Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 26, 1990 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of December 26, 1990, was canceled because of a lack of quorum. Respectfully submitted, Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUOAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 12, 1990 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Cathy Morris, Planning Technician; Steve ROSS, Assistant Planner; Paul Rougeau, Acting Deputy City Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that a letter had been received from the applicant for Item E requesting that the matter be continued until February 13, 1991. Mr. Bullet announced that the planning Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 26, 1990, would be canceled due to lack of a quorum and the next regularly scheduled meeting would be held on Wednesday, January 9, 1991. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried with Vallette abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of November 14, 1990. PUBLIC HEARINGS E. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION - A request to modify a one-lot subdivision for condominium purposes to a three-lot subdivision of 115 units on 10.27 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located north of Arrow Highway and east of Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-32 and 12. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion= Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to continue Modification to Tentative Tract 14055 to February 13, 1991. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14365 LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of 41 single family lots on 5.65 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community located on the south side of Mountain View Drive west of Milliken Avenue - APN: 1077-091-36. (Continued from November 28, 1990.) Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that at the November 28, 1990, Planning Con~aission Meeting, several neighboring residents indicated they had been told by the developer that a greenway would be built adjacent to their tract. He said staff had reviewed the plans and found no record of any such greenway ever having been considered. He stated that staff had received a letter from the Central School District indicating they were in the process of negotiating with Lewis Homes and that they would advise the City when the negotiations had been concluded. 'Mr. Ross suggested clarification of wording to provide that the additional windows to be added to some of the units would be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated he had investigated and found nothing to support the allegations regarding a greenway. He said they had provided staff with copies of the escrow disclosure statements and initialed maps. He requested that the school condition be dropped. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman MoNiel closed the public hearing. Motion= Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14365 with modifications clarifying that the additional windows being added would be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to building permit issuance. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 12. 19%0 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIELv MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND INDUSTRIAL A~EA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to include Automotive/Truck Repair - Major as a permitted or conditionally permitted use within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) and to include Service Station as a conditionally permitted use within the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. (Continued from November 28, 1990.) Steve Ross, Aasistant Planner, preaented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt the ubs would be appropriate with a Conditional Use Permit because the process would allow the commission to look at the use on a case-by-case basis. Chairman McNiel agreed that the use made sense. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 90-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Etiwanda Specific Plan to require rock curbs on Etiwanda Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Base Line Road and to add language clarifying the rock curbing requirement along Etiwende Avenue in accordance with Resolution 86-282 adopted October 2, 1986. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to require rock curbs along Etiwanda Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard in Subarea 4 in accordance with Resolution 86-282, adopted October 2, 1986. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 12, 1990 Cathy Morris, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing~ but hearing no testimony, he closed it. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is imperative to preserve the historic features of Etiwanda and he strongly supported the amendments. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Motion= Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 90-02 and Environmental Assessment and Foothill Specific Plan Amendment 90-02. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14407 - LEWIS HOMES A residential subdivision and design review of 114 townhouse units and 13 single family lots on 11.4 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra vista Planned Community located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Mountain View Drive - APN: 227-151-15. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested clarification of Standard Condition 0.2. Commissioner Melcher requested clarification of Planning Condition 2 regarding the trail and requested that the wording be changed to reflect that the greenway be connected. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the windows on the right elevations. Commissioner Melcher stated the elevations were the same as houses in the other tract, but the houses would be on zero lot line lots. He said they had conditioned that additional windows be added to the zero lot line elevations. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the windows could be embellished. Con~issioner Tolstoy agreed that they looked plain. Commissioner Chitiea requested that the elevations be returned to the Design Review Committee for approval. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 12, 1990 Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, requested that they not be required to landscape the rear yards. He felt there has been no precedent set in the City to require rear yard landscaping. He felt the reasoning may be to provide a vertical landscape element~ and if that were so, he requested that they merely be required to plant two trees in each rear yard rather than fully landscaping the yards. He felt that would soften the look sufficiently. Chairman McNiel stated that some other projects had been built and resulted in unattractive streetscapes~ and therefore, the Commission was requesting that rear yard landscaping be included to soften the look. Mr. Oleson responded that a 5-1/2-foot solid wall would be seen from the street, and he therefore felt planting trees should soften the look Bufficiently. He thought that homeowners would merely rip out what the developer planted. Further, Mr. Oleson requested that Condition 3, regarding the existing wall at the southwest corner, be deleted or revised because the wall ie located on adjacent property and they would not necessarily be able to obtain the permission of the adjacent property owner. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested that Condition 3 be reworded to include the consent of the property owner. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated that some of the tracts in Terra Vista Planned Community have sidewalks, but the sidewalks go nowhere. He felt there needs to be continuity to the sidewalk system and the developer should be required to install sidewalks and medians from the tracts they are building to connect to existing tracts. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. He stated that there are gaps in the amenities which he felt were not appropriate for a planned community. Chairman McNiel stated he had toured the area and there are major streets which are unfinished. He felt the City needs the infrastructure of the medians. Commissioner Chitiea felt it was appropriate to require the landscaping for the rear yards. Motion= Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions approving Enviro~mental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14407 with revisions requiring completion of sidewalk and landscaped parkway to the East Greenway corridor and to Milliken along Base Line prior to occupancy, requiring approval of the window treatments by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits, providing for consent of the property owner on the movement of the wall at the southwest corner of the tract, and clarifying the wording on Standard Condition 0.2. Motion carried by the following vote= Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 12, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-47 - KAUPMAN WALD INVESTMENT COMPANY - The development of a shopping center consisting of two retail buildings totaling 25,665 square feet on 2.7 acres of land in the Community commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 2) located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Lion Street - APN: 208-632-47. Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested clarification of wording on Standard Condition L.13. commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff had received any revisions to the patio area. Mr. Guarracino replied that the buildings had been pulled back from the residential areas. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mark Kaufman, Kaufman Wald Investment Co., 1964 Westwood Boulevard, ~405, Los Angeles, questioned Condition No. 13. He stated they had entered into negotiations with a restaurant that would be operating 24 hours per day and he was afraid the noise level restrictions would impair their ability to operate 24 hours per day. He also said they would want deliveries during off-hours. He requested that the in-lieu fee for median island construction be payable at time of occupancy instead of prior to the issuance of building permits. Mark Savel, Framer/Savel Associates Architects, 10474 Santa Monica Boulevard, ~310, Los Angeles, felt the 24-hour restaurant use would be appropriate because the parking lot was large, creating a good distance from the adjacent residences. He said they had designed the project to have parking for 5,000 square feet of restaurant uses and Denny's restaurant would use the majority of the space while some smaller users may take the balance. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the noise standard is a City ordinance and even without the condition, the project would be subject to the standard. John Irwin, Sr., 8041 Spinel Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he would like to see the median installed as soon as possible because the street presently looks poor. He felt that something more permanent should be done to confirm that Lion Street is one-way. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 12, 1990 co~missioner Tolstoy stated that there are always concerns where commercial areas are adjacent to residential areas. He concurred with the conditions regarding noise levels. He stated he would like to limit deliveries to reasonable hours to avoid disturbing neighbors. Earrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated it is standard procedure to require payment of in-lieu fees prior to the issuance of building permits because the collection might be missed if it were left to inspectors. Commissioner Chitiea commended the architect and developer for working with the City to develop a project appropriate for Foothill Boulevard. She appreciated the mitigation measures included at the rear of the property to buffer it from the adjacent residential area. Commissioners Melcher and Vallette concurred that delivery hours should be limited. Chairman McNiel was concerned about Lion Street being one-way. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Safety Commission had reviewed the street. Mr. Guarracino stated that the residents brought the item before the Public Safety commission before the shopping center construction. He said it now looks like it is a one-way street only on a temporary basis. Paul Rougeau, Acting Deputy City Engineer, stated that if the project were not built, eventually the City would do permanent construction to make the street one-way. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would behoove the City to have the developer make the improvements to permanently make the street one-way. Commissioner Vallette suggested it might be best to have the Public Safety Commission review the street configuration. Mr. Rougeau reported that the Public Safety Commission would be reevaluating the street configuration at their January or February meeting. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was amenable to tying the condition to the Public Safety Commission's decision. Motion= Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 88-47 with modifications to provide for review of the street conf£quration of Lion Street by the Public Safety Commission prior to street improvements and to clarify wording on Standard Condition L.15. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES= COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 12, 1990 8:40 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 8:55 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened H. MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR TRACT 10035 - CALPROP - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the driveways to be s maximum of 24 feet wide for a previously approved tract consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling unite per acre) located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 through 11 and 207- 641-01 through 10. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Boggs, CALPROP, 440 North Mountain Avenue, $205, Upland, stated that when the development was originally approved a Variance was approved allowing some houses to be plotted closer to the street. He said in working with the plans it was found that the maximum 24-foot width for driveways was unfeasible on some of the lots. He stated the grade of the land would cause some of the driveways to be on two levels Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel felt the driveway widths should be kept to a minimum. Commissioner Chitiea felt that where driveways exceed 24 feet in width, it would be appropriate to add enhanced paving. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, stated that brick banding had been added on several lots. Commiesioner Chitiea suggested that enhanced paving treatment on all driveways exceeding 24 feet in width be subject to City Planner review and approval. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Modification to Development Review for Tract 10035 with modification to require that decorative paving materials be approved by the City Planner for all driveways that exceed 24 feet in width. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 12, 19%0 NEW BUSINESS I. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S STREET NAMING BOOKLET AND THE STREET NAMING ORDINANCEf CITY CODE CHAPTER 12.12. - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Proposed amendments to the City's policies, procedures, and regulations regarding the naming of streets as contained in the Street Naming Booklet and city code Chapter 12.12. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. commissioner Tolstoy asked how names could be added to the listing of suggested historical names. Mr. Warren responded they would be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Commission and added to the list if the Commission concurred. commissioner Tolstoy felt some prominent names were missing from the Alta Loma area. Commissioner Chitiea stated she had similar concerns regarding some names from Cucamonga, particularly some names associated with wineries. Chairman McNiel invited public comments, but there were none. Commissioner Melcher stated he was glad to see the project. He said he had previously had to deal with a loop street which intersected with a major street and it created problems. Chairman McNiel asked if numbered streets would also be changed. Mr. Warren responded that he imagined the priority would be to change confusing street names first. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the numbered streets should be studied because they are not in sequence as a result of the combining of three separate communities to form the City. He said, however, he understood that it is traumatic and costly to change street names. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that staff would be establishing a program to address priorities. Commissioner Melcher felt that street name and traffic regulation signs and poles are not the same quality throughout the City. He requested that staff investigate the quality. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and felt some of the placards look rather cheap. Commissioner Melcher also felt that some of the street name signs are too small. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 12, 1990 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to reconm~end adoption of the amendments to the Street Naming Booklet and Ordinance. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried It was the consensus of the Commission that engineering staff should report back to the Commission on the aesthetics, cost, and safety issues of street signs. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS J. COUNCIL REFERRAL OF A PETITION SUBMITTED BY MR. VERN WOODRING, 8242 ~mttA VISTA STREET, FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF ALMOND STREET WIDTH/STANDARDS Paul Rougeau, Acting Deputy City Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff had considered the potential of the large parcels being split in the future. Mr. Rougeau responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned future access points from the sphere-of- influence area. Mr. Rougeau replied that the traffic would enter approximately 500 feet west of Carnelian. He said the only other possibility would be an extension of Sapphire to the north. Con~nissioner Chitiea asked if Almond Street was designated as a collector street when it was thought it would be a through street to Hermosa, which is not now planned. Mr. Rougeau replied that was the case. Commissioner Melcher asked the street width for coz~nunity trails. Mr. Rougeau stated the standard ia 20 feet, but there are some places where the trails were retrofitted and are only 11 feet wide. Commissioner Melcher asked if Engineering felt a 36-foot street would adequately accommodate the traffic in the area. Mr. Rougeau felt that it would adequately accommodate the traffic frc~ Sapphire to at least 500 feet west of Carnelian. Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 12, 1990 Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Vern Woodring, 8242 Bella Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a petition from property owners presently living in the area requesting that the road face be reduced to 36 feet curb-to-curb. He supported Recomx~endation No. 2. Basil Conger, 8396 Bella Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property extends from north to south. He asked where the projected 100 additional homes would be located Mr. Rougeau responded east of Sapphire, closer to Carnelian. Mr. Conger felt that at present the street width is adequate. He thought that once the street is made a through street, there will be a lot more traffic and noise. He felt that would endanger horseback riders. He thought that Almond Street should not be extended to Carnelian. Re felt there are currently a sufficient number of other streets. He thought it would be a waste of taxpayer money to extend Almond Street. Mr. Woodring stated that he and the property owners to the east to Carnelian had already allocated 33 feet toward the street, but it was currently in use as an equestrian trail. He said they would like to see the trail maintained because it ia a safe east/west trail. He said that if the street is widened leaving only an 11-foot trail there would be utility easements within the trail. He felt that it would be unsafe if the utilities are undergrounded and commented that Southern California Edison is currently involved in two lawsuits in Diamond Bar where horses fell through a trail and were shocked by underground transformers. There were no further public com~ents. Commissioner Chitiea felt that Option 2, creating a 36-foot curb-to-curb street with a 19-foot trail would be appropriate. She thought an ll-foot trail to be too narrow. She thought Option 3, which would create a varying street width, would be inappropriate. She felt that widening the street may encourage developers to build more houses. Chairman McNiel stated that he felt the city needs to have adequate infrastructure to support the potential for additional homes. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the east/west circulation in the City has always been poor. He felt that in the interest of safety the street should be as wide as called for in the General Plan. He thought the street should be the full width of 44 feet curb-to-curb in the area to provide adequate space for emergency vehicles and evacuation of residents in the event of a fire the foothills. He indicated Almond would be the northern-most collector arrest to accoemodate such an emergency. Commissioner Melcher stated that although he was not unsympathetic Conm~issioner Tolstoy's concerns regarding a fire, because the stretch is i mile long, the area would not be more than 1/2 mile from a north/~outh route. He eupported paving as little as possible of the earth. Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 12, ~%%0 Commissioner Vallette stated she understood the need for emergency vehicular access, but she also understood that the residents purchased in the area for the rural aspect and the equestrian trails. Chairman McNiel felt the City has gone to great lengths to accommodate the trail system, but he felt it should be a secondary consideration to public health and safety in terms of what might occur in the event of wild fires in the canyons. He supported the 44-foot curb width. Commissioner chitiea stated that on the south side of the street, the lots do not take access from Almond. She felt that part of the beauty is the rural 'atmosphere and Bhe felt that such a short stretch would not have much through traffic. commissioner Vallette asked if there are future plane to extend Almond beyond Carnelian. Mr. Rougeau responded negatively. commissioner Vallette asked if Almond is expected to serve the annexation of the foothills. Mr. Rougeau stated that Almond would serve more develo~ent west of Sapphire and that block is not under consideration for reduction in size. Commissioner Vallette asked who would pay for the ultJ~nate widening of the street. Mr. Rougeau responded that it would probably eventually be at public expense and that properties on the south e£de of Almond would be required to put in the improvements only £f they improved or split their properties. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the General Plan calls for Almond to be the northern-most east/west Co--unity trail and £f Almond is widened the trail would be reduced to half width. Commissioner Melcher asked for confirmation that Engineering staff felt that the remainder of Almond Street should remain at 44 feet curb-to-curb except for the portion between Sapphire Street and Carnelian. Mr. Rougeau responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher stated that would result in a wide section of trail between two narrow sections. Rick Gomez, Community Develo~xnent Director, stated that on the south side of Almond west of Sapphire there is a standard 20-foot trail and because of future develolanent it would probably eventually be built from Turquo£se all the way to 500 feet west of Carnelian. commissioner Tolstoy stated he is an advocate of trails, but he still felt ~hs street should be widened for public safety considerations. Planning Commission Minutes -12- December 12, 1990 Motion= Moved by chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to reco~nend Option 2, providing Almond with a 36-foot street with a 19-foot trail between Sapphire and Carnelian Streets. co~missioner Melcher asked if Engineering felt Option 2 would be acceptable. Mr. Rougeau replied that it was acceptable because there is parking on only one side of the street and most of the properties on the south side do not have access to Almond. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES= COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS= MCNIEL, TOLSTOY ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried K. USE DETERMINATION 90-04 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request for the Planning Commission to determine how private educational institutions should be addressed within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Forrest Perry, 9180 Orange, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Mr. Skinner had a private school similar to a day care center which was already in the Foothill corridor. He said Mr. Skinner wanted to move his facility 800 feet away to the Perry Market Center. Steven Skinner, owner and operator of Education Unlimited, 9547 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he rune a private educational non-parochial school for elementary through junior high students and they have overgrown their present facil£ty. He felt that moving to the center in question would provide a safer atmosphere than where they were presently located. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the project generated the use determination question, but the project itself would be separately considered. He said the quemtion before the Com~ission was whether the use is appropriate under a Conditional Use Permit or if the Commission intended to exclude the use from the Foothill Soulevsrd Specific Plan area. Co~missioner Tolstoy questioned if much things as dance and karate studios would be included under educational institutions. Mr. Buckingham clarified the definitions. commissioner Chit£ea felt that the use would be appropriate with a Cond£t£ona~ Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 12, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Commissioners felt Foothill Boulevard would be a good atmosphere for children. He was concerned about traffic. Chairman McNiel stated he did not object to the use with a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner chitiea felt the Conditional Use Permit process would provide sufficient protection to address such concerns. Commissioner Vallette felt that Foothill Boulevard is not an appropriate environment for Day Care uses. She thought that safety of children and traffic generated by dropping off and picking up the children should be considered. She did not feel such uses give a quality look to the community. Commissioner Melcher stated he has been concerned about the mixed results the City is getting from the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He said he first thought the use might tend to perpetuate the small-lot cut-up environment which he felt should be discouraged under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan~ however, because the use may also be part of a larger project, he did not see any conflict between the use and the achievement of the goals of the Specific Plan. He supported the use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Bullet stated that the Commission may wish to direct staff to consider educational uses to be in the same category as Day Care Facilities. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel that the use to be appropriate on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Bullet stated that Foothill Boulevard is unique in that it is a mixed-use corridor and the intent of the Specific Plan was to include a variety of uses. He said that the initial study indicated there may be too much commercial land along Foothill Boulevard to ever be filled. He felt that in the future it may be difficult to find alternative uses other than residential. Me suggested some of the properties along the corridor may be of sufficient depth to mitigate the effects of having a school in the area. commissioner Tolstoy stated he appreciated the fact that the Foothill 8oulevard Specific Plan is a vehicle for a diversity of endeavors, but he was opposed to having educational facilities in storefronts. He said he would more likely support facilities specifically designed for such uses and did not wish to encourage renting of storefronts for day care or educational uses. He did not feel it £e appropriate to have children close to other buslne~ses and thought that playgrounds should not be in back alleys. Commissioner Ch~tiea supported the Conditional Use Permit process, but stated she agreed with many of Commissioner Tolstoy's objections. She felt that prox£mity to bars and other such establishments ie inappropriate and playground areas need to be well designed and safe. Mr. Bullet stated that if an application developed, a project would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Planning commission Minutes -14- December 12, 1990 COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no further Com~iss£on business. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion= Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chit£ea, unanimouely carried, to aaJourn. 10=40 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 12, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 28, 1990 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. Mayor Dennis Stout administered the oath of office to Wendy Vallette, Planning Commissioner. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Paul Rougeau, Acting Deputy City Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, announced that the applicant for Item I had requested a continuance until December 12, 1990, to allow proper noticing. Mr. Kroutil stated that the Planning Commission would take a recess at 8:30 p.m. to participate in a joint workshop with the Chino Basin Municipal Water District. Mr. Kroutil announced that this evening's meeting would adjourn to a workshop on the City Library to be held on December 6, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR A. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14630 - LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY - Resolutions for the denial of a Vesting Tentative Tract and design review for the development of 328 condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-02 ARCHITECTURE ONF - The development of an industrial complex totaling 58,262 square feet on 3.13 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the southeast corner of Lucas Ranch Road and 5th Street APN: 210-071-37. Associated with this project is Parcel Map 11510. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried with Vallette abstaining, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-04 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to include Automotive/Truck Repair - Major as a permitted or conditionally permitted use within the Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 15) and to include Service Station as a conditionally permitted use within the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, but there was no comments. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 90-04 to December 12, 1990. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 11510 - GREG VANDENBERG A subdivision of 3.13 acres of land into 7 parcels in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the south side of 5th Street and the east side of Lucas Ranch Road - APN: 210-071-37 and 41. Associated with this project is Time Extension for Development Review 88-02. Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Greg Vandenberg, 9551 Lucas Ranch Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 28, 1990 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 11510. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13221 ROMMEL A subdivision of 5.56 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on the north side of 9th Street west of Hellman Avenue - APN: 209-012-04. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gilbert Rommel, 636 Colonial Circle, Fullerton, stated he was impressed with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and felt it is developing well. He agreed to all the conditions and thanked Ms. Miller for explaining the engineering conditions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the wall would be constructed. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated it would replace the existing chain link fence. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the wall would preclude sidewalks. Ms. Miller responded that the parkway is 11 feet and there will be curb- adjacent sidewalks. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approvin§ Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13221. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 28, Iggo E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-34 - SRENG MANN - The request to establish a donut shop in a leased space of 752 square feet within the Archibald Auto Center on 3.22 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8880 Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-032-42. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing; but hearing no testimony, he closed it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he supported the use but he wondered if the applicant might be returning at a later time to request that the hours of operation be extended past 4:00 p.m. Ms. Hernandez replied that the applicant had indicated he wished to be open in the mornings. She stated his request letter specifically requested hours of 4:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 90-34. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a time extension and modification to conditions of approval to the master plan for a church consisting of sanctuary, administration building, education/nursery building, and family center totaling 11,520 square feet on 8.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located on the west side of Haven Avenue north of Hillside Road - APN: 1074-271-0I. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-38 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request to modify a condition of approval for an existing modular building (60' x 144') for a church classroom facility on 8.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District located on the west side of Haven Avenue north of Hillside Road - APN: 1074-271-01. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the block wall would extend all the way along the west property boundary. Ms. Nissen responded affirmatively. Commissioner Vallette asked the length of the block wall. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 28, 1990 It was determined the wall would be approximately 630 feet. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dave Burns, Pastor, 9537 Sunflower, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that they be allowed to build the block wall in phases as the property develops. He also requested that a 3-year time extension be granted to avoid the necessity of having to apply for such extension on an annual basis. Chairman McNiel responded that under the municipal code, time extensions may be given for a maximum of I year at a time. Commissioner Vallette asked when the modulars were placed on the site. Pastor Burns responded approximately 1985. Commissioner Vallette asked if the adjacent homes were already constructed. Pastor Burns replied that the homes were built following the chur'ch. Commissioner Vallette asked the distance between the emergency access road and the adjacent residential area. George Lightner, also representing the church, 8560 Vineyard, #208, Rancho Cucamonga, replied it is approximately 200 feet. Commissioner Vallette asked if the parking lot in the north would be included in the next building phase. Pastor Burns replied that the next phase would develop the large center building and a major portion of the playing field for parking because the peak parking demand would be only on Sundays. He said the field was constructed to withstand parking. Jack Crosett, 10361 Vista Grove, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that the drainage had been disturbed when grading was done approximately six to eight months ago. He felt that the Vista Grove exit will be used more frequently, raising dust, when Phase IV is built and he indicated he already gets trash on his yard from the churchgoers. Chairman McNiel stated it is not uncommon for churches to be located in residential neighborhoods. He asked the composition of the driveway. Pastor Burns responded that the road has a gravel base with an oil coating. He said the road is mainly a fire exit but it is used by vehicles leaving church. Chairman McNiel asked if the field would still be used for parking after the parking area to the north is constructed. Pastor Burns replied the filed would still be used. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 28, 1990 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he visited the church on Sunday morning and it is a busy place. He said the emergency access road is properly marked, but he felt it probably is used fairly regularly. He thought the condition to require construction of the entire wall with Phase I was appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. He felt the project configuration fits in well with the neighborhood. He stated it appears the church is taking proper care of the landscaping and he felt the site looks good. Commissioner Chitiea stated she appreciated the apparent concern of the neighbors and she felt a full wall would be appropriate with Phase I. She asked if the grading was changed when the road was constructed. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Lightnet stated the grading changed only with respect to the sidewalk. He said the drainage remained the same. He reported that the eastern driveway was closed at the City's request. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette felt it would be more appropriate to build the wall in phases. Chairman McNiel asked if the site would need to be graded to allow construction of the wall in one phase. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, thought that some ground preparation would be required. Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to prefer phasing of the wall except he thought that would create the possibility of problems in the future. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions approving modifications and time extension for Conditional Use Permit 88-10 and modifications to Conditional Use Permit 88-38. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Vallette indicated she voted noe because she felt the wall should be phased. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 28, 1990 - H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14365 - LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of 41 single family lots on 5.65 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community located on the south side of Mountain View Drive west of Milliken Avenue - APN: 1077-091-36. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and reported that the net density is 7.2. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joseph Oleson, Lewis Homes, requested that Planning Conditions 2 and 4 be deleted because they had already submitted revised plans addressing the concerns. He asked that the Commission review the plans and delete the conditions. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated he would not recommend that the Commission delete the conditions at this time since staff had not had a lot of time to review the plans. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Design Review should not be done at the Commission level. Commissioner Vallette asked if the applicant objected to returning to the Design Review Committee. Mr. Oleson responded that he had no objection to returning to the Committee, he was merely trying to expedite the process. He requested that Condition 3 be changed to allow three 260 plans along Mountain View Drive. Chairman McNiel responded that he recalled the rear elevation of that plan to be rather plain and mundane and he would be willing to consider allowing three such models if the rear elevation had been changed. He suggested that the request return to Design Review as a consent calendar item. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the Milliken median would be landscaped. Mr. Oleson replied that it was in plan check and he felt they would begin construction around the first of the year. Chairman McNiel asked when the median on Foothill Boulevard would be constructed. Mr. Oleson responded that the CalTrans permit should be issued by the end of the year and they anticipated construction to be about a month after the Milliken median. Commissioner Tolstoy encoura9ed them to work as rapidly as possible. Commissioner Melcher stated that the last time a Terra Vista project was considered, a question was raised regarding the current status of the developed parkland with respect to the number of residential units. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 28, 1990 Mr. Oleson stated they are ahead of schedule in terms of acreage approved, under construction, or completed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if all the pipes for storm drains are in place under the street. Mr. Oleson replied that the storm drain for the project site is hooked in from Mountain View Avenue to the Deer Creek Channel and Milliken should not be torn up. The following residents spoke in opposition to the project: Michael Priore, 7731Meadowcrest Court, Rancho Cucamonga Jil! Scruggs, 7751Meadowcrest Court, Rancho Cucamonga Daniel Valles, 7737 Meadowcrest Court, Rancho Cucamonga Donald Day, 7657 Sandpiper CoUrt, Rancho Cucamonga Leigh Durham, 7682 Wimbleton Court, Rancho Cucamonga Cynthia Stukey, 11098 Cloverdale, Rancho Cucamonga They stated they were shown maps and had been told by the developer that a 40-foot greenway would be built to the west of the proposed project. It was requested that the homes be built 40 feet to the east to allow a greenway to be constructed as a buffer. It was suggested that the master plan map had been changed to delete the trail. Ms. Stukey thought she had the map'she was given when she purchased her home. They objected to zero-lot line homes and suggested that one home on each end of the street be eliminated to provide larger lots. They were concerned about the quality of life, the potential for rentals, increased traffic, and debris collecting along Milliken. A four-way stop sign was requested at Elm and Spruce. Lewis Trout, 7861 Leucite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that the Planning Commission defer action to investigate possible misrepresentation by Lewis Homes. Commissioner Chitiea asked if Mr. Oleson had any information as to when or why a particular trail may have been removed. Mr. Oleson replied that he had searched the files and could find no record of a trail system ever proposed in the area. He said there had been six amendments to the Terra Vista Community Plan and none of those changed any trails in that area. Commissioner Chitiea asked Mr. Oleson to address Central School District comments regarding lack of funds. Mr. Oleson replied that they were in final negotiations with the School District for an interim financing plan. He indicated he felt he could supply a letter from the School District by November 29 indicating they were in the process of negotiating an agreement. Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 28, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea asked what would happen to the site after Middle School opens. Mr. Oleson stated they were still negotiating with the School District, but the site would probably revert to Lewis Homes. Commissioner Melcher asked if Lewis Homes could better police their property to remove debris. Mr. Oleson stated he was unaware there was a problem and he would see that the debris is removed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt the concerns of the residents should be investigated. She thought it would be helpful to see the map Ms. Stukey stated she may have. She also said she would like to see the School District negotiations completed before acting upon the project. Commissioner Melcher felt that although the suggestion to find out what was going on in the sales office was important, he was not sure it was germane to the action before them. Chairman McNiel asked about the possibility of a four-way stop sign at Elm and Spruce. Paul Rougeau, Acting Deputy City Engineer, responded that eventually the intersection will be signalized, but not in the near future. He stated intermediate steps would be investigated, but Spruce was designed to be a major street and the City would need to look at all options. He stated he would report back to the Planning Commission if they desired. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the Public Safety Commission should be considering the matter. Mr. Rougeau stated that often such questions can be handled at a staff level, but they may be referred to the Public Safety Commission. Commissioner Vallette agreed that she would be more comfortable voting on the project if the school site negotiations were concluded. She requested that the developer continually police the area instead of making just a one-time clean up. Chairman McNiel stated he was not opposed to the project or zero lot lines, but he was concerned about what he heard regarding the proposed greenbelt. Commissioner Melcher stated he felt the applicant was correct that no trail had been planned for the area but it was possible that an incorrect document was exhibited at the sales office. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 28, 1990 Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Ms. Stukey if she could attempt to locate the map. Ms. Stukey responded she would try to provide it to the City on November 29. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that a lot had been said regarding the importance of misrepresentation by the developer. He indicated that a court would have to determine if there was misrepresentation. He said at best the City could only show City records, not what was said by a sales representative. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the developer would be willing to continue the matter for two weeks to allow time for investigation. Mr. Oleson stated he would not object. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14365 to December 12, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 9:00 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed 10:45 p.m. - Planning Commission reconvened COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no further Commission business. PUBLIC COMMENTS Lewis Trout, 7861 Leucite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, reported that a request had been made at the last City Council meeting to investigate the pros and cons of increasing the Planning Commission size to seven members. He urged the Commissioners to support such a move. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 28, !qgO ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adjourn. / 10:50 p.m..y Ptann~sg Commission adjourned to a December 6, 1990, workshop at 6:30 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding the Central Park Library. Respect ful/¥~submi tted? Otto Kroutil Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 28, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Joint Workshop Meeting with Chino Basin M~nicipal Water District November 28, 1990 Draft Environmental Impact Report on Wastewater Treatment Plant #4 Chairman McNiel introduced the members of the Planning Commission and turned the meeting over to Chino Basin Municipal Water District Board President, Dwight French. Chairman French called the meeting to order at 9:15 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dwight French, Bill Hill CITY STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Paul Rougeau, Acting Deputy City Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary WATER DISTRICT STAFF PRESENT: Vince DePalma, Manager, Engineering/Planning; Gary Hackney, Director, Planning Department; Mark Kinsey, Project Manager ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GR 89-08~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-16 - CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - A Chino Basin Municipal Water District public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Wastewater Treatment Plant #4 on 32.5 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 6th Street - APN: 229-283-62. Vince DePalma, Manager, Engineering/Planning, Chino Basin Municipal Water District, gave a brief overview of the Chino Basin Municipal Water District and related service functions as well as an overview of the environmental review process. He introduced Jim Newton, CH2M Hill and John Koeller, Converse Environmental West. Mr. Newton presented an overview of the project and its landscaping. He described the plant processes and showed elevations of the various buildings. Mr. Koeller summarized the environmental consequences. He stated the draft Environmental Impact Report had been available since September 1990. He summarized the mitigation measures with regard to water resources, dust control during construction, noise, air quality, aquatic effluent growth, and maintenance program. He stated that some of the processes would be covered to eliminate odor problems and the combustion emissions would be low because they would be utilizing the best available controls. He reported that they would have a risk management program to deal with hazardous materials incidents and any sludge spills would be removed immediately. Commissioner Chitiea questioned how much methane gas would be generated and how often the gas flare would be operating. Mr. Newton responded that the flare is an automatic device that would burn whenever the production of gas exceeds the capacity to consume it. He stated that the gas flare meets Air Quality Management District regulations. He said the flare could possibly burn several times a day, but the quantity of gas would be small. Commissioner Chitiea commented that the facility would be processed through the City's Design Review procedure when the Conditional Use Permit is processed. She voiced her objection to a chain link fence. Mr. Newton responded that the Conditional Use Permit would be processed through the City. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the aeration basin would be an open tank. Mr. Newton replied affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what mitigation measures could be added if odors cause a problem after the plant is operational. Mr. Newton responded that it would be difficult to cover the tank, but odor should not be a problem. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not recall an odor problem when they went on a field trip, but he wondered what could be a mitigation measure. Mr. Newton stated they could cover the first zone. Commissioner Melcher questioned the ultimate capacity of the plant and how much of the effluent proposed would be reused and how much would be discharged into the flood control channel. Gary Hackney, Director, Planning Department, Chino Basin Municipal Water District, stated the ultimate capacity would be 28 million gallons per day and several potential large users have been identified for the reclaimed water. PC & CBMWD Workshop Minutes -2- November 28, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked how much traffic would be generated. Mr. Koeller replied that approximately 100 trips per day would be generated and the draft Environmental Impact Report addressed cumulative traffic concerns. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned potential hazards of chlorine gas and sulpher dioxide deliveries. Mr. Koeller responded that deliveries would be fairly frequent and their emergency preparedness plan would address those concerns. Chairman McNiel asked the location of the nearest compost facility. Mr. DePalma stated they were currently in the process of constructing a facility in Chino. Chairman McNiel asked what could cause a sludge spill. Mr. Koeller responded a vehicular accident with an overturned truck. Chairman French opened the publqc hearing. Lewis Trout, 7861 Leucite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, commended the Chino Basin Municipal Water District for its foresight and for planning a proactive wastewater treatment plant. He expressed concern that lO0-year storm standards are not adequate because he said that amount has been exceeded three times during the last 100 years. He felt the plant should be built to higher than a 7.5 earthquake standard and the Uniform Building Codes standards are not sufficient. He felt the facility is being planned for the right place and the timing is correct. Doug Graybeal, Project Administrator for County detention facility, 1125 West 5th Street, Ontario, reinforced his concerns with the immobile population to be located in the jail in near proximity to the proposed treatment plant. He stressed the need to eliminate odors and biologic hazards. He requested that a concrete emergency preparedness plan be formulated with input from the Sheriff's Department. Mark Gutglueck, P. O. Box 2873, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that notice about the hearing was not more widespread. He felt that notice should be expanded beyond the legal requirements to include all interested residents. He was concerned about odors and wanted to be sure the City had alternatives if odors result. He questioned the location of Reclamation Plant 3 in the City of Fontana. Chairman French responded that the location for Reclamation Plant 3 was selected by Fontana. He discussed the recharge system. Mr. Newton discussed the emergency scrubber and fire code. PC & CBMWD Workshop Minutes -3- November 28, 1990 Chairman French stated that all facilities must be out of the flood zone. Mr. Newton showed the location of the emergency back-up pond. Chairman French stated that they would have capabilities to transmit to other facilities through a main before going to the emergency back-up pond. He said a lot of redundancies were built into the plan. Board Member Hill questioned the number of inmates proposed for the detention facility. Mr. Graybeal stated that when the prison was first planned, the number of inmates was much lower, but it now is planned to house approximately 3,000 inmates, which would mean a potential of 3,700 people at any one time including inmates, staff, and visitors. Chairman French closed the public hearing. He stated that comments received at the hearing would be addressed and incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report. Chairman McNiel thanked the Cucamonga County Water District for holding the public hearing at the City and allowing the Planning Commission to comment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respect f~. ~ubmi tte~ Otto Kroutil Deputy Secretary PC & CBMWD Workshop Minutes -4- November 28, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 14, 1990 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Ping Kho, Assistant Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steven Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff had received a letter from the applicant for Item G requesting that the item be continued until December 12, 1990. He stated that the item would need to be readvertised. Chairman McNiel reported that the monument dedication to the Vietnam Veterans had been held at the Alta Loma School on Monday, November 12, 1990. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of July 19, 1990. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting' of August 2, 1990. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 20, 1990. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of October 10, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13564 (PHASES 2-5) - AKINS - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 145 lots of a previously County-approved map consisting of 182 lots on 81.9 acres of land north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road APN: 226-082-24 to 26. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS G. MODIFICATION TO TRACT 10035 - CALPROP - A request to delete a condition of approval requiring all driveways to be a maximum of 24 feet wide per City Standard No. 305 for Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14-17, 20 and 21 for a previously approved tract consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 through 11 and 207-641-01 through 10. (Continued from October 24, 1990.) Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Boggs, Vice President, Calprop, 440 North Mountain Avenue, Suite 205, Upland, stated that they had held a positive meeting with staff and he requested that the item be postponed for a month in order to resolve some issues. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Modification to Tract 10035. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14535 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 95 single family lots on 18.0 acres of land within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-011-17. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 14, 1990 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14536 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 57 single family lots on 12.4 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the south side of Highland Avenue east of Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-20. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14535 and Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14536 to January 23, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: · NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 90-08 - BROCK - A request to reduce the minimum net average lot size from 22,500 to 21,935 square feet and to reduce the minimum lot depth of Lot 3 from 150 to 124 feet for a 40 lot subdivision on 25.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 0201-121-24. Related file: Tentative Tract 14771. (Continued from October 24, 1990.) C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14771 - BROCK - A residential subdivision of 40 single family lots on 25.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 0201-121-24. Related file: Variance 90-08. (Continued from October 24, 1990.) Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and a letter from the Homeowners' Association supporting the project and requesting that the maximum percentage of permitted front-on garages be increased to 33 percent. Steve Shepard, Brock Homes, 3380 Shelby Street, Suite 100, Ontario, requested that Planning Condition 11 be deleted because the requirement was outlined in depth in Engineering Condition 3. He requested that the number of front-on garages be increased to 33 percent to more closely approximate the approved tract to the south. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel asked if Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, objected to the deletion of Planning Condition 11. Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 14, 1990 Mr. Hanson responded that he had no objection. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the redesign of the cul-de-sac street was a good solution. She agreed with the elimination of Planning Condition 11 and the increase to 33 percent of front-on garages. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Variance 90-08 and Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14771 with modifications to delete Planning Condition 11 and increase the number of front-on garages to a maximum of 33 percent. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13564 - AKINS A modification to a residential subdivision of 182 lots on 122.2 acres of land for a previously approved County map located north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-24 to 26. (Continued from October 24, 1990. ) Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked to see a layout of a section of the northern boundary showing the drainage channel, which Ms. Nissen provided. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Kevin Pohlson, Akins Development, I Civic Plaza, Suite 175, Newport Beach, thanked staff for assistance in processing the project and stated he was available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had questioned staff regarding the protection of lots with respect to flood control from San Sevaine Creek and he understood that the County's design will take care of any problems. He said he therefore supported the project. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Tentative Tract 13564. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 14, 1990 E. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-17 - INLAND AREA FELLOWSHIP - A request to modify conditions of approval relative to the timing of on-site improvements for a previously approved project consisting of a church in an existing building totaling 16,457 square feet on 2.42 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Avenue - APN: 201-474-02 and 03. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 90-09. (Continued from October 24, 1990.) Steven Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the church had constructed the landscaping along Amethyst, as required by Condition 6. Mr. Ross responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher requested clarification on Condition 4. He asked if the adjacent project would be conditioned to build the wall. Mr. Ross replied that the church was conditioned to construct the wall, but they may work in conjunction with the neighboring developer and the cost may be shared. He reiterated that the wall must be constructed within two years from occupancy even if the adjacent property is not developed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the current building color appears intense. Mr. Ross indicated that the color board was approved by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Chitiea asked if a sample was applied in the field and if the sample board indicated flat or glossy paint. Mr. Ross replied that a sample was applied in the field on the northern exposure. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pastor Bill Flanders, 11372 Pyramid Peak, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the initial approval allowed occupancy before completion of some of the conditions. He reported they still have not occupied the building and have not had an opportunity to grow. He said they have made quite a few improvements with most of the work being done by members of the church. He indicated the trees on Amethyst have been planted. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that the applicant consider a species of tree other than Black Pine for the planter near the northwest corner of the building in response to Condition 3. He suggested that the 24-inch box size might be reduced to allow a better root system to be established. He felt the reduction in size might also permit the church to plant a tree sooner. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 14, 1990 Pastor Flanders stated that was agreeable to the church and indicated that their landscape architect had stated that a Black Pine would not be a good choice for the area. David Arenz, 10179 Saratoga, Montclair, stated he was a church member and he wished to convey his appreciation to staff for their assistance in processing the project. He said a large part of the work is being done by volunteers, and although excitement is high, funds are low. He requested the revisions to the Conditional Use Permit. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was inclined to yield to Commissioner Tolstoy's wisdom in the area of trees. Commissioner Chitiea felt it was important to replace the tree as soon as possible. She concurred that the pine should not be designated as a Black Pine and agreed to a smaller tree. She requested that when the church repaints the building, that they select a more muted color scheme. Commissioner Melcher stated he had been somewhat surprised by the colors and he felt that perhaps colored elevations should be required on projects. Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to permit the modification to allow the church more time to complete their improvements. Commissioner Melcher agreed it would be appropriate to allow the timing modification because the church was completing the work prior to occupancy in accordance with the conditions of approval. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 89-17, with modification to require a 15-gallon pine tree within the planter near the northwest corner of the building with the species of pine to be approved by the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried F. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-19 - PACIFIC PHYSICIAN SERVICES - The request to modify a condition of approval limiting the number of employees for a medical office in a leased space of 16,856 square feet within an existing industrial park on 1.57 acres of land in the Industrial Park District {Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at 10837 Laurel Street - APN: 208-351-57. {Continued from October 24, 19g0.} Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 14, 1990 Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had noticed that the parking lot appears crowded at times and he asked if staff knew if Kaiser were planning to move. Commissioner Melcher asked if the lender had directed the applicant to apply for a modification because the number of employees was not in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Grahn confirmed that the lender would not process the loan without a modification. Chairman McNiel commented that with less than 25 percent of the project leased, 33 percent of the parking is utilized; therefore, less intense uses would need to be considered for future uses. He opened the public hearing. Ron Lossett, Executive Director of Pacific Physician Services, 12 North 5th Street, Redlands, thanked staff for assistance in processing the application. He reported that they had received far greater acceptance of their physicians group than anticipated, leading to the expansion of staff. He said they had recently opened a facility in Upland and transferred two of their physicians to the new facility. He said that would probably reduce their patient load. He requested that Condition (3) of Resolution 88-112 be revised to set up a plan for reducing the impact 'rather than possible termination of the use if the operation of the facility were found to cause adverse effects upon adjacent businesses. Commissioner Melcher asked if the reciprocal agreements applied to parking as well as access. Mr. Lossett confirmed that it did. Chairman McNiel asked if there would be a need for more than 54 employees in the future. Mr. Lossett replied that they anticipate a reduction in staff over the next couple of years. Commissioner Tolstox stated that the parking lot is getting heavily used and the remainder of the unoccupied buildings may have a problem in the future if less intense uses are not proposed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she preferred to allow the use to continue because parking is currently available. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the use should be allowed to continue. Chairman McNiel felt that if they were located in a more remote building, there would be no problems. He thought the community currently needs the services and although the use would not be injurious to the vacant building, it could be detrimental to the owner in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 14, 1990 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-19. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14630 LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY The development of 328 condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, a letter from resident Paul Henry reiterating concerns that had previously been raised, a letter from Chaffey High School accepting a cash payment in lieu of adding the project to the Chaffey District's Community Facilities District, and revised site and landscape plans depicting elimination of all 16-unit buildings. Commissioner Melcher indicated it was his understanding that the entry monument design was not being acted upon at this time. Mr. Hayes confirmed that the Resolution was conditioned to require further Design Review Committee approval of the monument design. Commissioner Melcher asked if the building elevations included in the staff report were current. Mr. Hayes replied that the elevations were the most current that staff had available. He indicated that some Design Review Committee concerns which were not addressed in the elevations were included as conditions. He showed slides of the elevation for the entry to the 450 buildings. Commissioner Melcher recollected that the center roof was to be brought out by the creation of pilasters at the corners of the building. Chairman McNiel thought the columns were to be similar to the ones at the base of the stairwell. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the railings were pipe. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 14, 1990 Scott Sellers, Lincoln Property Company, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, #240, San Diego, thanked staff and the Design Review Committee for the time spent on working on the project. He felt the project was an excellent design. He stated the building entry had been revised to address the concerns raised at the Design Review Committee meeting. He said the center element was raised and widened. He said they would be happy to incorporate columnar support and bring the element out. He showed slides of the proposed project. Mr. Sellers stated security gates had been added. He said 1/2 mile of trails would run through the project, including seating areas adjacent to the trails. He reported that over 1,000 trees would be planted in connection with the project. He discussed the amenities of the units. He requested that the school condition be revised to permit the payment of in-lieu fees and asked for clarification of Engineering Condition 4 with respect to undergrounding. He asked that they not be required to reconstruct the median island landscaping within Milliken Avenue to discourage pedestrian mid-block crossings because they had added perimeter fencing to the project. Mr. Sellers reported they had changed the name of the project to Victoria Park Place in deference to the neighbors and stated they had made a number of changes to the project as a result of working closely with the neighborhood. Chairman McNiel asked Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, to respond to the question regarding undergrounding. Mr. Hanson stated that the undergrounding along Base Line is essentially completed except for the portion crossing Milliken Avenue. He said the City's standard requirement calls for developers to cross the street when they are undergrounding and he was not sure if the previous project was still in the process of undergrounding adjacent to this project. He requested that the condition be retained. Mr. Hanson stated that Engineering was still concerned that pedestrians would have access to cross the street mid-block even with the perimeter fencing and felt the median island should be reconstructed to discourage pedestrian crossing. Mr. Sellers reported that there were still power poles standing to the east of the project. Mr. Hanson responded that the power poles in question are for 66kV, which the City does not require to be undergrounded. He said the poles had formerly also contained 12kV,.which has' now been undergrounded. Mr. Sellers agreed to the undergrounding. Commissioner Melcher asked if the developer would provide laundry equipment to the individual apartments or if there would be any common laundry rooms on the premises. Mr. Sellers replied that two laundry room facilities were planned and they would typically provide about 25 percent of the units with washers and dryers. He indicated that if the Planning Commission should so desire, they would be willing to provide individual laundry equipment within each unit. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 14, 1990 Commissioner Melcher felt that as the laundry facilities in the units are located on the individual patios and balconies, it would not be a good idea to have such facilities on the balconies that face streets. Commissioner Chitiea felt that having laundry facilities outside would be very inconvenient during winter months and inclement weather. Mr. Sellers responded that they have the same arrangement at other projects and have not experienced any problems. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that as the project will be adjacent to Central Park, it should be outstanding. He asked the applicant what amenities he believed would set the project apart from other projects. Mr. Sellers stated it would be superior because it is a security, gate-guarded community with a large amount of common space, garages for all covered parking spaces, a large recreation facility, and an extensive trail system. The following residents spoke in opposition to the projectt Pete Panos, 11899 Tolentino Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Duke Dana, 10576 Valinda Court, Rancho Cucamonga Richard Nazabal, 6990 Martano, Rancho Cucamonga, Evelyn Chavez, 11457 Genova Road, Rancho Cucamonga Patrick Dutton, 11405 Genova Road, Rancho Cucamonga Sharon Boydston, 7066 Del Mar Court, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Dubbs, 6869 Rovato Place, Rancho Cucamonga Carol Douglass, 11463 Genova Road, Rancho Cucamonga Major Jenkins, 11645 Bari Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Lewis Trout, 7861 Lucite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga Joseph Sudia, 11376 Napoli Drive, Rancho Cucamonga Ken Douglass, 11463 Genova Road, Rancho Cucamonga David Dennis, 6816 Padova Court, Rancho Cucamonga Carol Dubbs, 6869 Rovato Place, Rancho Cucamonga George Hicks, 10430 Almond, Rancho Cucamonga Michael Chavez, 11457 Genova Road, Rancho Cucamonga They were concerned about density, traffic, graffiti, school impaction, crime, rental project vs. owner-occupied, location of laundry facilities on balconies and patios, proximity of the project to the park, adequacy of visitor parking, adequacy of stacking capability for vehicles entering the gated project, and the need for drought-tolerant landscaping. They asked that the City project what the development would be like in another 15-20 years, and feared the project may potentially turn into a ghetto. One resident requested that the City approve the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the project, because the CC&R's would affect the aesthetics in the future. They requested that the property be developed with single family residences. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 8540 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they were the master developers of the Victoria Community Plan and would be responsible for the monument sign. He stated the William Lyon Company had Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 14, 1990 already installed the median landscaping according to plan and he didn't see how reconstruction would restrict pedestrian crossing. He commented that the number of units in the project had been significantly reduced to 16 per acre while a nearby project contains 22 units per acre. He reported that Victoria contains 1,000 units less than what was originally approved in the community plan. He indicated that traffic in the development had been considered and sound planning had therefore placed the project at the corner of two large streets, buffered from single family residences on the north by the railroad, with Neighborhood Commercial located to the south and a park to the west. He discussed school sites and stated they were working with the school district on the purchase of a school site. He urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the project and felt that Lincoln Properties had patiently worked with the Planning Commission, staff, and the community to address concerns. Mr. Sellers stated they would be happy to redesign the floor plans to have washers and dryers inside the units instead of the patios and balconies. He reported that the project included 82 guest parking spaces and an acceleration and deceleration lane at the gated entrances. He felt adequate vehicle stacking distance was included. He commented that the project was already required to comply with the Xeriscape Landscaping Ordinance. He stated that the project would pay over one million dollars in school fees and the School District had agreed to such payment to mitigate impacts. He said it was incumbent that the property be managed properly and Lincoln Property would be retaining the property and would provide good management. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt that as the site is located across the street from Central Park, it must represent the best the community has to offer and be of the highest quality. She considered the proposed project to be substandard to many projects in the City. She thought fireplaces should be provided and felt the offer to redesign the floor plans to move washers and dryers inside was too little, too late. She did not support the project at the proposed density in its location. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that as the project would be across from the park, it should reflect some of the park setting, mimicking some of its elements. He felt the project density was acceptable and the location was good on major streets to keep the traffic flow off residential streets. He indicated the placement near a shopping center was sound planning, and he felt a high density project should be near a park. However, he felt the design was not up to City standards. Commissioner Melcher did not feel density to be an issue. He indicated the density had been reduced and he felt the range had been properly planned for. He did not object to the fact that the project was planned to be a rental property, and thought future maintenance was not an issue. He reported that he and Chairman McNiel had spent five hours on Monday viewing other properties which had been built and were maintained by Lincoln Property and they appeared to do a good job of property maintenance. He felt that schools Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 14, 1990 should not be an issue, as the schools have been planned for. He felt the main issue to be quality. He thought the developer had worked patiently and doggedly, but unfortunately was still trying to rework the original concept. He felt there were better options and did not support the project. Chairman McNiel reiterated that he had spent most of Monday inspecting properties owned and maintained by the developer. He said three of the properties were similar to the proposed project. He felt the location adjacent to the park and shopping would reduce the traffic impact; however, he thought the project needed to be superior to what had been presented. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of denial for Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14630 for the November 28, 1990, Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 10:00 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed. 10:15 p.m. - Planning Commission reconvened. I. VARIANCE 90-11 FIDELITY CONSTRUCTION A request to allow a free- standing decorative arch structure to be located within the front yard setback of a single family lot within the Very low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) at 10482 Almond Avenue - APN: 1074-121-26. Bruce Buckingham presented the staff report and pictures of the site including the base of where the arch would be placed. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Sam Jeng, 12419 Sunnycreek Lane, Cerritos, s~ated he had been hired by the homeowner to upgrade the house and they considered the proposed arch to be part of the landscaping. Chairman McNiel asked if the balance of the arch would be of salmon granite, similar to the base. Mr. Jeng responded that it would be plain concrete, painted white. Commissioner Chitiea asked how high the arch would extend above the roof line. Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 14, 1990 Vanesa Young, 17800 East Colima, #306, Rowland Heights, stated the house was the first house purchased in this country by Mr. Jou. She said they felt the arch would increase the value of the house and the neighborhood because it would provide interest to the house. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated he did not wish to discourage homeowners from improving their property, but he felt the arch would be an inappropriate architectural addition to a traditional Spanish house. He did not feel the polished granite base fit in. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the structure was not compatible as proposed. However, more important, he agreed with the staff report that appropriate findings could not be made to support a Variance. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the house was situated too close to the street to accommodate the structure. Commissioner Chitiea concurred that legal findings could not be made to allow the construction of the arch. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution denying Variance 90-11. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-18 - PITASSI/DALMAU - The proposed development of a truck rental, leasing, and maintenance facility, including a maintenance and administration building, covered fuel island, drive-thru wash building, and parking area for 12g vehicles, located at the west side of Santa Anita Avenue, north of 4th Street in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Specific Plan - APN: 229-331-6. Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated that Standard Condition G.1 should not have been checked. Commissioner Chitiea asked to view the revised color board and stated she had reservations about the dark stucco color. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alain Dalmau, Pitassi/Dalmau Architects, 9267 Maven, #220, Rancho Cucamonga, introduced members of the design team and gave a brief history of the Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 14, 1990 project. He requested that Condition 9 be deleted or modified, so that they would not have to further score the concrete band in the enriched paving. He said that the Design Review Committee had approved their proposed driveway treatment. He said that because the application was started prior to the construction of Day Creek Channel, they originally proposed a phased project. He felt that they may be able to go directly into Phase 2 landscaping if Day Creek Channel were operational in time. He said they would modify the grading plan to eliminate the swale if Day Creek Channel construction were anticipated to be complete. Mr. Dalmau offered to mute the darker tan stucco color if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would like to entertain a lighter color. Commissioner Melcher complimented the architect on the wholehearted response to the City's requirement for two building materials. He said it was hard to understand the visual relation between the lunch shelter and the building. Mr. Dalmau presented a study model showing the relationship. He indicated that detailed plans were being worked on and could be presented when they are finished. Lewis Trout, 7861 Leucite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, commended the project proponents for considering the potential for overflow from Day Creek Channel. He stated that the 196g flood was larger than a lO0-year storm. He felt that flooding across the property may occur even after Day Creek Channel is constructed, and he asked that the possibility be kept in mind when considering landscaping requirements. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that he understood that the 1969 flood was larger than a lO0-year storm. He felt that to design the storm drain in excess of a lO0-year storm would be an exaggeration. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how far north Day Creek Channel would need to be improved before the property would be considered safe. Mr. Hanson replied to the freeway. Commissioner Tolsto~ stated he hoped that it would be possible to install Phase 2 landscaping with the project's construction, because he felt it was economically unfeasible to put in Phase 1 and then remove it and replace it with Phase 2. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would like to add a condition that the color be returned to the Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar basis. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed appreciation for Condition 11 regarding tree maintenance procedures and requested that a similar condition be added to all projects in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -14- November 14, 1990 Commissioner Melcher suggested deletion of Condition 9 regarding the enriched paving treatment. Chairman McNiel stated the Minutes should reflect that the driveway proposed by the project proponent was acceptable. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-18, with modifications to provide for a lighter tan stucco color to be approved by the Design Review Committee, deletion of Standard Condition G.1, and deletion of Condition 9 referring to enriched paving. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13601 BARTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A subdivision of 2.447 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the north side of Fulton Court east of Utica Avenue - APN: 209-144-71. Ping Kho, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dale Frisby, Barton Development Company, 10535 Foothill Boulevard, #350, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the project was a simple housekeeping item. Hearingno further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13601. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13086 - ROBERT LESONDAK A subdivision of 1.65 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the west side of Hellman Avenue south of 19th Street - APN: 202-041-36. Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 14, 1990 Ping Kho, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report and suggested a revision to the wording of Condition 3 to provide for potential transfer of Parcel "A" to the property to the west. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Bellah, Environmental Hightech Engineers, 3272 North E Street, #A, San Bernardino, stated they were in the process of negotiating with the adjacent property owner. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if negotiations fell through and Lot "A" were not absorbed by the property owner to the west, then a bridge should be built across the channel so Lot "A" would not be land-locked and could be easily maintained. Commissioner Melcher asked if such a bridge could also service the property begin subdivided under Parcel Map 13075. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that would not be easy to do because the two properties in question are separated by another parcel. He said the Commission would likely have another opportunity to look at the site because the property would probably be further subdivided. Commissioner Melcher asked if the access could be limited to a pedestrian bridge. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Bob Lesondak, 6840 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the property owner. He felt the access should be from Beryl. As there was no further testimony, Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy still felt there should be provisions for a bridge. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested additional wording. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13086 with modification to provide for the transfer of Parcel "A" to the adjacent property owner or the construction of a bridge across the channel to be approved by the City Engineer. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -16- November 14, 1990 O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13075 WILLIAM PERRY ROOFING - A subdivision of 1.3 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the west side of Hellman Avenue south of 19th Street - APN: 202-041-30. Ping Kho, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested the same modification to the Resolution would be applicable. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Bellah, Environmental Hightech Engineers, 3272 North E Street, #A, San Bernardino, stated they agreed with staff's comments. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13075 with modification to provide for the transfer of Parcel "A" to the adjacent property owner or the construction of a bridge across the channel to be approved by the City Engineer. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried NEW BUSINESS P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-42 - HING S. KWEE - The development of a medical office totaling 21,300 square feet on 1.25 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street APN: 207-031-29. (Continued from October 24, 1990.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ken Nishimoto, architect, 732 North Lake Avenue, #203, Pasadena, stated the conditions were acceptable. Commissioner Melcher questioned the roof lines at the wing walls. Mr. Nishimoto explained the wing walls were added to provide an ending point for the arcade on the first floor. Planning Commission Minutes -17- November 14, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to turn the arcade back on itself to delete the wing walls. Mr. Nishimoto stated they had considered and discarded the idea. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that a roof plan and perspectives of the wing walls be returned to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Melcher agreed that would be acceptable. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 88-42 with modification to require approval of a roof plan, building sections, and perspectives by the Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried COMMISSION BUSINESS Q. APPOINTMENT TO SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (Oral report) Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that at a recent City Council meeting the Council directed that a task force be set up with two members each from the Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Environmental Management Commission, and Public Safety Commission to study the Tree Preservation Ordinance. He said the task force would analyze the current status and make recommendations to the City Council. It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioners Tolstoy and Melcher would serve on the Subcommittee. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that although he liked the new Council Chamber he missed having the architectural renderings displayed. He felt it is important for both the Commission and the public to be able to view the boards during the meetings. Commissioners Chitiea and Melcher agreed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Commission Minutes -18- November 14, 1990 Lewis Trout, 7861 Leucite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the scrutiny displayed by the Planning Commission was good. He complimented the Commission on their diligence in carrying out their duties. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adjourn. 12:00 midnight - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -19- November 14, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting Central Park Library November 8, 1990 The adjourned meeting scheduled for November 8, 1990 regarding the Central Park Library was cancelled because of a lack of quorum. Respectful ly submitted, Shel 1 ey A. Petrel 1 i Secretary _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 24, 1990 The regularly scheduled meeting of October 24, 1990 was canceled due to a lack of quorum. Respectfully submitted, Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 10, 1990 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Lori Moore, Assistant Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the October 24, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting would be canceled because of a lack of quorum and that the items previously scheduled for that meeting would be heard on November 14, 1990. Mr. Buller announced that there would be a workshop on November 8 regarding the Library. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimousl'y carried, to adopt the minutes of September 12, 1990. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of September 26, 1990. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 89-01 - CONSORTIUM OF ETIWANDA NORTH LANDOWNERS - A request to approve a Specific Plan for 5,080 dwelling units, 9.6 acres of commercial, and related school, park, and open space uses on 6,754 acres of land generally located north of 24th Street with portions north of Highland Avenue, south of the National Forest Boundary with portions within the National Forest, east of the extension of Milliken Avenue, and west of the Fontana City limit. (Continued from September 26, 1990.) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 14493 THROUGH 14498~ 14522) AND 14523 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13128 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND CARYN DEVELOPMENT - A request for approval of seven tentative tract maps and one parcel map for 633 dwelling units, a 9.3 acre commercial site, a 4.56 acre park site, and a 7.17 acre school site on approximately 179 acres of land located generally north of Highland Avenue, south of a Southern California Edison utility corridor, west of Hanley Avenue with portions west of the future Day Creek Boulevard, and east of Day Creek wash. (Continued from September 26, 1990.) Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and additional documentation regarding the items. He stated the City was keeping the door open for future meetings with the applicant. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Anita McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, 1250 West 8th Street, Corona, stated they were providing nearly twice the City's standard for park land, with some of that land being utility properties which they included to provide cohesiveness. She said in February 1990 it was their understanding that they would receive detailed comments and two months later they started processing in the County. She said they did not increase density in the February draft of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. She said the change in development standards occurred in response to the change in City local street section requirements. She said they moved to the County because the landowners unanimously decided they could move forward with a better plan in the County than in the City. Joe DiIorio, Caryn Company, P. O. Box 9216, South Laguna, stated the current version of the Specific Plan represents 15 percent more units than what the City has annexed out of the original Specific Plan. He said they were interested in keeping the door open. He questioned the purpose of the Resolution. He felt .the findings in the Resolution should be changed to reflect that the Resolution was being passed in order to clear the table or because the Consortium was processing in the County. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 10, 1990 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission was being asked to bring to a close the processing with the Consortium because the project had ceased to move forward. He said that the City and the Consortium did not seem to be moving in the same direction during the workshops. He asked if it would be possible for the City to work with the County to jointly formulate a Specific Plan. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that was up to the discretion of the County. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that at the latest City Council meeting the Council directed that a letter be sent to Supervisor Mikels requesting that a workshop be set up with the County to discuss the Etiwanda North Specific Plan that the City is preparing in hopes of developing a cooperative Specific Plan. Chairman McNiel asked if it was realistic to believe the County would cooperate. Mr. Bullet responded that management staff had met with Supervisor Mikels and it appeared that the possibility exists. Commissioner Melcher commented that Mr. DiIorio had said he did not understand why the City would adopt a Resolution of Denial. Chairman McNiel commented that everything is processed in a timely fashion as best as can be processed. He felt that when there is no activity, it is best to conclude the matter. He said that the purpose of the Resolution was essentially to clean the slate, as the project is being processed through the County. Commissioner Melcher wondered how Mr. DiIorio felt about that explanation. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. DiIorio responded that he felt that keeping the door open and keeping the applications alive seemed to go hand-in-hand. He said he felt that the reasons for passing the Resolution should be restated. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He stated that passage of the Resolution would allow the City to move forward with preparation of its own Specific Plan. Mr. Bullet stated that it would seem redundant to keep one in the processing stage when a different plan is being prepared. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution recommending denial of Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 89-01. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 10, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER Commissioner Melcher stated he did not feel sufficiently competent on the issue to vote. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution denying Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Maps 14493 through 14498, 14522, and 14523 and Tentative Parcel Map 13128. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER Commissioner Melcher again stated he did not feel sufficiently competent on the issue to vote. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 89-06 - THE JANES GROUP - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from no zoning designation to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 7.94 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive - APN: 225-251-47. Related file: Tentative Tract 14508. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14508 - THE JANES GROUP - A residential subdivision and design review for 26 single family lots on 7.94 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive APN: 225-251-47. Related file: Development District Amendment 89-06. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification on how the General Telephone switching station would interface with the adjoining lots and if there would be a wall around Parcel A. Mr. Hayes responded that the switching station currently has a wall on the east and south sides and the applicant was proposing block walls along the side yard portions of the property up to the return walls, with an open feeling from the return walls up to the front property line. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 10, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the driveway of the switching station would be paved and screened. Mr. Hayes replied that the current driveway is asphalt and staff had been in contact with General Telephone and requested that a wrought iron gate be installed. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dick Felling, Vice-President of Construction for the Janes Group,.26 Corporate Park, Irvine, stated the switching station site is currently completely fenced and plans call for the driveway to be paved. He said a block wall with a wrought iron gate will be constructed. He was in agreement with the staff report but he requested that some of the engineering conditions be relaxed because of an economic hardship on only 35 lots. He requested that they not be required to underground utilities in Highland because their property does not front on Highland. Chairman McNiel stated that the requirement was consistent with Planning Commission policy for the last 2-1/2 years. Mr. Felling said they were willing to do it but felt it should not be required.~ He requested that they not have to improve Milliken because Milliken is not contiguous to their property. He objected to the sound attenuation wall adjacent to the freeway right-of-way because there are currently only two such walls along Highland and he felt a 19-foot wall should not be built until the freeway is actually constructed, which he felt would not be for at least another 10 years. He thought the property owners should not have to look at or pay for a wall built to mitigate a noise nuisance which would not occur for 10 years. Mr. Felling objected to the requirement that the retaining wall be rock because he said that would double the cost of the wall. He said he was available to answer any questions. Linda Guzman, 11313 Mount Wallace Court, Rancho Cucamonga, requested clarification on the meaning of Low Residential. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that Low Residential refers to a density category and means that 2-4 dwelling units can be built per acre. He said the lots would be larger than any others in the surrounding residential areas. Gerald Rieken, 11545 Santiago Peak Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was not opposed to the size of the lots, but he thought the area was originally designated to be a park. He asked if there are any plans for a park in the Caryn area. Mr. Buller replied that the Park Commission had discussed the subject area for a park, but they were currently considering placing a park on the north side of Banyan by the fire station. Mr. Rieken asked if the Banyan site was selected because it would allow a larger park. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 10, 1990 Mr. Buller responded that there were a variety of reasons. He volunteered to have someone from the Community Services Department contact Mr. Rieken. Mr. Rieken stated that would be satisfactory. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated she appreciated the developer's concerns regarding undergrounding, improvements to Milliken, and the noise attenuation wall; but she felt the remainder of the community should not have to pay for those items. She felt it would be appropriate to allocate funds when the subject property develops. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project is nice. He felt a condition should be added to insure that the driveway to the switching station would be paved and proper landscaping and fencing would be provided. Commissioner Melcher questioned how tall the sound attenuation wall would appear on the residential side. Mr. Hayes replied that the 19 feet facing the freeway side includes a 6-foot retaining wall; therefore, the wall would be 13 feet higher than the rear yards of the residences. Commissioner Melcher felt the wall should not be built so long before the freeway is constructed. He wondered if there might be considerable technological improvements to vehicles which might lower the noise factor by the time the freeway is actually constructed. He felt that in that case noise from the freeway might no longer be a factor. Mr. Hayes replied that the freeway is proposed to be elevated at that location and a freeway off ramp will potentially be constructed in the area, which would increase the noise. Commissioner Melcher questioned why Milliken should be finished down to Highland across the freeway right-of-way because it would meet only temporary construction on the north side of Highland and would be altered with construction of the freeway. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated that the completion of Milli.ken would provide for pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Melcher questioned if overhead lines exist on Highland Avenue west of Milliken. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that there are overhead lines in that area. He said the same requirement was placed on the developer of the property located north of Highland and west of Milliken; however, he understood that while Edison was willing to underground the lines, the telephone company had a problem with undergrounding in that area. He said perhaps only the electrical lines would be undergrounded in the area of the current project. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 10, 1990 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 89-06 and approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14508 with modification to provide that the landscaping and driveway treatment of Lot A be approved by City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, in conformance with California's Heal th and Safety Code Section 25135.7 (c), to incorporate by reference the San Bernardino County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, as approved by the California Department of Health Services June 15, 1990. Lori Moore, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the plan addressed the possibility of certain remote parts of the County being used as a disposal site for other counties. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, responded that the plan does address such a possibility, but it also addressed the reverse possibility. He said that private hazardous waste haulers use whatever Class I site is available for disposal, based on distance and price. He said the Tanner legislation was brought about as a result of the rapid depletion of Class I waste sites to afford the ability to plan for long range facilities. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gerald Rieken, 11545 Santiago Peak Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that private disposal companies take samples of the waste generated at his company in order to determine where the waste can be properly dumped. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-02A. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 10, 1990 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14486 - L.P.C. CORPORATION~ INC. - A residential subdivision and design review of 35 condominium units on 3.15 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at 9874 and 9892 Arrow Highway just north of Ramona Avenue - APN: 208-311-03, 04, 21, and 24. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit No. 89-48 Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Dahl, Richard Dahl Enterprises, 5444 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he agreed with the findings of the staff report and he thanked staff for their work and the Design Review Committee for their suggestions. Mr. Dahl stated he felt the project would set a new tone for future development in the area. He reported they had filed a letter with the City stating that the project consists of single-family dwelling units for sale. He said a representative from Inland Design was available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy commended the applicant for their willingness to drop a unit to allow retention of the cedar tree. He thought the redesign was beneficial to the project and felt the treatment of the Landmark-designated house was good. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14486. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 8:40 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed 8:55 p.m. - Planning Commission reconvened DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-03 - SHOWBIZ PIZZA TIME - A six-month review of the existing Chuck E. Cheese restaurant and arcade, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue APN: 208-261-25 and 26. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 10, 1990 Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Ross if he had found any parking problems when he reviewed the use. Mr. Ross responded he had not observed any parking problems, but the shopping center is not fully occupied. Commissioner Tolstoy requested clarification of the comment regarding noise being heard in the adjacent clothing store. Mr. Ross replied that the noise is the result of an air pressure dart released during a game. Chairman McNiel invited public comments, but there were none. Commissioner Melcher stated that he frequently patronizes the stationery store located in the corner of the shopping center and he had never observed any problems in the center. Chairman McNiel felt there was no need for future reviews of the use. Commissioner Chitiea concurred there would be no need for further review unless a problem developed. It was the consensus of the Commission (4-0) that no further review of Conditional Use Permit 89-03 is needed unless problems develop. H. TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - Review of a proposed Scope of Services for preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for a subdivision consisting of 73 single family lots on 113 acres of land located north of Almond, west of Sapphire - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He asked for direction as to whether the Planning Commission would consider private streets in the development. He said the current proposal included private streets with 40-foot right-of-way. He reported the City policy has been to require sidewalks on one side of the street in equestrian areas, but the developer has indicated the area is fairly isolated and they would like to delete sidewalks. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if private streets would be constructed to City standards. Mr. Murphy responded that in January the City Council directed that curb-to- curb dimension should be 36 feet whether streets are public or private. He said there are several alternatives with regard to the parkway. He said staff has taken the position that on the uphill side there should be a flat 5-6 foot area adjacent to the curb to allow street tree planting and allow entrance and Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 10, 1990 exit to vehicles. He said that on the downhill side staff believes there should be a 7-8 foot flat area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the streets would be constructed to the City standard with regard to materials and drainage because he felt that if the streets were constructed to be private, the residents may approach the City in the future and ask that the streets become public with the City taking over maintenance. Mr. Murphy replied that the streets would be constructed to City standards. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification that the original Environmental Impact Report identified the Cucamonga earthquake fault in a different location from that which had previously been determined. He asked if the fault has been identified as being on the subject property. Mr. Murphy responded that there are fractures in that area of the City with one extending into the site. Commissioner Melcher questioned the financing of the report and asked if the applicant reimbursed the City before or after the City would pay the consultant. Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant had already deposited funds with the City to cover the cost of the report and administrative costs. Commissioner Melcher asked what firm the proposed consultant was with at the time the original report was prepared. Mr. Murphy replied Michael Brandman and Associates. Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Mr. Murphy stated he had spoken with the applicant earlier in the day and they had agreed with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and staff's recommendations regarding the Scope of Services. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the streets should be constructed to City standards and she preferred public streets over having a walled, gated community. She felt the area is rural and said she was open to negotiations on the elimination of the sidewalks and felt it might be appropriate to have sidewalks on one side of the street if it would not require further grading. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that curnent City policy calls for sidewalks on at least one side of the street. Commissioner Melcher stated he liked the idea of no sidewalks. Commissioner Chitiea stated the area included a trail system which could be used as an alternative to sidewalks. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 10, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City should allow the opportunity for alternate lifestyles and he was not opposed to private communities. He felt private streets may be an appropriate option for the area and that view fencing adjacent to public streets could mitigate a walled-in look. Commissioner Melcher asked if there would be an engineering conflict between a gated community and public streets. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that City policy requires that gated communities must have private streets and the Development Code had been revised to require that future private streets must be gated. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the Code was amended to provide that private streets be gated to restrict the public from entering the private streets and it was felt that by requiring the gates it would discourage residents on private streets from later approaching the City to request public maintenance of the streets. Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be detrimental to the City as a whole to gate the area as it has been enjoyed by many people. Chairman McNiel questioned what development was taking place in the areas adjacent to the project. Mr. Murphy replied that the Forest Service will probably require that public access be maintained on the road to the north leading up to Cucamonga Canyon. He said the Cucamonga wash is located to the west. He indicated the area to the east is under the County's jurisdiction and includes some fairly steep terrain with some slopes in excess of 30-50 percent. He said some of the areas to the east have development potential and the City has requested master planning of the area to see how the developments might tie together. Chairman McNiel asked how the access to Cucamonga Creek would be established if the community were developed as a private community. Mr. Murphy outlined the proposed street layout. Chairman McNiel felt that al though the plan would provide access, it would give an illusion of an absence of access. Mr. Murphy agreed there might be a perception that no access existed once the tract is built. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission should follow staff's recommendations regarding the Scope of Services. Commissioner Chitiea asked if trail access would be addressed at the design stage. Mr. Murphy stated the design would be reviewed by the Trails Committee. He said a Community Trail is also called out on the master plan along the eastern tract boundary. Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 10, 1990 Chairman McNiel agreed that City standards must be maintained so far as the construction of the streets. He felt that street widths might be adjusted to keep grading to a minimum in the hillside area. He said he would reserve his judgment on whether the streets should be public or private. He felt the items suggested on the Scope of Services would be sufficient. Commissioner Melcher asked if the design of the project was sufficiently well advanced to enable the landform analysis to consider the proposed grading of the site. Mr. Murphy stated that staff had reviewed the second submittal of the tract. He said the Environmental Impact Report would look at the current proposal and also consider alternatives to determine if there are ways to minimize grading. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed Scope of Services for the Environmental Impact Report on Tentative Tract 14475 would be satisfactory. It was also consensus that the Commission was willing to consider modified options on the streets so long as they were a minimum 36 feet wide and engineering standards were maintained and that sidewalks may or may not be required. J. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE AN INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE AND TRUCK REPAIR - MAJOR WITHIN SUBAREA 15 Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the area did not include the use when the Industrial Area Specific Plan was adopted. He questioned if the use might have been omitted because the area borders Arrow Route and Arrow Route had existing residential uses. Mr. Ross replied that might have been a possible reason. Commissioner Melcher commented that Subarea 15 is surrounded on three sides by areas in which the use is permitted. He asked if the applicant intended to use the site for retail use. Mr. Ross replied that it would be a large scale truck repair facility, not intended for retail use. - Chairman McNiel suggested that staff investigate initiation of an Industrial Specific Plan Amendment to permit or conditionally permit the use and al so the option to adjust the boundary to allow the proposed activity on the site as a permitted use. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that staff research the historical information to try to determine why the use was excluded on the site. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 10, 1990 Iradze Fafal Parvane, V & L Repair, 13109-C Whittram Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that the Planning Commission consider either moving the boundary of Subarea 8 or initiate an amendment to allow the use because his lease had expired on his current facility and he had already paid rent on the new facility. He said he had not realized the use was not a permitted use when he leased the building, and he was only proposing moving his business 50 yards from the current facility. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to initiate an Industrial Specific Plan Amendment permitting or conditionally permitting Automotive and Truck Repair - Major in Subarea 15 or adjusting the boundary of Subarea 8 for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. I. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE AN INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW SERVICE STATIONS WITHIN SUBAREA 2 Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if there had been an inquiry with respect to a specific location. Mr. Buller replied there had been one for the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Ed Rabalais, Southern California Land Corporation, 2172 Dupont Drive, Suite 2t7, Irvine, stated they were currently trying to process an automotive care center on a 4-acre site and found that service stations are not currently a permitted use. He commented that the area was surrounded by other areas which allow the use. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chitiea commented that allowing the use with a Conditional Use Permit would all ow the City the ability to scrutinize as needed. Chairman McNiel agreed it would be a good idea to review the process. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to initiate an Industrial Specific Plan Amendment conditionally permitting services stations in Subarea 2 for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. K. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-33 - CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - A courtesy review of a proposed elementary school on 8.6 acres of land within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the north side of Elm Avenue, approximately 600 feet north of Church Street - APN: 1077-421-25. Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 10, 1990 Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and slides of the site and proposed architecture. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Godwin Osifeso, Project Manager, Wolff/Lang Christopher Architects, 10470 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, introduced himself. In response to a question from Commissioner Melcher, Mr. Osifeso indicated where slump stone would be used in the project. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the choice of terra cotta tile. Mr. Osifeso responded that they were required to use maximum 1/2-inch thick tiles under California's Title 24 requirements. He said they had selected the particulaW tile also because they felt the design depicted historical qualities. Commissioner Chitiea asked if they could investigate alternatives within the color range with a slightly different textural finish. She indicated she would prefer a more natural terra cotta paver type instead of the shiny surface, and preferred the texture and color on the sample board. Mr. Osifeso stated they would be willing to investigate tiles, but they must also keep maintenance requirements in mind, such as moisture absorption and breakage. He also indicated that the project had been approved by the State Architect and would be going out to bid in the next couple of weeks. Chairman McNiel thought alternates might be suggested in the bidding process. Commissioner Melcher asked if the trail along the east property line would be separated from the school by a fence. Mr. Osifeso replied that fencing had been eliminated along property lines. He said the apartment complex to the east has an exterior fence and the apartment complex to be built to the west will also have an exterior fence. Commissioner Melcher felt that the apartments would have openings in the fence to allow their residents to use the bike trail. Commissioner Chitiea commended the applicant on the design of the courtyards. Mr. Osifeso replied that a design committee including parents and school and City staff had provided input. Bob Dalton, Central School District Principal, stated they had worked with the community and they all felt the courtyard concept would tie the school to the history of the community. Commissioner Melcher asked how the school would be financed since the bond election had failed in June. Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 10, 1990 Ingrid Vogel, Central School District, discussed the financing of the project. Commissioner Melcher thanked the School District for working with the City and taking the City's desires into account. Mr. Osifeso asked if the City would help in paying for extra landscaping. Commissioner Melcher asked if a permanent school on the site represents a change in direction and means that the temporary school facilities at Coyote Canyon would remain in place longer than originally anticipated. Ms. Vogel stated that the next school to be built would be a middle school and then the permanent facility for Coyote Canyon. Chairman McNiel stated it had been a pleasure to work with the applicants on the Design Review process and he felt everyone was proud of the end product. He said he was happy that the School District had consideration for the community. COMMISSION BUSINESS~ Brad Buller, City Planner, reiterated there would be a workshop regarding the library on November $ at 3:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. Motion: moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adjourn. 