MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MAY 15, 2007
1.0 CALL
TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of
Present: Commissioners John Gamboa, Bob Moore
and Vice Chairman Randall Hamerly and Chairman Richard Haller
Absent: Commissioner R. Paul Scott
Staff Present:John Jaquess, Community Development
Director
Ernie Wong, City Engineer
Bruce Meikle, Associate Planner
Linda McKeough, Administrative Secretary
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Haller.
2.0 COMMUNITY
INPUT
There was none.
3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR
3.1 Minutes of April 3, 2007, Regular
Meeting.
It was noted Commissioner Scott was absent when the
Meeting was called to order, but was then present when he arrived at 6:18 p.m.
On Page Seven, Fourth Paragraph, Last Sentence was
amended to read as follows: ACommissioner Gamboa was concerned with the over
saturation, but the Applicant is saved by grace with the hours of operation.@
A Motion
was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to
approve the Minutes of April 3, 2007, as amended.
Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote, with Commissioner
Scott absent.
4.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 Applications submitted by Mr. David
Chong, which include:
1. General
Plan Amendment Application (GPA 006-002), to Pre-Zone the subject property as
Low Density Residential (LD);
2. Zoning
Map Amendment Application (ZC 006-002), to Pre-Zone the subject property as
Single-Family Residential with 20,000 square foot minimum lot sizes (R-1,
20,000);
3. Tentative
Tract Map Application (TTM16636) for the Subdivision of the subject property into
five (5) single family residential lots (minimum 20,000 square foot per lot);
and
4. Annexation
Request (LAFCO 006-003), to Annex the subject property into the City=s jurisdiction.
The Site consists of one approximate 3.62 acre
property located at the northerly terminus of
Chairman Haller introduced the item and called for
Staff=s presentation.
Associate Planner Meikle distributed a letter to the
Commission which Staff received on May 14, 2007, from Mark Uffer. He then gave the presentation from the Staff
Report. He explained the location, the
Applications and the LAFCO process, the Project description and design layout,
Project boundaries and that it is in Fire Zone 1, and how the Fire Department
has concerns regarding grading and perimeter wall system(s). Associate Planner Meikle then introduced the
City=s Consultant Staff from The Planning Center; Ms.
Nicole Krause, Mr. Stan Hoffman and Mr. Mark Tomich. Associate Planner Meikle explained what the
Applicant has proposed, the General Plan and Zoning Designations, the letter
that was just distributed to the Commission from Mr. Uffer and he then
concluded his presentation.
Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any
questions of Staff.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff
regarding the trail location on Standard Pacific property east of the proposed
Project and how ultimately, it will be part of the City=s Trail System.
Restriction on the types of homes to be constructed on the pad. Staff explained about the viewscape, and
there is a large grade separation between Standard Pacific and the proposed
Project and how Standard Pacific raised the grade of their pads above the
proposed Project. There is a mix through
the neighborhood with both one- and two- story homes.
Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any
further questions of Staff. Hearing
none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if the Applicant would like
to make a presentation.
Mr. Carlton Lockwood, of Lockwood Engineering
Company,
Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions
of the Applicant.
There were none.
Chairman Haller asked if anyone else would like to
speak on the item. Hearing none,
Chairman Haller kept the Public Hearing open and then opened the floor for
discussion amongst the Planning Commissioners.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff
regarding the term, Asplash pad@ and keep the retaining wall in use and is part of
the C C & Rs; Lots 4 and 5 will drain to the rear of the property then
dissipate and how the Map does not show this detail and may not be sufficient
as a COA. Staff explained the retaining
wall along Lots 3 and 4 located on the north side and top of
A question was asked regarding the Asplash pad@ issue with cross lot drainage on Lots 4 and 5. Staff explained the
A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the fact
there is no COA for a Letter of Acceptance for cross lot drainage and keeping
the drainage pattern. Staff responded
with a typical COA for cross lot drainage for
The feasibility of lowering the pad elevations for
Lots 1, 2 and 3 to reduce the eighteen percent (18%) grade of the driveways was
discussed. Grade function was also
discussed, hammerhead driveways and how Staff called the Fire Department
regarding the grade requirement could be at a maximum of twelve percent (12%).
