No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/03/24 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 24, 2004 Vice 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,Califomia. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. • ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Cristine McPhail, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Debra Meier, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of February 25, 2004. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of March 10, 2004. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2004 Adjoumed Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16271 - BINKERD-A request to subdivide 1 parcel into 4 separate parcels for single tenant industrial buildings on 2.2 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 6), located on the west side of Utica Avenue, north of Jersey Street- APN: 0209-491-19. Related File: Development Review DRC2003-00785. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 (Class 15 Exemption — Minor Land Divisions). Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bill Skinner, architect, stated they agreed with the proposed conditions. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He stated it was a simple lot split for sale purposes. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16271. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried • B. PUBLIC COMMENT PERTAINING TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES - A proposed Annexation of 96.9 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific. Plan at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, 0226-082-28 and 29. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. C. PUBLIC COMMENT PERTAINING TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment to change from Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre)to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)for 62.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road-APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. D. PUBLIC COMMENT PERTAINING TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00750-HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment to change from Very Low Residential (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 62.5 acres of land and the proposed modification of the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood of the Specific Plan-APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. E. PUBLIC COMMENT PERTAINING TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16324 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - The proposed subdivision of 62.5 acres into 123 lots for single-family development,within the Very- Low Residential District (0.1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road-APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750,and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. F. PUBLIC COMMENT PERTAINING TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 -HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC.- A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 62.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road within Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 24, 2004 the Etiwanda North Specific Plan-APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09, and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated Nancy Ferguson from Lilbum, the consultant who prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), was available to answer questions. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Lee Blattner, 13940 Guidera Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property is adjacent to the proposed project. He said the project would bring 123 new families, which would generate 150 to 250 car trips per day. He noted the only access is Wardman Bullock Road and there had been problems during the fires. He indicated that Wardman Bullock Road currently gets crowded every moming and he asked if it will be widened. He also asked if Wilson Avenue will be punched through to provide another means of escape from the area. In addition, Mr. Blattner noted that there are times that the water pressure is inadequate and he asked if that problem will be addressed. Ms. Meier stated that the traffic situation will improve because the project will provide full improvements down Wardman Bullock Road to Wilson Avenue. She said Wilson Avenue will not be extended across the Etiwanda Channel at this time but that will probably happen as more development occurs in the area. She reported that the developer will be required to help the Water District look for new Zone 4 and Zone 5 tanks, so there will be two new tanks as the project is developed. Pam Steele, Hogle Ireland, Inc., 4200 Latham Street, Suite B, Riverside, stated she was available to answer questions. She noted that Scott Vinton from AEI-Casc Engineering was also present. She indicated they have been meeting with property owners south of the project site in order to widen Wardman Bullock Road. She stated they have identified the sites for the water tanks and are in preliminary design for them. She expressed appreciation for Ms. Meier's energy and her expertise. • Commissioner Fletcher noted that the EIR comments that this is a high wind and wildfire area and that the homeowners will be responsible for maintaining their property in accordance with the Fuel Modification Plan. He asked if the developer is required to disclose to potential homebuyers regarding the wind and wildfire area and the Fuel Modification Plan requirements. Ms. Steele responded affirmatively and said the Fuel Modification Plan identifies the type of planting that can be done and that will be done as part of the sales process. She noted there would also be a block wall on the perimeter to help in holding back any fire. Commissioner Fletcher noted the Fuel Modification Plan specifies separate zones,Zone 1 being 30 feet around any structure and Zone 2 being 100 feet. He asked if the fuel modification zones would be expanded if a stable were at the north end of the property. Ms. Steele noted the equestrian trail will be located to the north of the lots and there is a setback from the wall for any corrals or structures. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained what an EIR covers for the benefit of the Rancho Cucamonga High School students in the audience. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 24, 2004 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16118-HENRY REITER - The subdivision of 5.12 gross acres of land into 6 parcels in the Industrial Park (Subarea 12) and General Industrial(Subarea 13) Districts, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue at San Marino Street - APN: 0229-321-21. Related file: Development Review DRC2003-01038. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. NEW BUSINESS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01038-HENRY REITER - The development of 5 industrial buildings totaling 47,831 square feet on 5.12 gross acres of land in the in the Industrial Park (Subarea 12) and General Industrial (Subarea 13) Districts, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue at San Marino Street - APN: 0229-321-21. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16118. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McPhail noted that several policy issues were discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting regarding wrought iron roll gates and pre-cast fumiture for the outdoor employee eating areas. She wanted to be sure those items are not overlooked. Commissioner Stewart noted that the elevations show signage on the building facing the freeway. Mr. Granger confirmed that was correct but noted that the project is conditioned to process a Uniform Sign Program and staff would then look at the proposed signage. Commissioner Stewart observed that the City has not been allowing any signs along the freeway frontage. She said she did not want signs there and she wanted to direct the City Planner not to allow them. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the buildings will abut the freeway. He noted that other cities historically allow industrial buildings to have freeway-facing signs and the buildings become commercial even though that was not their design. He observed that the Commission would also be discussing signs along the freeway corridor under Commission Business. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alfonso Lopez, Hill Pinkert Architects, 4931 Birch Street, Suite A, Newport Beach, stated he represented Mr. Reiter. He indicated they accepted many of the recommended conditions;however, they would like to utilize the freeway corridor for signage. He stated he understood the City does not favor such signage but they would like an opportunity to work with staff and would yield to the Citys direction. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail stated she agreed the City should be consistent and not allow freeway signage. Commissioner Fletcher agreed there should not be freeway signage in the industrial area. Vice Chairman McNiel concurred there should not be signs facing the freeway. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16118 and Development Review Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 24, 2004 DRC2003-01038 with additional conditions from the Design Review Committee comments and the sign issue. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS I. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2003-01144- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend the Utility Corridor District use regulations to allow public storage facilities, including outdoor RV parking. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-01130 and Preliminary Review DRC2002-00704 Debra Meier, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the proposal would conflict with the trails system. Ms. Meier responded it would not because each project would require a Conditional Use Permit, at which time the City would work with the applicant to be sure the trail alignment needs are addressed. Vice Chairman McNiel stated there is a theory that people living close to power lines subject themselves to electromagnetic pollution. He thought that storage units are many times used by people as hobby shop or small business locations. He asked if the electromagnetic field issue had been addressed. ' Ms. Meier replied that she has seen conflicting data and there does not seem to be any proof that it is a problem but there are a lot of questions and skepticism. She felt the exposure danger would be minimal and less than having residential uses nearby. She believed that the proposed RV center does not have a residence on site and is proposed to be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with a manager on site only during those hours. She said applicants occasionally come to the counter and request a business license and staff tries to be diligent in catching such applications, as they are not permitted. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comments but there were none. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to direct staff to initiate Development Code Amendment DRC2003-01144. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS J. DISCUSSION ON SIGNS ALONG FREEWAY CORRIDOR Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 24, 2004 Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that Commissioner Fletcher asked that there be a discussion of signs along the 210 Freeway corridor but that he would like to expand the comments to discuss the 1-15 corridor as well. He explained that when the General Plan was first adopted in Rancho Cucamonga,the freeway was identified as a corridor of passage. He noted that the freeway has one less interchange than the City planned for, namely at East Avenue, but the City has always known about the freeway off-ramps. He stated that the City designated the adjacent commercial land to these off-ramps as Neighborhood Commercial. He said that the Freeway Task Force first looked at the matter and considered if more land at the intersections should be designated as Commercial and determined it should not as the 210 Freeway was to be a neighborhood freeway with the commercial centers at the intersections to be for residents around the area rather than for the freeway traffic. He indicated the City always took the position that there should be no freeway pilaster signs at those centers. He said the Commission historically has not permitted freeway signage because they are neighborhood centers, not freeway centers. He reported that since the freeway was constructed each service station, shopping center, and commercial center has requested freeway signage and those applicants were all told it is not permitted. He indicated that even some churches have asked about freeway signage where their rear property line abuts the freeway. He said the Commission might wish to discuss what it wants the freeways to look like from a signage or commercial standpoint. He observed the City has not wanted to encourage easy freeway access for on and off that may lead to crime. He said the centers were not meant to attract regional traffic into our City, but were for the convenience of City residents on their way to or from the freeway. Mr. Buller reported that Foothill Marketplace along 1-15 is the first commercial development that was permitted to have a' freeway sign and it was permitted only because that center is Regional Related Commercial and such centers are allowed freeway-oriented signs by Code. He noted that the Commission permitted the pylon sign, but after the sign went up he heard comments from the Commissioners that they are not happy with the result, partly because there are so many businesses listed on the sign. He said the Commission then considered possible other locations for Regional Related Commercial signs. He noted the locations included one at 4th Street for Costco to include a reader board and Costco indicated they were not interested. He said another location that a freeway sign would be permitted is at the Regional Mall. He reported that Sears Grand requested a monument sign and the Commission denied the request because such a sign is not permitted under the Code because it is not a Regional Related Commercial zone. He stated that the Planning Commission could discuss the matter and the General Plan and Development Code could be changed if the Commission felt that