10:20 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 10, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 26, 19gO 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that staff would like Item E pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Chairman McNiel announced that this evening would be Commissioner Weinberger's last meeting, as she is moving out of the area. Ne presented her a Resolution of Commendation from the other Commissioners. Commissioner Weinberger thanked the City, Council, other Commissions, and the Planning department for giving her the opportunity to serve. She stated it had been a rewarding experience. She thanked the Planning staff and stated they had shown her there are many hard working City Hall employees. She said that the Commissioners put in a lot of time. CONSENT CALENDAR A. SIGN PROGRAM FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-03 - WHEELER AND WHEELER ARCHITECTS Review of a sign program for a retail center and service station in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-192-06. B. VACATION OF A TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR RETENTION BASIN AND DRAINAGF FACILITIES FOR TRACT NO. 13425 - A request to vacate a temporary easement for grading and construction of a retention basin, earthen berms, and drainage facilities located on the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and 19th Street APN: 202-211-45. C. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13527 - WATT INLAND EMPIRF - Submittal of a Resolution confirming a Planning Commission decision to modify a condition of approval for a residential subdivision of 231 single family lots on 108.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street - APN: 225-071-65. (Continued from September 12, 1990.) D. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14379 (1 PHASE OF TRACT 13527) OVERLOOK HOMES- The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tract map consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of 24th Street and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-071-65. E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 14380~ 14381t 14382 (3 PHASES OF TRACT 13527) - WATT INLAND EMPIRE - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 152 single family lots on 51.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located north of 24th Street and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-071-65. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, .seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to adopt Items A, B, C, and D of the Consent calendar. E. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 14380, 14381~ 14382 (3 PHASES OF TRACT 13527) - WATT INLAND EMPIRE Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Design Review Committee recommended that the full Commission should review the landscaping, as the applicant was proposing an enhanced parkway paseo concept in exchange for providing front yard landscaping. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Larry Lewis, Watt Homes, 3602 Inland Empire, #Bl10, Ontario, provided a handout listing of proposed landscaping alternatives. He stated they wished to set a precedent for the paseo system landscaping. He proposed larger trees in the paseo trails, sod lawns in place of hydroseeded lawns, and landscaped parkways with irrigation systems including automatic timers. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 26, 1990 Commissioner Weinberger asked what the developer wished to delete. Mr. Lewis stated they did not want to landscape the front yards, because they felt the new homeowners would want to make changes to the traditional landscaping and would'wind up tearing out the front yards and changing to automated sprinklers. Mike Parker, Land Plan Design Group, 34 Executive Park, Suite 150, Irvine, presented slides depicting their suggested landscaping concepts and some hydroseeded lawns. He said they planned to use a drip irrigation system for all trees. He proposed planting side yards with ground cover. Mr. Lewis stated that if larger trees were planted, homeowners would be more likely to leave them in place. Chairman McNiel asked which trees would be larger. Mr. Lewis replied that the accent trees would be upgraded from the 15-gallon size to 24-inch box trees. He said the original plans did not call for front yard landscaping. Mr. Bullet stated that the tract is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area and the Specific Plan requires front yard landscaping, stating that the primary emphasis should be on landscaping with a secondary emphasis on architecture. He said requirements call for irrigated and landscaped parkways and front yards. He reported the Planning Commission had in the past called for minimum 15-gallon trees, but has the purview to require larger trees. Mr. Buller also indicated that on previous projects the developer was required to put in the yard, but leave room for hedges to be planted by the homeowners. He said the developer was also required to provide accent walkways and enhanced driveway treatments. Mr. Lewis stated they were proposing to use sod as opposed to hydroseeding and larger trees, but he was willing to do whatever the Commission requires. Chairman McNiel stated that nothing precludes the developer from upgrading. Mr. Lewis stated that money would preclude the upgrades if they had to also landscape the front yards. He felt homeowners do a better job of landscaping. Commissioner Melcher asked how many of the paseo trees would be 24 inch. Mr. Lewis replied that all of the accent trees on the homeowners' side of the paseo would be 24-inch box trees while all parkway trees would be 15-gallon specimens. Mr. Parker stated slightly over half of the trees would be 24-inch box trees. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 26, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked if the developer would be required to submit a landscape plan for each lot if front yard landscaping is required. Mr. Buller responded a~firmatively. Commissioner Chitiea stated it was her understanding that smaller trees can better survive the winds because they have a better chance of developing a deeper root system. She was afraid that if larger trees were planted, some may be lost in the wind. She indicated that if the hydroseeding shown on the slides was representative of the work their normal contractor performs, they should select another contractor and stated she had seen hydroseeding done with good results. She stated that obviously the developer had the option to upgrade. She felt the idea for requiring front yard landscaping is to provide an attractive streetscape as people move in and she thought homeowners could upgrade over time. She did not support the developer's proposed substitution. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that paseos are only on about 50 percent of the lots and he asked if that meant the other lots would be void of landscaping under the developer's proposal. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he could not support the proposal. Commissioner Weinberger stated she was glad to see that her front yard was landscaped when she moved into her home. She felt perhaps the planting of trees could be postponed, but hydroseeding was a definite must. Chairman McNiel stated that many times people can barely afford their house payments when they first purchase a home and their yards do not get landscaped. He said the Commission sets standards at a minimum rate to establish the basics and a consistent neighborhood streetscape is an advantage. He felt that those who wish to upgrade will do so anyway. He said he liked the paseo design but he was not willing to give up front yard landscaping as a trade off. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review for Tentative Tracts 14380, 14381, and 14382 (3 phases of Tract 13527) with no modifications. PUBLIC HEARINGS F. TIME EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13527 - WATT INLAND EMPIRE - A request for an extension for a residential subdivision of 231 single family lots on 88.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street APN: 225-071-65. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 26, 1990 Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Larry Lewis, Watt Home~, 3602 Inland Empire, #Bl10, Ontario, stated they were agreeable to participating in the Mello-Roos District. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Time Extension and Modification to Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 13527. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried G. TIME EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-42 - KOTOFF - A proposal to construct 168 apartment units on 9.03 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) located north of Base Line Road, 550 feet east of Day Creek Channel - APN: 227-091-21. Associated with the project is Tree Removal Permit 87-67. Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the deficiencies in the site plan were because of changes in regulations which existed at the time the original time extension was given. He asked why the deficiencies were not brought up at that time. Mr. Abbott replied that the deficiencies should have been noted a year ago when that time extension was granted. William Kotoff, 2406-A Sacada Circle, Carlsbad, gave a brief history of the project. He stated the land was originally zoned M-1 industrial; but with the formation of Rancho Cucamonga, the property was changed to multi-family. He said he had placed the land and project up for sale because it took him three years to process the plans. He reiterated that in September 1989 the Planning Commission unanimously granted a one-year extension. He stated that unfortunately his buyer had run into problems and it now seemed doubtful that sale would go through. He said he was not asking for any changes and no new conditions were added when he was granted a one-year time extension last year. He protested that the City should not require changes to development once a project is approved. Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 26, 1990 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He stated he appreciated the applicant's predicament, but the Commission is charged with the betterment of the community. He said it was unfortunate the changes in code were not caught during the first request for a time extension, but he was inclined to-impose the current standards. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. She believed the changes in parking and garage requirements were the result of problems being experienced and City Council had given strong direction in those areas. She also felt the placement and number of access points to be critical and redesign of the project would be to the community's advantage. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project needs to be redesigned, especially because it utilizes a part of the Railroad Avenue South right-of-way. He thought that because Base Line has been approved with a median, the ingress/egress on Base Line would not work. Commissioner Melcher agreed that significant site plan considerations were raised by staff. He stated it was bnfortunate the issues were not raised a year ago, but he supported denial of the time extension because he felt it was appropriate to require redesign of the project. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to approve the Resolution denying Time Extension and Modification to Conditions of Approval for Development Review 85-42. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-27 - INTERNATIONAL FITNESS CONSULTANTS - A request to establish a fitness center in a leased building of 18,300 square feet within an existing business park, consisting of 4 buildings totaling 95,500 square feet, located within the Office Professional Development District of the Terra Vista Community Plan at 10641' Church Street - APN: 1077-421-30. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Robert Dennis, International Fitness Consultants, 7172 Estrella de Mar Road, Carlsbad, stated that they operate 50 centers throughout Southern California. He said they had signed a lO-year lease with' two 5-year options. He showed pictures of the equipment and requested that the hours of operation be extended to allow opening at 5:30 a.m. in order to accommodate requests from members. Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 26, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked if there would be any amenities other than equipment, such as a running track. Mr. Dennis responded that there would be an aerobic exercise area and possibly a juice bar area and s~una, but no jacuzzi or whirlpool. Chairman McNiel asked if the size was typical for their facilities and what they anticipated in the way of membership. Mr. Dennis replied that the size and layout is typical of their newer facilities. He was not sure what their membership would be but anticipated between 300-400 patrons per day on Mondays through Thursdays and 150-200 on Fridays and weekends. Chairman McNiel asked what he anticipated would be the peak times. Mr. Dennis responded from 6:00-8:00 a.m. and 5:00-7:30 p.m., primarily Monday through Thursday. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant was familiar with the City's sign program. Mr. Dennis replied that he had a condition in his lease in which he agreed to conform to the sign criteria established by Lewis. He said he was prepared to abide by the sign criteria. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he supported a physical fitness center in close proximity to the Terra Vista community. He said the only problem he foresaw was a parking problem in the future because Phase III has not as yet been built. He felt the Commission should look closely at the Phase III plan, because he felt there would be an impacted parking problem if Phase III is built as currently designed. He said he could support a 5:30 a.m. opening time. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would support a 5:30 a.m. opening, as the property is not within a residential district. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not personally opposed to the use, but he felt the proximity to the apartments across the street should be noted. Commissioner Chitiea asked if Commissioner Melcher felt the use would impact the apartments. Commissioner Melcher stated no, he felt it would be a good use. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea asked how many people Mr. Dennis anticipated would use the facility between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 26, 1990 Mr. Dennis replied that perhaps a dozen people would use the facility during that time, with possibly as many as 50 people arriving by 6:30 a.m. He said there was a parking buffer between their door and the apartments. Chairman McNiel again 61osed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he understood the building was originally designed for a larger number of smaller tenants and he wanted to be sure the sign did not overpower the center. He felt the condition regarding signs should be changed. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the signage could be presented to Design Review for approval. He said that normally once a sign program is approved for a center, the signs go directly to staff for approval. Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to have Design Review approve any signs. Chairman McNiel stated that would be satisfactory. He reopened the public hearing to ask the applicant if he had any objections. Mr. Dennis asked how different the sign criteria would be from the established sign criteria for the Terra Vista Business Park. He said his criteria indicated that his business would be considered a major tenant, and as such he would be allowed to have letters no more than 18 inches high with symbols or a logo not to exceed more than 10 percent of the total sign area. Chairman McNiel asked what the proposed sign would say. Mr. Dennis responded that it would read "Family Fitness Center." Commissioner Melcher stated that the building has a tower and he felt it may be inappropriate for a sign to be placed on the tower. Mr. Dennis stated he would be happy to submit his signage for Design Review Committee approval. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit g0-27 with modification to limit hours of operation to 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and to require approval of any signs by the Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 26, 19g0 8:45 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed 9:00 p.m. - Planning Commission reconvened I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11287 - LEWIS HOMES - A subdivision of 8.053 acres of land into I parcel in the Parks District of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Elm Avenue - APN: 1077-421-41. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report and stated that the applicant had requested that Condition 5 of the Resolution be modified to indicate that the perimeter fencing/retaining wall shall be constructed per the approved plans for the Tentative Tract. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tom Dellaquila, Lewis Homes, P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated he was available to answer questions. He said the working drawings include decorative view fencing. Commissioner Melcher asked the schedule for construction of the park. Mr. Dellaquila replied that construction would begin as soon as plans are approved. He said they had already submitted drawings for second plan check and would begin construction as soon as the plans were signed. He stated the grading and drainage were already complete. Commissioner Melcher stated he was interested in how park development compared to residential development. Mr. Dellaquila responded that they were submitting a report to the Park Commission. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was glad to see that Church Street would soon be constructed between Elm and Spruce. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 11287 as amended to indicate that the perimeter fencing/retaining wall shall be constructed per the approved plans for the Tentative Tract. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 26, 1990 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the density provisions of the Victoria Commuhity Plan to require changes in land use designations to be approved by City Council. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the density provisions of the Terra Vista Community Plan to require changes in land use designations to be approved by City Council. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and a requested revision clarifying Exhibit A to Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 90-01. Commissioner Melcher asked how many projects were currently in process which could be affected by the change. Mr. Murphy responded that two projects are currently in process. Commissioner Melcher asked if the projects were consistent with the area development plan. Mr. Murphy replied affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Luque, Project Manager for William Lyon Co., 8540 Archibald, Suite B, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they did not oppose the amendment. He stated he did not see any language in the Resolution to support staff's recommendation that projects already in process would be exempted from the new provision. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that any projects with entitlements would not be affected. He suggested that if the Commission agreed with staff, they may wish to add a statement that the Ordinance would affect all projects submitted after the date of the Ordinance. Donna Durham, 7682 Wimbleton Court, Rancho Cucamonga, asked how the change would impact the community. Chairman McNiel replied that in the original creation of the planned communities, provisions were included to allow developers to increase densities by one category on the density scale with approval of the Planning Commission. He stated the new regulations would require that such requests be approved by the City Council as well as the Planning Commission. Ms. Durham asked if it would affect projects already in process. Mr. Murphy stated that the two projects referenced have not been approved as yet; they were still in the process of going through the various review stages. Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 26, 1990 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she understood the reason for Mr. Luque's request that projects in process not be affected, but she was not inclined to agree. She felt that-if City Council wished to review such requests, they should have the opportunity to review them. Commissioner Melcher stated that he felt it was a giant step from the planning process into the political process and he had no objection to such decisions being made by the City Council but he regarded it as unfair to make the rule applicable to projects which have already advanced far along the processing track. Commissioner Chitiea stated that even though the projects may be far along in the processing track there are no guarantees until a project has been approved. She felt such projects were open to change and should meet all of the requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel stated that the item was brought before the Planning Commission as the result of a City Council review of zoning, particularly zoning applying to multiple-family housing. He agreed that it was unfortunate for projects to be caught in mid-processing but if other rules such as garages versus carports changed, those new requirements would have to be met. He was inclined to agree that it was in the best interest of the community to apply the change to virtually every project possible. Commissioner Melcher stated he was compelled to point out that no changes in development standards or physical development requirements were proposed. Mr. Buller outlined the history of the Victoria project currently in process. He said it had been through the Planning Commission, gone up to City Council on appeal, was deferred back to the Commission, and is currently in neighborhood workshops trying to reach a resolution to the design of the project. He said under current rules the Planning Commission could take final action on the project unless it were appealed to the City Council. He said that if the amendment were adopted and applied to that project, the final action would rest with the City Council, not the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel stated that both the William Lyon Co. and Lewis. Development Co. would have the opportunity to request that City Council not make this amendment applicable to the their projects in process. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Resolution as currently written meant there are no exceptions. Mr. Buller replied that as the Resolution was currently drafted there are no exceptions. He suggested that if they wished to exempt the projects currently in process they may wish to add language that all projects submitted and deemed complete prior to a specific date would be exempted from the Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 26, 1990 provision. He said that adoption of the Resolution as written would not allow for exemptions, unless the City Council adds exemptions, which they may do when they review it. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 90-02 and Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 90-01, as written, with the revision to Exhibit A on the Terra Vista Community Amendment 90-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, WEINBERGER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Melcher stated he did not recall the project in Terra Vista but the project in Victoria had been brought to the Planning Commission for approval; and because of objections raised, the developer had been making a good faith effort to redesign the project to make it acceptable to the immediate community. He felt it was unfair to subject that project to political pressure at this time. Commissioner Weinberger agreed that a grandfather clause should be included. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 90-08 - BROCK - A request to reduce the minimum net average lot size from 22,500 to 22,162 square feet and to reduce the minimum lot depth of Lot 1 from 150 to 120 feet for a 40 lot subdivision on 25.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 0201-121-24. Related file: Tentative Tract 14771. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14771 - BROCK - A residential subdivision of 40 single family lots on 25.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive APN: 0201-121-24. Related file: Variance 90-08. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Shepard, Brock Homes, 3380 Shelby Street, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked staff for their work on the project. He said he had integrated comments from staff and surrounding residents and he felt the development was compatible with the neighborhood. He stated their traffic engineer had submitted reports substantiating that the project was well within the parameters regarding street traffic. He said alternatives had been submitted for Lots 1-5, the Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 26, 1990 houses fronting on Tackstem, but none of the alternatives would work. He requested that the equestrian trail not be required along Ringstem because there is an existing trail on the south side of Ringstem and the remainder of Ringstem has an equestrian trail only on one side of the street, not both. He asked that the number-of permitted front-on garages be changed to 40 percent instead of the indicated 25 percent, in order to be consistent with what had been approved on a previous tract. He stated that requiring FEMA response to remove the Zone AO designation prior to final map recordation would be a hardship because he felt FEMA does not respond that quickly; therefore, he requested that the Conditional Letter of Map Revision be required only prior to issuance of building permits. He stated his consultants were available to answer any questions. Chairman McNiel asked how they felt about the results of the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Shepard stated he felt they had mitigated some of their concerns. He said they had agreed to provide on-site turnarounds for Lots 1-5 so that traffic exiting to Tackstem could head out. Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the basic issue was the five driveways fronting onto Tackstem. She said in the entire tract there are only two driveways fronting onto Tackstem and none onto Ringstem. She stated that the CC&Rs restrict parking on Tackstem and Ringstem and she felt if driveways were placed on Tackstem, it would encourage guests to park on the street. She said that because it is a private community, enforcement is up to the homeowners. Ms. Hahn stated that Tackstem is steep and she felt parked cars could pose a safety problem. She suggested that the Commission could perhaps approve the project minus the five lots in question. She showed a proposed layout that would avoid driveways fronting onto Tackstem. She said the Homeowners' Association would have to live with whatever is approved, so she felt it would be fair for the Commission to delay the applicant a short time in order to be sure the driveway and parking issues were properly mitigated. She said the homeowners did not have any objection to the Variance request. She stated that the Homeowners' Association has an "Association. Street Easement and Maintenance Agreement," which states that the the Association will cooperate with Brock in an effort to annex the Brock property as it is developed in order to merge the two developments. She stated that would be easier if the developments are consistent in their design. She said that the agreements call for access through the gates and the traffic report states there will be 3,t00 car trips out of Ringstem on a daily basis. She questioned if the gates can accommodate such a large number of operations, or if a new gate would be needed. She was concerned because currently Brock is paying for the gate maintenance but the Homeowners' Association will eventually be paying. Ms. Hahn stated that in their development their architectural committee does not like front-on garages, and tries to eliminate them wherever possible. She said that Brock would not be building the houses but is planning to sell off the lots to individuals and asked if that meant the first 25 people would be entitled to front-on garages. Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 26, 1990 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when a single lot project is processed it is reviewed by staff and staff would try to use good judgment to ensure that the front-on garages are spread throughout the project, not clustered in one area. Ms. Hahn stated their main concern is to keep the tracts consistent. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Ms. Hahn had presented her proposed lot design to the developer. Ms. Hahn replied that in the neighborhood meeting she had asked if Roan Court could be flipped, and she was told it could not. A1 Seguy, 4942 Cactus Court, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that an earthquake might limit access to or from the tract if Haven Avenue were not passable. He requested that another way out of the tract be provided. Mr. Shepard stated that a total of four lots currently take access off Tackstem or Ringstem and currently there is no parking on the north side of Tackstem. He reported that Brock currently maintains the gates, which have worked effectively for years with no problem. He indicated the cost per homeowner would be less in the future because the maintenance cost would be spread over a greater number of homeowners. Mr. Shepard stated there are two different ways to exit the project, stemming off Haven Avenue. He said they had studied the alternative proposed by Ms. Hahn and it would not work. Bruce Shaffer, Associated Engineers, 9259 Utica Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had studied a number of alternatives for the five lots fronting onto Tackstem. He said they studied an alternative emulating what the neighborhood was requesting and the City Engineering Department would not support the concept. He said it resulted in sub-standard lots, which would require a variance. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the cul-de-sac would work if one lot were deleted. Mr. Shaffer said the deficiency was not only a function of lots not meeting standards, but also a function of streets meeting standards. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that generally Engineering does not like four-way intersections on local streets, but in this case it may be acceptable because they did not anticipate a lot of through traffic. Mr. Shaffer stated that scenario did not take the trail system and drainage into account, so it would mean a loss of two lots. Mr. Hanson stated that after a quick look, Engineering felt probably four lots could be accommodated in the area. Ms. Hahn stated that two of the four lots currently fronting onto Tackstem have their front doors facing cul-de-sac streets with guest parking available on the cul-de-sacs. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 26, 1990 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea asked Mr. Coleman to address the trail issue. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner stated he felt the Trails Committee was thinking that the trail running along the north side of Ringstem was to provide a riding loop. He said the trail on the south side would provide sufficient access. Commissioner Melcher stated he found the residents' arguments against allowing driveway access from Tackstem to be compelling. He felt that four lots on a cul-de-sac could be accommodated and he thought that-may alleviate the need for a variance. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. She also felt providing a loop trail would be appropriate, and she supported the Trails Committee's recommendation to require a trail on the north side. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed on the trail, stating the Trails Committee would like to see a loop system. He did not like the five-lot configuration and felt a redesign containing four lots and a cul-de-sac would be more appropriate. Commissioner Weinberger concurred and stated she did not want to see the number of front-on garages increased. Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea agreed regarding the garages. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned that the gate may experience problems with the increased use. Chairman McNiel agreed that to allow driveways to take access from Tackstem would be compounding inconsistencies with the streetscape. He felt an alternative may be achievable without losing a lot. He suggested that the item be continued to allow the applicant to consider alternate layouts. He then reopened the public hearing. Mr. Shaffer asked when the item could return to the Planning Commission if it were continued. Mr. Bullet asked if the number of lots changed and the application for the Variance were changed, if the item would have to be readvertised. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, responded that if the design resulted in no need for a variance, then there would be no need tO readvertise. Mr. Coleman stated that it was possible that a redesign could result in different variances being required in terms of lot depths, widths, or sizes. Ralph Hanson stated that if a different variance were needed, then such a variance request would have to be advertised. Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 26, 1990 Mr. Buller recommended that the item be continued for four weeks to allow renoticing with a new title. Mr. Shaffer said they~were willing to consent to a continuance. He asked for the Commission's opinion with regard to his request to require the Conditional Letter of Map Revision on FEMA only prior to the issuance of building permits. Barrye Hanson stated that the request did not conflict with an Ordinance, but rather an Engineering policy. He said the condition as written is how it has been applied to all other projects during the last year or so. He said staff does not know there will be a problem with FEMA, and feels that the final map is the point at which the City has the most control .over the situation. He said they would like to get the situation resolved with the entire tract at one time, because the City might be the faced with the possibility of phasing and involving individual homeowners, as it will be a custom lot project. He said it was staff's preference that the condition be kept as written. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Variance 90-08 and Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14771 to October 24, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01A - SHERWOOD - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Flood Control/Utility Corridor to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 1.92 acres contained within two parcels of land located north and south of an extension of Highland Avenue, adjacent to the east side of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. The Planning Commission will al so consider Open Space and Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) as possible land use alternatives. APN: 201-200-37 and 1062-640-57. O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 90-01 SHERWOOD - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from "FC" Flood Control to "L" Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 1.92 acres contained within two parcels of land located north and south of an extension of Highland Avenue, adjacent to the east side of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. The Planning Commission will al so consider "OS" Open Space and "VL" Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre as possible land use alternatives. APN: 201-200-37 and 1062-640-57. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 26, 1990 Steve Wheatley, J. Stephens, Inc., 10601 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the landowner merely wants to put one house on each lot. He said they had held a neighborhood meeting and he was available to answer questions. Cynthia Mathewson, 65~4 Peridot Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her home is adjacent and her main concern is privacy. She said that because of the grade differential, even a single-story home would be situated above her fence. She was afraid that if the land were to be private property, owners would not take proper care of the property and weeds would not be removed. She opposed horses being kept on the property, but stated that she likes watching riders using the area. She was concerned about security and drainage. She said her property currently drains to the subject property and she questioned if she would have to change her drainage system. She indicated she had been told nothing would ever be built on the property because it was Flood Control property. Ruth Colbert, 6422 Carol Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the only reason they had purchased their home six years Qgo was the location and the fact that no one could build on the adjacent property because it was designated Flood Control. She felt the aspect of ruralism would be lost if development were allowed on the property. She suggested that the land be declared Open Space, and indicated that she had never seen any animals grazing on the property. She felt that public enjoyment is worth more than use by only two homeowners. She did not want horses to be allowed on the property and did not want to lose her privacy. Sherry Heywood, 6528 Peridot Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, felt her property would be devalued if her land were adjacent to horse property. She was concerned about privacy because the adjacent land is higher than her property and was worried that no one will take care of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) land adjacent to the proposed driveway, as she said it was currently difficult to get MWD to mow down their weeds once a year. She asked if the developer had approval from MWD to build the driveway on the MWD land. Paul Pettersen, Associated Engineers, 9259 Utica Avenue, Suite 100, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Very Low Residential zoning would be acceptable. He said that all grading and building would be in conformance with the Uniform Building Code and City standards and their runoff would not affect the neighboring.lots. He felt that two additional homeowners would help in applying pressure on MWD to maintain the MWD land. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the neighbors were concerned about the grade differential and she asked how much grading the developer planned to do on the two lots. Mr. Pettersen replied they proposed minimal grading in conformance with the Hillside Grading Ordinance. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 26, Iggo Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the action before the Planning Commission was a land use issue only. He said the proposed development had not gone through the plan check process. He stated the concerns of the residents had been heaKd and the applicant should address those concerns. He said staff had also heard the concerns in writing as well as in this evening's testimony. Commissioner Melcher asked if there would be a possibility of restricting the keeping of horses. Chairman McNiel felt that would set a dangerous precedent. He felt that people moving into the community shoul~d accept that,Rancho Cucamonga is an equestrian community. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Commission was considering purely land use considerations and any specific development would need to conform to the Development Code. Commissioner Chitiea felt the Low Residential option should be eliminated and the Commission should concentrate on either Open Space or Very Low Residential. Chairman McNiel stated that there is always the chance that land will be rezoned. He stated that the property has the opportunity to become developable because it is no longer needed by the Flood Control District. He reiterated that the Community Services Department had indicated the land would not be useful as a park. He said he was inclined to agree with the Very Low Residential designation. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred that future use would be best served by a Very Low Residential designation. Commissioner Melcher felt staff's analysis was correct and supported the Very Low Residential option. Commissioner Chitiea thought the Very Low Residential designation would be the best option to allow development which can be controlled. She said that Open Space would not likely remain unused for very long. She was reluctant to prohibit horses. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-01A and Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 90-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 26, 1990 10:55 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed. 11:05 p.m. - Planning Commission reconvened. P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 89-01 - CONSORTIUM OF ETIWANDA NORTH LANDOWNERS - A request to approve a Specific Plan for 5,080 dwelling units, 9.6 acres of commercial, and related school, park, and open space uses on 6,754 acres of land generally located north of 24th Street with portions north of Highland Avenue, south of the National Forest Boundary with portions within the National Forest, east of the extension of Milliken Avenue, and west of the Fontana City limit. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe DiIorio, Caryn Company, P. O. Box 216, South Laguna, stated he was the team leader of the Consortium. He presented a letter outlining his response to the staff report and requested that the staff report be modified to include his comments. He indicated that Caryn owns the lO-acre eqbestrian center site, the Consortium responded to the City's request for additional EIR funds by expressing surprise that more study was needed, the Consortium had transferred to processing in the County not because of density conflicts but only because they felt the atmosphere was more cooperative, and the Consortium had changed the Specific Plan to conform with City standards except where they did not feel to do so would be in the best interests of the Plan. He felt the staff reports were not planning reports, but rather political reports. Chairman McNiel asked if he were to ask staff for substantiation of dates, if it could be provided. Ms. Bratt responded affirmatively. Hearin§ no further testimony, Chairman McN~el closed the public hearin§. Chairman McNiel stated that if the Resolution passed, it did not mean the City and Consortium were ending discussions, it merely meant the City was cleaning up paperwork. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution recommendin9 denial of Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 89-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 26, 1990 Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 14493 THROUGH 14498~ 14522 AND 14523, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13128 - REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND CARYN DEVELOPMENT - A request for approval of seven tentative tract maps and one parcel map for 633 dwelling units, a 9.3 acre commercial site, a 4.56 acre park site, and a 7.17 acre school site on approximately 179 acres of land located generally north of Highland Avenue, south of a Southern California Edison utility corridor, west of Hanley Avenue with portions west of the future Day Creek Boulevard, and east of Day Creek wash. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Joe DiIorio, Caryn Company, P. O. Box 216, South Laguna, stated he was the team leader of the Consortium. He presented a letter outlining his response to the staff report. He stated that the pertinent point was not that the City cannot approve the Tentative Maps prior to the territory being pre-zoned and annexed, but rather whether the City wants to reach agreement with the applicant on a mutually acceptable design to induce the applicant to annex into the City. He indicated that he felt actions of the staff were politically motivated and the City was made to look like a fool in front of the County and LAFCO. He suggested that the Commission direct staff to return to the next 'Planning Commission meeting with plans for working with the Consortium. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff disagreed with much of what Mr. DiIorio had presented and would be happy to reply, but because of the hour suggested that the Commission may wish to have staff respond in writing. Commissioner Weinberger felt that Mr. DiIorio's comments merited some response. Ms. Bratt apologized for the typographical error in the previous report. She said the 3.8 dwelling units per acre should have noted it was for the University tract, not University/Crest. She said that in February the plans showed 5,500 square foot lots, and the Consortium indicated that in order to meet the required 60-foot right-of-way, they would have to reduce lots by 10 percent across the board; therefore, the 5,500 square foot lots would be reduced to 5,000 square feet. She said those plans were returned to the applicant by staff because it was felt that 5,000 square foot lots were not acceptable. She agreed that Specific Plans can have different standards than the Development Code, but said they must be compatible with the General Plan land use and goals. Mr. DiIorio stated that the University tract at this time is 3.8 dwelling units per acre, the Crest density 2.6, and overall density 3.0. He said they want to place sidewalks adjacent to the curbs. He said he was willing to design the Planned Development to a minimum of City standards so far as lot size and he was willing to commit that no lots would be less than 7,200 square feet, even though it will mean dropping 38 lots. He said there is a difference between how the City and the County calculate density. Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 26, I990 Chairman McNiel stated there have been approximately 11 meetings. He said that the City had make recommendations and requests, and at the next meeting there would be little response to what had been requested. He felt it had been made clear that neither side would budge on densities. Mr. DiIorio stated that the southern portion of the University property is adjacent to 6,000 square foot lots in the Blackmon tract which had been approved and annexed by the City. He said he recalled a lot of time was spent working on architecture and grading. He felt the current plans meet the Hillside Grading Ordinance. He stated he only recalled three workshops. He said in February they submitted a package which was accepted, but they later received a letter stating the package was not complete and staff would give them further information in approximately four weeks. He said in mid-March the Consortium decided the City was delaying them, so they went to the County. Chairman McNiel felt there would continue to be accusations anJ counter- accusations. Mr. DiIorio stated that the City could continue to knock heads with him, but he would win. He stated his project would be approved in the County and he thought it would be best if the City and he sat down together. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the February 1990 submittal included tract maps. Mr. Dilorio responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he recalled that the minimum size lots were not 7,200 square feet. Mr. Dilorio replied that was correct. He said the maps showed 6,000 square foot lots at the southern end with equestrian lots at the northern end. He said it would be possible to shift the size of the lots. He stated he objected to 7,200 square foot lots because he did not feel they gave enough variation. Commissioner Tolstoy thought there was a lot of misunderstanding and suggested that everyone sit down across the table and establish a new beginning point. He felt it was necessary to establish where things are and where they need to go. He felt either side.could then say the direction was unacceptable. Chairman McNiel stated that Mr. DiIorio had suggested there was a political agenda. He said he had never been approached by anyone with respect to what direction the Com~ission should take. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had also not been approached. Mr. Bullet suggested the Commission may wish to continue the matter to their next meeting to allow staff to respond to comments made by Mr. DiIorio. Chairman McNiel stated he would al so like Mr. Dilorio to substantiate his points. Planning Commission Minutes -21- September 26, 1990 Mr. DiIorio felt he could substantiate his point of view. Commissioner Chitiea concurred that no one had approached her either directly or indirectly. She said she heard Mr. DiIorio state he absolutely refused to use some City standards and that he would win in the County. She said that Mr. DiIorio had stated that the City looked like a fool in front of the County and she felt his approach was adversarial. She felt it was important to get what is best for the City. Commissioner Melcher stated the issue is enormously complex. He said he read the statements about political direction the same as Chairman McNiel had and he wished to state he had also never been approached. He agreed that statements were not substantiated and said he would appreciate more material. He felt Commissioner Tolstoy's suggestion was a good one, and said he would prefer to do so conversationally, rather than on paper. Mr. DiIorio stated he could be dialogued with but he could not be dictated to. He reiterated that he felt the ~ity made a fool of itself in front of the County and LAFCO. He said he will not curve 24th Street into Day Creek Boulevard and the City would have to change its General Plan before he could do a Specific Plan. He reiterated that he will not put sidewalks where they are requested when he felt they should be adjacent to the streets and he would not allow Vintage Drive to become a through collector street. He said he was embarrassed by the City's telling the County that they must do things the City's way. Chairman McNiel stated that Mr. DiIorio seemed to be telling the Planning Commission that if they continued to dialogue, that things would be no different, as he had stated, "I will not ..." and "I will win." He felt Mr. DiIorio appeared to be rigid. Mr. DiIorio responded that he did not feel the project was controversial and the City has no back-up. He said he did not know what the fight was about. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a workshop should be arranged. Chairman McNiel felt the whole plan should be considered and University/Crest is a critical portion. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had heard three different lot sizes. Chairman McNiel felt the air should be cleared. Mr. Buller suggested that perhaps two Commissioners could work with staff to decide what additional substantiation should be requested from Mr. Dilorio to back up his points. He thought that following receipt of that information it may be possible to arrange a workshop. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if a workshop were held, the Consortium should present their latest thinking. He said he wanted to know the proposed lot sizes and whether the lots meet the Hillside Development Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes -22- September 26, 1990 Mr. Buller said staff had a copy of the submittal made to the County and staff could check. Mr. DiIorio stated that some of the lot sizes are currently below 7,200 square feet, but he was willing to make a commitment that no lots would be under 7,200 square feet. He stated the County Planning Commission Meeting was scheduled for October 11, 1990. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Tolstoy would be on a Subcommittee. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Maps 14493 through 14498, 14522, and 14523 and Tentative Parcel Map 13128. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 89-01 - CONSORTIUM OF ETIWANDA NORTH LANDOWNERS Mr. Buller asked if the Commission wished to reverse their previous action on Item P. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be a good idea to also continue that item. Mr. Bullet stated it may be possible to adjourn the October 10, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting to a workshop immediately following the meeting. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried to reconsider their previous action. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 89-01 to October 10, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -23- September 26, 1990 NEW BUSINESS R. DEVELOPMENT REVIE~ 90-09 CITY OF PJ~NCHO CUCAMONGA The proposed development of an 11,105 square foot animal shelter building on 0.9 acres of land as part of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sports Complex facility, located at the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Route in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Specific Plan - APN: 229-011-22. Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He requested approval by Minute action rather than by Resolution. Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that representatives from Wolff/Lang/Christopher were available to discuss the architecture. Commissioner Melcher felt that the architect should provide a strong direction on which type of parapet they thought would be more in keeping with the building design. He said he did not like the craftsman style being tacked on the front. He hoped there would be seating provided in the area by the sculpture. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the craftsman appearance at the entrance of the building was selected because many people entering would be experiencing a lot of trauma, and it was felt the craftsman look may impart a soft, homey effect. He said the court in the front was provided to soften the look. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. George Wiens, Wolff/Lang/Christopher, 10470 Foothill, Tower Suite, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they would prefer the straight parapet because they felt it was more understated. Chairman McNiel asked what type of coping material was proposed. Mr. Wiens stated it would be stucco, painted green. Chairman McNiel stated he preferred the curved parapet, but he would support the straight parapet without the green paint, so that the area would tend to disappear. He felt the building already has more than a substantial amount of green. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Weinberger stated she did not like the mission style but she did like the green. Commissioner Melcher stated he would go with the architect's opinion. He said he did not feel the Commission should vote on the design. Planning Commission Minutes -24- September 26, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea stated she liked the green. She questioned the architect's preference on color. Mr. Wiens stated they ~ould prefer not to paint the band green. Commissioner Chitiea felt that was acceptable. It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to approve Development Review 90-09 by forwarding the conditions originally in the Resolution to the appropriate City agencies and directing that the parapet should be straight and painted the same color as the stucco, rather than green. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS S. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE Review of current City regulations affecting storage and parking of RVs on private residential properties. (Continued from July 25, 1990.) Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that progress is being made with the residents' group on options to be considered for possible revision of the Ordinance. He said the item should return to the Planning Commission in the near future. Chairman McNiel stated that he had attended the meeting with staff and residents Ron Zebarth and Beverly Chados to review the Ordinance and come up with suggestions. He said progress was being made. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher to adjourn. 12:50 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -25- September 26, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting September 20, 1990 Terra Vista Town Center - Amendment to Sign Programs, Montgomery Wards, and Child World (Conditional Use Permit 88-12) Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. The meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Betsy Weinberger STAFF PRESENT: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner Amendment to the Sign Program The Commission approved the addition of one Type A-2 sign at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue and the addition of display cases for coming attraction posters at the entry of the Edward's Theatre. Alastair Cumming, representing Ross Stores, stated that the approved blue sign color is not the same blue as Ross's. He requested that they be allowed to use Ross's blue color. The applicant, Lewis Homes, and the architect, Tom Bond, agreed to work with Mr. Cumming to substitute the blue color. The Commission agreed to the substitution of the blue color. Both Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, and Rick Major, Lewis Homes, explained to the Commission the reasons for the request to increase the letter size and sign area for the three sub-majors, namely Ross Dress for Less, Big 5, and Child World. Chairman McNiel felt the proposed increase in letter size and sign area to be inappropriate, especially for Child World and Big 5 Sporting Goods. Commissioner Melcher stated that signs should have visual balance to the building face. He said he would not object to a 30-inch letter height for Ross Dress for Less and Child World; however, he would object to the increase of letter height for Big 5 since the building is so close to the Haven Avenue frontage. The consensus of the Commission was that the Big 5 sign should have two lines of sign copy and be centered on the building's tower face. The Commission agreed and approved the increase of letter height to 30 inches for the word "Ross" only. It was reiterated that all sub-majors are subject to the originally approved sign criteria. The Commission maintained the sign criteria of limiting the maximum length of. sign copy to 60 percent of the shop's width for typical retail tenants and the 2-foot maximum letter height for restaurant signs. The applicant agreed. Mont~omers Wards - Buildinq Entrs and Mullion Color Mr. Bond described the details of the building entry design. In response to the Commission's questions, Mr. Bond stated that the truss is 8 X 16 and the wood beam is 8 X 8. Chairman McNiel felt that the truss look is incompatible to the center architectural theme, but said he would accept this design. The consensus of the Commission was to approve the building entry design with the following conditions: * Provide a darker shade of plaster at the base of the planter wall along the south elevation. * Provide two shades of color for the stone infill. * The stone infill within the arch element should have a chamfer edge. Child World - Material for the Base of the Tower Mr. Bond showed the pre-cast concrete sample to the Commission for review. He also suggested that an alternative would be to use very smooth plaster. The Commissioners deliberated on the choice of the material pre-cast concrete, smooth plaster, or unpolished granite. The Commission approved the following items: * The base should be of pre-cast concrete. * Upgrade the design for the light fixtures. * Provide concrete bumper strip with integral color at the base of the tower. * Provide special customer parking for pick-up, subject to City Planner review and approval. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 20, 1990 * Provide additional embellishment to the service door at the south elevation, subject to Design Review Committee review and approval under the consent calendar. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 20, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 12, 1990 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Joe Schultz, Community Services Director ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried with Melcher and Weinberger abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of July 31, 1990, as amended. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of August 22, 1990, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 AMENDMENT - SAM'S PLACE - A request to extend the hours of operation for an existing bar and restaurant, located at the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 58, 59, and 60. (Continued from August 22, 1990.) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-05 - JETER DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION The development of a Department of Motor Vehicles office building totaling 14,167 square feet on 4.5 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the Northeast corner of 9th Street and Hellman Avenue APN: 209-022-14 and 15. Commissioner Chitiea requested that Item A be pulled for discussion. Russell Jeter, applicant, requested that Item B be pulled for discussion. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 Commissioner Chitiea asked if there was anyone in the audience who had not had an opportunity to speak at the last meeting. There was no response. John Mannerino, Mannerino & Briguglio Law Offices, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he represented the applicant. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated her concerns that she felt that a bar does not belong in a neighborhood center adjacent to homes. She felt 11:00 p.m. was a more appropriate closing time. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 78-03 Amendment. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-05 Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented a staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Russell Jeter, 935 Vista de Lejos, Santa Barbara, stated he appreciated working with Mr. Hayes. He felt the project will be beneficial to the City. He requested that they not be required to underground the three utility poles by the east boundary because they provide high voltage service for an existing building and only one of the three poles would be removed. He said the poles were not on their property and he felt removal of only one pole would not Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 12, 1990 accomplish anything. He stated that the cost of in-lieu fees would be greater than the cost of undergrounding. Chairman McNiel asked why two of the three poles would remain. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied the northern pole would remain to tie the lines to the next property and the southern pole would remain to provide service to the building. Chairman McNiel asked if there will be an opportunity in the future to get the service undergrounded. Mr. Hanson stated he did not know of any projects in the near future. Chairman McNiel asked if there would be a way to provide power to the building from another source. Mr. Jeter replied that there is a high voltage line on Helms Avenue, but they would be required to run the lines under the existing parking lot. He thought that if the property owners elected to expand their building in the future, it would be possible to require that they underground from Helms at that time. He stated that the three poles in question are not on the property currently being developed and are not across a street. He said the tenant in the property to the east is relocating, so he felt there would be an opportunity to require undergrounding when the property is further developed. Chairman McNiel asked if the second parcel is developed. Mr. Hanson responded negatively. Mr. Jeter replied that the second parcel is used as a parking lot by the tenant who is moving. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher stated he found the applicant's arguments compelling, and he wanted to know what the ordinance requires. Mr. Hanson replied that the ordinance allows the City to require undergrounding of all lines. He said the poles in question are a 12 kv main acting as a service to one property. He said it is within the Commission's power to require the undergrounding, but they also have the flexibility not to require it. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that as the service drop is for another property and the poles are on another property, the applicant should not be required to underground the poles. He felt the poles can be undergrounded when the other property is upgraded. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the City should have an opportunity to underground in the future. She stated that the current project was being Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 12, 1990 required to underground on three sides, which is beyond what is required of most projects. Chairman McNiel stated that al though he is a firm believer in undergrounding whatever possible, he Was inclined to agree. It was the consensus of the Commission that undergrounding to the east of the property should not be required. Chairman McNiel asked if a Resolution would need to be drafted regarding the undergrounding. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff had received direction from the discussion and the Minutes will reflect how staff should proceed with approval. Chairman McNiel requested that engineering note in their files which property should be responsible for undergrounding so that any opportunities to get the poles undergrounded in the future would not be missed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to issue an Environmental Assessment for Development Review 90-05. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TPJ~CT NO. 14548 PATSCHECK/HACKBARTH - A residential subdivision and Design Review to convert 328 apartment units to condominiums on 29.51 acres of land in the Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Medium (8-14 dwelling units per acre) zone of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-041-11. (Continued from August 22, 1990.) Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked when Arrow Route would be widened if it is not done at this time. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated it would be widened when it is needed. He said the traffic model goes to the year 2005. He said the widening would be done at some time in the future as a City project and that is why the project was being asked to dedicate sufficient street right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 12, 1990 Mr. Guarracino stated that the construction of the Metropolitan Water District facility on the northwest corner may reduce the amount of traffic. Chairman McNiel opene~ the public hearing. Ray Patscheck, 640 North Tustin, Suite 103, Santa Ana, stated they had reviewed all conditions and concurred with findings. He stated he had no objections to giving the extended right-of-way. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant would object if they were required to reconstruct the intersection at this time. Mr. Patscheck replied that they just constructed the intersection when the project was built a few years ago. He felt that as the need for improvements is so far in the future and the City hasn't decided exactly how the street will .be widened; they should not widen the street at this time, but they were willing to dedicate sufficient area even though the City may not need it. Mr. Hanson stated that the City will' probably try to save the improvements on the north side and move the road to the south. He stated that since the application is essentially a change of ownership, staff felt it would be burdensome to require the improvements made at this time. Chairman McNiel asked if maintenance will be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association. Mr. Patscheck responded affirmatively. Alan Jackson, 8343 Etiwanda, #D, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he resides in the project. He stated that although they are nice apartments he did not feel they meet condominium standards. He raised concern with garage locations, use of uncovered spaces, general property maintenance, noise attenuation between units, water pressure, water conservation, and trespassing problems. Chairman McNiel asked if some of those problems wouldn't be addressed by a Homeowners' Association. Mr. Jackson stated he would hate to see a Homeowners' Association saddled with the responsibilities. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Arrow Route is a major thoroughfare and will be used even more in the future. He felt the entrance on Arrow Route is inadequate because there is not enough stacking distance between the street and the gate and there should be a turnaround area. He said that if the City should require the street to be widened, the gate will be almost on the street. He suggested the Planning Commission require that the gate be moved. Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 12, 1990 Mr. Guarracino showed pictures of the Arrow Rbute entrance. He said that the Arrow Route entrance was designed basically for the use of the tenants and the Etiwanda Avenue entrance was designed for visitors. Commissioner Tolstoy ~tated that with 328 units, many people will be using the Arrow Route entrance. He felt that with such a large complex and such a busy street, the gate needs to be able to accommodate visitors and residents alike. He felt that most of Mr. Jackson's concerns should be addressed by a Homeowners' Association. He agreed that carports are not adjacent to the front and back doors of most units and stated that the City should take a close look at carport conversions to garages to be sure that the stalls are wide enough. Commissioner Melcher stated that he had visited the project and was impressed by the sense of openness. He felt the site plan is of key importance to retaining the sense of openness with the addition of garages. He agreed that the Arrow Route entrance should be upgraded to allow adequate turnaround room. Commissioner Weinberger stated that the Design Review Committee wanted to break up the massive buildings; therefore, carports were not placed adjacent to the units. Chairman McNiel felt the location is reasonable if the existing carports are converted to garages. Mr. Guarracino stated that in working with the applicant prior to Design Review, many locations were discussed and the locations were selected in an effort to maintain the view corridor. He stated that they did not place garages close to patios in an effort to avoid a solid wall look. Commissioner Weinberger stated the site plan was looked at from more of an aesthetic rather than a practical viewpoint. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned that the garages would not be functional because partitions would make the spaces too narrow. She felt staff should look at the dimensions and it would be preferable to have fewer garage spaces if necessary to make sure that the spaces are wide enough. She felt it would be appropriate to have the applicant take care of all maintenance items, such as the broken lighting, prior to turning the property over to a Homeowners' Association. Mr. Guarracino felt it might be appropriate to require overhead lighting in the area by the retaining wall. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Patscheck stated the developer is required to establish a Homeowners' budget and they are required to remain in the Homeowners' Association until they are voted out by the homeowners. He said he had not previously heard of Mr. Jackson's concerns, but he would look into them. Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 12, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked if the conversion will be phased. Mr. Patscheck replied that the project will be phased, probably by buildings. Chairman McNiel again-closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt the gate relocation is appropriate. Commissioner Weinberger commented that many of Mr. Jackson's concerns would be problems best dealt with by the Homeowners' Association. She felt it would be appropriate to condition that the garages be a certain minimum width. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it may be a good idea to investigate if one parking space would be lost per carport in order to provide wide enough parking spaces. He felt that may entail the building of additional garages. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the City Code establishes minimum widths and staff would verify that the parking spaces meet those minimum widths. He asked if the Commissioners were asking for a larger width. Commissioner Chitiea stated the standard width would be acceptable. Chairman McNiel stated that partitions between the garage spaces should definitely be required. He also felt that broken lights and missing landscaping should also be replaced. Commissioner Chitiea asked if it would be possible to condition having the developer address the issues of water pressure, ventilation, and insulation. Commissioner Melcher stated that the building codes are identical for apartments and condominiums. He did not feel the City should require that the builder go beyond the Code because he wishes to change the ownership status. He felt that the market should determine what upgrades are necessary. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to ~dopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract No. 14548 with modification to require that the gated entrance on Arrow Route be relocated to provide for turn around and stacking. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COI~MISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~4ISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S STREET NAMING BOOKLET AND THE STREET NAMING ORDINANCE~ CITY CODE CHAPTER 12.12 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Proposed amendments to the City's policies, procedures, and regulations regarding the naming of streets as contained in the Street Naming Booklet and City Code Chapter 12.12. Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 12, 1990 Chairman McNiel stated that staff had requested that the item be continued and he asked if the item should be continued to a specific date. Brad Bullet, City Pla~ner, responded that it would be readvertised and brought back when ready. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Amendments to the City's Street Naming Booklet and the Street Naming Ordinance, City Code Chapter 12.12. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14644 - GARCIA DEVELOPMENT - 'A residential subdivision of 8 single family lots on 4.16 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at the end of Camellia Court, north of Hillside Road, east of Beryl Street - APN: 1061-381-13. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how long Camellia Court will be once it is extended. Ms. Fong replied that it will be slightly over 600 feet, but the Fire Department had approved the extension. Kenneth Kloepfer, 10788 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the attorney for the owners. He stated that they felt the requested trail between Lots 4 and 5 was unnecessary because it would bring horses to the street, leading to clean-up problems and possible conflicts with vehicles. He discussed the petition from the adjacent property owners requesting that 10 feet of the current trail easement be released to the property owners in exchange for a lO-foot easement from the Garcia property. He stated that it would be necessary for the adjacent property owners to obtain 100 percent support from all owners in the adjacent tract and it may mean a taxable event to the property owners in the adjacent tract. He felt that they would not be able to obtain 100 percent support; therefore, the trail would end up being 30 feet wide and the current 20-foot trail was unsightly. He said that the Garcias had sent a letter to the adjacent homeowners offering to upgrade the existing trail in exchange for not having to dedicate a lO-foot easement from the Garcia property. Jorge Garcia, 7167 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, owner, stated his wife, Reginia, was present to answer any questions. He requested clarification on Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 12, 1990 Planning Condition 3). He asked if solid perimeter walls could be used on the north or west side of the project. Richard Taillon, 9176 Whirlaway Court, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the Garcia's request to b~ relieved of the lO-foot trail easement along Lots 6, 7, and 8. He said some of the residents had submitted a petition to the City to request that 10 feet of their 20-foot trail easement be returned to the property owners, but he felt the instructions from the City were insurmountable. He presented pictures of the trail and stated that the horse trail is not unsightly, but the Garcia property was overgrown with weeds. He stated that some of the residents in his tract were original landowners, and had been told that the Garcia property would never be developed. He said he had paid a premium price for his lot because it is considered a view lot. He felt he should have the option of having 10 feet of his easement returned to be developed as he chooses. Darlene Tare, 9245 Carrari Court, Rancho Cucamonga, agreed that the Garcias should have to supply the lO-foot easement so that she would have an opportunity to regain 10 feet of her easement. She felt everyone should share in providing the trail easements. She said she resented the letter sent by the Garcias and felt they tried to use scare tactics by telling the current property owners it would be expensive to reclaim the 10 feet. She asked that the requirement for 100 percent approval be lifted because she said there are 85 property owners and she felt it would be difficult to get signatures from all of them. She felt that Mr. Garcia may be forced to give up one of his lots if he were forced to dedicate the trail easement because she thought one of his lots might then be below the minimum lot size. Barbara DeWitt, 9229 Carrari Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the development is a surprise. She felt it was the developer's responsibility to build and maintain the trail. She requested that the Garcias be mandated to dedicate the lO-foot trail easement and develop the trail as stated in the City code. Robert Curtis, 9171 Camellia Court, asked if the trail easements were given, if it would affect assessments for all property owners on Camellia Court. He asked if the development would be bringing in sewers or if they would be on septic tanks. He said he had previously been asked to dedicate part of his property for an easement for a sewer, but that development had not gone through. Mr. Taillon stated that the costs incurred for reclaiming the lO-foot easement, including surveying, would be incurred only by those properties immediately adjacent on the north and west sides of the Garcia tract. He said only those properties regaining the 10 feet would be reassessed and he felt the Garcias were attempting to use scare tactics in their letter. Mr. Garcia stated that the 100 percent approval figure came from City staff. He said on the east and south sides he would provide a full trail. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He asked if the assessments would be revised. Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 12, 1990 Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney, stated he would have to study the assessments. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a lot line adjustment could be used to reduce the 20-foot easements-down to 10 feet. Mr. Fox replied that it could not be used because it involves an easement rather than a property adjustment. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that a lot line adjustment could not be done. He said it was his understanding that the project is going to utilize septic tanks. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the bridle easement between Lots 4 and 5 was requested by the Trails Committee to allow access by maintenance vehicles to the rear of properties. She said the access was not intended to bring horses to the street. She felt that each tract needs to provide their own equestrian easements on their own property and whether the use of the 10 feet is ever returned to the adjacent property owners is a separate issue. Commissioner Melcher stated he was pleased that Commissioner Chitiea had given the perspective of the Trails Committee. He said he was concerned that if the 10 feet were returned to the adjacent property owners, it may lead to an irregularly developed trail with fences zigzagging in and out. He said he hoped that if the homeowners were successful in regaining the use of their 10 feet, that they be required to develop to the current trail standards. Chairman McNiel agreed that was a good idea, but he was not sure how it could be enforced. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. Commissioner Weinberger agreed that each tract should contribute its fair share to the trail system. Chairman McNiel stated the trail will most likely be 30 feet wide. Commissioner Chitiea felt a 30-foot wide trail was acceptable because there are others in the City and they provide open space. Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked if the Commission's position was that Condition 3 would prohibit a solid block wall at the property line, but would allow one at the rear of the easement. Commissioner Chitiea responded that was correct. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if a solid wall were constructed, it would need to have gates to the trail. Commissioner Chitiea stated the gates should be in excess of 10 feet wide to accommodate vehicles. Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 12, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the gates should be at least 12 feet wide. He stated that trails are not for the exclusive use of horses, but can also be used for hiking and walking. Commissioner Chitiea a~reed that a lot of children go to school via trails. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commissioners meant to require a solid wall. It was the consensus of the Commission that a solid wall was not required. Commissioner Chitiea stated there should be gates no matter what type of fencing is built. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14644, with modification to clarify that solid fencing or walls may be permitted along the equestrian easement so long as vehicular gates are provided. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 8:55 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed. 9:10 p.m. - Planning Commission reconvened. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A proposed amendment to adjust the northern boundary of Subarea 8 on the west side of Rochester Avenue northerly 330 feet, westerly 1,065 feet, and southerly 330 feet to its present boundary with Subarea 7; delete the planned extension of Day Creek Boulevard between Rochester and Milliken Avenues; and realign a portion of Day Creek Boulevard east of Rochester Avenue. The purpose of this amendment is to accommodate the development of a City sports park at the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-011-05, 06, and 24 and 229-021-15, 20, 28, 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 54, and 55. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked why the remaining east-west portion of Day Creek Boulevard is being moved to the south. Mr. Warren stated he thought the move was to accommodate a second entrance to the park. Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 12, 1990 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that during development of the sports complex it was determined that if Day Creek Boulevard were moved south to meet a second entrance, possible development advantages would be created for the properties to the east. Chairman McNiel stated he had not seen the new proposed park layout and he asked what changes will occur to the northern entrance. Mr. Bullet stated that both intersections will be signalized and the internal park layout would not drastically change with either option. Dan Guerra, Derbish/Guerra Associates, 8331 Utica Avenue, #150, Rancho Cucamonga showed the location and the new alignment. Commissioner Melcher felt that with only approximately 600 feet between intersections they might be too close. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated they felt it would be workable. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the driveway going out to Arrow Route will be widened. Mr. Guerra replied that it'would be identical to the original plan. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the two entrances on Rochester were expected to handle the majority of the traffic. Mr. Guerra responded that the original layout called for one primary entrance at Day Creek Boulevard and Rochester, but the Day Creek Boulevard realignment will allow two primary entrances on Rochester. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the City was not purchasing the parcel at the north east corner of Rochester and Arrow. Mr. Guerra responded that there are existing buildings and businesses on the parcel. Commissioner Chitiea asked if it would be possible to place landscaping on the parcel that is not being purchased. Mr. Guerra stated that they are proposing a 6-foot landscaping area. He said there is an existing building approximately 10 feet back from the street, and he thought it may be possible to get approval to expand the landscaped area. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tom Ritchie, Banks and Ritchie, 10788 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Mr. Downey, the owner of the parcel that the realigned Day Creek Boulevard will traverse. He said the realignment was requested by Hughes Investments, the developer to the east of Mr. Downey's property, and the realignment will cause the entire 88-foot right-gl-way to be taken from Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 12, 1990 Mr. Downey's property. He said Mr. Downey will lose approximately 2.5 acres because of the street realignment. He opposed moving the street south. He felt the park entrance should not be adjacent to the older buildings to the south. He expressed concerns regarding the traffic circulation and felt there are potential logjams-with three traffic signals in close proximity. He said he understood that the City and Hughes are currently drafting a Memorandum of Understanding to realign Day Creek Boulevard and he requested that Mr. Downey be included in the preparation of the Memorandum. He felt the original design is a superior design. Brad Downey, 4751A State Street, Ontario stated he has owned the property for 20 years. He requested that the Planning Commission.look at the site and he felt they should not construct an entrance to the park next to a "seedy looking" industrial area. William Stewart, 8414 La Sierra, Whittier, stated he owns the property across which Day Creek Boulevard was originally planned. He said the original location would have left him with an undevelopable 120 foot long strip to the south of the Boulevard. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He asked why Day Creek Boulevard should be moved. Mr. Guerra replied that as the City's consultant for the sports complex they were initially told to align the street entrance at the northern location. He said that while they were working on the designs, Hughes approached the City and indicated that such an alignment was perhaps not the most desirable one. He said it was felt that the southern alignment was the best alternative. He said the location change was not instituted by the sports complex. Mr. Buller stated that Hughes had presented various options to the City regarding the realignment which would give better development opportunities for not only the Hughes property, but also the industrial area between the sports complex and the Hughes property. He said the suggested realignment concept would provide for a better opportunity for land development. Chairman McNiel asked how Mr. Downey would be compensated. Mr. Buller replied that with the current proposed alignment, Mr. Downey would be subject to the entire street width on his property. He said said there currently is discussion with the Redevelopment Agency regarding a potential half street reimbursement. Commissioner Melcher asked if any thought had been given to curving Day Creek Boulevard south to allow part of it to be centered on Mr. Downey's property line, thus requiring less of the street width to be taken from Mr. Downey. Mr. Guerra responded that there were several other alignments discussed relative to Day Creek Boulevard. He said there are certain restraints on the Hughes property and Day Creek Boulevard in its current alignment would bisect the Hughes property. He said there is an existing Southern California Edison Plan~ing Commission Minutes -13- September 12, 1990 right-of-way between Rochester and the properties owned by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Downey. He said Edison is not conducive to anything other than a perpendicular road crossing across their right-of-way and that had a large impact on what may or may not work. He stated he was not sure if that option had ever been totall~ discarded. He said the intent of the Amendment is to define the connection at Rochester. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated that option was considered but the curvature required to make the alignment in keeping with speeds which would be desirable for a four-lane arterial street would reduce the impact on the Downey property by only a small portion. He said only about one-half to two- thirds of the street would be able to be placed on the property line. He said that Engineering felt it would not be desirable to add curves to the street for such a small impact reduction, but staff could explore the option further. Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant may prefer any reduction in impact. He asked who would absorb the cost of the additional signal which will be required. Mr. Guerra stated he thought that one of the items in the Memorandum of Understanding would provide for Hughes to absorb that cost and other incremental costs incurred in realigning the street. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. Downey if he would prefer that Day Creek Boulevard be curved. Mr. Downey responded that he would prefer to move the entrance back up to the north because he did not feel the relocation is a desirable entrance. He said the whole reason for moving the street to the south was to accommodate Hughes and he would prefer any shifting of the street so that he would not have to carry the whole load. Mr. Stewart stated that the proposed alignment appears to be across the south part of Lot 107. He said the original alignment called for the split between Lots 108 and 109, and because he owns half of Lot 108, he would have been left with the 120-foot wide strip. He suggested moving the street to the center of Lot 108, which would only move it 165 feet south of the original alignment. Mr. Guerra stated that such an option was considered, but it was not readily adaptable to the sports complex. He said the option was not seriously considered because there was not enough time to do all the analysis. Mr. Hanson stated that Hughes would not want such an option. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He felt the City should look at some of the options that are available as opposed to the single option presented this evening. He asked if the Commission could continue the realignment question, but act on the subarea change. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that it would be better to continue the entire matter than to act on only a portion. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 12, 1990 Mr. Buller stated that the realignment issues of who does what, when, and how are being worked out with the Redevelopment Agency and the property owners and will be settled before being presented to City Council. He stated that the Commission was being-asked if the alignment makes sense from a land use perspective and the Redevelopment Agency was currently handling any conflicts with the property owners. Chairman McNiel stated he was concerned because there had previously been several workshops and the Commission was now being presented with a brand new site plan without adequate time to review it. He said that once the entrances are established, the position of Day Creek Boulevard will have been determined and he wanted to be sure that it is done correctly. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the Commission needed additional information to make a properly informed decision. She felt it would only be fair to those involved for the Commission to consider the matter fully. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Jeff Reeslund, SCPA Architects and Planning, 2603 Main Street, #810, Irvine, stated he represented Hughes Investments and the William Lyon Company regarding the property to the east. He stated that Hughes Investments is in the process of acquiring a 36 acre parcel from the William Lyon Company bounded on the east by 1-15, on the north by Foothill, and on the west by the Edison right-of-way easement. He said the current alignment would bisect the 36 acre parcel into two parcels. He said such a split would negate development agreements with two major tenants because they would not wish to be placed on a smaller parcel. He said that their traffic consultant felt that it would be necessary to start a curve immediately south of Foothill to meet the old alignment. He said the middle alignment would not work because it would delete the second entrance into the sports complex. He said the distance of 660 feet between the two entrances allows two full access locations, but anything in the middle would allow only one entrance. He said there would be no opposition from Hughes to adding an "S" curve to move the alignment further south to the east of Rochester. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated that he had heard that the Redevelopment Agency is taking care of the street situation in negotiations east of Rochester, and he thought that the Planning Commission was supposed to have responsibility for street alignments. He felt that good planning involves seeing the plan for realignment since it differs from the currently adopted alignment. He said he felt the City should not allow its own timing needs to drive the alignment of the street without respect for surrounding properties. Mr. Buller explained the.critical timeline for the sports complex and asked, if the only opposition was with the realignment, that the Commission move forward with the remainder of the request. He stated that perhaps the City could readvertise the matter if necessary. Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 12, 1990 Mr. Fox stated it would be possible to act upon the Resolution if the references about the realignment were removed. Mr. Bullet suggested that the Commission table the matter to allow time for consultation with the ~ommunity Services Director. Chairman McNiel replied that the Commission had not previously seen the proposed changes and he was not comfortable with the changes. He said the project needs to be right. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that with the information supplied the Commission could not make a prudent decision. He stated he would like to see a graphic showing the proposed alignment from the freeway all the way to the sports park. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the item be tabled to allow time to revise the Resolution. She said she fully supported the changes to the subareas and she was willing to separate the issues. It was the consensus of the Commission to table the item until later in the evening. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14072 C.T.K.~ INC. A residential subdivision of 22 single family lots on 10.81 acres of land in the Low Residential District {2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Jasper Street - APN: 201-212-12. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Gordon Dreisbach, Southland Development Corporation, stated he was available to answer questions. Mike Wirtz, 6486 Jasper, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was concerned regarding the traffic flow on Highland, as there are currently no stop signs. He asked that an Environmental Impact Report address whether stop signs should be provided at Jasper and Highland to control the traffic. Paul Rougeau~ Traffic Engineer, stated that the subject of a stop sign at that location had been considered by the Public Safety Commission several meetings ago and will be reconsidered at their October meeting. Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. Rougeau's opinion of the need. Mr. Rougeau replied that he did not feel the new development would create further need for a sign because when the perimeter wall is completed there will be no way for students to cross over the street. He said there would only be reason for crossing at Sapphire or Carnelian, which already have stop signs. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 12, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked if streets entering Highland have stop signs. Mr. Rougeau responded affirmatively, stating that Highland is a collector street. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt it was not necessary for the Planning Commission to address the stop sign issue as it is being addressed by the Public Safety Commission. She supported the project, as it is a continuation of the same type of adjacent development. Commissioners Tolstoy and Weinberger agreed. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14072. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA', MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 10:15 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed Commissioner Weinber§er departed. 10:35 p.m. - Planning Commission reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PU~N AMENDMENT 90-03 Chairman McNiel recalled Item F. Mr. Buller discussed the alignment of Day Creek Boulevard and showed exhibits provided by Mr. Schultz. He suggested that if the Commission were still concerned with the alignment, that they consider the vacation o.f the street west of Rochester and the subarea boundary change and either recommend denial of the alignment or withdraw .that portion for possible future reconsideration. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to see what other options were considered. Mr. Buller showed drawings of the other alternatives considered. He stated that staff would not recommend the alignment between the Stewart and Downey properties because there would be no opportunity to have a second entrance to the sports park. Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 12, 1990 Commissioner Melcher suggested moving the southern alignment by offsetting it gradually 44 feet to the south. He said that regardless of the eventual alignment to the east of the property, he felt the southern intersection would work and he no longer .felt it was necessary to defer action. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the upper drive would be eliminated, and if not, if both entrances would be signalized. Mr. Bullet responded that it would remain. Chairman McNiel asked if both entrances need to be signalized. Mr. Rougeau responded affirmatively. He said left hand turns would only be permitted at the northern access. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if problems were not anticipated with people attempting to make left turns into the southern entrance. Mr. Rougeau replied the entrance would have signs. He said that generally there is not a majo6 violation problem at intersections. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt more comfortable with what was presented. Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Melcher agreed. Commissioner Chitiea felt that Commissioner Melcher's suggestion should be considered. Mr. Hanson stated that it would be possible to exit the park perpendicular, but then go through a series of curves to the east. He said the curves would be substantial and would not be that much of a gain for Mr. Downey. Mr. Bullet stated the Resolution does not state exactly where the alignment of the street will be; it only indicates where the intersections will be located. He said the Commission could direct staff by Minute action to study where the street should fall. Commissioner Chitiea felt that would be appropriate. Commissioner Melcher concurred. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed, but felt it would be better to have a straight street than to try to curve it. Commissioner Chitiea felt such a direction would give staff flexibility to determine which would be the best layout. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Reeslund stated he would have no objections to working with Mr. Downey and staff regarding the refinement of the alignment so long as the south alignment were approved. Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 12, 1990 Mr. Ritchie stated their concern was the same as the Commission's. He said there were at least three different proposals presented this evening for the first time. He said they had been unable to participate in the discussions. He felt the Redevelopment Agency should condemn the northern 40 feet of the old building on the ~outh and then there would be no problem, because the burden would be equally shared by the property owner to the south and Mr. Downey. He felt the one grand entrance to the north would be preferable as opposed to two signalized entrances, with one adjacent to an unsightly older building. Mr. Stewart asked if the road were moved to the upper corner of the sports complex if the radius would be too tight. Mr. Rougeau responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution recommendin§ approval of Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 90-03, with Minute action to work out the details of the alignment. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried H. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13527 - WATT INLAND EMPIRE - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring private maintenance of interim drainage protection facilities by a Homeowners' Association for a residential subdivision of 231 single family lots on 108.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District {2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street - APN: 225-071-65. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Larry Lewis, Watt Inland Empire, 9035 Haven Avenue, Building 2, Suite 102, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the areas to be landscaped and the debris basin will be maintained by annexation into a Landscape Maintenance District. He said they did not wish to have a Homeowners' Association. Chairman McNiel asked how the City could be sure that the interim drainage facilities will be maintained. Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 12, 1990 Mr. Lewis stated they would be willing to enter into a maintenance agreement between the developer and the City. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated staff is concerned about the debris basin not bein~ taken care of prior to development of the property. Mr. Lewis stated they will develop and were currently processing with Ahmanson and working with the Metropolitan Water District, Cal-Trans, and FEMA. Commissioner Chitiea asked to whom the phrase "other entity" would refer. Mr. Hanson stated they were considering tying to the property owner to the north. Mr. Lewis stated they were agreeable. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt the requested modification to wording was agreeable. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed but said the area would need to be carefully researched. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution for the September 26, 1990, meeting authorizing the change to read "or other entity approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney." Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried OLD BUSINESS I. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-14 AMPAC INC. - A request to modify conditions of approval relating to the timing of on- and off-site improvements for a previously approved project consisting of two manufacturing buildings totaling 26,000 square feet on 39.3 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District, Subarea 15 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. (Continued from August 22, 1990.) Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the Metropolitan Water District had started construction. Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 12, 1990 Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that they plan to start the storm drain in December. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Paul Toomey, Krueper Engineering, 568 North Mountain View Avenue, San Bernardino, stated Ampac agreed with staff. He stated that the Metropolitan Water District has a construction easement of 100 feet but a future easement of only 30 feet once the construction is complete. He requested that the deferral for landscaping and screen wall construction apply to the full lO0-foot construction easement. Mr. Hanson responded that the lO0-foot easement was staff's interpretation. Mr. Toomey requested that the condition be changed to allow all street improvements west of the project driveway, instead of only within the Metropolitan Water District easement, to be deferred until 90 days following the completion of the Metropolitan Water District project. Mr. Hanson responded that would be acceptable to Engineering. Mr. Toomey requested that the storm drain along the south project boundary be deferred until completion of the Day Creek Channel project because he felt there was no place for the water to go in the meantime. Mr. Hanson stated that Engineering was not recommending any changes from the original condition. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chitiea thought it is very important to install landscaping as soon as possible, but she felt it was a reasonable request to avoid duplication of efforts. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolutions recommending approval of Modifications to Conditions of Approval for off-site improvements and approving on-site improvements for Development Review 89-14, with modification to delay street improvements west of the ~roject driveway. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes -21- September 12, 1990 J. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 90-19 - CALIFORNIA COPPER RECYCLING - A determination of street widening and utility undergrounding requirements as a result of the proposed scrap operations. Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. George Fox, California Copper Recycling, Inc., stated he was only planning to utilize a portion of an existing building. He said the property to the south belongs to Southern California Edison Company and has high tension wires. Mr. Fox felt that it would be a hardship to impose conditions to make improvements to Etiwanda Avenue and to require utility undergrounding. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City has a future need to improve Etiwanda Avenue by widening of the street and undergrounding the utilities. He felt the proposed use would only constitute an interim use of an existing site. He felt the addition of landscaping and a parking lot would upgrade the property and he did not feel the applicati'on warrants the full undergrounding and street improvement requirements. He thought future property values will dictate a higher use and the property would be developed at a later time; thereby, giving the City an opportunity to have Etiwanda Avenue widened and the poles undergrounded. He thought at this time it would be important to control access to the property and a proper turning radius for truck traffic should be provided. He felt there should be proper separations for the people using the parking, the trucks entering the building, and the trucks using the scale. He thought it would be necessary to determine where the driveways will be placed and where people will enter to use the scale. He suggested the developer should put in the curb at the ultimate width of Etiwanda and points of access should be developed off the curb line. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if the City were going to require curb and gutter, that would be the time to underground the utilities. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that there may be other ways to control the traffic. Commissioner Chitiea said there was no way for the City to know for sure that the use would only be interim. She said there was no guarantee the use would not be active for the next 20 years. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the City could not know for sure, but as the existing facility is not being used and could sit there vacant for a long time, he felt the City should take this opportunity to get the site upgraded. Commissioner Melcher stated he had no comments. Chai~an McNiel stated he did not know if the use would be interim, but he was opposed to widening the street if the undergrounding is not done. He did not feel the application was large enough to justify the street widening. He felt it would be more appropriate to widen the entire street than just doing it in Planning Commission Minutes -22- September 12, 1990 small sections. He suggested a lien agreement could be obtained to insure the developer would participate when the street is widened. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the project was before the Commission to allow preliminary feedback regarding Commission policies. He stated that if the developer decides to proceed, a Conditional Use Permit application would be returned to the Planning Commission, at which time some of the options presented by Commissioner Tolstoy could be considered~ Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the north property line has a railroad track and the Southern California Edison right-of-way comes to the edge of the street and the City limit. He did not feel the street would ever be widened to the south of the project. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated there is an ordinance requirement for street improvements, and the only way to avoid street improvements would be for the Planning Commission to determine that the parking lot construction is only a rehabilitation of an existing parking lot, which was originally covered with slag. He said the ordinance clearly states that if a parking lot is being built, the street improvements must be constructed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the entire project is a rehabilitation of the site. Chairman McNiel stated he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy in principle, but he thought it would be tough to make necessary findings. Mr. Buller stated the item was on the agenda only as a courtesy review and no decision was required tonight. He said' the only way around the ordinance would be to determine that the parking lot currently exists. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the parking lot was previously improved with acceptable material of the time when the building was used. Commissioner Chitiea stated-she would like to see some improvements take place, but she feared that if substandard development is allowed to go in, it may delay any incentive to upgrade the property. She felt that perhaps in- lieu fees could be collected to insure that street improvements would take place in the future. Chairman McNiel felt that the building may then stay vacant for a long time. Commissioner Chitiea stated that may be so, but on the other hand, things may change and there may be a complete rehabilitation of the area. Chairman McNiel felt that would take a long time. He stated that the Commission was obviously struggling with the topic, but he suggested that it might not be a bad idea for Mr. Fox to go forward with the project and the Commission may be able to find some solutions to make it work. Planning Commission Minutes -23- September 12, 1990 K. COUNTY REFERRAL 88-05 - UNIVERSITY CREST - Master Tentative Tracts, Final Development Plan Map, and various Tentative Tract Maps for 1,293 single family residential units, 6.3 acres of commercial, 4.56 acre park site, and 7.17 acre school site for University Crest Planned Development Proposal on 425.16 acres of land located north of Highland Avenue, south of utility corridor, east of Day Creek Channel, with portions west of Hanley Avenue and portions west of Etiwanda Avenue within the City's Sphere of Influence. The proposal also includes the dedication as permanent open space of 675 acres located within the National Forest. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the item had been rescheduled to be heard by the County Planning Commission on October 11, 1990. She said that the City Council had requested that a letter be sent to the County detailing the City's four concerns outlined in the City Council Staff Report and a letter be sent to Supervisor Mikels. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Joe DiIorio, Caryn Company, P. O. Box 216, South Laguna, presented updated copies of a University/Crest brochure and a written response to the City Council reports. He stated he felt City Council had directed that the door should be kept open. He said the item was continued before the County Planning Commission in order to see if the City could walk through the open door together with the project proponents. He discussed the park sites and various aspects of the proposed architecture. He discussed the paseos and sidewalks and said that parkways become meaningless where there are paseos. He said the density on the University portion is 3.83 units per acre, while overall project density is 3.0 units per acre. He indicated that no individual tract has more than 4 units per acre. He said they were proposing some changes to the development and he was willing to commit that every single lot will be at least 7,200 square feet. He said that the City fought to have the County's 25 percent density bonus reduced and it was lowered to 10 percent as a result. Mr. DiIorio stated he was convinced that Betty McNay was giving away about $3 million worth of land value. He said they would curve the streets as much as possible but the strong specific geometric constraints added to the grading standards make it difficult to bend streets. He said they were willing to add paseos where possible, even though grading standards are in conflict. He said the tentative maps submitted in March met the City's grading specifications. Mr. DiIorio felt the Environmental Impact Report submitted was adequate. He stated a resource management plan is underway and state and federal agencies have deemed the 675 acres to be preserved as open space as reasonable mitigation for the Alluvial Fan Scrub loss. Chairman McNiel asked what percentage of lots are proposed to be wide, shallow lots. Mr. DiIorio responded that 25 percent of the lots will be wide, shallow, with the narrowest lot to be at least 60 feet wide. Chairman McNiel asked staff why the County continued the item. Planning Commission Minutes -24- September 12, 1990 Ms. Bratt replied that County Planner stated she had not had time to develop her comments for the 17 tract maps and Planned Development and the environmental studies were not complete. She said the County had indicated the Addendum was not complete as yet and they planned to do overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring plan which had not been finished. She said the County Planner had indicated she did not anticipate any new submittals, so Ms. Bratt wasn't sure if the County Planner had received the revised maps Mr. DiIorio was talking about. Mr. DiIorio stated that they were willing to adjust lot lines, but they would not do so if they felt the City was not going to support the project. He said the meeting was continued because County staff has recently changed and they had not completed the staff reports. He said his attorney and the County counsel agreed that the EIR should be more complete in case of attacks. Commissioner Chitiea asked how many people will have access to the nature areas when it is under the University. Mr. DiIorio replied that Mr. Dangermond has indicated the access will be controlled in that those entering would have to have certain qualifications or would enter under certain controlled circumstances. He said there would be no paved roads. He suggested that the land would be owned by the University Reserve system in order to protect the habitat. He said in order for the land to be open and turned over to the National Forest, the EIR for Etiwanda North would have to find other open space to offset the loss of the habitat. Commissioner Chitiea asked if seismic studies were being done for the school and park sites and if they would be included in the EIR. Mr. DiIorio responded that certain studies have been done. He said Cucamonga fault is above the property. He said they have trenched across their property and have not found any sign of a Red Hill fault. He stated they were planning to meet with Chaffey College and perform any additional trenching necessary at the map grading stage. Commissioner Chitiea asked where the project stood in relation to pursuing formal agreements with other agencies or private landowners to obtain use of off-site locations for school sites and amenities. Mr. DiIorio stated that Metropolitan Water District has agreed to lease property at the school site. Commissioner Chitiea asked if they had a formal agreement stating that. Mr. DiIorio replied that he had a letter which Carlton Lightfoot had reviewed and requested that the developer pursue purchasing the property, which they are attempting to do. He said they were working with Metropolitan Water District to be sure the area is landscaped. He stated he had escrow instructions from Southern California Edison for 55 acres. He said the County has agreed that the 55 acres could be given a zone change to permit development. Planning Commission Minutes -25- September 12, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at one time the University property contained 6,000 square foot lots but Mr. DiIorio was now stating that the minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet. He asked how that was being accomplished. Mr. DiIorio stated that originally they had given up 38 units for the school site, and the County would allow transfer of those 38 units to other part of the property. He said they were willing to give up the 38 units and do lot line adjustments to enlarge the lots. Commissioner Tolstoy asked where paseos will be added. Mr. DiIorio stated there are some paseos, but he decided not to put in paseos in where the grade differential would require steps. Commissioner Tolstoy then stated that the final layout did not appear to be final. Mr. DiIorio stated that the layout could be adjusted right through recordation of the map, particularly in case of the paseos. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the profile would change so far as the grading. Mr. DiIorio stated that the larger the lot, the tougher it is to meet the grading standards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see a lot layout. Mr. DiIorio said he had submitted tentative maps to the City in March, but staff refused to review them. There were no further public comments. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff was willing to respond to any specific comments made by Mr. DiIorio. He said City Council directed that no discussions should be closed but also directed staff to prepare a letter from the Council to Jori Mikels concurring with the comments in the staff report. He said the Community Development Director was working to perhaps set up a workshop with members of the City Council and the Consortium regarding the specific plan or the University/Crest project. He suggested that the Planning Commission might also wish to participate in such a workshop if one is arranged. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the Planning Commission have a joint meeting with City Council. Mr. Buller replied that City Council is setting the direction and he would forward information to the Planning Commission. Chairman McNiel stated that he hoped it would be possible for the Consortium and the City to go forward, but he wanted the project to be the best the City can get. Planning Commission Minutes -26- September 12, 1990 COMMISSION BUSINESS L. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners wished to make any changes. Commissioner Chitiea stated that when Commissioner Weinberger leaves, it will be necessary for Commissioner Melcher to join one of the Committees full time. Commissioner Melcher expressed a desire to resume the role of Alternate when the new Commissioner is hired. Commissioner Chitiea felt the new Commissioner should be the Alternate to allow them to view both sides and give a broader picture of what is going on. Commissioner Melcher responded that in theory that was a good idea, but in fact he had only served on one of the Committees so far. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Commissioner Melcher could remain as Alternate even during the vacancy. He said that until the new Commissioner is chosen it is not known where they would best fit in. Chairman McNiel suggested leaving the appointments status quo until the new Commissioner is appointed. Mr. Buller asked if the Commission would like to next consider appointments in the latter part of December for a January effective date. Commissioner Melcher stated that if the Commission would prefer that the new Commissioner become the Alternate, he was willing to be assigned to a Committee full time. It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioners Chitiea and Tolstoy would remain on the Commercial/Industrial Committee, Chairman McNiel will remain on the Residential Committee, with Commissioner Melcher remaining as Alternate and filling in on the Residential side until a replacement Commissioner is found. ADJOURNMENT Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commission would need to adjourn the meeting to a workshop following Design Review on September 20, 1990, regarding Terra Vista Town Center. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -27- September 12, 1990 12:40 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a September 20, 1990, workshop following Design Review at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center to review Terra Vista Town Center. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -28- September 12, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 22, 1990 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal. Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Cindy Norris, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANN OUN CE ME NTS Brad BUller, City Planner, stated that Item D would need to be continued to allow proper noticing to all tenants. Mr. Bullet announced that Scott Murphy had rejoined the City. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried with Weinberger abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of July 5, 1990. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of July 11, 1990. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried with Melcher and Weinberger abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of Jul)' 31, 1990. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Tolstoy, carried with Chitiea and Melcher abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of August 8, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13564 - AKINS A request for an extension of a previously approved county tract map consisting of 182 lots on 117 acres of land, located north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-24, 25, and 26. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that there was no condition in the Resolution to require that the developer join a Mello Roos District to mitigate school impaction. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, responded that school impaction mitigation was contained in the Development Agreement and the Annexation Agreement. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14548 PATSCHECK/HACKBARTH A residential subdivision and Design Review to convert 328 apartment units to condominiums on 29.51 acres of land in the Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Medium (8-14 dwelling units .per acre) zone of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the northeast. corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-041-11. Chairman McNiel reiterated that the item needed to be continued. He opened the public hearing, but there were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract No.. 14548 to September 12, 1990. 'F. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-14 AMPAC INC. A request to modify conditions of approval relating to the timing of on- and off-site improvements for a previously approved project consisting of two manufacturing buildings totaling 26,000 square feet on 39.3 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District, Subarea 15 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 12167 Arrow Route - APN: 229-121-15. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Item F was also recommended for continuance. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 22, !~90 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, but there was no testimony. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to continue Modification to Development Review 89-14 to September 12, 1990. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01B - PITASSI/DALMAU ARCHITECTS - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 3.56 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street. The City will also consider Neighborhood Commercial and Low Medium Residential as alternative designations - APN: 1077-332-26. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 90-02 - PITASSI/DALMAU ARCHITECTS - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from "OP" (Office/Professional) to ."M" (Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 3.56 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street. The City will also consider "NC" (Neighborhood Commercial) and "LM" (Low Medium Residential) as alternative designations - APN: 1077-332-26. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked how many "out of mainstream" Office/Professional designations remain in the City. Mr. Warren replied approximately 10. Commissioner Chitiea asked the density of the proposed development. Mr. Warren responded approximately 10 dwelling units per acre. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi-Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Suite 220, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented the developer, Jeff Burum, and Mr. Burum was available to answer questions. Mr. Pitassi stated the'General Plan Amendment and Development District Amendment had come before the Planning Commission in May, but the applicant had requested the applications be continued to allow them to be processed with the proposed project, which was going through Design Review. He said the Design Review application was ready to be scheduled for Planning Commission review pending staff's review of the hydrology study and review by the grading committee. He stated they were proposing single family attached on individual lots, which would mean two units per building with one common wall, and the common area would be maintained by a Homeowners' Association. He felt that product would be the best transitional use from the single family residential to the north and west and the apartments to the south and east of the project. He said they had mitigated the concerns of the School District. He stated they sent notices to surrounding property owners and held a neighborhood meeting in May. He said the two people who attended Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 22, 1990 were primarily concerned that Church Street be widened. He said there did not seem to be a tremendous concern on the part of the neighbors. He showed slides of the site plan and floor plan and elevations. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had always felt that the Office/Professional designation for this property was not appropriate, as it is too far removed from like uses. He felt Medium Residential was the proper designation and he supported the project. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the particular project proposed on the site is the best use of the site, but stated she is concerned with overall density in the City. She felt that the City should look closely before changing any other designations in the City. She said if the project were not so well designed or in another location, she would not have been so willing to support the project. Chairman McNiel felt the project is well designed and he liked the duplex concept because it appears residential. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-01B and Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 90-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 AMENDMENT - SAM'S PLACE - A request to extend the hours of operation for an existing bar and restaurant, located at the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 58, 59, and 60. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what time the applicant proposed to stop serving dinner if the hours were extended. Ms. Fon9 stated she did not know. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Mannerino, Mannerino & Briguglio Law Offices, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the liquor license requires that food be served during the entire time that alcohol is served, and the full dinner menu Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 22, 1990 would be served until closing time. He gave a brief history of the ownership of the establishment. He said that the first two owners have not owned the business since 1985 and there has been no live entertainment since that time. He felt that the previous problems had been resolved as soon as the live entertainment ceased. He stated that Sam Pellegrino has owned the business since March and the Sheriff's Depar~ent had not been called to the premises once in that time. He felt that the hours of operation do not cause problems, but rather the way the establishment is run. Mr. Mannerino stated that the request for extended hours was to allow the business to be competitive. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt it was not fair to tie the present owner's hands because of another person's doing. He thought an experimental period of increased hours was merited. He felt that if a six month period of increased hours proved successful, then the extended hours could be continued; but if any problems arose, then the closing time could be dropped back to 11:00 P.M. Commissioner Weinberger felt it might be better to extend the hours only on Friday and Saturday evenings. She felt the outcome should be reviewed later. Commissioner Chitiea was opposed to extending the hours. She felt the people in the neighborhood had suffered for many years in the past and a late night crowd is different from a dinner crowd. She felt the extended hours were inappropriate because of the proximity to homes. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the situation has changed because live entertainment is not proposed. He also stated that the former owners stopped serving food after dinner and served only token food at night in order to keep their license. Ne stated he shared Commissioner Chitiea's concerns regarding the neighborhood; but because the full menu would be served and there would be no live entertainment, he felt it would be appropriate to allow a trial period of extended hours. He proposed the hours be extended to midnight rather than 2:00 A.M. with the possibility of extending the hours later if the trial proved successful. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that Conditional Use Permit rights are property rights that run with the land absent extraordinary conditions. He said the City could not place a time limit on extended hours without the specific consent of the applicant. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to comment. Mr. Mannerino stated that the applicant was more than willing to voluntarily place the matter for review. Mr. Mannerino pointed out that the surrounding residents were noticeably absent from this evening's hearing even though they had received written notification of the proposal. He stated that the owner had visited each of the neighbors who are within 300 feet of the property line and told them of their proposal to extend the hours and had invited the residents to visit the bar. He said they would voluntarily submit to a Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 22, 1990 reexamination of the permit in six months if the Planning staff felt one were warranted. He felt a three-month trial period would not be realistic because it would probably take that long before people realized they were open later. Mr. Hanson asked if the applicant would acknowledge that the extended hours would terminate absent an extension by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mannerino agreed they would stipulate that the Conditional Use Permit could be modified upon review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Commission would even have to wait six months if a problem develops because a Conditional Use Permit can be reviewed at any time if there are problems. Mr. Hanson stated that the standards for revocation of a Conditional Use Permit are extreme; either violation of a set condition or proof of a substantial and immediate detriment to the health, safety, and welfare in the area. He felt it would be better to have the extended hours automatically end if the Commission did not take affirmative action to continue the extended hours. Chairman McNiel stated he did not like the concept of allowing bars in neighborhood shopping centers because there have been problems in the past. However, he said he had observed that it can work successfully in Europe when there is no live entertainment. He stated that under previous ownership the back door was left open and a lot of noise from the band and patrons filtered through the allejavay to the neighboring residences. Sam Pellegrino, Sam's Place, 6620 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was co-owner. He stated that on average Friday and Saturday evenings they serve 75 to 80 dinners. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He stated that he was inclined to take the risk with the understanding that the extended hours would be reviewed in six months. He stated he would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the new owners and the burden would be on the owners to show that the extended hours would not negatively impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the extended hours be until midnight seven days a week. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Weinberger, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution approving a temporary six-month extension of hours to 2:00 A.M. seven nights a week for Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -failed Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 22. !qgo Motion: Moved by Tolstoy to direct staff to prepare a Resolution approving a temporary six-month extension of hours to midnight seven days a week. Chairman McNiel stated that would be a weak test. Mr. Hanson asked if such a motion would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Mannerino stated it would be acceptable only if they would be allowed to stay open until 2:00 A.M. on Fridays and Saturdays. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Melcher, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution approving a temporary six-month extension of hours to midnight Sunday through Thursday and 2:00 A.M. Friday and Saturday for Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Mr. Mannerino asked if the hours could be changed effective immediately. Mr. Hanson replied the hours could not change until following the signing of the Resolution. 8:10 P.M. - Planning Commission recessed 8:20 P.M. - Planning Commission reconvened G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90~23 - ALLMARK, INC. - The request to establish a building contractor's office and yard within the existing Sixth Street Industrial Park on 4.74 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10096 Sixth Street - APN: 209-211-40. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked why the use was already established prior to an approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Buckingham replied that when the business license application was reviewed by the Planning Department, it was noted that a Conditional Use Permit was required and the applicant began processing an application. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 22, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked what would happen if the Planning Commission'were to determine the use to be unacceptable. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded that the City would begin Code Enforcement action.' He said such action is deferred so long as the applicant makes a good faith effort to process a Conditional Use Permit application. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tony Mize, vice-president, Allmark, Inc., 11070 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, stated Vern Morrison, a framing contractor, had approached them to lease space and they did not realize the use would require a Conditional Use Permit. He said as soon as the issue was raised, they began processing the Conditional Use Permit application. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the use was acceptable as there would be no vehicles or materials stored in public view. Commissioner McNiel stated that generally a framing contractor doesn't require a lot of materials at an office, as materials are normally delivered to the construction sites. He supported the use. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-23. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A MODIFICATION TO TRACT 13273 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify a condition of approval for a previously approved and recorded one-lot tract for 256 condominium units within the Medium- High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Comunity, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Mountain View Drive - APN: 227-151-13. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the normal vacancy rate at an apartment complex. Mr. Buller responded he believed it is typically under 5 percent. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August ~2, 1990 Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated hl had been working with staff to attempt to find a program which would satisfy everyone's concerns. He said it is their intent to "green up" Terra Vista as soon as possible as evidenced by the addition of a condition requiring completion of the Milliken Park and playfield and the adjoining greenway connections to the west. Commissioner Melcher asked how many units the applicant envisioned would be released immediately if the Resolution were approved. Mr. Oleson responded that he anticipated 70 to 80 units could be released based on the improvements they had already completed. He anticipated another 35 to 45 units would be released when the hardscape, rough irrigation and ancillary structures in the park were completed, with the final 5 percent to be released upon total completion and acceptance by the City. Commissioner Melcher asked if the project consisted entirely of eight-unit buildings. Mr. Oleson replied that he thought so. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the Resolution was fair with the exception of the final release. She felt that since a normal vacancy factor is 5 percent, the retention of only 5 percent would not provide sufficient incentive to complete the project. She felt the final release should be 10 percent. Commissioner Melcher stated that the 5 percent vacancy factor is based on the number of units available, so that if the building were 95 percent leased, there would still be a vacancy factor of 5 percent of that 95 percent. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated that she felt that a higher number of units should be held back. Chairman McNiel stated he was agreeable to changing the number of units available for release. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Weinberger stated she understood the importance of getting the improvements, but she also felt it is important to get people housed. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Oleson stated that the developer wishes to obtain a loan on the project and the loan requires occupancy. He said the construction loan has al. ready been extended. He felt the developer has sufficient incentive to complete the work in a timely manner. He said they were voluntarily adding the west greenway condition, which was not originally there, to show their sincerity. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 22, 1990 Chairman McNiel stated that public improvements seem to always be the last things that get done, and they should be constructed simultaneously with the dwellings. Mr. Oleson stated that CalTrans has indicated the permit should be issued before the end of the year. He t~id the rough grading on the trail system and the main drain are in place and complete. Commissioner Melcher asked the status on the plans. Mr. Oleson replied that plan check had been consolidated. He said they had just reviewed the plan check comments and felt they should have approximately a one-week turnaround. He said they hoped to have the plans in for final signature by August 29. Commissioner Chitiea felt a 90 percent release figure was still appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to list the actual number of units. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Tract 13273 with provision to provide for the release of 72 units upon completion of the rough grading and storm drain at Milliken Park and the adjoining trail connections; release of 32 additional units upon completion of the hardscape, rough irrigation including mainlines, and all ancillary structures; and release of the final 24 units upon completion of all development improvements and acceptance by the City Council. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried OLD BUSINESS I. REGIONAL TRAILS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher stated he recollected that the Commission had decided a single system should be implemented throughout the City and then at a later time a second set of underpasses could be installed north of Banyan. Chairman McNiel recalled that he had been the proponent of dual underpasses throughout and when he saw the cost figures he decided it did not make sense. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 22, 1990 Commissioner Melcher felt staff's point was well taken and he was prepared to modify the direction as staff requested. Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the proposal needs to be more cost realistic and he therefore agreed with staff's suggestion. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that there are too many other high-priority items. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Regional Multi- Purpose Trails should follow one side of the channel outside of the Equestrian/Rural Area. NEW BUSINESS J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-03 - SPENCER AND JONES - The development of a building contractor's office and warehouse totaling 15,638 square feet on 2.18 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 13 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and Rochester Court - APN: 229-263-04. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that all concerns raised at the July 19, 1990, Design Review Committee Meeting had been met on revised blue lines. He said the items would also be reviewed in plan check. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Max Williams, Williams Architects, 276 North Second Avenue, Upland, stated that George Spencer, the owner, was available to answer questions. He stated that staff had done a good job in analyzing the project and thanked Planning staff for coordination. He questioned the requirement for continuing street improvements beyond their property line to the corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue. He stated the existing house at the corner would be within 6 to 10' feet of the curb if the street were constructed full width, so he proposed an alternate mid-block transition. Mr. Williams objected to the requirement to construct the 6th Street landscaping median in its entirety from Rochester Court to Charles Smith Avenue because he felt the project should only have to pay 25 percent of the cost based on its size. He stated that even though a reimbursement agreement would be available, having to pay for full construction costs at this time would place too much of a financial burden on the project. He said that because currently none of the median is improved there is no water provided to the median and they would have to tear up the median to provide water service. Mr. Williams also objected to Engineering Condition 6 requiring reconstruction of the 6th Street median nose on the east side of Rochester Court because the condition was not added until recently and he felt the City should reconstruct the nose if it was damaged because of normal wear and tear. He felt that if the nose had been damaged by Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 22, 1990 construction on another property or was of substandard construction, then whoever was responsible should pay for the reconstruction. There were no further public comments. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the City has been requiring median landscaping of adjacent developers along 6th Street for some time. He said it did not seem practical to landscape only in front of the property. He said the City was not sure of the cause of the inadequate nose, but felt that while the developer was constructing the landscaping, it should not be that much of an additional cost to bring the nose up to standards. He said the City is trying to obtain reasonable lengths of street improvements and felt that in this case it would be appropriate to construct the street improvements to the next corner. He felt the City could handle transition traffic with stri ping. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the applicant could expect to recover any street construction costs from additional development. Mr. Hanson responded that the applicant could recover 100 percent of the cost of street improvements in front of the property to the east and could recover a pro rata percentage of the cost of the median construction. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the applicant would recover any of the cost of the repair work to the nose. Mr. Hanson replied that it could be possible to work that into the total cost. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification of the systems fees used for signalization of intersections, whereby developers sometimes install signals and receive systems fees credits. He asked if systems fees could be used for street development. Mr. Hanson replied that the systems development fee is designed to fund and construct items of a regional nature, rather than local streets adjacent to properties. Commissioner Chitiea felt that it would look very bad if only part of the median were irrigated and planted. She said that because the developer can recover part of the costs when the next property develops, the burden is not as great as it appears. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that it would not be appropriate to plant median landscaping in stages because that would result in uneven growth. Mr. Williams stated they were not recommending that only a portion of the landscaping be installed, but requested that they be allowed to post a bond for their portion of the landscaping improvements and allow the City to install the landscaping all at one time. There were no further comments. Planning Commission Minutes -12- August ~?. !qgo Chairman McNiel asked the current recommendation for bonding. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that bonds can only be obtained when there is a specific time frame, but when the construction period is indefinite, a cash bond should be required. Commissioner Melcher asked if there is an overall plan for the median treatment on 6th Street. Barrye Hanson replied there is a conceptual master plan design, but not a particular design for this portion of the median. Commissioner Melcher asked who would maintain the median. Barrye Hanson replied that the City takes over maintenance once the plant establishment period has passed. Commissioner Melcher asked how long that period would be. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated the period is generally a maximum of six months before the median would be annexed into the landscape maintenance district for the industrial area. Commissioner Chitiea stated that immediate landscaping would improve the streetscape enormously. Chairman McNiel felt that the project site actually exceeds 50 percent of the street length. He said that because this is the first project to develop, it would be consistent with past practices to require installation with reimbursement as other properties develop. Commissioner Chitiea concurred that it would be consistent with what had been done in the past. Commissioner Melcher asked if reimbursement agreements carry an inflation factor. Barrye Hanson replied a 10 percent inflation factor is built in and the interest is passed on to the original developer. Commissioner Melcher felt that was a good investment. Chairman McNiel felt that as the project's street frontage is approximately 60 percent of the block .and it is the first project to develop, he saw no reason to change the policy on all three requests. He said if the project only accounted for 20 percent of the street frontage, he might feel differently. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed on the street construction to Charles Smith Avenue and the median landscaping, but he did not feel the City should require the reconstruction of the median nose. Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 27. !990 Chairman McNiel asked what is wrong with the nose. Barrye Hanson responded that it is not high enough. Commissioner Chitiea asked what problems might occur. Barrye Hanson replied that it doesn't offer the same protection and it won't look the same. Mr. Williams provided a picture of the median nose. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it should not be the applicant's responsibility to bring the nose up to standards. Commissioner Weinberger agreed. Commissioner Chitiea felt the applicant should fix the nose and get it right. Commissioner Melcher agreed. Chairman McNiel felt that so long as the applicant was putting in the median, the cost would not be that great and the work should be done. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the City accepted a substandard nose, then the City should go in and reconstruct it. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 90-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried K. SHARED PARKING STUDY FOR FOOTHILL VILLAGE - NU WEST COMPANIES - A request to allow shared parking within a neighborhood commercial center at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue APN: 208-261-58. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Frederick Chart, President, Nu West, 12300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300, Los Angeles, stated that the original plans called for the center to be anchored by a supermarket and drug store. He said if a supermarket had been built, the same parking would be needed but the center would not be subject to the same Planning Commission Minutes -14- August ?~, 1990 City standards. He said the center was designed with 10,000 square foot spaces, but they were unable to fill the spaces; and therefore, leased to Chuck E. Cheese. He stated they were the first project to be built along the Foothill corridor. He objected to the required 10 percent buffer because he said that would bring the required number of spaces back up to the same as needed without the shared parking concept. He thought that meant the City was not really willing to consider shared parking. He felt shopping centers are overdesigned and it is not realistic to design enough parking to handle the one time in the year that they may be short of spaces. He thought the country is entering a recession and the economic outlook is not bright and his tenants are havin9 trouble because the shopping center is not full enough. He indicated the center may have to foreclose if they are unable to lease any more stores. He said it is an economic necessity that they lease more space and they are unable to lease because they cannot lease to food-related uses because of the additional parking required. There were no further public comments. Mr. Coleman stated that it was not true that staff objected to the shared parking only because of the lack of a 10 percent buffer. He said that the 10 percent buffer was proposed by the parking engineer who prepared the parking study for the Virginia Dare Winery center. He said staff was relying on the applicant's engineering report so far as the number of spaces required. Chairman McN!]~l stated that a shared parking concept with a buffer seems to work only when a center has some daytime uses and other nighttime uses. He said his heart went out to Mr. Chan, but experience has shown that shared parking works marginally at best, even with opposite hours of uses. Commissioner Chitiea stated there is a dilemma because all want the center to be successful. However, she had just read an article by a businessperson in the Virginia Dare Center that protested that the City does not require enough parking spaces. She said that when the Virginia Dare center was not full, it was hard to believe there would ever be a parking problem there. She felt the City needs to be sensitive to the small businessperson who needs people to be able to run in and out and also needs to have the center leased. · Commissioner Melcher stated that the applicant's request may save the center for the applicant but may not save the center for the tenants. He said that restricting parking of employees does not work and therefore should not be considered as an option. Commissioner Weinberger agreed that the applicant's proposed solution would only serve as a band-aid right now. She sympathized with the leasing situation, but did not feel the proposed sblution would help in the long run. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that 21 percent of the parking is south of the center and the casual user would not even realize the parking is there because it is obscured. He said the parking load will occur in front of the center and he is constantly frustrated when he cannot find a parking space in other centers he uses. Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 22, 1990 Chairman McNiel stated that when the center was approved, it was agreed that the parking behind the center would be employee parking, but it will be difficult to get employees to park in the rear; and he did not feel the City should be placed in the position of trying to enforce such a provision. He felt that by attempting to solve a problem other problems were being created. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when the developer designed the layout he worked with the neighborhood and created a special project. He said the functionality of the center was in question before the Planning Commission. He thought there might be several options available. He felt the Planning Commission could restrict some uses and perhaps a church could use part of the project. Chairman McNiel asked if staff could work with the developer to develop a proposal to limit uses. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if it could be worked out to restrict high- parking-demand tenants from occupying the center, he would be willing to contemplate such a solution. Chairman McNiel suggested that the possibility existed for Mr. Chan to work with staff to look at less-intensive uses and he invited Mr. Chan to con~nent. Mr. Chan stated he had a potential restaurant tenant who would only be open for breakfast and lunch, and he asked if the Commission would consider the shared parking concept on that basis. Chairman McNiel stated that might be a possibility, but 1:00 P.M. was one of the peak times determined by the parking study. Mr. Buller stated that it would not be a simple solution, but one possibility might be to hold some of the square footage designated for retail space for uses not requiring the same parking demands. Mr. Chan stated he would like to continue the dialogue. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated that the City wants the center to be successful. Mr. Buller said that after studying the situation, shared parking may not be considered, but perhaps a modification to the Conditional Use Permit which would restrict uses might be proposed. Chairman McNiel stated that Mr. Chan had been a pleasure to work with and he had developed a fine center which is appreciated. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the Shared Parking Study for Foothill Village to allow the applicant and staff to work together to address the problems. Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 22, 1990 10:20 P.M. - Planning Commission recessed 10:35 P.M. - Planning Commission reconvened DIRECTOR'S REPORTS L. COUNTY REFERRAL 88-05 - UNIVERSITY CREST - Master Tentative Tracts, Final Development Plan Map, and various Tentative Tract Maps for 1,293 single family residential units, 6.3 acres of commercial, 4.56 acre park site, and 7.17 acre school site for University Crest Planned Development Proposal on 425.16 acres of land located north of Highland Avenue, south of utility corridor, east of Day Creek Channel, with portions west of Hanley Avenue and portions west of Etiwanda Avenue within the City's Sphere of Influence. The proposal also includes the dedication as permanent open space of 675 acres located within the National Forest. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the 675 acres of land located in the National Forest would be considered buildable land. Mr. Henderson responded it is buildable but many things would be considered, such as public access and fire safety. He thought the Forest Services has set policies to discourage development and the federal government sets aside money each year to purchase such land. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if some of the land in the Forest Service area is under County flood control easements. Mr. Henderson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if those flood control easements would not place further constraints upon development. Mr. Henderson responded it would relate back to the access and public safety concerns regarding potential ~ash floods, etc. Commissioner Chitiea asked if any of the landowners had dropped out of the Consortium. Mr. Henderson thought that Landmark was the largest property owner who had dropped out of the Consortium. Commissioner Chitiea asked what portion of original land is still under the control of people in the Consortium. Mr. Henderson replied that excluding Flood Control lands he would estimate approximately 25 to 30 percent. Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 22, 1990 Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Joe DiIorio, The Caryn Company, 34 Executive Park, Suite 155, Irvine, stated that only Landmark has dropped out of the Consortium, but some of the other land had already been annexed. He stated that the 675 acres in the National Forest is buildable and 19 lots could be built on the acreage even with the flood control easements. He said that it is the most beautiful land anywhere in the foothills and so long as it is in private ownership, it would be walled off. He showed pictures of the land in the National Forest owned by Betty McNay. He said that Mrs. McNay owns 300 acres and he owns 120 acres and they both want the land to remain as permanent open space. He said that Mrs. McNay had learned that the University of California had land on Highland Avenue which they were to retain as a preserve or to sell in order to obtain money to be used exclusively for the purchase of pristine land. She then contacted the University and asked about trading the land on Highland Avenue for the land in the National Forest. He said they produced the first draft for a planned community. He said staff's letter to the County did not indicate support for transferring the units from the National Forest area. His concept was that the Etiwanda North Specific Plan was to be done as a backbone for a series of Planned Developments. He said the on-site park is only 5 acres because they are using a utility corridor adjacent to Day Creek Boulevard and making it a 10 acre park. He said an additional 12 acres of park are to be provided further north along with an additional 40 acres of open space to be purchased from Southern California Edison. He said the Planned Development and all of Etiwanda North is committed to pay twice as much money per unit for parks as the City now requires from any other development. He said the Consortium had done several traffic reports and the City had done a traffic report and all the reports agreed that the road system in the Planned Development is the road system which should be used. He indicated that the County concurs. He said that the City's traffic model proposes to make Vintage Drive a through street running traffic in front of Caryn School on a street which was not designed to handle through traffic. He said there was no good reason to make Vintage Drive a through street. He presented copies of a 16-page letter responding to some of staff's concerns and a 3-page letter responding to' the staff report. He felt that the majority of the negative comments made by City staff compared the project against the City's development code, but felt that the City was referring, to the wrong chapter in the Development Code and should refer to Chapter 17.14. He said the University Crest 'development is an 1,100 acre project. He stated that the minimum size of individual lots is to be established by the development plan. Mr. DiIorio stated that at a May 22, 1990, public meeting with Supervisor Mikels, Mayor Stout agreed with the concept that a planned development establishes its own development regulations. He said none of the discussions have centered on the question of whether the proposal is a good or worthwhile planned community. He said that 22 percent of the lots are smaller than 7,200 square feet. He said the density of the project falls into an acceptable range based upon the City's General Plan, except for the triangular section where they agreed to covert to equestrian lots, those lots have been transferred out. He said the development is in the only Community Facilities District (CFD) in the City which pays for the cost of not only building, but equipping and running, a fire station, and is part of the area where the only police CFD exists. He Planning Commission Minutes -18- August ?~, 1990 said the plan would build approximately three times as many roads as that which would be required by normal calculations. He said it is the first project in the City to voluntarily propose an expanded systems development fee, which equals $4,100 per unit compared to the City's current average of $1,200 per unit. He indicated the costs of the park, fire, police, and road facilities is in excess of $20 million dollars on a capitalized basis, with some of it being paid through yearly CFD. He said the project will have a high tax rate, but it will provide all of the services it needs and provide missing links in the City's trail system and circulation system. He felt the plan is a good plan even though it may still need some work. He said that engineering and planning objectives have been conflicting in the area of street designs and paseos. He said they submitted tentative maps in March and asked for review, and the plans have still not been reviewed. He said he wants to annex into the City because he wants to complete the General Plan which was started many years ago. He said he would be more than happy to continue talking with the Planning Commission so long as they accept the premise that this is a planned community and not a standard City tract. Commissioner Chitiea asked the developer if he did not pay for the roads and systems development fees, how the City would be able to pay for those costs if the growth from the proposed development will require the roads and systems. Mr. DiIorio stated he is a firm believer that new growth and existing growth both have to pay their fair shares. He felt that part of the problem lies in the fact that the City is not currently charging enough. He said the $4,100 cost per unit was offered by the developer as the necessary fees. He said the City has been going through a major study to develop a nexus program to determine the appropriate fees, but the City's study is two years overdue. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the fire station were not built with the project, where the money would come from. Mr. DiIorio responded that he helped the City get the first CFD going. He said some of their homeowners will be paying $500 per year for a fire CFD, even though there are no other CFD's in the City with a fee of more than $95. He said. some of the homeowners will actually live closer to the fire station the City is building on Banyan Avenue which other homeowners in the City will not have to pay for. Pete Dangermond, Dangermond Associates, 2630 Land Park Drive, Sacramento, stated he is a consultant for the University's natural reserve system. He showed a map prepared by CalPoly students. He said there is a big, level flat by the gauging station where some development could be placed. He stated the University has two main interests in the area; one being the land given to the University by Union Oil to help in an overall endowment campaign for the natural reserve system. He said the natural reserve system comprises about 40,000 acres in approximately 30 different prime natural areas throughout California with different habitat types. He said they received the land on Highland as part of the endov~nent to be sold to help the overall natural reserve system. He indicated the University people met Betty McNa¥ and a number of the students started using the McNay property as a research area, Planning Commission Minutes -19- August ?~, !990 and over time the University developed a second goal of trying to preserve the canyon itself either as natural preserve area or as land to be given to the National Forest. He stated that the CalPoly study suggested some sort of density transfer could be done to remove densities from the Natural Forest area and add them to the south, allowing the Natural Forest area to be transferred into public ownership. He said shortly after the study was completed, the idea was presented to both the City and the County and both agencies indicated they liked the idea but were nervous about setting up a Transfer Development Credit system because in some places such systems had been abused. He said it was the County's suggestion to incorporate the land in the forest area with the land further south into one development plan and apply for the normal bonus given as a part of that system. Mr. Dangermond said that through the process they met Mr. DiIorio and structured a three- party agreement that stated that if certain densities could be achieved on University property, then the canyon people would receive a percentage of the ultimate land sale and they would then donate the land to the university. He said at the time the agreement was drawn up the County allowed a 25 percent total bonus, which would have allowed 3.75 units per acre, but the agreement was structured at 3.6 units per acre to allow a margin. He said the County later changed its policy and does not allow the 25 percent bonus. He said that Mr. DiIorio agreed that if a 10 percent bonus would be permitted, he would allow his bonus units to be taken by the University in order to preserve the agreement and the undeveloped canyon. He said they felt justified in a density of 3.6 because the City's General Plan calls for Low Residential at 2- 4 dwelling units per acre. He stated that if the densities are cut, the University will be financially impacted and the agreement to release the 675 acres to public ownership would be negated. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated that when the City started its series of meetings with the Consortium the discussion on the number of units on the University piece indicated they were established by some other need than the transfer of units from some other territory, and the City was told the fixed number requested by Mr. DiIorio and the balance of the Consortium was not negotiable in terms of reduction. He said it was his recollection that the City did not agree to the proposed density. He said that remains one of the bones of contention. He said agreement has never been reached on a conclusion of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, partly because of the threat of the County looming in the background. He felt that the many plans and documents and the lengthy discussions had not reached a point of agreement mainly because the City feels the density on the University portion is inconsistent with the surrounding area of north Etiwanda. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that all have been through an incredible number of meetings and lots of changes, but talks had reached an impasse. She felt staff's comments were valid. She did not feel that engineering is comfortable with some of the street plans. She felt that much of the open space that things are being put on, belongs to other agencies and there were still no agreements with Flood Control. She said the City needs a comfort level that the promises are going to be kept regarding the parks and schools. She felt Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 22, 1990 that every time the City asks for specific items, the Consortium returns to the County. She felt the area has potential to become a very exiting place, but if they could not meet the density standards, she did not feel the City needs the impact on public services. She questioned the need for so many people in the area and its impact upon roads. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with most of staff's position. He stated he did not understand why density bonuses were given, as he felt they were only supposed to be given for innovative projects. He said Mr. DiIorio stated that the area will be paying for police and fire and infrastructure, but when he looked at the plans he did not see much innovation. He felt the project is a checkerboard design with 6,000 foot square lots and no paseos to allow people to get to open space. He did not feel the plan addresses itself to adjacent properties and how to develop them in a compatible manner regarding infrastructure, etc. He thought the proposed commercial area appears too small. He said he had reservations concerning environmental issues, such as the erasing of blue line streams. He was sorry that there had been no recent dialogue with the Consortium. He also stated that because he had only this evening received copies of the 3-page letter responding to the staff report and the 16-page letter sent by the proponents to the County, he was unable to comment and would have liked to have had time to review those letters. He said that the Planning Commission had met whenever the Consortium wanted to meet and he wondered why the meetings had stopped. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Commission was being asked to approve one project before tying up all the other loose ends. She said the City was being told this was part of a Planned Community, but it was being presented on a tract by tract basis. She thought the City was being asked to trade off things right now without the package being put together and no guarantees for specific park or school sites. She felt the City needs to see the whole picture before they could determine if the project or densities are appropriate. Chairman McNiel stated that this is the most dense parcel in the area and it is important to be sure it is right. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the results of the proposed density is the checkerboard layout and excessive grading in order to create so many small lots. Commissioner Chitiea stated the Commission is looking for innovation in the use and aesthetics, not the financing, to warrant a density bonus. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated he believed the project proponent feels the preservation of the 675 acres is the cause, reason, and benefit for allowing the proposed densities. He said they are offering to forego 17 units plus permanent preservation of open space and the County staff has led the applicant to believe that they will accept the plan. He said the County may feel that the permanent open space of 675 acres may be value enough for the density; however, the City does not support density bonuses. He stated the project is very complex and the project proponent has made a decision to Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 22, 1990 attempt to secure approval of this project prior to preparation and approval of a Specific Plan. He said that all elements of the project are interwoven, and one of the frustrating elements of the workshops had been that never once was a full comprehensive package presented, but the Commission and proponents tried to bite off pieces to work on it. He said that dialogue stopped primarily because staff did not believe the project was moving in a direction the City felt appropriate, based upon discussions with the Commissioners. He said at that point the Consortium made the decision to work with the County. Mr. Henderson stated that the City is in the process of trying to annex the area into the City and if a tentative tract is approved by the County in that area, the City would have to accept that map. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the City had previously accepted other Planned Developments into the City under similar circumstances, and she felt the City has been somewhat disappointed in the results. She felt the City should be careful to avoid such a disappointment in the future. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there were any other.environmental concerns. Mr. Henderson stated the City had sent additional comments to the County concerning distribution of the Environmental Impact Report Addendum. He said the City was asking that the County obtain feedback from outside agencies in connection with the Addendum. He said the City also has indicated they have not seen a copy of the mitigation plan as required under CEQA. He stated that the applicant had indicated such a plan was prepared but the County has stated the plan has not been prepared. He said there are sensitive environmental issues involving many agencies at federal, state, and local levels; and the City feels that one of the key elements for the whole area will be the mitigation plan, including who does the monitoring and to what extend the monitoring will take place. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if more things could be added to the list of staff's concerns as more information is gathered and analyzed. Mr. Henderson responded affirmatively. Mr. Buller stated that the list of concerns shown in the staff report is merely a summary and staff was asking not only for confirmation that it is a good summary list, but also the comments addressed on the following pages. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the 13 points in the August 6 letter to the County were well taken, but he felt there are probably some additional points. Commissioner Melcher asked if there may be some compelling offsetting arguments in the material provided by the applicant this evening. He said he was interested in Mr. DiIorio's comment that the City is looking at the wrong section of the Development Code. Mr. Buller stated staff used the Development Code as the basis of analysis for standards of Low Medium, Low, or Very Low, with regard to lot size, lot Planning Commission Minutes -22- August 22, 1990 dimensions, and depth because a Specific Plan has not been approved; and therefore, a Development Code section of a comparable land use pattern of development was used. He stated the Development Code does allow the flexibility of a Planned Community and the City supports such use, but there is no approved Planned Community. He stated the meetings with the developer stopped when the City felt the lots were getting down to a size that is not appropriate. Commissioner Weinberger stated that she was sorry the Commission had not received the applicant's letters earlier. Brad Buller stated the project is scheduled to be heard at the County on September 13, 1990, and staff would like to convey the position of the City as directed by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that it would be possible to return the item for any further discussion on September 12, 1990, if they wished to make additional comments and hear about the City Council's comments. He also stated that the Commissioners could pass along information to staff individually. Chairman McNiel did not feel it would be necessary to return the item to the Commission. Commissioner Melcher asked if a workshop should be scheduled. Chairman McNiel stated there have al ready been many workshops. Commissioner Weinberger stated she had not attended any workshops on the project. Commissioner Chitiea preferred to brin9 the item back to the next Planning Commission meeting for any additional comments. Commissioner Weinber§er stated that would allow the Commissioners to get together with staff if they had any questions. It was the consensus of the Commission that the item should be returned to the September 12, 1990, Planning Commission meeting for further comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no further Commission business. PUBLIC COMMENTS Joe DiIorio, The Caryn Company, 34 Executive Par~, Suite 155, Irvine, expressed his frustrations with processing through the City. His comments touched on Etiwanda North Specific Plan processing, University Crest Tract Map Planning Commission Minutes -23- August ??, 1990 processing, Flood Control property and fencing, Etiwanda Highlands landscape plan processing, and landscape planting policy. There were no further public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 12:15 A.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -24- A~gust 2?, !g90 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 8, 1990 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: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Jerry Dyer, Associate Engineer; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Tom Neely, Fn9ineering Aide; Mike Oliver, Senior Civil Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail ~Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman McNiel presented a Resolution of Commendation to Brett Norner, Associate Planner, and announced that Mr. Horner was leaving the City to return to school. Chairman McNiel thanked Russ Maguire, City Engineer, for his service and announced that Mr. Maguire was leaving the City to accept a position with a private firm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of July 19, 1990. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of July 25, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13877 - MAJOR J'S LTD. - A residential subdivision and design review of 27 single family lots on 18.01 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Wilson, east of Hermosa, south of Hillside, and west of Mayberry Avenue - APN: 201-111-6, 11, 13, and 32. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the applicant for Item B had indicated that one of his consultants would be arriving later in the evening and requested that the item be deferred until later in the agenda. Item B was deferred, pending the arrival of the consultant. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13113 - RONALD AND SUSAN NUNALLY - A subdivision of 1.32 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Strang Lane, east of Carnelian Street - APN: 1061-271-08. (Continued from July 25, 1990.) Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report and indicated that the applicant had requested that Fire District Condition 3 be changed in the Resolution to require street improvements at the time of development of Parcel 2 instead of prior to issuance of building permits. Ms. Krall stated that Engineering was in agreement with the requested change. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Susan Nunally, 8880 Strang Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had no comments. Hearing no further testimony, Chairm~n McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approvinq Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13113, with modification to provide for installation of street improvements at the time of development of Parcel 2. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 8, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried D. AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR MILLER'S OUTPOST PLAZA - PIZZA HUT - An appeal of staff's decision to deny a sign program amendment, located at the northeast corner of Foothill and Archibald APN: 1077-641-71. (Continued from July 25, 1990.) Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jack Gray, 1346 Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, referred to a June 2I, 1990, letter from Kodash, Inc. Mr. Gray felt the requested change was not that significant because there are already other tenants in the center who have red signs. He stated he had checked other shopping centers and other chain stores were allowed to have their national colors. Commissioner Melcher asked if the intent was to keep the same sign, but change the color of plexiglas. Mr. Gray responded affirmatively. Hearing no ~rther testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as each shopping center is approved a sign program is also approved. He agreed with the City Planner's decision, and saw no reason to change it. Commissioner Weinberger felt that Pizza Hut did not qualify as a major tenant. Because of the location and size of Pizza Hut she did not wish to set a precedent by allowing them to have red signs. Commissioner Melcher stated he was in favor of upholding the sign program. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to deny the appeal for Amendment to Uniform Sign Program for Miller's Outpost Plaza. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- August ~, 1990 E. REVISION TO TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 88-11 - BCER ARCHITECTS - A revision to an approved tree removal permit which was associated with Tentative Tract 13886 and Conditional-Use Permit 88-01, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue APN: 227-522-01, 02, 03, and 04. (Continued from July 25, 1990.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated that the matter had been continued to allow the applicant to submit landscape plans. She stated those plans had been submitted and were currently being reviewed by staff. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if chain link fencing had been placed around the trees that are to be saved. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that he had been by the site and there appeared to be metal stakes around the trees connected by a cable with ribbons hanging from the cable. He stated the protection did not meet the City's standards. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Neil Reilly, BCER Architects, 8560 Vineyard, Suite 511, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had instructed the foreman in writing to install barricades around the trees in conformance with the City Ordinance, and the fencing would be brought up to standards if it did not currently meet standards. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was concerned about what protection the City had against the removal of trees prior to the effective date of the Tree Removal Permit because the Tree Ordinance had not been effective in protecting the two trees already lost. Commissioner Tolstoy also expressed concern. Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be worthwhile to postpone approval until the next meeting to allow staff time to complete review of the landscaping plans and to make sure that adequate fencing was installed. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Reilly stated that building permits have to be pulled by August 15, I990. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Planning Commission could provide that the trees be secured prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman McNiel stated that at the last meeting Mr. Reilly had stated the trees would be protected by July 26, and he advised Mr. Reilly he wanted the protection installed. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 8, 1990 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Revision to Tree Removal Permit 88-11, with modification to provide for tree protection prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried B. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 WESTERN PROPERTIES A request for conceptual approval of Phase .III site plan within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, and 18. (Continued from July 25, 1990.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a schedule of Foothill median construction provided by the applicant. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rick Mager, Western Properties, I157 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, introduced Norm Abplanalp from.Montgomery Ward. Norm Abplanalp, Montgomery Ward, Chicago, Illinois, presented slides of Montgomery Ward stores in various parts of the country. Chairman McNiel asked why the architecture was dramatically different in some of the slides. Mr. Abplanalp responded that they were trying to reflect architecture of the various areas. Chairman McNiel asked Sf the buildings shown were mostly concrete tilt-up. Mr. Abplanalp responded that generally the buildings were masonry bearing or steel stud with concrete block, brick, or stucco finish materials. He stated that the prototype pitched roof had been molded within the design parameters and he felt they had achieved a successful design. He requested approval of the designs presented on August 2, 1990. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, 111 Pacifica, Suite 300, Irvine, discussed the evolution of the design. Mr. Mager stated he was happy to answer any questions and requested that Condition 10 be modified to indicate that the textured paving only be required in pedestrian crosswalks where pedestrians and traffic compete. He also requested that Condition 11 be deleted and the Montgomery Ward entry be approved as presented. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 8, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the major issue was not the approval of Phase III of the Terra Vista footprint. Mr. Mager responded affirmatively and stated that agreed with all the other conditions. Chairman McNiel asked about the requested reduction of glass panels on the sides of the entry. Mr. Bond replied that had not been done as yet. Chairman McNiel stated he felt it needed to be done to allow the Commission to make a comparison. Mr. Mager requested that the wording of Condition 10 be revised to require textured paving only at crosswalks. Ms. Fong stated that textured paving was also requested along storefronts, entry aisles, and in the passageway through Building K. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the applicant was looking for some clarification on the extent of textured paving. He said that throughout the center the textured paving is being used to accent key pedestrian nodes and the attempt of the Condition was to utilize the textured paving for accent. He said it would be difficult to specify all locations without looking at a detailed site plan. He suggested the condition could be reworded to allow for City Planner's review and approval. Mr. Mager responded that would be satisfactory. Chairman McNiel felt that Condition 11 should remain. Mr. Bond stated they would be willing to remove some of the glass on either side of the entry, but they wanted some to remain. Chairman McNiel felt that would be acceptable. He felt Condition 11 should remain and stated the minutes would reflect the discussion. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher expressed appreciation for Mr. Abplanalp's slide presentation. He stated that the Commission had no intention to thwart Montgomery Ward's marketing concept but felt the Commission needed to retain approval because he didn't feel all of the design areas had been worked out. Chairman McNiel felt the entry architecture did not integrate well with the balance of the center. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he personally approved Phase III. He felt Condition 10 could be changed to allow for City Planner's approval and Condition 11 should remain. He felt minor adjustments still needed to be made, especially in relation to the glazing as presented. He said one of the Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 8, 1990 objectives of Design Review is to match the City's expectations and standards to the architect's design. He indicated he had been troubled by the Montgomery Ward facade since it was first presented; and although some improvements had been made, he felt it still needs some final aesthetic tuning. Mr. Buller stated that at the workshop there had been some discussion of the glass front and it was requested that the architect return with drawings of how it fit in. He said at the end of the workshop Montgomery Ward stated they wanted to stick with the concept. He suggested rewording Condition 11 to require Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits. He felt that would allow the developer to move forward in other areas while they worked on the glass entry, detailing of stone, and proportions and scale of the entry columns. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Rick Mager asked if the wood truss form would be acceptable. Chairman McNiel stated that initially the Commission had requested a look that was totally integrated with the balance of the center, but the architect had insisted on a wood roof and the Commission had now backed down. He said the Commission could not approve a small factor, but needed to look at the entire entry. Mr. Abplanalp stated they were willing to enhance the detailing of the stone and reduce the expanse of glass but they wanted a consensus that the basic shape is acceptable. Chairman McNiel stated that one thing affects the remainder. He said it had been established that they could proceed with the balance of the building. Mr. Abplanalp asked for approval of the concept, not the details. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he was convinced that the store will have a gable form and he appreciated the fact that the pitch had been reduced to match the rest of the center. He agreed to the wood trusses, and felt the pitch and roof were fine but wanted to see how the entry element will relate to the rest of the center. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Chairman McNiel stated that meant it was conceptual, and did not mean it was approved. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-12, with Condition 10 changed to require City Planner's review and approval and Condition 11 changed to require the Commission's approval of the building entry design prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 8, ~990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried 8:35 P.M. - Planning Commission recessed. 8:50 P.M. - Planning Commission reconvened. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13859 - LEWIS HOMES - The development of 393 dwelling units on 15.8 acres of land in the High Residential District (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located within the Terra Vista Planned Community on the northwest corner of Spruce Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-11 and 18. (Continued from July 11, 1990.) Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1157 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, thought Condition 11 duplicated Condition 5. He requested that Condition 7 specify that it applied only to Buildings 400A and D. Mr. Horner stated he felt the direction was that the arched window trim detail referred to in Condition 7 should be carried throughout all the buildings where there was sufficient space available. Gary Gregson, CYP Architecture/Planning, felt that all buildings were studied at the July 31, 19g0, workshop, and it was determined that only two buildings were found to be appropriate for the enhanced architectural details. He stated in some upper floor locations it was felt there was not enough stucco above the head of the window for the fascia detail. Chairman McNiel stated he recalled the arched window treatment was to be utilized in lieu of a third awning in those areas where space allowed. Mr. Gregson stated there are some locations where an awning occurs and when the windows are recessed back. He said that approximately 90 percent of the windows would receive the sill detail. Mr. Oleson stated that it was his understanding that Condition 12 stated that the main recreation building would be approved by the Design Review Committee and would not need to return to the full Commission. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the building could be approved by the Design Review Committee but they also retain the right to refer the matter to the full Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 8, !990 Donna Durham, 7682 Wimbleton Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the new units will generate more students for the schools. She said there is currently only one elementary school in Terra Vista and she was concerned that the City is growing beyond the school's capabilities. She stated there are many residents in Terra Vista who are talking about moving out because there are too many apartments. She said she was almost hit three times because of curved drives and that no speed limit is indicated on Milliken and people are driving 50 to 60 mph. She wanted her concerns looked into before more development is allowed. Jim Duke, 11095 Brentwood Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, shared Ms. Durham's concerns regarding density and the impact on schools. He said he understood that some projects had been approved before he moved into the area but he was concerned about graffiti. He stated that the agenda referred to dwelling units and the public had no way of knowing if the project will be apartments, condos, owner-occupied, or rented. He requested that such information be included in future agendas. Mr. Horner stated that at the last meeting the applicant indicated it will be a rental project. Mr. Duke stated he understood that not everyone can afford to buy a home, but he wanted the project to be owner-occupied. Mike Dubbs, 6869 Rovato Place, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that a decision be postponed until after directives are received from City Council following the Multi-family Housing Workshop on August 9, 1990. Steve Hansen, 7672 Wimbleton Court, Rancho Cucamonga, concurred with the previous opinions. He stated that Coyote.Canyon School is already impacted and additional families will exacerbate an unfavorable situation. He felt that because it is to be a rental project the taxpayers there would not have the same concerns for schools. Mr. Hansen asked if an Environmental Assessment was available and if the issue was considered. Chairman McNiel stated it is standard procedure to do an Environmental Impact Report and it would be available to him. Dee Harper, 7676 Wimbleton Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she represented the point of view of senior citizens. She was concerned about traffic which she said is already very bad from 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. She felt the area is too dense and all the high density apartments are being concentrated in one area. She said when she moved there she was not told there would be apartments right next door. She was also concerned about the schools. Mr. Oleson stated they have ongoing negotiations with the Central School District. He said the Coyote Canyon Elementary School is being expanded this year to accommodate additional students and expansion in the Central School District area is planned as projects are built. He said there are several other sites also planned for elementary schools. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 8, 1990 Ms. Durham stated that Central School District has no money to build schools. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that Terra Vista and Victoria are designed, planned communities and when the agreements were drawn up, a certain number of units were agreed to with the developers. He said of the allowable units some will be apartments and some will be small to large houses. He stated it would now be difficult for the City to go back to the developers and say they cannot build the multi-family units when the allowable numbers were agreed on earlier. Chairman McNiel stated that the project had been through a long Design Review process. He said that only after students move in are new schools built, so there will be a period of time when the schools are overcrowded. He stated that the City is charged with providing affordable housing and must make housing available for those who cannot afford to purchase. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the two major issues brought up by residents were schools and traffic and the staff report addressed both issues to some extent. He said the project was conditioned to join the Mello-Roos District to facilitate solution of the school problem Qnd the engineering conditions covered the construction of streets and traffic signals. He stated he would like to add a requirement that the Church Street median be completed from Milliken to Haven before this project is finaled because he felt it is important to have the aesthetics in place and avoid future construction after the units are in place. He said there needs to be a mix of both single-family houses and apartments and that is addressed in the General Plan and the Terra Vista Community Plan. Commissioner Melcher felt the project is excellent and the improvements made at the last workshop were on target. He thought the project would likely win a future design award. He noted that the renderings depicted soft colored awnings and stated he hoped the awnings will remain a solid color, as he does not feel that striped awnings are appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Commissioner Melcher agreed with the suggestion that the median be completed. Commissioner Melcher stated he was strongly supportive of what Lewis does to make it look like a planned community. Chairman McNiel stated he does not like high-density projects, but the City is charged with providing housing for all. He said that each person moving into the City contributes to the traffic, school impaction, etc., but only when people move into the community are the services brought in. He said people in the community bring about the roads, parks, central library, theatre, etc. He favored the project and felt it makes sense. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, suggested rewording Engineering Condition 2.(b) to require construction of Church Street, including the landscape median, from Haven Avenue to Milliken Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 8, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked if that would obligate the developer to construct any portion of Church Street which does not presently exist. Barrye Hanson stated it may be repeating some previous requirements of other projects but it would probably also involve some additional construction. Mr. Horner stated that currently Church Street is built from Haven to Elm, but the portion from Elm Avenue West to Elm Avenue East. Commissioner Melcher thought that for the past three to four years Lewis has been operating under a directive from the City Engineer requirin9 the implementation of certain major segments of its street system in conjunction with its projects in certain areas of the community. He wondered if this condition would expand on that program in perhaps an excessive manner. He agreed that the median should be landscaped in all sections of the street which have been completed, but he was not sure that it would be appropriate to commit the developer to an additional quarter mile through vacant land. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that more people and traffic are being added to the community and major streets need to be completed, including landscaping. He said that it is important to provide ingress and egress to the planned community. Chairman McNiel stated such a requirement is common in industrial areas. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13859 with modification to require the construction of Church Street including landscape median from Haven Avenue to Milliken. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review of Tentative Tract 13859 with modifications to delete Condition 11 regarding metal channel detailing paint and to require the construction of Church Street including landscape median from Haven Avenue to Milliken. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Chairman McNiel stated he appreciated the input from the residents. Planning Commission Minutes -11- August B, 1990 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14630 LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY - The development of 356 condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Scott Sellers, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, #240, San Diego, stated he had met with representatives of the surrounding neighborhood, with his most recent meeting being at 6:00 P.M. this evening. He felt tonight's meeting was positive, progress was being made, and they had gone a long way toward resolving the issues. He stated he had requested that a representative group be formed. Mr. Sellers stated that when the project was last reviewed by the Planning Commission, density was not an issue but the Commission had raised concerns about design issues and working with the residents. He said they deleted all three-story buildings and only three 16-unit buildings remain. He stated they added security gates, redesigned the elevations, substituted garages for all carports and added more open space. He requested that the citizens be allowed to have a workshop with all members of the Planning Commission in lieu of the regular Design Review Committee. Commissioner Weinberger asked if it will be a rental project. Mr. Sellers stated it will be built to condominium standards and the current intent is to rent for the first couple of years of operation. Mark Prodger, 11629 Bari Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had been asked to represent a number of people in the community. He said they had met twice with Lincoln Properties and he felt some progress had been made with some issues being closer to resolution. He said they recommended that a team approach be continued with input from the community, the full Commission, and Lincoln Properties. He said it was his understanding that only one or two residents would be allowed to participate at a Design Review Committee Meeting, and they wanted to have more residents participate. He requested that the community be allowed a greater say. Mr. Prodger stated they were greatly concerned about the density. He felt that the decisions from the August 9, 1990, City Council Multi-family Development Workshop should be considered. Major Jenkins, 11645 Bari Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, asked why so many multi- family units are concentrated in the area. Chairman McNiel stated that the two planned communities of Victoria and Terra Vista were designed to have a mix of different types of housing at a full range of densities. Mr. Jenkins felt the community was not properly notified. He was concerned about the lack of money to build additional schools. He wanted to know why the apartments were not built before the houses were built. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Jenkins signed a disclosure when he purchased his home. Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 8, 1990 Mr. Jenkins responded he remembered a paper but he was told it was a planned community for single fami'ly residences. He felt the homeowners could file a class action suit for misrepresentation. David Dennis, 6816 Padova Court, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that the Planning Commission feels it has to solve social housing problems. Chairman McNiel stated the City is charged by the state to provide affordable housing and if that is not done, then the government steps in and requires apartments built under federal government standards and used as low cost housing for people at fixed rents. Mr. Dennis stated he would not have moved into his home if he knew apartments would be built and had been told by his real estate sales person that the area was for single family residences. He was concerned about traffic, schools, and public safety. He said he works for a City which cannot provide adequate police or fire protection for its community. Mr. Duke, stated he is an educator in San Dimas, and Mello-Roos projects are not being funded because there is a large backlog for funding of schools. He felt the schools will be overcrowded and on double sessions. He said he had a density distribution plan apparently submitted earlier by the developer which stated there would be 308 dwelling units in the area and that number had now been increased. He said a sign had been up for a long time stating 356 condos would be built and to the citizen that means the residents will own their own units. He said a new sign was put up about a month ago which indicates it is a proposed apartment site, but that sign faces Milliken only. Gary Temkin, 7070 Martano Place, Rancho Cucamonga, asked what the state feels is an acceptable ratio of single-family residences to multiple-dwelling units. He thought the ratio of homes to multi-family units west of Haven is approximately 50-50. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that every City is required to have a General Plan with a housing element which identifies housing goals and objectives for the City. He stated the City Council recently requested that the ratios be reconsidered. He said that the trend currently is in the area of 65 percent single-family/35 percent multi-family and the City Council has indicated a better mix might be 70 percent/30 percent or 75 percent/ 25 percent, with the 25 or 30 percent being multiple family. Mr. Temkin was concerned with the ramifications of apartments being built in regard to increased density, crime, and the ability to maintain a quality of life. Margaret Cantu, 7069 Martano Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a school teacher and the school issue must be addressed because the schools will be overcrowded. She felt the City has control over the quality of life and must even out the balance between homeowners versus renters. She felt rental properties give a higher transitory rate and lack of pride of ownership. She felt this high density project is too close to larger single-family residences and requested that single family residences be built. Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 8, 19g0 W. Gebreselassie, 7009 Martano Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has been renting in Rancho Cucamonga for two years and there are many apartments already located in the City. He asked if a study had been done to determine how many rental apartments will be needed for the next ten years. He felt there is more rental housing available in the area than is needed.. He said that if the City could show more of a need, the residents may be more receptive to the project. Ed Garcia, 7049 Martano Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned 40 acres of undeveloped commercial property in another city. He asked if the City c~n require developers to build the necessary facilities: schools, fire departments, and police departments. Chairman McNiel stated that there is a great deal of contribution by developers to systems fees, and parks, etc. are generated by those systems fees. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He thanked the public for their input. He said there had been some indications of some progress being made between the developer and residents. He said he did not object to the suggestion that a workshop be set up with the Planning Commission, the developer, and the residents. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project should be reconsidered. He did not feel the density questions could be answered this evening because he felt the density may change as the design of the project changes. He said it is necessary to see what type of design is being proposed by the developer. Commissioner Melcher concurred that the project merited reconsideration. He said he was willing to participate in a workshop environment with the developer and residents but felt it should be subsequent to the Design Review process. He felt the Commission's concerns may be different from those of the neighbors, as the Commission may be more concerned with physical constraints than social issues. He was not in favor of skipping Design Review, but he was also not in favor of turning it into a public forum. Commissioner Weinberger felt a meeting with the residents might be better before the Design Review process, because she felt they may have more to say. Chairman McNiel stated he would be more comfortable going through the normal Design Review process followed by the public forum. He said that would give the public a last chance to look at the project before it returns to the Planning Commission. Mr. Buller stated that the homeowners and residents are continuing to address some of the issues through neighborhood meetings. He did not feel it would be possible to get 100 percent support for the project. He recommended that the residents work with the developer prior to Technical Review and Design Review. He thought perhaps the residents could select a group of people to attend Design Review. He also thought the Commission may wish to have a Subcommittee attend the neighborhood meetings. He said it would be best to have the main emphasis on the neighborhood/developer meetings prior to Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 8, 1990 Commissioner Weinberger agreed. Commissioner Melcher agreed that Mr. Buller's suggestion that a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission be present at the neighborhood meetings was worthwhile. He also felt it would be acceptable to have a certain number of residents present at the Design Review Committee Meeting. Chairman McNiel asked that Mr. Buller clarify the suggested sequence of events. Mr. Buller suggested that if the Commission wished to reconsider the project, they direct the developer to continue to work with the residents and then submit a new application for processing. He said the new application should go through Technical Review Committee prior to scheduling for Design Review Committee. He suggested that following Design .Review if the project was significantly contrary to where the developer and residents were heading, then the project should return to the developer/resident group before going on the full Commission. He said the second part of the suggestion would be that the Planning Commission select a Subcommittee of two Commissioners. He said there would be an attempt made to have City staff and those two Commissioners attend the neighborhood meetings. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Weinberger, to reconsider Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14630 and direct the developer to work with residents prior to resubmission of the project. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried 10:35 P.M. - Planning Commission recessed 10:48 P.M. - Planning Commission reconvened H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-22 - CAPIN~ CROUSE & CO. - The request to permit an accounting office use in an 8,339 square foot building on .41 acre of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 8 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10763 Edison Court - APN: 209-142-67. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 8, 1990 Dale Overholt, owner, 5168 Silver Mountain Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the owner. He said that he services not-for-profit organizations and therefore it is more appropriate for his office to be in the industrial district. He said that most work is done away from the office and his staff is gone from 70 to 80 percent of the time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated.that traditionally light industrial buildings have only a small office space which is air conditioned while the rest of the building is not air conditioned. He stated that if they should plan to add any air conditioning they should be sure that any roof-mounted equipment is properly screened from public view. Mr. Ross stated that the plan indicates additional roof-mounted equipment which the applicant indicated would be screened by the existing roof parapet but that a condition could be added that any such equipment be properly screened. Dale Frisby, Barton Development, 10535 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 350, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the use would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. He said the building already has roof-mounted equipment which is designed at the low point of the roof and screened by the parapet wall and he asked that the Commission define a line of sight from which the equipment should be screened. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioners Weinberger and Tolstoy felt the use was appropriate. Commissioner Melcher supported the use. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the roof-mounted equipment should be screened from the view of any of the adjacent units or any portion of the cul-de-sac. He said staff would specifically look at Red Oak Street and the intersection of Red Oak Street and Edison Court. He said if the Commission was in concurrence, the review could be carried out when the tenant improvement plans are processed. The Commission concurred with Mr. Buller's line-of-sight calculations. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-22, with modifications to require that all roof-mounted equipment be screened from public view. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 8, 1990 I. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-03 - A. E. SMITH - The development of 20 apartment units on 1.08 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located at the end of Sierra Madre Avenue, west of Edwin Street - APN: 207-251-22. Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and a letter from the applicant protesting the addition of the school condition. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alan Smith, A. E. Smith, 8632 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that delays have been encountered in acquiring the dedications on the three parcels to the north of their project for street improvements, as they were conditioned to do by their original project approval. He said the investor package and financing was locked in and it would be a great hardship to add on the additional $40,000+ required to satisfy the school condition. He said there is not much growth in the area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He stated the school condition was added on as a result of a City ordinance and the Commission had no authority to ignore the ordinance. He said the Commission had the choice of denying the time extension or granting the time extension with the inclusion of the condition, which the applicant could then appeal to City Council. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Time Extension for Design Review 88-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Motion: Moved-by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to extend the meeting beyond 11:00 P.M. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS J. GRADE SEPARATION AT FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD Mike Oliver, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. He stated that staff felt the steel structure to be more attractive than the concrete structure. Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 8,.1990 Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated the structure would have to be made of either prefabricated metal or prestressed concrete. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the prefab metal structure would have lines of rivets and fasteners. Mr. Oliver responded that they will be visible. Chairman McNiel asked if the angle under the bridge could be filled in with concrete or if an artificial wall could be erected. Mr. Oliver showed pictures of the alternative bridges. Chairman McNiel asked if there was not some way to dress up 'a steel bridge. He suggested perhaps the stiffener ribs could be hidden by a concrete fascia treatment. Commissioner Melcher asked if i% would be possible to landscape under the bridge. Mr. Oliver responded that it would be hard to get anything to grow under the bridge. Mr. Maguire stated that the runoff under-the structure kills the landscaping in the drip area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be any provisions for access to the property to the east of the bridge when the Sycamore Inn property is developed. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the master plan showed the possibility of doing a bridge across to the northeast of this overpass but the City feels it would be unrealistic and it would necessitate significant removal of portions of the windrow. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the design of the bridge took into consideration the possibility of a future access to Foothill Boulevard. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that it does not. Mr. Maguire stated it is not feasible at that location because it wouldn't be safe. He said the feasibility was studied at the time the Foothill Specific Plan was adopted. Chairman McNiel asked which type of bridge would be most expensive. Mr. Oliver responded that steel would be 25 percent cheaper at a cost of approximately $4.33 million for steel and $5.3 million for concrete. Chairman McNiel asked if the steel design shown is the only design available. Planning Commission Minutes -18- August ~, 1990 Mr. Oliver responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel felt it looks like a shipping container because of the ribs. Commissioner Melcher asked if corten steel could be used so that it would never have to be painted. Mr. Maguire responded that it is a high graffiti area and corten would not be advisable because it would always look splotchy from the removal of graffiti. He felt that if the steel is faced with concrete the railroad will not maintain the structure. He thought the railroad might maintain the bridge if it were overlayed with sheets of steel to avoid the ribbed look. Commissioner Tolstoy asked who normally removes the graffiti. Mr. Maguire responded that the City does because the railroad takes too long. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that since the City would be removing the graffiti that two avenues be pursued: (1) Investigate the cost and feasibility for covering the steel with a concrete layer and (2) Investigate the cost and feasibility of a design that would have metal to cover the ribs. He felt that because the bridge is located almost at a point of entry to the City it is important to make it as aesthetic as possible. Mr. Maguire stated either of those options would be acceptable so long asthe railroad would be responsible for structural maintenance of the bridge. Commissioner Tolstoy wondered if a concrete facing would add so much weight to the bridge that the steel structure would have to be stronger. Mr. Oliver felt it would be workable. Mr. Maguire suggested that staff report back to the Planning Commission on the options. Commissioner Melcher suggested extending every other vertical rib up a foot and placing a cross rail at the top to soften the look or adding filigree panels of steel work. He supported using a steel bridge but would like to see some architectural design features added. Mr. Oliver said that the main purpose of tonight's meeting was to get the Commission's direction that a steel bridge would be acceptable. Chairman McNiel stated attention needs to be paid to the skyline in the community. He suggested that thought be given to what might be used and the concepts could be forwarded to City Council but the aesthetics should be returned to Planning Commission. Mr. Maguire said the approval of the concept of a steel bridge and abutments would allow the department to move forward. He suggested that the considerations of sheeting, etc. and the ultimate design could be returned to Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 8, 1990 the Planning Commission. He stated the action tonight would allow Engineering to move forward ~ward hiring the design consultant to obtain final plans. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the railroad line may be abandoned in approximately two years and asked the construction scheduled. Mr. Maguire responded that the bridge should be under construction in approximately 18 months. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the line may be used as a light rail line to Los Angeles. It was the consensus of the Commission that a steel bridge would be acceptable and the design should return to Planning Commission. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the next workshop on the Regional Mall would tentatively be scheduled for the week of September 17, 1990. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried to adjourn. 11:50 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Sec retary Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 8, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 2, 1990 Terra Vista Town Center - Montgomery Wards and Child's World Building Entries (Conditional Use Permit 88-12) Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 10:30 P.M. The meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, stated that the purpose of the workshop was to further review the building entries for Montgomery Wards and Child's World. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, showed a conceptual design of the passageway through Building K. The Commission reviewed and accepted the design but recommended that a circular raised tree planter or tree gates be used. The final design shall be subject to City Planner review and approval. Tom Bond showed the revised design of the pattern for the tile medallion for Building A. The Commission found the revised design to be acceptable. Tom Bond again presented the Montgomery Ward revised building entry design to the Commission. The Commission found the overall design of the building to be acceptable except for the main building entry. Although the applicant had proposed the use of cantera stone material with architecture detailings to the building face, the building form was still the same one that the Commission had reviewed several times. The Commission deliberated specifically on the roof open truss look. The Commission felt the roof design to be alien from the architecture established for the entire center and to not provide for compatibility. The building entry design appears to have too much of a corporate identity. The Commission also discussed the mullion colors and found them to detract from the color scheme established for the Town'Center. The Commission recommended conceptual approval of the building with the conditions that the building entry be subject to further review by the Commission prior to plan check. The Commission reviewed the revised plans for Child's World and stated that the overall elevation is acceptable with the condition that the material for the tower base shall be subject to further review. The Commission suggested that stone, pre-cast concrete, or other materials be used instead of plaster. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - August 2, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting July 31, 1990 Tentative Tract 13859 Chairman McNiel called this portion of the meeting to order at 6:I0 p.m. (Minutes from the Regional Mall Workshop have been separately prepared.) The meeting was held at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. The purpose of the meeting was to resolve design issues for Tentative Tract 13859 which were raised at the regular meeting of June 13, 1990. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy. ABSENT: Betsy Weinberger, John Melcher STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Brett Horner, Associate Planner Brett Horner, Associate Planner, introduced the design issues raised by the Commission on June 13, 1990, and invited the applicant to respond to the issues. Gary Gregson, CYP Architecture/Planning, briefly responded to the Commission's concerns. The Commission reviewed the revised plans and recommended the following changes: 1. An arched window trim piece should be added along the top of all windows where sufficient space is available. The arch should be consistent with those above the stairwells and balconies. 2. A sill trim piece should be added at the bottom of the openings on the walls enclosing the stairwells. The design details should be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. The sill trim should also be used on the balcony walls below the metal railing. 3. The tile inset design should be changed to a different detail such as a foam medallion (with stucco over), stone piece, or similar detail. The City Planner should review and approve the final desi9n. 4. The compact stalls on site should be revised in some areas to provide a more balanced distribution and to maximize landscape area. 5. The metal channel detail should be painted to match the primary stucco color. 6. The main recreation building should return for final Design Review Committee approval. The circular tower element should be retained, an overhead trellis or tile roof element should extend further along the right side of the pool side elevation, and a chimney should be provided between the two large windows on the right side elevation. The Commission directed the applicant to upgrade and enhance architecturally the entire right hand side of the pool side elevation. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 7:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 31, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting July 31, 1990 Victoria Gardens Regional Mall Vice-Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, Larry McNiel (anrived 4:00 p.m.) ABSENT: Betsy Weinberger, John Melcher STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Nancy Fong, ~nior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Jack Lam, City Manager; Kelly Orta, Administrative Secretary; Janice Reynolds, Assistant Redevelopment Anal yst OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Senzaki, John Waldron, and Bill DeEiel, The Jerde Partnership; Duncan Budinger, The Hahn Company Paul Senzaki, .~ Jerde Partnership, described the site plan and the design changes that had occurred. John Waldron, The Jerde Partnership, noted that the Regional Center shape had been pulled tighter allowing more of a definition of the water feature. Mr. Senzaki stated that one of the benefits of the new design was that the Regional Center would wrap around the water feature creating more of a visual corridor. He added that the water area had remained the same. Mr. Waldron described the exterior features of the Center. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for the height clearance of the trellis area. Bill DeEiel, The Jerde Partnership, responded approximately 14 feet 6 inches. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern regarding the height of the trellis. Mr. DeEiel stated that the trellis needed to be different heights at different locations depending on roof lines. He added that the roof lines would be impacted by interior design. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if most of the major stores were two-story. Duncan Budin§er, The Hahn Company, responded that Major 2 in the first phase is three-story and that there is a possibility that Major I in the second phase will be three-story. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he liked the wrap-around shape and its relationship to the water element. He was concerned about the theatre location. Mr. Waldron stated that because of its size, the theatre would detract from the visual corridor of the water element if it were left in close. He added that parking for the restaurants had become another issue. He stated that parking was needed closer to the restaurant pads. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern with other malls that have large out-buildings, stating that they take away from the appearance of the mall itself. Mr. Waldron responded that this site had an advantage with the down sloping. He stated that the floor of the building can be lowered to make it appear smaller. He added they could use extensive landscaping as an additional enhancement. Mr. Budin§er reminded the Commission that the theatre would still have to meet the same architectural standards as the Regional Center. Mr. Buller suggested that the architectural features of the theatre be scaled down to create a more park-like setting. Commissioner Chitiea stated that by moving the theatre away, you would have a. better view entering the Center. Mr. Buller questioned the amount of input the developer will hav~ on the Major's space not attached to their building, such as the plaza ~reas and parking lots. Mr. Budinger responded that it would be a combined -effort between the developer and department store. Mr. Waldron asked the Commission if they were comfortable with the distribution of the water. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was comfortable with the direction of the site plan, but did not like the direction that was being taken regarding the architecture. Chairman McNiel arrived. Mr. Waldron presented the site plan and water element to Chairman McNiel. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July !i, iqgo Chairman McNiel expressed concern with the diminishing water element. Commissioner Chitiea expressed her concern with the architecture. She stated that she did not want to see metal roofs at all, but instead wants tile. Mr. Waldron stated that the architects are trying to develop more of a vineyard effect, with more open space, not wanting to copy another center. Ne added that he would bring in samples for the Commission to review. Mr. Budinger clarified that the Commission would like to see the Center have varying roof styles with a more classical style and elements. Chairman McNiel stated that varying roof styles may not be a bad idea. He stated that he also did not like metal roofs. Mr. Budinger stated that costs need to be considered. He added that metal roofs were more cost effective on large areas. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not want .to see too many changes of materials. He added that the materials need to relate to one another. Commissioner Chitiea expressed her concern with the roundness of the building structures and the square windows. She added that she did not want to see a lot of square windows or'blotches throughout the Center. She stated she would like to see a more traditional design as opposed to contemporary. She expressed her concerns with the trellis and large expanses of building broken up with square openings. Chairman McNiel stated that he was seeing an expansive building with stucco changes that gave him an apartment house feeling. He added that the box windows should be changed. Mr. Senzaki suggested using different treatments throughout the Center. Chairman McNiel stated that there was a great opportunity that was not being utilized with the tower. Commissioner Chitiea stated she liked two-level restaurant pads. Mr. Budinger stated they were trying to get the restaurants to go two-level. He suggested possibly moving the food court up to the upper level. Chairman McNiel stated that it was trendy to use multi-colors on the exterior. He would like to see something more traditional. He suggested different colors on each building, breaking it up with window features. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated that the purpose of the model was to show basic forms and shapes. He stated that the Commission needed to proceed to the next level to define more of the treatments. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 31, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea stated she would like to see the Center with a more traditional flavor, a warmer feel. She added she liked the trellis. She re- stated her position regarding no metal roofs. She suggested more round columns and perhaps some arches. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not like square window patterns. He added he would like to see more enhancements. Commissioner Chitiea added she did want to see the round building forms as presented. She would like to see more variety. The Commission concurred on looking into the possibility of moving the food court to the upper level. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the skylights would be visible from the outside. Mr. Budinger responded that they would be seen from a distance or the freeway, but not from around the water element. Mr. Lam stated that the reviews needed to proceed to the next level. He stated that the Commission needed to reach a consensus of the conceptual layout and water placement. Mr. DeEiel stated that the interior of the Center will impact the exterior and that the roof line had not been decided on as of yet. The Commission agreed on the conceptual layout, water placement, and trellis, with the understanding that the interior design may change the exterior. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern with the tower element not having a reason to be there. Mr. DeEiel stated he would like to see some form of water in it. Mr. Budinger suggested perhaps something more see-through, not obstructing the view of the Center, so that the tower could still be used as a feature. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see the tower removed and replaced with something else, perhaps a fountain. He added he wanted the majors' exteriors to relate to the community side of the Center. Mr. Budinger stated that it was known that there would be plaster on the buildings with different materials on the lower portions. He stated they would look into metal roofs combined with something else that may be acceptable. The Commission discussed air conditioning units. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he wanted to keep the freeway View clear. He did not want mechanical items visible on the roof. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 31, 1990 The Commission concurred. Mr. Lam asked what the time frame was to proceed to the next step. Mr. DeE~el stated that the architects would need as least 30 days to re-design the exterior to move the food court to the upper level. It was determined that the next meeting would be coordinated by The Hahn Company, The Jerde Partnership, and City staff at a later date. The Commission adjourned at 5:15 p.m. to a workshop regarding Tentative Tract 13859. (Minutes from the Tentative Tract 13859 Workshop have been separately prepared.) Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 31, I990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 25, 1990 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bruce Buckingham, Assistant Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barr~e Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Associate Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated there were two requests for continuances received from the applicants. He said the applicant for Item C was requesting continuance to August 8, 1990, and a request had been received to continue Item E to August 22, 1990. Mr. Kroutil said that tonight's meeting would adjourn to a workshop to be held at 3:00 p.m. on July 31, 1990, to discuss the Regional Mall followed by a workshop on Tentative Tract 13859. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, 'carried with Weinberger abstaining, to adopt the minutes of June 13, 1990, as modified. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried with Tolstoy and Weinberger abstaining, to adopt the minutes of June 27, 1990. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13113 - RONALD AND SUSAN NUNALLY - A subdivision of 1.32 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Stran9 Lane, east of Carnelian Street - APN: 1061-271-08. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13113 to August 8, 1990. E. SHARED PARKING STUDY FOR FOOTHILL VILLAGE - NUWEST COMPANIES - A request to allow shared parking within a neighborhood commercial center at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue APN: 208-261-58. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue Shared Parking Study for Foothill Village to August 22, 1990. A. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 WESTERN PROPERTIES - A request for conceptual approval of Phase III site plan within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, and 18. (Continued from July ~I1, 1990.) I. MODIFICATION TO PHA~SING PLAN WESTERN PROPERTIES - Consideration of amending the phasing plan for Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue (Reference Conditional Use Permit 88-12) - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, and 18. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented a continued staff report. Commissioner Weinberger asked for a definition of "under substantial construction." Ms. Fong responded that the phrase meant that framing should be up, rather than just having the foundation poured. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 25, 1990 Richard Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they had reviewed staff's recommendations and they found Conditions 1 and 2 acceptable. He requested that Condition 3 be deleted because Pad 4 was designed as a restaurant pad and they do not yet have a user. He stated they were reluctant to spec build a restaurant. He asked that Condition 4 be deleted because he did not believe they could meet the condition because the slab for Building J has already been poured and the building is scheduled for completion in early October. He said that Buildings X and Y are still in plan check and have an anticipated 5-7 months of construction time. He requested that Condition 5 be reworded to require that the subject buildings be under construction instead of completed. Chairman McNiel asked if anyone was interested in Pad 4. Mr. Mager responded' that they had spoken with Carl's Junior, but no deal had been made as yet. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when Buildings E and G will be constructed because he felt the plywood where Building E joins Mervyn's is unsightly. Mr. Mager responded that the buildings were currently in second plan check and he hoped they would come out of plan check in about two weeks. He said they hoped to commence construction about 10 days after coming out of plan check and construction will take from 85 to 110 days, depending on the weather. Commissioner Chitiea asked the status of the median construction. Mr. Mager replied that he did not know. He said he thought the plans were currently in plan check. Commissioner Chitiea asked how soon construction will begin once the plans are out of plan check. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that CalTrans is holding up the job and Western Properties would have to check with CalTrans. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-12 to August 8, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if Condition 4 were deleted then the requirement to complete the theatre prior to release of occupancy for Building J would also be dropped. Commissioner Weinberger felt that it would be satisfactory to change Condition 5 to require that the buildings be under substantial construction. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 25, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he enjoyed seeing the open space where Buildings X and Y are to be placed, and he would not mind if their construction were delayed. He felt that both buildings should be built at the same time however. Commissioner Melcher felt that Buildings X and Y will finish off the corner of Foothill and Haven. Mr. Mager stated that Buildings X and Y are in second plan check and they intend to begin construction as soon as possible. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, suggested that Condition 4 be changed to read that Buildings X and Y and the theatre be under substantial construction prior to release of occupancy for Building J. Mr. Mager stated Building J should be completed in about 70 days. Mr. Tolstoy suggested the condition be reworded to state that the theatre would be under substantial construction prior to occupancy for Building J. Mr. Mager stated he did not know if they could have the theatre fully framed by the time Building J was ready for occupancy. Hearin§ no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel felt conditions should be tied to the median construction. Mr. Kroutil stated that it would be better to tie the median construction to the Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-12 that had been continued to August 8. He stated that would give the applicant time to talk to CalTrans to ascertain the status of the plans. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was willing to delete Condition 3. Commissioner Weinber§er concurred. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Phasing Plan for Conditional Use Permit 88-12, with modifications to delete the requirement that Pad 4 be under substantial construction prior to occupancy of Majors 3 or 4, require that the theatre be under.substantial construction prior to occupancy of Building J, and require that Buildings X, Y, K-l, K-2, L, and M be under substantial construction prior to occupancy of Majors 3, 4 and/or TBA building, whichever occurs first. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, W£INBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 25, 1990 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-19 - INLAND EMPIRE JUDO - The request to establish a judo school in a leased space of 1,752 square feet within an existing multi-tenant industrial complex on 9.15 acres of land in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10970 Arrow Route - APN: 208-352-41. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Carpenter, 6673 Brissac Place, Rancho Cucamonga, complimented staff for a good job. He stated he is trying to establish a competitive judo program in Rancho Cucamonga. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-19. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried D. DRAFT TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A comprehensive policy and implementation plan for hiking, riding, and biking trails within the community. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel felt there should be separate horse trails south of Banyan as well as north because of the conflict between horses and bicyclists. Mr. Coleman responded that with the exception of one tract at the southwest corner of Banyan and Sapphire, there are no equestrian housing tracts south of Banyan. He said that to provide separate trails, additional underpasses would have to be provided on both sides of the channel at an estimated cost of $17 million. Commissioner Chitiea stated that because of the lower level of equestrian use south of Banyan and the enormous cost of the underpasses, the Trails Committee felt that the amount of travel through the area would not warrant the expenditure. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 25, 1990 Chairman McNiel felt that perhaps it would be possible to look at the trails with a greater emphasis for bicycling south of Banyan and a greater emphasis for equestrian uses north of Banyan. Mr. Coleman stated that the Trails Committee had discussed the issue and that typically south of Banyan there is a greater width of right-of-way. He felt it may be possible to physically separate the horse trail from the bike trail in most of the area and that PVC rail fencing could be used as a physical barrier where the trails would be adjacent to each other. Chairman McNiel asked if the surrounding communities had increased their bicycling trails. Mr. Coleman responded that no increased activity had been noticed. He said that upon City Council adoption of the plan, the City would contact surrounding cities to encourage them to modify their trails plans. He said that currently there is a Class 3 bike route coming from the city of Upland along Base Line and Ontario has.a regional trail along Cucamonga Creek. He felt there is definitely a need for trail linkages. Chairman McNiel suggested a copy of the plan be sent to all adjacent communities so that could see where they could connect to our trails. He asked if the Commission would be able to see the cost and financing plan before the plan is forwarded to City Council. Mr. Coleman stated he would provide it as soon as it is available. Commissioner Chitiea complimented Dan for his hard work. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission should review the financing plan before forwarding the Trails Implementation Plan to City Council. Mr. Coleman suggested that the item could be readvertised if necessary when the full packet was ready to be returned for Planning Commission review. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing; but hearing no testimony, he closed it. Commissioner Melcher stated he had been told the horse population has not grown significantly in recent years. He felt that the additional four underpasses north of Banyan should be deferred until all other elements of the system are in place, as he was not sure the expense to separate the equestrian and bicycling uses is justified. Chairman McNiel agreed that the underpasses would be lower priority. Commissioner Chitiea stated that priorities will be listed in the plan, and perhaps as more bicyclists begin using the trails, the additional underpasses may become more critical in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 25, 1990 Commissioner Melcher felt that when the bicycle users hamper equestrian users, then perhaps that would be the time to add those four underpasses. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the financing plan would be reviewed when available. NEW BUSINESS F. AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR MILLER'S OUTPOST PLAZA - PIZZA HUT - An appeal of staff's decision to deny a sign program amendment, located at the northeast corner of Foothill and Archibald - APN: 1077-641-71. Bruce Buckingham, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Weinberger asked if the sign will face Archibald. Mr. Buckingham responded that Pizza Hut has two sign locations, one facing Archibald and one facing into the center. He pointed out the amendment would allow all major tenants to change their sign color. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing; but hearing no comments, he closed the hearing. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant had indicated he would not be at the meeting. Mr. Buckingham responded that he had mailed the applicant the staff report and agenda, but had not heard from him. Mr. Kroutil suggested the Planning Commission continue the item to allow the applicant a chance to state his case. Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant had been given sufficient notice. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Amendment to Uniform Sign Program for Miller's Outpost Plaza to August 8, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried G. REVISION TO TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 88-11 - BCER ARCHITECTS - A revision to an approved tree removal permit which was associated with Tentative Tract 13886 and Conditional Use Permit 88-01, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 227-522-01, 02, 03, and 04. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 25, 1990 Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, noted he understood-that there was a question whether the project would be built as proposed. He felt there was no point in granting the Tree Removal Permit revisions if the site is not to be developed as currently approved, and asked for clarification from the applicant. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Neil Reilly, BCER Architects, 8560 Vineyard, Suite 511, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was in the process of ascertaining fees to pull permits and the owner was attempting to secure financing. He said that a decision had not been made to abandon the project. Chairman McNiel stated he understood a rough grading permit had been pulled to assist in obtaining financing. Mr. Reilly responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel stated he understood two trees in the center of the site had been knocked down in the process of grading. Mr. Reilly stated he had instructed the job superintendent not to touch any of the trees, but the subcontracting grader took down the two trees in the center of the site. Chairman McNiel asked if anything was currently in place around the trees to protect them. Mr. Reilly stated he was waiting for tonight's meeting to see which trees had to be protected before fencing them off. He said that the trees which were removed had heart rot based on the arborist's report. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated the trees need to be protected by fencing. Mr. Kroutil suggested that if the Commission was inclined to approve the Tree Removal Permit that they add a condition timing the removal into issuance of building permits. Commissioner Weinberger felt that was a good suggestion. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with staff's recommendations and Mr. Kroutil's suggested additional condition. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the land should not be denuded if a project will not be built and she agreed the Tmee Removal Permit should be tied to the issuance of building permits. She also wanted to be sure the fencing going in to protect the trees would be up to City standards. Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 25, 1990 Commissioner Melcher stated he was in accord with staff's recommendations and with Mr. Kroutil's suggestion. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that the wording state that no trees shall be removed or transplanted prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Chitiea asked if that would protect the trees from damage. Mr. Kroutil stated the applicant is aware of the City's replacement requirements that trees be replaced with the largest available'nursery stock. Chairman McNiel suggested having staff return with a Resolution of denial for the Tree Removal Permit and review the Tree Removal permit at a later time when it had been determined if the project will be built with the current site plan. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Mr. Kroutil asked the status of the landscape plans and if it would make sense to incorporate the Tree Removal Permit into the landscape plans. Mr. Reilly stated they have contacted the landscape architect and he was waiting to find out what the City would like before finishing the plans. Mr. Kroutil asked if a denial without prejudice or a continuance to await the preparation of the landscape plans would delay the applicant. Mr. Reilly stated he understood that the landscape plans have to be approved prior to issuance of building permits. He said he was trying to get the Tree Removal Permit resolved in order to have the landscape plans completed. Mr. Kroutil stated he thought the Commission was willing to approve the permit provided there are some guarantees that the trees will not be needlessly removed and such guarantee would only occur when the landscape plans are pulled together and the building permits issued. He suggested the applicant consider this evening's discussion as direction on which trees may be removed versus which trees should remain or be relocated, incorporate that information into the landscape plans, and return for formal action on the Tree Removal Permit when the entire package is ready. Mr. Reilly stated they have to pull building permits by August 15, 1990. He felt the landscape drawings could be resolved by July 26. Mr. Kroutil suggested continuing the item.' Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned that additional trees would be damaged or destroyed during the remainder of the rough grading period. He questioned when protective fencing would be installed. Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 25, 1990 Mr. Reilly stated he would instruct the construction crews to install fencing on July 26. Mr. Kroutil stated the Commission had two options: 1) Approve the Tree Removal permit with an additional condition that no trees be removed or transplanted prior to the issuance of building permits, or 2) continue the item to August 8 to allow the applicant to complete the landscape plan. He asked if Mr. Reilly had any objections to the 96-inch box trees replacement sizes stipulated in the Resolution. Mr. Reilly agreed this needed to be done and said they were willing to agree to the requested sizes. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was not anxious to approve the Tree Removal Permit until the unanswered questions were resolved. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the item were continued, there would be no assurance that the trees will be protected in the interim. Chairman McNiel felt that under either option the trees will be protected. Mr. Hanson stated that the action would have nothing to do with the unauthorized removal of trees. He stated that if any trees were removed without proper permits, the Tree Preservation Ordinance would be the proper enforcement tool. Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to deny the permit until the landscaping package was submitted. Commissioner Melcher agreed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of denial. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried Mr. Kroutil asked if that action would allow the Commission to approve the Tree Removal Permit if the Commission were satisfied with the landscaping plans as submitted. Mr. Hanson responded that a better direction would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial and have both resolutions available for the Commission to make a final decision on August 8. Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 25, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea amended her motion to that effect. Commissioner Melcher amended the second, and the amended motion carried 4-1 with Tolstoy voting noe. 8:35 P.M. - Planning Commission recessed 8:50 P.M. - Planning Commission reconvened DIRECTOR'S REPORTS H. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE Review of current City regulations affecting storage and parking of RVs on private residential properties. (Continued from June 27, 1990.) Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ronald Zebarth, 9602 La Colina, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the Commission for continuing the item to tonight's meeting .to allow him to appear. He stated that at the May 16, 1990, City Council meeting Mayor Stout had indicated the issue was a planning issue and he suggested that it be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Public Safety Commission to reach a reasonable compromise. David Fletcher, 9448 Orange, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a long time Rancho Cucamonga resident and a realtor. He said he has not found that an RV parked on a lot or on a neighboring lot reduces the selling price of homes. He said there are some residents who have stored their RVs at their homes for 10-15 years before the adoption of the ordinance and others who have purchased RVs after adoption. He said some residents have never been informed of the City's ordinance and people are not being informed when they purchase RVs. He felt that adjacent neighbors should approach RV owners with their complaints rather than reporting them to the City. He felt the ordinance gave feuding neighbors an opportunity to hurt their neighbors. David Long, 13021 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the ordinance changes the lifestyle of RV owners in order to better the lifestyle of others. He thought the City has normally been very conscientious of the needs of the residents. He asked what would happen to individuals who cannot afford to park their RVs elsewhere or cannot afford insurance if their RVs are parked in storage lots. He said some RVs are unsightly, but most are not. Mr. Long said he did not like horses because they attract flies and are smelly, but he felt others have a right to have horses. He felt RV owners are willing to cooperate, but they want to enjoy life. He pointed out that the City has provided horse trails and hiking trails and felt they should make concessions for RV owners as well. He indicated his motor home is equipped for disasters. Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 25, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy asked about insurance for RVs not parked on the owner's lot. Mr. Long replied that some insurance companies will not insure a vehicle if it is parked in a storage lot. Frank Newman, 6777 Cartilla Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has been a resident for 15 years. He said he paid extra when he purchased his house on his lot because it was touted as being an RV lot. He said there is room on the side of his garage to park an RV, but he could not pull to the rear of his house without altering the berm between his house and his neighbor's, removing his landscaping, and moving his fence to place the gate at the front edge of his garage. He said that if he moves his gate to the front of the garage, his gas and electric meters would then be behind the gate and the utility companies could not read his meters and the fire department would not be able to reach his meters in a timely manner because it would be necessary to keep the gate locked to prevent burglaries. Mr. Newman thought the ordinance should state that any vehicle not in regular use (including trailers, boats, or motor homes) must be parked on a concrete or asphalt pad, must be properly and safely supported, and must be maintained in good repair. He felt that would eliminate the front yard junk yards and the parking of vehicles on grass areas. He thought the City should concentrate on dealing with the eyesores and such a rewording would eliminate those unsightly conditions. He felt the City should make provisions for those people who paid more for their lots because they were told they were RV lots. He said he looked for a place to store his fifth wheel in a park and could not find one and his insurance company would not cover his fifth wheel if he were to park it in a commercial lot. Ray Bush, 6311 Sunstone, Rancho Cucamon§a, was concerned because he cannot park his RV in his side yard because he is adjacent to a street. He stated that his RV is 8 feet tall and fencing can only be 5 feet tall, so he cannot screen the vehicle; and he did not feel that screening the bottom portion of an RV accomplishes that much. He said the major portion of his parking area is adjacent to the street. He said he purchased his corner lot house because it had a larger parking area. Mr. Bush stated he uses his motor home as a standby for emergency purposes and he wanted it kept on his lot to allow ready access to the supplies. Don Southworth, 6255 Napa, Rancho Cucamonga stated his neighbor had torn out five trees in order to be able to gain access to the side yard to legally park his RV. Betty Garges, 9461 Valley View, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she purchased her property three years ago because at her previous home it was necessary to park in the street or any alley and her neighbors objected to her RV being parked there. She said she purchased her current lot because it was advertised as having RV parking, but it is not in conformance with the ordinance. She said she uses her motor home as an extra room when company comes. She requested the ordinance be changed to allow RV parking in front yards. Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 25, 1990 Gail Southworth, 6255 Napa, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they have been residents for 13 years. She said her husband uses their RV about once a week to commute to and from work and it would be extremely inconvenient to have the RV parked at a storage lot. She said that because they do not have room on their lot for RV parking in the side or rear they have made an offer on another home which has RV parking; however, they have not been able to sell their present home. She stated they used their motor home to hold emergency supplies for use in the event of a disaster. Beverly Chados, 9609 Almond Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that after receiving a citation she talked with other people in the City who own RVs. She said she spoke with one gentleman who reported he had lived in the City for more than 30 years and he was shaken by the thought that he might have to sell his motor home. She said one retired couple stated they would have to sell their RV if they were reported. She said one young couple purchased a boat for family recreation and were not told of the ordinance when they applied for a building permit. She stated one couple said they moved to the north end of the City to purchase a large lot; and since they paid taxes on their motor home, they felt they should have the right to keep it on their lot. She reported she found 17 RV spaces at a storage lot in Fontana; however, insurance will not cover fire or vandalism if an RV is not kept at home, and storage lots require that a waiver be signed releasing them of liability. She said she has lived in the City 8-1/2 years and her home was sold as having RV parking, which refers to an extended area adjacent to the garage. She felt real estate agents should not be allowed to sell property as having RV storage if the parking area does not meet City standards. She felt the standards should represent the wishes of the people, and she said many people were concerned with the change and felt we are a rural area. Mr. Fletcher requested that Rancho Cucamonga have a required disclosure on all homes sold in the City. June Beana, 13041 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has been a Rancho Cucamonga resident for 22 years. She reported that they have had RVs almost the entire time and it has been kept on their property on a cement area by the driveway. She felt it was unfair that the City only enforces the ordinance when there are complaints and she felt if the ordinance could not be enforced at 100 percent, then it should not be enforced at all. She said the RV owners were not asking to park on the streets, but merely to keep vehicles on their own property. She said they use their motor home for vacations because they cannot afford the cost of hotels and eating out. She felt the City was trying to take away a lifestyle from a lot of people who cannot afford storage. Mr. Zebarth felt that dirty motorcycles are another issue. He thought that so long as RVs are neatly stored they should be allowed. He felt that RV owners should not be punished as a group for the misdeeds of a few. He said that the Good Sam Organization has statistics that 8.3 percent of residences have RVs. He said the City has not provided space for many owners to park in their back or side yards. Mr. Zebarth felt that most RV owners are willing to maintain their RVs in a proper manner so that they are not a safety hazard or an eyesore. He said that Chaffey High School District is promoting earthquake preparedness by using RV vehicles. Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 25, 1990 Dale Starbuck, Assistant Director of Southern California District of the Good Sam Organization, offered the assistance of the Good Sam Organization to work with the Planning Commission and the Public Safety Commission to revise the ordinance. He said that the Good Sam Organization and RV owners are many times among the first people to offer assistance in times of disaster. Chairman McNiel asked how the ordinance compared to those in other communities. Mr. Starbuck responded that the Good Sam Organization worked in Riverside County to defeat an ordinance that lumped I8 wheel trucks in with RVs when the county only wanted to restrict 18 wheelers. He said the Rancho Cucamonga ordinance is less stringent than some and more stringent than others. Chairman McNiel stated that the City is trying to maintain a pleasant community without imposing on neighbors. Mr. Starbuck stated that if an RV becomes a derelict, then it should be gotten rid of; but if it is in reasonable repair, then it should be kept at the owner's residence available for use. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel requested that the information collected by Mr. Zebarth and Ms. Chados be passed along to staff. He thanked the public for their input. He stated that he believes in the ordinance but he was sympathetic to the RV owners' point of view. He felt that a vehicle set up to go every weekend is different from a vehicle used once a year for two weeks. He also felt that vehicles used for off-road are generally not cared for and should be stored away from public view. Mr. Kroutil stated that staff would like input from the Commission on different areas the Commission would like studied, such as grandfathering, non-conformities, separation of types of vehicles, etc. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the Public Safety Commission should have some interesting alternatives that should be considered before any final recommendations are made. She felt staff should investigate proper surfaces for parking (concrete, blacktop, or other prepared surface), accommodation for those with side yards adjacent to streets, height of fences, end lots, whether enforcement is equitable (100 percent versus on a complaint basis), setbacks from curb line or right-of-way, type of vehicle to be stored, and applicability of grandfathering. Mr. Kroutil asked if the Commission wanted to consider applying different regulations for separate types of vehicles. Commissioner Chitiea felt staff should make a list of different types of vehicles and perhaps there could be differences in the screening, setbacks, etc. Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 25, 1990 Chairman McNiel felt feasibility of enforcing the ordinance should be considered. He said there may be some ideas that are unenforceable. He said Code Enforcement should not be placed in a position of being charged with enforcing something that can't be done. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that perhaps the public has not been fully informed about the ordinance. He said he had received the impression that some people felt that the City does not allow RV parking anywhere on private property. He said the ordinance defines specific areas that RV parking is not allowed. Commissioner Chitiea wondered if it would be possible for a temporary permit to be issued to allow parking of a motor home on a street for a short period of time in the case of extenuating circumstances such as visitors. Mr. Kroutil stated that the state vehicle code limits on-street parking. He said the City's ordinance prohibits continuous overnight parking on the street, in that there must be a one-hour period during which the vehicle is removed. He said the City has not been enforcing the City ordinance in that respect, but instead has relied on the state vehicle code, which limits on- street parking to less than 72 hours. Commissioner Melcher stated he very much appreciated the public testimony. He felt certain points need to be recognized. He said there are some people who as a matter of economics and lifestyle choice use an RV as a second vehicle and it would be difficult to deny that right. He said it had been pointed out that the City is busily providing for most other recreational interests but seems to regulate this one more stringently. He thought the technical problem of locating the meters behind the side yard fence should be considered. He felt the current practice of enforcement in response to complaints causes uneven enforcement and contributes to some hard feelings. Commissioner Weinberger stated the Planning Commission is in a difficult situation. Chairman McNiel stated that the Public Safety Commission would be discussing the issue at their August 7 meeting to consider safety issues such as street parking and parking within certain setbacks. He felt that safety matters must be considered above all else. Mr. Kroutil stated that based on City Council's direction the City is not enforcing the current ordinance except when there are obvious safety problems. He said staff will be analyzing the information in an attempt to try to preserve the spirit of the ordinance but at the same time make it supportable by the community as a whole. He said staff would return with options the Commission might consider for possible revision of the ordinance. He gave background on the enforcement of the ordinance. He said that following adoption in 1988 there was a notification period and only those violations with clear public safety concerns were enforced. He said that the City responds to complaints because the City is very public service oriented. He stated staff responds to all citizen complaints and investigates to see whether violations exist. Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 25, 1990 Chairman McNiel stated that Code Enforcement responds to problems that exist and there are times that the City finds out about the problems because of citizen reports. He also asked that staff keep Mr. Zebarth posted on the status. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the item return to the Planning Commission for follow up discussion on September I2, 1990. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission business. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to adjourn. 10:25 P.M. Planning Commission adjourned to a July 31, 1990, workshop at 3:00 P.M. a~t~the R~4~Fho Cucamonga Civic Center to review the Regional Mall and Tenth, ct ~/~. · Otto Kr~u~l / DeputTcreta~ Y Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 25, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting July 19, 1990 Phase III of the Terra Vista Town Center (Conditional Use Permit 88-12) Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 9:40 P.M. The meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fon9, Senior Planner Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff had reviewed the revised plans with the applicant. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, representing Western Properties, described the revisions he had made to the site plan and elevations to address the concerns of the Commission. The Commission reviewed the revised plans and the consensus of the Commission was as follows: A. Site Plan: The Commission reviewed the proposed revisions to the Phase III site plan in areas of pedestrian connections the passageway through Building K and the depth of the storefront walkway. The Commission found the revisions to be acceptable subject to a condition that the final desig~ should be submitted for City Planner review and approval. B. Elevations: 1. The Commission conceptually approved the elevations for Building K. 2. Montgomery Wards: The Commission reviewed the elevations and determined that although the design was improving, refinements to the elevations should be provided as follows: a. The building entry form was acceptable. However, architectural refinements should be added to break up the narrow linear look of the columns. Further, the exterior sides of the columns and arches shall be restudied to determine the appropriate use of the cantera stone. The study shall include the evaluation of the entire entry structure as it progresses into the interior of the building. b. The arch insets along the south elevation on both sides of the main entry shall have a minimum depth of one foot. Details, and cross sections showing this and the connections between the arches shall be provided for Commission review. 3. Building L: The Commission reviewed the elevations and found them to be acceptable. The tower has been pushed back so that the columns are now 16 feet from the curb. 4. Building M: The Commission found the elevations to be acceptable with the condition that the orientation and design of the ceramic tile medallion be changed back to the original design. 5. Child's World: The Commission reviewed the elevations and recommended further changes as follows: a. Provide decorative trim around the arch on the tower. b. Add light fixtures on the tower. c. The wainscot at the tower should be "pop out" instead of flush with the column. d. The arch element at the north and east elevations should be treated with additional architectural detailing and el ements. 6. Montgomery Wards TBA Building: The Commission reviewed the elevations and found them to be acceptable with the condition that window bays instead of straight storefronts should be provided. 7. Signs. The Commission stated that the signs shown on the elevations, especially Montgomery Wards proposed signage, were not part of this review and approval. Any signs proposed must comply with the Uniform Sign Program established for the Town Center. The Commission concluded that the proposed elevations for this Phased development have improved substantially. However, the revisions needed for Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - July 19, 1990 Montgomery Wards and Child's World shall be submitted for their review prior to formal approval of the Conditional Use Permit modification. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - July 19, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting July 19, 1990 Conditional Use Permit 90-20 - Arroyo de los Osos, Ltd. Chairman McNiel and Chairman Schmidt call the joint meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission to order at 4:00 p.m. The meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the Conditional Use Permit 90-20 (Arroyo De Los Osos, Ltd.) with respect to preservation of the Red Chief Motel/China Alley Restaurant versus "focalizing" the Sycamore Inn, the historic importance and preservation of mature Sycamore trees on-site, and the preservation of Red Hill as a natural land form. ROLL CALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger. ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Melicent Arner, Marsha Banks, Gene Billings, Ada Cooper, Alan Haskavitz, Steve Preston, Bob Schmidt. ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Anthea Hartig, Assistant Planner; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner. Architect/Engineer Larry Wolff, & David Dean, Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects; Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra & Associates. Owner/Applicant: Matthew Jordan, Arroyo de los Osos, Ltd. The Commissions reviewed the project in reference to the agenda. No formal action was taken on the project; as the purpose of the workshop was to familiarize the Commissions with the project and to create an interactive atmosphere between the applicant and the Commissions. Brad Buller, City Planner, opened with general remarks relating to the issues to be discussed at the workshop. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented a brief overview of the "ground paperwork" for the pedestrian oriented activity center concept within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Specifically, he explained the importance of the Sycamore Inn and the mature trees to the Bear Gulch Activity Center area and preservation thereof. Matthew Jordan, Arroyo De Los Osos Partnership, presented a brief summary of the proposed use breakdown. He stated that although it is understood that the site is zoned for specialty commercial uses, various market analyses have determined that the site is not economically viable for commercial uses because of limited visibility from Foothill Boulevard and the lack of available water and sewer capacity. He stated that he was trying to be sensitive to the City's needs but at the same time create an economically viable project. Larry Wolff, Wolff/Lang/Christopher, Architects, presented the project proposal. He stated that two possibilities were available to design this project: 1) Develop a "focused" project, concentrating on the craftsman elements of the Sycamore Inn, and 2) Develop an "eclectic" project, which not only preserves the Sycamore Inn, but also preserves the Spanish motif of the Red Chief Motel. He indicated they chose the former because the Inn is specifically mentioned as the most important building in the Subarea. He felt that tree preservation is an important issue because the Sycamore Inn would only be a moderately interesting structure without the trees. He said approximately 80 percent of the Sycamores are to be saved with the current plans, and any trees proposed for removal would be replaced at a 3 to 1 ratio. He stated that all considerations regarding the gateway importance of the project were taken into account when the project was designed. Mr. Wolff presented a colored slope analysis plan of the site. He explained that buildings were plotted with open up views of Red Hill, both interior and exterior to the site. He stated roof lines were designed to follow the natural skyline and varied to open up scenic vistas. Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner, presented a brief synopsis of the project status. He explained that the application was still incomplete and numerous studies (arborist's report, geologic studies, etc.) had not yet been submitted to the Planning Division. He framed the three basic questions in the handout given to the Committee members prior to the start of the meeting. Anthea Hartig, Assistant Planner, explained the differences between an Historic Landmark and a Point of Historical Interest designation. She also ~mphasized the importance of potential archaeological findin§s and noted that the City will be contracting for an additional archaeological analysis and that all work (grading, etc.) should be stopped if any traces of significant remnants are found. Commissioner Preston summed up his concerns. He stated that preservation of all mature heritage trees is important and questioned how much grading would occur. Planning & HPC Workshop Minutes 2 July 19, 1990 Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra Associates, responded that approximately 80,000 cubic yards would be graded for the entire project, of which a majority would occur near the base of Red Hill and in the street$cape area. Commissioner Preston recommended that preservation of the motel be an "issue." He pointed out that no formal action could be taken because the matter is scheduled for public hearing at the August 2, 1990, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. He stated that the arborist's report should cover the windrow east of the site along the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks as well as the trees on site. He recalled the past importance of the caves built by the Chinese in Red Hill and requested that the applicant not allow development to disturb those off-site caves. He reminded the Commissions of the quality of the Sycamore Inn sign and recommended that it be preserved. Commissioner Banks had a problem with the architectural compatibility of the proposed buildings. She felt that the Sycamore Inn may be lost if similar structures were constructed in the proposed manner. She felt that the applicant's argument for removing the Red Chief Motel based on lack of visibility was not valid since the site was constructed to be of a pedestrian orientation. She felt that the Red Chief would be good for pedestrian oriented, special commercial uses. She also stated the preservation of the Red Hill view corridor was extremely important. Commissioner Haskavitz expressed his concern for preserving elements of Route 66. He also felt that size is more important than the number of trees. Chairman McNiel confirmed his feelings that the Sycamore Inn is the most significant structure on-site, if not the entire Bear Gulch area. He noted the importance of a functional site, but stated that tree preservation is extremely important. He felt that all grading should be concealed from public view. Ne felt there will be lot more questions and that most likely more workshops will be needed. Commissioner Tolstoy again noted the need for mature tree preservation. Ne confirmed his feelings that the natural profile and scenic vistas of Red Hill should be preserved in their natural state. He harked back to his youth and recalled his feeling of nostalgia for the motor court setting, but felt that the Sycamore Inn was the outstanding structure on-site. Commissioner Melcher requested that two colored plans be prepared for their next workshop on the project: one showing preserved trees in one color and removed trees in another color and the other plan indicating all trees on site. He felt that the amount of grading is relatively minor in comparison to the size of the site. Chairman McNiel requested information on the status of the railroad overpass over Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Buller stated that Foothill Boulevard will be widened at the overpass and that plans are currently in the process to do so. Planning & NPC Workshop Minutes 3 July 19, 1990 Commissioner Preston asked that an adaptive reuse study for the Red Chief Motel, including a range of potential alternatives, be developed. Mr. Wolff asked the Commissions how they should interpret the Hillside Development Ordinance (letter of the law versus meeting the spirit and intent). It was generally felt that this issue should be discussed further with the Planning Commission, but that meeting the spirit and intent of the Ordinance would be acceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the Sycamore Inn would not be lost if the new buildings emulated its craftsman elements and that an integrated project was preferable to an eclectic project. Commissioner McNiel stated his concerns with an integrated project in relation to the Thomas Winery. He said that as originally proposed the architect for the Thomas Winery promised buildings that were compatible with the Still Building; however, he felt that the project turned out "trendy" and is not integrated with the historic structures. Mr. Buller recapped the main points of the meeting. It was generally agreed that the findings of the archaeological and arborist's reports were important to both Commissions. It was the consensus of the Commissions that the grading issue is significant, but it was generally felt that meeting the spirit and intent of the Hillside Ordinance is preferable to going by the letter of the law so long as Red Hill is not altered significantly. It was pointed out that nothing will be determined until the August 2, 1990, public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the preservation of the Red Chief Motel. Chairman McNiel affirmed his feelings on this project as it relates to grading. He stated that the ordinance was approved to avoid severe scarring of the hillsides (i.e., Diamond Bar, Hacienda Heights). He felt that this project does not propose anything that drastic. ADJOURNMENT The joint Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission meetin§/workshop adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted,' Secretary Planning & HPC Workshop Minutes 4 July 19, !990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 11, 1990 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Bul ler, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Tom Grahn,- Assistant ~lanner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Russ Magui re, City Engineer; Lori Moore, Assistant Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS ~ Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Western Properties was requesting that the Planning Commission review previous conditions for the phasing plan of Terra Vista Town Center having to do with the occupancy of Mervyn's in connection with Item D. Mr. Buller stated a letter had been received from the applicant for Item H agreeing to the addition of the school condition and a Resolution of approval was provided for the Commissioners if they should desire to take such action. Chairman McNiel announced that the Design Awards were presented on Monday, July 9 and that eight awards were presented for excellence in design. A slide presentation of the winners was shown. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried with Weinberger abstaining, to adopt the minutes of May 23, 1990. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried with Weinberger abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of June 21, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 - ROCKFIELD A request for an extension of a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan of 84 single family lots of a previously approved Tract Map consisting of 154 single family lots on 67.85 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 24th Street east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-111-02. B. VACATION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON A PORTION OF LOT 5 OF TRACT 10045 A request to vacate a public utility and drainage easement on a portion of Lot 5 of Tract 10045, located on Almond Street, west of Haven Avenue, approximately 20 feet wide and 285.22 feet long APN: 1074-121-21. Commissioner Melcher requested that Item A be pulled. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 Commissioner Melcher questioned the design of the houses and asked if the intention was to develop the remainder of the lots with the same models as presently constructed. Ms. Nissen responded that the approved design review would continue the same houses as those currently being constructed. Chairman McNiel invited public comments, but there were none. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimous'ly carried, to adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13859 LEWIS HOMES The development of 393 dwelling units on 15.8 acres of land in the High Residential District (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located within the Terra Vista Planned Community on the northwest corner of Spruce Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-11 and 18. (Continued from June 13, 1990.) Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 11, 1990 Chairman McNiel noted that staff was recommending the item be continued until August 8, 1990. He opened the public hearing, but there were no comments. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13859 to August 8, 1990. Motion carried by the followin9 vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried D. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 WESTERN PROPERTIES - A request for conceptual approval of Phase. III site plan within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, and 18. (Continued from June 13, 1990.) Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the applicant was also requesting that the Commission reconsider some of the conditions contained in the phasing plan. He stated that the applicant was requesting that a condition be removed requiring that Buildin§s E, G, J, R, and Q and Pad I be under substantial construction prior to occupancy of Major 2. He said that Pad I is in plan check and the only remaining issue is the landscapin9 irri9ation plan. He said the plans for Buildings E, G, R, and Q were returned to the applicant from Plan Check in April 1990 and have not been resubmitted to the City. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rick Mager, Western Land Properties, requested that the phasing conditions be modified relative to the occupancy of Mervyn's. He stated they had pulled building permits for Pad 1 on July 10 and ground should be broken by July 16. He said they planned to return the plans for Buildings E, G, R, and Q by July 16. He said they hoped to secure occupancy for Building J by October 22, and they felt that Buildings E and G must be completed or at least fully enclosed prior to that time. He said that Building Q has been fully leased and the tenants hope to be in by Thanksgiving. He indicated Mervyn's wishes to open on August 10, and requested that the phasing conditions be relaxed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman' McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated the problem seems to be a reoccurring one where the developer cannot meet his schedules of completing conditioned improvements and the developer then returns to the City to request that conditions be changed. He felt approval of Phase III should be delayed until significant progress had been accomplished in Phase II. He saw no reason to allow occupancy of the majors if the other buildings and improvements were not completed as agreed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 11, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked if Chairman McNiel was suggesting that the Phase III conceptual approval and the modification to Phase II both be denied. Chairman McNiel responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not unsympathetic to Chairman McNiel's feelings, but he understood that if the developer were not to be given some relief then Mervyn's would not be able to open. Chairman McNiel felt it would give Mervyn's some leverage. Commissioner Melcher felt that if other guarantees could be developed for the City, it would be desirable to allow Mervyn's to open on schedule. Chairman McNiel felt that in order for Mervyn's to open as scheduled, the developer should progress with the rest of the center as agreed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that one of the original concerns of the Commission was that Target should not open by itself. She said at one time the project was scheduled to be a single phase, with a complete center, but the center was split into two phases, and now three phases. She was concerned with the piecemeal approach to development of the center from a safety factor and allowing development to occur in a haphazard manner. She stated the same argument was made that the developer could not get the signals operating properly before Target's opening; but when the Commission stood firm, the developer was able to meet the deadlines. She said she did not wish to penalize Mervyn's, but she felt that in the interests of safety of people wandering through a construction area, she did not feel Mervyn's should be open without all of the improvements being in place. Commissioner Tolstoy felt Mervyn's could open on schedule because the building between Target and Mervyn's is completed. He felt that the substantial construction of Buildings E, G, R, and Q should be tied to full occupancy of Buildings A and B. He felt people would not be in any jeopardy going into Mervyn's because everything from Mervyn's west would be completed. Chairman McNiel stated that Major 3 is well under construction and he felt that the developer would return again to request occupancy of Major 3 without all improvements being completed. Commissioner Weinberger stated she was in agreement with the conceptual approval of the Phase III site plan because it appeared the applicant was agreeable to conditions brought about as a result of Design Review. She agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that beFause Building B is completed, she felt Mervyn's could open on time. However, she did not feel Building J should be allowed to be occupied without the other conditions being met. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission should hold back a larger percentage of Buildings A and B of if they were agreeable to the 33 percent contained in the conditions. He stated that the complex includes second floor square footage which would not be that desirable. He asked why the plans that Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 11, 1990 had been returned to the applicant in April had not been resubmitted to plan check already. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that perhaps no more occupancy should be allowed of Building A until the other conditions were met. Chairman McNiel felt that would only hurt small tenants. He felt an alternative would be to hold up approval of Phase III. Commissioner Chitiea felt that holding up only the last 33 percent would probably not be sufficient to guarantee compliance. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask what percentage of Buildings A and B were not leased as yet. Mr. Mager responded that approximately 87 percent of Buildings A and B have been pre-leased. Mr. Buller stated that the developer can presign leases but no occupancy can be granted until the tenant improvements have been through the plan check process and occupancy granted. He said the condition does not control the signing of the leases, but it does control occupancy. He thought Mr. Mager was suggesting that the hold be placed on Ross. Commissioner Chitiea stated that Ross would then be the ones being penalized for the situation. She felt that each time the Planning Commission relinquishes control it further allows the center to develop piecemeal. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as there appeared to be no benefit to holding back on Buildings A and B and it did not seem fair to penalize Ross with their building already under construction, it appeared the best recourse would be a delay in approval of Phase III. Mr. Buller stated that if the issue was to put the burden on the developer to meet the original conditions, holding up on occupancy of Buildings A and B would provide greater leverage than holding up Ross. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the tenants would then be putting pressure on the developer. Commissioner Chitiea stated a lot of those tenants would be approaching the City for relief. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the pressure should be on Western Properties. Commissioner Chitiea felt it should not be at the expense of the smaller tenants. Mr. Mager stated that there is a substantial difference between having leases executed and having tenants in place and paying rent. He stated they have tenants waiting to get into 87 percent of Buildings A and B, but current Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 11, 1990 occupancy is only about 25 percent. He agreed that holding up occupancy of Buildings A and B would apply pressure to Western Properties. He stated he was not proposing that the condition be tied to the opening of the Ross store, but supported the compromise suggestion of holding up the final 33 percent occupancy of Buildings A and B. He said that because they are on a tight schedule to open Ross, it would be in the best interests of Western Land Properties to have all buildings complete so there would not be a gap going across the throat drive. Commissioner Melcher suggested continuing the item for two weeks to see if Western Land Properties followed through in having ground broken for Chili's Restaurant and resubmitting the plans for Buildings E, G, R, and Q by July 16. Chairman McNiel agreed that was a possibility. He stated there had been a lot of discussion about the site plan, but there had been little discussion regarding Buildings Q and R and he felt they would not be under substantial construction at the time the Ross Store is complete. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed-the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if Buildings A and B are only 25 percent occupied, but 87 percent leased, if the City were to hold up any further occupancy of those buildings, that would supply sufficient pressure on Western Properties to comply with previous commitments and conditions of approval. Commissioner Chitiea stated that may hurt a lot of sm~ll businesses, as they would not have the same kind of clout as the larger stores. She felt the small business people would then approach the City to gain occupancy. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Phase III approval were held up, how it would affect the completion of the entire project. Chairman McNiel felt the major tenants would have greater clout than individuals leasing only 1,000 square feet. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, 111 Pacifica, Suite 300, Irvine, stated one of the main reasons they have been pushing for modification of the Conditional Use Permit was to obtain approval for Phase II site documents. He Stated that by holding off the modification approval they could not proceed with obtaining Phase II approvals because the curb lines on the Phase II documents have been slightly adjusted from the existing approved conceptual site plan to fit the requested Phase III changes. He therefore thought the Planning and Engineering departments would not approve the Phase II documents. He said the modifications to the Conditional Use Permit were submitted in January, and at that time they had expected they would have an approval within in the next 2-3 months. Mr. Buller stated the Commission could determine that the curb alignments were technically substantially in compliance with the Phase II plan without acting on the entire issue. Ne said that because of the Design Review process, staff Planning Commission Minutes -6- July Il, !990 knows substantially where Phase III is going and he felt they could approve Phase II building permits because they are substantially in compliance with the direction the Commission has approved. Chairman McNiel felt that holding up full occupancy on Buildings A and B would not provide any leverage. He felt that only by holding up occupancy of Mervyn's would there be any pressure brought to bear on the developer. Wayne Bartlett, Mervyn's, 63 Castle Rook Road, Walnut Creek, stated that Mervyn's is very excited and anxious to open on August 10. He said they had already hired over 300 people to work in the store and had started advertising geared to an August 10 opening. He said they felt victimized by the process, as they had only heard of the problems a few weeks ago. Chairman McNiel stated that when the project went through the Design Review process regarding the building design, the phasing program including Mervyn's was discussed. Mr. Bartlett stated they understood the City's issues with the developer, but they also did not have a lot of leverage with the developer. He said they were willing to work with the community in any way possible, and he felt there would not be any safety problems if they were to open on August 10. Chairman McNiel stated he appreciated Mervyn's position, but felt the City was not holding up occupancy; because the City had come to an agreement with the developer and the developer has not met the terms of the agreement. He stated he would like to use some other point of leverage other than holding up occupancy on Mervyn's to insure that all the work gets done. He asked that staff research what the best course of action would be. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-12 to July 25, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, W£INBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-13 MEDI-RIDE~ INC. - A request.to establish a maintenance and vehicle storage facility in a leased space of 5,780 square feet within the existing Biane Winery complex on 6.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10013 8th Street - APN: 209-201-19 and 20. (Continued from June 27, 1990.) Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 11, 1990 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Paul Biane, Biane Winery complex, 9931 East 8th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he and a representative from Medi-Ride were available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-13. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-17 - BOAL ELECTRIC The request to establish a contractor's office and yard within the existing Biane Winery complex on 6.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10013 8th Street - APN: 209-201-19 and 20. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification on the parking requirements for the proposed use. Ne asked where the drivers of the company's vehicles would park their personal vehicles when they were out in the field with company vehicles. Ms. Hernandez responded that they would park their personal vehicles within the warehouse facility. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Boal, Boal Electric, 10013 8th Street, #E, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that all personal vehicles of the employee could be stored within the building. He also stated that some of the vehicles are taken to the job site and then remain at the job site until the work is finished. Chairman McNiel asked how much of the winery complex has been leased. Paul Biane, Biane Winery complex, 9931 East 8th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, responded that 85 percent of the leasable space is occupied. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 11, 1990 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-17. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried G. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13273 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify a condition of approval for a previously approved and recorded one-lot tract for 256 condominium units within the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Mountain View Drive - APN: 227-I51-13. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Weinberger asked how far the park has progressed in the process. Mr. Horner responded that park improvement plans are in plan check. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, requested approval of the revised condition to allow additional occupancy. He stated that construction on the park would not begin for at least 45-60 days. He said the plans for the full park were submitted in September 1989 and they were trying to get the full park approved, rather than just the trail system. Chairman McNiel stated that the park area was originally going to be homes, but Lewis Homes proposed a land swap. He said the greenway had been included since the inception of Terra Vista. Mike Sweeney, Land Concern, 1750 East Deere Avenue, Santa Ana, stated they initially submitted the plan as an entire park; but there was a question of maintenance responsibilities and they were asked to separate the project into two separate plans. He said when the plans were submitted for plan check, Lewis was again asked to combine the plans into one plan. He said they were now prepared to provide a third submittal. Tom Dellaquila, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated that parks necessarily take a long time to review and he felt everyone had underestimated how long it would take for review. He did not feel the the process should be rushed, as a park is important and complex. He said they had a problem only because of the occupancy of the apartments being tied to the greenway, and he felt a phased release occupancy plan would be in everyone's best interest. He said the west half of the greenway corridor had been constructed and the Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 11, 1990 eastern portion is in plan check. He felt the change to a larger park in place of two smaller parks would provide a better park for the City, and he did not feel Lewis should be penalized for proposing the larger park. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission was frustrated because the developer had too many times in the past approached the City for changes in conditions because of delays in construction. He felt the developer pays attention to income generating portions of projects, but neglects the amenities and other conditions until the end of the project and then requests occupancy in advance of completion of all conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that park plans are very complex and it was not known when the park plans will be approved by the City. He felt the greenway is an area with a lot of high density projects and the amenities need to be in place before further occupancy. Commissioner Melcher stated that Terra Vista was approved by the Planning Commission several years ago as a planned community, with one of its key elements being the 9reenway corridor to enable residents to walk from their homes to Terra Vista Town Center. He felt Terra Vista represents a tremendous opportunity for the residents, the developer, and the City; but that opportunity is not being realized because the greenway is not complete. He felt the request for modification of the condition should be denied and no more occupancy should be granted until the greenway is complete. He also stated he would like to see no more development east of where the greenway reaches. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Melcher. She felt Terra Vista has not been developing in an orderly manner, but rather piecemeal. She felt the infrastructure should be constructed prior to future development, and she supported denial of the request. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution denying Modification to Tentative Tract 13273. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried 8:53 P.M. - Plannin9 Commission recessed 9:12 P.M. - Planning Commission reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 11, 1990 H. TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - HOMESTEAD - A request for an extension of a previously approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, 42 and Lot "0." Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and stated that staff had received written notification from the applicant that they were willing to accept the added school mitigation condition. She indicated a Resolution of Approval was provided for the Commission's consideration. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Norm Canchola, Homestead Development, 355 North Sheridan, Suite liT, Corona, stated they agreed with the additional condition. He apologized for not submitting the letter agreeing to the condition sooner and stated he was · available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 138g0. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried I. VARIANCE 90-07 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - A request to (1) exceed the maximum height of wall signs at four site locations, (2) exceed the maximum number of monument signs permitted, and (3) exceed the maximum number of signs per business for two businesses located in the Victoria Planned Community within a neighborhood commercial center at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN: 227-011-22. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel questioned clarification on the number of signs. Mr. Horner replied the plans called for three monument signs with Albertsons being on each of the three monument signs plus an additional sign on the face of the building while Sav-on would be on two monument signs, the building facing the project frontage, and the rear of the building facing the freeway. Chairman McNiel thought the sign on the rear of the building was eliminate~ at Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes -11- July ~t, lq90 Mr. Horner clarified that Albertsons opted to delete the rear sign and utilize a monument sign instead, but Sav-on preferred to retain the rear sign. Chairman McNiel asked if any of the other stores would be permitted to have freeway-facing signs. Mr. Horner responded that only Sav-on would be allowed a freeway sign. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Victor Giudici, SGPA Architects, 15292 Saverne Circle, Irvine, stated he was available to answer questions. He agreed with the staff report and felt the conclusions were the result of a productive meeting with the Design Review Committee. He stated the Variance was requested because of the size of the project and its four street frontages. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated that a residential neighborhood is located to the north beyond the freeway site and she did not feel residents should have to look at the sign on the back of the building for the many years until the freeway is constructed. Chairman McNiel stated the freeway will be elevated at this location and the sign was to be placed high enough on the building to be visible from the freeway. Commissioner Tolstoy added that the shopping center will be quite recessed from the freeway level. Commissioner Chitiea asked when freeway construction is anticipated. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, responded that the freeway has been funded and because Los Angeles has the money, the freeway will be built from west to east. He anticipated that the freeway should reach Campus in the next 10 years, and travel through Rancho Cucamonga in 12 to 13 years. He stated that the interchange at 1-15 and Route 30 should be completed in 4 to 7 years. Commissioner Chitiea felt the applicant could return to request a wall sign when the freeway is constructed. She felt it would be visible from a long distance for too many years prior to freeway construction. Commissioner Melcher asked who the freeway sign was supposed to attract. Mr. Horner stated the sign would be visible to Highland traffic until the freeway is built and then to freeway traffic. Commissioner Weinberger asked the height of the proposed sign. Mr. Horner replied 30 feet from the base of the building. Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 11, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it had been determined that the sign should not be visible to the houses to the north once the freeway is built. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the sign would however be visible until the freeway is constructed. She stated she would not mind having the applicant return after freeway construction. She felt that once the freeway is constructed, the City may wish to consider si§nage for all freeway frontage stores. Commissioner Melcher stated that he felt that principle signs for freeway should be for freeway-related businesses and he did not feel that Sav-on would qualify. Commissioner Chitiea felt that shopping center identification might be appropriate as opposed to specific tenants in the center. Chairman McNiel stated that the center initially proposed six signs per major tenant. He felt there are unique qualities to the property, so that some additional signs are appropriate. He thought it would be satisfactory to drop the sign on the rear of the building if the Planning Commission desired. Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be appropriate for Sav-on to be listed on the three monument signs, one at each entry. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if the Commission wished to limit all signage on the north elevation, such a condition should be added to the Resolution. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 90-07 with modification to prohibit signage facing the future freeway. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14866 - THE PENNHILL COMPANY - A residential subdivision and design review of 47 single family lots on 8.7 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located at the southeast corner of Lemon Avenue and London Avenue - APN: 201-252-21 and 22. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 11, 1990 Bill Fischel, The Pennhill Company, 3991 McArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, thanked staff for their assistance with the project. He requested that Condition 10 be revised to allow issuance of building permits on any areas not affected by the FIRM Zone A designation prior to FEMA approval of removal of the Zone A designation. He stated they could then proceed with orderly development. Allen Parrin, Biscayne Development Corporation, 6780 Indiana Avenue, Suite 160, Riverside, stated they were the adjacent property owner of the 44-foot wide parcel to the south. He objected to the development plan because he stated it incorporated the use of their property without their permission or compensation. He said the plan would allow Pennhill to cram the maximum number of houses by utilizing the adjacent property to run their utilities. He said Biscayne had tried to cooperate with Pennhill, but they did not feel Pennhill had made a good faith effort to acquire the property. He said they had offered to sell the property at the same per foot cost as the developer paid for the remainder of the land, but Pennhill had refused to pay that amount. He felt that the developer was attempting to have the City approve the development so that the developer could obtain use of the Biscayne property for no cost. Chairman McNiel stated the dispute appeared to be a private matter and he did not see how the City could be drawn into it. Mr. Parrin requested that the matter be continued until Pennhill had acquired the Biscayne property, received Biscayne's permission to use the property, or presented a plan which would not use the property. Chairman McNiel asked how the current tract design intruded upon the Biscayne property. Mr. Grahn stated there is a sewage easement running through the access point provided for the Biscayne property connecting to the apartment complex to the south. He said the map is conditioned for improvements for the sewage per the Cucamonga County Water District and if necessary condemnation would be obtained through the Cucamonga County Water District. Gilbert Wells, 6357 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, asked for clarification of the location of the tract. He asked if it was the old Holloway Hatchery land. Mr. Grahn confirmed that it is. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that there seems t~ be a dispute over the value of the land and whether the land needs to be acquired to complete the tract. He fel.t the City was being used as leverage to acquire or force acquisition of the property. He felt the City can not be the arbitrator on such an issue. He stated he would like very much to see the 44-foot wide parcel included with the tract, but the City could not be placed in the middle. Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 11, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea asked for Engineering's comments on the applicant's request for a change to Condition 10. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Engineering agreed with the spirit of the request. He suggested adding wording to indicate that the condition would be applied to any phase of the project affected by the Zone A designation. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if Mr. Fischel was in agreement with the p'roposed wording. Mr. Fischel responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Hanson also requested that Condition 9 be changed to reflect that reimbursement fees are contained in Ordinance 75. He suggested that the adjacent 44 foot parcel be incorporated into the map if the developer were able to acquire the land. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Fischel stated they believed they had made a good faith effort to obtain the land, but felt they were miles apart on the price. He said that because of the street alignment on an approved tract to the west of their project no additional lots could be achieved by acquisition of the 44-foot parcel and the land could only be used to extend the back yards of nine lots. He said they would like to continue to pursue acquisition of the property, and he would be willing to see a condition to allow the land to be annexed through lot line adjustments. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested adding a condition that if the applicant were to acquire the 44-foot wide parcel to the south prior to recordation of the final map, that the tentative map be amended to incorporate the property into Lots 39 through 47 and to remove access area Lot A; and he suggested adding a paragraph to Condition 5 that if the applicant were to acquire the 44-foot wide parcel, that Condition 5 would be deemed null and void. Commissioner Melcher asked if the changes requested at Design Review were incorporated into the revised elevations. Upon viewing the colored renderings, Commissioner Melcher stated he was satisfied. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14866 with modifications to apply Condition 10 only to any phase of the project affected by a Zone A designation, to add Condition 11 to allow incorporation of the 44-foot wide strip into Lots 39 through 47, to make Condition 5 null and void if the 44-foot wide strip were to be acquired, and to change Condition 9 to reference City Ordinance No. 75. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 11, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-21 - GEMMEL PHARMACY - A request to operate a specialty pharmacy store within an existing building totaling 8,700 square feet in the Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-10 and 11. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. A1 Scorsatto, Gemmel Pharmacy, 1804 Vallejo, Upland, stated he was satisfied with the Resolution and available to answer any questions. Commissioner Chitiea asked if any other stores would be closed. Mr. Scorsatto responded that the store on Foothill will be closed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-21. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS L. FRONT LOT LINE DETERMINATION AND REVIEW OF A PARKWAY REDUCTION REQUEST ON LOT 104 OF TRACT 13812 LESLIE BLANCHARD - located at the northwest corner of Triple Crown Court and Polo Place. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public con~nent. Larry Lewis, Watt Inland Empire, 9035 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was representing the Blanchards. He said they had been working with staff and felt the solution was adequate. Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 11, 1990 There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher thought that the Development Code's definition for yards for corner lots was based on the lots being created before houses and he felt the request was appropriate. Commissioner Chitiea agreed. She wondered if there was any reason the determination on the reduced right-of-way should not be permanent. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there was no reason the solution could not be permanent if the Commission desired. Commissioner Chitiea asked if it would be detrimental to the City if the determination were made permanent instead of temporary. Mr. Buller responded that there would not be space for designated street trees under the control and review of the City or additional right-of-way for utilities if the reduced right-of-way becomes permanent. Commissioner Chitiea asked what utilities would not exist when the project goes in. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the utilities will be put in to serve the tract and he stated Engineering's position would be that if the Commission wished to make the determination, it should be a permanent determination. Chairman McNiel invited further public comment. Mr. Lewis stated they would be puttin§ in all the utilities (water, sewer, storm drain, telephone, and cable TV) and that the Blanchard property would be hooked up to those utilities. Commissioner Chitiea asked if any of the utilities would run across the portion currently being discussed. Mr. Lewis responded that he did not yet have a design from the utility companies. There were no remaining public comments. Commissioner Melcher stated that at some future time, the property owner may wish to demolish the current residence and split the lot. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that in case of a lot split, new conditions could be added because it would be a new parcel map. Chairman McNiel felt the determination should be permanent so long as the parcel remains a single lot. Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 11,.1990 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to determine that the east property line is the front property line with a 6-1/2 foot right-of-way until such time as a new parcel map may be recorded. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried M. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14630 - LINCOLN PROPERTIES - The development of 356 condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was his understanding that the applicant was changing the project to delete the 'requirement .for a Conditional Use Permit and if the Commission approved a reconsideration of the project, the redesign of the project would require that the project return to Design Review. Mr. Buller stated that the developer had withdrawn the Conditional Use Permit, so there would be some modification to the plan, but the applicant could return with the same site plan with a reduction of the one-bedroom units. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was willing to reconsider the project so long as it returned to Design Review. Mr. Buller stated that was at the discretion of the Commission. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Martin Garrick, Lincoln Properties, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, requested that the Planning Commission accept the request for reconsideration and set the public hearing for August 8, 1990. Chairman McNiel asked what would happen if it were determined that the project would have to return to Design Review. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there were a number of residents at the public hearing and the extension of time would allow the applicant and the public to reconvene and again review the project. Planning Commission Minutes -18- July !1, :990 Mr. Garrick stated that they intended to meet with nearby residents and review their comments. Pat Dutton, 11405 Genova, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had reservations about allowing the project to be further considered by the Planning Commission. He asked if the developer would be allowed to return with the same plan and have another chance to secure the Planning Commission's approval. He said that the residents are opposed to the appearance of the project. He stated residents met with the developer about a year ago and made recommendations regarding the project, but not one of the recommendations was incorporated into the project. Mr. Dutton thought the issue to be a density issue, not merely a design issue. He felt the City should listen to the citizens. Commissioner Weinberger asked if residents are opposed to apartments/ condominiums on that corner. Mr. Dutton responded that the citizens do not want anything that is not aesthetically in conformance with what is there and they want owner-occupied units. He said the least that the residents want is town houses which look like single family residences. He said he had heard that Etiwanda, Victoria, and Terra Vista constitute 32 percent of the buildable acreage in the City but will have about 52 percent of the multi-family construction. Commissioner Weinberger stated that each developer will not necessarily build out to the maximum. Wendy Vallette, 11116 Amarillo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked how long the developer would have to wait before resubmitting another project if the project were to go on to City Council and be denied. Mr. Bullet responded that the applicant could not resubmit a project that was substantially the same for a period of one year, but a different project could be resubmitted at any time. Ms. Vallette thought the request for reconsideration was a political move on the part of the developer because he felt the project would be denied by City Council. She asked if the request by Lincoln were to be granted if the citizens could appeal to City Council. Mr. Bullet stated that the residents could not appeal a decision to reconsider the project; however, they could appeal any future approval or denial of the project. Ms. Vallette felt a lot of people in the area are concerned with the amount of high density building, the three story structures, and the small units of 700 square feet. She stated a sign at the project refers to luxury condominiums and she felt 700 square feet could not be defined as luxury. She asked if the project is intended to be condominiums or apartments. Chairman McNiel stated that a building built to condominium standards would not necessarily mean that the units would be individually sold. Planning Commission Minutes -19- July 11, 1990 Ms. Vallette stated that there are 3,000 individual homes in the area, and there would be many differing opinions on what is wanted for the area. She did not see any further value to reconsidering the project. Mr. Garrick stated that they were more than willing to meet with the citizens. He said that a meeting had been arranged for July 18 to go over some of the design questions raised at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Buller stated that the City had not received a letter from the developer to waive the time limits specified under the Map Act and he asked if the developer was willing to waive those time limits. Mr. Garrick stated they were willing to waive the time limits and the City would have a written request on July 12, 1990. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Melcher stated that the withdrawal of the Conditional Use Permit request did not alter his concerns with the project; however, he was willing to reconsider. He stated he was not opposed to the use, density, or rental units; but questioned the architectural design and site plan, vis-a-vis the remaining projects around the intersection. Commissioner Chitiea stated she also would like to see the project redesigned, but was concerned with the density as well as the layout and design of the project. She stated that as she would probably not be at the meeting on August 8, she was uncomfortable with continuing the matter until that date. She said she was also concerned about possible progress with the residents, as so little progress had been made in the past. She said she was not in favor of continuing the matter to August 8 but would consider continuing to another date in the future. Commissioner Weinberger stated that if the project returned on August 8 with substantial changes it would have to be returned to Design Review. Commissioner Chitiea stated that it would be better to go back through the process because she did not feel cosmetic changes would be sufficient. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be happy to reconsider the project but felt it would do no good to reconsider unless there are design changes and the project should return to Design Review before returning to the full Commission. He felt that if the developer did not wish to go through Design Review, it was a moot question. Chairman McNiel agreed that the project should be looked at again and that the project should again go through the Design Review process because he felt that amount of change would be necessary. He suggested that the developer give serious consideration to the concerns of the residents. He doubted that the Commission would be able to act on August 8. Planning Commission Minutes -20- July 11, 1990 Mr. Buller stated that the purpose of asking for the matter to be heard on August 8 was to allow the applicant to present in a public forum the changes he proposed and for the Commission to decide what process those changes should go through. Chairman McNiel asked why the direction to return to Design Review could not be made this evening. Mr. Buller stated that the developer had not given input on what he was proposing and the residents were thus not able to comment on that proposal. He said that Des~.)n Review is not in a room or setting which would allow large public comment. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the previous 2-2-1 vote was at a public hearing and the next public hearing would be a formal reconsideration. He stated that tonight's meeting was not a public hearing and a formal vote action could not therefore be taken. He said he did not feel that either staff or the applicant envision a final proposal on August 8. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she also had concerns regarding densities throughout the City and asked when the results of the upcoming City Council Multi-family Workshop might be available. Mr. Buller responded that it was projected it would take two Planning staff members approximately six to eight weeks to complete'the study requested by the City Council. Commissioner Chitiea stated that once the units, are built the City cannot retreat to a lower density. She felt that when the General Plan was adopted the City did not realize how quickly build-out would be reached. She said she was not anxious to rush to build-out and felt the numbers should be reconsidered. Chairman McNiel stated that the 15-year plans for Victoria and Terra Vista have been moving decidedly faster, but the market is now slowing down. Commissioner Chitiea felt the importance of this particular project and its proximity to the future park, which will be a focal point in the community, makes the project considerably more important than just another project within the plan. Commissioner Melcher agreed that his objections to the site plan and architectural design related to integral aspects of the project itself and were far more important than cosmetics. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to accept the request for Reconsideration of Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14630 and set public hearing on August 8, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -21- July 11, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS:- CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried N. PRESERVATION OF WINDROW ON TRACT 13759 Brad Buller, City Planner, presented a history of the project and the related Tree Removal Permit. He stated that the grading impact was not conducive to preservation of some of the interior trees and the Tree Removal Permit allowed the removal of trees from the rear yard areas. He stated that approximately 77 replacement trees were to be planted along the north property line and the landscape plans will be included with the development package when it enters plan check. He indicated that the windrow on Haven Avenue is scheduled to be removed because of flood control measures necessary to protect the tract. He said there was also a Haven Overlay landscape plan for the entire stretch of Haven and that planting plan calls for a variety of other trees, including a single row of eucalyptus. Mr. Buller stated the Inland Valley Environmental Coalition wished to address the Commission regarding concerns about the removal of these trees and the Commission's policy on other tree removals throughout the City. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Jane Dunlap, Inland Valley Environmental Coalition, 5283 Alpine Meadows, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she also represented the residents of Monte Vista Street. She said their main concern is that the windrow is part of the heritage of Rancho Cucamonga. She read from the stated purpose and intent of the Tree Ordinance. She stated that some of the residents did not receive notice when the Tree Removal Permit was approved in 1988 because the letters were addressed to incorrect names. She said the residents would like the trees to remain for aesthetic and environmental reasons. She said that many things have changed since 1988 when the Tree Removal Permit was approved. She pointed out that the City recently received a proclamation designating it as a Tree City USA and the City stated they would protect the urban forest in Rancho Cucamonga. She said that the arborist's report stated that the trees on Haven Avenue, the most visible to the community, are not diseased. She requested that the Planning Commission set up a meeting between the developer, the residents, and the Inland Valley Environmental Coalition to try to save some of the trees. She said that only a portion of the trees are scheduled to be replaced with small trees. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated that the Tree Ordinance was passed a long time ago and after it was passed, it was discovered that sometimes saving the trees is not the wisest thing to do because they become brittle with age and present a fire danger. Planning Commission Minutes -22- July 11, 1990 Mr. Buller stated that the matter was before the Planning Commission this evening because Scott Farnes had presented concerns to the Commission at the June 27 meeting. He said the residents were now requesting that the City approach the developer to request a meeting to discuss concerns. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the City had not received an arborist's report in the past which indicated that trees are more likely to survive in the long run if they are smaller. Mr. Buller responded that when planting box-size trees on a slope, the root system does not adapt as well. He said the smaller 15-gallon trees establish themselves more compatibly with the environment. Commissioner Chitiea asked the life span of the Red Gum eucalyptus and its susceptibility to wind damage. Mr. Buller responded that windrows when first planted were for the protection of the groves and vineyards from the wind, and the windrows were irrigated as the orchards were irrigated. He said that these windrows are no longer being irrigated because the agricultural businesses have ceased. He stated that life expectancies have deteriorated and many trees are damaged. He said assumptions cannot be made that the trees will remain healthy in the future. Chairman McNiel stated that he was not opposed to requesting that the developer meet with the Coalition and residents. He asked Mrs. Dunlap for further comments. Mrs. Dunlap gave a brief overview of the formation of the Coalition which she said she formed with Scott Farnes. She said she had spoken with the head of forestry of the California Department of Forestry, Eric Oldar, and he had indicated he would be happy to talk with the developer and residents regarding how to preserve the trees. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission also needs to consider public safety, Haven Avenue and the ability to make it function safely, and the rights of the people who will eventually own the property on which the trees stand. Commissioner Melcher felt that it may be worthwhile for staff to meet with the forester irrespective of this project because he may know of other techniques of dealing with eucalyptus trees that the City is not yet aware of. Commissioner Chitiea stated that several years ago an arborist had addressed the Commission, but if there is new information the Commission would be interested. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that staff consulted with the gentleman Mrs. Dunlap referred to on two occasions when the Tree Ordinance was drawn up and he was extremely helpful. Planning Commission Minutes -23- July 11, 1990 It was the consensus of the Commission that staff should facilitate a meeting with the developer, residents, and the Coalition to discuss the trees. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 P.M. O. DRAFT TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the purpose of the plan is to provide an implementation program to make the trails system conditioned by the General Plan a reality. He said there are four phases to the program: (1) adoption of the plan, (2) acquisition of the missing rights-of-way, (3) design and construction of the trails, and (4) maintaining the trails. He said that the plan would be on the next Planning Commission agenda for %rmal discussion. P. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (ORAL REPORT) Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, reported that the Subcommittee had interviewed four applicants to serve as the bicycling representative on the Trails Committee. Commissioner Tolstoy stated they felt all four applicants were very well qualified. Chairman McNiel stated the Subcommittee selected George Bowman, a triathlete and a 20-year resident. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to appoint George Bowman to the Trails Committee with his term to expire July 1t, 1991. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -24- July 1I, 1990 11:35 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned to a July 19, 1990, Joint Workshop with the Historic Preservation Commission at 4:00 P.M. at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center to review Sycamore Village and a Workshop following Design Review on July 19, 1990, regarding Tentative Tract 13859. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -25- July 11, I990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting July 5, 1990 Sports Complex Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was held at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss architectural details for the stadium concept accepted by the Planning Commission at its February 8, 1990, Sports Complex workshop. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy. ABSENT: Betsy Weinberger. STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner. Consultant team: Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group; Michael Schaefer, Yih-Chian Liaw, Brett Palmer and A1 Alves, Grillas, Pirc, Rosier, Alves; and, Dan Guerra, Derbish/Guerra Associates. The consultant team reviewed details of the ancillary buildings including the maintenance building, rest room buildings, and trash enclosures. The elements · of the maintenance yard including berming, revised dimensions, planter areas, and the deletion of the tile wainscot was acceptable to the Commission. The Commission commented on several elements for the proposed stadium, including light fixtures, banners, tile, the fascia, and handrails. The Commission expressed a desire to see large flags on permanent poles around the top of the stadium and large banners in the concourse at the ceiling. Uplighting of the front of the stadium at night was considered desirable. It was noted that parking lot light fixtures with a hidden light source would be desirable, however, the Commission did not decide on a specific fixture for the parking lot. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, that the architecture and colors as proposed be recommended for approval by City Council and that the parking lot lighting come back for review by the Design Review Committee. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- July CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 27, 1990 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger STAFF PRESENT: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fon9, Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney; Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Craig Fox was representing the City Attorney's office this evening. Mr. Buller stated staff was recommending that Item F be continued to July 11, 1990, to allow staff to evaluate the revised parking information submitted by the applicant. Mr. Buller said that Items G, H, and N could be taken together and Items M and 0 could be taken together. Mr. Buller stated that the American Institute of Certified Planners had recognized Anna-Lisa Hernandez as an outstanding student. He said that only eight students in the entire United States were so recognized and the award was for exceptional scholastic achievement, distinguished record of community service, promise of success as a planner, involvement with the American Planning Association, creativity, and writing and speaking abilities. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 9998 - MASI - The development of a master plan for a 27.13 acre industrial park and the first phase of construction consisting of a 58,000 square foot mini-storage facility with a caretaker's residence on 2.95 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 85-21. B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13759 FU MAI LIMITED- The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tract Map consisting of 56 single family lots on 14.01 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Haven Avenue north of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 1076- 301-17. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13114 C.P. LANGE A residential subdivision of 21 single family lots on 5.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Calle Del Prado - APN: 208-921-03 and 04. D. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13114 - C. P. LANGE - A residential subdivision of 21 single family lots on 5.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at the southeast corner of Vineyard and Calle Del Prado - APN: 208-921-03 and 04. Scott Farnes, 11266 Gannon, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that Item B be removed. Commissioner Melcher stated he had questions on A, C, and D. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 9998 - MASI Commissioner Melcher asked if the Rochester alignment situation had changed at Foothill Boulevard after the project was originally approved, and if so, if the change affected the project. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the alignment had a minor change, but it did not significantly affect the project. Commissioner Melcher asked why the Time Extension should be approved if a new site plan will be submitted in the near future. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the property owner would like to record the parcel map and ultimately sell off the parcels. He said the parcels are much larger than the minimum for the subarea, and staff felt lot line adjustments could be used if necessary. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 27, 1990 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13759 - FU MAI LIMITED Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Mr. Farnes stated he represented the residents of Monte Vista directly north of the subject tract and the Inland Valley Environmental Coalition, an environmental coalition based in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated they opposed destruction of the red gum eucalyptus trees in the tract. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated that the tree removal permit had already been processed. He suggested that Mr. Farnes contact Mr. Buller to place the item on a future agenda for discussion. Mr. Buller stated that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Farnes to hear the concerns and he could present a report back to the Commission at the next meeting. He said the tree removal permit for the tract was approved when the tract was originally approved and the time for appeal of that decision had already expired. He indicated that he would present the concerns to the applicant once the concerns are clarified. Commissioner Melcher stated he was concerned about the conditions along the north property line where existing houses have rear yard fences which do not form a straight fence line. He asked if the developer would be replacing those fences with a new fence. Mr. Buller responded that the original Tract Map was conditioned to require that the developer work with adjacent property owners to construct a common perimeter wall. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13114 - C. P. LANGE D. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13114 - C.P. LANGE Commissioner Melcher asked if the overhead service lines along the south property line were scheduled to be undergrounded. He asked if the developer was being required to bring Calle del Prado street up to current standards. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the developer was not conditioned to underground the utilities along the southern boundary because there are services to the houses on the south and the houses would have to be rewired if the utilities were undergrounded. He said the street design for Calle del Prado has not been completed as yet and all the issues have not been resolved. He stated the developer had not been required to put curb and gutter on the north side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 27, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the land use regulations for Subarea 5 to conditionally permit Automotive Fleet Storage. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Michael Biane, 413 West H Street, Ontario, stated he wholeheartedly concurred with staff's position. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 90-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-13 MEDI-RIDE~ INC. - A request to establish a maintenance and vehicle storage facility in a leased space of 5,780 square feet within the existing Biane Winery complex on 6.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10013 8th Street APN: 209-201-19 and 20. (Continued from May 23, 1990.) Chairman McNiel stated that staff recommended the item be continued to July 11, 1990. He opened the public hearing; but hearing no testimony, he closed it. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-13. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 27, 1990 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the circulation element of the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 5) for the deletion of Seventh Street between Hermosa Avenue and Center Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. Associated with this project is Development Review 89-11. (Continued from June 13, 1990.) H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 12464 AND THE VACATION OF SEVENTH STREET ADJACENT TO THE PROJE£T FRONTAGE - J. A. STEWART/RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK - The subdivision of 8.38 acres of land into 14 parcels for industrial use in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Seventh Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. (Continued from June 13, 1990.) N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-11 J. A. STEWART/RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK - The development of ten industrial buildings totaling 158,420 square feet on 8.38 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Seventh Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. Associated with this project is Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification regarding the Cucamonga County Water District site. Mr. Grahn stated that the site is located just north of the northern driveway. Commissioner Melcher asked if Cucamonga County Water District was opposed to the vacation of Seventh Street. Mr. Grahn responded that Cucamonga County Water District will maintain an easement running along the north property line and did not oppose the vacation request so long as the easements remain intact. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing; but hearing no testimony, he closed it. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney, suggested adding a finding that the vacation of Seventh Street is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Chitiea wanted to be sure that the circulation remains open to the Deer Creek Channel. Mr. Grahn responded that the Development Review is conditioned to require that reciprocal easement for the pedestrian connection to the Deer Creek Channel be delineated on the Parcel Map and CC&Rs. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 27, 1990 Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated a similar condition is included in the Parcel Map Resolution. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 89-03, approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 12464 with modification to find that the vacation of Seventh Street is consistent with the General Plan, and approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-11. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISST~NERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-18 WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of a neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of 12 retail buildings and one day care building totaling 119,204 square feet on 14.1 acres of land within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-13. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, Western Properties, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, requested that the Resolution be changed to reflect that the name of the applicant to be Lewis Development Co. He requested clarification on the necessity of Conditional Use Permits for proposed freestanding buildings. Mr. Horner responded that any uses which would normally require Conditional Use Permits would require one, whereas any use which would normally require a Development/Design Review would be processed by way of a Development/Design Review. Mr. Mager questioned the noise level maximums and requested that L levels be taken into account when considering the noise levels. Mr. Horner stated L levels could be addressed if staff were to receive a complaint. Chairman McNiel stated that the noise levels apply to exterior noise levels. Mr. Mager requested that staff have discretion to approve some outside shopping cart storage, so long as the area is adequately screened. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 27, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked if there was room beyond the parking lot to develop such an area. Mr. Mager responded that he believed there was. He stated he thought there was a standardized bus shelter for use throughout Terra Vista, but he stated that design was inconsistent with what they wanted and he requested that he be allowed to work with staff to submit a redesigned bus shelter for use on the balance of the project. Chairman McNiel felt that was a good idea. Commissioner Melcher concurred. Mr. Mager requested that they be allowed to taper the Milliken Avenue driveway from 45 feet down to 30 feet to provide 15 feet of landscaping berm and he felt it would provide a better means of ingress and egress. Aki Sato, The Nadel Partnership, Inc., 3070 Bristol Street, #250, Costa Mesa, provided an alternate proposed driveway alignment to allow for truck turns into the center at the drive entry by tapering the entry portion only. Chairman McNiel asked if the concept had been proposed to Engineering and been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Sato replied it had been presented to staff several weeks earlier. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that staff felt the 45 feet should extend all the way onto the site because such aisles are usually done that way. He said they were concerned that the applicant's concept would be confusing to drivers. Chairman McNiel asked if the drive aisle was to be double lane or single lane. Mr. Sato responded that it is a single lane in and single lane out. Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated they contract grow trees and at times they have trees which are currently in 24 inch boxes, but have grown to the point that they should be replanted into 36 inch boxes. He asked if they could plant trees that size even if they were only coming from 24 inch boxes. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City has an in-house policy so far as minimum trunk size. He said the City is looking for significant specimen- sized trees and he suggested rewording the Resolution to call for 36-inch box size trees, or equivalent as approved by the City Planner. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated she had specific concerns regarding exterior shopping cart storage and she requested that such storage be returned to Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 27, 1990 Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, concurred and suggested returning to Design Review with screening provided. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Sato stated that the initial plan submittal indicated a screened cart storage area on the 20 feet of sidewalk area along the front of the building. He said they planned to place a decorative wall in front of the store to screen the carts. Chairman McNiel agreed that the item should be referred back to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the proposed bus shelter design should be reviewed by Design Review. Commissioner Melcher stated there are already several different bus shelter designs in Terra Vista'. He asked if the applicant was proposing to change existing shelters. Mr. Mager responded they were not. Commissioner Melcher asked if there was an approved uniform design throughout the system. Mr. Buller responded that there is not. Chairman McNiel felt it may be possible to establish a bus shelter consistent with the essence of Terra Vista. He felt the same bus shelter design may not be applicable throughout Terra Vista. Mr. Mager responded that they would like to change this particular shelter to be consistent with the one at Terra Vista Town Center. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would be willing to look at shelters on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Melcher stated that uniform shelters might be acceptable but that would abandon the current policy of having bus shelters reflect the architecture design of the various centers. Chairman McNiel thought one particular shelter may not be appropriate throughout Terra Vista, but it would be appropriate to agree upon a basic structure. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the policy remain that each shelter be considered separately. Commissioner Melcher concurred. He questioned the site plan at the corner of Milliken and Base Line. He wondered if the space between the two buildings was intended to provide usable space or to be merely an area to pass through. He stated that particular attention needs to be paid to how the two Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 27, 1990 buildings relate to each other and to the space, and that is difficult to address when the buildings are considered separately. Mr. Mager stated they had spent a significant amount of time addressing the corner. He felt it is a livable, workable plaza area which invites people into the project. He said the regional park was considered and the area was designed to have seating, multi-levels for pedestrian activities, and a substantial view corridor with enhanced paving. Mr. Horner stated one of the main concerns was having usable area. He stated staff was hoping that Pad C would have a restaurant which could use outdoor seating. Mr. Coleman stated that both pads would be returning to Design Review. Commissioner Melcher stated that one of the two buildings is cut off from the plaza by a drive-through facility. Mr. Mager stated that staff has recognized there would be an inherent pedestrian conflict because of the drive-through. Commissioner Melcher asked if the project had been looked at in terms of interfacing with Central Park. Commissioner Chitiea stated the Committee was very aware of what was planned for Central Park and they were aware of the orientation and how the project relates to the park. Mr. Buller stated that if the Commission felt that Pad C should have access to the plaza area it would be appropriate to indicate such. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant had users lined up for both corner buildings. Mr. Mager responded that the building with the drive-through has always been intended to be Pomona First Federal, but no lease has been signed as yet. He said they have had significant discussions with Wells Fargo Bank to take the other building, but the bank recently indicated they are attempting to locate in another center. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that flexibility be allowed, but the' intent would be to orient the buildings toward the plaza. Commissioner Melcher felt the corner is extremely important. He felt the corner would work as shown, but felt it would not be a successful pedestrian space except for those people walking to the shopping center. Chairman McNiel asked why the drive-through drive goes all the way around the building and if it could not be moved to one side only. Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 27, 1990 Mr. Buller stated that obtaining City standards for stacking distances and screening would be difficult with any configuration other than what was shown. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Air Quality Management District was not considering prohibiting drive-through facilities. Mr. Horner stated that regulations are being considered, but he did not feel they have been formally adopted. Commissioner Chitiea asked if projects could be conditioned that drive-through areas would become landscaped areas if the drive-throughs are eliminated by the Air Quality Management District. Commissioner Melcher felt that under the proposed regulations existing drive- throughs would not have to be abandoned but new ones could not be built. Mr. Buller stated that it may be possible to add a provision that if there were to be a change in use and the drive-through were no longer functionally used as a drive-through the applicant would return to the Design Review process for an alternative use. Commissioner Chitiea felt that condition should be added not only to this development but to all future projects with drive-throughs. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow Mr. Mager to comment. Mr. Mager stated that there may be times when a drive-through would be temporarily closed for tenant remodelings, etc., but the use would not have been abandoned. Mr. Buller suggested that 180 days would be an adequate timeframe to determine that the use had been abandoned. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He asked if the Technical Review Committee had considered the tapered driveway requested by the applicant. Mr. Hanson responded that normally that level of detail would not need to go through Technical Review. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would rather allow the tapered driveway to permit more landscaping. She did not feel it would be confusing to drivers. Commissioner Melcher felt there are a good many examples of that type of tapering in the City, and he felt it would work as proposed by the developer. Chairman McNiel did not feel it would be a problem so long as it meets standards set by the Fire and Police Departments. Commissioner Melcher felt that people exiting the center may be confused by this configuration and turn the wrong way on Milliken. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 27, 1990 Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated that within three weeks the City would have signs installed in the medium which would say "One Way" and a sign should be installed at the driveway exit prohibiting left turns. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 89-18 with modifications to change the name of the applicant to Lewis Development Co., allow a tapered driveway, provide for outside shopping cart storage locations to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and allow trees equivalent to 36-inch box size. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER -carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12602 LEWIS DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision of 14.1 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Neighborhood Commercial Development District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 227-151-13. Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer, stated the Parcel Map was in connection with Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 89-18. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, Western Properties, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated he was prepared to answer any questions. Commissioner Melcher asked if the shopping center site will be the subject of a subsequent parcel map. Mr. Mager responded affirmatively. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 12602. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 27, 1990 K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14192 - HIX DEVELOPMENT - A residential subdivision of 65 single family lots on 19.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located south of 19th Street between Hellman and Amethyst Avenues - APN: 202-061-12, 14, 40, and 44. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff had reviewed a design of the subdivision with cul-de-sacs bulbs within the new tract. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the concept was considered for Kirkwood and Layton, but they would have been in excess of 600 feet with the addition of the bulbs, which would violate City code and there would be a substantial portion of property in the middle between the two streets that he was not sure could be accessed. Commissioner Melcher stated he did not see the relationship of the design of the tract around the Lord House. Mr. Grahn responded that the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission did not specify a specific parcel size area. He said the original proposal included a street immediately to the east of the house, with the distance between the street and the House not meeting minimum setback requirements. He said the current proposed tract design was determined adequate. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ernest Hix, President, Hix Development, 437 South Cataract Avenue Suite 2, Rancho Cucamonga, San Dimas, stated that during the master planning phase they submitted nine different configurations and the Historical Preservation Commission finally approved the current plan. He presented a letter detailing their concerns with the proposed Resolution. He stated they had submitted grading plans for bulbed streets with drainage running directly to Amethyst without the need to drain through an existing residential area and without the need to install storm drains in Layton Street and Monte Vista Street. He said they were opposed to lowering the lots on the south side as shown on Exhibit D, as it would only lower nine lots from .4 to 2.3 feet, which he felt was negligible. He stated that their traffic study indicated there would be a 17 percent increase in daily traffic for Layton and a t28 percent increase for Kirkwood if the streets were connected throu§h. He said the traffic study showed there would be negligible impact upon the traffic in their developments whether or not the streets were connected. He stated they did not wish to connect the streets. Mr. Hix objected to the requirement to complete the Master Plan storm drain and said that their studies indicated their tract would only add 15.5 cubic feet of water per second, which would translate into .03 inch of water added to Amethyst. He presented a chart depicting a total cost of over $3 million to complete all the improvements requested by the City. He requested that transition lanes be allowed rather than widening the street beyond their project boundaries. He objected to the reconstruction of Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 27, 1990 Mignonette Street. He felt that the City could not legally require them to underground the utilities north and south of their property. He objected to the requirement that all street work on Hellman and Amethyst be complete prior to the issuance of building permits and said they wish to be able to build model homes at the same time they are doing the street work. He said the street work would be done prior to the showing of the models. He said no one had explained why the additional requirements were needed and if it is legal to require them. Martha Bellinger, 6927 Layton Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that on August 21, 1989, she sent a letter on behalf of the neighbors voicing concerns about the development and the proposal to align Layton Street with Victoria Street. She said that the residents were concerned about the safety of their children and the increased traffic. She said that Nix Development met with the residents and was now proposing to bulb Layton Street. She said the residents of the 6900 block were in favor of bulbing the street because they have 25 children on the street. She said that many residents bought into the street because the street was a dead-end street and the residents felt that was safer for their children. Chairman McNiel felt that people purchasing the property should have realized that a dead-end street with a barricade would eventually be built through. He thought that police and fire access should carry a higher level of concern than children not being able to play in the street. He said that if the street had ended in a cul-de-sac, then the residents could probably safely assume the street would not be continued. Ms. Bellinger stated that the residents felt that trucks have adequate access as the street has been open for 12 years and their have been no accidents with garbage trucks, etc. She was concerned about a possible increase in crime with an open street. She said they felt that the property owner who owned the property at the end of the street would not sell. She said there was no advantage to Hix Development to open the street, but rather bulbing the street would give Hix Development additional buildable area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He suggested that the Commission first deal with the question of lowering E Street and the lots on the south portion of the tract. Mr. Hanson stated that several years ago on a tract to the west the residents to the south were very concerned with the elevations of the new homes. He understood the direction from the Commission at that time to be that the City should make every attempt to minimize the height differential. Chairman McNiel asked if it would provide for proper drainage at the reduced height. Mr. Hanson stated that it would. He said that Mr. Hix has indicated he can provide an alternative street design that would drain the water to the south and save 2-1/2 feet of grade. He suggested the Commission decide if the 2-1/2 feet was significant. He said that on the other project the Tentative Map was Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 27, 1990 approved and the issue was raised again on the Design phase as well as at the rough grading point. Chairman McNiel asked the grade differential between the existing homes and the project. Mr. Hanson stated the houses vary in height. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to comment. Mr. Hix provided a cross section to show the differences in height. Ms. Miller stated the applicant proposed to match the existing grade at the rear property line, which is higher than existing houses. She said the alternate plan would make it possible to lower the houses below the existing grade as much as 2.3 feet. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He stated that because the tract to the south previously used a lot of grading to dig into the ground, it created a negative impact upon the tract being considered tonight. He felt it may not make sense to force this developer to continue to grade. Commissioner Chitiea recalled extensive hearings with a lot of testimony regarding the issue when the previous tract was approved. She was hesitant to merely approve the new tract without taking into account the homeowners to the south. However, she indicated 2.3 feet did not seem to be a significant difference. Commissioner Melcher stated he was in favor of through streets, especially given the length of the dead end streets. He felt the dead end streets may delay emergency vehicles in reaching another location if they should perhaps take one of the streets by accident and then have to back up. Commissioner Chitiea shared Commissioner Melcher's concerns regarding the streets going through. She felt it would make sense for the new development for the streets to continue through, but she did not feel it was essential. Chairman McNiel felt that Mignonette needs to go through, but he did not feel that it was quite so critical that Kirkwood and Layton do so. He said he had seen other streets with more confusing access than those streets. The Commissioners reviewed the plans. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the amount of traffic generated by cutting through would not be that significant. She felt it would not encourage people from outside the neighborhood to use the streets as shortcuts. Ms. Miller showed graphics from the traffic study. She indicated the study indicates there would be more trips at the bulb end of the street, but fewer trips at the open end of Layton and Mignonette. She said the numbers were not substantially different in either case. Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 27, 1990 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Mignonette should be open. Commissioner Melcher felt that Kirkwood and Layton should also go through. Commissioner Chitiea stated she sympathized with the residents, but agreed from a planning and safety standpoint she felt it made more sense to go through. Chairman McNiel agreed. He said the City has tried to provide access throughout the community. He stated that from a safety and circulation standpoint, he felt the streets should go through. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the applicant had raised a question regarding the building of the models concurrently with working on the street improvements. Mr. Hanson stated that the City Council had recently passed a Resolution requiring that street improvements be completed prior to issuance of building permits on collector streets to avoid subjecting the neighbors to construction traffic prior to street improvements being in place. Commissioner Chitiea stated that requirement was necessary for the protection of residents. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that grading permits could be issued prior to the street improvements. Commissioner Melcher asked if there was any leeway in the Resolution because he could understand the desire to have the models ready when the street improvements are in. Mr. Maguire responded that staff and the Commissions shall consider the Resolution. He said that it is a Resolution rather than an ordinance, so the Commission would have leeway if they felt there are unique circumstances. Commissioner Melcher agreed to follow the City Council direction. Commissioner Chitiea felt it makes good sense to protect existing residents. Chairman McNiel asked if the developer would be eligible for reimbursement of the off-site storm drain improvements. Mr. Hanson stated he would be eligible for reimbursement from the City. He said that some of the drains are scheduled to be installed by the City if the budget holds. He said if the drains have not yet been installed, the developer would be required to install them. He stated that the City has not had a chance to fully review the study submitted by the developer regarding the depth of flow added to Amethyst. He said that any additional drainage must be considered and the drainage problem should be solved. Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 27, 1990 Chairman McNiel stated that infrastructure must go in. He said reimbursement agreements would provide partial reimbursements. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow Mr. Hix to comment. Mr. Hix stated that if the streets go through at Layton and Kirkwood as shown on the plans and E Street were to be lowered, the water would have to run down Layton Street. He stated they had prepared cross-sections going from the homes on Mignonette through their north and south lots. He felt the grading differential was insignificant and they should not be required to funnel the water to Layton and to require the construction of storm drains on Layton. Mr. Hix stated they had studied the whole tract to the south and it can not take any additional water. Chairman McNiel asked if it is possible to drain from east to west. Mr. Hanson stated that the only way to lower the street would be to lower it at Layton and drain to Layton. Mr. Hix stated that presently the water goes along E Street to Amethyst. He stated that the lots are 75 feet deep and the difference of a few feet would be insignificant. Mr. Maguire stated that if there is no need to lower the lots, the water could go along Amethyst whether Layton is connected or not. Commissioner Melcher stated that if the developer must complete perimeter streets before beginning construction, to then obligate a grading scheme to go into the existing tract to install drainage would be counterproductive. He preferred that the E Street water be conducted out to Amethyst. Mr. Hix reiterated his objections to the additional street work required to the north and south of their project boundary and the reconstruction of Mignonette. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Hanson said the developer has been requested to hire a soils firm to test the pavement to see if Mignonette needs additional work. He said there may not be a need to do any work. Ms. Miller stated that most of the concern arose because surface draina9e from the tract would be routed down Mignonette. Chairman McNiel questioned the additional street work extending beyond the boundaries of the project. Mr. Hanson stated that the developer is being asked to remove two bulges on the street because it is a narrow street. He said this is consistent with previous requirements of other developers. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 27, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea felt that the conditions were fair and consistent. She agreed that allowing the water to flow to Amethyst would be acceptable. Commissioner Melcher concurred. Mr. Hanson stated that he felt the applicant's objection to the undergrounding was to extending the undergrounding to correspond to the street improvements. He said he was concerned that the poles near the curb on the off-site improvements would have to be relocated and it would be cost effective to complete the undergrounding for the two out-parcels at this time. He said the developer would be eligible for a reimbursement agreement from future development of those properties. Commissioner Chitiea stated that also was consistent with what has been done in the past. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow Mr. Hix to comment. Mr. Hix stated that one of the requirements was that the utilities be undergrounded on the opposite side of Hillman into the houses. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Mr. Hanson stated that the developer ~as not being asked to rewire the houses. He said if need be, the developer could put up poles on the opposite side of the street, but the poles would then be on the same side of the street as the existing houses. Commissioner Melcher felt that if the developer completes the utility work in the right-of-way, it should not be a requirement to revise the electrical services to the individual homes, but he did feel poles should be on the same side of the street as the houses they would be serving. Commissioner Chitiea agreed. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14192 for 65 lots. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER -carried 10:06 - Planning Commission Recessed 10:14 Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 27, 1990 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-15 LOUIS CASSAMASA - A request to establish a martial arts studio in a leased space of 1200 square feet within an existing industrial park on 3.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and 6th Street - APN: 209-211-32 and 33. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Louis Cassamasa, 9223 Base Line Road, Suite E, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he currently has 15 karate schools from Pasadena to Rancho Cucamonga. He said Mr. Ross had been very helpful. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated he had visited Mr. Cassamasa's facility on 19th Street, and he was convinced it was a worthwhile operation. He supported the use. Commissioner Chitiea stated she had no objections so long as there were no parking or sound attenuation problems. Mr. Ross stated there had been no sound problems with a dance studio in the center and there should be no parking problems. Chairman McNiel felt the use would not generate noise. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-15. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER -carried M. VARIANCE 90-03 - COVINGTON HOMES - A request to allow a reduction in the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 13.15 feet on a 4,400 square foot lot in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Comiso Way and Larino Drive - APN: 227-712-39. (Associated with this project is Design Review for Tract 13281.) Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 27, 1990 O. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13281 COVINGTON HOMES - The design review for building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 199 single family lots on 33 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District of the Victoria Planned Community (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road APN: 227-081-06. (Associated with this project is Variance 90-03.) Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned if a lot line adjustment could be used to reduce Lots 40 and 41 instead of a Variance. Mr. Ross responded that a lot line adjustment would not be possible. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bob King, Entec Consultants, Inc., 1355 East Cooley Drive, Colton, stated they considered a lot line adjustment, but the lots are already graded and a lot line adjustment would require additional grading. Commissioner Melcher stated the drive-through garages would only accommodate small vehicles. Mr. Ross stated they were not designed to accommodate large recreational vehicles. Commissioner Melcher questioned the intent of the drive-through garages. Mr. Ross responded that the garages were provided as an alternative to side yard storage areas. Commissioner Melcher asked if there was viable lot depth to accommodate recreational vehicles which may be driven through. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the minimum flat usable yard area with the drive-through garage lots is 15 feet. Commissioner Chitiea stated that most recreational vehicles (even pickups with small camper shells) would exceed the height of the proposed doors. She felt that openings on drive-through garages should be designed to accommodate vehicles which are slightly larger than normal. Mr. Ross replied that the intent would not be for trucks with camper shells to use the through access. He said that it would be necessary to extend the entire face of the building to allow the living space above the garage. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there were provisions for a turn around area in the rear yards. Planning Commission Minutes -19- June 27, 1990 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he believed the intent was for straight in parking. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Linda Lee, Covington Homes, 2451 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, stated she concurred with the staff report. Charles Rollins, Vice-President, Covington Homes, 2451 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, asked if the Commission was considering requiring taller garage doors. He said such a requirement would impact the scale of the house and the house size is too small to accommodate larger doors. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if the intent of providing drive-through garages was to meet recreational vehicle parking requirements, she felt 15 feet was not deep enough. She felt the concept should be carefully reviewed in the future. Commissioner Melcher felt the concept should be evaluated over time to be sure the area was not just being used to store junk automobiles in back yards. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea to adopt the Resolutions approving Variance 90-03 and Design Review for Tract 13281. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER -carried P. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE Review of current City regulations affecting storage and parking of RVs on private residential properties. Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff wishes to maintain regulations as they are currently in effect. Mr. Alcorn responded that staff has not made any recommendations. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Ron Zebarth, 9602 La Colina, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has been a resident for ten years and has had a recreational vehicle parked in his driveway for seven years, but was only recently cited. He said he collected 1,200 signatures on a petition requesting that recreational vehicles be permitted to Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 27, 1990 be parked in front yard areas. He said he had brought approximately 200 residents and the petition to the City Council. Chairman McNiel asked what type of recreational vehicles Mr. Zebarth was referring to. Mr. Zebarth stated he was referring to boats, trailers, and RVs. He said he had taken a survey of recreational vehicle storage yards and there are approximately nine such places in the City but only approximately seven available spaces. He stated that some people testified before the City Council and said they would not be able to afford storage spaces. Beverly Chodos, 9609 Almond, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she has owned a boat for two years. She said that there are nine people on her street with recreational vehicles and only two were cited. She said she had found that the City only enforces the ordinance as a result of complaints. She stated she would like people to be able to store recreational vehicles in their front yard areas so long as the recreational vehicles are maintained in a nice way. She felt they should only be parked in paved areas and not propped up on paint cans. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated that "well maintained" is a subjective standard which would be difficult to enforce. He stated that a petition signed by 1,200 residents and 200 people attending the City Council did not necessarily represent the majority view when the community approaches 120,000 people. He felt the current ordinance is sound and necessary. He said he was inclined to think that if the City has an ordinance it should be enforced; however, he is acutely aware of the limited available places to store recreational vehicles. He did not feel inclined to strike or alter the ordinance, but felt there must be a place to take the vehicles. He felt there should be a solution which would work for the people who own recreational vehicles. Commissioner Melcher agreed that recreational vehicle storage is a difficult issue. He felt it might be possible to differentiate between those properties developed before and after the adoption date of the ordinance but he felt such a policy would be very difficult to administer. He felt that to deny a right to someone who has enjoyed that right for a period of time is capricious when the denial is based on aesthetic reasons. He agreed the ordinance is correct and needed. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the ordinance is a good ordinance so far as the overall look of the City. She agreed that it would be difficult for people who have enjoyed the right to park their vehicles on their property to suddenly be faced with locating a storage space off-site. She felt that sight-line and visibility concerns being considered by the Public Safety Commission should be taken into account. She felt that if the vehicle could be parked away from the street and adequately screened with landscaping it may be acceptable. She wanted to see what types of solutions the Public Safety Commission might have and felt staff might suggest mitigation measures. She Planning Commission Minutes -21- June 27, 1990 felt there may be a compromise position. She stated there are a lot of small lots in the City which have not been developed as yet, and she felt there may be mitigation measures to allow such parking. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission might wish to request that developers provide a portion of ground in a common area to facilitate parking of recreational vehicles. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to give the residents an opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission. He felt that because there were two Commissioners absent it might be appropriate to continue the item to allow the Commission to provide direction regarding options they would like to see studied. Chairman McNiel invited further public comment. Ms. Chodos stated that many houses are sold as having recreational vehicle parking, but the only space available is contrary to the ordinance. Commissioner Chitiea stated that on homes with drive-through garages the homes should be plotted appropriately to provide adequate space in back of the garages to allow parking of vehicles and the garage door heights should perhaps be raised to allow taller vehicles access to the garages. Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Chitiea felt the matter should be continued to allow input from Commissioners Tolstoy and Weinberger. Mr. Buller stated that Mr. Zebarth would be out of town on July 11. Mr. Zebarth requested that the item be continued to July 25 so that he could attend the meeting. He stated he had a major concern with moving vehicles to unsecured areas. He stated he has made a $350,000 investment in his recreational vehicle and he wants to be able to see his vehicle because he knew some people who have had their vehicles vandalized in secured parking areas. He said that insurance companies may not insure such vehicles if they are not parked on the owner's premises. He said that 8.3 percent of the population have recreational vehicles. He said he was not in favor of total abandonment of the regulations, but wanted latitude to allow people who have pride in their vehicles to store them on their property. He felt those vehicles would not be detrimental to the community. Chairman McNiel stated it is difficult to establish criteria of what is aesthetically pleasing. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the item to July 25, 1990. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission Business. Planning Commission Minutes -22- June 27, 1990 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by ~cNiel, carried to adjourn. 11:00 P.M. - Planning Commission adjourned to a July 5, 1990, workshop at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center ~llowing Design Review to review the Sports Complex. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -23- June 27, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 21, 1990 Terra Vista Town Center - Phase III Site Plan and Elevations (Conditional Use Permit 88-12) and Sports Park Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 11:00 P.M. The meeting was held at the Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Roll Call COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Betsy Weinberger STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fon9, Senior Planner, Joe Schultz, Community Services Manager TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER - PHASE III Rick Mager and Mike Leslie, Lewis Homes, and Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica represented the applicant. They provided a model as well as revised site plan and elevations with enlarged details for staff and Commission to review. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, representing Western Properties, described the revisions he had made to the site plan in order to address the concerns of the pedestrian connection as identified in the June 13, 1990, staff report. Mr. Bond described the elevations for Montgomery Wards store, the detail design of the building entry, the added trellis at the southwestern corner of the building, the added tower to Building L, and the added roof canopies for Building M. He stated that the elevations for Montgomery Wards TBA building have not changed since the last time the Commission reviewed it in April of 1989. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested to the Comission that they should review the site plan first to discuss the issues as identified in the Design Review Committee staff report of June 21, 1990, item by item. He suggested that the proposed pedestrian walkway between the passageway through Building K and Town Center Drive was not successfully designed to encourage pedestrian usage. He suggested other alternatives. The consensus of the Commission was to redesign the pedestrian walkway along the north elevations of Building K-I. Mr. Bond described the pedestrian connection provided from the promenade westerly to Pad N (Shakey's). The Commission reviewed the pedestrian connection and found it to be acceptable. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, stated that several areas of the buildings are too close to the curb line; i.e., especially the tower located at Building L. Mr. Bond suggested a possible solution to increasing the depth between the building and the curb line would be to adjust the curb. The Commission did not feel that adjusting the curb would be the right solution. However, they felt it might be possible to investigate the minimum depth between the building and the curb line. The Commission suggested that Building L should be modified to provide a minimum 16-foot passageway. Staff also felt another area where the building is too close to the curb or parking area is the east elevation of the Montgomery Wards TBA Building. Staff found that cars could overhang into this setback area and there would be no opportunity for landscaping. Mr. Bond explained that the setback between the parking space and the building column is approximately 5 feet. He said they will provide wheel stops so that cars do not bump into the columns. Commissioner Melcher suggested that perhaps vine pockets could be provided at the columns. The Commission did not reach a consensus as to resolving this issue and deferred it to a later date for discussion. The consensus of the Commission was to conceptually approve the Site Plan with the following conditions: 1. A pedestrian connection should be provided through Building K moving westerly on the north side of Building K-1. 2. A pedestrian connection should be extended from the westerly promenade east to Pad N (Shakey's). 3. The elevations facing the passageway shall include store front design. This passageway should include amenities, such as, but not limited to, overhead trellis, attractive landscaping, seating benches, sufficient lighting, and other hardscape, subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. A minimum 16-foot passageway shall be provided between the tower and curb line and Building L. The final width shall be determined through reviewing elevations of Building L. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 21, 1990 The Commission next reviewed the elevations for the Phase III development. Mr. Bond again referred to the detail design of the building entry for Montgomery Wards and the added trellis to the southwest corner of the building. The Commission had concerns with the building entry design. They felt it appears to be off balance with the rest of the center because the elements of the design are totally new in that area. Mr. Bond tried to suggest a number of solutions to the building entry. Mr. Buller suggested that because of the lateness of the meeting the Commission could perhaps provide direction to the applicant. It was the consensus of the Commission that the elevations for Building K are acceptable and conceptual approval was recommended. However, the Commission felt that the design of the Montgomery Wards store does not meet their expectations. The remainder of the elevations for Building M, Building L, Child's World, and TBA, were deferred for review at a future workshop. SPORTS PARK Joe Schultz, Community Services Manager, introduced Michael Schafer of Grillias, Pirc, Rosier, Alves and Dan Guerra of Derbish, Guerra, and Associates. They presented an update on architectural details to the maintenance facility and restroom facilities. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the design was moving in the right direction. The Commission adjourned the meeting at 2:20 A.M. Respectfully submitted, City Planner Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 21, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 13, 1990 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 of the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Betsy Weinberger STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that a Regional Mall Workshop had been tentatively set for June 28, 1990. Mr. Buller stated that the annual Design Awards would be presented on July 9, 1990. Mr. Buller reported that the City of Rancho Cucamonga had been recognized by the American Planning Association, Inland Empire Section with two awards. He stated City Manager Jack Lam received a Distinguished Leadership Award as a professional planner for his services as Community Development Director. He said the second award was presented to the Community Development Department as a whole for significant contributions to planning throughout the Inland Empire because Rancho Cucamonga has been used as a model for other cities in the area of planning. Chairman McNiel congratulated staff and asked that congratulations be forwarded to Jack Lam. Mr. Buller stated that Items L, M, and N were being recommended for continuance to June 27, 1990. Mr. Buller stated that tonight's meeting would adjourn to a June 21, 1990, Workshop to review the Terra Vista Town Center project. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried with Melcher abstaining to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 3, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 90-04 - LUTTRULL - A Resolution modifying conditions of approval regarding replacement of a tree which was removed without a permit at 6168 Topaz Street - APN: 1062-351-37. (Heard on May 23, 1990.) B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-24 AND PARCEL MAP 11311 - DES MARIAS - The development of a 7,160 square foot day care facility on 1.98 acres of land within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 - PENNHILL COMPANY - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved Tract Map consisting of 129 single family lots on 25.33 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northwest corner of Ellena West and Kenyon Way - APN: 227-671-1 through 42 and 227-681-1 through 87. D. VACATION OF A PORTION OF KINLOCK AVENUE - A request to vacate a portion of Kinlock Avenue, located south of Highland Avenue, 40 feet wide and 248.83 feet long - APN: 1076-101-01. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-01 CARNEY - The development of a two-story office building totaling 10,931 square feet on .692 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the west side of Red Oak Avenue north of Civic Center Drive - APN: 208-062-15. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff would like to pull Item C. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt Items A, B, D, and E of the Consent Calendar. C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 - PENNHILL COMPANY Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, stated that the item had been approved by the Design Review Committee with the stipulation that the applicant return with a color sample for the return walls which will be in public view. He Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 13, 1990 presented the color sample and color board. Mr. Bertoni stated the applicant was present to answer any questions. Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt Item C of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14630 LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY - The development of 356 condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (I4-24 dwelling units per acre) in the Victoria Planned Community, located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 90-05. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-05 - LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY - A request for a 4 percent increase in the allowable percentage of one-bedroom units within a proposed 356-unit condominium project located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue APN: 227-261-01. Related file: Vesting Tentative Tract 14630. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher asked if the landscaping of the Milliken Avenue Median would be a departure from the current design of the median. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the landscaping is different from what is currently in place and will act as a barrier to prevent crossing of the median. Mr. Horner stated the design is a dry creek bed look with natural river rock in the center, which will be continued as the median is built south on Milliken. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated there is a master plan for the Milliken median which will discourage mid-block crossings and that is the proposed design for this area. Commissioner Melcher asked if the currently planted turfed area is contrary to master plan. Mr. Maguire responded that the master plan was recently approved and as new construction is undertaken, it will be in line with the master plan. He stated other areas will eventually be retrofitted. Commissioner Melcher stated his concerns were alleviated. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 13, 1990 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Scott Sellers, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, #240, San Diego, stated he represented the applicant. He stated they enjoyed working with the Design Review Committee and thought that the project would be one that the City will be proud of. He questioned the school fees condition and asked if they could have an option to pay fees to the School District in lieu of joining the Mello-Roos District. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the City can only require the joining of a Mello-Roos District, but the developers have the option to pay the fees to the School District. He stated language could be added to state that if the City receives information from the School District that an agreement has been reached to mitigate any impacts, the condition would be null and void. Mr. Sellers requested clarification on the placement of interlocking pavers. He said they planned to use such pavers at the primary entrance and wherever the sidewalks cross the right-of-way circulation system. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the intent was to use interlocking pavers wherever the landscape plan calls for enriched paving. Mr. Sellers questioned the median landscaping. He requested that they not be required to retrofit the median landscaping along the entire 1,265 foot frontage, but that it be only required in a 40 to 50 foot area adjacent to the driveway. He felt a fence along the project boundary would be more appropriate to deter pedestrian crossing. He stated that the developers would prefer to have the project acted upon tonight instead of continuing the project. He said they had met with members of the Victoria Homeowners Association following their first meeting on September 12, 1989, with their most recent meeting occurring on June 9, 1990. He said there were no specific requests from the group relative to the design of the project. He said the objection appears to be that the units are to be used as apartments rather than for sale. He felt that it would not be useful to continue the item because the neighbors are not opposed to specific design issues, but rather the use. Pat Dutton, 11405 Genova Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga stated that during the last two weeks he had obtained 217 signatures in opposition to the development. He objected to the proposed density of 17.7 dwelling units per acre because the area to the north and east is zoned at 4-8 dwellin9 units per acre. He said that the large park to the west and a proposed shopping center to the south will both generate a large amount of traffic. He objected to the units not being owner-occupied. Ne said he had spoken with a lieutenant from the Sheriff's Department who said that he had been contacted by the City Council and information was requested as to the correlation between crime (vandalism, gang activity, and drug activity) in relation to carports versus garages. He was concerned with the potential environmental impacts on noise and traffic safety. He said Base Line now has 22,000 cars per day and Milliken has 63,000 per day on the south side and 54,000 on the north side. He felt that with the Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 13, 1990 addition of this project plus the park and the shopping center that the traffic would be greatly increased. He said he understood that the City's General Plan calls for 75 percent single family and 25 percent multi-family. He said he was concerned with lack of notice. He said he had lived in the neighborhood for 7 weeks and his developer never told him that apartment buildings would be built behind him. He said when he moved in there was no sign. He said the sign had been blown down and was down for a substantial period of time. He was concerned with the impact on schools. He requested that the units be owner-occupied and that garages be available for each unit. Jim Bailey, 7056 Marigold, Rancho Cucamonga, manager of Victoria Project, stated that the William Lyon Company no longer owns the property. He gave background on the project. He said that the sign had blown down at one time and had been vandalized. He said that back in 1988 they had meetings with the surrounding residents and the residents may not all agree with an apartment house project, but it was well known that the development would be apartments. He said he had explained the concept of a master planned community to the various resident groups. He said he had explained that the plan called for an apartment house density in this location. He said the number of apartments has been greatly reduced from the original plan which called for 7,500 units, with approximately 1,300 eliminated. He said that residents stated they had never been told there would be apartments. He said the disclosure statements from the Pulte Company and Rhodes Company both state that the area is master planned and prospective buyers should contact the City for additional information. He stated some people said that they did not see a' sign, but another gentleman said that even though he saw the sign and it was up for eight months before he moved into his house, he still didn't like the project. He said the apartments were being built to condominium standards. He felt that previous homeowner concerns raised at a 1989 meeting had been addressed, in that there is now less density (356 units instead of 376 units), additional open space, approximately half of the enclosed parking is now garages instead of carports, and the design has been upgraded. He said additional storage has been provided for the units by the addition of garages. He felt the project should go forward. Commissioner Chitiea asked if storage was provided where garages are not provided. Mr. Sellers responded that every balcony area will have available storage area and every unit has been provided with a full-sized walk-in closet. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the balcony area included secured storage. Mr. Sellers responded that it is an enclosed, lockable storage area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the carports have storage facilities. Mr. Sellers responded that they currently do not have storage areas. Fred Deaux, 11036 Shaw Street, stated that a master plan is a living document, not cast in stone. He felt the plan had been developed a number of years ago Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 13, 1990 when the community was much smaller, and as the community grows the master plan should be reviewed to see what current residents want. He felt the multi-family units should be more spread throughout the City instead of being congregated in the immediate area. He requested that adjacent developments place a disclosure on their sales agreements that a 356-unit apartment complex is to be built next door. He felt the current disclosure is very cloudy and that the William Lyon Company built single family residences first because they knew they would not be able to easily sell homes next to an existing apartment complex. He stated that he thought that approximately a year ago the City Council and Planning Commission looked at the density issue and indicated they wished a 75 percent/25 percent single-family/multi-family mix. He said the City Council had suggested a moratorium on multi-family buildings. He asked if a special environmental impact study had been done on the density issue. He stated that ACTIVE is not a homeowners association because they were not elected. John Shakarian, 11360 Napoli Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he had seen the sign up before purchasing his home, but when he asked the developer about it he was told that nothing had been planned as yet. He asked why the signs do not say that apartments will be built instead of saying "luxury condos." Mark Whitehead, 7050 Novara, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was concerned with the project as it adjoins the park. He said there is currently fencing along Milliken to the north of the project site and he felt the fencing should continue down to Base Line on the project side of the street. He hoped that the design of the units will reflect the good standards of the park. He requested that three-story units not be built across from the park. He requested garages instead of carports across from the park. Mark Prodger, 11629 Bari Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was a relative newcomer to the Victoria Planned Community. He said he had paid over $250,000 for his home and was informed that luxury condominiums would be built on this site, not $700 per month apartments. He stated only two meetings have been held and that the residents have had only a limited amount of time to organize. He felt that as the sign had indicated luxury condominiums they should be owner-occupied condominiums. David Garba, 11549 Bari Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that most of the residents have been bombarded with full-page advertisements in the Inland Valley Bulletin from the William Lyon Company touting the master planned community of Victoria and its amenities such as parks, equestrian trails, nice walkways, and nice schools, but not one advertisement mentioned there would be multi-family units or apartments in the area. Ed Garcia, 7049 Martano Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had only heard about the project during the last few days. He felt that the William Lyon Company had probably had no residents at their meetings. He was disappointed that apartments were going to be built and he wanted the builder to buy back his home. He said he found out about the meeting accidentally because one neighbor walked around to tell people about the meeting. He said the City should wait and see the impact of the units built further south on Milliken before building more apartments. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 13, 1990 Judy Lavertu, 11384 Napoli, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she chose the community from across the country because they saw some advertising for Victoria and felt it looked like a family community. She did not feel that renters will have the same stake in the community. Lafayette Caraway, 11071 Carlo Court, Rancho Cucamonga, talked regarding the notice. He said he saw the notice go up and it said "proposed apartment site" and he thought it was only proposed. He said when the sign initially went up there was a community meeting and there was a "big uproar." He said the wind blew the sign over and it was down for approximately 3 months. He stated his brother lives in a master planned community back east and the apartments are of a lower density and are spread throughout the community instead of being concentrated in one area. He asked that the project be denied because of lack of adequate notice to the people who had just moved in and the density. Wendy Valletti, 11116 Amaralla, Rancho Cucamonga, Vice-President of Active Bulletin, stated that Mr. Bailey was correct that there had been several meetings regarding the apartment complex. She said at the first meeting, the residents requested lower densities, apartments larger than 700 square feet, more play areas for children, garages instead of carports, more than one parking spot for three-bedroom apartments, storage areas, wider streets for better emergency vehicle access, less than three stories in height, and security gates. She said residents feel the density is too great on the east side of Haven Avenue. Woldemariam Gebreselassie, 7009 Martano Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had lived in Rancho Cucamonga since September 1988 and he had not noticed a sign. He said when he asked Pulte Homes what would be built in the area, they told him an elementary school would be built and nice homes would be built in the area, but no mention was made of apartments. Jim Thurl, 7061 Bari Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the first sign said "proposed apartments" and he thought that meant only proposed and he felt there would be a chance for discussion. He said when the sign was put back up it said "condominiums" and he thought that would be an improvement because it would now be owner-occupied condominiums. He said he had only heard the preceding week that they were to be apartments built to condominium standards. Manuel Diaz, 6936 Palermo Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has lived in the area for approximately five years. He felt the apartments will create such a dense area that the educational system will deteriorate. He felt insurance rates will skyrocket because of increased vandalism, the traffic flow on Milliken will be severely impacted, and lifestyles will change dramatically. Janet Dutton, 11405 Genova, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they moved to Rancho Cucamonga because of the quality of the schools. She said Caryn is already overcrowded. Mr. Sellers stated that a condominium unit does not mean an ownership unit, m~rely that there are CC&Rs and bylaws. He said the units were designed to condominium specifications although they could have designed the units for Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 13, 1990 apartment specifications. He felt the option to rent or sell the units should be the option of the property owner. He stated he has built over 5,500 condominium units. He was saddened to hear the disparaging remarks made about the people who live in apartments. He said he had talked to the City personnel department and approximately 40 percent of the employees rent. He said the rents will not be cheap as they project renting from $740 per month to $1,100 per month. He felt that the proposed 39 percent one bedroom units would mean fewer children than in a single-family home community and there would therefore be less vandalism by children. He said not everyone is able to purchase a single family home, and they must have some place to live. Commissioner Chitiea asked why the developer was opposed to selling the 6nits as opposed to renting them as apartments. Mr. Sellers stated the issue of selling the units versus renting is based on the market. He said they have previously built units as apartments but sold them when they were built because the market had changed to be more profitable to sell. He felt the option should be up to the developer. He said if the market will justify selling, the units would probably be sold. He stated that if single-family housing prices continue to rise, the option of selling the condominiums may be viable. Mr. Bailey stated that because when advertising is run, it is typically to sell houses that are available, the advertising concentrates on the project being offered. He said they had left this project to last because certain improvements had to be made to the infrastructure; such as the relocation of giant Southern California Edison poles, improvements to Base Line Road, and completion of Phase II of Day Creek Channel. He said the William Lyon Company now owns some apartments and they are currently renting at 95+ percent occupancy. He said apartments are typically located on the periphery of residential projects in order to keep the traffic on the main roads, instead of on the smaller interior streets. Mr. Dutton stated he was concerned as to the impacts of apartments because he had lived in an apartment and knows the lifestyle. He said he is a district attorney in Riverside and felt the concerns are valid regarding vandalism and drug transactions in carports. He said that Terra Vista has many apartments and the apartments should be spaced out. He felt apartments should not be placed immediately adjacent to a park because they would generate too much traffic for people to safely cross the street to get to the pa~k. He requested a full Environmental Impact Report be generated for the project. He said they had told the developer that they wanted owners in the project but Mr. Sellers said the bottom line is dollars. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that the City has no control over schools, as that is a function of the state. He discussed the background of the General Plan, Victoria Specific Plan, and Terra Vista Specific Plan and said that the Planning Commission is charged with being sure that housing is available for Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 13, 1990 all members of the community, both white and blue collar workers, or the federal government steps in and subsidizes government-designed housing. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he would like to address an earlier comment regarding the City's current housing mix. He said that in August 1989 the City Council asked staff to analyze the current housing mix and the projected mix at build-out. He said the projected housing mix is 65 percent single family and 35 percent multi-family. He said a report was being taken to City Council at their next meeting which reflected that over the past nine months there has been a reduced number of both multi- and single-family units, but the ratio remains the same. He said the General Plan projects a greater number of multi-family units than the 35 percent. He stated the General Plan shows the project area as a mixed housing project area and an Environmental Impact Report was done on the Victoria Planned Community which addressed the various densities. Commissioner Chitiea asked if City Council had requested that a ratio of 75/25 percent be pursued. Mr. Buller stated that during the discussion in August 1989 it was suggested that a more likely goal would be a 75/25 percent mix. He said at that time it was pointed out that there was a trend occurring and developers were willingly reducing the multi-family densities because of market conditions. Chairman McNiel stated that when the Victoria and Terra Vista Plans were master planned, a cap was placed on the number of multi-family acres and multi-family units which could be built. He said in Victoria the actual build-out has resulted in considerably fewer multi-family units than what the developers are entitled to by their development agreements. He said the number of units on the proposed project were reduced, the tot lot area was enlarged, and garages were added. He said the carports are away from the streets. He felt the project would be appealed to City Council for a final decision no matter what Planning Commission decision was reached. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the goals of the General Plan and the goals discussed in public hearings when the Victoria Community Plan were adopted should be considered. He said one City goal calls for a diversity of housing mix and there must be a diversity in types of units from one-bedroom units to $400,000 to $500,000 houses. He felt the City must a~so consider the affordability of housing stock and there must be a diversity. He thought it important that high-density projects be located on major streets to keep the traffic off the smaller, single-family residence streets and he pointed out that the project is bordered by two major streets. He felt high-density projects should be located close to shopping centers to encourage foot traffic and he felt this project location was well situated in that respect. He felt it was an asset that the project would be near the largest park in the City because that will provide recreation space. Mr. Tolstoy indicated that he liked the fact that there is a railway and elevation buffer from surrounding residences. He said he knew there had been several neighborhood meetings with at least one of those meetings being held as long as a year ago. He said the Development Code allows a larger number of one-bedroom units if innovative Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 13, 1990 planning is utilized and he supported the Conditional Use Permit for additional one-bedroom units because he felt the project has a lot of open space and large play areas not seen in other projects. CommissioneK Melcher stated he did not feel compelled to vote for a project of the proposed density simply because the density is planned for. He did not feel the Conditional Use Permit was warranted as it would be extending the problem. He felt that on the basis of testimony, it may be a good idea to reexamine the noticing requirements for planned communities. He was concerned about the traffic noise mitigation not being designed into the project and felt that additional architectural features may later be added to the project to address the noise problems. He felt all architectural features should be considered before approval of the project. He stated that as the project will be located directly across from Central Park, the architectural design and site plan should be of a higher quality than what was proposed, as they seemed very ordinary. Commissioner Chitiea stated that in theory she agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding the location of this type of project and how it fit into the goals of the plan. She said, however, that she agreed with Commissioner Melcher that the design and density should be further considered. She felt that the idea that the ratio of multi-family units should be reduced from 35 percent to 25 percent is worthy of consideration. She did not feel it was necessary to build the project immediately but that it may be more appropriate to lower the density, improve the quality, and wait until the economy can justify the building of a landmark project, considering its location across the street from Central Park. She felt it was unfortunate that the disclosure was not more direct and should not have merely said to check with the City. She felt the sound protection issue was worthy of consideration. She said she did not support the project because she did not feel the project was ready for approval. She said that if the project were approved she felt security fencing would be appropriate to try to prevent mid-block crossings to the park. She felt if the project were changed to require all garages, it would perhaps lessen the amount of open space. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that a wall and wrought iron fencing be utilized on Milliken to screen the views of parked cars. He said that because of the density of the project he would not want to add more garages or carports to the project, but he recommended that the carports be replaced by garages. Commissioner Melcher felt that if approval were granted for the project, the median island should be brought up to current specifications. Commissioners Chitiea and Tolstoy concurred. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to approve the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14630 with modification to allow an agreement between the developer and the School District in lieu of joining the Mello-Roos District. The following vote was recorded: Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 13, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER tie vote Mr. Hanson stated that under Planning Commission bylaws a tie vote would be treated as a denial without prejudice. Motion: Moved by Chitiea to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of denial for Design Review of Vesting Tentative Tract 14630. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there had not been sufficient discussion of the design review of the project. He said he had made several recommendations regarding fencing and changing the carports to garages. Mr. Buller suggested that a condition be added that design issues such as security fencing and additional carports or garages be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Melcher felt the Design Review Committee should review the stair- stepped stucco and steel handrail and the arcade features on the columns. Commissioner Chitiea thought the Design' Review Committee should consider changes to the straight-on stairs. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a wall should be added to the perimeter of the property for aesthetics and security. He felt consideration should be given to the replacement of carports with garages and the location of compact vehicle spaces being spread throughout the project rather than in just one location. Commissioner Chitiea felt a luxury project should have fireplaces and she thought the chimneys would also help break up the roof line, which she felt could use additional help. She questioned if there was sufficient support for the tile roofs on the carports. Chairman McNiel stated that the carport ends are solid. Commissioner Chitiea felt that an additional support system that could be more attractive than the poles in the middle. Commissioner Melcher pointed out that if the carports were replaced by garages, the question would be moot. Commissioner Chitiea stated that it would then be necessary to look at the impact on views. Chairman McNiel stated that would mean a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio of garages to open space parking and he felt the location of a garage could be moved to avoid impacting the views. Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 13, 1990 Mr. Buller stated that because there is a Vesting Map, both the map and the design review must be taken as one action. He felt the City Council would defer back the design of the apartment project if they should approve the project. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners felt the density of 17.7 in a 14-24 range was appropriate. Commissioner Melcher felt the project could be designed at or near the same density in a more creative way given its very prominent location. He said he was opposed to granting the Conditional Use Permit to allow a higher ratio of one-bedroom units on the basis of a letter from the developer rather than market research. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the Development Code allows a change in the mix only if there is innovative design within the project to justify it. He felt a market report would not be sufficient. He felt that because it is a high density project with more open space than usual, it qualified for the additional one-bedroom units. Chairman McNiel stated that in the Design Review process the number of two- and three-bedroom units were reduced in an attempt to delete buildings to create open space. The developer then added some one-bedroom units to the remaining buildings. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the 17.7 density was acceptable so long as the project is designed well. Commissioner Chitiea felt the density should be lowered because she didn't see a transition from the 4-8 density range to the north and east of the project site and would like to see the density levels in the City dropped overall. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the developer would be willing to agree to continue the project to return through the Design Review process. Mr. Sellers stated he felt the issue from the public's perspective is not one of design, but rather the issue of whether the units are for sale or for rent. He felt that whether the project were approved or denied, the decision would most likely be appealed to City Council, so he felt there was no reason to go back through the Design Review process. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated she had proffered a motion to prepare a Resolution of Denial. Mr. Hanson stated that a tie vote on the Design Review would negate the necessity for a Resolution of Denial because there would be no final action and no findings necessary. He suggested that a motion of approval which did not pass would keep the documents consistent for processing together. Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 13, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea stated she withdrew her motion. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review for Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14630. The following vote was recorded: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER denied Mr. Hanson stated that because the motion did not result in a tie vote, it constituted a final action, which meant a Resolution of Denial should be returned to the next Planning Commission meeting. He said the two actions would then not go forward together to City Council. Motion: Moved by Mcniel, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to reconsider the action on Design Review for Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14630. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolutions approving Design Review for Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14630 and Conditional Use Permit 90-05. The following vote was recorded: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER tie vote Mr. Hanson reiterated that under Planning Commission bylaws a tie vote would be treated as a denial without prejudice. 9:50 P.M. - Planning Commission recessed. 10:05 P.M. - Planning Commission reconvened. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13859 - LEWIS HOMES - The development of 393 dwelling units on 15.8 acres of land in the High Residential District (24-30 dwelling units per acre), located within the Terra Vista Planned Community on the northwest corner of Spruce Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-11 and 18. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 13, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea asked to see the elevations. The Planning Commissioners viewed the elevations. Commissioner Melcher questioned what sound mitigation measures would be required. Mr. Horner showed a detail of the glass panels to be placed above the patios. Commissioner Melcher asked if the units would be for rent or sale. Mr. Horner stated he believed it will be a rental project. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, requested that they be allowed the option to pay fees to the school district in lieu of joining the Mello-Roos District. He said the design team was available to answer questions. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if each balcony will have a planter. Gary Gregson, CYP Architects, 19772 Michel South, Irvine, stated planters were planned for each balcony. He stated the glass enclosures would be included on the units along the streets where the acoustical study indicated noise mitigation measures would be required. Commissioners Melcher and Chitiea requested information on the design of the balconies with and without the sound attenuation. Mr. Gregson responded that the flower boxes will be inside the glass enclosures. He said the flower boxes would be planted by Lewis Homes and irrigated by the individual tenants. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested that the condition regarding noise mitigation be rewritten to provide for review and approval of the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Melcher asked where the two-story units would be located in the project. Mr. Gregson responded that most of the two-story buildings occur within the project in a motor court layout. He said they do have enclosed garages with carriage units above. Commissioner Melcher asked if perimeter walls were planned. Mr. Gregson replied that there had been discussion of placing short solid walls with perhaps wrought iron fencing in addition. He said no decisions had been made and he thought that issue would probably be reviewed by Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 13, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Design Review considered solid wall fencing. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated the project was not designed to accommodate a fully gated community concept. He said that if the Planning Commission wished to have a fully gated community, the project would need to be redesigned to allow proper turn-arounds and stacking of vehicles and should be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. He said that Planning Commission policy in the past has been to discourage fully gated communities. Commissioner Melcher stated other projects on the same street do not have sound protection and are designed as open projects to the adjacent streets. He stated he was concerned with the quality of walls and wanted to be sure that the walls are consistent with community walls or at least well-designed. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission does review the walls. He said they typically do not try to provide security, but to provide for view fencing and low, bermed walls to help conceal parking. Commissioner Tolstoy requested that any compact parking be distributed throughout the parking lot, not concentrated in one or two motor courts. He said that if compact spaces are being used, each parking court should have a diversity of sizes of parking spaces. Mr. Gregson responded that each cluster has a balance of compact and regular guest parking spaces. George Chu, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated he had no further comments. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that when the project was reviewed, based on its density it was reviewed from the perspective of being a more urban project. He said it therefore has a simpler design. Commissioner Chitiea stated she had architectural concerns regarding the design of the stairwells and how they relate to the remainder of the building, (particularly the diagonal stairways), the roof line and the lack of chimneys, an institutional look to the main recreational building, and the austere metal railings. She felt the structure was uninviting and lacks charm. She was concerned about the two story elevations and felt the structure lacks interest and is overly repetitive without a focal point. She was concerned that the most visible balconies would be the ones with the glass panels which would prevent the plants from growing over the balcony. She thought perhaps the glass design could be modified to allow the plants to grow down in front. She felt that the developer should plant the window boxes and install a proper irrigation system. She felt that without the irrigation system, residents would not take care of the plants consistently. She was concerned about how the walls on the perimeter of the project will look. Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 13, 1990 Commissioner Melcher concurred that the stairways on the ends of the building are geometric and overworked. Because the two story elevations are primarily hidden from the street, he was willing to accept them. He did not like the two-story tall recessed panel with the cruciform recess. He said he would prefer a plain wall. He liked the idea of a more urban concept and a more regular site plan. He felt the architecture for buildings of the size to be appropriately understated. He was not opposed to the metal rails, as they were not used in combination with stair-stepped stucco. He felt the design issues were not major in nature, but thought they could be reviewed again. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not like the stairways. Chairman McNiel stated that with the higher-density, three-story structures, the project was removed from the Spanish hacienda style of the majority of Terra Vista. He felt the lines are crisper and less cluttered looking. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the project at Arrow and Haven is simple in lines, but she did not like it. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the stairways look like fire escapes or a parking structure design. He thought the rails should not be eliminated on the balconies which have glass and the same type of railing should be used to avoid emphasizing the glass. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested two conditions be added: one to require that planter boxes be planted and irrigated and the other to return the acoustic barriers to Design Review. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that chimneys should be added. She asked if any of the other Commissioners felt the recreation building to be too austere. Commissioner Melcher stated he felt the recreation building to be particularly handsome. Commissioner Melcher asked about perimeter walls. Mr. Coleman stated that perimeter walls had been discussed and rejected at Design Review. He said that typically interior multi-family projects in Terra Vista have been open. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the two-story units should be further looked at even though they will be interior to the project. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project should return to Design Review. Chairman McNiel concurred and reopened the public hearing to ask if the developer was willing to return to Design Review. Mr. Oleson responded he was willing to return the project to Design Review and would like to do so as quickly as possible. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 13, 1990 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13859 to July 11, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried I. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES A request for conceptual approval of Phase III site plan within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05, 06, and 18. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated that they believe the passageway through the K building is an outstanding idea, but they were concerned with creating a substantial passageway through the K building to Town Center Drive because substantial pedestrian traffic would be in conflict with the loading dock area of the Montgomery Wards building and would encourage people to jaywalk across Town Center Drive. He felt the primary reason for the passageway was to provide access from the parking area to the front of the buildings and secondarily to provide access from the surrounding residences. He felt they had provided substantial pedestrian access across the main entry to the shopping center and questioned the need for extending the pedestrian connection from the westerly promenade east to Pad N. He questioned the requirement for upgrading the textured pavement with better material other than colored concrete. He said they had previously suggested interlocking pavers, but engineering had objected. He. said they were willing to upgrade the paving but they wanted to keep the textured paving somewhat consistent with the portion of the project which had already been approved. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the developer was proposing a different configuration for the pedestrian walkway through Building K. Mr. Mager responded that they were happy with the concept, but they did not wish to see an encouragement of surrounding residents to jaywalk across Town Center Drive. He wanted the access to perhaps meander. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel felt the pedestrian access through Building K is a good idea. He indicated that the enriched paving across the pedestrian access from Town Center Drive should alert truck drivers that pedestrians may be in the Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 13, 1990 area. He felt that the best route for the pedestrian access could be worked out. He said that they attempted to provide for pedestrian access throughout the project to avoid a sea of parking lot and to add pedestrian amenities. He felt the access east to Pad N should be required. He was disappointed with the patches of enhanced concrete in front of Target and felt the Commission was trying to improve upon that concept. Commissioner Chitiea stated she did not feel comfortable with the modified architectural version of the project represented in the site plan presented. She felt it would be more appropriate to work out the details at Design Review before locking into a footprint that may not accommodate what the Commission desires. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned about the remarks made about the pedestrian path to Pad N. He felt the path should not terminate at Pad N and wanted to see a provision for continuing the path beyond Pad N. Commissioner Melcher felt that the elevations and the footprint go hand in hand and should be looked at concurrently. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant was willing to continue the project in order to review the elevations at Design Review and to process the elevations and the site plan together. Mr. Mager responded affirmatively. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-12 to July 11, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY · NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12275 VAUGHN - A subdivision of 1.04 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of Pepper Street - APN: 208-162-30. Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report and requested that the Resolution be changed to provide that the drainage easement from Parcel 2 be in favor of Parcel 3. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jerry Wilson, Wilson Engineering, 223 North First Avenue, Upland, stated they were in basic agreement with the conditions but were concerned about the Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 13, 1990 requirement for removing the FIRM Zone A designation. He stated it can be difficult to obtain approval from FEMA and he requested that the language be softened. Chairman McNiel asked if the request had been discussed with staff. Mr. Wilson responded that staff had indicated they would be firm on that condition. Chairman McNiel asked why the developer objected to the condition. Mr. Wilson stated that it is a long, difficult process to get a map revised with FEMA and it can take a year or longer. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated that FEMA has only one consultant to review all such requests. Chairman McNiel asked what would happen if the designation can not be removed. Ms. Krall responded that the condition reads that the map can be recorded so long as FEMA has responded that the designation can be removed under certain conditions. She said the designation must then be officially removed prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what change has occurred to allow the designation to be removed. Mr. Wilson stated the parcels are on Hellman Avenue across from the Junior High School and are all elevated approximately four feet above the street. He felt the parcels may not be within the Zone A, but he was not sure that the required fees would make the project cost-effective. He felt the flood insurance surcharge of only $200 to $300 per parcel would be more cost effective. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that a City Council ordinance requires removal of the flood zone designation and the Planning Commission does not have authority to waive or grant variances to that condition. Mr. Wilson stated the developer would then accept the condition. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher asked if there would be controls to prevent concrete walls along the 20-foot access easement, which would create a boxed channel look. He asked if there would be an opportunity for planting, or could any walls be set back. Ne asked if parking will be regulated in the easement area and if the Fire Department had approved the 20-foot width. Ms. Krall stated that the Fire Department added a condition that the house built on Lot 3 have sprinklers. She said the Fire Department did not object to the 20-foot access. She suggested CC&Rs could be required to prohibit walls. Planning Commission Minutes -19- June 13, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the access easement area could be made a Lot A, but wondered if the CC&Rs would be an imposition on a three-lot project because a three-party Homeowners' Association would be too costly for the project. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that CC&Rs could be required without a Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Melcher asked if a condition could be added that any wall erected on the south side of Lot 1 and the north side of Lot 2 provide for a minimum of 30 feet clearance with a minimum of 10 feet of landscaped and irrigated area. Mr. Hanson suggested that the Planning Commission could require that the City have the ability to review and approve any fencing to be installed as part of the reciprocal access agreement. Chairman McNiel asked if a condition could be added that any fencing be either view fencing or perhaps change the easement to 30 feet with 20 feet of paving and 5 feet of landscaping on either side. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if the Fire Department required a 20 foot easement and if the entire 20 feet needs to be paved. Ralph Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the 20-foot requirement came from the Development Code and the Fire Department did not comment on the requirement. Mr. Coleman stated that the Development Code requires a minimum 10 foot driveway. Commissioner Melcher felt that 10 feet was not a wide enough paved area to avoid conflicts on the driveway with all three property owners gaining access from Hellman Avenue on the common driveway. Barrye Hanson suggested that if the driveway were to be less than 20 feet the Fire Department should perhaps review the project again. He thought it would be possible to require 5 feet of landscaping on either side of a 20 foot paved driveway. Mr. Buller stated that without restrictions Lot 3 could also fence down the easement so long as the fence was placed on the property owned by Lot 3. Chairman McNiel stated that a condition be added that any solid wall be back some distance from the street. Mr. Coleman stated the front yard setback would be 37 feet from the curb face. He said legally a 6-foot high wall could be built up to the 37-foot setback and up to 3 feet in height beyond the setback. He said an open wrought iron wall could be 6 feet high out to the front property line. Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 13, 1990 Commissioner Melcher suggested requiring a 5-foot landscaped and irrigated setback for any wall built of other than view fencing. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant would be willing to accept such a condition. Mr. Wilson nodded affirmatively. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 12275 with modifications to require a 5-foot landscaped and irrigated setback for any wall built of other than view fencing and to provide that the drainage easement be in favor of Parcel 3. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01 BARMAKIAN - A request to change the d~signation from Subarea 4 to Subarea 5 for 5 acres of land located on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 470 feet east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 210-071-50. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Andrew Barmakian, 8560 Vineyard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he understood there may be a small parkipg problem, but he felt the problem could be resolved. He felt the buildings were better suited for the types of industry permitted in Subarea 5 because they have a 26-foot clear stacking height inside and dock- high doors and are fully sprinklered. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution recommending Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 90-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -21- June 13, 1990 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 P.M. ' L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the circulation element of the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 5) for the deletion of 7th Street between Hermosa Avenue and Center Street APN: 209-261-09 and 30. Associated with this project is 'Development Review 89-11 (TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 27, 1990.) ' M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 12464 AND THE VACATION OF 7TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT FRONTAGE - J. A. STEWART/RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK - The subdivision of 8.38 acres of land into 14 parcels for industrial use in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. (TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 27, t990.) NEW BUSINESS N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-11 - j. A. STEWART/RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK - The development of ten industrial buildings totaling 158,420 square feet on 8.38 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. Associated with this project is Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. (TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 27, 1990.) Chairman McNiel reiterated that the items were recommended for continuance to June 27, 1990. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel to continue Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 89-03, Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 12464, and Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-11 to June 27, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried 11:40 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 11:45 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -22- June 13, 1990 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS O. SPORTS PARK - DESIGN REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES Joe Schultz, Community Services Manager, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the parking spaces are double striped. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group, stated the parking will meet City standards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when the complex was first reviewed there was a deficiency of parking spaces and he asked how much land has been added to the project. Mr. Schultz responded that 4-1/2 to 5 acres have been added. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the number of parking spaces compared to the number of seats. Mr. Schultz replied the ratio is one space for every three seats plus eight bus spaces. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the staff report reference to the complex providing additional revenue for the City. He said he thought the park would not make money for the City. Mr. Schultz responded that the City would benefit from visitors who then visit restaurants and shops and stay in hotels in the area. Chairman McNiel questioned the number of seats in the stadium. Mr. Schultz replied that the box and reserve seats total 3,500 and each of the two cafes seat an additional 250 people. He presented a slide show. Chairman McNiel asked when the project is scheduled for City Council review. Mr. Schultz responded it should be reviewed by City Council in September. It was the consensus of the Commission that a greater level of detail was needed for review. A workshop was scheduled for June 21, 1990, following Design Review. P. DISCUSSION OF TRAILS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Planning Commission should determine who would interview Trails Committee applicants. Planning Commission Minutes -23- June 13, 1990 Chairman McNiel stated he would like to be included. Commissioner Chitiea stated she felt Commissioner Tolstoy should be on the interview panel. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that Dan Coleman also participate. It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairman McNiel, Commissioner Tolstoy, and Dan Coleman would form the interview panel. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no further Commission business. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 1:15 A.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned to a June 21, 1990, workshop at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center following Design Review to review the Terra Vista Town Center project and the Sports Park. Respect~lly submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -24- June 13, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 23, 1990 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Betsy Weinberger STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner; Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Brett Homer, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice-Chairman Chitiea announced that Chairman McNiel would join the meeting later in the evening. Brad Bullet, City Planner, welcomed John Melcher to the Planning Commission and stated it was his first meeting. Mr. Bullet stated a letter had been received from the applicant requesting that Item B of the Consent Calendar be continued. Mr. Bullet recommended that Items I and J' be continued to allow them to be heard concurrently with a design review application which had been submitted. He stated the application would probably be heard some time in July and the items would be readvertised. Mr. Bullet stated that tonight's meeting should be adjourned to a special workshop at 5:30 P.M. on May 31, 1990, to discuss aspects of the development of plans for the Central Park at the corner of Milliken and Baseline. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brad Bullet, City Planner, recommended that the minutes be considered later in the meeting when Chairman McNiel would be present. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-13 - CRHO, INC. - The development of a five-story office building totaling 74,697 square feet on approximately 2 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, and the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route APN: 209-142-16. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13316 FRIEDMAN HOMES - A total residential development of 123 single family lots on ~4.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Carrari Avenue - APN: 201-071-14, 37, and 45. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13674 - MIGHTY DEVELOPMENT - A residential subdivision consisting of 18 single family lots on 11.29 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Amethyst Street north of Valley View Drive - APN: 1061-401-03. Conmnissioner Tolstoy requested that Item B be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried with McNiel and Weinberger absent, to adopt Items A and C of the consent calendar. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13316 Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public comment. Charles Doskow, 222 North Mountain, Suite 210, Upland, stated he represented Friedman Homes. He said they had concerns that as the matter was before the City Council the Planning Commission did not have authority to extend the project. He said Counsel has taken the position that the Planning Commission has the right to extend the project; and, therefore, the developer would be happy to withdraw the' request for continuance. Ne requested the matter be considered. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what issues were being raised at the Council level. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 23, 1990 Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated that at the last City Council meeting some of the property owners along London Avenue raised some objections to the final map because of the proposed storm drain design. He stated that City Council was not aware of the situation at the site and the matter was continued to the next City Council meeting to allow time for review. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the issue had been discussed at Design Review and at the Commission level. There were no further public comments. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, approved with McNiel and Weinberger absent, to approve Item B of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-09 INLAND AREA FELLOWSHIP - A request to establish a day care facility within an existing building previously approved for church use totaling 16,457 square feet on 2.42 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of lgth Street and Amethyst Avenue - APN: 201-474-02 and 03. (Continued from April 25, 1990.) Steve Hayes presented the staff report. Bill Flanders, Pastor, 11372 Pyramid Peak, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that they requested the driveway be placed at the north end of their property when they first approached the City, but the City stated traffic considerations required the driveway be placed at its present location. He stated the church feels the secondary play area should be across the drive aisle as they originally proposed. He said the Planning Commission required a walkway across the parking lot. Pastor Flanders stated the preschool children would not be using the play area during the major traffic hours of early morning and evening. He suggested installation of a sliding gate and stated he had discussed such a proposal with the Fire Marshall and the Fire Marshal does not object. He stated the church opposed the proposed location of the play area which eliminates 19 parking spaces and pointed out that the electrical main and fire sprinkler system controls would sit in the middle of the play area. He stated the plan placing the play area to the east was acceptable, but they did not feel it was as advantageous as placing the secondary play area to the north. He reiterated that students would be supervised as they crossed the drive aisle to get to or from the play area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the considerations of the site was that the church may wish to expand by placing another building on the northern part of the property. He asked what would then be proposed for the play area. Pastor Flanders stated that was a long-range future plan. He said that when a building is placed in that area the play area would probably be adjacent to the building and the play area might possibly be rearranged at that area. He said they do not currently have a master plan. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 23, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the play area would be turfed. Pastor Flanders responded it would be partially turfed. Alan Dalmau, Pitassi Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven, #220, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the architect of record on refurbishing the buildin§ when it previously came before the Planning Commission. Ne stated at that time they prepared a master plan for the future building of a gymnasium with access off Amethyst to the far north of the property, and at that time they were asked to relocate the driveway to its present location. He stated that staff was aware at that time that the church was plannin9 to process a Conditional Use Permit application for child care facilities and one of the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit on the historical buildin9 was to place a textured pavement crosswalk leading from one of the main exits from the building to the future play area. He felt that Exhibit C best fit the needs of the church. He stated that when the future building is built, the play area could be moved to the west side of the future building. He said a major consideration would be to save the existing palm trees. He stated that if the play area were constructed as shown in Exhibit B, people would be crossing the play area to gain access to the building because the northern building entrance is the main entrance and the only handicapped access. Commissioner Chitiea asked if any consideration was 9iven to placing the play area to the west of the building. Mr. Dalmau stated that the layout of the site plan was designed to save the mature trees and keep as much of the parking as close to the building as possible. He stated they did not feel it would be workable to remove all the parking on the west side of the building and trying to relocate it elsewhere on the site. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the proposed driveway at the northern boundary of the site would be opposite the entrances to the Fire District headquarters. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated it might be possible to line up a driveway opposite one of the driveways to the Fi re District headquarters, but it would cause a conflict with the driveway of the property to the north. He stated the City requests a minimum of 200 feet between driveways. Hearing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt uncomfortable with having children crossin9 a drive aisle even with 1 adult accompanying 12 children because children have minds of their own. Ne did not care for any of the layouts proposed. Vice-Chairman Chitiea concurred. She stated that if children are in a play yard they need ready access to restrooms and should not have to cross the drive aisle. She said she appreciated the problems of placin9 the play area on the east side of the building if the church needed to expand it, and she did not like to see a play area placed so close to the street. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 23, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that a play area on the west side of the building might cause noise conflicts because of the proximity to the residential development on that side. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt there would be noise conflicts if the play area were placed on the northern end of the site adjacent to the senior project. She felt that the location of the play area adjacent to the building on the north of the building would be most advantageous for the building and she asked if the entrance to the sanctuary on the south could be the main entrance. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the southern entrance did not have handicapped access. He felt that if the play area were located to the north, the gates around the play area could be kept open during service hours and it would be accessible to handicapped persons. He stated that the play area shown in Exhibit B would not be large enough when the school expanded to 100 students, but he felt the area could be expanded by extending it south adjacent to the east side of the building, forming an L shape. He felt it would be best if the play area would not have to be moved when the additional building were added to the north on the project. He felt turf on the east side would be a nice addition to the property. Commissioner Melcher stated he was a strong advocate of the configuration as shown in Exhibit C. He felt that the site plan provides for vehicle turn around on site and that with some direction and the possible use of gates or barricades across the northerly run of the circulation system, he felt there would not be a traffic problem. He stated that considering the historical importance of the building he felt low use should be placed adjacent to the building to provide a proper setting. He felt placing the play area adjacent would detract from the historical significance. Vice-Chairman Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy that the proposed changes to the building would enhance it enormously. She felt that the safety of the children in allowing direct access to the restroom facilities is important. She felt the only way to make the northern area safe would be to gate the entire northern section of the property. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit gO-O9 with modification to require that the play yard be located north of the building, south of the northern drive aisle with future expansion to be in an L-shaped configuration, wrapping around to the east of the building. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, WEINBERG£R -carried Commissioner Melcher stated he voted against the motion because he felt the play yard configuration should be as shown in Exhibit C. Planning Con~nission Minutes -5- May 23, 1990 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-07 - RANCHO HILLS MINISTRY CENTER - A request to establish a 4,320 square foot church office and meeting hall for church-related gatherings in an existing industrial park in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 9390 7th Street, Suite C - APN: 209-171-57. (Continued from April 25, 1990. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if the Fire Department had submitted a letter indicating their requirements. Ms. Hernandez responded that standard procedures require the applicant to comply with Fi re District requirements prior to occupancy. She stated the applicant has submitted a letter to the Planning Division and the Fire Department stating that they had addressed all concerns of the Fire Department. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Dick Dahl, 5444 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, agreed with the staff report. He stated the pastor and churchleaders were available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the church should be an asset to the community. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that so long as the parking and safety requirements were met prior to occupancy, she supported the application. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-07. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COI~4ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~4ISSIONERS: MCNIEL, WEINBERGER -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-10 JOAN H. ACHUFF, SOUTHWEST TRAINING CONSULTANTS - A request to establish a driveF training school in a leased space of J,312 square feet within an existing business park on 5.7 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue - APN: 208-352-41. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 23, 1990 Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked v~nat provision was made for the parking of buses. Mr. Guarracino responded that the Resolution was conditioned to prohibit on- site parking of buses and the bringing of buses to the site. He stated the applicant had indicated buses would be stored and boarded outside of the City. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Joan Achuff, 5670 Sapphire Street, Rancho Cucamonga, concurred with staff's recommendations. She said she knew that buses would not be allowed on-site. She stated she had arranged to have a monitored security system with smoke alarms because of the parkin§ of vehicles in the building. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if the applicant planned to have truck driver training. Ms. Achuff responded she hoped to one day add such training, but it would also be conducted off-site. Hearing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the application. Commissioner Melcher concurred. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt that so long as parking was not a problem and buses would not be on site, the use would be appropriate. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit g0-10. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCNER, TOL~OY NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, WEINBERGER -carried G. VARIANCE 90-04 - H & S DEVELOPMENT - The request to exceed the building envelope established by the Hillside Grading Ordinance on 13 lots within a 36-1ot design review application in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located west of Beryl Street and north of Almond Street - APN: 1061-801-3, 5 through 9, 14, 18, 19, 21 through 26, and 29 through 32 and 1061-811-1 through 3, 8 through 11, 18 through 21, 23 through 25, and 27 through 29. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 23, 1990 M. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 - H & S DEVELOPMENT - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 36 lots of a previously approved tract map consisting of 82 single-family lots on 86.53 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located west of Beryl Street and north of Almond Street - APN: 1061-801-3, 5 through 9, 14, 18, 19, 21 through 26, and 29 through 32 and 1061-811-1 through 3, 8 through 11, 18 thKough 21, 23 through 25, and 27 through 29. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested dealing with the Variance first. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Jeff Burum, Vice-President H & S Development, 6057 Della Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that when they submitted the original concepts of the architect in September, they were advised about the pending Hillside Development Ordinance and they attempted to comply with the spirit of the Ordinance. Hearing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner TolstOy asked if the lot configuration was approved before the Hillside Development Ordinance went into effect. Brad Bullet, City Planner, responded that lots were approved in 1983. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that because the lots are narrower than what would be currently approved under the Hillside Development Ordinance standards, a Variance might be in order. Commissioner Melcher agreed and stated that in studying the elevations it appeared the developer had made a genuine effort to bring the ground floor uses down to grade instead of using stemwalls. He felt the developer made a good effort to comply with the Ordinance and he supported the Variance. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated she was on the Design Review Conmittee when the project was reviewed and she thought a great deal of effort was made to meet the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. She felt the placement of the homes on the lots adds to the development and she supported the Variance. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 90-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CO~14ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: CO~4ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~/4ISSIONERS: MCNIEL, WEINBERGER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 23, 1990 Mr. Grahn presented the stone samples. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what type of material is used for the synthetic stones. Vice-Chairman Chitiea reopened the public hearing. Mr. Burum responded that they are made with a cement-based material which is colored to match natural stone. Ne stated the developer has used the same material in Redlands. Commissioner Melcher stated he is inherently against the use of manufactured stone products, but felt if proper attention is paid to the detailing, it can be acceptable. He said particular attention must be paid to how the materials turn corners. Vice-Chairman Chttiea stated that attention must also be paid to the grout type, color, and application. She was concerned that the materials not have a fake look. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned with how the material will weather. He said he has seen imitation native rock which deteriorated over time. He observed that the colors on the samples appear to go all the way through the material. Charlotte Carrari, 4934 Delphin, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she owns Valley View Mesa Ranch, comprised of 340 acres north of the project. She opposed the homes proposed for Lots 25 and 26. She stated she had restored her home with natural rock and she had been told that the northern tiers of this development would not contain two-story homes on the north side. She felt two-story homes would mean a loss of the aesthetic value of her home from the street below. She suggested building one-story homes, two-story homes at a lower grade by moving the homes to the front of the lots, or one larger single-story home on the two lots combined. She stated she had not had an opportunity to talk with the developer because she had been in Europe. Barrye Namehas, 9050 Realis, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was disappointed to find out that tract homes were being built because he had thought the lots were to be developed as custom homes. He felt it would be a great loss to shield the Carrari home because he felt the home has historical significance. He felt natural stone and bricks should be used, not synthetic. Mr. Burum stated he had not previously heard of Mrs. Carrari's concerns, and he requested that Lots 25 and 26 be removed from the request for approval. Mr. Bullet stated that it would be possible for the developer to remove the two lots and indicated the applicant could return for approval on those two lots after working with the neighborhood. Mr. Carrari stated that there are currently six eucalyptus trees on Lots 25 and 26 and the current plans only show three. He requested that all six be Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 23, 1990 saved. He said owls currently roost in the trees; and because he has been watering the trees for the last three years, the trees are still alive. Hearing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Mr. Buller stated that staff would be happy to facilitate discussions between the owner and the residents regarding the two lots in question. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if the other Commissioners were comfortable with the materials. Commissioner Melcher stated that if the developer uses the same level of effort toward detailing as had been shown in dealing with the Hillside Development Ordinance and dealing with neighborhood concerns, he was amenable to allowing the materials. He indicated the brick should be used only if it is manufactured with corner units to avoid a tiled look. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the materials were acceptable because no river rock was proposed. He felt any use of river rock should only be natural materials. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated she is uncomfortable with synthetic stone, but was willing to approve these materials because they are geometric in shape. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review for Tentative Tract 11626, with modification to remove Lots 25 and 26 from the approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CO~4ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~DIISSIONERS: MCNIEL, WEINBERGER -carried Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Planning Commission should discuss the use of synthetic materials and stones. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt it would be helpful to visit sites to see if the applications are meeting the Commission's expectations. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that staff arrange a field trip to view synthetic materials and stones. Mr. Buller suggested that staff work with the Residential Design Review team, who could then return to the Commission with recommendations at a later date. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept Mr. Buller's suggestion. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 23, 1990 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan pertaining to the proposed removal of existing Eucalyptus windrows as a result of the alignment of Summit Avenue west of Etiwanda Avenue and other street al ignments. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing; but hearing no testimony, she closed it. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated there were two issues: removal of the specific trees and changing of the process. She felt that removal in this instance may be necessary and appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the trees needed to be removed and replaced and he thought the requirements should be amended. Conmissioner Melcher stated the change required that rigorous findings be made to allow removal of trees, and he felt the change appeared to be worthwhile. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that because a public hearing would still be required, she felt the change might be appropriate. She pointed out that the Commission must make findings that no reasonable or viable alternative is available and the trees must be replaced. Vice-Chairman reopened the public hearing. Jan Peterson, P. O. Box 3007, Arcadia, stated that she owns property on Summit. She felt the removal of the trees on Summit should not be necessary to put in a road. She stated a dirt road is now in place and she felt an improved road could just be placed where the dirt road exists without removal of the trees. She objected to 31 trees being removed in order to construct the street. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked the condition of the trees. Mr. Grahn responded that all trees appear to be healthy, but there has not been an arborist's report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to assure Ms. Peterson that the Planning Commission and City Council have acted in a direction to preserve as many trees as possible, but unfortunately some heritage trees must be removed. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if the realignment were to curve, if it would still necessitate removing all or most of the trees. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that the location is fixed at Etiw~nda Avenue. He said they considered moving the road north, but it would necessitate removal of two houses to then bring the road back down. He stated City Council chose to affect the least number of houses. He said that in Planning Con~nission Minutes -11- May 23, 1990 order to save the trees by the Peterson's property, it would be necessary to remove two houses. Vice-Chairman Chitiea again closed the public hearing. Vice-Chairman Chitiea agreed with City Council that it is better to remove the trees than the structures. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there was no other alternative possible. Ne stated that changing the procedure would not mean that trees will be removed more easily. He recommended approval of the amendment as recommended. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Etiwenda Specific Plan Amendment 90-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CO~t4ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: CO~bMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~IqISSIONERS: MCNIEL, WEINBERGER -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01B PITASSI/ DALMAU ARCHITECTS - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 3.56 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street. The City will also consider Neighborhood Commercial and Low Medium Residential as alternative designations - APN: 1077-332-26. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 90-02 PITASSI/DALMAU ARCHITECTS - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from "OP" (Office/Professional) to "M" (Medium Residential, 8-14 dwelling units per acre) for 3.56 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street. The City will al so consider "NC" (Neighborhood Commercial) and "LM" (Low Medium Residential) as -alternative designations - APN: 1077-332-26. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the applicant has a project currently in the design review process and requested that the items be continued to allow concurrent review. He stated the items would be readvertised. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing; but hearing no testimony, she closed it. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-01B and Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 90-02 to an unspecified date to allow them to be considered concurrently with the development proposal. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 23, 1990 8:55 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 9:10 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-13 MEDI-RIDE, INC. - A request to establish a maintenance and vehicle storage facility in a leased space of 5,780 square feet within the existing Biane Winery complex on 6.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10013 East 8th Street APN: 209-201-19 and 20. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Paul Biane, Pierre Biane Winery, 10013 East 8th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, presented pictures of the site and parking statistics. He stated Medi-Ride was available to answer questions. He felt the requested use should fall under automotive storage, which is a permitted use. He felt the use is cleaner than some of the conditionally permitted uses. He stated the vehicles would be stored in an area hidden from 8th Street by natural screening. He said they had made a mistake on the number of parking spaces and that they have 143 spaces. He provided an alternate layout with 20 feet between the parking lanes, indicating 152 ~paces could be available. Don Bader, Manager of Medi-Ride, Inc., stated they were contracted by Omni-Trans to provide the Dial-A-Ride service. He said they transport 18,000 passengers per month and the vehicles are on the road 12 hours per day and stored at the facility at night. Commissioner Melcher asked for a description of the maintenance activities to be performed at the site. Mr. Bader stated it would be light maintenance only: brake jobs, tire changes, oil changes, and grease and lube jobs. Commissioner Melcher asked if hoists would be installed. Mr. Bader stated one lift would be installed. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked the proposed location for the maintenance facility. Mr. Bader indicated it would be located on the extreme west end, behind the stone building facing 8th Street. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked what time the vehicles would leave and return to the site. Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 23, 1990 Mr. Bader responded the first vehicles would leave at approximately 6:00 A.M. and the last would return between 6:00 and 7:00 P.M. and they would operate Monday through Friday. He stated they average 22 vehicles on the road each day. Pierre Biane, 6 Goosneck Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is concerned about the types of tenants and how they mix with current tenants. He felt Medi-Ride should be acceptable in Subarea 5 and felt that because the use would be located in the back part of the property, there should be no compatibility problems. He felt the use would be good for the community. Hearing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the pubiic hearing. Vice-Chairman Chitiea requested clarification on the parking calculations. Mr. Bertoni stated that the originally submitted calculations appeared incomplete and staff relied on information obtained from the Business Licenses and Code Enforcement sections of the City. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if staff had had an opportunity to review the parking needs based on the additional information provided by Biane at tonight's meeting. Mr. Bertoni felt that since there appears to be conflicting information, staff should review a complete floorplan with users indicated. Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification on the current automotive service use listed in the staff report. Mr. Bertoni responded that there is an existing minor automotive repair shop, similar to what the applicant is proposing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Fire Department requires 26 feet between parking lanes. Mr. Buller stated the parking would have to meet the Fire District standards and it would have to be reviewed by the Fire District. He said the Fire District has always required 26 feet in the past. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that because the staff report indicated the use was not permitted or conditionally permitted in the area, staff had not fully reviewed the requirements. He suggested that if the Con~nission felt they could support the use under Heavy Wholesale Storage and Distribution, that the Commission direct the item back to staff for further review and preparation of an appropriate Resolution. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked for clarification on the differences between the two types of automotive storage under the Automotive Fleet Storage use and the the Heavy Wholesale, Storage and Distribution use. Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 23, 1990 Mr. Coleman stated that staff's interpretation of the automotive storage listed in the Heavy Wholesale, Storage and Distribution definition refers to an automotive manufacturer storing cars until the vehicles can be sent out to various dealers for sale. He stated that Automotive Fleet Storage refers to vehicles used in daily business operations such as taxi cabs. Commissioner Melcher felt the use would be less intense. He stated that a visit to the property showed that (t is beautifully maintained. He felt Medi-Ride is an important service, and he felt it would be a good tenant because of the contract with Omni-Trans. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the use is clearly Automotive Fleet Storage. He felt it might be appropriate to consider permitting Automotive Fleet Storage in Subarea 5. He did not feel that enough information had been provided to determine the parking issue. Vice-Chairman Chitiea agreed that the use is Automotive Fleet Storage, but she felt it appeared to be an appropriate use for the location and an amendment to the Specific Plan should be considered. She asked to view the boundaries of Subarea 5. Mr. Bertoni outlined the boundaries. Commissioner Melcher felt staff should examine whether the use would be appropriate in Subarea 5. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt specific information should al so be provided regarding the use and parking. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that any parking plan presented would have to include the entire winery and the other uses. Vice-Chairman Chitiea agreed it should also include the methods of ingress and egress to the site. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested asking the applicant if he would like a continuance to allow staff to look at Subarea 5 to consider if Automotive Fleet Storage use would be appropriate. Mr. Bullet stated that it would be courteous to ask the applicant, but there was no legal requirement for obtaining the applicant's consent. He suggested that staff could come back with a proposal to amend the Industrial Specific Plan if staff felt the use should be permitted or conditionally permitted. Vice-Chairman Chitiea reopened the public hearing. Paul Biane supported the continuance to allow staff to further consider the use on a conditionally permitted basis. He said they would also provide further information to staff regarding the site. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 23, 1990 Mr. Buller suggested that a condition could be applied to the Conditional Use Permit that the Conditional Use Permit would become effective upon final approval of an Industrial Specific Plan amendment. He stated the earliest the item could be returned would be June 27, 1990. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to continued Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-13 to June 27, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CO~ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: CO~ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~BIISSIONERS: MCNIEL, WEINBERGER -carried OLD BUSINESS L. MEDIAN OPENING POLICY - A revision to the Planning Commission Media Opening Policy based on City Council direction. Brett Homer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public comment, but there was none. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that direction had been provided by City Council; and that so long as median openings would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, that would be satisfactory. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in reviewing on a case-by-case basis it would be necessary to have information regarding the surrounding areas. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to rescind the Median Policy. NEW BUSINESS N. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 90-04 - LUTTRULL - An appeal of the Planning Division's decision to require replacement of a tree which was removed without a permit at 6168 Topaz Street - APN: 1062-351-37. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if sidewalks have been raised by the tree roots. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that maintenance people have checked the area and had not found any substantial sidewalk damage. He stated they had found only one tree that could be a problem. Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 23, 1990 Commissioner Melcher asked who would bear the cost of repairing off-grade sidewalks. Mr. Maguire responded that the City bears the cost. Commissioner Melcher asked if the cost would be billed back to the homeowner. Mr. Maguire responded negatively. Commissioner Melcher stated there were some temporary ramps in the area where the curb was replaced. Mr. Maguire stated that most of the trees had been installed improperly. He stated the City has made the decision to try to maintain mature trees if possible. He stated the City removes any dangerous trees and replaces them. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if the City will replant the other street trees that have been removed in the neighborhood. Mr. Maguire responded that the other trees on the block would be placed on the reforestation program listing, but the City does not currently have money to plant. He said engineering staff had reported that the tree at this address was heal thy prior to being trimmed. Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public comment, but there was none. She asked if the applicant had advised that he would not be attending the hearing. Mr. Ross responded that the applicant had been notified by telephone that the item was scheduled for this meeting and had received a copy of the staff report, but had not indicated whether he planned to attend the meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the aim of the City is to replace trees which are removed. He reiterated that the tree was part of a planned street-tree program. He felt the tree should be replaced but suggested a 24-inch box tree because the smaller tree might be able to root sooner and perhaps not present head to the wind. Commissioner Melcher agreed that the tree should be replaced and felt a 24-inch box tree might be a better choice. Vice-Chairman Chitiea concurred. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff to return to the June 13, 1990, Consent Calendar with a Resolution to require replacement of the tree by a 24-inch box tree. O. SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 90-45 - SIGNS & SERVICES COMPANY - An appeal of the City Planner's denial of the design of a proposed monument sign located at 9041 Pittsburgh Avenue - APN: 229-262-14. Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 23, 1990 Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and pictures of signs in the area. Commissioner Melcher stated he was concerned that the building is a multi- tenant building and he wondered if a monument sign might be requested by other tenants. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated she believed there is a ~imitation on the number of monument signs. Brad Bullet, City Planner, confirmed that the building is divisible. Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public comment. Charles Parks, Signs & Services Company, 10980 Boatman Avenue, Stanton, stated his company now proposed an externally illuminated sign. He stated that the lessor feels it is important that their sign be illuminated. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if a different type of sign was now being proposed. Mr. Parks responded they wished to utilize the same sign, but with external, instead of internal, illumination. He said they could install a timer so that it would not be lit all night. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if Mr. Parks had visited the industrial area to see the type of signs the City desires. Mr. Parks responded that he understands the City would like concrete monument signs; but because the building is to be leasee-occupied, instead of owner- occupied, he felt the plexiglas sign is a better choice because it could be more easily changed without major construction. There were no further public comments. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt that there are other alternatives available which allow for flexibility of changing names on the signs. She felt that merely utilizing external illumination on a sign designed for internal illumination was not appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the pictures provided by staff of signs in the area depicted more appropriate signs. He felt a concrete sign could be designed utilizing a plexiglas panel. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt that such a sign would be more compatible with the architectural style. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested a concrete sign with removable painted aluminum panels. Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public response. Planning Commission Minutes -18- May 23, 1990 Mr. Parks stated that the tenant has to pay for the sign, and a concrete sign will cost two to three times as much as the proposed sign. He said the building owner is not prepared to put up a monument sign. There were no further public con~nents. Con~nissioner Melcher felt the development could be helped by better identification of the industrial park and the landlord should be willing to contribute to the cost of a monument sign. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt that a concrete sign would help to make the street more attractive. She felt the tenant and the building owner should come to an agreement on how to finance the sign and the City's best interest would be served by requiring the same design and construction quality required of other industrial projects in the area. She supported staff's position. Con~nissioner Tolstoy suggested a monument sign might be erected to identify the center and a wall sign be utilized to identify the tenant. He felt a monument sign identifying the center should perhaps be relocated. Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that a monument sign be erected at Pittsburgh and 6th Street. He suggested a sign program for the complex could be developed. He said that would require collaboration between all the property owners with perhaps monument signs with addresses. He felt enhanced landscaping at driveways would help. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt that would help to dress up the street and the project as a whole. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Resolution denying the appeal of Sign Permit Application 90-45. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: CO~4ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: CO~BIISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~4ISSIONERS: MCNIEL, WEINBERGER -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS P. USE DETERMINATION 90-03 - JAKUBIAK - A request for Planning Con~nission's confirmation of staff's use interpretation involving Muntz Stereo, 8269 Foothill Boulevard. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if the window signs had been removed. Planning Con~nission Minutes -19- May 23, 1990 Mr. Kroutil responded that signs had been painted on the windows, but as of today most were gone. He stated that a sign permit will be required. He said staff had had discussions with the applicant's attorney and had agreed to hold off on the sign issue until a determination had been made regarding the use. Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public comment. Tony Jakubiak, 833 Lancaster, Claremo~t, agreed with the staff report. Commissioner Melcher questioned the signs painted on the windows. Mr. Jakubiak stated they were temporary and would be removed. There were no further public comments. · Commissioner Tolstoy felt the use is permitted within the Specialty Commercial area, and he foresaw no problems so long as installations are not done there. Commissioner Melcher agreed the use is permitted. He noted that the applicant had indicated he would submit for a sign program and would remove the non- conforming signs. Vice-Chairman Chitiea was concerned that no installations be made on-site. She hoped the new landscaping would be properly cared for. She expressed concern that the number, size, and type of signs meet the City's requirements and requested that staff bring the matter to Design Review if they are not comfortable with the program. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the use is permitted. Q. PRESENTATION OF ENGINEERING'S PROPOSED 1990/91 AND 1991/92 CAPITAl IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS Russ Maguire, City Engineer, reviewed the proposed budgets. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the status of the Sapphire Street Trail Improvement project. Mr. Maguire responded that the money was cut by the administrative office until the appropriations improve. Vice-Chairman Chitiea was concerned that the project not be dropped indefinitely. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. He felt it should be kept as one of the number one priorities for funding for new trails. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if there is any provision for trail crossings over the Almond Interceptor Channel. Planning Commission Minutes -20- May 23, 1990 Mr. Maguire responded that at this time. there are only provisions for road crossings at Almond at Turquoise. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that at the last Trails Committee meeting a question was raised if there would be future trail crossings. Mr. Maguire responded that there may be future opportunities for arranging trail crossings with the Flood Control District. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the request would be noted in the Trails Implementation Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City-wide traffic control device inventory and management program would include coordination of the signals. Mr. Maguire stated that specific coordination projects are shown under the Traffic portion of the budget. He reviewed the fee structures and beautification projects. Vice-Chairman Chitiea and Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that more money could be generated for beautification fees. Commissioner Melcher asked the dollar volume of the 1989/90 budget. Mr. Maguire responded that the volume was in the $30 million range, whereas the 1990/91 and 1991/92 budgets dropped to the $20 million and $13 million ranges respectively. He stated they were consuming some one-time assessment district money and one-time Redevelopment Agency money. He indicated there might be additional grants for 1991/92. Commissioner Melcher felt Engineering does a good job of simultaneously coordinating so many projects. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 P.M. Chairman McNiel joined the meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS R. VICTORIA GARDENS SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Chairman McNiel stated he would like to serve on the subcommittee. Commissioner Chitiea stated she also would like to serve. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the meetings might be on a weekly basis. Planning Commission Minutes -21- May 23, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea stated she felt th~ would be willing to make that ~pe of commi~ent. · It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Chitiea would serve on the subcommit~e, with Commissioner Tolstoy serving as the alternate. Chairman McNiel welcomed Commissioner Melcher to the Commission. Brad Bullet, Ci~ Planner, stated that the Design Review Awards presentation was scheduled for July 9, 1990, at the new civic center. Brad Bullet, Ci~ Planner stated that at the last Ci~ Council meeting the issue of recreational vehicle parking had come up and the Council dir~ted the issue back to the Planning Commission and also requested that the Public Safe~ Commission review public safe~ concerns. MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried with Melcher abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 29, 1990, as amended. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried with Melcher abstaining, to adopt the minu~s of the Adjourned Meeting of May 8, iggo, as amended. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried with McNiel and Melcher abstaining, to adopt the minu~s of May 9, 1990, as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS There we~ no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -22- May 23, 1990 11:40 P.M. Planning Commission Adjourned to a May 31, 1990, workshop at 5:30 P.M. at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center to review the Library/Omnicenter. Respectful ly submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -23- May 23, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 9, 1990 Vice-Chairman Chitiea called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice-Chairman Chitiea then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: Larry McNiel STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner; Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Bul ler, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commission needed to adjourn to a workshop on Saturday, May 12, at the Jerde Partnership offices in Venice regarding the Regional Mall. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the workshop previously scheduled for May 17 to review a Terra Vista multi-family project would be rescheduled. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinber§er, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of April 25, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF TRACT 13873 - DEVCAL INDUSTRIES, INC. A one lot subdivision for condominium purposes for 124 units on 7.78 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the northwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Atwood Street APN: 227-111-12, 13, 28, 34, and 35. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-33 - N. K. ARCHITECTS, INC. - The development of 15 industrial buildings totaling 133,676 square feet on 7.66 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 8 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Vincent Avenue and Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-142-09. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. VARIANCE 90-06 - ROBERT J. WITEK - A request to allow a reduction in the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet on 1.4 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5001 Via Verde - APN: 1061-191-16. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and presented a letter from an adjacent property owner in support of the Variance. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Bob Witek, 68 North Central Avenue, Upland, requested that the Variance be approved because he felt relocation of the garage would not be consistent with the design of the house. Hearing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the Variance because the property abuts a public utility corridor and he saw no impact upon surrounding residences. Vice-Chairman Chitiea agreed that the applicant would not be able to enjoy full use of his property if the Variance were not approved. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 90-06. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 9, 1990 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-11 PAUL G. LUCIFORA - The request to establish a second dwelling unit on a 20,000 square foot lot in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Eti.wanda Specific Plan, located at 6195 Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-181-68. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Weinberger asked if any correspondence had been received from surrounding neighbors. Mr. Ross responded negatively. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if a landscaping palette had been received. Mr. Ross responded that one had not been received but the Resolution was conditioned to require submission of a plan for approval by staff. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Paul Lucifora, 6195 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that approval be granted to allow the trailer to remain in its present location to allow his father to maintain a view of the mountains and to allow for better visibility from his house to the trailer. He stated that his father had suffered a stroke and is disabled and they would be removing the trailer when it is no longer required for his father's use. Mr. Lucifora stated that he would paint the trailer to blend in with the house and they would landscape to provide more screening of the trailer. He said he presently uses the area behind the garage to store his pickup and tractor and it would be a financial hardship to move the trailer to that location. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the row of eucalyptus trees helps to screen the trailer. Mr. Lucifora responded that they screen somewhat, but he plans to add other landscaping to screen even more. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked if Mr. Lucifora had a landscaping plan in mind. Mr. Lucifora responded that he did not; but they are in the process of landscaping the entire house, as it is a new house. Hearing no further testimony, Vice-Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the use ts necessary and he supported the application. Commissioner Weinberger agreed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 9, 1990 Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated the property was large enough to support the extra use, particularly in light of the fact that the use is temporary and the trailer will be removed when it is no longer needed. She felt staff's recommendations regarding relocation of the trailer were good, but she understood Mr. Lucifora's reasons for wishing to have the trailer remain in its present location. She supported the use without moving the trailer. Commissioner Tolstoy supported allowing the trailer to remain in its present location, as that would make it easier for Mr. Lucifora to keep an eye on his father. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-11 with modification to allow the trailer to remain in its present location. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried E. MODIFICATION TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13945 CITATION BUILDERS - A request to modify the condition which requires the constructiun of Highland Avenue full width from East Avenue to the west boundary of Tentative Tract Map 13945 - APN: 207-071-018. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing; and upon hearing no testimony, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be better to start the widening and improvements of Highland Avenue at Ea%t Avenue. Mr. James responded that the developer will be constructing full improvements up to their west property line and then include transition paving. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how far west the transition paving would extend. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, responded that it would only be a short distance and the widening would only entail the parking lane, not the through lane. He stated that the City is trying to keep the cost under the new Cal-Trans permit limit of $250,000 because anything over that amount would force the project into a two-year processing time line through Cai-Trans. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had always felt the intersection at East and Highland Avenues needs a traffic signal, but that Mr. Maguire had stated that since the signal was installed at Etiwanda Avenue the traffic problem has Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 9, 1990 partly been alleviated. He understood the reasons for attempting to eliminate getting into a lengthy permit process with Cai-Trans. He hoped that Cal-Trans will start the interchange shortly. Vice-Chairman Chitiea agreed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Vesting Tentative Tract 13945. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried F. CONSIDERATION OF RENAMING MILLER AVENUE Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked the current name of the portion of the street located within the Rochester tract. Mr. Warren responded that it is Church Street. Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public comments, but there were none. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it always an imposition when the City changes a street name because of costs associated with printing new stationery and business cards and advising people of a new address; but he felt the proposed change was in line with keeping the same name for continuous streets, so as to avoid confusion for emergency services. He felt it is timely to change the name prior to additional construction on Miller. Vice-Chairman Chitiea agreed, particularly since the street will be located at the north end of the new regional shopping center; and she felt the renaming would help direct residents into and out of the area more easily. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution declaring intention to rename Miller Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 9, 1990 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G. REVIEW OF VEHICLE PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT 5255 JASPER STREET Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea asked what the building setbacks would be if the area were determined to be a side yard as opposed to a front yard. Mr. Buller stated that if the area were determined a side yard, the building setback would be 27 feet and 42 feet if a front yard. Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public comment. Karen Disario, 5255 Jasper Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had talked to someone in the Planning Department who gave her information that she could not park anything in the area so long as the area is considered a front yard. Because of this restriction, she requested that the area be determined a side yard and suggested that a stipulation be added that would prohibit placing a building within 42 feet from the street. She stated that she only has 22 feet on the side of her house with three-quarters of an acre on the side. She felt that the area in front of her house, where it abuts the adjacent property to the south, should be determined to be her front yard, and the area north of her house should be determined to be a side yard. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there appeared to be a large area where recreational vehicles could be parked behind the 42-foot setback. Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated he was not certain who gave Mrs. Disario information, but the Code Enforcement Department has been consistent in their information that recreational vehicles cannot be stored for a period longer than 24 hours in any front setback area. He said that the same regulation applies to a side yard area abutting the street. He stated the screening requirement is a separate requirement. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant could park anywhere behind the setback. Mr. Alcorn responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be adequate room for parking behind the 42-foot setback. Mrs. Disario stated they plan to place a garage to the north of their house; and as they wish to park recreational vehicles next to the garage, the parking would encroach on the 42-foot setback. She stated the lot contains a steep grade, which she felt would preclude parking behind the 42-foot setback. She felt that because the area will be screened she should be able to park in the a rea. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 9, 1990 Mr. Buller stated that if the area were determined to be a street-side yard, the applicant would have an additional 15 feet in which to build or park vehicles, because the setback would be reduced from 42 feet to 27 feet. He stated that neither the staff nor the Planning Commission have seen the applicant's plans for their property. Commissioner Weinberger felt it would be difficult to make a decision without seeing the plans. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the lot is an unusual configuration, but he felt the Commission should see plans of what the applicant proposed building, and he felt it would be important to determine what grading will be proposed. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt more specific information should be provided; i.e., site, grading, and landscaping plans. Mr. Buller stated the item was brought back at the request of the Commission. He stated the issue was not the design of the lot nor the review of the grounds for additional variances. He said that to consider and discuss a variance, the item would have to be noticed and plans submitted by the applicant. Regarding the issue of front yard versus side yard, he asked if the Commission saw grounds to determine the area to be a side yard instead of a front yard. Commissioner Weinberger felt there might be. Vice-Chairman Chitiea felt that perhaps grading and site plan could be an issue. Commissioner Tolstoy disagreed, but was willing to consider the matter. He felt the Commission should review a grading plan and a site plan showing all building footprints. He felt this item should be brought back after the Disarios submit their building proposal. Vice-Chairman Chitiea stated that Chairman McNiel had wanted to look at the issues and she felt it would be appropriate to get his input. Mr. Buller stated it could then be brought back as a Director's Report unless the Disarios apply for a variance. He stated as a Director's Report it will be an informational item and the Commission could not take any action other than giving direction to staff. Vice-Chairman felt that the applicant would need to convince the Commission that the area should be determined to be a side yard. She invited Mrs. Disario to respond. Mrs. Disario stated her original variance request was to change the designation to a side yard. Mr. Buller stated that the application was to allow a wall within the front yard setback, and it was advertised and noticed as such. He stated there was Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 9, 1990 a statement in the applicant's reasons for the variance about a side yard, but that was not what the application was for. Mrs. Disario stated that she had been told that if she applied for a side yard variance it automatically included the wall. She stated her reason was to screen the recreational vehicles. Mr. Buller stated that because the area was determined to be a front yard, a variance was necessary in order to build the wall. Vice-Chairman Chitiea suggested that the applicant bring back further information for the Commission's consideration. H. USE DETERMINATION 90-02 - BARMAKIAN Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Chitiea invited public comment. Andrew Barmakian, 5080 Gateway, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he believed when he was given a permit to build his buildings, there were no subarea designations. He stated he built dock-high doors and high ceilings to allow for distribution, manufacturing, and warehousing. He said he planned to apply for a change in designation from Subarea 4 to 5, and he felt that Subarea 4 was developed for Archibald-fronting parcels and smaller users. He stated he had brought Arthur Peet from Arco Steel to answer any questions the Commission might have regarding the proposed use. Mr. Barmakian stated that Arco Steel has a similar operation in Texas and they don't feel there will be any parking or noise problems. Arthur Peet, Arco Steel, Inc., 8333 Manchester Street, Houston, Texas, stated they have a 15,000 square foot facility in Houston with only eight warehouse employees and a considerably larger volume than what they anticipate having in California. He stated they are considering a three-year lease and would like to make a move as rapidly as possible. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what gauge metal would be cut. Mr. Peet responded they would cut up through 1/2 inch. There were no further public comments. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan would be required in order to change the subarea designation. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that cutting and edging 1/2-inch sheet metal should be classified as Medium Manufacturing. He thought that noise and vibration would be created. He felt the area should be reclassified as Subarea 5. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 9, 1990 - Commissioner Weinberger stated that after reading the staff report and looking at the definitions, she felt that the use falls in the Medium Manufacturing category. She stated she could support a change in the subarea. Vice-Chairman Chitiea concurred that the process falls in the Medium category. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution affirming sheet metal cutting to be Medium Manufacturing. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried Mr. Buller suggested that the applicant may wish to proceed with applying for an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan. Commissioner Chitiea recommended that a parking study be submitted with the project. Mr. Barmakian asked how long it would take to process an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan to change subareas. Mr. Coleman responded it would take approximately three months. I. TIME CAPSULE - CIVIC CENTER Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the City Manager's office was looking for input on ideas for items to be placed in a time capsule at the Civic Center dedication ceremony. Commissioner Weinberger suggested including a local newspaper from the day of the dedication, photographs of various areas of the City, and polaroid pictures of the dedication ceremony. Commissioner Tolstoy felt polaroid pictures might not store very well. Vice-Chairman Chitiea suggested pictures of City Hall should be included. Commissioner Tolstoy provided copies of a 1965 West End General Plan Map from San Bernardino County, an August 28, 1978, publication of the Proposed Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, and a 1981 Executive Summary of the Draft General Plan. He thought those items should be placed in the time capsule and stated he was willing to donate his copies if the City did not have copies available. Vice-Chairman Chitiea suggested copies of all of the promotional videos that the City has }roduced should be placed in the capsule. She also suggested Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 9, 1990 including working plans for the Regional Center, copies of all Specific Plans, and any mementoes prepared specifically for the ceremony. Mr. Buller stated that a suggestion has been made that a guest book be signed by all visitors to City Hall on the initial opening day of the Civic Center. He suggested that book could be added to the capsule. COMMISSION BUSINESS Brad Buller, City Planner, requested that the Commission advise available dates for the Design Awards presentation. Several dates were suggested and Mr. Buller stated staff would contact the Commission to firm up the selection. PUBLIC COMMENTS Sharon Kourtis stated she and a neighbor were in the audience regarding changing Bella Vista Drive to a private street. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, responded that City Council will be considering that issue at their May 16 meeting to be held at the Forum at 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 8:35 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned to a May 12, 1990 workshop tour to the Jerde offices, 913 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, and Newport Fashion Island to review Regional Mall Plans, with a van scheduled to leave the civic center at 1:00 P.M. to meet at the Jerde offices at 2:00 P.M. Respectful ly submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -I0- May 9, 1990 May 8, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Joint Meetinq A. CAIJ~ TO ORDER An adjourned joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met on Tuesday, May 8, 1990, at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:54 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout and Chairman Larry McNiel. Present were Councilmembers: William J. Alexander, Deborah N. Brown, Charles J. Buquet II (arrived at 5:54 p.m.), Pamela J. Wright, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present were Planning Commissioners: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger, and Chairman Larry McNiel. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Larry Henderson, Senior Planner; Dan Coleman, Senior Planner; Joe Schultz, Community Services Manager; Jan Reynolds, Assistant Redevelopment Analyst; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Duane Baker, Senior Administrative Assistant; Diane O'Neal, Administrative Analyst; Kelly Orta, Senior Office Assistant, and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. JOI~ I~B OF DISCUSSION 1. Discussion of items of mutual concern. Chairman McNiel brought up the issue of the Planning Commission appeal process with respect to the City Council upholding their decisions. He asked that the Council consider, in their decision making, the amount of work and research done by the Planning Commission to reach the decision they have come up with. Councilmember Wright asked why, when there was an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, there was not someone present from the Planning Commission to explain their position of the appeal. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 2 Chairman McNiel stated he did not think his presence at the City Council meeting should sway the City Council's decision on an appeal. He commented that staff reports are fair and unbiased and state the facts without underlying emotion. Councilmember Brown felt some of the questions the City Council may have about an appeal may not be in the staff report or the Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Chitiea stated that some time back when a Planning commissioner has been at a City Council meeting they have felt humiliated and frustrated, and that they really weren't wanted at the City Council meeting. Councilmember Wright suggested if the Planning commissioner was in attendance when an appeal is discussed, they might better understand why the City Council acted as they did. Mayor Stout stated he feels this is an appellant process to set policy, and felt appeals should be looked at as to how they will affect the entire system. Chairman McNiel felt in the future, the development community would be filing more appeals to the City Council on the Planning Commission's decisions. Councilmember Brown asked Brad Bullet how many appeals were brought to the City Council, and how many were granted and how many were denied. Brad Bullet stated the majority of Planning Commission decisions are being upheld by the City Council. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated what Chairman McNiel had previously stated regarding developers feeling they could go ahead and file an appeal to the City Council if the Planning Commission did not give them what they wanted. Councilmember Brown stated what she hears is the Planning Commission asking the City Council to continue upholding their decisions as they have done in the past. The Planning Commission stated yes. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he hoped the City Council could see the quality of development in the City and felt the design review process was very beneficial. Councilmember Wright stated she appreciated receiving the design review notes. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the Planning Commission did not want to approve buildings that are outdated or "cookie cutter" in design. He felt what was being approved now is a better design. commissioner Chitiea added that a lot of staff time goes into helping a developer through the planning process. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 3 Commissioner Tolstoy suggested a design guideline booklet be made because of the benefit it would have to developers. Councilm~m~er Wright felt that projects in the City are getting better and better as time goes on, and also added she felt the Planning Comm£ssion should continue using pressure for a better product. Chairman McNlel commented on the eight buildings that are up for design review swards. Councilmember Brown stated she felt the Planning Commission has done a good job, and did not want them to lower any standards. Commissioner Chitiea felt the Planning Co-~ission could approve nicer looking industrial buildings by asking for better materials =o be used on =he buildings, but did not know if the City Council would suppor~ their approach. Councilm~-~er Wright stated she would go along with asking for higher standards in the industrial area. Councilme~er Alexander stated he is also in favor of raising the standards. Co~missioner Tolstoy felt if the standards are not raised, the City would be getting more projects like the Sears credit Center. Chairman McN£el stated because of the tyl~e of business this project is and what it could bring to the City, they did back off on so~e of their standards. Councilmember Brown felt the City should hold out for higher standards and not waste City land on "boxes". The City Council thanked the Planning Con~ission and stated they are doing a good Job. The City Council concurred w~h"tha Planlling Co~nission's direction to increase the level of architec~urkl and design standards of architectural projects. A recess was taken at 7204 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:10 p.m. with Mayor Stout attending from the City Council. C. VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL MALL Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that this was to be the last design workshop before the formal submittal of plans for the Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 4 Paul Senzaki, The Jerde Partnership, architect of the Victoria Gardens Regional Center (VGRC), south of Miller Avenue and east of Day Creek Boulevard. He reiterated that the Center will have both a community and regional side. It will have a curved design with the majority of department stores along the regional side and the community side used as a focal point of the Center. There will be an interior loop with multi-level parking using landscape berms to break up parking areas with pedestrian walkways. The focus of the center will be the water feature. Chairman McNiel asked if there was a trellis in the water. Mr. Honda, The Jerde Partnership, Architect of the VGRC, responded that it was outdoor eating space. He stated that there is a water element running from the entry to the lake. There will be a series of gradual tiers of water to the lake level. They have added a feature water tower (waterfall) as an observation point to further enjoy the project's water features. Bill DeEiel, The Jerde Partnership, Architect of the VGRC, stated that this project is unique. He added that they are not normally requested to put that much effort in a design. The developer has allowed them to be very detailed. He stated this center is a collection of classical forms and that he would like to see the water feature carried in a smaller scale to the other main entrances. He added that they have picked up a "winery" style in the design. Mr. Honda identified the colonnade as a large scale trellis which is a very traditional element. He added that the trellis will stop at the food court. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the relation between the theater and the water feature. Mr. Honda responded that the square footage and location are the same as previously shown. This will allow viewing the water from the theater lobby/gallery. Mr. DeEiel stated he would like to see the water element incorporated into the theater design efforts. Chairman McNiel expressed his concerns with having so much information to review at one time with no time beforehand to study it in any detail. He stated he understood the time it takes to prepare plans such as these, but with so much information to review at one time it made it difficult to make decisions. He also expressed his concern with the winery theme. Mr. DeEiel clarified that maybe the word "winery" was not truly accurate in describing the architectural style. Dan Felix, The Hahn Company, stated that his immediate reaction to this design was not "winery", but "classic-neopolitan" design. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 5 Chairman McNiel stated that the design of the entry/roof form reminded him of a cannery, something one would see around a dock. He added he did not see the desired park-like "garden" setting. Mr. DeEiel stated that with all of the components in its current composition, there will be a large park setting but in a "formal" architectural setting versus an "informal" landscape setting. He added that the jewelry comes later and that he sees tremendous warmth in the project. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern with the lack of ins and outs in the facade. He added that he felt the trellis was too high, not on a people scale. He liked the idea of a trellis. Mr. DeEiel stated that the trellis is the same height as the ones at Fashion Island. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he has been to Fashion Island and likes their trellis work. He added he likes the columns with the plants, but has a problems with the trellis roof line. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Chairman McNiel. She added that the large buildings may have a winery reference, but not of the type the City would want to emulate. She added she would like to see a tiered look with roof line breaks and tile. She also was concerned with the building massing. Bill DeEiel stated that the center incorporates such tiers and described these elements to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern over the falling water element. He stated he does not like to see water falling without a reason. Mr. Senzaki concurred with this concern. R~ck Gomez, 'Community Development Director, stated that the Commission is looking at the main and side entry areas of the mall at this time. The major department stores will be creating their own design and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission/Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel asked what could be done to the roof lines to eliminate the warehouse images. Mr. Senzaki responded that there are different roof forms which could be considered. Commissioner Chitiea stated she likes roof lines which move up and down giving the center a sense of variation and excitement. Chairman McNiel again expressed that the concept presented was unacceptable. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Gomez stated that the purpose of this workshop was to approve the concept and to give final direction to the project architect and developer to prepare final submittal drawings per the OPA. He added that perhaps a sub-committee could be established to provide detailed input regarding these issues, and that would also allow the sub-committee members more time to study these concepts. Mr. Felix stated he did not know if a sub-committee was the proper direction. Chairman McNiel stated the sub-committee would be there not to design the project, but to provide more direction. Mr. Felix felt a full Commission would be preferable. Duncan Budinger, The Hahn Company, stated that he did not expect to receive ~pproval at this meeting, but was hoping for feedback on the building architecture. Chairman McNiel stated that if there is a timeframe problem, a sub-committee may be a solution. Mr. Felix stated that if following an additional workshop the design is not accepted, then a sub-committee should be formed to accelerate the process. Chairman McNiel stated that the freeway side of the mall should have the same attention to detail as on the community side. Mr. Senzaki concurred. Jack Lam, City Manager, concurred with the sub-committee approach, if needed, to expedite the processing of the mall. Mr. Felix stated that he has reconsidered the need of a Planning Commission sub-committee, due to the City Manager's input, and will work with the Planning Commission and staff with a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. Mr. DeEiel stated that it might be beneficial for the Commission to meet at his office to review other details they have been working on and then take a tour of Fashion Island to view some of the details discussed tonight. The Commission concurred to meet at The Jerde Partnership at 2:00 P.M. Saturday, May 12, 1990, to further review additional architectural concepts for the mall and then go to Fashion Island to review similar architectural treatments. D. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC There were none heard at this time. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1990 Page 7 E. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sec re ta ry CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 3, 1990 Terra Vista Town Center - Buildings A & B Plaster and Phase III Site Plan (Conditional Use Permit 88-12) Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held at the Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Roll Call Commissioners: Present: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger Absent: None Staff Present: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Dan Colen~n, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Betty Miller, Civil Engineer Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order. The Commission first considered the plaster surface for Building B within Phase I of the Town Center. Tom Bond, Architect Pacifica, representing Western Properties, proposed to correct large surfaces of Building B as shown highlighted in yellow on the plans that were submitted at the meeting. He stated the proposed correction would be done by using a finish-coat application (2-coat application). He felt most of Building A would need a fill coat and a finish coat while most of Building B would only need one finish coat. Chairman McNiel stated the thickness of the plaster appears to be fine. He suggested sandblasting plus application of a border coat, a leveling brown coat, a finish coat, and possibly a second border and finish coat. Tom Bond agreed that Building A is bad in most areas. He felt Building B would need only a leveling coat in a few really bad areas, at the outside facias and on the column returns. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the skill of the contractor to perform the correction work. The consensus of the Commission was to approve Building B with the condition that correction to the plaster surface be applied to the building plane next to Target, building plane and facia next to Mervyn's, outside facia, and column returns. The Commission stressed the importance of consistency in the application of the plaster surface and in general the quality of work for the entire center. The Commission also requested that a large sample panel be provided for their review and approval for future buildings. Following the sample panel approval, the Commission requested that the applicant apply the plaster surface on a large building plane for City staff to review and approve prior to continuation of the work. The Commission next reviewed the Phase III development plans and recommended conceptual approval subject to the following revisions: I. A pedestrian connection should be provided from the passageway through Building K towards Town Center Drive. 2. A pedestrian connection should be extended from the westerly promenade east to Pad N (Shakey's). The Commission also provided direction to t~e architect to prepare elevations for Phase III, as follows: a. Shop L should be upgraded as a focal point. b. The southwest side "Electric Avenue" of Major 4 is not acceptable as a focal point. c. Provide more details to the entry of Major 4. d. Provide more roof variation. e. Provide detail planting scheme along storefront. f. Upgrade textured pavement with material superior to colored concrete. g. Eliminate one parking space at the southeast side of Major 4. The Commission adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. to a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on May 8, 1990. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 3, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 25, 1990 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager: Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff recommended that Item D be continued until May 23, 1990, and that the applicant was in agreement. Mr. Buller stated that Items E, G, and H are all related and he recommended that they be considered together. Mr. Buller announced that there will be a Joint Workshop with Planning Commission and City Council on May 8 at 5:30 P.M. at the Forum, followed by a Workshop on the Regional Mall at 7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 15, 1990. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by McNiel, carried with Chitiea and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of April 11, 1990. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12338 - KENSLEY-BUFFALO SIX, LTD. - A subdivision of 13.78 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue APN: 229-262-28. (Continued from April 11, 1990.) Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. James Lowry, General Partner of Buffalo-Six, Ltd., 5215 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel asked if they plan to add a mezzanine. Mr. Lowry responded that they had received proposals to use the building as a processing center or a County office building, possibly necessitating additional floor space to accommodate a large number of people. He stated, they would be returning to the Planning Commission to have them consider the parking ratios. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated her previous concerns with the parking were satisfied with the new design. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 12338. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-09 - INLAND AREA FELLOWSHIP - A request to establish a day care facility within an existing building previously approved for church use totaling 16,457 square feet on 2.42 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and A~nethyst Avenue - APN: 201-474-02 and 03. Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 25, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy asked why Play Area I is such an irregular shape. Mr. Hayes responded that Play Area I is an existing asphalt area and the area to the east is landscaped. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there are any problems with the play area being located close to public right-of-way. Mr. Hayes responded that a fence will be located around the entire landscaped area. He stated the church had provided an arborist's report and the trees will remain. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the driveway on Amethyst Avenue could be moved. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the driveway was located at the optimum location, opposite the busiest driveway at the post office and a reasonable space from the driveway on the adjoining parcel. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Reverend William Flanders, Inland Area Fellowship, 11732 Pyramid Peak Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they are a young and small congregation. He stated they wish to establish the day care center for three reasons: (1) to assist in paying the cost of landscaping and renovation; (2) to allow more use of the facility, which now sits empty for six days per week; and (3) because they feel there is a great need in the community. He felt there is sufficient separation from the northern play area and the nearest residences. Joyce Boyd, 7027 Arlington, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a preschool teacher. She indicated she had called eight preschools in the area and only three had openings in limited age groups. She felt that because Rancho Cucamonga is a growing community there is a definite need in the community for another preschool. Chairman McNiel felt the two play areas should not be separated and they should be adjacent to the building instead of across a driveway. Reverend Flanders stated they had originally requested that the driveway be located at the north end of the parking lot, but Traffic requested that it be placed adjacent to the building. He proposed a rolling gate be constructed across the parking area so that no traffic could go through when the children would be crossing to the play area. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hea~ing. Chairman McNiel asked if they had considered moving the play area adjacent to the school and moving the parking lot to where they now show Play Area II. Commissioner Tolstoy shared Chairman McNiel's concern with having children cross a parking lot to the play area. He was also leafy of having a driveway closed off by a gate during business hours, and felt the Fire Department might object to such a plan. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 25, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea suggested there may be other configurations which should be considered. Chairman McNiel felt the preschool is a good idea, but he suggested that a better layout for the play areas and parking lot should be worked out. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested Play Area II could be moved adjacent to the building and wrapped around to join Play Area I. Commissioner Chitiea suggested the design could better be worked out at a Design Review level. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow Reverend Flanders to comment. Reverend Flanders suggested the Item be continued for a month to allow them to work with the Planning Department to redesign the layout. Commissioner Chitiea wished to have the play areas contiguous with the building. She stated she was also interested to see what types of grassy areas and sandy areas are proposed. ~ Chairman McNiel preferred that the play area not be on the Amethyst side of the building. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-09 to May 23, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-26 COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - A proposal to construct a 14,350 square foot two-story building addition (containing 10 classrooms, 2 faculty resource centers, and fellowship hall) to an existing 11,000 square foot church. The project is in a Medium Residentia) District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Beryl and 19th Streets - APN: 201-221-08. Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Robert Acker, Senior Minister, Community Baptist Church, 9037 Regency Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the church has grown and they need the additional room. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 25, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked how long they anticipated they would need the trailers. Mr. Acker stated they are ready to start construction and as soon as they are able to obtain occupancy, they will no longer need the trailers. He introduced Pete Pitassi, project architect. Pete Pitassi, Pit~ssi-Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had designed a courtyard setting with the existing building. He said the trailers could be removed when Phase ! construction is complete and occupancy granted. He said they tried to bring a residential nature to the project. He requested that the window mullions be allowed to have a factory- painted finish instead of the required anodized finish. He stated that would allow them to expand the color range and better match their palette. Mr. Pitassi requested clarification on the deposit required to assure removal of the trailers and asked if they could post a bond in lieu of the deposit. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated she had been on design review and she agreed that a factory-applied painted finish would be acceptable for the window mullions. Chairman McNiel concurred. He asked if a bond would be sufficient for removal of the trailers. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that in the past the City has not accepted bonds for on-site improvements. He said cash or a line of credit would be acceptable. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Ed Reingrover, Business Manager for Community Baptist Church, 6418 Garnet Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked what the City would require for a line of credit. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated a letter of credit from a bank would be acceptable. Mr. Reingrover asked if it would be acceptable for the church to open a bank account with the City named on the account. Mr. Hanson responded affirmatively. Mr. Reingrover stated they would be willing to do that. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated the project had progressed from the original application. She commended Mr. Pitassi for his sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood. She felt the addition improved upon the minimal design of the original building. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 25, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the addition will be an asset to the church and the community. Commissioner Weinberger concurred. Chairman McNiel felt the project is exceptional. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 89-26 with modification to allow a letter of credit to cover the cost of removal of the trailers and to allow a factory-applied painted finish on the window mullions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-07 - RANCHO HILLS MINISTRY CENTER - A request to establish a 4,320 square foot church office and meeting hall for church-related gatherings in an existing industrial park in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 9390 7th Street, Suite C - APN: 209-171-57. Chairman McNiel stated that staff had requested the Item be continued to May 23, 1990, and the applicant was agreeable. He opened the public hearing, but there was no testimony. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-07 to May 23, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13123 MISSION LAND COMPANY A subdivision of 17.73 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial District, Subarea 11 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue APN: 229-263-23 and 24. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 25, 1990 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-19 - MISSION LAND COMPANY - The development of 4 warehouse buildings totaling 346,872 square feet on 17.73 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 11 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-263-23 and 24. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 90-01. H. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-20 - MISSION LAND COMPANY A request to delete a special planning condition of approval regarding the placement of buildings versus parking areas along 6th Street for a previously approved master plan consisting of 35 parcels on 97.96 acres of land in the General Industrial and Industrial Park Districts, Subareas 11 and 12 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located between 4th and 6th Streets and Pittsburgh and Buffalo Avenues - APN: 229-263-22 through 27. Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and stated that Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer, was available to answer any questions. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Scott Clausen, Hill-Pinckert Architects, 28 Echo Run, Irvine, stated they had been working with staff for many months and he felt they had addressed all concerns. He said the initial master plan called for the two buildings on Parcels 31 and 35 to be pushed all the way up to 6th Street. He felt it would be a better solution to substitute one larger building for both parcels and to pull the proposed building back to provide a more interesting facade to the building with some added landscaping; and it would allow the truck traffic to be more removed from the regular traffic on 6th Street. Chairman McNiel asked if the parking area was recessed below the street level or bermed along the street. Mr. Clausen stated they will have an undulating berm approximately 2 to 3 feet high and the entire parking area is approximately 2 to 3 feet below the street level. He said they have created a focal point for the project at the corner of Buffalo Avenue and 6th Street. Chairman McNiel stated he was concerned with concealing the parking from the street. Mr. Clausen stated they have not yet finalized the landscaping plan, but it will address those concerns. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt the proposed change creates a more interesting streetscape for 6th Street and a larger focal point has been created at the corner of Buffalo Avenue and 6th Street with a combination of the paving materials within the project and the design of the corner. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 25, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the proposed solution of replacing the two buildings with one larger building is better. Chairman McNiel felt the applicant had done a good job. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13123. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-19. Motion carried by ~he following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Development Review 88-20. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried OLD BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-12 - DAVIES The. development of Phases II and III of an industrial complex, containing six {6) industrial buildings totaling 22,940 square feet on 2.2 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on Feron Boulevard, east of Helms Avenue - APN: 209-031-87 and 88. {Continued from April 11, 1990.) Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner, stated he was available to answer any questions. Commi'ssioner Chitiea asked if the applicant had submitted any changes to address any of the concerns listed at the last Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 25, 1990 Mr. Abbott stated that only two items have been verified since the last Design -- Review: (1) that no trees can be located within the storm drain easement, and (2) that the location of Building J should not impact the roots of the oak tree which has been designated by the arborist for preservation. He said that staff found with further review of Building J that severe pruning would be required to accommodate the proposed location of Building J, so staff was recommending that Building J not be located within the drip line of the tree. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification on the additional tree shown in the photographs. Mr. Abbott stated an approximate 30-foot high deciduous tree was shown in the photographs but had not been shown on the applicant's plans. He said staff is recommending that that tree be preserved along with the oak tree pending identification of the species because it may or may not fall under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how close the deciduous tree is to the oak tree and if it intrudes upon the canopy of the oak tree. Mr. Abbott felt it is approximately 25 to 30 feet from the oak tree and does not intrude upon the canopy. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the tree is a columnar type or a spreading type. Mr. Abbott stated it is a spreading type, but the skirt of the tree has been pruned up quite high so that trucks can readily pass under it. Chairman McNiel invited public testimony. Les Davies, 6239 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they requested that the Planning Commission review the project at this time instead of continuing to work with the Design Review Committee because the owner wishes to use slump block and that has been a sore point with the Design Review Committee. He stated that Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-158 lists textured block as an approved material, but the Design Review Committee refused to accept slump block as the building material. He felt the staff report did not adequately reflect the compromises they have made to go forward with the project. He said they had increased the plazas, planters, landscaping, and decorative paved areas. He stated the owner is adamant about using slump block because it was used on Phase I. He said they were in error when they changed the building material on Phase I to slump block without obtaining written approval but they had increased their landscaping in an effort to smooth the situation over. He said they did not recall making any promise that they would not use slumpstone on future phases when Phase I was accepted. He said they only recalled making a promise that they would not deviate from plans when approved for future phases. He said they did not wish to use tilt-up concrete because the tilt-up concrete building next door to their facility is constantly in need of painting because the paint is peeling. He said some other buildings in their area have only 4-foot planters and no pavers and only small employee plazas hidden behind concrete tilt-up Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 25, 1990 walls. He said Buildings G and H were added when they master planned the area, and they had never promised to build a park area. He said the buildings are tucked away against a railroad spur and will not be seen from any major street. He felt the buildings should be designed by the owner, not the Design Review Committee. He felt the number of conditions have increased with each Design Review Committee only because they refuse to to change the block. He felt if the block were not an issue, no other conditions would be required. He said the arborist had told them in August that the oak tree would survive a pruning and that it would be acceptable to have a building within ll feet of the tree so long as aeration units are installed. He said on April 10, 1990, they received a letter from the arborist stating he had changed his position. He felt that the Design Review Committee has lost their direction and he requested that slumpstone block be permitted. Jorge Garcia, Garcia & Associates, 10722 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the Planning Commission is imposing liability on the architect and the structural engineers by specifying the building materials to be used. He felt the architects and engineers should make the decision on materials. He felt that if the City imposes their will on the choice of building materials, then the City assumes the liability for structural integrity. Commissioner Chitiea stated that splitface block was specified for Phase I, but slumpstone was used. She asked why the architect was now saying that slumpstone is more structurally sound than splitface. She also stated that she did not feel the City ever told the applicant he must use tilt-up. Chairman McNiel felt it is ludicrous to suggest that the burden of liability would fall on the City because Planning Commission Resolution 89-158 includes concrete as an option. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he didn't understand the difference in building integrity between splitface and slumpstone. Mr. Garcia stated there is no difference in structural integrity between splitface and slumpstone, but they were told to build tilt-up buildings, not block. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was present at one of the Design Reviews and he recalled that tilt-up was suggested as a type of construction that the City would accept along with other materials. He said that tilt-up has. been mentioned many times as the project has been reviewed, but the City had not said it has to be used. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not feel tilt-up should be used for the buildings because they are small. Mr. Garcia stated Phases II and III are designed to be a continuation of Phase I. Mr. Davies stated that at an October 19, 1989, meeting one of the Commissioners stated "there was no way you will build a masonry building in this town." He said in future meetings they were told the slumpblock is an inferior product and would not be suitable. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 25, 1990 Leonard Thompson, Masonry Institute of the Inland Empire, 1535 South "D" Street, San Bernardino, stated the Institute was established in Los Angeles in 1955. He stated property owners retain professionals to design and construct buildings and the architect is the most important member of the team, as he specifies the material to be used to meet the needs created by the function of the building. He said the City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted and uses the standards of the Uniform Building Code based on the standard specifications of the American Society for Testing Materials. He said slumpstone block is considered a textured block with a shape to resemble the Spanish/American heritage. He said a re~ent newspaper article quoted City staff as saying that slumpstone is not of high enough quality to be used. He said many buildings have been designed, engineered and constructed with slumpstone. He said slumpstone is being specified to maintain continuity with Phase I. He felt the Design Review Committee is discriminating against slumpstone, the architect, engineer, owner, and the masonry industry. There was no further public testimony. Chairman McNiel stated this multi-phased project went through the City's development process and was then approved by the Planning Commission. He said that although the approved primary building material was splitface block, the applicant used slumpstone. He said the applicant then requested that the Planning Commission allow Phase I to be slumpstone and the Planning Commission agreed with the proviso that future phases would be splitface block, as originally agreed. He did not see how the City was guilty of discriminating against the masonry industry by requiring splitface instead of slumpstone. He felt the listing of other issues is common to other projects and those issues had not been addressed. He felt the issue of slumpstone versus splitface to be only the tip of the iceberg. Commissioner Chitiea stated the integrity of slumpstone block was never questioned and the Design Review Committee has never suggested that concrete block is not an appropriate building material. She said the slumpstone finish was discussed in relation to aesthetics and compatibility with other projects in the area. She felt the Commission was very reasonable in allowing the first phase to remain as built when it was not built according to plan, and she believed there was an agreement that the next phases would represent an improvement in aesthetics. She felt the building material is only a small part of what makes the project. She said there are site plan difficulties that have not been fully addressed: planter sizes and locations, paving issues, employee lunch areas, and building design in terms of how the entries work or could be enhanced or redesigned. She said those issues had been discussed at Design Review, but the applicant had not provided any plans to address them. She said that the Planning Commission now requires two primary building materials on all projects and the applicant is only proposing one material. She felt the issue of the oak tree is significant and she wished to identify the second tree before making any comment on whether it should be saved or not. She felt it is inappropriate to place a building 11 feet from a tree which has a 42-foot crown, as she thought an oak tree is too sensitive to withstand that type of disturbance. She said the applicant was not asked to remove the building, but to redesign it. She felt the list of requirements to Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 25, 1990 be typical of what is asked on all projects, and she felt there was no reason why the project could not be built once the items are addressed. She stated the applicant has repeatedly stated they will make changes but the changes have not appeared on the plans. She felt the project to be nowhere near ready for approval. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the Design Review Committee was not addressing the stability of building materials, only aesthetics. He felt slumpstone is not the kind of material the Committee wishes to see in that particular area. He concurred that the other items need to be addressed. Commissioner Chitiea stated there had been discussions about how combinations of materials could be utilized to make the project work. She stated that some of the buildings in Phase II and III do not even face Phase I. Chairman McNiel felt the applicant's allegations were inappropriate and less than true. He stated the Planning Commission went a long way to allow Phase I to go forward. He felt the object of the Planning Commission is to allow development while protecting the community from the mismanagement of that development. He felt there needs to be a sense of cooperation on the part of the developer. He said the position of the developer has been stated publicly that he as property owner has the right to build whatever he chooses. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission had three options: (1) deny the project, (2) continue the matter to allow the applicant to develop a design which meets the recommendations of the Design Review Committee, or (3) direct staff to prepare a resolution with specific conditions of approval to be adopted at a future meeting. Commissioner Chitiea suggested asking the applicant if he would consent to a continuance. Chairman McNiel requested the applicant respond. Mr. Davies requested that the Planning Commission state if slumpstone block could or could not be used as the primary building material. He felt the slumpstone block was the only issue. Commissioner Chitiea felt the Planning Commission could not act upon only one issue. She felt the Commission could give direction, but they could not pass any sort of Resolution on only one item on the list. Chairman McNiel felt the use of slumpstone block is a point of negotiation no different from any other point of negotiation and was not exclusive of the balance of the problems. Commissioner Chitiea felt the plans needed to be in closer conformance before the Commission should give approval. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project needed to return to Design Review. Commissioner Chitiea felt the project should come into conformance or be denied without prejudice. Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 25, 1990 Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that during the Design Review process the applicant was given opportunities to return with alternative building materials and the applicant had chosen not to come back with alternatives. He felt the question is whether the applicant is willing to consider any other alternatives other than slumpstone block. Mr. Davies stated he was asking that slumpstone block be accepted as the primary building material. Mr. Buller stated the Commission could give minute action direction that the design as proposed with the use of slumpstone is inappropriate and the applicant should proceed back through the Design Review process. He said the applicant would then have to decide if he would take that direction. Commissioner Chitiea felt that was an appropriate step. She felt there are many other equally serious concerns, but the Commission could give direction on that one issue. Chairman McNiel asked the Commission's feelings about slumpstone versus other materials. Commissioner Chitiea felt there should be two materials and that slumpstone is inappropriate for this particular project. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed but felt that slumpstone could be used as a secondary material. Commissioner Chitiea agreed slumpstone could be used as an accent material. Commissioner Weinberger concurred and suggested that when the project returned to Design Review it perhaps could be reviewed by other Commissioners because there appeared to be a wall built between the applicant and some of the Commissioners. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the Design Review Committee had already asked for two materials and suggested that the slumpstone could be used as a secondary or accent material. Chairman McNiel stated he participated in the Design Review process of Phase I when it was agreed that the project would be constructed of splitface block. He said at that time it was determined that. slumpstone was not an acceptable material. He said one of the things the Commission is attempting to do in the community is to upgrade all areas.. He felt the Commission was originally set up to upgrade the community. Chairman McNiel agreed that slumpstone is acceptable as a secondary material, but not as a primary material. Mr. Buller stated the minute action would give the applicant direction regarding the slumpstone. He suggested the Commission might wish to ask the applicant when he would like to return to Design Review with alternative building designs. He stated that the Commission was providing direction, but they had not made a decision. He said direction could not be appealed to City Council, but a decision could be appealed. Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 25, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant wished to continue the project and bring it back through the Design Review process to seek resolution. Mr. Garcia stated that the use of any other type of block would not blend in with slumpstone as a secondary material because of the difference in colors available. He stated they would like direction to be able to use slumpstone on the two buildings adjacent to Phase I and then use other materials for the remaining buildings. Chairman McNiel asked again if the applicant wished to continue the project and bring it back through the Design Review process to seek resolution. Mr. Davies stated they would like to continue at this time. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-12. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 9:00 P.M. - Planning Commission recessed. 9:10 P.M. - Planning Commission reconvened. I. REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE COSTS WITHIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS (Oral Report) Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, stated that staff is currently looking at the budget and wanted to present some issues that the City is facing regarding maintenance of the eight landscape maintenance districts. He said some of the major areas of maintenance are trails, parkways, parks, trees, and median islands. He stated some of the major cost areas are vandalism, water, contract maintenance, and regular maintenance utilizing City staff. He indicated that budget requests to maintain current levels of service in maintenance districts may have to be cut approximately 45 to 50 percent to avoid huge raises in the assessments. He said the City is attempting to find more cost-effective ways to water and maintain. Mr. Fulwood showed several charts of costs for the various maintenance districts and said the City has to make up the shortfall from the General Fund. He said the City is currently estimating landscape maintenance costs at $750 per unit in the North Etiwanda area. He said total landscape maintenance costs are between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000. He stated that the three main phases of any project are the design, construction, and maintenance; and the design of the infrastructure has a major impact on the long-term maintenance. Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 25, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked what direction the Planning Commission should be moving in. He asked if more hardscape should be required. Mr. Fulwood stated the City is looking for a nice balance and that the Planning Commission should give serious consideration to costs of maintaining softscape maintenance once it is installed. He stated that the cost of maintaining turf is exceptionally expensive for maintenance and watering. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission has been investigating xeriscape in an attempt to maintain the same level of aesthetics without the high maintenance costs. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if retrofitting costs were included in the figures shown by Mr. Fulwood. Mr. Fulwood responded that retrofitting costs are considered capital items, and only loan costs for previous capital items were included. He stated that for next year's budget all retrofitting projects have been deleted except for one necessary $39,000 project in Victoria. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Commissioners could receive copies of the charts presented. Mr. Fulwood stated he would provide a comprehensive written report including the charts. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to be more aware of the assessment district costs. Chairman McNiel asked how the City plans to handle the current deficit. Mr. Fulwood responded that the City is now proposing to raise assessments on an annual basis in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and considering initially raising the assessments above the CPI to try to catch up. He said some of the money currently available will be invested to generate interest revenue to help offset costs. In addition, he stated the City is investigating certain improvements, such as moisture sensors, to reduce water costs. He said that all projects being requested are being carefully scrutinized to be sure they are cost-effective and reasonable. J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 LEWIS HOMES An appeal of the City Planner's determination regarding the plaster surface for Buildings A and B in the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-21-36, 37 and 40. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and showed slides and pictures of the surfaces of the approved test panel and Buildings A and B. She stated that the surface on the trash enclosures was different from any of the buildings. Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 25, 1990 Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Tom Bond, Architects Pacifica, 1ll Pacifica, Suite 300, Irvine, stated the center was loosely based on the Virginia Dare Center in terms of detailing. He said they did not want the smooth look of contemporary plaster, but rather wished to emulate a true mission style. He said that concept was followed even in the roof tile application by using mud fill. He presented pictures from a book and brochure of the type of finish they wished to utilize. He stated they selected a rougher texture to conceal the expansion joints. He felt that staff's lettePs of January 30 and March 12, 1990, did not state the finish was unacceptable, merely that it should be smoothed out. He said that at the time the plaster was being applied, acceptability was never brought up as an issue. He stated that when the brown coat was applied he had informed the contractor that the application needed to be smoothed out. He said two layers of finish plaster have been applied to Building B and he felt it approaches what they were looking for. He stated that Building B now has 1- l/2 inches of plaster and he did not feel more plaster should be applied because he felt the weight might be too great for the underlying lathe. Mr. Bond showed slides and stated that the surface of the trash enclosure was a good example of what they were seeking. He felt Building B is now consistent with the approved test sample. He stated they recognized that Building A is not comparable to Building B and they proposed the same type of corrective measures be applied to Building A as had been applied to Building B. He requested approval of Building B even though he admitted it was not exactly like the test panel. Mr. Bond stated that Dick Gorman from the Plaster Institute was available to answer any technical questions. Chairman McNiel asked if the entire exterior surface of Building B had been redone. Mr. Bond responded that almost the entire surface was redone with the exception of some of sides of the columns, some interior faces, and some of the areas in the main tower. Chairman McNiel stated that the essence of unacceptability was conveyed in staff's letters because the conditions of approval had not been met, in that the plaster surface did not match the approved test panel. He stated the building showed trowel chops and consistent divots. Mr. Bond stated they had informed the contractor of the unacceptability even before staff informed them it was a problem.. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Bond was comfortable with Building B. Mr. Bond responded affirmatively and stated that he has received a positive consensus on the plaster texture from his colleagues and he had heard no negative comments. Rick Mager, Western Properties, P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated that staff never mentioned that occupancy would be held up because the plaster was not the correct texture, and staff merely recommended that the plaster be smoothed Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 25, 1990 out, never mentioning that the plaster was unacceptable. He felt Building B now reflects the views of what the architect tried to achieve, an early California mission style. He felt the cost of correcting the plaster work will be $150,000 to $200,000 and could force the subcontractor into a situation where he would be financially unable to comply with the City's wishes. Mr. Mager stated that tenants are now ready-to move into Building A, but occupancy is being held up. He requested that a phasing plan for replastering Building A and allowing occupancy be permitted. He suggested they be allowed to erect a temporary barricade to allow the tenants to occupy the building during replastering. He requested that the surface of Building B be accepted and be used as the standard for future buildings. Chairman McNiel stated the City started discussing the plaster back in December before finish coats were applied. He said the City did not put the tenants into their present precarious situation. He resented the fact that Lewis was just now deciding there is a sense of urgency and that they stated that it was the City's fault they were in this predicament. He stated he did not object to a phasing plan, but he did object to accepting less than what had been agreed upon. He stated the test panel was created to set the standard and Lewis Homes agreed to the surface. He said that when the buildings were still being built, it was evident the texture did not match the test panel and the problem could have been handled back in January. Mr. Mager responded that they had been trying to smooth the plaster finish back in January. He said they were at this point because they had not been told by staff that occupancy would be held up. Chairman McNiel responded that if a building s not accepted, it is therefore not finished, and naturally occupancy cannot be expected. Mr. Bond stated that in February they reviewed the application and tried to make other types of corrections to Building A to make it acceptable. He stated they never said there would be a smooth finish and he believed Building B met his original concept. Chairman McNiel asked the maximum plaster load that the materials used in this project could carry. Dick Gorman, Plastering' Information Bureau, stated common application is a 1-inch layer of plaster per layer of lathe, and the plaster should not exceed 1-1/2 inches without adding another layer of lathe or the attachments could fail. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff believes the issue is a matter of degree. He stated staff does not believe the stucco on Buildings A and B and other elements of the project, including the trash enclosure and bus shelter, is consistent with the approved test panel. He stated occupancy has always been an issue and that had been indicated out in the field on numerous occasions. He supported any action the Commission might take so far as directing staff to work with the applicant to determine acceptable levels of surface treatments on future buildings in the project. He said that staff Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 25, 1990 agrees with the applicant that Building B is closer to the approved test panel but he felt there are still imperfections on Building B and he therefore felt it was important to bring the matter to the full Commission for their review. He said in order to bring the matter to the full Commission, he made an administrative determination that Buildings A and B do not match the approved sample panel. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the replastering of Building B was completed. Mr. Bond stated it was completed in late January. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there are two issues: (1) acceptability of the plaster job and (2) occupancy. He did not feel Building A was acceptable. He felt Building B might be acceptable. Commissioner Weinberger agreed that Building B is acceptable, but she felt Building A looks very sloppy. Commissioner Chitiea felt that serious concerns were voiced during the brown coat stage. She felt Building A is completely out of the question and Building B has been improved, but it is borderline. She also stated that she was concerned that Lewis Homes felt staff's recommendations were merely options rather than directions. She did not feel Building B matches the test panel and therefore found it unacceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that overall Building B meets the architect's intent, even if it does not match the test panel. Chairman McNiel stated he wanted to again view the site before voting on the acceptability of Building B. He definitely felt Building A is not acceptable. Mr. Buller stated that staff felt that portions of Building B are acceptable. Chairman McNiel requested that the developer respond to the level of improvements they felt they could make on Building A. Mr. Bond stated they agree that Building A needs to be improved and he felt they could meet or possibly exceed the quality of Building B. Mr. Mager asked if Chairman McNiel could abstain from voting on Building B. He suggested that there be three separate votes: (1) acceptability of Bui)ding A, (2) acceptability of Building B, and (3) phasing plan for occupancy. There were no further public comments. Mr. Buller stated that following the Design Review Committee meeting on May 3, Lewis Homes has requested a workshop regarding Phase III of the Town Center project. He suggested that Western Properties could immediately begin working Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 25, 1990 on improvements to Building A in order to gain occupancy and a vote could be taken on the acceptability of Building B at the May 3 workshop. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to resurface Building A to match the test panel for Conditional Use Permit 88-12. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Weinberger, to continue a decision on Building B of Conditional Use Permit 88-12 to May 3, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Weinberger, to direct the staff to work with the developer to insure that occupancy be granted as quickly as possible in light of public safety concerns. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Ms. Fong stated that Western Properties still needs to make some other corrections to the site before occupancy can be granted. Chairman McNiel asked if the developer was aware of the. corrections. Mr. Mager stated he was aware of the corrections, but he felt they were minor and should not hold up occupancy of Building A. Chairman McNiel responded that if they are minor problems, they should be readily corrected. Commissioner Chitiea stated she appreciated the concerns of the tenants who would like to open their businesses and stated the City looks forward to having the center open and successful, but she wanted it to be understood that the Commission is also concerned from the community's standpoint that the best quality be built. She felt small businesses should not be placed in the middle in an attempt to force the City to accept less than quality work. She stated the Commission was not attempting to act in a punitive manner, but is Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 25, 1990 concerned to see that the City gets the best development possible. She praised the efforts of staff. Mr. Bond stated he would like to meet Chairman McNiel at the site to review the buildings. He asked if it would be possible to work with staff to determine if the resurfacing of Building A meets the standards. Chairman McNiel stated he would make arrangements to meet at the site. Mr. Mager stated that the best they would be able to do with Building A would be to match Building B, not the test panel. He requested that the motion be modified to allow matching of Building B. Chairman McNiel stated he would not amend his motion. He stated that it may be determined that Building B is comparable to the test panel. Mr. Bullet stated an attempt should be made to strive to achieve the level of the sample panel. PUBLIC COMMENTS Les Davies, 6239 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that Item F, Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-I2, be reopened. He stated he had misunderstood what he had agreed to and he requested that he be allowed to withdraw his agreement to a continuance. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, asked if Mr. Davies was now asking that an action be taken, even if it led to a denial. Mr. Davies responded affirmatively. Mr. Hanson stated there was no legal reason that the Commission could not reconsider its action, but it was at the Commission's option. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Davies wished to drop his request for a continuance to work on the project and accept either an approval with conditions or a denial. Mr. Davies requested that the Commission deal. with the Resolution of Denial. Mr. Hanson stated that if the requested action were to result in a denial, the applicant would have only one option, which would be to appeal to the City Council. He said that if the City Council does not approve the appeal, the applicant would not have an option to return to Planning to reactivate the project without filing another application and paying the fees. Mr. Davies responded that he understood. Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 25, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked if the Planning Commission wished to allow the item to be reopened. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the applicant wished the item to be reopened, it should be reopened. Commissioner Chitiea stated she had no objections to reopening the item so long as the applicant understood the ramifications. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to reconsider Item F. Mr. Hanson stated the Commission had thereby deleted the former action. Chairman McNiel requested public comment. Mr. Davies requested that the Planning Commission pass or deny the Resolution, in essence accept or deny the project. He stated that the owner encouraged that a Resolution of Approval with conditions not be approved, but preferred that the Commission approve or deny the Resolution of Denial. Mr. Hanson stated that the applicant appeared to be asking that the application be approved or denied exactly as presented by the applicant. Mr. Davies stated that was correct. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she wanted to be sure the record reflected that any vote would be based upon all of the considerations and requirements, not merely the one aspect of building materials. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that there was not only one issue involved. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution of Denial for Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-12. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried There were no further public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS K. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (Continued from 4/11/90) Planning Commission Minutes -21- April 25, 1990 L. AMENDMENT TO TRAILS COMMITTEE REGULATIONS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff reports. He stated that if Item L were approved, it would be appropriate for the Commission to have discussion regarding the recruitment process to be utilized to add the additional member. Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Tolstoy if he wished to continue to serve. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be happy to continue to serve so long as the Committee is expanded to include a member to represent the biking community. Commissioner Chitiea suggested the Commission consider Item L first. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Amendment to Trails Committee Regulations. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel volunteered to be an alternate to the Trails Committee for a one-year period. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by McNiel, to reappoint Commissioner Tolstoy to a term expiring July 27, 1991, Commissioner Chitiea and Greg Pilcher to terms expiring July 27, 1992, and Chairman McNiel as Alternate expiring July 27, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Mr. Coleman asked what process the Commission wished to use to select the additional committee member. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was not sure they would be able to find someone who would be willing to serve. Mr. Coleman suggested placing an advertisement in the newspaper and sending a letter from the City Planner to the bike stores and distributors in the City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the Commission is unable to find someone, he was willing to forego having a biking advocate on the Committee; but he felt the Committee should have someone to better represent the biking interests. P)anning Commission Minutes -22- April 25, 1990 It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Tolstoy participate in the interviews. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11:10 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned to a May 3, 1990, workshop at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center following Design Review to review the Terra Vista Town Center Phase III site plan and the plaster surface on Building B. o Respectfully submitted, Sec re ta ry Planning Commission Minutes -23- April 25, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 11, 1990 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Larry McNiel, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner; Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS~ Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the applicant for Item C had requested continuance to April 25, 1990, and staff supports the recommendation. Chairman McNiel presented a Resolution of Commendation to Commissioner Blakesley for his years of service on the Planning Commission. Mr. Buller announced that Commissioner Blakesley would be recognized by the City Council at their meeting of April 18, 1990. Commissioner Blakesley stated he had gained appreciation for the time and dedication expended by those who have served on the Commission. He felt previous Commissioners and Council Members have shown vision and have worked hard for the good of the City. He felt the tough standards required by the City have allowed the City to obtain the best from the development community. He thanked staff for their hard work. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 22, 1990. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Weinberger, unanimously carried, to adopt the Minutes of March 28, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VARIANCE 90-01 - VERA - Denial of a request to allow the construction of a house to encroach into the required interior side yard setback by 5 feet for a singe family residence located in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 9817 Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-063-03. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Blakesley, unanimously carried to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. STREET NAME CHANGE 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change name of Rochester Avenue (old portion) from 4th Street to a point approximately 600 feet north of 6th Street, a distance of approximately 8/10 of a mile. Suggested name change to Smith Bros. Avenue. Proposal to also change name of that portion of Rochester Avenue (new portion) south of 6th Street. Suggested name change to Rochester Court. Alternative street names may be considered by the Planning Commission. (Continued from March 28, 1990.) Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing; but hearing no ~rther testimony, he closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that the City likes to apply historical names to parks or streets but the opportunity does not frequently arise. He felt Smith Bros. Avenue sounds too much like cough drops. He liked the name Charles Smith Avenue, but wondered if the double name could cause problems for emergency services. He supported Smith Family Avenue. Commissioner Blakesley agreed that Smith Avenue sounds too generic. He felt that the name Smith Bros. Avenue requires a knowledge of local history to appreciate the meaning. He supported Charles Smith Avenue. Commissioner Weinberger did not like Smith Family Avenue. She supported either Smith Bros. Avenue or Charles Smith Avenue. Commissioner Blakesley stated that Charles Smith was the principal Smith brother and he was very important to the specific location. Brad Buller, City Plan~er, stated he would verify that the Fire District and Sheriff's Department support the name Charles Smith Avenue before forwarding it to City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 11, 1990 Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution recommending Street Name Change 90-01 with modification to change names to Charles Smith Avenue and Rochester Court. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12338 - KENSLEY-BUFFALO SIX, LTD. A subdivision of 13.78 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located on the northwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-262-28. (Continued from March 28, I990.) Chairman McNiel stated that the applicant had requested the item be continued to April 25, t990. He opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Blakesley, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 12338 to April 25, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13298 LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of 112 condominium units on 9.36 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the southwest corner of Mountain View Drive and Milliken Avenue - APN: 1077-091-36. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. George Chu, Lewis Homes, P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated he was available to answer questions. Irene Luevano, 7728 Montecito Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives one quarter mile west of the proposed development. She felt she should have been Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 11, 1990 notified by mail and stated she found out about the project only because 8-inch by 10-inch sheets were posted on the property. She asked why the item hadn't been mentioned in the newspaper. She objected to the project because the school site is only temporary and she felt the schools are full. She stated that because it was Easter week she was unable to get any people from the school or neighborhood to appear at tonight's meeting. She stated she was concerned about the type of people that live in condominium units and she requested that additional single-family units be built instead. She felt major traffic problems will be created. She requested the item be continued to allow her time to rally people to object. Mr. Coleman stated that the legal notice was published in the Daily Report and notices had been mailed to all property owners within a 600 foot radius. Chairman McNiel stated the project is within a planned community and the developer has options available as to what can be built. He stated the project is within the framework of the approved Community Plan. He said additional single-family residences will be built later on in the development. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that cities do not have power under the law to block development because of school impaction. He stated the most a city can do is impose a condition that the applicant participate in an assessment district. He stated the City was doing the maximum that the law will allow. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley requested that the developer look at garages. He was concerned about the size of the garages and their location in relation to the units. He felt the project will be an attractive addition to the community and he supported it. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13298. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried E. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13703 KAJIMA DEVELOPMENT A residential subdivision and design review of 55 single family lots on 11 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District {4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Banyan Street - APN: 201-181-67 and 68. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 11, 1990 Commissioner Weinberger excused herself because she owns property adjacent to the project. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the record should reflect that Commissioner Weinberger was present in spirit for the purpose of maintaining a quorum of three Commissioners. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Harry Lorick, 10 Rock Bluff, Pomona, stated he represented Dwight French & Associates, representing the applicant. He stated improvement plans had been submitted and plan check was in process. He had no objections to the addition of the school condition. Peter Novak, 12575 Colwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was a member of the Northwood Properties Community Association, the development directly north of the project. He requested that the map be amended to remove the retaining wall between Tracts 10827 and 13703. He presented a copy of an April 6, 1989, letter that was sent to the Planning Commission objecting to the wall. He stated the area was planted with groundcover and he requested that the groundcover be retained in lieu of the retaining wall. Chairman McNiel asked the height of the slope. Mr. Bertoni stated it goes from 5 to 25 feet and with the retaining wall the slope will be reduced down to 0 to 20 feet. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the tract to the north required a slope easement in order to be developed. He stated the retaining walls were added as a condition during design review of the current tract. He stated that the advertising for tonight's meeting only called for a Time Extension, not a modification of the conditions. Mr. Novak stated that the Mello-Roos Community District condition was being added; therefore, he felt other conditions could be modified. He felt if the affected homeowners had been notified they would have been present. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the M~llo-Roos condition was only added to make the tract consistent with existing City policies, not to change the design. Chairman McNiel asked why Mr. Novak objected to the wall. Mr. Novak stated he did not like the effect on the landscaping. He stated he had developed the Northwood project and invested a lot of money in the landscaping. He objected to having the landscaping and irrigation removed in order to accommodate retaining walls. Mr. Lorick stated Kajima Development does not object to the retaining wall and indicated that if the slope is moved, it could impact the number of homes permitted in the tract. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 11, 1990 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated he did not object to the terracing because it may extend the usability of some of the yard areas. He stated the wall will require removal of some of the landscaping, but all building disturbs landscaping, whether natural or previously installed. He felt redesigning the slope might affect the usability of the slope. He preferred the dual wall because he felt it would maintain the slope better. Motion: Moved by Bla~esley, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13703. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried OLD BUSINESS F. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-42 SOUTH PACIFIC FINANCIAL CORPORATION - A request to modify the approved building materials for an existing building in the Tennis Executive Center, located at 10750 Civic Center Drive - APN: 208-062-03. (Continued from March 28, 1990.) Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Cecil Carney, Carney Architects, 130 South Prospect Avenue, Tustin, provided two proposals: (1) leaving the existing tile with bullnosed and ground trim pieces applied to the corners; {2) removal of one row of tile with replacement by two 6-~nch tiles and a bullnose tile. He also suggested using a blue stain on the grout to reduce the contrast with the tile so the unevenness would not be so noticeable. He felt it would be possible to line up better with two 6- inch tiles. Start McDonald, Pleasant States Development, Western States Development, felt the building could be modified and look good. He stated he had questioned the tile layout from the beginning because the modules didn't work out. Chairman McNiel stated there are grout lines that don't connect or are nearly missing. He said he was not inclined to accept a patch job to make the building approach an acceptable building. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 11, 1990 Mr. Carney stated that if the tile is removed from the building, the building would be structurally affected. Chairman McNiel stated that at the last meeting Mr. Carney had presented literature from the Tile Institute to support his contention that tile could be overlaid with another layer of tile, but the literature referenced interior applications. Mr. Carney stated the process could also be used for exterior work. Commissioner Blakesley stated he did not feel any repairs would make the finished product acceptable. He said he was not adamant one way or the other regarding the tile color. Commissioner Weinberger agreed the color is acceptable, but she felt the defects are very noticeable. She preferred Option B from the staff report: approving the color change, but requiring a new application to ensure the tile is installed properly with corner returns per the approved plan. Chairman McNiel stated that one of the problems with the application is the uneven substraight. He felt laying tiles over the uneven tiles would only enhance the crookedness. He felt perhaps the corners could be ground in an attempt to straighten the substraight. Commissioner Blakesley was concerned about the additional weight on the building. Chairman McNiel stated the underlying tile would have to be treated abrasively in order to insure the new tiles would adhere. He agreed that the color is acceptable but stated there was poor application and supported Option B. Mr. Kroutil suggested the Commission require approval of the City Planner and stated the City would need to see job specs. Chairman McNiel stated Mr. Carney should provide certification from the Tile Institute that an overlay of tile would be acceptable for exterior use. He suggested the surface be ground down and a test panel applied in the field, for City Planner approval. He indicated he would also like to view the test panel. Mr. Carney suggested using metal lathe to give added strength. He felt that would also help to straighten up the high points. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated the dimensions should be kept in mind. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Blakesley, to approve the color change but to require new application of the tile with corner returns per the approved plan for Develbpment Review 87-42. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 11, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried NEW BUSINESS G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-12 DAVIES The development of Phases II and III of an industrial complex, containing six (6) industrial buildings totaling 22,940 square feet on 2.2 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on Feron Boulevard, east of Helms Avenue - APN: 209-031-87 and 88. Bruce Abbott, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Les Davies, A. W. Davies, 8737 Helms Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, took exception to the staff report, in that he felt the plans submitted in February addressed the concerns raised in the October meeting. He felt that all of the issues were workable except the owner's preference for slumpstone. He stated the property owner is a property rights advocate and feels it is his right to build with whatever material he chooses. Mr. Davies stated that Planning Commission Resolution 89-158 does not clearly define building materials, but merely calls for textured block and slumpstone is a textured block. He charged that the Design Review Committee members were allowing personal feelings to interfere with objective decisions. Jorge Garcia, Garcia & Associates Architects, 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 604, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they wished to continue to use slumpstone in order to be compatible with the buildings in Phase I. He stated that the Design Review Committee preferred tilt-up concrete, but tilt-up would not be compatible and the buildings were to small to utilize tilt-up. He requested that the Planning Commission give direction on the matter. He requested a definition of textured block. He felt it would be possible to work out the rest of the areas of disagreement. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated that Phase I was approved to be built with split-face block, but was constructed with slumpstone, which the Planning Commission decided to accept after several meetings. He said that the Planning Commission was assured that if they allowed Phase I to remain slumpstone, Phase II would be different. He felt that the Design Review Committee should have the right to address accusations that they have allowed personal attitudes to temper their decision to deny slumpstone block and he suggested the item be continued to the April 25 meeting to allow them to address the Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 11, 1990 issues. He felt all of the October 25, 1989, Design Review comments had not been addressed. Commissioner Blakesley felt the issue should be resolved with the majority of the Planning Commission present. Commissioner Weinberger agreed that she wanted to obtain input from the Design Review Committee before addressing the matter. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if he had understood Mr. Davies to say the owner was agreeable to the conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee except for the slumpstone material. Chairman McNiel invited Mr. Davies to comment. Mr. Davies responded they were workable problems, and he felt they had already addressed all the other issues. He stated he was agreeable to a two-week continuance to allow the members of the Design Review Committee to present comments. There were no further public comments. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Blakesley to continue Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-12 to April 25, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried COMMISSION BUSINESS H. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested the Commission may wish to continue the matter for two weeks to allow Commissioners Chitiea and Tolstoy to comment. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the item until April 25, 1990. I. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAm4 ITEM ON STUDY OF COMPACT PARKING SPACES (ORAL REPORT) Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 11, 1990 Brad Buller, City Planner stated that this item was placed on the agenda for discussion as a result of the workshop on work programs, at which time staff was asked to add work program items on short agendas. He stated he had previously heard the Planning Commission state that compact car spaces are not being used as intended. He wondered if they wished to consider modifying the percentage of spaces or the dimensions. He suggested one option might be to develop a hybrid of standard and compact sizes. Chairman McNiel felt that compact cars now have wider doors. He stated he would like to maintain the standard size, enlarge the compact size, and reduce the number of compact spaces to a maximum of 20 percent. Commissioner Blakesley felt perhaps the City should require distribution throughout the project, instead of concentration of all the compact spaces in one area. Commissioner Weinber§er agreed the compact size should be enlarged to a mid-size, a'nd felt perhaps the percentage should not be reduced. She felt the larger compact size would mitigate the problem. Chairman McNiel stated his initial reaction was to ask for elimination of compact spaces, because it is used to maximize the size of buildings instead of enlarging the greenspace. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that there is only I foot difference between the width of compact spaces and standard spaces (8 feet versus 9 feet); however, the length is 2 feet shorter. Chairman McNiel stated he wasn't sure that an extra 6 inches would be wide enough for him to open his door. Mr. Coleman suggested the Commission might keep the width standard at 9 feet, but allow the shorter depth for compact spaces. Mr. Buller commented that if compact spaces are eliminated, mor~ asphalt is needed and some landscaping may be reduced. He stated that originally the use of compact spaces resulted in more landscaping. He suggested the Commission may wish to form a subcommittee to talk with building industry personnel and the Chamber of Commerce to see if the community would want to eliminate compact spaces. Commissioner Blakesley stated that from an aesthetic point of view he would like to reduce the amount of asphalt, but from a practical point of view he would prefer that compact spaces be eliminated. He stated he would even like to increase the landscaping and pedestrian access. He supported enlarging the compact spaces by 6 inches and reducing the percentage allowed. Chairman McNiel stated he would consent to serving on the subcommittee. Mr. Buller stated that the Industrial Specific Plan currently requires 35 percent compact spaces. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 11, 1990 Commissioner Blakesley felt that it may be best to segregate the types of uses, and perhaps eliminate compact spaces in the retail use, but allow them in industrial areas, because typically there is not as much in and out traffic in the industrial area. Mr. Buller stated that many major centers have standard or larger spaces in the customer areas because they want the customers to be able to easily access the stores, and compact spaces are moved into the employee parking areas typically behind the stores. Chairman McNiel felt compact spaces were originally allowed because people were driving smaller cars because of the gas crunch. He said he objected to them. Commissioner Blakesley asked if anyone has looked at the required formula for handicapped parking. He felt too many spaces are allocated. It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Weinberger would form a subcommittee to study the use of compact parking spaces. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by McNiel, to adjourn. 8:55 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned to an April 18, 1990 tour at 4:30 P.M. meeting at City Hall. The tour to be of projects nominated for the 1990 Design Review Awards. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Sec re tary Planning Commission Minutes -I1- April 11, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 29, 1990 Victoria Gardens Regional Mall Workshop Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 976I Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Betsy Weinberger, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: David Blakesley STAFF PRESENT: Jack Lam, City Manager; Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Janice Reynolds, Assistant Redevelopment Analyst; Kelly Orta, Senior Office Assistant OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Felix, The Hahn Company; Duncan Budinger, The Hahn Company; John Waldron, The Jerde Partnership; Paul Senzaki, The Jerde Partnership; Brian Honda, The Jerde Partnership Dan Felix, The Hahn Company, introduced the production staff and stated that he was pleased with the progress of the project. He stated that their company has had additional communications with the department stores. Paul Senzaki, The Jerde Partnership, introduced the last site plan. He noted the changes to the water feature and the recontouring of the parking area to create a smoother pedestrian connection from Miller Avenue. He added that the water feature size is now 55,000 square feet, which is larger that the 51,00 square foot initial design. He stated that the pedestrian walkway along Church/Miller is to become a major pedestrian connection visible to the pedestrian. He added that although not significant, the cinema does block a portion of the view. He stated that they are trying to create a more centralized activity area with the new configuration. He added that they are trying to create a sense of closure and strong sense of place with the character of the water pedestrian connection. Chairman McNiel asked what was the dimension of the water feature. Mr. Senzaki responded that it was three dimensional, with no actual area size as of yet. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the major anchors had enIargedr Duncan Budinger, The Hahn Company, responded that the square footage had not changed, just different shapes. He added that due to input from the department stores, there has been some pulling and tweaking of the site plan for parking at the entrances. Mr. Felix added that the bulk of the parking is on the community side of the center. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there was a third story added. Mr. Budinger responded that the mall does not have a third story, but pads 6 and 4 do. Brian Honda, The Jerde Partnership, stated that they are working on a pair of cascading water elements announcing the project. He then explained the water treatment with trellis on the second portion of the walkway. He added that they had moved the food court from the second level to the ground level to improve site lines. Chairman McNiel asked what was above the food court. Mr. Senzaki stated there was nothing above the food court. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not favor entry to the mall through the food court. Mr. Honda stated that there were entries on the east and west ends of the mall. The Commission concurred with not favoring entry to the mall through the food court. Mr. Honda stated that there would be a walkway through the food court with as much light and landscaping as possible. Chairman McNiel asked if there was access from the restaurants to the mall. John Waldron, The Jerde Partnership, responded that the restaurants did not want the access. Chairman McNiel requested more information on the waterwall/waterfall element. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 29, 1990 Mr. Senzaki responded that the waterwall/waterfall will appeal vertically to the vehicles and horizontally to the pedestrians. It will be a combination of textures and water. Chairman McNiel asked about the dimensions of the flat water surface, the widest and narrowest points. Mr. Felix responded that this information was not available at this time because it has not been costed out yet. Chairman McNiel expressed his concern that this water connection was new. He did not want to see the horizontal element diminish so that it becomes insignificant. He expressed the importance of the water connection. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated that this element will have to be kept vertically and horizontally proportionate. Chairman McNiel expressed his concern with the vertical displacing the horizontal. Commissioner Chitiea expressed her concern with the cold design of the mall. She stated it was her understanding that it was to have more of a classical design. This design would date itself. Mr. Gomez stated that there will be a balance between elements. The materials, placement and texture is what will date the structure. Chairman McNiel added that the water element has become formal. He would like to see it more informal. Mr. Budinger stated that there is formal and informal sides of the lake. Chairman McNiel stated that initially Victoria Lakes would continue from top to bottom which tied everything together. Mr. Honda stated they are trying to accomplish a sense of place. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the water element needs something in the center to create some type of movement. Mr. Budinger responded that it will be active. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see the water element have different levels. Mr. Gomez stated that the ~water has an element behind it to add more dimension. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 29, 1990 Mr. Felix added that the restaurants will have water seating at elevated levels. Mr. Honda stated that they would look at different ways to provide variations. Mr. Felix asked the Commission if their preference was to have the water element at the main entrance flat as opposed to vertical. Commissioner Tolstoy responded that he would like to see a combination with one not overpowering the other. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she was not opposed to vertical, but wants to be very careful with the treatment. She added that she thought this element could be very beautiful. Mr. Budinger stated that the Commission needs to look at the basic concept. Jack Lam, City Manager, stated that the Commission needs to either approve or disapprove of the basic concept, such as the entryways, basic site plan, and water element placement and size. Mr. Gomez added that once the Commission has approved the basic conceptual layout, the interior roads, access points, and pathways into the site will be fixed. The Commission concurred on their approval of the basic site plan, entry points, and size and shape of the central lake. Mr. Honda stated they still need to do some work on the water element and architecture. Brad Buller, City Planner, clarified the Commission's actions as follows: Approved primary vehicle/pedestrian circulation; Approved lake shape and size; Commission not looking at large architectural style, but quality style; Commission would like to see water connected with the Victoria Lakes project to be coordinated with The William Lyon Company; Commission would like to see trellis arcade; Water element to be dynamic; Water element to have a focal point; Lake and water connections to have a vertical and horizontal balance; Would like to see a variation of views from the building and plaza levels; and Commission concurred that the theater location and design needed further review. Mr. Lam suggested that at the next meeting the design group return with greater detailed drawings that visually relate to the buildings. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 29, 1990 Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 29, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 28, 1990 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Ping Kho, Assistant Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate f Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, requested that Item A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Buller stated that tonight's meeting should adjourn to a workshop on March 29, 1990 to review Design Award nominations at 6:30 P.M. followed by a workshop on the Regional Mall at 7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried with Blakesley, McNiel, and Weinberger abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the March 1, 1990, Adjourned Joint Meeting with Historic Preservation Commission, as amended. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to adopt the Minutes of March 14, 1990, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13812 WATT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - Design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tract map consisting of 151 single family lots on 66.77 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1 - 2 dwelling units per acre), and the Low Residential District (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Highland Avenue, south of Summit Avenue, and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-161-35 through 38, 49, 53, 55, and 61 and 225-171-01, 09, 10, and 17. Associated with this project are Tree Removal Permits 90-09 and 90-14. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, unanimously carried to adopt Item B of the Consent Calendar. A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 12332-2 - JCC DEVELOPMENT - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 30 lots of a previously approved tract map consisting of 151 single family lots on 101.4 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units/acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of the Hillside Flood Control Channel, APN: 1074-521-6 through 23 and 1074-531-1 through 9, and 14 through 16. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public.comment. Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she represented the Homeowners Association. She said they had met with the developer and worked out their problems. She stated the Homeowners Association would like to see more J models in the project. She said they were concerned that the models should have roll-up garage doors because of the wind conditions. She stated the developers had been a pleasure to work with and she thanked City staff for their efforts. Kurt Nelson, JCC Enterprises, 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, stated there had been some initial areas of disagreement with the Homeowners Association, but they were glad to work with them. He stated they have nine J plans throughout the tract, with none'appearing side by side. He said they were planning to use roll-up garage doors on most of the homes, and definitely on the sites mentioned by the Homeowners Association. Chairman McNiel stated that roll-up doors are a nice selling feature. Mr. Nelson stated they had no objections to the conditions of approval. Richard Gould, JCC Development, 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, presented pictures of what they proposed for the base of the pilasters on elevations E2, Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 28, 1990 G2, and H1. The pictures depicted a concrete base below the rock pilasters. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel stated that at the Design Review meeting there were discussions regarding whether the rocks and bricks should be brought all the way to the ground. Commissioner Tolstoy felt a plastered base presented a more finished look; however, he did not favor bringing the plaster all the way to the ground on a pilaster, because it can be easily damaged by lawnmowers. Commissioner Chitiea preferred a decorative concrete base as opposed to a plain slab. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that larger pilaster bases should not be concrete but should mimic the plaster, with a decorative concrete curb utilized at the base. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that plaster should be used for the bottom of the columns below the brick or stone work, with a concrete base. Commissioner Weinberger asked if the architect felt that would cause any problems. Chairman McNiel invited the architect to comment. Mr. Gould stated he did not mind a small concrete curb for protection from termites and/or lawnmowers, but he felt the bottom of the column should be plaster. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Blakesley concurred. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review for Tract 12332-2 with modifications to provide for a concrete base with a plaster upper portion on the botto~ of the columns on E2, G2, and H1 elevations. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAK£SLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, W£INBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 2B, 1990 C. VARIANCE 90-02 DISARIO A request to allow the construction of a 5-foot, 6-inch solid block wall within the front yard setback of a lot within the Very Low Residential District (1 - 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5255 Jasper Street - APN: 1061-221-32. (Continued from March 14, 1990.) Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and a letter from a neighbor opposing the Variance. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Karen Disario, 5255 Jasper Street, Rancho Cucamonga, presented six letters from residents in support of the wall. She stated she had discussed an alternative of leaving two areas of open view fencing with the remainder being constructed as a solid wall. She requested that the area be designated as a side yard. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated he had visited the area and spoken with the Disarios regarding an alternative to the solid wall. He stated there are two stepped pads considerably lower than the street and that it would be acceptable to erect a low wall in that area with wrought iron above the solid wall. He said that meant the low fencing would continue for another 44 feet north of the house, and then the wall would go up to 5 feet, 6 inches. Chairman McNiel stated that no properties on the street face the Disario's lot. Commissioner Chitiea asked where the recreational vehicles will be parked and if they would be adequately screened if the wall is low. Chairman McNiel felt they would be adequately screened by the low wall because of the elevation of the pads. Commissioner Weinberger felt the compromise would not defeat the purpose of the wall. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when he visited the property there were a lot of vehicles parked on the street, and he suggested that the wall be built even higher than the originally proposed wall. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea asked when the proposed garage would be built. Tommy Disario, 5255 Jasper, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they plan to start the slab this summer. He stated they plan to finish the wall before starting the garage. He said the motor home will not fit in the garage, but the house boat will. He stated they plan to store the motor home at the north end of the lot. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 28, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea asked if they were planning to add architectural enhancements on the side of the garage which will face the street. She asked if they would be willing to erect a solid gate in front of the motor home, and suggested a wrought iron with wood combination. Mr. Disario stated he was planning a window on the side of the garage facing the street and would consider a wrought iron and wood gate. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley agreed with the compromise and felt it would be a workable solution. He felt the solid gate would be a good idea. Commissioner Chitiea felt the proposal made more sense than the solid wall. She felt a solid gate would be appropriate and she requested that the design be approved by the City Planner. She requested that the missing street tree be replaced. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that any solution would not be sufficient to screen all of the recreational and commercial vehicles that he saw parked in the area. Mr. Buller stated that the Variance request is merely to construct a 5 foot 6 inch wall and the issue of screening vehicles was not before the Commission. Chairman McNiel felt that the wall's suggested design would provide adequate screening. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission should look at industrial/commerical vehicle parking in residential neighborhoods. He did not feel it is appropriate for people to run a business out of their home if the business requires commercial vehicles be parked at the home. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the Commission was considering the yard to be a side yard as opposed to a front yard. Mr. Buller asked if the Commission determined that the area was a side yard, where the front yard would be located. Commissioner Blakesley felt that the Variance request was to allow the wall height to invade the front yard setback. He did not feel the Commission should expand upon that and declare the area a side yard. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that for all intents and purposes the area is located adjacent to the house instead of in front of the house. Mr. Buller stated that if the area were determined to be side yard, any structure could be built within 5 feet of the wall. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 28, 1990 Chairman McNiel felt the Commission would not want such a condition. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Commissioner Blakesley felt there was no need to declare the area a side yard. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 90-02, with modifications requiring the two southern-most sections be a maximum of 3 feet high with a maximum of 3 feet of wrought iron above, a solid gate at the northern access point, and replacement of missing street trees. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. VARIANCE 90-01 - VERA - A request to allow the construction of a house to encroach into the required interior side yard setback by 5 feet for a single family residence located in the Low Residential District (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) at 9817 Feron Boulevard APN: 209-063-03. (Continued from March 14, 1990.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Ariel Vera, 125 Greenbriar Lane, La Puente, stated he had purchased the lot and would like to build a house. He said that when he purchased the lot he thought he could build all the way out to the lot line and he would like to make the house wider in front than allowed by the setback requirement. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley sympathized with the applicant, but he felt it would be to the City's advantage to maintain the proper setbacks. He stated that even with the narrow lot condition there appeared to be options and suggested Option C would work with a detached garage. He felt the applicant might be able to secure access from the alley. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the applicant should investigate locating the garage to the rear of the house and utilization of the alley. She did not wish to have the garage in front of the house because of the high visibility from London Avenue. Commissioner Weinberger felt that alternate floorplans were available and she saw no reason to change the setbacks. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, indicated that the alley is not improved. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 28, 1990 Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Vera stated that the alley is not paved. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Exhibit B appeared to have garages located along the alley. Commissioner Blakesley stated that the property is located a fairly short distance from Reed Avenue, and he felt the applicant might be able to utilize the alley. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the option with the detached garage did not propose access from the alley, but from a driveway located adjacent to the house within the 10 foot setback. He suggested the Commission might direct the applicant back to staff to look at other options. Mr. Hanson stated that from a public safety standpoint, if the alley were to be used, it would need to be improved all the way out to Reed and it would be subject to a 26-foot width requirement. Cecilia Vera, 125 Greenbriar Lane, La Puente, stated that when they purchased the lot they were told the alley will be abandoned in the future. Chairman McNiel stated that the applicant has the option of running a driveway from Feron Boulevard. Mrs. Vera stated she works in real estate and felt that homes are worth more with attached garages and she .did not want to have a house with only a garage front. Chairman McNiel stated that if she wished, she could attach the garage behind the house. He felt that if the City reduced the setbacks, the house would sit too close to any house built on the adjacent lot. Mrs. Vera stated that the property was not wide enough to make a turn into the garage. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to direct staff to return on April 11, I990, with a Resolution of denial for Variance 90-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 28, 1990 E. STREET NAME CHANGE 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change name of Rochester Avenue (old portion) from 4th Street to a point approximately 600 feet north of 6th Street, a distance of approximately 8/10 of a mile. Suggested name change to Smith Avenue. Proposal to also change name of that portion of Rochester Avenue (new portion) south of 6th Street. Suggested name change to Rochester Court. Alternative street names may be considered by the Planning Commission. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Blakesley asked for clarification of the placement of the proposed freeway offramp. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, indicated the placement. Commissioner Blakesley asked if the name Smith Brothers Avenue had been considered. He felt Smith Avenue sounds too generic. Mr. Warren responded that one aspect of the street naming policy is to keep names as simple as possible. He did not feel Smith Brothers Avenue would be a problem. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Garasich, 9233 Rochester Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, did not recall having heard of the Smiths in the history of the area. He asked how long the provision had been in effect to change street names to historically significant names. Chairman McNiel stated the City has tried to do so since becoming a City. Mr. Garasich felt it would be better to align the freeway offramp to provide for travel immediately north on Rochester Avenue. He felt Rochester should run north/south in its present location and the leg turning into Rochester Court should be named something else. He stated he had already endured two address changes at his present location: one address change because he had been given the wrong address when he first moved there and the second address change brought about when the post office moved and changed the zip code for all post office boxes. He felt the cost of new signs, stationery, etc. was prohibitive. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the proposed Smith Avenue portion north of 6th Street is only temporary, and the street will become part of the freeway ramp. Mr. Garasich suggested that the City wait until construction of the freeway ramp, instead of making changes now. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated it is unacceptable to have two streets named Rochester. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 28, 1990 Commissioner Blakesley stated he traverses the area daily and he felt the overall traffic pattern will be better in its ultimate configuration. He felt the change should be made as soon as possible, because the area is developing rapidly and delaying the change will only affect more people. He supported the historic aspect of the name Smith and felt Rochester Court is appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it would be better to have a more colorful name. He thought perhaps the name could be more indicative of the buildings that were located in the area rather than just Smith. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with the assessment of the reasons for the name change. She thought perhaps a different historical name could be selected. She did not wish to use Smith Avenue on a freeway sign. Mr. Bose stated the offramp sign will state 6th Street. Chairman McNiel felt that if the Smith Brothers were significant in the area their contribution should not be ignored because their name is too common. Commissioner Chitiea suggested adding a first name of one of the brothers or changing the name to Smith Brothers Avenue. Chairman McNiel suggested staff research the name further and return the item on April 11, 1990, with additional suggestions. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Street Name Change 90-01 to April 11, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 8:35 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 8:50 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-04 JUNG A request to establish a liquor store in a 1,152 square foot leased space within the Thomas Winery Plaza, in the Specialty Commercial District, Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue APN: 208-101-21. Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 28, 1990 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Michelle McDowel, OAS Investors, 2081 Business Center Drive, Irvine, stated the original concept was to have wine tasting within a larger liquor store; however, wine tasting is only allowed in production facilities. She said the proposed store will be a wine and spirits boutique with a heavy emphasis on wine, crackers, etc. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission would like to have the store reflect the heritage of the center. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned about the length of hours and asked what other businesses in the center opened at 8:00 A.M. Ms. McDowel stated most other stores open at 11:00 A.M., but some plan to open at 10:00 A.M. as the center expands. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he thought at one time there were plans to sell wine in the winery. Ms. McDowel stated the winery is currently half leased to a restaurant, and there are no plans to sell wine. Yong Kil Jung, 1530 Grandview Street, Upland, introduced James Hwang. Mr. Hwang, 99!3 Mission Boulevard, Riverside, stated he had helped Mr. Jun9 prepare his application. He said they had met with OAS and Mr. Jung agreed to cooperate in trying to carry out the theme of the center through decor and by carrying specific wines. He stated the applicant currently plans to open at 10:00 A.M., but would like to have flexibility to open earlier and requested that hours be approved from 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Earl Pritchard, 8045 Gardenia Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns Quick Cuisine adjacent to the proposed liquor store. He said he wanted to be sure the liquor store would be "upscale" and would carry out the center's theme. Bill Fredericks, 7613 Jadite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the Commission has any powers over a business once it opens. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission has the power to revoke a Conditional Use Permit if the applicant does not conform to conditions set forth. Mr. Fredericks stated the center is nice and he would hate to see it 9o downhill. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would have preferred that a liquor store be located within the actual winery, as opposed to one of the satellite buildings, and she did not feel it would be appropriate to have two liquor Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 28, 1990 stores in the center. She felt the hours of operation should be more limited, as she did not feel it would be appropriate for the liquor store to be open so much earlier than the other businesses in the center. She felt the store should be classified as a specialty store and its hours should be more restricted. Commissioner Blakesley stated the location would be highly visible from Vineyard Avenue. He supported hours of 10:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that as the shopping center matures other businesses within the center will probably open without restrictions on their hours. He felt an 8:00 A.M. opening time was satisfactory. Commissioner Chitiea felt that when other stores open earlier the applicant could return to the Commission to modify their Conditional Use Permit to allow longer hours. Commissioner Weinberger stated she would not like 6:00 A.M. for an opening time, but would feel comfortable with 9:00 A.M. She felt the location next to Quick Cuisine is good. Chairman McNiel felt the proposed hours of 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. were satisfactory. Commissioner Blakesley agreed with Commissioner Chitiea that the location calls for a specialty store to be distinctive. Commissioner Chitiea felt otherwise the City runs the danger of getting something similar to a convenience store. Chairman McNiel stated that if too many restrictions are placed on the business, it will fail. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if the Planning Commission felt strongly about the hours, they would need to be added as a condition instead of only under the facts portion of the Resolution. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-04 with modification to limit the hours to 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Chitiea stated she voted noe because she felt the hours should be more restricted. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 28, 1990 G. MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 8%04 - PEPPER'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT - The review of a modification to an approved entertainment permit allowing live entertainment in conjunction with restaurant use, located at 9740 19th Street - APN: 1076-011-10. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Weinberger asked if there have been any complaints about the music at Pepper's. Mr. Bertoni stated that Code Enforcement has not received any complaints and the Sheriff's Department had indicated they do not feel there are any problems in connection with the entertainment. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mike Bhatnagar, 9740 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval of the additional hours. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public 'hearing. Commissioner Blakesley stated he frequents the area from time to time and has not observed any problems. He supported the modification. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Entertainment Permit 89-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-08 - NGHIA THI DO - The request to establish a convenience store in a leased space of 1,750 square feet within an existing commercial center on 8.2 acres of land in the Community Commercial District, Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9319 Foothill Boulevard, Suite A - APN: 208-261-58. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He stated he had received one telephone call in opposition to the project and he had mailed that person a copy of the staff report. He said he had not heard back. He said their objection had been that they felt they had been promised no convenience store would go in the center. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that there had been an indication that no 24-hour convenience stores would be allowed. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 28, 1990 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Nghia Thi Do, 9319 Foothill, #A, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her family wishes to open in the center because they feel it is a good neighborhood and will be a good location. She said they plan to operate as a market and a deli and she requested that she be able to open early in order to be able to sell to people on their way to work. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if the Commission were concerned about hours, they should be added as a condition. Commissioner Blakesley felt the use is compatible and appropriate for the center. He did not see any need to restrict the hours. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she did not see a problem with longer hours in this center. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-08 with modification to restrict the hours of operation to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday, 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.. Friday and Saturday, and 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Sunday. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLE¥, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12781 ~ DELGAR - A subdivision of 9.35 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District, Subarea 9 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-111-07. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if Parcel 2 would be a zero lot line parcel. Mr. Hanson responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel asked if it will meet code requirements. Mr. Hanson responded that he had not received any objections from Building and Safety. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 28, 1990 Bob Garrison, Delgar Partners. 28202 Cabot Road, Laguna Niguel, stated the building is 6 inches off the property line and does meet code. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 12781. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12338 - KENSLEY-BUFFALO SIX, LTD. - A subdivision of 13.78 acres of land into 4 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 11), located on the northwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo Avenue - APN: 229-262-28. Ping Kho, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a master plan was approved for the property. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded affirmatively. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that all buildings have been constructed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the flag lot configuration of Parcel 2 seems unusual. Chairman McNiel asked if parking was considered for each parcel. Mr. Hanson stated the conditions of approval require reciprocal access and maintenance agreements. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tim Lowry, Kensley Corporation, 15721 Hollis Street, Hacienda Heights, stated the project has been developed for approximately two years. He stated the project was built as four separate research and development buildings to accommodate an industry they felt was going to do quite well, but their deal fell through. He said the lease rates they have been asking are not competitive for warehouse space in the surrounding area. He said the buildings have been vacant for almost two years and they have found some people who are willing to purchase the buildings individually and do their own tenant improvements. He stated adequate parking has been provided for each building for its intended purpose. Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 28, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked why the parcels were configured the way they are. Mr. Lowry stated the parcels were configured in order to meet City code requirements for parking to accommodate the amount of floor space. He said there will be an agreement for reciprocal parking. Mr. Lowry apologized that he did not know the details of the project because he manages a totally different project and had been asked to step in at the last minute. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there are any empty pads. Mr. Lowry stated the entire site is totally built with the exception of tenant improvements. Chairman McNiel asked if Building 2 is actually one building. Mr. Lowry stated it is one building with a fire wall down the center. Commissioner Chitiea asked why there was so much empty space with parcel 4. Mr. Lowry stated that Building 3 is to be converted to strictly office use and therefore requires additional parking. He said the other three buildings will be made warehouse space. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant had received approval from the City to convert all of Building 3 to office space to be sure that it is allowed in the district in which the building is located. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that administrative offices are a conditional use within the district. Chairman McNiel felt the layout does not make sense for the parking for one building to be on the other side of another building. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated standard Condition 5 requires reciprocal access and parking, along with common maintenance. He stated people will park wherever they wish. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley shared Chairman McNiel's discomfort with the lot lines. He was not sure that the' Planning Commission would support the office use and did not wish the applicant to feel that if they received approval for the parcel map that it would mean automatic approval of office use. Commissioner Chitiea stated the layout is one of the most peculiar lot configuration she had ever seen, but felt so long as reciprocal parking and maintenance are required, it should not present a problem. She stipulated that any approval should not be construed as givin9 the Commission's blessing to the proposed office use of Building 3. Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 2B, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy felt proper CC&Rs should take care of any problems. Chairman McNiel suggested that the item be continued for two weeks in order to have the applicant advise why the configuration has been selected. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would feel more comfortable knowing the reasons for the configuration. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. Lowry if he would agree to the continuance. Mr. Lowry stated that the lot lines were drawn to meet code requirements, and the reciprocal parking and maintenance agreements should alleviate the Commission's concerns. Mr. Buller stated that so long as reciprocal access, parking, and maintenance agreements are recorded with the parcel map, it is not necessary for each building to meet the code individually. He stated the lines could therefore be simplified. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commission could continue the item if the applicant did not agree to the continuance. Ralph Hanson stated the City would need the consent of the applicant to continue the item. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commission could choose not to approve based on the applicant's unwillingness to accept a continuance. Ralph Hanson stated the Commission could deny based upon not being able to make the findings requisite for the map that the design of the map is in keeping with City code. He suggested the Commission could deny without prejudice. Chairman McNiel stated that all he wanted was an explanation for the layout, and he felt Mr. Lowry was not able to adequately explain. Mr. Lowry agreed to the two week continuance to be sure that the Commission could be comfortable with their decision. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 12338 to April 11, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 28, 1990 K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12756 - LEISERV~ INC. - A subdivision of 7.03 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Commercial DeVelopment District, located on the west side of Haven Avenue and north of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1177-401-29. Ping Kho, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the parcels had reciprocal parking and maintenance agreements. Mr. Kho responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel asked if the two cutout areas on the east side were adequately protected. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Mannerino, 9333 Base Line, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Leiserv. He stated the two areas excluded from this parcel map were part of the original CC&Rs from the original tract for the entire corner. He stated the original reciprocal parking and maintenance agreements would still be in effect for the entire center, not just the two parcels they were currently subdividing. He stated Mr. Guerra was available to answer any engineering questions. Chairman McNiel asked why the parcels were being split. Mr. Mannerino stated Leiserv wishes to remain in the bowling alley business and would like to have the flexibility to be able to perhaps sell the retail shopping area to people experienced in managing and renting retail businesses. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Weinberger felt the application looked straightforward. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if CC&R agreements can be changed after their inception to exclude parking from a parcel. Ralph Hanson stated that typically CC&Rs have a length of 50 years with amendments requiring common consent. He stated that the City Attorney reviews CC&Rs and requires that reciprocal parking not be changed without the prior written consent of the City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his concerns were satisfied. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 12756. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 2B, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14459 L.A. CHANCO - A residential subdivision of 37 single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4 8 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Lemon Avenue APN: 201-251-3, 4, 40 and 41. Related to this project is Tree Removal Permit 88-63. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested modified wording to require processing of a modified tentative map if the barn were determined to be historically significant and such determination should cause changes to the tentative map. Commissioner Blakesley asked if any of the lots would front on Archibald. Mr. Grahn responded negatively. Commissioner Chitiea asked the condition of the barn. Mr. Grahn responded that the barn is extremely weathered with part of the siding and roof missing. He showed pictures of the barn showing the barn's dilapidated condition. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Rita Salazar, L. A. Chanco, 22632 Golden Springs Road, Suite 356, Diamond Bar, introduced project engineer Ken Linville and project architect Alain Dalmau. Alain Dalmau, Pitassi Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Suite 220, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the applicant had acquired an additional parcel to bring the total project from the originally proposed 6.6 acres to the present 8.3 acres. He stated they had eliminated flag lots, revised the grading elevation, and reduced density from 5.1 houses per acre to 4.5. He said they had addressed the Design Review Committee's comments. He said the houses on Lots 1, 2, and 3 were moved back from Lemon Avenue and houses have been moved away from the drip line of the Coast Live Oak tree which is to be preserved. Mr. Dalmau said that on March 19 a neighborhood meeting had been held in his office with eight families present, and the applicant plans to meet with the Homeowners Association board next week. He said the barn is dilapidated and they were shocked to find that there might be some historical significance, but were willing to do whatever is necessary. Mr. Dalmau stated the owner has indicated he would like to pursue reimbursement agreements for utility undergrounding, street improvements, and storm drain construction. He requested that they be relieved of the obligation to pay an in-lieu fee for Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 28, 1990 undergrounding of utilities on the north side of Lemon Avenue because he thought the area was fully developed and he did not feel the utilities would be undergrounded. He requested that they only be required to construct the storm drain system from Archibald to their easterly property line instead of all the way to the Lower Alta Loma Channel if they build prior to the completion of the project by the City. He requested that the eucalyptus trees they were planting not be planted 8 feet on center along Lemon, but that they be allowed to plant 20 feet on center and redistribute the trees throughout the tract. Commissioner Chitiea asked where the water would go if the storm drain system were only installed to the edge of their property line instead of to the channel. Mr. Dalmau stated he thought the system could be a dry system until the entire system was constructed. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated in order to be sure the water is properly disposed of, it is necessary to have the system go from Archibald, where the water will be collected, to an outlet at the channel to the east. Steve Martino, 7698 Gainey Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the tract borders on main arterial streets. He asked if 100 percent of the street improvements would need to be completed before allowing occupancy. Mr. Hanson stated a proportional release system would be utilized, with a maximum release of 95 percent prior to total completion of the improvements. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, Stated Archibald improvements would have to be complete prior to any occupancy, but Lemon Avenue improvements would fall in the category of allowing proportional release. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated he did not recall that the City had ever installed a dry storm drainage system. He said it is common that the City burden the initial developer to put in systems, with future development paying a reimbursement. Mr. Hanson stated in-lieu fees for one-half of future utility undergrounding policy has been a longstanding policy. Chairman McNiel stated that he felt the questioned conditions were the standard policy of the City. Commissioner Chitiea felt that public safety requires that water get to the proper disposal area and the City should not allow a non-functioning system. She agreed that the undergrounding requirements are standard. She wanted the eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center because she felt the intent was to replicate a windrow. She felt it is appropriate to replant windrows when windrows are removed. Planning Commission Minutes -19- March 2B, !990 Commissioner Blakesley asked for clarification on the policy regarding protection of trees during construction. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the tree preservation ordinance lists criteria for protection and specific steps were also listed as conditions of approval. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by 81akesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14459 with modifications to require processing of a modified tentative map if necessitated by historical designation of the barn. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 10:20 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 10:30 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened NEW BUSINESS M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-21 GREAT WESTERN HOTELS - The development of a 6-story hotel totaling approximately 107,811 square feet on 2.5 acres of land at the corner of White Oak and Spruce, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan - APN: 208-352-31. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Leonard Ramos, stated he represented the developer, Paul Goodman of Great Western Hotels, P. O. Box 2127, La Habra. He thanked Dan Coleman and Beverly Nissen for their help. Mr. Ramos stated that project architect Richard Hull was available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel stated it was important that the cornices and moldings be in proper mass and scale with the balance of the building. Richard Hull, 400 West Lambert Road, Suite E, Brea, felt the proposed dimensions were the correct scale for the building. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the developer was comfortable with the Planning Division changes as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 28, 1990 Mr. Hull responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification of the parking requirements. Ms. Nissen responded that the Development Code requires 1 parking space per unit plus 2 for the Manager, which would mean 126 spaces would be required. She stated that 132 spaces were being provided. Chairman McNiel asked if the hotel will include a restaurant. Mr. Ramos responded that it is proposed to be a limited service hotel, which will include free continental breakfast, but no restaurant. He also stated it will have exercise and meeting facilities. Commissioner Blakesley was concerned about the treatment of the service entrance. Mr. Hull responded that they accentuated and reworked the rear entrance at the direction of the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Chitiea asked what roof treatment was being proposed for the outside storage area. Mr. Hull stated they were proposing a decking material and they could introduce potted plants to the area; but it would be difficult to service them, because there is no access to the area. There were no further public comments. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that the project was conditioned to increase the size of the cornice at the roof line to a minimum of 12 inches in width. Commissioner Chitiea stated the plans had been greatly improved since the initial submittals. She appreciated the architect's willingness to work with the Design Review Committee to achieve some of the enhancements made to the building. She felt something more upgraded than typical roofing material should be used for the roof of the storage area in order to present an attractive view to the guests above. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Ramos what type of service personnel would be working at the hotel. Mr. Ramos stated there would be housekeeping and maintenance staff, a general manager and assistant manager. He said there would not be any bell hops. Chairman McNiel stated he was concerned about the number of parking spaces. Mr. Ramos stated the requirements were typical of requirements in other cities. Planning Commission Minutes -21- March 28, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy wondered where the housekeeping and maintenance staff would park. Mr. Ramos stated that generally there is less than one car per room, and the hotel is generally not full. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chitiea asked ~f the other Commissioners agreed that additional treatment should be added to the service area roof. She suggested potted plants might be added. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and stated that would even enhance the view from the parking lot. He suggested that the City Planner could review and approve some type of planting for the area. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the architect may wish to add a wooden structure above the roof to resemble the trellis work used elsewhere on the elevation. Commissioner Chitiea felt that would be an excellent solution because it could then be maintained from the ground level. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinber§er, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-21 with modifications to provide for trellis work on the service area roof with the final design of the roof treatment subject to City Planner's review and approval. Motion carried by the ~llowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 P.M. N. MODIFICATION ?0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-42 SOUTH PACIFIC FINANCIAL CORPORATION - A request to modify the approved building materials for an existing building in the Tennis Executive Center, located at 10750 Civic Center Drive - APN: 208-062-03. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes -22- March 28, 1990 Donald Rosenthal, South Pacific Financial Corporation, 10565 Civic Center Drive, #200A, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had purchased the project with improved building plans. He stated South Pacific will be the sole occupant of the building, and he provided photographs of the building. Mr. Rosenthal stated he had received many compliments from neighbors, including the neighbor who originally complained to the City. Richard Lee, owner of Tile King, 1300 South State College Boulevard, stated he was the subcontractor who installed the tile. He felt that the tile that was specified would blend in too much with the color of the building and felt the tile he installed enhances the building as it contains the same blue/gray color as the trim on the building. He stated he originally bid the job to be a full tile layout with no cuts, which would have enabled him to return into the windows with minimal cutting. He said he and the installers discussed a layout possibility and he and the job superintendent decided to make the change to eliminate the returning tiles into the windows because the cuts would vary at each opening from 1/2 inch to 6 inches. He stated they left a reveal of stucco which framed all the windows. Chairman McNiel stated that if the job superintendent and contractor decide to change a building on their own, there is no need for the Planning Commission to bother to review and approve building elevations. He stated that the Commission is not concerned with how a job is bid. He said that not only does the tile not return to the glass, but it does not even reach the corners. He stated there is also no consistency in how close the tile comes to the corners and the tile does not present a flat surface as you look up the building. Mr. Lee stated he did not have a straight surface on the building on which to lay the tile. Chairman McNiel stated he should have gone back to the contractor who prepared the surface. Mr. Lee stated he did and the job superintendent decided a compromise would have to be made. He felt plans are for guidelines only and stated he followed the guidelines to the best of his ability. Chairman McNiel stated plans and specifications are for specifics. He stated the matter should have been brought back to the architect so that he could approach the City to have a change approved. He felt the end product does not approach what was designed. He felt that if the Commission just lets mistakes slide, it would establish a poor precedent. Mr. Lee felt the building is a beautiful building and is not an eyesore and the Commission should give approval. Cecil Carney, C. R. Carney Architects, 130 South Prospect Avenue, Tustin, requested that the Commission accept the color. He said they could and would get the proper workmanship. He said they could add the missing tile, refloat it, and cut the corners. Planning Commission Minutes -23- March 28, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked how they would fill in the corners on the edges around the entrance where there are dimensional differences. Mr. Carney stated they would put in corner pieces. He felt they could put in 2-inch trim pieces around the windows and at the corner edges. He said they would have to refloat some of the tile. Commissioner Chitiea stated the pictures show significantly different elements from what is shown on the approved elevations included in the staff report. She indicated there were differences in the rail design, decorative elements, number of windows, and the design of the actual tiled area. Mr. Carney stated that following Design Review he resubmitted plans to address the Design Review comments and the City does not have the plans. He said he had transmittals and stamped plans. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, requested that Mr. Carney submit such documentation. Mr. Carney stated he had submitted a revised color board. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Chitiea stated the drawings show substantially different elements and that brought up even more questions. She said currently the building has a wrong tile texture and color. She agreed that if the approved tile were applied to the painted stucco color, it would blend together too much, but she said that was because the builder had applied the wrong stucco color. She said the railing color is also wrong. She stated the tile was not only incorrectly applied, but it was also not applied to all of the specified areas of the building. She felt that to allow such a change to stand would subvert the entire Design Review process and generate the wrong message to the community. She felt the hours of staff's time, the Commission's time, and the architect's time were thoroughly wasted. She felt this building is paired with the building to the east in terms of setback and location, and she felt the originally approved color would have made a better transition. Commissioner Weinberger felt the builders did as they 'pleased with the design and colors. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the elevations did not represent the building as it was built and he was distressed that the process has been subverted. Commissioner Blakesley stated that the whole building is the sum of its parts, and he felt the package was damaged by the omission or alteration of some of the details which may of themselves seem minute. Mr. Kroutil stated that when projects go through Design Review, conceptual plans are reviewed. He said it is then staff's responsibility to review the plans when they come in for plan check. He said some of the other elevation changes may have been cleared by staff. He said the tile application and Planning Commission Minutes -24- March 28, 1990 colors were clearly called out on the plans. He said if the other changes to the elevations were important to the Commission, staff would have to research the matter. He stated it was possible that the approved construction documents would have some modifications. Chairman McNiel allowed further public comment. Stan McDonald, Pleasant States Development, superintendent of record, stated he built according to the approved plans, including the stucco and railing colors. He said Mr. Carney's office had scratched through some of the colors and written the correct colors on the plans. He said he had constructed 11 two-story building in the area and many buildings have color deviations. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff would have to look at the drawings and compare them with what is in the City's files. He stated the issue before the Commission at present was whether the new colors are acceptable and if the Commission is willing to work with modifying the application of the tiles. Mr. McDonald stated if the Commission determines that the tiles need to be replaced, they would like to overlay and get rid of the joints and just butt the tiles together. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification on the process of overlaying tiles. Mr. McDonald stated they would place a latex bonder over the existing tiles and the California Tile Institute supports such applications. He said they would guarantee the tiles would stay up. He said if they butted the joints with no caulk lines, the unevenness of the building would not be noticeable. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if water got behind the newly applied tiles. Mr. McDonald responded it would not hurt anything because the underlying tile would still hold firm. He said a new pattern would be needed and they could ask Mr. Carney to draw up a new pattern. Mr. Rosenthal stated they were ready to move into the building and he requested occupancy. Chairman McNiel stated that it would be unsafe to have the building occupied while any tile work was being done on the side of the building. He did not feel the City could allow such a risk to pedestrians. Mr. Rosenthal requested that occupancy be allowed and only work at one entrance at a time, which would allow pedestrian access to the building at the entrance not being worked on. Mr. Buller stated staff would need time to research the plans presented by Mr. McDonald. Planning Commission Minutes -25- March 28, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea proposed continuing the matter for two weeks to allow staff time to research. Chairman McNiel stated that if the Tile Institute can establish without question that the underlying tile will accept another tile without the danger of tiles coming off the building, then it would be acceptable to overlay. Commissioner Chitiea requested that staff research the railing details, decorative details, specific elevations where the tile is located, and the pediment element. Mr. McDonald suggested Mr. Carney also present a new layout. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the Commission would need to see any new proposed layout. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Modification to Development Review 87-42 to April 11, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Karen Disario, 5255 Jasper, Rancho Cucamonga, requested the Commission make a determination that her front yard is in reality a side yard so that she could store her recreational vehicles behind the fence. She requested that the area be declared a side yard with the provision that there be no building within the setback. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why she wanted such a determination. Ms. Disario stated she was afraid Code Enforcement would still come out and cite them for parking in their front yard even though it was behind the fence. She said she really didn"t care if the area was left front yard, so long as they could park their vehicles there. Brad Buller, City Planner, presented information from the Development Code to support his determination that the area could only be determined to be a front yard based on lot configuration. He stated the request was for a Variance to allow the fence to encroach in the front setback. He said the Planning Commission could not make a determination as to side yard, as the item was advertised only as a Variance request to allow the building of a fence within a front yard setback. He said there would have been no need to go through the Variance process if the area had been determined to be a side yard. Planning Commission Minutes -26- March 28, 1990 Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the advertisement for the public hearing only advertised ~r a variance ~r constructing a fence within the front yard setback and the Commission could not act on Ms. Disario's request without advertising such a request. Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant would still have a problem with Code Enforcement. Mr. Buller stated the code requires stored recreational vehicles to be screened from public view. He said a 5 foot 6 inch wall would not screen the recreational vehicle from public view, but there is no separate requirement ~r front, side, or back yard. Chairman McNiel requested clarification on enforcement of storage and other activities behind the wall, but within the setback. Commissioner Chitiea asked if landscaping could be used ~r screening. Mr. Buller stated the code allows ~r landscaping to be used as screening. Chairman McNiel directed staff to investigate the matter and report back. COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Blakesley felt the Commission should consider the views from multi-story buildings when approving plans ~r other buildings because a 3-foot parapet wall will not adequately screen roof-mounted equipment from tall nearby structures. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that special consideration should be taken of roof materials and roof-mounted equipment in areas where tall buildings will be built. Commissioner Blakesley suggested that the Commission look closely at garages on multi-tenant projects with regard to the proximity to the units they serve and to the size of the garage. He felt the garages on some of the projects did not seem to be designed wide 'enough to accommodate vehicles. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked which Tuesday nights in May were available to meet with the City Council. It was the consensus of the Commission that May 1 or May 8 would be the best dates. Planning Commission Minutes -27- March 28, 1990 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 12:00 Midnight - Planning Commission Adjourned to a March 29, 1990 workshop at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center at 6:30 P.M. to review nominees for the Design Awards Program followed by a review of the Regional Mall site plan at 7:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -28- March 28, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting February 22, 1990 Victoria Gardens Regional Mall Workshop Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the City Offices, 9330 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Betsy Weinberger, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Dennis Stout STAFF PRESENT: Jack Lam, City Manager; Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Janice Reynolds, Assistant Redevelopment Analyst; Kelly Orta, Senior Office Assistant OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Felix, The Hahn Company; Duncan Budinger, The Hahn Company; Bill DeEiel, The Jerde Partnership; John Waldron, The Jerde Partnership; Paul Senzaki, The Jerde Partnership. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the conceptual site plan and to seek the Commission's comments on the information presented thus far. He introduced Dan Felix of The Hahn Company. Dan Felix, The Hahn Company, introduced the production staff and stated that he was pleased with the progress of the project. He stated that their company has begun exchanging comments with the department stores regarding their individual needs and they are now seeking the Commission's comments to the changes top be presented. Paul Senzaki, The Jerde Partnership, introduced the site plan along with a series of abstract diagrams. He showed the side facing the freeway which places the major anchors along the side with the maximum of freeway exposure and the community side facing north and west. He stated there would be a high level of activity facing the water feature with the cinemas at the opposite side of the water area. He stated they would have four access points, with two to five lanes to accommodate traffic. Once inside the project, there would be an interior loop road. He stated the parking would be at different elevations using heavy landscaping to soften the parking area transitions and that there would be a constant water and landscaping theme. Commissioner Chitiea asked if there would be a water tunnel. Mr. Senzaki responded there could be some type coming in and going out of the project. Commissioner Chitiea questioned as to what type of structure the arbor was. Mr. Felix responded that it was a trellis. Mr. Senzaki added that it was a 3-dimensional element set aside for pedestrian use. Mr. Bill DeEiel, The Jerde Partnership, added that he would like to see the arbor extended as long as possible. Chairman McNiel questioned the. height of the berms. Mr. DeEiel responded up to 18 feet. Chairman McNiel asked how large the water element was and if it was the same square footage a previously shown. Mr. DeEiel responded that it was almost an acre and that it was somewhat smaller that previously shown. Chairman McNiel expressed concern over the lack of ties into the lake. Mr. Felix stated they would bring the before and after water concepts to the next meeting for review. He added that he was interested in the water connections. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that a stream would be nice bringing water from the upper to lower elements. Commissioner Chitiea stated that five years ago, the water was the form giving element in the design. She expressed her concern with the lack of waterflow and dramatic entry. She added that she liked the arbors. Mr. Felix stated that initially they backed off from the dramatic entry because it was suggested to be too formal. He asked what type of formal expression the Commission was interested in. Planning Commission Workshop -2- February 22, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea responded active water connections. Commissioner Tolstoy added he would like to see cascading water features. Ne stated that because of the lakes, there was an extremely good opportunity to dramatize with water splashing down rocks into something at the bottom, re- creating the history of mountains. Chairman McNiel stated that the water needs to be the focal point of the project. He expressed concern with the enlarged buildings, more parking, less and less water, and the water that is there being concealed. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the project design should also create more vantage points from the interior of the mall. Mr. DeEiel stated that he would like to see the water brought into the mall. The Commission concurred with this idea. Mr. Duncan Budinger, The Hahn Company, stated that The Hahn Company has changed their minds on having water inside the mall. He added that the opportunity might be there on this project. He brought the location change of the cinema to the attention of the Commission. He added that this change would best utilize the view points of the lake. The Commission was in agreement that they like this change. Mr. DeEiel stated that they did not have an architectural concept as yet, but it will be somewhat European-Classic architecture. Commissioner Chitiea expressed concern with the regional and community side continuity. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see a lazy curve style rather than a straight line style layout for the interior mall. Chairman McNiel concurred. He questioned who dictated ~he storefronts. Mr. Felix responded that they have people specifically working on the interior design and that certain tenants d~mand certain storefronts. Brad Buller suggested that the next meeting should cover the following items: o Water Elements o Larger scale plans showing connection to the north. o Suggested water elements inside the mall. o Introduction of water elements at the entrances along the loop street o Size comparison study of current and previous lake plans. o Architectural Concepts (vocabulary and design guidelines) Planning Commission Workshop -3- February 22, 1990 o Pedestrian Corridors (i.e. extensions into the parking lots and strong connections to the planned communities) o More information on the theater/lake location and design o Development of preliminary mass model Chairman McNiel questioned if there were any proposed connections between parking levels. Mr. Felix responded there were none. Mr. DeEiel stated it could be done, but they are very dangerous and that he does not encourage this. Chairman McNiel would like to see it included, with Commissioner Blakesley concurring. Commissioner Blakesley questioned the use of the Edison corridor. Mr. Budinger responded that they are in negotiations at the present time. Commissioner Blakesley added that he thought the pedestrian connections from the parking areas to be most attractive. It was agreed that another workshop would be held on March 29, 1990 with the items previously requested to be brought back to the Commission for review and comment. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Workshop -4- February 22, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 15, 1990 Brad Buller, City Planner, and Planning Commission Chairman Larry McNiel welcomed the group at 5:30 P.M. The meeting was held at the Tolstoy Residence, 9540 Hillside, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the Planning Department's work program. ROLL CALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger STAFF PRESENT: Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil; Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner discussed the budget process and requests. He stated that any changes to the 1990/91 budget must be fully justified. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if more people were being requested. Chairman McNiel stated that City Council has requested more special projects than before and adequate staffing is needed. He said that staff does not have time to complete projects requested by the Planning Commission, such as design guidelines. Mr. Buller stated that the City only has limited capital, and that is why it is important for all to agree on priorities. Mr. Kroutil stated that Advance Planning is requesting two additional staff people because they are taking on new environmental legislation requirements. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, discussed the major projects of 1989/1990. Commissioner Blakesley felt the Planning Commission should visit some of the multi-family projects being built and look at the setbacks. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that field trips would be beneficial. He felt perhaps it would be better to utilize eight-plexes rather than four-plexes in very dense projects in order to allow for more open space. Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible for staff to collect some basic data from other cities on some of the work program projects and then workshop with some people from the development community. He felt some of the projects on the back burner could be more expeditiously handled .in this way and it would help the Planning Commission to arrive at policy decisions. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated that Advance Planning is called upon to do many of the special projects. He said that generally when only minimum data is collected, more data is requested when the presentation is made. Mr. Buller stated that it is important that staff justify the data they have collected when a presentation is made to the BIA, City Council, Chamber, or other groups. Chairman McNiel stated that it is evident from looking at the work program that many items cannot be accomplished. He wondered if it would be possible to push some projects forward by doing only minimal work. Mr. Coleman stated that Design Review comments take a long time for staff to generate. He wondered if the level of detail currently being generated is necessary. Commissioner Blakesley stated that the full comments help the Planning Commission to focus on important points. He felt it might be helpful to enlist the aid of the Chamber or BIA to work on some work program items. Mr. Coleman stated that enlisting the aid of outside groups has a tendency to lengthen the process, not shorten it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there are some items on the work program that will become obsolete if not done soon because development will have already taken place. Mr. Coleman stated it is conceivable that the City may initiate the Etiwanda North Specific Plan if the consortium does not proceed. Mr. Henderson stated staff has been directed to 'work with Jon Mikels to determine what to do with County Flood Control land. He said the consortium's new draft plan does not address many items which they had been requested to address. Mr. Buller stated the City has advised the consortium the City will process the plan if the consortium will work with us. He said the subcommittee has directed staff to work with the County to develop a City/County plan. He stated that the City Council has sent a letter to the County requesting that development not be processed in the County. Mr. Buller said that Jori Mikels is trying to keep County Flood Control resources in his district and has assured the City that the County will not support development in the area unless it meets the City's standards. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 15, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy feared that the County does not understand the City's development criteria. Mr. Henderson stated that the consortium has been told that if they get County approval for development, the City will fight annexation to the City in the future. Chairman McNiel felt the parking lot lighting survey could be handled quickly. He said it should address items including intensity, color range, and height. Mr. Buller suggested that when the Planning Commission has a short agenda some of the lower level items could be added to generate comments and direction. Mr. Henderson discussed the current work program of Advance Planning. He advised that a Community Development Block Grant consultant has been hired to handle all activities; and therefore, Miki Bratt will now be available to work on other projects. He discussed proposed legislation on the November 1990 ballot regarding land use. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Hillside Development Ordinance is an important ordinance to preclude poor development. Mr. Coleman stated that the ordinance will create more work for Current Planning staff because it now takes longer to review projects. Chairman McNiel stated the Design Criteria guidebook has been repeatedly put on hold because special projects have been given priority. Mr. Buller suggested that as the Commissioners see good or bad examples they should advise staff so that pictures can be taken to enter into a design photo book. Chairman McNiel asked how many people on staff deal with projects dictated by outside agencies, such as SCAG, state, etc. Mr. Henderson responded probably 1-1/2 to 2. Mr. Kr~util stated that it is definitely more than 1-1/2 people, because examples of such work include the General Plan update, the housing element, film permit ordinance, etc. Chairman McNiel asked the consequences of not working on those projects. Mr. Henderson stated the City is at peril if it does comply with government requirements. He said it is preferable to take the time to work on the projects before the state steps in to force compliance. Chairman McNiel asked if anything had been accomplished by the Old Etiwanda and Southwest Cucamonga Needs/Deficiencies Study and the Old Alta Loma Revitalization Study. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 15, 1990 Mr. Buller stated it brought some items to the attention of the City Council. Chairman McNiel asked if City Council had provided any direction to staff on those studies. Mr. Buller stated City Council directed staff to keep moving in the current direction and monitor the effects of our efforts. He stated the reports showed that progress is being made in those areas. Commissioner Weinberger asked if the City has a legislative advocate. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively and stated the City also works with the League of California Cities. Mr. Henderson discussed the work program for 1990/1992. He expanded on the oral history program. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if some community group could spearhead the project. Mr. Henderson stated that $8,500 had been donated and the City was requesting money to hire a consultant to perform the work. Commissioner Weinberger asked if members of the Historic Preservation Commission could not spearhead the program. Mr. Henderson stated there have been some health problems with some of the members and it has been difficult to get volunteers. Commissioner Weinberger volunteered her services. Mr. Coleman asked if the oral history program would include trying to secure old photographs. Mr. Henderson stated the City will be trying to collect old photographs, but that many people are hesitant to donate items to the City without having a depository to store them. He said people have been unwilling to donate items to the County Library because the Library has not been able to assure that the items will remain in the City. Mr. Buller stated that two new staff people have been requested to handle environmental aspects of projects. He said that if the staff increase is not approved, other projects may suffer. He stated that the City Council has requested a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and he suggested the work program may be discussed at that workshop. He said the work program will be presented to the City Council in May. Mr. Kroutil discussed the Code. Enforcement work program and their methods of operation. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 15, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification of the time allotted for property maintenance. Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, discussed how Code Enforcement attempts to handle property maintenance complaints. Chairman McNiel stated he felt Code Enforcement was making inroads in sign program enforcement. Commissioner Weinberger felt it is important that Code Enforcement have a reputation for being strict. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the job being done is being-done well. Chairman McNiel felt it is a good sign when people complain about Code Enforcement because that means they are doing their job. Mr. Buller stated it is frustrating because people expect Code Enforcement to be able to solve all problems immediately. Chairman McNiel asked the status of the removal of billboards from the City. Mr. Coleman stated a priority list has been generated but City Council has not budgeted any money to purchase the boards. Chairman McNiel felt some of them would be eliminated through attrition when development occurs. Mr. Buller reviewed the results of the Planning Commission survey. He stated the Planning Commission needs to focus on setting policy direction. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the Planning Commission makes some extremely important decisions and that when those decisions are reversed by City Council it is for political reasons. Chairman McNiel felt some reversals were simply because the City Council may not understand the reasons for Planning Commission's decisions. He felt communication with the Council should be improved. He felt the only time direction is received from City Council is when an appeal causes a Planning Commission decision to be overturned. Commissioner Chitiea stated that many times when the Planning Commission is overturned, it is not necessarily a policy decision, but merely a case-by-case basis. Chairman McNiel felt the Commission should be willing to tell developers that plans are not acceptable instead of trying to massage the plans in order to get improvements. Commissioner Chitiea stated that following the Design Review process plans are always better than what the developers had proposed. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 15, 1990 Commissioner Blakesley felt that staff has improved on seeing a lot of the little details. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Commission has a bigger vision than what the development community sees. Chairman McNiel felt the Commission must remember that there is a relationship between land cost and construction costs. Commissioner Chitiea stated that was part of the problem in the industrial area. Chairman McNiel felt renderings should be taken to the projects as they are being built to be sure they are being built to match. Mr. Kroutil stated that staff is now undergoing training to improve their plan checking abilities. Mr. Buller stated that the Planning Commission could save both Planning Commission and staff time by setting more policy direction and allowing staff to handle some of the small details. He said quality control is important to staff. He stated staff documents everything because the developers constantly challenge us. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City has a fantastic staff and he thanked them for their assistance. The other Commissioners agreed. ADJOURNMENT The workshop adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted Sec reta ry Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 15, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 14, 1990 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blake$1ey, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engine6r; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer; Diane O'Neal, Administrative Analyst; Gail Sanchez, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Rancho Cucamonga has been designated as an official Tree City USA. He said a ceremony will take place at 10:00 A.M. on March 31 at Red Hill Park at the amphitheatre by the lake. Mr. Buller stated that this evening's meeting would adjourn to a workshop at 5:00 P.M. on March 31 at the Tolstoy residence to consider the 1990 - 1992 work program. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, carried with Weinber§er abstaining, to adopt the minutes of February 28, 1990, as amended. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE 90-02 - DISARIO A request to allow the construction of a 5-foot, 6-inch solid block wall within the front yard setback of a lot within the Very Low Residential District (1 - 2 dwelling units per acre), located a~ 5255 Jasper Street - APN: 1061-221-32. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and presented a letter from the neighbor to the south of the property in opposition to the wall. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Karen Disario, 5255 Jasper Street, Rancho .Cucamonga, presented photographs of other houses along the street and her views of other walls in the area. She also presented letters from 13 neighbors in support of the wall. Ms. Disario stated that most other people had walls on the side of their houses, but their lot is a unique shape and what the City considers their front yard is really their side yard. She stated they wished to install a 136-foot solid wall 5 feet, 6 inches high in addition to the current 37-foot wall. She stated Code Enforcement has requested that they park their recreational vehicles in their yard but stated that they must be shielded behind a solid wall. She said they had previously had a dog, a horse and a duck poisoned. She objected to placing the wall at the proper setback because it would allow grass to grow and she would not be able to use the area. Tommy Disario, 5255 Jasper Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the City has stated they have a peculiar lot. He requested that the City rezone his front yard as a side yard. He stated he had been told over a year ago that he should apply for a variance and that he would be able to build a solid wall. He requested the wall be approved so that he could shield his recreational vehicle and trailer. Commissioner Chitiea asked what type of wall they proposed building. Mr. Disario stated they would use whatever decorative finish the City required. He said they had used slump stone with an imitation brick cap with pilasters every twenty feet. He stated they had been told many times by the City that the yard should have been zoned as a side yard instead of a front yard. Livia Zaccaria, 8398 La Senda Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lived on the northwest side of the applicants. She opposed the wall because she had been told by real estate agents that such a wall will bring down property values. She stated that the letters presented by Mrs. Disario were not from any of the neighbors on the street where the wall is proposed, but of neighbors behind the Disarios who will not have to face the wall. Robert Briggs, 8543 La Senda Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives east of the property approximately 30 - 40 feet above the property. He said he has observed that the Disarios have made improvements to the property and that Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 14, 1990 their yard is now secure on the south, east, and west, but not on the north. He said the Disarios have had a boat stolen and he supported the wall because it would add security. Bob Chilson, 8531 La Senda Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives next to Mr. Briggs, across the channel from the Disarios. He supported the variance and the wall. Virgina Clarke, 5254 Topaz, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives directly behind the Disarios. She felt the wall would be beneficial to the Disarios and felt it would look fine. She said that no one who lives on the street looks directly at the Disario yard. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission needed to consider the issue of enclosure of an oddly shaped property and that the Commission could not deal with or consider any suspicions regarding foul play against the animals. Commissioner Blakesley stated he had looked at the area and they are nice homes. He felt the Code is to prevent a walled community approach. He stated the street is only 36 feet wide and on the opposite side of the street is a precision block wall along side yards. He felt that adding another long wall would give a tunnel effect. He thought open fencing with landscaping could provide the same effect and security. He stated that traffic going east on La Senda Road would have a good view of the wall. He did not support the variance as he did not feel there were sufficient grounds to make the necessary findings. Commissioner Chitiea stated that in looking at the property, the area is effectively a side yard. She felt that the wall would be an asset to the area because of its design and that the Disarios were trying to achieve not only privacy, but screening for their vehicles. She supported the variance because of the unusual lot configuration. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the lot configuration is unusual but felt the wall could be moved back from the sidewalk to allow for some landscaping to soften the look and prevent a tunnel effect. He agreed the property should have a wall. Mr. Grahn stated that the base of the wall has been built and that the Disarios are requesting the variance in order to raise the height of the wall. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he supported the wall because there are at least some landscaping pockets built in. Commissioner Weinberger felt the strange configuration of the lot really made the area a side yard as opposed to an extension of the front yard. She supported the variance and liked the landscaping pockets. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 14, 1990 Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if all of the bottom half of the wall had been constructed. Mr. Disario stated that it is all currently constructed at a 3-foot height. Brad Buller,-City Planner, stated that a permit has been issued for the low wall, and the Disarios now have requested a variance in order to raise the height of the wall. He stated that if the variance is denied the Disarios have indicated they will utilize open fencing. The public hearing was again closed. Commissioner Blakesley asked if the current setback was adequate for a side yard. Mr. Buller stated it is adequate for a 3-foot high fence. He reminded the Commission they have required a minimum of 5 feet of landscaping beyond a sidewalk before any proposed wall on all new projects. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Blakesley that he would have a difficult time making the necessary findings in order to support the variance. He felt there should be a compromise and thought perhaps some portion of the wall could be solid in order to allow for screening of the vehicles and an adjacent portion could utilize view fencing. He objected to the tunnel effect and felt a compromise could be reached to satisfy the needs of the property owner and the desires of the City. Commissioner Blakesley agreed that a good approach would be to seek an alternative solution. He did not like a sidewalk-adjacent wall. He stated the Disarios also have a coral and horse area they wish to screen in addition to the recreational vehicular storage area. He supported taking a closer look at the situation to see if a compromise could be worked out, but did not want a checkerboard wall. Commissioner Chitiea felt that putting in some sections of solid wall with others of view wall would not work. She felt that a 3-foot wall with view fencing on top would not achieve what the property owner wishes to accomplish because it will take a long time for the landscaping to grow. She felt the top of the wall could be softened with vines. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he wished the property owner had sought the variance before they started the wall because the perfect solution would have been a reasonable setback with landscaping in front. He agreed that he would not like to see a checkerboard look of solid walls and see-through walls. He supported the wall because of the landscape pockets. Commissioner Weinberger did not feel the solid wall can be effectively broken up. Chairman McNiel stated he did not support a checkerboard look either, but felt some sections could be see-through with a solid wall at the end. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 14, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the criteria is to screen unsightly storage of recreational vehicles and boats. He was willing to support continuing the matter for two weeks to attempt to determine a compromise solution. Chairman McNiel stated that most recreational vehicles in the City are only partially shielded because they extend above the fencing anyway. He felt there might be a solution the Commission had not considered. Commissioner Weinberger stated she was willing to continue the matter two weeks. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant was willing to continue the matter for two weeks in order to look at alternatives. Mr. Disario said he was willing but that he would like the Commissioners to visit the property so that he could explain what he was trying to accomplish. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Variance 90-02 to March 28, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried B. VARIANCE 90-01 - VERA - A request to allow the construction of a house to encroach into the required interior side yard setback by 5 feet for a single family residence located in the Low Residential District (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre) at 9817 Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-063-03. Nancy Fon9, Sen~r ~lanner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the Planning Commission may wish to continue the item for two weeks, as the applicant was not present. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to continue Variance 90-01 to March 28, 1990. Motion carried by the followin9 vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 14, 1990 C. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-26 - SANDERSON~ RAY & PETRY/OAS The request to rehabilitate the existing 10,570-square-foot winery building and 783-square-foot still building for office, retail, and restaurant uses within the Thomas Winery Plaza, in the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue APN: 208-101-10 and 11. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Rudy Stroink, OAS Investors, 2081 Business Center Drive, Irvine, introduced John Petry, landscape architect and Carri Sakemi, architect for the winery renovation. Mr. Stroink agreed with the conditions of approval and stated he would work closely with the City to achieve reconstruction of the building. He stated they were willing to remove the freestanding light fixtures in front of the winery and replace them with flood lights. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the screening for the kitchen roof equipment would return to Design Review. Mr. Stroink stated they planned to submit a dormer design and they would return to Design Review. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the parking lot would be sufficiently lit if the freestanding lights were removed from in front of the winery building. Ms. Fong stated that the Resolution requires the developer to submit a detailed lighting plan to address that issue. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the modification. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the input from the Historical Preservation Commission was helpful and that the Commissions had arrived at a consensus. She supported the project except for the few remainin9 details which she felt could be worked out through Design Review. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 87-26. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAK£SLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 14, 1990 D. PHASING PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A request to modify the phasing plan for Terra Vista Towne Center located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard APN: 1077-421-05, 06, and 18. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if construction of the monument sign will be delayed if Buildings S and P are moved to Phase III. Ms. Fong responded that the monument sign will be constructed in Phase I. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, Western Properties, P. O. Box 670, Upland, requested that parts of Phase III be allowed to be moved to Phase II without triggering all of Phase III. He stated they would like to construct Building K1 and the parking lot in front of Major-4 in conjunction with Phase II. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Mager would be willing to move those items to Phase II. Mr. Mager responded that would be acceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted Buildings K1 and K2 to go through Design Review at the same time because it is necessary to be sure the passageway works properly. Mr. Mager responded he was willing to agree to that. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was agreeable to moving the construction of Building K1 to Phase II, but he opposed allowing the parking lot construction in front of Major-4 because the design of Major-4 has not been confirmed. He said he would like to see as much built as possible, but if the parking lot is constructed, it may preclude drastic modifications to the building. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that flexibility is needed for Major-4. She was uncomfortable with allowing construction of the parking lot because she felt it may create problems with the building. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there needs to be a promenade to the building and the building design is necessary to be certain the promenade is properly placed. He agreed with moving Buildings S and P and Pads 2 and 3 to Phase III but requested that the pads be planted with groundcover, as no date has been set for construction on Phase III. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow Mr. Mager to comment. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 14, 1990 Mr. Mager stated he was willing to plant the area with groundcover. He further stated they would like to grade the parking lot with Phase II so that they would not have to bring back the earthmoving equipment. He requested they be allowed to grade even if they could not asphalt the area. The public hearing was again closed. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Building and Safety would have to issue the grading permit and he suggested the area be planted. Ms. Fong stated that the developer would have to provide erosion control. Chairman McNiel stated he was agreeable to the phasing as requested by the developer, and he was even willing to allow the developer to pave the parking lot in advance. He stated that if the parking lot does not work with the layout for Major-4, he would have no qualms about making the developer redo the parking lot. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the issue of grading could be covered by minute action and staff would work with Building and Safety. He suggested that if the parking lot were surfaced, a condition could be added that the parking lot would need to be redone if the building does not fit. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of his concerns since the beginning of the project has been that the promenade fit in with the trail system and work well with other parts of the project. Commissioner Chitiea felt that ripping out a parking lot and patching it would cause constraints. Commissioner Blakesley agreed that he would rather not have rolled asphalt. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving modification to Phasing Plan for Conditional Use Permit- 88-12 with modifications to allow grading of the parking lot and moving of ~uildings K1 and K2 into Phase II, concurrent review of Buildings K1 and K2 by Design Review, and planting of unconstructed pads with groundcover. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 8:35 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 8:45 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 14, 1990 E. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-01 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11341 - LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. - A request to defer the completion of the Milliken Avenue median landscaping for the development of a medical center on 10 acres of land in the Mixed Use (MHO) District within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street - APN: 227-151-13 and 14. Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when Phase 2 is projected to start. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated he did not believe there were any immediate plans to begin Phase 2 but that it is really more of a master plan. Chairman McNiel asked if there were other projects in the area that are also conditioned to complete the median landscaping. Ms. Miller responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Don Thompson, Western Properties, P.O. Box 670, Upland, stated he thought he had understood under the City's phased occupancy policy that the current buildings could be occupied. He said he had brought Tom Dellaquila from their landscape department and Rob Sawyer from Land Concern to address some of the comments in the staff report. He stated they were surprised by the substantial comments the City provided on the first plan check of the median landscaping. Chairman McNiel asked when they wanted occupancy. Mr. Thompson responded the hospital will probably be ready for occupancy by mid-April. Chairman McNiel asked if the building was ready for occupancy. Mr. Thompson stated the hospital has run into problems with their electrical inspection. He said it would take approximately six to eight weeks to install the landscaping. He said it had been his understanding that under the phased occupancy policy, the City would allow occupancy on a first building if more than one building is planned for a site and over 50.percent of the street improvements were complete. Chairman McNiel responded that policy did not apply to Milliken Avenue because the City became very frustrated because the streets in Terra Vista were being constructed very piecemeal. He said the City then decided that Milliken would have to be completed all the way through if anything were to be built on it. Planning Commission Minutes -g- March 14, 1990 Mr. Thompson stated that he felt that problem was before he started with Lewis Homes and that since he has started, they have tried to do more than required. He said they had intended to have all of the major streets constructed and landscaped before the end of 1989. He requested that the hospital occupancy not be delayed. He stated that the Church Street landscaping was in the process of being installed. Tom Dellaquila, Lewis Homes, P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated that he had not received a complete set of drip detail criteria until March 12 and that the plans already drawn will have to be altered as a result. He said traffic issues still have not been resolved. He stated that in late September they were given a set of working drawings prepared by the RJM Design Group for two medians on Milliken at Fourth Street. He said those plans were given to them to use as a guideline. He said the City gave him the actual master plan on January 16, 1990. He said that Land Concern had been directed to prepare median plans for Milliken in 1987, but in May 1988 they were told to stop work while the City prepared a new master plan. He said they received no further communication until September 1989. He said a meeting was held on October 11 at City Hall to discuss all the medians and following that meeting they were able to begin drawings. He said construction had already begun on the Church Street median but that the City inspector had shut them down for six hours earlier today because he was unaware they had an approved plan. Rob Sawyer, Principle of Land Concern, Ltd., stated they were frustrated trying to get the plans through the City process and they were getting back third and fourth plan check comments with changes to tree staking details and other matters. He said about eight months ago Lewis directed them to finish the details for Milliken Avenue and the other major arterials. He said they proposed changing the look on Milliken to have a little less meandering dry stream alignment, but they were directed by the City to go back to the master plan. He said they then took the approved RJM plan and traced it off so far as the alignment and the meandering of the dry stream bed but now plan check comments have directed them to meander differently. He said there are irrigation details on the plan check comments that are not recommended by the manufacturer. He said they now wish to go forward. Commissioner Weinberger stated she thought the hospital has targeted the early part of June for a full opening. She asked if the landscaping will be completed by that time. Mr. Dellaquila stated that it depends upon plan approval. He said construction time is six to eight weeks. Carol Arnold, Inte9rated Medical Campus, 859 North Mountain Avenue, #22B, Upland, stated that the June grand opening is only a festivity and has no relationship to when they need a certificate of occupancy. She said they are ready to occupy the building right now but can not get occupancy for a number of reasons, with the Milliken landscaped median being a major stumbling block. She said they need certificate of occupancy by April 15 so that they can see patients in the building. She said they would like to man the building by March 19 in order to test the equipment, which will take four Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 14, 1990 weeks. She said they have been having electrical problems with the the building department for the last six weeks. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated the issue is whether or not the Commission is willing to allow occupancy of the hospital prior to completion of the landscaping of the median on Milliken. Commissioner Blakesley stated it is evident the City will get the landscaping eventually, and he saw no reason to hold the hospital ransom. He said he would like to see the landscaping as soon as possible. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if plans are now completed. Chairman Mcniel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Dellaquila stated the plans have been through one plan check and they hoped to have plans ready for resubmission by the end of next week. Mr. Sawyer said there were some changes to the irrigation system and some traffic issues that still need to be addressed. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it appears it will take at least one week before the plans are in, then two weeks for plan check if everything is acceptable, followed by six to eight weeks for construction. He was willing to allow the hospital to have occupancy of the building prior to installation. Chairman Mcniel supported allowing the modification. Commissioner Chitiea asked the time schedule on other projects which would trigger the landscaping condition. Barrye Hanson responded that several projects are under construction and would not be released for full occupancy prior to completion of the landscaping. Mr. Bullet stated the other projects along Milliken are residential and the last 5 percent could be held pending installation of the landscaping. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Development Review 88-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 14, 1990 Mr. Buller stated that there are other issues beyond the median island landscaping holding up occupancy on the building. He suggested the hospital and Lewis Homes meet with City staff to resolve the other issues. F. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan by adding pharmacy use in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea$ I, 2, and 3; clarifying the intent of wording in several areas of the text for consistency purposes; clarifying the development district and standards for the area at the end of San Bernardino Road in Subarea 2; and modifying the plant palette for the Foothill Boulevard landscaped median island. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Richard Crean, owner of the property surrounding the Sycamore Inn in Subarea 1, stated he was representing Vern Hinricksen, the owner of the Sycamore Inn. He stated they had attended a number of hearings in connection with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and it was their perception that office use was included in the Specialty Commercial designation to allow flexibility so that developers could meet the demands of the market place. He felt there are certain areas within the Specialty Commercial designation that could be more heavily office than specialty retail. He stated that on their property specifically they have to meet the master planning process and it seemed to be redundant to require a Conditional Use Permit in addition to the master plan process if they wished to exceed 50 percent office use. Rudy Stroink, OAS Investors, 2081 Business Center Drive, Irvine, stated he was available to answer any questions regarding the pharmacy use. Commissioner Blakesley asked if Mr. Stroink felt 10,000 square feet is a reasonable dividing line between a larger pharmacy and one that would be better suited to the area. Mr. Stroink agreed that the 10,000 square foot limitation seemed adequate. Ne said that 25,000 square feet is standard for the larger, chain drug stores. He felt that 10,000 square feet would be sufficient for more of a pharmacy use. Joe Ramos, 1182 North Padua, Suite 10, Upland, stated he represented the owner of the property located at the end of San Bernardino Road. He said they were concerned with the development standards affecting the parcel. He said the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan standards require a 25-foot setback, but in this case there is nothing adjacent to the parcel because railroad tracks are located to the north, Flood Control channel is located to the west, and Carnelian is on the east, with several houses to the south of San Bernardino Road. He said their usable property is cut to approximately 51 percent because of the bridge under the railroad tracks, the approximate 33-foot Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 14, 1990 easements for sewer and water lines, and the 25-foot setback He asked if' smaller setbacks could be considered and if the 30-foot equestrian easement adjacent to the railroad could be removed. George Guide~a, 7363 Garnet, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the property located at the end of San Bernardino Road should tie in' with Community Commercial, as perhaps service commercial. He could not envision residences abutting the railroad track. Mr. Crean stated he wanted a viable activity center surrounding the Sycamore Inn. He was concerned that Specialty Retail may not be what the area is d~manding at this moment in time and said they need flexibility. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Laura Bonaccorsi stated that when the Design Review Committee reviewed the landscaping they requested that the full Commission review the type of landscaping to be used on the Foothill medians and the type of hardscape, either cobble, bomanite, or concrete pavers. She said Design Review discussed whether the crepe myrtle should vary in color, and if so where. Chairman McNiel preferred adopting a given color for each section. Commissioner Chitiea suggested that the median have a single color with a secondary color introduced in some nodes. She wanted no more than two colors. Commissioner Tolstoy preferred a single color on the entire median. He was agreeable to the second color on either end at the nodes, but he wished to avoid a checkerboard effect. It was the consensus of the Commission that a single color would be used for the median and one accent color would be introduced in some nodes. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the hardscape is not intended for pedestrian use, but that safety of those maintaining the area must be considered. She wondered if pavers might shift. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the maintenance people would prefer and if there are any particular problems with any of the suggested surfaces. Ms. Bonaccorsi responded that cobble is the least stable to walk on and there are few problems with concrete pavers. She said bomanite may have a slippery surface when wet. She indicated all three treatments are acceptable to CalTrans so long as the cobble or bomanite material is grouted and the pavers have a concrete band surrounding them. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he preferred cobble but he was worried about the safety of the maintenance crews. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that cobble would be the least desirable from a maintenance standpoint, and she did not wish to see closure of lanes in order Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 14, 1990 to perform maintenance work. As she wished to see integration with the more urban activity nodes at the major intersections, she asked what has been proposed at the major intersections. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the material has not been selected as yet. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that as projects have come in, the City has been recommending concrete pavers in the pedestrian plazas. He said that bomanite does not give the same richness as with interlocking pavers. Commissioner Chitiea stated she preferred there be the most consistency and that the area be tied together in the best way possible. Commissioner Blakesley liked the idea of cobble because of its texture and appearance, but he felt safety and consistency considerations should be overriding. He felt interlocking pavers in the median could be aesthetically flat. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what color was considered. Ms. Bonaccorsi stated it was a brick red color. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if any other colors were available. Commissioner Chitiea stated a variegated pattern was considered within each brick as opposed to creating a variation by using selected colors. She said there was very little choice in that pattern. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would prefer the sunburst color. Commissioner Weinberger concurred with the use of pavers. Ms. Bonaccorsi suggested patterns and colors could be established at Design Review. Mr. Buller asked for clarification on whether the Commission would like the paver set in concrete or banded by concrete. Commissioner Tolstoy preferred more brick. Commissioner Chitiea preferred the finished look of the banding. Commissioner Blakesley preferred more of the paver. It was the consensus of the Commission, 4 - 1 with Chitiea opposed, to opt for the all-paver look. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the property at the end of San Bernardino Road would not be a desirable place to live because of its proximity to the railroad track and the Community Commercial activity across the street. She felt Community Commercial or Office/Professional would be more appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 14, 1990 Mr. Buller stated Medium Residential is an existing land use immediately adjacent to the east. He stated the issue was before the Commissioners now in order to designate the surplus Flood Control property. He stated that if the Commission wished to consider changing the existing Medium Residential, then the item would need to be readvertised. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Chitiea regarding the desirability of living in the area, but he did not think the parcel would be a viable commercial piece unless the existing Medium Residential was also rezoned. Mr. Buller stated there is an approved office project plus some existing apartments and it would require additional analysis before deciding that the existing Medium Residential should be changed. Commissioner Blakesley stated he had no problem with making the north side consistent as Medium Residential in the interim. He felt for the sake of consistency, the small parcel should be designated Medium Residential and the entire area could be examined for a future change. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Mr. Buller stated that when the applicant attempts to develop the parcel as Medium Residential he may find that it does not make sense, and he may then coordinate with the other property owners for an overall project. He recommended that the Commission not modify any of the setback standards, as the applicant may apply for a variance if the setbacks do not work. It was the consensus of the Commission that the parcel be designated Medium Residential with no change in the setbacks. Commissioner Blakesley agreed with staff's recommendation that language be added to clarify that office and administrative uses are ancillary uses within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and should require a Conditional Use Permit if their use is to exceed 50 percent of a master planned development. He stated that if the uses are permitted by right, the Commission loses control. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to add the language clarifying the Specialty Retail definition. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the-Resolution recommending approval of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90-01, with n~difications to specify a single color of crepe myrtle with one accent color for the medians and the use of concrete pavers for the hardscape on the median. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 14, 1990 G. AMENDMENT TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT ORDINANCE NO. 290 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Chapter 5.12 of the Municipal Code modifying regulations for entertainment permits. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing; hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley stated the amendment makes sense. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Amendment to Entertainment Permit Ordinance No. 290. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried OLD BUSINESS H. POLICY DIRECTIVE FOR MINIMUM LENGTH OF MEDIAN ISLANDS WITHIN THE CITY Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the proposed median modifications in detail. Commissioner Blakesley asked the approximate total length ota 300-foot landscape median with two left turn lanes on either end. Mr. James responded it would be approximately 760 feet in total length. Commissioner Tolstoy asked whether Church Street is projected to be busier than Terra Vista Parkway. Mr. James responded that Church Street is projected to be busier because it connects directly to Haven. Chairman McNiel asked if the isolated left-turn lane cuts were reducing the landscape median because there is only enough room for left-turn lanes. Mr. James stated that is what has occurred with existing improvements. Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 14, 1990 Chairman McNiel stated that the Terra Vista Community Plan concept calls for landscape medians. Mr. Horner stated that Church Street is the only street on which the new policy would not allow mid-block openings with the exception of an opening at the hospital. He said there are opportunities for mid-block openings on Terra Vista Parkway. He said the City is proposing decreasing the four existing openings from Spruce to Milliken down to two. Commissioner Blakesley felt the original intent was to have a median. Commissioner Chitiea stated the original idea was to have a nice greenbelt down the middle of the street. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and said another intent was to make the streets an efficient circulation system to allow the Terra Vista residents to access shopping areas within Terra Vista without exiting to Milliken, Base Line, or Haven. He felt the efficient traffic flow is as important as the needed landscaping. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City had considered median crossings for emergency vehicles. Chairman McNiel asked if the medians will have rolled curb at some locations to allow emergency access. Mr. Hanson stated that such emergency access would also be used by normal vehicular traffic. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that if the curb is low enough for emergency vehicles, it is used by other drivers; and if it is raised to discourage normal traffic, the emergency vehicles will not use it. Chairman McNiel invited public comments, but there were none. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept staff's recommendations regarding installation and removal of median island openings on Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway, as shown in Exhibit B. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution establishing Policy Directive for Minimum Length of Median Islands Within the City. Motion carried By the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 14, 1990 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. POLICY DETERMINATION TO CLARIFY THE 50~000 SQUARE FOOT GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR LIGHT WHOLESALEt STORAGE~ AND DISTRIBUTION TYPE OF USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Ron Bradshaw, Bixby Ranch Company, 3010 Old Rancho Parkway, Seal Beach, stated his company developed the 35-acre Bixby Business Park. He felt the 50,000 square foot limitation should not apply to all activities within a building, but that staff should have the flexibility to separately consider all other activities within a building. He felt that because the proposed building was not being built as a spec building but rather for a specified user, each use should be considered separately. He stated the building being proposed will not be a warehouse building, but is designed to accommodate a number of uses. He said the user in question needs a high-end office area and showroom and that only 50,000 square feet of the building would be utilized for warehouse use. He felt that land values in the area do not equate with warehouse/distribution He felt the proposed user would be a good neighbor to the other businesses in the project and stated that the project architect and proposed owner/user were available to answer questions. Chairman McNiel stated that the object of the Light Wholesale, Storage and Distribution classification is to insure an office park concept. He asked if the drawings presented by the applicant were conceptual only. Mr. Bradshaw responded affirmatively. Chairman McNeil stated that once a building is built, there no way to insure that the building will not be converted to strictly wareho, ~ use. Mr. Bradshaw stated they would not be building a spec building but one with an intended use. He stated that the applicant would be 'an owner/user. He said that the proposed applicant wishes to be in an upscale area and they will not go into a strictly industrial area. He stated that a second generation user could of course change the use. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley agreed with staff's interpretation that the 50,000 square foot limitation should apply to all activities within the building. He felt the proposed use might be closer to light manufacturing. Mr. Guarracino stated staff is looking for a policy determination to be applied not only to this project but also throughout the Industrial Park designation. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 14, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked if the possibility of two buildings had been investigated. Mr. Guarracino responded that two buildings would require additional parking, and it would be difficult to fit on the site. He said two buildings might perhaps be considered two distinct users; or if they remained on one parcel and had only one business license, they could still perhaps be considered as only one use. Commissioner Blakesley stated that two buildings would not be a very efficient way to operate. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with staff's interpretation. She felt it is important to consider the general building mass and bulk and the type of traffic generation. She felt the City made specific designations of size with surrounding uses in mind. She was uncomfortable with moving away from the original intent after having spent so much time clarifying and creating subareas with respect to other development. She stated the City would encourage the potential use in the City but needs to be sure the use occurs in the proper location with respect to the streets, traffic, etc. She felt perhaps another location would be more appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner Weinberger felt there is plenty of surrounding property that would work. She concurred with staff's interpretation. Chairman McNiel stated he did not disagree with the policy, but he felt the language should be rewritten to make it more clear. He agreed one of the reasons for the section is to maintain the control of the mass and scale of the buildings. He asked if the Commissioners would find it acceptable if the developer returned with two buildings for the site. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would depend on the design. Commissioner Chitiea felt the site was too small to accommodate two buildings. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it is important to consider the specific site. He stated that in working with the applicant during preliminary review it appeared that the site in question is a tight one, and it would be difficult to blend the level of use the applicants wish on the property. He stated the use would be extremely attractive for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, but additional land may be needed. He said the use would be a permitted use across the street because the boundary for Medium Light Wholesale Storage and Distribution is at that street. He stated that when Bixby first master planned the area there was emphasis that the area is to have a campus-like setting. Commissioner Blakesley asked if there is a limitation in the area on the size of a building. Planning Commission Minutes -19- March 14, 1990 Mr. Buller responded there is none. Commissioner Blakesley stated that he felt the City is then imposing an artificial constraint and he would prefer to find a way to allow the applicant to build the type of building they want than to force them to build two buildings and have an inefficient operation. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel the applicant could logically divide the building into two buildings. Mr. Guarracino stated that if the Commission directed staff to interpret the 50,000 square foot limitation to only apply to the wholesale, storage, and distribution activities, then it would leave gray areas. Staff would then have to determine if shipping and receiving, common areas, and aisle ways are part of a warehouse storage use or ancillary uses not to be counted. Commissioner Chitiea felt staff time should not have to be wasted trying to make such determinations. She did not feel staff should have to get involved in fighting over square footage within the buildings. She stated that it is understood that the buildings will all have some sort of office area and the use determination is for the main use. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to interpret the 50,000 square foot limitation to apply to all activities within a building. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel stated he agreed with the concept but felt that the language should be rewritten for better clarity. J. AB 939 LEGISLATION Diane O'Neal, Administrative Analyst, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Planning Commission's role is to take the Source Reduction and Recycling Element generated by the Environmental Management Commission and adopt it into the General Plan. Ms. O'Neal stated both Commissions would provide input into the Element and it would be adopted by both Commissions. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the City investigate the efforts and programs undertaken in Davis, California. He asked if there has been any thought to what will happen to all the recycled items that cities collect if there is no market generated. Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 14, 1990 Chairman McNiel asked for clarification on the Governor's Waste Management Board. Ms. O'Neal stated the task force has not yet been established and the Chairman of the Waste Management Board stated they are still accepting applications. Chairman McNiel stated he might be interested in applying. Commissioner Chitiea suggested contacting the City of Claremont to see if they had any suggestions for implementation of the program. Ms. O'Neal stated they were familiar with the on-going recycling program in Claremont. She said the City is participating in regional meetings set up by the County. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it is important for the Cit~ to raise the conscious level of the public regarding waste generation and recycling. Commissioner Chitiea felt the City has a responsibility to its citizens to start making sure something is going to happen. She felt the City needs to investigate what is being done with the collected waste. Commissioner Tolstoy stated recycling is a most important endeavor, but he did not want to spend a lot of money collecting recyclable materials and then find there is no one to take the collected materials. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if there is no place to take the waste, everyone just gives up. Commissioner Blakesley stated that one of the significant elements is also control of generation. Commissioner Weinberger stated that the County landfills are filling fast. She said that a waste-to-energy plant was almost built in Ontario. Chairman McNiel complimented Ms. O'Neal for her efforts on organizing the overview of the legislation. Ms. O'Neal stated that Larry Henderson had assisted in the preparation of the report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by McNiel, to approve the work schedule to develop the Source Reduction and Recycling Element for the General Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -21- March 14, 1990 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 11:00 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned to a March 15, 1990 workshop at the Tolstoy residence, 9540 Hillside, Rancho Cucamonga at 5:00 P.M. to discuss the Work Program for 1990 - 1992. Respectfully submitted, Sec reta ry Planning Commission Minutes -22- March 14, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 1, 1990 Joint Workshop Chairman Schmidt called the joint meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission to order at 5:30 P.M. The meeting was held at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy, ABSENT: David Blakesley, Larry McNiel, Betsy Weinberger HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Melicent Arner, Marsha Banks, Gene Billings, Ada Cooper, Alan Haskvitz, Steve Preston, Bob Schmidt ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Jeff Gravel, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Lori Moore, Assistant Planner; Shelley Petrelli, Senior Office Assistant; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner Also present was Gina Vasquez, Daily Report. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, introduced the Commissioners and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to look at what had been done in the past with regard to joint processing of projects and to consider the future. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission have the same thoughts regarding preservation, and he said he would like to see more diligence in the area. Commissioner Banks stated that more historic structures are being saved, but she felt diligence is still required. She felt the City should find a place to move historic homes in order to save them. She requested that more concern be given to the development surrounding historic structures to avoid isolating the structures. She felt historic structures should be integrated into the surrounding areas. Commissioner Chitiea stated the Planning Commission needs to hear about the thinking of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding historic structures. -She wanted to know if the Historic Preservation Commission feels it is important to preserve the location in addition to the architectural structure. Commissioner Haskvitz felt that a plan of action should be initiated to move some of the historic structures which will be demolished when the freeway is constructed. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the Historic Preservation Commission favored a Heritage Square concept. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that concept was discussed at one time and Joe DiIorio had proposed giving money to Chaffey College to create such an area, but the plans did not materialize. He hoped another area could be found. Commissioner Banks asked if the Planning Commission could suggest such an area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that during the first General Plan process a suggestion was made that downtown Alta Loma could be used for an historical interest area. He felt perhaps an historical village could be started in that area around the railroad station in Etiwanda. Commissioner Preston stated the City should be careful that they do not create a "cutesey" ghetto. He felt an assemblage of transplanted homes would not feel like a real neighborhood and thought it would be better to have the historical homes remain part of a real neighborhood. Commissioner Banks agreed that it is always preferable to have the historical homes remain part of a neighborhood, but in actuality that has not happened. She said the Commissions cannot regulate the amount of land surrounding historical homes and she would rather see the houses moved than have them fenced off within new development. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Planning Commission cannot tell a developer they cannot develop land they own which surrounds an historical house. Commissioner Chitiea stated that sometimes historical homes are already located in areas with substantial development adjacent. Commissioner Banks asked if it would not be possible for the surrounding homes to open up their yards toward the historical homes instead of blocking them off with fencing. She felt perhaps shrubs could be utilized to make the surroundings more compatible. Planning and HPC Workshop Minutes -2- March 1, 1990 Commissioner Preston felt landscaping options should be considered. He felt it would not be unreasonable to tell a developer they needed to lower density and perhaps chain link fencing could be used with landscaping if restrictions were placed on the property to allow the landscaping to grow. Brad Buller,-City Planner, suggested that some historical structures may end up being used under adaptive reuse conditions. Commissioner Banks felt that if historical structures were moved to a block of land such as by the railroad track, more than one house should be moved, and some new development should also be integrated into the area. She did not want just a village of historical homes. Commissioner Preston felt it is important not to view the historical homes merely as museum pieces, but they should be lived in or used for some type of office, professional, or retail use. Commissioner Chitiea felt it is important not to destroy the neighborhood and that landscaping is important to preserve the essence. Commissioner Cooper stated that the Christmas House was donated to the San Bernardino County Museum Society before the City was incorporated. She said the Society in turn sold it to its present owners. She suggested a block south of the Santa Fe Railroad by Archibald be preserved because it has a lot of little houses that were built in the twenties and thirties. Commissioner Banks felt perhaps a district could be recognized as historically significant as a group. Commissioner Preston stated there are only limited funds available and the Commission should determine if it would be most beneficial to allocate the money toward saving neighborhoods or buildings only. Commissioner Cooper stated there is currently a house on Archibald that will soon be lost. Mr. Buller asked the Commissioners to advise staff if they know of successful historic preservation efforts in other cities. He stated there are some success stories of mixing historical homes in industrial areas and it is important to see other examples of successful preservation and integration. Commissioner Banks stated that the Historical Preservation Commission is open to adaptive reuse. She felt historical structures should be preserved for the benefit of the entire City, not just a private owner. She said she has been working with the owners of the Minor House to open it as a business. Mr. Buller felt the City could find ways to economically encourage adaptive reuse. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like the Historic Preservation Commission to identify neighborhoods that need General Plan recognition. He felt that would not cost a lot of money, mostly time. Planning and HPC Workshop'Minutes -3- March 1, 1990 Commissioner Banks felt it did not need to cost a lot of money to encourage adaptive reuse or to identify neighborhoods. Commissioner Chitiea felt that as specific neighborhoods are identified perhaps Redevelopment Agency funds could be utilized to help the neighborhoods revitalize on their own. Commissioner Banks stated that the National Trust Conference in Pasadena recognized Riverside as doing the best job of preserving homes from all eras. Commissioner Haskvitz asked what the Planning Commission approves when reviewing shopping centers. Commissioner Chitiea stated the Planning Commission reviews everything including site plan, orientation, and design. Commissioner Tolstoy added that they also review how the center will fit into the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Haskvitz suggested that perhaps developers could use a significant historical house or building that has already been lost as a basis for a design theme. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when the Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted, such things as front porches, open yards, and rock curbs were considered, and some of those features were adopted into the plan in order to retain a sense of the old Etiwanda. He felt the development has successfully integrated those features. Commissioner Chitiea suggested showing photographs of historical structures to architects early in the development process. Commissioner Banks stated that the Terra Vista Towne Center and the Mission Winery Center successfully carried out architectural themes. Commissioner Chitiea stated that working together makes a big difference. Commissioner Banks stated that after visiting other cities she remembers the historical structures, not the modern ones. Commissioner Haskvitz stated there is nothing to honor Route 66. Mr. Buller stated the City had recently received received a letter from a committee trying to recognize Route 66 as an historical corridor and to revitalize it as a commercial area and Community Development Director Rick Gomez will be the liaison to that committee. He said Mr. Gomez will be reporting to the City Council on the activities of the committee. Commissioner Haskvitz felt Route 66 could be a great tourist attraction. Planning and HPC Workshop Minutes -4- March 1, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea expressed concern that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan be a guide to any future design proposals regarding Route 66. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated the Commissions need to be careful that they do not try to apply architectural styles that do not work for the type of build-ing or activity. Commissioner Banks felt the style of the shopping center at Foothill and Archibald looks out of character. Mr. Kroutil stated that center was approved prior to the General Plan adoption. He stated that national chain stores have a pre-set floor plan and that only the exterior of the building can be changed. He felt it is important that the buildings are functional in concept. Mr. Buller stated that the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission would be working more closely together during the next 18 months. He said that the City has been approached regarding development surrounding the Beverly Hills House. He said the City is working toward moving the Ledig House to a site by the Neighborhood Center and the building will be used to house City staff. He indicated the City has also received a proposal for the area around the Sycamore Inn and that current plans call for creation of a courtyard surrounding the Sycamore Inn. He stated the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission would be meeting to review proposals. ADJOURN ME NT The meeting adjourned at 6:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning and HPC Workshop Minutes -5- March 1, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 28, 1990 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Betsy We i nberger STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Ping Kho, Assistant Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the wastewater treatment facility field trip on February 24, 1990 had been interesting. Mr. Buller announced that tonight's meeting should adjourn to a special joint workshop meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission to be held from 5:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, March 1, 1990 at tlqe Lions Center. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, carried with Tolstoy abstaining to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of February 8, 1990. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of February 14, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF LIBERTY STREET - A request to vacate a portion of Liberty Street, located west of London Avenue, approximately 10 feet wide and 130 feet long - Tentative Tract 13898 - APN: 201-251-57. B. DISPOSITION OF 2.31 GROSS ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 8TH STREET AND BAKER AVENUE - APN: 207-541-60 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, unanimously carried to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 12854 - STYLE HOMES A subdivision of 19.8 net acres of land into one parcel and a remainder parcel in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of East Avenue between Catalpa Street and Victoria Street - APN: 227-051-19 and 227-06~-57, 73, and 74. Barrye Hanson, Deputy City Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Doug Mays, L. D. King, 2151 East "D" Street, Suite 120A, Ontario, stated they agreed with the conditions and he was available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel stated the project appeared to be a straight-forward land split. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 12854. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 28, 1990 D. DESIGN REVIEW AND AMENDED TRACT MAP FOR TRACT 14121 - RHOADES DEVELOPMENT - The design review of building elevations, detailed site plan, and amended map for a previously approved tract map consisting of 46 single family lots on 9.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at the Southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Milliken Avenue APN: 202-211-48. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and recommended an additional finding be added to the Resolution, as suggested by the City Attorney, to indicate that the previously approved Negative Declaration for Tract 14121 would be adequate for this project. He stated that the applicant had reviewed the additional finding and did not object to the wording. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Stan Morse, Morse Consulting Group Engineers, 4860 Irvine Boulevard, Irvine, stated that Jeff Rhoades, of Rhoades Development agreed with all the conditions of approval except for Engineering Condition 2. He requested that the condition be changed to provide that the amended final map be approved prior to occupancy instead of prior to issuance of building permits because he said they were currently in plan check and wished to pull building permits within the next two to three weeks. He stated the same situation had occurred before in Victoria and therefore this request had a precedent. He said they could not sell anything until the tract was recorded, so there would be no negative consequences for the City. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated there has been at least one tract in the City where the City allowed development to occur and because the builder sold some lots before the map recorded, it was difficult to get the various owners to sign off to allow recordation of the map. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the City should utilize the leverage of permits to be sure the map is recorded. He also said that in order to issue building permits the building official must find that the tract is in conformance with codes and if the final map has not been recorded, then the project is not in conformance with codes. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how a lot could be sold if a tract map does not exist. Barrye Hanson stated that the developer already has a tract map recorded, but during Design Review it became apparent that lot line adjustments were needed. He stated the applicant could sell the old lots. Commissioner Chitiea felt the City could be placed in a difficult position if it allowed develepment before recordation of the final tract map and she saw no reason to deviate from the normal process. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 28, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the City would lose control of the process. Commissioner Blakesley concurred. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask the applicant to indicate why the City-should deviate from the process. Mr. Morse stated they would agree not to sell any lots under the old tract map. He stated they were currently grading to the new lot lines. He asked if the Resolution could not be conditioned to prohibit the sale of any lots before the final map is approved. He said it would take three months to process the final map and the building plans are currently in plan check. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Ralph Hanson stated that the City should not get involved in trying to prevent the sale of private land. He stated that if model homes were being built, they could be built prior to recordation of the map because that is permitted under the model home portion of the Development Code. Chairman McNiel stated that the City would remain at risk if they chose to allow construction to begin prior to recordation of the map. He stated he would like to accommodate the developer but felt he could not in good conscience. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review and A4nended Tract Map for Tract 14121, with modification to add a finding that the previously approved Negative Declaration for Tract 14121 would apply. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried E. MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 89-02 - POLO GROUNDS - A request to modify Entertainment Permit 89-02 by adding talent show as an additional entertainment use for a restaurant located at 10877 Foothill Boulevard APN: 208-382-10. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, and hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea felt that "singing and/or dancing acts" is a vague, loose definition and wondered how the City could protect itself. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 28, 1990 Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, stated the Commission's concern would be the effect of any entertainment rather than the entertainment itself. Commissioner Blakesley asked if the Commission could revoke this permitted use at a later time if the use proves to cause problems. Commissioner'Chitiea did not wish to approve a use that would provoke behavior that would concern the Sheriff. Mr. Hanson stated that if the use expanded to fit the definition of the adult uses ordinance then that later ordinance would take effect. Chairman McNiel supported approving the permit. Commissioner Blakesley asked if the entertainment permit could be further modified by the City if the use should create problems, or if the entire entertainment permit would have to be pulled. Mr. Hanson stated the Commission could conduct revocation hearings regarding the entertainment permit and at that time conditions could be modified. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if the Commission could determine that the byproduct of the entertainment causes problems for the area, then revocation or modification could be considered. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Entertainment Permit 89-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-03 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN~ INC. - The request to establish a medical/health care facility in a leased space of 6,200 square feet within an existing office park on 1.57 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 10787 Laurel Street APN: 208-352-14. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned that only 31 parking spaces are designated for the facility and the application indicates a maximum of 30 employees. He asked where patients would park. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 28, 1990 Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the applicant could address the parking issue for this particular facility. Mr. Bullet stated that the current code standard is one space per 200 square feet for medical offices and that perhaps the Commission might find that Kaiser is unique with a greater intensity medical use. He said that if the Commission found Kaiser to be unique it may be appropriate to condition this application for additional parking. However, if the Commission felt that this applicant was not unique, he suggested the Commission may wish to direct staff to study the parking requirements for medical facilities and consider an amendment to the Development Code. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Vance Furukawa, Kaiser Permanente Health Plan, 393 East Walnut, Pasadena, stated they had indicated 30 employees on the application before they had the plans finalized. He said Kaiser now plans to have only 17 - 18 employees in the building and would be willing to accept a limit of 20 employees in the Resolution. Mr. Bullet asked if Kaiser was planning to accept walk-ins or if they would be seeing patients by appointment only. He felt the demand for parking would be lessened if they see patients by appointments only. Mr. Furukawa stated the facility would only see patients with appointments and that all emergency cases and same-day appointments would be referred to the Kaiser Hospital in Fontana. Chairman McNiel asked if similar facilities were already operating. Mr. Furukawa responded that Kaiser has similar facilities in Claremont and Ontario, but this projected facility is smaller than those. He stated they usually have 16 24 providers {doctors or nurse practitioner), but this facility would only have 5 providers. Mr. Bullet stated it would be difficult to enforce the limit on number of employees and he suggested the Commission may wish to add a condition to the Resolution to state that if the intensity of the use proves to be such that it generates a parking problem for the center, that the Conditional Use Permit could be reviewed by the Commission for possible modification or revocation. Mr. Furukawa stated that the existing medical use in the center generates a tremendous amount of parking demands and asked how it would be determined that any parking problem is generated by Kaiser. Mr. Buller agreed that it would not be easy to determine if any parking problems are generated by Kaiser or the existing medical facility, but stated that the condition could be added to this and any future Conditional Use Permits for the center. He stated it would be possible to still go back and reconsider the original Conditional Use Permit if it were to be determined that any parking problems were generated by the original medical facility. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 28, 1990 Dan Richards, 8331 Utica, Suite 200, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the site consists of 5 buildings on 6 lots with a common parking lot with reciprocal parking easements, with an additional 35 common spaces more than needed for the entire project. He did not envision any parking problems. He stated the addition of the condition on the parking would be acceptable. Hearing no f~rther testimony, the public hearing was closed. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that City code requirements indicate there is an excess of 22 spaces if the remainder of the facility is leased out as straight office space, the least intense use. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was happy that Kaiser has selected Rancho Cucamonga as a site for expanding their facilities but he had concerns regarding the parking even with the additional 22 spaces. He stated that in his experience with an HMO there are generally 2 - 3 patients waiting for each provider in addition to the patient the provider is currently seeing. He anticipated that there would be parking problems, particularly if another prospective tenant for the site required a more intense parking use than office. Chairman McNiel stated that approval of this project would definitely limit future leasing possibilities. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned that the City code is not adequate for medical office use. He requested that staff conduct a study to determine if the parking ratio should be adjusted. Commissioner Blakesley agreed that a study should be conducted to determine if the rate should be adjusted or to allow the Commissioners to feel more comfortable with the standard. Commissioner Chitiea concurred that a parking study should be conducted. Because the applicant had indicated they would see patients on an appointment- only basis, she was willing to support the project with monitoring and careful attention to the remainder of the project. Chairman McNiel concurred with requesting a parking study. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-03 with modifications to limit the number of employees to 20 and to provide for review of the Conditional Use Permit should it be determined that the intensity of the use be such that it generates a parking problem for the center. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 2B, 1990 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-02 - BUSHEY - The request to establish an automotive sales training center in a leased space of 1,039 square ~et within an existing office building on 1.05 acres of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive - APN: 208-622-35. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Kevin Bushey, 8325 Naven, Suite 130, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they did not anticipate more than five students per class. He indicated the training is to improve the ability of people to deal with the public. Chairman McNiel asked if all training would occur indoors. Mr. Bushey responded affirmatively, except for demonstration drive training. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea felt the school was a good idea and she supported the project. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER -carried Commissioner Tolstoy felt the parking ratio of one space per three students is inadequate ~r private, adult instructional schools. He requested that staff review other cities to determine their standards. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS H. USE DETERMINATION 90-01 - DO - A request for the Planning Commission to determine whether a convenience store land use is allowed as a permitted or a conditionally permitted use in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comments, but there were none. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 28, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea stated she had been involved with the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and a lot of time was spent on the plan to pay particular attention to the design of Foothill Boulevard. She felt that there is a great difference between a convenience store and a market, based on the amount of time customers spend in the facility. She thought convenience stores and )iquor stores are more closely aligned. She felt it would be appropriate to allow convenience stores under the Conditional Use Permit process, which would afford the Commission the opportunity to attach special conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a distinction should be made between Community Commercial and Specialty Commercial. Commissioner Chitiea stated that Specialty Commercial is intended to be thematic or unique, a level above Community Commercial. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the convenience store use might be appropriate in Community Commercial but not Specialty Commercial. Commissioner Chitiea agreed. Chairman McNiel felt that the use should be permitted in both land use categories in order to provide the service to all residents. He felt projects could be conditioned to make the use appropriate in the Specialty Commercial land use area. Commissioner Chitiea felt so long as the Conditional Use Permit process is utilized it would be acceptable to allow convenience stores in the Community Commercial land use category because the Commission could make sure the use would be compatible within the proposed center and with surrounding residences. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that many convenience stores have gas pumps in connection with convenience stores and he felt the use is unsightly and tends to lead to messiness. He felt trash containers should be required and did not feel the use is appropriate in the Specialty Commercial area. Commissioner Chitiea stated that traffic conflicts are a serious concern. Commissioner Blakesley felt that convenience stores are a particularly sensitive use, akin to a liquor store. He felt their development should be limited by the Conditional Use Permit process and he stated he could support not allowing them in Specialty Commercial. Chairman McNiel felt that a convenience store would probably have the same range of merchandise as the Gemmel Pharmacy proposed at the Thomas Winery project. Commissioner Chitiea responded that Gemmel Pharmacy will not be open twenty- four hours a day selling coffee. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 28, 1990 Chairman McNiel felt the Commission was anticipating problems which can be avoided. Commissioner Chitiea stated that was why the Conditional Use Permit process should be utilized. Commissioner-Blakesley stated that if the use were merely a permitted use, the Commission may not have an opportunity to impose conditions. The Commission unanimously agreed that the convenience store use is similar in nature to a liquor store and would be conditionally permitted in the Community Commercial and Special Commercial land use categories. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that all such projects should be conditioned to provide ~r appropriate and adequate trash receptacles. COMMISSION BUSINESS I. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman McNiel suggested that Commissioner Weinberger be appointed to the Residential team and Commissioner Blakesley become the Alternate. He stated he wished to switch to Commercial/Industrial at the next six-month rotation. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it would be appropriate ~r Commissioner Weinberger to join the Residential team, as it would allow the new Commissioner to become an alternate when Commissioner Blakesley is replaced. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Residential team will be composed of Commissioners McNiel and Weinberger, the Commercial/Industrial team will be composed of Commissioners Chitiea and Tolstoy, and Commissioner Blakesley will be the alternate. Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Mike Ma~i has been promoted to edi~r at the Daily Report and Gina Vasquez will now cover City news. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Stiles, address unknown, stated he was a new resident and wanted to view a meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 28, 1990 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 8:45 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned to a March 1, 1990 joint workshop meeting at the Lions Center with the Historic Preservation Commission to discuss joint review processing. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 28, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 14, 1990 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner announced that Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, had been recognized as the City Employee of the Month for February 1990. Mr. Buller announced that a Joint Meeting had been scheduled with the Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission at 5:30 P.M. on March 1. Mr. Buller stated that on March 15, 1990 there will be a Planning Commission Workshop to review the Planning work program and budget for the next two years. Mr. Buller stated that this evening's meeting would be adjourning to a February 22 Planning Commission Workshop to discuss regional mall design concepts. Mr. Buller stated that the tour of wastewater treatment plants would be on Saturday, February 24, from 7:30 A.M. to noon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Weinberger, carried with Tolstoy abstaining and Chitiea absent, to adopt the minutes of the January 4, 1990 Joint Meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Blakesley, carried with Chitiea absent, to adopt the minutes of January 24, 1990. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-25 - BURKE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - The development of a multi-tenant business park totaling 142,330 square feet on 9.6 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Trademark Street and Center Avenue - APN: 210-072-33. (Continued from January 24, 1990) B. VACATION OF UTICA AVENUE - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11410 UTICA-HAVEN ASSOCIATES - A request to vacate a portion of Utica Avenue, approximately 3 feet wide and 766 feet long, located south of Arrow Route to the north property line of Parcel I of Parcel Map 10008 - APN: 209-144-57. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, carried with Chitiea absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 13125 BURKE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - The creation of one 9.6 acre parcel for condominium purposes in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Trademark Street and Center Avenue - APN: 210-072-33. Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Mitchell, Gary Mitchell and Associates, 10722 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, supported staff's recommendation of approval and stated he was available to answer questions. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 13125. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 14, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-01 - ASSOCIATION OF RETARDED CITIZENS~ ONTARIO AND POMONA (O.P.A.R.C.) The request to establish a personal service in a leased space of 4,420 square feet within an existing industrial park on 8.72 acres of land in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9007 Arrow Route, Suites 160 and 170 - APN: 209-012-19. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the purpose of the project would be to build furniture or if the furniture refinishing was to expand on the abilities of the clientele. Mr. Bertoni responded both purposes would be served. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the possibility of pollutants from the furniture refinishing was considered during the environmental checklist procedure. Mr. Bertoni stated that furniture finishing itself is a permitted use in the industrial area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if special equipment would be required to remove the pollutants from the air. Mr. Bertoni stated that Building and Safety has indicated that any special equipment could be contained within the facility. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there is a disclosure requirement to the Fire District regarding storage and use of any toxic materials. He said that Building and S~f~ty would monitor use in regards to the Health Code. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he asked the question because he had recently noticed in the newspaper that another furniture refinishing operation in the City was moving out of state because of air quality considerations. Commissioner Weinberger stated that all businesses have to adhere to the new Air Quality Management District's restrictions. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ken McCullough, 2360 Sunset Curve, Upland, stated he was one of the board members of O.P.A.R.C. He stated that O.P.A.R.C. is a non-profit organization that was founded forty years ago and serves the west end of San Bernardino Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 14, 1990 County and the east end of Los Angeles County. He said they currently have approximately 240 clients with various disabilities including mental, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. He said they operate similar to other trade schools except that their clients are very slow. He stated the furniture finishing does not involve any spraying, and therefore does not affect the atmosphere. He introduced their Executive Director, Mary Boyd, and Adult Training Center Director, Megan Gallagher. Chairman McNiel asked if O.P.A.R.C. served only the west end of San Bernardino and the east end of Los Angeles counties. Mr. McCullough responded that O.P.A.R.C. is only a local agency, but it is a member of the Association of Retarded Citizens. Chairman McNiel asked how many people they expected to be at the facility at any given time. Mr. McCullough stated they would be licensed for thirty clients plus a staff of ten. He said that part of the program is to integrate the clients into the community. He said that approximately half the clients would remain at the site all day, while the rest would be performing such services as mowing lawns and janitorial work. Commissioner Weinberger asked if this facility would be their third location. Mr. McCullough responded that this will be the third location for adult training in addition to two other locations not used for training. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was pleased the organization had selected Rancho Cucamonga as the location of their facility and felt they performed a needed service. Commissioner Blakesley supported the project because he felt the use is compatible and there should be no parking conflicts. Commissioner Weinberger concurred. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 14, 1990 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The development of 394 condominium units on 23.5 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Spruce Avenue - APN: 1077-421-13. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. George Chu, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their efforts on the project. Commissioner Tolstoy proposed that the 33 boxed olive trees be placed in a park in a grid fashion representative of the heritage of the groves. He suggested a plaque be placed with the trees. Tom Dellaquila, Western Properties, 1156 West Mountain, Upland, stated that the Park Commission has requested that approximately a dozen trees be moved to the adjacent La Mission Park. He said the park includes a retention basin and olive trees are not recommended for such an area. He felt that because the trees would have to be planted above the basin area it would be difficult to plant the entire 33 trees there. He said staff had directed that the remaining trees be used within the condominium project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see the trees planted in grid fashion. Chairman McNiel felt there would not be enough room to plant them in that fashion in that park. Mr. Dellaquila felt it would be difficult to introduce the grid concept to the park site. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what spacing would be used for the olive trees. Mr. Dellaquila responded they would be planted 30 feet on center. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Blakesley stated he felt it would be a good idea to feature a few acres around the City in historical and/or native vegetation. He supported the project. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested rewording the Resolution to require a minimum of twelve trees be planted in La Mission Park to reflect grove planting with the remainder of the trees planted on the project site. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see some grid-planted olive trees in a park. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 14, lggo Mr. Buller suggested the Planning Commission Chairman could forward a memo to the Park and Recreation Commission indicating the desire that consideration be given to heritage-type planting in future park planning. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13717, with modification to require a minimum of twelve olive trees be planted in La Mission Park and the remainder of the 33 trees be planted on-site. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLE¥, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried F. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13759 DESARCH DESIGN GROUP A residential subdivision of 55 single family lots on 14.01 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 202-201-53. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested clarification of the wording of the Resolution regarding median island construction in-lieu fees and the railroad license provision. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Tim Holst, J. F. Davidson Associates, introduced himself. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Holst had reviewed the suggested wording changes. Mr. Holst responded he had not had an opportunity to review the changes. Chairman McNiel called a recess to allow Mr. Holst time to review the suggested changes. 7:40 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 7:50 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened Mr. Holst stated that he had reviewed the changes with the applicant and they were in agreement. Mr. Holst requested approval of the project. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the resolution approving Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13759, with modifications to clarify the median island construction in-lieu fees and the railroad license requirement. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 14, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLE¥, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried Commissioner Chitiea arrived. NEW BUSINESS G. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 85-31 - REITER/HAVEN GATEWAY PARTNERS - A request to modify the elevations for an approved three-story office building within the Gateway Master Plan, in the Industrial Park and Haven Overlay Districts, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Trademark Parkway North APN: 201-08-17. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Jeff Carlile, C.C.S. Architects, 18823 Bardeen, Irvine, gave a brief history of the project. He stated the revised plans included a large entry statement on Haven. He concurred with the Design Review Committee's recommendations to provide a public art sculpture in the entry plaza and some canopy trees in the interior plaza. He stated they were planning to use the same glass as used in the adjacent one-story buildings. Commissioner Blakesley asked the length of the side of the building. Mr. Carlile responded the building was 219 feet long overall minus the 51 feet they had cut back from the corner. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification of the changes to the elevations regarding the step-backs. Mr. Carlile stated that the originally approved building had two step-backs, but they have now created the step-back appearance with the use of glass. Chairman McNiel asked if the screening material would be the same as on the existing two buildings. Mr. Carlile responded that concrete panels are utilized on the existing one- story buildings but on the new building a glass parapet will be used. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the redesign enhances the building as well as Haven Avenue. He was pleased that the applicant is going to provide public Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 14, 1990 art in front of the building but hoped some canopy trees would also be included in the area to soften the building. He supported the project. Commissioner Chitiea felt the location was appropriate for public art and she expressed appreciation for the applicant's willingness to provide the art. She hoped appropriate lighting would be included with the sculpture and looked forward to seeing the concepts at Design Review. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Modification to Development Review 85-31. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. FONTANA STEEL SIGNAGE An appeal of the City Planner's decision to establish a maximum letter height of 3 feet and 2 feet respectively for two signs and to not approve an illuminated sign at 12451 Arrow Route in Subarea 15 of the Industrial Specific Plan - APN: 229-121-35. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Signs, 2727 South I Street, San Bernardino, stated his company does a lot of work in town and they certainly do not intend to create an eyesore. He stated their proposed sign was not in excess of ten percent of the building, as allowed by Code. He provided a blueprint of the entire building with proposed signs shown to scale. He stated they wanted to use internal illumination on the front of the building because they felt ground lighting would create a glare. He indicated his client has night deliveries and an internally lit sign would make it easier for truckers or emergency vehicles to find the facility. He felt an internally lit sign would also be more pleasing to the eye. He thought the smaller letters proposed by staff would appear postage-stamp sized. Hearing no further testimony, the public heaeing was closed. Commissioner Blakesley stated that it was his opinion that the Arrow side looked fine with the smaller sign, but perhaps a larger sign could be used on the west elevation facing the freeway. He felt it was a good question as to whether the sign should be illuminated with flood lights or internally illuminated. He felt it is possible to do a bad job with either type. He said he presently works in a building which utilizes large sodium lights which shoot up against the side of the building and when exiting the building it is impossible to see into the parking area. He felt that an internally lit sign might be acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 14, 1990 Commissioner Weinberger agreed that the west elevation could be larger because she felt the smaller sign looks disproportionate. She concurred with staff's recommendation on the north elevation. Chairman McNiel felt uncomfortable with the logic that a larger sign should be allowed just because the building is large. He stated the purpose of the signs is to identify and provide direction, not to advertise. He did not feel that bigger is more functional because of the location and thought this facility did not require a larger sign to provide informational signage to potential customers. Commissioner Blakesley felt the sign ordinance takes into account the size of the building by limiting the sign to a maximum of ten percent of the building, but setting a maximum size of 150 square feet. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask the color of the signs. Mr. Quiel presented a sample of the dark blue they plan to use. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Design Review Committee came to the conclusion that the building will not be a retail outlet and it would not be necessary to attract people from the freeway. She felt it might be appropriate to consider an internally illuminated sign, but she felt the nearby Swan Pool sign is overpowering and she did not wish to have that look recreated. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the sign were to be ground lit, what could be done to improve the problem of glare. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Quiel stated it is difficult to direct light exactly on a sign. He said the lights would also hit the building, creating a glare. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he has designed lighting for stages and it is quite easy with stage lighting to light only the desired object without overspill. He felt it should be possible to do the same with ground lighting on the sign. Mr. Quiel stated they had used that type of lighting in the past, but their customer did not feel the light was sufficient. He felt an internally lit sign would be more appealing and distinguished. The public hearing was again closed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that a company in business as long as Quiel Brothers could figure a way to utilize externally lit signs. He felt internally lit canned lighting is more appropriate for retail businesses that are open at night. He thought staff's recommendation regarding size was adequate. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 14, 1990 Commissioner Blakesley concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy that in an industrial area it would be more appropriate to have externally illuminated signs. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with staff's recommendation. Chairman McNiel felt a back lit sign might be appropriate for the industrial area. Commissioners Chitiea, Blakesley, and Tolstoy concurred that a back lit sign might be the solution. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution denying the appeal of the City Planner's decision regarding Fontana Steel Signage. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. MEDIAN OPENINGS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN MEDIANS IN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY Brett Norner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Tom Dellaquila, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated that Don Thompson was ill and unable to attend the meeting this evening. He presented a letter from Mr. Thompson requesting that a median break be approved on Church Street between Elm Avenue and Spruce Street. Mr. Dellaquila said that the City had made a verbal commitment to mid-block openings on all blocks in excess of 1,000 feet. He stated that if a median break were not allowed, the project to the south would have to be redesigned and the land use plan would not be viable. He said they had created a front door concept on the land plans for the condominium project based on a Church Street median opening. He stated Town Center Drive was never meant to be a collector street. He felt the median ~uld not delete as many trees as stated in the staff report. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the concepts envisioned with the Terra Vista Planned Community was that Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway were to provide an internal circulation element for people who live within the community to allow them to shop without going to Haven. He recalled that one of the major concepts was that all of Terra Vista Parkway and Church would have median island beautification. He felt the number of median breaks within Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 14, 1990 the loop should be kept to an absolute minimum. He felt that if the condominium project has its major entrance in the middle of the block, then perhaps the project should be rethought. He stated that as both Elm and Spruce will be signalized in the future, a driver could make a U-turn and return to the project. Commissioner Chitiea felt the loss of the trees for a median break would create a significant reduction in the effect the median is supposed to be creating. She felt the breaks move away from the planned community theme. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the median breaks dilute the design of the planned community. Commissioner Chitiea stated that the breaks would slow down traffic. Chairman McNiel felt that Church Street will be a heavily traveled street and median breaks tend to cause safety problems because of cross traffic. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to direct staff to keep cuts in the median to a minimum. He requested the developer take fewer median cuts into consideration. Chairman McNiel suggested staff prepare a policy resolution setting forth a minimum distance for length of medians with the minimum length being approximately 280-320 feet. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the specific request of Lewis Homes for a median break on Church Street between Elm Avenue and Spruce Street be denied and that staff prepare a policy resolution to set a minimum length of medians at approximately 280-320 feet. J. CONSIDERATION OF RENAMING A PORTION OF ROCHESTER AVENUE Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea asked if alternate names were already selected. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how far south new Rochester is planned to go. Mr. Warren responded that a new project has recently been completed to the south and the street will not go any further south. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated it will become a cul-de-sac bulb. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how many established businesses are on new Rochester. Mr. Warren responded that there are four buildings, but he did not know how many businesses were involved. Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 14, 1990 Commissioner Blakesley stated that the current traffic flow in the area is annoying. He asked what the final configuration will be. Mr. Warren stated that the old section of Rochester north of 16th will be abandoned when the freeway ramp is put in place and Rochester would have a dogleg configuration. Commissioner Blakesley asked if the offramp is still a possibility. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that CalTrans keeps changing its mind. He said they currently have a limitation of one mile between ramps. He stated the City will keep the offramp in their long-range plans. Commissioner Blakesley asked why Rochester was not moved in its entirety to the west to allow one continuous flow. He stated that Rochester now has a lot of traffic, including truck traffic which cannot negotiate the corner very well. Mr. Maguire stated that Rochester will not connect to 4th Street in the ultimate configuration. He stated that Rochester will come to 6th Street and end. He said that 6th Street will be a cross-town arterial and the on/off ramp will actually be for 6th Street. Commissioner Blakesley asked if Milliken will carry the traffic now on Rochester. Mr. Maguire responded that the traffic would be carried on Milliken once Milliken is completed. He said that Rochester, south of 6th Street is not intended to provide anything other than area service. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is not appropriate to have an old Rochester and a new Rochester. He felt staff should be directed to solve the problem. He felt Rochester should have been planned to go all the way from the north part of the City to the south. Chairman McNiel stated that when Milliken and Day Creek are completed some of the problems will be solved. Commissioner Blakesley stated this section lies close to the freeway and he felt it may be appropriate to shut it off. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution to initiate the process to rename portions of Rochester Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 14, 1990 COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission business at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Hampton, 10345 Monte Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he and his neighbors had arrived late and wanted to comment on Item F, Time Extension for Tentative Tract 13717. He was concerned about the impact the project will have on the homes surrounding it. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that a design review application is currently being processed by the City and would be going to Design Review shortly. He thought the proposed homes were two-story at approximately 1,800- 2,000 square feet. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission had approved the Time Extension for the map which had been approved two years ago. Mr. Hampton stated he felt the Commission would not allow anything of inferior quality to be built on the site. Margaret Duncan, 10335 Monte Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the existing block walls would be replaced by the builder. She said she had a wood fence approximately 4-6 feet from her property line and that she had received a letter from the City last year asking about concerns regarding the fence. She said her husband had responded to the letter, but had not heard anything back. Mr. Buller stated that the map was originally conditioned to require the developer to work with existing property owners to try to resolve potential conflicts. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, stated the developer is currently going through a Minor Exception process to allow for an increase in the wall heights and that notices were mailed yesterday to adjacent property owners. Mr. Buller suggested Ms. Duncan obtain the name and address of the developer from Mr. Grahn. There were no further public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 14, 1990 9:10 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned to a February 22, 1990 workshop at Rancho Cucamonga City Hall following Design Review to review regional mall design concepts. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 14, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting February 8, 1990 Sports Complex & Central Park Workshop Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was held at the City Offices, 9420 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner. SPORTS COMPLEX (Northwest corner of Arrow Highway and Rochester Avenue) Consultant team present: Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group; and Michael Schaefer and Yih-Chian Liaw, Grillas, Pirc, Rosier, Alves The purpose of this workshop was to discuss architectural concepts for the sports complex facility. The consultant team presented a new architectural solution, Alternative "Q", prepared as a result of previous discussions with the members of the Planning Commission. The commission accepted Alternative "Q" in concept, with a green metal roof and a red and green seating color scheme. The consultant is to pursue development of this alternative for formal submittal to the City in the near future. CENTRAL PARK (Northwest corner of Milliken & Base Line Road) Consultant team present: Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group; and Kip Grubb, Dale Lang, and David Dean, Wolff/Lang/Christopher The purpose of this workshop was to review the Omnicenter Design Program and schematic floor plans. The consultant team updated the Commission on progress to date with the various committees appointed by the City Council. Conceptual layouts and floor plans for the four buildings (Library, Performing Arts Center, Community Center, Arts Center) were presented. It was noted that some of the structures had grown significantly in size and scale from the original Master Plan. The Commission expressed concern that the expanded size of the Omnicenter and its buildings, as well as the additional parking required to support these expanded facilities, might have a negative effect on the remainder of the park; as the Omnicenter and associated parking expands, usable open space in park areas will necessarily be affected. It was noted that steps should be considered to .minimize this impact by considering underground parking and other techniques to keep these facilities in scale and in balance with the rest of the overall park area. The Commission also commented on the architectural sketches presented and expressed a strong desire that the previously approved architectural theme be maintained. In the Commission's view, the sketch shown was inconsistent with the original concept. It was agreed that another workshop would be scheduled in early March when the architectural concept for the Library is better developed. Meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 8, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 24, I9gO 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Biakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fon9, Senior Planner; Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the City had received a letter from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District regarding item D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of January 10, 1990, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13621 - SAHAMA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tentative tract consisting of 7 single family lots on 5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Hillside Road - APN: 201-101-04. Related Tree Removal Permit 90-01. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-25 - BURKE COMMERCIAl DEVELOPMENT The development of a multi-tenant business park totaling 142,330 square feet on 9.6 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Trademark Street and Center Avenue - APN: 210-072-33. Commissioner Chitiea requested that Item A be removed from the consent calendar. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried to continue Environmental Assessment for Development Review 89-25 to February 14 1990. ' DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13621 Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He stated the applicant had expressed concern about the design of the walls with the stone pilasters. Commissioner Chitiea felt the Commission should discuss placement of the wall in the rear of the lots at the property lines. She stated that the Commission's policy in the past has been to require perimeter masonry walls and questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness of that policy on half-acre lots. She felt masonry walls would clearly define the boundary of the equestrian trail and would perhaps help avoid encroachment on the bridle trail. Chairman McNiel stated it was his understanding that the applicant wished to delete the pilasters on the interior walls where the wall backed up to other lots and would be willing to construct masonry walls instead of using wood fencing between the lots in exchange for deletion of the pilasters on the perimeter walls except for Hillside Road. Mr. Guarracino stated the developer proposed block walls along the trail adjacent to Lots 4, 5, and 6 and between Lots I and 2, 2 and 3, 4 and 5, and 5 and 6 in exchange for elimination of the pilasters on the north, east, and west perimeter boundaries. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested a pilaster might be appropriate at the northwest corner of the property. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated tha~the wall would be stepped down at' that point because it could not be higher than ~hree °feet, as it would be in the setback. Commissioner Tolstoy stated a pilaster would then be out of place. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to eliminate the pilasters on the perimeter boundaries except for Hillside Road. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 24, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea asked if there was an opening from the bridle easement to the next tract. Mr. Guarracino stated there would be an opening. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred with staff's recommendation regarding removal and replanting of the trees on the north property boundary. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Design Review for Tentative Tract 13621, with modifications to provide for a six-foot high masonry wall to enclose each of Lots 1 through 6 and along the northern boundary of Lot 7 with the walls to run along the inside edge of the local equestrian trail. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLE¥, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Chitiea felt the public reCord should reflect that -future Commission policy direction would be to require masonry walls on the perimeter -of equestrian housing tracts, with the masonry walls placed on the inside edge of the equestrian trails. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12733 GLENFED A subdivision of 6.99 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Industrial Park Development District and Haven Overlay District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN: 209-401-01. (Continued from January 10, 1989.) Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked how much of the site is already developed. Ms. Miller responded everything was developed except for Parcel 1. Chairman McNiel asked if the requested change would affect the remainder of the parcels. Ms. Miller responded it would not. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bill Wren, 118 East Balboa Boulevard, Balboa, stated he represented the applicant. He said Glenfed concurred with the staff report and he thanked the City for its patience when the continuance was requested. He stated the parcel was designed and developed to work as a whole for the 6.99 acres. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 24, 1990 Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated the building was approved and the project seemed to work. She supported the application as she felt the parcel would not be adversely affected. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 12733. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 89-02 POLO GROUNDS - A request to consider suspension or revocation of an entertainment permit approved for Polo Grounds Restaurant, located at 10877 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-382- 10. (Continued from January 10, 1989.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a letter received from the Fire Marshall indicating the Polo Grounds had met all requirements. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Ramsey, 10877 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the Planning Commission for its patience. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that because the Fire District had accepted the improvements, she was willing to support the Resolution declining suspension. Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that the applicant would handle future requirements with more dispatch. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution declining suspension of Entertainment Permit 89-0~.- Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCN)EL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 24, 1990 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13108 - CARYN COMPANY - A subdivision of 19.49 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located south of 24th Street at Wardman-Bullock Road - APN: 226-111-02. Related file Tentative Tract 13566. Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ray Allard, Fuscoe, Williams, Lingren & Short, 11651 Sterling Avenue, Riverside, project engineers, thanked staff for their assistance on the project. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that in the interest of public safety, Wardman- Bullock Road should be completed before occupancy on Parcels I or 2. He felt the distance from those homes to Summit Avenue was considerable. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification on the status of Wardman-Bullock Road. Ms. Miller responded that currently the Road does not exist and needs to be constructed all the way to Cherry Avenue. She stated that a condition on the approved Tentative Tract call for completion of Wardman-Bullock Road prior to occupancy. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that satisfied his concerns. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13108. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-26 MODIFICATION NO. 2 OAS INVESTORS The request to modify the elevations for Building D within the Thomas Winery Plaza in the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-11 and 10. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 24, 1990 - Rudy Stroink, OAS Investors, 2081 Business Center Drive, Irvine, agreed to all the conditions discussed at Design Review. He said they have submitted a new plan which eliminates the parking in front of the major tenant storefront, and only five parking spaces were lost. He requested that the Resolution be reworded to require the elimination of five parking spaces in lieu of six. He stated that even though there is currently enough parking for the site, they may wish to submit a shared parking study in the future if parking later becomes a problem.. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that with the modifications being considered by the Planning Commission tonight, the site has an excess of 16 parking spaces. Chairman McNiel stated that shared parking has been tried on other projects and even though it is an excellent concept, it can be a nightmare to make it work. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with the proposed positioning of the parking spaces, which would open up the entry to the corner. She was willing to support the removal of five parking spaces as opposed to six. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Commissioner Weinberger asked if the double reveal element had been wrapped around the back of the building. Ms. Fong stated the Resolution was so conditioned, but the applicant had not yet submitted revised elevations. Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 87-26 Modification No. 2 with modification to require the removal of five parking spaces. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried G. VARIANCE 89-12 - CALPROP - A request to allow reduced front yard setbacks on 8 lots, a reduced minimum average front yard setback for all lots, height extensions above 35 feet on 3 lots, and a reduced accessory structure setback on lot 2, for a previously approved tract map consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 thru 23 and 207-641-01 thru 15. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 24, 1990 NEW BUSINESS H. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 10035 CALPROP - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for lots I through 21 for a previously approved tract consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 thru 11 and 207-641-01 thru 10. Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and indicated staff had received comments from Red Hill residents protesting the height extension. He presented a copy of a note from Roger Spocks protesting the variance. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the excess height would be pushed down the hillside rather than extending up and blocking the views of the residents to the north. Mr. Hayes responded that was correct. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bill Warkentin, Warkentin-Wraight Architecture, 3197 "C" Airport Loop, stated the site was composed of 21 contiguous lots on the downhill side of the slope with some lots in excess of 60 percent slope. He stated they had worked with staff for the last five to six months to be sure they addressed all the issues identified. He stated some garages were detached and some homes were moved closer to the street. He stated residents above the tract would not have their views blocked and many of the proposed homes would be below the level of the street. He indicated the requested height extensions were for garage roofs. He showed a scale model of Lots 5, 6, and 7 as they would be viewed from the northern street and from Foothill Boulevard. He also provided a photograph looking north from Foothill Boulevard with an overlay with all the homes plotted to scale. He indicated that at no point would the proposed houses reach the horizon. He stated they abided by the spirit of the Hillside Development Ordinance even though it had not yet been adopted by the City. Commissioner Chitiea asked to see the color sample board. Chairman McNiel called a recess to allow the public the opportunity to view the scale model and the photograph. 8:15 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 9:05 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened Ed Clark, 8747 Calle Corazon, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for notifying residents of the proposed changes to the development. He thanked the architects for their concerns regarding the view from Foothill Boulevard and from Calle Corazon. He stated the Planning Commission had already allowed someone to build, blocking his view. He was adamantly opposed to any additional development and said he had neighbors who Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 24, 1990 have lost their privacy, air flow corridor, and view. He preferred the land be left vacant for the wildlife and felt the buildings would be white elephants that would not sell. Richard Dark, 8553 Red Hill Country Club Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had come to the meeting because of concerns about the obstruction of views. He commended the developers because he felt they had gone to great lengths to preserve the view of occupants of the hill. He stated the developers have given the impression the view will be preserved and he felt the developer had done a good job. Rolland Towne, 866! Red Hill Country Club Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, was pleased with the development as presented this evening. He felt the development was preferable to the single family homes which have been built so far. Robert Harbin, 8072 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, agreed. Mr. Warkentin thanked the Commission for permitting the break, which provided time for him to address the residents. He felt the homes would not be white elephants because they had conducted market analyses and felt the quality of design and construction will warrant the prices asked. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that on Lot 3 the applicant was proposing a ten-foot setback from the street to the garage and Engineering would prefer that the setback be changed to five-feet to eliminate the possibility of a car being parked in front of the garage, blocking the sidewalk. Chairman McNiel asked if all houses would be equipped with automatic garage door openers. Mr. Warkentin responded that they would. He stated that Lot 3 falls approximately four feet across the width of the garage. He said they could not warp the driveway sufficiently to allow a car to enter the garage without having at least ten feet from the property line. He stated the other alternative would be to move the garage back to twenty feet, but that would mean the garage wall would be 35 feet out of the ground down to grade. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Blakesley stated it would be an unpleasant place to park. Chairman McNiel stated that a view is not an automatic right unless you own the property involved. He stated that the Planning Commission tries to protect view corridors but that property owners have the right to develop their property. He felt the architect had gone to great pains to protect the views of others and because the street falls, he felt the views were well protected. Commissioner Chitiea stated that she was appalled when she first looked at the request for a variance, but in considering the request further she saw that Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 24, 1990 ' the views were handled with a great deal of sensitivity. She felt the developer had done an admirable job of not proposing cut and fill and preserving as much of the natural terrain as possible. She was concerned with the color board because all the colors were muted except for the handrails and metal, which she felt would appear too brilliant from Foothill Boulevard. She proposed those two colors be slightly muted. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the developer had proposed a sensitive solution to a severe topographic problem. He commended the developer for considering the Hillside Grading Ordinance even though it was not in effect as yet. He felt the project would provide an interesting view from Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Blakesley felt the project was quite well done. He hoped the execution will be of the same quality as the design and architecture. He felt the variance was justified and agreed that the two colors should be muted. Chairman McNiel concurred that the colors should be muted. He reopened the public hearing to receive a question from the public. Patrick Connolly, 8727 Calle Corazon, Rancho 'Cucamonga, asked if there was a technical reason the knoll could not be removed. Chairman McNiel stated that part of the Ordinance states that the physical -propert.ies of the site should be disturbed as little as possible. Mr. Connolly stated the knoll was created when they graded for the street. Commissioner Blakesley felt it would be difficult to ascertain the original condition of the hill. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the developer proposed any changes to existing conditions below the homes. She wanted to know if any landscaping was proposed on the downhill slope below the homes. Mr. Hayes responded that the applicant has proposed a landscaping concept incorporating drought-tolerant species and that there would be planting on all slopes exceeding five-to-one. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was concerned that the slopes be protected and that massive stemwalls should receive softening as viewed from Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Blakesley asked if there was any way to cover the scar from the graded road along the bottom of the property. Mr. Warkentin stated that most of the road is part of a sewer access easement on the southerly portion of the property. He said their proposal includes front and side yard landscaping and fire-retardant planting along the downhill slopes. He volunteered to provide precise landscaping plans for the Planning Commission's review and approval. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 24, 1990 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea suggested rewording the condition to provide for a softening of the effect on the uphill view from Foothill Boulevard. She wanted attention paid to the stemwall areas and the easement scar. Chairman McNiel felt the houses were attractive and he thought it would be a good project. Commissioner Weinberger concurred. Chairman McNiel supported the developer regarding the setback on Lot 3 because he felt the terrain and conditions are severe. Commissioner Chitiea concurred. Chairman McNiel stated he would like to see the landscapin9 plans brought to Design Review on a consent basis. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolutions approving Design Review for Tract 10035 and Variance 89-12, with modifications to mute the colors and to have the landscaping plans approved by the .Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINB£RGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS J. STATUS REPORT ON CENTRAL LIBRARY PLANNING PROCESS Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated it is hoped some plans on the library design will be reviewed at Design Review on February 8, 1990. He said the Library Subcommittee has recommended the size approach 80,000 square feet and the other buildings in the complex may also be expanded, with a corresponding increase in parking. He said there would be a Library Subcommittee meeting on Thursday, January 25 at 4:00 P.M. Chairman McNiel stated that below grade parking was discussed at the last Library Committee meeting. Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be critical to build underground parking into the project to avoid the deletion of the park. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 24, 1990 I. REPORT ON STATUS OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02C AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 89-04 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that even though the proposal was withdrawn by the applicant, he wanted clarification on the history of the proposed change from Office Professional to Residential. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that in the past City Council had directed the Planning Department to look at all satellite Office Professional designations. He said at that time the Planning Commission considered a variety of uses including Mutli-Family, Low Medium Residential, Single Family, and allowing the land to remain Office Professional. At that time the property owner opposed any change in designation because he was considering a senior project which is allowed in an Office Professional District with a conditional use permit. Mr. Buller said that when the senior project did not come to fruition, the owner looked again at other Residential uses. He said that to the best of his knowledge, he now understood that the owner did not intend to approach the City for a change in land use until the parcel is ready to be developed. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that the interim General Plan had Multi-Residential and when the owner requested Commercial, Office Professional was selected as a compromise. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the area should be Residential instead of Office Professional. He thought perhaps the City should press to reclassify as Residential. Commissioner Blakesley asked what density would be required to allow a senior project without a conditional use permit. Mr. Buller stated they would probably request a density that would require Medium-High Residential or High Residential. He stated that additional senior projects will probably not be proposed in the near future until the current senior project on Base Line is fully rented and the Archibald and Base Line project is built. Commissioner ~toy stated he would hate to see an Office Professional complex at the ~:ation. Chairman McNiel stated he would hate to see the designation changed and then determine in the future that it would be a good location for Office Professional. He felt the designation should remain as is to allow for either a doctor's or dentist's office to be built. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission business at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 24, 1990' ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to adjourn. 9:00 P.M. Planning Commission Adjourned to a February 8, I990 workshop at Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center following Design Review to discuss Central Park and the Sports Complex. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 24, ).990 CITY OF RANCHO cUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 10, 1990 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 at Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Brett Horner, Associate Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to recommend adoption of the minutes of the November 28, 1989 Joint Meeting with City Council. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to adopt the minutes of December 13, 1989, as amended. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12733 - GLENFED - A subdivision of 6.99 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Industrial Park Development District and Haven Overlay District, Subarea 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Acacia Street - APN: 209-401-01. (Continued from November 8, 1989.) Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer, stated that the applicant had requested a continuance to the second meeting in April. She indicated that staff recommended a two-week continuance to allow the applicant time to decide whether to withdraw the project or request that the Planning Commission act upon the application. Chairman McNiel asked why the applicant had requested a delay. Ms. Miller responded that the applicant's engineer had indicated the applicant is trying to determine if the project would be economically feasible with the recommended conditions of approval. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred with staff's recommendation for a two-week continuance and suggested that staff contact the applicant to advise that the item would be continued until January 24. He felt that would be sufficient time for the applicant to decide whether to proceed with the project. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 12733 to January 24, 1990. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried B. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 89-02 - POLO GROUNDS A request to consider suspension or revocation of an entertainment permit approved for Harry C's restaurant (presently Polo Grounds), located at 10877 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-352-10. (Continued from November 29, 1989.) Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ralph Crane, Rancho Cucamonga Fire District, stated the requirements had still not been met. He stated Mr. Ramsey requested a meeting at 4:00 P.M. today and the Fire District rearranged their schedule to meet with Mr. Ramsey. Chairman McNiel asked what remained to be done. Mr. Crane stated that the District and Mr. Ramsey had not agreed on seating arrangements. He said Mr. Ramsey had submitted sprinkler plans at their 4:00 P.M. meeting but that did not allow time for the. Fire District to review the Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 10, 1990 plans before tonight's meeting. He said Mr. Ramsey stated they were a poor - set of plans. He said a plan still needs to be submitted on the alarm system. He stated Mr. Ramsey had agreed in principle at today's meeting to accept the Fire District's suggested seating arrangement until he has time to submit a revised seating arrangement. Mr. Crane stated a field investigation was still needed to verify that required items are actually in place. Commissioner Weinberger asked if Mr. Ramsey had given any reason why the items were incomplete. Mr. Crane responded Mr. Ramsey said the Christmas season was a major burden. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the sprinkler plans the Fire District had received were complete. Mr. Crane responded he would not know if the plans were complete until they have reviewed the plans submitted this afternoon. He said a letter was sent to the applicant on November 29 outlining the remaining requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification on the seating plan issue. Mr. Crane stated that the initial plan submitted was reviewed and sent back approved with corrections noted. He said the Fire District disagreed with the seating arrangements proposed by the architect, as the code did not allow as many people as proposed, but Mr. Ramsey disagreed with the Fire District figures. Mr. Crane added the Fire District does not require additional seating plans, so long as the applicant agrees to the original occupant load conditionally approved by the District. He said as of today's meeting Mr. Ramsey indicated he would accept the seating arrangement as proposed by the Fire District, but plans to resubmit new seating arrangements in the future. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission had spent too. much time on the item. He said the applicant knew even before the November 29 hearing that these were requirements and he thought the applicant had plenty of time to comply with the requirements. He felt that there was the possibility that the public is being exposed to danger because the Fire District has not been able to review the sprinkler and alarm plans to be sure they are safe. Commissioner Tolstoy recommended a three-month suspension of the Entertainment Permit to allow the applicant time to concentrate on complying with the requirements. He thought it was important for the City to have establishments with entertainment, but felt it is necessary to be sure they are operating under safe conditions. Commissioner Weinberger agreed and stated she was surprised the applicant was not present tonight. Chairman McNiel suggested that staff be directed to return with both a Resolution of Approval and a Resolution of Denial. He said that if the applicant was then in compliance, the Planning Commission could adopt the Resolution of Approval. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 10, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea felt that public safety is critical. She felt the applicant had been given more than sufficient time to comply. Chairman McNiel stated that the applicant had upgraded an existing location and had dramatically improved upon the prior situation. He stated the applicant had expanded the facilities and was therefore not in compliance. Chairman McNiel suggested both Resolutions be returned and the Commission could determine if full compliance had been achieved. Commissioner Chitiea stated the Commission was looking for compliance, not punishment. Commissioner Blakesley stated it was not known why the applicant was not present tonight. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to continue Entertainment Permit 89-02 to January 24, 1990, and to direct staff to prepare both a Resolution of Approval and a Resolution of Denial for consideration. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNI£L, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that Items C and Item E were located in the same shopping center and were directly related. He stated that the applicant for Item C was not present in the audience, and suggested the Commission might wish to hear Item D next. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-28 PERRY The development of a 5,380 square foot retail building on 0.52 acres of land within an existing shopping center in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue - APN: 208-261-20. Brett Homer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alan Smith, 8632 Archibald Avenue, Suite 210, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented applicant Forrest Perry. He said they had worked with the Planning Department and he and his client were attempting to influence the rest of the center. He stated the conditions of approval were fair and reasonable. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 10, 1990 Chairman McNiel pointed out the Resolution had been conditioned to require submission of plans for architectural improvements to the remainder of the center prior to release of occupancy on the current project. Mr. Smith stated that as soon as construction was begun on the first phase, they planned to enter the design process so that they could be under construction with the second phase by the release of occupancy on Phase I. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant had spoken to the owner of the former gas station lot. Mr. Smith stated there were two owners of that parcel and the owners were at odds with each other, which stalled negotiations for development. He stated they had tried to be sure the traffic flow was kept open to the parcel. He said each portion of the center was controlled under different lease conditions. He felt the pharmacy would upgrade and said he hoped the market would also upgrade. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated that considering the City Council had directed the Planning Commission to work with the applicant on the existing project as opposed to starting from scratch, she felt the applicant had proposed a design which represented a considerable improvement over the original application. Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned about how the former service station parcel would be integrated and he wondered when the parking lot would .be upgraded to be brought up to Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan standards. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if there was anything in the eventual plans to landscape along Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Smith stated their master plan called for bringing the area up to the Specific Plan standards. Chairman McNiel asked what timetable was envisioned. Mr. Smith stated it was tied to the market, as the market lessor controls the parking lot. He said they were in the Redevelopment area and they were trying to secure some funding from the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 88-28. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 10, 1990 Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the applicants were still not present for Item C or E and asked if the Commission wished to proceed further on the agenda. Michael Rademaker, 1425 West Foothill, Rancho Cucamonga, MGR Services, managers of the center, requested that the items be heard. He stated it was his understanding that the Dew Drop Inn was withdrawing their application and the applicant for Item E was not present because they felt with the withdrawal of the Dew Drop Inn, they could be approved with no problems. Mr. Coleman stated that as the City had not received a formal withdrawal from the applicant for Item C, the Planning Commission would have to act on the application. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-29 -'DEW DROP INN - The request to establish a bar in a leased space of 2,700 square feet within an existing building on 1.09 acres of land in the Commercial Office District, Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9583 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-261-47. (Continued from December 13, 1989.) Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. He asked if Mr. Rademaker had anything from the Dew Drop Inn to indicate they were withdrawing their application. Mr. Rademaker stated the owner of the center received a telephone call from the owner of the Dew Drop Inn indicating they would not be locating there. However, he had not received anything in writing. He stated that the center had entered a lease with the Thai barbecue prior to the lease with the Dew Drop Inn. He preferred the Thai barbecue. Virgil Merrett, Sergeant, Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Department, stated the Sheriff's Department has responded to numerous calls for service at the current location of the Dew Drop Inn over the past year and a half. Chairman McNiel asked if there were more calls at this facility as oppo~sed to similar establishments. Mr. Merrett stated the number of calls were higher than other liquor bars within the City except for two other establishments which have been fined or had their liquor licenses revoked. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned with this use so close to a residential a rea. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 10, I990 Commissioner Blakesley concurred and felt the use would not be compatible with the other family-oriented uses within the proposed center. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution denying Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 89-29. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-32 - THONGCHANTRA - A request to establish a restaurant use, including the incidental serving of beer and wine, totaling 2,880 square feet within the Commercial Office District, Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9581 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-261-47. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested changing condition 6) to state that approval would not be final until final -City Council action on any appeal for Conditional Use Permit 89-29. Chairman McNiel asked if the City would be placed in a precarious position if the project were approved. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney responded negatively because the applicant for Conditional Use Permit 89-29 had the right to appeal, and the City was delaying final action on this project until following final action on any appeal. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the serving of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with meals was a more appropriate use than a bar for a family shopping center. Commissioner Blakesley felt the application was similar to other restaurants in the City and he supported the project. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 89-32. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 10, 1990 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14316 LEWIS HOMES A residential subdivision and design review of 47 single family lots on 8.5 acres of land in the Low-Medium Density Residential District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Church Street - APN: 227-151-17. Brett Horner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be a wall between the Church Street node and lot 11. Mr. Horner responded there would be a perimeter wall. Commissioner Chitiea asked to see a sample board of the materials and colors. Mr. Horner stated the sample board was not available at present. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Don Thompson, Lewis Homes, P. O. Box 670, Upland, questioned the necessity for obtaining FEMA approval for removal of the site from the flood plain. He stated they had approached the owners of surrounding properties to see if they wished to join in the effort, and they were not willing. He wished to wait until FEMA has accepted the Day Creek Channel improvements before processing the request. He suggested that Lewis could post a bond to assure that homeowners would not have to pay for flood insurance and suggested that if necessary Lewis could pay the first year's cost of flood insurance protection. Mr. Thompson stated that Lewis Homes' Sales Manager did not feel there would be a problem with lenders. Chairman McNiel felt that homeowners may approach the City if the project were approved and there is subsequent damage. George Chu, Lewis Development Company, P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated that the renderings were close to the true color of the stucco. He stated they were proposing subdued color tones. Commissioner Chitiea asked how many colors were proposed for the stucco and trim. Mr. Chu responded there will be six different stucco colors and one trim color. Commissioner Chitiea asked about the color of roof tiles. Mr. Chu stated the roof tiles have a color variation and three separate mixes of the color variation are proposed. Commissioner Chitiea asked for clarification on the stucco finish. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 10, 1990 Mr. Chu responded that a sand float finish is proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy requested clarification on the proposed trail node alternatives. Tom Dellaquila, Lewis Homes, P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated they felt Alternative I represents a better use of the space and provides a better landscape buffer between the trail and the houses. He asked if the required decorator paving was to delineate where the trail crosses Rochester. Chairman McNiel responded that it was. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated the Planning Commission had discussed that if there is to be enriched paving for the trail crossing, that it should be consistently applied throughout Terra Vista wherever the trail crosses a public street. Mr. Dellaquila stated he had submitted a concept for retarded finish paving with a saw cut grid for use in Towne Center, and he asked if that would be acceptable. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the paving must meet construction standards as determined by the City Engineer. Mr. Dellaquila stated they had discussed the proposed enriched paving with the Trails Committee during the amendment process. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the paving should be approved by the Design Review Committee. Chairman McNiel felt the paving proposed for use in Towne Center might be too subtle. Mr. Dellaquila stated the paving was in the approved plans for the business park, but has not been constructed as yet. He suggested they pour a sample for approval. He stated they could also use a unit paver. Chairman McNiel felt the enriched paving should definitely stand out and thought a unit paver might be better. Commissioners Tolstoy and Blakesley concurred. Mr. Kroutil suggested rewording the condition to require Design Review Committee approval of the decorative paving. Mr. Dellaquila asked if the Commission concurred that Alternative I would be acceptable for the trail node. Commissioner Blakesley asked if the greenbelt will be constructed along Church to the east. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 10, 1990 ' Chairman McNiel stated that it would as part of the beautification process. John Bahnson, 7721 Henbane Street, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned about traffic being generated on Rochester. He said he had been told by the City for the last four years that a signal would be installed at Rochester and Foothill. He asked if there would be a signal at Rochester and Church. He felt children would be endangered. He asked if Church will proceed across Day Creek. He said the residents had been told they would not be assessed until construction began on the Church Street Beautification, but they were already being assessed. He asked if Church Street will be constructed all the way from Rochester to Milliken before the houses were built. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the developer has the option to construct Church all the way to Milliken or to utilize Terra Vista. Don Thompson stated they planned to utilize both routes of access. Mr. Bahnson asked who would be responsible for installing traffic signals at Foothill and Base Line. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated this project is in a FEMA-designated flood zone. He said that in the past residents of some tracts found that when obtaining original financing or new financing for second or third mortgages, they were required to obtain flood insurance, and they began to complain to the City. He indicated that based on the complaints of residents and the change of FEMA's policy to place most of the liability on cities, the City changed its policy and now requires any project in flood zones A, B, or D to remove the flood zone designation. He said this project is in zone A, the highest designation, because of Day Creek breakout and the volume of water which comes down, and those problems are in the process of being solved with the various construction jobs. He indicated that there would not be any technical flooding problems by the time the houses are built. He felt that it was important to have the designation removed because many lenders are requiring flood insurance of any homes located in zones A and B and the current cost is approximately $450 to $500 per year. He said the County made several applications to FEMA regarding Day Creek Channel and FEMA has responded by asking for additional information regarding the impact of high velocity flow on the channel. He indicated Day Creek was built to the standards of the Corps of Engineers. He suggested approving the Resolution with the condition as written, as the developer could probably tie in with studies being done for other developers regarding Day Creek. He said other developers in the immediate area will be conditioned the same way when they submit projects. He felt the condition could be modified in the future if necessary, based on the results of the studies currently in process. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when Day Creek would be completed to Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Maguire stated the Day Creek Channel project should be completed by April 1991. He stated that this tract is conditioned to improve the roads up to Rochester.- He stated the Base Line and Rochester signal will go out to bid in Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 10, 1990 February and a four-way interim stop sign will be utilized until the signal is installed. He reported that the Hahn Regional Center had been conditioned to install a signal at Church/Miller and Rochester prior to occupancy, which is scheduled for May 1991. He indicated the signal at Foothill and Rochester would probably go to bid in August 1990 following acquisition of right-of- way. He stated the signal would probably be operational approximately four to five months later. Chairman McNiel asked if a four-way stop would be installed prior to signalization of the intersection at Church/Miller and Rochester. Mr. Maguire responded a two-way stop would be installed when Rochester is built and the area would then be monitored with the possibility of a four-way stop being installed prior to the signal, if necessary. He said that drivers sometimes tend to disregard four-way stop signs if they feel the area does not warrant them, and accidents increase as a result. Mr. Maguire indicated the beautification project has gone out to bid and the residents in the area have been assessed a maintenance district assessment. Chairman McNiel asked if the City would be assuming liability if they alleviated the requirement for the developer to remove the flood plain designation. Craig Fox agreed with the City Engineer that the condition is valid to protect the City. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the condition should remain. Chairman McNiel concurred that the condition should remain. Mr. Thompson stated it would be fine to leave in the condition and they could seek a modification later if necessary. He indicated they plan to construct all of Rochester, Foothill, Church and Terra Vista Parkway. He stated that Milliken was practically done. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Blakesley stated his initial reaction on the trail node was similar to Commissioner Tolstoy's to pull it off of Rochester, but he felt that once Milliken is complete it will take some of the traffic off Rochester and he thought Church would also be a busy street. He felt perhaps Alternative 2 might be a better long term solution because it addresses the east side better. He thought Design Review should review the matter further. Mr. Kroutil stated that Design Review only looked at Alternative 1 and felt perhaps it provided too much focus on Church Street to the exclusion of Rochester. Therefore they recommended to the applicant that another design be considered which should address both sides of the corner more equally. As a result Alternative 2 was suggested by the applicant. He suggested the Commission give general direction and allow the applicant to do additional work on the design and return to Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 10, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he liked the design of Alternative I better than 2, but he agreed that both streets are prominent. He felt Alternative 2 better addressed both corners, which he felt were equally important. Chairman McNiel liked the uniqueness of Alternative 1. Commissioner Chitiea felt the basic idea of Alternative 2 could perhaps be reworked to incorporate some of the aspects of Alternative 1. Mr. Kroutil asked if the Commissioners felt the design needed to be a mirror image on each street or if it was permissible to have more emphasis on one street. He stated Alternative I provided more emphasis on Church because it is the beginning of the Terra Vista Greenway which will go all the way to the Towne Center. He wondered if it would be acceptable to upgrade the Rochester side without exactly repeating the image on Church. Chairman McNiel stated he would be interested to see a design that was not a mirror image. Commissioner Blakesley asked if it would be possible to consider the entire corner, including the east side. Commissioner Chitiea felt the orientation of Alternative 2 makes more sense, -but perhaps further refinement would be in order. Commissioner Weinberger felt Alternative I was a cleaner design. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Tom Dellaquila stated that if the Commission wished to reflect the same design on the east side of Rochester, it would be easier to utilize Alternative 1 because it addresses the linearity of the trails system better. He felt that Alternative 2 could probably not be repeated on the east side of Rochester. He felt they could try to combine the elements of both alternatives. Chairman McNiel did not like the idea of a pathway behind the monument sign. He preferred the pathway be left in the open. Mr. Dellaquila stated that in Alternative 2 they were forcing the plaza behind the monument and they did not like that concept. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea stated the colorization of the pavement along the trail will be important. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14316, with modifications to provide for Design Review approval of the enriched trail crossing paving and the trail node design. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 10, 1990 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried 8:50 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 9:10 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12348 - KANOKVECHAYANT - A subdivision of 6.54 acres of land into 9 parcels in the Industrial Park Development District, Subarea 17 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the east side of Center Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard APN: 1077-401-34. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Wheatley, 1178 Upland Hills Drive South, Upland, stated that he represented Dr. Kanokvechayant, and the conditions were acceptable. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he hoped the building pads were not representative of what will be suggested because it appeared there would be no landscaping. Chairman McNiel stated that the conceptual master plan is purely conceptual and the City would require all normal parking and landscaping improvements. Commissioner Chitiea stated the applicant should be aware that as the project is adjacent to the Deer Creek Channel there should be an opening to connect to the regional trail. Mr. Wheatley stated they planned to do the street improvements and then sell the individual lots for development. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it was important to reflect that the project should provide for the connection from the trail to the street. He indicated that the access should be for all lots in the tract. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested providing for an access easement for the benefit of all parcels. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the condition should be added now, so that developers would be advised of the requirement. Planning Commission Minutes -t3- January 10, 1990- Commissioner Chitiea felt two points of access were needed and they should be in conjunction with some sort of a plaza or entry statement. She felt the maintenance and use should be shared by all the parcels. Mr. Wheatley felt the requirement could be added to the CC&Rs which will be used to allow for reciprocal access and easement. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, felt it would be necessary to show where the easements will be located. He felt that would be difficult to pinpoint without knowing what buildings will look like. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it was important to determine where the easements will be prior to the selling of parcels because an individual purchasing a lot would want the easements to be on other lots. Commissioner Chitiea felt enhanced paving and landscaping would need to be provided for the trail connection. Therefore, she felt it was important that no one individual lot be burdened with the requirement. Mr. Kroutil asked if an instrument could be recorded with the map which would acknowledge the need for two points of access on various parcels. Mr. Hanson felt a note could be placed on the map to that effect with the final determination for sites to be resolved upon submittal of the first project on the affected lots. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the access points should be between lots 4 and 5 and 6 and 7. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with the placement. Mr. Coleman stated that if the Commission wanted the burden of the maintenance to be spread among the parcels, they should perhaps set up a separate lot A with common ownership. Commissioner Chitiea felt that it was important that everyone have the right to use the access to the trail. Mr. Coleman felt the trails would have to be a minimum of ten to fifteen feet wide in order to accommodate a four-foot sidewalk with landscaping on either side, and that would have a major implication on the way the lots were laid out. Commissioner Chitiea felt there should be some area to put in seating. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the adjacent lots could plan their employee lunch plaza adjacent to the trail. Chairman McNiel suggested continuing the item for two weeks to allow the applicant to work with staff to work out credible locations and return with suggestions. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 10, 1990 Mr. Hanson felt two weeks would not be enough time because the staff report would have to be written within the next few days. Mr. Wheatley stated they wished to avoid an association if possible. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Coleman stated it would be possible to provide for easement and maintenance through the CC&Rs. However, the easement should be recorded. Mr. Hanson suggested that the locations be approved through the Design Review Committee. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that any trails should be reviewed by the Trails Committee. He suggested a note could be placed on the map stating there shall be two means of trail access from the proposed street to the future trail system along the channel or condition the map that prior to recordation the applicant shall be required to receive approval of the Trails Committee and Design Review Committee for trail easements. Chairman McNiel felt that this was not establishing a trail, merely an access connection to the trail. He did not feel the Trails Committee would need to approve the plan. Mr. Buller stated that because the access would be from a public street, it could conceivably be considered a public access. Commissioner Chitiea felt the item could be handled by Design Review, as the intent was not to provide a public trail, but to provide access from within the project to the Regional Trail. Mr. Buller suggested adding a condition that the applicant provide a minimum of two fifteen-foot wide trail easements placed on the map, with the location and design subject to Design Review approval prior to recordation of the final map. Commissioner Tolstoy felt fifteen feet might be too wide. Mr. Hanson asked if it would be a public or private easement. It was the consensus of the Commission that the easement would be private. Mr. Coleman felt the project was too small to require two trail accesses. Commissioner Tolstoy felt one access would be sufficient. Chairman McNiel felt the number of easements could be determined in the Design Review process. Commissioner Chitiea felt that if only one easement were provided, it may require some additional enhancements. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 10, 1990 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 12348, with modification to provide for a private trail connection easement with special paving and landscaping from the street to the Deer Creek Channel. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried H. MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 AND PARCEL MAP 11030 WESTERN PROPERTIES - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring that traffic signals be constructed prior to occupancy of any buildings for the development of a shopping center and related Parcel Map, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. - APN: 1077-421-36, 37, and 40. Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the requested change included the signal at Foothill and Spruce. Ms. Miller responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Don Thompson, Lewis Homes, Box 670, Upland, stated that he was concerned because the opening of Target might be delayed because a signal is not constructed several blocks away from the center. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Target store will generate much traffic and Spruce Avenue will help divert some traffic from Haven. He felt the signal at Spruce and Foothill is important to aid in the movement of the traffic on Spruce. Chairman McNiel felt it would be hazardous to go from Spruce to Foothill without a signal. Commissioner Tolstoy felt Spruce would be used by many residents who live north of the center, and it was therefore critical that the light be operational. Rick Mager, Western Properties, P. O. Box 670, Upland, stated that Target's opening date is scheduled in a small window of time set by Target. He felt it would be possible to miss the window by only a day or two, and Target has indicated that could delay the opening by four months. He stated that Target has projected they could do approximately ten million in sales during that Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 10, 1990 four-month period, which would impact the City's tax revenues. He thought the signal would be installed by the opening date, but was afraid the signal might not be operational and he wanted to change the condition to require the signal be operational within two weeks after Target's opening. Chairman McNiel asked what caused the delay. Mr. Mager thought there had been a cooperative agreement between the City and CalTrans, which Western Properties thought had been executed in April 1989 but which was not executed until the start of December, with permits not being issued by CalTrans until the second week of December. He stated they were working 16-hour shifts and would like to work 24-hour shifts, but they cannot work without the presence of a CalTrans inspector, and CalTrans can only provide inspectors for a two-shift operation. Don Thompson asked if there could be flexibility afforded to the Engineering Department. Chairman McNiel stated that on each project the degree of flexibility depends on the anticipated effect of the occupancy of the project. He felt the City would be more concerned about traffic safety concerns than lost sales tax revenues. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea felt public safety is important. She felt the center will be a major draw and it is important to make it safe before the public arrives. She thought the developer's scheduling problem should not become a public safety problem. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Spruce intersection was as important as the other intersections for the reasons he had stated formerly. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners would consider a police attendant for the grand opening if the signal were in place but not operational. Commissioner Chitiea felt uncomfortable with modifying the condition. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated he could allow occupancy so long as the signal is functional, even if there are still some other punch list items which need to be completed. He said the project was conditioned to require the signal at Foothill and Spruce to remove some of the traffic from Haven. Chairman McNiel felt that problems will be caused if the signals are not operational, because accidents will be caused by impatient patrons attempting to leave the center via non-signalized exits. He stated Western should have followed up to be sure permits were issued. He felt it would be a tragedy if anyone were hurt as a result of allowing the center to open before the signals were operational. Commissioner Chitiea felt Target should perhaps be more flexible by a day or tWO. Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 10, 1990 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he could not imagine that Target would delay an opening by four months because they were held up for a day or two. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolutions denying Modifications to Conditional Use Permit 88-12 and Parcel Map 11030. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried I. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 87-01 - GREAT WESTERN HOTELS CORPORATION - A request to amend the Agreement to allow a hotel within the Foothill Design and Commercial Center, located south of Foothill Boulevard and east of Spruce Avenue. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the amendment would affect the rest of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Mr. Coleman responded that it would not, it would only affect the block contained in the Development Agreement boundaries. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the corner of Foothill and Spruce is designated as a restaurant. Mr. Coleman stated that a restaurant was approved on the master plan. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the street furniture for the hotel and the restaurant should be similar, but the street furniture for the remainder of the development could perhaps be different. Mr. Coleman stated that may be appropriate and an approval of the amendment would not preclude that from happening because the normal Design Review process will be used for the entire project. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the developer had submitted the hotel changes requested at Design Review. Mr. Coleman responded that the developer had submitted renderings this morning but he had not had an opportunity to check to see if the changes had been made. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 10, 1990' Leonard Ramos, Great Western Hotels Corporation, P. O. Box 2127, La Habra, reported that the owner of the remainder of the commercial center has not determined if they will develop the property or perhaps sell the project. Chairman McNiel asked how many and what types of hotel rooms were contemplated. Mr. Ramos responded they were proposing 125 rooms, mostly single with some suites. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the location was appropriate and the Planning Commission should recommend approval. Commissioner Chitiea stated she was less concerned about the street furniture than the sign program. She wanted to be sure that any sign program considered the needs of the center as opposed to just the hotel. Mr. Coleman stated that the project will still have to go through the Design Review process and the Planning Commission could decide at that point if the sign program should be unique for the hotel or if it should set the tone for the remainder of the center. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Weinberger, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of amendment to Development Agreement 87-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLE¥, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-16 CHILI'S The development of a restaurant totaling 5,995 square feet within the Terra Vista Town Center on 1 acre of land in the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05. (Continued from December 13, 1989.) Brett Hornet, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Tom Orzech, Chili's California, 8149 East Kennedy Road, Anaheim, thanked staff and the Design Review Committee for their help with the project. He stated they wished to utilize landscaping instead of the architectural modification approved by Design Review. He indicated they felt they would not be able to use the additional space generated by the modification. He also objected to the deletion of three parking spaces. Planning Commission Minutes -19- January 10, 1990 Rick Mager, Western Properties, Box 670, Upland, stated that the 'project represented only one small part of a larger development, and the three parking spaces are needed to solve parking problems in another portion of the center. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel asked why Design Review suggested the addition to the building. Commissioner Chitiea responded the concept was suggested to add architectural elements to the exterior of the building. She stated the Committee felt the area could be utilized as a banquet room. Chairman McNiel stated that landscaping is not used in lieu of acceptable architecture and if Chili's did not wish the additional space on the interior, then something else should occur on the exterior of the building. Commissioner Chitiea stated that at Design Review she thought the applicant felt the addition was an attractive solution but thought there might be a parking problem. She wondered why the applicant was now reluctant. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Orzech stated they were reluctant because they did no~ feel they could adequately service the area from the kitchen and patrons would be unhappy with poor service. He also thought it was unfair for them to utilize the three parking spaces and take them away from the remainder of the center. He felt a trellis and palms would add more interest. Chairman McNiel stated the building is located at an important intersection and needs to be architecturally attractive. Mr. Mager asked if the Planning Commission would be amenable if they enhanced the building panels behind the trellis. Chairman McNiel felt the project should return to Design Review if the applicant did not wish the modification. He said he would not accept the trellis even with enhanced panels, as landscaping is often trimmed or cut back. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the building concept could be approved with the stipulation that the east elevation requires Design Review approval. Chairman McNiel suggested requiring Design Review approval of the east elevation prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. Orzech stated the project had been through Design Review twice and they felt they had addressed all of the concerns. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -20- January 10, 1990 Commissioner Chitiea stated that the east elevation was a problem the first time and the applicant returned to Design Review with a possible solution which the Committee felt was not adequate. Mr. Coleman suggested that approval of the project with the provision to return to Design Review would allow the applicant to proceed with preparation of some of the construction drawings. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-16, with modifications to require Design Review approval of the east elevation prior to the issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, W£INBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried COMMISSION BUSINESS Betsy Weinberger announced there would be a library workshop at City Hall at 4:30 P.M. on Thursday, January 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adjourn. - P!~a~ning Commission Adjourned 10:30 P.M. Otto 'Krtlutil /~ Deputy Secretary P)anning Commission Minutes -21- January 10, 1990 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting January 4, 1990 Chairman McNiel and Chairman Schmidt called the joint meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission to order at 9:15 P.M. The meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The purpose of the workshop was to facilitate review and discussion between the two Commissions over the proposed rehabilitation work for the Winery and Still buildings at Thomas Winery Plaza and to provide direction to the developers. ROLL CALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Betsy Weinberger ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Melicent Arner, Marsha Banks, Gene Billings, Steve Preston, Bob Schmidt ABSENT: Ada Cooper, Alan Haskvitz STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jeff Gravel, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the Commissions and staff to the developers and their professional teams. John Loomis,' 30th Street Architects, Inc., presented the proposal to the two Commissions. He gave a definition of what rehabilitation is. He further explained the unsuccessful attempt to nationally register the winery building as a National Historic Landmark. The proposed rehabilitation is to focus on the period of significance between 1920's to 1930's. The rehabilitation work will distinguish the new work from the old in a subtle way. The purpose is to identify the old and the new with a contemporary interpretation of the old. John Perry, Sanderson, Ray, and Perry, explained the needs of future tenants. Planning and HPC Minutes - 1 January 4, 1990 Chairman NcNiel disagreed with the architect in that there should be a distinction between the original adobe wall and the 1969 portion. He felt the wall materials and color between the old and new should not be highlighted at all. Commissioner Banks stated that the landmark, overall, is being detrimentally affected by a cluttered look. She thought the parking lot lights, interior illuminated signs, added windows, skylights, and roof sign contribute to the cluttering up of a simple architectural structure. She felt if a historic period is selected, it should be 1839, since the significant historical aspect is the claim that this is the oldest winery in the state and the second oldest in the nation. She agreed with Chairman McNiel that there does not need to be a subtle difference in stucco colors between the old and the new portions of the building. She felt the architecture of the new center buildings detract from the simplicity of the winery architecture. She stated a preference for wood shingles or shake and that there should not be any roof mounted equipment, particularly on the northern exposure because of the proximity to Vineyard Avenue. She liked the idea of dormers, but not the skylights. Commissioner Preston stated that he felt the period of historical significance should also be 1839. He felt the landscaping was historically respectful except for the selection of some of the ornamentals that are proposed which qook out of place. He requested details on the public outdoor furniture. He recommended the use of wood as the primary material for any outdoor furniture and that its design be appropriate for the historical period of the building. He was also concerned with the types of decorative pavement that would be used around the building. He had a problem with the roof and interior illuminated signs as proposed since it would give it a cluttered look. He felt an artifacts plan/list is needed with sufficient details. He stated he would like to see any new windows recessed as much as possible. He requested that the architect submit the National Nomination papers and correspondence records to the Historic Preservation Commission for verification of ineligibility. He too had a problem with the roof equipment, particularly on the north side of the building. He was also concerned with the loss in the different floor elevations and its effect on the spacial character of the interior. Commissioner Chitiea requested that additional details concerning the doors and window frames be brought back for review and consideration and designed to be consistent with the existing doors and windows. The landscaping around the building should reflect the image of a winery and not a desert. She agreed the street furniture should be simple, but of wood and metal materials with details to be brought back for review. Commissioner Weinberger stated that she was concerned about the speculative nature of the occupants of the building causing many changes which may not be desirable or necessary. Commissioner Blakesley questioned the decision as to whether the upper floor needed to be used for offices and that perhaps it should remain a storage area or an artifact display area since the change in use was going to cause additional openings (skylights, windows, and doors) in the structure. Planning and HPC Minutes - 2 - January 4, 1990 Commissioner Preston concurred with this perception. The consensus of the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission, based on reviewing the proposal, was as follows: 1. The old and new improvements to the original winery should not be highlighted. 2. The period of significance for rehabilitation should be the year 1839. 3. The changes to the buildings, the additions of skylights, new entries, signs, and etc., made the winery building look too cluttered. 4. The use of wood shake for the roof material is preferred. 5. Concern was raised with roof mounte~ equipment/projections. Exhaust pipes and fans should not be exposed. The Commissioners understood that some of the kitchen equipment might have to be exposed. The concern is then how to minimize the visual impact of the new vents and how to architecturally treat them. 6. The choice of plant palette immediately adjacent to the winery building should reflect the winery heritage. 7. Minimal street furniture should be used near and around the winery building. The design of the street furniture and hardscape must be submitted for Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission review and approval. 8. Minimal signs should be placed on the buildings. Painted signs are preferable. Identifying the winery building as the oldest winery is acceptable, but not through a painted roof sign. Make use of the existing monument sign to identify businesses. 9. Submit an inventory of artifacts and a plan to display them for Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission review. This should be done prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. 10. The addition of skylights is unacceptable. 11. All ground and wall mounted equipment, such as meters and conduits, must be screened. 12. The types of doors, windows, stairways, railings, and number of entries must be sensitive to and incorporate historic patterns, materials, colors, and styles. 13. Concerns were raised with the speculative users for the building, which caused the numerous changes. 14. Night highlighting is encouraged. Planning and HPC Minutes - 3 - January 4, 1990 ADJOURNMENT The joint Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission meeting/workshop adjourned at 11:50 PM. Respect~lly submitted, Secretary Planning and HPC Minutes - 4 - January 4, 1990