A comment was made by a Commissioner if there is
potential for cross lot drainage, an opposite set of requirements could be
required downstream i.e. existing east / west flow going to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4
and having a block wall installed, the Commissioner then asked if there would
be potential damage. Staff responded
that is not how the Project is proposed.
The Applicant proposes to install a drainage ditch on Lots 1 and 2 and a
drainage ditch on the north side of
A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the
grade on the existing homes on Applewood.
Staff responded the existing Tract was mass graded with cut / fill
slopes and there may be some at fourteen percent (14%) grade. With the proposed Project, the Applicant is going
to customize the pads. A comment was
made by a Commissioner that he has never seen more than a twelve percent (12%)
grade and then asked what effect Senate Bill 18 had on the General Plan
Amendment.
Ms. Nicole Krause, of The Planning Center, who is the
City=s Consultant, addressed the Commission. She stated the Bill applies to Specific Plans
or General Plans and the Cities will consultant with Native American
tribes. Staff added the Environmental
Document(s) were sent to the Native American Consultants in
Further discussion ensued between the Commission, Ms.
Krause and Staff regarding grade reduction.
Staff explained if the COAs would be through a minor design review
process, which would be one home at a time, then Staff would review
administratively. If the COAs would be
for all five (5) homes at one time, then it would go to the DRB for
consideration. Planning COA Nos. 13 and
14 were further discussed, if there was a problem with the slope / fencing and
the sixteen foot (16') high block wall going to Cook Creek. Staff responded whatever the wall would need
to have it function, the Plans would have to go through the plan check
process. In addition, with regards to
the weed abatement at the top of slope, the Applicant has to submit a Fuel
Modification Plan and Staff is not certain what the Fuel Modification Plan
would entail. Ms. Krause added comments
were received from San Bernardino County Flood Control and indicated no moving
/ removal of vegetation and not redirect draining anything into Cook
Creek.
Discussion ensued regarding phasing and the Fire
Department=s Fuel Modification Plan and the requirement the wall
would need to be in place; the feasibility of stubbing the utilities to the
curb, or run to the pads, and if so, the development of the driveway if built
individually. Staff responded and
explained Engineering COA No. 35 to the Commission if the utilities are run up
to the pad, there is no COA to go up that far to the pad.
A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the
extent of redesigning the Fire COA which can involve a lot of dirt
removal. Staff responded if the pad
elevations are reduced, there may be some tiered retaining walls.
Mr. Lockwood added with the Fire Department=s COA (on twelve percent [12%]) grade, he suggested
place split level homes and grading would not change much, just level out, have
drainage runoff, and explained the intent of the pads and their shape. A comment was made by a Commissioner that
split level homes mean split level pads and hammerhead driveways would mean
resubmittal of Tract Plans. Mr. Lockwood
responded in that the design grade, pad, layout were discussed on a lot-by-lot
basis.
Further discussion ensued between the Commission and
Staff regarding grade elevations / functions.
There being no further discussion or questions of the
Applicant or Staff, Chairman Haller then asked if there was anyone in the
audience who would like to speak on the item.
Hearing none, and there being no further comments or testimony, Chairman Haller closed the Public Hearing and
opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners.
Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff
regarding the maximum height (of a residential structure) is thirty-five feet
(35'); the design of split level homes and the methodology the City has to
cross section on an average and sixty feet to one hundred feet (60' - 100')
away by starting at the lowest level.
Staff responded that allows flexibility and the COAs provides the
Development Code and Hillside Standards with a three (3) story effect.