was appropriate. He said the City has indicated the centers along the 210 Freeway are Neighborhood centers with minimum or no identification from the freeway. He noted the City hopes that eventually the freeway corridor will be landscaped and signs may not be visible. He also remarked that eventually the City hopes the industrial area corridor will have a solid hedge of green landscaping so the rooftops of the industrial area would not be visible. Commissioner Fletcher indicated he brought up the matter because a service station owner on Haven Avenue approached him. He felt part of the station owner's frustration was that his business had been negatively impacted for years by the freeway construction and he thought he should be able to put up a sign so that his business would be visible. He said that at that time his was the only service station along the 210 corridor and now there will be other stations at the other freeway interchanges such as Day Creek Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. He stated he has heard comments that the City should consider revenue and taxes from the drive-by traffic in addition to aesthetics. He said he had also heard complaints that the Colonies will be right next door to the City and will have signs plastered all over their area and people would exit the freeway there to purchase gas and convenience items and would pass the Rancho Cucamonga retailers. He said he was not sure what would be appropriate at that location and was not sure that a smaller monument sign would be visible from the freeway. He indicated it had been suggested that the business owner should contact Caltrans to see about having the business name placed on a service sign but Caltrans advised that those signs are only placed in rural locations, not in residential or City locations. He felt the businesses want to be supported by the traffic flow on the freeway. He agreed there is a difference between the residential corridor along the 210 Freeway as opposed to the industrial/commercial Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 24, 2004 corridor along 1-15. He thought there may be a compromise of perhaps allowing low profile monument signs to indicate there are retail services at those exits. Vice Chairman McNiel stated he was on the Commission when it reviewed the Foothill Marketplace sign and that sign was approved only after the Commission had denied it a number of times. He felt it was a mistake. He said there is so much verbiage on the sign that you cannot tell what is at the center. He thought the sign might be the all-time-trophy-taker for the ugliest sign on the planet. He said he regretted participating in that decision. He asked what action the Commission should take. Mr. Buller stated the next step is up to a majority of the Commission. Commissioner Stewart asked if there was an opportunity for the 210 Task Force to reopen discussions regarding signage on the freeway that says services and identifies what services are available. She asked if it was true that Caltrans will only allow such signs in rural areas. Mr. Buller stated staff would validate that statement. He said Campus Boulevard is the only interchange in Upland that will have commercial development and they have approved either four or six 50-foot monument signs in addition to the signs on the buildings. He did not believe they have a service station in their plan. He thought there might be a possibility that a service station could have its name applied to a sign on the freeway that says a portion of the freeway is maintained by them. He said from a commercial standpoint,the gas station owner would like to know if he could just put a sign on his building that faces the freeway or a pylon sign. He indicated the City has discouraged businesses from installing signs to attract freeway visibility because that was not the intent of those centers. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the City is allowing clusters of services stations, which compounds the business owners' dilemma. Vice Chairman McNiel disagreed. He noted that restaurant rows and clustered car dealerships increase business. He felt it is good for business. He believed if a service station is isolated it needs the sign more so than if it is in close proximity to other stations. He did not see an advantage to the community to have visual blight and clutter that such signage would constitute. Commissioner Fletcher believed it is a dilemma because there are numerous businesses in a retail center; and if one is permitted a sign, they all want one. He said he was not in favor of pylon signs with a dozen business names because they can't be recognized from the freeway anyway. He thought perhaps a low-profile sign might be appropriate. Commissioner Stewart thought it was important to find out Caltrans' position; however she did not feel there is sufficient Planning staff to take on another elongated project. She preferred that the matter be brought up on a case-by-case basis and could either be brought to the Design Review Committee or to the full Commission if necessary. She said she was not really open to freeway pylon signs. She was not willing to ask staff to study it at this time because of staff shortages and noted there have been 10 people lost from the department. Commissioner Fletcher agreed it should not be placed on staff. He commented that Brad and Code Enforcement Supervisor Mark Salazar spoke at a Chamber lunch and the Chamber decided to set up a committee to review the Sign Ordinance and signage in the City. He said there is concern in the business community about our sign policies. Commissioner Stewart said she appreciated that. Commissioner Fletcher noted the Chamber asked if someone from the Planning Department could sit in on those meetings and he told them staff would definitely not appreciate that. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 24, 2004 Mr. Buller stated he indicated Planning would provide a staff person to the Chamber of Commerce if the Committee begins meeting because the City would want to be part of their conversations. He said the Chamber recognized the staff issues of the Planning department. Vice Chairman McNiel stated he has served on the Planning Commission for a number of years and the Sign Ordinance has been revised about five or six times at the request of the Chamber of Commerce. He felt the community has not benefited as a result of those revisions to the ordinance. He said there is now signage everywhere on everything and it is a losing battle that Code Enforcement cannot get a handle on. Commissioner Fletcher felt that is a different problem and Code Enforcement was trying to work with the Chamber to educate businesses as to the policies to try to get rid of some of the banners and illegal signage. He hoped that once the word is out, some businesses will comply voluntarily and Code Enforcement would have to step up enforcement against the serious violators. Mr. Buller stated he would work with the Chamber of Commerce and applicants could come in with modified Uniform Sign Programs to address through the process on a case-by-case basis. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Br Iler Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 24, 2004