel serving as alternates in that order. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCNIEL ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bethel, carried 4-0 (McNiel absent) to adjourn. 8:58 p.m. - The planning commission adjourned? Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 22, 1997