Further discussion ensued between the Commission and
Staff regarding house story provisions, split level homes, garage floor height
versus rooftop height i.e. Sycamore Heights project. Planning COA No. 8 was also discussed
regarding Hillside Standards. Staff
responded that Staff will work closely with the Builder and through Staff=s experience, is to allow flexibility and added the
neighbors at
The following are comments made by the Commissioners:
1) requested Staff be explicit is hillside development does not comply with
regular Development Standards; 2) can have the Applicant be more creative with
the slope site. Staff added there are
design options with custom homes. Staff
recommended to delete Planning COA No. 8 with rules that are in effect, at this
time and not put the Zoning Designation of R-1 20,000 on.
Discussion ensued regarding Planning COA No. 14
regarding Natural Slope versus the Engineered Slope and the Fuel Modification
Plan needs to be provided.
Chairman Hamerly recapped the revised Conditions of
Approval to the Commission. There being no further questions of the Applicant
or Staff, or discussion amongst the Commissioners, he then called for the
question.
A Motion
was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to
recommend to the City Council:
1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and instruct the City
Clerk to file a Notice of Determination;
2) Approve Resolution No. 07-004
recommending the City Council approve General Plan Amendment Application (GPA
006-002), to designate the subject property as Low Density Residential (LD);
Introduce an Ordinance to Pre-zone (ZC 006-002) the property as Single-Family
Residential with 20,000 square foot minimum lot sizes (R-1, 20,000); approve
Tentative Tract 16636, a five (5) lot Subdivision of the approximate 3.62 acre
Site, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended with the following:
Planning COAs
8. Pursuant to the property=s R-1 20,000 Zoning Designation, Lots within this
Subdivision shall comply with Residential Site Development Standards, as shown
on Table 16.16.040.B of Title 16 of the Highland Municipal Code.
Maximum
Density 6.0
dwelling units per gross acre
Minimum
Lot Area 20,000
square feet
Minimum
Lot Width 60
feet
Minimum
Lot Depth 100
feet
Minimum Setbacks:
Front
Yard 25 feet
Rear
Yard 20
feet (g.)
Interior
Side Yard 5 feet & 10
feet (f.)
Street
Side Yard 15 feet
Maximum
Lot Coverage 40 percent
(40%)
Maximum
Building Height 35 feet or
22 stories, whichever is less
Minimum
Building Separation 10 feet
Notes:
f. A minimum ten foot (10') side yard
setback shall be maintained for all two-story or greater structural elements.
Side yards must have a minimum flat area of five feet (5') in width.
g. A minimum of fifteen feet (15') of
flat, usable area shall be provided in each rear yard. Rear yards in excess of the minimum
requirement may be sloping and shall comply with the provisions of the Uniform
Building Code.
14.a. Engineered slope planting is required for the
surface of all slopes more than three feet (3') in vertical height. Said slopes shall be protected against damage
by erosion by jute netting (or similar material barrier) and planted with
rooted cuttings for ground cover. Slopes
exceeding fifteen feet (15') in vertical height shall also be planted with shrubs,
spaced at not to exceed ten feet (10') on-centers, and trees, spaced at not to
exceed twenty feet (20') on-centers. The
plant material selected and planting methods used shall be suitable for the
soil and climatic conditions of the Site.
Slopes required to be planted shall be provided with an approved system
of irrigation, designed to cover all portions of the slope.
Trees: 100% 15 gal.
Shrubs: 20% 5 gal.; 80% 1 gal.
Rooted Groundcover: 100% coverage
and Findings of Fact, and; directing Staff
to file the appropriate Applications with the Local Agency Formation Commission
for the Municipal reorganization of the City of
Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Commissioner
Scott absent.
5.0 LEGISLATIVE
There were no items.
6.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS
Ž Special
Presentation - Due to the absence of former Commissioner Scott, this item
was rolled over to the next Regular Meeting.
Staff congratulated both Commissioner Gamboa and
Chairman Haller for their reappointment to the Commission.
Staff explained the items tentatively scheduled for
the June 5, 2007, Regular Commission Meeting.
7.0 ADJOURN
There being no further business Chairman Haller
declared the meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved
by:
__________________________________
Linda McKeough, Richard
Haller, Chairman
Administrative Assistant III Planning Commission